GeniesLoki

I'm not sure it makes sense to build something entirely new without reference to feminism - it both ignores a lot of good work and also leaves you open to easy criticism of not having engaged with prior art..

I guess i mean it in the same terms as artists obsessing over “whether or not my art is contemporary.” It IS contemporary by dint of its being made today, even if you’re doing realist history painting

Imagining an academic discipline, i’m just saying it could be stultifying to try to “respond” to feminism/feminist discourse/research. Pursue your subject in an independent vein and the intersections will happen of themselves

Tho rereading what u said, @GeniesLoki, and if you think feminists would act in good faith, i definitely agree that sort of revising fem discourse to make room for the experiences of men would work, too

I don't think it even needs to be revising exactly. But like feminists invented concepts like epistemic injustice (which started this discussion). Seems a shame to ignore that sort of useful concept when trying to theorise men's issues

Yeah, i guess i see some of this terminlogy proliferation as a problem unto itself/a new form of obfuscation. Re: epistemic injustice, i think it’s super useful politially as a watchword, but epistemologically it doesn’t interest me much (it gets into sapir-whorf territory)

I don't think it gets into sapir-whorf territory. It's just social epistemology plus the fairly uncontroversial observation that it's useful to be able to construct terminology in order to understand things?