I don’t call it postmoderntism to be funny. I quite honestly think of postmodernism as an ever nationally enveloping form of autism. Autism is defined on google as:
a mental condition, present from early childhood, characterized by difficulty in communicating and forming relationships with other people and in using language and abstract concepts.
Now the thing about autism is: it’s so “fluid” in its all encompassing nature, that it’s almost not even a disorder, except on the really extreme ends. Joking around and saying, “Wow, that’s so autistic,” isn’t a form of dissociative irony as one might initially believe. Instead it’s because autism is becoming more and more “loosely defined” to the point where it does in fact apply to more people nowadays than it doesn’t.
Now postmoderntism is a veeeeery extreme area of the ol’ spectrum, I tell ya. Let’s go over that definition again, piece by piece.
A mental condition—yea, sounds about right. These people definitely come off to me as uh—demented, asinine, barbaric often.
Present from early childhood—well, these sons of bitches have always got a story to tell ya about one, if not both of their parents. There also tends to be an abusive step parent involved. And god forbid you interrupt them during their tale to ask (gasp) questions (faints).
Characterized by difficulty in communicating—now I know right off the bat, most of you take this as strictly meaning: wanting to communicate, but failing to grasp the mechanisms by which one does that—and in the case of many on the spectrum, blessed be its glory, you’re absolutely correct. But there’s another interpretation of these words which are equally as valid and it is this.
Difficulty in communication as in—failing to understand what forms, mannerisms, and methodology of communication are appropriate. Now, wouldn’t you agree that someone who goes around “checking” people’s “privilege” based on their skin color, is failing to exercise the standard social etiquette our country thrives on? They are trying to communicate—and yet, they are failing to do so, because they don’t understand how normal people work. Just. Like. A person. With autism!
And forming relationships—Pffffff, relationships? With a postmodernist? How?! Tell me how you maintain or even obtain a friendship with someone who doesn’t trust their own brain because they think it’s been warped by “phallogocentrism” beyond repair? Explain to me how you’re able to be friends with someone who sees people for nothing but the oppressive or oppressed groups to which they’ve been delineated to in their fucked up, damaged little minds?
That person’s going to be distrusting of every single thing you tell them. They could turn on you and play you like a fiddle without a second’s thought. These people are monsters. The bitter, spiteful products of cheating and/or abusive dads, neglectful mothers, and siblings that out perform them in every facet of life. The only things these people are “friends” with is postmodernism, and once they figure out you don’t swing the right way, wear the emperor’s new clothing every hour of every day—they will eat you alive. Drop these fuckers in the scrap heep. They’re no good.
And in using language—same argument from the difficulty in communications section. It’s pretty clear as day that these people don’t realize that “their language” doesn’t exactly jive with humans that have functioning minds, that don’t believe in the patriarchy because father called them fat one time.
And abstract concepts—well that’s a slam dunk right there. Go look up postmodernism, I dare you. They don’t believe in anything, let alone abstract concepts.
Standpoint theory—the theory that one’s perspectives and opinions are shaped by their social and political experiences—is self-refuting. If you agree with the Standpoint theory, then according to this very theory, you only agree with it because of your gender, race, etc. The idea of making the Standpoint theory was to get men to shut up and stop “talking over” women when they share anecdotes that don’t corroborate with reality, right? Well the very same theory could be used to shut feminists up when they try and interrupt lectures about real science. So it doesn’t really get us anywhere in the conversation, I’m afraid.
“Feminist” empiricism is also self-refuting. Empiricism is simply the idea that knowledge can only be obtained through sensory experience. When you try and do that from a feminist lens (aka. looking at the situation as a postmodernist / standpoint theorist would), you are already failing to be empirical. You are using other means of obtaining knowledge besides making a mere observation. You’re factoring in preset beliefs that ultimately shape your interpretation of the result.
Quite frankly, there is no way to be a feminist without looking naive, evil, or both.