Did modern feminism get it wrong about men?

iptba

(July article)

Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right
by
Cathy Young
http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/

tritium

iptba wrote: »

(July article)

That actually a superb article. I wish I'd had it during the numerous debates on boards that descend into "you're generalising, not all feminists are like that. Where's your proof, this is what feminism really means" nonsense

py2006

Yea that is a really good article. I am going to bookmark it and refer to it in future discussions.

Piliger

py2006 wrote: »

Yea that is a really good article. I am going to bookmark it and refer to it in future discussions.

Indeed. It is sad and somewhat tragic that it is so unusual that it has this effect on so many of us.

What we men must also do however is realise that these extreme- or neo- feminists (whatever we call them) are not operating in a vaccuum. They are being encouraged and enabled by a section of the male population that has bought into the propaganda of that feminism over the last 42 years. That very propaganda that Devon speaks about in this article " (women) ..as victims and men as perverts, bullies and misogynists."

I meet men like this on a regular basis. They actually think that men are nasty and that inside themselves is a dark male identity kept in check only by society and feminism. They don't believe that the court system is so prejudiced until it happens to them or a mate of theirs. Then they have this sudden shock reaction.

These men are in all walks of life and at all levels and it is men like this, in the media and politics that are cooperating with the appallingly biased justice system (the judges themselves !) the educations system (so many head teachers are actually men) and members of parliament who promote sexist laws against men and the kind of appalling campaigns illustrated by the Irish domestic violence campaigns.

Boards.ie forums like this are crucial in trying to wake more men up to the prejudice and sexism that is happening to men all around us.

iptba

(October 16 article)

Feminism vs. Responsibility
http://franksmithblog.blogspot.ie/2014/10/feminism-vs-responsibility.html

But many feminists are trying to take away women’s agency and turn them into victim objects with no power at all.

Shakespeare's Sister

tritium wrote: »

That actually a superb article. I wish I'd had it during the numerous debates on boards that descend into "you're generalising, not all feminists are like that. Where's your proof, this is what feminism really means" nonsense

But doesn't it say something along those very lines in the intro to that article?

The charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless victims certainly doesn’t apply to all feminists, but it’s a reasonably fair description of a large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism

I would agree very much. Good article - definitely gives insight into why people would have a problem with a lot of feminists/feminism.

donfers

Piliger wrote: »

Indeed. It is sad and somewhat tragic that it is so unusual that it has this effect on so many of us.

What we men must also do however is realise that these extreme- or neo- feminists (whatever we call them) are not operating in a vaccuum. They are being encouraged and enabled by a section of the male population that has bought into the propaganda of that feminism over the last 42 years. That very propaganda that Devon speaks about in this article " (women) ..as victims and men as perverts, bullies and misogynists."

I meet men like this on a regular basis. They actually think that men are nasty and that inside themselves is a dark male identity kept in check only by society and feminism. They don't believe that the court system is so prejudiced until it happens to them or a mate of theirs. Then they have this sudden shock reaction.

These men are in all walks of life and at all levels and it is men like this, in the media and politics that are cooperating with the appallingly biased justice system (the judges themselves !) the educations system (so many head teachers are actually men) and members of parliament who promote sexist laws against men and the kind of appalling campaigns illustrated by the Irish domestic violence campaigns.

Boards.ie forums like this are crucial in trying to wake more men up to the prejudice and sexism that is happening to men all around us.

Yes, in a way you are illustrating a very important and often overlooked point. Men do not pontificate, influence, cajole, lobby or legislate for other men, they do it to keep themselves in power and it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that what is currently de digeur in the Western liberal media is the womens' agenda. So these men, the cheap political opportunists that they are, will simply attach themselves to the latest populist bandwagon to roll into town, one that will keep the most people happy and generate the least heat. It's not about what is just or what is right - it's about whoring yourself out to whatever is the politically fashionable ideology of the day i.e. woman = victim and man = fair game.

Therefore the oft repeated feminist mantra for quotas in politics, boards of Fortune 500 companies etc. won't really make an iota of difference, except maybe lead some to rightfully question the credibility and suitability of those appointed to their position as a result of a discriminatory system. Indeed the implication in feminism's line of thinking is simply absurd; that men legislate for other men and to offset this imbalanced political model the intention presumably is to get more women involved so that they can enforce laws and regulations to benefit other woman.

Is this really the sort of Society we want to live in? Have none of these people ever considered misty-eyed notions like inclusiveness and the bigger picture? The reality is that a very small number of mainly men and a few women have real power in the world and they don't consciously exert this power to elevate the position of men in general in society. They have absolutely zero interest in that, their only concern is maintaining their own power and ensuring the rest of us spend our time squabbling over the crumbs left from their table - whether that be crisp ads, political quotas, mens' rights discussions at Universities or the bahviour of twitter trolls. Feminists are missing the point of the whole equality debate by a lightyear or two. They think they are progressing, they celebrate hollow victories, they seek to justify their impregnable positions in academia, media outlets and government-funded (bribed?) community organizations by waging war on the easy target that is ordinary Joe on the street. They now are straying into attempts to enforce a kind of thought-police type of faux-morality because they are running out of real and tangible things to whinge about, and all the time what has failed to dawn on them is that the only real progression they are making is towards further division. Meanwhile the small superclass of mainly men who hold real power are laughing at them, rubbing their hands in glee, thinking "You go girls - keep on going in the wrong direction, never knowing your true enemies - ignorance, hubris and misguided self-interest".

tritium

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

But doesn't it say something along those very lines in the intro to that article?



I would agree very much. Good article - definitely gives insight into why people would have a problem with a lot of feminists/feminism.

Yes it does, but that's exactly the point. The standard defence used usually runs something along the lines of 'its only a small minority' often coupled with 'sure everyone's really a feminist' or some variation. Then the smug ALL feminists? Line is thrown out and rather than engage in debate on whether this is a problem for feminism and one they should take seriously the thread is deliberately derailed into a series of semantic arguments ( I actually had this on a thread only a few days ago!)

The reality is that there is a very vocal, influential and demonstratably numerically significant block within feminism that has turned a great many people off that word. Feminists just doing the lalalala I dont hear you stuff to things in full view while claiming its just a minority doesn't cut it any more, especially when so many feminist campaigns place such an emphasis on target groups to take responsibility for minority actions within that group.

This article gives a very succinct whistlestop tour of the many ills that broader feminist movement has perhaps been slow to acknowledge- I don't know why that is, perhaps a 'were all in this together sisters' mindset. It is however something feminism will have to face up to sooner or later.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

(July article)

Stop Fem-Splaining: What ‘Women Against Feminism’ Gets Right
by
Cathy Young

Ya watch for that author, she has been heavily active in Libertarian think-tanks like Cato and publications like Reason - I'm finding that absolutely loads of the backing that people use, as an attack on feminism, originates from the Libertarian think-tank network (i.e. the kind of groups that are happy to support stuff like climate change denial, previously supported the tobacco industries attempts to downplay cancer risk etc.).

These are not good sources; this author in particular, likes to lionize people like Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher. That and her other associations, means people should be hyper-skeptical of her writing.

I find it very interesting, that so many of the sources I find that are supporting the ammo for mens-rights-attacks-on-feminism narrative, are originating almost exclusively from Libertarian think tanks.

Even a small number of the more extreme posters you see on Boards too, attacking feminism, have a very visible right-wing/Libertarian bent (one lately, was very fond of dismissing feminism as a 'Marxist' ideology) - it'd help explain why there's such an explosion of activity on the type of topic lately, because these think-tanks shuffle around tens of millions on a regular basis, obviously are spending plenty of money on generating publications/ammo for the topic, and also have a history of funding grassroots astroturfing online and offline too.

Piliger

Trying to reduce everything down to your favourite bogey men never looks good. And this doesn't either. I find this analysis completely false and disingenuous

iptba

FWIW, I just happened to come a graphic of responses of people interested in GamerGate and although they were quite liberteranian on average, they were more left-wing than right-wing:
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/841842-gamergate

newport2

donfers wrote: »

Yes, in a way you are illustrating a very important and often overlooked point. Men do not pontificate, influence, cajole, lobby or legislate for other men, they do it to keep themselves in power and it's obvious to anyone with half a brain that what is currently de digeur in the Western liberal media is the womens' agenda. So these men, the cheap political opportunists that they are, will simply attach themselves to the latest populist bandwagon to roll into town, one that will keep the most people happy and generate the least heat. It's not about what is just or what is right - it's about whoring yourself out to whatever is the politically fashionable ideology of the day i.e. woman = victim and man = fair game.

+1

Although I would say people in power "do not pontificate, influence, cajole, lobby or legislate for other men, they do it to keep themselves in power". Just most of the people in these positions happen to be men. This would not change if the majority were women either.

People in these positions pander to groups who have the potential to damage them. Feminism in the west has created the illusion that women are largest "minority" group in the world. Every western politician knows that upsetting them can potentially lost them half their votes overnight. Men are not seen as a group, so as you say, they're fair game.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya watch for that author, she has been heavily active in Libertarian think-tanks like Cato and publications like Reason - I'm finding that absolutely loads of the backing that people use, as an attack on feminism, originates from the Libertarian think-tank network (i.e. the kind of groups that are happy to support stuff like climate change denial, previously supported the tobacco industries attempts to downplay cancer risk etc.).

These are not good sources; this author in particular, likes to lionize people like Ayn Rand and Margaret Thatcher. That and her other associations, means people should be hyper-skeptical of her writing.

I find it very interesting, that so many of the sources I find that are supporting the ammo for mens-rights-attacks-on-feminism narrative, are originating almost exclusively from Libertarian think tanks.

Even a small number of the more extreme posters you see on Boards too, attacking feminism, have a very visible right-wing/Libertarian bent (one lately, was very fond of dismissing feminism as a 'Marxist' ideology) - it'd help explain why there's such an explosion of activity on the type of topic lately, because these think-tanks shuffle around tens of millions on a regular basis, obviously are spending plenty of money on generating publications/ammo for the topic, and also have a history of funding grassroots astroturfing online and offline too.

Interestingly, from the authors wikipedia page her publications include:

" Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, published in 1999, she criticized both feminism and traditionalism from what she described as a pro-equality point of view,[1] a philosophy which, according to her, may be called "feminism or something else" . Kyuss, that sound remarkably in line with the intersectionality you've promoted in the past.

She's described there as espousing moderate libertarianism.

Based on what I'm seeing here I'm not seeing any reason to disregard her writings. I do note however she has been frequently critical of feminist ideology. Is that why shes being criticised and demonised?

Whatever her affiliations her style of journalism is certainly more balanced moderate and readable then say the following piece of bile which attacks her

Http://www.salon.com/2014/09/13/7_women_working_tirelessly_to_attack_equal_rights_for_women_partner/

This is the kind of stuff that makes people look at feminism (and they won't distinguish to SOME feminists) as intolerant and incapable of introspection

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

FWIW, I just happened to come a graphic of responses of people interested in GamerGate and although they were quite liberteranian on average, they were more left-wing than right-wing:
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/841842-gamergate

How was that put together? If it's based on the hashtag, that doesn't tell you which 'side' (for or against the backlash) that the twitter posters are contributing on.

Nevertheless, my point is that a lot of the ammo (commonly cited organizations, and 'research' etc.) which is used to attack feminism, seems to be comming from the Libertarian think-tank network (most of the posters I've seen use those sources, are not Libertarian - though a handful of the more extreme ones are); the majority of articles/authors I've seen people post on Boards on that topic, often tie back to that.

So: There may be a point to the arguments posters are making, not saying anyone is wrong, but the sources posters are using are incredibly dubious - so would be good to see people check their sources more thoroughly (Google around the authors/publications for links to discreditable organizations - might be hard to do, as I know a bunch of them off-by-heart after years of reading up on them), and try to source information from untainted authors instead.

I'm interested in researching more on the topic in general (mens rights, anti-feminism) myself, but I immediately hit a roadblock with the sources people rely on, because I know from past experience they are associated with organizations that support climate-change denialism and such.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Interestingly, from the authors wikipedia page her publications include:

" Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, published in 1999, she criticized both feminism and traditionalism from what she described as a pro-equality point of view,[1] a philosophy which, according to her, may be called "feminism or something else" . Kyuss, that sound remarkably in line with the intersectionality you've promoted in the past.

She's described there as espousing moderate libertarianism.

Based on what I'm seeing here I'm not seeing any reason to disregard her writings. I do note however she has been frequently critical of feminist ideology. Is that why shes being criticised and demonised?

Whatever her affiliations her style of journalism is certainly more balanced moderate and readable then say the following piece of bile which attacks her

[url]Http://www.salon.com/2014/09/13/7_women_working_tirelessly_to_attack_equal_rights_for_women_partner/[/url]

This is the kind of stuff that makes people look at feminism (and they won't distinguish to SOME feminists) as intolerant and incapable of introspection

Dishonest methods of argument used here:
1: Implying I'm only criticizing her because she is critical of feminism, instead of dealing with what I actually said.
2: A red herring aimed at distracting from my point - Intersectionality: Nothing to do with what she said there, or what I said in this thread.
3: Another red-herring/distraction 'lets look at this piece of bile Internet article that has nothing to do with what anyone said, and concentrate on that instead'.

There's nothing that challenges what I actually said there.

Potatoeman

tritium wrote: »

Interestingly, from the authors wikipedia page her publications include:

" Ceasefire!: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, published in 1999, she criticized both feminism and traditionalism from what she described as a pro-equality point of view,[1] a philosophy which, according to her, may be called "feminism or something else" . Kyuss, that sound remarkably in line with the intersectionality you've promoted in the past.

She's described there as espousing moderate libertarianism.

Based on what I'm seeing here I'm not seeing any reason to disregard her writings. I do note however she has been frequently critical of feminist ideology. Is that why shes being criticised and demonised?

Whatever her affiliations her style of journalism is certainly more balanced moderate and readable then say the following piece of bile which attacks her

[url]Http://www.salon.com/2014/09/13/7_women_working_tirelessly_to_attack_equal_rights_for_women_partner/[/url]

This is the kind of stuff that makes people look at feminism (and they won't distinguish to SOME feminists) as intolerant and incapable of introspection

This is why many people dont challenge feminism. They get attacked and if its a man he gets accused of hating women.

Seriously?

Potatoeman wrote: »

This is why many people dont challenge feminism. They get attacked and if its a man he gets accused of hating women.

It's the standard feminist retreat, start slinging the mud with accustions of misogyny in an attempt to silence your opponent.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Dishonest methods of argument used here:
1: Implying I'm only criticizing her because she is critical of feminism, instead of dealing with what I actually said.
2: A red herring aimed at distracting from my point - Intersectionality: Nothing to do with what she said there, or what I said in this thread.
3: Another red-herring/distraction 'lets look at this piece of bile Internet article that has nothing to do with what anyone said, and concentrate on that instead'.

There's nothing that challenges what I actually said there.

Actually you'll note I acknowledged she was considered a moderate libertarian. My comment on her being demonized and attacked was more general than aimed at you, and the link I gave was in support of that. Basically people like Cathy Young seem to have a tendency to come under attack from a section of feminism because they have the temerity to challenge the ideology. Interestingly that attack rarely addresses the points they've raised and instead looks to undermine their credibility, claiming they belong to some marginal or extreme group and highlighting the excesses of that group-basically trying to make them into a bogeyman.

Its really no different to how the catholic church in Ireland used to denounce dissenters as communists from the pulpit or McCartyism used the Commie line to silence debate. Pick a bogeyman, find a link, and tar the dissenter with the same brush without any attempt at context or to address the issues.

Now, back to your post! Now that youve told us her political affiliations would you care to play the woman and not the ball and address the points Cathy Young actually raises in her article?

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

Actually you'll note I acknowledged she was considered a moderate libertarian. My comment on her being demonized and attacked was more general than aimed at you, and the link I gave was in support of that. Basically people like Cathy Young seem to have a tendency to come under attack from a section of feminism because they have the temerity to challenge the ideology. Interestingly that attack rarely addresses the points they've raised and instead looks to undermine their credibility, claiming they belong to some marginal or extreme group and highlighting the excesses of that group-basically trying to make them into a bogeyman.

Its really no different to how the catholic church in Ireland used to denounce dissenters as communists from the pulpit or McCartyism used the Commie line to silence debate. Pick a bogeyman, find a link, and tar the dissenter with the same brush without any attempt at context or to address the issues.

Now, back to your post! Now that youve told us her political affiliations would you care to play the woman and not the ball and address the points Cathy Young actually raises in her article?

If someone is happy to associate with discreditable organizations, that are known for anti-intellectualism and supporting various forms of denialism (especially stuff like denying climate change), then that taints their reputation by association, and they don't deserve to be taken credibly - this is nothing like accusations of supporting Communism, this person is directly associated with organizations known for various forms of denialism.
If their arguments have any merit, then I'm actually very interested in reading an untainted source who puts forward the same arguments - people can take that credibly.

Showing problems with a persons reputation or associations, is a valid means of attacking the credibility of sources - and this is a valid method of argument for dissuading people from treating certain sources as credible (which it's only prudent to do, since there are good reasons for not treating them as credible). This is the one instance where ad hominem is a valid non-fallacious method of argument:

Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

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


No points or arguments were put forward either, for me to rebut, only a link to an Internet article was posted; that's another attempt at dishonest argument, to distract/change-topic, by you - as I have not taken issue with the content of her article.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If someone is happy to associate with discreditable organizations, that are known for anti-intellectualism and supporting various forms of denialism (especially stuff like denying climate change), then that taints their reputation by association, and they don't deserve to be taken credibly - this is nothing like accusations of supporting Communism, this person is directly associated with organizations known for various forms of denialism.
If their arguments have any merit, then I'm actually very interested in reading an untainted source who puts forward the same arguments - people can take that credibly.

Showing problems with a persons reputation or associations, is a valid means of attacking the credibility of sources - and this is a valid method of argument for dissuading people from treating certain sources as credible (which it's only prudent to do, since there are good reasons for not treating them as credible). This is the one instance where ad hominem is a valid non-fallacious method of argument:

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


No points or arguments were put forward either, for me to rebut, only a link to an Internet article was posted; that's another attempt at dishonest argument, to distract/change-topic, by you - as I have not taken issue with the content of her article.

KB you're doing exactly what you have always done (even under your previous handle) in trying to derail the debate into a semantic argument - as I told you in a thread a while back, I won't play that silly game.

Simple question: a link to an article was provided. Do you disagree with the content of that article?

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

KB you're doing exactly what you have always done (even under your previous handle) in trying to derail the debate into a semantic argument - as I told you in a thread a while back, I won't play that silly game.

Simple question: a link to an article was provided. Do you disagree with the content of that article?

You're deliberating misrepresenting/lying about my post, to try and distract from and avoid addressing any of my actual arguments - I have not pulled anything into semantics.

I don't have to address the authors arguments, and I haven't even disagreed with any of her arguments - you are fully aware that that was not the point of my posts, but you are trying to pretend that was the point of my posts, to try and distract from them and derail the debate away from what I actually argued (and then try to portray me as derailing...) - another dishonest method of argument by yourself.

You obviously have a problem with me attacking the authors credibility, and you are lying about and misrepresenting my posts as a result of that - I'm not going to stop attacking the credibility of the sources people post, it is relevant to the thread.

Pawwed Rig

Mod note - Attack the post, not the poster

Playboy

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're deliberating misrepresenting/lying about my post, to try and distract from and avoid addressing any of my actual arguments - I have not pulled anything into semantics.

I don't have to address the authors arguments, and I haven't even disagreed with any of her arguments - you are fully aware that that was not the point of my posts, but you are trying to pretend that was the point of my posts, to try and distract from them and derail the debate away from what I actually argued (and then try to portray me as derailing...) - another dishonest method of argument by yourself.

You obviously have a problem with me attacking the authors credibility, and you are lying about and misrepresenting my posts as a result of that - I'm not going to stop attacking the credibility of the sources people post, it is relevant to the thread.

You criticized or cast doubt on the credibility of the author of the article without addressing any of the content of the article itself. Now you are engaged in some kind of spurious semantic argument. The response to you was very clear and rational. If you have a point then be clear about it.

Carlos Orange

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya watch for that author, she has been heavily active in Libertarian think-tanks like Cato and publications like Reason

Do you have to be left wing to be a feminist?

Pat Mustard

KomradeBishop wrote: »

If someone is happy to associate with discreditable organizations, that are known for anti-intellectualism and supporting various forms of denialism (especially stuff like denying climate change), then that taints their reputation by association, and they don't deserve to be taken credibly - this is nothing like accusations of supporting Communism, this person is directly associated with organizations known for various forms of denialism.
If their arguments have any merit, then I'm actually very interested in reading an untainted source who puts forward the same arguments - people can take that credibly.

Showing problems with a persons reputation or associations, is a valid means of attacking the credibility of sources - and this is a valid method of argument for dissuading people from treating certain sources as credible (which it's only prudent to do, since there are good reasons for not treating them as credible). This is the one instance where ad hominem is a valid non-fallacious method of argument:

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


No points or arguments were put forward either, for me to rebut, only a link to an Internet article was posted; that's another attempt at dishonest argument, to distract/change-topic, by you - as I have not taken issue with the content of her article.

This is an ad hominem argument. You point out that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious.

In this instance, it appears to be the simple 'guilt by association' argument, which seems to fall within the parameters of the fallacy.

That's my opinion anyway.

KomradeBishop

The Mustard wrote: »

This is an ad hominem argument. You point out that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious.

In this instance, it appears to be the simple 'guilt by association' argument, which seems to fall within the parameters of the fallacy.

That's my opinion anyway.

That only establishes that it's an ad-hominem, that doesn't tell you whether it is a fallacious or non-fallacious use of ad-hominem.

I did not use ad-hominem to try and discredit any arguments the author made - I'm not interested in her arguments - I used it solely to show that people are sourcing their arguments, from discreditable locations, known for anti-intellectualism/propaganda/denialism.

Effectively, I'm criticizing other posters for having poor sources - not criticizing the arguments put forward. The arguments may well be accurate, but there need to be better/more-credible sources provided, to back them.

Since the point I'm arguing is the credibility of a source, this is a valid use of ad-hominem (the wiki quote I provide validates this) - I am not arguing over the credibility of the sources individual arguments.

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Effectively, I'm criticizing other posters for having poor sources - not criticizing the arguments put forward. The arguments may well be accurate, but there need to be better/more-credible sources provided, to back them.

The article in question that you objected to was in Time magazine/on the Time magazine website.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

The article in question that you objected to was in Time magazine/on the Time magazine website.

And the source is the author, Cathy Young - who is currently a contributing editor to Reason magazine, which - among other things - is associated with stuff like Holocaust Denial and support for racist apartheid in South Africa:
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/
http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/

That's the magazine she is presently associated with.

The arguments she makes may well be sound, so all I'm saying, is that there should be a more credible source used to back those arguments instead of her.

tritium

KomradeBishop wrote: »

And the source is the author, Cathy Young - who is currently a contributing editor to Reason magazine, which - among other things - is associated with stuff like Holocaust Denial and support for racist apartheid in South Africa:
http://pando.com/2014/07/18/homophobia-racism-and-the-kochs-san-franciscos-tech-libertarian-reboot-conference-is-a-cesspool/
http://pando.com/2014/07/24/as-reasons-editor-defends-its-racist-history-heres-a-copy-of-its-holocaust-denial-special-issue/

That's the magazine she is presently associated with.

The arguments she makes may well be sound, so all I'm saying, is that there should be a more credible source used to back those arguments instead of her.

Isn't that if effect guilt by association though (or put another way playing the (Wo)man and not the ball). In effect its allows us to dredge up any tenuous link to discredit a source rather than engaging with their argument. Does her view on another unrelated matter make her opinion here any less worthy once its supported by reasonable analysis and facts?

Frankly what you're arguing for here looks remarkably like the common approach employed by some feminists of disregarding the merits of any arguments in favour of attacking the source. It becomes an exercise in intellectual slutshaming by members of the group that claims to be most agonst that. When I see that approach by some feminists I'm reminded of Socrates: "when the argument is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The arguments she makes may well be sound, so all I'm saying, is that there should be a more credible source used to back those arguments instead of her.

It seems strange that one would be required know the background of authors that might be quoted on Boards.ie when it's basically an anonymous forum so we don't know anything about the people making the points.

Piliger

iptba wrote: »

It seems strange that one would be required know the background of authors that might be quoted on Boards.ie when it's basically an anonymous forum so we don't know anything about the people making the points.

Yes indeed.

An argument either stands on it's own two feet or it doesn't. Dragging in other issues, other views, other history or other factors related to the person making that argument is totally irrelevant.

When someone starts knocking an argument based on those other factors then they basically have lost the argument hands down, and have no counter. It's that simple.

AndreaCollins

Piliger wrote: »

Yes indeed.

An argument either stands on it's own two feet or it doesn't. Dragging in other issues, other views, other history or other factors related to the person making that argument is totally irrelevant.

When someone starts knocking an argument based on those other factors then they basically have lost the argument hands down, and have no counter. It's that simple.

Agreed. There is no shame in losing an argument but clearly some people are unable to back down, even if they know they are wrong.

Wibbs

OK folks, can we get back to the topic at hand please. Was gonna quote the Hulk and the whole you wouldn't like me when I'm angry, but I'm too scrawny to pull that one off...


*EDIT* "The Sexy Murderer". Your very first post as a "new" user ignored the moderator instruction immediately before your post. Not a good start. Post deleted. Any further along those lines and you will get a ban. Thanks for reading.

iptba

A male feminist asked teenage boys why they don't like feminism, these are the four reasons they came up with ...
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/11/13/four-reasons-why-feminism-alienating-teenage-boys/

Laura Palmer

That video with the small kids swearing is so, so messed up. Do they even understand half of what they're saying?!

tritium

iptba wrote: »

A male feminist asked teenage boys why they don't like feminism, these are the four reasons they came up with ...
http://www.inside-man.co.uk/2014/11/13/four-reasons-why-feminism-alienating-teenage-boys/

That is a terrific article. It puts so eloquently why people often see feminism (and indeed MRAs) in a bad light and how easy it would be for more moderate voice to change that.

ALiasEX

Laura Palmer wrote: »

That video with the small kids swearing is so, so messed up. Do they even understand half of what they're saying?!

Thanks to what they were told to say they might be spending the rest of their childhood wondering "is it going to be me" (i.e. the statistic that one of them is going to be raped)

iptba

(December 31 article)

A Better Feminism for 2015

Cathy Young
http://time.com/3651057/a-better-feminism-for-2015/

Includes a revision of some events connected to feminists in 2014

iptba

(from one of the major newspapers in Canada)
(Dec 27 article)

Rex Murphy: The year in activist feminism
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/12/27/rex-murphy-the-year-in-activist-feminsm/

Seriously?

iptba wrote: »

(from one of the major newspapers in Canada)
(Dec 27 article)

Talk about heading the nail on the head, great post that.

On a more 'light-hearted' topic, reading that brought me onto the following article.
http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2015/01/6-times-feminists-were-whiny-joyless-shrews-in-2014/

My partiular favorite was:

joyless feminists and their supporters insisted women are so irrational, so delicate, so easily deterred and so lacking in confidence and maturity that a shirt would send them spiralling into a cycle of despair that would ultimately lead to a liberal arts degree and a meaningful career at Starbucks rather than the Large Hadron Collider.

ancapailldorcha

2 of those are from Jessica Valenti. I can't believe that she's employed by the same paper with Ally Fogg, Owen Jones, Ben Goldacre and George Monbiot. She is a graduate of US ivory-tower "gender studies" feminism so I suppose the drivel she's peddling isn't surprising.