I agree that the goal should be persuading, but how do you persuade feminists if you have to accept their self-serving definition of feminism that you yourself do not disagree with?
I agree that the goal should be persuading, but how do you persuade feminists if you have to accept their self-serving definition of feminism that you yourself do not disagree with?
I mean they might be 'wrong' about the definition of feminism in the sense that they use the word in a way other people don't but definitions alone don't justify any conclusions or prevent communication.
In this case just take their definition at face value (at least hypothetically) and say -- ok if feminism means believing in the equality of the sexes then feminism then what feminism requires now is more concern about the welfare of boys/men, less affirmative action or whatever. If you convince them of your substantive goals who cares what they call it. If they want to call that feminism because of positive connotations with the word so what? You've still convinced them of the appropriate policies, votes and they may not say feminism is wrong but they will say: "those other 'feminists' aren't being real feminists because they aren't really supporting equality of the sexes" and that is probably going to meet more success at convincing their compatriots.
If you don't like that then just use new terminology you've defined yourself. No reason to push against an attachment to what a word means.
--
I mean think of it in mathematics for a minute. If someone has the definition of even and odd numbers switched and stubbornly refuses to change that doesn't prevent you from convincing them of any mathematical fact. You can just take every instance of 'even' and 'odd' in a theorem or proof and replace it with 'divisible by 2' and 'not divisible by 2' or define new terminology (or just say ok if that's how you define even and odd then X follows and just swap the definitions in the proof/statement). You can get them to the same substantive conclusions whatever they call things.
I agree that the goal should be persuading, but how do you persuade feminists if you have to accept their self-serving definition of feminism that you yourself do not disagree with?
I mean they might be 'wrong' about the definition of feminism in the sense that they use the word in a way other people don't but definitions alone don't justify any conclusions or prevent communication.
In this case just take their definition at face value (at least hypothetically) and say -- ok if feminism means believing in the equality of the sexes then feminism then what feminism requires now is more concern about the welfare of boys/men, less affirmative action or whatever. If you convince them of your substantive goals who cares what they call it. If they want to call that feminism because of positive connotations with the word so what? You've still convinced them of the appropriate policies, votes and they may not say feminism is wrong but they will say: "those other 'feminists' aren't being real feminists because they aren't really supporting equality of the sexes" and that is probably going to meet more success at convincing their compatriots.
If you don't like that then just use new terminology you've defined yourself. No reason to push against an attachment to what a word means.
--
I mean think of it in mathematics for a minute. If someone has the definition of even and odd numbers switched and stubbornly refuses to change that doesn't prevent you from convincing them of any mathematical fact. You can just take every instance of 'even' and 'odd' in a theorem or proof and replace it with 'divisible by 2' and 'not divisible by 2' or define new terminology (or just say ok if that's how you define even and odd then X follows and just swap the definitions in the proof/statement). You can get them to the same substantive conclusions whatever they call things.