Pink fallacy is my new terminus and it is a “special” form of [invalid] argumentation inured with contradictions, ‘ad hominem’, ‘tu quoque’ and prerogatives. It is posited by some “sexist” group on mainstream/social media who have very little idea about their own sexism, stereotyping and biased-ness.
It is “angrily than partially” posed against other [sexist] group who are also victims of their own ignorance, patriarchalism, parochialism and some statism, if I am not wrong.
Well, to be more “straight”, pink fallacy is an advanced version of logical fallacy which is brutally “in relationship” with feminists who are likely to offer “free love” to politicians than men because government (a body of men) is institutionally “very chivalrous” than men. It’s “NOT a hypocrisy” on their side to lobby for “legal” discrimination (i.e. reservation) against men and other vulnerable groups like LGBT, physically challenged, octogenarians, etc., but it is a pure “misogyny” if any other gender or social-class than “them” pleads for the “special” privileges.
I am not being unscientific, here. I mean to say; I am not ignoring the “critical” fact that some ladies are “victims” of the misogynical system, but my crux is that instead of lobbying for the privileges; I don’t understand that why it is unnecessary for them to disobey against the “unjust” laws which have been constitutionally framed without their individual consent?
Second thing, why it is unnecessary to google a term like “catallaxy” and then counter the economics of system which doesn’t endeavor to treat them equally? “Attempting” to make them equal is somewhat like a honeymoon “period” and it doesn’t last long, because the process is unfree from the collective actions like expropriation, infringement, etc
To do this gynaeconomics doesn’t buy time. “Assume” that there are only 100 seats in a municipal body at “national” level. Politicians (mainly, here, men) enjoy the “monopoly” over decision-making. Smelled something wrong, na? Well, then, the next day, slacktivists as well as “social” activists demand for representation of women in the system because they feel they have been “meritoriously” kept out till date. They feel that men are “selfish” and have no courtesy for women. By the way, women “luckily” pay less ‘income taxes’ than men. They also feel that it would be a “just” society to also have them in, because men sideline them every now and then. Then, next-to-next day, a “public” law is passed enticing them with 50% seats and 50% for men. Now, where must LGBT, physically challenged, atheist groups, octogenarians, commonsense groups, etc. fit in? Even if few seats are debauched at the expense of men and women for all these other “special” groups, what is the ratio of this rate which equally discriminates against involved-individuals to function collectively and how it is decided with whom?
And, why do women also need “social” acknowledgement from others when this society is an oppressor? Probably, individualism than feminism would be a better thing, but sadly many are likely to not decipher what all I said here, because they are obsessed to defend “pink fallacy” than fight it.
Anyways, I ratiocinate section one. Dilip Thadani takes another section below:
That the more number of laws/regulations will solve issues/problems – in itself – is a fallacy, first of all, & here come Pinkie’s & their Pinku’s trying to “enforce” more regulations & reservations. Adding regulation(s) is like seeing fire creating the wood. Some laws “may be” crucial, but more the number of laws, neither were, neither are, neither will be an “ultimate” solution. Their idea about solution, instead of empowering their own kind, is to discriminate with the other kind via legislations, as if dis-empowering others via legislation(s) will bring equality or justice to them. Sounds legit?
It’s like: “Because I am maimed, others too shall be maimed, as that’ll bring equality”
Lets indiscriminately discriminate endlessly, to end gender discrimination against women.
Dilip Thadani, A minarchist and a thinker passionate to learn, argue and talk things that interests politics, society, sports and technology