(December 21, 2017 at 4:57 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: It would have helped, I think to have specific definition of feminism to work from to begin with. Maybe this whole thread would be in better shape. But, whether or not you committed the no true scotsman fallacy (and I think you made your case that you didn't) wouldn't it be more correct to say they've taken feminism too far than to say that they are not feminists altogether (or "beyond" which is synonymous with "outside the scope of")? I mean, radical feminists are feminists, right?
The 'radical' part about 'radical feminists' has nothing to do with the feminism.
A so-called 'radical feminist' isn't any more 'extremely feminist' than a Janeist who happens to be violent is a 'radical Janeist'.
I use the actual definition of feminism: Being pro women's rights. (Which is very clearly what I have been talking about this whole time hence why I kept saying that people who claim to be 'feminist' but don't actually support women's rights aren't feminists any more than someone who claims to be 'Christian' is a Christian if they don't actually follow the teachings of Christ.
It's not about what you identify or what group you claim to speak for or represent, it's whether you actually practice what that group is supposed to practice.
