IT’S SHIT LIKE THIS, FEMINISTS – The shit men face trying to talk with feminists….Part II

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.)

Eagle3X:

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.”

Woah!

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.”

WOAH!

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)

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestmailby feather

18 thoughts on “IT’S SHIT LIKE THIS, FEMINISTS – The shit men face trying to talk with feminists….Part II”

  1. I’m holding it together so far…for now.

    What disturbs me more is that she was up voted in that thread while my scale stayed at a measly “1”.

    I think this is a major lesson for me: Never trust your faith in a thread supposedly for egalitarian views when it turns out they only support a set of standards that fit “THEIR” criteria of egalitarian views.

    Or this could be a lesson in learning that voting systems for thread discussion are just another way to win points, not the other side.

  2. And it turns out that one of comments in that thread was voted down to a zero.

    I’m done. Truly. I’m going to delete my account there again. It’s not worth it.

    I’ll save all that rage for performance instead next Saturday.

  3. Eagle, where did this conversation take place? I couldn’t tell from the information you gave.

    What can I tell you? This society has loads of entitled white women, and loads who aren’t. be more selective. Some are just hopeless and will not come around until harsh reality forces them to re-evaluate – when all the invisible support they depend on is removed.

  4. To tell you the truth, Gindko, I’d rather just keep where it took place vague and just focus on other things at the moment.

    It’s just gotten out of control: This apathy for men who are struggling, for boys. Taking it head on is dangerous for me. Better to protest with my writing and acting instead of confronting those idiots on the internet.

  5. “It’s just gotten out of control: This apathy for men who are struggling, for boys. ”

    It’s sociopathic is what it is, and it’s part of these women’s cultural conditioning, and they won’t get better until they are re-educated, in the Chinese sense of the term.

    When we talk about “empathy apartheid” this is exactly what we mean.

    Maybe you don’t hang out on Reddit much by the men’s rights subreddit might do you some good. There are women coming on there all the time rejecting this crap.

  6. I’ve come to the conclusion that these people wouldn’t be able to pass a Turing test.

  7. Just to seek further vindication, for the sake of my sanity because inhabiting a planet with people like this makes my bile churn, I’ll post the final follow up answers I gave her before my mind snapped:

    Me: 1) Those good reasons left countless male victims out in the cold with nowhere to turn too for help save for drinking themselves into a stupor, polluting their systems with drugs, or even blowing their heads off. Nothing justifies that. Mary Koss did a bad thing whether you believe it or not and male victims paid the price!

    Gynocentric Feminist: 2) 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: Please stop it with the “Women are more likely to be severly injured” justifications please. That doesn’t account for the fact that women have the aid of weapons to even the odds and the element of surprise. You could have a big, hulking hunk of muscle but, last I heard, muscles aren’t bullet proof or made of steel that can bend blunt edged weapons.

    And this here tells me all I need to know about your overall opinion on the subject: “It sucks if the man is the victim, but it’s neccessary to precent tragedy”.

    Gynocentric Feminist: 3) Oh gosh this one is pretty paranoid.

    Me: Seriously? I give you well verified fact here, well known, and you’re calling it paranoid? Do you deny that boys were left by the wayside and nobody cared? Even those that tried to speak out were shot down with accusations of misogyny or taking attention away from the girls and still face problems addressing it?

    God, I’ve heard some pretty wide dodges but this takes the cake.

    Gynocentric Feminist: 4) 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.

    Me: Mens Rights websites were the ONLY ones who pointed out the lack of reporting and action on behalf of the dead boys. No major media outlet touched the subject except to obfuscate with the kidnapped schoolgirl event as if it were the ONE IMPORTANT TRAGEDY!

    Gynocentric Feminist: 5) A. It was the primary factor.”

    Me: Please do your research as I had done. I know the facts, non-biased, non MRA-related. Every single damn one of them compared to your cherry-picking and cliff notes. Misogyny wasn’t THE PRIMARY factor. It was A factor. I’m not going to state those facts again.

    Gynocentric Feminist: 5B. He literally talked about how he wanted to kill women.

    Me: How do you explain the three dead Asian Male roommates then? That man he killed in a coffee shop? The countless drive-by shootings he instigated on both genders? The fact that he SPARED a woman at gunpoint before offing himself later?

    Gynocentric Feminist: “I would disagree. Look I understand that you feel passionately about it and that’s good, but please realize there is more to it than the MRA talking points that are on mensrights”.

    Me: Yes, I’m passionate about it. Comes with being denied validity in his story of abuse at the hands of females in addition to males. Which is why I find people like you so frustrating and the driving factor turning me away from feminism. Everything I’ve presented you either:

    A) Excuse

    B) Dodge

    And I’m sick of it.

    I think it’s safe to say I’m not going to get anywhere in this discussion with you based on the answers you provided. Everything is basically formulaic rote responses to important issues.

    Have a nice day.

    PS: And I see you didn’t respond to what happened to me at the hands of those three feminists. Typical.

    I checked out that thread and this feminist has three points over my one measily point. Who the hell upvotes opinions like that?

    Forget it. I’ll focus on my art instead. Fuck them.

  8. The best way to demonstrate this (at least to me) is to see the amount of feminists who defend ‘feminism’ as something independent of the actions of it’s actors (which is common enough for an abbreviated response – NAFALT). It’s similar to the pathetic ‘cult of the Catholic Institution’ who try to separate the actions of priests (and nuns) towards children and the actions to keep them from arrest, from the Church itself. They don’t believe in any god, they just take their identity and reason for existing from their position among the ‘faithful’. The goal _is_ the existence and propagation of the cult, not any nebulous, mutating ‘goals’, to reinforce the adherents’ existential placebo.

  9. I wouldn’t pay much heed to upvotes versus downvotes, as disheartening as they can be, given they tend to be awarded based on how ‘on-message’ the comment is (in relation to the general values and ‘truths’ of the website in question), regardless of any of it’s other content. They’re also arguably a form of ‘argumentum ad populum’, which ought to be another reason to disregard them.

    With that said I’d say I’m shocked at the responses you got, but I’ve been aware for some time that ‘better innocent men suffer and die than a women be faced with the possibility of being placed at risk’ has been a thing within feminism for a while now. I just file it under ‘why it’s called feminism not humanism’.

  10. Hi Eagle- my heart broke a little reading this, because I know the conversation you are referring to, and feel like I failed you- having not jumped in with you. I could offer justifications (I saw the thread after it was pretty old, I thought you were doing just fine on your own, I knew the person you were talking to was a zealot (of the church of the saintly futrelle), no amount of talking to them would accomplish anything, and I was enjoying watching themselves put those sentiments on public record for reference in future discussions…), but reading what was happening with you at your keyboard makes it pretty clear that I was focusing on the worthlessness of the gynocentric feminist, rather than your need to have someone affirm that you weren’t alone in being astounded. I should have made the time to jump in and talk about moral agency and moral patiency, and the thin ice anyone defending Mary Koss should feel themselves to be standing on. I’m sorry to have left you feeling so alone and confronted by crazy.

  11. JM, we’re all wise after the fact. Don’t be any harder on yourself than you have to. Eagle hasn’t said one word of reproach.

  12. Jolly_Mcfats, reading what you typed just now is affirmation enough. Don’t be hard on yourself. That thread claimed to be about good natured, healthy debate but so long as people like this gynocentric idiot aren’t called out on their dubious claims (I was the only one in that thread stepping up to the plate for all the good it did) then that makes them liars, pure and simple.

    No more will I fall for it. I’ll just stick with my writing since I’m going to be turning my “Speak To Me” serial play into a novel. Shouldn’t be a problem since it was written like a novel anyway.

  13. The feminist movement uses emotionally entangling words and concepts to make any honest discussion difficult. They’ve had decades to work out the entanglements. And like any cult, they maintain their belief system with a healthy dose of double think and a sociopathic disregard for anyone outside their inner circle.

    Its probably best to discuss reality with those who have not fully committed to drinking the cool aid. Or chose a single topic that can simply be demonstrated to be nonsense, keep it simple, and avoid being derailed. You know your dealing with a cult member when he or she can not stay on topic, uses double think / standards, and resorts to emotionally charged words or statements.

  14. To Alex: It’s an old article. Nonetheless, it hasn’t fail to elicit outrage from me.
    The charges were dropped, yes, but that didn’t make up for the hell they put him through.

    To JP: Yes, I agree.

  15. 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.

    You mean…exactly like cops do all the time?

    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.”

    …She literally said that men needed to be discriminated against to protect women.

    She said

    she

    I got nothing.

    Gynocentric Feminist: “I’m confused… I don’t know who these people are… what do you want me to do?”

    How about the same thing feminists demand men do all the time? Fix the problem.

    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.

    There’s a saying; You can’t reason someone out of a position they weren’t reasoned into.

    The tide is turning and time is one your side, Eagle.

    Someone said not to have these debates in private or feminist websites, but in public, where they can be exposed and can’t control the discussion.

    Personally, I prefer my two-part combo;
    a) Is ignoring rape victims wrong?
    b) Do most feminists call rape “violence against women”?

    And watch…them…go. There is no way to answer those questions directly and truthfully without shooting themselves in the foot, and if they try to evade, you can just keep pointing it out.

Comments are closed.