“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 hominem attacks. It might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are hurled against men whenever a discussion arises about the very real actions and behavior of the female collective. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics and the most common deflections.
Understanding them (and where they come from) is very important, because the people who use them are not even aware of it themselves. No matter where you are in the world, the dialogue (and wording) is almost exactly identical. It springs out of their mouths as if pre-rehearsed and programmed by the same hive mind. It’s quite remarkable.
The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions he has are assumed to be unjustifiable.
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.
The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with women.
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, many men have learned that women fail a cost-benefit analysis in marriage contracts and inter-personal relationships.
In the CryBaby charge, the target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of men. He is accused of playing “Chicken Little”.
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 be 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.
The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on his status as an adult male.
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.
The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.
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.
The target is accused of explaining away his own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming women for his problems.
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.
The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.
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”).
The target’s sexual orientation or masculinity is called into question.
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.
The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about women.
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.
The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular woman or to women in general.
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).
The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.
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.
This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at men who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits.
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?”
The charge of superficiality is usually hurled at men with regard to their mating preferences.
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).
The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as women are concerned.
Response: This is another example of “circumstantial ad hominem.” The target’s romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of his arguments.
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.
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.
The target is admonished that his viewpoints or behavior will cause women to reject him as a mate.
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).
The public comment section is currently being worked on and tested. It may appear or re-appear intermittently between now and July 6. Thank you.