I’d like to hear why you chose to label radical feminism as an ‘extremist group’. This has a lot of negative connotations carried, vs using a term like ‘radical’.
On epistemic sacrifices, this is not something that I have suggested. I suggest being curious about and open to learning from radical feminism. This allows you to discard ideas that you would like to discard, and take in ideas that you would not.
Your final comment indicates that perhaps you are not that familiar with radical feminism, and perhaps such a strongly weighted opinion would be best kept until after a little more research?
I’d like to hear why you chose to label radical feminism as an ‘extremist group’. This has a lot of negative connotations carried, vs using a term like ‘radical’.
Yes, that is important, because when considering ‘uniting’ with another group, you will acquire their negative connotations.
I suggest being curious about and open to learning from radical feminism. This allows you to discard ideas that you would like to discard, and take in ideas that you would not.
This seems like a motte and bailey argument to me. After the The Meiji Restoration, Japan was curious about and open to learning from the west, but Japan did not ‘unite’ with any Western nation. The word ‘unite’, sharing a latin root with ‘unity’, implies a merging and coming together as one, not mere communication.
To make it painfully clear: I suspect you would agree that we should be open to learning from all sources if they have good and relevant ideas. We should be open to learning from industrial agriculture, because they have a lot of relevant information about animals. But this does not imply we should ‘unite’ with factory farms, and I think few people would propose this. Likewise, we should be open to learning from the Republican and Democrat parties. But we shouldn’t ‘unite’ with either of them, let alone both. Because ‘uniting’ is not about curiosity, it is about forming a close alliance, setting aside differences and focusing on common foes.
Your final comment indicates that perhaps you are not that familiar with radical feminism, and perhaps such a strongly weighted opinion would be best kept until after a little more research?
While I periodically read feminist pieces online and have discussions with feminists, you’re right that it has been over ten years now since I formally studied feminist political philosophy. Fortunately I still have my old notes, which I reviewed. The notes are a summarized version of the original source material I read, but they confirm my recollection: almost every line was about women, or sexism, or maternity, or patriarchy, or sex in some way. This article is I think the first ‘feminist’ article I have ever read that didn’t mention a single one of these concepts.
I’d like to hear why you chose to label radical feminism as an ‘extremist group’. This has a lot of negative connotations carried, vs using a term like ‘radical’.
On epistemic sacrifices, this is not something that I have suggested. I suggest being curious about and open to learning from radical feminism. This allows you to discard ideas that you would like to discard, and take in ideas that you would not.
Your final comment indicates that perhaps you are not that familiar with radical feminism, and perhaps such a strongly weighted opinion would be best kept until after a little more research?
Yes, that is important, because when considering ‘uniting’ with another group, you will acquire their negative connotations.
This seems like a motte and bailey argument to me. After the The Meiji Restoration, Japan was curious about and open to learning from the west, but Japan did not ‘unite’ with any Western nation. The word ‘unite’, sharing a latin root with ‘unity’, implies a merging and coming together as one, not mere communication.
To make it painfully clear: I suspect you would agree that we should be open to learning from all sources if they have good and relevant ideas. We should be open to learning from industrial agriculture, because they have a lot of relevant information about animals. But this does not imply we should ‘unite’ with factory farms, and I think few people would propose this. Likewise, we should be open to learning from the Republican and Democrat parties. But we shouldn’t ‘unite’ with either of them, let alone both. Because ‘uniting’ is not about curiosity, it is about forming a close alliance, setting aside differences and focusing on common foes.
While I periodically read feminist pieces online and have discussions with feminists, you’re right that it has been over ten years now since I formally studied feminist political philosophy. Fortunately I still have my old notes, which I reviewed. The notes are a summarized version of the original source material I read, but they confirm my recollection: almost every line was about women, or sexism, or maternity, or patriarchy, or sex in some way. This article is I think the first ‘feminist’ article I have ever read that didn’t mention a single one of these concepts.