The Obliterating False Equivalence August 7, 2012Posted by FCM in liberal dickwads, logic, meta, MRAs, politics, pop culture, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men.
Tags: arthur goldwag, false equivalence, logic, meta, reed barrow, sissy krystal tg, tory shepherd, tumblr
there is a special place in hell for writers who utilize the false equivalence when writing about radical feminists versus misogynists. you writers know who you are — dont you? for readers who need examples, try here and here.
its not just the intellectual laziness or even outright lying of the false equivalence generally that sticks in my craw, although those things are like sandpaper on my brain because they are, well, intellectually lazy. and lies. for real writers and thinkers, these things are the scene of a crime. coming across one or the other while reading someone elses (or even your own — oops!) work is like stumbling upon a crime scene. its a crime against writing and thinking. i cannot overstate how violently criminal this is, like mens poetry which uses letters and words to obscure various truths, and to contort and obfuscate information rather than convey it.
in fact, men should not be allowed to be poets. male poetry is obfuscating on its face. there should not be any demand for this, being that the entire world is saturated with it — with males using words to obfuscate information rather than convey it — already. and yet it still has value. why? plus, male poetry and all mens writing is almost always trite. actually, if trite and obfuscating were negative criteria, men wouldnt be allowed to write anymore at all.
clearly, men using words to obfuscate information rather than convey it serves a purpose and thats where its value lies — its not that its in short supply, its that there can literally never be enough because of the size of the demand and the purpose it serves. in the case of the false equivalence, when used against radical feminists, the purpose appears to be to wipe radical feminist work — and womens history, and the truths about what men do to us — from the face of the earth.
note the recent use of the obliterating false equivalence where moderators of an online forum — because they put an equals-sign in between a woman protesting rapey death threats from a misogynist, and that misogynist himself — deleted cathy brennan’s tumblr account. yes, a woman protesting disgusting, misogynistic and likely psychotic and even criminal behaviors from a misogynistic male was said to be engaging in behavior that was equally violative of the terms of service as the rapey perv who threatened rape, and who
dumpster-dives surveils, trespasses, loiters and stalks women and minor children to gain access to their discarded trash so he can perv on it, and writes about his exploits on tumblr.
these things are equal.
but obviously, the thing about putting an equals-sign after anything men do is that men do criminal things, violent things, in their global campaign to increase their own power at womens expense. these criminal behaviors have misogynistic foundations and flavors, but they are criminal, and violative of the terms of service in many public and private places because of that. because they are anti-social, and criminal.
so, when anyone says that womens response to what men are doing to us, is not only “just as bad” as what we are responding to but equal in every way — ie. not a response at all, but an ideology — and when the mens actions are criminal and violative of terms of service, the womens behavior suddenly becomes criminal and violative too. radical feminism becomes a “hateful ideology” too. and as we saw in what was probably a perfect example of this dynamic playing out in real life, in the case of cathy brennan versus the rapey perv, the mods at tumblr deleted both accounts. rapey perv’s account was (later) deleted too. because equivalence.
so now, but for screenshots which were smartly collected beforehand, there is no evidence of what this rapey perv actually did. that history is erased, along with the response of the victim, as well as multiple other radical and pro-radical voices on tumblr and elsewhere who were calling attention to what this man and men as a class were and are doing and saying. its all gone. importantly, any posts that were made about this and other rapey misogynists (not just him!) which contained links to cathy brennans tumblr as evidence that any of it ever happened now contain only dead links. our archivists will now have to go back and painfully recreate this history, with screenshots and links to screenshots if these posts are to maintain their integrity/credibility and historical significance, at all. note to self: screenshots and links to uploaded screenshots — rather than links to original sources — from now on. fine.
of course, if the internet itself eventually goes *poof* and it well might, all of this history — the history of what men do to us, and the ways we respond — will be lost forever. it will be like none of it never happened. in the meantime, tumblr, and all mainstream internet forums and publications are doing what mainstream forums and publications always do, which is to write and rewrite history, and to erase mens misogyny and criminality and womens response to it now, in real time.
the obliterating false equivalence and putting an equals-sign in between radical feminism and misogyny and misogynistic violence is probably the best tool in the shed to use towards that specific ends, and anyone using it — and i do mean anyone — is guilty of the crime of propagandizing and falsifying history, and erasing womens history and womens work from the face of the earth. you are in excellent company, arent you, with government censors, witchburners, and all manners of rapists and colonizers generally. if thats not what you want, check yourself, and stop doing it. if thats exactly what you want, then by all means. continue.
Fun! With Numbers! The Sex-Positive Equation September 9, 2010Posted by FCM in authors picks, books!, feminisms, health, international, liberal dickwads, logic, PIV, pop culture, radical concepts, self-identified feminist men, sorry!, trans.
Tags: logic, PIV, sheila jeffreys, the spinster and her enemies
assuming i havent just eaten, and if its the third wednesday of an odd month or something and i am in the mood, i kind of enjoy observing, if not engaging, those silly old male-identified liberal progressive fun-feminists. because every single time i hear one of them speak, it takes me further and further down the rabbit hole. wheeeee!
twirling, twirling down the rabbit hole of sex-pos double-think, deeper and deeper into the vast cavernous void that passes for “logic” and “reason” in that post-modern dick-pleasing world. honestly, i sometimes enjoy the ride. much like engaging in conversation with transwomen in fact, the more i listen to fun feminists speak, the more obviously ridiculous their arguments become. and this is a good thing. because i get to make endless fun of them i mean systematically dismantle their “arguments” here, for everyone to see. of course, most of the time, its literally impossible to figure out just what the everloving fuck they are even talking about. but sometimes, just sometimes, when the planets are aligned just right…
regarding sex, PIV, and pleasure: the only pleasure fun fems care about is PIV. its so obvious. coincidentally, its the only pleasure heterosexual men (including so-called feminist men) care about too. sure, they might envision a PIV-centric sexuality that includes other acts too, but they absolutely cannot fathom a heterosexual sexuality that doesn’t include PIV, at all. thus we get the following sex-positive equation:
yes, unfortunately, this is what we are left with, when we break down sex-positivism and start seeing it for what it is. “other” sexual acts literally have no value in a sexual equation, where PIV equals sex. okay? they are worthless. no matter how “diverse” anyone wants to believe their sexuality really is, because they are doing “other stuff too,” the bottom line is that the only thing anyone cares about here is PIV. its the only thing that has value. so “sex” positivism is just a bullshit euphemism for “PIV” positivism, or PIV-reinforcive sexual practice. why is this a problem? heres why:
and this is one bitch of a big fat fucking problem. oh yes it is. and notice how the second frame actually explains the first: if female risk is actually what anyone (?) finds pleasurable about sex, then its no wonder that “other acts” that arent specifically and particularly dangerous to women are considered worthless, and “not sex” in this paradigm. oral is worthless, because it cant get a woman pregnant. digital penetration and fondling is worthless, because it wont kill her.
now, its worth asking, of course, from whose perspective has all of this been created? do women actually believe this shit? or are they just swallowing (!) the same old PIV-reinforcive paradigm that men who like sticking their dicks into women have always maintained is true? the one, true heterosexuality that all straight and partnered women must adhere to, no matter how disgusting, painful, morbid and ultimately deadly the consequences, to women?
and that PIV is even “pleasurable” at all, when so many women dont even like it, and they know how dangerous it is, and try actively to mitigate its effects, with varying degrees of success, for virtually their entire lives?
now, regarding the old “radfems is conservatibbs!” dodge, this is just a straight up lie, now isnt it? is there a single fucking thing on this page that a religious conservative would find agreeable? excepting of course that religious conservatives completely buy into the exact same PIV-reinforcive paradigm that the fun-fems, liberals, and self-identified feminist men buy into too, and that i have just described here. whatever you do, do try not to notice that.
on that note, i highly recommend sheila jeffreys’ excellent book “the spinster and her enemies,” which absolutely destroys any possible argument that early or modern radical feminists were sexually conservative, and asks the question: from whose perspective would “abstinence” and “deprivation” appear to be the main themes, when women were and are trying to save womens lives, and the quality of their lives, from death, disease, and unwanted childbearing due exclusively to PIV?
that is all.
h/t to sonia, and her excellent guest-post here.
Tags: logic, radical feminism, the feminist majority, venn diagrams
for anyone who doesnt know, theres no such fucking thing as a glod. so, logicians use it as a placeholder in their own logic-based proofs, to make sure they dont accidentally add any meaning to one of the words, when they dont intend to. for example: all glods are hooswits; all hooswits are whatchamacallits; therefore, all glods are whatchamacallits. that is a logical proof thats TRUE.
but heres one thats NOT true: all glods are hoosewhits; some hoosewhits are whatchamacallits; therefore, some glods are whatchamacallits.
and the above could be drawn either way, with the glods overlapping, or not overlapping, with the whatchamacallits, so technically it may be “neither true nor false.” (does anyone know?? seriously. i cant remember). but…if you are trying to prove something is true, you have just failed, if this is your “proof.” thats my point, really.
confusing, right? i screwed these up at first, and had to literally draw diagrams to show myself where i went wrong (thanks miska and your bad diagramming self).
start adding in words that actually mean stuff, and it gets even harder to see where you have fucked up, and why. for example: all blue things are bright; some bright things are shiny; therefore, some blue things are shiny…its definitely not true…but it looks like it is, to anyone who has ever seen a blue shiny thing before. thats where we, as fallible humans, with a tendency to make everything about “us,” and our own “lived expewience” simply need some help, to see whats what. thus, we have “glod.”
i love glods, and i love hooswits, precisely because they have no meaning.
but you know what does have meaning? ACTUAL WORDS, THAT MEAN STUFF. and the word “feminist” is a word, that means something. dammit, it does. you cant just take a bunch of people that have nothing in common, and call them all “feminist” without defining what the fuck you are even talking about. for example, heres how i, as a radical feminist, see “feminists.” they are, by definition, female assigned at birth; NOT ALL FAABs are feminists; and there isnt any other kind of feminist, besides the radical kind:
but apparently, heres what the “feminist majority” thinks constitutes a feminist: (note the lack of any other circles…that means theres no criteria for “what makes a feminist”. plus the rainy-day gray illustrates how muddled, and boring this all is)
and its pretty much what the fun-fems think constitutes a feminist too…with one notable exception:
fucking shit, people. now, just so no one starts to wonder if i have a point…heres another example of a logical fallacy: all transwomen are women; some women are feminists; therefore, some transwomen are feminists. AND THATS BEING GENEROUS. since they seem to believe, against the great weight of the evidence showing otherwise, that *all* transwomen are feminists. NOT. their conclusions dont even follow from their own premises. not that they have ever bothered to show that their premises are true, to begin with. fail, fail, fail, fail.
and dont even get me started on “feminist” men, who, as men, by definition individually and collectively benefit from rape culture. i wanted to punch youtube in the face, when i saw that.
words have meaning. ”feminist” means something, and it definitely does NOT mean “whatever the fuck the feminist majority, a ‘feminist man’, an MRA or a fucking transwoman says it means.” that is all.