You are completely correct, Jeremy. Standpoint epistemology has roots in Marxism. It is associated with socialist feminists.Those such as Hartsock accept an objective view. Postmodernist feminist epistemology doesn't. More traditional feminist epistemology (consciousness raising)
-
-
Replying to @MacDworkin @PhilosophyExp
I don't think people are criticising the radfems much right now tho. It isn't them doing what people are criticising under the name of 'postmodernism' tho some like to throw 'neo-Marxism' and 'cultural Marxism' in there wrongly. They mean the whole 'diversity' 'ID politics' thing
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @PhilosophyExp
I'm not sure I agree with you. When you say "people", who do you mean? The rad fems have their own critique of postmodernism. This paper by MacKinnon is where I would start. https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3210&context=cklawreview …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MacDworkin @PhilosophyExp
I mean people opposed to identity politics generally. Left-liberals, centrists, conservatives (tho they're inclined to conflate Marxism & postmodernism), libertarians. Nonfeminists or liberal feminists. My readership, essentially. I'm not talking abt radfems.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @HPluckrose @PhilosophyExp
Yes, but your readership is not necessarily the academic world. You might want to look at Susan Hekman's postmodernist critique of Standpoint theory and the subsequent debate on that paper. The paper, "Truth and Method: Feminist Standdpont Theory Revisited" was published...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MacDworkin @PhilosophyExp
That seems like a non-sequitur. You are right that my readership is not predominantly academic and so this is unlikely to interest them as much as the ideas which are travelling into activism, leftist social conscience and wider society. The ones they see.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @PhilosophyExp
Yes, I suspect my own sources, which are academic sources, are not ones that your average Twitter activist would have bother reading.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MacDworkin @PhilosophyExp
No, and yet the ideas which are affecting them are academic in origin so this is my reading. But I am reading Crenshaw, Butler, Applebaum, Medina, Dotson etc to address primarily intersectionality which is dominant now in feminism.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @PhilosophyExp
I disagree that Crenshaw and those you mention are dominant in feminism: at least not in the elite universities. Radical feminists have that privilege. .Consider those such as the highly regarded (in the feminist world) Rae Langton at Cambridge, Miranda Crocker at CUNY etc.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MacDworkin @PhilosophyExp
There are certainly some radfems holding strong in academia but politically not so much. I did a small survey of them recently. I didn't mean to, actually. I asked to hear from female academics who felt silenced by intersectionality & most were radfems. Well, gender critical.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I focus mostly on what is known as the SocJus left where intersectionality dominates and also focus more on the US where critical race theory is incredibly powerful. Here, postcolonial theory is stronger politically and queer theory about the same.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.