It's one thing to dispute the validity of an argument, or a specific claim,
or a prevalent attitude or action, but to lump together and dispute the validity
of an entire demographic, regardless of which demographic, isn't
actually a defensible position, nor a useful strategy. When you debate a specific point, your debate is relevant to that point. You exchange information, logic, and rationality. When you argue against an entire demographic and/or ideology, your debate degrades into meaningless drivel and propaganda. You cease to be concerned with an issue and start arguing straw people and stereotypes instead.
I've seen plenty of claims like "feminists are misandrous bigots" and "women are selfish and don't care about men's issues." You know what that gets you? NAWALT/NAFALT. For example, the majority of participants in the local march for male genital integrity this past year were women, likely some feminists among them as well. I can even show you several examples of women as high profile MRAs.
I've also seen plenty of claims like "MRAs are misogynists" and "men are oppressive and don't care about women's issues." You know what that gets you? NAMALT/NAMRAALT. There's plenty of MRAs who have never said anything demonstrating hate of women. There's plenty of self-identifying and very active male feminists who seem to care about little else.
And that's the end of any legitimate debate. Every. Single. Time.
From there, it's nothing but each side trying to prove they are "less evil" somehow and the other is "more evil" somehow, because they think that will somehow provide them some sort of victory.
Get a clue.
Even if you were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "feminism" or "MRAs" were an evil group, it still not only allows the individual you're arguing with to deny personal association and involvement with that evilness, but it does nothing to address or refute any specific claims they've made, or convince them to change their mind about any issue, or raise awareness about anything. All it does is get 2+ people bitching at each other about which one of them belongs to the "more bigot" demographic. You think any normal, reasonable person is going to stick around and read 3 pages or listen to 15 minutes of that garbage before getting to the little nugget of useful information you've buried in there? You think the person you're arguing with is going to see that nugget and change their mind about anything? Think again.
So, what should you do when faced with a "feminist" or "MRA" then?
Focus on their arguments instead of their demographic.
Tell them how their claims are bullshit, and ignore their association.
Disprove their specific results instead of attacking their entire ideology.
If you can dispute their entire argument one piece at a time, independent of their ideology label, not only will they not be able to wiggle out of it with NAFALT/NAMRAALT, but they may actually not get so defensive that they throw up blinders and stick their fingers in their ears to avoid considering what you have to say.
In the end, what would be more valuable to your cause?
Normal people actually listening and being exposed to information, as well as opposing ideologues possibly changing their perspective...
...or just pissing off the person you disagree with as much as possible until one of you finally quits to go spout vitriol elsewhere?
That's why I roll my eyes every time somebody uses "feminist" or "MRA" as a derogatory label. It doesn't actually have anything to do with human rights, or exposing bigotry, or honest debate, or even raising awareness about any particular issue. It's about nothing more than animosity and an attempt at vengeance based on your own prejudice, not theirs.
I've seen plenty of claims like "feminists are misandrous bigots" and "women are selfish and don't care about men's issues." You know what that gets you? NAWALT/NAFALT. For example, the majority of participants in the local march for male genital integrity this past year were women, likely some feminists among them as well. I can even show you several examples of women as high profile MRAs.
I've also seen plenty of claims like "MRAs are misogynists" and "men are oppressive and don't care about women's issues." You know what that gets you? NAMALT/NAMRAALT. There's plenty of MRAs who have never said anything demonstrating hate of women. There's plenty of self-identifying and very active male feminists who seem to care about little else.
And that's the end of any legitimate debate. Every. Single. Time.
From there, it's nothing but each side trying to prove they are "less evil" somehow and the other is "more evil" somehow, because they think that will somehow provide them some sort of victory.
Get a clue.
Even if you were to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that "feminism" or "MRAs" were an evil group, it still not only allows the individual you're arguing with to deny personal association and involvement with that evilness, but it does nothing to address or refute any specific claims they've made, or convince them to change their mind about any issue, or raise awareness about anything. All it does is get 2+ people bitching at each other about which one of them belongs to the "more bigot" demographic. You think any normal, reasonable person is going to stick around and read 3 pages or listen to 15 minutes of that garbage before getting to the little nugget of useful information you've buried in there? You think the person you're arguing with is going to see that nugget and change their mind about anything? Think again.
So, what should you do when faced with a "feminist" or "MRA" then?
Focus on their arguments instead of their demographic.
Tell them how their claims are bullshit, and ignore their association.
Disprove their specific results instead of attacking their entire ideology.
If you can dispute their entire argument one piece at a time, independent of their ideology label, not only will they not be able to wiggle out of it with NAFALT/NAMRAALT, but they may actually not get so defensive that they throw up blinders and stick their fingers in their ears to avoid considering what you have to say.
In the end, what would be more valuable to your cause?
Normal people actually listening and being exposed to information, as well as opposing ideologues possibly changing their perspective...
...or just pissing off the person you disagree with as much as possible until one of you finally quits to go spout vitriol elsewhere?
That's why I roll my eyes every time somebody uses "feminist" or "MRA" as a derogatory label. It doesn't actually have anything to do with human rights, or exposing bigotry, or honest debate, or even raising awareness about any particular issue. It's about nothing more than animosity and an attempt at vengeance based on your own prejudice, not theirs.