Feminists destroy the earth!

No, we feminists don’t hate men. We just hate the stupid arguments that are sometimes wheeled out by anti-feminist men. Such as that provided by Angry Harry. Witness:

Argument for conclusion that feminists encourage traffic problems (this is a reconstruction. His far less well formulated argument can be seen in full here):

1.there is a very powerful group of dysfunctional people – feminists – whose main aim is to encourage family breakdown.

2. By living together – e.g. getting married – people can save on transport … Traffic congestion and pollution would be reduced enormously and time spent travelling would be cut.

C. By encouraging family break down, feminists are encouraging greater traffic congestion.

Introduced to this argument (at the excellent Fem08) by Damian Carnell from NDVF, as an example of the problematic men’s movements out there, Jender and I scoffed heartily. Ha ha! Why stick at that, why not add:

4. Greater traffic congestion means greater carbon emissions.

5. Greater carbon emissions contribute to global warming

6. Feminists encourage global warming.

Ha ha, reductio reductio! What a ridiculous argument.

But we underestimated Angry Harry – you’ve got to give it to him, he follows the premises through to their conclusion, and thus his bold conclusion:

Feminists Destroy the Planet!

 At least he has provided us with an excellent example to use in critical thinking classes (there’s lots more at his site). But perhaps Harry has indeed been too angered by the all those traffic jams. On yer bike Harry!

7 thoughts on “Feminists destroy the earth!

  1. Mad Harry, as I shall think of him, is scary. That the net makes his site available to anyone is pretty daunting.

  2. 2. By living together – e.g. getting married – people can save on transport … Traffic congestion and pollution would be reduced enormously and time spent travelling would be cut.

    C. By encouraging family break down, feminists are encouraging greater traffic congestion.

    I 100% agree their arguments are both creative and bunk. But even taking their own argument… the logical “solution” to this is communal living, more working from home, and city centered- living solutions, etc. which are all anti-capitalist in bent, which would never be endorsed by the likes of them!

  3. I buy it. What if we expressed, in gender neutral terms, the idea that if people join into marriage units, and only one unit works, there will be less need for transportation?

    I mean, of course to say that this idea should be taken seriously enough to have practical application, or certainly to say that this is an argument against feminism is silly but still, it makes sense.

  4. His full argument is actually better formulated than you claimed – he also made it clear that he is skeptical about the whole global warming theiry anyway. His piece was to turn around
    arguments made by politicians (in this case Gordon Brown policy pronouncements on the matter) and show where they have a major ‘blind spot’. Furthermore it is certainly TRUE that the labour government has shown a consistent resistance to any policy that would promote marriage or could be seen as ‘pro-marriage’ and to deny that this resistance exists or that it is NOT inspired by the radical feminist ideology that is in fact the unchallenged orthodoxy in much of the labour hierarchy would be disingenuous in the extreme. Harry also produced this endnote which emphasises the tongue in cheek nature of the article :
    “END NOTE:
    Let me stress that I have no idea whether or not we are causing global warming. The point is that the politicians keep telling us that this is so. But if they truly believe that we are causing global warming then the question arises as to why they do not promote certain policies that would address this allegedly serious problem. ”
    Angry Harry’s critical thinking skills are excellent – he took premises from those using the global warming ‘schtick’ to extract taxes from us and then asked why certain aspects of our social behaviour that would indeed contribute towards the ‘problem’ as formulated by the ‘experts’ were not even addressed. Despite your tone of ridicule you did not in fact demonstrate any logical inconsistency in his arguments – in fact your ‘critique’ is little more than a thinly disguised ad hominem attack.

  5. Anonymous Says: May 9, 2008 at 11:52 am
    Nicely said.

    It is within feminist literature that one of can see the love feminist authors have for the nuclear family and marriage, which are patriarchal constructs. Doh!

    BTW: Not all feminist like men, some hate men and they just happen to be the leaders of organisations such as NOW.

  6. ..To all out there.I am an ex-jesuit.I want to make a confession to all protestants.Jesuits masterminded american civil war and feminist movment.Before 1850s feminism didnt exist.Why they did this?To destroy protestantism by feminizing men !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s