Feminist ideology shuns masculinity and promotes female supremacy as the only workable social system. Both goals are supported by faulty premisses (logical fallacy) and sold to the public under the guise of "fighting oppression of women" and "fighting for equality". Such arguments are usually based on a) the demotion of factual evidence and b) citation of the appealling or unappealling ad-hominem qualities of their subject(s), depending on their agenda.

An example of a faulty premiss in feminist argumentation is the feminist claim that equality is dependent upon men taking complete accountability for their sexual behaviour while arguing, simultaneously, that a woman has the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy -- especially when the child she's carrying is derived from promiscuity. This argument qualifies as a logical fallacy because equality means equal opportunity for all demographics; a concept that conflicts with the practice of forcing one sex to take full accountability for their sexual behaviour while the other sex has legal impunity to lead a promiscuous lifestyle.

Understanding The Structure of Feminist Argumentation

The core tenets of feminism are based on unsubstantiated theory and impractical concepts. This makes it impossible for feminists to logically dissect their opponents' counter-arguments. Feminists compensate for their inability to dissect their opponents' counter-arguments by using logical fallacies to a) divert attention away from the subject and b) invoke an emotional response from the audience. The most common way of doing this is by using Straw-man arguments, Genetic Fallacies, Ad-Hominem arguments and Ignoratio elenchi's because these techniques divert attention away from the subject and focus on irrelevant issues that appeal to their agenda.

Arguments raised by feminists tend to shun and ostracise specific legislators. These arguments focus on the ad-hominem qualities of the men in question and are rarely relevant to the subject. Such techniques are dangerous and successful, as they have the potential to intimidate the accused into withdrawing his presence from the debate in order to protect his reputation. An example of such argumentation can be identified by the manner in which Larry Sommers was ostracised and defamed for suggesting that the disproportionate number of female to male scientists and mathematicians could be derived from the former possessing less innate ability than the latter. There is a large amount of objective evidence supporting Ms Sommers' comment, but he was forced to apologise for the effect it had on feminists. The harassment and defamatory comments directed at Mr Sommers -- mostly from feminists -- caused him to resign from his position at Harvard University.