Why We Don’t Try To Reason With Feminists


Why We Don’t Try To Reason With Feminists

John Hembling (JtO)

4 June 2011

 I had seen the below following posting only a few days ago, and I think that this particular text needs to be read by more people, thus I have slightly reformatted the text, but it is the words written by John Hembling, although I agree with all of it.

 

Where is the counter argument?

 

I’ve been an outspoken Men’s Rights Activist (MRA) for a few years now, and I’ve noticed that despite the overwhelming opposition to any argument for male rights, there are no substantive counter-arguments. No arguments whatsoever. Opponents of men’s rights have no trouble reciting false facts, debunked talking points, fabricated studies, and obvious lies in support of their religion of female victimhood and male villainy, but lies are not arguments. They’re just lies.

 

  •  1 in 4 women is raped, sexually assaulted, battered or abused – is a lie 1
  • The wage gap – is a lie 2 3
  • Women’s historical oppression – is a lie
  • Rape culture – is a lie 4 5
  • The inherent violence of masculinity – is a lie
  • The inherent goodness of femininity – is a lie
  • The idea that feminism is about equality – is a lie

 

By contrast, whenever I or any other MRA fields an argument in defense of men’s rights, or critical of feminism, it is never met with a counter argument. The arguments of MRAs are met with accusations, shaming language, insults, threats, blackmail, violence, censure, censorship, cooked up criminal charges, vandalism, imprisonment and other calumny.

My article critical of the institution of marriage was answered by feminists  accusing me of being gay,
… of being bitter, of having a small penis, or social ineptitude, of financial impotence, of living in my mother’s basement, of body odour, and of tenancies to hatred, violence, and pedophilia. Of those critical of my article, none actually addressed the substance of the argument made. None.

My article deconstructing the feminist goal of reversing the burden of proof in accusation of sexual assault was met by feminists who called me a rapist, a bigot, a woman beater, a loser, a violent criminal, and a sociopath. Not even one criticism addressed the substance of my article, and Jessica Valenti likely still wants women to be killed.

One of the first articles I wrote exploring the relationship between central banking and the funding stream of organized feminism was answered by a feminist on a different continent whose best rebuttal was to re-present each point of my argument – leaving out, and adding, key points to make them easy to refute in a straw-man attack – then to call me a stalker. A stalker on another continent.

In response to my arguments, I have been variously subject to shaming attacks, censorship, straw-man arguments, false accusations of violent crimes by people thousands of miles away, accusations of pedophilia, of rape, denounced as a psychopath, a serial killer, as maladjusted, as a loser, as a racist, and all manner of villainy. Almost none of my philosophical opponents have fielded anything approaching a substantive argument, or have addressed me with anything except lies and abuse, and a few threats of death too.

I won’t make any pious declarations of my own lack of violent, criminal or
deviant behavior. Why bother? I also will not shut up and go away. I will never shut up.

I. Will. Never. Shut. Up.

What I will do for my loudest and most amoral critics is to offer a few suggestions:

  • Admit that your position is unethical, and that you are purely self centered
    and devoid of anything like an ethical compass

  • Admit that your continued insistence on women’s eternal victimhood is designed
    to take adult agency away from the members of the sexual demographic you
    supposedly care so much about

  • Admit that you want to force women’s and men’s behavior into a mode of compliant
    service to your own greed and sadism

  • Admit thatyourethicis built on lies and violence
  • Admit to yourself that even though you lack the muscle and the courage to commit
    violence yourself, your philosophy depends absolutely on violence done by others
    on your behalf

  • Admit that those who do violence on your behalf, when they have scrubbed the
    field of anyone who dares to disagree – those enforcers will turn on you

  • Recognize that whenyourpoliticalwillhas been imposed by force on everybody around you, you will discoverthatyouare locked into a tiny cage as well
You see, I recognize that in spite of my optimism and my repeated attempts to open dialog or discussion with the ideological opponents of the men’s rights movement – there will be no civilized discourse between us. The reason is that feminism’s active proponents have no interest in truth, nor in justice, nor in human rights, nor in protecting anyone from harm, least of all women.

 

Despite a nearly omnipresent narrative of “protecting women” mainstream feminism is a sham which depends on escalating social carnage to maintain a control on public conscience and to secure streams of funding.

I recognize that the opponents of the men’s rights movement are organized,

…violent, hateful bigots, and the only reason you cannot be correctly called criminals is that your ideology now controls the courts, and thus the definition of what it means to be a criminal.
I also recognize that soon, individuals doing nothing more corrosive than simply speaking out, will soon be named criminal.

A man I held in high esteem recently died, and I will repeat a statement of his now. “When your conscience says the law is immoral, don’t follow it.”

Past and present efforts to silence, shame, marginalize, and subvert the efforts of men’s rights activists demonstrate that what we are saying about our opponents, the enemies of human rights, is not exaggeration, or conspiracy theory, instead it is understatement.

I’ll restate what I said earlier.

I. Will. Never. Shut. Up.

The fact that shutting me up, and shutting up other MRAs is a major goal is illustrative of just what we oppose. The truth does not require state funded enforcers. Now, in addition to not shutting up, and in light of my, and other’s increased understanding of just who and what you are who oppose the men’s movement – namely that you are violent, lying hypocrites lacking interest in truth, and consumed with a self serving philosophy which relies on escalating harm to those you pretend to protect. I don’t mind telling you, I am no longer here to debate, or to reason, or to converse, or to hope you may be reached by logic or evidence.

I am here to fuck your shit up. And in that, I am not alone. Now I don’t mean to stoop to the use of lies or violence. You are practiced at those tactics, and frankly, I don’t need them.
You may also wonder, what can a few disgruntled MRAs do that you should be concerned about? And to that, I can only say – watch, and learn.


Footnotes:

[2]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704415104576250672504707048.html?mod=wsj_share_reddit

[3]: http://consad.com/index.php?page=an-analysis-of-reasons-for-the-disparity-in-wages-between-men-and-women

[4]: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv09.pdf

[5]: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv10.pdf


File translated from
TEX
by
TTH
,
version 4.03.
On 26 Jul 2014, 13:37.

Please Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s