skepticultist: Need Help Soonish: skepticultist: Feminism is about empowering women to stand as equals with men, and "choosing" to be a stay at home mother is choosing to be under the power of a man.

Im sorry, but as someone who can be classified as a "Stay at home mom" I can tell you your full of it. The man I live with does not lord over me in ANY way. If he tried, he would no longer be my mate.

How would you support yourself if he tried it and you left him? How would you support your children, or would he get custody? I guess what I'm asking is: How do I know that you're actually independent, and not just kept on a leash long enough you can pretend its not there? How do I know that you aren't just reporting from a state of pure delusion?

Considering the fact that I supported me and my three children quite effectively BEFORE I met him... and considering Im making more money NOW than I was then... If he up and left tomorrow, moving might be a bit of a pain, but I would be juuuuust fine.

Like I said... Not all relationships work the way you think they work. Im not living with my old man because I need help financially, or because I feel useless without one... Im living with him because he's my best friend... and because we rock together... and because if he passes out with whiskey dick, I have standing permission to use it to my own contentment.

A relationship between equals is really awesome... There have been times when I have helped him out, times when he has helped me out... no score is being kept. That's what people who care about each other DO.

coco ebert: skepticultist: Thorny: It is not that people who call themselves feminists that are not. It is that there are people who are feminists that do not except the title. The author, you, and Schaefly are feminists whether any of you recognize the fact or not.

If you act on the idea that women are capable of making their own decisions then you are a feminist just like I can say I am not a male despite the fact I have a penis, because real men eat red meat, but that does not mean I am correct.

Jesus H. Christ, I don't even know how to respond to derp this deep.

Feminism is not simply and only the belief that women are capable of making decisions. That is not a useful definition of feminism, nor is a historically accurate one, nor is a particularly intelligent one. That's just a dumb thing to say that makes you look like a very dumb person.

I agree with most of what you say except for the argument that working at home is always choosing to be under the control of men. I don't think that's always true, and if you're referencing the fact that a woman doesn't have her own money, some women are independently wealthy, or have saved money, or may return to work shortly (if they can- that's a whole other can of worms). I think it's a bit more complicated than just that women are always being submissive if they take over childcare duties.

I don't like the usage of "working at home" here. My mom works from home. So does my step-dad. So do I. We run a mail-order business; he does product designs and technical support, she does advertising and sales, I do production. Got a 28-ton hydraulic press in the garage for punching gaskets. That is "working from home."

And I get your point, but I think its really just muddying the waters. A woman who leaves the workforce for 18+ years to raise children may not be entirely reliant on her husband economically, but generally is. Bringing up corner cases and fringe events in such a broad discussion doesn't really serve any purpose, it just puts an onus on people to speak in excruciatingly exact terms that serve no purpose but to bloat paragraphs.

Thorny: skepticultist: Thorny: It is not that people who call themselves feminists that are not. It is that there are people who are feminists that do not except the title. The author, you, and Schaefly are feminists whether any of you recognize the fact or not.

If you act on the idea that women are capable of making their own decisions then you are a feminist just like I can say I am not a male despite the fact I have a penis, because real men eat red meat, but that does not mean I am correct.

Jesus H. Christ, I don't even know how to respond to derp this deep.

Feminism is not simply and only the belief that women are capable of making decisions. That is not a useful definition of feminism, nor is a historically accurate one, nor is a particularly intelligent one. That's just a dumb thing to say that makes you look like a very dumb person.

Then find a respected expert on the subject that agrees with you.

This is similar to the gap of what is taught in religion courses and what is taught from a pulpit. Most Christians would be extremely offended if they ever had to sit through a new testament class at an accredited University. I am going with academic arguments, you're just echoing your own ideas and those in the article as far as I can tell.

I minored in women's studies in college, dude. You are not going with academic arguments. You are using a definition of feminist that you pulled out of your ass.

skepticultist: coco ebert: skepticultist: Thorny: It is not that people who call themselves feminists that are not. It is that there are people who are feminists that do not except the title. The author, you, and Schaefly are feminists whether any of you recognize the fact or not.

If you act on the idea that women are capable of making their own decisions then you are a feminist just like I can say I am not a male despite the fact I have a penis, because real men eat red meat, but that does not mean I am correct.

Jesus H. Christ, I don't even know how to respond to derp this deep.

Feminism is not simply and only the belief that women are capable of making decisions. That is not a useful definition of feminism, nor is a historically accurate one, nor is a particularly intelligent one. That's just a dumb thing to say that makes you look like a very dumb person.

I agree with most of what you say except for the argument that working at home is always choosing to be under the control of men. I don't think that's always true, and if you're referencing the fact that a woman doesn't have her own money, some women are independently wealthy, or have saved money, or may return to work shortly (if they can- that's a whole other can of worms). I think it's a bit more complicated than just that women are always being submissive if they take over childcare duties.

I don't like the usage of "working at home" here. My mom works from home. So does my step-dad. So do I. We run a mail-order business; he does product designs and technical support, she does advertising and sales, I do production. Got a 28-ton hydraulic press in the garage for punching gaskets. That is "working from home."

And I get your point, but I think its really just muddying the waters. A woman who leaves the workforce for 18+ years to raise children may not be entirely reliant on her husband economically, but generally is. Bringing up corner cases and fringe events in such a broad discussion doesn't really serv ...

I agree with you and I agree with Mojo. You both have good points. I don't think "being relient on a man" is a point at all. So that is a point for you. I think it only matters what the woman calls herself and that is only if it is a totally free thought.

Need Help Soonish: Considering the fact that I supported me and my three children quite effectively BEFORE I met him... and considering Im making more money NOW than I was then... If he up and left tomorrow, moving might be a bit of a pain, but I would be juuuuust fine.

Wait, what? How are you making more money now as a stay-at-home mom than you were when you were in the workforce?

That seems impossible.

skepticultist: Need Help Soonish: Considering the fact that I supported me and my three children quite effectively BEFORE I met him... and considering Im making more money NOW than I was then... If he up and left tomorrow, moving might be a bit of a pain, but I would be juuuuust fine.

Wait, what? How are you making more money now as a stay-at-home mom than you were when you were in the workforce?

That seems impossible.

If she has a job from home...

Sabyen91: skepticultist: Need Help Soonish: Considering the fact that I supported me and my three children quite effectively BEFORE I met him... and considering Im making more money NOW than I was then... If he up and left tomorrow, moving might be a bit of a pain, but I would be juuuuust fine.

Wait, what? How are you making more money now as a stay-at-home mom than you were when you were in the workforce?

That seems impossible.

If she has a job from home...

Then she's not really a stay-at-home mother, she's a mother who works out of her home, same as my mom. Those are not the same thing. A stay-at-home mother is typically defined as a woman who has no source of income and is financially dependent on breadwinner father.

skepticultist: That's so disingenuous I don't even know how to respond. It would only require hiring all those professionals if you wanted the job to be done much better than it is currently being done.

More properly, "equal to". Amateurs have no real credentials and no portfolio to speak of, nor any sort of bonding or licensing. The more correct argument to make would be to pass off the responsibilities of childcare to a person who has no professional credentials but an equal or greater amount of experience, as any of us with single mothers who were raised by our well-past-retirement grandmothers are entirely familiar with.

Of course that in no way speaks to the fact that her original argument was strictly concerning hiring professionals, but of course you could have made the argument that this involved a suppressed premise that shouldn't have been.

skepticultist: Show me a housewife with a hourly wage, a defined benefits package, and a W2 at the end of the year, and then maybe I'll consider this argument of yours something other than disingenuous horseshiat.

Hahaha, oh my we talk of disingenuous and so wrongly apply it to the wrong person.

Tell you what, you show me a freelancer (who may have no hourly wages if they do something other than billable hours, and definitely has no defined benefits package, nor a yearly W2) and then you successfully argue that they do not have a job. Then I will consider your retort as something other than disingenuous horseshiat.

skepticultist: What feminism gives is a raging headache and a shiatload of aggrieved women full of nonsense and bullshiat, if history is any indication. But more seriously: That's a ridiculous claim you're making. Feminism is not about standing by mutely and never making judgements on the choices women make. Feminism is about empowering women to stand as equals with men, and "choosing" to be a stay at home mother is choosing to be under the power of a man.

Logical contradiction:

1. Feminism is about making women "stand as equals" with men.
2. A man may choose to be a stay-at-home father.
3. A woman may therefore choose to be a stay-at-home mother.
4a. A woman who so chooses is standing as an equal to the man who chooses the same.
4b. A woman who so chooses is unequal to the man who chooses the same because she is under the power of a man.

The logic cannot hold; it leads to two mutually exclusive conclusions. Your argument is therefore demonstrably nonsense.

skepticultist: A woman who chooses to obey Christ and enter into a covenant marriage where the man is recognized as the supreme authority of the house, complete with the right to deliver corporal discipline to his wife, and devotes her freetime to supporting right-wing causes that disempower and harm all women who choose differently than her (such as supporting the Family Research Council and Operation Rescue) is NOT A FEMINIST.

Who argued she was?

skepticultist: Yet you want us to believe that she is, because she made a choice.

Do I? That's interesting. What I recall saying is that feminism permits women the choice do to so rather than the mandatory expectation. I never claimed that it therefore followed from that that everybody who was so empowered agreed or disagreed with feminism itself. Nor can I fathom how you can possibly draw that conclusion.

The First Amendment is not subverted by extending itself to people who would, if given power, themselves subvert it.
The Fourteenth amendment is not subverted if a black person chooses not to vote or exercise other citizenship rights.
And feminism is not subverted if a woman chooses to be a stay-at-home mother. Or by woman who, of her own volition, joins a group whose expressed ideals run contrary to feminism.

skepticultist: I have you favorited as "Pretty smart." Clearly I made an error.

Clearly. I know my metric of intelligence is making an argument that, on its own merits, leads to two mutually contradictory conclusions.

skepticultist: Need Help Soonish: Considering the fact that I supported me and my three children quite effectively BEFORE I met him... and considering Im making more money NOW than I was then... If he up and left tomorrow, moving might be a bit of a pain, but I would be juuuuust fine.

Wait, what? How are you making more money now as a stay-at-home mom than you were when you were in the workforce?

That seems impossible.

You must have a limited imagination.

I say at home because I *work* from home... and yes, owning my own business is making me more money than working at a car dealership was.

I have three children that I was tired of paying other people to raise.

So now, I get to do work I truly love AND raise my kids. I suppose that is "Anti-feminist" to you, but then again... Im not known to care much what other people think about my life choices :P

I also maintain a healthy relationship with my fellow, have a rescued wolf in the backyard, and am so good at my craft that I actually had a vendor pay my way to go take photos for him at ROT.

*shrug* Id say I'm pretty freaking independent.

skepticultist: But according to Mojo she is. Because she made a choice.

You can quote me saying that, right? Like I said it, and you make a hard claim that I said it, so it should be somewhere in this thread.

Lies are really pointless when there's a written record of things.

skepticultist: Sabyen91: skepticultist:

Then she's not really a stay-at-home mother, she's a mother who works out of her home, same as my mom. Those are not the same thing. A stay-at-home mother is typically defined as a woman who has no source of income and is financially dependent on breadwinner father.

Yes... Yes I am. I stay at home, I cook, I clean, I do laundry, I take the kids to and from school... I just also work my ass off between all that.

But the REASON I do it is because I wanted to be home with my children... Because they deserve that.

Being a stay at home parent is work. It is not a job.

Did you get hired? Can you get fired? Do you get a paycheck? Do you have a boss? Does what you do pay your bills?

If you can't answer yes to any of these, it isn't a job. Like being, say, a volunteer firefighter, its admirable.

But it isn't a job.

skepticultist: Thorny: skepticultist: Thorny: It is not that people who call themselves feminists that are not. It is that there are people who are feminists that do not except the title. The author, you, and Schaefly are feminists whether any of you recognize the fact or not.

If you act on the idea that women are capable of making their own decisions then you are a feminist just like I can say I am not a male despite the fact I have a penis, because real men eat red meat, but that does not mean I am correct.

Jesus H. Christ, I don't even know how to respond to derp this deep.

Feminism is not simply and only the belief that women are capable of making decisions. That is not a useful definition of feminism, nor is a historically accurate one, nor is a particularly intelligent one. That's just a dumb thing to say that makes you look like a very dumb person.

Then find a respected expert on the subject that agrees with you.

This is similar to the gap of what is taught in religion courses and what is taught from a pulpit. Most Christians would be extremely offended if they ever had to sit through a new testament class at an accredited University. I am going with academic arguments, you're just echoing your own ideas and those in the article as far as I can tell.

I minored in women's studies in college, dude. You are not going with academic arguments. You are using a definition of feminist that you pulled out of your ass.

I'm not coming from a women's studies side per say...coming from the philosophy side examining those philosophies. Philosophy major whose adviser specialized in care ethics. So my background is actually taking classes on examining philosophies that were born of gender studies and trying to apply them to other things, a lot of mental masturbation, and intellectual back flips.

skepticultist: Moonfisher: My point is that I did REAL work for years, and I have been a non-rich full-time mom. Being a mother is far more demanding. What I do would require hiring a maid, accountant, seamstress, chauffeur, nanny, and cook. I handle our finances. My husband and I make important choices together. I am hardly enslaved by him.

*snerk*

I'm sorry, but that's just a load of self-delusion. My mom did all of that and worked 40 hours a week. Doing what you clearly would not "require" hiring anyone, because you -- one person -- does it all. No one believes that you are a superhuman capable of doing work that it would take five regular humans to do.

For this woman to try to define my choice to spend a few years away from paid work to care for my children in their early years as some kind of betrayal of feminism is absurd. Her version of feminism is not freeing women from oppression, it is merely changing the form of it. Instead of being chained to our homes and hearth, she wants us chained to a career. I will not be tied to either path based on anyone's notion of what my sex should or shouldn't be doing, thank you very much, be they a chauvinist or a feminist.

Oh yeah, you're totally sticking it to the patriarchy. Sure you are. You're a strong, independent woman who is entirely reliant on a man to pay the bills (ooh! but you get to decide which order they get paid in! you're contributing!) who does half the work my mom did and thinks it would take five times as many people to fill her shoes.

You're not a feminist, you're a joke. A caricature.



Hmmm, you presume a great deal. Remember that I said I worked full time when I had my first kid. I was the primary bread winner for some time, as a matter of fact, he was a stay-at-home parent for awhile. Now I am going to school and raising the kids while my husband supports us. See, when I am done and employed, he will be reducing his hours and returning to school as well. I am not serving a man; my husband and I are working together to form an economically cohesive team with a plan for improving our financial standing so we can afford to help our kids attend college, something our parents could not do for us. The assumption that I am completely dependent on my husband for money is false. We have an agreement at this time, but if we were to split up, I am fully capable and willing to hold my own job and support myself and my children.

Calling me a "caricature" or any other name just indicates that you are every bit as judgmental and one-dimensional as the author of the article. As a matter of fact, your belittling and condescending tone indicates that you're little more than a misogynous troll. You sure put little ol' me in my place, big guy.

Need Help Soonish: skepticultist: Need Help Soonish: Considering the fact that I supported me and my three children quite effectively BEFORE I met him... and considering Im making more money NOW than I was then... If he up and left tomorrow, moving might be a bit of a pain, but I would be juuuuust fine.

Wait, what? How are you making more money now as a stay-at-home mom than you were when you were in the workforce?

That seems impossible.

You must have a limited imagination.

I say at home because I *work* from home... and yes, owning my own business is making me more money than working at a car dealership was.

No, my imagination is just fine. You're just an idiot who doesn't understand what is meant when one says one is a stay-at-home mother. You are not a stay-at-home mother, you are a mother who owns her own home business. This entire conversation does not apply to you, nor do any of my comments. if you weren't an idiot, you wouldn't have presented yourself as some sort of exception to my comments.

You are an apple, I am talking about oranges.

So, this entire thread is a bunch of people arguing (or trolling) over definitions.

I'm amused :)

Moonfisher: Hmmm, you presume a great deal. Remember that I said I worked full time when I had my first kid. I was the primary bread winner for some time, as a matter of fact, he was a stay-at-home parent for awhile. Now I am going to school and raising the kids while my husband supports us. See, when I am done and employed, he will be reducing his hours and returning to school as well.

I am pretty damn sure than that you are not the kind of woman that the author was referring to, nor should you present yourself as the unfairly aggrieved target of her comments.

You're not really a stay-at-home mother. That's not the career you've chosen for yourself. You and your husband are alternating between being caretaker and breadwinner while you both work to advance your careers.

If you think the author was talking about you, then the problem here is that you're stupid and have piss-poor reading comprehension.

Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: That's so disingenuous I don't even know how to respond. It would only require hiring all those professionals if you wanted the job to be done much better than it is currently being done.

More properly, "equal to". Amateurs have no real credentials and no portfolio to speak of, nor any sort of bonding or licensing. The more correct argument to make would be to pass off the responsibilities of childcare to a person who has no professional credentials but an equal or greater amount of experience, as any of us with single mothers who were raised by our well-past-retirement grandmothers are entirely familiar with.

Of course that in no way speaks to the fact that her original argument was strictly concerning hiring professionals, but of course you could have made the argument that this involved a suppressed premise that shouldn't have been.

skepticultist: Show me a housewife with a hourly wage, a defined benefits package, and a W2 at the end of the year, and then maybe I'll consider this argument of yours something other than disingenuous horseshiat.

Hahaha, oh my we talk of disingenuous and so wrongly apply it to the wrong person.

Tell you what, you show me a freelancer (who may have no hourly wages if they do something other than billable hours, and definitely has no defined benefits package, nor a yearly W2) and then you successfully argue that they do not have a job. Then I will consider your retort as something other than disingenuous horseshiat.

skepticultist: What feminism gives is a raging headache and a shiatload of aggrieved women full of nonsense and bullshiat, if history is any indication. But more seriously: That's a ridiculous claim you're making. Feminism is not about standing by mutely and never making judgements on the choices women make. Feminism is about empowering women to stand as equals with men, and "choosing" to be a stay at home mother is choosing to be under the power of a man.

Logical contradiction:

1. Feminism is about m ...

I'm not responding to this line by line bullshiat. It's too much farking work to respond to assholes who break things down into an ever increasing number of ever more trivial and pedantic bullshiat arguments.

Summarize, or GTFO.

skepticultist: Summarize, or GTFO.

Ok: If a woman "relies on a man to pay the bills," is that not two spouses in a transactional relationship whereby the male exchanges monies and chattel in fair and mutual valuation for the woman's labours? How, in that regard, does a homemaker's life differ in any way from a career woman's?

What feminism gives is choice. It gives woman a choice in how to transact for their labour. It doesn't dictate that one transaction is better than another, because indeed that obviates the choice.

Just like freeing the slaves in the United States was not a condemnation of black people working in agriculture but about black people being forced to work in agriculture as chattel or near-chattel themselves, so too is feminism not a condemnation of a woman who chooses to focus her labours on home life instead of transacting with an outside entity for remuneration. All relationships, then, are transactional and materialistic: A woman is liberated by having the maximum amount of choices of transactions available to her, equal to those of disparate genders, different in kind from men but in no way limited by that.

What she chooses to do with those options is not a subversion of feminism, it is the point of feminism.

Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: But according to Mojo she is. Because she made a choice.

You can quote me saying that, right? Like I said it, and you make a hard claim that I said it, so it should be somewhere in this thread.

Lies are really pointless when there's a written record of things.

skepticultist: What feminism gives is choice. It gives woman a choice in how to transact for their labour. It doesn't dictate that one transaction is better than another, because indeed that obviates the choice.

You appear to be claiming that feminism is about women being able to make choices and that feminism does not allow for any judgment of those choices, because to judge those choices would be to diminish the act of choosing.

If that is what you meant, then you are making the claim that choosing to be a tool of patriarchy is a feminist choice which must be respected by feminists. If that is not what you meant, then you should try to speak more plainly and not use $.25 words like obviate.

But frankly, you're a pedant, pedants annoy the fark out of me, and I don't really want to keep talking to you, so kindly fark off and bother someone else with your retarded bullshiat about housewives being no different than people who have jobs and your pedantic nonsense about stupid little corner cases like contract workers that only demonstrate your ability to be a obtuse, obstinate farkwit.

Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: Summarize, or GTFO.

Ok: If a woman "relies on a man to pay the bills," is that not two spouses in a transactional relationship whereby the male exchanges monies and chattel in fair and mutual valuation for the woman's labours? How, in that regard, does a homemaker's life differ in any way from a career woman's?

See, this is what I mean. That's a farking retarded question. You know damn well that the relationship between a husband and wife is nothing at all like the relationship between an employer and employee, and I strongly suspect the only reason you're asking is because you know that it would be ridiculously complicated to give a full accounting of those differences that was not susceptible to pedantic bullshiat needling. And I have no interest in being your pin-cushion, farkwit.

So fark off, Mojo. Go bother someone else with this ridiculous sophistry. And make sure when you leave work tomorrow you kiss your boss and tell him or her you love them before you go, since there's apparently no discernible difference between a boss and spouse.

skepticultist: Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: But according to Mojo she is. Because she made a choice.

You can quote me saying that, right? Like I said it, and you make a hard claim that I said it, so it should be somewhere in this thread.

Lies are really pointless when there's a written record of things.

skepticultist: What feminism gives is choice. It gives woman a choice in how to transact for their labour. It doesn't dictate that one transaction is better than another, because indeed that obviates the choice.

You appear to be claiming that feminism is about women being able to make choices and that feminism does not allow for any judgment of those choices, because to judge those choices would be to diminish the act of choosing.

If that is what you meant, then you are making the claim that choosing to be a tool of patriarchy is a feminist choice which must be respected by feminists. If that is not what you meant, then you should try to speak more plainly and not use $.25 words like obviate.

But frankly, you're a pedant, pedants annoy the fark out of me, and I don't really want to keep talking to you, so kindly fark off and bother someone else with your retarded bullshiat about housewives being no different than people who have jobs and your pedantic nonsense about stupid little corner cases like contract workers that only demonstrate your ability to be a obtuse, obstinate farkwit.

The childish insults and angry responses do little to support your argument. There certainly are women who are still oppressed by their husbands, and guess what - they are not all stay-at-home mothers. My own mother worked full time, as did my father, and she kept house, raised her kids, and then he came home and knocked her around if his dinner wasn't perfect or he had a bad day at work. But she was a career woman! She could support herself!

My point is, and has been, that the author is two one-dimensional. There are plenty of women, like myself, who choose to stay home without oppression or selling out to the patriarchy. There are also plenty of career women who still feel pressure to be housekeepers and super-moms and kill themselves doing twice the work of their male partners, like my own mother. You cannot define a woman, or her dedication to equality for women, by what she does for a living, any more than you should define a man that way. (Oh but people do. Don't get me started on how angry I get when people look down on men who choose to be stay-at-home fathers). There are far too many factors in individual lives.

One is not a feminist because of their choices. They are a feminist because they strive for equality.

skepticultist: You appear to be claiming that feminism is about women being able to make choices and that feminism does not allow for any judgment of those choices, because to judge those choices would be to diminish the act of choosing.

That's exactly what I'm claiming. I don't understand how it follows from that that you believe every choice that comes from that must therefore be pro-feminist, or necessarily part of a feminist agenda, or cannot be judged.

A Jewish First Amendment lawyer can certainly defend the First Amendment rights of Neo-Nazis without diminishing either his own Jewishness or the purposes of the first Amendment or even agreeing with those Neo-Nazis. We judge them because they are human scum and because we are capable of making moral judgments exclusive of their right to free expression, not because the First Amendment is the sum total of our experience or conversely totally not related to us at all. What you're arguing is as profoundly stupid as arguing that a person who does not devote their entire existence to freely expressing themselves is therefore against the purpose of free expression. It's moronic and incoherent.

A person can exercise the rights given to them to make a positive, neutral, or negative impact on the philosophy they derive those rights from. Diminishing their capacity to exercise that choice diminishes the purpose of offering that choice in the first place. And frankly, being a stay-at-home parent with a spouse is neutral towards feminism.

skepticultist: your pedantic nonsense about stupid little corner cases like contract workers that only demonstrate your ability to be a obtuse, obstinate farkwit.

"Little corner cases" that you brought up. You were the one that started blathering about W2s and defined benefits packages and hourly wages.

You wanted such an obtusely stupid and narrow definition of what constituted a transaction of labour. Well, you got it. Don't cry because you got the world you wanted and were rightly mocked for how dense that world was.

skepticultist: Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: That's so disingenuous I don't even know how to respond. It would only require hiring all those professionals if you wanted the job to be done much better than it is currently being done.

More properly, "equal to". Amateurs have no real credentials and no portfolio to speak of, nor any sort of bonding or licensing. The more correct argument to make would be to pass off the responsibilities of childcare to a person who has no professional credentials but an equal or greater amount of experience, as any of us with single mothers who were raised by our well-past-retirement grandmothers are entirely familiar with.

Of course that in no way speaks to the fact that her original argument was strictly concerning hiring professionals, but of course you could have made the argument that this involved a suppressed premise that shouldn't have been.

skepticultist: Show me a housewife with a hourly wage, a defined benefits package, and a W2 at the end of the year, and then maybe I'll consider this argument of yours something other than disingenuous horseshiat.

Hahaha, oh my we talk of disingenuous and so wrongly apply it to the wrong person.

Tell you what, you show me a freelancer (who may have no hourly wages if they do something other than billable hours, and definitely has no defined benefits package, nor a yearly W2) and then you successfully argue that they do not have a job. Then I will consider your retort as something other than disingenuous horseshiat.

skepticultist: What feminism gives is a raging headache and a shiatload of aggrieved women full of nonsense and bullshiat, if history is any indication. But more seriously: That's a ridiculous claim you're making. Feminism is not about standing by mutely and never making judgements on the choices women make. Feminism is about empowering women to stand as equals with men, and "choosing" to be a stay at home mother is choosing to be under the power of a man.

Logical contradiction:

1. Femin ...

You had a minor in the gender studies. This should be fun for you.

As a stay-at-home father in a middle-class household in a middle-size city in middle America, with no nanny to cook, clean, or watch the kids, I found this article offensive on multiple levels. Her point--that really, it's the 1% women who are the problem--was marred by points about... you know, I don't really even know what. She rambled about how feminism sucked at what it was supposed to do and never explained what the hell she meant.

skepticultist: See, this is what I mean. That's a farking retarded question. You know damn well that the relationship between a husband and wife is nothing at all like the relationship between an employer and employee, and I strongly suspect the only reason you're asking is because you know that it would be ridiculously complicated to give a full accounting of those differences that was not susceptible to pedantic bullshiat needling. And I have no interest in being your pin-cushion, farkwit.

And my relationship with my dog is fundamentally different from my relationship with my garbageman which is fundamentally different from my relationship with the cashier at the grocery store.

Yet in every circumstance, I transact to maintain that relationship.

I treat my dog kindly and maintain her health status in the interest of receiving her love and loyalty and companionship in return.
I pay my taxes so that my garbage service might continue.
I pay for the food I purchase so that I might walk out of the store instead of getting arrested for shoplifting.

At no point in any relationship with anybody do I believe that I'm "special" and that I do not have to give to get in kind. This seems to be the point you're missing or having severe trouble grasping.

Feminism permits a woman the full availability of choices before her, and how to go about interacting with society in how to achieve that.

Maybe she gets a sugardaddy that supports her.
Maybe she busts her ass at a job and gets a paycheque every two weeks.
Maybe she petitions the Queen to live in her majesty's woods and runs through the trees wearing nothing but leaves sewn together with grass, subsisting on nuts and berries.

So. Farking. What? Who cares how she does it? It's her choice.

For Christ's sakes what you're arguing is like arguing that if you're a feminist you must -- MUST -- be pro-forced abortion, China-style, because anti-feminists are also anti-abortion. No, for fark's sake, the point of feminism is that a woman has the right to choose for herself, that nobody, not the state, not society, not men, can choose for her. Even in cases where men do choose for women, like whether to end life support, it's because they're in the position of power of attorney because the woman dictated that they be trusted to enact her will. She chooses for herself.

What she chooses is no business of anybody's but her and the people those choices affect. If she chooses to be a stay-at-home mother, and this satisfies her and gives her happiness, then who the fark are you to call her an idiot? She's happy, she's content, she's fulfilled, she's made her choice for herself and she's done it by having the full option of transactions open and available to her. No man has forced her to do it. No state permits an employer to refuse to hire her for gender. She's employed in a conventional job because she chooses not to be, and the entire farking point of feminism was to give her the choice of the method of her satisfaction. The point of feminism wasn't to say that women who busted their asses full-time as a homemaker were being enslaved, it was that excluding them from the workforce was tantamount to enslavement. That denying them the right to vote was denying them full citizenship. It was that slapping a woman was acceptable discipline.

Yet that in no way suggests that a woman who seeks fulfillment of support by her method is "wrong" to do it in a classical way instead of the avenues that feminism opened to her.
It in no way suggests that a woman who refuses or fails to vote is giving up her rights as a citizen.
It in no way suggests that a woman who likes rough sex is pro-violence against women.

That is all patent idiocy.

THE POINT OF FEMINISM IS THAT EVERY RIGHT WHICH A MAN ENJOYS, SO TO WILL A WOMAN. WHETHER SHE CHOOSES TO EXERCISE IT OR NOT IS IRRELEVANT. THE POINT OF FEMINISM IS THAT SHE CAN, NOT THAT SHE MUST; BUT THOU MUST WERE THE WORDS THAT CLOSED OFF AVENUES TO HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

How farking hard is that to get? Seriously?

Alright Skepticultist.

Definition of feminsim: Person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism (American Heritage Dictionary of English Language). So if believing that women are capable of making choices is a feminist belief, and you believe that, then you are a feminist. So my derp definition that I pulled out of my ass works.

Now you try. Can you find a definition of feminism that prevents a feminist from being a stay at home mom?

Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: See, this is what I mean. That's a farking retarded question. You know damn well that the relationship between a husband and wife is nothing at all like the relationship between an employer and employee, and I strongly suspect the only reason you're asking is because you know that it would be ridiculously complicated to give a full accounting of those differences that was not susceptible to pedantic bullshiat needling. And I have no interest in being your pin-cushion, farkwit.

And my relationship with my dog is fundamentally different from my relationship with my garbageman which is fundamentally different from my relationship with the cashier at the grocery store.

Yet in every circumstance, I transact to maintain that relationship.

I treat my dog kindly and maintain her health status in the interest of receiving her love and loyalty and companionship in return.
I pay my taxes so that my garbage service might continue.
I pay for the food I purchase so that I might walk out of the store instead of getting arrested for shoplifting.

At no point in any relationship with anybody do I believe that I'm "special" and that I do not have to give to get in kind. This seems to be the point you're missing or having severe trouble grasping.

Feminism permits a woman the full availability of choices before her, and how to go about interacting with society in how to achieve that.

Maybe she gets a sugardaddy that supports her.
Maybe she busts her ass at a job and gets a paycheque every two weeks.
Maybe she petitions the Queen to live in her majesty's woods and runs through the trees wearing nothing but leaves sewn together with grass, subsisting on nuts and berries.

So. Farking. What? Who cares how she does it? It's her choice.

For Christ's sakes what you're arguing is like arguing that if you're a feminist you must -- MUST -- be pro-forced abortion, China-style, because anti-feminists are also anti-abortion. No, for fark's sake, the point of feminism is that a ...

MOJO SMASH!!

Somebody needs to choose to email this guy some BIE. I chose to wear mine out nourishing my offspring, so they are inappropriate. Go on; he deserves it.

Hint:

I'd look up marxist feminism often supports the idea that the current family structure will dissolve due to changes in the partitioning of property.

Of course since you were a minor in gender studies I'm sure you did not need that.

Moonfisher: The childish insults and angry responses do little to support your argument.

They aren't supposed to, dummy.

There certainly are women who are still oppressed by their husbands, and guess what - they are not all stay-at-home mothers. My own mother worked full time, as did my father, and she kept house, raised her kids, and then he came home and knocked her around if his dinner wasn't perfect or he had a bad day at work. But she was a career woman! She could support herself!

Which has fark all to do with my argument. I never said nor implied that stay at home mothers are oppressed by their husbands. I said they were operating with a patriarchal paradigm and not feminist.

My point is, and has been, that the author is two one-dimensional.

Too not two.

There are plenty of women, like myself, who choose to stay home without oppression or selling out to the patriarchy.

But that's exactly what you're doing. The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to. Why you are staying home, whatever happy little lies you tell yourself, you are doing exactly what the patriarchy expects of you. That is not feminist. That is the point.

One is not a feminist because of their choices. They are a feminist because they strive for equality.

Yeah, and how exactly is staying at home like the patriarchy wants you to "striving for equality?"

skepticultist: The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to.

FARK LITTLE THEATRE


"Women must not jump off cliffs. It is a sin."



FIN.

Herp friggin' derp.

It is extremely sad that a person who purports to support feminism has made an argument that is literally "YOU SHOULD DO THINGS BASED ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OR WANT."

Dr. Mojo PhD: Feminism permits a woman the full availability of choices before her, and how to go about interacting with society in how to achieve that.

Ah! I think we have found the flaw in your reasoning. You, apparently, do not live in the real world. I will grant you that in a perfectly free world where all choices had equal social consequence, that some concept of feminism would do as you say. But this is not that world.

Feminism is political, it is struggle, it is movement towards a goal. It has a necessarily radical and progressive component that moves towards a world where all choices by women have equal weight and merit. But feminism in this sense is still incomplete, and thus one can rightfully say that making choices that are patriarchy approved -- making choices that do no conflict with the choices patriarchy would make for women -- is not feminist and thus women who make such choices are not feminist.

You compare a man choosing to stay at home to be a full time parent with a woman choosing to stay at home to be a full time parent as if those were equal choices. But they are not equal at all! It is a radical transgression against the presumed social order for a man to choose to stay home and be a full-time parent. It is...uh...shiat...whatever the opposite of a radical transgression (I've been drinking, sue me) is for a woman to make that choice.

You are operating in a world of pure ideation that has no connection to the real world as experienced. A world in which announcing you're straight is as meaningful and transgressive as announcing you're gay. A world in which screaming "Down with the state!" at a politician is no different than shouting "Long live the king!" A world completely devoid of context.

And that's why you're both wrong and a dummy.

skepticultist: Moonfisher: The childish insults and angry responses do little to support your argument.

They aren't supposed to, dummy.

There certainly are women who are still oppressed by their husbands, and guess what - they are not all stay-at-home mothers. My own mother worked full time, as did my father, and she kept house, raised her kids, and then he came home and knocked her around if his dinner wasn't perfect or he had a bad day at work. But she was a career woman! She could support herself!

Which has fark all to do with my argument. I never said nor implied that stay at home mothers are oppressed by their husbands. I said they were operating with a patriarchal paradigm and not feminist.

My point is, and has been, that the author is two one-dimensional.

Too not two.

There are plenty of women, like myself, who choose to stay home without oppression or selling out to the patriarchy.

But that's exactly what you're doing. The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to. Why you are staying home, whatever happy little lies you tell yourself, you are doing exactly what the patriarchy expects of you. That is not feminist. That is the point.

One is not a feminist because of their choices. They are a feminist because they strive for equality.

Yeah, and how exactly is staying at home like the patriarchy wants you to "striving for equality?"

I am sticking with all of your writings being an example of radical feminist thought since to be a feminist under your definition you have to strive for equality, fight patriarchy, or you can't be a stay at home mom (ok, I might have got lost on what exactly your definition is) but in the case of a stay at home mom even if it is not in her best interest for she can't fight patriarchy as a stay at home mom. Of course your distinction, at least for the author of the article, that saying that is what a feminist is and is not the same as saying how a woman should act, I really don't think takes away from the fact that your thoughts on this subject are primarily colored by radical feminism.

Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to.

FARK LITTLE THEATRE

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]
"Women must not jump off cliffs. It is a sin."

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]

FIN.

Herp friggin' derp.

It is extremely sad that a person who purports to support feminism has made an argument that is literally "YOU SHOULD DO THINGS BASED ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OR WANT."

Yeah, except for one little problem: The patriarchy isn't actually telling women to jump off cliffs. The patriarchy is actually telling women that their place is in the home rearing children.

Context. Reality. These are the things your argument is glossing over.

Thorny: skepticultist: Moonfisher: The childish insults and angry responses do little to support your argument.

They aren't supposed to, dummy.

There certainly are women who are still oppressed by their husbands, and guess what - they are not all stay-at-home mothers. My own mother worked full time, as did my father, and she kept house, raised her kids, and then he came home and knocked her around if his dinner wasn't perfect or he had a bad day at work. But she was a career woman! She could support herself!

Which has fark all to do with my argument. I never said nor implied that stay at home mothers are oppressed by their husbands. I said they were operating with a patriarchal paradigm and not feminist.

My point is, and has been, that the author is two one-dimensional.

Too not two.

There are plenty of women, like myself, who choose to stay home without oppression or selling out to the patriarchy.

But that's exactly what you're doing. The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to. Why you are staying home, whatever happy little lies you tell yourself, you are doing exactly what the patriarchy expects of you. That is not feminist. That is the point.

One is not a feminist because of their choices. They are a feminist because they strive for equality.

Yeah, and how exactly is staying at home like the patriarchy wants you to "striving for equality?"

I am sticking with all of your writings being an example of radical feminist thought since to be a feminist under your definition you have to strive for equality, fight patriarchy, or you can't be a stay at home mom (ok, I might have got lost on what exactly your definition is) but in the case of a stay at home mom even if it is not in her best interest for she can't fight patriarchy as a stay at home mom. Of course your distinction, at least for the author of the article, that saying that is what a feminist is and is not the same as saying how a woman should act, I rea ...

If you're not a radical feminist, you're not really a feminist. Because you know what a radical feminist is?

An actual feminist.

As a side note, I can't believe that I -- who am usually on the "Feminism is a bunch of stupid hooey and I mock it like the mockable thing it is." -- am on this side of the argument.

But yeah, real feminists are radical feminists. Everything else is just playacting at being a feminist.

Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to.

FARK LITTLE THEATRE

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]
"Women must not jump off cliffs. It is a sin."

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]

FIN.

Herp friggin' derp.

It is extremely sad that a person who purports to support feminism has made an argument that is literally "YOU SHOULD DO THINGS BASED ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OR WANT."

A friend of mine had a serious health condition and was going bankrupt trying to deal with it. She was in a long term relationship with a man who got insurance through his employer but would not marry him because marriage is a patriarchal construct. She ended up giving in...and many of her close friends did not support her decision.

Actually, among some of the hard core feminists, I think they might actually jump off a cliff...or at least have to think about it long and hard.

skepticultist: Dr. Mojo PhD: skepticultist: The patriarchy wants you to stay home. You are staying home as the patriarchy wants you to.

FARK LITTLE THEATRE

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]
"Women must not jump off cliffs. It is a sin."

[i.imgur.com image 240x338]

FIN.

Herp friggin' derp.

It is extremely sad that a person who purports to support feminism has made an argument that is literally "YOU SHOULD DO THINGS BASED ON WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK OR WANT."

Yeah, except for one little problem: The patriarchy isn't actually telling women to jump off cliffs. The patriarchy is actually telling women that their place is in the home rearing children.

What was that about context and reality?

That is the context and reality. A religiously ordered patriarchy (hence my use of an actual patriarch and the inclusion of the word "sin") regularly tells women to commit suicide. That doesn't mean that defying them is in a woman's self-interest.

A woman's self-interest ought to be decided regardless of what "the patriarchy" or anybody else wants. Regardless. Independent of. Removed from. Totally unrelated to. Not "DO THIS BECAUSE MEN WANT YOU TO" or "DO THIS BECAUSE IT IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT MEN WANT YOU TO DO." Because both of those are taking actions solely because a third party thinks something, which is not acting in a woman's self-interest.

skepticultist: As a side note, I can't believe that I -- who am usually on the "Feminism is a bunch of stupid hooey and I mock it like the mockable thing it is." -- am on this side of the argument.

Oh I see you're just trolling to be a dickbag and trying to make feminism look ridiculous. Never mind then, you're beyond reason by your own personal choice.

Thorny: A friend of mine had a serious health condition and was going bankrupt trying to deal with it. She was in a long term relationship with a man who got insurance through his employer but would not marry him because marriage is a patriarchal construct. She ended up giving in...and many of her close friends did not support her decision.

Actually, among some of the hard core feminists, I think they might actually jump off a cliff...or at least have to think about it long and hard.

Again real feminism -- the belief that every woman has every right enumerated to men -- is incompatible with that. Basing your actions on what other people think, even to do the total opposite of it, is still basing your actions on what other people think.

To think that is compatible with feminism is as retarded as retarded as becoming pro-murder because you're a republican. After all, people who murder others are punished for breaking the King or Queen's Justice. So clearly punishment for murder is a monarchist construct.

Or maybe, just maybe, sometimes things are in one's own self-interest regardless of who thinks what of it or why.

Thorny: Actually, among some of the hard core feminists, I think they might actually jump off a cliff...or at least have to think about it long and hard.

Yes well, we saw the same stupidity from some pseudofeminists like Andrea "All Pornography is Rape" Dworkin. farking unadulterated stupidity, of course. If a woman is manipulated into pornography, then she is being raped. If a woman is using her sexuality to manipulate men into giving her a whole lot of money, well...

Well see, under some definitions of radical feminism, you could be a radical feminist and think women need to wear burkas, pop out children, and listen to their husband as long as you thought it was in the best interest of the sex.

So care ethics, eco-feminism, marxist feminism, existential feminism, etc. are not feminism according to you. Fascinating. I still don't understand what impact your minor in gender studies has on your views...because I still see no signs of knowing what you are talking about.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Thorny: A friend of mine had a serious health condition and was going bankrupt trying to deal with it. She was in a long term relationship with a man who got insurance through his employer but would not marry him because marriage is a patriarchal construct. She ended up giving in...and many of her close friends did not support her decision.

Actually, among some of the hard core feminists, I think they might actually jump off a cliff...or at least have to think about it long and hard.

Again real feminism -- the belief that every woman has every right enumerated to men -- is incompatible with that. Basing your actions on what other people think, even to do the total opposite of it, is still basing your actions on what other people think.

To think that is compatible with feminism is as retarded as retarded as becoming pro-murder because you're a republican. After all, people who murder others are punished for breaking the King or Queen's Justice. So clearly punishment for murder is a monarchist construct.

Or maybe, just maybe, sometimes things are in one's own self-interest regardless of who thinks what of it or why.

Thorny: Actually, among some of the hard core feminists, I think they might actually jump off a cliff...or at least have to think about it long and hard.

Yes well, we saw the same stupidity from some pseudofeminists like Andrea "All Pornography is Rape" Dworkin. farking unadulterated stupidity, of course. If a woman is manipulated into pornography, then she is being raped. If a woman is using her sexuality to manipulate men into giving her a whole lot of money, well...

Well, these are examples of radical feminism and despite your definition of feminism radical feminism is not very interested in choices necessarily. It is interested in the state of the female sex in society and the patriarchal structure of society. Since getting married or participating in porn would be reinforcing patriarchal norms...then yea, radical feminists aren't going to be down with that. Essentially this group would view anyone who gets married as buying into the patriarchal structure of society at the expense of other women. I'm not saying this is smart necessarily but it definitely does exist.

Person in question has a Ph.D. and is now a tenured prof at a respected University and is smart as can be...but she is a dedicated feminist.

I also disagree with the idea that holding these beliefs makes them not true feminists. You might not want these beliefs associated with feminism but they very much are.

I hate when I hear the word "true" followed by a group. God knows how many times I am going to here someone talk about how Muslims are terrorists and I bring up Christian terrorists and they tell me they are not "true" Christians. It is just used to ignore people in a group you participate in that you do not want to be associated with.

Thorny: Well, these are examples of radical feminism and despite your definition of feminism radical feminism is not very interested in choices necessarily. It is interested in the state of the female sex in society and the patriarchal structure of society. Since getting married or participating in porn would be reinforcing patriarchal norms...then yea, radical feminists aren't going to be down with that. Essentially this group would view anyone who gets married as buying into the patriarchal structure of society at the expense of other women. I'm not saying this is smart necessarily but it definitely does exist.

Which is disguising misandry as feminism the same way some racists attempt to disguise their racialist tendencies as equal rights struggles, like David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People.

The defining term of feminism as it is understood and was formed was equal rights for women. It therefore flows from that that that which limits rights for men limits rights for women, since equality is a metric defined only by what the other side of the equation says; rolling back 2 + 2 to be 1 + 1 means the right side of the equals sign will no longer read 4 -- or at least in no way that is logical and rational.

Gussying up one's desire to inflict oppression on another as a matter of equality simply isn't.

Thorny: I hate when I hear the word "true" followed by a group. God knows how many times I am going to here someone talk about how Muslims are terrorists and I bring up Christian terrorists and they tell me they are not "true" Christians.

In that case it is indeed a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There are, however, places where that simply isn't a fallacy.

Idi Amin styled himself the uncrowned King of Scotland. He was no true Scotsman, and it isn't a fallacy to point that out, in spite of him styling himself as such.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Thorny: Well, these are examples of radical feminism and despite your definition of feminism radical feminism is not very interested in choices necessarily. It is interested in the state of the female sex in society and the patriarchal structure of society. Since getting married or participating in porn would be reinforcing patriarchal norms...then yea, radical feminists aren't going to be down with that. Essentially this group would view anyone who gets married as buying into the patriarchal structure of society at the expense of other women. I'm not saying this is smart necessarily but it definitely does exist.

Which is disguising misandry as feminism the same way some racists attempt to disguise their racialist tendencies as equal rights struggles, like David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People.

The defining term of feminism as it is understood and was formed was equal rights for women. It therefore flows from that that that which limits rights for men limits rights for women, since equality is a metric defined only by what the other side of the equation says; rolling back 2 + 2 to be 1 + 1 means the right side of the equals sign will no longer read 4 -- or at least in no way that is logical and rational.

Gussying up one's desire to inflict oppression on another as a matter of equality simply isn't.

As I have already made clear within this thread. There are many different competing philosophies within feminism and there is plenty of disagreement between them. Radical feminism is not necessarily interested in equality so no gussying up their desires is necessary. They're primary concern is what benefits the female sex as a whole...what happens to the male sex is none of their concern.

You can have your definition of feminism and you can say certain groups do not count. I can find plenty of southern baptists who will say that Catholics are not Christians. I'm not sure saying that makes it true though.

Dr. Mojo PhD: Thorny: I hate when I hear the word "true" followed by a group. God knows how many times I am going to here someone talk about how Muslims are terrorists and I bring up Christian terrorists and they tell me they are not "true" Christians.

In that case it is indeed a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. There are, however, places where that simply isn't a fallacy.

Idi Amin styled himself the uncrowned King of Scotland. He was no true Scotsman, and it isn't a fallacy to point that out, in spite of him styling himself as such.

I will also say as someone who was raised by president of the local chapter of NOW, was involved in the women's rights group at the college I went to, and took classes that specifically discussed the implications of radical feminism. You are the first person I have ever met who felt the need to say radical feminism was not true feminism.

Weird how there can be such a big argument about the meaning of a word.

Being a stay-at-home mom is what it is. It deserves the respect that it gets and doesn't deserve the respect that it doesn't. Changing whether or not you decide to call it a "job" doesn't change what it actually is or how we should look at it. Why the hangup on what we call it?

It's almost as if people believe that if you start calling it a "job" suddenly it will start coming with a paycheck and benefits. That is not going to happen. All that will happen is this: We will have watered down the meaning of the word "job." Big deal.

Thorny: I will also say as someone who was raised by president of the local chapter of NOW, was involved in the women's rights group at the college I went to, and took classes that specifically discussed the implications of radical feminism. You are the first person I have ever met who felt the need to say radical feminism was not true feminism.

Hmm? I never said that. I said that not everything that purports to be feminism is feminism. There is nothing about radical feminism that makes it anti-feminist as a sort of misnamed philosophy or misandric as a disguised philosophy. Not all who self-identify as radical feminists necessarily believe that dismantling the method of rule deemed a "patriarchy" necessarily means the institution of a matriarchy. In fact I would venture that they comprise a minority of those who self-identify as such.

What defines radical feminism for me was the hardline stance towards enforcing demands for equal rights. It's not so different from the radical measures abolitionists took in the 19th century; in fact it's incredibly more sedate.

The idea of applying the No True Scotsman fallacy to this is a valid question but the answer to the question isn't what you purport it to be, and it's comparably different from the religious interpretations you offer.

No True Scotsman stops being valid when the parent philosophy is divorced from the child philosophy. A baptist might purport that the Catholic is not a true Christian for any reason, or a Sunni might say the same of a shiate or vice-versa, but in those cases they're demonstrably not true. In the case of Christianity any person who bases their ethics around the philosophy of Jesus, whether or not they understand him to be divine or mortal man, triune or singular, doesn't matter. Christianity traces its founding philosophy to the philosophy of Jesus, and all the particulars of the divine/mortal/three-in-one/singular came at the same time.

A Baptist is wrong to say a Catholic isn't a Christian, but a Baptist isn't wrong to say a Catholic isn't a Baptist -- their parent philosophies are identical: Jesus's teachings. Their child philosophies differ.

Similarly, feminism does not trace itself to a parent philosophy of female supremacy, it traces itself to a parent philosophy of perfect equality between men and women. Any philosophy which diverges substantially from that, such as one which believes in female supremacy, isn't the parent philosophy. It might call itself by the same name, which is all fine and dandy for it -- as an Atheist I can call myself a Christian all I like, it won't make it true -- but it is the first philosophy which has dibs on the name, otherwise language may as well not mean anything at all.

So no, when people who purport to be feminists suggest female supremacy, they aren't feminists, or radical feminists, they aren't feathered hats or Toyotas or penguins, they're female supremacists. It's one thing to perceive a patriarchy, a male-oriented social rule, and believe that that must necessarily be dismantled for gender equality to be achieved. Whether that patriarchy exists or not is entirely irrelevant to whether or not the belief in its dismantling would bring about equality. But the belief that an institution of inequality would achieve equality is patent nonsense; they can call themselves that all they want, it won't magically make it true any more than the idea that Idi Amin is, in fact, a Scotsman. Maybe tomorrow a Ugandan will be naturalized in Scotland and be a Scotsman, but that Ugandan won't be Idi Amin, and never can be, just as those who advocate female supremacy or, more retarded still, the oppression of women based on spiting the patriarchy can be feminists.

I think people should stop trying to be "feminist" and just be human. Men and women are both necessary and essential.

Premise: "Feminism" cannot have any real meaning if it is totally subjective; it needs an objective measure.

OK, makes sense so far.

Clarification: And that measure is purely financial.

Oh, I see. Go fark yourself.