4 ms·

"Well that's not feminism" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

EliRivers 13y ago
What can I say. All I have is a stack of dictionaries to check. Your beloved Wikipedia itself begins its feminism article "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights" which agrees with the dictionaries I have and also with the simple definition I used above. If you think that using that definition means I'm guilty of No True Scotsman, our methods of rationality are so far apart that we are literally incapable of communicating.
- betterunix 13y ago
  Take another look at the definition you cited. Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining...equal political, economic, and social rights. All you are doing is excluding people whose definitions of "equality" you think are too extreme using a classic No True Scotsman argument.
- 1457389 13y ago
  As Friedman said, the ultimate end is the search for the acceptable means, and I think your little exchange highlights this pretty well. Turns out, ideologies are rather good at branding themselves to appeal to all kinds of people, and at first blush, most ideologies sound eminently reasonable. That in no way implies that the actions of adherents to such ideologies are the same, or that the overall structure of the ideology couldn't lead to disagreeable outcomes. The whole declaring equality and rights for all is the easy bit; that's just the ultimate end. The means, the dirty work of "defining, establishing, and defending", is where everything can and does go to hell. Feminists are just as susceptible to this problem as everyone else, and when they get it especially wrong, they create the blowback you are seeing.
- vidarh 13y ago
  Arguing this angle is pointless. I'm a marxist, and so face the same battle of the tons of people who use the term in a completely different way to myself. Including people who self-identify as marxists. I've had conversations with people who also considered themselves marxists where our only point of agreement was that in "their" ideal society I'd probably be considered a criminal dissident, and would probably be involved in armed uprisings, and that they'd very much enjoy to see me locked up. For a while I tried to fight the "wrong" usage of the term and related terms. Then I thought about picking other terms myself. But eventually I realized that what worked best was simply to acknowledge the "wrong" usage, and distance myself in suitable way depending on what I write. E.g. by also using a more descriptive term, such as liberal socialist or left-communist, that most people either know or have to look up, that does not have the same immediate connotations.

EliRivers 13y ago

What can I say. All I have is a stack of dictionaries to check. Your beloved Wikipedia itself begins its feminism article "Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, and social rights" which agrees with the dictionaries I have and also with the simple definition I used above. If you think that using that definition means I'm guilty of No True Scotsman, our methods of rationality are so far apart that we are literally incapable of communicating.

betterunix 13y ago
Take another look at the definition you cited. Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining...equal political, economic, and social rights. All you are doing is excluding people whose definitions of "equality" you think are too extreme using a classic No True Scotsman argument.
1457389 13y ago
As Friedman said, the ultimate end is the search for the acceptable means, and I think your little exchange highlights this pretty well. Turns out, ideologies are rather good at branding themselves to appeal to all kinds of people, and at first blush, most ideologies sound eminently reasonable. That in no way implies that the actions of adherents to such ideologies are the same, or that the overall structure of the ideology couldn't lead to disagreeable outcomes. The whole declaring equality and rights for all is the easy bit; that's just the ultimate end. The means, the dirty work of "defining, establishing, and defending", is where everything can and does go to hell. Feminists are just as susceptible to this problem as everyone else, and when they get it especially wrong, they create the blowback you are seeing.
vidarh 13y ago
Arguing this angle is pointless. I'm a marxist, and so face the same battle of the tons of people who use the term in a completely different way to myself. Including people who self-identify as marxists. I've had conversations with people who also considered themselves marxists where our only point of agreement was that in "their" ideal society I'd probably be considered a criminal dissident, and would probably be involved in armed uprisings, and that they'd very much enjoy to see me locked up. For a while I tried to fight the "wrong" usage of the term and related terms. Then I thought about picking other terms myself. But eventually I realized that what worked best was simply to acknowledge the "wrong" usage, and distance myself in suitable way depending on what I write. E.g. by also using a more descriptive term, such as liberal socialist or left-communist, that most people either know or have to look up, that does not have the same immediate connotations.