Gender issues- argument from victimhood

 The scenario:

Step 1. Make a generalization about a group that is ideally less than kind.

Step 2. Get eviscerated by the internet

Step 3. Change your name and hide your head in shame.

If you make any negative generalization about women, blacks, gays, Muslims, whatever, normally this is what happens. People, who have images on their profiles with texts like "be kind to others" and whatnot will descend on you like a pack of furies to point out that you cannot and should not generalize in such a way. Which is fair. You really should not. First, because it is morally wrong (you know, it is "-ist", depending on if it is based on race or sex or whatever: racist, sexist, etc.), and it is also stupid because normally real-life evidence does not support it. 

Unless... unless you make remarks about men, especially white men.

Then the scenario will change considerably.

Step 1. Make an insulting generalization about men, depicting women as poor, suffering victims.

Step 2. When someone tries to argue about this, attack their person ("you are the reason we choose the bear" is the newest one, but the good, old "incel" always works)

Step 3. Watch as everyone descends on those people who dare to contradict your bigoted generalization to tear them to shreds. (And they are lucky if it does not impact their employment status...)

This interesting change in outcomes can be seen everywhere. You are absolutely not allowed to make generalizations about, say, Muslims (do try to bring up integration in European culture), while the very same people who label you an Islamophobe will absolutely murder you if you dare to challenge their open misandry. 

The responses normally can be sorted out into these categories:

1. open ad hominem attacks (the above mentioned "you are the reason we choose the bears")

2. how dare you question our experiences? All women are suffering (myself included), and you have no right to question us. Don't dare to mansplain. Especially go away with your statistical evidence. 

3. how dare you give context? (For example, pointing out that domestic violence is not a simplistic "man beats woman" issue.) "Whataboutism", "fragile ego", 'you must be the problem because you are defending abusers', OR, my favorite, "this is a safe space for women's issues, don't bring men's issues into it". But when you do it in a "safe space for men", first of all, you are an incel and a red piller, and then women's issues are immediately brought into the conversation just to show how much worse they have it. Just try it somewhere. Anywhere.

4. Yes, but. Male issues pale in comparison. It is simply not worth talking about them. And Patriarchy hurts men, too. And if you solve women's issues, you solve men's, too.

So yeah. You cannot win, because in the current zeitgeist, women are absolutely oppressed (even though the facts don't actually support this), hence they have the upper hand in the conversation- after all, if you have certified victimhood, you win by default. 

Now this is where I should bring up a sure-fire strategy to win in these conversations, but the fact is you cannot. 

The main problem is that these (mostly) women take an immense amount of glee of bullying people they disagree with into submission, all the while displaying their victimhood status - kind of like the concept of virgin prostitute. Because make no mistake: these people are some of the worst bullies you can find. Ironically, the very same tactic is used against feminists when it comes to trans issues - and they suddenly learn what it means to be bullied in this way, and do not like it very much. And in the case of Kathleen Stock, they demand that men stand by them. Ironic, I guess. 

Especially if it is online, it is best not to engage, because as the saying goes about wrestling with pigs - you both get muddy, and the pig enjoys it (and you cannot win - this is not done on an intellectual level). So however infuriating/sad/worrying it is to read bigoted comments, sometimes open hatred, you cannot do anything. Reporting these comments will do nothing, since, as we already established, these "truths" are universally accepted today. It is just another example of how polarized (and stupid) our society became, where one half of the population is seen as a threat, as something unnecessary, or even as an enemy, essentially by women who probably do not apply the same views to their own male relatives and friends. Nevertheless the "I hate blacks, but you are OK, because I know you" was never a good excuse for racism. Neither is it a good excuse for sexism. Yes, they probably will grow up eventually and realize that men and women mutually need each other, but in the meanwhile these views do an immense amount of damage to young men, to society at large, not to mention these views are propagated to the next batch of young, privileged women enjoying the feeling of victimhood. Or worse, middle aged women blaming all their failures on men. 

How to argue as a Hungarian

It’s quite simple, really. You call your opponent a Nazi or a pinko liberal Commie, and boom, you don’t actually have to argue with them. After all, who in their right mind would start arguing with a Nazi? Or a Commie? From this point, you don’t actually have to take anything they say into consideration. You have a right –what right? you have an OBLIGATION!- to disregard the facts your opponent comes up with, and you can simply ignore anything he says. All you have to do is insulting him; that’s it.

This is the sad state of affairs right now. People shout at each other without actually listening to what the other has to say, because deep inside they already know. Except, of course, they don’t. But it does its job: it effectively shuts down any conversation. This mentality makes discussions, clashing of differing ideas impossible. It’s us versus them. If you are not in my team, you are playing for the enemy. If you don’t agree with me, you ARE the enemy; no ifs or buts about it. You are either a traitor to the motherland, or you are a Nazi, so you’d better be in my echo chamber or else... Trolls are tolerated if they play in your team. This is, of course, an intellectually lazy solution: you don’t actually have to think for yourself: your opinions are premade for you.

I’ve ran into this many times either online or during personal conversations. Depending on your differing opinion, you can be labelled a Nazi or a dirty liberal (well, looking at how intellectually corrupt the Hungarian liberal political and intellectual elite is, I can’t fault people to dislike liberals). In fact, you can be both at the same time saying the same thing to different people. It’s insane.

So this is what lies behind all the political discourse, all the personal discussions; this is how the country operates. This is why it is impossible for a member of the opposition actually agree about anything with the ruling party, even if they would do the very same thing once in power –or agree with them in person. This is why friendships break up, this is why family members refuse to talk to each other. You can’t discuss your differing point of view. If you don’t agree with me, you are no friend of mine. The country is incredibly bipartisan. No wonder nothing gets done.