Politics On gender politics

What was that about Double Standards Baraka?

When the largest feminist political lobby lies about custody and fathers, when the largest feminist websites on the internet mock rape and domestic violence victims, when the most powerful and influential feminist researchers commit academic fraud to fabricate politically useful statistics, and when virtually every single feminist organization and publication uses those statistics to flat out lie about gendered victimization you No True Scotsman individuals away or simply claim "That doesn't reflect on feminism, you can't judge feminism by that!" no matter how high the evidence pile grows.

But when you find one dishonest smear piece on a single website which has repeatedly attacked the MRM suddenly the entire MRM and every single thing about it is "dishonest at best and fraudulent at worst".

CAFE listed organizations it might have discussion panels with in the future, including those with opposing viewpoints. Something even the article is forced to briefly admit right in the second paragraph, just like they're forced to admit that one of the academics contacted only turned down previously working with CAFE because she would be out of town. However both of those kernels of truth are hidden like corn in shit beneath a pile of half truths and whole lies.

For example:

What actually happened was feminists showed up and committed felonies to silence male domestic violence victims and suicide prevention works, sinking to such repugnance as singing "Cry Me a River" to mock victims of suicide and the survivors they left behind.

Dishonest and fraudulent. As always you and yours are most guilty of exactly what you attempt to smear others with.

 

Once again your trolling tactic results in patent absurdity. Claiming that pennies are weighted to land heads up, and that if they land tails up that's proof of the other side's weight "backflipping" it is an unfalsifiable claim. Demonstrating step by step how the NOWTimes' article makes statements which are demonstrably false, and then demonstrating how and why they are false, is not making an unfalsifiable claim.

Also once again you resort to lying. I said smear piece, which is significantly different than an entire campaign. If you're going to put something in quotation marks get it right.

 

A libertarian criticizes a democrat's fiscal policy. In return the democrat accuses the libertarian of being a big government socialist. Using the libertarian's own logic against him would require actually applying libertarian beliefs and principles to something in order to demonstrate their flaws. Accusing the libertarian of being a big government socialist in return is not using logic at all, it's just ridiculous.

It's no different than a creationist accusing an evolutionist of denying science in favor of religion, or a geocentrist accusing a heliocentrist of geocentrism. It's patently absurd to the point of almost being a complete non-sequitur.

 

This thread is an example of what happens when ideas are disconnected from action. The discussion becomes about the discussion, i.e. a discourse (a word that is always floating around the hallowed halls of U of T, and will probably give me dry heaves for the next 10 years). It's important to get to the detail in that way, but go too long without getting face-to-face with breathing humans always ends up missing the forest for the trees.

By all means continue, but what good are you doing trying to convince each other? The world would be better off with you both putting energy into making smoothies than what is happening here.

Get involved in the communities you align with and do something. @baraka_guru I know a feminist blog team who are looking for submissions from male writers. Interested?

 

Just go with Asshole, it's an equal opportunity insult.

 

TL;DR - Get over yourselves.

Women Who are Ambivalent about Women Against Women Against Feminism | The Bloggess

 

As a man, don't you have anything else to talk about?

 

Sure

Sure!
! I love jazz music.

 

Most jazz is just self indulgent crap where "artists"are trying to be more jazzy in some sort of jazz formula so they end up in some atonal nonsensical stream where they lost the original melody and there's no coming back. Wanna fight? Rawr!

 

The closest thing I get to jazz is the internet classic of combining The Fragrance of Dark Coffee with Rainymood.

 

This...


Or maybe this...

 

An excellent piece on the Straw Feminist Trope in our culture.
What I find interesting is how the male power groups use the Straw Feminists as the character the battle against.

 

Ah yes, the "Straw Feminist". The combination of absolute pure denial and No True Scotsman used by feminists to completely deny the existence of anything and anyone politically inconvenient, and indeed delegitimize the very idea such people could exist despite the overwhelming hard evidence of exactly that. Nevermind the feminists that sent so many death threats and bomb threats to the detroit conference they had to pay for an entire squad of police to provide security. Nevermind that literally every single time anyone has even tried to talk about helping men, or male abuse victims themselves tried to speak at UofT, feminists have committed outright felonies and even assaulted people. Nevermind feminists blocking laws that would make raping men a crime in india, nevermind all of the hate and violence advocated at radfemhub, nevermind everything. They're all just straw men. They don't exist. In fact it's misogyny for you to even say they exist.

Also "male power group"? Very nice how you carefully choose your wording to evoke similarity to "white power group".

 

It's a shell game. Feminism isn't monolith whenever you need to invalidate criticism of feminism but feminism IS monolith whenever you want to attack someone for opposing those same feminists. It's Schrodinger's feminism. They are and aren't feminists until such time as it's necessary to collapse the superposition and either exclude them to invalidate criticism or include them to attack someone FOR criticising.