In your video Reconsidering Norms you make the following claim:
“There’s one significant way in which Racism and Sexism are different: There is no word for a ‘non-racist’. There is a word for ‘non-sexist’ […] the word that means ‘non-sexist’ [is] ‘Feminism’.”
You later claim that “… [H]aters, and they will twist whatever I say into something I’ve never said, never meant, never implied…” Thank you for poisoning that well, but that won’t be happening here. If you believe that I have misunderstood you, first, assume a misunderstanding in good faith, and not a mean-spirited argumentum ad gotcha, second I welcome corrections.
You are attempting to support the argument that Feminism is the equivalent of non-sexist by pointing to a lack of a word in the English language for the word non-sexist.
There is no word for non-word therefore it is X.
This is little more than an argument from ignorance [lack of knowledge].
To rephrase your statement: “I don’t know X therefore <insert Y>”
Or more precisely: “I am unaware of the antonym for the word ‘sexist’, therefore its antonym is ‘Feminist’.”
Antonym of sexist: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced.
Oddly enough: Antonym of racist: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced.
This argument is a non-starter. There is an opposite word (more than one), and the antonyms in no way point to a collection of movements and ideologies to promote women’s rights or to advocate for the advancement of women’s interests.
There’s only one way that you could have made such an error: you have yet to escape Radical Feminism’s pernicious bubble of presuppositions because you have yet to apply your skeptical talents to the subject.
Full Definition of SEXISM1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
The argument in question is a really bad one. It is an illustration of identity politics distorting our very language. You have not reconsidered norms, you have merely repeated the shallowest of Feminist notions.
Now, either one is a sexist or not, or better yet, either one holds sexist ideas and attitudes and act upon them or not. If one is truly impartial and unbiased about sex-based issues, then there is no need to specify terms such as “against women”, and there is no good reason to single out women as being victims. A true reconsidering of norms would include the fact that men have advantages and disadvantages, and that women have advantages and disadvantages, and that these interplay in dynamic ways based on individuals, contexts, times and places.
I’m sorry, brother, but I have not heard or read you make any argument for Feminism whose quality is superior to the above mentioned argument.
[Later] You said “If you are not a feminist, you are a sexist.” My answer: unless you aren’t. Thanks for the false dichotomy. I do not believe for a moment that you would allow a theist to get away with such poor logic, it is a shame that you don’t look at your own arguments more attentively.
I welcome your thoughtful counter-arguments.