Let's start with a confession. I've reposted on Facebook an article that was making its rounds about a hoax paper successfully published in a gender studies journal. That's certainly good fun and starkly points out certain issues in the academic publishing world. The article, however, goes further and attacks gender studies in general. Which is even better since it's always good to make fun of dem crazy feminists! Right? Right!
But then a friend of mine who is into this stuff pointed out that the article didn't exactly PROVE that gender studies are wrong and was merely bashing them. Which is true for the most part with the possible exception of something I'll address later. There is a point to it for me as well - I never had any solid grounding to dismiss gender studies, all I had was a strong suspicion about its conclusions and aversion to the general ideological tendencies that the entire field seems to have. It's uncomfortable to admit, but yes, I was making fun of something I didn't know about and when I was asked to defend my views I failed miserably. Which can't exactly impress people that strongly hold these views and happen to be friends. I am sorry for that.
---
So, okay, I have an unsubstantiated beef with gender studies. But how does one disprove an entire field of study? There are thousands of people creating new studies and writing articles with its own obscure jargon, having disagreements, feuding and splitting into new subschools... which means that disproving any part can be simply "refuted" by pointing to another school or another author. Criticising specific articles etc. can be rejected by pointing to yet another article or just saying that any field will contain some subpar works.
The original article this started with pointed to a Twitter account listing what are supposed to be particularly bad examples of gender studies: https://twitter.com/@RealPeerReview
A Twitter account is not the most impressive source of evidence but I'll try to pick up a few examples and see whether it's a good source of bad articles about gender studies which would at least in a limited fashion support the claims of the initial article by Boghossian and Lindsay. Then I'm going to try to find more 'representative' and authoritative gender studies works and see where that leads me.
Let's start with what seems to be a pretty bad example.
---
“Lose Like a Man”: Gender and the Constraints of Self-Making in Weight Watchers Online
by Emily Contois
"This constraint upon self-making exposes how patriarchy subordinates even the men assumed to profit the most from its power, as the male weight loss promise withholds transformative potentials."
The article picks two advertising videos and analyses the heck out of them, deriving and proving already assumed gender stereotypes from this tiny sample. Assuming the two stories were not picked by chance (which is easily possible), there is at least one more uncomfortable option open not picked up by the article: maybe men and women are different after all and different argumentation motivates them differently? Or maybe the Weight Watchers simply followed some gender stereotypes or their actual knowledge about their customers - which might prove misconception on their part but in either case the mystical "patriarchy did it" claim falls apart. Not that the "patriarchy" is ever actually described or defined - is it the Weight Watchers? Somebody else? An elusive cosmic force? We might never know.
The article declares that although the man in the story provided by WW loses weight, is promoted, becomes a role model and is on track to run a marathon, that exact man is somehow excluded from the the process of transformation, acquiring agency and new skills that women get out of the process. But never mind that, the article already has the correct solution prepared:
"To embark on such a process requires destabilizing the masculine subject, conceding space for improvement, admitting vulnerability, and relinquishing power — all actions in conflict with hegemonic masculinity, as currently crystallized."
- How and why is it needed to destabilize the masculine subject - and what does that even mean? Didn't the man in the story clearly concede space for improvement, admitted vulnerability and relinquished power to the company and its online program? He did these things but apparently not to a sufficient degree or in a desired way for the author. (And what is hegemonic masculinity anyway?)
"Dan does not speak of fatness, weight, or weight loss in terms that relate to his identity and sense of self." while at the same time the article says: "he states that he was a sergeant in the military who 'could have been honorably discharged [for] barely meeting the fitness requirements.'" Could it be that this is how this character identifies himself? Or could it be that this character in a two-minute advertising video is not a fully three-dimensional representation of a complete person?
The concluding statement about the multi-billion dollar diet industry manages to sabotage itself: "While reality weight loss TV shows like The Biggest Loser depict men experiencing the emotions of weight loss, Weight Watchers’ men do not engage in the self-help process of reflecting upon weight gain. Men are not expected to employ self-discipline...
The work of male weight loss is external to the self — oriented around public life, professional advancement, and athletic achievement. This is the script for how Weight Watchers has extended its weight loss promise to a new “niche market.” Given the diet industry’s capitalist motivations and the near total failure rate of diets, weight loss promises are rarely realized (Campos 2004; Fraser 1998; Gaesser 2009). Weight Watchers’ construction of “masculine” weight loss demonstrates another terrain upon which dieting fails."
So, is this, in the end, a condemnation of a single company that gets its message wrong, while another company manages to get the message right? Wouldn't that exonerate the diet industry?
And what if, shockingly, there is more than type of person interested in weight loss, with different motivations and personalities? What if these ways to weight loss work differently for different people?
The article points out that dieting frequently fails and this is a brand new niche market. Since this is a new marketplace it is quite possible that the old knowledge doesn't apply - and who knows, these weight loss methods might actually work.
Finally, the article doesn't fail to complain about the "diet industry’ s capitalist motivations and near total failure of diets". Interestingly, this provides a very capitalist motivation for anyone capable to actually bring about the promises of weight loss - anybody capable of doing so could take over the profits of this billion-dollar heavy industry. Since that's not the case, could it be that weight loss is indeed extremely hard to achieve and the few that do so have been helped by these companies? It is perfectly possible that these are evil companies that rake in profits from their gullible customers but that makes them vulnerable to the real deal... if there is such a thing.
What if the business of the diet industry is providing the elusive chance of real weight loss to the masses yearning for it - actual weight loss to the lucky few and perhaps a better health and some sense of 'doing something' for everybody else? If weight loss is very hard to accomplish, as it seems, the diet industry provides an outlet to popular frustrations with some (however marginal) benefits. Hopefully, one day this problem will be resolved.
To finish on a positive note, the article sums up nicely the recent developments in the diet industry and the challenges it faces. The gender-focused analysis doesn't stand up to scrutiny, however.
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Private alternatives to public goods and wiki projects
And so it happened that I've finished another wiki project. It started out with a focus on voluntary cooperation in general, but it soon turned into a more specific topic: Public goods and their private alternatives (links to an overview page).
What is becoming more and more frustrating is the level of participation in these wiki projects - or rather the lack of it. I start these projects with an open invitation for anyone to join and choose how much they want to participate. I get limited feedback on the project itself, and then... nothing (or a few edits or link recommendations if I'm lucky). When I finally complete it, I advertise it around, get a few accolades, some backlinks, and... that's it.
When I started the Austrian Economics Wiki, which turned later on into the Mises Wiki, I really hoped to create an actual community that would continue creating resources of this kind. Not just randomly blogging about topics that happen to attract interest at the moment, but creating a database of links and arguments about any given topic one might be interested in. And it's getting there, even if very slowly.
But, I wonder, where are all the brave people calling for "a resource like Wikipedia", so eager at the start, but contributing so little? There is some demand for the wiki pages and the occasional editing by other users, but for the most part, nothing much happens. Is there enough demand to keep it alive (with more than one regular contributor)? I'm starting to wonder.
Anyway, go and check out the page on private alternatives to public goods... there is a lot of material to feed arguments with.
What is becoming more and more frustrating is the level of participation in these wiki projects - or rather the lack of it. I start these projects with an open invitation for anyone to join and choose how much they want to participate. I get limited feedback on the project itself, and then... nothing (or a few edits or link recommendations if I'm lucky). When I finally complete it, I advertise it around, get a few accolades, some backlinks, and... that's it.
When I started the Austrian Economics Wiki, which turned later on into the Mises Wiki, I really hoped to create an actual community that would continue creating resources of this kind. Not just randomly blogging about topics that happen to attract interest at the moment, but creating a database of links and arguments about any given topic one might be interested in. And it's getting there, even if very slowly.
But, I wonder, where are all the brave people calling for "a resource like Wikipedia", so eager at the start, but contributing so little? There is some demand for the wiki pages and the occasional editing by other users, but for the most part, nothing much happens. Is there enough demand to keep it alive (with more than one regular contributor)? I'm starting to wonder.
Anyway, go and check out the page on private alternatives to public goods... there is a lot of material to feed arguments with.
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Liberal or libertarian
I came across a little debate brewing between Walter Block and George Jonas and it got me thinking.
Jonas comes across as very thoughtful when explaining the prevalent political thought in Canada in his youth and his reasons for not subscribing to it. He calls himself a "19th-century liberal" (classical liberal as some call it) and his ideals seem to fit. Reading on his principles, he might be quite fairly described as a libertarian minarchist.
But as Block in his colorful way points out - why not libertarian? Jonas doesn't really explain that in the article called "Don’t call me a libertarian" - although to be fair the title might have been a decision by editors, see next article.
Interestingly, in the second article Jonas still hasn't quite explained what is for him the crucial difference between the two terms, although he seems to dislike the radicalism of libertarians (which would be perfectly fair, but he quotes it as a new, possible, reason). It would seem that he simply prefers the term liberal, without any particular explanation.
But thinking about it, I do like "liberal" a bit more than "libertarian". I consider it better for pretty much the same historical reasons as Jonas, with points added for the word being shorter and easier to use. Then again, one may have to explain more, extend the description (I prefer "classical liberal", but that also needs explanation) or simply go with libertarian - which I am comfortable with as well. Here in Europe you can occasionally use the term and people know what it means. Occasionally.
For most people, the two terms used in the right context might as well be interchangeable. For those of us that are sticklers for words and their usage, Jonas' articles feel slightly frustrating. There are two (in the context) very similar descriptors A and B. So if someone says, I'm A, not B, explains his thinking about the issue (which may describe one as A or B) but doesn't explain what's the problem with B, well, people subscribing to B are going to be confused. To put it more bluntly, if someone is, say, a fan of sports, but doesn't like ice-hockey, it doesn't help to explain how great sports are in general while avoiding the topic of ice-hockey.
It's perfectly fair to dislike a term for any number of reasons (Preferring the older, original term? Those using the new term are radical crazies one doesn't want to be associated with? Following some particular aspect of the original philosophy? Aesthetic preferences?). We just need to know, preferably right away.
Fortunately, there is a third article from Jonas. His ultimate reason seems to be that "libertarianism is too much of a good thing".
To quote: "Unbridled liberty can become chaotic. Chaos doesn’t enhance freedom. On the contrary, it ties freedom into knots. Poorly designed and unregulated intersections in Asia kill bicyclists and pedestrians by the hundreds but, as if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Anyone can witness the consequences of vehicular anarchy on YouTube. It’s scary and enlightening."
(One should note at this point that there are perfectly designed and regulated intersections all over Europe and America that also kill bicyclists and pedestrians in large numbers. As if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Check the Shared space concept for an alternative that uses exactly the deplored vehicular anarchy to great effect. However, even if someone would subscribe to anarchist thinking, it doesn't mean that there must be anarchist traffic as well! Having traffic lights and all seems to work out at least in some cases, and perhaps there are even better alternatives out there to be discovered.)
It seems that the real problem Jonas has with libertarians lies in their association with anarchism, or simply going too far - "I’ve more tolerance for what I call janitorial government than my libertarian friends, but agree that most of their functions could safely be privatized."
If that is the case, one should point out that a great many libertarians subscribe to exactly the same view (including the briefly mentioned Ron Paul). George Jonas may disagree with Walter Block's brand of libertarian thinking, but there's much more out there than that. Jonas can be still easily characterized as a libertarian minarchist - but it's okay to use a different term.
(Note: Walter Block has posted a response of his own, with much more detail and much more entertaining.)
Jonas comes across as very thoughtful when explaining the prevalent political thought in Canada in his youth and his reasons for not subscribing to it. He calls himself a "19th-century liberal" (classical liberal as some call it) and his ideals seem to fit. Reading on his principles, he might be quite fairly described as a libertarian minarchist.
But as Block in his colorful way points out - why not libertarian? Jonas doesn't really explain that in the article called "Don’t call me a libertarian" - although to be fair the title might have been a decision by editors, see next article.
Interestingly, in the second article Jonas still hasn't quite explained what is for him the crucial difference between the two terms, although he seems to dislike the radicalism of libertarians (which would be perfectly fair, but he quotes it as a new, possible, reason). It would seem that he simply prefers the term liberal, without any particular explanation.
But thinking about it, I do like "liberal" a bit more than "libertarian". I consider it better for pretty much the same historical reasons as Jonas, with points added for the word being shorter and easier to use. Then again, one may have to explain more, extend the description (I prefer "classical liberal", but that also needs explanation) or simply go with libertarian - which I am comfortable with as well. Here in Europe you can occasionally use the term and people know what it means. Occasionally.
For most people, the two terms used in the right context might as well be interchangeable. For those of us that are sticklers for words and their usage, Jonas' articles feel slightly frustrating. There are two (in the context) very similar descriptors A and B. So if someone says, I'm A, not B, explains his thinking about the issue (which may describe one as A or B) but doesn't explain what's the problem with B, well, people subscribing to B are going to be confused. To put it more bluntly, if someone is, say, a fan of sports, but doesn't like ice-hockey, it doesn't help to explain how great sports are in general while avoiding the topic of ice-hockey.
It's perfectly fair to dislike a term for any number of reasons (Preferring the older, original term? Those using the new term are radical crazies one doesn't want to be associated with? Following some particular aspect of the original philosophy? Aesthetic preferences?). We just need to know, preferably right away.
Fortunately, there is a third article from Jonas. His ultimate reason seems to be that "libertarianism is too much of a good thing".
To quote: "Unbridled liberty can become chaotic. Chaos doesn’t enhance freedom. On the contrary, it ties freedom into knots. Poorly designed and unregulated intersections in Asia kill bicyclists and pedestrians by the hundreds but, as if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Anyone can witness the consequences of vehicular anarchy on YouTube. It’s scary and enlightening."
(One should note at this point that there are perfectly designed and regulated intersections all over Europe and America that also kill bicyclists and pedestrians in large numbers. As if that weren’t bad enough, they also bring traffic to a standstill. Check the Shared space concept for an alternative that uses exactly the deplored vehicular anarchy to great effect. However, even if someone would subscribe to anarchist thinking, it doesn't mean that there must be anarchist traffic as well! Having traffic lights and all seems to work out at least in some cases, and perhaps there are even better alternatives out there to be discovered.)
It seems that the real problem Jonas has with libertarians lies in their association with anarchism, or simply going too far - "I’ve more tolerance for what I call janitorial government than my libertarian friends, but agree that most of their functions could safely be privatized."
If that is the case, one should point out that a great many libertarians subscribe to exactly the same view (including the briefly mentioned Ron Paul). George Jonas may disagree with Walter Block's brand of libertarian thinking, but there's much more out there than that. Jonas can be still easily characterized as a libertarian minarchist - but it's okay to use a different term.
(Note: Walter Block has posted a response of his own, with much more detail and much more entertaining.)
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Mises Wiki has over 1000 articles
It took like ages, but the Mises Wiki has finally reached - and breached - the 1000 page limit. Announced and lightly advertised, the news did not produce much consternation.
Time to take a breather and focus on other projects. 1000! 1! 111! And so on.
Time to take a breather and focus on other projects. 1000! 1! 111! And so on.
Monday, March 14, 2011
Busy times
Too much to do, even to write something on this sadly forgotten blog. Holidays, time out, but primarily work, work, work. Meanwhile, the wiki is nicely growing with the help of a pleasant bunch. Let's review the development of the phenomenon:
April 23, 2009 - first edit on Austrian Economics Wiki
August 1, 2010 - over 100 pages on AEW ( + 1 year 3 months)
October 6, 2010 - over 300 pages after all countries were added (+ 2 months)
November 5, 2010 - jump to Mises Wiki (+ 1 month)
March 3, 2011 - 600 pages reached (+ 4 months)
So in a third of time was produced about three times as much, if only page count is concerned. There's more to it than page count, but...
...not bad at all. :)
April 23, 2009 - first edit on Austrian Economics Wiki
August 1, 2010 - over 100 pages on AEW ( + 1 year 3 months)
October 6, 2010 - over 300 pages after all countries were added (+ 2 months)
November 5, 2010 - jump to Mises Wiki (+ 1 month)
March 3, 2011 - 600 pages reached (+ 4 months)
So in a third of time was produced about three times as much, if only page count is concerned. There's more to it than page count, but...
...not bad at all. :)
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Mises Wiki
And then happened, what had to happen: Austrian Economics Wiki has been migrated to Mises Wiki.
I have explained the reasons in other places, suffice to say, that the behavior of Wikia repulsed many users, and the possibility of working with the Mises Institute was simply too attractive.
So there it goes - good luck, Mises Wiki!
I have explained the reasons in other places, suffice to say, that the behavior of Wikia repulsed many users, and the possibility of working with the Mises Institute was simply too attractive.
So there it goes - good luck, Mises Wiki!
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
On Countries
There have been quite a few positive developments in the mean time, and several honorary mentions of the wiki - not least thanks to a Mises.org mention. Still encouraging. :)
Most recent was my drive to create country pages for every single country out there. This has been now finished, and a few (Greece, Iceland) were expanded some more to show what the pages are good for - hopefully attracting more editors! And, with some 200 countries has the wiki jumped to over three hundred pages!
A lot has been done, there is still a lot to do, but good news all around. That's the message for today.
Most recent was my drive to create country pages for every single country out there. This has been now finished, and a few (Greece, Iceland) were expanded some more to show what the pages are good for - hopefully attracting more editors! And, with some 200 countries has the wiki jumped to over three hundred pages!
A lot has been done, there is still a lot to do, but good news all around. That's the message for today.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Wiki on Mises.org!
Speaking of major breakthroughs: the wiki has just been featured on the Mises Economics Blog!
I am in shock and amazed. :)
I am in shock and amazed. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)