A Woman Against Feminism And For Men's Rights
Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men
This list really stands on its own, and doesn't need an introduction. Plus, there are three bonus indicators!
Twenty One Indicators of Systemic Discrimination Against Men
The American woman by the 1960s lived in the nation with the world's highest standard of living and owned 65% of the wealth in that nation.
Feminists "felt victimized", however, and convinced American women that they are "discriminated against".
Never have they been required to nor been able to produce a shred of statistical evidence to back up that claim.
Twenty one key statistical indicators each illustrate how men have been and are being systematically discriminated against by government fiat.
1. WEALTH: Women hold 65% of the country's wealth [Fortune Magazine]
2. CHILD CUSTODY: Women receive custody of 92% of the children of divorce and illegitimacy, and men only 4%. [Department of Health & Human Services]
3. INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or harassment lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women [Dept. Labor]
4. SUICIDE: Men's suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than women's [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 males vs 5,700 females]
5. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women's [National Center for Health Statistics -- males 72.3 yrs vs females 79 yrs] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs.
6. AFFIRMATIVE ACTION: Men are discriminated against BY DESIGN through affirmative action.
7. FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters.8. VOTE: Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent.
9. WAR: Men, not women, fight and die in battle [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women] while women sue the taxpayer when they have their butt pinched.
10. WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Men account for more than 95% of workplace fatalities.
11. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women [Dept. Health & Human Services -- 26,710 men vs 5,700 women]
12. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]
13. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]
14. JUSTICE SYSTEM BIAS: Even though the amount of the average "child support payment" due from women is half the amount due from men, and even though women are twice as likely as men to default on those payments, fathers are 97% of "child support" collections prosecutions [Census Bureau]
15. WELFARE: Even though men are the recipients of less than 10% of all welfare disbursements, men are required to refund welfare payments made to women.
16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade girls were able to correctly answer basic math and physics questions, less than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are men.
17. HIGHER EDUCATION: There are more than 200 all-female colleges for women and now not one single all-male college for men. 5.8% fewer men than women are enrolled in 4 year colleges, even though two thirds of those who score higher than 550 in SAT Math are males. In 1993 only 44.5% of college enrollment were men, and that figure has declined since then. Only 45.8% of of bachelor's degrees were conferred to men in 1992, even though 98.2% of the top fiftieth percentile of the GRE are men, and ZERO PERCENT of American high school girls correctly answered 28 out of 67 TIMSS advanced math questions. Only 38.4% of private 4 year college students were men as of 1990, and this figure has declined since then.
18. LEGAL SYSTEM BIAS: 96% of physical altercations resulting in injury to a spouse occurs AFTER the date of separation. [Read: spousal abuse laws that pretend that husbands are dangerous discriminate against husbands when we know that only a very small percent of domestic violence is associated with them]. [Chadwick and Heaton, "Statistical Handbook of the American Family"]
19. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study shows that women are the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female, Congress passed the obviously anti-male VAWA and VAWA II.which are known would make the problem far worse. [Read: despite the fact we discriminate against husbands in protective orders, women still cause more than half of domestic altercations because they know they can get away with it].
20. CHILD VIOLENCE: Even though mothers commit 55% of child murders and biological fathers commit 6%, even though NIS-3 shows that Mother-only households are 3 times more fatal to children than Father-only households, children are systematically removed from the natural fathers who are their most effective protectors and men are imprisoned at rate 20 times that of women.
21. FAMILY BREAKDOWN: The US Surgeon General notes that divorce is more harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 Trillion of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family stability.
22. WOMEN PILOTS: Even though women pilots have an accident rate four timesthat of men pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of passengers and hire women pilots anyway.
23. WOMEN DRIVERS: Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of non-alcohol-related crashes.
24. INCARCERATION: Even though feminists brag that 1.4 million American brides commit adultery, and even though women file more than 90,000 false allegations of rape, every year, only 99,000 of the 1.8 million Americans behind bars are women.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Friday, December 29, 2006
Feminists Push for Shutting Down Men’s Rights Sites Under the Cover of Hate Speech Legislation
Dateline: Canada
By: Jim Hodgins of The National Post (article now removed)
Via: The Honor Network
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)
A federally funded report says “masculinists” are orchestrating a backlash against feminism and blaming women for oppressing and discriminating against men.
The report’s authors claim that masculinists portray men as victims and link feminism with boys’ poor performance in schools, male suicide, loss of male identity and discriminatory divorce and child custody laws.
“A process of levelling the power relationships of men over women is taking hold, not only to mask continued inequality but also to attack some of the gains made by the women’s movement,” says the $75,000 report, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse.
The report says “masculinist discourse” aims to discredit feminism and challenge the gains made by women in education, at work and in family life.
The report was written in response to a call from Status of Women Canada, a federal department, to research the subject: “Where have all the women gone? Changing shifts in policy discourses.”
A disclaimer on the front of the report says, “This document expresses the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the official policy of Status of Women Canada or the Government of Canada.”
Among the report’s recommendations is that an organization similar to Hate Watch be established to monitor men’s groups on the Web, that inciting hatred on the basis of gender should be a hate crime and that women’s groups establish a network to counter the masculinists’ views.
Men’s groups listed in an appendix to the report said they were outraged at being “smeared.”
Ken Wiebe, from British Columbia, said his Web site, fathers.bc.ca, was set up as a resource centre for fathers who have had trouble in the divorce courts. He denied it promotes hatred of women and said it demands equality.
“There is no question that I have very little patience for feminists, especially the radical variety of feminism here in Canada,” he said. “But I have a wife, I have daughters. This notion that because we are opposed to the feminists’ political agenda, that that somehow equates to a dislike of women, is just propaganda. That’s some kind of smear campaign.”
Mickey MacMillan, of Kamloops Parents of Broken Families, said he was angry at being put on the “hit list.” “All I’ve ever done is advocate for equal parenting,” said Mr. MacMillan, who represented Canada as a boxer in the 1962 Commonwealth Games.
“I have no agenda against women. I don’t like feminists because I think they’re radical and I think they’re against men, but I don’t think they should try to criminalize me. And my government paying for it, it is a disgrace.”
- Jim Hodgins, of the Canadian Committee for Fairness in Family Law in Ontario,
By: Jim Hodgins of The National Post (article now removed)
Via: The Honor Network
Priority News Exchange Program News Item (PNEP)
A federally funded report says “masculinists” are orchestrating a backlash against feminism and blaming women for oppressing and discriminating against men.
The report’s authors claim that masculinists portray men as victims and link feminism with boys’ poor performance in schools, male suicide, loss of male identity and discriminatory divorce and child custody laws.
“A process of levelling the power relationships of men over women is taking hold, not only to mask continued inequality but also to attack some of the gains made by the women’s movement,” says the $75,000 report, School Success by Gender: A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse.
The report says “masculinist discourse” aims to discredit feminism and challenge the gains made by women in education, at work and in family life.
The report was written in response to a call from Status of Women Canada, a federal department, to research the subject: “Where have all the women gone? Changing shifts in policy discourses.”
A disclaimer on the front of the report says, “This document expresses the views of the author and does not necessarily represent the official policy of Status of Women Canada or the Government of Canada.”
Among the report’s recommendations is that an organization similar to Hate Watch be established to monitor men’s groups on the Web, that inciting hatred on the basis of gender should be a hate crime and that women’s groups establish a network to counter the masculinists’ views.
Men’s groups listed in an appendix to the report said they were outraged at being “smeared.”
Ken Wiebe, from British Columbia, said his Web site, fathers.bc.ca, was set up as a resource centre for fathers who have had trouble in the divorce courts. He denied it promotes hatred of women and said it demands equality.
“There is no question that I have very little patience for feminists, especially the radical variety of feminism here in Canada,” he said. “But I have a wife, I have daughters. This notion that because we are opposed to the feminists’ political agenda, that that somehow equates to a dislike of women, is just propaganda. That’s some kind of smear campaign.”
Mickey MacMillan, of Kamloops Parents of Broken Families, said he was angry at being put on the “hit list.” “All I’ve ever done is advocate for equal parenting,” said Mr. MacMillan, who represented Canada as a boxer in the 1962 Commonwealth Games.
“I have no agenda against women. I don’t like feminists because I think they’re radical and I think they’re against men, but I don’t think they should try to criminalize me. And my government paying for it, it is a disgrace.”
- Jim Hodgins, of the Canadian Committee for Fairness in Family Law in Ontario,
The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Men's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic. Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men. Male gynocentrists use them, too.
Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.
Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.
Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at women."
"You are so negative!"
Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women.
Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance like a man!"
"You're afraid of a strong woman!"
Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing "Chicken Little").
Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up like a man!"
"You guys don't have it as nearly as bad as us women!"
"You're just afraid of losing your male privileges."
"Your fragile male ego ..."
"Wow! You guys need to get a grip!"
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male.
Examples:
"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in boys. I'm interested in real men."
"Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."
Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) - The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.
Examples:
"You guys are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man's legitimate freedom of expression.
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) - The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.
Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."
Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.
Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the KKK."
"... more anti-feminist zaniness"
Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.
Examples:
"Are you gay?"
"I need a real man, not a sissy."
"You're such a wimp."
Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women.
Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"
Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general.
Examples:
"You misogynist creep!"
"Why do you hate women?"
"Do you love your mother?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of women."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view women as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of women!!"
"You are going to make me cry."
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of "argumentum ad misericordiam" (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or "argumentum in terrorem" (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).
Charge of Instability (Code White) - The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.
Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits.
Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) - The All-That-Glitters Charge
Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences.
Examples:
"If you didn't go after bimbos, then ..."
"How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?"
Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, "high-maintanence" women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) - The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.
Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"Creep!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"
Response: This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.
Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat."
"C'mon! Men are doers, not quitters."
Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) - The Pink Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.
Examples:
"No woman will marry you with that attitude."
"Creeps like you will never get laid!"
Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Pink Whip" is to realize that a man's happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).
Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man's insecurities and shut down debate. They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions. Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks.
Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.
Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at women."
"You are so negative!"
Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women.
Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance like a man!"
"You're afraid of a strong woman!"
Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing "Chicken Little").
Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up like a man!"
"You guys don't have it as nearly as bad as us women!"
"You're just afraid of losing your male privileges."
"Your fragile male ego ..."
"Wow! You guys need to get a grip!"
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male.
Examples:
"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in boys. I'm interested in real men."
"Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."
Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) - The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.
Examples:
"You guys are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."
Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man's legitimate freedom of expression.
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) - The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.
Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."
Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) - The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.
Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the KKK."
"... more anti-feminist zaniness"
Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.
Examples:
"Are you gay?"
"I need a real man, not a sissy."
"You're such a wimp."
Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women.
Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"
Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men. Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general.
Examples:
"You misogynist creep!"
"Why do you hate women?"
"Do you love your mother?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of women."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view women as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of women!!"
"You are going to make me cry."
Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of "argumentum ad misericordiam" (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or "argumentum in terrorem" (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).
Charge of Instability (Code White) - The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.
Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits.
Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) - The All-That-Glitters Charge
Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences.
Examples:
"If you didn't go after bimbos, then ..."
"How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?"
Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, "high-maintanence" women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife).
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) - The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.
Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"Creep!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"
Response: This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.
Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat."
"C'mon! Men are doers, not quitters."
Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) - The Pink Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.
Examples:
"No woman will marry you with that attitude."
"Creeps like you will never get laid!"
Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Pink Whip" is to realize that a man's happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)