Is there a name for logical fallacy, when radical feminists say they argue for women's rights, but they actually argue for misandry?

Sininenn · 2024-03-12T17:12:55+00:00

Motte and Bailey.

Edit: Technically, u/Hubris1998 mentioned it before I did, so he deserves the credit more than I do

Hubris1998 · 2024-03-12T17:59:32+00:00

It's a motte-and-bailey fallacy whereby they use non-controversial statements ("women are people and deserve human rights") to draw people in and whitewash their image while concealing the toxic aspects that are central to said narrative. It's like a bait and switch tactic. Their pursuit of equality might as well be a dog whistle given how most of their rhetoric consists in targeted hatred against the scapegoat that is straight white men. Once they've recruited you, they go full mask off and ramp up the hate speech, preaching to the choir and dropping any semblance of plausible deniability. All in all, they operate very much like any other religious cult.

phoenician_anarchist · 2024-03-12T17:03:47+00:00

Lying? 🤣🤣🤣

I think it's more a combination of black and white thinking and zero sum game. A lot of people think that attacking men is supporting women. (and this is why they accuse us of "hating women" for supporting men's rights, gotta love that projection!)

Hubris1998 · 2024-03-12T17:01:16+00:00

Bait-and-switch, maybe? I don't think there's a specific name for it. It's just lying for PR purposes. They gaslight outsiders by claiming to pursue a just goal in order to whitewash their rhetoric. It's similar to motte-and-bailey fallacies in that they use non-controversial statements to draw people in while concealing the toxic aspects that are central to their narrative. "Equality" might as well be a dog whistle at this point.

Once they've recruited you into their cult, they go full mask off and ramp up the hate speech, preaching to the choir against a scapegoat (in this case, men), often droppping all semblance of plausible deniability. Overall, they operate very much like any other cult.

Geselshaft · 2024-03-12T16:16:47+00:00

It's called recruitment.

How can you get a bunch of bitter and angry women to join your religion? You make them bitter and angry.

Look at how all religions operate, Christianity, Islam, Veganism, Manosphere Podcasters, Ukraine, Hamas, etc.

All of them create a "bad guy" with lies and photoshop, then demand the money and power.

So that "manipulation tactic" exists to acquire new acolytes, and maintain existing ones.

Pretty much how tik tok works.

Idklmao_0 · 2024-03-13T00:57:48+00:00

Most of the time we just call those types of people hypocrites.

TRexDin0 · 2024-03-12T19:18:02+00:00

It is a form of irony. It's like Marc Antony saying, "I come to bury Caeser, not to praise him," then proceeding to do the opposite, and in doing so, gin up a riot.

DoctorStorm · 2024-03-12T23:28:40+00:00

"Cunt."

Don't say it out loud, just know it, smile, and walk away quickly.

NeoNotNeo · 2024-03-13T12:47:39+00:00

Yes that fallacy is known as feminism

Kir141 · 2024-03-15T04:56:08+00:00

I think feminists are talking about women's right to misandry.

9NinetyOneNine · 2024-03-13T00:21:24+00:00

Misandry is just a consequence of realizing your whole sex has been subjugated for most of history by the other, to present times where most of the planet still does it, and still is to a degree, even in liberal countries. You should not be surprised it happens.

Its akin to when Nietzsche deals with the issue of nihilism, an inevitable consequence and the first stage of having abandoned religion, which could also result in hate of religion.

That being said, none of the major feminist currents actually promote misandry, even if there are individuals that have developed misandrist views in said movements.

However, do MRAs promote misogyny? Is this projection? Do you want equality with women, or not?

Comments