As discussed last week, this week we’re going to go a bit more in-depth into lies used by feminist advocates to promote their narratives and their agenda. Why is addressing feminist lies so important? It’s not just because “someone is wrong on the internet,” but because of how feminist organizations filter their male-demonizing lies through their grassroots to achieve their goals.
Feminists in media and education spoon feed their young charges false statistics, unsupported theory, and political rhetoric, making the movement a living propaganda machine wherein nobody involved is individually accountable for promoting falsehoods - a dishonesty laundering scam. Those influential few at the top feed their agenda into one end, and the response goes through the ranks to that grassroots, who react with little understanding and less concern for the effects of their actions than for how their ideology and activism makes them feel. The output is the promotion and spread of numerous logic fallacies that are then used to justify demand for anti-male discriminatory law, policy, and social standards.
A logic fallacy is a common error in reasoning that undermines your logic, usually either because it is irrelevant, or because it is not a legitimate argument, such that your conclusion is not actually established by the available information. The simplest name for this, when there is not another specific label to put on it, is the non sequitur, defined as “a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.” More involved forms of erroneous reasoning have their own labels which are generally descriptive.
When I said I was going to expand on this, one of our patrons drew my attention to a website, quackwatch.com, which discusses the use of fallacious logic in health fraud and quackery. The site describes quackery in terms of sharing misinformation, deliberately or not, in the promotion of false or unproven medical remedies. To me, the connection is pretty clear: The feminist movement, the grassroots of which is mostly clueless as to the agenda of its leadership, has engaged in a large scale promotion of false or at least unproven assertions about social and legal issues and on their basis, demanded equally false or unproven purported remedies. Feminism is human rights issues quackery.
In terms of the ideology’s character, this strain of dishonesty is a feature, not a bug, as their entire set of standards, beliefs, and principles is based on one of those unproven social claims: Patriarchy theory.
Feminism’s concept of Patriarchy is essentially of a system in which men have power that is denied to women. While feminists who write about Patriarchy claim there is no consensus on its definition, that description is a common factor in the various definitions given in academic feminist writing and reference material. When questioned about the validity of this theory, feminists offer a set of arguments in support of it that boil down to:
- Asserting that women’s experience of intimate partner and sexual violence proves male domination
- Defining existing cooperative gender roles, rites of social organization, the division of labor, and communication as aspects of patriarchy
- Asserting that positions of responsibility (labeled “positions of power” by feminists) being predominantly filled by men proves male power
These arguments are all, on their own, non sequitur arguments in that their conclusion in Patriarchy Theory does not follow. However, there is a more specific fallacy involved here.
The first argument relies on ignoring the dynamics of intimate partner and sexual violence, which is perpetrated by both sexes and experienced by both sexes.
The second relies on the assumption that individual aspects of society’s development are all imposed on women against their will by men who have the power to override that will. For these things to actually be evidence validating Patriarchy Theory, feminists would have to provide solid, irrefutable proof that from these traditions’ beginnings, men imposed them on all women against their will. Even if the dynamics exist, but are willingly promoted and enforced by both sexes, that does not lead to a conclusion that we live in a society in which men have power that is denied to women, as willing enforcement by women would be a function of female power.
The third relies on cherry-picking which types of power to pay attention to in order to maintain the perception of male dominance, acknowledging only power they deem property of men to be dominating power, while avoiding acknowledgement of the social influence of women on law and policy. Men in positions of responsibility are, on the most basic level, beholden to female consumers and constituents.
What are feminists’ counters to these points?
They claim that intimate partner and sexual violence represents a gendered attack on women because women experience them under a patriarchal system.
Asked to prove that traditional gender dynamics, stereotypes, and roles represent patriarchal control of women, they use their own disapproval of and beliefs about these traditions, combined with their existing presumption of male domination as reason to presume that is the case.
They defend their cherry-picking of what types of power to acknowledge by describing women’s social power as if it is tempered by patriarchal oppression.
To simplify, feminists support their claim that women live under an oppressive, patriarchal system by presenting as their evidence genderless experiences and cooperative social dynamics, which they present as gendered experiences and imposed social dynamics on the basis of the system for which they’re being cited as evidence. Their fallacy is circular reasoning; their conclusion is derived from a premise based on the conclusion, or in other words, their logic goes in a circle that ultimately relies on their belief in their conclusion as proof the conclusion is true. Countering this does not disprove patriarchy theory, but it does not have to. Patriarchy theory is a positive assertion; the burden of proof lies with the person advocating it. Rather, this renders it unproved and therefore ineligible to be used as a rational basis for any other feminist argument.
For example, this would invalidate feminists’ use of the claim that women are uniquely vulnerable due to historical oppression as support for a demand that legal and social remedies for victims of intimate partner and sexual violence should be reserved strictly or mostly for female victims of male perpetrators. If it is not proved that women are oppressed and men are not dominant, it’s not proved proved that female victims of male perpetrators are more grievously impacted by these issues than male victims who also experience them, or than victims of female perpetrators. Therefore, society is not demonstrably justified in denying assistance to any one group of such victims for the purported benefit of any other group.
These are the types of arguments that are needed in order to untangle the web of lies on which the greater feminist movement’s quackery is based… and that act of holding the movement to account for its lies is an essential step toward legal and social reform. Popular opinion must change before society will support such reform, and before legislators will even consider it. Logic and reason are key to that change.
It is because of this that HBR talk will be going over some of the more prevalent feminist fallacies, the flaws in their logic, and how to counter their arguments and the lies on which they are based. It is time for an end to the quackery.