Today, I am enthusiastically responding to that accusation by reading another one of his blogs and conducting an analytically write-up. I conducted a random search for his blogs and discovered this one, Attacking Male Sexuality. It was the first blog that I found, there is no reason I selected this blog over any others.
In the past, I found that some MRA writers and members to be no different from radical feminists. They tend to start off with good ideas, then wander off into the land of conspiracy theories and paranoia. I approached John's above mentioned blog with the intention of being just as fair to him as I would any of the feminists. I approach his blog with the same blunt honesty that I would approach any other person.
After reading John's essay, I end up concluding that his blog contains some good points. I will prove he makes some horrible points, lacks research, and leaves many loose ends. With a combination of unanswered questions, bad stylistics, dichotomous thinking, he ends up shooting himself in the foot.
To start off, we should first make a concise definition of Conspiracy Theory. With a clear definition of conspiracy theory we will achieve two things. First, we will be able to identify whether or not John's relies on any conspiracy theory in his blog. This is necessary because clarity is the counterbalance of profound thoughts. A person can have a million profound thoughts, but if they cannot clearly express them, then their ideas cannot amount to anything concrete. Second, we will be fair to John. A person should not accuse him of being a conspiracy theorist when his arguments do not clearly meet the definition of conspiracy theory.
Oxford English Dictionary Defines Conspiracy Theory as: a belief that some covert but influential organization is responsible for an unexplained event. I am not sure if I am okay with that definition, because some events have clear explanations like 911. We know Osama Bin Laden is responsible, we have evidence to support that conclusion, but there are still conspiracy theories that 911 was an inside job. Perhaps this definition would work: A belief that some covert, but influential organization secretly plan and carry out a harmful act. Wikipedia offers a similar definition: A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the public. I am happy with the Wikipedia definition because it is more specific and comprehensive than any other definition of conspiracy theory that I have seen so far. That is the definition I will use in this examination.
So lets begin....
Paragraph one reads as follows:
Male identity is one of the fundamental drivers of the MGTOW movement; which, for anyone returning to this planet after a decade of vacation, is a growing pathway of masculine self-identity in which men are rejecting a statist, a collectivist, feminist or even a female-approved definition of what constitutes a man. Instead, MGTOW men, or Zeta males, are defining their own identities as men – without much regard for the convenience and utility of those identities to outsiders, to women or to a runaway state. It is, in fact, a revolution of thought in which men declare themselves human beings of worth – and don’t ask permission or apologize or allow anyone else to devalue their humanity in preference to their utility.
Unfortunately, the first paragraph of John's blog already contains a conspiracy theory. The paragraph maintains that there is a secret, state-driven, collectivist, feminist covert operation, mostly unknown to the general population, and their sole mission is to define what constitutes a man. The blog neglected to cite any peer-reviewed, double blind studies proving that there is a covert, feminist, collectivist, state-driven agenda to re-define male sexuality to the detriment of men.
Lets revisit that definition of Conspiracy theory again. A conspiracy theory explains an event as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or, more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to the public.
The problem that I am seeing, is that the core concepts of the MRA are good because it speaks for the health, welfare, and benefit of men. Their mistake is claiming that there is an elaborate, covert group of feminists, collectivists, and government people who are pushing the agenda to change the definition of what it means to be a man. Feminists have done the same thing. Their core concepts are good, in that they want to improve the health, welfare, and benefit of women. Then they go awry when they start talking about vast patriarchal institutions that are plotting against them. There are some MRA that want women to stay at home, have babies, can vegetables and forego any education that does not make them better mothers. There are some feminists that want all men exterminated because they think that men are the root of all evil. This is how people shoot themselves in the foot.
I will give John credit for this - he is not a lazy writer like PZ Myers. At least John makes an attempt at stringing together more than two paragraphs. I am confident that as John sat down to write this blog, he visited thesaurus.com, looked up the word 'childish', found the word puerile, and plugged it into his blog. Most people do not use puerile in an everyday sentence. It follows that many people are not going to know it at first glance. The purpose of writing is to be understood. I know that some will accuse me of suggesting John dumb-it-down for his audience. Anyone who makes that claim will be making a strawman of my argument. I am saying: use the appropriate word. Ideas are usually complex, but the way we explain them do not have to be if we do it right.
The only reasons people grab a thesaurus and plug in an obscure words is to give themselves an aura of sophistication and impression of intelligence. What they end up achieving is quite the opposite. If John is writing poetry or fiction, where the beauty of the language is as important as the content, by all means use the word puerile instead of the word childish. But if his overriding goal is to communicate information, he should avoid obscure words and put the thesaurus aside.
Paragraph four of John's blog posed the question "oh, you don't fancy me? I can assure you darling, I completely understand how you feel." First, who is asking 'oh, you don't fancy me?', is it John or a woman? Why does this person use the term of endearment 'darling'? I do not see how this clause is witty or helps John communicate with the reader.
Starting from paragraph five to the end of the blog, we find that the ideas John is trying to express remain convoluted. Lets start with this: thread of opinion. Is that supposed to mean that there is some opinion? Is he trying to say some opinions are becoming more valuable?
The writing is going from bad to worse. Some of these mistakes should have been identified upon the first revision of the blog. Try writing it like this, "There is a growing opinion of some Men's Rights Activists that gay, bi-sexual or transsexual identities are not legitimate." There is no need to write 'self identify', when the word 'identify'will suffice.
What we are looking at, ladies and gentleman, is a one sentence paragraph. I have not seen this kind of writing since Brett Keane. If John is to effectively communicate his ideas, he will need to add something more substantial than a one sentence paragraph. He later mentions that some scriptural arguments some MRA use condemn anyone who is not heterosexual are wrong. How does he debunk the scriptures? He says, 'get over it.' It seems to me that if the men he is advocating for are relying on a bad religious arguments, it should be a pressing matter that John explain to his brethren why the religious arguments are wrong. Since the entire premise of the blog is supposed to be about an attack on male sexuality, this is a key issue that he should be giving more attention than a, 'get over it.'
Wrapping It Up
At the end of the blog, he swings right back into conspiracy theory mode. Rather than debunking all of those Bible verses that condemn non-heterosexuals, he swings the pendulum right back where it belongs. Back to the covert operation of feminists whose mission it is to redefine masculine sexuality. Since John neglected to debunk all of those gay hating Bible verses, maybe his intention is to argue that women wrote those Bible verses so that they could put the gay-hating agenda on the shoulders of religion rather than right on their shoulders where it properly belongs. He explains that some MRA's who do not accept other sexual orientations are no better than those evil women who go about life, policing male sexuality and sexual identity.
At the end of his blog, John shakes his finger at the other MRA's saying that they are no better than the feminists. It is interesting that this is the first time in his entire blog that he recognizes that both women and men are doing something bad. I have never known a feminist who did not support gay rights, so I do not know where John is drawing his conclusions. It must be part of that covert, feminizing, collectivist agenda that I do not see because I refuse to take the red pill. I will give him credit for this, just mentioning that both women and men do something wrong is a step in the right direction.
He concludes his blog saying: When men are not expected to die without complaint any time higher gas prices make it inconvenient for soccer moms to drive from their gated community to the local grass pitch, or any other time men’s utility trumps their humanity, well then maybe I’ll entertain the usefulness of keeping the gays or the darkies out of the club house.
Seriously - women want men to die because gas prices make it inconvenient to drive from their gated communities? Overlooking the fact that the writing is atrocious. John appear to be no different from an angry feminist. He believes that women rule the world, and have a great deal of undeserved power. Yet, he fails to present any evidence backing up his claims.
I can only speculate that John really believes women control the world. I do not know if he hates women, as many people suggest. Maybe women treat him life crap day in and day out. Maybe he is angry they are not sexually available to him. These are all speculations on my part, but the anger he has at women is very real.
Whelp, after reading this load of drivel I can confidently say that I am ready to go to bed.
Good night everyone!