A Rebuttal to Krantzstone:
Krantzstone Item 28:
Ah yes, the logical fallacy of relative privation. Was wondering when that would show up:
“Women are stereotyped by the media, but it isn’t as big of a problem as poverty, wars, or human rights in the world!”
Lol. Well, that is about as disingenuous as it gets. You were definitely aware of the fallacy of relative privation when you employed it five days before in this very thread (Malala? Really?):
But it is par for the course with Neo-feminists. Everything is OK in defense of women, but even an off word or a glance that negatively affects the “feelings” of a woman is right up there with the most heinous felony. Sound familiar? It should. It is how Neo-feminists redefine “sexual assault” to be a very broad spectrum, and then use that as leverage to promote the “rape culture” fallacy.
Even so, what you are trying to deflect from is that the criticism (that Neo-feminists attempt to equate all sorts of petty issues to bigger ones and think their plight is even remotely as dire) is actually quite accurate. In particular, what M.G. How mentioned was how Neo-feminists are making a big deal out of some men taking up more space on a bus as if it were the same level of tort as when blacks were barred from riding in the front of buses. It’s not that they don’t recognize that the latter happened (or that other greater transgressions occur). It’s that they dramatize something that really isn’t so epidemic. At any rate, it is sexist to purposely draw attention to the method (which is tied to the physical structure of men) and by so doing, conveniently ignore how women can be guilty of similar inconsideration (but just apply different tactics or exploit different scenarios).
Krantzstone Item 29:
I would add that I didn’t bring that topic up in the discussion, Monsieur GORF did. I’m definitely not the one making up straw man arguments claiming that the most important issue of modern feminism is ‘manspreading’ or making false analogies with the Civil Rights movement (although it is definitely intersectional).
While Gorf did introduce “manspreading” into the discussion, he did it to illustrate how Neo-feminists dilate relatively obscure and innocuous things and disingenuously label them as “misogyny”. His exact phrase being:
”You know what else is misogyny? Sitting on a subway with your legs spread apart.”
The context in how he is relating that situation is clear. It is you, probably because you cannot form a reasonable rebuttal, deflect that to being an attempt to disregard the analogy because of relative privation. Within Gorf’s context, it is entirely appropriate. The fallacy to relative privation is far removed from how Neo-feminists complain about the most trivial things, and complain by claiming that the “small stuff” is the tip of a much bigger problem. It’s like thinking that someone who is smiles at someone on the subway is just a serial rapist in training. Neo-feminism is all about exaggeration and “technically” linking anything that can be remotely represented as insensitive to be equivalent to the worst possible permutation.
He didn’t say that “manspreading” is the most important issue. What he hints at is that taking up two seats isn’t a huge issue, doesn’t affect many people, and along with things like “oh, that horrible man asked me out, how dare he make me have to say no” is the kind of dramatics that show people how entitled and petty the Feminism movement has become. Anyway you try to euphemize it, Neo-feminism “intersects” with solipsistic, self-righteous and childish thinking.