I’m actually glad we had this article added.
Of course, most of you guys have treated the article with the contempt many of its ideas deserve, but it does give us a chance to
(a) see how far imprisoned in their ideas some feminists are and
(b) a chance to deal with some of those ideas in a rational manner and how to address them when they’re propounded.
Most of the talking points here from feminism are not very well-developed, but they’re some of the more common ones, so it might be worth a refresher both for our newer members and for the interested lurkers, on the fence or otherwise, exactly how poor the arguments are and some pointers on where they're substantively wrong.
A short preface first. Many of you will be aware of the idea of
logical fallacies, that is, errors in logic when attempting to make an assertion as a matter of fact or a matter of logic derived from facts. In their more innocent form, logical fallacies can simply be examples of poor thinking or intellectual blind spots – a person takes a reasoning channel that is not accepted in logical debate because it simply does not hold according to time-honoured principles of reasoning which have come down to us to the present day from the classical Greek period and which remain in place.
However, when deployed intentionally, which is to say, in an actual debate attempting to advance a point, a logical fallacy goes from being a blind spot in thought and becomes an
intellectually dishonest debating tactic. There are only two ways to be intellectually
honest when propounding an argument: debate the facts, or debate the logic.
For a more extensive list of intellectually dishonest debating tactics (and from which I learned about this concept) consult John T. Reed’s fairly extensive categorisation of the tactics:
http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s...te-tactics
Without further ado, in the humble tradition of fisking (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Fisk) let’s go through the OP’s post bit by bit, rather like an autopsy:
Quote:Feminists are not angry lesbians who hate men. Feminists do not believe women are better than men, or that women deserve special privileges. They do not believe women are victims.
One intellectually dishonest debating tactic John T. Reed doesn’t get to is the
No True Scotsman Fallacy. In essence, the fallacy is as follows:
Debater A: “All Scotsmen do X.”
Debater B: “But John Smith is a Scotsman, and he does Y.”
Debater A: “Irrelevant, no
true Scotsman would do such a thing!”
John Smith and anyone else who does Y are inconvenient for your argument that Scotsmen do X, so you just redefine your argument on the run to exclude John Smith and his fellow Hibernians.
In this case, the argument is deployed
before the objection is made: “feminists are not angry lesbians, female supremacists, females demanding privileges, or professional victims.”
The reason the author starts with this line first is because any number of feminism’s advocates over the past seventy years or so have been caught out saying seriously disturbing stuff about men in general, the sort of thing that a reasonable observer would conclude the speaker was an out-and-out misandrist or indeed a communist. As a very quick starting point, consider these:
http://www.womenagainstmen.com/media/fem...group.html
More damning are the identities of those quoted. Andrea Dworkin, Kate Millet, and Catherine Mackinnon are all well-known leaders within the feminist movement (We could go to Ti-Grace Atkinson or Valerie Solinas for even worse, but we need not). Germaine Greer in her later years has started to question where modern feminism is going. Even the rough founder of early feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, is quoted as having said that women are as a sex far superior to men.
Putting it another way: the author is spinning the familiar Not All Women/Feminists Are Like That in a slightly different way, but it is still the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It is being done to try and avoid the historical association with misandry and outright advocacy for the destruction of the family that feminism so often represents, and the misandry feminism still has on show right now in 2016.
There are a couple of questions to be asked of a feminist who asserts this line.
(1) Can you point to a representative group of feminists who explicitly condemn or say each and every one of these comments were wrong?
(2) Would the feminist agree that these comments are misandry rather than feminist?
(3) If so, does it not follow that the societal changes feminism wrought while under the influence of these women were motivated out of misandry rather than egalitarianism?
(4) If so, can they point to some significant and public change in feminism away from these sorts of sentiments?
(5) Can they point to any public disagreements between these speakers on how modern feminism is going soft?
(6) If so, can they point to consequential changes in feminist lobbies that reflected these changes?
The short point being: actions speak louder than words, and judging by those actions and the consequences of those actions past and present, feminism would not appear to have changed from the misandrist view its founders and earlier adherents demonstrably held.
At this point you may also encounter the sort-of backdown: “Well, I don’t speak for all women.” This is still the No True Scotsman Fallacy, though: it tries to minimise these quotes as not representative of feminism, when – absent any other compelling evidence to the contrary – they are.
More importantly, though, if you get “I don’t speak for all women” deployed next, the question then is: why does the speaker think she can comment on feminism’s aims and motives at all? Why does she think she can assert what feminism is or is not if she does not claim to speak for all women and in fact only speaks for herself?
Quote:In order to be considered a feminist, you only need to be on board with one idea: All humans, male and female, should have equal political, economic and social rights.
This is still the No True Scotsman Fallacy in another form: it attempts to qualify ad hoc who is a feminist and who is not. It also offends #7 on John Reed’s list: unqualified expert opinion, since the author asserts authority about what feminism is without stating his/her qualifications to comment.
There is also an amusing logical inconsistency in these two paragraphs: if indeed all one must be to be a feminist is to be “on board” (ill-defined term – see #28 on Reed’s List) with the idea that all people “should” have equal rights,
by definition that would not prevent any of the individuals she claims are not feminists from being feminists! A KKK member can believe that people “should” have equal rights, but then qualify those rights by large exceptions (for example, the guy has black skin. Or yellow. Or similar.)
Quote:Although more and more people are beginning to understand the true definition of feminism and openly identifying with it…
No True Scotsman Fallacy again, and as a further sign s/he was afraid of confronting that argument, s/he used the word “true”.
But the major logical fallacy, and therefore intellectually dishonest debating tactic present here is
argumentum ad populum,, or “X is more true because Y number of people believe it.” It is employed because of a psychological weakness most people have: we don’t like to be going against the crowd if possible. We like to feel reassured by believing what everyone else believes.
Argumentum ad populum had its simplest rebuttal from Albert Einstein. He was presented with a paper of 100 physicists saying his theory of relativity was wrong. Einstein’s response? “Why one hundred? If I were
wrong, one would have been enough.” Fact does not derive from popularity; indeed, for a by turns amusing and depressing look at this subject, try the very aptly-named classic
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds by Charles Mackay (yes, a Scotsman, true or otherwise.)
Quote:…there has always been a negative stigma attached to it. Part of this problem is the way our media sensationalizes things, trying to pass the most radical and extreme versions as the standard which, in this case, depicts a feminist as a man-hater who hates lipstick, crinkles her nose at stay-at-home moms, and unapologetically supports abortions on demand.
See what I said earlier about the No True Scotsman Fallacy. This time, though, the author goes with the intellectually dishonest debating tactic of
changing the subject. The author began by asserting what feminism is, and now we’ve suddenly moved onto the subject of why, supposedly, “true” feminism is mischaracterised. Also see #14 on Reed’s List:
scapegoating, attempting to blame problems on persons other than the audience.
(One point of rebuttal to this sort of thing, too, albeit one has to admit it’s got a touch of the
tu quoque: “Gosh, you’re saying feminists get misrepresented by the media? Let me introduce you to this guy named Roosh…”)
Quote:It's these false assumptions that cause anti-feminist campaigns…
When you
assume you make an
ass out of
u and
me. The word is
presumption, that is, believing a person to have certain characteristics without foundation for that belief.
Assumptions are facts that are taken as read.
Quote:…such as the recent "Women Against Feminism," which consists of people posting photos of themselves with statements such as: "I don't need feminism because I don't choose to ignore the fact that men have issues too" and "I don't need feminism because I already have equal rights."
See above: scapegoating, and still changing the subject.
Quote:Reading through the majority of these posts quickly brings forth a glaringly obvious problem: how misguided too many people still are about what being a feminist actually means.
Again, No True Scotsman Fallacy.
Quote:As Lena Dunham pointed out, "Feminism isn't a dirty word. It's not like we're a deranged group who think women should take over the planet, raise our young on our own and eliminate men from the picture."
What is the purpose of Lena Dunham being quoted here?
At the risk of answering my own question, it’s a soft shot at the intellectually dishonest debating tactic of
argumentum ad verecundiam, or
argument from authority. Dunham is quoted in support of (unsurprisingly) the No True Scotsman Fallacy again: “true” feminists are not horrible people. You can believe me, I am a Hollywood celebrity. In that sense, it’s even worse than argument from authority, because it’s an argument from
non-authority. What are Dunham’s credentials to judge who is a feminist and who is not? I mean, let’s leave the laughter aside, gentlemen, that’s the real and obvious question to ask whenever someone asserts that X celebrity believes Y and therefore Y is more true; what are the person’s qualifications?
Quote:Being a feminist has nothing to do with how you look, what you wear, who you date, or how often you have sex.
Irrelevant, and therefore an intellectually dishonest debating tactic … unless of course it’s some sort of resort to apophatic theology, which involves trying to reach a better understanding of God by saying what he’s
not.
Quote:Being a feminist doesn't mean you think women deserve special rights; it means you know we deserve equal ones.
See Reed’s List #8:
Sloganeering. And because John Reed puts it better: “
Debater uses a slogan rather than using facts or logic. Slogans are vague sentences or phrases that derive their power from rhetorical devices like alliteration, repetition, cadence, or rhyming; “Don’t work for money, make money work for you,” is a classic example. Coaches frequently rely on cliches, a less rhetorical form of slogan, to deflect criticism. Jesse Jackson was the champ of this form of dishonesty, e.g., “Up with hope. Down with dope.”
Quote:While a primary purpose of feminism is to empower women, it does not mean feminists view all women as weak and oppressed.
See Reed’s List #11: Vagueness. The debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present. The relevant term here being “empower women.” A more particular and formal way of putting it is in the phrase
Category Error. It is where the debater has so poorly defined the terms of the issue for debate that discussion about it becomes meaningless. Which therefore drops it back to Reed’s List #8, Sloganeering (see above). Also see Reed’s List #12: Playing on widely held fantasies or fears.
Quote:Feminists are not aiming to make women stronger; they already know they're strong. They just want society to see that too.
Sloganeering. Also logically inconsistent: the author’s earlier assertion that feminism is only (in effect) about equal rights presumes inequality between the sexes. Therefore, if feminists are not aiming to make women stronger, they are looking to either (a) not change their circumstances or (b) are seeking to make women
weaker. This is not reconcilable with the assertion that feminists do not want to make women stronger.
Quote:Empowering women does not mean belittling or punishing men. Men, too, suffer from gender role assumptions that place expectations upon them to live and act a certain way.
Reed’s List #7: unqualified expert opinion. The debater gives or cites an apparently expert opinion which is not drawn from facts established. In court terms, while some facts are said to be so “notorious” that a court can take account of them without having them proven, the vast majority of factual assertions – as they are and should be in debate and public debate – are not so privileged. The debater also hits Reed’s List #12: playing on widely held fantasies or fears. Also see #11: Vagueness. The author has not defined what “suffer”, “assumptions”, or “expectations” or “a certain way” mean.
(There are ROK articles about the intellectual blind alleys feminists get into by pretending to assume The Man’s Masculine Burden. You can find one of them here:
http://www.returnofkings.com/45896/the-m...asculinity
Quote:Feminists believe each person should be viewed based on their individual strengths and capabilities as a human being, not the strengths and capabilities assumed of their gender. They believe every person should be treated equally -- not because of gender, but in spite of it.
First item: Sloganeering.
Leaving that aside, it’s important to recall the dream that Martin Luther King had, and pay close attention to exactly what he said: paraphrasing his most famous speech (as the author does, somewhat less eloquently), he asserted that he had a dream that men or women would not be judged on the colour of their skin
but on the content of their character.
If that is so and the author is asserting the same basic intent, logically all need for
positive discrimination in favour of women is inconsistent with feminism as the author sees it.
It is perfectly possible to discriminate
in favour of a group rather than against it. That is the heart of affirmative action. And as Milton Friedman said, speaking in an economic capacity (the most significant field under discussion here), “discrimination is its own punishment”. He was referring both to discrimination in favour of and discrimination against. The reason being that these programs are the
opposite of judging men and women equally – they are the opposite of Dr King’s dream that men and women would be judged on the content of their character, because the person is being assisted
because of their sex.
The problem for the author’s argument is that women and men’s individual strengths and capabilities
are sharply defined and limited by their sex. The simplest example, for its elegance rather than its rarity: the records for the 100 metres men’s and women’s events at the Olympic Games. It will be noted the Olympic movement was resumed in 1904 with the Athens Olympiad; women began to compete in athletics at the Olympics from 1924 onward. Women therefore have been competing with or against men at the Olympics for almost 100 years, or technically at least 25 separate occurrences over a time period allowing for four years of training in between. In that time, the records are consistent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100_metres...rformances
Women with all the advantages of first world coaching and facilities have never been able to come close to even third world men physically. Weightlifting reveals the same results. High Jump reveals the same results (thus covering the three great Olympic disciplines mentioned in its motto:
Citius, Altius, Fortius, Higher, Faster, Stronger). The same results apply in chess tournaments, again where women have been competing since before the 1920s: the highest-ranked female player in the world, Judit Polgar, is in the 50s, and regularly gets blown away by her male opponents. (Unsurprisingly, she, too, wants effective handicaps in favour of women in tournaments.)
In short, it’s generally
best practice to judge a person on their likely abilities as produced by their sex. The author making this argument is actually falling foul of intellectually dishonest debating tactic #57 on Reed’s List:
rejecting a best practice on philosophical grounds. Different people have different philosophies about how to do things. But best practices are best practices. For example, the best practice for treating a simple bone fracture is to set it so the bones are aligned and connected in the normal healthy position then put a cast on it for three weeks or so. A doctor who rejects that saying his “philosophy” is to do nothing and let nature take care of it is nothing but an incompetent who is committing malpractice.
Quote:There are some people who believe that feminism is a thing of the past -- that we don't need it anymore because the patriarchal system no longer exists. After all, we can vote, right? That's true. In fact, in all demographics, females vote more than men do.
Rhetorical device of answering one’s own question.
Quote:Yet, women still hold less than 20 percent of seats in Congress, even though they make up more than half the population.
Reed’s List #15, specifically,
arousing envy. It also assumes a false premise (Reed’s List #5): that it is best practice that the representatives in a democracy reflect precisely or even roughly the demographics of that population. What exactly is the ground for this assertion other than a vague (#11) philosophical principle (#57)?
A simple rebuttal question suffices: how many black men or women sat in either the US Congress or the British Parliament when slavery was debated and then abolished in both countries?
To make it more obvious for those who don’t get it: how many women, white
or black, sat in those houses of government when women’s suffrage was debated and then passed?
If women were not required for what they assert as their most fundamental rights to be passed, why are they required now?
There is also a glaring logical inconsistency in the argument, too. Recall the author’s earlier aphorism: “
Feminists believe each person should be viewed based on their individual strengths and capabilities as a human being, not the strengths and capabilities assumed of their gender.”
If so, then logically feminism cannot demand proportional representatives in government on the basis of their sex alone. That would not be viewing each person on their individual strengths and capabilities as the author says feminism believes.
Quote:Some believe the patriarchal system doesn't exist because we have equal employment opportunities. But if this were really the case would there still be a 23 percent pay gap?
As with the government question above, these two concepts are not linked. Again, Reed’s List #15 – arousing envy – is asserted. But the false premise here, the assertion of the “23 percent pay gap” is
demonstrably false:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-wage-gap...1443654408
Men and women are not paid unequally when all circumstances are taken into account. Economics is the science of the market, one of the most brutal and brutally honest fields of human endeavour. It judges on the standard feminism wants: by the content of the person’s character and by their individual abilities and strengths.
Quote:It is great so many women today feel like they have equal opportunities as men. If it wasn't for past feminist movements, who knows where we would be today.
Begging the question, and also irrelevant. Also logically inconsistent since the sort of women who pushed those advances in society seem to be the ones this author now attempts to distance feminism from (see in particular the jeering of modern feminism at Germaine Greer over ‘gender fluidity’. If I may allow a slight op ed: Orwell was the first to observe that the Left is always happy to throw former travellers under the bus. Stalin made sure to get rid of Lenin, Marx, and Trotsky before assuming power.)
But we still need feminism, and will continue to need it, until every other woman in the world feels this way as well.
Quote:We still need feminism because when people get married it is assumed the woman will take the man's last name.
Not relevant and changing the subject. The response here is simple: a married woman has rights to half and more of a man’s assets, as well as likely care and custody of the children, on the statistically likely chance that the marriage breaks up. Actions matter more than words.
Quote:Because when women are assaulted, they are often the ones who feel ashamed.
Irrelevant. Male shame over being assaulted is well-observed because men are expected to know how to defend themselves or avoid a fight.
Quote:We still need feminism because we teach women how to prevent rape, instead of teaching people to not view women as objects. Because women are told that walking alone at night makes them "an easy target."
Sloganeering. The logic of the argument is similar to the following: “We still need the KKK because we teach people to lock up their cars, instead of teaching blacks not to steal them.” Also see Reed’s List #57 on refusing best practice on philosophical grounds.
Quote:Because, sometimes, a movie's rating (PG-13 versus R) depends on how much a female appears to be enjoying sex in a certain scene.
Sloganeering, but there’s unintentional hilarity generated because of the implications of this odd statement. In the case of rape, a film’s rating is typically ‘R’ or indeed refused classification at all. Movie ratings commissions assign ratings based on several factors, one of which the extent to which reprehensible acts – like rape or extreme violence – are looked down on by society.
An ‘R’ rating for a woman who is not enjoying sex and therefore arguably being raped is in favour of women because non-consensual, forcible sex is a heinous crime, and the R rating indicates this is not for children. It is difficult to work out the argument here: is it that rape scenes should be downgraded to PG-13 (which I cannot understand how feminists would want this) or that all sex scenes, including pre-coital scenes where a male paramour lowers his female lover to the bed, should be rated R (which would seem Puritanical and even more patriarchal?)
Quote:We still need feminism because our bodies are still being legislated…
Sloganeering. Also a false premise: bodies are not legislated, the acts we do with them are. Should a man next complain that when he rapes a woman his body is being legislated?
Quote:…because McDonald's still asks us if we want a girl or boy toy,
Sloganeering. Also an amusingly false premise: at McDonalds, if a girl wants a boy toy, she can ask for one and will be given it, and vice versa. Money knows no sex.
Quote:…because we use terms like "bitch" and pussy" to imply weakness.
As the comment section of most of ROK shows, this insult is predominantly used by women against women. It’s used because most women believe men do not like being seen as weak, simply because men are expected partially by biology and partially by society to
be strong. This is not an undesirable thing: see above about the way feminism misunderstands “the mask we live in.”
Quote:We need feminism because FGM (Female Genital Mutilation), the act of cutting off and restitching female genitals to prevent pleasurable sex -- and can happen to girls as young as 5 months old -- is still practiced in 29 countries.
None of which are in the West, where the crime is met with severe penalties. The question arising: why is feminism needed in the West to stop a practice which does not take place there?
Not to mention the act of MGM (Male Genital Mutilation), the act of cutting off parts of male genitals for various pseudoscientific theories and female skin cream, is practiced at astronomically high levels in the West, without any complaint by feminists and indeed advocacy for its end is met with persecution from women.
http://www.returnofkings.com/43412/why-h...or-assault
Quote:Because more than 120 countries don't have laws against marital rape, and still allow child brides -- some as young as 6 years old.
None of which are the West, and feminists are advocating heavily for vast numbers of immigrants from some of those same countries to be brought into the West where their crimes can be conducted against Western women. Leaving aside that idiocy: again, why is feminism needed in the West to stop something that does not occur there?
Quote:We need feminism because infanticides, the act of killing children within a year of birth, can be attributed to millions of fewer females than males in Middle Eastern countries, and because in Afghanistan women going to college can be considered justifiable grounds for disfiguring.
It is not a gender issue -- it is a humanity issue.
Again, none of the which are in the West. See above. But isn’t it an interesting turn of phrase: “
the act of killing children within a year of birth, can be attributed to millions of fewer females than males in Middle Eastern countries…”
Why did she use that phrase? Possibly because the act of infanticide, if you take the view a foetus is a child (and demonstrably any woman who grieves over a miscarriage or a stillbirth does) has resulted in
millions of deaths attributed to women since the 1950s. Indeed the statistics on abortion indicate--
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/a...tates.html
--that the introduction of the birth control pill in 1960 also introduced a skyrocketing abortion rate, demolishing any argument that the contraceptive pill would cause fewer abortions to take place. In short: feminism would appear far more needed to stop mass infanticide by women against infants in the West. And the phrase is also used to disguise another truth: many more men than women commit infanticide in third world countries, but the numbers are far, far more balanced in the West.
Quote:Being a feminist does not mean you think women can't speak for themselves, it means you realize that, even though some may be lucky enough to, there's still many who can't.
Reed’s List #11: vagueness. Also sloganeering again. Also a touch of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. And, lastly, amazingly, arousing envy: against women who are “lucky” enough to speak for themselves. Also does not specify where this is taking place, raising the question again whether feminism is being advanced in the West to stop something that does not statistically happen in the US.
Quote:It isn't about telling women what to do, it is giving them the ability and freedom to be able to choose to do whatever they want to do -- whether that be a stay at home mom, electrical engineer, or business CEO.
Already achieved, and negates the need for further female affirmative action by definition according to the author’s definition of feminism. Also see sloganeering.
Quote:The purpose is to create a society of equal say, to provide people with the freedom of choice, rather than limited choices of assumption.
Feminists don't believe women should look or behave a certain way, it means they want women have to have the freedom to look and behave however they want -- unapologetically. It is not about telling women what they need.
Repetition. Nothing need be added here, the argument has been addressed and dismissed above.
Quote:While reading through Women Against Feminism posts that say things such as, "I don't need it because I already feel equal" and "I don't want feminism because I don't need special treatment, and don't support sleeping around," I can't help but think it isn't about our personal wants and needs, though they are all relevant, but rather what we -- as a society -- needs.
Argumentum ad populum: what you think isn’t relevant, it’s what the majority I purport to speak for think. The author seems to lack the courage to come right out and say it, though, instead, assigning an unspecified and therefore weightless relevance to a woman’s own personal needs and wants, which again is an intellectually dishonest debating tactic (#11, Vagueness).
Quote:If you are a feminist, you believe women should be treated the same as men, not because we're better, but because we're human.
Again No True Scotsman Fallacy: you’re only a feminist if you believe X belief, just ignore all those feminists who were misandrists, they aren’t feminists. The assertion is also a veiled version of Reed’s List #22:
argument from intimidation: The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: "Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea." This is reminiscent of the McCarthy era loyalty oaths or groups that demand that candidates take a yes or no position on complex issues. Or the “climate change denier” accusation.
Quote:As Joseph Gordon-Levitt so eloquently worded it, "I'm a believer that if everyone has a fair chance to be what they want to be and do what they want to do, it's better for everyone. It benefits society as a whole."
See the comment about Lena Dunham above:
argumentum ad verecundiam, though again it’s a resort to a non-authority.
Quote:The idea that there are still people, let alone women, proudly declaring they don't need feminism is alarming and frightening -- at best.
Reed’s List #12: Playing on widely held fantasies or fears.
Quote:We need feminism because people are still blindly agreeing that women don't need to be paid for the same work as men, that they are okay with the indifference and injustices so ingrained in society that they have accepted it as a way of life. That they are not only looking the other way to these issues, but they are also entirely and genuinely convinced they are doing the world a favor by hushing feminist attempts.
Scapegoating, and false premise: that there is a pay gap between men and women. See above. Also assumes “indifference and injustices so ingrained in society” which are not extant and not laid out for comment.
Quote:Some people don't feel the need to voice their thoughts on the matter at all, and that's okay. But there is a big difference between being indifferent and being ignorant. And that difference is speaking out about an issue when your opinion is based on misguided information and false assumptions.
Attempt to silence dissent: if you disagree or have an opinion contrary to me, you are ignorant. Also see Reed’s List 3a: stating why one is wrong without stating where they are wrong. Also see: straw man. Also see: Reed’s List 39 and 40, specifically, dismissing a failure to abandon one’s position because you ‘just don’t get it’ and/or “Everything you say is wrong and everything I say is right because you support X.”
Quote:Why do we need feminism? For the same reason screenwriter John Whedon gave when asked why he writes such strong female characters, "Because you're still asking me that question."
And completing the Hollywood Triptych of
argumentum ad verecundiam, again by resort to a non-authority on the field of feminism. On top of that, it’s not even reference to economic or social values but reference to
aesthetic concerns, which are unrelated to feminism at large.
Seriously, this is as impressive a field as the author can come up with? Two actors and a Hollywood director, none of whom can make a reasonable claim to have been disadvantaged by reason of their sex, being paid enormous sums of money which overwhelm any bias in this area?
It’s been a long article, but I hope it was worth it. In sum, the article is basically just sloganeering with little more, and a very disingenuous attempt at distancing modern feminism away from its misandrist roots and its current misandrist practices.
God save us from people who mean well. -storm
Home
RooshV.com
Search (Via Forum)
Member List
![[-]](images/collapse.gif)
The following 2 users Like Rush87's post:
![[Image: tumblr_me6t0rlLit1qey9tv.jpg]](http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_me6t0rlLit1qey9tv.jpg)
![[Image: the_face_of_war.jpg]](http://media.salon.com/2007/03/the_face_of_war.jpg)
![[Image: PdNUzI0.png]](http://i.imgur.com/PdNUzI0.png)
![[Image: intentions-roadtohell.jpg]](http://evolveconsciousness.org/media/2014/02/intentions-roadtohell.jpg)
