| Feminists Verbal Tactics. |
 |  |  |
| From other men's sites: " COUNTERING FEMINIST VERBAL TACTICS Countering Feminist Verbal Tactics By Nicholas Davidson (Appendix to Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 343-348) [Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC] Feminist activists don't fight fair. They are not interested in intellectual speculations or in acquiring new knowledge, for the feminist perspective has already answered all their questions. Legitimate discussion of gender issues can only take place between members of the in-group, who share a common belief structure. This eliminates most women from the discussion: non-feminist women are seen either as potential adherents to be manipulated into a correct understanding or as enemies to be outmaneuvered. It also excludes all men. Men's role in feminist discourse is limited to the role of not-quite-legitimate spectators and, above all, of targets. The structure of feminist belief makes it extremely difficult for feminists to admit the possible legitimacy of points of view which do not arise from their own ideology. Like other convinced believers in search of proselytes, they engage in argument only for the purpose of winning people over. To this end, they have made a sustained effort to develop and disseminate rhetorical shock tactics designed to confuse, overpower, and humiliate their adversaries. These tactics were popularized through essays like ``Verbal Karate'' in the influential Sisterhood Is Powerful (1970). The mentality of this effort is nowhere better expressed than in the title of Gloria Steinem's Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions (1982), which is laden with more such advice. Shocking people into awareness is supposed to be fun, creating an enormous sense of superiority over the unreflective masses of ``males'' and ``transitional women.'' Steinem advises that I now often end lectures with an organizer's deal. If each person in the room promises that in the twenty-four hours beginning the very next day she or he will do at least one outrageous thing in the cause of simple justice, then I promise I will, too. Feminists should be aware that such ``outrageous acts'' can cut both ways. It might be amusing to imagine ``outrageous acts'' directed against feminist orthodoxy: writing in protest to the campus newspaper when it calls the university ``fascist, racist, and sexist''; sending a copy of The Inevitability of Patriarchy [1973] to a feminist acquaintance; enjoying sex in the missionary position. The revolutionary act for today's woman is not to demand pay equity on the job. It is to go out on a date and leave her wallet home. It takes little courage to run with the prevailing wind. In an era in which feminism has been adopted as the official philosophy of Radcliffe, Barnard, and Smith, and the New York Times promotes the unlovely epithet ``Ms.,'' outrageousness and rebellion clearly lie on the anti-feminist side in the world of Acamedia [sic], although less so in the American heartland. ``Chauvinism'' and ``Sexism'' The feminist buzzwords which substitute a predigested ideology for independent thought have had far too long a run. It is time they were tossed out of polite society. The most important of these buzzwords are ``chauvinism'' and ``sexism.'' Chauvinism originally meant exaggerated patriotism. Chauvin was a Napoleonic officer whose jingoism and xenophobia gave rise to the expression which bears his name. By extension, a ``male chauvinist'' is someone who believes that men are superior to women -- and since society in its ``present form'' is thought of as ``patriarchy,'' it follows that any man so retrograde as to oppose any aspect of the feminist program is a male supremacist and a misogynist. The feminist perspective, the belief that men's oppression of women is the source of the world's problems, made ``chauvinist,'' an abbreviated form of ``male chauvinist,'' the standard put-down to be hurled at men who dared disagree, however timorously, with any aspect of feminist dogma. In short, ``[male] chauvinist'' is an insult -- and should be treated as such. Contemporary feminism, though, represents an authentic female chauvinism. Since men are responsible for all the evil of the world, women are responsible for all the good. The Pythagorean principle that associates men with good and light and women with evil and darkness is stood on its head; men are seen as the villains, women as the redeemers of humanity. Yet feminists continue to accuse any male opponent of ``chauvinism'' -- little suspecting that the word applies far better to themselves. The most popular feminist buzzword of all is ``sexism.'' The expression ``sexism'' was coined in the sixties to suggest that distinctions based on sex are as pernicious as those based on race. ``Sexism'' is said to be a system which oppresses women in order to preserve the hegemony of men -- what feminists believe is the essential principle of human society and history. In other words, ``sexist'' is a pejorative way of saying ``gendered.'' Since it is men who are held to be oppressing women, sexism also equals male chauvinism. Women are therefore rarely accused of being ``sexist,'' for who would accuse blacks of being racist? But men are almost invariably ``sexists'': it is indeed the rare male who has escaped a conditioning so crippling to the decent side of his character. ``Sexism'' is the leading weapon in the feminist rhetorical arsenal for belittling, besmirching, and befuddling their ``enemies'' -- ``traditional'' society and men. It is time to recognize this word for what it is: a rhetorical tactic, not a reality. What began in the sixties as an agreeably outrageous neologism has been reified to the point where feminists now believe there actually is such a thing as ``sexism.'' To use this word as if it referred to a factual reality indicates that the user believes our society is built on the basis of male oppression of women and must be overturned in its essential institutions and replaced with a better order. The casual usage of ``sexism'' should therefore be avoided, for it tends to co-opt the user into a point of view that he or she in all likelihood does not espouse, or in many cases even understand. In reality, a good society does and must make distinctions on the basis of sex. The expression ``unisexism'' consequently has considerable shock value at the moment against feminists. Whenever a feminist uses the expression ``sexism,'' she should be challenged, and pressed: As she struggles to justify this term she has long taken for granted, the feminist perspective will out, in all its poisonous negativity. One should always remember in a public discussion with a feminist that she is the one with something to hide: namely, the true nature of feminist ideology. The Tactic of Outrage Holier-than-thou approaches have been the daily currency of believing feminists. One should of course refuse to conduct arguments in such debased coin whenever possible. But if it is necessary to do so, take the high ground. The most common such feminist approach is the tactic of outrage, used with regard to day care, pornography, etc., etc. You've got to have your facts straight and be quick on your feet to c~½aañ\fhe two-tiered assault inherent in thk• technique, which seeks first, to overcome facts with emotion, and second, to discredit the non-feminist individual attacked by making him appear to lack moral compassion, thoughtfulness, and so on. Ideally, the assault actually discredits him in his own eyes so that, confused and stuttering, he is reduced to the apologetic vulnerability required in the New Male. I say ``him'' advisedly in this discussion: the tactic of outrage works poorly against women because as Carol Gilligan explains, they tend to be ``morally pragmatic'' in the first place. Men's tendency to abstraction and generalization makes them vulnerable to this technique, which turns that tendency against them by making it seem pompous and ``insensitive.'' A good antidote is therefore to claim compassion yourself (because it is too complicated to explain the virtues of abstract reasoning in the context of a heated argument over, say, federally funded day care centers): the anti-feminist position is the really compassionate one -- to say nothing of being the fair one, the just one, the practical one, the cost-efficient one, and so forth. The fact that all these things probably really are true of the anti-feminist position won't hurt your case at all. Another way to combat the tactic of outrage is to undercut it by refusing to speak to the arguments presented (which are just a smoke-screen anyway for forcing us all to accept a neutered society). For men, this requires that they discard out-of-place chivalry which inhibits them from using their full aggressiveness and intelligence against feminists. (It may help to think of oneself as a defender of the majority of women.) For instance, an acquaintance of mine was recently attacked in a public gathering for referring to prepubescent females as ``girls.'' Since they can be beaten and raped, he was informed, all females are ``women.'' Unfazed, he shot back ``Do you spell that with an `e' or an `i'?'' (Some radical feminists spell ``women'' as ``wimmin,'' to avoid the hated syllable ``men.'') Compliments to Avoid There is a set of expressions which feminist use to encourage men to conform to their notions of nonsexist conduct. These should be avoided and resisted just like the pejoratives. The pejoratives are the stick, the compliments the carrot. Both represent attempts to divorce you from your authentic perceptions by people who don't know any better. Words like ``sensitive,'' ``caring,'' ``warm,'' ``feeling,'' and ``related'' all represent perfectly valid qualities for a man to possess, but in the feminist lexicon they have acquired special meanings. From girlhood on, many women periodically wish human males were more of these things. Here's the rub: the feminist usage blends this ubiquitous and ungratifiable female wish with the implication that the recipient of these seeming compliments either lacks or doesn't care for the reverse virtues of toughness, independence, and so forth, and consequently is less able to stand up for himself than he should be. Many men wonder why they feel threatened by such apparent compliments. You should feel threatened: these ``compliments'' carry implications that the psychological distance with which each man must surround himself for his basic well being (passim Gilligan, for instance) is unnecessary. Like a stranger standing close to you on an empty bus, they represent a violation of personal space. Preserve your right to be distant, skeptical, and unemotional: these are qualities too, if not carried to excess. ``Sex Objects'' One hardy perennial is the claim that ``men see women as sex objects.'' Of course they do. What sort of woman would not want men to see her as a sex object? When feminists attack routine aspects of the human condition which they find offensive, it is often effective to point out that your views are those of the majority. As, says the feminist, but the problem is that men just see women as sex objects. This is a curious proposition, as science has yet to uncover a single case of this bizarre delusion. Arguing in Front of a Group You have one enormous advantage if you are arguing in front of often generate sympathy, interest, and covert admiration for the underdog. Even more important, your arguments will have the virtue of novelty. May people, including most of your adversaries, will literally never have heard them before, and even if they have, the impact of hearing a fellow student, employee, family member, colleague, or other personal acquaintance make points they had only heard in passing on TV will make them sit up and take notice. Of course, all the above points continue to apply even if you are talking on TV. Good luck. |
|
| Multi-task "woman"!! |
| Men are confused these days. They just might believe it is OK abusing women. Same as they did and do to men. |
Part - 2-
An article from Men's sites:
"...Misogynists are not born they are made.
On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent
physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks
by women collectively - just for being a man.
I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew knew my face
had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life,
and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning
of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a
storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.
Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no
matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong,
there is another point of view" I'd get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a
mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women "in their place", was
probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally
boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.
There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding
and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did
become true.
I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much
they could get from the man - then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with
yesterday's garbage. In short - as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early
1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute observations in the book was that
nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about
every aspect of men, then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with
her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very
bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid
that they didn't realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything
except return animosity.
I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and
would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called
"misogynist." I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends
over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.
And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over
it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship
and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't know why
you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate women.
Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the
contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is
rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is
fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.
Misogynists are not born, they are made.
I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and
somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When
I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with
indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.
When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______ say instead of 'fuck you'?"
answer "Trust Me."
I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped
being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same
conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will
be afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.
Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love
for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or
the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It
would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.
Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they
were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can't stand them, or anything about them.
I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim games, I'm sick and tired of
hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which
they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to
piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt
the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't
ask for directions.
How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with
something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men headstrong and stupid?"
Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like "get over it", or "why
don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell don't you women get over it, and take the gender out
of it?"
I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find
so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don't
get our guns and shoot a few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these
years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their
superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends
An article from Men's sites:
"...Misogynists are not born they are made.
On the political side, things were just as bad if not worse. About the same time I started becoming the target of violent
physical attacks by individual women for what I perceived as courtesy, I also became the target of vicious verbal attacks
by women collectively - just for being a man.
I remember the first time I saw the slogan "A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle", I knew knew my face
had just been spit in. Men were not just useless to women, we were irrelevant. We had no purpose in a woman's life,
and did not belong in her world at all. It was a message of hate, dismissal, and refutation. But, I also saw it as a warning
of what was to come. It was like seeing clouds on the horizon, and knowing that it is time to get under cover because a
storm is brewing. And, since it was obviously smearing shit in my face, it was going to be a shit storm.
Soon it became apparent that women could say any damn thing they wanted about men - no matter how wrong, no
matter how hateful, no matter how unfair - and that was fine, but every time I stood up to that and said "no, that is wrong,
there is another point of view" I'd get some little fem-bot harpy in my face shrieking the same old tired slogans, like a
mindless Chatty Cathy doll, about how I was threatened by losing my power, wanted to keep women "in their place", was
probably violent, and was a misogynist. The dull predictability and regularity of it all was only kept from being terminally
boring by the shrillness and sheer vehemence of the attacks.
There is a belief among those who believe in magic that one must speak a spell 3 times in order for it to become binding
and true. It took being called a misogynist a lot more than 3 times to become true, more like 300+, but in time it did
become true.
I began to see women as vicious creatures whose only agenda when it came to me, or any man, was to see how much
they could get from the man - then when he had nothing left to give because they had taken it all, toss him out with
yesterday's garbage. In short - as nothing but users. Feminist author Wendy Dennis came out with a book in the early
1990s called "Hot and Bothered: sex and love in the 90s." Among many other astute observations in the book was that
nothing was more classically typical of the state of male/female relations than the woman who complained bitterly about
every aspect of men, then couldn't figure out why she couldn't get one of these awful creatures to fall madly in love with
her. I had observed the same thing so many times that I had simply concluded that such women were simply not very
bright. In stark contrast to the mythology of how socially adept women are, I was baffled that such women were so stupid
that they didn't realize that no living thing will respond to such projections of distaste, contempt, and hatred with anything
except return animosity.
I took to avoiding women, particularly groups of them, because I could never sit quietly and put up with the bashing and
would always challenge it, which ended me up in a lot of fights and added greatly the count of times that I got called
"misogynist." I noticed that women seemed to do it habitually, without thinking, and would confront my female friends
over and over until they learned not to do it in my presence.
And, after 3 decades of listening to it, and hating it, and trying to keep the animosity which had been building in me over
it - when the husband of a woman friend of mine (who had been very dishonest about her motivations for our friendship
and had been trying to harass me into turning our friendship sexual) threatened to kill me and she said "I don't know why
you are making such a big deal about it", I caved in and began to really hate women.
Most of the time this hatred lies dormant. I figure that the best thing I can do for myself and for women is to keep the
contact I must have with them to a minimum, and to keep as much distance between them and myself as possible. It is
rather like hanging a sign on a fence that says "Beware of VERY bad dog." Stay outside the fence, and everything is
fine. But, come through the gate at your own risk. Leave me the hell alone and I will leave you alone.
Misogynists are not born, they are made.
I am still baffled at all the women who seem to expect men to live on a steady diet of hatred and man bashing, and
somehow magically metabolize this toxic diet into "love" for women and a desire to see good things come to them. When
I work real hard, I can make the anger cold and take no joy when bad things happen to women, simply regard it with
indifference. When I hear a woman whine about being victimized, I simply tune her out and go elsewhere.
When a woman smiles at me, I think of an old ethic bashing joke - "What does a ______ say instead of 'fuck you'?"
answer "Trust Me."
I will not allow most women in my house unless I have known her a long time and she is old enough to have escaped
being infected with the plague of man hating or is escorted by someone I trust, nor will I enter theirs except on the same
conditions. If I pass a woman stranded on the road, I will not stop to help her because it is as likely as not that she will
be afraid of me. That's fine. She's a fish without a bicycle - I have no place in her world, nor her in mine.
Man bashing and man hating harms women, because it makes men hate them back - eventually. A puppy returns love
for love, but if you beat it will eventually turn mean and will one day turn on you when you raise your fist or your stick (or
the club of words) to hit it. Men are no different. When women talk about treating men like dogs, I wish they would. It
would be an improvement. Most women treat their dogs far better than they treat their men.
Somewhere along the line, I went through a metamorphosis. I changed from a man who loved women and thought they
were just about the greatest thing in the world, to a man who can't stand them, or anything about them.
I'm sick and tired of the lies that women tell about men, I'm sick and tired of their victim games, I'm sick and tired of
hatred and bashing I have to put up with when I am around them. I am sick and tired of the arrogant contempt in which
they seem to hold me and all other men. I am sick to death of the way that some of them feel the need to seek me out to
piss me off. A couple of years back, at the funeral of my uncle, as fine a man as I have ever known, some woman felt
the need to start a conversation with me as I sat with my private grief. She wanted me to agree with her that men don't
ask for directions.
How could anyone be so stupid and socially incompetent? When men came up to me to talk, it was always with
something like "Your uncle was a fine man", not "aren't men headstrong and stupid?"
Invariably, when I tell a woman about all this, she tries to argue with me and say something like "get over it", or "why
don't you take the gender out of it?" In return I ask, "why the hell don't you women get over it, and take the gender out
of it?"
I would like nothing better than to be left in peace, and allow women to enjoy the absence of my company which they find
so annoying and unpleasant. Every day, a few more men got through the transformation and become like me. We don't
get our guns and shoot a few women; we don't beat them up; because what women have been saying about us all these
years is just flat wrong. But, there's no point in trying to tell women that because they have become so certain of their
superiority that the best way to deal with them is to leave them to it, and the company of their other fishy friends
|
|
|