Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page
]]]]]]]]] COUNTERING FEMINIST VERBAL TACTICS [[[[[[[[[[[
Countering Feminist Verbal Tactics
By Nicholas Davidson
(Appendix to Nicholas Davidson, The Failure of Feminism (Buffalo,
New York: Prometheus Books, 1988), pp. 343-348)
[Kindly uploaded by Freeman 10602PANC]
Feminist activists don't fight fair. They are not interested
in intellectual speculations or in acquiring new knowledge, for
the feminist perspective has already answered all their
questions. Legitimate discussion of gender issues can only take
place between members of the in-group, who share a common belief
structure. This eliminates most women from the discussion:
non-feminist women are seen either as potential adherents to be
manipulated into a correct understanding or as enemies to be
outmaneuvered. It also excludes all men. Men's role in feminist
discourse is limited to the role of not-quite-legitimate
spectators and, above all, of targets. The structure of feminist
belief makes it extremely difficult for feminists to admit the
possible legitimacy of points of view which do not arise from
their own ideology. Like other convinced believers in search of
proselytes, they engage in argument only for the purpose of
winning people over.
To this end, they have made a sustained effort to develop and
disseminate rhetorical shock tactics designed to confuse,
overpower, and humiliate their adversaries. These tactics were
popularized through essays like ``Verbal Karate'' in the
influential Sisterhood Is Powerful (1970). The mentality of this
effort is nowhere better expressed than in the title of Gloria
Steinem's Outrageous Acts and Everyday Rebellions (1982), which
is laden with more such advice.
Shocking people into awareness is supposed to be fun, creating
an enormous sense of superiority over the unreflective masses of
``males'' and ``transitional women.'' Steinem advises that
I now often end lectures with an organizer's deal. If each
person in the room promises that in the twenty-four hours
beginning the very next day she or he will do at least one
outrageous thing in the cause of simple justice, then I
promise I will, too.
Feminists should be aware that such ``outrageous acts'' can
cut both ways. It might be amusing to imagine ``outrageous
acts'' directed against feminist orthodoxy: writing in protest to
the campus newspaper when it calls the university ``fascist,
racist, and sexist''; sending a copy of The Inevitability of
Patriarchy [1973] to a feminist acquaintance; enjoying sex in the
missionary position. The revolutionary act for today's woman is
not to demand pay equity on the job. It is to go out on a date
and leave her wallet home.
It takes little courage to run with the prevailing wind. In
an era in which feminism has been adopted as the official
philosophy of Radcliffe, Barnard, and Smith, and the New York
Times promotes the unlovely epithet ``Ms.,'' outrageousness and
rebellion clearly lie on the anti-feminist side in the world of
Acamedia [sic], although less so in the American heartland.
``Chauvinism'' and ``Sexism''
The feminist buzzwords which substitute a predigested ideology
for independent thought have had far too long a run. It is time
they were tossed out of polite society. The most important of
these buzzwords are ``chauvinism'' and ``sexism.''
Chauvinism originally meant exaggerated patriotism. Chauvin
was a Napoleonic officer whose jingoism and xenophobia gave rise
to the expression which bears his name. By extension, a ``male
chauvinist'' is someone who believes that men are superior to
women -- and since society in its ``present form'' is thought of
as ``patriarchy,'' it follows that any man so retrograde as to
oppose any aspect of the feminist program is a male supremacist
and a misogynist. The feminist perspective, the belief that
men's oppression of women is the source of the world's problems,
made ``chauvinist,'' an abbreviated form of ``male chauvinist,''
the standard put-down to be hurled at men who dared disagree,
however timorously, with any aspect of feminist dogma. In short,
``[male] chauvinist'' is an insult -- and should be treated as
such.
Contemporary feminism, though, represents an authentic female
chauvinism. Since men are responsible for all the evil of the
world, women are responsible for all the good. The Pythagorean
principle that associates men with good and light and women with
evil and darkness is stood on its head; men are seen as the
villains, women as the redeemers of humanity. Yet feminists
continue to accuse any male opponent of ``chauvinism'' -- little
suspecting that the word applies far better to themselves.
The most popular feminist buzzword of all is ``sexism.'' The
expression ``sexism'' was coined in the sixties to suggest that
distinctions based on sex are as pernicious as those based on
race. ``Sexism'' is said to be a system which oppresses women in
order to preserve the hegemony of men -- what feminists believe
is the essential principle of human society and history. In
other words, ``sexist'' is a pejorative way of saying
``gendered.'' Since it is men who are held to be oppressing
women, sexism also equals male chauvinism. Women are therefore
rarely accused of being ``sexist,'' for who would accuse blacks
of being racist? But men are almost invariably ``sexists'': it
is indeed the rare male who has escaped a conditioning so
crippling to the decent side of his character. ``Sexism'' is the
leading weapon in the feminist rhetorical arsenal for belittling,
besmirching, and befuddling their ``enemies'' -- ``traditional''
society and men.
It is time to recognize this word for what it is: a rhetorical
tactic, not a reality. What began in the sixties as an agreeably
outrageous neologism has been reified to the point where
feminists now believe there actually is such a thing as
``sexism.'' To use this word as if it referred to a factual
reality indicates that the user believes our society is built on
the basis of male oppression of women and must be overturned in
its essential institutions and replaced with a better order. The
casual usage of ``sexism'' should therefore be avoided, for it
tends to co-opt the user into a point of view that he or she in
all likelihood does not espouse, or in many cases even
understand. In reality, a good society does and must make
distinctions on the basis of sex. The expression ``unisexism''
consequently has considerable shock value at the moment against
feminists.
Whenever a feminist uses the expression ``sexism,'' she should
be challenged, and pressed: As she struggles to justify this term
she has long taken for granted, the feminist perspective will
out, in all its poisonous negativity. One should always remember
in a public discussion with a feminist that she is the one with
something to hide: namely, the true nature of feminist ideology.
The Tactic of Outrage
Holier-than-thou approaches have been the daily currency of
believing feminists. One should of course refuse to conduct
arguments in such debased coin whenever possible. But if it is
necessary to do so, take the high ground. The most common such
feminist approach is the tactic of outrage, used with regard to
day care, pornography, etc., etc. You've got to have your facts
straight and be quick on your feet to c~½aañ\ fhe two-tiered
assault inherent in thk• technique, which seeks first, to
overcome facts with emotion, and second, to discredit the
non-feminist individual attacked by making him appear to lack
moral compassion, thoughtfulness, and so on. Ideally, the
assault actually discredits him in his own eyes so that, confused
and stuttering, he is reduced to the apologetic vulnerability
required in the New Male.
I say ``him'' advisedly in this discussion: the tactic of
outrage works poorly against women because as Carol Gilligan
explains, they tend to be ``morally pragmatic'' in the first
place. Men's tendency to abstraction and generalization makes
them vulnerable to this technique, which turns that tendency
against them by making it seem pompous and ``insensitive.'' A
good antidote is therefore to claim compassion yourself (because
it is too complicated to explain the virtues of abstract
reasoning in the context of a heated argument over, say,
federally funded day care centers): the anti-feminist position is
the really compassionate one -- to say nothing of being the fair
one, the just one, the practical one, the cost-efficient one, and
so forth. The fact that all these things probably really are
true of the anti-feminist position won't hurt your case at all.
Another way to combat the tactic of outrage is to undercut it
by refusing to speak to the arguments presented (which are just a
smoke-screen anyway for forcing us all to accept a neutered
society). For men, this requires that they discard out-of-place
chivalry which inhibits them from using their full aggressiveness
and intelligence against feminists. (It may help to think of
oneself as a defender of the majority of women.) For instance,
an acquaintance of mine was recently attacked in a public
gathering for referring to prepubescent females as ``girls.''
Since they can be beaten and raped, he was informed, all females
are ``women.'' Unfazed, he shot back ``Do you spell that with an
`e' or an `i'?'' (Some radical feminists spell ``women'' as
``wimmin,'' to avoid the hated syllable ``men.'')
Compliments to Avoid
There is a set of expressions which feminist use to encourage
men to conform to their notions of nonsexist conduct. These
should be avoided and resisted just like the pejoratives. The
pejoratives are the stick, the compliments the carrot. Both
represent attempts to divorce you from your authentic perceptions
by people who don't know any better.
Words like ``sensitive,'' ``caring,'' ``warm,'' ``feeling,''
and ``related'' all represent perfectly valid qualities for a man
to possess, but in the feminist lexicon they have acquired
special meanings. From girlhood on, many women periodically wish
human males were more of these things. Here's the rub: the
feminist usage blends this ubiquitous and ungratifiable female
wish with the implication that the recipient of these seeming
compliments either lacks or doesn't care for the reverse virtues
of toughness, independence, and so forth, and consequently is
less able to stand up for himself than he should be. Many men
wonder why they feel threatened by such apparent compliments.
You should feel threatened: these ``compliments'' carry
implications that the psychological distance with which each man
must surround himself for his basic well being (passim Gilligan,
for instance) is unnecessary. Like a stranger standing close to
you on an empty bus, they represent a violation of personal
space. Preserve your right to be distant, skeptical, and
unemotional: these are qualities too, if not carried to excess.
``Sex Objects''
One hardy perennial is the claim that ``men see women as sex
objects.'' Of course they do. What sort of woman would not want
men to see her as a sex object? When feminists attack routine
aspects of the human condition which they find offensive, it is
often effective to point out that your views are those of the
majority. As, says the feminist, but the problem is that men
just see women as sex objects. This is a curious proposition, as
science has yet to uncover a single case of this bizarre
delusion.
Arguing in Front of a Group
You have one enormous advantage if you are arguing in front of
often generate sympathy, interest, and covert admiration for the
underdog. Even more important, your arguments will have the
virtue of novelty. May people, including most of your
adversaries, will literally never have heard them before, and
even if they have, the impact of hearing a fellow student,
employee, family member, colleague, or other personal
acquaintance make points they had only heard in passing on TV
will make them sit up and take notice. Of course, all the above
points continue to apply even if you are talking on TV. Good
luck.
* * *
Return to the ground floor of this tower
Return to the Main Courtyard
Return to Fort Freedom's home page