How feminist blogs like Jezebel gin up page views. - By Emily Gould - Slate Magazine

First of all, feminists are a diverse group. For example, some feminists are anti-pornography because they think pornography denigrates women, while other feminists are pro-pornography because they think it empowers them. But they do all agree on one thing: women should have the same rights as men. Certain feminists may believe that women should have more rights than men, but this belief is not contained within the movement's core ideology; therefore, when you malign feminism as a whole because of the beliefs of a splinter group, or worse still, a single individual, you have committed an association fallacy.

... based on nothing more than their sex as a means of explaining their victimization ...

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here, but I'll take a guess, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Are you saying that feminists simply blame all their failings and insecurities on a non-existent prejudice against their gender? I hope that's not what you're saying.

[–]XFDRaven 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The fundamentally wrong point you're using is the idea that the dictionary definition is what Feminism actually is. The whole of your main argument is trying to play the dictionary game and not call out feminists based on their political action. Pro/Anti-porn? Irrelevant compared to the wage-gap misrepresentation, the family court laws, alimony, the deliberately false misrepresentation of domestic violence, false rape enabling, and a slew of other sexist policies brought about by The Feminist Movement under the pretense that they're fragile and delicate victims of some boogeyman called the Patriarchy. If Feminism had a single slight interest in equality we would be seeing them work against the above mentioned items to tilt it into balance. But we don't. We see them pushing for more and more entitlements. They use their sex and sexism to gain more rights and privileges under the guise of being victims. I am well aware of the association fallacy as well as others. It's incorrect to use in such cases, because while fringe "because it makes me feel good to say I am" feminist A might not be a part of "death to all men" feminist C, the laws enabled by feminist C grant feminist A entitlements at the expense of men in society. So kindly get over yourself, or go pander to /2XC.

Are you saying that feminists simply blame all their failings and insecurities on a non-existent prejudice against their gender?

For modern day? Yup.

You believe that they face no discrimination whatsoever?

You mean like the Citibank gal who got canned for not doing her job? Well cry me a river.

[+]c87 -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

The fundamentally wrong point you're using is the idea that the dictionary definition is what Feminism actually is.

Do you hear yourself? Words are defined by their dictionary definition. Unless A denotes B, you cannot claim that that B is necessitated by A without establishing a causal link from A to B.

The whole of your main argument is trying to play the dictionary game and not call out feminists based on their political action.

No. I'm not against calling out specific feminists and sub-groups within the feminist movement, but I am against characterizing the entire movement as sexist when its core ideology isn't remotely sexist.

Let me ask you something: What do you gain by maligning the entire feminist movement that you wouldn't gain by maligning the specific individuals and sub-groups responsible for sexist beliefs and policies? I suspect you gain nothing. Your position is therefore not only intellectually dishonest, but it's also counter-productive.

If Feminism had a single slight interest in equality we would be seeing them work against the above mentioned items to tilt it into balance. But we don't.

And why isn't men's rights movement working towards eliminating racial inequality or class inequality? Answer: Because, like most groups, they've narrowed their focus to a single issue (in this case, equal rights for men) because by doing so, they increase their chance of success.

I am well aware of the association fallacy as well as others. It's incorrect to use in such cases, because while fringe "because it makes me feel good to say I am" feminist A might not be a part of "death to all men" feminist C, the laws enabled by feminist C grant feminist A entitlements at the expense of men in society.

Is feminist A responsible for those entitlements? Does the core ideology of feminism necessitate those entitlements? If the answer to those questions is "no", then it's an association fallacy.

So kindly get over yourself, or go pander to /2XC.

I'm a male, and I've never posted in 2XC, but I find it hypocritical that you tell me to "go pander to /2XC" for expressing dissent, which would necessarily imply that you would prefer to be pandered to yourself. Might I suggest membership into the He-Man Woman Haters Club? You're a little older than most of the members, but given your obvious immaturity, I'm sure they'll make an exception for you.

For modern day? Yup.

You know what? I merely posted to point out that your blanket condemnation of feminist is illogical, and I think I've succeeded. I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable about the discrimination and double standards that modern women face, but I think it's self-evident that they do still face discrimination and double standards. Nevertheless, since I'm not qualified to discuss an issue for which I'm largely ignorant, I would suggest posting a submission about this subject in 2XC. By doing so, you wouldn't simply be pandering to like-minded individuals; you would actually be engaged in a discussion with individuals who may even be able to correct some of your misconceptions about feminism and the issues modern women face. That or you could continue scapegoating feminists.

[–]XFDRaven -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you hear yourself? Words are defined by their dictionary definition. Unless A denotes B, you cannot claim that that B is necessitated by A without establishing a causal link from A to B.

Then by your reasoning, George Bush Junior was a epitome of government fiscal responsibility (since, by their definition, Republicans are conservative), and a champion of the US Constitution and Civil Rights (also definitions of Conservative). And since the definition is the absolute truth, Obama has upheld every promise he made during his "Change we can believe in" campaign, and per the definition of Progressive Political Reform via Social Programs which benefit everyone.

Except neither is true. The world, so far as people are concerned, seldom operate in the same way they tell you. It is because of this you hear people make the complaint about some other person claiming, "Do as I say, not as I do."

No. I'm not against calling out specific feminists and sub-groups within the feminist movement, but I am against characterizing the entire movement as sexist when its core ideology isn't remotely sexist.

Funny thing about that, is when you address those "particular sub-groups" and pin them to a single tag-line label, they'll skitter to another label. It's a political gimmick which enables them to say, "not me" over and over to avoid any responsibility.

Let me ask you something: What do you gain by maligning the entire feminist movement that you wouldn't gain by maligning the specific individuals and sub-groups responsible for sexist beliefs and policies? I suspect you gain nothing. Your position is therefore not only intellectually dishonest, but it's also counter-productive.

The same thing you gain by not driving through the slums of Detroit at night, being a middle-class white dude. I'm going to skip the critical hunt for the definition to back up my next point so this will do.. You're then asserting I know this all to be false in spite of there being a very valuable position in disassociating oneself with what is at best an Entitlement Movement and at worst a Hate Movement. If you were a firearm owner, you would understand that the most optimal solution to a problem situation is to simply not put yourself into that situation - don't go there if there are going to be problems. What is counter-productive about covering your own ass? Nothing. You are essentially advocating the same reasoning as the story about a preacher who went into the Amazon for humanitarian work. And because he was good, god would protect him from harm. He got killed by natives. Oops.

And why isn't men's rights movement working towards eliminating racial inequality or class inequality? Answer: Because, like most groups, they've narrowed their focus to a single issue (in this case, equal rights for men) because by doing so, they increase their chance of success.

False. You're presuming MRA is some path created for men in parallel to Feminism; some kind of Masculinism. MRA is a reaction to the misandrist policies of Feminism. It acts to call out the inequalities created by feminism and its policies. Policies such as the Violence Against Women Act, where a woman can assault a man, and if he were to call the police on her she could simply say "He hit me" and even if he were black and blue from her he would be arrested. VAWA enables Woman-on-men assault. Feminists decry that "Domestic Violence is a problem perpetrated by men," we have many instances (and counting) where women bear children not of their spouse and then stick the ex-husband with child support and alimony because he "obviously was not a good husband." The list goes on, but points to your fundamentally incorrect assumption. MRA, in my opinion is still rather young. It is doing what it can in small steps, because that is all it can do.

Is feminist A responsible for those entitlements? Does the core ideology of feminism necessitate those entitlements? If the answer to those questions is "no", then it's an association fallacy.

Does Feminist A consider who suffers as a result of those entitlements? Nope. Feminism grants women benefits at the cost to men, and those women think nothing of where it came. They are no less guilty than the activists of N.O.W. who work for misandrist policymaking. If you take stolen money, and arrested, you still get punished. Does the core ideology necessitate those entitlements? Thats what the whole of Feminism is about. "We're victims of Men and their Patriarchy, because we're victims we are lesser than the men. As we are treated lesser than men, we need more entitlements to be made equal." It's the same line of reasoning as buying yourself out of debt. It doesn't work if you're after zero debt.

'm a male, and I've never posted in 2XC, but I find it hypocritical that you tell me to "go pander to /2XC" for expressing dissent, which would necessarily imply that you would prefer to be pandered to yourself. Might I suggest membership into the He-Man Woman Haters Club? Y

/2XC, and /r/Feminisms love guys who hold Feminism as a immaculate movement of virtue and honesty. Since you have been taking Feminism on its cover alone, I'm directing you there because you would find it less hostile than a subreddit full of people who don't buy into the blatant and obvious lies. You have approached this thread under the assumption that women are all victims, they love that shit because the Feminists can use that against you to justify what they want to take from you.

You're a little older than most of the members, but given your obvious immaturity, I'm sure they'll make an exception for you.

Uh oh, getting a little close to poking through the wall. Quick, dispense an ad-hominem! And the funny trap here, is that in your own idiocy you've equated Feminist to Woman. Nice job. I love it when people come up with bad ideas, and you're not letting me down so far! It's like those people who call all insects 'bugs.' All bugs are insects, not all insects are bugs. Wait how is it you go on about associative fallacies and then use one yourself?

You know what? I merely posted to point out that your blanket condemnation of feminist is illogical, and I think I've succeeded. I'm not going to pretend to be knowledgeable about the discrimination and double standards that modern women face, but I think it's self-evident that they do still face discrimination and double standards.

And here is the general truth with most people who do formal debate (as I assume you have since you're desperately trying to pull out fallacies from your ass to justify your position): It doesn't make them more enlightened, more educated or better thinkers. It simply solidifies their preconceived biases to be the absolute truth. You haven't proven anything other than the fact you don't like the dirt being brought up that Feminists are not paragons of virtue, but rather misandrists of different gradients. In addition, you have failed to do anything to actually argue why I shouldn't maintain my position. "You shouldn't group all feminists together, because you shouldn't!" It's tautological.

Nevertheless, since I'm not qualified to discuss an issue for which I'm largely ignorant, I would suggest posting a submission about this subject in 2XC. By doing so, you wouldn't simply be pandering to like-minded individuals; you would actually be engaged in a discussion with individuals who may even be able to correct some of your misconceptions about feminism and the issues modern women face. That or you could continue scapegoating feminists.

Ah, like the guy who called out a feminist that, when challenged with her illogical tripe, got promptly banned? Again, this is exactly why you need to go to /2XC. You are not here, nor were you ever here to do any positive good. You've made an attempt to use some basic debate skills you've obtained to justify your own blind position and willfully ignore the actual behaviors of feminism. You're an enabler of the Feminist Addiction and embrace their victimhood.

That's dishonest, plain and simple. Your reasoning is idiotic, and boils down to, "A few Nazis were not bad people, therefore all Nazis are not bad people only one or two."

Edited for a few things.

[+]c87 -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Then by your reasoning, George Bush Junior was a epitome of government fiscal responsibility (since, by their definition, Republicans are conservative), and a champion of the US Constitution and Civil Rights (also definitions of Conservative).

This is the exact opposite of what I've said. My point was that you cannot define words however you like. Words matter. In your analogy, Bush describes himself as a fiscal conservative, but the policies of his administration do not match up to the dictionary definition of fiscal conservative; therefore, he is not a fiscal conservative.

And since the definition is the absolute truth, Obama has upheld every promise he made during his "Change we can believe in" campaign, and per the definition of Progressive Political Reform via Social Programs which benefit everyone.

Although many people accuse Obama of breaking promises he never made, he still hasn't upheld every promise that he made during his campaign, including his promise to deliver a public option, and I can demonstrate this by directing you to Politifact.com, which tracks the campaign promises he's kept and those he's broken.

Funny thing about that, is when you address those "particular sub-groups" and pin them to a single tag-line label, they'll skitter to another label. It's a political gimmick which enables them to say, "not me" over and over to avoid any responsibility.

No, it is not a political gimmick to avoid responsibility. Within every movement, there are disagreements. Those sub-groups are largely the result of those disagreements. Feminists who disagree with those sub-groups are not responsible for the thoughts and actions of those with whom they disagree.

You're then asserting I know this all to be false in spite of there being a very valuable position in disassociating oneself with what is at best an Entitlement Movement and at worst a Hate Movement.

Oh, come on. You still haven't demonstrated that feminism is either of the two. Even if your assessment of what comprises the feminist movement were correct, I still do not see why anyone should disavow themselves as feminists when the term describes something they support, even if the movement has gone astray. If everyone thought like you, every worthwhile movement would be overrun by its extremists.

False. You're presuming MRA is some path created for men in parallel to Feminism; some kind of Masculinism.

If I've misrepresented the MRA, I apologize, but my point still stands. The group still focuses on a narrow goal, and in the same way that I cannot accuse the MRA of being indifferent to other forms of inequality because they focus on a specific form of inequality which they attribute to misandrist policies, you cannot accuse feminists of being indifferent to other forms of inequality because they too are focused on a specific form of inequality.

You have approached this thread under the assumption that women are all victims, they love that shit because the Feminists can use that against you to justify what they want to take from you.

An outright lie. I never said that all women are victims; I merely said that discrimination and double standards exist.

Quick, dispense an ad-hominem!

An ad hominem attack is when someone tries to persuade someone that a position is wrong by simply attacking the person who holds it. I did attack you, but I did not commit an ad hominem attack. I told you why I think your position is wrong. However, if I had said that you are wrong because you're sexist or immature, I would have committed an ad hominem attack. But go on, continue mocking me for using fallacies incorrectly.

And the funny trap here, is that in your own idiocy you've equated Feminist to Woman. Nice job.

No, I haven't. I said that in response to your statement that I should "go pander to /2XC". Since 2XC is a subreddit reserved for female discussion (although men post there, too), I thought you were implying that I was a woman, and that I must necessarily be a woman because of my position. I'm aware that men can be feminists, and I'm not even necessarily opposed to self-identifying as a feminist (although, even if the term does describe me, I still wouldn't self-identify as such, if only because I haven't done anything to further their cause).

Wait how is it you go on about associative fallacies and then use one yourself?

Where have I committed an association fallacy?

You haven't proven anything other than the fact you don't like the dirt being brought up that Feminists are not paragons of virtue, but rather misandrists of different gradients.

You keep saying that, but I've never once said that feminists are paragons of virtue. I wouldn't dispute that there are specific feminists and sub-groups for whom your characterization is true. I would, however, strongly dispute your claim that all feminists are misandrists of different gradients, which you haven't demonstrated.

Does Feminist A consider who suffers as a result of those entitlements?

As you said, feminist C supported those entitlements, not feminist A, and nothing about feminism's core ideology necessitates those entitlements. Whether feminist A benefits from them is irrelevant. And for you all know, feminist A may actually oppose them because they consider them anathema to their group's goals.

Does the core ideology necessitate those entitlements? Thats what the whole of Feminism is about. "We're victims of Men and their Patriarchy, because we're victims we are lesser than the men. As we are treated lesser than men, we need more entitlements to be made equal." It's the same line of reasoning as buying yourself out of debt. It doesn't work if you're after zero debt.

That is not the reasoning of all feminists, nor is that reasoning necessitated by their core ideology. Many of them would be strongly opposed to the statement that they are "less than men", and as I said before, some of them would not only oppose those entitlements, but oppose them on the grounds of their feminism.

"You shouldn't group all feminists together, because you shouldn't!" It's tautological.

I never said that you shouldn't group all feminists together simply because you shouldn't. You shouldn't lump them all together because to do so is inaccurate and intellectually lazy, if not outright dishonest, and not only doesn't it benefit your cause, but it may actually harm it.

Your reasoning is idiotic, and boils down to, "A few Nazis were not bad people, therefore all Nazis are not bad people only one or two."

Wrong again! The Nazis' core ideology is necessarily racist. I can make a blanket condemnation of Nazis or the KKK because their core ideology denotes racism. However, the core ideology of feminism, which is that women should have the same rights as men, does not denote that women should have more rights than men or receive entitlements as a result of male oppression. I'll repeat myself: Unless A denotes B, you cannot claim that that B is necessitated by A without establishing a causal link from A to B. Since the dictionary definition of feminism doesn't denote anything sexist, you have demonstrate that the logical endpoint of feminism is sexism before you can condemn feminism as a whole. Until you can do that, I am not going to continue this discussion any further.

I'm sorry for not responding to all of your points. As I said, I merely wanted to point out that your blanket condemnation of feminism is illogical, and since I'm not qualified to speak on the issues women face, I'm not going to speak about them. If you wish to discuss them, I would again ask you to post a submission to 2XC, or if nothing else, the main page of reddit, where you are likely to encounter dissent. Someone may downvote you, but unfortunately, many redditors (including yourself) downvote people with whom they disagree. Deal with it.

[–]XFDRaven -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

This is the exact opposite of what I've said. My point was that you cannot define words however you like. Words matter. In your analogy, Bush describes himself as a fiscal conservative, but the policies of his administration do not match up to the dictionary definition of fiscal conservative; therefore, he is not a fiscal conservative.

No, it's pretty much exactly what you said. People who brand themselves as the something inherently abide by that definition. This is false, because they do not. You're attempting to rewrite the problem in a way that you don't admit this falsehood.

Citing Politifact does nothing but exert a large sigh from me. Well, now I know what camp you're in. So I will drop anything with your brand of religion then, as best as I can.

Oh, come on. You still haven't demonstrated that feminism is either of the two. Even if your assessment of what comprises the feminist movement were correct, I still do not see why anyone should disavow themselves as feminists when the term describes something they support, even if the movement has gone astray. If everyone thought like you, every worthwhile movement would be overrun by its extremists.

What, like the Civil Rights Movement? ... oh wait, not that was an actual equality movement. Are you even aware of what Egalitarians are? Feminism is to equal rights, as The Million Man March was to the Civil Rights movement. Prove me wrong. With Academic/peer reviewed journals. You can't, because you're simply trying to maintain a delusion that Feminism is a good thing, and are willfully ignoring all of it's bad by re-branding it as the "other."

An ad hominem attack is when someone tries to persuade someone that a position is wrong by simply attacking the person who holds it.

Yup. "You're just an immature brat, so you must be wrong and not actually about /MR but instead a woman hater." Other fine examples include, "You can't believe Jack when he says the proposed policy would help the economy. He doesn't even have a job," or "Candidate Jane's proposal about zoning is ridiculous. She was caught cheating on her taxes in 2003."

Blah blah, sticking to my guns and ignoring the whole issue of benefactors of bad policy and linking responsibility to similar crimes.

... anyway.

Many of them would be strongly opposed to the statement that they are "less than men", and as I said before, some of them would not only oppose those entitlements, but oppose them on the grounds of their feminism.

No, I would go so far as to say they would all oppose the idea that they are "less than men" and then use that statement to justify getting more entitlements so that it becomes untrue. Sort of like "we only make 70 cents to every dollar a man makes! We deserve more money!" 'Er, but you worked 70% of the time?' or similar reason and factors. But whatever, you aren't interested in any such relevance.

I never said that you shouldn't group all feminists together simply because you shouldn't. You shouldn't lump them all together because to do so is inaccurate and intellectually lazy, if not outright dishonest, and not only doesn't it benefit your cause, but it may actually harm it.

Oh no! We're keeping our distance from a hostile enemy, who's own policies have caused us to create a countermovement! Quick we should be their friends, and sing in a drum circle and there will rainbows. Or we could not follow suit with the kinds of political disasters that occurred to cause WW1 and not ally with our enemies. I can't take this position seriously because it conflicts with your politicoreligion as mentioned earlier.

However, the core ideology of feminism, which is that women should have the same rights as men, does not denote that women should have more rights than men or receive entitlements as a result of male oppression. I'll repeat myself: Unless A denotes B, you cannot claim that that B is necessitated by A without establishing a causal link from A to B. Since the dictionary definition of feminism doesn't denote anything sexist, you have demonstrate that the logical endpoint of feminism is sexism before you can condemn feminism as a whole. Until you can do that, I am not going to continue this discussion any further.

Great! Of course you could be reading /MR for a while and get a lot of great examples, but you're intellectually lazy, and apparently suffer some level of denial (especially given that you ignored a lot of the key points that were hard to argue). Feminism is equality, because they say so. Blatantly, plainly, false. Feminism is equality between, and for women exclusively. Want a nice cookie cutter, first order idiot level proof on your level? How about the Miram Webster dictionary? "2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests." There, with all you hold dear for standards, you've been proven wrong.

I'm going to just not do anything to deal with your last point so I don't have to go on with a Glenn Beck. Cheers.

Edit: This might also be good, but given your behavior with earlier point-skipping I doubt you'll read it: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/bh5pu/faq_13_why_cant_you_understand_that_its_it_just/

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hackiavelli 1 point2 points3 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]PapsBlurbn -1 points0 points1 point 16 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 16 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	How feminist blogs like Jezebel gin up page views. - By Emily Gould - Slate Magazine
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	49
Comments	34
Date	July 7, 2010 12:30 PM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/cmume/how_feminist_blogs_like_jezebel_gin_up_page_views/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/how-feminist-blogs-like-jezebel-gin-up-page-views.1048749 https://theredarchive.com/post/1048749

Comments