My last post was a compilation of some of the posts from this website.
Now to my response.
From this we can infer that:
If you are a feminist, you do not believe in God, you endorse Zionism, sodomists, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, you share private information, you are a misogynist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, fake friendships, are manipulative, associate with criminals, Zionists, and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-homosexual, atheist, do not respect other's privacy, and do not believe that sodomites are homosexuals.
Anti-Feminists are not these things.
For those who don't know, Zionists believe in a "sovereign, national Jewish homeland". In other words: Israel.
I'll let this one speak for itself:
Hate Crimes Against This Website
"Most people that have attacked this website have been male homosexual mobs, PAMs, sodomites, atheists, agnostics, whitey haters, gang stalkers and pro-Israel zealots."
Remember: these people are bad!
Feminists are selfish, angry, deluded, psychotic, worthless, resentful, greedy, mindless, and vain.
Top Ten Reasons Feminists Suck
Women are immoral, asocial, have no conscience, and are naturally destructive.
"The people responsible for orchestrating this situation want it precisely as it is. Step one: disenfranchise fathers and men. Women naturally return to their asocial, destructive behavior because - unlike men - they have no consistent internal monologue, hence no moral basis to govern their actions. They might be taught to behave at a young age, but as newer generations are increasingly raised by women only, over time they lose what values the last decent male bestowed upon the family line. The end result: complete social destruction as all values are lost and people become amoral, asocial loners."
"No Fault-Divorce" is no divorce at all
The Bible says you are a bad person if you work outside the home!
Go read "The Feminist Mystique".
Some Hard Questions Working Women Must Ask Themselves Regarding Being A Good Wife
The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
I find it amusing how many of these are really turned around insults against women.
A feminist version:
"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Women's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of male detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic... Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a woman's insecurities and shut down debate...
Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad hominem (against a person's character) attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against women whenever a discussion arises about feminism, women's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions she has are assumed to be unjustifiable.
"You need to get over your anger at men."
"You are so negative!"
Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with men.
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance!"
"You're afraid of a strong man!"
It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and &%^&*&^%. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some women are finding out that many men fail a cost-benefit analysis.
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of women .
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up!"
"You girls don't have it as nearly as bad as us men!"
"Your fragile female ego ..."
"Wow! You girls need to get a grip!"
Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of women. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem women face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any woman should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on her status as an adult female.
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in girls. I'm interested in real women."
"Women are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."
Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) -The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.
"You butches are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."
It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some men think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a woman's legitimate freedom of expression.
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) -The Sour Grapes Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away her own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming men for her problems.
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."
In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) -The Brown Shirts Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the Nazis."
"... more anti-masculine zaniness"
One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
Charge of Being Unfeminine (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or femininity is called into question.
"Are you a lesbian?"
"I need a real woman, not a girl."
"You're such a child."
Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight woman leaves her accusers guessing about her sexual orientation.
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about men.
"I'm not like that!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"
Response: One may point out that anti-feminist and many other men make generalizations about women. Quotations from anti-feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all men may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
Charge of Emasculation(Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular man or to men in general.
"You emasculating creep!"
"Why do you hate men?"
"Do you love your father?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of men."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view men as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of men!!"
One may ask the accuser how does a pro-female agenda become inherently anti-male (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for men who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of arousing fear about what the target wants to do to men.
Charge of Instability (Code White) -The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at women who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits or mothers who want to work outside the home.
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
"You are so selfish."
"You will hurt your children."
"You are a horrible mother."
Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money or time on myself, but should instead spend it on a man like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan)-The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as men are concerned.
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"I bet you don't shave your legs!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"
This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of her arguments.
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with men, then you are admitting defeat."
The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking women to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of men and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many women have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) -The Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that her viewpoints or behavior will cause men to reject her as a mate.
"No man will marry you with that attitude."
"Feminists like you will never get laid!"
This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Whip" is to realize that a woman's happiness and worth is not based on her romantic conquests (including marriage).
It's amazing what little I had to change on this to make it work! Read the original and compare. The only thing I couldn't alter was the "Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) -The All-That-Glitters Charge".
Some I didn't even have to change at all, excpet the pronouns.
If men and women's viewpoints are so similar, why can't we all get along?