Material Girls is out today

[ChristinaXYZ]

Material Girls by Kathleen Stock is out today. I like her hashtag #YesItsADebate - this book is as important for free speech as it is for women's sex based rights

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1390204434144272384

My copy is arriving today, I had forgotten the release date so it was a nice surprise email I received this morning!

It is such an important book.

Mary Harrington had a sort of a review of it on Unherd yesterday. More than a review really.

I quite like Harrington as a writer but in some ways I found the review a little confusing - I think it is really the sort of thing that would be better read as a commentary or discussion points after having read the book.

Her general sense was that it was well written and carefully argued, but that really it's just arguing from a completely different set of premises about reality than gender ideology.

unherd.com/2021/05/nobody-wins-the-gender-wars/

Oh good, already got only a one-star review on Goodreads from two weeks ago from someone who hasn't read it but is big mad because obviously Stock is saying they're not real

Got it yesterday. Looking forward to it.

it's just arguing from a completely different set of premises about reality than gender ideology.

Aren't we all?

Reading it, I think Harrington's just basically using the book as a springboard to argue her own view - which is that there's no use trying to use logic and reason against Woke ideology, as Stock is attempting to do.

my sense is that prophecies of apocalypse may be overblown. But also that the Age of Reason is indeed firmly in the rear-view mirror — a fact that presents the author herself with some difficulties.

[...]

But here, exactly, lies the rub. The activism she seeks to challenge is the political wing of a contemporary cultural movement committed to dismantling the Enlightenment’s intellectual foundations.

Personally I'd say arguing against gender nonsense logically is necessary, but probably not sufficient. You also need to tackle the underlying anti-reality Woke world view, not just the stuff it says.

But everyone's got a part to play here - I suspect Stock is reaching a different audience to, say, Lindsay. Different resources for audiences in different positions.

Thanks for the link to that review.

It is brilliant- it covers all the concerns I have of the impact of this beyond women’s rights.

'When University of Edinburgh students recently censured the anthropology lecturer Neil Thin, they saw the aim of studying as “to learn how to decolonise our thinking and create an inclusive society and environment”. It’s a view that more closely resembles the medieval fusion of intellectual study and religious faith than it does the critical Enlightenment stance that supplanted it.'

I thought that was an interesting part of the review. 'Inclusive' is doing an awful lot of work, there.

My copy has just arrived

the medieval fusion of intellectual study and religious faith

I saw something along those lines by John McWhorter the other day:

twitter.com/JohnHMcWhorter/status/1389667617582026752

Hm. I think 'learning to put words to things you already feel' can be valuable. But just one part of the process.

Germaine Greer said she used to try and get her students angry, because when you're angry, you start to think, rather than just tootling along nodding to everything.

I mean, I mostly spent higher education in a state of extreme confusion, but I think that was the drugs post-modernism.

Place marking as a reminder to buy.

[quote NecessaryScene1]the medieval fusion of intellectual study and religious faith

I saw something along those lines by John McWhorter the other day:

twitter.com/JohnHMcWhorter/status/1389667617582026752[/quote]
That's quite interesting.

I actually think Harrington is wrong, or at least not entirely right; I would say that actually the medievals were almost obsessed by rationality and with testing their propositions.

But they were explicit that all rationality is grounded in certain assumptions about the nature of thought and epistemology that cannot be proven as such without reference to first principles, so you have to own those. You could make an argument that one of the things the Enlightenment wanted to do was find a way to get right down to a first principle without making any assumptions - that's a bit of a gross way of putting it maybe, but in any case that project failed and what you get coming out of the post-Enlightenment end of that is the rejection of the possibility of a metaphysics and the reduction of philosophy to farting around with language.

The think with whatever woke ideology is not that it is similar to a medieval approach to reason-faith, but that it just asserts its propositions on the basis that it can assert. It's not about choosing and being aware of your first principles, it's about saying that reality is what you say it is. It's certainly not subjecting itself to systematic scrutiny as part of the process of thinking.

But - McWhorter's description, for me, rings true of my experiences in modern philosophy classes at university. Not the high-fives particularly, but a tendency to simply accept the student's feelings and often pretty incoherent thoughts on whatever was being studied.

So maybe it's not surprising that many people don't have the tools to think more carefully. That being said, gender ideology in particular does make claims to be scientific at times, so I think it's worth refuting that argument rationally.

gender ideology in particular does make claims to be scientific at times, so I think it's worth refuting that argument rationally.

Well, yes. I don't think you want to be presenting the IOC with your thoughts on medieval versus Enlightenment modes of thought - you need to be a bit more Ross Tucker about it.

@NecessaryScene1

gender ideology in particular does make claims to be scientific at times, so I think it's worth refuting that argument rationally.

Well, yes. I don't think you want to be presenting the IOC with your thoughts on medieval versus Enlightenment modes of thought - you need to be a bit more Ross Tucker about it.

I guess maybe this is the thing - how is Stock's mode of argument likely to come off practically speaking?

Not having read the book yet I'm not sure, but I wonder if it is most likely to be convincing to people who have already come to similar conclusions? While the people who haven't won't accept her mode of argument anyway?

This might be what Harrington is getting at.

Kudos also to her agent Caroline Hardman and the publishers Little Brown too. So glad to see not everyone in publishing has bowed down.

Yeah, well, Stock has to write Stock's book. And that's going to be different from Shrier's, which is going to be different from Joyce's, and all different to anything Jones or Lindsay produces.

I suspect Stock is going to hit the "academic who hasn't thought about this deeply, but is open" audience. She's got the institutional academic cachet none of the others have.

I'm pinning my hopes on Joyce's book being the definitive broad mass-market skewering that marks the tipping point in the UK. Part of me wants to see a fellow mathematician deliver the killing blow. Even if it's not the direct cause, I think the timing might be perfect.

Can’t wait to read my copy. Forgot it was out today. Look forward to discussing it when we’ve had a chance to read it.

Mine arrived earlier. I read through the first two chapters at lunch. So far, it's as carefully laid out a discussion as as I expected from Prof Stock . Very much looking forward to reading the rest.

I wonder how long it'll be before we see a "I read it so you don't have to'" article that completely misrepresents what she said. Anyone want to take a guess? I'd say it'll be under a week, likely a lot less.

@manatsu

Oh good, already got only a one-star review on Goodreads from two weeks ago from someone who hasn't read it but is big mad because obviously Stock is saying they're not real

I think we all know that activists who haven't even read it are going to try flood it with poor reviews. It's worth mentioning that reviews on Amazon get a 'verified review' whenever it's been reviewed by people who have actually read the book. I'm fairly sure these are prioritised by Amazon so it's worth leaving a rating or a review once you've finished reading. It's also possible to set your review state to private (ie under initials) and so that no one can see what else you've bought or who you are.

It's #1 bestseller in Feminist Criticism! I think that's cause for celebration (I need something to feel positive about after the JR decision today).

Got my copy!

My copy is arriving before 9.45pm

What I took from Harrington's piece is that the calm, rational approach by Stock and others is useful up to a point. To affect actual change, you have to do what the gender activists do and try to leverage power wherever you can. You have to accept the other side aren't open to persuasion and have no qualms about playing dirty. They simply don't follow the polite rules of engagement. Feminists are bringing a knife to a gunfight to paraphrase her comment on Twitter.