An MRA makes a feeble attempt at a counter-argument…

As you may remember, I published two debunkings of commonly circulated list of “proofs” by MRAs. This pissed them off, because they are whiny little bitches who cannot deal with any level of disagreement without believing that it’s all part of some great conspiracy against them.

I have not received any semi-serious rebuttals (I don’t expect any serious rebuttals because MRAs do not have that much intelligence), but some moron MRA called “Eye of Woden” tried to rebut another debunking by Owen Lloyd. Here is my examination of that post. I will not link to Eye of Woden’s entry here so I don’t give him any more hits, but I’m sure you can find it anyway if you search.

Here is the entry where I give my responses to the same list.

The first point is about men’s suicide rate being 4.6 times higher than women’s. In response, it has rightly been pointed out that, according to the statistics, women attempt suicide at three times the rate of men. So here is the moron’s response:

Which is worse, 100 men dying by suicide in a single attempt each, or 35 women attempting suicide 3 times each, and still being alive to seek services for that which drove them to attempt suicide in the first place?

What sort of idiotic question is that? First of all, the numbers are wrong: to replicate the “women attempt suicide three times as much,” it should be 100 women attempting suicide 3 times, not 35 women; then, to fit the 1:33 ratio of successful to failed suicides, it should really be 3300 men attempting for each 100 men dying, and 3300 women attempting suicide 3 times. So Eye of Woden sucks at mathematics. But more importantly, “which is worse” is not a question unless we specify exactly how it’s worse. If we start from the assumption that any single suicide attempt reveals an underlying problem, then obviously three times the suicide attempts is a bigger concern.

But either way, so what? We debunked the belief that suicide rates prove that men have it worse than woman. Only Eye of Woden’s failure at mathematics hides that fact.

Falsehoods exposed in the claim that men die from suicide at a rate 4 times higher than women: 0

Okay, but here’s the problem: no feminist is trying to “expose a falsehood” about this point, but rather to demonstrate that the statistic is not relevant. So Eye of Woden makes a straw man here. He has failed to refute the point and now is covering his ass.

The second point is about men’s life expectancy being lower than women’s. As I pointed out in my debunking, that fact has been true for more than a century, therefore feminism cannot be the source of the discrepancy. Eye of Woden does not address this, because Owen Lloyd did not. Fair enough, although I can’t help thinking how convenient that is. Instead, he spends his time attacking the gender wage gap. Ridiculous.

Falsehoods exposed in the claim that men live an average of 7 years less than women: 0

Again, no feminist has stated that the claim was incorrect, so this is another straw man. It’s easier for him to punch thin air and pretend he’s winning.

The third point concerns the laughable conceit that men are “almost exclusively” the only victims of war. I am not even going to address this point because only an imbecile would even consider it. Bombs don’t differentiate genders. If I must inject facts in this ridiculous conversation, Reza, Mercy and Krug 2001 show that the male to female ratio in war deaths is 1.3 overall. MRAs are crackpots and liars.

The fourth point concerns men being 95% of workplace fatalities. The answers here are that, first, the statistic is wrong, and second, that this is the result of dangerous professions being male-dominated.

As far as I can see, Eye of Woden has no reply to this. He waffles with the 95% figure, saying that it must come from a study of another country and that men’s issues are “global issues.” What is the point of all this? Everyone knows that the vast majority of MRAs are American and that the MRA movement is mostly American in nature.

But okay, let’s move on anyway and operate under the assumption that his number is correct. Again, so what? The reason why MRAs bring it up is because they believe this shows female privilege in not dying from dangerous jobs, when in fact it proves that male domination in demanding physical jobs (like mining, which women tried to get into for a long time) leads to men having those jobs. The fact that women were coercively barred from certain jobs is not a proof of female privilege.

Point 5 is about men being murdered at five times the rate of women. The obvious reply (obvious to anyone who’s not brain damaged by MRA propaganda) is that these men are murdered… by other men.

In response, Eye of Woden claims this is moving the goalposts. Apparently logic is still not his strong suit. Moving the goalposts means excluding evidence by changing the desired conclusion. The irony is that that’s exactly what Eye of Woden is doing here. He declares that the fact that men murder other men is irrelevant and that we have to take intersectionality into account. But the whole point here is that we are debunking so-called “men’s rights” issues, and intersectionality has never been part of MRA ideology. He only brings it to the discussion because it lets him ignore Owen Lloyd’s argument.

This is where his perverse version of a feminist ideology is showing. He feels that one gender’s problem must inherently be caused by the other gender in order for it to matter. Men being 5 times more likely to be victims of murder does not matter to him if men are also the ones committing the majority of hem.

Let’s be clear here: Eye of Woden is being dishonest. Of course it matters that men are killing other men. But that’s besides the subject, which is the MRAs’ feeble attempt at “proving” that women have privilege over men. How is this “proven” by concluding that men are more violent towards each other than women? Hell if I know. Don’t ask Eye of Woden, because he obviously doesn’t know either.

If person A keeps punching themselves in the face, and person B does not, does that fact alone prove that person B has privilege over person A? No. In itself, all it proves is that person A is an imbecile. You would need further evidence to demonstrate anything beyond that. Where is the evidence?

Falsehoods exposed in the claim that men are murdered at 5 times the rate of women: 0

You know the drill. No feminist claimed that… etc. Eye of Woden is an idiot.

Point 6 concerns child custody, stating that women receive custody 92% of the time. Now, as I pointed out, the statistic is a straightforward lie: the real number is 72% in the United States. Eye of Woden does not even try to address this fact, although he does present an 80% figure for Canada, which still proves the MRA figure is wildly off-base.

Point 7 concerns women being acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men. I have no idea where that statistic came from, and therefore conclude that it was probably made up, although I would like to see a source. Does Eye of Woden provide a source?

No. Instead, he argues that the rate is infinite times higher. So once again Eye of Woden hilariously proves how wrong the original list is. If NO husband ever gets acquitted for spousal murder, then why aren’t they shouting THAT from the rooftops? Given the number of statistics that MRAs plain make up, I find it extremely surprising that they wouldn’t broadcast this “fact” as widely as possible. Yes, I am saying that Eye of Woden is such a bad liar that even his fellow MRAs (a bunch of raving lunatics who are so disconnected from reality that they think only men die in wars) don’t agree with him.

Point 8 concerns men’s sentences for spousal murder being 2.8 times as long as those of women. In response, Eye of Woden brings up individual examples. How could a handful of examples possibly have any sort of impact on a global statistic like this? Again, the statistic remains unknown and therefore suspect, and no amount of hearsay stories can change that.

Point 9 states that men pay child support at twice the rate of women. As I pointed out, this is a straightforward lie. At this point, Eye of Woden gave up and says he just “can’t be bothered.” I am not overly surprised that Eye of Woden is tired of defending outright lies. As you can see in my own entry, every single point after 8 is either a blatant lie or an assertion made without references.

Eye of Woden’s pathetic attempts at defending his fellow liars and clowns only confirms what we already know: the list is filled with lies, misrepresentations and half-truths, and is basically indefensible. This is why he must obsess about issues on the fringe of every point in order to pretend as if he’s working at refuting what Owen Lloyd said. It doesn’t work.

Falsehoods exposed by Eye of Woden’s logically and mathematically challenged verbiage: 0 for 8, before he runs away with his dick behind his legs.

To all MRAs: try being real men for once and admit you’re a clutch of hysterical virgins who lie, cheat and threaten because you don’t have the testicular fortitude to face what woman-hating faggots you all are. Don’t like it, stop being one!

%d bloggers like this: