So our dear friend Fidelbogen, self-declared Counter-Feminist Agent of Change and the wannabe philosopher-king of the Men’s Rights movement, has written an exceedingly dull and verbose post for A Voice for Men rehashing the whole Agent-Orange-RadFemHub-thing. Now, it’s a lovely, slightly too-hot Sunday afternoon here at Man Boobz headquarters, so naturally I didn’t do much more than lightly skim the whole thing. But I did notice this interesting little “argument” part way through.
Apparently Fidelbogen has concluded that it’s perfectly fine for critics of feminism to completely ignore the ideas of most feminists and focus only on the dogmas of the most radical of RadFems:
We should lay to rest the silly notion that such feminists as these are only “fringe radicals” or “extremists”, and that we mustn’t judge the entire movement by them. My question is, why shouldn’t we judge the entire movement by them? Compared to them, what do the moderate feminists really add up to? Anything much? What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball? What really fuels feminism, anyway? Is it driven relentlessly forward by mellowness and grooviness — by fun, fluffy, happy feelings? Or does it run, let us say, on pure hate, pure spite, pure malevolence, pure malignancy? Well, you get the idea: darker emotions?
That weird choice of alternatives at the end is pretty much a textbook example of a “false dichotomy.” You would think that someone with a brain as big as Fidelbogen’s would be able to recognize and avoid such an elementary logical fallacy.
Fidelbogen continues:
Say what you will, but I am partial to the old maxim that happy people don’t make history. And which is more, I’ve got some experience with feminists; I have studied them, as chaps like me will do, and I have logged a few years in this trade. And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say. They vary in superficialities, but under all those sheathing layers lies the high-conductive cable core on which the feminist message travels. It is the same message every time. Every feminist I have ever personally encountered, or been informed of, differs from the radfems we are now studying only in the strength of the underlying signal. One way or another, let them veil it ever so artfully, the message never skips a beat: “Men are the problem. . . men are the problem . . . men are the problem.”
Dude, “projection” ain’t just a river in Egypt.
If the feminist hivemind is to be taken as a gestalt, men are the problem, and guinea pigs are the solution.
So, does it works the other way around too? Are all MRAs responsible for the worst comments we can find? No, I’m kidding, I’m know it just works with us evil nazi feminists.
I suppose if you think women having equal rights is a terrible thing, then yes, every feminist will be repulsive to you.
Feminist aren’t driven by mellowness and grooviness. That’s the Mystery Machine.
So let’s judge the MRM by Paul Elam and some of the more noxious dudes there. That’s fair, right? If we judge the MRM by Fidelbogen, we could conclude that it’s slow and stupid.
So… we’re not allowed to use the current extremes of the MRM to posit the opinions of the whole MRM, but they can read Dworkin and decide that all feminists hate men and think heterosexual sex is rape? LOGIC!
*hee*
It amounts to a nice soft pillow that also makes people sneeze at times.
Also, you mean the fact that all feminist have the radical (not really) notion women are people too?
Pretty sure that the number of MRAs that have actually read Dworkin is pretty damned close to zero.
darksidecat: Point. They read someone’s summary of what they think Dworkin was saying (which may or may not bear any resemblance to what she was actually saying), how’s that?
But she’s the Devil! Why would you read anything the Devil wrote? Unless you want to turn into demon’s spawn, that is.
Consistency and logic are not exactly abundant in the blogs and comments we are citing over in MRMland. They grasp at straws and seize upon anything to prove what is really an emotional argument they are making. To put it another way, they aren’t making any intellectual argument, really, it’s all “wah!”
If actually had anything of value to say, he’d make a pretty decent writer.
I read that article this morning, and it’s fucking terrible. Just replace feminist with MRA and it will make a lot more sense.
i sat next to Dworkin once…it’s a pretty weak claim to fame.
“What does a heap of feathers amount to, compared to a cannon ball?”
pretty sure that’s an allusion to the assumption that European canon balls wiped out the Native Americans (and their feathers) — when plenty of people assume you don’t exist, you get used to spotting such >.<
In other words, if I'm reading that right, it's a dog whistle for pro-eugenics. I might be wrong, but I only ever see that sort of weapon/feathers dichotomy used as "proof" why the Native Americans "lost" when really, it was mostly smallpox. (And they're still plenty of them around, and even more of us of Native descent)
@Kyrie — "But she’s the Devil! Why would you read anything the Devil wrote? Unless you want to turn into demon’s spawn, that is." — know your enemy is why (I mean, it's why we read them right?)
Argenti: sure, but that’s only true when you’re studying and fighting humans! (And maybe robots and aliens and reptiles in the center of the Earth) Imagine you’re fighting Satan, or I don’t know, Cthulu! Learning too much, reading too many word might turn you evil, you risk turning into a cultist or what not!
Hmm. He should checkout #radfem2012 on Twitter. Loads of ‘mainstream’ feminists making it quite explicit they want nothing to do with RadFem transphobia. Hivemind, my arse.
Kyrie — oh we’re minions of the old ones? I didn’t realize…apparently it’s just that insidious! 🙂
“So, does it works the other way around too? Are all MRAs responsible for the worst comments we can find? No, I’m kidding, I’m know it just works with us evil nazi feminists.”
I don’t expect actual logic as an answer here, but how does that work even in MRA-land? Any guesses?
gillianlove — doesn’t matter! The underlying message is still HATE MEN!! (well to them anyways)
Between the trans-hate, the sex-negativity, and the referral to consensual BDSM practices as an abomination, I’m pretty sure I want nothing to do with the RadFem set. They’re so whacked out in their hate of absolutely everything that after going left they came around full circle and are now next to the fundie xtians in terms of ideology.
The only thing I have in common with RadFems is our mutual refusal to sleep with an MRA’s miserable ass.
MRAs must not own mirrors.
I’d post more in this thread, but you’ve all received my opinion telepathically already.
As a pro-anti-pro-anti-manboobz supporter, I can`t wait for Varpole`s vicious takedown of this post.
That should actually be “anti-anti-pro-anti-manboobz”
Oh I get it! They live in opposite land:
“And I can attest that feminists are all alike. Monolithic, you might say.”
We say we aren’t a monolith, therefore we must be a monolith!