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.
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?