The app for independent voices
Seem to have misplaced my Garner and Fowler ... 😉🙂 Can't say that I ever had copies -- don't recollect ever hearing of them, in fact -- though I appreciate knowing my intuitions were more or less correct. Particularly since men aren't supposed to have any ... 😉🙂
But sorry if I "offended" your feminist sensibilities or articles of faith with my "disdain" -- "sorry about that Chief". 🙂 Though I think you're misreading what I've said.
Seem to recollect that there is something like 23 "sects" in that particular church -- although there are some durable principles and insightful perspectives under that umbrella that I'm happy to champion and endorse. The Canadian suffragette Nellie McClung in particular who said that no nation rises higher than its women.
But there's also a whole bunch of untenable dogma and quite unscientific claptrap as well that tends to vitiate "your" best efforts -- Stock's point in fact, particularly in her "Welcome" post. And, ICYMI, you might consider "Professing Feminism" by a pair of women, Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge. From a review of it:
"The authors, however, demonstrate that these problems have existed since their ideology’s inception, and were particularly common within Women Studies programs. The authors wrote of the isolationist attitude that dominates many of the programs, along with a virulent anti-science, anti-intellectual sentiment driving many of the professors, staff and students."
And you in particular might appreciate a post by Koertge on "The Feminist Critique [Repudiation] of Logic": philpapers.org/rec/KOET…
NK: "I wish I could end the story of the feminist critique of logic on this happy note. Unfortunately, however, some feminists have claimed that not just the homework exercises but the very enterprise of characterizing the formal structure of logical inference cannot be separated from sexism, racism, and totalitarianism. And in her new book, Words of Power: A Feminist Reading of the History of Logic, Nye concludes that while men are master of logic, women are more inclined to be masters [pic] of reading (p. 184). If Nye is right, women students would be well-advised to stay away from logic classes. The skills that logic purports to teach are socially deleterious and thank goodness women have little aptitude [for] them."
Speaking of stereotypes .... But I'm most certainly not insisting that "sex stereotypes [have much use] as a social-predictive heuristic" -- stereotyping writ large. But saying, as is the case, that women tend to be, on average, more neurotic than men, and that men tend to be, on average, more "rapey" than women -- common stereotypes that have some roots in biological bedrock -- is not to say that such stereotypes are characteristic of all women and all men, or that they are socially good, bad, or indifferent -- Stock's point in her criticisms of radfems.
Though I'm not sure what your objections are to "scientific definitions". They are certainly and quite often a moving target -- "female" used to be defined as "she who suckles"; I guess Bruce Jenner & his ilk might qualify -- but they do tend to encapsulate important "natural kinds". From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP):
SEP: "Scientific disciplines frequently divide the particulars they study into kinds and theorize about those kinds. To say that a kind is natural is to say that it corresponds to a grouping that reflects the structure of the natural world rather than the interests and actions of human beings."
My kick at that particular kitty which also uses another concept from SEP, another durable principle, that of mechanisms in science:
"Rerum cognoscere causas; Mechanisms in Science: things learned at my mother's knee and other low joints":
Though, rather sadly, there are far too many so-called biologists and philosophers who are peddling what is no more than folk-biology when it comes to the definitions for the sexes. See Paul Griffiths' "What are biological sexes?" for details:
