Quote:

I’m just going to throw this out there because, as far as provocative truth bombs go, it’s been ticking away for too long. The universal male decency we keep hearing about is largely a myth. Sure, most men might not be bad. But it takes more than ‘not being bad’ to be ‘actually good’. Let me backtrack a minute. Whenever conversation is raised about patriarchy, violence and the lack of equality that still permeates our society, I find myself inundated with messages or comments from men offended by the discussion of male perpetrated violence. Most men, they take ostentatious pains to remind me, are ‘decent’ - so why do I insist on tarring all of them with the same brush? It’s not fair and it’s not true. If I want their ongoing support, I had jolly well better start being nicer to them. Leaving aside for a moment the arrogance it requires to listen to a conversation about the gendered violence suffered by women and make it about their hurt feelings, let's define what they mean by 'decency'. Is it in the number of men who stand by while sexist jokes are made because ‘it’s meant to be funny’? Is it drawn from those folks who want women to know that even though they’re not saying it’s their fault, they shouldn’t have been drinking so much? Is it found in the proportions of dudes who talk about how it’s women’s own incompetency that’s holding them back from sitting in positions of power or being paid equal wages for equal work? Is it in the number of men who wax lyrical about how ‘ugly’ women are when they express a robust opinion, or dare not to pluck and preen their bodies in a way that ‘all’ men find pleasing? No, apparently all it takes to be considered a ‘decent bloke’ is to take an each way bet at doing nothing - nothing to perpetuate oppression, and nothing to stop it. Worse, such ‘decent blokes’ want to be rewarded for this lack of action, an expectation that not-so-subtly reveals the very same entitlement that serves to perpetuate gender inequality. Translated, what they’re really saying is, “Praise me, because I have refrained from behaving in a way both you and I know I could get away with if I wanted to. Please may I have my cookie now? Actually, just give it to me.” Too many of us labour under the assumption that behaving decently is simply a matter of not actively discriminating. Aggrieved justifications of personal goodness are mounted by those on the top of the pile so that we might congratulate ourselves for not abusing our privilege, rather than ponder how unfairly it was bestowed in the first place. Meanwhile, tiny microaggressions are committed and reasoned away by the overarching tolerance that we conveniently confuse for equality. So it is argued that we cannot be racist because even though we make sweeping generalisations about the mysterious ways of non-white folk, we don’t burn crosses on their front lawn; that we cannot be homophobic, because even though we don’t think gay people ought to be allowed to marry and ‘no one wants to see that in public’, we don’t want them imprisoned; and that we cannot possibly be misogynists, because even though we think women should take more care with what they’re wearing and we laugh when someone tells a sexist joke because humour makes the world go round and think feminists have gone too far, we don’t personally beat up women or sexually assault them. (Note: I use ‘we’ to refer generically to people who lucked out in the social privileges lottery. For race and economic status, I include myself in this category.) This is apparently what ‘being decent’ looks like. It’s a conditional expression of privilege that pays lip service to equality but doesn’t actually go out of its way to defend it, and whose benevolent support ends the moment it asks us to actually do something. Worse, it balks at this request for demonstration, as if it is enough for our decency to remain an impotent figurehead, and an insult worse than all the discriminations put together to challenge its legitimacy. If I had a dollar for every time I heard a man tell me that if I want his support to continue, I had better start being nicer to him...well, then I wouldn’t have to worry quite so much about the wage gap. Edmund Burke once wrote, “In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing.” It seems particularly appropriate when discussing the inaction of otherwise inoffensive men when it comes to misogyny and violence (and indeed, there are lessons in this for all of us who experience privilege, whether its that of race, (dis)ability, gender identity or economic class). Doing nothing, be it bad or good, is not enough to actually respect the concept of equality. Real action is required, even when it feels makes you feel awkward, even when it ruins the mood - even when it might shift the target of ridicule onto you. Because, Good Men, every time do nothing in response to tired sexist jokes or victim blaming or discussions of ‘provocation’ in regards to gendered assault, you’re actually supporting the system that continues to oppress women. Sure, you may not be telling the joke (although plenty of ‘decent blokes’ have an arsenal of those). You may not have actually committed the sexual assault. You may not be beating your partner. But your silence and inaction condones these things in the minds of those other ordinary people who mistake the lack of condemnation for a green light.

cont ...

Quote:

Do you know one of the reasons it’s not okay to laugh at jokes about rape victims? It’s not just because it’s extremely insensitive not to mention despicable - it’s because treating rape and its victims like they are fodder for humour tells perpetrators that what they did wasn’t really that bad. Unless you are vigilant every day about standing against gender discrimination and misogyny - and that means stepping up, being a proactive bystander and speaking out against ideas and behaviours that perpetuate misogyny - then I’m sorry to tell you that you are not a decent, good bloke. And when you threaten to withdraw your support because you’ve been made to feel bad, all you’re doing is reasserting your own socially gifted dominance. And frankly, that doesn’t sound very decent to me. You might not be a bad man - but unless you’re doing something to challenge and change the world we live in for the better, you’re not a good one either. All you are is an ordinary person, doing nothing and holding your hand out for a cookie that you do not deserve.

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-and-views/dl-opinion/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-good-man-20140213-32klv.html

Let's play the game of spot the logical fallacy.

I see appeal to personal experience and guilt by association.

This was just on the first read.

Feel free to add your own.

There are so many slogans in the article that come straight from a cultural studies or feminist course that it sounds like a parody.

Let us also, then, play the game of spot the feminist slogan (these are slogans that you find only within the discipline of feminism and other like-minded "progressive" groups that have little to no empirical evidence to support them or make no sense beyond the little circle of feminists).

I see: privilege, patriarchy, equality, sexist, positions of power, equal wages, oppression, racist, misogynists, and homophobic.

Feel free to add any you think make the list.

Pure crap, from start to finish.

Typical feminazi misandry.

Kat wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 8:38pm:

Pure crap, from start to finish. Typical feminazi misandry.

I concur. She's an oxygen thief.

The only way to resolve this is to surgically convert everyone into a hermaphrodite.

I find most feminists don't have any love in their lives , so they are happy to try and induce hate, which is , at least a strong emotion.   
The trick though is to treat them to the emotion that all humans dread.
Ignore them.
Treat them like they don't exist.
If there are feminists at a party just flirt with the other chicks and act as if they are invisible, drives them abso fing lutely nutz
;) ;)

I think you're right aqua in that the seeds of radical feminism starts with failed relationships. Feminist rants are merely revenge and attempts at compensation for not getting their ideal man, or even a half decent man (which is probably more a reflection of them than the men they were after). All the post-structuralist theory and self-righteousness is only added on later.  

Ford wouldn't even be aware of how totalitarian she sounds (this takes honest self-reflection). Her position is basically 'you're either with me or against me'; which is basically the position of every totalitarian and fascist.


This, for example, could have come straight from the politburo:


Quote:

Doing nothing, be it bad or good, is not enough to actually respect the concept of equality. Real action is required, even when it feels makes you feel awkward, even when it ruins the mood - even when it might shift the target of ridicule onto you.

Of all the "progressive" groups out there (anarchists, socialists, gay lobby, boat people lovers, civil libertarians etc. etc.) the feminists are by far the worst. I am yet to actually debate a feminist in a reasoned argument. Any criticism or scrutiny of their position is automatically interpreted as sexism or misogyny. And the instant retort is one of highly emotive abuse. At least the anarchists, socialists etc. that I've encountered and read will try to defend their position through a reasoned argument of some description, (although after about 3 or 4 exchanges the abuse will start). How the feminists have infiltrated the academe (a place supposedly of critical thinking) and managed to sustain their place is beyond me.

Removing them from the academe and public bureaucracies can only be done by withdrawing their funding.

Bitch needs to get back in the kitchen, cook dinner, put out for her man and STFU.

:)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 8:23pm:

Let's play the game of spot the logical fallacy. I see appeal to personal experience and guilt by association. This was just on the first read. Feel free to add your own.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

There are so many slogans in the article that come straight from a cultural studies or feminist course that it sounds like a parody. Let us also, then, play the game of spot the feminist slogan (these are slogans that you find only within the discipline of feminism and other like-minded "progressive" groups that have little to no empirical evidence to support them or make no sense beyond the little circle of feminists). I see: privilege, patriarchy, equality, sexist, positions of power, equal wages, oppression, racist, misogynists, and homophobic. Feel free to add any you think make the list.

Would you care to be more specific?

No a single new thing there for the 'oppressed' and badly beaten woman - who, in the case of the writer, is only known through her 'book larnin'.

I wouldn't pay it any mind.

She'll look great in the old ladies nursing home, childless and without her old and now deceased man's super and wage input all his life before he carks it from working too damned hard to satisfy her lust for material things.

Yellow Fever - got me a 22 year old law student who wants to live in sin with me while she 'bridges' to Oz, a 19 year old computer programing student who wants to marry me, and a 50 year old public servant with several properties who wants me there until we travel the world....

Now - that is one hard decision....  I'm afraid Western women will become a declining demographic as time goes by, if that one is anything to judge by, with her endless rhetoric and monologues against all things men.

MANkind - love it or leave it!

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 12:03pm:

Ford wouldn't even be aware of how totalitarian she sounds (this takes honest self-reflection). Her position is basically 'you're either with me or against me'; which is basically the position of every totalitarian and fascist.

Which is also pretty much the same as the conservative position. George "dubya" Bush said exactly the same thing while promoting his ill fated "war on terror".

It is also remarkably similiar to the conservatives veiw of Muslims. I have heard time and time again that unless your average muslim spends every waking hour publicly condemning terrorism, they are considered to be supporting it by their silence.

I have genuine sympathy for the cause of women striving for equal opportunities, being able to walk the streets safetly and freedom from the stereotypes and double standards of society. But I have no time for the hardcore "us and them" hatred of men. It is the right wing fascist branch of feminism.

aquascoot wrote on Feb 20^th, 2014 at 2:06pm:

I find most feminists don't have any love in their lives , so they are happy to try and induce hate, which is , at least a strong emotion.    The trick though is to treat them to the emotion that all humans dread. Ignore them. Treat them like they don't exist. If there are feminists at a party just flirt with the other chicks and act as if they are invisible, drives them abso fing lutely nutz ;) ;)

Should've been done when they first started acting up.  If some of that rampant insanity had been ignored and rejected right then and there instead of appeasing the poor dears, this country and many others would not be in the dire straits they are now.

Here's an example:-

https://sites.google.com/site/grappleruniversitypublications/home/department-of-irreverent-revolutionary-thought-dirt/gender-wage-gap-revisited-2013

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 3:18pm:

No a single new thing there for the 'oppressed' and badly beaten woman - who, in the case of the writer, is only known through her 'book larnin'. I wouldn't pay it any mind. She'll look great in the old ladies nursing home, childless and without her old and now deceased man's super and wage input all his life before he carks it from working too damned hard to satisfy her lust for material things. Yellow Fever - got me a 22 year old law student who wants to live in sin with me while she 'bridges' to Oz, a 19 year old computer programing student who wants to marry me, and a 50 year old public servant with several properties who wants me there until we travel the world.... Now - that is one hard decision....  I'm afraid Western women will become a declining demographic as time goes by, if that one is anything to judge by, with her endless rhetoric and monologues against all things men. MANkind - love it or leave it!

I sense much bitterness with misgonystic, vengeful and racist overtones. It must have been bad, whatever it was. :'(

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 12:03pm: Ford wouldn't even be aware of how totalitarian she sounds (this takes honest self-reflection). Her position is basically 'you're either with me or against me'; which is basically the position of every totalitarian and fascist. Which is also pretty much the same as the conservative position. George "dubya" Bush said exactly the same thing while promoting his ill fated "war on terror". It is also remarkably similiar to the conservatives veiw of Muslims. I have heard time and time again that unless your average muslim spends every waking hour publicly condemning terrorism, they are considered to be supporting it by their silence. I have genuine sympathy for the cause of women striving for equal opportunities, being able to walk the streets safetly and freedom from the stereotypes and double standards of society. But I have no time for the hardcore "us and them" hatred of men. It is the right wing fascist branch of feminism.

The militancy may be misguided, but I can understand it.

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 12:46am:

I sense much bitterness with misgonystic, vengeful and racist overtones. It must have been bad, whatever it was. :'(

Got anything to offer other than the same old feminist line of vitriol instead of discussion?

Any disagreement with the feminst line is 'woman-hating', any rejection of their tenets is 'revenge' on the poor dears, and how you derive racist from it is beyond me.  I never mentioned race.

Can't tell the poor dears they're wrong or you are a bad man; can't say they are doing often dreadful things to many without being called nasty to the poor dears; and I'll have a dollar each way on number seven in the ninth at Ascot.

Your response is a perfect example of the puerile and schoolyard antics of 'feminists' worldwide.

I support WOMEN in having a fair go - I do not, and never will, support feminism.  And, excuse me, but I will point out when and where 'feminists' and their like are wrong, as is my right.

Should you ever wish to discuss issues on their merits instead of the usual and out-worn mud-slinging - feel free.

;D     ;D      ;D      ;D       ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 12:52am:

The militancy may be misguided, but I can understand it.

Pray enlighten us, O Great  and Wise One - HOW and WHY do you understand it?

;D      ;D     etc

Oh, all right - I mentioned lovely Asian ladies in comparison to the harpies who masquerade as 'feminist' "women" these days here.

Not even a need for a decision....

I still want to know on what grounds you justify never-ending feminist jihads against 50% of the human race.  I know you can't in reality, but please try - just for the fun of it.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 1:10am:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:46am: I sense much bitterness with misgonystic, vengeful and racist overtones. It must have been bad, whatever it was. :'( Got anything to offer other than the same old feminist line of vitriol instead of discussion? Any disagreement with the feminst line is 'woman-hating', any rejection of their tenets is 'revenge' on the poor dears, and how you derive racist from it is beyond me.  I never mentioned race. Can't tell the poor dears they're wrong or you are a bad man; can't say they are doing often dreadful things to many without being called nasty to the poor dears; and I'll have a dollar each way on number seven in the ninth at Ascot. Your response is a perfect example of the puerile and schoolyard antics of 'feminists' worldwide. I support WOMEN in having a fair go - I do not, and never will, support feminism.  And, excuse me, but I will point out when and where 'feminists' and their like are wrong, as is my right. Should you ever wish to discuss issues on their merits instead of the usual and out-worn mud-slinging - feel free. ;D     ;D      ;D      ;D       ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D

It isn't your place to tell them that. They will find their own way.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 1:12am:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:52am: The militancy may be misguided, but I can understand it. Pray enlighten us, O Great  and Wise One - HOW and WHY do you understand it? ;D      ;D     etc Oh, all right - I mentioned lovely Asian ladies in comparison to the harpies who masquerade as 'feminist' "women" these days here. Not even a need for a decision.... I still want to know on what grounds you justify never-ending feminist jihads against 50% of the human race.  I know you can't in reality, but please try - just for the fun of it.

When people are frightened, they see monsters all around.

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 1:34am:

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 1:10am: Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:46am: I sense much bitterness with misgonystic, vengeful and racist overtones. It must have been bad, whatever it was. :'( Got anything to offer other than the same old feminist line of vitriol instead of discussion? Any disagreement with the feminst line is 'woman-hating', any rejection of their tenets is 'revenge' on the poor dears, and how you derive racist from it is beyond me.  I never mentioned race. Can't tell the poor dears they're wrong or you are a bad man; can't say they are doing often dreadful things to many without being called nasty to the poor dears; and I'll have a dollar each way on number seven in the ninth at Ascot. Your response is a perfect example of the puerile and schoolyard antics of 'feminists' worldwide. I support WOMEN in having a fair go - I do not, and never will, support feminism.  And, excuse me, but I will point out when and where 'feminists' and their like are wrong, as is my right. Should you ever wish to discuss issues on their merits instead of the usual and out-worn mud-slinging - feel free. ;D     ;D      ;D      ;D       ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D It isn't your place to tell them that. They will find their own way.

Sorry to step out of line and voice my objection to their latest rant and selfish move, mein Fuhrer!

A laugh a minute!  If they wish to continue to dispute realities such as 'wage gaps' which don't exist, and persist in lies and propaganda to prop up never-ending campaigns over utter bulldust - and they wish to do so on a genuinely equal basis - then they must be prepared, just like everyone else, to deal with the criticisms and disagreement of other.

Sorry 'bout that!  I have zero obligation to accept the approved feminist line and every right to criticise it - and feminists and the likes of you will not silence me.

Deal with it like adults or get off the train.

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 1:36am:

When people are frightened, they see monsters all around.

Now you are beginning to fairly and squarely place your 'feminists' in the context of their never-ending disputation of life etc - these and their running dogs are surrounded by monsters in their own minds - perhaps from this point you may be able to guide them gently into the lines of reason and away from their current emotive and false ideology.

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 12:27pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 8:23pm: Let's play the game of spot the logical fallacy. I see appeal to personal experience and guilt by association. This was just on the first read. Feel free to add your own. Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 8:37pm: There are so many slogans in the article that come straight from a cultural studies or feminist course that it sounds like a parody. Let us also, then, play the game of spot the feminist slogan (these are slogans that you find only within the discipline of feminism and other like-minded "progressive" groups that have little to no empirical evidence to support them or make no sense beyond the little circle of feminists). I see: privilege, patriarchy, equality, sexist, positions of power, equal wages, oppression, racist, misogynists, and homophobic. Feel free to add any you think make the list. Would you care to be more specific?

Sure.

Appeal to personal experience:


Quote:

If I had a dollar for every time I heard a man tell me that if I want his support to continue, I had better start being nicer to him

Guilt by association:


Quote:

The universal male decency we keep hearing about is largely a myth.

Quote:

cause, Good Men, every time do nothing in response to tired sexist jokes or victim blaming or discussions of ‘provocation’ in regards to gendered assault, you’re actually supporting the system that continues to oppress women.

Personal yarns might be popular amongst the sisterhood and "progressive" bloggers, but if you want to be taken seriously references and evidence need to be used. Notice there's not one reference in the rant? First year undergraduates are taught to aim for objectivity, write and analyse in the third person, remove yourself from the argument, and just present the evidence in the research. Ford does not do this; she is thoroughly immersed in her rant. Imagine a scientist trying to publish results on what he/she was "feeling", rather than observed experiment.

The guilt by association fallacy is the same argument the racists, and ironically the sexists she is against, use. The old racist arguments of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century revolved around witnessing a few people of a particular race act in a certain way, then extrapolating these acts to the whole race. Ford does the same. She picks out a few crimes or phenomena of men, then claims that all men who do not act out against them are just as bad as they. Of course, though, she wouldn't be aware that she's utilising argumentative strategies that the very people she is against once used. In feminists circles, righteous indignation trumps all. Logic, reason, evidence is secondary to their totalitarianism.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 10:23am:

The old racist arguments of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century revolved around witnessing a few people of a particular race act in a certain way, then extrapolating these acts to the whole race.

Are you seriously trying to suggest that this doesn't still happen today? It is the conservative MO.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 12:03pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 10:23am: The old racist arguments of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century revolved around witnessing a few people of a particular race act in a certain way, then extrapolating these acts to the whole race. Are you seriously trying to suggest that this doesn't still happen today? It is the conservative MO.

Not at all. But "progressive" feminists are supposed to be above stereotyping and generalisations based on race and sex/gender, yet they will use the same argumentation methods to push their agenda.

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 3:36pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 12:03pm: Ford wouldn't even be aware of how totalitarian she sounds (this takes honest self-reflection). Her position is basically 'you're either with me or against me'; which is basically the position of every totalitarian and fascist. Which is also pretty much the same as the conservative position. George "dubya" Bush said exactly the same thing while promoting his ill fated "war on terror". It is also remarkably similiar to the conservatives veiw of Muslims. I have heard time and time again that unless your average muslim spends every waking hour publicly condemning terrorism, they are considered to be supporting it by their silence. I have genuine sympathy for the cause of women striving for equal opportunities, being able to walk the streets safetly and freedom from the stereotypes and double standards of society. But I have no time for the hardcore "us and them" hatred of men. It is the right wing fascist branch of feminism.

It's not exclusive to the far right. The far left do it as well. Ford is far left, not far right. One major difference between the two wings is that the far right are usually honest in who they intolerant of. The left, on the other hand, hide their bigotry behind cute words like "diversity", "tolerance", etc. It seems if they just add a cute slogan on the end it makes their bigotry okay.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 12:45pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:03pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 10:23am: The old racist arguments of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century revolved around witnessing a few people of a particular race act in a certain way, then extrapolating these acts to the whole race. Are you seriously trying to suggest that this doesn't still happen today? It is the conservative MO. Not at all. But "progressive" feminists are supposed to be above stereotyping and generalisations based on race and sex/gender, yet they will use the same argumentation methods to push their agenda.

Yes - their education and outstanding personal people skills etc are supposed to elevate them above the ways of the peons they are seeking to set right in their evil ways.

Just being blunt there. 8-)

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 10:23am:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 12:27pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 8:23pm: Let's play the game of spot the logical fallacy. I see appeal to personal experience and guilt by association. This was just on the first read. Feel free to add your own. Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 8:37pm: There are so many slogans in the article that come straight from a cultural studies or feminist course that it sounds like a parody. Let us also, then, play the game of spot the feminist slogan (these are slogans that you find only within the discipline of feminism and other like-minded "progressive" groups that have little to no empirical evidence to support them or make no sense beyond the little circle of feminists). I see: privilege, patriarchy, equality, sexist, positions of power, equal wages, oppression, racist, misogynists, and homophobic. Feel free to add any you think make the list. Would you care to be more specific? Sure. Appeal to personal experience: Quote: If I had a dollar for every time I heard a man tell me that if I want his support to continue, I had better start being nicer to him Guilt by association: [quote]The universal male decency we keep hearing about is largely a myth.

Quote:

cause, Good Men, every time do nothing in response to tired sexist jokes or victim blaming or discussions of ‘provocation’ in regards to gendered assault, you’re actually supporting the system that continues to oppress women.

Personal yarns might be popular amongst the sisterhood and "progressive" bloggers, but if you want to be taken seriously references and evidence need to be used. Notice there's not one reference in the rant? First year undergraduates are taught to aim for objectivity, write and analyse in the third person, remove yourself from the argument, and just present the evidence in the research. Ford does not do this; she is thoroughly immersed in her rant. Imagine a scientist trying to publish results on what he/she was "feeling", rather than observed experiment.

The guilt by association fallacy is the same argument the racists, and ironically the sexists she is against, use. The old racist arguments of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century revolved around witnessing a few people of a particular race act in a certain way, then extrapolating these acts to the whole race. Ford does the same. She picks out a few crimes or phenomena of men, then claims that all men who do not act out against them are just as bad as they. Of course, though, she wouldn't be aware that she's utilising argumentative strategies that the very people she is against once used. In feminists circles, righteous indignation trumps all. Logic, reason, evidence is secondary to their totalitarianism.
[/quote]
To write objectively means to write with dispassion!

Sure, she can be criticised for being blatantly guilty of not writing with objectivity.. but objectivity is difficult to achieve and to try and say otherwise is disingenious. Summing things up, to not admit that the dispassionate world around us is flawed and needs fixing seems to be your aim!

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:53am:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 1:34am: Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 1:10am: Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 12:46am: I sense much bitterness with misgonystic, vengeful and racist overtones. It must have been bad, whatever it was. :'( Got anything to offer other than the same old feminist line of vitriol instead of discussion? Any disagreement with the feminst line is 'woman-hating', any rejection of their tenets is 'revenge' on the poor dears, and how you derive racist from it is beyond me.  I never mentioned race. Can't tell the poor dears they're wrong or you are a bad man; can't say they are doing often dreadful things to many without being called nasty to the poor dears; and I'll have a dollar each way on number seven in the ninth at Ascot. Your response is a perfect example of the puerile and schoolyard antics of 'feminists' worldwide. I support WOMEN in having a fair go - I do not, and never will, support feminism.  And, excuse me, but I will point out when and where 'feminists' and their like are wrong, as is my right. Should you ever wish to discuss issues on their merits instead of the usual and out-worn mud-slinging - feel free. ;D     ;D      ;D      ;D       ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D      ;D It isn't your place to tell them that. They will find their own way. Sorry to step out of line and voice my objection to their latest rant and selfish move, mein Fuhrer! A laugh a minute!  If they wish to continue to dispute realities such as 'wage gaps' which don't exist, and persist in lies and propaganda to prop up never-ending campaigns over utter bulldust - and they wish to do so on a genuinely equal basis - then they must be prepared, just like everyone else, to deal with the criticisms and disagreement of other. Sorry 'bout that!  I have zero obligation to accept the approved feminist line and every right to criticise it - and feminists and the likes of you will not silence me. Deal with it like adults or get off the train.

Abusive rants aren't constructive criticism.

Trouble is that it is further flawed and indeed ripped to shreds by the likes of our Clementine here....

Not one iota of seeking an answer - just slinging garbage at her purported enemies - most of who are astounded, and quite rightly so - at being even considered as such.

The creation of more enemies by attacking the innocent will do nothing to resolve your problems - it will only make them worse by multiplying your self-created enemies.  Make enough enemies and one day one of them will get you.

I think these loud minorities and their pissant issues are long overdue for the scrapheap.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 9:55am:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 22nd, 2014 at 1:36am: When people are frightened, they see monsters all around. Now you are beginning to fairly and squarely place your 'feminists' in the context of their never-ending disputation of life etc - these and their running dogs are surrounded by monsters in their own minds - perhaps from this point you may be able to guide them gently into the lines of reason and away from their current emotive and false ideology.

They're not my monsters.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2014 at 10:23am:

Winston Smith wrote on Feb 21st, 2014 at 12:27pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 8:23pm: Let's play the game of spot the logical fallacy. I see appeal to personal experience and guilt by association. This was just on the first read. Feel free to add your own. Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19th, 2014 at 8:37pm: There are so many slogans in the article that come straight from a cultural studies or feminist course that it sounds like a parody. Let us also, then, play the game of spot the feminist slogan (these are slogans that you find only within the discipline of feminism and other like-minded "progressive" groups that have little to no empirical evidence to support them or make no sense beyond the little circle of feminists). I see: privilege, patriarchy, equality, sexist, positions of power, equal wages, oppression, racist, misogynists, and homophobic. Feel free to add any you think make the list. Would you care to be more specific? Sure. Appeal to personal experience: Quote: If I had a dollar for every time I heard a man tell me that if I want his support to continue, I had better start being nicer to him Guilt by association: [quote]The universal male decency we keep hearing about is largely a myth.

Quote:

cause, Good Men, every time do nothing in response to tired sexist jokes or victim blaming or discussions of ‘provocation’ in regards to gendered assault, you’re actually supporting the system that continues to oppress women.

Personal yarns might be popular amongst the sisterhood and "progressive" bloggers, but if you want to be taken seriously references and evidence need to be used. Notice there's not one reference in the rant? First year undergraduates are taught to aim for objectivity, write and analyse in the third person, remove yourself from the argument, and just present the evidence in the research. Ford does not do this; she is thoroughly immersed in her rant. Imagine a scientist trying to publish results on what he/she was "feeling", rather than observed experiment.

The guilt by association fallacy is the same argument the racists, and ironically the sexists she is against, use. The old racist arguments of the 17th, 18th, and early 19th century revolved around witnessing a few people of a particular race act in a certain way, then extrapolating these acts to the whole race. Ford does the same. She picks out a few crimes or phenomena of men, then claims that all men who do not act out against them are just as bad as they. Of course, though, she wouldn't be aware that she's utilising argumentative strategies that the very people she is against once used. In feminists circles, righteous indignation trumps all. Logic, reason, evidence is secondary to their totalitarianism.
[/quote]

Thank you for elaborating.


Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 19^th, 2014 at 8:37pm:

There are so many slogans in the article that come straight from a cultural studies or feminist course that it sounds like a parody. Let us also, then, play the game of spot the feminist slogan (these are slogans that you find only within the discipline of feminism and other like-minded "progressive" groups that have little to no empirical evidence to support them or make no sense beyond the little circle of feminists). I see: privilege, patriarchy, equality, sexist, positions of power, equal wages, oppression, racist, misogynists, and homophobic. Feel free to add any you think make the list.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 11:54am:

I think you're right aqua in that the seeds of radical feminism starts with failed relationships. Feminist rants are merely revenge and attempts at compensation for not getting their ideal man, or even a half decent man (which is probably more a reflection of them than the men they were after). All the post-structuralist theory and self-righteousness is only added on later.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 21^st, 2014 at 12:10pm:

Of all the "progressive" groups out there (anarchists, socialists, gay lobby, boat people lovers, civil libertarians etc. etc.) the feminists are by far the worst. I am yet to actually debate a feminist in a reasoned argument. Any criticism or scrutiny of their position is automatically interpreted as sexism or misogyny. And the instant retort is one of highly emotive abuse. At least the anarchists, socialists etc. that I've encountered and read will try to defend their position through a reasoned argument of some description, (although after about 3 or 4 exchanges the abuse will start). How the feminists have infiltrated the academe (a place supposedly of critical thinking) and managed to sustain their place is beyond me. Removing them from the academe and public bureaucracies can only be done by withdrawing their funding.

Are you suggesting are no legitimate concerns or grievances being raised by the individuals that belong to 'progressive' groups?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2014 at 1:29am:

Trouble is that it is further flawed and indeed ripped to shreds by the likes of our Clementine here.... Not one iota of seeking an answer - just slinging garbage at her purported enemies - most of who are astounded, and quite rightly so - at being even considered as such. The creation of more enemies by attacking the innocent will do nothing to resolve your problems - it will only make them worse by multiplying your self-created enemies.  Make enough enemies and one day one of them will get you. I think these loud minorities and their pissant issues are long overdue for the scrapheap.

I see it as a cry for help.

Men are from Mars women are from Venus :)

http://www.captainleisuretees.com/i/s_p/f__backtothekitchent-shirt.jpg