Phil Nice
Phil Nice
Aug 25, 2017 · 2 min read

“Get over it” is a rather hard skeptical reaction, but perhaps a natural one in light of feminist rhetoric. Feminism has a problem making itself believable, how ever good its case may be, because of a lack of stringency in its argumentation. Let’s say for argument’s sake that just (or any) one of the studies you link to is an absolute smoking gun of valid and reliable evidence of discriminatory injustice. Why, instead of arguing the case for the particular issue in question, drown it in a sea of anecdotal evidence and doubtful argumentation? Feminism’s zeal is unfortunately its own undoing, because instead of concentrating on one or a few cold, hard objective facts (as your opponent does), you carpet bomb with 99 subjective values and overstate any hard, objective fact you may have. Doubtful argumentation makes your judgment appear unsound, devaluing anything of real substance, you may have.

I’ll quote you an example of doubtful argumentation. “ Women will not ‘get over it’ until…..incidents of harassment, exploitation, and violence toward women disappear.” Do you mean when all forms of these infractions disappear from the world generally? Look at history and tell me if that’s going to be any time soon. Or do you mean when the perpetrators of such infractions begin to positively discriminate in women’s favour (as a matter of fact, they already do) to the extent where women are utterly exempt from them? In your zeal and indignation you pose a conditional scenario here that if taken seriously is so utopian that its upshot is that “women will never get over it,” feminism will never be satisfied in any realistically conceivable future. So how ever strong your case may actually be for the injustice you claim, you are actually asking us to accept a political movement whose goal is at best ill-defined and at worst unrealistic and whose true motivation therefore appears to be more, more and more ad infinitum. You’re promising us feminism for ever against a problem that’s unsolvable. You’re stating allegiance to a totalitarian dystopia.

Scary, if that’s what you really mean. But maybe you don’t really mean it. Maybe you’re only really sounding off for a sympathetic gallery. In either case, it’s your rational opponent’s duty to be skeptical until you put a stronger case.

)

    Phil Nice

    Written by

    Phil Nice