Is There Any Excuse for Feminist Aggression?

If you have studied feminist behavior for as long as we seasoned veterans have done, you'll have noted that much of their aggression against the activated non-feminist sector, and the pro-male project in particular, takes the form of slander and name-calling. Broadly speaking, such aggression occurs under two headings, and I will  discuss each of these in turn.

Firstly, the feminists aggress against us as a group by conducting smear campaigns. This means that they will corral us arbitrarily with people, parties, platforms, ideologies and so on, to which we are not necessarily linked. For example, how are "misogyny",  anti-semitism, white supremacism or the Tea Party movement necessarily linked to the defense of male human rights against feminist aggression? The answer is that the former are unconnected, at their core, to the latter -- and that the latter can troop ahead just fine without the former tagging along.  However, we must admit that pro-male gathering places in cyberspace often have a pungent mix of such elements, and that the lay public (non-feminist or otherwise) has a full view of this. 

And so the feminists take advantage. They know perfectly well that a random mix of strangers on a web forum is not a "movement" any more than a bunch of guys sitting at a bar would be. After all, anybody can pop in there -- and quite a few do! And they also know perfectly well that to advocate men's human rights is intellectually unrelated to, say, opposing abortion rights. Belief in either one mandates no belief in the other. Finally, they know perfectly well that if somebody makes a "misogynistic" comment, and somebody else voices no objection, it puts zero tarnish on the principle that men have human rights. But still, in all of these ways and more, the feminists take advantage. And well they know it.

Yes, that is how a smear campaign works. The verb "to smear" is a metaphor. Just imagine putting ten or twelve blobs of differently-colored paint side by side, and literally smearing them together with your fingers. I think you get the idea. And if your name is Arthur Goldwag of the Southern Poverty Law Center, you know exactly where I'm coming from. Don't pretend that you don't, fool!

Secondly, the feminists aggress against us as individuals by redirecting the discussion toward our real or imputed character flaws. For example, it packs no intellectual weight whatsoever call somebody a "neckbeard", or to suggest that he "lives in his mother's basement". Thus, if Norris Neckbeard says "every triangle is a three-sided figure", and Frieda Feminist says "Norris Neckbeard lives in his mother's basement, therefore he is wrong", then Frieda Feminist is guilty of argumentum ad hominem, which means that her statement packs no intellectual weight. So if Norris further states that "men are human beings and they have human rights", and Frieda replies as before, that Norris is wrong because he lives in his mother's basement, then once again Frieda is guilty of argumentum ad hominem, which means that her words pack no intellectual weight. 

But look now, let's try this another way. Suppose that Frieda Feminist knew for a fact that Norris Neckbeard was a child molester -- which is a damn sight worse than living in your mother's basement! Would that modify the truth value of  Norris's original statement about triangles? Well if I know my geometry, the effect would be diddly-boo. But more interestingly, how would it effect the truth value of Norris's second statement? If it be known for a fact that Norris Neckbeard is a child molester, would that damage the principle that men are human beings with human rights? All right, now suppose Norris is a homophobe, or a Tea Party dude, or an anti-abortionist, or an anti-semite, or a PUA lounge-lizard, or anything else of a similar controversy rating. If Norris Neckbeard were any or all of these things, would it remove one single chip from the universal principle that men are human beings with human rights? Or would it diminish, by even a molecule, the fact that Norris himself is a human being with human rights?

It is both revealing and damning, when the feminists make use of such tactics (and strategies) as I have outlined here. It reveals that they have no real ammunition to use against us and can only fling mud. It furthermore reveals their aggression in all of its naked obscenity, and this damns them. On that note I rest my case, leaving you to ruminate upon all of this as your own wisdom guides you.