Joe Rogan Experience #724 - Christina Hoff Sommers and Joe Rogan discuss all the latest topics. 2:53:09

Lurker_IV · 2015-12-01T20:38:30+00:00

amazing comment from /u/MalaclypseTheYunger over on r/JoeRogan

https://np.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/3tdt6f/jre_724_christina_sommers/

........................

I fully get why feminists disagree with her.

What I don't understand is the lack of engagement with her. That genuinely confuses me.

I'm at about 2 hours in and she's just said one of the most important things which is that, despite all her disagreement, you have to remain open minded because sometimes people will come forwards with "kooky" ideas and they turn out to be right under observation.

My background is neuroscience. The vast majority of the people in my field think that the evidence suggests that the "mind" is the combined function of the brain and body. Excluding the really nutty folks like Deepak Chopra etc, there are actually a few legitimate guys who think otherwise. Now most of the field disagrees with them. But we tend to engage as academics and critique each others work and ultimately the field broadly adopts a consensus based on the evidence.

Whereas here the behaviour seems to be that people just outright refuse to engage with her. Which is just so weird. Because she's not really saying anything that controversial for the most part. When she disputes the wage gap; she's not removing the questions as to why women "choose" to do different things. Or suggesting that just because it is how it is now that it is as it should always be.

In fact, when she talks about her initial expectations, I feel like she goes in with the assumptions of most academics; 'some of what I believe will be shown wrong, other parts will be right, and we'll all learn'.

None of that seems to happen here. Instead, she's dismissed as the crazy anti-feminist.

As an aside, I think part of the reason for this problem is what she starts to articulate about the way academic feminism works. To which I'll simply copy paste in a comment I've written before:

I'm currently working through a textbook called Social Research Methods by Alan Bryman.

The significance of feminism in relation to values goes further than this, however. In particular, several feminist social researchers around the early 1980s proposed that the principles and practices associated with quantitative research were incompatible with feminist research on women. For writers like Oakley (1981), quantitative research was bound up with male values of control that can be seen in the general orientation of the research strategy—control of the research subject/respondent and control of the research context and situation. Moreover, the research process was seen as one-way traffic, in which researchers extract information from the people being studied and give little, or more usually nothing, in return. For many feminists, such a strategy bordered on exploitation and was incompatible with feminism’s values of sisterhood and non-hierarchical relationships between women. The antipathy towards quantitative research resulted in a preference for qualitative research among feminists. Not only was qualitative research seen as more consistent with the values of feminism; it was seen as more adaptable to those values. Thus, feminist qualitative research came to be associated with an approach in which the investigator eschewed a value-neutral approach and engaged with the people being studied as people and not simply as respondents to research instruments. The stance of feminism in relation to both quantitative and qualitative approaches demonstrates the ways in which values have implications for the process of social investigation. In more recent years, there has been a softening of the attitudes of feminists towards quantitative research. Several writers have acknowledged a viable and acceptable role for quantitative research, particularly when it is employed in conjunction with qualitative research (Jayaratne and Stewart 1991; Oakley 1998).

Basically:

Logic, or at least logic as within the scientific method (to be fair, not the only kind), is incompatible with feminism. This logic/scientific method is male and based in maleness. Objective observations somehow isn't fair?... or good?... or something... (not clear whether we're disputing whether it's accurate though). 'Qualitative research is more adaptable to feminist values'= It makes confirmation bias easier **and that's preferable**. Quantitative research can be okay. But mostly so long as it's conclusions are guided by more malleable research conclusions.

I'm not one to write stuff shitting on feminism. I'm not convinced they all hate men. I've never used the term feminazi outside of referencing the term like just now. Fuck I currently share my office with two academic feminists who I get on rather well with.

But I do work in academia and you do see some hilarious shit sometimes like the above. This book is from 2012 (4th ed) by the way.

Title	Joe Rogan Experience #724 - Christina Hoff Sommers and Joe Rogan discuss all the latest topics. 2:53:09
Author	Lurker_IV
Upvotes	22
Comments	2
Date	November 30, 2015 4:32 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/3uvajc/joe_rogan_experience_724_christina_hoff_sommers/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/joe-rogan-experience-724-christina-hoff-sommers.966055 https://theredarchive.com/post/966055

Comments