• eupraxia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No True Scotsman doesn’t really make sense without an effort to define what a Scotsman is in the first place. What feminism are we talking about? Are we so caught up on labeling people as feminists and misandrists that we’ve stopped talking about underlying ideas or caring about the internal conflicts within that camp?

    As someone who’s queer as hell, I’ve seen this play out time and time again - someone who’s queer does something terrible, (because we’re just people, a mix of good and bad) the media plays up that incident and re-stokes the debate over whether or not we get to exist, then people in my life suddenly look to me as somehow responsible or associated with or benefiting from that person’s actions, simply due to the labeled association. Truth is, I only have direct insight into people I’m close to, queer or no. And so when I express my lack of political or personal connection with that person, it’s perceived as No True Scotsman, even though the original perceived connection was shaky at best.

    As with all groups of people, take feminists as a mixed bag of people with varying ideas, who aren’t all responsible for what everyone else thinks. We’re all better off expressing ideas one-on-one rather than playing to these tribal labels. I think you are absolutely correct in that some rhetoric employed in service of feminism has alienated a sector of young men, but we can’t forget how media paints persecution narratives out of single tweets and snappy hot takes and holds everyone who labels themselves a feminist responsible.