~ archived since 2018 ~

The "Feminist Methodology" Muddle

redgarnetamaranth · 2021-05-11T17:53:01+00:00

The "Feminist Methodology" Muddle September 2019 Project: Topics in Feminism Authors: Susan Haack "Should scientists and...

redgarnetamaranth

May 11, 2021

86 upvotes

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	The "Feminist Methodology" Muddle
Author	redgarnetamaranth
Upvotes	86
Comments	34
Date	May 11, 2021 5:53 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/na31mw/the_feminist_methodology_muddle/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/the-feminist-methodology-muddle.1061356 https://theredarchive.com/post/1061356

Comments

[–]mcmur 28 points29 points30 points 5 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]WhenIsItOkayToHate 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alfredaux -21 points-20 points-19 points 5 years ago* (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeomerArcana 19 points20 points21 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Schadrach 14 points15 points16 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]NeomerArcana 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwra_coolname209 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I mean, I disagree that we should be accelerating towards political methodologies on research, but let's not act as if inquiry and research are these bastions of the scientific process that are by nature removed from politics and bias.

Having been entrenched in academia and exposed to research in a very apolitical STEM field, there's still definite pressure inherent in even research proposals to report with bias. It's why we dump so much money into finding out if sugar will kill you - confectionary companies are lining the pockets of those who they think will set up methodologies proving it will not.

What science strives to be - apolitical and without judgment - can literally never happen because we are all human. We can strive for it - and I personally think at first glance it's what this article is trying to state - but we can't simply claim outright that science is de-facto unbiased because it's science.

Furthermore, on a second reading of the comment you're replying to, it seems to indicate that it's simply well worth the author's time to examine their own potential biases since no investigation is free from them? I think that's a fair assessment given the rebuttal of the "feminist methodology" is a fairly weak "it adds politics". The very act of calling it a political argument adds a political argument to the rebuttal, and I was left hoping for more.

[–]NeomerArcana 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AskingToFeminists 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This is why your data must be made freely available. Your findings may be biased, but your data cant be, at least not without allowing someone else to call bullshit.

To be technically correct, your data can be biased. If the methodology used for collection is bad.

So what needs to be available is data + collection methodology.

Biasing the data via bad collection methodology is the oldest trick in the book.

For example, it is often said that drinking a bit of alcool can be good for your health.

It is said so because when they compare life expectancy between people that don't drink and people that do, people who drink very little seem to live longer than people who don't drink at all.

And this effect is obtained because in the data collection, "people who don't drink at all" include "people who have never drunk anything" as well as "people who have stopped drinking for various reasons, including health reason".

Which mean that if you started to develop a cyrosis of the liver because you drunk to much, had a liver transplant, and stopped completely drinking, you are counted as "people who never drink", and your health damaged by alcohol is used to pretend that alcohol can have a protective effect in small doses.

It's an old statistical manipulation trick, but unless you know exactly how the data is collected in the finest detail, you can have anything slip by unnoticed.

Of course, the fact that it is easier to publish "surprising" and "counterintuitive" results doesn't help with that.

[–]Alfredaux -6 points-5 points-4 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 20 points21 points22 points 5 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[+]Alfredaux -15 points-14 points-13 points 5 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funnybot9980 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Alfredaux -7 points-6 points-5 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funnybot9980 12 points13 points14 points 5 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alfredaux -4 points-3 points-2 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Funnybot9980 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alfredaux -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwra_coolname209 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think you dance a very difficult line when you define any particular things as "attacks on personhood".

By many male accounts it's certainly an attack on their personhood when they are expected to be capitalist wage slaves for their entire lives because anything other than that means they have failed their role. Or that they should be strong and stoic and risk their lives at any indication of danger.

These things are institutionalized in gender roles and expectations, they just are rarely codified into greater societal structures and administrative dealings.

By no means do I want to minimize the ways women have been codified out of society (because they have and men largely have not, in this sense), but I think a lot of the issues that face men today consistently deal with this hurdle of "your gender issues are less systemic/forward facing/obvious as women's so they matter less". It's surprisingly common to hear that since men have never been administratively prevented from taken on the role of an at-home spouse that the social sanctioning does not matter. Meanwhile, women have been in the workforce at large for the past three or four generations (which admittedly is not that grand of a number) and social sanctioning of women in the workforce has drastically changed - yet the same social sanctions exist for men.

Basically: things have changed for many women and the bulk of what we deal with in the modern era are social expectations.

[–]DevilishRogue 17 points18 points19 points 5 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

By women not having been able to vote?

Voting rights were equated with conscription throughout most of the world. Not having to die in a war was a privilege that came at a tiny cost.

By women having not been able to own property?

They didn't need to because their partners and parents were required to provide for them. Also weren't able to accrue debt as their parents and partners were liable for that too. So they had property and it was merely an accounting technicality that it wasn't in their name as they were property owners in all but name.

By women still facing a ton of barriers to have tubal ligation or a hysterectomy?

There are no meaningful barriers to women's reproductive rights compared to men's in the developed world. For women, all that is required is for a doctor to be sure she is making the decision without duress and of sound mind. Try being a guy that wants a vasectomy and you'll see real barriers where doctors ask for the wife's permission.

I mean, there are clear historical and current examples.

There aren't. All there are is one-sided misrepresentations taken out of historical context to paint an inaccurate narrative designed to appeal to women's in-group bias and men's out-group bias.

I've upvoted you as you shouldn't be downvoted for disagreement and at least you are engaging with alternative views, which is more than many who hold your views are prepared to do and should be encouraged, but objectively (or as close as it is meaningfully possible to get to objectivity if you persist with your initial hypothesis) your beliefs about equality and the rationale underpinning them are wrong.

[–]Alfredaux -5 points-4 points-3 points 5 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

Women were also denied entry into service. Women fought for the right to enter into the armed forces. And this is more a class issue. Rich men were the ones that established this requirement.
It’s strange that you think it is a privilege to be denied options. The idea that men had to provide for women in a one-sided setup is simply false. Historically women have participated in significant amounts of labor, it was just wasn’t paid or was underpaid. But assuming you are correct, perhaps if women are allowed to own property and accumulate wealth, men wouldn’t be burdened with having to provide tor them. Kind of like today. Huh.
Your concept of access to reproductive healthcare is not accurate. For instance, it took me one doctor appointment to get a referral for a vasectomy. The four women I personally know who wanted a hysterectomy or tubal ligations faced multiple barriers. Multiple appointments. Multiple denials.
It is unfortunately the case that many people are unwilling and/or unprepared to discuss any of their espoused beliefs. You and one other are the exception to all who have responded to me on this comment.

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Women were also denied entry into service. Women fought for the right to enter into the armed forces. And this is more a class issue. Rich men were the ones that established this requirement.

Pretending this was ever anything other than a privilege is beyond naive.

It’s strange that you think it is a privilege to be denied options.

Why? You seem to be ignoring that the options were not options at all but obligations.

The idea that men had to provide for women in a one-sided setup is simply false.

It isn't false at all, just not the complete picture.

Historically women have participated in significant amounts of labor, it was just wasn’t paid or was underpaid.

How is that different from men?

But assuming you are correct, perhaps if women are allowed to own property and accumulate wealth, men wouldn’t be burdened with having to provide tor them.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Your concept of access to reproductive healthcare is not accurate.

In the developed world it is.

For instance, it took me one doctor appointment to get a referral for a vasectomy.

The same as for women wanting tubal litigation under the same circumstances.

The four women I personally know who wanted a hysterectomy or tubal ligations faced multiple barriers. Multiple appointments. Multiple denials.

Based on circumstances. Your equivocation here is obvious and beneath you.

It is unfortunately the case that many people are unwilling and/or unprepared to discuss any of their espoused beliefs. You and one other are the exception to all who have responded to me on this comment.

No disrespect intended (and as I've mentioned above, I've upvoted you and appreciate your willingness to engage) but the arguments you are using have been so well rebutted over the years that few have the patience to reiterate them again and again.

[–]Alfredaux -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Except the arguments I’ve presented haven’t been “well rebutted”. You just have the position that you like and/or agree with. Same as me.
It is a privilege to not HAVE to go to war. It isn’t a privilege to not have the choice to enter the armed forces if one wants to join. While a shitty thing in our socioeconomic system, let’s not forget that many in poverty saw the military as a way out. That way was blocked from women.
An obligation to own property? To accumulate wealth? No, that is only an obligation for those who buy into that narrative. And that wasn’t the reality for most men, anyhow, as this “obligation” was not attainable for the majority of any group in most periods of time. What’s more, women who wanted the option to join their capitalist brothers were simply denied. Instead, they were beholden to their male family members and used in business deals. How you can argue that is a privilege is beyond me.
that women were doing labor is different from men because women were just as “obligated” to work but were prevented from striving to attain higher status within the system by their own labor. Instead, they had to rely on others to attain it and hoped that they would benefit.
Your understanding of women’s issues on representative health doesn’t match reality. What are the “circumstances” to which you refer? Even when a woman has no noted or diagnosed mental impairment, she is still often denied access to tubal ligations. This is simply not the case for men. Men generally face no barriers or opposition save a few questions from their healthcare provider in order to get the referral (if needed). The lack of access is a frequent complaint among women. One that is supported by data. While a hysterectomy is not the same as tubal ligation or vasectomy (which is what I’m assuming you are referring to with the equivocation comment), that comes with its own set of barriers. For instance, women with PMDD have a 40% rate of suicidal ideation and 17% rate for suicide attempt. Hysterectomy is one of the most effective treatments for PMDD. Despite this, women frequently face multiple barriers until approval of the procedure, if approval ever happens.

[+][deleted] 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]throwra_coolname209 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alfredaux 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]throwra_coolname209 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link