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

[Redbeard The Pink]

---

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

Well please show me where I'm comitting the NTS fallacy? Where have I made an Ad hoc attempt to go from "no Feminist" to "No true feminist"?

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 agree that the basic dictionary defintion is not the only definition of Feminism. But let us not commit the equivocation fallacy and go from one definition to another. When we generally speak of feminism are we talking about pro-rights for women or are we speaking of a bastardized defintion that suggests feminism has something to do with anti-men simply because the word has become associtated with feminist groups who are also anti-men in adition to being pro-womens rights?

Which definition are we talking about? Let us not conflate any of them. Let us not equivocate.

I never suggested that any feminists who aren't merely pro-womens rights aren't feminists. I never said that. I'm prepared to paraphrase myself here right now but if I really have to go back and quote verbatium to show you what I really said I will.

What I did say was that once we actually agree on a definition of feminism, i.e., "feminism" to mean pro-women's rights, then any feminist groups - of that definition - that were also anti-men, the anti-men part would have nothing to do with their feminism because we have already agreed that "feminism" is defined to mean simply pro-women's rights and has nothing to do with being anti-men at all. We have to agree on a definition first otherwise we are just equivocating and conflating definitions which is completely fallacious. It is the Equivocation Fallacy.

At no point did I say that any feminists were "Not true feminists", and if you're talking about different definitions being true or false, then you're talking about different definitions. You're equivocating. I was already talking about the definition of "feminism" to mean pro-women's rights. To switch the different definitions of "feminism" is equivocation, I was consistent with the one I was using. You are completely confusing "feminists" and "feminism". Feminists do not represent any specific definition of feminism that we have agreed upon. And which one have you agreed upon? You haven';t. You equivocating between any definition you wish.

Sure,. you can say it's all too messy to define. But then you're talking about feminists and not feminism because you consider "feminism" to be too messy to define. So be clear on that then. You're talking about feminists and feminist groups, not feminism. Which is different. Just as talking about atheists and atheist groups is, of course, very different to talking about atheism.

 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.

Well then we're talking about a different defintition of feminism. Once we agree on that definition then any feminists who aren't anti-men don't fall into that definition of feminism. We are not playing the NTS fallacy with different defintiions of feminism, we're just talking about different defintiions of feminism. The NTS fallacy would be to suggest that "no feminists are X" and then when an example is shown "actually, some feminists are X" -  AFTER we'd already agreed on what definition of feminism we were talking about otherwise we could easily be equivocating two different definitions - we commit the NTS fallacy by saying "Oh, but no TRUE feminists are X" and then we have to talk about what exactly is different between "femnists" and "true feminists" and the answer should be nothing and that's why it's a fallacy and a dodge. It's like the different betweeen 2+2 is 4 and 2+2 truly is 4. None.

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.

You argued against this "feminism is merely egalitarianianism" thing but I never said it was, I responded to other points I disagreed with.

As I did actually say however, once we agree on a definition of "feminism", for example - feminism=pro womens rights... then it would be true to say that whilst not all feminists are egalitarians, all egalitarians are feminists (because if feminism is defined as pro women's rights then since egalitarianism means equal rights for all that would include women's rights, but not all feminists are egalitarians because some may be merely pro women's rights but not for the equal rights of other groups, men being merely one example ( this argument works in the same form of "all dogs are animals but not all animals are dogs")).

Even if it isn't anti-man, it is decidedly and definitively pro-woman.

Absolutely. Which means it is neutral on the matter of men, which is entirely my whole point. You've demonstrated my point. That is, you have done whilst we are using the definition of feminism to mean "pro-women's rights", but as soon as you then start talking about another definition, you have to recognize that is what you are doing otherwise you are committing the equivocation fallacy by conflating different definitions and interpretations within the same argumentation.

 

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.

Funny thing is, I never defined it that way. See above.

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.

And a complete misrepresentation of what I posted. Which is 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."

Atheists and atheism is different. Yes they all believe different things but atheism is still always the non-belief in gods. 

Yes, atheists who believe radically different things are still true atheists............ but not if they believe in god(s). Just as once we already agree on a definition of feminism, i.e. pro-women's rights... then whilst I completely agree that all feminists believe different things and some are even anti-men - one thing it would be true to say then (once we have agreed that "feminism" is defined as merely "pro women's rights") is that one thing feminists can't be is NOT pro-women's rights. They have to be pro-women's rights. It would make no sense to say I was commited the NTS fallacy by saying "No true feminists are not pro-women's rights. Because they all have to be pro-women's rights by definition". That's not a fallacy, that's a tautology and logic based on the definition of feminism being defined as "pro women's rights.". 

So agree on a deifnition, and then don't conflate them and equivocate them.

I understand that many feminist groups define "feminism" different buy then realize that we are talking about different things. To not realize this, is the equivocation fallacy at work. It's like not realizing the difference between "light" as in "not heavy" and "light" as in "not dark". It's like talking about a group of people saying that "light" means "not heavy" and another group saying that "light" means "Not dark" and saying neither is right. It's not about neither is right... they're different fucking things altogether! A definition of "feminism" that includes anything about being anti-men is a different thing altogether, a whole different kettle of fish to the feminism that is about pro-rights for women.

Get it?





Someone who simply disbelieves gods is a true atheist.

YES. But now realize - it's not the NTS fallacy to say "no true atheists believe in gods." Now come on now, say it with me, sing it with me if you like "No true atheists believe in gods!" this is not the NTS fallacy!

So once we  then, are talking about a particular definition of feminism, i.e. "Pro women's rights" then it is not the NTS fallacy to say - or sing - "no true feminists [by that definition] are anything more than pro-women's rights!".

Someone who thinks there are definitely no gods is a true atheist.

And someone who doesn't is not a true atheist? Sure, if you define "true atheist" as strong atheist. But really "true atheist" should merely be defined as the same as "atheist" which also includes weak atheists... and... if you are defining "true atheist" and "atheist" separately (as if 2+2 is 4 and 2+2 is truly mean different things when they don't) then you ARE committing the NTS fallacy implicitly.

How.

Ironic.

---

Ok, this is going nowhere, and this entire discussion has been beside the original point I was making, which you have obviously missed (even though you're kind of an example of it...go figure). Refer to my next most recent post for a recap. Good luck with the reading part.


Really, I'm starting to think that Youtubers pick on internet feminists because they're easy marks for ridicule. Between the easily-ignited defensiveness and the over-blown emotional responses, it's easy to see why they get singled out by trolls and talking heads.