Apparently it’s not discrimination against boys; it’s just genetics.
Follow me on:
I get a lot of MRAs and MRA supporters telling me that women not being allowed to serve in the military makes them privileged and not discriminated against.
This is one of those ridiculous arguments that’s fairly easy to deal with. The whole position is based on a mix of revisionist history and twisting of social perception that takes for example, the trials of being a stay at home mom, repackages them and puts them on a pedestal of privilege.
Contrary to the opinion of the ignorant? Being a mom, especially a single caretaker, is a hard job. One you can’t quit without dire repercussions.
According to them a woman gets to have the privilege of a man taking care of her, a man who pays for a nice house with plenty of food and all the securities that come from being married to an employed man without any of the stress that men who are forced to go out into the cruel, hard world have to face!
Why these men even fight wars for these women, against their own will! True that hasn’t happened in over 35 years (of which during America has been continuously at war) but we’re sure it’s going to happen any second now!
In their minds women are regulated to the status of an older child who has been given some extra, undeserved privileges.
This is a throwback argument to a 1950s mentality with a veneer of modern day jealousy over the advances women have gained in society that these people feel came without any cost.
Every now and again I get a post in my comments section on one of the videos I’ve done addressing women and history that I feel is worthy of singling out for attention.
The following comment is a mixed use of fallacies, complaints about my treatment of MRAs and their supporters, and a vague reference to a highly interesting article by Marine Corps Capt. Katie Petronio who weighed in on the issue of women in combat infantry roles.
Fallacies are a dime a dozen in comment sections so I wouldn’t normally bother to comment and the only validity I see in complaining about my correcting those frequent uses of fallacy is if you’re suggesting I’m wasting my time trying to teach numpties (a potentially valid point). But it’s my time to spend and for me? Finding the occasional pearl among the garbage oysters is a rewarding experience.
I’m primarily focusing on the last two sentences of the comment as the first section isn’t really worthy of addressing since it’s primarily a clairvoyant fantasy void of fact and long on personal opinion.
Before I begin I’ll point out that referring to me as “Ms. Philip”?
Using gender as an insult is a classic example of misogyny/misandry which is gender-oriented bigotry.
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;
In an attempt to drive up more publicity A Voice For Men (AVFM) has posted the following captioned picture on their site.
It’s designed to bring attention to the problem of false rape accusations.
There have been a number of reactions to this piece of marketing designed to promote the AVFM message. Powerful imagery with a simple (and thus rather vague) statement that leaves it entirely up to the viewer just what they take away from it. It’s a fine example of political advertising.
Rather than respond with words I’ve decided to respond to their captioned picture with one of my own.
Here it is.
Interestingly enough I’d originally gone with this version;
Which while I found to be equally effective it didn’t have quite the same impact as my above image (as a response to the AVFM captioned picture).
Can you spot the difference and say why?
Follow me on;
Image brought to my attention by:
On their facebook
Creators of the Original “Don’t Be That Girl” image. ***Note: I’ve received a confirmation from an AVFM staff member regarding a comment that states they did not create the “Don’t Be That Girl” image.***
edited may 14 2013 to correct link
In the spirit of the new topic Thunderf00t recently put forward in his video (specifically the underbar description) which I shall dub;
I’ve decided to have a bit of fun and turn the tables on Thunderf00t and ask him;
Why can’t Thunderf00t be more like Indiana Jones?
I decided to post this here because it contains arguments from a commenter from TheFunnyFeminist’s blog about Rush Limbaugh’s verbal attack of Sandra Fluke. It was such a classic example of some amazing use of fallacy that I wanted to keep it close for posterity’s sake.The comments in question were done on January 10th, 2013 by commenter Pheonixjeff and are fairly representative of the kind of noise you get from commenters around the internet.
The following are excerpts from our comments on TheFunnyFeminist’s blog:
Me: Pheonixjeff is pulling a tu quoque fallacy here (in part). The rest;
A. The attack was made against women. Not white women, much as some would like to portray it.
B. Just because others suffer apparently worse discrimination doesn’t mean you can’t comment on an inequality or discriminatory act.
In that case let’s stop discussing all rights issues in America because the Iraqi citizens have had it so badly due to the last ten years of war inflicted on them, shall we? That certainly outweighs any Western suffering!
See how invalid my statement was? Pheonixjeff is doing the same.