Research dismisses the validity of gender studies

June 30th, 2009 by Pelle Billing
A couple of months ago, a Swedish researcher called Helen Lindberg presented her doctoral thesis called Only Women Bleed?: A Critical Reassessment of Comprehensive Feminist Social Theory.
In her thesis she has evaluated four different feminist theories, with regard to internal coherence, and their usefulness as theories in a research context:

Is there a viable specifically feminist social theory that can serve as heuristic devise in our social research?This thesis is a critical reassessment of the ontological and normative assumptions of four social theories with specific and clear claims of being feminist. These are Catharine M MackInnon’s Radical Feminism, Anna G Jonasdottir’s Theory of Love Power, Luce Irigaray’s Feminism of Sexual Difference and Judith Butler’s Queer Feminism.

The English abstract only summarizes her findings on the internal coherence of these feminist theories in very general terms:

The feminist social theories are examined and critically discussed according to their internal coherence and their external relevance; which includes the normative political implications that can be inferred.

However, in the more extensive Swedish abstract, she clearly states that all of these four feminist theories show a lack of internal coherency, meaning that they are filled with contradictions that cannot be reconciled.

MORE: http://wwwpellebilling.com/.

Good one Bob.

So while feminist women at PhD level study and dismiss Kant ('On Reason'), this lady studies and dismiises feminist Cant for sound reason!.

feminitism has the same validity as Marxist Leninism to me both are crocks of gobbledygook backed up by force and intimidation

Shaz....that is what he is saying almost literally:

Good one 3B

That was fine as abstracts go, but to the lay person it is almost unintelligible. The jargon remains dense.

Care to have a go at translating into everyday English, anyone?

"The short version of what she’s saying is that using feminist theory as the basis for conducting research, is about as useful as using Marxist theory to conduct research. This confirms what I’ve long been suspecting: gender studies are not a scientific discipline, they are a method for applying a certain ideology onto whatever data you collect during your 'research'."

Feminist theory is bull shit and fucks up the data, thus fucking up the results. It not only ain't rocket science, it ain't science period!

I'll have a bash...

Firstly, they are saying that the theory of feminism, in all its manifestations, is flawed. It is too generalised and relies on stereotypes, ignoring the fact that people are different and cannot just be lumped into the "Man/Woman" category, because that's not all that defines us as people.

Secondly, they are saying that feminist theory is exactly that: a theory! Applying it to research makes the research unreliable; how can you place your trust in an ideology that has no proof of validity? They go so far as to mention that feminist theory should not be applied to politics for the same reason, which is what I've been thinking for quite some time.

Just because the idea exists doesn't make it right.

I do not hold that feminism has any 'theoretical' basis at all.

A 'Theory' is a coherent and inclusive explanation; it is a system of ideas that explain as General Principles, independant of the facts, but simultaneously accounting for all the relevant facts associated with it. It encompasses all the relevant facts.

From a Theory, one can derive hypotheses which are testable outcomes of the Theory. If the theory holds true as an comprehensive explanation, the hypothosis in question will hold up under rigorous, controlled testing. Most hypothoses are designed deliberately to falsify the theory. The failure to do so, strengthens the case for the theory. Success at falsifying results in changes to the theory. The theory has to account for all its derivables. If not, the theory must be rejected or changed.

Feminism ignores relevant facts. It cherry-picks. It 'creates' false 'factoids'. It incorporates lies and mendacities. It changes 'truth and facts' to fit the overarching General Principles.

Sherlock Holmes made a cogent comment to Dr Watson one day. "It is a Capital error, my dear Watson, to make the facts fit the theory. One needs to change the theory to fit the facts.

The latter process is what Feminism refuses to do.

What feminism does is hold to General Principles that were and always have been incorrect and then force facts, lies, mendacities and invention into the maw, ignoring contrary facts and evidence. They will deny , object to, rubbish and calumnise any truth of facts that do not or refuse to fit.