Responses To Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

**Tyrael** · 2nd-March-2007

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics

"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Men's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior 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.

Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)

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

* "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).

Article link.

**Tyrael** · 10th-February-2008

Zammotheweird got into a discussion about marriage with a real feminist. When discussing the role of men in a marriage and fatherhood, she posted THIS ballbusting quote:

*"What is your contribution, then, exactly? You don't give birth, do the primary parenting, or even support the family. What are you for?"

Yup, men as financial beasts of burden.

Zammy made these responses:

*"What is your contribution, then, exactly?"

Response: Well lady, and I use the term loosely, virtually everything around you and everything you use was invented and created and maintained by men (98.5% statistically). Don't use your computer, don't drive your car, don't walk into any building, etc, etc, because these and almost everything you use was a "contribution" by males. Of course as a woman you are unable to grasp this concept although I'm using your 'logic'.

*"You don't give birth, do the primary parenting,"

Response: It's obvious that at some level you are ashamed of being a woman or you wouldn't attempt to give the "birth" example. As to "primary parenting" it is remarkable what a good job women are doing given our Ameriskank culture and lack of values. After all, with liberals (feminists) everything is relative.

*"or even support the family. What are you for?"

Response: I wonder who does support all the housing I see about me? Lady, do you realize that a much higher percentage of women default on their child support payments then men? Do you know that women are involved in almost 75% of all spending decisions in this country? Do they make 75% of all the money? Men make the money largely because they work in harsh jobs that women don't want. Women, however, spend the money. Such a bad deal eh?

As to "what are [men] good for?" Well, Go live in a cave and find out what you are missing in our 'modern' society.

Oh, let's not forget those dead males that created our constitution. You know, the laws that give you more freedom and wealth than any other. Now, besides complaining what are you good for?

Deeper Explanation

A woman often cares about the man that is doing something for HER. She does not take into account that he may have uses to the rest of society through his work, etc. He may be useful also to other women, or women in his family. He may be useful in terms of helping other young men, who will grow up better because of him.

This woman only regards a man's contribution in terms of how it directly affects her. She also makes the assumption that a woman's simply getting knocked up is somehow a contribution; ignoring all of the negative consequences associated with single-mother households.

A woman seems to be okay with a man out of the house when it is HER idea.

**celtish** · 10th-February-2008

Excellent codification of feministic arguing tactics, Tyriel. You should make this a sticky for reference purposes. But I'm not sure why they would be called 'shaming' tactics, perhaps the word has different connotations in the US? I would prefer to call them provocation tactics or something like that. We know that feminism is bleeding to death, much of its evil stemmed from the malicious teachings in Women's Studies and now that is being rapidly phased out, at least here in Brit.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../08/do0806.xml

**Tyrael** · 10th-February-2008

Quote from celtish

Excellent codification of feministic arguing tactics, Tyriel. You should make this a sticky for reference purposes. But I'm not sure why they would be called 'shaming' tactics, perhaps the word has different connotations in the US?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../08/do0806.xml

Thanks, this thread is already a sticky. It's called shaming tactics, because women use these remarks to shame men into silent obedience instead of using logical arguments in a discussion.

**bobx23456** · 10th-February-2008

Whenever they try that crap I tell them, "Your hate speech doesn't work any more." And then I tell them to "Pound sand."

That hate crap doesn't work if we don't accept it. Don't argue with it. Just side step it and call the cunt what she is, a hate monger. She has no answer for that.

Blessings

Bob

**celtish** · 10th-February-2008

Tyriel, put this one in your book of stingers ...

When a feminist tries to sting you by alleging you have a small penis turn 'round to her and say something like "No, dahling. It's not my penis that's small, you only think that because you seem to have such a slack vagina!" !!!

Somewhere I noticed Karl suggesting that feminists' stingers were so consistently and uncannily predictable that they must have come out of a reference manual. So true! So let's have a referejnce manual of our own, a "retorts to stingers" manual of sorts!

**bobx23456** · 11th-February-2008

Quote from celtish

Tyriel, put this one in your book of stingers ...

When a feminist tries to sting you by alleging you have a small penis turn 'round to her and say something like "No, dahling. It's not my penis that's small, you only think that because you seem to have such a slack vagina!" !!!

Somewhere I noticed Karl suggesting that feminists' stingers were so consistently and uncannily predictable that they must have come out of a reference manual. So true! So let's have a referejnce manual of our own, a "retorts to stingers" manual of sorts!

Right on bro.

I have frequently observed that you can tell a female with a cavernous vagina on-line because she is the one who is always whining about "small" men. Females with nice tight holes prefer men who are on the small side. It's the cavern cunts who aren't satisfied with normal men. Its always good to point out that she has given away her secret lack of acceptable sexual ability.

I always suggest that they are fat too. Females always worry about being fat, and the emaciated females worry more about fat than the fat babes.

Blessings

Bob

**bachelor tom** · 11th-February-2008

Good stuff from Zammo

What I still don't understand is whether feminists actually believe these kinds of arguments, or whether they are just another level of crap hiding another level of intentions (such as totalitarianism, depopulation, gendercide).

Quote from Tyrael

Zammotheweird got into a discussion about marriage with a real feminist. When discussing the role of men in a marriage and fatherhood, she posted THIS ballbusting quote:

*"What is your contribution, then, exactly? You don't give birth, do the primary parenting, or even support the family. What are you for?"

Yup, men as financial beasts of burden.

Zammy made these responses:

*"What is your contribution, then, exactly?"

Response: Well lady, and I use the term loosely, virtually everything around you and everything you use was invented and created and maintained by men (98.5% statistically). Don't use your computer, don't drive your car, don't walk into any building, etc, etc, because these and almost everything you use was a "contribution" by males. Of course as a woman you are unable to grasp this concept although I'm using your 'logic'.

*"You don't give birth, do the primary parenting,"

Response: It's obvious that at some level you are ashamed of being a woman or you wouldn't attempt to give the "birth" example. As to "primary parenting" it is remarkable what a good job women are doing given our Ameriskank culture and lack of values. After all, with liberals (feminists) everything is relative.

*"or even support the family. What are you for?"

Response: I wonder who does support all the housing I see about me? Lady, do you realize that a much higher percentage of women default on their child support payments then men? Do you know that women are involved in almost 75% of all spending decisions in this country? Do they make 75% of all the money? Men make the money largely because they work in harsh jobs that women don't want. Women, however, spend the money. Such a bad deal eh?

As to "what are [men] good for?" Well, Go live in a cave and find out what you are missing in our 'modern' society.

Oh, let's not forget those dead males that created our constitution. You know, the laws that give you more freedom and wealth than any other. Now, besides complaining what are you good for?

Deeper Explanation

A woman often cares about the man that is doing something for HER. She does not take into account that he may have uses to the rest of society through his work, etc. He may be useful also to other women, or women in his family. He may be useful in terms of helping other young men, who will grow up better because of him.

This woman only regards a man's contribution in terms of how it directly affects her. She also makes the assumption that a woman's simply getting knocked up is somehow a contribution; ignoring all of the negative consequences associated with single-mother households.

A woman seems to be okay with a man out of the house when it is HER idea.

**bobx23456** · 11th-February-2008

Quote from bachelor tom

Good stuff from Zammo

What I still don't understand is whether feminists actually believe these kinds of arguments, or whether they are just another level of crap hiding another level of intentions (such as totalitarianism, depopulation, gendercide).

I would be surprised if there is any diference between those in the minds of the average female. It would actually be surprising if the average female ever figured out either of them. She's just spweing hate, her "feelings." What's to understand.

Blessings

Bob

**Dylan MacVillain** · 11th-February-2008

Great post, Tyrael.

* "You're afraid of a strong woman!"

I really hate when feminists hide behind this line. I do not consider feminists to be strong in any way, shape or form. Being a bitch, insulting men, trying to prove equality with men in the work place, raping men legally by telling lies, putting yourself before the well-being of your kids just to destroy your husband, etc. are not signs of strength. They are signs of being corrupt, nasty, insecure, manipulative bitches.

Strong women aren't afraid of supporting their men, taking care of their homes and raising their kids. They are not housephobic feminazis who have to have careers to feel important just because they are so weak and insecure that they fell for feminist brainwashing.

**Tyrael** · 12th-February-2008

Quote from AKUUS

Strong women aren't afraid of supporting their men, taking care of their homes and raising their kids. They are not housephobic feminazis who have to have careers to feel important just because they are so weak and insecure that they fell for feminist brainwashing.

That's a good one.

**genisis** · 27th-February-2008

In FEMINAZI Hereford the females go about telling people that your pretending to be hard, they also tell people that you hate females.The latest issue i have come across is females running down men to there kids.

Hereford FEMINAZIS are allways looking in my car, i presume to see what i'm up to.Some years ago i parked my car up and a female came out of her flat and said you park your fucking car here over night and where going to smash it up, i was the only person in the car park, this female was facing the wall and saying these things, (Mind Games).

The worst thing that these FEMINAZIS have done is phoning my employers, i have lost 4 jobs.

As i been singled out of the community, i tend to tell femme guys as of last weekend to change there TAMPAX to there faces, in front of there friends.These femme guys are so soft!!!

Mind games don't work on me.

Cheers, Genisis

**ooftus goofus** · 27th-February-2008

I have to admit that I used to be bothered by shaming tactics,even though I knew they were absurd.I wasnt even aware of such tactics.But I am now,and I`ve observed,as others have,just how predictable and unoriginal they really are.I no longer feel compelled to respond,because I now know what a brainwashed hate-monger is on the other end.As a matter of fact,I almost pity them,because they are all sheep who cant think for themselves and accept what fem ideologues tell them without question or scrutiny.

bababob · 14th-June-2009

Quote from Billy

I've heard almost every one of these quotes and I wonder if someone gives all women a book with these cheap insults.
They really get old and lack in originality. Maybe they are embedded in their DNA.

______________________________________

It turns out they get the majority of them from male-bashing websites
(or "man-bashing", "men-bashing"). Put these terms into Google and
surf the results.

**6ame** · 14th-June-2009

I read an article that was posted here last week, I think it was the Times Online, the article was written by a man and was basically telling women to stop whining, they've never had it so good.

It was going through the comments there and on a feminist website discussing the article where I noticed that feminists are very much like little children, all their comments were the same bile, all to the effect of "You can't get laid", "You hate women" etc. But the comments on the original article also showed their utter childishness, all insulting comments from feminists/manginas were given thumbs up by about 20+ people, all the comments from men/sensible women were given thumbs down by a group of about 20+ people, so these idiots from feminist websites had clearly went through all comments and rated them accordingly, so they weren't interested in logical argument, they were only interested in appearance, so it looked to the untrained eye that all the feminists had good points whereas all the men and sensible women had bad points that weren't worth reading.

I really believe feminists, and if I'm honest, most women in society, need to really grow up, they can give a thumbs down to all comments, they are free to do so, but it just makes them look like childish buffoons if they do that instead of putting forward a legitimate, logical argument.

If you were 7, and were arguing with a 7 year old girl in the playground, you wouldn't be the least bit surprised if she said "You're stupid" or "You're ugly", but when an adult, fully grown, mature-minded woman uses these same tactics, it's very disappointing.