Once in a blue moon I’ll Google my username to see what comes up. This time I came across a blog post. I believe it is a text from a video response done to me from over a year ago but I’m not clear on that. But who wrote it is less important than what it says as some of the ideas were expressed by a number of people.
The writer is responding to a video where I discuss the history of women, feminism and the draft in America. They begin by saying;
“It wasn’t even 90 seconds into your video when you drop this astounding strawman: “lately the people who are putting this argument forward are saying it with an implied hostile tone that suggests that America’s male-only draft is the fault of women, especially feminists.””
It seems that you don’t understand what a strawman is. If you did you’d know that the entire premise of your blog post is exactly that; a strawman.
I start out my video with;
“An MRA supporter accused me of being biased when it comes to the topic of feminism and men’s rights in a ZOMGITS comments section. I realized he was both right and wrong at the same time. My last three videos on these issues have been critical of feminism so lets have one that discusses some of feminism’s positive aspects. That way the MRAs will feel I’m giving equal weight to both sides of the issue which is why I’m doing this video about male hypoagency and the draft.”
I then say;
“One of the things that gets tossed about in the conflict between feminists and MRAs is this whole; “Why is it men can be drafted and not women?!” talking point.”
Which shows that perhaps the one with the listening problem here is you, not me.
I said; “An MRA supporter.” As in; One (1).
I then say;
“Why is it men can be drafted and not women?!” is a question that is raised by MRAs. It’s two separate statements. Two separate ideas.
The writer merges my reference to one individual with my reference to MRAs asking about women being drafted to create the strawman presented. I also mention other MRAs I’ve spoken to who have blamed feminists for not doing their part to fight the male only draft (inferring that it is somehow the fault of feminists for not providing the tipping-of-the-scales weight they could have brought to the issue).
The writer presents an assumptive strawman suggesting I indicated all or most MRAs make this claim. I never did this. Interestingly enough quite a few MRAs did make this claim (placing fault for the male only draft on feminists) in comments so perhaps more do so then I thought.
I do comment later on that growing up I’d heard friends and others blame feminists for the present male only draft (as I did as well).
It was the sort of bar/ pub talk that lads eventually stumbled into when talking in their cups. It’s clear that I’m referring to MRAs/ people I’ve spoken to who have expressed this idea and if you’re suggesting I’ve had time to converse with almost the entire MRA community in the world?
That’s a huge stretch.
I’m aware that there seems to be a problem in the MRA community with accepting anything that contradicts the construct and ideas that they’re trying to put forward but if eye witness, self-provided testimony on something as simple as;
“My friends and I would get drunk when we were 18 and sometimes bitch about feminists and the draft” is too extraordinary for you to accept then all I can really say is you’ve got an incredibly warped perspective on what is extraordinary and what isn’t.
The interesting thing is that multiple MRAs in my comment section presented exactly this strawman that the blog writer who responded to my video presents. And I said these exact words I’m saying now to many people in my comment section on the original video. But none of them were interested in listening, they were only interested in pursuing the fiction the’yd created for reasons that in fairness are fairly common to the human condition and not exclusive to the MRM.
Which brings me to why I’m revisiting this issue. Posting transcripts to videos is a rather good idea, and if this blog I’m responding to is a transcript from a video I must thank them for giving me the idea.
It gives one the ability to look at what someone is saying and really examine their words. In hindsight I’m wondering if perhaps I’d presented a similar transcript it might have helped matters. So I think in the future I’ll type out a transcript of what I say. Perhaps it will help people follow along and prevent future incidents like this where people respond not to what I said but what they think I said (or wanted to hear me say).
I’d suggest that people go enjoy reading the blog post. While the starting point is based on a strawman of my arguments there are some interesting ideas and topics brought up overall that are worthy of inspection and addressing.
Interestingly enough; the point I made in my video was recently proven. The DOD removed the restriction against female infantry and now the question of the constitutionality of the male only draft can be brought before the courts and struck down.
Which was the whole point of my video. I was hoping MRA activists could be a part of that process. A pity they weren’t.
It’s still not too late.
Pentagon lifts restriction against female combat infantry
blog post i’m responding to.
Follow me on YouTube, facebook andTwitter!