A Dose of Stupid v100

It happens every day. In fact, it is pretty hard to avoid it. There are some things that can only be understood with a slap on the forehead. Things so mind-boggling that one wonders how humans managed to evolve thumbs while being this mentally inept. Case in point:

Amanda Marcotte responds to women who are against feminism

This all began with a Buzzfeed article featuring selfies by women proclaiming that they do not need feminism. The article made the internet rounds, irritating many feminists in the process. Most of the counter criticism rested on the unsubstantiated claim that none of the women in the pictures knew anything about feminism. Marcotte, however, used a different approach. Rather than simply claim that the women against feminism were clueless, Marcotte created a host of strawmen and proceeded to not knock them down.

For example, one woman wrote:

That is rather specific. Yet Marcotte decides to bring up violence against men:

I’m guessing that this “just tell them to fuck off” approach doesn’t apply to situations where men could be victims. Mugging is a criminal offense that deserves social policies to address it, because men are understood to be equally victimized.

Nothing in the woman’s statement says anything about physical violence. The comment referred to a boy saying something “mean and sexist.” Where is the physical violence in that? Why would one need a social policy to fend off an insult?

Marotte went on:

Rape and domestic violence? “Fuck off” should do. Your boss is treating you unjustly, subjecting you to an unsafe workplace or docking your pay unfairly? Check your driver’s license and see if you have an “M” or an “F” by your name. That will help you determine if you are entitled to address this in a court of law or if you should be satisfied with the magical power of “fuck off”, which never has any negative repercussions. Are you a student who is assaulted on campus? If the assailant punched you, lucky you! You can report him to the school and he’ll be expelled. Did he rape you? Eh, “fuck off” is good enough for you.

No Marcotte article would be complete without claiming that men have it better, hence the implication that males need only say “fuck off” to resolve their problems while females must seek legal remedies.

Yet none of those have anything to do with the actual statement in question. Again, the specific instance mentioned in the comment was about an insult. Not sexual violence and not workplace discrimination.

The next selfie states:

To which Marcotte responded:

And how better to show your respect to “all” humans but to support an ideology that denies the humanity of half of us?

Read that again. Once more please. The writer states that she does not need feminism because she respects all humans, not just women. Marcotte retorts that it would be better to show her respect for all humans if the woman supported an ideology that denies the humanity of half the population. Only one ideology is under discussion: feminism. This implies that Marcotte is referring to feminism. Simply put, Marcotte wrote that feminism denies the humanity of men. That is a massive Freudian slip.

This woman wrote:

This seems a reasonable position, yet Marcotte disagrees:

The idea that violence is solely the fault of the victim’s and that simply by saying you are “not a victim” or “not a target for violence” creates an imaginary force field around you to prevent violence comes up a lot.

Stating that she is not a target for violence does not mean women never experience violence. It is a response to the false notion purported by feminists that violence against women happens because of men’s specific intent to harm women.

Marcotte ironically plays the victim card in the above comment and throughout the article. She cannot refute the women’s arguments, so she resorts to victimology. “Women are victims because they are, and if you don’t believe that then you’re stupid!” Except none of the women deny that women are victims of violence. Their argument is that they do not need an ideology that runs on victimhood. Nothing Marcotte says challenges that.

But Marcotte is not the type to allow pesky things like someone’s actual comments get in the way. This exchange is a fine example:

Marcotte:

I’m a strong woman! Ignore the man on the other side of the camera who is eating up all this garbage about how he’s being oppressed by all the meanie feminists demanding equality.

There is also this:

Marcotte:

Indeed, unseen husbands holding cameras while their wife gives them “I won’t ever be one of those dirty feminists who wants equality” eyes at them is a common theme here.

And this:

Marcotte:

Unseen camera holders really like hearing that all of men’s issues should be addressed before women get any consideration at all.

It is curious that Marcotte assumes that a) someone must be holding the camera, b) that someone must be a man, and c) that someone must be a men’s rights activist. One would think a person could buy a device called a tripod and place the camera on that and take a picture. One would think a person could hold the camera with one hand and take the picture. One would think, and this is surely a stretch, that there are machines called webcams that can sit atop computer monitors or are sometimes built into the monitors at eye level thereby making it rather easy to take a picture of oneself without the aid of a another person.

But that is stupid.

I realize that snark passes for intelligent insight for many liberals. Yet even the most staunch progressive must admit that Marcotte’s article is little more than a tantrum. How else can one explain this response:

Marcotte:

While there’s always a depressing chance that someone yelling “I am not a victim” is living in denial of actual problems, let’s just take this one at face value and assume this woman has lived a blessed life free of any sexism at all. Unlikely, but okay. To which I say, so what? Would this logic ever work anywhere else? “I don’t need a labor movement because I was born with a trust fund.” “I’ve never been mugged, so let’s just get rid of the police.” “I take the subway, so we should ban roads.” “I’ve never gone hungry, so clearly everyone else should just starve.”

That is most illogical. The notion that women are perpetual victims of sexism is an ideological argument. The woman rejects that ideology. Her status as a victim is not in question; in question is the ideological argument that claims she is a victim. Saying that she is a victim in denial does not refute her position because she does not accept that ideological argument.

Marcotte should be smart enough to know that yet she insists on making herself look dumber by the minute:

Yes, I realize that kind of egocentric thinking tends to be behind most conservative fuckwittery, but rarely do you see it so stupidly on display.

Of course we do. We see it every time Marcotte writes an article. It is a marvelous thing to behold.

Coincidentally, when did the woman in the picture ever state her political affiliation? Or are we to assume that because she does not support feminism she must be conservative?

Marcotte ends with this exchange:

Marcotte:

It’s not really respect if you’re required to accept an ideology that holds that women are inferior in order to get it.

What ideology? Again, the only ideology being discussed is feminism, and it does not purport that women are inferior.

I am sure this sort of stupidity makes other feminists retweet in ecstasy. However, it is nothing more than a petty attack on people who do not agree with feminism. I would say that Marcotte should be better than this, but she shows time and time again that stupid is as stupid does.