Monday, August 9, 2010

Snips and Snails, and Puppy Dog Tails

Okay, I am just going to come out and say it. Feminism, with their methods of fighting, their arguments, rhetoric and hypocrisies are much alike, “moderate” Islam, pro-affirmative actionists and what I consider to be a predominantly Indian trait1.

The argument:

  1. Women would NOT go raping men.2 (Context: If stereotypical sexual roles were reversed).

    That is perhaps3 as far from the truth as the myth that pedophilia did not exist (in the 70s and 80s), or that women were not sexually aggressive with minors, especially with minors under their care.4 The fact remains, that most feminists will gladly enjoy the support of the existing gender stereotypes in order to gain advantage in this “battle” of the sexes. Most women, especially feminists, that I have encountered, either find it hard to believe, or are incapable of entertaining the notion that women can be sexually aggressive with adult men. It stems from the stereotypical notions that men want/need sex all the time, and any offers for sex are by definition, not unwanted. That is just as sexist as a guy claiming dominion over “his woman’s sexual real-estate”. As for the original argument, it is only rhetoric, since there is no way we can find for absolutely certain the actual results. However, if nascent studies of female sexual aggression towards men are any indication, the first argument might quite easily be rebutted and debunked.

  2. Men are sexist.

    Yes, some men are. Perhaps I am too. But I would rather test this with a simple hypothetical scenario. Answers to this question help us understand who really is sexist.

    Stop being a whiny little runt and grow a pair.

    A guy saying that to a woman is… a jerk (using societies predetermined standards).
    A woman saying that to a man is… assertive.

    Somehow, when women proudly proclaim their superiority over men, claiming men think from their penises and only use a fraction of their brain as compared to women, they are not being sexist.

    So, as is quite visible from the double standards, as I am going to be judged as being sexist no matter what I do or say in my life, I would like to earn that sentence… so here are my parting thoughts on men being sexist. We are.

    Q.What do you tell a woman with two black eyes?
    A. Nothing. She has already been told twice.

  3. The Indian feminist and the dichotomy of Affirmative action.

    This argument is only valid for non-backward caste women that are anti-affirmative action in relation with the correction of India’s caste system. This might be a small group, but in India, it is a significant proportion of people in the “limelight”. The average feminist5 is against the affirmative action policy of the Indian government as a means to correct the (caste based) social structure that has been in social turmoil for centuries. My stance on this subject matters not. What is telling, however, is that the same affirmative action is rampant, and lobbied towards by feminist groups in India. With reservation for women in almost every sphere, from bus seats across the country, to entire railway cabins (in Bombay’s6 urban railway transportation system), to government jobs to the legal system7, it is insanely hypocritical to criticize affirmative action for backward castes while lobbying aggressively for affirmative action for women.

    The andro-feminist8 lobbyists and/or apologist camps are either in for the rhetoric9, or patronize any actual debate by lackadaisical (at best) propaganda10.

    “sorry our point of views don’t meet, since i geniuely want reservation for women even if caste based reservation is removed….the needs of women is better understood by a women and not men…. some men show respect to women not all…..u r blog show ur insecurity….if u hav mother , wife n daughter ask them to read it, they might gv u the right opinion…” [sic]

    The rhetoric of this argument is quite lucidly and effectively rebutted within the same web-blog.

    “You are basing your ideas on assumptions and pre-conceived notions such as:
    1. Women understand women better.
    2. (By that token of false logic, men understand men better. Therefore, no laws that affect men should be made by women.)
    3. Women are better than men.
    4. (Do I need to say something? Really?)
    5. Men are privileged and women are victims.
    6. Women alone are discriminated (against).
    7. Men’s rights constitute insecurity.
    8. (Being concerned about men’s rights, in a day and age that is saturated with women’s rights groups is not being sexist or insecure. It is insecure in so much that we do not want to sit by, watching the freak show, only to find we are left with none of our basic rights and freedoms. This can be illustrated by the adoption laws of various countries, and father’s rights. It is only gaining prevalence, that gender bears no significance as far as child interests)
    9. Some men show respect to women (Which implies that women alone should be respected and with an assumption that men are automatically respected)."

    [Changed for formatting and omission of point 6 due to out of context information. Italics indicate content added]

    The same rhetoric is repeated on Wikipedia’s article relevant to the Women’s Reservation Bill of India that aims to incorporate a 33% reservation for women in the upper and lower houses of the union parliament as well as in state legislative assemblies.

    • Due to female foeticide and issues related to women's health, sex ratio in India is alarming at 1.06 males per female. It is expected this will change the society to give equal status to women.[citation needed]

    • Women are supposedly more resistant to corruption. Therefore, this bill might prove to be a factor restraining the growth of corruption.[citation needed]

    [citation needed tag to the Wikipedia article did not exist prior to the conception of this post, Saturday, July 24, 2010]

    No original research is cited for any of these claims. They are, in principle, a fallacy from false assumption. For instance, “women are supposedly more resistant to corruption” is a false assumption since there is no reason to believe that statement. I could submit my own rebuttal committing the same logical fallacies that are committed by feminists11, but hey, some of us actually have ethical responsibilities to the truth.

  4. Equal Work for equal Pay.

    The equal work for equal pay argument, at the surface seems like a valid concern. After all, why shouldn’t women get paid equally for performing the same work as their male counterparts? It seems only fair. However, the equal pay fight is not a request for equal pay for equal work, though that is the premise. Financial equality is an attempt at equal pay for equivalent work.

    The perfect example of this is Wimbledon and women’s tennis.

    The same is true in countless other disciplines (of sport, at least). Why do women’s leagues exist in other sports? Why don’t female cricketers, or baseball player, or basketball, football play in men’s leagues? Aren’t they “equal” to men in every way? Yet, they harp about the lack of interest in these disciplines from the general population. Perhaps because the level of competition in the women’s disciplines is hardly even a fraction of the level of competition, fitness and skill of their male counterparts, in this day and age.

    And in the event that these comments are misconstrued as being sexist, I am a big fan of Karnam Malleshwari, have always been. In spite of the fact that Women’s weightlifting is separate from Men’s. I have no misconceptions that men and women have evolved differently (biologically and physically) that it won’t be over-night, that women will be able to compete on a regular basis at the level men do (if at all that possibility exists). Keep in mind; this is true of (generalizing) strength and stamina sports. The same cannot be said of skill sports.

  5. The Label Argument.

    Whenever men decide to take the offensive stance against feminisms ill’s we are suddenly met, with a defensive, pitiable12stance. The argument against all of the above 4 points takes on the form of “us and them” within the “realm”. Brands of feminism are invoked, and an adherence to a different brand can be prescribed as seen fit. It is, in essence the same argument that “moderate” Islam prescribes to.

    “We are not violent. Do not label an entire group because of a few miscreants.”
    “The Quran does not prescribe violence. If a muslim uses violence, he/she is not a muslim.”

    The same argument is used by feminists, claiming that radical feminism should not be used to tarnish the image of “real” feminism. However, the “qualitative” differences matter not when the quantitative damage is vast and can be enjoyed by feminists irrespective of their brand name.

    But I should make the concession for the possibility that I am wrong, or too harsh against feminists. Perhaps it is true. Why should all the feminists be tarnished because of certain brands of feminism? Oh well, because ALL men must pay for the sins of some? Because a guy in delhi cannot keep it in his pants, I must too be labeled as a sex-craving lunatic. Every guy can think only from his pants. Well fuck you to the women that prescribe to this double standard. If you can generalize all men based on the (horrific) actions of some, then you too should be able to face the criticism of the whole based on sub-sects of feminism. Some would argue an eye for an eye. Well, sure, I am all for that. Go rape those men that raped that innocent, helpless woman13, but don’t stand there, trying to poke my eyes out and expect me not to defend myself. And if the eye gouging gets too insistent, do not expect friendly counters.


  1. I am talking about hypocrisy here, of course. If there was any doubt.

  2. This is perhaps the oldest, most naïve, and dumbest argument I have heard for a pro-feminism stance.

  3. I say “perhaps” because there isn’t really a way for us to find that out. Unless we find ourselves magically transformed into (or remotely viewing) an Amazonian civilization.

  4. Female Sexual Abuse

  5. I do not care what label of feminism you identify with. Neo or not, feminism is feminism.

  6. It is Bombay. Fuck you to the self-proclaimed keepers of India’s future. Or lack of it.

  7. Yes, laws can be made, with a bent towards affirmative action. Renuka Chaudhary, or as I like to refer to her, sexist bitch extraordinaire, has successfully done so with the Domestic Violence act. And yet, not the slightest of mutterings from these egalitarian feminists I am told exist. Seems kind of like the flying spaghetti monster.

  8. A term I have coined, for there is a lacking of such. An Andro-feminist, is a male feminist lobbyist, either actively, or passively. These are men that have been so brainwashed into thinking themselves unworthy, sexist pigs, that they cannot rationally form an argument, unless their wives/mothers/sisters etc. tell them so.

  9. Full Post Here

    “A humanities professor at IIT-Mumbai tried to argue that because "merit" isn't applied uniformly in the socio-economic sphere in India, one ought not be too perturbed over its sacrifice in India's centrally-funded institutions of higher learning. Moreover, he argued that merit was a concept that was "over-emphasized" because it was so fraught with human subjectivity and contextual sensitivities that it wasn't really possible to truly determine who was "meritorious" anyway. Jayati Ghosh (a British-educated JNU academic in the Prime Minister's Knowledge Commission) was cynically dismissive of the merit argument, opining that the IITs weren't institutions of merit anyway presumably because a Chinese study (of rather limited value and significance) had determined that because the IITs had produced no Nobel Prize winners, they could not be considered as institutions of any international import. Even though Ms Ghosh is neither a scientist nor an engineer by training (and does not appear to be particularly familiar with the biased methodology that was used in the Chinese study) Ms Ghosh enjoys the luxury of being taken seriously because of her political connections with the CPM.”

  11. An example of such a logical fallacy would be:
    Benazir Bhutto, Mamata Bannerjee, Jayalalitha, and countless other female politicians are corrupt. Therefore female politicians are corrupt. Therefore an increased representation of women in parliaments will not reduce the corruption in the country.

    This logical fallacy is called Fallacy of accident or Sweeping generalization. See ITY, you don’t just learn “bad” words here.

  12. argumentum ad misericordiam

  13. It is startling how easily women transform their images from strong, capable and “equal” to, helpless as need suits them. To the few women that have confided how unsafe they feel in the streets (of India, usually) and their fears of male aggression, I find the best solution is to recommend mace/pepper spray. However, all these women have, by way of one nonsensical argument or another, convinced themselves of how ineffectual that would be.

    Female1: But what is common in most of my dreams is me, out on the roads all by myself…feeling so unsafe
    TDD: Buy yourself a pepper spray?
    Female1: I dont go out at night.


Anonymous said...

Uh fantastic rant, mate. Frankly, I'm quite horrified by certain perceptions of males in India (condoned by certain, make that of the influential lawmakers ) . Supposedly, males are stronger, assertive, closed minded, hypocritical, too demanding, given to domestic violence (towards women), highly unfaithful, unwilling to use contraceptive measures, against female rights...and...oh wait, I'm out of breath, yeah.
When some males retort that they don't fit any of those criteria, we get a soviet communist style response "You belong to a miniscule minority of upper class urbanites". Uh yes, that's right, we do. So? Are we to be dismissed as exceptions to the *ahem* "rule", yes? Can't a poorer male be open minded? Are our worldviews linked to the size of our bank accounts?
What's even worse, many males happily except this sort of trash hurled their way. The domestic Violence law, was of course, a perfect example. Why should anyone think of it as wrong? After all, it protects weak, helpless, vulnerable, virtuous females! After all, women could never, ever, ever abuse something so obviously in their favour. They're virtuous, aren't they? And we're just a bunch of upper class tools who exist to be dismissed.

Sorry, lads. That's the truth, yeah!

The Depressed Doormat said...

@Anonymous: Thank you for the compliment. Yes, urban Indians do have a certain Anglo-conformity (Anglo used loosely here), some might even say an Anglo-complex. Your ability to be educated and your ability to read/write in English delimits understanding (one would have you believe) and any reduced capability in this "global" language renders one unintelligent. Some people have ability to communicate and intelligence all mixed up.

(sarcasm start)And yes, women are helpless... they should just stay indoors like they were told to (sarcasm end).

It is just a pity that all the so-called feminists will cower under cover with little to justify against raised criticisms.

Also, I think I know who you are.