Shutting Down Debate: Beyond Shaming Language

Shutting Down Debate: Beyond Shaming Language

-The IthacaSkin

A few years ago, the "Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics" came out. For the MRA movement it was a godsend. For feminists, it felt like they were being told by their doctor "I'm sorry. The medication is no longer working. The virus has become resistant." The introduction of The Catalog made it easier and much more simple for any given man to logically and rationally confront shaming language without stooping to the same level as feminists. Whenever insulted, all an MRA need do is refer to the catalog, figure out which tactic was being used, and decide on his own from the list of suggestions the appropriate response. So while many MRAs and men in general became aware of shaming language and either began to ignore it or point it out not only in post-to-post debates, but in the very articles written by many feminist bloggers, the feminists did what you'd expect any mentally ill or irrational person to do: they kept repeating the same actions expecting different results.

The awareness of shaming tactics basically put up a wall that before allowed entry into male insecurities. And, like any good infant, neanderthal, or robot not programmed "for this contigency", (or just crazy people in general), feminists are still bashing their head's against it.

Until recently.

Many times a feminist will be confronted by an MRA (or a father who's child has been stolen from him and turned into weekly payments) about many issues men face which feminism doesn't address, or may in fact caused. Such as draft legislation, denying women combat roles (which discriminates against men), unequal medical research, etc etc. In the past, feminists used shaming tactics to bash men and shut down debate. It worked for a little while, but men quickly caught on. Now they are using more sneaky ways to shut down debate. There are basically two new tactics now being employed in this ideological guerrilla warfare.

The first tactic: Kill'em With Kindness or Ad Hoc Tokenism.

They say something along the lines of "I agree with you. That's something that we have concerns about, as well." Here's why:

For starters, because it's very difficult to argue with someone who agrees with you. If you accuse them of gynocentrism, or bring up any male issue, they may reply with something along the lines of "patriarchy hurts men too, men suffer this, and we care about this or that men's issue". Tthat is a clear use of "tokenism"- they include 1 small issue so they can stand up and say "See, we care! We're not sexist gynocentrics!"

The tactic has two hoped outcomes:

1. It'll shut your debate down and steal your thunder, leaving your speechless.
2. Perhaps they'll convince you that they're "the good feminists, with bright happy smiling faces" and you'll go bug some other blog or person.

However, feminists don't really agree nor do they really care and we can never let them fool us into thinking that there is a such thing as a "good feminist". By agreeing with you, they're simply trying to "defuse the situation" and steal your thunder right from under you and leave you speechless. They've stopped trying to flame you into silence, but are now attempting to "kill you with kindness". It's a tactic taught in many courses about "conflict resolution". It actually does not "resolve" the conflict, but it makes the other person (namely, you) feel like the conflict has been resolved. And if you feel like the conflict is over, well... you stop fighting.

So realize that all they're trying to do by saying they agree is to make you stop. To silence you.

The retort: Simply ask that if they care about men's issues so much, why is not a single one of those issues represented in their blog? If they say "men have MRA blogs" or "it's up to men", point out this cop-out and tell them to put their money where their mouth is: there are male feminists just like there are (some) female anti-feminists.

The second tactic: The Apologetic Feminist

This tactic is essentially a mental smoke-grenade. It draws a little bit from Ad Hoc Tokenism by attempting to convince you that they are the "good feminists" and might sound a little like this drivel:

"You can't just lob all feminists together and cast broad generalizations on them like that. Yes, there are feminists out there that are like that, but we're not like them."

A statement like that is typically used in a combo, directly followed by some attempt at polishing up their PR by apologizing for all the "bad feminists" out there. It's a double pronged assault designed to either shut you up, or more insidiously, to make you more receptive to what they have to say.

The retort: This is a tricky one. It helps to point out the posturing and the pittiful attempt at "making nice nice". Point out that no matter how much they apologize, you will not feel differently about them and it doesn't change what they are: feminists.

The third tactic: We Need to Team Up

The third tactic is probably the most insidious. It is not ad hoc; it is an ongoing and growing tactic within the feminist movement. It draws on both the first and second tactic and pulls them both together for a deadly spreadshot:

Feminists are begining to tokenize ("we care about men's issues, see, we posted 1 article!"), then apologize ("we're sorry that so many of the 'bad feminists' have jaded you and turned you against feminism.") and then attempt to assimilate you into the Femiborg: "Instead of fighting eachother, I think it's time we teamed up to address these issues."

I fell for this third tactic once before with Feministgal. She emailed me, seemingly in good faith, expressing an interest in my viewpoints. However, she couldn't resist the "yes, buts..." and I found the discussion about men's rights to subtly and inexorably shift to feminist discussions. She may have been genuinely trying, I don't know, but the outcome was basically the same: Nothing got through to her, and her blogs continues unabated with it's gynocentricity.

The Solution - The solution to my long ramble is simple: Feminists can apologize all they want. They can posture concern and empathy all they want. Hell, they can even *have* empathy for all I care. The simple fact is, and men should never hesitate to point this out *constantly*, is that actions speak louder than words, and until these feminists put their money where their mouth is, until they start addressing men's issues and posting about them more, and with genuine effort, they'll only alienate those they pretend to want as allies.

Edit:
If anyone has more to add to this, different thoughts, please send them to me and I'll turn this into a collaborative post and give you full credit for the contribution.