Why we can’t, and won’t, debate with feminists

An incident that happened earlier this week is a good case study in engaging with feminists.

It all began with this tweet:

cantargue01

You can go ahead and read her posts about “rape culture.” They are mostly about how individual women cannot and should not be asked to take steps to reduce the risk of rape and, instead, something called “rape culture” needs to be crushed by rearranging the “patriarchal order.”

Yes, she really says that suggesting women take self-defence classes and use safety tips “needs to stop, now”.

What is “patriarchal order”? According to the blogger, it is “the constructed social concept … where men think they own and control women and their bodies.” This is the bedrock of her rants which would be funny if they weren’t about the serious issue we have as a society that a tiny minority of men behave criminally and rape other men and women. (Women rape men in their own ways, but that’s a topic for another day.)

Clearly, she’s talking about all men, and according to her, men, being the evil adherents that they are of the evil patriarchal order, “think they own and control women and their bodies.” All of this follows logically if you accept there’s a patriarchal order in place.

Really? Do all men, or even most men, think they own and control women and their bodies? Because, as far as the Sikh Anti-Feminist camp can see — and we have pretty high-powered binoculars — women are in control pretty much everywhere in the daily life of an average man, in Canada and all the developed countries of the world. They are the protected sex, unlike men who are expendable and disposable.

So a simple question was asked of the blogger, followed by another brief exchange:

cantargue02

“There’s a difference between being a man and adhering to patriarchal order.” Very interesting. She has subtly made the definition of “being a man” subject to feminist approval. Resorting to semantics, she evaded the question because it hit the fundamental assumption in her definition of patriarchal order (…ALL men…).

Still, OK. We’ll work with her response and ask the question again. What portion of men does she blame for being the enforcers of the “patriarchal order?

The answer was classic circular reasoning: the “framework” of “patriarchal order”. She stacked the evasive answer with the “everyone’s entitled to their opinion” misdirection:

cantargue04

The question was repeated to her. Either she means all men (which feminists always do), or she gotta tell us how many men, are responsible for this “rape culture.”

The answer came back quite swiftly:

cantargue05

Blocked! Classic feminist move. She didn’t disappoint. Feminists don’t want to engage in genuine debate, even within their own “framework.”

The lesson of this exercise is simple: facts and logic have an anti-feminist bias.

To her credit, she did not go on attack using the standard feminist shaming tactics. She was civil about it.

The purpose of the Sikh Anti-Feminists’ effort here is simple: don’t waste your time arguing with them. We’ve demonstrated the futility of it for your benefit.

Advertisements

One comment

  1. Deucalion · · Reply

    And this is why I don’t debate them. I just tell them to go away and leave me to do what he/she (the feminist) is incapable of: Thinking about things.

Comments are moderated.

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

%d bloggers like this: