What happens when you throw logic at an MRA
This, basically.
A couple of weeks ago on YouTube I got into a debate with an MRA. (Or rather he replied to my post while calling me and other feminists names.) Seeing a chance for a real conversation, I tried to engage him by addressing his points in detail, citing links to support my position, and asking questions of my own.
So what do you think happened next?
a) He responded with like thoughtfulness and we had a nice chat.
b) He grew angry, called me names, and threatened violence.
c) Crickets; he ignored my post and did not answer.
d) He accused me of preaching icky feminist dogma, while also admitting he didn't read my post. Because he could TOTALLY TELL! Without reading a word! He's amazing!
A couple of months ago, a different MRA replied to my first comment with allusions to "indefensible feminist positions" and I challenged him to tell me what they were. I wasn't surprised when he didn't respond, but someone else did over a month later (all emphases are mine. Not going to use [sic], though, because then everything would be covered with the notation):
Indefensible Feminist Positions? Let's be honest it wouldn't matter what anyone says. Sure we could point out how Feminists have actively worked to discourage battered men's shelters, sure we could point out the Feminist lead rape hysteria which leads to men being assumed rapists, sure we could bring up Feminist campaigns for things like the Tender Year's Doctrine which was inherently sexist, etc etc. However, you would never believe it. Whatever we bring up would simply be written off as "not real feminists" and your delusional world view would be left in tact. Lastly, evil behavior that is validated is therefore encouraged. When individuals choose poor mates over good ones they are encouraging more of society to turn evil. Your problem with this is that he chose to hold women accountable, as men have been held accountable their entire lives. That level of responsibility terrifies you as Feminism has made you, and all women like you, into simpering children.
So I decided to respond the shit out of him. I would allude to every single one of the points he alluded to in passing, supported by linked information. I would number everything so he couldn't weasel out of my questions and points, as I had experienced so many times in Web debates. (Not just from the MRA side of the spectrum, mind you--I've had my share of run-ins with feminists.)
On the contrary, I am very much interested in what you have to say, as I will show you in excruciating detail. I'm just wondering if you're going to a) ignore/TL;DR me, or b) call me names while evading my questions. Just in case I'll be pleasantly surprised, I'll enumerate my clarifying or countering questions about every one of your points. I'd appreciate if you'd answer with the same numerical order. This way we'll know if anything's been left out, or if either of us is evading the other's questions.
1. When you say feminists have actively worked to discourage battered men's shelters, do you mean they actually shut down or shunted funding away from men's shelters, or that they pushed back against the MRM assertion that men and women are victims of domestic violence in equal numbers? If the former, see Question 2. If the latter, see Question 3.
2. Can you point me to a news article, a specific case, or a legislative or lobbying agenda relating to feminists stopping men's shelters from opening? I ask because my own research has turned up nothing; all I've found on the issue relates to feminists pushing back against the MRM's domestic violence figure, hence Questions 1 and 3.
3. If you mean by feminists discouraging men's shelters that they object to the gender parity in domestic violence figure, what do you think about the fact that this statistic has been criticized for its methodology and use of data? http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/myths-of-the-manosphere-lying-about-women These critics, incidentally, include Richard J. Gelles, an author of one of the original study cited by the MRM. http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2008/02/08/faq-but-doesnt-evidence-show-that-women-are-just-as-likely-to-batter-their-partners-as-men/ Gelles rejected this interpretation of his research. Do you believe Dr. Gelles is wrong about his own research, and if so, what are your reasons?
4. By "rape hysteria" do you mean false rape allegations? At least that's what I pulled up when I searched the term. This is actually an issue close to my heart because I'm defending a man that I have come to believe was falsely accused of sexual assault. Not only is this guy's lawyer--me--a feminist woman, the two star witnesses for his defense are women. My close friend is a prosecutor and fellow feminist who ordered a woman's house to be staked out for her arrest and indictment when it turned out this woman had made a false rape accusation.
So why don't you tell me again that feminists encourage false rape reporting? It's been a long day and I could use the laugh. I happen to believe, as do many fellow feminists, that women who make false rape reports are enemies of both women and men, of all human decency and honesty, in fact.
5. Are you aware that the tender years doctrine was put forward during the Victorian era when women had no legal rights except through fathers and husbands, and when custody was granted by default to men in case of divorce? Do you think the Victorian legal system was just to women and children? If yes, see Question 6. If not, see Question 7.
6. If you believe the Victorian system was just to women, do you think we should return to it? Why or why not?
7. If you believe the Victorian system was unjust, what do you think would have been a better way for feminists to get justice for women in divorce proceedings?
8. The following is an answer, not a question. Yes, the tender years doctrine was sexist, as was the doctrine that women have no sex drive, and the one that women are inherently more peaceful and moral than men. All of these are ideas asserted by feminists in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, and each was in response to specific repressions--the tender years doctrine in response to divorce courts that were skewed in favor of fathers, women's lack of sex drive in response to marital rape and the toll on women's health from excessive births, and the myth of the peaceful and moral woman in response to women's lack of franchise. That doesn't make these ideas any less sexist or okay, of course. They are, rather, the history of feminism's growth, which is a continuing process. The tender years doctrine has been replaced by the best interests of the child, for instance, and the sexless woman and inherent female morality are no longer mainstream feminist positions. Feminism was not and is not a perfect movement, and there are never-ending debates and disagreements within the movement because we don't think with a monolithic hive mind. We've achieved a lot, though, and there are always feminists pushing the movement to become better than it is. That's why I'm a feminist--not because feminists have never been wrong, but because it struggles to move in the right direction.
9. What about you? Do you believe the MRM is a perfect movement and that there are no sexist or misogynistic MRAs? If you see sexism in the movement, do you push back against it?
10. So what specifically is it that you find simpering or childish about me?
I figured the answer would be silence, as with the other guy. Instead he responded thus:
If you can't say something simply then you don't understand it well enough. When you want to have an actual conversation rather than aggrandize yourself on a soap box let me know.
Way to move the goalposts, fella! When I didn't respond as he predicted I would, this time his complaint was that I had engaged his points too thoroughly. If you don't want a long response, how about not, you know, packing a zillion complex issues into one cryptic paragraph?
Me: Ah, so it's option a) then. Thanks for not giving me any illusions about MRAs' ability to defend their positions.
Him: See now that's a lie. I told you whenever you are ready to actually have a conversation rather than give speeches I am right here. It seems that you can't help but lie about those who are not on board with your ideology. How predictable.
Me: You mean I need to resort to drive-by insults and insinuations instead of giving complex subjects the clear treatment they deserve? I'm sure you believe the scintillating pleasure of your conversation is worth sinking to your level of rhetoric and intellect, but I disagree. *shudder*
Him: Of course not. I want to have a conversation and you want to preach. Normal people don't give speeches when talking about issues especially at the beginning when nothing has been established yet. If the day ever comes when you want to have an intellectual discussion rather than having a flag waving competition I am absolutely ready.
Now I was more confused than annoyed. What did he mean that I was preaching? What was it about my post that was preachy?
Me: Not snark, 100% honest and puzzled question: Did you read my post? Every word is in direct response to the points you made, and asked you to clarify what you were talking about so I could respond without making unfounded assumptions about your meaning. You addressed some very complex issues in a very few words and it would have been very easy for me to mistake your meaning, hence the need for clarifications. The only thing that could remotely count as preaching was Item 8, which was again a direct response to your points about feminists' mistakes. Does asking for clarification and comment equal preaching to you?
The post as a whole is long, I'll admit, due to the huge number of issues you raised. The thing is, though, you did not see fit to respond to one. Single. Question. Not one paragraph, not one word, not one fact. From your response I'm led to believe you just looked at the length, decided I was directing a huge rant at you, and insulted and dismissed me without reading it at all. All this when I had not offered you a word of insult, and went through considerable time and research to respond to your points fairly without jumping to assumptions. Under these circumstances, how am I supposed to believe you're serious about having a conversation?
This was his response:
Him: I did dismiss you by looking at the size. I know how the game is played. I either respond to all of it or I get accused of cherry picking/taking things out of context. Look how much time you have wasted in this conversation attempting to justify the speech rather than actual discuss issues like human beings. This is because the speech is more important than any intellectual inquiry. If it makes you feel better I am sure your speech is so lovely that every Feminist will like it and every MRM will hate it. An excellent piece for quire singing, but not for two people having a chat. Now message me if you ever actual want to talk about something meaningful as I am always up for a chat.
HE DIDN'T READ IT! AND HE ADMITS IT! Because his manly powers allow him to divine the evil feminist wiles of a post by its SIZE!
There are not enough ROTFLs in the world.
And he wants me to message him? Shyeah right, I'd love to chat with a guy who refuses to have a debate except on his own arbitrary terms and would like the chance to abuse and insult me in private, without fear of my showing him up in public.
Me: Well that's new. I think this is the first time anyone outright admitted to not reading my post in a debate. It's refreshingly honest. It's also deeply sad--rather than evaluate the actual arguments and trust to your ability to spot and point out bad arguments, you would rather close your eyes and ears to opposing arguments in the first place.
It's also sort of hilarious that you assume you know the contents of a post from its size and the political viewpoint of the person who wrote it. I must be lying about my own post due to Reasons and Feminism, right? Why read anything when you know a text before ever reading it?
Thanks for the offer, but I won't be messaging you. I don't enjoy being insulted and dismissed based on fictitious assumptions, and people who engage in that kind of behavior aren't the kind of people I enjoy talking to.
I really wondered what he could say in response to that, and the answer turned out to be sweet silence. Another one vanquished for the team. *dusts off hands*
(As an aside, I didn't post screencaps because the whole thing is so long and I figured text was more user-friendly, but I did take screenshots so I'll make a separate post with the pics if anyone wants them. Srsly though, I couldn't make this crap up.)
So that's how my attempt to engage with an MRA with actual logic and facts went. Hey, at least no one threatened to rape and decapitate me, so it actually went rather well, all things considered.
Dreamwidth entry URL: http://ljlee.dreamwidth.org/53894.html