Because I am a glutton for punishment, I often seek out and read PickUpArtist and MensRightsActivist materials. Especially if I can find a fun and stinging critique like this one. Holly Pervocracy may state that this is intended as a mockery and not a rebuttal, but her point is made. I’d like to pretend I read this sort of nonsense because my inner anthropologist is fascinated by such a different lens for reality, but really I just like to rubberneck.
Feel free to read The Misandry Bubble on The Futurist blog if you like to be filled with righteous feminist ire.
Not that you care, Mr. Futurist, but here are my two cents:
When I see “[women] are far from capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner”. What I hear is; ‘if you cannot explain your arguments in the language that I have decided is the best then your opinion/worldview is invalid’. One of most common critiques that I encounter from MRA and PUA is women’s inability to respond ‘logically’ or with ‘reason’. I am having a really hard time articulating why this particular argument is so exasperating, but essentially; they want me to attempt to convince them in a structure (logos) that was decided as the best way to win an argument by a group of people whose life experiences were continuously seen as the only valid and normal world-views. And they made all the rules about what counts as ‘good’ logic.
Its a rigged game.
And I want to clarify here that I am not saying that logic, as we understand it now, is not a useful tool. It just needs to be pointed out that it’s not the only tool for expressing something about which you are passionate. Its not a zero-sum game. Logic is a great way to express some kinds of ideas, but not all. And the inability to explain a firmly held conviction completely sole using logic does not invalidate that conviction or the experiences which let to its development.
This is a thought that I am only just beginning to tease out in a way that I can express and I welcome your comments.