Aug 2, 2013
“Feminism is for Conservatives too! It shouldn’t be a radical or leftist idea to support equal rights for women.” Here’s my problem with that. It’s a loaded statement. Technically speaking, I support Women’s Rights – technically. I just don’t like the Liberal’s version of it, ergo, Feminism. I don’t support Feminism for two main reasons.
1. Because it shares the same four telltale signs of a Liberal agenda: Fallacy, Shaming, Control, and Indoctrination. Hence the title of this post.
2. We don’t need to fight for Women’s Rights anymore. Honest. The revolution ended decades ago. The only reason it’s still here is because it the Liberal Feminists are refusing to relinquish their victimhood. To do that, would be to accept responsibility. Gasp.
You see, female Conservatives/Libertarians don’t need feminism, look at Conservatarian Dana Loesch, she’s married, homeschools two boys, and a voice in the media (oh and she’s an ex-Liberal Feminist).
I know what you’re thinking, “My gosh! She should be on the cover of Woman’s Weekly. SUPERMOM! How does she do it all!!??”
Honestly I have no freaking idea, but the important thing is – she did it without Feminism.
Note: It’s no secret the majority of Manospherians tend to be Right-Wing. In fact, this article seemed to say, there may be an unproportional number of Libertarians in the Manosphere (whether they know it or not). But, I digress. However for the sake of coherence, I’m lumping Conservatives, Republicans, Libertarians, and Right-Wingers, as Conservatives; and Progressives, Liberals, Democrats, and Left-Wingers as Liberals. And if you don’t really know what those words mean, here’s a quick crash course in basic Politics: Conservatives want to be your father, Liberals want to be your mother, and Libertarians just want to be treated like fucking adults.
So let’s dive into why Feminism looks like Liberal Agenda to me:
Logical Fallacies & Shaming Tactics
I was inspired to write this article after reading DarlingDoll’s excellent response to and deconstruction of the question, “Dear Anti-Feminists, what do you stand for?”. The feminist goes on to ask (emphasis mine):
I’m not against anti-feminists because I understand everyone has their own opinions, but it just makes me wonder, what do they stand for if they just think feminists are bitchy, complaining, hypocritical, and man-hating? Because when they are labeling feminists all those stereotypes, they’re also ignoring the fact that women go through experiences that makes them change their mentality because it was that horrible.
Of course DarlingDoll replied with what you’re probably all thinking:
~It means that we see the hypocrisy surrounding the third wave feminist movement. We don’t ignore that there are women out there who have been truly hurt through their experiences, but we do see that it is wholly unfair to say that all men should be punished because of one man’s misdeeds.
This is what I noticed. The feminist was subtly insinuating that if you’re anti-feminism, you don’t care that some of them have been victims of sexual assault. I then realized, that this feminist was using the exact same tactic Piers Morgan uses when arguing about Gun Control. If you don’t agree with me about gun control, you don’t care about dead school children, luckily Ben Shapiro totally called Piers out on his shit on a live interview.
It’s a two part fallacy:
Part One: The first fallacy is called Denying The Antecedent. The formula: A is B; if Not A, then Not B. Basic example: Nickelback [A] is Rock music [B]; if you don’t like Nickeback [A], you don’t like Rock music [B]. More relevant example: Feminism is anti-Sexual Assault; if you’re anti-Feminism, then you’re pro-Sexual Assault. Then to use her example: Feminists have had horrible things happen to them; if you’re not a feminist, you’re
“…ignoring the fact that women go through experiences that makes them change their mentality because it was that horrible.”
Part Two: Shame the people who question you’re solution (effectively ad hominem). The formula: A is B, B is bad, thus A is bad. Basic example: Nickelback [A] is Rock music [B]; Nickeback [A] is bad, thus Rock music [B] is bad. More relevant example: Anti-Feminism is pro-Sexual Assault; Sexual Assault is bad, thus anti-feminism is bad.
Yes, it’s a fallacy, but it’s still not a good look for you. It’s devaluing everything you say because one of your opinions is bad. Effectively, you’re pro-Sexual Assault, thus you’re arguments are invalid. Pointing out the fallacy won’t help you much, because [B] is bad. Sexual Assault is bad.
However, for the second fallacy to work (the shaming tactic), it relies on the first fallacy (the illogical conclusion). That [A] is [B], that anti-Feminists are pro-Sexual Assault. That is fallacy you need to expose.
Disguising The Fallacies
So when we put the two fallacies together, the formula is: [A] is Not [B], if Not [A], then [B], [B] is bad, anti-[A] is bad. The formula slightly expanded to you can actually understand it: [A] is against [B], if you’re against [A], then you’re for [B], but [B] is bad, thus being against [A] is bad, so you’re the devil.
More relevant example: Feminism is against Sexual Assault. If you’re against Feminism, you’re for Sexual Assault. Thus anti-Feminists are pro-Sexual Assault. Sexual Assault is bad, thus anti-feminists are bad. So you should completely disregard them, because they have done deals with Satan.
Of course they don’t present their arguments this way, otherwise we’d all know they were full of shit. They tend express their arguments as the PSVD Formula. PSVD is Problem, Solution, Victim, Douche. Let’s put the formula into a presentable argument:
[P] is a problem, if you don’t agree with our solution to it, [S]; then you don’t care about [V], and that makes you a [D].
At least that’s the way they should phrase it, but because they want you to think there’s only one solution to the problem, it’s usually phrased more like this:
[P] is a problem; if you’re against [S], then you don’t care about [V], and that makes you a [D].
Now simply insert any sets of the below PSVD meanings into the above and you’ll have the formula for the base tactic the Liberals use on most issues:
[P] Female oppression; [S] Feminism; [V] Rape victims; [D] Misogynist manchild.
[P] Massacres; [S] Gun control; [V] Dead school children; [D] Heartless redneck.
[P] Climate change; [S] Legislation & tax money; [V] The environment; [D] Depletionist parasite.
[P] Illegal immigrants; [S] Legalize it; [V] Immigrants; [D] Racist who never learned to share.
[P] Gays want marriage; [S] Redefine the word; [V] Gays; [D] Homophobe.
[P] Discrimination; [S] Special treatment; [V] Minorities; [D] Racist white man.
[P] Poverty; [S] Welfare state; [V] Poor people; [D] Greedy capitalist pig.
I’m not here to discuss whether the problem is a real problem, or whether their solution will actually work, or if mine is better. That’s not what this is about. I’m not trying to convince you to my way of thinking on any of these topics. I’m just pointing out the tactic used and the logical fallacy.
Next time you hear about a new bill or some other recent controversy, try applying the PSVD-Formula (I’ll trademark it), you’ll be surprised what you can uncover. Of course those are very broad “problems” used. More specific Feminist “problems” could be:
[P] Sexist jokes; [S] Make it legally considered sexual assault; [V] Women; [D] Rapist
[P] Slut shaming; [S] Infringe freedom of speech; [V] Women expressing their sexuality; [D] Douche
[P] BDSM; [S]Criminalize it!; [V] Women poisoned by the patriarchy ; [D] Opportunist sadist
[P] Sex while intoxicated; [S] Criminalize being male in the situation; [V] Women (duh); [D] Rapist
[P] Men Being Chivalrous; [S] Feminism; [V] Women; [D] Patronizing male supremacist
[P] Men NOT being chivalrous; [S] Feminism; [V] Women; [D] Disrespectful butthurt pig
I could go on forever like this but I think you get the picture. Question them and you are EVIL. This happened in Spain, when politician Antonio Cantó García del Moral spoke out about an unfair bill that works on the principle that the aggressor is guilty until proven innocent (in direct contravention with Spain’s own constitutional laws).. The feminist media tore him to pieces. As he tweeted:
“As soon as you mention fake claims they say that you don’t care about women’s deaths or they call you an abuser. This is what you get in this country”
As I stated in my first article:
Not only do they wish to take away our freedom of speech, but this young girl is after our looking rights! Because somehow, male appreciation of a female’s “feminine attributes” is offensive to her? Forgive me for jumping to conclusions but I can’t help but feel as though this is eerily… Socialist? Or communist or fascist or whatever trendy word is being tossed around these days.
I feel a bit haughty quoting myself, but I’ll live with it.
In my opinion, most (if not all) Liberal agendas use your tax money to infringe on your rights and freedoms by passing unnecessary legislation thus increasing the size and power of government.
And feminism is no exception.
Radical feminist blogger EveBitFirst believes a man is a rape supporter if…. (among many others):
He is against abortion.
He is pro-“choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available.
WHAT THE LEGITIMATE FUCK. The first one I can handle. It’s like, OK, Fine. I’m pro rape if I disagree with you. Whatever. But to say, that I’m pro-rape if you don’t like my motives for AGREEING with you. Is as stupid as it gets and borders on thought crime. Thought crime. Now go watch Minority Report again.
And to put that quote into the PSVD Formula: [P] Feminists not liking your motivation for being pro-choice; [S] Radical feminism to the rescue; [V] Women; [D] Rape supporter
What DarlingDoll touched on in part of her response was that the vast majority of feminists have never been raped (and in my opinion, what they call “rape” is an insult to real rape victims). So why do they identify as feminists? Because that’s what they’re told! From elementary school…
I take issue with the program because it was loaded with anti-masculine imagery and took the approach that, basically, all things patriarchal were evil and oppressive, and all things feminist were inherently good. It told me, in other words, that I was free to be pretty much anything in the world I wanted . . . except a masculine Man.
…Right up ‘till they leave university. And then every waking hour of everyday through mainstream media they’re told what to think. If you don’t believe it, tell me how it is that there are protests through the streets and people shouting “justice for Trayvon” when a Hispanic is found not-guilty of murdering a black on the grounds of self-defense. But the gang rape of a thirteen year old orphan girl by ten illegal immigrants after she runs away from her foster home in Austin, Texas and then later sexually assaulted by a black man after they let her go… Is swept under the rug because the President is trying to get through his immigration bill….
Tell me if you can’t see even the tinciest-tiniest bit of bias there (not that I’m saying Fox isn’t biased). As Glen Beck said, There’s no right or wrong anymore, there’s just agenda.
So To Conclude
So yes, we DO want gender equality. But we already have it. The Liberal feminists are just refusing to relinquish their victimhood.
“Oh please, right-wing women get raped just as much!”
Sorry, what does rape have to do with gender equality? And no, I honestly don’t think so:
And yeah, I know, I sound like a conspiracy theorist… I am. In fact I’m not the only one in the Manosphere. But feminism fits the bill of a Liberal agenda, and honestly, it fits in with the androgynous, egalitarian, purist, socialist ideal where everyone is happy and white. It’s a vessel to infiltrate democracy. Once it’s guilty ‘till proven innocent for rape accusations, it’s not so much of step to use that method for the entire justice system.
Or maybe I’m just sleep deprived. I’m gonna go get another Red Bull.
And then sign up for the Israeli military.