Lies, damn lies, and feminists

Julianne Ross argues in her recent article that men’s rights activists spread lies about feminists. Ironically, she starts off by telling lies about the men’s rights movement:

Although MRAs made headlines recently for their alleged connection to the Santa Barbara shooter (a connection many MRAs have tried to deny), this movement has been around, and infuriating feminists, for quite some time.

Let us start with the basics. There is no evidence that Elliot Rodger had any connection with the men’s rights movement. Feminists claim he did because they believe his comments sound like men’s rights activists’ comments in order to discredit the movement. However, there is not one link, bookmark, or comment that links Rodger any group other than PUAhate.

MRAs are often dismissed as angry, sex-starved man-children, but the movement likens itself to a male response to feminism. And it seems to be becoming even more vocal in the wake of the feminist movement’s new wave of online solidarity.

Perhaps they are more vocal because feminists are so inclined to disparage them.

Yet as a matter of course, men’s rights activists have not become more vocal. Feminists simply cannot shut up about them. Feminists use men’s rights activists and male survivors of abuse as political pin cushions. This began online and as a result of social media people are beginning to notice. Feminist “online solidarity” is actually a result of the greater attention men’s rights activists receive.

Men have real concerns (like a higher rate of workplace deaths and homelessness, as well as being subject to rigid constructs of masculinity), but the hostility expressed by MRAs towards the struggle for women’s rights does nothing to rectify the injustices men may face, primarily because these injustices are not caused by women.

Blaming men for their own problems does not solve anything. That is a very common feminist tactic. While no one can expect feminists to take men’s issues seriously, feminists still should not attempt to shut down discussion about the issues men face and role feminists play in those problems.

Many MRA arguments are blatantly misogynistic (Elam once wrote on AVfM’s website that drunk women are “freaking begging” to be raped), but the more dangerous ones have an air of credibility that serves to insidiously legitimize the broader movement.

It is interesting that Ross only links to one example from Paul Elam. This reveals a common flaw in feminists’ arguments against men’s rights activists: they cannot prove their claims. Feminists may find a comment here or there, but when it comes to the faces of the movement, feminists prefer to stick to Elam, as if he is the only men’s rights activist on the planet talking about men’s issues.

Granted, Elam often makes himself an easy target. Yet one would think if men’s rights activists were these raving misogynists feminists should have little trouble finding their biggest faces making horrific comments. Instead, feminists, literally every one who attacks the men’s movement, cites the same statement from Elam every time.

Ross then decides to list the top eight lies men’s rights activists supposedly tell about feminists.

Let us get to the list:

1. Feminists hate men, and are out to turn the world against them.

Misandry is too often employed as a catch-all to belittle women’s arguments surrounding the patriarchy. But, as Shailene Woodley recently discovered, feminism has nothing to do with hating men. Feminists don’t like misogyny and sexism, and sometimes men may be proponents of both, unwitting or otherwise. It’s important to recognize this when it happens.

The notion that discussing “The Patriarchy” is not about hating men makes as much sense as saying that challenging “voter fraud” has nothing to do with hating black people.  The feminist notion of “The Patriarchy” is built around the idea that men inexplicably want to oppress women and have instituted a method adopted globally to ensure women know their place. As a result, all men contribute, benefit, and perpetuate this system, making them inherently responsible as men for women’s suffering.

That may sound reasonable, so let adjust it: The feminist notion of “The Patriarchy” is built around the idea that Jews inexplicably want to oppress women and have instituted a method adopted globally to ensure women know their place. As a result, all Jews contribute, benefit, and perpetuate this system, making them inherently responsible as Jews for women’s suffering.

Does it sound antisemitic?  Hm…

Yes, it is important to recognize bias against women. Yet one does not need to accuse all men of condoning, creating, and participating in said bias in order to do so. Doing the latter is sexist, specifically against men. The word for that is “misandry.”

Secondly, denying that there are feminists who hate men makes no sense. All the comments about “rape culture” and “male privilege,” ideas that most feminists support, are clear examples of misandry.

There is no boogey-feminists randomly claiming to be feminists and making it hard for the real deal. Feminists unfortunately do support incredibly anti-male views, which is the reason why so many men feel prompted to say “not all men.”

The complaint about feminists failing to address men’s issues is also valid. Feminists claim to oppose all violence, yet when asked to talk about violence against men, feminists cry “women have it worse!” That does not sound like feminists oppose all violence or support equality. It sounds like the only want to talk about women.

2. Feminists are hypocrites, because chivalry is a female privilege.

There’s a popular meme that says feminists call differential treatment chivalry when we like it and sexism when we don’t.

This is false.

No, it is true. Take, for example, the notion that all men have a responsibility to prevent sexual violence against women. How is this any different from the traditional notion that all men have a responsibility to protect women? The only difference is why men should do it. The old way argues that men should protect women because women are fragile and innocent. The feminist way argues men should do it because men are dangerous.

Calling it “benevolent sexism” is just a feminist way of dodging the blatant misandry. “Feminists are not the bigots; it is everyone else.” To this point, feminists do not argue for helping people in general. There is no push to teach women and girls to step in when they see men and boys being picked on, harassed, or assaulted. There is no push to teach them to step in to help other females. It is solely on males to do the work, even if it puts them at risk. That privileges women.

3. The courts are biased against men and in favor of women in custody disputes.

One of the biggest sticking points for the MRA community is the argument that the courts actively discriminate against men in custody disputes. While it’s true that women more often get custody, it’s far more complicated than a systematic bias that turns dads into the real victims of custody battles (as opposed to, you know, the children).

Not really. The argument is that women are awarded custody more often than men. That is true. According to a Wisconsin study released in 2012, between 1996 and 2007 women received sole custody 45.7% of the time and primary custody 13% of the time. Conversely, men received sole custody 7.0% of the time and primary custody goes to the father 1.9% of the time. That is a far cry from the 50% claim Ross makes.

Arguing that women receive custody because of “The Patriarchy” does not work because men were more commonly awarded custody of the children in the past. The current situation is a direct result not only of the view that women are better caregivers (a notion feminists support) but also because feminists lobbied the court system in order to address perceived wrongs against women in divorce cases. Courts now rule in women’s favor even when the man is capable of caring for the child.

4. Male circumcision is just as bad as female genital mutilation.

Unlike male circumcision, FGM/C has never been about health. Its cultural legacy runs deep, though the World Health Organization has deemed it a human rights violation that reinforces patriarchal conceptions of purity and denies women sexual agency. It has “absolutely no medical value” and can lead to prolonged bleeding, infection, cysts, childbirth complications, infertility and death.

Actually, that is untrue. Male gentile mutilation has never been about health. It has historically been used as a means of cultural identification and preventing masturbation. . Unless there is an actual medical issue with a male’s foreskin, there is no medical benefit to circumcision for the average male. The notion that circumcising boys is harmless is untrue as well. It can make erections and sex painful if too much skin is removed. It can also result in infections leading to death, which has happened frequently in African countries as a result of the push to circumcise boys.

There are no complete studies that found that circumcision reduces the rate of STDS. There is one incomplete study in which the researchers stopped the study before it ended because they liked the results they got. However, they did not gauge the level of the participates sexual activity, whether they used condoms, or when the man contracted a STD. The researchers simply declared that circumcision prevents HIV because slightly more uncut men had HIV.

We know, however, that circumcision does not provide much protection given the high rate of HIV among African and African American men. Both groups have higher rates of circumcision and engage in higher rates of unprotected sex yet they have the highest acquisition of HIV rate.

5. Avoiding conscription is a female privilege.

That only men are eligible for the draft is an old standby used to derail arguments male privilege. […] It’s also worth noting that when the male draft ended and the All Volunteer Force was instated in 1973, the percentage of women in the military shot up from 1.6 to 10.8% — meaning there were plenty of women who wanted to serve their country — but had not been allowed to do so.

It is also worth noting that when the ban on women being in combat roles was lifted the Army conducted a study and found that less than 8% of Army women wanted a combat job. At this point, the military not only cannot get women to sign up for combat positions, but the women who do often cannot pass the physical exams.

But going back to the notion of privilege, only women are allowed to decide if they want a combat role. Men are assigned their positions unless the position is specialized, in which case they would have to pass the exam to earn it.

6. Men’s media depiction is worse than women’s.

Nearly every time an article is published about women’s media representation, some commenters will inevitably point out that men get objectified, too. As Men’s Journal notes, men are held to increasingly demanding standards of physical masculinity. But — here we go — these standards are again based upon rigid, patriarchal stereotypes of what it means to be a man. And while it’s true that men are increasingly seeing chiseled images of their gender in advertising and media (deemed by AdWeek to be “hunkvertising”), men do not face equal expectations of physical attractiveness.

That is untrue. Men are held to a standard of physical attractiveness. The difference is that our society does not take it seriously, so the harm caused by it goes unquestioned. Likewise, men who do complain about their self-image are often mocked, so men are less likely to say anything about it.

Yet that ignores the actual complaint. The complaint is not about men being depicted as hyper-attractive. The complaint is about men being depicted as bumbling idiots. Men cannot dial a phone number, wash dishes, mop a floor, or change a diaper. They are total buffoons whose children are smarter than them. Unless only the children are in the ad. Then the boys become the fodder. This happens on TV shows, film, video games, and in literature.

Arguing that these stereotypes exist as a backlash to the depictions of the perfect father of the 1950s does not justify it. After all, one could claim the sexy depiction of women today is a backlash to the uptight women of the 1950s. That would not make the depictions any less sexist. To the contrary, it would make it much worse.

7. False rape allegations are endemic.

No one denies that false accusations are terrible to experience. But the fear some men appear to harbor of being falsely accused is wildly out of sync with the actual rate at which this occurs. Worse, this excessive paranoia can lead to the silencing of survivors — of any gender — who fear they won’t be believed if they come forward.

As a male survivor of abuse, I can attest that discussing false accusations does not silence me or anyone else. I do not want any innocent person in prison for a crime they did not commit, let alone one that never happened.

Likewise, few people claim that false rape accusations are endemic. What people claim is that they occur more frequently than we know and we have little means of detecting them. I agree. Short of video evidence or eye witnesses, there is no way for an innocent man to prove he committed no crime.

As for the fear being out of sync with the actual rate, that also applies to sexual violence against women. Most women will never be raped, yet they fear it. Most men will never be accused of rape, yet they fear it. Men’s fear us understandable given how easy it is to falsely accuse a man and have it believed. Then there are the consequences of that. The death threats, the assaults, the jail time, the prison abuse, etc. Feminists gloss over these things as if they are nothing.

Arguing that all crimes have some level of false reporting ignores the problem: real people are hurt by it. How many false accusations are acceptable? What is the rate that crosses the line? Ten percent? Twelve? Fifteen? When does it become too much? Or is it fair that 2% of the men and boys accused, convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned for rape never committed the crime?

And as for the dig at men’s rights activist helping male survivors, men’s rights activists have been incredibly vocal about the need for support and services for male victims of sexual violence. They regularly advocate for changes and the creation of services, often challenging the “only women are victims” narrative that comes from feminists. In contrast, feminists do not often include male victims in their outreach most of the time, and when they do it is only as potential abusers being taught not to abuse, never as equal, legitimate victims.

8. Feminists want to turn everything into rape.

Also inherent to the fear of false rape allegations is the idea that new conceptions of rape are terribly murky and complicated, resulting in the criminalization of “hookup culture” and supposedly well-intentioned guys getting accused of violating willing (read: drunk) women.

This is actually true. Feminists frequently treat any type of intoxicated sex between men and women as rape against women, no matter how drunk the man. To this point, when Amy Schumer recounted having sex with a man so drunk he kept passing out, many men’s rights activists called that rape. Feminists not only rejected that, arguing that because the man initiated the sex he was sober enough to consent, but also arguing that he raped Schumer.

One could argue that feminists do not want to turn everything into rape; they only want to turn any heterosexual sexual activity into rape against women.

It would be nice if Ross did a better job of making her point. All she did was attack strawmen, and while that may please feminists, preaching to the choir rarely changes minds. If feminists want to prove men’s rights activists lie about feminists, cite some actual examples. Do not just claim it and assume people will not check.

Why? Because that is what has happened over the last three weeks since Elliot Rodger killed six people. Feminists accused men’s rights activists of causing the killing spree. People decided to check them out. It turns out that these men are not anywhere near as horrific as feminists claim. That is partly what prompted the #YesAllPeople hashtag.

Here is a piece of advice for other feminists inclined to write similar articles: if you want to behave like you are the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s 1984, make sure you control the media. Otherwise people can check and see that everything you claim is bullshit.

Advertisements

33 thoughts on “Lies, damn lies, and feminists

  1. Pingback: Lies, damn lies, and feminists | Manosphere.com

  2. That was a read and a half…
    Let me be brief in response.
    It appears that Feminists lie about EVERYTHING. Yes, EVERYTHING without exception.
    If feminist “women’s rights” activists spent only 10% of their resources … upon their chosen women’s rights – rather than attacking men’s rights – then that may prove acceptable.

  3. @Julianne Ross: “Men have real concerns (like a higher rate of workplace deaths and homelessness, as well as being subject to rigid constructs of masculinity), but the hostility expressed by MRAs towards the struggle for women’s rights does nothing to rectify the injustices men may face, primarily because these injustices are not caused by women.”

    As to be expected, no mention of the staggering male suicide rate and lack of mental health services for men and boys. Also to be expected, complete denial that female sexual selection of men is what creates the “rigid constructs of masculinity.” So what are feminists doing to stop cheerleaders from providing pagentized rectal display for the biggest most violent males in school? Let alone comparing such behavior to other female primates like gorillas and mountain goats. That’s why the big horns evolved on males, to compete for females.

    Also denied, any form of “injustice” caused by women… like child abuse, the biggest “shut face” issue for feminists of all.

  4. feminists are in love with mass murderers.

    I would not say feminists love mass murderers, although they do appear to love exploiting those murderers’ actions. Unfortunately, they have a lot of company as plenty of other groups do the same thing.

  5. It appears that Feminists lie about EVERYTHING. Yes, EVERYTHING without exception.

    Alan, I would not say they lie about everything. However, feminists, like all ideologues, will lie when it suits their agenda, and they will do it protect their ideology.

    If feminist “women’s rights” activists spent only 10% of their resources … upon their chosen women’s rights – rather than attacking men’s rights – then that may prove acceptable.

    What I find interesting is that many feminists see no problem with feminists focusing on writing blogs and sending tweets. Retweeting #YesAllWomen is seen as a profound gesture in feminist solidarity. Yet when men’s rights activists use social media to support their cause they are lazy, hapless whiners.

  6. @ TS: “However, feminists, like all ideologues, will lie when it suits their agenda, and they will do it protect their ideology.”

    They don’t lie to protect, they lie to advocate. Examples; the Super Bowl spike in domestic violence lie, the non-existent March of Dimes study stating DV was a leading cause of birth defects and the 1 in 71 men are sexually assaulted in their lifetime statistic, a falsification of VAWA.

    In the later case feminists lied for more government money and not just misandry.

  7. No, feminists don’t hate men. They go around saying every man will probably become a rapist unless he is broken of that desire because they LIKE men. They say ” yes all men” for the same reason. They are our friends!

  8. Congrats on being one of the more “dangerous” ones.

    I recently had a feminist remark on how intelligent I was. I gave a tentative “thank….you?” and apologized for it or something, and she claimed my intelligence made me dangerous.

    I also had two radio hosts remark on my intelligence and how well-spoken I am, as if they expected me to be anything but. Those of us who are intelligent and well spoken do lend a further credibility to the issues, but it is only of danger to those who feel men’s issues deserve no credibility, despite the “real concerns” they admit we have.

  9. The reason Elam is the only MRA feminists think of is because he is the only one with outright dangerous ideas.

    Think about it like this. When pointing out something that say, Valenti or Marcotte has said what’s the usual feminist response? That they don’t represent all of feminism and that you should look for other feminists (and yes YOU have to look for them, they won’t point them out for you). On the other hand how many feminists will actually try to talk to MRAs that aren’t Elam?

  10. They don’t lie to protect, they lie to advocate.

    Rev, I do not think the examples you listed are of advocacy. They are propaganda used to push an agenda, in this instance that women face an epidemic of domestic violence and that sexual violence is something only men do to only women.

  11. I recently had a feminist remark on how intelligent I was. I gave a tentative “thank….you?” and apologized for it or something, and she claimed my intelligence made me dangerous.

    Feminists say the same thing to me. It is meant as an insult, so I usually throw it back at them. The insult, by the way, is the unspoken element. They mean to say, “You’re so intelligent, so why aren’t you a feminist? Why are you whining about these silly men’s issues?”

    Those of us who are intelligent and well spoken do lend a further credibility to the issues, but it is only of danger to those who feel men’s issues deserve no credibility, despite the “real concerns” they admit we have.

    I do not think we are dangerous. I do think that we make it difficult for feminists to play their typical games. It is harder to upset someone who argues from a rational position than someone who argues from anger. This is part of the reason why feminists go after men like Warren Farrell and Glenn Sacks. I think Paul Elam is an intelligent man very keen on playing off feminists’ tendency to overreact by provoking them. However, that works against his intentions in the short term. In the long term, it works in getting people talking about men’s issues without listening to feminists.

  12. The reason Elam is the only MRA feminists think of is because he is the only one with outright dangerous ideas.

    Danny, I am curious. What ideas of his do you find dangerous?

    As for the double standard, I do not know of many feminists willing to talk to Elam either. They seem content to take snippets of his comments but never address him directly.

  13. Excellent job TS. When I saw this article I wanted to tear it apart on my blog, but I didn’t have the time. After reading your article, I no longer have the need.

    Funny thing about what most of what gets quoted from Elam is that it comes from his most satirical and sarcastic articles. He writes these articles to intentionally provoke people. Often he provokes his own supporters. But it is usually intended to demonstrate inconsistencies of his opponents and exaggerates their tactics, especially the way they lie and twist the truth. While I think his sense of satire could use some work, I love his sarcasm and snark. Feminists rarely quote other leaders within the movement because most others don’t dare to intend offense. Paul sometimes goes out of his way to offend and does make himself a target.

  14. Well the one that really stick out is the whole bit over the not finding a rapist guilty even if evidence showed the accused was guilty. Also I’ll agree that he takes far too much pleasure in one upping feminists (mind you on that point he’s not expressing anything feminists don’t do in reverse).

    And that doesn’t make all the complaints feminist have against him true. I think it just makes him a bit too firey.

    But with that in mind I think the likes of Elam are a necessary catalyst in helping men get the help they need. He’s help break through some of nonsense that has passed for helping men. But I do think that the MRM needs to evolve past such fiery types to get a more legitimate foothold in mainstream culture.

    This is why for so many feminists Elam is the only MRA they will consider (and will deny the existence of any MRAs that don’t act like him and his crowd). For example I have MRA leanings. When that Elliot Rodger attack went down what did feminists do? They demanded that MRAs say something about what happened (yes I know that was all a weak disguise for their desire to hold MRAs responsible for his actions). So how many feminists responded to the post that I did at GMP about his attack: http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blog/reaching-elliot/

    2. But as generous as they were they were not a part of the hoard of feminists that were calling for MRA blood.

    It is harder to upset someone who argues from a rational position than someone who argues from anger. This is part of the reason why feminists go after men like Warren Farrell and Glenn Sacks.
    And due to those guys (Sacks and Farrell) being rational feminists find themselves having limited ways to attack them.

    I remember years ago when feminists actually said things like “I feel sorry for your children” because Sacks was a stay at home dad. And I also remember Sacks being one of the biggest sources of feminist hypocrisy I’ve ever seen.

    A while back it was all too easy to find people trashing Sacks left and right and calling him MRA. But after he started making headway with Fathers and Families all of a sudden feminists don’t consider him MRA anymore and consider him a FRA.

    As for Farrell good luck finding a feminist that can find something other than some quotes by him plucked from the 70s on what he said about incest as source to discredit everything he’s ever said/done. And then I wish you even more luck that would be consistent enough to accept someone going back to that same era and plucking something that a feminist said/did to discredit everything they have said/done.

  15. TDOM, my problem with Elam’s satire and that of most people on the internet is that they mistake snark for satire. This is mostly the result of comedians like Bill Maher and Jon Stewart. These are master comedians who know how to switch between the two. However, most people do not. So they assume saying mean things that make their friends laugh is satire.

  16. Danny, I see your point about that statement. My question is whether Elam meant it seriously or was he being sarcastic. I often cannot tell. As for your article on GMP, I am not surprised it received so little feminist support. You wrote with the intent of actually reaching out to men and boys who may feel like Rodger without judging them. That does not appeal to many feminists.

    I think that man feminists target those who receive the most attention, perhaps in the hopes that if they knock those men down the rest of the movement will disappear. That may work offline, but not so much online.

  17. The funny part is actually the title and then number 1 and 2 are about feminists and the MRA, instead of women as referenced in the title of the post. 🙂

  18. “Well the one that really stick out is the whole bit over the not finding a rapist guilty even if evidence showed the accused was guilty”

    Danny, I’ll tell what is even more dangerous, with a murderous history to back up my contention. I know what you look like and you know what I look like. If you were sitting in a court accused of rape and I blithely believed the “evidence” – I think that is a hell of a lot more dangerous.

    “As for Farrell good luck finding a feminist that can find something other than some quotes by him plucked from the 70s on what he said about incest as source to discredit everything he’s ever said/done.”

    Which pale into nothingness compared to Eve Ensler’s highly celebrated celebration of child rape.

  19. At the first CAFE Janice Fiamengo talk, in Toronto, I was chatting with protesters and one guy remarked that I sounded like a feminist. So same reasoning you see behind the intelligent remark. I just asked if I could pick my own ideology and, if he agreed with feminism so much, perhaps he should listen to me more if I sound like what he wants to hear.

    When I talk with opponents, I always try to wrangle them in to listen, while they tend to try to push us away and shut us up.

  20. “the whole bit over the not finding a rapist guilty even if evidence showed the accused was guilty”

    Meanwhile, feminists in england campaign to get the government to stop sending female convicts to prison.

  21. While the one feminist said you sounded like a feminist, were the other ones calling you “fucking scum?”

    Typically, yes. It is a common tactic. One person plays nice while the others pile on. The intent is to get you to attack the nice person so that the others can call you unreasonable.

  22. When I talk with opponents, I always try to wrangle them in to listen, while they tend to try to push us away and shut us up.

    Eyeofwoden, I think that is a good strategy. I try it from time to time. I notice, however, that it only works with the questioners, i.e. those who have not fully accepted the doctrine.

  23. “Eyeofwoden, I think that is a good strategy. I try it from time to time. I notice, however, that it only works with the questioners, i.e. those who have not fully accepted the doctrine.”

    I agree.

    You can wrangle them in, yes, but always make sure they are willing to be pulled in your direction. Otherwise, it’s not worth a broken fishing pole should they just rush off in the opposite direction.

  24. Although MRAs made headlines recently for their alleged connection to the Santa Barbara shooter (a connection many MRAs have tried to deny),

    Note how it’s “tried to deny”. Not denied. As if they attempted and failed. Which is remarkable, given that the actual connection is still “alleged”.

    the struggle for women’s rights

    Five bucks says that feminism is described as “equality” later in that same article.

    At this point, the military not only cannot get women to sign up for combat positions, but the women who do often cannot pass the physical exams.

    And so they have lower physical standards, which feminists have studiously ignored, despite all the fuss made about getting women into the military. Also, how does this alleged sexism against women she cites negate the fact that men were conscripted, and it is still perfectly legal to do so?

    No one denies that false accusations are terrible to experience.

    Who was that feminist who said that men can gain from being falsely accused?

    But the fear some men appear to harbor of being falsely accused is wildly out of sync with the actual rate at which this occurs.

    Speaking of disproportionate risk, what’s the name of that gender equality movement that wildly exaggerates women’s risk of rape? Tip of my tongue.

    Sarcasm aside, it only has to happen once.

    I also note that the article subtly genders MRAs as men, such as when it talks about how MRAs are making it harder for the Real Activists (not one of which she could be bovvered to actually name).

    Worse, this excessive paranoia can lead to the silencing of survivors — of any gender — who fear they won’t be believed if they come forward.

    Despite the frequent use of this canard, there is very little evidence of any victims, much less significant amounts, being silenced by discussions of false accusations. In fact, the people talking the loudest about how victims won’t be believed are feminists.

    Also, sure is weird how feminism doesn’t worry about non M>F victims feeling silenced by their “violence against women (by men) rhetoric”.

    @TS

    What I find interesting is that many feminists see no problem with feminists focusing on writing blogs and sending tweets. Retweeting #YesAllWomen is seen as a profound gesture in feminist solidarity. Yet when men’s rights activists use social media to support their cause they are lazy, hapless whiners.

    MRAs should get off the Internet, yet Anita Sarkeesian is a hero. MRAs do support IRL talks about men’s issues, then feminists break the law to try and shut them up. There’s no safe ground in this game, is there?

    @EyeOfWoden

    I recently had a feminist remark on how intelligent I was. I gave a tentative “thank….you?” and apologized for it or something, and she claimed my intelligence made me dangerous.

    To Room 101 with you.

    @TS

    The insult, by the way, is the unspoken element. They mean to say, “You’re so intelligent, so why aren’t you a feminist? Why are you whining about these silly men’s issues?”

    Funny. I usually get accused of “trying to look smart”, especially when I just name logical fallacies to save typing.

    @TDOM

    Funny thing about what most of what gets quoted from Elam is that it comes from his most satirical and sarcastic articles.

    David Futrelle once quote-mined Elam while debating him. He wanted to make it look like he supported abuse, and Elam pointed out that the next few lines were him saying he wasn’t serious. Futrelle abruptly dropped the subject.

    He used the exact same quote-mine in his article at the American Prospect last fall, three years later. Even when he acknowledged it and promised to correct it in his next compilation or whatever, he said nothing about correcting the article.

  25. “That only men are eligible for the draft is an old standby used to derail arguments male privilege.”

    This is so revealing about what “derailing” actually means in feminist usage.

    Feminist: Men are privileged over women.
    Interlocutor: I disagree, because [Counterexample].
    Feminist: Stop derailing!

  26. the feminist definition of derailing is simply taking the conversation in a direction they weren’t expecting; basically it’s just a buzzword they throw out when they run out of pre-provided justifications for what they’re saying and want to end the conversation.

  27. I just finished watching “Virgin Killer” about Elliot Rodger. I was really expecting the worst and it turned out to be very informative. The only mention of the MRM was an example at the end of the film, of fringe groups exploiting his murders to support their cause. Then they showed a feminist rambling about misogyny for a couple seconds and that was it.

    Apparently the “MRA hate sites” feminists claim he visited was actually a site for “involuntary celibates” of “incels.” Learn something new everyday online.

    Can’t imagine why the press didn’t mention Rodger’s connection to incels, which actually exists, and made up a connection to the MRM without a shred of evidence.

    Just can’t imagine…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s