False Consciousness & Kafka-Trapping

aetheralloy · 2011-05-01T23:01:35+00:00

I don't think it is as complicated as all that.

Feminism are just people with a child's mental & emotional level making up words/terms and pretending that because they made up the term, it must exist - THE patriarchy, the male gaze, objectification is slavery, the wage gap, rape culture, etc... it's all just terminology - buzzwords.

There is no scientific test for any of it - none of it is provable or disprovable - and that's how feminists want it.

Just because feminists make up a term doesn't mean it exists. The entire movement is made up of hatred for flying spaghetti monsters.

vintermann · 2011-05-02T12:48:46+00:00

The analysis of marxism is wrong in one important respect. It is true that it is a closed ideological system, consistent with itself but demanding immunity from external criticism. However, he says:

The socialist proletariat are the possessors of the ideology which reflects truth, while the capitalist bourgeoisie possess only 'false consciousness.' It is never explained how it is known that things are this way around and not the other – i.e., why can't the bourgeoisie possess true ideology, and the proletariat be subjected to false consciousness?

... and this has an easy (though a bit crazy) answer within Marxism. The proletariat is right because the proletariat wins in the end. Marx thinks he has proven this scientifically, so it must be true. The proletariat is on the right side of history, and the winner writes the history books, so the proletariat is right.

It's basically because of two things: Marx's outrage at the social injustice of the day (which was completely understandable), and Marx's disgust at the hypocrisy of the religion of his day (which was also quite understandable - you should see some of the pamphlets urging the poor to starve in peace so that they would be rewarded in heaven).

Marx, like a raging old testament prophet, felt a burning need to condemnd the injustice he saw. However, he could not do it in the language of religion, because he blamed it for a good deal of what he saw, and it looked like it was on a losing front anyway. So, he tried to create his own justification for morality: rather than saying that the good guys will win in the end, he said that those who win in the end will be the good ones, and it's our side dammit!

disposable_human · 2011-05-03T04:05:16+00:00

it is not possible to argue against logic. To put it another way, you cannot reason against reasoning, because the very attempt to do so involves the (attempted) use of reason.

This man does not believe intelligent people can disagree intelligently. I have a big problem with that.

BolshevikMuppet · 2011-05-02T19:25:47+00:00

For a man claiming to be examining the faults with feminist logic, you'd think he would avoid making so many fallacies, wouldn't you?

We know, assuredly, that it is - with some feminists going so far as to claim that logic is nothing but a tool of the patriarchy

First, it begs the question. If feminism uses logic, it is not "threatening", ergo to say that it is threatening begs the question of whether they use logic. Second, it's the fallacy of composition. The use of "some feminists" as a way to demonize the entire group is actually what many of us here bemoan all the damned time when directed at men. It'd be like saying "some men go so far in their perverse desire for young women that they're even pedophiles". Bullshit.

Hence, the appropriate response to the feminist argument that "logic cannot be trusted, because it is a tool of the patriarchy," is to say: "and so are you! Hey - as a patriarch, I appreciate you doing my job for me!"

And there we go. We've shifted from "some feminists say" (intellectually dishonest, but probably true) full on into "THE FEMINIST ARGUMENT" (emphasis mine). It's called equivocation. That's fallacy number three, for those keeping score at home.

Having seen feminists defeated by logic many times, I am quite sure that they fear it because that their beliefs cannot withstand it

I hesitate to count this again, since it's just a rehash of the same begging the question as above, but since his entire point is less "here, let me actually refute the logic" and instead "we all know their logic fails, so I don't need to address any substantive points". Ironically, attacking the source, rather than the substance, is part and parcel of what he's saying feminists do. Pots, kettles? Both are black, right?

Particularly not conclusions critical of feminist orthodoxy, derived, for instance, from the process of asking questions and receiving unsatisfactory answers

Which would carry more weight as a denouncement of their movement if the men's rights movement didn't (much to my chagrin) do it as well. Think about how many times you've heard someone who questions the orthodoxy and dogma of "family court is skewed against men, circumcision is evil and done for profit, marriage is a scam, feminism hates men, schools are slanted against boys" have been downvoted and insulted. Hell, I have a post up right now that does little more than say "circumcision has confirmed benefits, and no provable harm, so we should give parents all the information (without bias) and let them decide" which is being downvoted as I write this, which itself violates the Reddiquette. If we're going to claim to be the group which looks at evidence, doesn't involve emotional bullshit, and instead is trying for a more existentialist "what's actually true and provable", we should walk that walk.

The truth which backs up its claims is located within the theory, utterly independent of any contrary evidence that can be gathered from the actual experiences of actual people.

Technically, the same is true of any economic theory. As economic theories can't really be tested in the real world (too many confounding variables) the proof is entirely self-contained. The proof of the awesomeness of the free-market is only valid insofar as you buy into the fundamental assumptions they make. If you're going to get all epistemological up in here, at least take it as far as Hume.

The recipients of additional advantages are, of course, not equal at all, but privileged at the expense of all others. This was always the intention.

Begs the question.
It's a fundamentally spurious argument to say that women who sought to have the same rights under law as men were necessarily looking for advantages over them, and it largely depends on how we define an "advantage" to begin with. You assume (without proving) that a woman was held "on a pedestal", and that there were some quantifiable benefits to being female (I'll ask you to avoid repeating the tired "women and children first proves women were considered more valuable") and remember that women didn't have autonomy, and were largely chattle throughout the middle ages, and into the Victorian era.

Their attempts at rational argument are clouded by a belief in collective guilt - that all problems or inconveniences faced by women result from this base relationship (the domination of women by men), so that, as long as problems or inconveniences remain, it must be the case that men (collectively) are dominating women (collectively). It does not matter if a particular man is innocent - he is still 'the enemy,' as feminists are more than willing to admit

Oddly enough, wouldn't this argument be considered a distaff counterpart to the "not all women are like that" which we bemoan so heavily here?

BolshevikMuppet · 2011-05-02T19:26:04+00:00

I'll address each "kafka-trap" separately, but it's worth remembering that every ideological group does the same thing. The argument always devolves into "you believe that because you've been [brainwashed] to believe it". I recall a post not too long ago by aetheralloy which stated as much of the so-called "white knights" and male feminists, that they are simply the unenlightened "past selves" of MRAs. If these kafka-traps are the abyss, we too stare into it. I intend to find actual quotations from MRAs here to provide as counterparts to these "traps"

Your refusal to acknowledge that you are guilty of sexism confirms that you are guilty of sexism.

"I'm not particularly sympathetic to concern trolling... I don't think I've ever seen you contribute anything that wasn't just an attack on someone here". Your claim to not be a troll is proof of your trolling, eh?

Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of sexism, you are guilty because you have benefited from the sexist behavior of others in the system.

"This is why circumcision is pushed with such heavy propaganda despite a lack of any provable benefits: $$$". Even if a doctor feels circumcision is in the best interests of the child, because there's some economic benefit from it, he must be doing it solely for the economic benefit.

Even if you do not feel yourself to be guilty of sexism, you are guilty because you have a privileged position in the sexist system.

"The 'equality' feminists sought was an 'equality' to do all the things men are permitted to do, and to retain their traditional advantages over men, accrued through centuries of Gynocentrism." You'd think he could avoid using the very "traps" he wants to claim are awful (and feminist).

Skepticism about any particular anecdotal account of sexism, or any attempt to deny that the particular anecdote implies a systemic problem in which you are one of the guilty parties, is itself sufficient to establish your guilt.

I'm going to start with three quotations, and go from there:

"Keep pandering to women at any cost and we will pave the roads with your fucking heads!"

"I had a big response, but I finally realized what kind of person I'm dealing with here...the kind that actually plans genocides and the like. You sir, are a psychopath....either that, or you just come across as remarkably similar to one."

"I should have taken my own advice and ignored you. I see now(as I was trying to ignore before) it is useless trying to have a rational conversation with people who are in favor of mutilating babies."

Your insistence on applying rational skepticism in evaluating assertions of pervasive sexism itself demonstrates that you are sexist.

I guess the above examples fit in here, too, but I'll find a few more. Replace "sexist" with "trolling" or "a misandrist" and you get the gist.

"Ignoring the MASSIVE profit motive in the medical establishment (foreskins are a Billion dollar a year business) is intellectually dishonest at the very best - but most definitely par for the course for you."

"Lastly, I read your response to ReluctantNihilist and decided that you were not worth my time. Maybe if you showed the least idea of what medical ethics, philosophy of science or basic logic worked I could rationalize continuing with someone like you but with one so deluded I don't see the point."

"I always tell people you're a misandrist, small-mind. It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. You're not surprised, I know."

"I wouldn't save most men, either. Most men have casually supported this misandry, too. That's why I wouldn't save you. Hell, you're worse- you actively support misandry."

The act of demanding a definition of sexism that can be consequentially checked and falsified proves you are sexist.

"Know this, small-mind. You will never fool me or any true MRA. We see through you and always will. You waste your time here fooling the foolish."

"If you have any balls, why don't you head over to avoiceformen.com and voice your "opinions". Prepare to get your ass handed to you."

"You're a petty man-hating troll who spends lots of time shitting on men's rights. That's not name-calling, that's a fact."

"When you up-vote my original post rather than down-voting it to try to hide men's rights activism I'll listen to your misandry. Societal discrimination against males in education is not up for debate. It's been proven here time and again." So, asking for a definition of how schools are discriminatory is proof of misandry?

Even if your innocence is proven in a court of law, this not only confirms your guilt; it also confirms the guilt of the (legal) system that found you innocent.

I don't have a link to this, but think about our reactions to female teachers sleeping with male students, and getting relatively light sentences. Think about our reaction all those months ago to a study which "proved" that women get lighter sentences (even though they also had fewer prior convictions and were being tried for lesser offenses). How about family law? We often use the "women prevail in court, that just proves how much the law is slanted against men" argument. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, no?

Leaving aside the content of her raging diatribe, doesn't the style of her writing strike you as that of a twelve-year old, perhaps one who has only just discovered swear words, and believes that using them as much as possible is 'cool'? In the spirit of this post, then, and given the evidence before us, I hereby believe that Amanda Marcotte is, in fact, twelve years old. Any argument to the contrary, from Amanda or anyone else, will be taken as further evidence that she is twelve years old.

Straw man, ad hominem, appeal to spite. Good to see him really bring up his fallacy average right there at the end.

Title	False Consciousness & Kafka-Trapping
Author	avoiceformen
Upvotes	13
Comments	32
Date	May 1, 2011 8:24 PM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/h1kmf/false_consciousness_kafkatrapping/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/false-consciousness-kafka-trapping.1040349 https://theredarchive.com/post/1040349

Comments