I didn't say he did. I said he said most feminists. Which he did.
What he said was...
"This is why people like Madonna disassociate themselves from 'feminism', instead preferring to call themselves humanists. For the simple reason that those people who vocals associate themselves with feminists tend to be so toxic they tend to poison absolutely everything they come into contact with, including the very term feminism."
Clearly "vocally associating" is referring to people that have the mentality such as like those in the public eye like Rebecca Watson and Anita Sarkessian, which cause people to associate feminism with crazy irrational people who see themselves as victims at every opportunity that seem to believe bad men are waiting to oppress and rape them behind every corner.
Now he can go into more on this point, but he isnt trying to prove this point. He is giving popular examples atheists and gamers know which is why the main 2 examples are Watson and Sarkeesian. This isnt some massive thesis. He's just showing some simple examples those on YT and his subscriber base will know.
I'm not really sure what you think that this proves.
Clearly you didnt watch the video, but at any rate, it was to show that people who are against mainstream feminism but still want to call themselves feminists and advocate for "feminism" to be a word used to mean equality and fairness still talk about feminism in these broadly negative brush strokes. Clearly they are not referring to
themselves when they talk about feminism negatively in this way, how much sense would that make?
It's amazing that you can quote me directly and then immediately afterwards misrepresent it so thoroughly.. If you want to address what I actually wrote, feel free to do so. Using a straw man in a discussion about straw men isn't the best move.
Hint: start by reading what I actually said I would consider evidence towards the claim he is making, then try replying to that.
You said you'd have to start by defining your terms. Yes, quite right, Im with you so far. And then you said you'd be okay with analysing the content of 20 feminist writers. Oh yes you gave an alternative "or", "
having an independent survey company" carry out a survey. But if you would be happy with an analysis of 20 feminists then clearly your survey doesn't need to be very broad either. Oh and there'd be problems with a survey you propose for reasons I won't get into here. So are you saying that if one did analyse 20 feminists and if you could show that their beliefs and behaviours met the definition's previously agreed upon, that you would agree with the position Thunderfoot has? Because as I said Im pretty sure that at this point you would say that not all feminists are like that and you'd need a lot more than 20. Frankly I think you'll say that no matter what, and then at some point just refer to the dictionary and pull a "no true scotsman" out of your bag and declare that all those that are like this are not true feminists anyway by definition.
That is the straw man he's presenting, yes. I've explained why it's a straw man. Feel free to address that, if you wish.
No there is no straw.
Do you think there is a practical difference between "
normalisation of the sexualisation and infantalisation of women through pervasiveness in media" and "
people are influenced to be sexist towards women through playing a game like Mario" or
"sexism in media causes sexism towards women in real life"? If so, then in what way is "
normalisation of sexualisation and infantalisation of women" a problem at all? You wrote this, you chose to use the word normalisation. It will be argued by those who believe that violent video games cause people to be violent in real life because they think these games "normalise" violence in the same way. If games can be said to normalise sexism, why doesn't it also normalise violence? If games don't actually cause people to be violent in real life, then why will games cause people to treat women any differently in real life?
You said it was not the same, so go ahead, tell me what it is. And no you didnt do that in your last reply, all you did is make the claim that it is not the same. Nowhere did you explain "why" at all.
