"(Racially) segregated classrooms improve learning" - Anita Sarkeesian

[Bisjac]

it is in fact true. with both race and gender.

[Ad Bot]

[Kimon²]

Well considering the feminist movement is to achieve equality between lovees, anyone who isn't for equality in turn isn't a real feminist...

well considering my Scotsman Handbook^tm says no true scotsman has sugar in their porridge, anyone who does in turn isn't a real scotsman

[plad101]

it is in fact true. with both race and gender.

we should all become white and male, then we can all ascend to a higher plain of intellect and being.

[Rally]

How about we just go about advancing human rights in a way that doesn't specifically target a single gender? Why do we need labels? It's impossible to keep up with the magical mythical ''real feminism'' because every feminist believes they have the right idea and a good lot of you are loveist starfishs.

"feminists" who put down men and believe that women are better than men (as opposed to equals) are not really feminists.

Really? They're saying the same garbage about you. Who is the authority here?

[Bisjac]

we should all become white and male, then we can all ascend to a higher plain of intellect and being.

i thought this was segregation and improved learning.
no one is implying white males had anything to do with being better.

[plad101]

i thought this was segregation and improved learning.
no one is implying white males had anything to do with being better.

but we wouldn't need segregation if only one race/gender existed.

[Frequency]

who the forget knows at this point, it seems like literally every other person has a different take on what they think feminism is, you want me to keep track of who the real ones are?

Well that's what I meant earlier when I said

enter third wave feminism

the "real" feminists started dying out at around that point and it's when the stigma around the title "feminist" started rising because it no longer meant what it used to mean.

[xxxxkill]

You do not understand. What you're using is called the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. What I'm using applies to just about any label. Please refer back to the example I used. If you cannot accept feminism for what it is, instead of dismissing anything you don't like as "not feminism", then you are not worthy of identifying with the movement.

Hey dumbass, the "No True Scotsman" fallacy isn't necessarily invalid when applied to an ideology. If Skinhead McGee identified himself as a neo-national socialist then went around promoting racial equality and the acceptance of different loveualities, he ain't exactly a national socialist now is he. The inverse is also true, where a person who says that they are a feminist and goes around promoting racial segregating and gender inequality is not a feminist because it goes against the ideology they identify with.

[Ipquarx]

but we wouldn't need segregation if only one race/gender existed.

[Kimon²]

Well that's what I meant earlier when I said
the "real" feminists started dying out at around that point and it's when the stigma around the title "feminist" started rising because it no longer meant what it used to mean.

oh alright

[{L}]

you were expecting better from a feminist? oh my sides. this is quite strange behaviour for a feminist though, normally they wouldn't say something so bold.

[Col. Derontchi]

The "No True Scotsman" argument would be if she were saying "anita sarkeesian is not a feminist"
what she's saying is i know reading comprehension is really hard but these are two radically different statements

We're not talking about Sarkeesian at this point. We're speaking on a broader level.

Well considering the feminist movement is to achieve equality between lovees, anyone who isn't for equality in turn isn't a real feminist...

What is your basis for this information?

[Bisjac]

the old, real feminists of the civil rights era(s),

all learned the hard way that equality made things harder for woman. so now the game is to give woman a head start and stay ahead.

[plad101]

That's my favorite self portrait.

[otto-san]

feminism is straight-up not about anything other than egalitarianism. i don't particularly care if that sounds like a no-true-scotsman fallacy or not (it isn't really one anyway because we're not using this to flippantly deny a problem, we're using it to say they're just obnoxious people being obnoxious. that isn't fallacious, and in fact, people that are denying claims simply because they see something that resembles 'no true scotsman' are using the fallacy fallacy). people that seek to promote one love as inherently better are loveist. and feminism is not about promoting loveism.

this isn't about denying there's a problem. nobody from the outside looking into this mess would believe there isn't one. this is about acknowledging that people can be ridiculous and insane and those people are not valid representatives of any [broad] group they claim to be a part of. this goes for anything. it's just the same as saying all real, modern muslims are like CIA (ok i'll concede there's a pretty significant difference between murder and being dumb on the internet, i'm just talking about general principles here), that all real, modern christians are like westboro, or that all real, modern gamers are hateful. you can't arbitrarily qualify a group and then extend personality onto its perceived members.

feminism is not a group, it is not a hivemind; it is a concept of egalitarianism and absolutely nothing more. when you try and define it as a group of people rather than as an ideology, you'll start to tread into extremely goofy waters if you aren't careful. the same can be said for political ideologies like communism or capitalism or liberalism or what have you; it's simply illogical to try and give personality to something that's just a complex system of ideas.

this isn't really a particularly high-quality post in terms of tone but hopefully it doesn't impair the message too severely