It’s not news to anyone that some of the most popular antifeminist “arguments” are in fact logical fallacies.
For example, here’s the fallacy of relative privation, suggesting that women in first world countries aren’t allowed to complain about sexism so long as anyone in the world is worse off than them.
And here’s the good old straw man, in the form of a meme accusing feminists of believing all sorts of things they don’t believe (as well as a few things they do believe, but for perfectly good reasons).
MRAs: in case you’re wondering which of these statements are straw men and why, I’ve attached a helpful footnote below.
So, yeah, those are some logical fallacies on display. But looking through the memes on display on the Male Lives Matter Facebook page today — which is where the memes above came from — I began to realize that MRAs have invented a whole bunch of brand-new logical fallacies of their own.
Let’s take a look, shall we?
Argumentum ad Picard Facepalm
This “argument” might make a little more sense were it not for the fact that Patrick Stewart — you know, the dude who played Picard — weren’t in fact an outspoken feminist who has literally worn a “this is what a feminist looks like” shirt in public.
I should note that using a Picard facepalm pic isn’t always a fallacy For example, if you are Ian McKellen, a personal friend of Stewart who famously carried a Picard facepalm sign at the London Women’s March this January.
Argumentum ad Ha Ha You’ll Never Get Laid
Granted, “white knighting” is not the same as feminism; it’s a rather patronizing form of “chivalry.” And that last post on the right up there is a little cringey.
But this meme is aimed at male feminists. And while there are some ostentatiously “feminist” dudes who profess a shallow facsimile of feminism in hopes of scoring with the ladies, genuinely feminist dudes are feminists because, you know, they actually believe in equality and shit. As much as this might shock MRAs and others obsessed with classifying men according to simplistic schemes using Greek letters, feminism doesn’t actually render men unfuckable.
Hell, I have actual photographic proof that one of the guys in this very meme has had sex with at least one woman at least once. Here’s the guy in the middle up there — Nev Schulman of the show Catfish — posing recently with his very pregnant wife.
IN YOUR FACE MRAS!!!11!
In case you’re wondering, she has since given birth to a baby girl.
Argumentum ad WTF-um
Wat
Argumentum ad You’re Not a Fireman
Apparently if you’re a female feminist you’re not entitled to emergency services? Even if you pay taxes just like everybody else? Does that apply to male feminists too? I need to know before I light my apartment on fire.
It’s true that there are not a lot of female firefighters. It’s also true that women have been largely kept out of the profession. But not by feminists — the only people I ever see arguing against women firefighters are MRAs and other antifeminists.
Argumentum ad You’re Not a Coal Miner
A kind of mash-up of the Fallacy of Relative Privation and Argumentum ad You’re Not a Fireman. It’s worth pointing out that none of the MRAs I’ve ever seen making this “argument” has themselves been a coal miner.
Argumentum ad Women Sometimes Get Drunk
It’s true that women sometimes get really, really drunk. I’m not quite sure how exactly this is a rebuttal of feminism.
Or is this about the hats? Are you suggesting that women need to start wearing 1956-style hats again?
It’s all very confusing. I think I need a drink.
FOOTNOTE:
Here are the straw men in that straw man meme above:
On drunk women: feminists DO believe drunk women should be responsible for their behavior. Just not the behavior of others. If a woman drives drunk, feminists have no problem with her charged with drunk driving. If a woman is raped while she is drunk, by contrast, feminists don’t think she should be charged with “drunk being raped.”
On alimony, etc: Women do pay alimony and child support when a court rules that it’s appropriate, and no feminist I’ve ever seen has argued that they shouldn’t.
On the draft: Feminists have long argued that women should be allowed to serve in combat and the National Organization for Women has in fact taken legal action to try to extend selective service registration to women,
As for the other ones? I’m not quite sure how exactly the “false accusers should be charged” crowd defines a “false accuser,” but, yes, it’s true feminists don’t want rape accusers charged if they lose a rape case any more than they want murder accusers to be prosecuted for losing a murder case. Accusers of all sorts can be prosecuted for filing a false police report, but this is relatively rare.
Meanwhile, 50-50 custody can be crappy for kids, so it makes little sense to make it the default setting. As for the one about “unwed fathers,” is that really saying what it looks like it’s saying? If so, no, feminists don’t think fathers should be allowed to force women to get an abortion (or to not get an abortion).
EDIT: I reworked the paragraph on feminist dudes and sex to make myself clearer.
@MGTOWRevolutionary:
For starters, Homo sapiens aren’t classified as “alphas” or “betas”, so you can’t say that we are attracted to one or the other.
Secondly, what does “biologically attracted” even mean? I love my husband for his intelligence, his caring and funny personality, his artistic skills, and the fact that we have a lot of the same interests. And he’s neither alpha nor beta, because as has been pointed out, those are terms used to describe the relationships of wolves, not humans.
@Policy of Madness:
It’s pretty hilarious… I’ve never seen a Manospherian classify women into “alphas” or “betas”, because to them, we’re not supposed to do things, or strive for things, or have personalities. All women are naturally quiet little possessions who are supposed to be acquired somehow so we can provide our owner with sex and housework. The moment we go outside that somewhat restricted role, we immediately turn into screeching, sexless harridans that MGTOWs aren’t attracted to.
If male lives matter so much, why do they keep sending each other to war?
Steph:
Millions of people save up in order to be able to afford having two homes and trekking between them. The traffic on Sunday night coming back from cottage country is awful, except in the off season.
Your conclusion that it sucks to switch parents all the time may be right, just saying your data don’t prove the case.
The (many) people I know whose parents divorced have such varied stories that I only have anecdata, but for sure it doesn’t support automatically assuming joint custody is bad.
Troubelle and IP – I take Allegra for my seasonal allergies. Actually, it’s a store-brand version.
Kaza – MRAs (PUAs and MIGTOWs) like to conveniently forget about/ignore women who are miners, firefighters, soldiers, EMTs and the like. When confronted with evidence of the existence of these people, they’ll cry “Quotas!!1!” and/or go on endlessly about how women doing physical jobs like that are endangering everyone because “Inferior upper body strength!!1!”
What these guys don’t say is that most of these women don’t count for them anyway because they don’t find them attractive. You have to always remember that when they talk about “women,” they pretty much mean HB7s and above. The rest of us exist in their periphery and are only good for use in memes to warn the pretty women never to be like us. Because we’re all the same; manless (or stuck with some beta mangina) and bitter about it.
@Anonymous:
I think it’s the other way around. Wars, to them, are what male lives are for. Other forms of male death are a waste, and therefore to be avoided.
@numerobis
But those people trekking back from their country residences have a main base typically with a weekend getaway for a break. Which is my point.
I think children need a base. Or if 50/50 must be implemented, implement it on the parents. The children remain in the home and each parent moves in and out each week.
Steph, my point is that you haven’t proven your claim that children need a base, and that therefore joint custody is bad. You tried asserting it based on a theoretical argument, but I pointed out your reasoning failed. Now you’re asserting it based on feeling. That’s not science.
If joint custody is bad for kids, we should be able to prove it. There’s a lot of kids in joint custody arrangements — there’s no shortage of examples.
I’m aware that there are loads of kids in 50/50 arrangements. That doesn’t mean that’s not prioritising the parents over the children.
What when one parent lives on the other side of the city? How do they duplicate everything the kids needs across two homes? Forget something at one home what happens?
And why does 50/50 care only matter post divorce? Why does it not matter before? I have no issue with a 50/50 arrangement if that is deemed best and of least disruption to the child. I just disagree that should be the default.
I’m in Oz where it’s the norm and there is a lot of discussion around it (arguments for and against).
This old article highlighted perceived negative impacts on children.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2008-06-04/5050-parenting-tearing-kids-apart/2459210
I am of the view that of 50/50 is so great then impose it on the parents. The children get the house. Each parent moves in and out each week.
@ Neurombosis
Can I also just add you appear to be adding a lot of things I didn’t say to my original comment. I don’t think I stated as fact that I think joint custody is bad. I also never denied thinking children (or anybody) needs a base as anything more than my own opinion. But that I am unconvinced for the calls for it because it appears to prioritise the desires of the parent over the needs of the child. It’s always about the feelings of the parent without resident care. Rarely about the children who, due to their parent’s inability to make a relationship work, is denied a main residence.
If it works well for a family, fine. But if the parents splitting custody 50/50 is too much for a child to bear then tough to the parents. One loses out. Hence why I don’t think an option should be a “default”.
Hang on – Isn’t that “miner” just a photo of Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins?
I could be totally wrong, but even after doing a Google image search for comparison, I can’t be sure.
The miner’s teeth don’t look straight enough to be Van Dyke’s, but it’s hard to find a clear shot of him grinning, before he was old enough to be wearing dentures.
ETA: Ok, on further Google, I found the image credits:
Coal Miner
Harlan County, Kentucky, 1997
All photographs ©1999 Ken Light
All rights reserved, may not be reproduced without written permission
Steph: you brought data! Your link goes to an ABC story, which references Jennifer McIntosh. Here’s a survey of the research (by her and her coauthors):
http://clallamcountybar.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/McIntosh-Post-separation-parenting-arrangements-and-developmental-outcomes-for-infants-and-children-Collected-Reports-2.pdf
What the study can say is if a kid has parents who hate each other and based on what the court feels is best for the child it imposes custody arrangement X, the kid has probability of outcome Y. That information maybe lets you target interventions to improve the kid’s outcome.
It can’t say what X should be to get the best outcome, because it simply doesn’t look at X as being a parameter you can control. The experiment that could do that would be far more detailed. You’d need to look at what the courts look at to determine what custody to impose today, then find some cases that today would impose shared custody but under pre-2006 law imposed a different arrangement. Then compare outcomes. (Or you randomly impose custody arrangements — but good luck getting that past IRB.)
That more complete study could provide guidance to the court to choose a better custody arrangement for the kids.
You wouldn’t even need to change the default 50-50 law to take this guidance into account, as I understand how Australian law works (e.g. basically same as here — the driving principle is what’s best for the child).
PS: Neurombosis is an awesome screen name, I love it! The one I’ve chosen is just cribbed from Asterix.
Thanks for that Numerobis. Truly, fascinating.
Not sure why you felt the need to add so much text to a fairly benign comment of mine but, there you go.
I’ve encountered the 50-50 parental talking point a few times online, mostly from sad-sack deadbeat dads who went through a bitter divorce. They’re quick to blame feminists for standing in the way of their parental rights and when I ask for proof, I inevitably get linked to this and only this:
http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html
Basically, they complain that the evil women of NOW are preventing them from seeing their kids because they oppose a presumption of shared parenting for the rather sensible reasons they outline on that link. Despite the fact that this is a New York chapter’s opinion only and the link is 12 years old. It’s just pathetic every time I see the ol’ nownys.org link in a response… cuz you just know that’s the only vaguely-related article they’ve shared among each other.
@GussieJives
I just want to know where the 50/50 crusaders are before divorce. It seems more a way of reducing child maintenance payments than a genuine desire to split care down the line.
@Steph
I’m pretty sure the 50/50 crusaders think the traditional gendered parental roles already are split 50/50 so it’s totally fair. I’m sure they also think emotional labor isn’t work at all and is just something women do reflexively, no effort required.
There are no “alpha women”, because biologically females are natural followers and want an alpha male who can act as an anchor for their emotions. Those who become that way only do so because they are bitter that they are unable to find an alpha male. The moment one of these women can get one they would immediately return to their natural instincts and become willingly submissive to him.
Beta Males like the writer of this website were only able to exist in the first place because the patriarchies in the past treated them with respect as gentlemen and allowed their numbers to flourish through equalizing reproduction for them against the alpha males. Beta males have it better under a patriarchal society than a matriarchal one like what we have today.
And @Hambeast rarely do these women do the hard-work and physically enduring jobs, they are always offered a comfortable job as a secretary or in the office. The thing is that these women like all women in general hate and are not attracted to betas. They will only go for alphas. If they aren’t attracted to and never approach us at all in the first place why should we bother?
@MGTOWRevolutionary
Small List of animals with a matriarchal structure:
Honey Bees
Killer Whales
Elephants
Bonobos
Spotted Hyenas
Lions
Mole Rats
Meerkats
Ants
etc.
Bro I think you watched one too many hentai videos.
Wait, huh? So beta males are better off under alpha males but alpha males are better off in a patriarchal society, but then alpha men fail under a matriarchal society so how is it that a beta male does not benefit in a matriarchal society?
Again must we say
pseudo wolf mannerisms?
It’s all in your head.
Then go your own way with your words and assumptions that women get these jobs ezpz
Miggs has become even more assfaxy than usual as of late. Is there even anything more to say to him besides “citation needed” anymore?
I mean, as we’ve said so many times before, if women are biologically destined to be submissive, how did we even manage have feminism in the first place.
My mom likes to tell the story about when I was born. Most newborns have their eyes closed in their first moments. Mine were wide open and I had a defiant and disapproving look. When I was a toddler, I was indignant at being forced to go down for a nap that I would throw my bedding and toys out of the crib and take off my clothes and throw those out and stand there naked on the bare mattress refusing to sleep. I was not inclined towards being sweet and compliant long before I had the slightest clue what feminism was. It’s just not who I am.
@weirwoodtreehugger: chief manatee
There really isn’t much else to say than “cite your source.” Like , if this is another driveby why bother putting the effortposts when he’s just gonna bugger off for another few days?
Miggy Minter doesn’t even pass the Turing test anymore. He might as well be a Markov bot, copy-pasting irrelevant MRA buzzwords in a seemingly-random order.
Then again, this is also true of every other MRA, so.
I would honestly rather a holocaust or genocide happen against men to put us to quicker deaths rather than the current gynocentric society. IT IS FUCKING MERCY COMPARED TO WHAT MEN FACE EVERYDAY. If the way women are treated in Saudi Arabia or similar countries is like “umg so oppressed”, why hasn’t it happened to men yet? Female privilege and GYNOCENTRISM, because you women know the privileges of such a society and refuse to drop them
http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6102334.ece/ALTERNATES/s615/Theresa-May.jpg
http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/images/angela-merkel-1.jpg
http://www.khaama.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Brazilian-President-removed-by-Senate.jpg
http://m.motherjones.com/files/warren_again_630.png
…sorry, you what? You want all men to be killed, because the alternative is living in a society which you personally find uncomfortable? All men dead, because one man is unhappy? What the fuck is wrong with you, brother? Why would you throw away all our lives so lightly?
Speaking as a man, I fucking love this world. We get infrared telescopes; how cool is that? Why wouldn’t you want to be alive in such a glorious age?