Ah, I haven't exactly been keeping up with the topic, apologies if there was repetitive elements in my post.
I wonder if there isn't a slight case of "Not a Real Scotsman" fallacy going on here.
Unlikely.
There are outward trappings associated with Islam or Christianity or whatever; prayer in a certain way addressing a certain deity, for example. It has broad-based effects on activities completely unrelated on the surface to the ideas of the core beliefs. Formalized worship and the rituals of it has essentially nothing to do with core tenants of most faiths. The codes of conduct most faiths embrace assemble themselves from what is typically a minority of the contents of their holy works. It is therefore possible to assume the trappings of a religion without embracing a majority of it.
Feminism or misandry deal exclusively in the ideal or proper form of male-female relations. Though this is a broad subject, it does not have trappings; it is complete unto itself and is not reflected by actions peripherally related unto itself. One could be both racist and feminist, insisting that men and women are equal, within their proper racial contexts. Similarly one can be for racial equality, but also for the dominance of women. They are narrowly defined doctrines. It would be difficult to be two religions, or two flavors of a religion.
Well, that makes sense I guess, but I was more or less speaking about the fact that any ideology or religion or whatever is what its adherents or followers or whatever make it to be - up to a point where a division occurs when some parts of a group no longer wish to be associated with another part of the group, hence forming two separate groups.
That's happened with most religions and ideologies that grew big enough, but in most cases the separated sects are still considered part of the wider entity, like all the different sects and forms of Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, etc. etc.
So it's curious to me that somehow people are saying that misandristic feminism is not feminism, and the only true feminism is the form that doesn't seek hurting or disempowering men. Does it really work like that, when almost all other forms of ideologies split from a "main source" are usually still classified as subsets of said main source?
Socialism is another good example, and perhaps less toxic (although I'm not sure if that applies on US soil): Socialism split into communism and social democracy (bolsheviks and menseviks respectively), and communism further formed different subsets such as marxism, leninism, stalinism, trotskyism, maoism, titoism, and who knows what (and depending on who you're talking with, some will also repeat the same argument that this or that is not REAL communism, on the basis that it didn't work, or being a personality cult, or just being against some core tenet of communism in general). But they are still usually treated as being derived from communism.
So the question is, while I understand the desire to disassociate the misandristic feminism from the original meaning, and I fully acknowledge that the two are different enough to be considered separate ideologies - is it really acceptable to outright say "that's not REAL feminism"?
The proponents of that sect of feminism usually tend to think of themselves as feminist, as much as it harms the actual feminist movement to be associated with them. But so far they haven't thought of a term to describe their ideology...
