Which of these anti-feminists propaganda techniques do you see used the most? are most effective?

What a great article and thanks for sharing it with us. I can't even pinpoint one of these strategies since all of them are employed at different times by different anti feminists that post here. The big ones are false connections when the troll male posing as a feminist posts all types of hateful anti male messages and attributes it to the like of Jane etc. Transfer is another large part of the denigration with the constant onslaught that feminists are responsible for false rape allegations, unwed mothers, psychotic killers (because the mother chose to work), loss of parental fatherly rights, and men being discriminated against over women for positions in the job market, university and health care market. I hope that the people especially the young impressionable ones read this and understand that what they are hearing and reading about feminism is completely false. Thanks again.

Well, are feminists simply people fighting for women's rights, or not? The article called Christina Hoff Summers a "faux" feminist. Why is that? Because she is against quota systems for sports teams in colleges? Read the book "Whole Stole Feminism" if you're wondering why women aren't buying the whole, "But feminists only want equal rights" garbage. Some do, and some do not. And there is a good reason why some feminists are accused of religious devotion to their cause. It is because when someone challenges an ideological viewpoint with common sense or science, they are "blacklisted" as being anti-woman. Look at what happened to the president of Harvard when he suggested that PART of the reason for women's underrepresentation in math and science at the highest levels might be due to biological differences, and PARTLY discrimination. He said that ONE REASON was that more boys than girls tend to score very high or very low on high-school math tests, producing a similar average but a higher proportion of scores in the top percentiles, which lead to high-powered academic careers in science and engineering. http://www.slate.com/id/2112570/ Even after numerous apologies, and a pledge to donate $50 million dollars to promote diversity, NOW is calling for his resignation: http://www.now.org/press/01-05/01-20-Harvard.html So, which is it? Is there room for, say, *science* in feminism? Is there room for people to object to quota systems? Is there room for those of us who don't agree that "women should not have that choice" when it comes to raising our own children? (Simone de Beauvoir)? You can't have it both ways. If Hoff-Sommers is not a "real" feminist for believing that equality can best be achieved in other ways, then I guess I'm not either. There is a problem with no one challenging other feminists' views (or worse, phony stats) to help the movement grow. It seems to have devolved into a "with us or against us" movement. Why did feminists not speak out *in favor* of female neurobiologist Louann Brizendine's book "The Female Brain" as a way to better understand how to make our society more woman-friendly? Her book was based on over 20 years or research and the science was sound. Instead, they mainly made the very stubborn decision to cry out "That can't be! Women aren't like that!" Insisting that science is not fair, or tossing aside any evidence that females and males might have some neurobiological differences that are not based in culture, makes the movement look like a religious devotion rather than a cause for equal rights. I don't need a religion. So perhaps I'll stick to the term "choice feminist" to describe myself. EDIT: Hoff-Sommers IS a feminist. She considers herself an "equity feminist" - she concerns herself mainly with legal equality. She identifies with the goals of "first wave" feminism, but is somewhat critical of so-called "gender feminism" and feminists who distort data or push for 50% representation in all professions. For example, she feels that a fair application of title IX is to fund women's sports in school in proportion to the number of women expressing an interest, just as is done for men. Neither gender must be discriminated against. She disagrees with the trend to cut funding to men's teams when there are not an equal number of female athletes in that sport. The number of men allowed to play are cut to the level of the number of women playing, which she finds discriminatory. Equal opportunity vs. Equal in number, I guess you could call the argument. The fact that only a few women have reached tenure positions in math and science under Larry Summers as president is not proof that they have been discriminated against. How many women applyed for tenure in the math and sciences? How many men? Summers used to be secretary of the Treasury under Pres. Clinton - hardly a likely candidate for an old-school misogynist. Here is a study that supports Summers' arguments, perhaps shows that Harvard is not the only one with underrepresented women, and has some interesting info about the subject: http://www.nber.org/~sewp/events/2005.01.14/Bios+Links/Krieger-rec4-Nelson+Rogers_Report.pdf I agree that underrepresentation is a problem, but I disagree that discrimination is the only reason for it.

I'm a feminist. I like men. I don't hate children. I'm not radical. I shave my legs. What's wrong with this picture? The eighth technique (glittering generalizations) is by far the most effective. It works for everyone trying to make a point — except, of course, when the people hearing those points are smart enough to draw their own conclusions..

One word of caution on number 8. Too many people confuse " glittering generalities " with a statistical, continuous distribution. See that here often; anecdote submitted as data.

I think the source you have is biased to begin with, given that it comes from a website called "Feminista" and that it calls people like Christina Hoff-Sommers "faux" feminists. The most effective strategy is probably generalized labeling. EDIT: Hahahaha... pigheadedness? Would you like to try proving your little statement? First you accuse me of "splitting" and now this. You certainly are equal to extreme lulz, I must say. By the way, I'm pretty sure everyone DOESN'T "know" that what the site said is "well enough proved", since they don't agree with it. Try to use another logical fallacy- that one won't work. You have an odd habit of using generalizations or applying extremes to people to try an attack. All in all I don't know if I should be worked up about another baseless attack or whether I should laugh at the fact that a 46-year-old woman is trying to throw shots at a sophomore in high school- while LOSING the battle whenever I actually bother to reply. I suppose it truly is the duty of the new generations to surpass the old.

realistically how large in numbers could these anti-feminists groups have been anyway. a few bad apples u don't chain saw the tree. seems like u r using a microscope to dig up whatever evidence would confirm your beliefs. this is an essay nothing more.

either plain folk or name calling

I was just on a work site today where the guys were telling each other the best way to handle a woman was to treat her like sh*t. Leave her hanging and she will come a runnin". I eventuall belted out a cowabunga, "What are you four years old? Younger girls like the bad boy routine, but good luck getting a good woman to give you the time of day." I could spew on Monday all over the next idiot who tries to get a second rise out of the occasion.

None of the above. Feminists use propaganda, lies and half-truths. They are masters at it. They have erected an elaborate mythology that begins with the Great Myth of Patriarchy. Then embellished it with a series of urban legends that "men have all the power," "marriage is a legalized form of slavery," and so on. Emotional impact, not historical accuracy is what counts. Take the claim that women suffer from wage discrimination, for instance. "On the average, women are paid 76 cents for every dollar that men earn." Groups such as the National Center for Policy Analysis have found that when differences in work hours and other factors are taken into account, the gender wage gap disappear. Fox News ran an article in late August about American military women in Iraq (see below). This was the lead sentence: "Today, equality of the sexes includes dying in combat." The article highlighted the statistic that 24 female soldiers had died in Iraq. As of that time, one thousand American troops had perished — 24 female and 976 male. If we do a little math, it turns out that only 2.4% of combat deaths are female. That's equality of the sexes? fem·prop Pronunciation: 'fe-m-"präp Function: noun Etymology: New Latin, from feminismus feminism + propaganda Date: 2004 : PROPAGANDA; especially : political propaganda promulgated chiefly to promote the feminist ideology (men bad - women good) in politics, the judiciary, social research, academe, the bureaucracy, the education system, the media, publishing, literature, drama, music, art etc. - femprop adjective Today, women are aware of the slight of hand feminists have been pulling for decades and want no part of it. Equality, most want, just not the feminist version.