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

[Redbeard The Pink]

I'm absolutely not going to get into whether "being pro-gender-equality" is an adequate definition of the word or the movement of feminism. Feminism, like it or not, is a broadly interpreted word both within and without the movement itself, so yes, insisting on "your" definition as the "true" one is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy because that's what that fallacy literally is.

@ Redbeard That's ridiculous. You're using an incorrect oversimplifed and bastardized version of the NTS fallacy to consider my correction of that bastardization a commiting of the fallacy itself? K....

Okay so if I were to say "No true definition of atheism includes eating two donuts every day as well as not believing in Gods". That's the NTS fallacy? Even though that's tautologically correct as atheism has nothing to do with fucking donuts?

I'm waiting for you to actually address the Wikipedia article and my analogy that you are basically denying the logical validity of tautologies.

According to you if I were to say "no true way of using mathmatetics allows 2+2 to = anything other than 4" that would be a fallacy despite it being FALSE by definition simply because I prefaced it with "No true".

"No true definition of atheism is anything more than not believing in gods" is not the NTS fallacy... it's a tautology providing that we agree with the definition.

I even underlined and bolded the parts in the Wikipedia article that made it clear that the NTS fallacy requires a modifying of previous definition and an Ad Hoc attempt to dodge the matter. 

Please read the actual definition of the NTS fallacy.................. don't just go by the common misunderstanding that comes about by many people's lazy reading, they fail to comprehnend the definition so they merely settle for "Oh the fallacy is simply prefacing a definition with No true" NO IT'S NOT. That's not the fallacy. It's a specific type of Ad Hoc fallacy. Read what the fallacy actually is, and if you're uncomfortable with wikipedia, go to Fallacy Files or another fallacy site. Don't just use your own incorrect batardized deifntiion to try and rebut the correct defintion.

I'm not just presuming you're using NTS because your statement could be worded to start with "No True Feminist..."


The opening line of the Wikipedia article for "feminism" includes the following quote:

Feminism is a range of movements and ideologies that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve equal political, economic, cultural, personal, and social .

Two things of note.


First, while feminism is somewhat unified in that it generally advocates women's rights in all its various forms, you'll note that the word actually describes a range...again, that's a range of movements and ideologies. That means that while they all may have some things in common, there is no one movement or group that officially describes or defines feminism. The word is widely defined, interpreted, and practiced by different movements of people, and yet you insist that things beyond the most basic, core definition aren't "true feminists." I could but scoop my wizardly hand through Twitter and find a roster of people who think your definition is too vague, too weak, and not anti-man enough.


Second, feminism is inseparable from women's issues. Advocating for gender equality in the form of fighting for men's equal rights, for a HYPOTHETICAL example, is not feminism even though it promotes gender equality. Feminism is not simply the promotion of gender equality, but the promotion of gender equality for women. Even if it isn't anti-man, it is decidedly and definitively pro-woman. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but attempting to define feminism as simply "being for gender-equality" is incomplete, incorrect, and perhaps even dishonest. Being "for gender equality" and being "for women's rights," while implicitly the same thing, are not technically the same thing and so should be described by two different words (which they are). The whole "No, really, you're a feminist," thing is a childish attempt at ally-mongering, and it's fucking annoying.


When people label themselves as gender egalitarians, and feminists come back with "No, you're just a feminist who's afraid to use the word 'feminist' or doesn't understand what it means," that is monumentally frustrating to people who favor gender equality but think the word "feminist" is culturally inseparable from radical feminism, and it also bolsters those people's negative perceptions of feminists.


Furthermore, you keep using atheism as an example, but it's not a great one because there are also many, many types of atheists who believe radically different things and are still "true atheists." Someone who simply disbelieves gods is a true atheist. Someone who thinks there are definitely no gods is a true atheist. Somebody who doesn't believe in gods but does believe in an afterlife is a true atheist. There is no criteria for what a "true atheist" is, save not believing in gods. If I were to claim any of those people aren't "true atheists" just because their beliefs concerning the supernatural go beyond the fact that they don't believe in gods, it would be the same thing you're doing when you claim that anything beyond the strictest definition of feminism isn't feminism. It is and it can be because feminism applies to a broad range of people and movements with only one general thing in common. That's why it's an NTS to exclude radicals from "true feminism." If they're for women's rights, they ARE feminists, just as the Westboro Baptist Church are true Christians and ISIS are true Muslims.