‘The Catalogue of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics’

 From http://menforjustice.net/;-
and https://exposingfeminism.wordpress.com/shaming-tactics/

“Shaming tactics.”  This phrase is familiar to many Men’s Rights Activists.  It conjures up the histrionic behaviour of female detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic.  Yet women are not the only ones guilty of using shaming tactics against men.  Male gynocentrists use them, too.

Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a man’s insecurities and shut down debate.  They are meant to elicit sympathy for women and to demonize men who ask hard questions.  Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad homimem attacks. 

Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against men whenever a discussion arises about feminism, men’s issues, romance, etc.  The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes.  Enjoy.

Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues.  Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.  Examples:

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

• “You’re bitter!”
• “You need to get over your anger at women.”
• “You are so negative!”

Response: Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice.   It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.

Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)

Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women.  Examples:

• “You need to get over your fear.”
• “Step up and take a chance like a man!”
• “You’re afraid of a strong woman!”

Response: It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and stupidity.  The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks.  One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks.  As it is, some men are finding out that many women fail a cost-benefit analysis.

Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) – The Crybaby Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men (i.e., he is accused of playing “Chicken Little”).  Examples:

• “Stop whining!”
• “Get over it!”
• “Suck it up like a man!”
• “You guys don’t have it as nearly as bad as us women!”
• “You’re just afraid of losing your male privileges.”
• “Your fragile male ego …”
• “Wow!  You guys need to get a grip!”

Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of men.  It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem men face needs to be addressed or not (“yes” or “no”), however small it may be seem to be.  If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any man should care about the accuser’s welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned.  If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.

Charge of Puerility (Code Green) – The Peter Pan Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male.  Examples:

• “Grow up!”
• “You are so immature!”
• “Do you live with your mother?”
• “I’m not interested in boys.  I’m interested in real men.”
• “Men are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children.”

Response: It should be remembered that one’s sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability.  If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.

Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) – The Elevated Threat Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner.  This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.  Examples:

• “You guys are scary.”
• “You make me feel afraid.”

Response: It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them.  One may also ask why some women think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a man’s legitimate freedom of expression.

Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) – The Sour Grapes Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.  Example:

• “You are just bitter because you can’t get laid.”

Response: In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth.  In other words, one may submit to the accuser, “What if the grapes really are sour?”  At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called “circumstantial ad hominem.”

Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) – The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.  Examples:

• “You’re one of those right-wing wackos.”
• “You’re an extremist”
• “You sound like the KKK.”
• “… more anti-feminist zaniness”

Response: One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it.  Whether or not certain ideas are “out of the mainstream” is besides the point.  A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of “False Compromise”).

Charge of Invirility (Code Lavender)

Discussion: The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.  Examples:

• “Are you gay?”
• “I need a real man, not a sissy.”
• “You’re such a wimp.”

Response: Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight man leaves his accusers guessing about his sexual orientation.

Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)

Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women.  Examples:

• “I’m not like that!”
• “Stop generalizing!”
• “That’s a sexist stereotype!”

Response: One may point out that feminists and many other women make generalizations about men.  Quotations from feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point.  Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing.  Although not all women may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might. 

Charge of Misogyny (Code Black)

Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general. Examples:

• “You misogynist creep!”
• “Why do you hate women?”
• “Do you love your mother?”
• “You are insensitive to the plight of women.”
• “You are mean-spirited.”
• “You view women as doormats.”
• “You want to roll back the rights of women!!”
• “You are going to make me cry.”

Response: One may ask the accuser how does a pro-male agenda become inherently anti-female (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are “not a zero-sum game”).  One may also ask the accuser how do they account for women who agree with the target’s viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of “argumentum ad misericordiam” (viz., argumentation based on pity for women) and/or “argumentum in terrorem” (viz., arousing fear about what the target wants to do to women).

Charge of Instability (Code White) – The White Padded Room Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.  Examples:

• “You’re unstable.”
• “You have issues.”
• “You need therapy.”
• “Weirdo!”

Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target’s mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.

Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)

Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory.  It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits.  Examples:

• “You are so materialistic.”
• “You are so greedy.”

Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge.  For instance, one may retort, “So you are saying I shouldn’t spend my money on myself, but should instead spend it on a woman like you —and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?”

Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) – The All-That-Glitters Charge

Discussion: The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences.  Examples:

• “If you didn’t go after bimbos, then …”
• “How can you be so shallow and turn down a single mother?”

Response: Average-looking women can be just as problematic in their behavior as beautiful, “high-maintanence” women. Regarding the shallowness of women, popular media furnishes plenty of examples where petty demands are made of men by females (viz., those notorious laundry lists of things a man should/should not do for his girlfriend or wife). 

Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan) – The Ugly Tan Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.  Examples:

• “I bet you are fat and ugly.”
• “You can’t get laid!”
• “Creep!”
• “Loser!”
• “Have you thought about the problem being you?”

Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.”  The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.

Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)

Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target’s negative or guarded attitude about a situation.  However, the focus is not so much on the target’s anger or fear, but on the target’s supposed attitude of resignation.  Examples:

• “Stop being so negative.”
• “You are so cynical.”
• “If you refuse to have relationships with women, then you are admitting defeat.”
• “C’mon! Men are doers, not quitters.”

Response: The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation.  Also, one can point out that asking men to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of women and society is the real attitude that is defeatist.  Many men have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.

Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) – The Pink Whip

Discussion: The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.  Examples:

• “No woman will marry you with that attitude.”
• “Creeps like you will never get laid!”

Response: This is an example of the logical fallacy “argumentum ad baculum” (the “appeal to force”).  The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position.  Really, the only way to deal with the “Pink Whip” is to realize that a man’s happiness and worth is not based on his romantic conquests (including marriage).

Why Critique of Islam is NOT Racist

and why to state such a thing is in fact Blasphemy.

Too often we hear the cries and wails of the politically correct when ever Islam’s transgressions on the parts of its minions strays well into the realms of the ultraviolent.

We are told that any critique of Islam is racist.

Islam is not a race. The worlds WHITEST credo – is a political, economic and religious ideology.

It is not a race. To suggest otherwise is Blasphemy against the religion of peace itself.

It works like this:

Postulate: Critique of Islam is Racist

• Therefore Islam is a race
• Therefore ALL religions are a race
• Therefore because Islam clearly states there is No God, but God, and Muhamad is his Messenger – this clearly states that Islam is better than all other races
• Therefore Islam is Race supremacist –

This proves that stating that Critique of Islam – means Islam is Racist.
QED.

Which of course is not only bullshit – it’s Blasphemy.

The reality is that shielding Islam comes clearly and plainly from the fear of being labelled racist. Which again is meaningless. This Kafka-trap must be addressed head on and dealt with.

In the same instance – we must address the abhorrant crimes done by a fanatic few that exist in all religions.

It works like this.

Unless the powers that be, immediately and concertedly shut down and revile the actions of the fanatics – they are essentially suggesting that the religion of peace is not the religion of peace at all. They are in fact affirming that Islam is violent and evil.

As such – CALL OUT your leaders for suggesting that Islam is Evil and Violent.

It is not enough to just call out your leaders – they must in turn call out the instigators – the terrorists – who are self affirmed Muslims. They represent the whole. But Islam we are told is not like that.

Fine- if that’s the case then the terrorists must be shunned by the community actively thrown out – EXCOMMUNICATED. Demands must be thrown before the ecclesiarchy of Islam itself with a clear and present requirement for Islam to make an account of itself and to prove before the world they had nothing to do with the actions of a few. They must be forced to openly distance themselves from said actions else be tarred with the same brush.

And remember – such demands are not racist.

– to be made “Takfir” – to be voided and removed from the Islamic community and reviled as the violent criminals they are.

This would mean Prisoners receive NO support or time for religious studies in Jail – as they cannot claim to be Muslims as their actions were seen as anti-muslim in the first place. They cannot pray with Muslims, nor have ANYTHING to do with other Muslims in Jail.

These people MUST be called out as not only NOT Muslim – but because of their actions bringing the religion of peace into disrepute – they are ANTI-MUSLIM and therefore blasphemers.

Death is mandatory in cases of blasphemy, for both Muslim men and women. Shafi’i – recognizes blasphemy as a separate offense from apostasy, but accepts the repentance of blasphemers. If the blasphemer does not repent, the punishment is according to Islamic jurisprudence: death.

Meaning:

1) If liberals continue to call Critique of Islam racist – They are Blasphemers and they have only one future.
2) If Terrorists will not renounce violence – They are Blasphemers and they have only one future.
3) If Politicians will not renounce the actions of the terrorists – They are Blasphemers and they have only one future.