This is one of those “can you tell the difference”? posts. Look at the rationalization hamstering, distortions and refusal to acknowledge plain facts all in the service of an dearly held belief system and tell me if you can tell the difference between the feminist that commenter Eagle was trying to have an honest, intelligent conversation with, and just about any Creationist or White Supremacist you have ever come across?
The prevarications reflect a fundamental lack of respect for Eagle. It’s that simple. And these are the people we are supposed to believe have the answers to gender issues?
These are the feminists that make other feminists tear their hair out. Ever day feminists come onto the men’s rights subreddit looking to see what the deal is, complaining of just this kind of shallow, childish, spoiled, dehumanizing drivel from people who claim to be feminists and have cheapened the brand into nothingness. (When I suggest it, they say they already know how to use an icepick, thank you very much; they’ll look for other solutions.)
Guys, I nearly broke myself again debating another one of those gynocentric feminist. I should’ve known better.
Ginkgo (Jim), you think you can do another “It’s Shit Like This, Feminists…” piece on it? It’s a perfect example of why I get so triggered when dealing with the reality that nobody give a fuck about what happened to me as a youngster at the hands of females.
It went like this:
First she said that people had misinformed opinions about feminism. I told her feminism isn’t perfect and has done some nasty things to aid and abet societal stereotypes about men and boys. She then said my opinion was misinformed so I gave her the list I posted here with some additions. I’ll post her responses and my thoughts on them.
Me: 1) When Male and Female rape victims were being tallied, Mary Koss (biased feminist researcher) went over the results of the former and decided that classifying what happened as rape wouldn’t be “Appropriate”. So with one stroke of the pen, she erased an entire population of people looking for validation of their existence from official records. And for decades, all research statistics have followed her methods to the letter: Classifying rape as only something requiring penetration while leaving out forced envelopment and other methods to be consigned to a paltry “Sexual Assault” label that grants nowhere near an equal level of compensation for the victims compared to a charge of “Rape”. No feminist stood to oppose her or rally to stop the research from being tampered with in such a way.
Gynocentric Feminist: “Sorry, I don’t think you understand exactly what Mary Koss was doing. She was trying to normalize a definition of rape dependent on the sources she was using for a literature survey. She has some very good reasons for her definitions, even though I ultimately disagree with them.”
Me: “2) Sometime in the 80s, Feminists lobbied for The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence where Domestic Violence was deemed something men do to women alone, begetting Primary Agressor Laws. If any man reported domestic violence from his spouse, the police were required to arrest him on the spot regardless of whether he was innocent or not. Granted, every state varies, but overall the climate is skewed towards assuming every man as the primary aggressor in domestic violence. Meaning that male victims of domestic violence were put in a rock and a hard place: Man up and take the abuse or call the police and risk spending time in a jail cell. Again, no feminist stood in opposition to this.”
Gynocentric Feminist: “Yet again, there is a good reason for this in that the police cannot risk deciding who is innocent or who is guilty when someone’s life is on the line. Considering women are more likely to be severely injured or murdered in domestic violence, it’s probably a good call. It sucks if the man is the victim, but it’s necessary to prevent tragedy.”
Me: “In the 90s, research showed boys and girls struggling in the school system. Feminist special interest groups lobbied for change in the teaching methods and curriculum tailored towards how girls learned so they could be given a leg up even though the research was right in front of their two eyes proving the contrary. No one thought to say “Hold on, we’re going about this pretty narrowly! Boys are struggling too. Let’s have some perspective here.”. It’s gotten to the point that decades later, any attempt to address the struggles of boys is met with hostility and disbelief in the issue. I’ll give you a guess as to who we can thank for that.”
Gynocentric Feminist: “Oh gosh this one is pretty paranoid.”
Oh wow, what a very convincing counterargument *sarcasm*
Me: “When it was reported that Boko Haram were going off on a killing spree in the name of their beliefs, innocent school boys were caught in their sights. It was also reported that another village had been massacred. They signaled out the male babies, the boys and men as special targets and gunned them down on sight, the death toll 300-400 plus. Yet, when they kidnapped school girls, the media and feminist groups joined together in unity to decry the terrorist group and declared their motives a part of the “War on Women”. They forgot the innocent boys and men dead and didn’t so much as utter a peep of concern back then. How do you explain that?”
Gynocentric Feminist: “No one fucking forgot any innocent boys and men killed by Boko Harem. You hear news stories all the fucking time about people they’ve murdered.”
Did she even read the—aw geez!
Me: “5) Finally, the major example of blantant hijacking of issues that cut across both genders and spectrums: Elliot Rodgers. When all was said and done, the media and feminist groups went on a verbal rampage, lambasting the Mens Rights Movements through unverified and spurious claims of a connection with the PUA forums Elliot frequented prior to his spree. Never one to resist running their mouths further, they declared that his spree was motivated PRIMARILY by misogynistic attitudes towards women. The true facts were thus:
A: Misogyny was ONE motivation, not the primary one. Reading his manifesto, he had deep-seated hatred towards Alpha males, his parents, brother, Asians, mankind, and himself.
B: Of the victims he killed, four were men (three happening to be Asian roommates) along with two women. Now you’re going to say “But he intended also to target a sorority house so it was motivated by hatred of women”. Wrong. He was targeting a SPECIFIC woman. Mainly, blonde women, because that was one of his preferences. You will also note he SPARED the life of a woman at gunpoint while injuring countless others, men and women, on a drive-by, including law enforcement officials.
Of course, the media and these groups never let a few harmless facts get in the way of their agenda. I’ve been on Mens Rights forums. You know how many users were scared to identify themselves as such in public thanks to this targeted smear? That if they so much as identified even support towards Mens Issues? Did you also know, conveniently, that a petition was set up for the White House to label Mens Rights Advocates as terrorists? TERRORISTS! Let that sink for a minute.”
Gynocentric Feminist: “A. It was the primary factor.
B. He literally talked about how he wanted to kill women.”
*bangs head repeatedly on wall*
When she also didn’t respond to my story of three feminist’s invalidating my negative experiences at the hands of females in addition to males and reminded her again, she had this to say:
Gynocentric Feminist: “I’m confused… I don’t know who these people are… what do you want me to do?”
Ginkgo, please tear this gynocentric feminist a new hole here. And wish me luck because right now, my head is swimming with suicidal thoughts again.
New hole? Maybe not. She’s probably happy with the ones she has, and she’s not the problem. The problem is the mis-education and deforming cultural norms she has been exposed to.
How does someone get to the point that she argues like this? Either she is just so plain ignorant – uneducated in how to construct or engage with a rational argument – that she imagines this is any kind of real or good faith engagement; or maybe she is just so entangled in female privilege that she just expects to get a pass on this as on so much else in this society.
Maybe she is so committed to her worldview and belief system that no fact can penetrate her mind of be allowed to unsettle that worldview – her dogmas are just that precious to her. Maybe these dogmas form part of her gender identity and she will cling to them no matter what.
Or perhaps this rejection of accountability is just another facet of the problem, her sociopathic indifference to the men – a learned cultural value, part of her “constructed” gender role, not necessarily any kind of personal character defect – who are finally speaking out about the dehumanizing norms that make up the male role society assigns them, and getting nothing but this kind of dehumanizing dismissal and sometimes even backlash.
And when you try to discuss any of this with these people you hit the same brick wall as you do with Fundamentalists talking about evolution. It is exactly the same true believer mentality – peasant ignorance parading as certainty and confidence.The facts do not matter, clinging to beliefs are what matters.
By the way, I can understand that talking to her would make anyone want to just end it all, but just put her and the actual problem in perspective. The tide is turning and time is one your side, Eagle.
Latest posts by Jim Doyle (see all)
- The Woman Card - May 2, 2016
- Frat boy bachelorettes and the invasion of gay bars - April 15, 2016
- “Not my kid….” - February 22, 2016