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


Sure.

Appeal to personal experience:

Quote:


Guilt by association:

Quote:


Quote:



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.

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.

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. 

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.