How to spot a misandrist

They write articles like this

When your average everyday gender egalitarian who calls themselves a Feminist because they’ve never read more Feminist Theory than the dictionary definition, tells you that feminism is just equality of men and women.. ask them if that’s true, then why is raising men’s side of issues considered “misogyny”?

Ask them why a person who can see this hypocrisy and decides not to be a Feminist doesn’t have their reason listened to, yet is expected to forget male suicide rates, infant male genital mutilation, male victims of childhood sexual assault and abuse, the lack of parental freedom for males, gender sentencing gaps, special protections exclusively for females on nongendered issues (like VAWG act), legal exemptions for women in law from the capability of committing crimes like rape and sperm theft, and the insideously successful use of false rape allegations against men, because we don’t consider “manspreading” a serious issue.. 

Posted in Feminism, MRA, politics, society | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

ICMI

Thanks to StudioBrule for the shoutout* at the International Conference on Men’s Issues last year in London. Most of my more recent pieces have been hubbed for free on my Patreon page:

https://www.patreon.com/MnemoniXs

but having only this week changed jobs expect to see more content over the mext month.

Thanks for everyone’s support and encouragement. I’ll see you all soon 😉 

*https://youtu.be/3WuQSjAiurk

Posted in Feminism, MRA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

I accidentally a video

Quick link as I’m starting to do these things now. This one is based of an earlier piece as I don’t have the confidence to use new material until I know it’s worth the extra time.

Enjoy

Posted in Feminism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Why I Fell Out With The Dictionary – a guest piece by @TekThatEnglish

by https://www.twitter.com/TekThatEnglish

“He insisted upon the precision of words, and I have kept faith with him.”

I used to love the dictionary. Whenever there was a disagreement about meaning, it could be whipped out and used authoritatively, even in the midst of conversations where I would proudly dismiss arguments from authority.

It seemed to be infallible. Who could argue with what words mean when we have a book, revised and updated, to inform precisely and without error.

I had a small inkling something was wrong when the word “atheist” came up. Normally this would come around because my understanding was that the ‘a’ prefix negated the ‘theism’ suffix, simply denoting that I or whomever was decidedly not  a  theist.

Examples from dictionaries would be presented, some with the inappropriate “belief there is no god” definition which I so vehemently reject. Where the dictionary properly denoted “a lack of or disbelief in a God or gods” we’d go down a sinkhole of discussing that “to lack” something implies there is something to lack, etc etc..

Now these issues stem not so much from atheism in particular, but more from trying to define ideological standpoints using the common corpus. Dictionaries,  if you don’t know, take their definitions from common usage. Which seems logical, but when people define their ideologies they tend to oversimplify. 

Take Feminism as an example as it’s the one which tipped me off that the corpus isn’t sufficient. Feminism in practice is the active pursuit of rights and privileges for women, based on the belief that women have fewer or lesser rights compared to that of men. A common refrain being “but men already have all the rights”.

Now this is often written in softer language when people say what they mean by “I’m a feminist”, consequently the dictionary definition (and I will rarely use anything other than the British Oxford as a standard) is given as “The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.”. In less rigid dictionaries, ones with a wider corpus, this becomes the oversimplified “Equal rights for men and women” which I’m sure you can agree has lost many of the implicit nuance of the original.

Under this lax definition one could argue that wanting equal rights for men is “feminism” but that is quite counter to the spirit of feminism in its proper usage.

One needs to look further than the dictionary for these types of words, yet the dictionary itself will not tell you this. Whilst dictionary makers are quick to note that they produce the books for descriptive rather than prescriptive reasons, they stop short of implying that the common usage may differ from the meaning in any particular circumstances.

You may have seen simpler examples of words not being made definite and distinct (i.e. being defined) but quite the contrary. “Literally” is the most obvious one. Language often changes over time, which is natural, yet some changes are a hard u-turn. When common usage is uniformed or uneducated as to the proper meaning,  we can end up in a world where the second definition for “Literally” can be “Not literally” and this way.. madness lies.

Other examples have probably slipped you by. “Ironically” used to require the ironic saying or situation to be performed on purpose. That the irony stemmed from the willful inversion of expectations. Now it is more commonly used to describe situations of chance where items of context are coincidentally related. A rather unironic state to be describing. Which itself would be ironic if “irony” here were being used ironically, which sadly isn’t the case.

Anothet pitfall of dictionary worship is to take what someone says and to argue a strawman because you think what they mean is what the dictionary tells you they mean.

To pull back towards our starting point, when someone refers to themselves as “agnostic” arguments abound as to the difference between belief and knowledge and that the speaker should properly call themselves an “atheist”. Whilst true, the conversation has been derailed by a misapplied label, and the point the speaker was trying to convey is lost amid the shouting match which ensues.

In this day and age, where labels are now thrown at people to silence them, it becomes necessary for me to stop many a conversation in order to either inform people that I mean precisely what I say and not the baggage you have attached to a label, and conversely for dictionary addicts to ask the important questions as to why people associate with the labels they have applied *before* attacking the strawman in their minds and wondering why the conversion doesn’t go anywhere.

With this in mind, please go forth and use words as properly as you can. If you’re a feminist because you want equal rights, please consider using the more appropriate “Egalitarian”, and if I tell you that because I’m an Egalitarian, and that, because men have fewer rights than women in my country, I am “an advocate of men’s rights”, please don’t assume that by some sinkhole wordplay, I am somehow a misogynist.

Thank you.

(and for God’s sake OED, don’t one day define Islam as “the religion of peace”)

Posted in Atheism, Feminism, MRA, politics, society, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Reasoning Reason

by https://www.twitter.com/MnemoniXs

When I asked* for validation of claims regarding Geocentric** models, I was given this image along with the question “Does this help?”***

C5v8htLWQAEioAx.jpg

..which is obviously doesn’t. But let’s dissect it anyway as he wants me to see where God can end this circle.

“I know my reasoning is valid because I checked the validity of my reasoning using my reasoning therefore..” ..God? – No that doesn’t follow.

“I know my reasoning is valid because [God] checked the validity of my reasoning using [His] reasoning therefore..”? – Hmm that wouldn’t be any more valid.

“I know [God’s] reasoning is valid because I checked the validity of [God’s] reasoning using my reasoning therefore..”? – Nope, same problem. One last try.

“I know my [God] is valid because I checked the validity of my [God] using my [God] therefore..” – That must be what he means. Still circular but given the lack of evidence in favour of whatever passes for a god these days, I suppose that’s how theism works.

As for reasoning, it is a cognitive process that is contingent upon the learned responses to our interaction with the world around us. The simplest “action and reaction” observation, repeatedly instigated and encountered, informs our actions. More complex observations of the world lead to more complex reasoning. Even hypotheticals are based in examples we draw from the real world. Logical statements are routinely rendered in mathematic form, something which is based on very primitive but concrete observances that when you put two rocks together, the result is two rocks, not three, or one.

Reasoning isn’t based on reasoning. It’s based on evidence. Something that theists endeavour to discredit because it doesn’t support their beliefs.

Now Matty, where’s that validation for Geocentrism?

 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 

Update: no answers to questions, just further non-sequiturial claims

“Spiritual things are undetectable by Science. Science has failed”****

– – – – – – – – – – – – –
*https://twitter.com/MnemoniXs/status/836504696902795264

**https://twitter.com/matty_lawrence/status/836499021363556352

***https://twitter.com/matty_lawrence/status/836539817370480644

****https://twitter.com/matty_lawrence/status/836860952725360640

Posted in Atheism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Milo and The Correct Application Of Words

I’m sick and tired of seeing people labelled incorrectly and seeing them suffer as a result.

Spencer called a Nazi for wanting what Jews have, Trump called a Fascist for winning an election, Gay people called Homophobic, Anti-Muslim speakers called Xenophobic which is ridiculous because Islam isn’t a race, and Islamophobic applied to people who have a perfectly rational fear of islam.

Now Milo is having to defend accusations of endorsing paedophilia..

I won’t bother with direct quotations as the videos are everywhere, go and listen then come back.

Now.. Paedophilia describes a preference for, rather than attraction to someone who happens to be prepubescent, which either way is irrelevant as we’re dealing about the illegal act rather than the diagnosis, but would still not be paedophilia as in UK where Milo is from, that applies to those victims under the age of 11.

He says that the Age of Consent (16 in UK) is about right but also described it as arbitrary, talking about sexual maturity (citing people younger who are sexually mature whereas I would be more worried about people older who aren’t sexually mature). I see no problem with this as a factual observation, I would say informed consent requires mental maturity as well as sexual maturity, but I understand what he means.
The ability to make decisions with regards to long term consequences is severely impacted by mental immaturity, hence it is the adult’s responsibility in these scenarios. (Even with sexually maturity taken into account, neurologically speaking I’d have the age of consent at 18, which would be hypocritical but then every adolescent thinks they know everything).

So there’s no case here for saying he endorses Paedophilia. One could point to his question to the radio host regarding finding someone sexually mature “hot” even if they were 15 (i.e. slightly under legal age) but that would instead be an example of ephebophilia, and only then if that were a preference rather than a singular case, and everyone (I don’t care who they are) has seen some overly sexualised model and thought they looked hot, only to discover later that that person wasn’t of legal age. It happens, and it’s not your fault.

Now we do have a bit towards the end where he won’t name the guy in question despite implication that there were incidents with other boys of an age which Milo found concerning. I agree with Jeff holliday, that is a problem. The only problem in this whole mess. But I will not denounce Milo for not giving the guy up to Social Justice when it’s a matter for the police, the courts, and for due process. I didn’t hear that it hasn’t be reported but I will urge Milo on behalf of the safety of others to report if he hasn’t already done so.

Given that he wasn’t endorsing paedophilia, I find it sickening that the label is being applied to him to the point now where his book has been cancelled by the publisher. This is now a case of monetary loss due to defamation of character.

As someone who keeps seeing derogatory labels used to shut down people for having the “wrong” political opinions I find myself terrified that this can easily happen to anyone including myself. But rather than be quiet, I see the positive in being open, saying what you think, and voting how you believe, because if you shut up before they shut you up, they’ve already won.


Addendum:

Milo has made a Facebook Live style apology, and a researched Press Conference apology, for the wording he used and the flippant tone which may have made other victims feel lessened. He reached out to say that life gets better and that one shouldn’t let abuse dictate their lives. What he didn’t apologise for was his views because as he says, what he said and what CNN etc are saying about him are two different things entirely.

One conflation which people are *still* making are where he talks about long supportive relationships that young gay men get involved as a sad factor of being shunned at home. With this he cites his own long term relationship with a 29 year old whilst he was 17 (legal age in UK is 16, in Germany is 14). This is being lumped in with his comments about how he lost his virginity at 13 which he recognises as abuse, but feels like he was a willing partner in. Despite which he reiterated that the legal age is about right and that older men taking sexual advantage of 13 year olds *is* *wrong*.

Posted in politics | Tagged , , , , , | 4 Comments

“Hey Moron! Fucking Moron!” – an open letter to pro-islam Women’s Marchers

“..greater than fear”?

Really niqa’? 

Allahu Akbar indeed, God is greatest, no?

وَأَمَّا مَنْ خَافَ مَقَامَ رَبِّهِ وَنَهَى النَّفْسَ عَنِ الْهَوَىٰ

“But as for him who feared (khawf) standing before his Lord, and restrained himself from impure evil desires and lusts.” (79:40)

لَّا يَخَافُونَ الْآخِرَةَ 

“They do not fear (khawf) the hereafter.” (74:53)

الَّذِي أَطْعَمَهُم مِّن جُوعٍ وَآمَنَهُم مِّنْخَوْفٍ 

“(He) Who has fed them against hunger, and has made them safe from fear (khawf).” (106:4)

إِنَّمَا تُنذِرُ مَنِ اتَّبَعَ الذِّكْرَ وَخَشِيَ الرَّحْمَـٰنَ بِالْغَيْبِ

You can only warn him who follows the Reminder, and fears (khashyah) the Most Merciful unseen.(36:11)

إِنَّمَا يَخْشَى اللَّهَ مِنْ عِبَادِهِ الْعُلَمَاءُ

“It is only those who have knowledge among His slaves that fear Allah.” (35:28)

قَدْ أَفْلَحَ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ

“Successful indeed are the believers,” (23:1)

الَّذِينَ هُمْ فِي صَلَاتِهِمْ خَاشِعُونَ

“Those who offer their Salat (prayers) with all solemnity and full submissiveness.” (23:2)

أَبْصَارُهَا خَاشِعَةٌ 

“Their eyes will be downcast.” (79:9)

وَتَزَوَّدُوا فَإِنَّ خَيْرَ الزَّادِ التَّقْوَىٰ

“And take a provision (with you) for the journey, but the best provision is At-Taqwa” (2:197)

يَحْذَرُ الْمُنَافِقُونَ أَن تُنَزَّلَ عَلَيْهِمْ سُورَةٌ تُنَبِّئُهُم بِمَا فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ

“The hypocrites fear (hadthr) lest a Surah should be revealed about them, showing them what is in their hearts.” (9:64)

فَلَمَّا ذَهَبَ عَنْ إِبْرَاهِيمَ الرَّوْعُ وَجَاءَتْهُ الْبُشْرَىٰ يُجَادِلُنَا فِي قَوْمِ لُوطٍ

Then when the fear (rau’) had gone away from Ibrahim, and the glad tidings had reached him, he began to plead with Us (Our messengers) for the people of Lut.” (11:74)

فَلَمَّا رَأَىٰ أَيْدِيَهُمْ لَا تَصِلُ إِلَيْهِ نَكِرَهُمْ وَأَوْجَسَ مِنْهُمْ خِيفَةً

“But when he saw their hands went not towards it (the meal), he mistrusted them, and conceived a fear (wajas) of them.” (11:70)

فَأَوْجَسَ فِي نَفْسِهِ خِيفَةً مُّوسَىٰ

So Musa conceived fear (wajas) in himself. (20:67)

إِنَّمَا الْمُؤْمِنُونَ الَّذِينَ إِذَا ذُكِرَ اللَّهُ وَجِلَتْقُلُوبُهُمْ

“The believers are only those who, when Allah is mentioned, feel a fear (wajl) in their hearts.” (8:2) 

إِنَّمَا هُوَ إِلَـٰهٌ وَاحِدٌ ۖ فَإِيَّايَ فَارْهَبُونِ

Verily, He is (the) only One Deity. Then, fear Me much. (16:51)

لَأَنتُمْ أَشَدُّ رَهْبَةً فِي صُدُورِهِم مِّنَ اللَّهِ ۚذَ‌ٰلِكَ بِأَنَّهُمْ قَوْمٌ لَّا يَفْقَهُونَ 

“Verily, you are more fearful (rahbah) in their breasts than Allah. That is because they are a people who comprehend not.” (59:13)

إِذْ يُوحِي رَبُّكَ إِلَى الْمَلَائِكَةِ أَنِّي مَعَكُمْ فَثَبِّتُوا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا ۚ سَأُلْقِي فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا الرُّعْبَ

“(Remember) when your Lord revealed to the angels, “Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror (ru’b) into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.” (8:12)

لَوِ اطَّلَعْتَ عَلَيْهِمْ لَوَلَّيْتَ مِنْهُمْ فِرَارًا وَلَمُلِئْتَ مِنْهُمْ رُعْبًا 

Had you looked at them, you would certainly have turned back from them in flight, and would certainly have been filled with awe (ru’b) of them. (18:18)

قَالُوا إِنَّا كُنَّا قَبْلُ فِي أَهْلِنَا مُشْفِقِينَ 

“Saying: “Aforetime, we were afraid (shafaq) in the midst of our families.” (52:26)

تَرَى الظَّالِمِينَ مُشْفِقِينَ مِمَّا كَسَبُوا وَهُوَ وَاقِعٌ بِهِمْ

“You will see thewrong-doers fearful (shafaq) of that which they have earned, and it (the punishment) will surely befall them.” (42:22)

قُلُوبٌ يَوْمَئِذٍ وَاجِفَةٌ

“hearts that day will be full of terror.” (79:8)

وَمَن يُطِعِ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَخْشَ اللَّهَ وَيَتَّقْهِ فَأُولَـٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَائِزُونَ

And whosoever obeys Allah and His Messenger, fears Allah, and keeps his duty (to Him), such are the successful.(24:52)

—————-

Sources used; Islamic scripture and translations from

https://tayyibaat.wordpress.com/

Posted in Atheism, Feminism, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment