Feminism or death?
Here’s the entirety of a recent post by an MRA who calls himself Snark:
Uh, dude, I think you’ve confused “feminists” with “Daleks.”
Our new friend Fidelbogen thought this was such a brilliant idea he devoted a post to it himself, declaring:
Such economy, such concision. …
Really now, we wouldn’t go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.
It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.
I knew Fidelbogen was a bit of a pompous doofus, but this is a whole new level of stupidity for him. I don’t even know what to say about something this idiotic.
Also, check out the comments to Snark’s piece. There’s something about potatoes you kind of have to see to believe.
Posted on September 22, 2011, in antifeminism, idiocy, MRA, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 1,516 Comments.
What? I thought she said SITH dudes, which would indeed be an insult.
(I’m trying to imagine what it’s like to live in David’s brain.)
That would be you, not bothering to check your facts before acting as if what you *think* actually *is* — and, as usual, being wrong.
…
My brain hurts. Seriously. Toysolider’s misrepresentation and strawmanning is one thing (even though it is getting painfully repetitive), but Rev is…just…
Rev, dude, what are trying to prove? Why are you here? What do you want? What is your mission?
That’s probably too many questions, but goddamn, Rev.
Maybe the headache is the mission? We shall bring down the matriarchy by giving them all migraines and then hiding the ibuprofen.
“Maybe the headache is the mission?”
Then Mission fucking Accomplished.
Hershele Ostropoler: Surprise: “His brand of crazy is at least somewhat understandable as a result of trauma, though (lifelong paranoia about feminists caused by PTSD would be my hey-I-have-a-degree-in-psychology guess).” Now quote where I said feminism condones, endorsed, or supports abuse.
KathleenB: Insulting someone, particularly someone who has done nothing to you, seems an indecent thing to do, no?
CassandraSays: Apparently witty retorts are not one of your strong points, either.
Rev. Maybe you could look a term up before you make snap judgments?
Insulting? I told you that you’re acting like an asshole. If that makes me a bad person, so be it.
The term was “cis dude” which sounds to me like a gender stereotype of effeminate man.
I too have my howlingly ignorant moments now and then, but I try not to broadcast them to the world unless absolutely necessary.
I am truly crushed to discover that Toy Soldier doesn’t find me witty. How will I ever live with this terrible knowledge?
mythago:
My recollection is that Hershele is either a feminist ally or a feminist, depending on which term you prefer to apply to someone who believes in his heart but limits his “activism” to snarky pro-feminist comments on feminist blogs and doesn’t claim to be Jessica Valenti. But, um, what do I know? ;)
To the extent, of course, that self-identification matters; if you don’t feel I qualify as a feminist I can’t force you to believe otherwise whatever I call myself.
@Toy Soldier: Not the same as “ha ha, he says he was abused, how can you listen to anything he says?” Not the same as mocking you for saying you were abused, or discrediting you on the basis of being a victim.
But, fine:
After that ytou started denying you’d said any of that and so couldn’t repeat it. I think Cassandra is right that being disagreed with is triggering for you, in which case you … may want to work on that before spending time on the internet outside of carefully circumscribed areas
Dammit, HTML
To the extent, of course, that self-identification matters; if you don’t feel I qualify as a feminist I can’t force you to believe otherwise whatever I call myself.
No, no. I just vaguely recollected that you had said you were pro-feminist but did not identify as feminist, but I could be misremembering. We can still make you an Honorary Mangina though!
Hershele Ostropoler: I stated, “Now, believing me does not get feminists out of being told that they are misrepresenting my positions, being called out for questioning my understanding and recounting of my experiences, or being called out for using my experiences to insult and mock me to discredit my positions.” I said nothing about feminists mocking me for being a victim. Mockery includes derision, and that accurately describes Cassandra’s attempt to use my experiences to discredit me. In none of the comments you linked to did I state that feminism condones, supports, or endorses abuse, and in none of my comments did I deny that I stated that feminism can cause people to become violent. While I am rather impressed that you would misrepresent my comments as you quote them, I am again saddened by the intellectual dishonesty, although unsurprised by your ironic attempt to discredit my complaint by using my experiences.
Look, here is your problem: not only are you trying to prove a negative, you are also trying to prove an absolute negative. But not only is there evidence demonstrating that feminism can cause discrimination, fear, hate, and even harm against males, feminists already contend that feminism can and does change people’s behavior. Feminists argue that feminism can cause people to treat women better. If it can cause positive changes, then it is possible for feminism to cause negative changes as well.
I understand that it frustrates you that someone does not value feminism as you do. I understand that it frustrates you that someone criticizes something you value. I understand that it frustrates you that someone can support their criticism of feminism. And I understand that this frustration leads to the kind of dishonest, classless tactics many of you used. I do not take it personally, even when you try to make it personal. However, I do find it ironic that feminists engaged in very behaviors you accuse men’s activists of engaging in. The men’s rights movement mimics the feminist movement. What feminists see in men’s activists is simply a reflection of themselves.
Toysoilder, do you believe that if your aunt had not been a feminist she would not have been abusive? Why or why not?
That’s awfully sweet for putting up with our lady-feeeeeelings, honey, but you’re lying up-top at the beginning of your post:
Nobody here is questioning your recounting of your experiences. Nobody here is using your experiences to insult you. We have been noting but supportive of the fact that you suffered abuse. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t get to “question your understanding of your experiences,” because just because you have suffered does not make you correct. You could have believed the Illuminati made your aunt abuse you; doesn’t make it true.
And as for misrepresenting your positions, Hershele Ostropoler continues to quote you. Words that you said.
As an example of this that I’ve come across: a persistent rumor among Jewish women survivors of ghettos or work camps (or death camps, but they’re rarer) is that the Nazis put some chemical in their food to make them stop menstruating. But while it is the case that the Nazis experimented with sterilization methods, no evidence of this particular act has been found. It’s far more likely that stress/starvation/overwork caused the amenorrhea. It doesn’t mean I don’t believe those women when they reported that they were mistreated or that they had stopped having their periods. It doesn’t mean that I’m mocking them. But, as far as we can tell, they remain wrong about this explanation for why they had stopped menstruating, and that matters to history.
@toysoldier, no one here has denied your aunt’s rape and abuse. What we have refused to do is allow you to use it as an all purpose ad hominem attack against everyone that disagrees with your position. I mean, I could just point out that my abusers were not feminists, and then jump to the claim that everyone who isn’t a feminist therefore supports and advocates abuse and that not being a feminist leads to abuse, if I were to use your reasoning. I could also claim that since some of my abusers were men, that I know that all men are abusers, that being a man leads to abuse, and how all men think, but that would be fallacious, because my abusers don’t represent all men. That isn’t a fair argument, and that’s what you are doing in regards to feminism and feminists. What it is is an attempt to bully your opponents into silence because you are aware of the fact that they do not want to attack rape and abuse victims. Some people here are giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that your attempts at rhetorical bullying are unintentional and you are expressing a genuine, if misguided, triggered reaction when you assert these claims, because you genuinely were seriously abused. I am less inclined to be charitable, I think you know what you are doing and you are throwing the abuse you suffered in the face of a group that includes other abuse victims as a targeted rhetorical tactic.
Ad hominem attack; Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc; Ignorantio Elenchi
Your appeal to emotion fallacy does not cover all of the rest of your logical fallacies.
I’ve pretty much given up on reading your posts, ToySoldier, but I have to say that they seem to be littered with complaints that people are mis-reading, misunderstanding, and misrepresenting your words.
If this is something that happens so very often, and with so very many people, you might want to consider that the common factor in all this miscommunication is you. Maybe you need to work a little harder at making yourself clear.
Toysoldier,
I’m not talking about your reply to Hershele, but your general tone. You repeatedly keep bringing up that we are using your experiences to mock you, or that we are doubting you.
Then, when you are asked to quote where you have been mocked, derided, or had your experience used against you, you just claim you never said that.
Words have meanings. We can’t know which things you actually mean or don’t mean, so it would be a good idea to put a disclaimer like “I don’t actually mean the following words” in front of them, or, I dunno, not write things you don’t mean in the first place? It would really help the discourse if you stopped derailing.
About feminists calling other feminists out on misandry, how about this and this one about Daly, or this one about the comments on Twisty Faster’s blog? Holly Pervocracy also has several posts about her, where she criticises problematic things she said – including misandry.
I am curious though, why don’t the feminists from NSWATM not count?
You know, I may be coming around to the idea that Toy Soldier’s argument with us is the result of stupidity.
Basically his beef seems to be that we as a group are not accepting the idea that feminism led his aunt to abuse him. The reason we’re not accepting that is that a political ideology is not capable of child abuse, given that it does not have a body, a brain, etc. So to us his comments read like “communism caused the Stalinist purges”, whereas we would be more likely to say “Stalin caused the Stalinist purges”.
His argument at that point seems to be that since feminists as a group do hold patriarchy responsible for some bad things, it’s reasonable to hold feminism responsible for some bad things too. But he’s not understanding that patriarchy and feminism are not things belonging to the same category. Patriarchy is not a political movement, like feminism, it’s a form of social structure, like feudalism. A social structure forms, well, the structure of a society, and therefore it can in fact lead towards certain general patterns of behavior. Even then, the individuals still remain responsible for their behavior, obviously, which is why feminists don’t actually say “patriarchy made that guy rape that woman”. But I think that’s where Toy Soldier is under the impression that we’re being hypocritical. He doesn’t seem to get the fact that feminism and patriarchy are not comparable concepts, and he also doesn’t realize that when feminists blame patriarchy for societal trends we’re not actually absolving individuals for their own specific choices, just pointing out that the general framework makes those choices easier to act on.
xtra: I was born long after she became a feminist, so I cannot verify her brothers’ claims about the change in her personality. However, I can say that feminism forms the core of how she views the world, and shapes how she treats people. Being such, it is possible that had she not become a feminist she might have behaved differently.
VoiP: Saying that I mistake my aunt’s “using feminism as an excuse” for something else does question my recounting of my experiences. Claiming that I get triggered when people disagree with me and I need to take time to deal with that is an insult that relies on my experiences. You are in no position to question my understanding of my experiences as you know nothing about them. That would be akin to me questioning a woman who said “patriarchy” caused her uncle to become violent. I may disagree with the theory of “patriarchy”, but I am in no position to question whether social attitudes about women influenced that man’s behavior since all I know is that something occurred. And as I noted to Hershele, the quotes do not say what you say they say.
darksidecat: I have not resorted ad hominems attacks, straw man arguments, post hoc ergo propter hoc, or ignoratio elenchi. My position has always been that feminism can cause some people to discriminate against, fear, hate, and even harm males. I said nothing about all feminists being this or that, nor did I say that being a feminist leads to abuse. Those are straw man arguments, just as claiming that I am expressing a triggered reaction and therefore my arguments are unsound is an ad hominem attack, and referring to abuse victims in this group is an emotional appeal. You accuse me of doing something you are doing.
Unimaginative: When I posted the same comments on my blog, no one made any of the outlandish accusations feminists here made. Likewise, no one from the men’s rights blog that linked to my post made those accusations. That would imply that the problem is lies with the feminists here, not me.
Kollege Messerschmitt: When Hershele asked me to quote an example of where I got mocked and insulted, I not only quoted it, I linked to it. I do not think you misunderstand what I wrote. I do think that you disagree with it, which prompts your straw man argument. Good on you finding examples of feminists who call out misandry (I excluded NSWATM because of the purported purpose of the blog). Now a question: do you think those three examples represent the whole feminist position on misandry? If so, why does that logic not apply to examples of feminists failing to call out or engaging in misandry?
CassandraSays: If a political ideology is incapable of affecting people’s behavior, would that not imply that feminism is incapable of preventing sexual violence, child abuse, or sexism? Would it not imply that feminism could never change people’s behavior for the better? Feminism is political ideology that seeks social change by pushing a specific social structure. By your own logic, that would lead towards certain general patterns of behaviors. I never argued that any ideology makes a person commit an act. I did argue that an ideology influences a person’s views, which can in turn cause a person to act a particular way. Feminists agree with this, hence the reason they claim “patriarchy” can cause some men to become violent towards women. As I see it, feminists’ contention is simply that I hold them to their own standards.
Again, Toy Soldier, patriarchy is not an ideology. It’s a form of social structure. You’re comparing apples to kittens.
Something was nagging the back of my mind while reading this thread, and eventually I tried googling some familiar terms… and got this thread from Alas, a Blog. Does anyone else see a marked similarity between the arguments made there by jaketk and here by Toysoldier?
@mediumdave – I think it’s the same guy. Someone with a different user name also made almost identical comments on Jezebel a while back.
According to Feminist Critics, you seem to be correct, mediumdave.
CassandraSays: That is not a good red herring. Do not dodge the question: If a political ideology is incapable of affecting people’s behavior, would that not imply that feminism is incapable of preventing sexual violence, child abuse, or sexism? Would it not imply that feminism could never change people’s behavior for the better?
mediumdave: Same person. I am unsure of your point for bringing that up, but if it is that I mentioned my experiences before, yes, I do have a bad habit of talking about my experiences. Would that I could disabuse myself of such a terrible tendency.
Toysoldier: I reiterate that your past experiences do NOT give you a pass when it comes to acting like a decent human being. You are having an extended asshole moment, and it would be nice if you could step out of it and actually LOOK at what others are saying to you. And what you’re saying to them.
It’s not a red herring at all. Patriarchy and feminism do not influence behavior in the same ways because they are not comparable things.
(Unless you think that we live in a matriarchy, like Rev does, in which case they would be comparable things.)
Also I’m still confused as to why, even if we as a group were to totally accept your argument that your aunt abused you because of feminism, that would be relevant to all the various things that keep raising that point in relation to. My mother was abused by her stepfather, who was in a trade union. What you’re doing seems a lot like what would happen if I thought that my grandfather’s being in a trade union was the reason that he abused my mother, and then pointed out his abusive behavior every time leftist politics were being discussed. What happened to you was tragic, but not necessarily relevant to each and every conversation.
Also, ignoring for a second the fact that your supposed red herring isn’t actually one – no, feminism is not capable of completely preventing child abuse, rape, domestic violence is. No political ideology is capable of completely preventing those things, because humans have free will, and some humans are fundamentally evil people. Ideology can raise awareness and influence ideas and thus decrease the incidence of certain behaviors, but eliminate them completely? Nope.
That would have read “domestic violence etc” if I had had some more coffee before typing it.
I thought this over for a bit, and decided that claiming ToySoldier’s aunt cannot be a Feminist, on account of her abusive actions, to not be an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
This isn’t to say that the assertion isn’t fallacious – it is. But it’s more an example of unspoken assumption, or a non-sequitur. The No True Scotsman fallacy, as I understand it, speaks more to the idea of moving the proverbial goalposts during debate.
What we have here, I think, is a failure to state prior to discussion (understandable, really) what the criteria actually is for judging a person’s claim to Feminist status. For instance: does one merely need to identify as a Feminist? Are their thoughts, opinions, behaviors that identify one as a Feminist or non-Feminist? And so forth.
ToySoldier’s aunt identifies herself as a Feminist. Furthermore, ToySoldier identifies his aunt as a Feminist; presumably as a result of (1) her self-identification and (2) factors one might correlate with Feminist identity (e.g. that she had ToySoldier read bell hooks). There is little to dispute here without greater knowledge of the aunt. (“Yes, the aunt says she is a Feminist; but she often confuses the word “Feminist” with “Aunt”.” “Ah, I can see where the confusion arose.”)
ToySoldier also asserts that his aunt engaged in abuse; this is the turning point of the greater discussion. The counter-assertion is that no true Feminist would engage in abuse, as abuse is itself is in contravention to Feminist principles. By committing abuse, one is no longer a Feminist.
It does seem that abuse – thought of in terms of one party improperly exercising their power over another – is greatly at odds with Feminist egalitarianism.
At the same time, Feminism is not a monolith – for instance, there may be significant differences of opinion between first, second and third wave Feminists. Indeed, Second wave Feminism featured a number of prominent, inflammatory anti-male Feminists; and it may very well be this form of Feminism that informed ToySoldier’s aunt.
In conclusion, perhaps the most important question to ask is this: what motivates us?
ToySoldier’s position is highly understandable: his life was strongly impacted by a person identifying as a Feminist. To ToySoldier I say: Feminism crosses a great many people, crosses borders, crosses history itself; your aunt cannot, given this breadth, represent all of them.
Those that assert ToySoldier’s aunt is not a Feminist; their position is less clear. What is to be gained by attempting to remove the aunt’s Feminist identity? To an outside observer such as myself, this behavior appears self-serving – as if there is a greater concern with disassociating Feminism from the negative publicity of one of it’s proponents. Why is it important to so strongly advocate that Feminism could not have informed the actions of ToySoldier’s aunt? This suggests an interest in negating criticism of Feminism itself.
I believe that you were abused, and I even believe that your aunt told you it was because of her feminism. I just believe that she lied to you, which — as you do not live inside her head — is not part of your lived experience, and is totally fair game for logic and skepticism and flatout disbelief.
KathleenB: I will keep in mind that disagreeing with feminists means that one is not a decent human being.
CassandraSays: It is a red herring because my comment had nothing to do with “patriarchy” being an ideology. I never said any ideology completely causes or eliminates anything. I asked whether it can influence or change people’s behaviors. You answered yes, so let me follow up: if an ideology can change people’s behaviors for the better, can it also change people’s behavior for the worst?
BB: The no true scotsman fallacy means that an “individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them.” If the assertion was simply that my aunt is not a feminist, then this particular fallacy would not apply. However, the assertion was that my aunt cannot be a feminist because feminism opposes abuse and therefore any feminist who commits abuse is no longer a feminist. That is an example of the no true scotsman fallacy. As I noted before, I do not hold my aunt representative of all feminists. However, many feminists do share her views, and some do act on them.
Bagelsan: I never said my aunt told me she did anything because of feminism. I stated that she behaved as she did because of feminism’s impact on her views.
You know, Toy Soldier, for someone who asks so many questions of others you seem oddly reluctant to answer any of ours. So I’ll ask you again – what is it that you hope to gain from this exercise? If everyone were to agree with you about all the assertions you’re making (which they’re unlikely to, but in theory), what would you think that proves? Do you think that one abusive woman’s behavior somehow means something profound about an entire movement? Do you think your aunt’s actions somehow prove that feminism as a movement is pro-misandry, or pro sexual abuse of boys?
It’s fairly obvious that you’re attempting to pull off some sort of gotcha. I’m not sure why you don’t realize just how obvious it is.
–If getting rained on can make you wet, can it also make you dry? If falling off a building can make you lose altitude can it also make you gain altitude? If being a vegetarian can make you eat less meat can it also make you eat more meat? If–
The assertion is neither of those things. The assertion is that child abuse is not a feminist act, not that feminists never do it. I believe that your aunt is a feminist, I just don’t think feminism caused your abuse (or as you say below, that the abuse occurred “because of feminism’s impact on her views.”) That’s like saying she was an environmentalist and abused you because she wanted to teach you about the destruction of rainforests; neither feminism nor environmentalism promote sexual abuse of children, so it’s nonsensical to say that either would influence someone to abuse.
Okay, I get that you’re trying to make some weird distinction here, and explain things that happened to you to yourself. But that justification is not part of your “lived experience” — no one is doubting what actually happened to you, people are doubting your reasoning around it. You are speculating about what was going on in your aunt’s head, and we’re disagreeing. If I said “I got mugged the other day; it’s because I was wearing the color blue and muggers hate the color blue!” everyone would likewise say “wow, we’re super sorry you got mugged, but we think that’s probably not why you were mugged.”
Shorter Toysoldier:My aunt abused me because of feminism, therefore people should stop being feminists.
For those that would like to advocate for women in the places they suffer discrimination, what should they be?
It’s like he honestly thinks that if he says the same things in enough different ways, we’ll all get so confused that we’ll eventually go “fine, whatever, I have no idea what the hell you’re trying to say at this point but I guess it must be correct” and then he will be able to go “see? told you all along that feminism is evil and makes women abuse little boys, and therefore it must be stopped”.
It feels like being badgered into buying a timeshare. Eventually many people just give in and agree just to make the person doing the badgering go away, and I wonder if that’s what he’s hoping for here.
I’m still here. He’s never responded. Hell, he never responded to any of my questions, just the same old stupid repetitive response while ignoring actual information/failing to actually call into question the information. Also he’s such a lazy ass that doesn’t seem to understand how information flow works.
Also, I find it funny he’s trying to go over a no true Scotsman fallacy when I already shot down his claim of me using it. You fail logic Toysoldier, granted you also fail reading comprehension.
No, it questions your explanation of your experiences which, like a lot of people said, can be wrong.
No, we can’t question your experiences. We’re perfectly within our rights to question your understanding of them, which attempt to explain them and which, as explanations, might be true or false. Or are you saying that victims of child abuse can say whatever they want now, and nobody can contradict them? I was abused as a kid by my dad, and THEREFORE the Thirty Years’ War was caused by aliens. That’s right, aliens. And you can’t contradict me. If you suggest I get therapy, that’s bigotry!
Do you see how silly this is?
Now that’s ridiculous. Everyone knows that it was caused by the lizard people!
Also: if two people were abused as children and have completely contrary opinions, who of them is right? Are they both right? Or both wrong?
Seriously, I don’t think it makes much sense to argue with Toysoldier any longer. I mean, he is apparently doing this shtick since at least 2005; repeating the same arguments over and over, not listening to the people who disagree with him and accusing them of not taking his abuse seriously.
I have no idea if he thinks femnists will just go “Oh, you mean feminism causes people to abuse children! Well, why didn’t you just say so right away? That is totally true, of course!” if he just repeats it often enough or changes the wording a little.
As has been said a few times by others;
Toysoldier, it’s not that we don’t understand you. We just disagree with you.
@ToySoldier:
You raise an excellent point. I thought I was misusing the term, and did a little research; some of the definitions I came across classified the fallacy as a form of ad hoc argument modification. However, on deeper inspection, there are definitions (including RationalWiki) that seem to confirm your interpretation of the term, and my initial interpretation; a for of ad hoc argument modification specifically concerned with the group disassociation.
I’m glad to hear that you do not hold your aunt representative of all Feminists.
No true scottsman only applies if the denial of the characteristic is not a necessary condition or a part of the definition. For example, it is perfeclty reasonable to say that no true bird is a squirrel. This is because the features which define “bird” and the features which define “squirrel” are mutually exclusive. It can also be the case that there is a physical law such that X and Y are in fact mutually exclusive due to a causal relationship or physical relationship (for example, asserting that no true carbon atom can be doing X, where X is a thign which carbon atoms in fact can’t do). The thing is, the former relies on definition and the latter relies on proof (as an argument). The no true scottsman is a type of nonsequiter, it is not necessarily a contradition.
Let’s look at an example:
“No true pacifist would commit a murder”
Is this a “no true scottsman”? It depends on whether pacifism is defined as a set of acts or a set of views, people can act contrary to their views. But, assuming it is an act-view combo definition, that statement is in no way a fallacy.
Contrast with this:
“No true member of the communist party would vote to abolish the estate tax.”
Now, this could be a no true scottsman, if presented alone. The fact that a person is a member of the communist party does not mean, by definition, that they would not vote in such a way. However, this statement may very well be true. It could be the case that the groups “member of the communist party” and “people who would vote to abolish the estate tax” contain no members in common. However, if we found a case where the person was a member of both groups, this would disprove the statement. I person reiterating the statement is making a rather poor argument in that situation. But this is because statement is demonstrably false, not because it is self contradictory. Some people refer to poorly reasserting the original statment as the “no true scottsman” fallacy, but it is not in fact a fallacy, it is just denial of the fact of the demonstrated case.
A genuine dispute about the definition to claim that the original statement is true is not generally a fallacy, unless one is committing some sort of fallacy of definition (which is common in many cases in practice). A mere dispute of definition of categories is not in and of itself a fallacy.
CassandraSays: I already addressed those questions before. Now please answer my question: if an ideology can change people’s behaviors for the better, can it also change people’s behavior for the worst?
Bagelsan: I never claimed that child abuse was a feminist act or that feminism promotes abuse, and it is not nonsensical to say feminism influences someone’s behavior when feminists themselves contend that feminism can cause a person to treat women better. If you think feminism can never influence someone’s behavior for the worst, you need to prove that. As I noted before, you have no basis to speculate from as you know nothing about the person in question.
Kollege Messerschmitt: I noted several times that people here disagree with me and that I do not expect feminists to agree with me. The reason I keep repeating myself is because you and others keep saying I hold positions I do not. I also noticed you did not answer my question. I will ask again: do you think those three examples represent the whole feminist position on misandry? If so, why does that logic not apply to examples of feminists failing to call out or engaging in misandry?
Flib: The first link was about female tokenism, which has nothing to do with “male privilege”. The second, third, fourth, fifth, and six all argue that men, regardless of their social status, still possess “male privilege”. Unfortunately, one must pay to read several of the studies, so I cannot give my opinion on them. However, all those examples support that my position that the feminist privilege doctrine argues that all men always possess privilege, “male privilege” is a universal. Coincidentally, everything from those six sources matches the definitions and views written on Feminism 101. Thank you for proving my argument for me.
VoiP: Of course you have the right to question my understanding of my experiences. The issue is whether you have any basis from which to do so. The answer is no. You know no details about my experiences or my aunt, so how could you contradict my explanation, let alone declare it false? Following your logic, if you say that “patriarchy” causes men to sexually harass you, I can just declare that social views about women in no way influenced the men who harassed you. Do you see sill that is?
darksidecat: The fallacy can occasionally be a non sequitor, but no true scotsman is not such by definition. The only case in which the no true scotsman fallacy would not apply is if a group explicitly defines the conditions for membership and condition gets broken. For example, “no true Christian would worship Zeus” is a fair statement Christians are barred from worshiping other gods. However, the statement, “no true Christian would murder” is a fallacy despite Christianity’s views on murder.
Toysoldier: Uh, no bro. You still don’t understand the difference between systemic vs. universal. Honestly, stop trying, you are pathetic.
Toysoldier: Also note that I never said that you’re a bad person. I don’t know you well enough to make that judgement. What I said was that you are no more exempt from basic human decency than anyone else, and that you’re acting like an asshole. I’m judging your actions, not your character.
Technically, the commandment only says that you’re not supposed to have any gods before him. I would tihnk that as long as he were your primary patron and got most of your worship, he shouldn’t mind if you appeal to someone else for help now and again.
“I would tihnk that as long as he were your primary patron and got most of your worship, he shouldn’t mind if you appeal to someone else for help now and again.”
Indeed, if this had not been the way things actually worked in practice, Christianity would never have spread as widely as it has. Catholicism in particular has always been very good at absorbing local deities and allowing people to continue venerating them (sometimes in slightly adjusted forms).
Or, to put it another way – I know tons of people who wear Celtic crosses who don’t identify as Christian. In the end, not only did Christianity bend to accommodate aspects of Celtic culture upon arrival in the UK, for a lot of people of Celtic ancestry the Celtic part actually swallowed up the Christian part to the point where now that particular cross has a symbolic value that’s more “I celebrate my Celtic heritage” than “I love Jesus”.
Ok I’m pretty sure you mean worse, not worst. Sorry, that was bugging me. As for your actual points, if you could even call them that, other people have already answered them like a million times and there seems to be no reason for me to answer you again.
Snowy: Are you saying an ideology can influence a person’s behavior for the better but not the best? As in “my significant other brings out the best in me.”
Flib: Do not get upset because your own evidence shows that feminists believe all males always have privilege and can never be disprivileged or disadvantaged as males.
KathleenB: Of course you have not said I am a bad person. You just implied that I am an indecent human being. In regards to worshiping other gods, Exodus 20:5 states, “Thou shalt not bow down thyself to [other gods], nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me…”
CassandraSays: Quite often Christians retained pagan elements as they transitioned from their local faiths to Christianity, and in the early centuries they masked Jesus as Roman gods in order to avoid persecution. However, that does not mean that Christians actually worship other gods.
Snowy: I meant worst, as in the most extreme. No one has actually answered my question. Telling me that feminism opposes abuse has nothing to do with whether the ideology, due the biases inherent to it, can cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence.
Toysoldier:
Then what are you trying to achieve here? I’m seriously puzzled. You apparently have been doing this same thing for several years, and are trotting out the same tired arguments, no matter how many people point out that they are faulty.
You seem to expect a specific answer, and you won’t rest until you get it. What is it?
Do you want feminists or feminism to take responsibility for what your aunt did to you? I’m genuinely curious.
Dude, if everyone here is misunderstanding your positions, maybe you should, I dunno, make yourself a bit clearer instead of just complaining that we are misunderstanding/misrepresenting you? Just an idea.
Also,
BUH?
Are you fucking kidding me? So, a blog run by mostly feminists that focuses on calling out misandry is not valid to bring up when arguing that there are feminists who point out misandry (of feminists and non-feminists)? Now this is a pretty good example of your dishonesty.
If there was a site that was about saving tigers, and about why and how tigers need to be saved, along with information about tigers, wouldn’t you think it would be pretty silly if there was someone who kept on complaining how the site doesn’t write enough about how otters* need to be saved, and that there are obviously anti-otter bias on the site of the site maintainers?
And then the people from the tiger saving side are all “look, we seriously don’t have anything against otters. We think they should totally be saved, too! It is just not what we are focusing on.”
and the otter person is like “Well, if you really WANTED to save otters, you would write about them! If you can’t show me a pro-tiger site that also advocates otter saving, I will stand by my belief that pro-tiger people are anti-otter! OH BTW! Linking to a site that is mostly run by pro-tiger people and is solely dedicated to otter saving doesn’t count! It has to be on a site about tiger saving”!
See why this isn’t helpful?
Again, you seem to hold feminists to a different standard than the MRM. As said, I think it’s flattering that you think feminists have more to offer more than “not ALL of them are calling for the gendercide or enslavement of 50% of the population, or are thinking they deserve to get beaten and raped”, which is apparently enough to not label the MRM as hateful.
But for fuck’s sake, don’t act like you are totally not biased, and are just pointing out that feminists are not better than MRAs.
Question: Is there a site that is run by mostly MRAs that is dedicated to call out MRAs and non-MRAs for misogyny?
(* I have nothing against otters, or pro-otter people for that matter, so no offense to any otter or pro-otter people reading this!)
I don’t want to get into a grammar derail, it’s just that I’ve never seen it put that way before and it looks strange to me. As for your
This is a lie. First of all, what are the biases inherent to feminism in your opinion? Second, let me quote Bagelsan
Oops, cross out that random “As for your” in your mind please! That’s what I get for not proofreading I guess
But I do know that one of the stated aims of feminism is anti-abuse, therefore I know that your claim that feminism MADE your aunt abuse you is false.
This game of ‘I reject your reality and substitute my own’ is getting tiresome. I said that YOU ARE ACTING LIKE AN ASSHOLE and that bad experiences do not excuse you from the rules of human interaction. Do you see anything like ‘you are a bad person’ in there? THAT’S BECAUSE IT ISN’T!
So just to be clear, my two points regarding your behavior:
1) You are acting like an asshole
2) Horrible experiences in your past are not an excuse for 1.
Nowhere in those two points are the words bad or indecent. Reading comprehension, you do not haz it.
Well of course Toy Soldier is a godbot. After all, no one lies quite like one of those.
To reiterate what KathleenB said, Toy:
1) You are acting like an asshole
2) Horrible experiences in your past are not an excuse for 1.
Also, I’m starting to suspect that you’re either genuinely stupid or deliberately dishonest and obtuse.
Conversations with Toy Soldier do rather remind me of the whole “War on Christmas” debate, now that you mention it. I think it’s the absolute conviction that a. everyone is out to get him via insults, etc and b. not agreeing with some of the things he says is a cruel and vicious personal attack.
Toysoldier: I’ll note you never engaged with criticism to begin with. You have never operationalized your terms, you continue to perpetuate an idea based on minimal misinterpreted evidence. None of my sources agreed with your assertion because your assertion is premised entirely on something that doesn’t actually exist. From the start you don’t have support. So when I say pathetic, your statements are truly that. Systemic does not mean universal, and it is you who makes the error of assuming that it does.
So, let’s do something you FAILED to do, which destroys your assertion. A basic analysis of one of my list of sources. Never mind that you never actually did any fucking research yourself to prove your assertion, and specifically misread what is being discussed to construct universals that just aren’t actually true. Hell, your pathetic attempt at taunting me again when I pointed out systemic does not equal universal continues to exemplify your stubborn stupidity.
From Gender as a Social Structure.
From the abstract: “The author also argues that while concern with intersectionality must continue to be paramount, different structures of inequality have different constructions and perhaps different influential causal mechanisms at any given historical moment”
A recognition that inequality, and thus, privilege as a sign of inequality, does vary.
Page 5: “male-dominated institutions”.
More evidence for something that is systemically true. As a current snapshot of things, the majority of institutions which determine power are male dominated. See: Congress, corporate power, etc. This is not a universal statement. Institutions could be not male dominated.
Page 9: Male and Privilege: “In a sexist and racist society, women and all persons of color are expected to have less to contribute to task performances than are white men, unless they have some other externally validated source of prestige. Status expectations create a cognitive bias toward privileging those of already high status. What produces status distinction, however, is culturally and historically variable. Thus, cognitive bias is one of the causal mechanisms that help to explain the reproduction of gender and race inequality in everyday life.”
Discussion of privilege. It is not made as a universal that white men will always have privilege. But in a society that favors them, systemically, there is strong privilege. Again, your ideas of universals do not fit.
page 11: “To ask the question, Can men mother, presuming that gender itself is a social
structure leads us to look at all the ways that gender constrains men’s mothering and
under what conditions those change.”
Discusses role identity over childcare. Notes that it is situated in a field of labor (Emotional work, childcare) that is emphasized as feminine. “Single fathers’ identities changed based on their experiences as primary parents.” It is not within most masculine identities to be associated with child care. A limitation of the construction of male identity. Tokenism is an indicator of inequalities, though the form of how these inequalities take place are different. So, your initial argument of tokenism having nothing to do with privilege is incorrect. On interactional and individual levels, men do face a form of inequality with being parents, one that necessitates a shift in identities that is considered abnormal for male identities. Again, we do not see a universal here.
Page 13: Tokenism and inequality: “early structural hypotheses presumed that
tokenism per se was an important mechanism that explained women’s and men of
color’s continued subordination in the labor force. But as research testing this
tokenism hypothesis expanded to include men in women’s jobs, it became clear that
the theory was not indeed only about numbers. Tokenism did not work the same
way for white men.”
Tokenism does deal with labor inequalities. White Men breaking their role still receive many benefits, but it’s not all advantage. The benefits are more a result of a empirical systemic truth, again, not a universal. Honestly if you are looking for where men are not advantaged within intersectionality, there are TONS of studies on male people of color (See: prisons, arrests for minor offenses, etc.) That is where you’d like to look.
Page 13: “Gender structure theory allows us to try to disentangle the “how” questions
without presuming that there is one right answer, for all places, times, and contexts.”
Herp derp, do you even fucking read? Clearly not.
Page 14: “Little cultural change has occurred around fathering. Most men are still not morally responsible for the quality of family life”
Do you disagree that there has been little cultural change for fathering? Are you aware how the discourse over childcare has changed? Jesus, TS, if you are so fucking concerned about children, you should at least be in alignment with the overall feminist mindset that all genders should be involved in a parenting process. The fact that your making arguments against your straw feminists nearly convinces me that you don’t give a flying fuck about children, but I’m not quite willing to fully believe that. I imagine you do actually care about abuse. But you are to busy bickering over 2nd wave feminist ideas rather then even raising the possibility that part of the issue (and this isn’t furthered by modern feminism) with gender and parenting is that men are often REMOVED from the process due to social constructions based on economic constructions from decades ago. Hence when you go on about women abusers, we point out that right now, mostly women are the ones doing the labor of working with children. THIS IS A PROBLEM, I AGREE. But you are focusing on the wrong things here. You should be aware that Feminism has changed and evolved since it existed as a movement, but clearly you are not aware of this. Talk about who makes universal statements, you do.
Page 15: “Other examples also illustrate the analytic usefulness of paying attention to the
distinct properties of different axes of oppression. Gendered images support racial
domination, but racial domination can hardly be attributed to gender inequality. For
example, Black men’s inferiority gets promoted through constructions of hyper-sexuality (Collins 2004), and Black women’s inferiority gets promoted through
sexualized images such as Jezebel or welfare queen (Collins 2000). Similarly,
Asian American men’s autonomy and even citizenship rights were abrogated by
constructions of effeminacy (Espiritu 1997). Yet it is implausible to argue that
racial domination is nothing but a product of gender oppression.”
Basics of intersectionality. Gender isn’t the only axis of oppression, sometimes it comes into play, including ones that specifically separate out male PoC, other cases it may not be. More evidence that it is more complicated then your universal.
I could continue on here, but I rather think it is not necessary. You should honestly rethink and reiterate just what it is you are trying to say, and actually back it up with evidence. Not misinterpret specifically to construct a false version of events. You should also consider, if your concern over children is actually true, ways to actually investigate abuse, allow for more acceptable parenting rolls, and do generally activist things. Not just go on a stint attempting to falsely blame feminism for all your ills.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Yes, I have been talking about my experiences for years, and as much as it may annoy feminists I will not stop talking about my experiences. If you go back my comments here and on Alas, in both instances I referred to my experiences in passing. Feminists chose to make an issue out of it. Excluding NSWATM is no different than asking you list restaurants that sell burgers and excluding Burger King. The idea is to get examples other than the obvious ones. Please stop dodging and answer my questions: do you think the three examples you presented represent the whole feminist position on misandry? If so, why does that logic not apply to examples of feminists failing to call out or engaging in misandry?
Snowy: Quote where someone on this thread answered whether an ideology can cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence. I already noted that misandry is inherent in feminist doctrine.
VoiP: I never said feminism made my aunt abuse me. Secondly, that an ideology supposedly opposes a particular act does not mean the ideology cannot lead people to commit that act. For example, Christianity opposes murder, yet plenty of Christians commit murder as result of the influence of Christian doctrines.
KathleenB: Look, I used this game. Feminists insult someone, and when called on it they try to weasel out of it and turn it back on the insulted party. As I noted before, it seems rather indecent to insult someone who did you no harm. More so, it seems rather indecent to question someone’s character and then get defensive when called on it. Feel free to insult me however you like, but do not wuss out when called on it.
Flib: Your first quote only states that inequality can vary. The second quote is just a phrase. The third does not question whether white men always possess privilege, either as Caucasians or as men. The fourth quote is a question about parenting roles (and a rather sexist one). The fifth addresses inequalities, not privilege (and I noted in a prior response that tokenism refers to inequality). The sixth quote is taken out of context. It is followed by, “It is easy to illustrate that a combination of gender wage gap and the organization of careers requiring inflexible hours and full-time commitment pushes married mothers outside the labor force and creates stressful lives for mothers who remain within it, married or not. But we must still ask why this is true for women but not men.” The author’s comment referred to the notion that there may be different explanations for why women’s experiences differ from men’s. Seventh quote is an amazing example of feminist misandry. The eighth quote is exactly what I said feminists argue in regards to “intersectionality”. The author does not acknowledge black men as disprivileged as black men. She only acknowledges them as privileged as black men. Flib, as I noted before, your evidence proved my point. I will your other comment in mind the next time I speak to a group of male survivors.
“I already noted that misandry is inherent in feminist doctrine.”
You may have “noted” this, but you have failed to prove it. I know you’re very attached to the idea that your opinions are facts, but that’s not actually how the process of debate works, and therefore every time you state one of your opinions as fact people are going to ask you to prove it.
Also feminism does not have doctrines, as it not a religion.
This is not what you asked, you asked if the ideology of feminism can cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence. Since I already quoted Bagelsan which you seem to have ignored, let me go ahead and quote darksidecat answering your question.
Doesn’t make it true, as others have already pointed out. I sincerely hope you will just read up instead of asking me for a quote, but I’m not holding my breath.
Toysoldier: I’m not playing this game any more. You want to think i insulted you, shiny. You want to substitute your reality whenever someone calls you on bad behavior, have at it. But you are being an asshole to people who are trying to help you. You are determined to find insult where none exists, to back up your ‘eternal victim of the feminazis’ song.
You are not a repository of universal wisdom. You do not know the answer to the ultimate question*, and no matter what yo think, you do not know why your aunt did what she did. Only she does (or did). A little acknowledgement that you are not all-knowing would be nice.
#Either one – the one where the answer is 42 or the on that must be answered when the eleventh falls.
An experiment in Toy Soldier logic.
I have noted that the moon is made of blue cheese. It is not necessary for me to prove this, as it is self evident. Thus anyone who does not accept my assertion that the moon is made of blue cheese in gravely insulting me. This will not do.
Toysoldier: You missed how inequality is involved in privileges. But considering how staunchly you are trying to defend this like a “Gotcha” moment, just further proves how stupid you are. Also, again, systemic is not universal, but you keep failing to address this because it takes apart your initial statements. But I’ll note you are not bothering to really read and have one of the strongest confirmation biases in interpretation that I’ve ever seen. You are trying so hard and you are failing so fucking awfully.
4th quote is empirically true. Look up the vast studies on share of house hold work and labor statistics. You want to challenge it, be my fucking guest. You won’t win any debate over the empirical data. Which you still fail to provide on your own statements.
The sixth quote accepts that there isn’t universal statements. You are the one who has claimed universal statements. And you accuse me of goal post shifting when you do it all the fucking time. Stop being a hypocrite.
Seventh quote isn’t misandrist. It’s also a description of how things are at the time of the writing. See attached studies and studies on the history of children that are associated. You are taking many things out of context, and I’ve told you before, changing the idea behind fathering is something that is important in our society. It is accepted men have been disassociated from childcare for the most part, do you not agree that that is also a problem? Or are you going to further evidence mounting against you that you don’t actually give a fuck about children?
The eighth quote does acknowledge that black men are not as privileged as white men. The problem you can’t seem to get over is the men part. Perhaps you are new to this Intersctionality thing like I said. Emphasis is placed on their race where they don’t get privilege, not because they are just men. Because if it were just men, white men should be experiencing a similar case. They are not. Yeah, pretty plainly clear you are new to this.
As everyone here has said. You have failed to prove anything. You have remained vague as hell and have never bothered to operationalize your terms. As stated before, your statements are flawed from the beginning. Go reanalyze what the fuck it is you are doing before continuing your bloated bullshit.
This evidence never proved your point. You are just a pathetic troll attempting to twist things for your confirmation biases. I like how, in this long string of argument with you, you dropped: Systemic vs. universal, your claims on me pulling a no true Scotsman, and several other questions directly challenging you. Shows what your goals are.
Everyone knows the moon’s made of cheese!
Ah, but you see! It is not blue cheese. As we know, only BLUE cheese is part of the moon. It’s those cheese propagandists who’ve been working in astronomy for years to make us doubt that the moon is not just blue cheese. They had to change the nature of their theories, coming up with “different aging processes” and the like to make themselves more legitimate. Also, they some how control the world and hate all blue cheese lovers.
Am I understanding correctly that the bulk of Toysoldier’s argument is that his aunt was a feminist and an abuser, therefore feminism made her abuse him?
Indeed that is the sum total of his reasoning, such as it is.