A Rebuttal for Krantzstone:
Krantz Item 44:
You’d have to explain how Clementine Ford is a terrible human being first and how that’s relevant to what I was arguing. Last I checked, supporting a woman for not putting up with vile sexual harassment and verbal abuse was not a bad thing. I would even defend Ann Coulter if she received the same treatment, and I don’t even like or agree with Ann Coulter on anything.
Really? It is customary for those that have an opinion that is both unsubstantiated and in direct opposition to the common understanding, be the ones with the burden of proof. In case you speciously think otherwise, Clementine Ford is well known for promoting hate and intolerance. A sampling of her Twitter messages (complete with “vile sexual harassment” commentary from her) can be found here:
Oh, and don’t be trying to dismiss the evidence because of the blog that it is found in. The Twitter images are real and that is what is being referenced.
The “last I checked”, the kind of language and derogatory statements that Clementine Ford is shown to be making is that of what is generally a “terrible human being”. As you say, the “last I checked”, not putting up with her abuse is not a bad thing either. Perhaps it is time for you to wake up from your delusion. These neo-feminists are childish hate-mongers. There’s no getting around that.
How is that relevant to what you are supporting here? Well, you directly support Clementine Ford, and it is implied that you do so in respects to her views on gender issues. Her views are openly man-bashing and hostile towards men in general. As well, she promotes the same double-standards and selective cognition of issues like you do. It is quite relevant, and for that reason, you are really no different. You may choose a different approach, but your agenda is quite similar.
Krantz Item 45:
I’m not sure what the supermodelsofsports thing is (I couldn’t find the link when Google searching and the link doesn’t work for me either) so I couldn’t tell you why my online handle is associated with it. I doubt it had anything to do with slutshaming, although certainly I would be the first to admit that my views weren’t nearly as well-evolved even just a few years ago, even though I have been calling myself a feminist since I was 16 (which was in, 1990-1991?). I’ve managed to better educate myself since then, thankfully.
M.G. How was showing all the folly of applying the fallacy of “guilt by association”. You focus on excusing your potential past affiliation as if “guilt by association” isn’t a fallacy. The point is still that it is, and you were trying to use it.
If you have actually “better educated” yourself in the past 25 years, it would be telling of how effectively uneducated you were back then. This is because NONE of your attempts at rebuttals here have demonstrated anything even remotely representative of reasoned thought. Even your attempts at deception (and, yes, most can see that neo-feminists are all about dishonest presentation) are feeble and nothing more than the same old propaganda that neo-feminists parade around when they are confronted with inconvenient truths. You even resorted to the “feminism 101” tactic of posting up misleading numbers and rates. No. Your intellectual dishonesty is showing. You’re a fraud and you know it.
Krantz Item 46:
I don’t have a problem with women choosing to do various activities in whatever manner of dress they feel is appropriate. I take issue with women being forced to dress scantily clad when they do not wish to be: if it’s something they freely choose of their own accord, more power to them.
Again, the point of M.G. How’s response is that you are applying the fallacy of “guilt by association”. It’s not specifically about coercing or exploiting dress code. You are just trying to go off-course again. However since you bring up attire, let’s mention another bit of dishonesty that the neo-feminist crowd are constantly displaying.
Neo-feminist are always quick to call out men for “treating women like sex objects” or “exploiting” women’s bodies for profit or amusement. As far as coercing them to be scantily clad, not so much, but It can be some combination of these two claims. However, all this is done to conveniently pretend that one of the powers that women have, that of physical attraction (well, at least those that haven’t “hit the wall” somewhere around 30). Isn’t within women’s control. The truth is that it is. Women can and will use this to their advantage. Of course some women have a lot more of that power than others, and this is really what neo-feminists try to “control”.
Basically feminists want to either level the playing field, such that all women are equally attractive (and by that, really meaning that no woman should be more attractive than your typical “feminist”), or, they want to have these powers (while men are legislated to have little of their own natural powers.) Yes. That is why neo-feminists demand that they can “dress any way they wish”, but men are only allowed to be openly attracted if the woman gives them permission.
See how that works? It’s exactly like how neo-feminists treat all sorts of things. They reserve the right to act any way they wish, but men cannot judge, view, comment, or otherwise react unless the woman grants the “privilege”. In essence, neo-feminists feel that they are all automatically as desirable as the most desirable woman, and, as empowered as her too.
If a neo-feminist wants to be dressed like a slob, then men have to pretend they are quietly impressed. If she wants to dress like a 10 (even when she is far from it) then men have to be quietly impressed. Those she deems as “attractive enough” to her, can be more openly impressed (as the display will be impressive to her peers). Those she deems as unworthy must remain silent (as she will take it as insulting… “How dare such a knave think he be an equal to my attractiveness!”) It’s all about her. It is solipsism and the behavior of a spoiled child.
It’s never really about “exploitation of women”. It’s really about jealousy of women who have more power than she does. That’s the cold truth. That’s the reality that neo-feminists are in denial of. Women already possess powers. It is natural for people to hone those powers. If you don’t want to, then that is your own problem. Only petty jealousy drives neo-feminists to make up false reasons like, “it’s oppressive”. Tell us, when has some woman who uses her “powers” to get the attention of who she wants ever felt “oppressed”? Neo-feminists are delusional to the point that they think they fool people.