Animavore wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Animavore wrote:

Sendraks wrote:

Sorry, the undistorted version of what?

He's trying to claim the undistorted version of feminism is that it really is misandric, that this is not a distortion of feminism to call it so, and this is why it's comparable to White Supremicists wearing t-shirts with racial slurs.

Sheer fail.

The undistorted version of modern western feminism is a mixed bunch. It means different things to different feminists. And SOME of them really are misandric.

You made feminists analagous to White Supremicists.

I did, yes. I did so to expose the fact that the argument provided was not a reductio ad absurdum. Presumably you accept that "female supremacist" is a term that makes sense, and does actually apply to some people (even if it is just a tiny number). Provided you accept those things, then my analogy is fine, because I'm using it to show that the form of the argument is flawed. I am not trying to say that all feminists are female supremacists.

A movement which exists for only one reason, to spread racial-based hatred. The feminist movement isn't about hating men even if some of its adherents do.

The fail can't get any more fail-y.

Oh yes you can, as you've just demonstrated nicely. The words "even if some of its adherents do" is an acceptance of my point, which you then follow by a claim I've "failed". You apparently can't follow an argument. And not for the first time.

There is no point in having an argument based on the assumption that "feminism" or "the feminist movement" or "feminists" refers to a clearly-defined and uniform thing. That is part of the problem here. In the past in the west, and today in places like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, we don't need to have a careful think about what "feminism" means, because it is obvious what "not equal" means. In the modern western world the situation is not so simple, for the simple reason that most of the historical battles that feminists had to fight were won long ago.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Animavore wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Animavore wrote:

He's trying to claim the undistorted version of feminism is that it really is misandric, that this is not a distortion of feminism to call it so, and this is why it's comparable to White Supremicists wearing t-shirts with racial slurs.

Sheer fail.

The undistorted version of modern western feminism is a mixed bunch. It means different things to different feminists. And SOME of them really are misandric.

You made feminists analagous to White Supremicists.

I did, yes. I did so to expose the fact that the argument provided was not a reductio ad absurdum. Presumably you accept that "female supremacist" is a term that makes sense, and does actually apply to some people (even if it is just a tiny number). Provided you accept those things, then my analogy is fine, because I'm using it to show that the form of the argument is flawed. I am not trying to say that all feminists are female supremacists.

A movement which exists for only one reason, to spread racial-based hatred. The feminist movement isn't about hating men even if some of its adherents do.

The fail can't get any more fail-y.

Oh yes you can, as you've just demonstrated nicely. The words "even if some of its adherents do" is an acceptance of my point, which you then follow by a claim I've "failed". You apparently can't follow an argument. And not for the first time.

There is no point in having an argument based on the assumption that "feminism" or "the feminist movement" or "feminists" refers to a clearly-defined and uniform thing. That is part of the problem here. In the past in the west, and today in places like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, we don't need to have a careful think about what "feminism" means, because it is obvious what "not equal" means. In the modern western world the situation is not so simple, for the simple reason that most of the historical battles that feminists had to fight were won long ago.

I was wrong. It can get more fail-y.

I'm not sure that the "ironic misandry" descrived in the article qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum, but maybe that's because I misunderstand the term. That pedantic point aside, I think the "Men's Tears" mug achieves its goal perfectly, and agree that the OP fails in a most fail-y manner.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Because the accusation is false. Hatred of dudes has never been a characteristic of the feminist movement. It's a characteristic of a few feminists who one could rightly fling the accusation at.

This is a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Very few feminists advocate segregation of sexes. The vast majority of accusations of "YOU JUST HATE MEN" are false and simply attempts to silence women being difficult, wanting things like the vote and equal job opportunity and appropriate sanitation.

Sorry, but I don't agree. The problem here is the few who really do hate men, not least because they are some of the loudest and most prolific. If they didn't exist, then the accusation of misandry would be unjustified. But they do, so it isn't.

Some vegetarians hate omnivores. No one makes a big deal out of them as if they're a significant, dangerous presence though because they aren't. They're just ridiculous and their conduct has no relevance to vegetarians in general

No true vegetarian...

Animavore wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Animavore wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

The undistorted version of modern western feminism is a mixed bunch. It means different things to different feminists. And SOME of them really are misandric.

You made feminists analagous to White Supremicists.

I did, yes. I did so to expose the fact that the argument provided was not a reductio ad absurdum. Presumably you accept that "female supremacist" is a term that makes sense, and does actually apply to some people (even if it is just a tiny number). Provided you accept those things, then my analogy is fine, because I'm using it to show that the form of the argument is flawed. I am not trying to say that all feminists are female supremacists.

A movement which exists for only one reason, to spread racial-based hatred. The feminist movement isn't about hating men even if some of its adherents do.

The fail can't get any more fail-y.

Oh yes you can, as you've just demonstrated nicely. The words "even if some of its adherents do" is an acceptance of my point, which you then follow by a claim I've "failed". You apparently can't follow an argument. And not for the first time.

There is no point in having an argument based on the assumption that "feminism" or "the feminist movement" or "feminists" refers to a clearly-defined and uniform thing. That is part of the problem here. In the past in the west, and today in places like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, we don't need to have a careful think about what "feminism" means, because it is obvious what "not equal" means. In the modern western world the situation is not so simple, for the simple reason that most of the historical battles that feminists had to fight were won long ago.

I was wrong. It can get more fail-y.

I note your convincing argument, rather than just a baseless claim that your opponent is hopelessly wrong.

Shrunk wrote:I'm not sure that the "ironic misandry" descrived in the article qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum, but maybe that's because I misunderstand the term. That pedantic point aside, I think the "Men's Tears" mug achieves its goal perfectly, and agree that the OP fails in a most fail-y manner.

And its goal is what, exactly?

I have to go out now and will not be back until tomorrow. See you later, peeps...

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Shrunk wrote:I'm not sure that the "ironic misandry" descrived in the article qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum, but maybe that's because I misunderstand the term. That pedantic point aside, I think the "Men's Tears" mug achieves its goal perfectly, and agree that the OP fails in a most fail-y manner.

And its goal is what, exactly?

To make MRA's and other anti-feminists look stupid and ridiculous. Not exactly a difficult task, of course.

Maybe you really are an undercover elephant...

As he matures, a male spends more time at the edge of his group and associates with outside males or even other families. At Amboseli, young males spend over 80% of their time away from their families when they are 14–15. The adult females of the group start to show aggression towards the male, which encourages him to permanently leave.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Animavore wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Animavore wrote:

You made feminists analagous to White Supremicists.

I did, yes. I did so to expose the fact that the argument provided was not a reductio ad absurdum. Presumably you accept that "female supremacist" is a term that makes sense, and does actually apply to some people (even if it is just a tiny number). Provided you accept those things, then my analogy is fine, because I'm using it to show that the form of the argument is flawed. I am not trying to say that all feminists are female supremacists.

A movement which exists for only one reason, to spread racial-based hatred. The feminist movement isn't about hating men even if some of its adherents do.

The fail can't get any more fail-y.

Oh yes you can, as you've just demonstrated nicely. The words "even if some of its adherents do" is an acceptance of my point, which you then follow by a claim I've "failed". You apparently can't follow an argument. And not for the first time.

There is no point in having an argument based on the assumption that "feminism" or "the feminist movement" or "feminists" refers to a clearly-defined and uniform thing. That is part of the problem here. In the past in the west, and today in places like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia, we don't need to have a careful think about what "feminism" means, because it is obvious what "not equal" means. In the modern western world the situation is not so simple, for the simple reason that most of the historical battles that feminists had to fight were won long ago.

I was wrong. It can get more fail-y.

I note your convincing argument, rather than just a baseless claim that your opponent is hopelessly wrong.

I already gave the convincing argument. You're comparing the whole of feminism, on the basis of a few of its adherents personal opinions, to white supremicists and all of its adherents and their stated goal.

You failed. Badly. But keep digging those heels in because it's so much fun.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

Sendraks wrote:
And I still don't see the problem with inhabiting an implausible to distortion of your position to show that such a distortion is ridiculous, as a shortcut to dealing with ridiculous arguments.

Because there's nothing wrong with it.

Sometimes the lies people tell about you are so fucking ridiculous that they don't deserve a sincere refutation. Mockery is far more reasonable a response. For example, a member of this forum has said I probably like to murder neonates (a distortion of my pro-choice feminism). This does not deserve a sincere refutation. Far more effective is laughing at the ridiculousness of the accusation than actually treating the person making the accusation as if they're deserving of my time.

No, that doesn't fly. It might sound OK to you, but if you follow the logic then you end up with the same sort of absurdity as the racist argument in the opening post. In other words, if you don't provide a sincere refutation then you leave yourself wide open to the accusation that you've not provided a refutation at all.

If they're a complete fucking idiot, yes, they will have trouble seeing the ridiculousness of the accusation for what it is and laughing along with those whose time is too valuable to waste on individuals making the accusations.

It's plain to see these women who live with, work with, socialise with men don't hate them. It's no different than atheists proudly chuckling about baby eating. Do we owe people who accuse us of that a sincere refutation too? Should I calmly sit down across from the bro who told the lie about me murder newborn babies and treat it with seriousness and respect? What am I supposed to say to something that fucking stupid? I have a baby and haven't killed her yet? And I recently gave a guy a blowjob therefore I don't hate men?

To use another example, if you're faced with a room full of people who've been taught "creation science" instead of evolution and you decided that because creationism is so fucking ridiculous it doesn't deserve a sincere refutation, then you aren't going to get very far. It may be true that creationism is fucking ridiculous, but if you're faced with somebody who doesn't agree with you then you need to offer a real refutation instead of laughing at it.

For this to be analogous, people would have to be under the impression that feminists HATE TEH MENZ already. I don't think most people are that stupid or socialised to think such ridiculousness. You're treating man-hating as the default feminist position that's supposedly been earned by hundreds of years of chopping off men's balls and taking their child support cheques to buy SHOES! Most people see the patent ridiculousness in this as they do in your comparison of feminism to white supremacy. You're the one struggling, demanding refutations of things that aren't real while everyone else is doing fine.

No one is indoctrinated into man-hating feminism like they are into white supremacy or Christian fundamentalism. Except in bizzaroland where the belief feminism is out to getcha seems to breed.

And the problem here is that I simply don't accept the claim that there aren't any genuinely misandric feminists. So offering irony instead of an actual argument is just going to look, to me, like a cover for somebody who doesn't have an actual argument.

Being afraid of what you think women are going to do to you is a terrible way to live. I dated someone for a year who was afraid of women. It's not healthy. Furthermore, you can't fix that for anyone else. Trust me, I fucking tried. I gave up all my self-esteem in the process. They have to want to fix it for themselves. No amount of "No, I don't want your money/intend to spermburgle you/consider spreading rumours about you raping me when you're an asshole/plan to deny you access to your kids/want to inform your employer of what an abuser you are when you dump me" resolves that delusion unless the person with it wants to rid themself of it.

Go take your issue up with the people who are guilty of it. Feminism and feminists in general are the wrong target. You're spewing your bile over people that have no problem with you and it's creating hostility where there needn't be any. You're angry at the wrong people and frankly mistaken about people out to get you.

Abusers aren't entitled to my time. That's what people who you lies to silence are doing, they're abusing, and luckily most people who aren't terminally stupid or just plain reactionary or possessing the irrational fear someone's out to get them can see right through the lies and have a good laugh.

Shrunk wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Shrunk wrote:I'm not sure that the "ironic misandry" descrived in the article qualifies as a reductio ad absurdum, but maybe that's because I misunderstand the term. That pedantic point aside, I think the "Men's Tears" mug achieves its goal perfectly, and agree that the OP fails in a most fail-y manner.

And its goal is what, exactly?

To make MRA's and other anti-feminists look stupid and ridiculous. Not exactly a difficult task, of course.

Luckily, you often don't even need to use irony to demonstrate their fail because they do such a good job of making themselves look stupid and ridiculous. Laying it on thick is sometimes fun though.

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Because the accusation is false. Hatred of dudes has never been a characteristic of the feminist movement. It's a characteristic of a few feminists who one could rightly fling the accusation at.

This is a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

And more fail.

It would be an example of No True Scotsman if I had claimed the manhating variety weren't feminists. I don't and they are. Their manhating isn't relevant to their feminism or feminism in general though.

Very few feminists advocate segregation of sexes. The vast majority of accusations of "YOU JUST HATE MEN" are false and simply attempts to silence women being difficult, wanting things like the vote and equal job opportunity and appropriate sanitation.

Sorry, but I don't agree. The problem here is the few who really do hate men, not least because they are some of the loudest and most prolific. If they didn't exist, then the accusation of misandry would be unjustified. But they do, so it isn't.

This is delusion, not reality. The manhating contingent of feminism has never been prolific. It has never had a foothold in reality nor has it ever reflected the mainstream majority of feminism. Yeah, historically it's been loud. Haters are loud. That's their schtick. Doesn't mean their ideas have penetrated deep or been held by any significant number of individuals or had any consequences for the people they target.

When people such as yourself go after people like Amanda Hess you are demonstrating the classic use of the accusation of misandry. It's utterly false and directed at feminist women as a silencing tactic. You're not going after feminists who hate men or anyone who hates men for that matter. You're just rambling about manhating and then failing to point your finger at anyone guilty of it, instead implicating feminism in the crime. Unhelpful.

Some vegetarians hate omnivores. No one makes a big deal out of them as if they're a significant, dangerous presence though because they aren't. They're just ridiculous and their conduct has no relevance to vegetarians in general

No true vegetarian...

Except that no one claims someone stops being a vegetarian when they start hating omnivores. The problem is YOU JUST HATE OMNIVORES being flung around to shame and silence vegetarians in general and those in particular who aren't guilty of the accusation.

Can someone give examples of some of these "man-hating" feminists that everyone is talking about here? I'm not saying they don't exist. Just that I can't think of any off the top of my head. I know there are women who, say, write academic articles or make political statements that some men might find insulting to their gender. But I don't know if that constitutes "man-hating." It's not the same thing as, say, a woman going on a shooting spree and killing a bunch of men because she can't get laid.

UndercoverElephant wrote:By saying that "an accusation has been flung" at the members of a movement, you are suggesting that the accusation is false. If not, why would you use this phrase? She's conveniently talking about the whole movement, as if all feminists sing from the same songsheet. They don't. Some are reasonable, and some are man-hating psychopaths.

The point you're missing here is that the people making the accusation, is that the whole premise of feminism is based on hating men. Which is manifestly isn't, therefore the accusation is false.

If you want to argue that some feminists are also misandrists, feel free. Some feminists will be misandrists, most won't be, given that misandry is largely not compatible with pursuing and equality based ideology which is what feminism is all about.

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:Because the accusation is false. Hatred of dudes has never been a characteristic of the feminist movement. It's a characteristic of a few feminists who one could rightly fling the accusation at.

This is a "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

And more fail.

It would be an example of No True Scotsman if I had claimed the manhating variety weren't feminists. I don't and they are. Their manhating isn't relevant to their feminism or feminism in general though.

Thanks, Rachel Bronwyn. I was hoping you would call Undercover Elephant on this. Just as the OP was a failure to properly engage with the reductio of the "Men's Tears" meme, we have here a failure to properly use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.
So, now I can happily agree with you rather than--

SkyMutt wrote:So, now I can happily agree with you rather than-- Image

--play Ghouls 'n Ghosts?

Bookmarking, as I don't have time for more right not. But I think Undercover Elephant is right on many counts.

Animavore wrote:--play Ghouls 'n Ghosts?

It's a white knight.

orpheus wrote:Bookmarking, as I don't have time for more right not. But I think Undercover Elephant is right on many counts.

I think the "Men's Tears" thing is condescending and lame, but Undercover Elephant's approach to the subject in this thread is inept.