unixknight

But but... I liked 'Of Wolf and Man...'

That was my gateway into not only Metallica, but metal in general. (No, Van Halen is NOT metal.)

I don't see the relevance. In any case, I think we're talking in circles now. Let's agree to disagree. You're welcome to the last word, if you like. 😊

I've had a couple sets of these for a few weeks now and they are every bit as comfy as you might imagine.

Some may disagree with that.

And some people define hot chocolate as also having marshmallows while other don't. Some purists would say Swiss Miss doesn't make 'true' hot chocolate while others permit Hershey's chocolate syrup to be used in making 'hot chocolate.' This is why the "no true scotsman' argument is a fallacy.

Why do you keep trying to convince me that toxic feminism exists? I know it does. Like I said, you're preaching to the choir. I'm not sure if we actually even disagree, or whether you think I'm arguing something different from what I am. I'll state my position: There's no set definition of the term 'feminism' because different people look at it form different points of view. Thus, 'feminism' means different things to different people. Therefore, any discussion of whether or not someone is a 'real' feminist is just a 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. Nobody gets to be the gatekeeper on who may call themselves a feminist. (Which was the point I was making in my first post of this thread when I talked about the co-worker who insisted that my wife couldn't be a feminist because she's pro-life.) I never disagreed with you on your points about toxic feminism being a thing, or that many parts of it have taken on misandry.

So last night I was invited to the home of a co-worker for dinner. It's Ramadan, so it was a breaking of the fast. (In Islamic tradition, during Ramadan you fast during the day and eat once the sun goes down.) Man, the food was incredible. It was a blend of Tunisian and Spanish (as in Spain spanish) food. But that wasn't my realization. During dinner, everybody had white wine except me, and after dinner I was offered Turkish coffee but I declined. Total resulting drama: Zero. What I mean is this... When I'm among non-LDS Christians or Atheists, I don't like to discuss matters like the Word of Wisdom because more often than not I get funny looks, incredulous laughing, or taunting about how silly it is that we can't have [insert whatever beverage here]. Sometimes I get a lecture about how a certain amount of alcohol daily is good for you, or how there's nothing wrong with a cup of tea. When I'm among Muslims however, (and in my experience this is also true of Hindu folks) when I say I'm unable to partake in those things because of my religious beliefs, they understand completely and that's that. They just get it. No offense is taken, no criticism, no exaggerated eye rolls. They respect it because they have their own dietary rules. It often leads to an enlightening and friendly conversation about our different beliefs and traditions. But man... Tunisian food... I'm gonna be daydreaming about that stuff for a while.

The definition of the term vs. who gets to apply it is all the same argument from what I'm seeing. The rest of the stuff you said is just preaching to the choir if you're addressing me with it.

It all amounts to the same thing, in my book. Definition of the label, reason for using it... whatever. If it were simple and universal, there wouldn't be much to disagree on.

The fact that you two could disagree on what precisely a feminist is/does/believes.

I wish that were so, but spend 5 minutes watching a discussion between two people who both consider themselves feminists yet disagree on a bunch of its aspects shows that to not be the case. For an example, this very thread.

I think that's what it should be.

Yes, in your opinion, it is very clear. I do not share your opinion. The very fact that you can hardly get any two people to agree on a precise definition of 'feminism' demonstrates that it isn't as clear as you think.

..in your opinion. And yep, Misandrists are into gatekeeping too.

I see you're in a fighting mood today. 😉 That definition is inadequate. There are some who believe that part of the goal of equality includes abortion rights. Some don't. The definition you provided offers no clarity on that. Some believe in the gender wage gap. Others don't. Some would be fine with women having to register with the Selective Service. Some don't. See what I mean? People use those issues as a pass/fail for whether or not they'll "allow" someone to call themselves a feminist.

You don't have to convince me that there's a toxic and dangerous strain that's causing these problems. All I'm saying is that, without a clear, universal definition of what being a feminist means, it doesn't make much sense to judge whether or not people can use the term when describing their own views.

I think the problem, when it comes to discussing feminism in general, is that it would be super convenient if there were a fixed list of types of feminism and each person could be conveniently categorized into the appropriate type and discuss from there. Everybody has their own idea of what it means to be a feminist. We try to differentiate the reasonable (and appropriate) view that says that men and women are equals from the more recent, more aggressive type that seems to be looking for inequality to justify its own anger. In some things, there really is a spectrum and we have to cut each other some slack. Don't be like the person I talked about earlier, who took it upon herself to judge who can call themselves a feminist and who doesn't.

That video is hilarious and well worth viewing even if you don't feel like you need the product itself.

Not surprised. Whenever I see a news article like this I assume for every one that gets reported on, there's a bunch more we don't happen to hear about.

It ought to come as precisely -zero- surprise to anybody that this sort of things is happening. We live in a culture that tells us to love ourselves first, foremost and nigh exclusively. To put one's own needs above those of the community, family, even friends. To value one's notions of themselves as so high that laws are being enacted to keep that from being challenged by anyone for any reason. To value one's self not for any higher spiritual connection or for one's accomplishments, but just because it's more emotionally satisfying that way in the short term. We're told to never challenge someone's assertions about themselves - their highest priority - no matter how ridiculous they become. If a 55-year-old man claims to be an 8-year-old girl, who are any of us to question it? be a man, be a woman, be a porcupine. Be what you want and let no one question you. So at last someone is so completely shameless as to publicly declare herself the object of her own love and regard to such an extreme that she's marrying herself... …. and we got laughed at when we said marriage was being eroded.

Same here. A few years ago I was talking with someone and she laughed out loud when I commented that my wife joined a feminist group with a pro-life focus. This person thought it was hilarious that someone could be pro-life AND consider herself a feminist at the same time. Essentially playing gatekeeper. If you don't pass this ideological test, you won't be taken seriously. That's intensely annoying.

@askandanswer that was AWESOME! Thank you!

Mission Accomplished.

Haha thanks for the note then. Glad to help!