Validity of Feminism

Many MRAs argue that feminism is invalidated by the many factions (branches if you will). I counter this argument by offering a breakdown of both social and hard sciences. I am not claiming that feminism is a science in itself (yet), but that, as fields of study progress to the level of a science (and by this I mean the empirical study of something) different branches actually ADD validity.

As someone pointed out in a recent discussion, with branching out to different areas of thought, comes specialization. No one person can know everything about their field of study. Branches off of a main idea offer a more thorough knowledge in any field.

Sociology-Environmental, Political, Deviance, Criminology, Functionalism, Symbolic interaction, etc…
Anthropology-Biological, Physical, Socio-cultural, Linguistic, Archaeological, etc…
Psychology-Social, Industrial and Organizational, Educational, Abnormal, Clinical, Counseling, Research, etc…
Biology-Micro, Botany, Biophysics, Ecology, Agriculture, etc…
Medicine-Endochrinology, Cardiology, Nephrology, Neurology, etc…
Geology-Mineralogy, Petrology, Geomorphology, Paleontology, etc…

Point being, there are basic foundations for each of these sciences. Sociology is the study of society, Anthropology of human cultures, Psychology of the minds, Biology of life, Medicine of healing, and Geology of Earth history.

Feminism-First, second, and third waves consist of suffrage, primarily reproductive rights, and recognition of contributing factors (respectively). Each of these waves created different branches of feminism: Literary, Masculine theory, Queer theory, Historical perspectives, etc…

But each of these branches has its foundations in the history and development of feminist theory. And thus I coin my own term…

MARXINAROLOGY: The study of marginalization.

4 Responses to “Validity of Feminism”

  1. 1 G
    May 17, 2010 at 3:43 am

    It’s also often said that sociology is not a legitimate science – this view has no more credibility than when physicists sneer at chemists because they believe their own science to be more fundamental and to be a more complete explanation of the universe, encompassing chemistry. Good luck trying to engineer a superior rocket-fuel or thermoplastic from the quarks up…

    In knowledge there are different levels of magnification and different centres of focus and interest. This is all really very simple and the detractors are being perverse. Simply: there are women, and there is the study of women in society. There is the movement to advocate for women’s interests. It is a reality. It is valid.

  2. May 24, 2010 at 6:43 pm

    “Simply: there are women, and there is the study of women in society. There is the movement to advocate for women’s interests. It is a reality. It is valid.”

    Very well, for the sake of argument: fair enough.

    But fair is a two-way street.

    So let’s drive it the other way:

    “Simply: there are men, and there is the study of men in society. There is the movement to advocate for men’s interests. It is a reality. It is valid.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Join 14 other followers

%d bloggers like this: