Feminism, your Freudian slip is showing

On April 2nd, Adèle Mercier, Associate Professor of the Queen's University Department of Philosophy, commented in reply to Alison Tieman's comment on a Queens University Paper letter to the editor.

Alison had responded to the letter, in which the author argued that men's issues discussion shouldn't take place outside feminist oversight, with information and statistics that feminists ignore when choosing to demonize all men as potential rapists while denying female perpetration.

Adele's response specifically targeted Alison's discussion on sexual abuse against boys in juvenile facilities in the U.S., where a 2012 study found that 95% of them reported female perpetrators.

Adele responded with exactly the same types of rape apology that feminists accuse the general public of using to excuse raping women and girls, quoting text from the study describing how adult staff at juvenile facilities engaged in sex with inmates as a REBUTTAL to the statement that the youth housed there were victimized.

Appalled at the way Adele, in her comment, had treated incarcerated youth as if they were able to give meaningful consent to staff in positions of authority over them, wrote about the discussion in A Voice For Men, and talked about it in a video on her channel.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/professor-adele-mercier-it-wasnt-rape-he-was-asking-for-it-queensjournal/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBNQPJ0UTCg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GfZWUDxmaog

Calling bullshit on a recycled tone argument

This is in reference to recent discussion on a short statement by Paul Elam in which he points out that it's not hyperbole to say "I'm not going to give a damn about female rape victims any more" under the circumstances in which the statement was originally made. Unable to effectively criticize the video at face value and in an honest manner, some individuals have been ignoring nearly everything in it except that line. This has led to comments by feminists, reddit's againstmensrights trolls, and some others claiming that Mr. Elam has stated gender as a reason, and as his only reason, for choosing not to come to the defense of an individual in distress.

To do this, they've deliberately ignored the context provided by other parts of the statement, in which he points out that a lot of men have begun to decide that men are not the world's unpaid bodyguards, and they don't owe it to anybody to intervene when a crime is happening to a stranger, including female strangers.

Since he also pointed out that while MRAs are accused of misogyny and rape apology for refusing to adhere to the traditional male gender role of protector, feminists have actively worked to cover up male victimization and marginalize male victims, Mr. Elam's feminist critics are making the claim that the refusal he describes applies only to women, and that he's encouraging it exclusively in retaliation for feminist efforts to erase perception of male victims. Some have even gone so far as to state that they only want to debate those two parts of the video; the refusal, and the aside they're treating as the motive for it.

In other words, they're deliberately taking parts of the statement out of context for the purpose of making them fit the arguments they want to put forth.

The sentence with which they're stating offense is set within the context of a wider argument. It's not "I don't give a damn about female rape victims because feminists don't give a damn about male rape victims." It's "I'm not required to involve myself in other people's violent conflicts just because of my gender. I'm not required to advocate for female rape victims because they already have extensive advocacy, and I'm not required to make discussion about female rape victims a part of every dialogue on gender issues in which I participate.  Also, if you're concerned about marginalization, look at feminists; they've actively and willfully marginalized male victims."

Understanding the roots of the discussion helps.

Male victims of rape can't be discussed without feminists targeting the discussion for derailment with intent to impose their ideological narrative on the issue. According to that narrative, men and boys are perpetrators, and women and girls are victims. If it's ever acknowledged that men or boys are victims, it can't also be acknowledged that women or girls are perpetrators; either the perpetrator must also be male, or the responsible party must be the victim himself, other men, or other boys... or the victim has to be whining or lying. That's not the main thing the statement feminists are taking out of context speaks to, however. According to the feminist narrative, male victims can never, ever be the primary topic of a discussion about sex crimes, because to them, sex crimes in general are a societal attack on women. Because of that, feminists make a targeted effort to impose discussion of female victims on any and all discussion about sex crimes.

This is especially true of discussions on the lack of resources dedicated to preventing female on male sex crimes, and the lack of recourse available to male victims of female sexual predators.

The moment MRAs point out that male victims get thrown under the bus, feminists step forward with claims like "Well, the vast majority of victims are women, and the vast majority of perpetrators are men..." as if, even if it were true, that would excuse condoning and enabling any sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls.

The moment MRAs point out that there are different standards in criminal court between accused men and boys, and accused women and girls, feminists attempt to derail with claims that, when the varnish is taken off of them, amount to the assertion that male perpetration is caused by masculinity, but female perpetration is imposed by male-perpetrated oppression.  Their conclusion is that women shouldn't be held as accountable for their crimes as men should be held for theirs.

The moment MRAs object to double standards on consent, bodily autonomy, and responsibility wherein male consent is assumed, male suffering is presumed less, and male agency is presumed higher, feminists attempt to enforce aspects of male and female gender roles that they find conducive to limiting to only women claims of victim status which rely on excluding from the putative victim's experience having had the agency to refuse the interaction, and male and female gender roles which they find conducive to widening the spectrum of scenarios in which they can apply that exclusion.

A prime example of this is discussion on when sex while drunk ceases to be consensual and becomes rape, as feminists scramble to define drunk rape to exclude male victims of female perpetrators while simultaneously maximizing the perception of female victims of male perpetrators. They ignore that consumption of alcohol is a choice. They ignore every shade of drunk between stone cold sober, and unconscious. They refuse to stick with a clear and concrete standard for what constitutes incapacitated, and to apply that term equally to both sexes, in an effort to ensure that the term "incapacitated" can be applied regardless of a woman's actual capability, but never to a man. They promote myths and stereotypes about men, alcohol, and the presumption of male consent.

The statement "I don't give a damn about female victims of rape" is an obvious response to the constant haranguing by feminists who will not let a discussion about male victims remain about male victims, and who use shaming language to try to shut down discussion of issues related to the sexual victimization of men and boys by women and girls. What makes that obvious is the context of the previous statements, beginning with the point that men are treated as responsible for women, continuing on with the point that feminists don't just fail to give a damn, but actively attempt to exclude male victims from the public discourse, and hammered home by the point that female victims have a shitload of dedicated advocacy and resources.

In singling out the one line and the point about feminists marginalizing male victims, commenters complaining about that statement are responding to a recent part of an existing argument as if that part exists independently of the argument;

MRAs: Discussion about male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: You're not paying proper homage to female victims. You can't have a discussion about rape without talking about female victims. If you do that you're marginalizing them. And men are bad, because men rape women. Male victims don't matter because patriarchy.

MRAs: Female victims get discussed all the time. Discussion of male victims doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Men are not bad. Rapists are bad. Not all males are rapists. Not all rapists are male. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: Female victims have it worse! Implication that women having it worse means male victims don't deserve any support or recourse. Talking about male victims is whining and an attempt to derail discussion about female victims. Talking about female perpetrators is misogyny. Saying it's not okay for feminists to say that all men are rapists is rape apology. Tone argument. Shaming language. Patriarchy. Let's be friends. You should let us take over the dialogue on this issue. You're not doing it right.

MRAs: Females don't have it worse. (Evidence.) Even if female victims did have it worse, that wouldn't excuse condoning victimization of males, or discriminating against them. Discussion of male victims still doesn't take anything away from discussion about female victims. Re: talking about female perpetrators... What's misogyny to the goose is misandry to the gander. We talk about perpetrators. You generalize perpetrator behavior to the entire male population. Who does that make more hateful? Tone argument is a derailing tactic. Shaming language is only a statement of opinion. Not all men have power. Not all people with power are men, therefore not patriarchy. Laws and policies that define rape to exclude male victims and due process to exclude accused men were lobbied for and celebrated by feminists. You're not helping. Further attempts to discuss male rape victims and the issues related to them.

Feminists: NAFALT! Further comments that very often prove otherwise. FEMALE VICTIMS! Mocking language. STFU! PATRIARCHY!

It's after years of this type of exchange that MRAs are starting to respond to "You're not allowed to have a discussion about male victims of anything without paying proper homage to female victims and the feminist narrative on victimization that says you're responsible for preventing female suffering" with "I'm not your bodyguard. I don't care about female victims. Female victims already have plenty of discussion and support. I'm here to talk about male experiences and issues, a discussion which your movement has deliberately attempted to silence."

To which multiple people have responded "Tone argument!"

Which, in the context of the larger conversation, is more of the same bullshit that some of us have been dealing with from feminists for decades. It doesn't get any fresher with age.

If you call a tail a leg

Feminists frequently use the NAFALT argument (Not All Feminists are Like That) as a counter to criticism of the overt, measurable actions of the feminist movement. This is expected by many who use it to eliminate such criticism, to distance feminism from the actions of mainstream feminist organizations, and to legitimize the use of "feminist" as a label for anything the individual wishes to associate with women as a group.
As I've pointed out recently to some feminist debaters on reddit, the NAFALT argument has been soundly debunked and really, destroyed, and I've presented sources addressing it.

Hunting For Archtypes has a very concise counter.

Girlwriteswhat's video addressing NAFALT explains in greater detail.

Girlwriteswhat's rant "To the nice feminists" further explains why fringe feminism does not characterize or define the movement.

Typhonblue very concisely and clearly explained why the basis for feminist theory precludes a cooperative relationship with the men's rights movement.

I've explained why, given the history and attitudes of feminism, one cannot honestly argue that the movement itself has strictly benevolent intent.

All of these arguments continue to be ignored by feminists who insist that NAFALT is a legitimate argument. Quite frequently, this insistence is made in the context of discussions in which NAFALT is followed by the insinuated (never spoken) assertion that the individual's brand of feminism legitimizes all feminism, and the insinuated conclusion "therefore, Feminism Is Benevolent."

To address that argument, one must look back at a riddle which has been used as an explanatory example in various discussions in my family for generations.

This begins with a simple question.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a healthy dog have?

Most people will answer that question the same way. "Five, of course, because before you made the tail a leg, there were four. Four plus one is five."

That most common answer is the wrong answer to the riddle, but allowing the answer to be given is the right way to get across the message that needs to be conveyed.

The point of the riddle is that if you call a tail a leg, a dog still only has 4 legs.

Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

The same thing is true with feminism. Associating one's own particular brand of politics with women, and calling it "feminism" does not change what feminism is. It doesn't change the basic nature of core feminist theory. It doesn't go back and erase all of the movement's activism, and it doesn't negate the movement's current initiatives, nor does it change anything about how feminist advocates have responded to men's issues, and to men talking about those issues.

Combining the belief that one's own political point of view is "nice" with calling oneself a feminist does not make feminism nice. Instead of associating the movement with the individual, the individual is associating him-or-herself with the movement and all of its overt, measurable characteristics - not just the ones he or she likes.

This is an important concept to communicate when addressing attempts to use the obfuscating NAFALT argument to rehabilitate the ugly image feminism has developed in the public view, and especially in the view of those who have been damaged or witnessed harm done by the practical application of feminist ideology and advocacy in law and policy. It's necessary to get across to "feminists" using that argument as a cushion between the public and awareness of malicious feminist activism that instead of softening the image of feminism, they're telling people "what you have seen of feminism is true about me."

Yes, All Feminists ARE Like That

Videos of feminist protests at Toronto University have apparently put on display some prime examples of a serious pest problem within the feminist community: an infestation of extremists who, according to other feminists, don't represent the movement.

We hear it after every action they take. As MRAs discuss the violence and vitriol, the attacks on free speech, the irrational statements and spewing of venom, feminist apologists trickle into these discussions to offer the same sorry, tired, worn-out old argument:

Really?

If not all feminists are like that, what are the other feminists like... and where the hell are they? Because all of the overt, effective action we've seen has involved feminists who are exactly like that.

We've seen feminists lobby for discriminatory law and policy.
We've seen how some of those laws and policies are abused, often up close and personally.
We've seen feminists advocate for discriminatory social standards.
We've seen feminists attack the due process rights of men.
We've seen feminists attack men's speech rights... and consistently, at that.
We've seen feminist violence, even attempted murder.
We've seen feminists attack and condemn discussion on ways to prevent boys from falling behind in education, and other men's issues.
We've seen feminists oppose the success of civil rights efforts unless they're allowed a free ride on another movement's coat tails, even at the understood risk of derailing the entire effort.
We've seen feminists fight to deny assistance to abused men.
We've seen that fight extend into an overt effort to deny facts and hide existing factors related to abused men.
We've seen feminists propagate a culture of tolerance for female sexual violence against men by denying its existence, denying its severity, and when all else fails, denying its significance in relation to its gender counterpart.
We've seen feminists actively, deliberately vilify the entire male gender, treating the dysfunctional behavior of some as if it were a gender characteristic.
We've even seen them use the slander of innocent men in their campaigns.

The one time feminists point to as an effort to promote equality, they didn't advocate to remove a discriminatory factor from impacting men, but instead moved to become equally abused: When presented with the opportunity to advocate for the abolition of the United States Selective Service's outdated and unnecessary mandate that men make themselves available to be drafted into the military, feminists instead fought to be included in it. It was more important to them to be included than it was for them to right a wrong. I have often seen this effort presented as an argument that see, feminists care about men's rights, too. In reality, it's an example of the solipsistic nature of feminism. Rather than realize how important it is to end this one remaining vestige of overt slavery in the U.S., their main concern was their own exclusion from it. This was not an effort at elevating the treatment of men, but instead an effort at removing an area where the discrimination was obvious.

On a side note: I bet most feminists who have argued for "joining" the "draft" haven't gone to the level of effort that this one did. I don't think MRAs should take any feminist assertions on women in the military seriously until feminists do this en masse. If they really, honestly are for this, then they should be expected to back it up with action. If they won't do that, then we're justified in assuming that their advocacy on this is completely hollow and meaningless.

Back to our regularly scheduled topic: As stated, we have seen various feminist group attacks on men, men's rights, masculinity, and the public's perspective thereof. We haven't seen feminists put any effort into curbing the rampant and blatant extremism in their movement.

Think about what feminists do when they have a cause to promote or a factor to oppose. They don't sit around and simply deny association with it.

They act.

They march en masse, in protest, with shouted slogans and carried signs.
Social media campaigns spread outward from the central effort like ripples in water disturbed by a dropped rock.
Their various activist groups organize media contact efforts to promote their position.
They execute email, phone call, and letter-writing campaigns to government officials.
Public influence efforts include blogging, vlogging, and extensive discussion in the comments under each.
If the issue is with an entity, such as a business, university, or other organization, there are social pressure campaigns targeting the entity, as well, using anything from stern criticism to threats of boycott and public shaming.
If legal action is an option, it is taken, as well.

So, if "nice" feminists are the mainstream... if "nice" feminists represent the majority opinion, the majority effort, and the majority of activists within the movement... why haven't we seen any action from the "nice" front?

Why has not one feminist from anywhere shown up to these events to stand up against this "extremist" position?
Why have none of the Feminists who are Not Like That raised a counter-protest against those embarrassments to their movement?
Why have none of the Feminists who Support Men's Rights shown up to escort men through these pickets, protect the human rights posters, shout down the vitriol, and assert their place as the mainstream of feminism?
Where are the feminist-written blogs condemning the acts of harassment, violence, and vandalism that these "extremists" have committed?
Where are the popular, widely viewed "mainstream feminist" blog and vlog posts arguing the right of men to address and discuss men's issues among themselves, and on their own terms?
Where is even the slightest public "mainstream feminist" criticism of this type of behavior?

Have any feminist groups created information campaigns to help correct this imbalance in their movement?

Where are the "Real feminists don't abuse men" graphics?
Where are the "Real feminists don't deny issues" messages?
Where are the "Feminists can stop male-bashing" campaigns?
Where are the anti-harassment posters with messages like "Hatred is not a feminist value?"
Where is the "mainstream feminist" statement to any major media outlet, condemning the choice of "extremists" to treat the MRM as an enemy force instead of a cooperative effort toward the achievement of social and legal equality?
In fact... where is the mainstream feminist end of that cooperative effort? Is denying association with the part of the feminist movement which effects change all these apologists are good for, or are they going to put their money where their keyboards are, and stand up to those they not-so-openly condemn?

We've seen feminist groups take dramatic action in response to causes they support, or issues they oppose. If "nice" feminists are doing nothing in response to "extremism" within their movement but denying association with it, that doesn't signify opposition. It doesn't even signify separation from it. It signifies tolerance, and acceptance. The lack of action is still a choice - the act of subtly condoning the behavior.

Dissociation of the self from that behavior is not a meaningful argument. It's not enthusiastic dissent. It's a way of letting someone else do the dirty work, so that one may reap the benefits when that work is successful, but have plausible deniability when the hateful nature of it is noticed by others. Denial of association doesn't make up for the continued tolerance by self-titled "mainstream" feminists for these displays of hatred, bigotry, vitriol, and abusive attitudes. It doesn't erase the willingness to continue using these so-called "extremists" as a means of attempting to silence or suppress resistance to the human rights abuses advocated for by feminist groups.

It only shows one's willingness to be unabashedly dishonest about it.


Relevant:  “Nice” feminists: grassroots of a hate movement

Yet another deceptive feminist marketing attempt?

I'm seeing the same pattern repeatedly presented in recent debate; two expansions on the NAFALT (Not All Feminists Are Like That) argument. One, I'm labeling NAFALT so FINTB (Feminism Is Not That Bad) and the other, an old one; I Am Not A Feminist but NAFALT often followed by some variation of "so MRAs should stop criticizing the feminist movement."

IANAF but NAFALT is normally easy to cut off by addressing the disparity in its logic: Regardless of whether all feminists are advocates for legislation and policy which mandates human rights violations against men, those feminists who have influence and power are. Active feminists whose advocacy is having real-world effects are like that.    
   
The causes of several men's issues are rooted in the activism of those feminists. Attempts to address those issues will necessarily include discussion of their causes and resistance to the feminist advocacy which led to those factors. This makes criticism of feminist anti-male rhetoric and response to feminist activism an inevitable part of the discussion of men's issues. This assertion, combined with evidence of said activism, usually ends the "quit criticizing" debate. However, recent IANAF but NAFALT debaters have taken the road of the NAFALT so FINTB debater.

NAFALT so FINTB is a slightly greasier group. The argument sounds nice, but is based on faulty logic. The existence of some decency within an oppressive group does not erase or excuse its oppressive nature, actions, or effects. Neither does the choice of some who claim decency to associate their claims with the group's name, no matter how badly they want to clean up its public image. Because the logic NAFALT so FINTB is faulty and so easily debunked, but the debaters asserting it are emotionally invested in wearing or defending the "feminist" label and associating that label with the Disney version they've made up for themselves, debate following it takes a wandering path through old and new territory, ending at a point of dissatisfaction for the FINTB debater, who then either abandons the conversation, or takes an unearned tone of snide and arrogant superiority.

The main method I've seen employed among this type of debater is topic hopping. The debater states an assertion. The assertion is countered with an argument. The debater supports the assertion with additional opinion, unsupported rhetoric, an appeal to emotion, or some other logical fallacy. Evidence is presented for the counterargument. The debater ignores this and states a new assertion. Pattern established.   

Another is shaming. FINTB debaters equate feminism with being female and call criticism of feminism sexist. When that is countered, they equate it with women's rights, and call countering feminist advocacy an attack on them. That argument depends on begging the difference - the acceptance that each item on the feminist agenda represents a right, the advocacy for which is supported by all women, rather than just a concession feminists want made for the segment among women who want it. Countering the argument depends upon countering that assumption. The response to that is usually label-tossing (misogynist, rape-apologist, anti-woman, anti-choice, creep) and other sexism shaming. This could be taken through to a discussion on whether the feminist movement has the right to claim proprietary ownership of the desires, goals, philosophy, and ethics of all women... but FINTB debaters don't seem to be sophisticated enough to get past "If You Disagree With Feminism You Hate Women."  

The initial presentation starts with NAFALT, so FINTB. When presented with discussion explaining why NAFALT is not a valid argument (backed up as needed,) the debater goes on to the Waves argument, which essentially boils down to "because it's currently popular to treat the history of feminism as having included 3 separate, date-specific waves... NAFALT so FINTB."

This is countered by evidence that each wave of feminism was, in fact, Like That in various ways, and that the most recent one has demonstrated its Like That nature... recently. The debater's response is often to change the debate stance at this point from NAFALT to I Am Not Like That, with "I only identify with/believe in/support 'nice' feminism, so FINTB." IANLT so FINTB may continue through various points and counter-points on whether claiming association with a group makes one part of that group, whether the nature of a group is defined by what it does or what it claims to do, and whether the nature of a group is defined by its interaction with society, its history, and its rhetoric, or by the assertions of those who wish to see it in a positive light.

In debates where I've been engaged by one of these FINTB debaters, this is generally accompanied by either denial that I stated parts of previous statements I made, denial that outspoken and movement-shaping feminist leaders are leaders of the moment, denial that the movement's real-world actions and advocacy are what the movement is about, (both of which fall into That Is Not My Feminism... so FINTB) and the application of vague but authoritative sounding labels like "controversial" and "disputed" to presented evidence, without the presentation of counter-evidence or any other reason why those labels apply.
I call this "the emphatic 'Nuh-uh!' counter.

Imagine that counter used in defense of an inappropriate action.
Debater: Hey, you just punched me in the face!
Me: That assertion is controversial.
Debater: No it's not! My nose is bleeding!
Me: The bleeding of your nose is a subject of widespread dispute.
Debater: I think it's broken...
Me: Scholars have noted that self-assessment can be a wholly subjective experience.
Debater: I can see the part of the septum sticking out of the left side.
Me: Eyewitness accounts are considered unreliable.
       You Can't Prove Anything, so Face Punching Is Not That Bad.

I'm sure you get the picture (which can't be confirmed, because photographic evidence can be easily faked using graphic arts software.) The nature of such a debate style is less human rights activist and more seedy slick salesman.

This may be offered alongside appeals to emotion using feminist rhetoric on the historical roles of women, often including exaggerations, along with a contradictory combination of statements of gratitude toward feminism for fixing those problems, and assertions that those problems are not fixed: Women Once Had It Rough, so FINTB, Feminism Did Something I Like, so FINTB, and I need feminism because the problems I'm claiming that its advocacy has solved still exist.

Calling the FINTB debater out on the irrational nature of such arguments results in accusations of stubbornness and misogyny, further unfounded denials, and begging the difference by offering feminist rhetoric as if it is established fact. In some cases, the debater has straw-manned inaccurate paraphrasing of my previous statements for the purpose of shaping the argument into something easier to counter. Other debaters have descended into angry private messages, personal attacks, and childish demands for concession. None so far seem to be able to offer any measurable evidence to back up their previous assertions, and this is the point at which these conversations generally end.  
    
Ordinarily I'd think I had simply run into a few fringe kooks, dismiss the behavior, and move on... but the number of discussions which have fallen into this pattern, combined with the sudden, widespread opposition within men's rights discussion forums and social media to any criticism of feminism, indicates that the method may be based on a set of talking points, or on the opinions expressed in recent feminist writing. It almost seems organized. The similarity of various debaters' approaches doesn't necessarily indicate this as the next step in the feminist response to men's rights activism, but the existence of this pattern definitely makes the technique something to watch for and be ready to address.