This has been niggling at me as unfinished business and I've been reminded of the kesha thing, so I'm going to reply to this even though I think it's pointless.
You wrote "Sexism, racism, whatever. All the -isms come down to judging people by some arbitrary group rather than them as an individual."
Which is what feminism does. Which is why I replied "Since you are opposed to that, why do you choose to be part of one such '-ism'?"
Your reply is not an answer to that question. It also contradicts itself, since you can't be a feminist without being sexist.
A while ago, I watched a video on Youtube about insults in films. There were many expressions of overt hostility showing anger, hatred, contempt or a combination thereof, usually expressed passionately with harsh language. The harshest insult, the most extreme expression of one character being against another, contained none of those things. It was in Casablanca. Rick is in a bar, studying a chess game. Ugarte comes up and says "You despise me, don't you?". After a pause and without any change in attention or body language, Rick replies in a dispassionate and disinterested voice "If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
Dismissing someone (or a group) as being unworthy of any consideration at all is at least as hostile as overt condemnation of them.
The fact that you think that every woman should have equal opportunities to every other woman is irrelevant in itself but relevant as an example of how thoroughly you dismiss men. Even when talking about men, you see it as being solely about women.
If you go to masculist/MRA sources, you'll see them using exactly the same argument to "justify" their own sexism in response to the sexism of feminism.
Since I oppose sexism, I "engage" with the idea that everyone is defined by their sex by denying its validity, not by supporting it.
"You can't advocate for one sex without, as a first step in everything, defining people by their sex (it's obviously impossible to advocate for group X without defining people in terms of being X or not-X) and then judging them by a collection of prejudices (to "justify" advocating for one sex only)."
You don't oppose prejudice by people who define people by their sex. You only oppose prejudice against people of the "right" sex. That's a very different thing.
If you look at masculist/MRA sources you will find them using the same excuses that you are using, for the same purpose of justifying sexism by falsely rationalising it (which isn't surprising, since masculism/MRA is the same ideology as feminism/WRA and thus equally sexist). They too see patterns. Education, healthcare, parenting, social and legal status, representation in politics, the law being applied differently solely on the basis of sex, the social and legal acceptability of antimale sexism, presumption of guilt, depiction in the media, etc, etc. We live in a society in which one of the most famous feminists in the country can publically call for all men to be killed without any repercussions. She didn't even lose her job! Mainstream feminists writing in mainstream media wrote to support her and that writing was published. Those are some bloody obvious and rather extreme patterns.
I'll try an analogy:
Person A has a chessboard. They have decided beforehand that only the white squares matter. When they look at the chessboard, they see a pattern of white squares.
Person B has a chessboard. They have decided beforehand that only the black squares matter. When they look at the chessboard, they see a pattern of black squares.
Both patterns are real. Neither pattern is a chessboard. Person A and person B are both prejudiced in the same way, although they will almost certainly each see themself as fair and unprejudiced and each other as highly prejudiced.
The "definition" you are promoting (feminism is somehow something to do with sexual equality) is a politically useful lie. It does not describe any feminist anything from any variant of feminism. It serves only to give a false impression of widespread support for feminism, silence justified criticism of feminism and help with the destruction of the very idea of sexual equality by corrupting it.
Some feminists briefly pay lip service to sexual equality when directly challenged about their sexism.
Some feminists genuinely believe in the feminist corruption of sexual equality, so they genuinely believe that defining people by their sex, judging people by sexist stereotypes and advocating one sex over the other is sexual equality.
Some feminists are honest enough to not even pretend to be in favour of sexual equality.
So not only are you promoting an obviously false definition, you are also using a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Saying that all feminists advocate for female people is completely different to saying that all feminists share exactly the same position on everything. You're adding a strawman to your True Scotsmen.
Since I am no longer a believer and can view the ideology from the outside as well as knowing about it from the inside, I have a much better idea of what I'm talking about than you do.
You cannot support your position. You can restate it, but it does not match up with reality. Every feminist everything is about advocacy for female people apart from a bit of lip service to sexual equality sometimes purely as a shield against criticism. Some feminists do really believe that defining people by their sex (it's obviously impossible to advocate for group X without defining people in terms of being X or not-X), judging them by a collection of prejudices (to "justify" advocating for one sex only) and advocating everything for one sex only is sexual equality, but they are wrong.
You wrote "Sexism, racism, whatever. All the -isms come down to judging people by some arbitrary group rather than them as an individual."
Which is what feminism does. Which is why I replied "Since you are opposed to that, why do you choose to be part of one such '-ism'?"
Your reply is not an answer to that question. It also contradicts itself, since you can't be a feminist without being sexist.
Nice dehumanisation there. "women and males" is a dead giveaway of a person's views.
A while ago, I watched a video on Youtube about insults in films. There were many expressions of overt hostility showing anger, hatred, contempt or a combination thereof, usually expressed passionately with harsh language. The harshest insult, the most extreme expression of one character being against another, contained none of those things. It was in Casablanca. Rick is in a bar, studying a chess game. Ugarte comes up and says "You despise me, don't you?". After a pause and without any change in attention or body language, Rick replies in a dispassionate and disinterested voice "If I gave you any thought, I probably would."
Dismissing someone (or a group) as being unworthy of any consideration at all is at least as hostile as overt condemnation of them.
The fact that you think that every woman should have equal opportunities to every other woman is irrelevant in itself but relevant as an example of how thoroughly you dismiss men. Even when talking about men, you see it as being solely about women.
Which doesn't mean agreeing with their definitions and supporting them. It is possible to oppose prejudice on the basis of X, as opposed to responding to it with the opposite prejudice on the basis of X.
If you go to masculist/MRA sources, you'll see them using exactly the same argument to "justify" their own sexism in response to the sexism of feminism.
Since I oppose sexism, I "engage" with the idea that everyone is defined by their sex by denying its validity, not by supporting it.
Yes, you are and no, you are not. You advocate for female people only. You oppose prejudice against female people only. In order to do those things, you must define people by their sex. As I said before:
"You can't advocate for one sex without, as a first step in everything, defining people by their sex (it's obviously impossible to advocate for group X without defining people in terms of being X or not-X) and then judging them by a collection of prejudices (to "justify" advocating for one sex only)."
You don't oppose prejudice by people who define people by their sex. You only oppose prejudice against people of the "right" sex. That's a very different thing.
But that's all you oppose.
Humans are extremely good at recognising patterns. So good that we often see patterns that aren't there and/or see only the first patterns we see and not the whole picture (including other patterns). This is especially true when people have decided beforehand what patterns exist and therefore confirmation bias kicks in.
If you look at masculist/MRA sources you will find them using the same excuses that you are using, for the same purpose of justifying sexism by falsely rationalising it (which isn't surprising, since masculism/MRA is the same ideology as feminism/WRA and thus equally sexist). They too see patterns. Education, healthcare, parenting, social and legal status, representation in politics, the law being applied differently solely on the basis of sex, the social and legal acceptability of antimale sexism, presumption of guilt, depiction in the media, etc, etc. We live in a society in which one of the most famous feminists in the country can publically call for all men to be killed without any repercussions. She didn't even lose her job! Mainstream feminists writing in mainstream media wrote to support her and that writing was published. Those are some bloody obvious and rather extreme patterns.
I'll try an analogy:
Person A has a chessboard. They have decided beforehand that only the white squares matter. When they look at the chessboard, they see a pattern of white squares.
Person B has a chessboard. They have decided beforehand that only the black squares matter. When they look at the chessboard, they see a pattern of black squares.
Both patterns are real. Neither pattern is a chessboard. Person A and person B are both prejudiced in the same way, although they will almost certainly each see themself as fair and unprejudiced and each other as highly prejudiced.
No, I won't. I am getting your opposition, which is to be expected since your position rests on defining people by their sex.
There is a large difference between recognising a form of prejudice and agreeing with it, using the same definitions it uses for the same purpose. Swapping sexes around doesn't make sexism into sexual equality. It just makes more sexism.
The definition I am using (advocacy for female people) is an accurate description of all feminist speech, writing and campaigning. It is the only thing common to all variants of feminism. It is the defining feature of feminism and is therefore an accurate definition of it.
The "definition" you are promoting (feminism is somehow something to do with sexual equality) is a politically useful lie. It does not describe any feminist anything from any variant of feminism. It serves only to give a false impression of widespread support for feminism, silence justified criticism of feminism and help with the destruction of the very idea of sexual equality by corrupting it.
Some feminists briefly pay lip service to sexual equality when directly challenged about their sexism.
Some feminists genuinely believe in the feminist corruption of sexual equality, so they genuinely believe that defining people by their sex, judging people by sexist stereotypes and advocating one sex over the other is sexual equality.
Some feminists are honest enough to not even pretend to be in favour of sexual equality.
So not only are you promoting an obviously false definition, you are also using a No True Scotsman fallacy.
Of course they would. I'm opposed to sexism and they're in favour of sexism. We're bound to disagree.
As I've explained above, it is you who is using a No True Scotsman fallacy. I am using the only thing common to all speech, writing and campaigning from variants of feminism as a definition of feminism. I am not excluding any feminists from that definition because it applies to all of them.
I don't claim that all feminists share exactly the same position on everything. That would be absurd. Feminism embraces every degree of anti-male sexism, not just one. Feminists may (and often do) disagree on what is best for female people and/or the best way to impose it on society.
Saying that all feminists advocate for female people is completely different to saying that all feminists share exactly the same position on everything. You're adding a strawman to your True Scotsmen.
I used to be a feminist. I have read millions of words of feminist material. I have spoken with many feminists.
Since I am no longer a believer and can view the ideology from the outside as well as knowing about it from the inside, I have a much better idea of what I'm talking about than you do.
You cannot support your position. You can restate it, but it does not match up with reality. Every feminist everything is about advocacy for female people apart from a bit of lip service to sexual equality sometimes purely as a shield against criticism. Some feminists do really believe that defining people by their sex (it's obviously impossible to advocate for group X without defining people in terms of being X or not-X), judging them by a collection of prejudices (to "justify" advocating for one sex only) and advocating everything for one sex only is sexual equality, but they are wrong.
