I don't understand why you see your response as taking what was said literally. You are reading things that aren't there. Where does it say anything about women who are feminists as opposed to women who aren't?
I was told by these people that I had taken what he said literally. I interpreted his words...which I've already laid out in my posts, as him saying that women and feminists are different. "Women are human beings, who are of the female sex, and feminists are Idealogues." Those were his words...so hopefully you can see where the distinction was being made here, and where it came across as sounding as though feminists are somehow seperate from being human?
To take this literally would be to not add anything of your own interpretation about "women who are feminists" because nothing was said about them. Certainly nothing was said to exclude them from being human and female.
There was no sentence saying "women who are feminists."
I think him saying 'Women are human beings of the female sex, and feminists are Idealogues who follow a certain ideaology" does exclude them from being human. Why even make a distinction like that in the first place? No one IS an ideaology, or an Idealogue.
Women and men who identify as feminists are also human. Most are women. I found the whole thing confusing, as I couldn't see why there was a need to use those words to distinguish women from feminists. Maybe that was excluding male feminists, but it seemed more aimed at the women who are feminists.
And nothing was said to exclude the possibility of human female also being an ideologue who follows an ideology.
Making a statement that feminists ARE idealogues IS removing them from being human and female, isn't it? They are not their ideaology...they are people who live by certain ideals and political convictions. It is but one aspect of their entire individual Selves...not their entire being.
I don't understand the point in distinguishing women from feminists in the first place? it seems like unnecessary seperation.
Looking up the definition of the word 'Idealogue' it does say they are people who follow a certain ideaology, so that is still acknowledging their humanity. I guess maybe I read the way he said that as meaning they were seperate from being human for some reason?
How is your interpretation literal?
Ask them.
Because I pointed out that the way he worded his statement sounded very much as though he was saying that feminists are Idealogues only and not women or even human by sheer fact of making a distinction between the two and defining what a woman is compared to a feminist (which is what he said) I took his words at face value and then was told I was dull for doing so. When I said that it was perhaps a poor choice of wording, I was told the wording was fine and it was all my interpretation.
And, just out of interest, are you assuming that all feminists are female? As in, all Marxists are Marx?
I know not all feminists are female, but most are. I found the way he worded the sentence quite de-humanizing. I can see what you are saying though.
Maybe I took it the wrong way, because I am not involved in gender based discussions that much, so am not familiar with the rhetoric or terms that are thrown around regularly? To me it seemed as though they were saying feminists were not women or human, which sounded offensive. He kept accusing me of hunting for signs of misogyny, which was not what I was doing at all, at least not consciously...it's just what I saw and it seemed de-humanizing.
