The Converted Invader v3.0

Back with vengeance.

Help me out?

Or pick up some anti-feminist merchandise!



Ask me anything



Let’s get one thing straight about abortion.

lebanesepoppyseed:

convertedinvader:

lebanesepoppyseed:

nobbert:

lebanesepoppyseed:

dionthesocialist:

nobbert:

Abortion is not an inequality issue, it is a human freedom issue.

Do you hear me, feminists?

The abortion issue is not about women being treated unequally.  The only way that could ever make logical sense is if men could get pregnant and were allowed to have abortions but women were not.  Then, and only then, would it be about inequality.

The fact that the government is dictating what a person can do with their body (whether it be abortion, drugs, sodomy, etc.) is problem with limiting human freedom.

PLEASE stop trying to make the abortion issue into something it isn’t.  Despite the fact that I don’t personally morally agree with abortions, I believe that a person has the right to control their body.  Just stop victimizing yourselves, feminists.

If you can find me a similar way in which the government interferes in the private medical matters of men, I’ll consider debating your point. If not, I’ve gotta maintain that abortion is a feminist issue.

  ^^^What he said. Also, I dig how OP admits that this is a “human rights issue”, and I’m sure ze knows all about abortion and how women are villified and attacked and harrassed and arrested and demeaned in very specific, gendered ways for their desire to have rights over their reproductive organs, and many women have even died for this right, yet feminists are “victimizing” themselves. Yeah, OK. Mansplaining sexist bullshit aside, that argument just doesn’t make any sense. VICTIMS, DO NOT POINT OUT THAT YOU ARE BEING ABUSED, THAT IS VICTIMIZING YOURSELF. At this point, we should all know “victimizing yourself” is just a bullshit excuse, and pretty much should be read as “Who are you do want to keep your oppressors accountable, scum?”.
Feel free to try again, though.

>uses the word “mansplaining” but then calls ME sexist.

>an endless array of ad hominem “arguments” based solely on the fact that I have a penis.

When you use your incredible lack of insight and massive amounts of ignorance, conflate it with your special brand of dude-douchery, and try to explain to women & FAAB, who have had hundreds of years of experience with their bodies, their reproductive and sexual health and choices, and those things in the larger context of the patriarchal societies they live in, and inform them “No, you’ve got it all wrong, you don’t know what you’re saying, I know better, duh!”, than yes, you are mansplaining. That this hurts your tender little feelings isn’t even on my list of shit I care about, but it definitely isn’t a sexist term. Much like “reverse racism”, there’s no such thing as misandry or “sexism” against men. Even if there was, your argument was still so baselessly ignorant, even you couldn’t defend it.

Let’s see…

>dude-douchery
>mansplaining

Both are male-specific gendered insults, and as such, surprise! They’re sexist.

Sexism goes both ways. Here’s a handy guide: whenever you’re about to make a gender-specific insult, think of its equal applying to the opposite gender. If that version seems sexist, then whoops, you’re about to make a sexist remark.

Also, attacking your opponent’s personal traits instead of the point they presented is an ad hominem fallacy which invalidates your reasoning. As such, so far you’ve failed to make any valid points.

He used his privilege as a man to talk down (“Feminists” can’t possibly know whether or not what happens to women & FAAB’s bodies is a feminist or human rights issue, but I, as a man, can set them straight! DUH!), and lack of insight as one (he himself admits that cis-men don’t have to worry about abortion or attacks of women/FAAB’s bodies) to explain something he absolutely has no experience with, so mentioning these things kind of matters? If I sat here and said “I freakin’ hate Iceland, it is so fucking shitty there!,” it would be really valid to mention that I can’t really have a very good formulated opinion on it since I’ve never been to the country. Otherwise, good job reducing your whole argument to an overused derailing tactic!

As for the “sexism against men”, let’s put it like this-Name a time in history where men were specifically targeted by women for their gender? Their quality of life was reduced, laws were passed against them, etc. Anything of the sort. Even something remote.

The point is that the word “sexism” has very strong connotations. The “sexism” men have experienced is absolutely nothing to the real, actual sexism women have experienced. You cannot use it to describe when a man is just feeling a bit uncomfortable or upset by something a woman said, or even if he is discriminated against. It is to describe a phenomena in which a group of people lose power, clout, or get stigmatized or institutionally abused or even killed because of a prejudice against them. That hasn’t happened to men.

EDIT-I’ll say it like this. If you want, you guys can have the word “sexism” to describe any instance in which gendered discrimination-regardless of historical context or social prejudices or cultural mores, power relationships etc-occurs. These actions live in a vacuum, don’t need explanation, etc. In return, come up with a word that very specifically refers to the phenomena of the real, harmful, institutional, cultural, demeaning, murderous, kind of discrimination and oppression that women & FAAB specifically have suffered specifically at the hands of men. Guarantee you people will never use the word “sexism” again, and maybe you’ll understand what they meant back when it was used.

>He used his privilege as a man to talk down (“Feminists” can’t possibly know whether or not what happens to women & FAAB’s bodies is a feminist or human rights issue, but I, as a man, can set them straight! DUH!)

At no point did he attempt to assert his point by referring to the fact that he’s male. Assertion of a fact by logical reasoning (which he did) is part of a debate’s normal progress, and contrary to what you seem to believe, having your views opposed is not the same as being talked down to. Dismissing his points solely because of the presumed attitude of the post would be tone policing.

>and lack of insight as one (he himself admits that cis-men don’t have to worry about abortion or attacks of women/FAAB’s bodies) to explain something he absolutely has no experience with, so mentioning these things kind of matters? If I sat here and said “I freakin’ hate Iceland, it is so fucking shitty there!,” it would be really valid to mention that I can’t really have a very good formulated opinion on it since I’ve never been to the country.

By that analogy, feminists as a whole need to stop making those “rape is caused by:” signs, after all, only a rapist would know their own motives, so your opinion on what you think causes it is uninformed and irrelevant. Right? No, obviously not. Thorough observation of any given matter is enough to form an educated opinion.

>Otherwise, good job reducing your whole argument to an overused derailing tactic!

Pointing out a logical fallacy is not a derailing tactic, but a legitimate way to counter one’s point. You can’t just call anything that’s inconvenient to you for disproving your points a derailing tactic.

>As for the “sexism against men”, let’s put it like this-Name a time in history where men were specifically targeted by women for their gender? Their quality of life was reduced, laws were passed against them, etc. Anything of the sort. Even something remote.

How about these very days we live in?

Laws that systematically work against men: I’ll just put it this way: if you’re a man, good fucking luck ever getting custody of your kids in case of a divorce; you’ll need it. Or here’s the point I made earlier concerning the so-called pro-choice legal views on abortion: http://convertedinvader.tumblr.com/post/7597631438/

Hypocritical double standards against men: http://convertedinvader.tumblr.com/post/7621776665/ Before trying to make the point that it’s an isolated case, please go through the notes and observe that before the post reached our circle via nobbert, the reblogs were nearly unanimously in favor of the rapist, indicating that such double standards are widely accepted.

And finally, here’s this gem, or this from the same author, and let’s see if you have the audacity to claim that misandry doesn’t exist afterwards.

>The point is that the word “sexism” has very strong connotations. The “sexism” men have experienced is absolutely nothing to the real, actual sexism women have experienced.

Because sexism against men clearly (as seen in the above links) isn’t “real” or “actual”, right? Thanks for once again proving that feminism loves to disregard men as opposed to aiming for actual equality.

>You cannot use it to describe when a man is just feeling a bit uncomfortable or upset by something a woman said, or even if he is discriminated against.

"You cannot use it to describe when a man […] is discriminated against."

Hate to break it to you, but sexism means exactly that, discrimination based on one’s sex.

>It is to describe a phenomena in which a group of people lose power, clout, or get stigmatized or institutionally abused or even killed because of a prejudice against them.

To put it extremely simply: no, it isn’t.

>That hasn’t happened to men.

Perhaps not in history, but we’re rapidly getting there, and the signs of that are ever more obvious.

I won’t address the edit, as it presents no new points, merely reiterates that apparently, feminists should have full authority on defining the meaning of words, changing them however it happens to be the most convenient to them at any given moment.

Reblogged 2 years ago from lebanesepoppyseed
  1. lavendersprigsandcoffee reblogged this from spiralofbees
  2. jonaki reblogged this from dion-thesocialist and added:
    But of course! You are a genius, dionthesocialist! The GOVERNMENT (which is a homogeneous force of patriarchal...
  3. nobbert reblogged this from convertedinvader and added:
    ^^^^ this fucking man speaks my mind better than I could. His opinions are spot-on logically and i recommend you follow...
  4. convertedinvader reblogged this from lebanesepoppyseed and added:
    >He used his privilege as a man to talk down (“Feminists” can’t possibly know whether or not what happens to women &...
  5. brainbeforemouth reblogged this from convertedinvader and added:
    The reasoning behind ad hominem being a fallacy is that it not only deviates from the topic at hand, as well as being a...
  6. lebanesepoppyseed reblogged this from convertedinvader and added:
    He used his privilege as a man to talk down (“Feminists” can’t possibly know whether or not what happens to women &...
  7. accelll reblogged this from convertedinvader and added:
    I also just want to point out that this girl said, and I quote; “there’s no such thing as misandry or “sexism” against...
  8. mstashers reblogged this from bebinn
  9. ghost-of-algren reblogged this from nobbert and added:
    How the ACTUAL fuck is a “human freedom” issue that only effects women not a feminism issue? You’re exactly right about...
  10. just-smith reblogged this from miniar and added:
    The inequality comes in as the fact that this choice is being denied to women, not men. Men are denied the right to...
  11. eschaton-disaster reblogged this from dion-thesocialist and added:
    Who says that human freedom’s and rights are not feminist issues anyway? This is person is seriously misguided.
  12. coeur-de-porcelaine reblogged this from nobbert and added:
    Saying ”mansplaining” is not sexist. It’s not the act of explaining while being male, since plenty of men do not...
  13. dion-thesocialist reblogged this from nobbert and added:
    If you can find me a similar way in which the government interferes in the private medical matters of men, I’ll consider...
  14. bebinn reblogged this from spiralofbees and added:
    Agreed. A biological difference between two sexes does not erase inequality. This is about bodily autonomy. If one group...
  15. spiralofbees reblogged this from nobbert and added:
    And when only one group of people (e.g. women) are limited in their bodily autonomy, then it’s an issue of inequality....