Why so many "anti-feminists" in the atheist community?

[Dystopia]

Yes, because a 1-line entry in an online dictionary encapsulates all of feminism, right? Anyway, you are inaccurate: the believe in the equality of women is SUFFICIENT to term someone a feminist. It is not, however, required, as there are other definitions.

Saying you can be a feminist without believing in equality is like saying you can be an atheist and believe in god. Do you actually realize the irrationality of your postulates?

Your refusal to accept that a 1-line summary definition in an online dictionary, ignoring both the etymology and the historical usage of the word, is insufficient to represent all of feminism, doesn't change the fact that many people are using the word differently than you do and that these differences are important in understanding why some atheists seem "anti-feminist."

The fact that some atheists are using the word atheism as synonym to anti-theism doesn't make atheism = anti-theism, and by the same logic feminazis using the word feminism to describe their ideology doesn't equate feminism with misandry - Feminism is diverse and feminists hold many political views, however the view of equality for all genders is the minimum requirement you can ask for. It's not only the read of 1 online dictionary which is, btw, accurate in this case, but it's because I've been in touch with feminist people in real life, because I've read articles, blogs, opinions of famous people like Emma Watson or Daniel Radcliffe who identify as feminists and so on that brings it into the direction of defining feminist as gender equality - The rest like different political ideas is up to each person to decide.

]"Doctrinal definition" means dogma. And the fact that many atheists have an aversion to dogma explains why many atheists seem "anti-feminist."

Sorry, in my language it means something defined by a person who studied, researched, acted and has knowledge on the subject - I.E. by sociologists or actual equity feminists. The fact atheists have no dogma is a good reason to support groups that fight for equality and nothing else.

[bennyboy]

Yes, because a 1-line entry in an online dictionary encapsulates all of feminism, right? Anyway, you are inaccurate: the believe in the equality of women is SUFFICIENT to term someone a feminist. It is not, however, required, as there are other definitions.

Saying you can be a feminist without believing in equality is like saying you can be an atheist and believe in god. Do you actually realize the irrationality of your postulates?

No, it's not like that.

"Feminism" requires an "-ism" about females. That's it. And an "-ism" can be a belief, a doctrine, or a movement. ANY OF THOSE THREE satisfies the requirement for terming someone a feminist.

Atheists can comfortably say they lack all of the kinds of "-ism." They lack a belief in God, a doctrine about God, and participation in any movement in support of God.

[abaris]

Atheists can comfortably say they lack all of the kinds of "-ism."

Atheism says differently. Also atheists can be of any breed and color and subscribe to a whole set of isms. Their only uniting feature is the absence of belief.

[bennyboy]

Sorry, in my language it means something defined by a person who studied, researched, acted and has knowledge on the subject - I.E. by sociologists or actual equity feminists.

Are we talking about feminism, a doctrine, belief or movement relating to women, or are we talking about Feminism™, the PC dogma established by your favorite Hollywood actors?

I think I'll have to bow out of this thread now, because I can answer the OP question right here and now, and from my own personal experience. It has been my attempt to use the most inclusive definitions of feminism, and my hope eventually to figure out what specific flavors of feminism cause many atheists (remember the OP?) to be "anti-feminist." However, in engaging with an actual self-declared feminist (i.e. you), I've come across a flavor of feminism that embodies all the qualities that make religion a turn-off: insistence on defining the question in your own terms, appeals to authority and anecdotal evidence to establish a party-line, and the willingness to cite sources that provide "support" even when that support is of a poor quality. I'm not anti-you, because I don't know you. However, I have to say that to the degree that your beliefs and method of communicating those beliefs represent Feminism™, I'd have to declare as anti-feminist in this context.

I'm only one person, but at least we now have one answer to the OP.

[Dystopia]

Saying you can be a feminist without believing in equality is like saying you can be an atheist and believe in god. Do you actually realize the irrationality of your postulates?

No, it's not like that.

"Feminism" requires an "-ism" about females. That's it. And an "-ism" can be a belief, a doctrine, or a movement. ANY OF THOSE THREE satisfies the requirement for terming someone a feminist.

Atheists can comfortably say they lack all of the kinds of "-ism." They lack a belief in God, a doctrine about God, and participation in any movement in support of God.

You still haven't addressed a more commonly accepted definition of feminism among the community than believing and supporting in gender equality.

As an atheist I can hold any ism I want, I support capitalism, I like nihilism and existentialist philosophies, I like gnosticism, and so on... It's not about not supporting an ism, but rather which ones. Feminism requires support for gender equality for everyone, with specific address of women's (but also other groups) issues just like LGBT addresses specifically gay people's issues, there's nothing wrong with that and I support movements like those regardless of their name. I think this conversation is becoming uninteresting since we're basically arguing about definition but we've already reached the conclusion that feminazis don't account for accurate representation of all feminists in the world and probably you will not change your mind even if I direct you to reddit's section of feminism or other like Everydayfeminism that is a well known blog and magazine that debates, problematizes and helps with issues about women, men, other races, sexual orientations - And places like those for debate and information will confirm that feminism is essentially about equality. The article on everyday feminism I linked contains a link in the beginning to another articles that shatters myths about feminism.

[bennyboy]

Atheists can comfortably say they lack all of the kinds of "-ism."

Atheism says differently. Also atheists can be of any breed and color and subscribe to a whole set of isms. Their only uniting feature is the absence of belief.

I don't see how what you're saying is in contrast to what I'm saying. Atheists do not have active beliefs in God. Nor do they adhere to doctrines about God. Nor do they support movements fighting to promote beliefs or doctrines in God.

---

No, it's not like that.

"Feminism" requires an "-ism" about females. That's it. And an "-ism" can be a belief, a doctrine, or a movement. ANY OF THOSE THREE satisfies the requirement for terming someone a feminist.

Atheists can comfortably say they lack all of the kinds of "-ism." They lack a belief in God, a doctrine about God, and participation in any movement in support of God.

You still haven't addressed a more commonly accepted definition of feminism among the community than believing and supporting in gender equality.

As an atheist I can hold any ism I want, I support capitalism, I like nihilism and existentialist philosophies, I like gnosticism, and so on... It's not about not supporting an ism, but rather which ones. Feminism requires support for gender equality for everyone, with specific address of women's (but also other groups) issues just like LGBT addresses specifically gay people's issues, there's nothing wrong with that and I support movements like those regardless of their name. I think this conversation is becoming uninteresting since we're basically arguing about definition but we've already reached the conclusion that feminazis don't account for accurate representation of all feminists in the world and probably you will not change your mind even if I direct you to reddit's section of feminism or other like Everydayfeminism that is a well known blog and magazine that debates, problematizes and helps with issues about women, men, other races, sexual orientations, etc.

Your comment ended up under mine. Look up a couple posts and you'll have my response, as well as an answer to the OP.

[abaris]

I don't see how what you're saying is in contrast to what I'm saying. Atheists do not have active beliefs in God. Nor do they adhere to doctrines about God. Nor do they support movements fighting to promote beliefs or doctrines in God.

What I wanted to point out, feminism is similar to atheism. I also can be of any breed and color.

[bennyboy]

I don't see how what you're saying is in contrast to what I'm saying. Atheists do not have active beliefs in God. Nor do they adhere to doctrines about God. Nor do they support movements fighting to promote beliefs or doctrines in God.

What I wanted to point out, feminism is similar to atheism. I also can be of any breed and color.

That's what I'M saying. Feminism can mean whatever a self-declared feminist wants it to mean. And an anti-feminist can define it however he wants, too. So to answer the OP, we should look at how the people in question, the atheist "anti-feminists," define the word-- and at the kind of feminists they've come into contact with and decided they cannot agree with. And as I just said to Blackout, there is now one answer to the OP-- my own experiences in dealing with her/him in the context of this thread.

[Dystopia]

What I wanted to point out, feminism is similar to atheism. I also can be of any breed and color.

That's what I'M saying. Feminism can mean whatever a self-declared feminist wants it to mean. And an anti-feminist can define it however he wants, too. So to answer the OP, we should look at how the people in question, the atheist "anti-feminists," define the word-- and at the kind of feminists they've come into contact with against whom they've positioned themselves.

It's not like that, just like atheism doesn't mean everything we want it to mean (for example it doesn't mean believing in god), you really need to inform yourself better, you're making definitions entirely subject - Using that point of view, I could as well say I'm anti-LGBT because there might be some gay people who hate straight people, but would that justify it?

Definitions are supposed to explain what something and isn't, they're not subjective, if I used your argument to self-define in the exam I'm gonna' have tomorrow I'd probably fail after answering the first question.

EDIT - So by your logic everytime someone self proclaims a definition of something we'd have to accept it as valid - For example I'm going to proclaim I believe in animal rights and that to be an atheist you need to desbelieve god and support animal rights - By your logic only, the community has to accept my definition as valid since I'm self proclaiming it, even if I'm only one person

[Thumpalumpacus]

Saying you can be a feminist without believing in equality is like saying you can be an atheist and believe in god. Do you actually realize the irrationality of your postulates?

Are you saying that those women who argue that women are superior and ought to be treated as such aren't feminist? Because they certainly don't accept equality of the genders.