I try to stay from feminism (recovering /pol/ack) but I can't

>recovering /pol/ack
Jesus just try to read shit that isn't from 4chan faggot.

File: Screen Shot 2017-05-23 at 8.02.20 PM.png (262KB, 776x303px) Image search: [Google]

262KB, 776x303px

>>8931665
It's not from 4chan dipshit. It's in sandra harding's' book.

>>8931661
>>8931668
PSSSSSSST faggot
The problem isn't feminism, it's empiricism. Empiricism works the same way for racism and sexism.
You're either a Cartesian rationalist or you are a brainlet.
There is nothing wrong with feminism.

File: 1480689103636.jpg (25KB, 358x512px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 358x512px

>>8931689
>There is nothing wrong with feminism.

>>8931692
It's true though. What we normally see is feminist extremism. Just like the whole Muslim thing going on right now

>>8931692
Okay let me give myself some slack, feminism is a pretty broad(get it?) topic.
Name one (1) problem with individualist feminism.

>>8931668
I was talking about the term you used to describe yourself.

File: stupid baby.gif (2MB, 260x225px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 260x225px

>>8931661
The basic claim is that marginalized groups are more likely to produce unbiased research since they have a broader perspective with respect to the dangers and manifestations of bias.

This sort of recurring argument is what feminism is really about. It's only intrinsically tied to women for both historical reasons and because women are a very large but also very marginalized group. In a sense, feminism is a sort of misnomer but far be it from me to suggest it should change its name.

That said, whether or not you agree with their argument only means anything once you understand it.

Their argument has a few components:
>Bias exists
>Bias is less likely to come from marginalized groups

I find it easier to believe the first statement than the second.

Here is a relevant research article.
http://sci-hub.cc/http://www.pnas.org/content/109/41/16474
Make sure to read the materials and methods portion.

While it shows clear evidence of bias it also shows that women were just as susceptible to said biases.

pic semi-related: a /pol/esmoker trying to make an argument about a thing they don't understand.

>>8931741
But was that article written by feminists? If not then how can we trust it? As a feminist I have done deep soul searching for biases and found that I have none.

>>8931749
>But was that article written by feminists?

It was actually. Here is the the lead researcher:
https://www.skidmore.edu/psychology/faculty/moss-racusin.php
and here is her research lab (SCID):
https://academics.skidmore.edu/blogs/scidlab/

>>8931661
General speak justice,equally and trust are men values because men think on abstract form about things, women think about social value, or own group interest and social position in group.

In these case feminist is moral superior to another group and shaming tactics are used.

>trojan horse tricking people
Yes feminist is big Trojan horse, feminist never would help men or free men of social expectations of women.

File: prison.webm (919KB, 720x404px) Image search: [Google]

919KB, 720x404px

>>8931741
>>8931749
>>8931763

By the way, here is another similar experiment:
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1075547012472684

and a related experiment (performed by the SCID lab) using the results of the one above
http://sci-hub.cc/10.1073/pnas.1510649112

and if you're too much of a pleb to read the papers here is a news article (linked on the SCID site) about all three of the experiments among a few others that talks about the issue in a way laymen (you) can understand.
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/scicurious/views-bias-can-be-biased

pic related: The sort of fight the SCID lab has been forced to fight

>>8931741
>women are a very large but also very marginalized group
KEK

>>8931689
What a terrible fucking post...some of the dumbest shit I've read in a while.

>>8931701
It's feminism.

>>8931661
>recovering /pol/ack
you mean /pol/tard
also SAGE