Helen Pluckrose...why?

[RoyalCorgi]

I've just bought Helen Pluckrose's new book, Cynical Theories, attacking identity politics. We've had some discussions on here about it.

Yet apparently she doesn't like gender-critical feminists. I can't get my head around why, given that we are on the same side. Anyone know?

Goosefoot that sounds like a fascinating article. I've heard people talk a lot about how secularism has created a kind of moral gap. I'm not religious at all but I do see a role for some kind of religious structure in society - even on a practical level, the church was a way of distributing resources and providing community, which we no longer have. Christianity is quite a 'good' religion (in its more liberal versions) that emphasises the idea of our human connection to one another and our responsibilities. Instead we now have a moral vacuum which opportunists are taking full advantage of.

@Siablue

To be fair to Helen she doesn’t describe herself as a feminist. She wrote an essay called why I am not a feminist. I have not read cynical theories but I have listened to a couple of podcasts with her on. I think she is an interesting voice.

She developed a form of OCD called scruplulosity (I really can’t spell) which is an extreme form of religious observance. I think that has left her understandably wary of anyone who was very fixed in their beliefs. She does see social justice warriors as being very similar to religious fundamentalists.

She said she thought some of her papers should have been rejected on ethical grounds because they were too unkind to men. I think she respects the GC perspective doesn’t believe in it herself but thinks it is a perspective that should be discussed.

I think this is a really good insight and explains a lot. I did know about her scrupulousity (sp? I don't know either!) but didn't connect the dots there. It does make sense though that she would steer clear of anything that looks like a religious code or any kind of ideological thinking.

I wrote this last time I had a discussion with Helen Pluckrose hiyamaya.net/2020/05/13/3632/

I think if she were to follow her liberal ethics to its logical end point she would end up at the conclusion that the only practical thing is to say "no" to all adult males in any women's single sex space, and in jobs where a woman is required etc... she almost gets there, but something stops her going to the logical conclusion (presumably personal relationships 'not my Nigel' etc..), and she doesn't want to say that the feminists are right on this.

I've heard people talk a lot about how secularism has created a kind of moral gap

There's a huge field of philosophical writing about this. You might like the work of Emmanuel Levinas - he offers a very doable way of thinking ethically without a god. Or John Stuart Mill. Both write very accessibly for the non-specialist, although their writing is rigorous.

It's also worth reading Nietzsche. In English, his writing has an energy and drive which is exhilirating.

She's blocked me on Twitter, presumably because I'm one of those nasty TERF types. Ah well.

I think that it was done to expose the absolutely piss-poor state of academia where standards and evidence don't matter so long as you say the woke thing. And they did expose that.

There are so many generalising and inaccurate sweeping statements there.

What they exposed, if "expose" is the word you want to keep on using - is that in scholarly work, arguments, ideas, and lots of them, are what we feed on, and learn from.

Although I still think that unresearched material, written in bad faith to try to "catch people out" is unethical and should be called out. For me, as a serious scholar, whose currency is careful detailed argument based in research, the "Grievance Studies" people reveal far more about themselves, than the state of humanities scholarship.

Scholarly argument is not to "decide" what is "wrong" and what is "right." It's about debate and collaboration.

She's blocked me on Twitter

Yup, I was blocked when I dared to argue back against her & her buddies, to disagree about the sex-pay gap. It was not a measured nor a pleasant exchange on her part.

@MForstater

I wrote this last time I had a discussion with Helen Pluckrose hiyamaya.net/2020/05/13/3632/

I think if she were to follow her liberal ethics to its logical end point she would end up at the conclusion that the only practical thing is to say "no" to all adult males in any women's single sex space, and in jobs where a woman is required etc... she almost gets there, but something stops her going to the logical conclusion (presumably personal relationships 'not my Nigel' etc..), and she doesn't want to say that the feminists are right on this.

In an earlier twitter debate, Helen talked about her close friend who is trans (a trans man I believe).

Posie Parker's discussion with James Lindsay is worth watching. He does seem to 'get it'.

@ItalianHat

I've heard people talk a lot about how secularism has created a kind of moral gap

There's a huge field of philosophical writing about this. You might like the work of Emmanuel Levinas - he offers a very doable way of thinking ethically without a god. Or John Stuart Mill. Both write very accessibly for the non-specialist, although their writing is rigorous.

It's also worth reading Nietzsche. In English, his writing has an energy and drive which is exhilirating.

Nietzche never grounds morality in anything though, other than the self, and the person who can impose their moral vision on the others, in any way, is essentially the one who defines morality.

He's very consistent but very few people are comfortable with that kind of view of morality.

Scholarly argument is not to "decide" what is "wrong" and what is "right." It's about debate and collaboration.

It's not to decide what's wrong and right in some concrete sense. But that doesn't mean it's okay to publish absolute nonsense that bears no relation to reality and has no substance or integrity, or basis in some kind of verifiable truth. If a journal was happy to publish rewritten sections of Mein Kampf then I don't think they are doing what scholars should be doing, and I don't think it reflects well on them at all. They should not be so intellectually weak and lacking in rigour that they would fall for such an obvious and laughable hoax.

I have no problem with whistleblowers, whether they be in academia or any other area of life. I don't think there's anything unethical about showing what the state of some so-called scholarly research is, especially when their academics are making careers out of pushing the regressive ideologies are we are now seeing enter mainstream discourse. People thought that academics in social sciences were studying worthwhile things - they didn't realise that they were simply writing and publishing anything that fits with a specific political agenda. That's pretty important to know about.

I don't suggest for one second that this is the whole of academia, or even the whole of the humanities. It surprises me though that anyone who genuinely cares about the state of academia would have a problem with exposing the rot in some of its wings. It is a shame because people will assume that by defending these ridiculous and dangerous elements, academics are unable to see what it obvious to everyone else, which in turn reflects badly on their own disciplines and contributes to a public perception that academia is just so much waffle and nonsense. The Grievance Studies project was doing academia a favour. While many academics have welcomed this project and what it reveals, it's a shame that some would rather cover up failures and shoot the messengers instead. By not addressing the problems that were exposed, academics have only hastened the university's decline. We are now seeing a situation where many humanities degrees are simply courses of indoctrination in ideology. Universities will not be able to survive this.

It's an absolute shame, and no one should defend these journals and academics. It's hardly the fault of Helen Pluckrose that some areas of the academy are so utterly corrupt.

Some more information about what they were doing, what their motivations were, and what happened -

There are some great interviews about this on youtube, including a really in-depth one with Jordan Peterson.

I have to say, I'm still pretty involved with my humanities school, and most of the academics I know were pretty horrified and embarrassed by the grievance studies hoax, though a lot of them knew things were bad they hoped they weren't that bad.

And FWIW there are serious issues with academic publishing in the sciences as well.

I applaud the posters in this thread, you are all much more kinder to Helen than I am. For me personally, anyone who doesn't see the conflict in rights or even how incredibly sexist it is to claim a man can 'feel' like a woman is quite frankly an idiot.

I have no problem with women not all agreeing. I don't think Helen Pluckrose, Margaret Atwood or any other woman has a duty to be a feminist or GC. I imagine Helen gets upset with being called bullshit and an idiot by hundreds of women on twitter and it probably contributes to her not really wanting to look any deeper into GC feminism than she has. It is all a bit childish and off putting to a lot of women, I think. If people don't agree with you it's really okay to just let it go. There are enough things to focus on without following some poor woman around twitter, calling her names because she doesn't see the world exactly the way you do, even though she's in broad agreement with most of what you say.

I'm not saying any of you are doing that. That was a response to the pp who applauded some for being kind. I don't think it's a question of being kind or unkind, just she's an interesting person who has a lot of interesting things to say, and just because we might disagree on some things, I'm not prepared to write her off. There are many GC feminists with whom I have literally no agreement except on one single issue. I think the idea we all need to agree and see things the same way (aka purity politics) is helpful to no one.

just because we might disagree on some things, I'm not prepared to write her off

I guess some posters might see that the ‘some thing’ in this case is so fundamental and logically follows her line of thinking generally that it’s hard to listen to and give value to other things she might say. It’s perfectly ok to say,’ this person is inconsistent, illogical or even an idiot, so as there’s plenty of other women saying important logical things out there, I’m not going to waste time listening to this particular person’.

It’s actually perfectly ok to write someone off to the extent you don’t give them any more of your time if you find that time is wasted. No woman owes any other woman their time.

Is Helen being ‘followed around on twitter’ being called names by GC women from here? What’s the relevance of that comment? And if Helen gets so upset about being called names she won’t reflect on these issues or listen to new arguments, that is really rather silly. Other people’s behaviour shouldn’t stop you from questioning things going on in our world that affect women.

Helen is also the editor of Areo magazine which published a positive article about JKR (someone shared it on here I will see if I can find it).Not many people would be willing to take the flack for publishing something that they didn’t agree with. She also recognises ROGD and has take a huge bashing for it from the TRAs.

@Siablue

Helen is also the editor of Areo magazine which published a positive article about JKR (someone shared it on here I will see if I can find it).Not many people would be willing to take the flack for publishing something that they didn’t agree with. She also recognises ROGD and has take a huge bashing for it from the TRAs.

Yes. I think she is caught in the middle and she certainly isn't anti-women's rights, by any stretch. Areo is great and publishes plenty of GC voices.

MillyMolly That's up to you if you find your disagreement over one thing stops you from being able to agree on anything else, or feels so fundamental that nothing else matters. Entirely your choice. I was just trying to explain why I'm "being kind" to Helen P, in response to a pp.

I do think Helen P gets a lot of crap from GC feminists on twitter. Just peeping in on the last day or so, it seems like she has felt quite embattled. I'm not on twitter anymore, but I remember several huge pile ons to women who didn't say the right GC thing, and I think the GC crowd on there don't always see how upsetting it must be to get literally hundreds of comments all saying the same thing and demanding answers, interspersed with a few unpleasant insults. I get the impression that Helen has got a lot of this, and then she also gets a lot of shit from TRAs and the alt-right, so I think she probably just shuts it all down. I think it's admirable that she is still trying to listen at all. I read a tweet yesterday where she admitted she just didn't know enough and hadn't thought enough about the issues to answer Maya's questions in a respectworthy way. I thought that was really honest, and fine to say that. She doesn't owe anyone anything.

I don't agree entirely with her but my understanding of her position is that she thinks most of the feminist battles have been won by the previous generation

Won? Ha!

They only exist in legislation. Rights to contraception, equal pay, maternity leave etc. don't exist in perpetuity.

You don't have to know anything about class theory to recognise that women are impacted differently by e.g. a worldwide pandemic (how do you get the MAP?), access to toilets (not just who can enter the toilet, but whether there is any toilet at all) and access to healthcare.

I don't think there will ever be a point where women won't need to say "Well actually that doesn't work for us".

I'm not on twitter anymore, but I remember several huge pile ons to women who didn't say the right GC thing, and I think the GC crowd on there don't always see how upsetting it must be to get literally hundreds of comments all saying the same thing and demanding answers, interspersed with a few unpleasant insults.

Yes, agree - twitter is a real barrier to communication.

They only exist in legislation. But that's a pretty big deal, when they didn't exist at all before. I can understand people feeling that women being equal under the law is the most important thing, especially when you compare our situation in the UK with countries where women have no or few legal rights.

I agree that women will probably always have to be vigilant about ensuring our rights can be fully exercised, and that our rights aren't lost. Funnily enough, Margaret Atwood has spoken about how, when things go wrong in society, women's rights will be the first to go.

But that's a pretty big deal, when they didn't exist at all before

And already that legislation is threatened. Very, very few UK politicians are prepared to say that sex exists and sex based rights are necessary.

@merrymouse

But that's a pretty big deal, when they didn't exist at all before

And already that legislation is threatened. Very, very few UK politicians are prepared to say that sex exists and sex based rights are necessary.

Yes, absolutely. It's been quite sobering to see how quickly and easily our rights could be taken away.