I don't agree that history is inseparable from sociology and psychology. Inter-disciplinary research is one thing; this is quite another.
Well, seeing as how historical research is a staple method of sociology and social psychology, my original point stands.
I think it's fairly obvious what is meant by "contemporary society". I dismiss the inquiry into the meaning of such (very clear) terms as a conceit of analytic philosophy, in which I'm not keen to participate.
Well, if by "contemporary society" we mean society as it has been over the last, say, thirty years, then I'd think that any inquiry into its function or development would by definition be historical research. And the phrase "understanding contemporary society" could mean a few different things. For instance, it could simply mean understanding how it functions. Or it could mean understanding how and why it came to be the way that it currently is. The point is that the meaning of these phrases directly influences our present conversation, so it is relevant to discuss them.
I didn't expect you to understand the meaning of the term. I expected you to ask for a definition. You did this, but not before telling me that "generic Feminism" doesn't exist-which is quite silly, since, at that point, you had no idea what it meant!
Why would I know the meaning of a word that didn't exist?
Then I'm unsure in what way I was misunderstood. I'm not trying to be a "smartass".
I was not clear about what you meant by feminism nor what aspects of feminism you found to be "false," which is why I asked for clarification (by which I meant that I wanted you to explain specifically what aspects of your understanding of feminism that you found objectionable.) I was not confused about what it means for something to be false. I would think that was obvious.
I had someone complain about that shortly after I joined.
Over two years ago.
Good?
The following is of critical importance:
This allows for the possibility that someone who declares that they are a Feminist rejects all propositions populating that "miscellaneous propositions" category. I'm arguing that that is very, very rare. For most, "I am a Feminist" means "I am a generic Feminist", and so, for most, "Feminism" means "generic Feminism". I would be happy to identify as a Feminist myself, since I am enthusiastically in favour of the equality I mention. I refrain from doing so because I would constantly have to qualify that I am "a Feminist, if "Feminist" only means "a person who is in favour of the equality of women with men"", lest my interlocutor suppose that I'm happy to assert the existence of a "rape culture", etc., i.e believes that I am a "generic Feminist".
That strikes me as tedious.
So essentially you're saying that you're afraid to say you're a feminist for fear of being associated with
straw feminists. How does that mean that "generic feminism" is false? The various constellations of propositions that could potentially fill the {miscellaneous propositions} container might not all be false. There could be a variation with which you agree.
The "miscellaneous propositions category" contains millions of propositions, of which some fail to exist. It's unreasonable to expect me to have an exhaustive knowledge of these propositions. In an effort to be clear, "usually" should be omitted from this:
and "typically" from here:
Nevertheless, the definition could do with some refinement-the "+" should really be an ampersand, for example. I think it's a good starting point, though.
If you remove the "usually" and "typically," then how can you feel comfortable declaring the "falsehood" of generic feminism?