"If Bayonetta was sexist when all these feminists thought a man designed her, then they should remain that way when they found out a women actually did. But that didn't happen, did it? No, all of the sudden Bayonettas wardrobe was powerful. Thats hypocrisy, you can't debate it."
1. This isn't the example you've been using this whole time, so it's unfair to say I've been debating it.
2. This isn't something I'm familiar with, but I'll take your word that it happened this way.
3. I can debate it, and have been this whole time (despite the fact that you seem to think I haven't been saying anything this whole time). It is not hypocritical to say "It is okay for me to choose this for myself, but it is not okay to have it forced on me". They are telling people not to force things on them, but they are not forcing things on themselves, essentially, "It is not okay for this to be forced on me. If I am doing this of my own free will, then it is not forced. Thus, there is nothing wrong with me choosing this of my own free will".
"This is literally being a hypocrite. You have a movement (feminism) that says one thing then does the opposite."
Everyone in the movement does that, or some people in the movement say one thing, and others do that opposite? The latter is not hypocrisy (which is what I have been saying).
"I'm going to tell you this, you will never win a debate when your whole argument is based on semantics. Thats all you've done here is try and twist the meaning of the word hypocrisy to fit your narrative. Which ironically is what I said feminists do all the time in the first place."
No, I haven't done that at all. I have stated that the actual view is not hypocritical because the details that you disregard do, in fact, matter. Those details are the difference between "this is wrong" and "forcing this on someone is wrong". I have also explained that, even if some of those views would be hypocritical for a single person, you are applying what one part of a group says and what another part of a group does, which is not hypocritical because they are not the same people.
@fedor: "1. I already said they move the goalposts when they see fit. Read."
Yes, I read that. I have already said that that is just you ignoring and trivializing context, and not hypocrisy as you claimed. Read.
"2. You still haven't refuted a single one of my points. You haven't even comprehended my post correctly, and it's not that hard to comprehend."
I'm still not sure why you think that. You came here making baseless accusations of hypocrisy, which I have clearly argued against. I have stated that your claims are based on fallacies and trivializing context that is, in fact, non-trivial.
"3. Regardless if it's 2, 3, or 4 sects, you cannot have a movement with several different thought processes, many which are fundamentally against what the movement was about in the first place. Next I suppose you'll try and argue that these aren't "true" feminists to which I'll respond with "no true Scotsman"."
Yes, maybe having too many groups could pose a problem. That isn't hypocrisy (which is the claim you made, against which I am arguing). Even if some of the sects "are fundamentally against what the movement was about in the first place", that doesn't imply hypocrisy as a whole, and you haven't substantiated that claim anyway.
@fedor:"Thats why it's sometimes skimpy clothes = Sexists and demeaning. But if it fits the agenda it's = Strong and empowering."
I did not misread this part. You said "sometimes", without detailing the specifics of how that "sometimes" is determined. You make it seem like it should be "all the time" one way or the other. Thus, you are saying that, regardless of the circumstances, "skimpy clothes = [one thing or the other]", or else it is hypocritical. In the situation of a fake woman, "skimpy clothes = [one thing]", and in the situation of a real woman choosing her clothes, "skimpy clothes = [that same thing]", or else they are being hypocritical. You are saying it is hypocritical for the context to matter, and that all situations should be treated the same, in that "skimpy clothes = [one thing or the other]", or else it is hypocrisy. That is false, it is not hypocrisy.
"Nothing that you said refutes my points."
Yes, I said that "skimpy clothes = Sexists and demeaning" in some situations and "it's = Strong and empowering" without being hypocritical, just context-sensitive. You said it was hypocritical. I also said that there is no hypocrisy, just that you are referring to one large group as having multiple views, when it is only hypocritical for the same people to have opposing views.
"And if you think feminism only has 2 sects you're sorely mistaken."
I did not say that, I just made a general statement about disagreeing sects vs. hypocrisy.
"Which is another problem with feminism."
Perhaps it is a problem with your need to group people together? I've never before heard that it was a problem that people can agree on many things and disagree on some things.
@fedor: Right, and my point was that the hypocrisy you mentioned doesn't actually exist, it just sounds like it does when you oversimplified the issue. And the agency is exactly what matters here -- you are trying to say that a fake woman, who thus does not choose to dress the way she does, is the same as woman who does choose how she dresses.
And regardless of that, there would be no actual hypocrisy. "They" represents a large group with many similar ideals, but some differences. Two sects in a group can disagree without being hypocritical.
Linusa's comments