I found this on another website:

Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt discussion…

I’ve seen this before.

Feminist myths and tricks frequently used to disrupt discussion

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 1998 16:50:55 GMT

[Posted in alt.mens-rights and soc.men]

The purpose of this FAQ is to briefly _identify_ prominent Feminist myths and tricks that are frequently used to disrupt good discussions, and by doing so, to give alt.mens-rights the tools to move onto better discussion; to _focus_ instead of just endlessly defending against the same old anti-male slander.

The purpose is not to argue or to prove anything to anybody. If you’re interested in more substantive material, I suggest starting with the WWW

page (Not affiliated with this FAQ or with me):

http://www.vix.com/men/index.html

After some myths I include concise rebuttals and/or pointers to further information. Don’t be misled: this is not an effort to fully explore and rebut the Feminist nonsense in question. It is a short _reminder_ of what’s wrong with that particular Feminist lie, nothing more.

Feminist generally follow up this FAQ with attacks, regardless that it’s not directed to them nor intended to substantively prove anything. To them, everything is a move in their “men bad, women good” game. They don’t want us to identify and name their lies. And that’s a good reason to do it.

I urge you not allow these myths to derail discussion of other issues, even other related issues. If they have not got a clue yet, you can bet they won’t get a clue from anything you say. Instead, I suggest simply cutting-and-pasting from this file, as some have done.

The myths below have had more than a fair hearing – they have had billions of hearings, here and almost everywhere else on the planet. We in alt.mens-rights have heard and debunked these myths literally hundreds of times. I strongly suggest we refuse to re-discuss them endlessly. These little snippets of Feminist hatred have had their chance already. You don’t owe them another one.

I feel that any self-respecting people after having addressed the myths _once_ should not have tolerated them any further. We don’t need to be complicit in our own defamation.

Myth: Men (or white males) have it great. Men are well provided-for by society.

False. On _this_ planet, men are second class citizens in many ways.
This is the most cancerous myth of all and those who proselytize it are quite beyond civilized discussion.

Trick: The preponderance of male legislators (male columnists, etc.)
demonstrates male power.

False and sexist. This is known as “The Frontman Fallacy”: looking at
what _sex_ influential people are instead of looking at _what they actually
do_. Most legislators, male and female, show favoritism to women’s interests.

Female circumcision is committed almost entirely by women, yet no-one
says female circumcision demonstrates female power.

Trick: Social institutions not specifically dedicated to women are therefore specifically dedicated to men. “Males have _everything_ else in their favor.”

False. It seems that for every issue, Feminists claim that all _other_ issues except the one in question are working in men’s favor, and never acknowledge that they say this about every issue!

Trick: Well, in the past and in faraway places, males had it so good and women were treated horribly.

Not credible. This trick conveniently places the assertion far enough away that you can’t easily check it, but where the Feminist propaganda machine can still churn out horror stories to fit its agenda.

Myth: Domestic violence is committed primarily by men against women.

False. National studies, such as Steinmetz, such as Straus & Gelles, and

such as McNeely, have repeatedly shown the rates men->women and women->men to be almost exactly equal. See
http://www.vix.com/pub/men/domestic-index.html

Myth: We have to admit domestic violence _is_ committed by women, but
it’s just because they were abused, so it’s still the man’s fault.

False again! Researchers such as Coromae Mann have concluded “I would
not define these women as battered women, I would say they are battering
women”.

Myth: The single largest cause of injury to a woman in the U.S. is domestic violence.

False. And considering the millions of injuries in the US from other sources, numerically ridiculous.

Myth: Women earn $0.XX per man’s $1.00 for the same work. (The $0.XX claimed varies wildly)

False. This myth refuses to take into account important considerations such as actual hours worked (!), training, job commitment, etc.

Myth: Men control more money than women.

False. Men work for and earn more money, but women control more than 65% of US personal wealth, and spend 4 consumer dollars for every consumer
dollar that men spend.

Myth: Women’s standard of living falls after divorce while men’s rises.

False. This myth is based on an “advocacy” study by Lenore Weitzmann that has been long debunked, for use of unrepresentative samples, misleading arithmetic, insistence on counting payments from the ex-husband to the ex-wife as if he still possessed the money, and so forth. Weitzmann openly broke the American Sociological Association’s Code Of Ethics but has yet to be disciplined for it.

Trick: “Feminist” and “woman” are interchangeable terms. The opposite of
“Feminists” is “men”. Feminist interests and women’s interests are interchangeable terms.
False and absurd. Our opinion of all women could never be so low.

Trick: I’m a male and I agree with the Feminists that [particular
Feminist lie]

Not impressed. You’re far from the first man to sell out their own. You may believe that as what you call a “male” you’re in the perfect position to backstab men’s rights, but we’ve heard it all before.

Myth: Choice for men is about men trying to evade parental responsibilities.

False and sexist. In the US, choice for men would give men only the rights women have had since Roe v Wade, nothing more. It would not let the man compel the woman to abort. See http://www.nas.com/c4m/

Trick: People who oppose Feminists are “threatened by strong women”

It is manipulative and arrogant to imply that the only flaw feminists could possibly have is to be “too strong”.

Trick: Feminists just want equality. Feminism is about people.

The anti-male nature of Feminists is so obvious, so huge, so outrageous, that to discuss this myth would only dignify it undeservedly. And we’ve all noticed that purveyors of this trick don’t object when the “Why should Feminism do anything for men” trick is used.

Trick: Why should Feminism do anything for men? Why don’t men form their own groups instead of demanding that Feminism behave itself?

We do, and obviously we lack the political clout of Feminism. But given Feminism’s constant use of appeal to pity, it is enormously hypocritical to now say “Who cares about you, we got ours!” And we’ve all noticed that purveyors of this trick don’t object when the “Feminism is about people” trick is used.

Myth: Differences in the skills and behaviour of men and women are all caused by socialisation. Thus in principle all women can do most jobs as well as all men.

There is an enormous middle ground between biological determinism and cultural determinism. Both extremes are ridiculous. We should not accept the socialization-causes-it-all theory as “the alternative” to biological determinism.

Trick: Women have it worse because violence against women is increasing
at a faster rate than violence against men.

This is the Fallacy of Confounding the Derivative with the Function. Men have it much worse, as evinced by the two major U.S. Department of Justice crime measures. The actual victimization rates for women are still much lower than those of men.

Trick: You can’t criticize Feminism because no statement you make is true of _all_ Feminists.

This trick tries to block discussion by making it impossible to express your thought. The writer simply specifies that by “Feminism”, he means mainstream Feminism, misandry. Another approach is to qualify the term: “Gender Feminism”, “Biofeminism”, or “Radical Feminism”. And if Feminism really was so random, by the same token you wouldn’t be able say anything positive about it.

Trick: Well _I_ don’t approve of [some particular Feminist evil]. Only some rare radical Feminists do. Maybe.

If you genuinely don’t, then we weren’t criticizing _you_. But generally the statement is part of the old good cop / bad cop routine. Do you eve actually criticize the misandrists? Ever advance new arguments against Feminist policies or actions? Ever spread the word about the latest Feminist outrage? Or do you just tell _us_ to stop holding Feminism
accountable?

Trick: There is no Feminist agenda. I must have been away when the agenda was handed out

That tactic has become a favorite one to deflect criticism about the activities being conducted on their behalf. Movements don’t exist without agendas, nor can they be effective without a fairly high degree of uniformity among their supporters.

Trick: I don’t speak for Feminism, just for myself. I’m not accountable for Feminism. Feminism is not accountable for me.

Fair enough if it came from a real non-Feminist. But if you have argued in defense or support of Feminism, you have shown your colors and we won’t forget it for your convenience. It’s also fair to hold Feminism accountable for you if other Feminists refrain from significantly criticizing you.

Trick: You’re a misogynist!

Misogyny has a precise meaning: Hatred of women _as a class_. Those who use
the term irresponsibly are both unfairly pretending there’s much more misogyny than there really is and also demonizing people. If someone calls you a misogynist just because you are in conflict with an individual woman or you don’t support special priveleges for women, they owe you a huge
apology. (But good luck getting it)

Trick: No man can know how awful childbirth is.

False. We have wives, sisters, mothers, female friends, and so forth, and we have a pretty good idea of what is and is not involved. We’re not about to be bluffed into giving more sympathy than is merited or bullied into playing dumb.

Trick: You’re just as bad as the feminists. They hate men, you hate feminists.

Come off it. Anyone who can’t see the difference between hating a birth-group (men) and hating a hate-group back (feminists) needs to pull their head out.

Trick: Anyone who opposes Feminism is a reactionary who wants to go
“back to the past”. Feminism is “progress”.

Anti-feminists are not neccessarily traditionalists. The author is a proud anti-feminist and is not a traditionalist. And not everyone agrees that Feminism is “progress”. On the contrary, most here think Feminism has been a disaster.

Trick: Why is SO IMPORTANT to you to argue about [some particular gender issue]?

You should be asking this of Feminists, not of Antifeminists. The Feminists invented the “Which sex has it worse?” issue with all its variations and invented countless lies about it. It was only when the lies were thrown in our face over and over that we realized we had to defend men. Why attack Antifeminists for defending men, and say nothing to Feminists for attacking men in the first place?

Trick: Men are responsible for wars. This justifies many sorts of manbashing, including the all-male draft.

You mean, men _are sent_ to war. Surely sending a birth group to their deaths does not justify further discrimination against that group.

Trick: You’re not a woman so you could never understand.

And when’s the last time you told a female Feminist she could never hope to understand because she’s not a man? And so the only people who can comment on gender issues are people who have had sex change operations?

I have nothing against a pugnacious style; I try to be hard-hitting myself in my comments and posts.

However, I do think you’d do better to make fewer points at a time and to develop your arguments, rather than putting a little of everything into one huge turgid paragraph. I read everything you wrote – I made myself – and there’s much that I basically agree with. But nothing you wrote would have had any chance of persuading me if I didn’t already think that way.

And that’s the point, isn’t it? To persuade, if not the person you’re debating against, then the silent masses who read without commenting.

Or are we all just preaching to our respective choirs?

I will not apologize on behalf of the sins of my goddamn gender and race, which I’m damn proud of.

I wouldm’t ask you to, and there’s nothing wrong with that pride.

But I smell a contradiction here: When discussing “sins”/privileges of men you assert that you (or white men collectively) don’t get them, as you are not Bill Gates (here I agree), but why must you (or white men collectively) insist on getting praise for being the same race and gender as Karl Benz?

Either choose invidualism or collectivism and stick with it, good and bad.

You also raised some legitimate points about issues faced by men, but I doubt you will get much debate with the accusatory tone you have adopted.

On #16, in economic terms, is it really a privilege to be encouraged to participate in activities that result in lower socioeconomic status?

Do they result in lower socioeconomic status? I’m not buying that playing ball for some time couple of days will result to decreased capability of reading books (in fact, I could remember wrong, but at least anecdotally I know this is true, that certain amount of physical activity makes concentration easier), and besides, the Billy will learn valuable interpersonal skills while playing ball (that lead to higher socioeconomic status).