Logic vs. Intuition - Not the Same Thing!

In response to Skyla Seamans' post "Women's Logic?" (11/23/2012):

I think that the so-called 'women's logic' the authors refer to may be intuition, or perhaps emotion.  There are some philosophers who believe that women have an inherent moral compass, 'women's intuition,' or 'knowing through emotion,' which men do not possess and which provides a reliable guide for how to live one's life.  This belief leads to theories like care ethics.  I think that in most cases, so-called 'women's logic' is simply an excuse for people to impose their own views without critically analysing them.  There is no evidence that women are incapable of or inferior at thinking critically, and little to no evidence that emotions are a reliable basis for learning the truth or acting morally.  As such, unless supporters of this theory can provide more convincing evidence for their claims, I will disregard the idea of 'women's logic' as separate from normal logic.

Ism Backlash

In response to Carrisa Sacherski's post "Response to Avery's Post" (11/25/2012):

We have a positive chain of blog posts going on here!  Huzzah!

At the end of her post, Carrisa mentions that 'isms' of any kind can create preconceived notions of a group of people.  I think that this is absolutely true, and is furthermore a rarely-explored downside to even positive 'isms.'  In fact, I think that it provides a way for positive 'isms' to become negative ones.

The evolution of the term 'feminism' is a good example of this phenomenon.  Originally, 'feminism' meant simply 'a movement to promote the rights of women so that they are equal to those of men' - a movement with a fine goal, certainly.  Early feminists also appear to have recognised that in order for women to have access to the same privileges as men, they would also have to take on the same responsibilities.  However, as feminism gained followers and achieved many successes, it gained a more sinister connotation in addition to the initial positive one.  While there are many feminists today who still hold to the original goal of the feminist movement, there are also many - perhaps more - who have changed the goal to one of superiority for women.  Such people (sometimes referred to as radfems by the rational members of the feminist movement) ignore issues of men's rights, and wish for women to exercise the same privileges as men without any of the responsibilities.  They give rational feminists a bad name, and have become so prevalent that their particular variety of 'feminism' is no longer a discredited oddball offshoot.  In fact, they have so corrupted the term that many people who support the idea of equal rights for people of all genders have abandoned it and adopted other labels, such as 'gender egalitarian' or 'gender equalist.'

This example, I think, vividly illustrates the transformation of an indisputably positive 'ism' into a much more morally debatable one.