Why do so many people think that feminists are not egalitarians?
From Wikipedia:
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 rights for women.
Emphasis mine. By definition, someone who does not believe in equality is not a feminist.
When a large number of people who don't live within the official boundaries of Scotland nevertheless loudly identify as Scotsmen (and have some historical ties to possibly legitimize their claim to the identity), saying "WikiAtlas defines the borders of Scotland as..." and then saying the people who don't live within those boundaries are not, by definition, Scotsmen, is by definition an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.
I disagree. No True Scotsman suggests an ad-hoc modification to support a previously inadequate assertion. If we accept your, and (presumably) the previous posters understanding, we'd be able to dismiss, for example, countless syllogisms on the same grounds. Worse, we could reject any operational definition!
In your example, there's merely a simple disagreement with the definition which serves as the premise: all Scotsmen live in Scotland. You're miss the essential bits: First: the claim that there exists
Yes, the whole point of that analogy was that the first premise of such a syllogism (either about Scotsmen or feminists) is tenuous because citing dictionary definitions to define who falls under the umbrella of an identifying term is inherently problematic, given the possibility (or especially the actuality) of people identifying with that term and failing to stay within the official definition of it. So defining "Scotsman" as "someone from Scotland", as obvious as it sounds on the surface, gets you into s
Feminism, like most identifying terms in practice, is defined by whatever those who identify as feminists say and do, and to say that some of those who identify as feminists aren't really feminists because they're not sticking to some dictionary definition of it is a textbook case of No True Scotsman.
I pointed this out before. By your reasoning, we can claim "No True Scotsman" when presented with any operational definition.
You can disagree with the definition, but that's insufficient to dismiss its use under "No True Scotsman" banner.
Consider this terrible example. I have a club for fishermen. We have 1800 members and we're growing rapidly. None of the members have ever gone fishing. You come along and say "You can't possibly be fishermen. To be a fisherman requires that you go fishing."
In this specific case, we have the implication that feminists and egalitarians don't overlap.
Everything else aside (I still have disagreements but I don't care to argue them, it's late), I just want to note that I don't think anyone's claimed that feminists and egalitarians don't overlap, but that the former is not a proper subset of the latter. Everyone I've ever read acknowledges that some feminists are egalitarians; the proposition in dispute is whether all feminists are egalitarians, or conversely and more to the point, whether some feminists are not egalitarians.
That video is nonsense tarnishing PBS's otherwise good name.
Egalitarianism is literally thousands of years older than the first person to have ever strung the words "men's", "rights", and "activism" together in a row. Has that person never opened a history book?
Feminism has its roots as a subset of egalitarianism.
GGPP's question is analogous to "Why do you identify as a Californian instead of an American?" (and possible answers would be analogous too; someone might just be being more specific, or might be o
That video is nonsense tarnishing PBS's otherwise good name.
Egalitarianism is literally thousands of years older than the first person to have ever strung the words "men's", "rights", and "activism" together in a row. Has that person never opened a history book?
A lot of the videos that are like this and linked to PBS tarnish their name, and they don't seem to give a shit. And no, they've never opened a history book. In the video, the person in question directly states that feminism isn't a subset of egalitarianism, but rather feminism is the true face of egalitarianism.
The problem of course for a lot of people including women isn't that it's a part of egalitarianism, but rather that modern feminism is about supremacy.
egalitarian? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: egalitarian? (Score:2)
Why do so many people think that feminists are not egalitarians?
From Wikipedia:
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 rights for women.
Emphasis mine. By definition, someone who does not believe in equality is not a feminist.
Re: (Score:0)
No true scotsman logical fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not.
Re: (Score:2)
When a large number of people who don't live within the official boundaries of Scotland nevertheless loudly identify as Scotsmen (and have some historical ties to possibly legitimize their claim to the identity), saying "WikiAtlas defines the borders of Scotland as..." and then saying the people who don't live within those boundaries are not, by definition, Scotsmen, is by definition an example of a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. No True Scotsman suggests an ad-hoc modification to support a previously inadequate assertion. If we accept your, and (presumably) the previous posters understanding, we'd be able to dismiss, for example, countless syllogisms on the same grounds. Worse, we could reject any operational definition!
In your example, there's merely a simple disagreement with the definition which serves as the premise: all Scotsmen live in Scotland. You're miss the essential bits: First: the claim that there exists
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the whole point of that analogy was that the first premise of such a syllogism (either about Scotsmen or feminists) is tenuous because citing dictionary definitions to define who falls under the umbrella of an identifying term is inherently problematic, given the possibility (or especially the actuality) of people identifying with that term and failing to stay within the official definition of it. So defining "Scotsman" as "someone from Scotland", as obvious as it sounds on the surface, gets you into s
Re: (Score:2)
Feminism, like most identifying terms in practice, is defined by whatever those who identify as feminists say and do, and to say that some of those who identify as feminists aren't really feminists because they're not sticking to some dictionary definition of it is a textbook case of No True Scotsman.
I pointed this out before. By your reasoning, we can claim "No True Scotsman" when presented with any operational definition.
You can disagree with the definition, but that's insufficient to dismiss its use under "No True Scotsman" banner.
Consider this terrible example. I have a club for fishermen. We have 1800 members and we're growing rapidly. None of the members have ever gone fishing. You come along and say "You can't possibly be fishermen. To be a fisherman requires that you go fishing."
Are you gu
Re: (Score:2)
In this specific case, we have the implication that feminists and egalitarians don't overlap.
Everything else aside (I still have disagreements but I don't care to argue them, it's late), I just want to note that I don't think anyone's claimed that feminists and egalitarians don't overlap, but that the former is not a proper subset of the latter. Everyone I've ever read acknowledges that some feminists are egalitarians; the proposition in dispute is whether all feminists are egalitarians, or conversely and more to the point, whether some feminists are not egalitarians.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. No True Scotsman suggests an ad-hoc modification to support a previously inadequate assertion.
So what you're saying is, "That's no true No True Scotsman fallacy!"
;-)
Dan Aris
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do so many people think that feminists are not egalitarians?
Egalitarism is a MRA construct, courtesy of PBS. [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
That video is nonsense tarnishing PBS's otherwise good name.
Egalitarianism is literally thousands of years older than the first person to have ever strung the words "men's", "rights", and "activism" together in a row. Has that person never opened a history book?
Feminism has its roots as a subset of egalitarianism.
GGPP's question is analogous to "Why do you identify as a Californian instead of an American?" (and possible answers would be analogous too; someone might just be being more specific, or might be o
Re: (Score:2)
That video is nonsense tarnishing PBS's otherwise good name.
Egalitarianism is literally thousands of years older than the first person to have ever strung the words "men's", "rights", and "activism" together in a row. Has that person never opened a history book?
A lot of the videos that are like this and linked to PBS tarnish their name, and they don't seem to give a shit. And no, they've never opened a history book. In the video, the person in question directly states that feminism isn't a subset of egalitarianism, but rather feminism is the true face of egalitarianism.
The problem of course for a lot of people including women isn't that it's a part of egalitarianism, but rather that modern feminism is about supremacy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
By definition, someone who does not believe in equality is not a feminist.
By that definition, that would mean most 3rd wave feminists aren't feminists at all.