Meerkat Musings



Before I begin in earnest, lets post the conversation I had over at a site called ‘Stefs Cave‘.

My posts will be in green, theirs will be in pink.

Good afternoon,

I think both MRAs and MGTOWs (to be honest, they are very similar in a lot of respects) are pushing back against something that isn’t actually there, except in a few isolated instances. The worst elements of radical feminism (which should not be taken as feminism as a whole, and for that matter, not even as radical feminism as whole) can easily be seen as misandry – I have read some very disturbing posts from radfems along exactly the lines that you describe – are terrifying, but feminism has a number of forms.

Liberal feminism is, if you like, the moderate voice, whilst radical feminism is well, radical. Most feminists would probably identify as liberal and liberal feminism can include men. Radical feminism tends to exclude men from the discussion completely. Liberal feminists don’t shout as loud as radical feminists, and therefore their voices are not always heard, but in my view they represent a genuine force for equality and the protection of women.

It may be a hard pill to swallow, and I know MGTOWs and MRAs will argue in this world that it just isn’t true, but if you’re a white male, you are privileged. Recently Brock Allen Turner was given just six months for raping an unconscious woman at a university campus – his own father argued for a light sentence because it was just ‘twenty minutes of action’. The idea of male entitlement to female bodies still exists, and can be seen in every instance where a man catcalls or wolf-whistles at a woman in the street, or expects a woman to stop and talk to him, getting aggressive if she doesn’t want to spend time with him.

What MGTOWs see is radical feminism, which is the angry side of the movement. Some of this anger might well be justified, some of it won’t be. Unfortunately it creates the impression that feminism is out to undermine men, and MGTOWs (and MRAs) see themselves as ‘fighting back’. Except they are lashing out at phantoms. They’re trying to paint a picture of themselves as the oppressed when in fact what they fear is losing their privilege. If women are equal to men then men cannot own a woman’s time or bodies, and this is what truly scares a MGTOW.

So I would urge both the article’s author and anyone reading this comment to remember what feminism actually ‘is’, rather than only seeing its worst side. I would urge them to remember that MGTOWs and MRAs seek to maintain a status quo that, far from oppressing them or hurting them, actually supports them. The trumped up ideas from these groups are exactly that – blown out of all proportion.

What you’re suggesting is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Most feminists actually support the rampant misandrist ideas that modern feminism espouses, and these liberal feminists (the more accurate term is choice feminist) are in the minority, and thanks to people like Anita Sarkeesian, you’ll be hard-pressed to find anyone who’ll take any feminist seriously, whether they’re liberal or not. You must be some kind of feminist apologist, or just ignorant of the illiberal nature of feminism as it is today. Also, MGTOW’s and MRA’s are completely different. MRA’s simply want men to be treated equally to women, while many MGTOW’s, as I mentioned earlier, want to separate from women entirely. If the MGTOW’s have any point that can accurately be made, it’s that there is in fact a gynocentric bias in society. If anything, women of all races are more privileged than white men because they can play the victim card and make false rape allegations, and be believed without question (for example, the Duke lacrosse case, and the Rolling stone “Rape on Campus” article).

If in doubt, read this:

Hello again,

I am puzzled as to in what way I am employing the No True Scotsman fallacy – you are making statements without providing validation. This is equally true of the idea that most feminists are misandrists and would identify as radfems. This argument is dependant upon a strict sampling bias – which has then been expanded upon to apply to feminism at large.

Your link does likewise. Is it true that men are more likely to die in war? Of course, but then, men are more likely to sign up to the armed forces (historically women have been denied roles in the armed forces, and even after being admitted, denied frontline service). Men are more likely to be involved in fatal accidents at work but once again, men are more likely to take these jobs and these jobs may well have been off limits to women in the past.

It is statistically the case than men are more likely to commit violent crimes:

Is it true that men are more likely to be the victim of violent crimes? It is true that men are more likely to commit violent crimes against other men, and that men commit more violent crimes against women than women commit against men or other women. Once again, your link reflects a sampling bias and does not explain the facts behind the numbers.

You believe that women can more easily play the ‘victim card’. How does this explain the case of Brock Turner, who got a six month sentence for raping an unconcious woman? This young white man got off easy – do you think he will be alone?

Do you believe we should be teaching women to avoid rape or teaching men to control themselves better, not make assumptions, and not rape?

In calling out the no true Scotsman fallacy, I suggested that you imply that radical feminists are not feminists at all, a common misconception employed typically by those desperate to defend the indefensible (the same logic is used by AJ+ to gloss over Islamic terrorism). Also, I don’t think we should be teaching anyone not to rape, nor to avoid rape, because this should be common sense. Teaching men not to rape is not only patronising but demeaning (surely they know there are laws in place), and teaching women to avoid rape is equally ludicrous because surely they would have already been taught by their parents not to go alone at night, especially not in dark alleyways. I also think Brock Turner is an isolated incident, one that could never prove the existence of a rape culture in the United States. If we lived in an actual rape culture that benefited white men (as you feminists would describe), rape would not be illegal, and people like Brock Turner would never be arrested nor publicly condemned. You’re also very keen to ignore the higher male suicide rate in the link I provided because it doesn’t confirm your biases. Surely you should have gathered that in our increasingly gynocentric society, men are increasingly undervalued compared to women.

Your implication through the allegation of a fallacy made a presumption, one which is not true. I did not claim radical feminists are not feminists. I merely claim they are not representative of all feminists and all feminism. Your setup of the No True Scotsman fallacy could easily be taken as a strawman fallacy (building an argument that isn’t there and attacking that).

You think there is not a rape culture because rape is illegal? Something being illegal doesn’t automatically mean it doesn’t happen. Should a person (male or female) not be free to walk down the street at night without fear of being attacked? Should a young woman not be free to have a few drinks without the fear that someone might take advantage of her? These are ‘not’ isolated incidents. The idea that it is in any way shape or form the victim’s fault if they get raped or assaulted IS rape culture – and it’s more endemic in society than you think.

You say I’m keen to ignore suicide statistics. I say you are keen to ignore the points I raised regarding dangerous jobs and war. You haven’t addressed either of those. Furthermore, would you care to explain how suicide statistics are linked to a bias towards women in society?

In no way did I imply that this is the victim’s fault. I was arguing that people should take responsibility for themselves. Am I therefore endorsing rape culture? If rape is illegal, that means if you are caught you can expect to be punished for it if found guilty, therefore there is no rape culture. Whereas, in the Islamic world, a rape victim can be convicted on charges of adultery, while in some Islamic countries, the rapist can avoid punishment if he marries his victim. That is what you would call an actual rape culture, not America. This video should prove why “rape culture” is a myth:

(there’s a video that I can’t embed for some reason, but you can see it here)

In response to your question about male suicide, I feel that male self-doubt is the key to understanding the high rate of male suicides, and I feel that this can be caused by how boys are treated in school. This video from Prager University, featuring the respected choice feminist Christina Hoff Sommers, should illustrate the kind of gynocentric culture we have in education in America, and her suggestions for reform.

(another video here)

Thank you for addressing the suicide point (although I note the ongoing lack of acknowledgement regarding war and job fatalities). Speaking for the UK, there was actually a fall in male suicide last year, and an increase in female suicide.

In the US, the rate of female suicide is increasing faster than male suicide:

Neither article makes assumptions about the reasons.

Are you really going to trust The Guardian? The most biased news site in the whole of the UK? They literally push an agenda of social justice, and they write some of the most ridiculous articles ever (with such colourful articles as “our philsophical attitude towards poo needs to change”). But the statistics may support your case. These come from the Samaritans website:

Dismissal of a source through an ad hominiem attack on the source doesn’t actually constitute a rebuttal.

Says the person who spells ad hominem incorrectly, and dismisses his critic ad hominem as a right-wing reactionary. You have already dismissed my sources plenty of times. I have no reason to take your argument seriously, now good day.

Nitpicking spelling errors and dismissing sources because you don’t like them, rather than because you’ve demonstrated them to be wrong, means the ad hominem fallacy very much applies. Your insistence upon seeing feminism through a ‘very’ specific lense and your increasing aggression as this discussion wears on do indeed make this impossible to take seriously.

I said (this is mean’t to read ‘I never said’) you personally believe in blaming the victim. It does however, happen, and it is indicative of the idea that men should have unrestricted access to women’s bodies, and that men carry less responsibility for our actions. THIS is rape culture.

Rape culture doesn’t have to be an overt setting that’s legal for it to exist. It can still exist even if rapists get caught and prosecuted. It exists whilst men assume they have the right to women, and whilst women have to stop and carefully consider every action, lest they be accused of being provocative or ‘asking for it’. It exists where men are not taught (not nearly as much) to think about their own behaviour.

“Rape culture doesn’t have to be an overt setting that’s legal for it to exist.”
That literally makes no sense. There is a myriad of evidence to suggest that we do not live in a rape culture, but because feminism depends on the existence of a rape culture, you seem incapable of letting go of that idea. I’ve already disproved the idea of a rape culture in the United States, and you try to counterargue with a Huffington Post article – a site bound to confirm your biases (the Huffington Post is notorious for its bias in favour of social justice leftists and the Democrats).

Once again you employ the dismissal of the source because you don’t like it, rather than because you can address what it has to say. You fail to understand what is meant by rape culture as well. 

(in response to another set of comments) MGTOWs are ultimately cowards that want to retain the right to see women as objects and will do whatever it takes to view them as disposable. They drum up false ideas about ‘tyranny’ and frankly, they ARE crybabies.

Now hold on a moment. MGTOW’s may have some views I may disagree with but not all of them are cowards, and certainly not Tim. You’re looking at someone bold enough to hold my article to scrutiny and try to debate my ideas, and yet you call him a coward by virtue of calling all MGTOW’s cowards. SJW’s and feminist apologists are the real cowards. Not me, not Tim, nor anyone brave enough to question your feminist dogma.

I stand by my comments. MGTOWs AND MRAs are rallying against equality. They don’t want to lose their privilege. I have read enough MRA and MGTOW sites to see exactly how they view women and want to continue seeing women in that fashion. They have taken a very skewed view of feminism, treated it as a blanket position and run with it. Ironically, their attitude greatly fuels the worst elements of radical feminism.

It doesn’t fuel the worst elements of radical feminism, it is fuelled by them. The radfems have taken over the establishment and mainstream media, and the end result is young men dropping out of society and embarking on the Sexodus. Just go to any left-leaning media outlet, and you’ll find that they talk of “toxic masculinity” (which in reality is healthy display of masculinity that is being vilified by the left-wing press). They view all men as potential rapists, and automatically privileged and thus their opinion is somehow invalid. Compared to them the worst of MGTOW are not as bad as you may think. The difference is that you feminists have mainstream backing while the MGTOW’s don’t. Also, the MRA’s want equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome, as you do.

What you speak of is scare mongering. I tend to find this is the case of the reactionary right. Anything that is even remotely suggestive of equality suddenly becomes an attack on the poor, maligned white male, who is emasculated and in need of help to fight an oppressive regime. It simply isn’t true. It is, as I said before, a reflection of a sampling bias.

You sir are a moron. I don’t oppose equality (unless it’s equality of outcome, which is essentially the idea that everyone should be made to live under the same conditions with the same amount of wealth), and I am certainly not a right-wing reactionary (I’ve opposed them since I was a teenager I’ll have you know). I am in fact a libertarian, and as such I oppose authoritarian philosophies of all stripes, and that includes third-wave feminism. My musings on radical feminism aren’t based on scaremongering. They are based on the reality of what they have brought onto the world (campus censorship, trigger warnings, rising promiscuity, rising depression in women who work, the #KillAllMen hashtag). What men are concerned about isn’t equality, it’s about feminists poisoning gender relations in their pursuit of female supremacy over men, and you have yet to convince me otherwise.

Your aggressive attitude and lack of any meaningful counterpoint is certainly in keeping with the behaviour of right-wing reactionaries, so you are doing an excellent job of mimicking them.

You have latched on to one aspect of feminism and blown it out of all proportion. You don’t understand that feminism has different forms.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.