Feminism is not the only perspective

Today I would like to draw attention to, and challenge, the idea that feminist theories, and a feminist perspective, are the only way to frame gender issues. Many of you have probably heard phrases like the one pictured below. Something along the lines of, "I need feminism because [insert problem here]."

However, the argument being made in statements like these is a poor one, and it creates what you could call a “false mono-chotomy”: it only gives you one choice (feminism) when that is not actually the only choice.

To see this fallacy more clearly, we can simply use this same argument structure in a different context. For example:

“I need supply-side economics because the economy is doing poorly!”

In this instance, the fallacy is much easier to see. In response to this argument, an observant person would probably say, “but what about demand-side economics? What about any other economic models?"

Generally speaking, you cannot simply declare that there is only one way to solve a problem, or that your way is the best way: you need to justify that claim. When feminists say “I need feminism because (gender issue exists)”, they are doing the same thing as the hypothetical supply-side economist: they are just declaring that it’s my way or the highway.

To see this fallacious argument explained in a more rigorous manner, continue reading.

First, let’s look at a bad argument for supply-side economics as the solution to fixing the economy.

Argument E1
P1. The economy is doing poorly, and we need to improve it.
P2. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of supply-side economics.

This argument is not a valid argument: it does not explain how the conclusion follows from the premises. In order for this to be a valid argument, we would need to add a premise, creating Argument E2.

Argument E2
P1. The economy is doing poorly, and we need to improve it.
P2. Adopting the theories of supply-side economics is the best way to improve the economy.
P3. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of supply-side economics.

This is now a valid argument: the conclusion follows from the premises. However, in order to make this argument sound, the arguer must now justify the premise (P2) which states that supply-side economics is the solution; or, in more specific terms, that the theories of supply-side economics are the only model of the world that will allow us to determine the best course of action to fix the problem. It is in this premise (P2) that the debates about economic theories take place among politicians and economists: which model is the most accurate to the real world and will give us the best solution? In this discussion, we acknowledge that there are multiple economic theories that purport to model the world correctly, and which, by that token, will provide the best solutions to economic problems.

Now let’s talk about feminism instead of economics. An argument similar to E1 is often made for feminism, and this argument is written below as F1.

Argument F1
P1. There is an inequality between men and women which we need to fix.
P2. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of feminism.

Once again, there is a missing premise, whose absence makes the argument invalid. A valid form of this argument we will call F2. However, the argument usually given by feminists is F1, when it should at least be F2.

Argument F2
P1. There is an inequality between men and women which we need to fix.
P2. Adopting the theories of feminism is the best way to fix that inequality.
P3. Therefore, we should adopt the theories of feminism.

And once again, we find ourselves requiring some justification for P2 in order to make the argument sound. However, when it comes to feminism, the discussion of P2 is slightly different from that of P2 in economics. When it comes to feminism, many people find it hard to believe that P2 could be false. Indeed, many feminists flatly deny that there are other ways to frame issues of gender, and they insist that if you don’t adopt feminist theories, then not only will you never solve the problem, but you probably don’t even care about the problem at all.

“You’re not a feminist? Don't you care about women?!”
“You’re not a supply-side economist? Don't you care about the economy?!”

Using economic issues as an analogous situation, we can see how ridiculous it is to insist that feminist theories are the answer to gender issues. In the blog posts to come, I will explain some of the ways in which I view gender issues such that there is a solution for current inequalities, or I will simply present a more accurate analysis of these problems that differs from feminist theories.