NYT Styles And Arguments From "Nature": Equally Vacuous
By - Fascinating: apparently feminist women can also be heterosexuals. And I’m afraid that this earth-shattering insight can be found not in tossed-off filler in a bad junior high school newspaper, but in the New York Times. (I disagree with Alameida, however, that this represented the “zenith” on the NYT Styles Section. I think “bottomless pit” is the more accurate phrase. It apparently can always get worse.) This article does contain one novel thing, though: by implication, its author does seem to be a (former) example of the normally apocryphal feminist who gets really agitated if someone holds open a door. So maybe at least one does exist.
- Amanda is completely right: arguments from “nature” are just as useless as arguments about “authenticity.” Menstrual cramps are indeed “natural,” as are headaches, tooth decay, body odor, and cancer of the rectum. This doesn’t make any of these things desirable, or stand aspirin, toothpaste or deodorant in some kind of opposition to the body. It’s true that sometimes “natural” practices are better. But as Amanda says, breastfeeding is better in most cases because it’s cheaper and more nutritious, not because it’s “natural” per se. Likewise, teaching women that periods should be a source of shame is a bad thing, not because it goes against “nature” but because it’s bad. And, of course, tautologies about “nature” are indeed also convenient ways of insulating existing inequities from criticism. Like “authenticity,” “nature” does no useful work in any argument.