This is why I kept my views on feminism away from my family.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

It does, actually. If someone who labels themselves a feminist is not for equality, then they are still a feminist. The dictionary is descriptive, not proscriptive, and provides no actual argument. Refer to the burlap sack brown townogy from earlier.

If I label myself a shoe, that does not make me a shoe. I cannot be worn on someone's feet.
If I label myself a feminist, that does not make me a feminist if I am not for equality. This is not complicated at all.

[Ad Bot]

[Satan From Wreck-It-Ralph]

It does, actually. If someone who labels themselves a feminist is not for equality, then they are still a feminist. The dictionary is descriptive, not proscriptive, and provides no actual argument. Refer to the burlap sack brown townogy from earlier.

"I'm not a rapist" *rapes*
"I'm not a national socialist" *gasses the jews*
"I'm not a handicap" *is derontchi*

[SetGaming]

The standard is not really a standard. It's a definition of a word, not so much the people of the movement. It is the dictionary's job to define the people, not the people to become the dictionary's expectations. In other words, if a feminist is not for equality, the burden is on the dictionary, not the feminist. I seriously don't understand how you can't see what I'm trying to say. You have given me but one "example", and that is the definition. I have explained to you WHY the definition has no merit in this case, as well as instances, some first-hand experiences, that downright REFUTE the definition.

for someone who's pointing out fallacies, you just had a big one right there, and feminists point it out like day to day

as well as instances, some first-hand experiences, that downright REFUTE the definition.

nice strawman.

[Col. Derontchi]

I'm kind of annoyed you didn't reply to this, Derontchi.
Because to me that's a perfect reason why using a title (or not) doesn't make you that title (or lack of).
Words are defined for a reason, so we can use them. Misusing them doesn't change what it means. I'll defer to the lexicologists on this.

I actually did not see this. I just rode my bike to my mom's house. I don't understand which side he's arguing, because it does not seem comparable.

[Red Spy]

Get some prescription pills. They knock you out and help you wake up as well. Mine work great.

Ok, I'll go do that tomorrow.

[Nonnel]

The standard is not really a standard. It's a definition of a word, not so much the people of the movement. It is the dictionary's job to define the people, not the people to become the dictionary's expectations. In other words, if a feminist is not for equality, the burden is on the dictionary, not the feminist. I seriously don't understand how you can't see what I'm trying to say. You have given me but one "example", and that is the definition. I have explained to you WHY the definition has no merit in this case, as well as instances, some first-hand experiences, that downright REFUTE the definition.

the case is that feminism always has and still does have a set meaning, which many have obscured recently. woman's suffrage was feminism. equal wages for women was feminism. abortion is feminism. just because you see people claim to be feminists does not make it true, because feminism has existed for a long time and has always meant one thing: equality. any variation of this is not feminism.

[otto-san]

It does, actually. If someone who labels themselves a feminist is not for equality, then they are still a feminist. The dictionary is descriptive, not proscriptive, and provides no actual argument. Refer to the burlap sack brown townogy from earlier.

allow me to illustrate another brown townogy:

if i start an anti-fish movement that seeks to eliminate fish populations from the environment and call myself a "fisherman," that has absolutely no bearing on the actual definition of what a fisherman has and always will be. it simply acts as a secondary connotation for those aware of the movement.

similarly, if some silly willy decides they want to be a silly willy and misrepresent an idea, which is defined by its properties and not by its subscribers (say a religion, a political stance, a scientific theory, etc), that does not change the content of that idea. if i pretend to know what i'm talking about and i actually don't, i expect people to correct me, not to accept that what i'm saying is some kind of modern corruption of the idea. i see no reason why that wouldn't be a natural standard?

in other words, an idea is given value by merit of its contents, not by merit of its subscribers. i think this is a fairly agreeable point.

it's especially a bad idea to apply this tactic on a general scope because that is absolutely not something which can apply objectively as it depends on individual corruption of the basic concepts

[Col. Derontchi]

the case is that feminism always has and still does have a set meaning, which many have obscured recently. woman's suffrage was feminism. equal wages for women was feminism. abortion is feminism. just because you see people claim to be feminists does not make it true, because feminism has existed for a long time and has always meant one thing: equality. any variation of this is not feminism.

Not a meaning, a goal. The word has no copyright on equality. Is modern feminism equality? No. Things change, Nonnel. Feminism had changed. What was once a noble movement has become a gestapo of sorts. I use that word very intentionally. Explain to me how women can be equal and an equality movement is still needed, or if women are not equal in the first world, explain how, please. By your logic, feminism is not feminism, because feminism has distanced itself from equality. [

allow me to illustrate another brown townogy:

if i start an anti-fish movement that seeks to eliminate fish populations from the environment and call myself a "fisherman," that has absolutely no bearing on the actual definition of what a fisherman has and always will be. it simply acts as a secondary connotation for those aware of the movement.

similarly, if some silly willy decides they want to be a silly willy and misrepresent an idea, which is defined by its properties and not by its subscribers (say a religion, a political stance, a scientific theory, etc), that does not change the content of that idea. if i pretend to know what i'm talking about and i actually don't, i expect people to correct me, not to accept that what i'm saying is some kind of modern corruption of the idea. i see no reason why that wouldn't be a natural standard?

in other words, an idea is given value by merit of its contents, not by merit of its subscribers. i think this is a fairly agreeable point.

it's especially a bad idea to apply this tactic on a general scope because that is absolutely not something which can apply objectively as it depends on individual corruption of the basic concepts

Its contents are not described by things outside of it, however, in this case, the dictionary. It is defined by what it puts forward itself.

If I label myself a shoe, that does not make me a shoe. I cannot be worn on someone's feet.
If I label myself a feminist, that does not make me a feminist if I am not for equality. This is not complicated at all.

This argument does not just contain a fallacy, it is built on one. The dictionary does not have the final say on all things. It is not the law. People who identify as feminists are not for equality. The definition is invalid. Feminism is a special instance, not all definitions are applicable here.

[Jubel]

col. detronichi is against feminizim because his mom owned his ass because girls rule boys drool

[Ipquarx]

they're called radical feminists
they're still feminists
their views are radical, hence the radical modifier
but they're still called feminists. It may not fit the dictionary definition, but they're still called feminists almost everywhere, just with the radical modifier placed on it. People don't always use the dictionary definition of a word, and really, why would you care whether or not they're categorized under a particular term? It's really pointless. Just point out that an individual is not, in fact, fighting towards equality but female supremacy and literally everything they say is immediately discredited. Fight individuals and ideas, not groups of people loosely held together by a flimsy definition that many people ignore.

The fact Derontchi is trying to call out the entire movement out on being female supremecists is also ridiculous, because clearly it's not the entire thing. It's the whole vocal minority silent majority thing all over again, because I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people you ask on the street "Are you for women having equal rights to men?" would answer yes. That, by definition, makes them a feminist.

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

Not a meaning, a goal. The word has no copyright on equality. Is modern feminism equality? No. Things change, Nonnel. Feminism had changed. What was once a noble movement has become a gestapo of sorts. I use that word very intentionally.

lmao man watch the forget out dude they're gonna steal your balls

[Oasis]

they're called radical feminists
they're still feminists
their views are radical, hence the radical modifier
but they're still called feminists. It may not fit the dictionary definition, but they're still called feminists almost everywhere, just with the radical modifier placed on it. People don't always use the dictionary definition of a word, and really, why would you care whether or not they're categorized under a particular term? It's really pointless. Just point out that an individual is not, in fact, fighting towards equality but female supremacy and literally everything they say is immediately discredited.

The fact Derontchi is trying to call out the entire movement out on being female supremecists is also ridiculous, because clearly it's not the entire thing. It's the whole vocal minority silent majority thing all over again, because I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people you ask on the street "Are you for women having equal rights to men?" would answer yes. That, by definition, makes them a femenist.

Actually the difference is gender feminism and equity feminism. Gender feminism is "radical" feminism while equity feminism is literally everyone else.

[Ipquarx]

Actually the difference is gender feminism and equity feminism. Gender feminism is "radical" feminism while equity feminism is literally everyone else.

I searched for "gender femenism" and came up with nothing. Clearly, it isn't that widely in use. And again, pointless labels. Why does it matter to you so much if someone is labeled something in particular? Fight ideas and individuals.

[SetGaming]

Not a meaning, a goal. The word has no copyright on equality. Is modern feminism equality? No. Things change, Nonnel. Feminism had changed. What was once a noble movement has become a gestapo of sorts. I use that word very intentionally. Explain to me how women can be equal and an equality movement is still needed, or if women are not equal in the first world, explain how, please.

Woah WOAH there, slow down. Modern feminism is still equality, just with a couple outliers. Sure, there are people who want all men dead, but that still doesn't change the argument. Sure, perscriptivism still exists, but everything has it's unique attributes and connotations, still staying to the same definition with quirks here and there.

And yes, feminism is still needed. Do I consider myself a feminist? No. Do I agree with all of their ideals? No. But the fact of the matter is that women still face several problems, such as abortion rights, and in other countries, general rights in the first place. In fact, when we spread to the whole world and say "the world doesn't need feminism", this is radically incorrect. Sure, you might say "oh women can still live though", but women are not useless, and many countries still treat them this way.

You need to look at this argument in a bigger picture, instead of just crying over how "wah wah wah this one girl got a cookie and I didn't".

[Col. Derontchi]

they're called radical feminists
they're still feminists
their views are radical, hence the radical modifier
but they're still called feminists. It may not fit the dictionary definition, but they're still called feminists almost everywhere, just with the radical modifier placed on it. People don't always use the dictionary definition of a word, and really, why would you care whether or not they're categorized under a particular term? It's really pointless. Just point out that an individual is not, in fact, fighting towards equality but female supremacy and literally everything they say is immediately discredited. Fight individuals and ideas, not groups of people loosely held together by a flimsy definition that many people ignore.

The fact Derontchi is trying to call out the entire movement out on being female supremecists is also ridiculous, because clearly it's not the entire thing. It's the whole vocal minority silent majority thing all over again, because I'm willing to bet the vast majority of people you ask on the street "Are you for women having equal rights to men?" would answer yes. That, by definition, makes them a feminist.

Nah nah nah nah nah. Radical feminists or not, they are still a piece of the movement. You either accept that a movement is flawed, and instead of trying to change my mind, change theirs. Fix their beliefs. If the problem is within, don't blame the criticizers. It is observable feminism. I'm not saying each feminist is a misandrist. I'm saying feminists advocate for superiority without even realizing it. It sounds ridiculous on the surface, but through examples, it makes more sense. If you would like to get a general idea of where I and others like myself are coming from, I recommend watching Vernaculis' video, "Social Justice Cry-Cis". It outlines everything pretty well. Watch the intro at least.