Feminism has become an unassailable ideology. It occupies a position in the media, academia, and NGOs akin to that occupied by the church in the 19th century. That has been achieved by turning it into a rhetorical fortress that is almost impossible to criticise.
The motte and bailey fallacy
A motte and bailey is a type of medieval castle consisting of a stone tower on a mound (the motte) surrounded by an area of land (the bailey) that is usually ringed by a fence or a ditch. In the event of an attack defenders could retreat from the outer perimeter to the more secure and easily defendable motte.
A motte and bailey argument is one where two positions are conflated. One, the motte, is modest and easy to defend; the other, the bailey, is more controversial and hard to defend. The more extreme argument is advanced but when challenged the proponent retreats to the more modest and easier to defend position – the motte.
The slogan ‘believe women’ means what it says. Women should be believed by virtue of their sex and the logical extension of this belief is that in a dispute between a man and woman, the default is that the woman should be believed. When challenged, feminists fall back to a defensible ‘motte’ that this only means the claims of women should be taken seriously. It is a form of concept swapping in which one concept is swapped for another without the audience realising.
‘Believe women’ means what it says –
False dilemma/dichotomy
A common claim is that feminism is just about equality and that if you oppose any aspect of feminist dogma you are against equality. By and large feminist’s and MRAs are sincere in their belief in equality and wish to achieve that. Neither feminists’s nor MRA’s have a monopoly of wisdom on how that equality is best achieved.
Similarly with the hate speech accusation. Some feminists and some MRA’s are motivated by hate but most are not. To reduce debate to people who agree with us and those who are motivated by hate helps nobody and is about not having engage with good-faith arguments.
Sexism = power + prejudice
This belief system runs deep through ‘critical theory’ and it can be very convenient for its protagonists. For example, if racism is defined as power plus prejudice, then according to ‘critical theory,’ black people can’t be racist towards whites because, it is said, power lies with white people. Similarly, some feminists, Charlotte Proudman for example, have argued that it is impossible for women to be sexist towards men because power lies with men. This is a patently silly argument that only an academic could believe. Furthermore, it is debatable whether men have more over women, the landscape is without doubt granular. Would a homeless man have more power than Charlotte Proudman? Feminists behave as if they have some kind of ‘magic voltmeter’ than can applied between social groups in order to determine the power difference between them. In truth, feminists exert their power by insisting they have none.
Harassment
Hearing views that conflict with doctrinal feminism can be construed as harassment and even result in loss of employment. Take the case of William Knowland a teacher at Eton who produced a YouTube video called the Patriarchy Paradox that challenged some notions of patriarchy theory. It was deemed that it be a form of harassment of female teachers to have to engage with this material, and he lost is job for refusing to take down the offending video.
Misogyny
I do not wish to defend misogyny in its real sense – the hatred of women. However, the word has lost almost all meaning through overuse and is used as an accusation to quell debate – ‘agree with me or you are a misogynist.’ The word has been applied to anything from good faith disagreements with orthodox feminist liturgy, not liking the Barbie movie or less than uncritical adulation of women’s football. This belief that you are with us or you are a misogynist runs deep in feminism. Take this quote from Andrea Dworkin, for example.
“Feminism is hated because women are hated. Anti-feminism is a direct expression of misogyny’
In short, there can be no such thing a good faith objection to any aspect of feminism. Andrea Dworkin was no fringe figure. She was described in the Guardian as recently as 2019 as. ‘the visionary feminist for our troubled times.’
Misogyny is the new blasphemy.
Lumping all mens right activism with incels
This is a common tactic and is part of the reason why feminists are so interested in incels even though they are few in number. For example, Jordan Peterson has been labelled an ‘incel-lectual’ by a writer on the Medium here . Actress Olivia Wilde has described him ‘a hero to the incel community.’
These are both pretty low blows. I am not a great fan of Jordan Peterson but he is married man with children. His message to incels is harsh and uncompromising, that their lack of a partner is their own fault and they shouldn’t blame society; that is the exact opposite of the incel belief system.
A variant of this is ‘incel ideology’ was used by journalist Sarah Manavis see blogpost of Oct 23. The claim was presented, without any supporting evidence, that ‘incel ideology’ had entered the mainstream. The aim was to link all forms of mens activism with incels and create a climate where men a reluctant to speak out for fear of being so labelled.
Lumping men’s rights activism with Andrew Tate
Feminists are also obsessed with Andrew Tate and as a result of their interest he has had the kind of media exposure that he would never have achieved through his own efforts. Andrew Tate is useful to feminists because all men’s activism can be reduced to that figure and feminists can argue for forms of censorship and control under the guise of compassion.
Male Fragility
Opposition to feminism is labelled as fragility. Men are used to power and can’t cope with a different point of view. Again, this is a way of not having to accept there a good faith differences of opinion and it is how feminists absolve themselves of the need to listen, think and respond.
Censorship
One of the best ways of countering arguments is never to have to hear them in the first place. Feminist have effectively censored views they disagree with by lumping them together with the extremes.
Women may be more prone to supporting censorship. Female academics were twice as likely as their male peers to support censoring a study that might be objectively true but could cause offence an identity group ( unless that group was white male).
I am not alone in encountering this problem. Amazon censors views critical of feminist books. This is not because of abusive language. Indeed, those reviews are left in place. It is because reviews that challenge the factual content of the books or expose weaknesses of arguments are a threat that must be removed. I have had detailed reviews of books by Laura Bates and Cathy Newman, that were devoid of invective and abuse, deleted by Amazon.
There are of course more subtle forms of censorship such as shadow banning such that the writer may no realise that he or she is censored. This is not reserved for radically right wing or abusive points of view.
Thought terminating clichés
The aim of these clichés is to stop the person who is being addressed from developing their ideas. Complex problems are compressed into brief, highly reductive phrases that are easily memorised and reproduced. ‘Women’s rights are human rights’ would be a good example. Of course they are human rights but so are men’s rights. It is a vacuous statement and the aim is, by the sin of omission, to imply all is well for men and it is only problems affecting women that are of concern. These statements become the start and finish of any discussion.
So, that is my list, but I am open to other ideas. It is important to recognise the tactics being used in order to counter them. Let me know what you think.
toxic feminism 