Difference between revisions of "Whataboutery"

From Wiki 4 Men
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Whataboutery (or whataboutism) is a term often used by feminists to shutdown arguments made by MRAs. The definition provided in the Cambridge Dictionary uses just such an example:<ref>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/whataboutism</ref>
+
[[Whataboutery]] (or ''whataboutism'') is a term often used by feminists to shutdown arguments made by [[MRA]]s. This usually involves a feminist is claiming that an MRA is ''derailing'' a conversation by bringing up relevant issues that effect men. The definition provided in the Cambridge Dictionary uses just such an example:<ref>https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/whataboutism</ref>
   
 
<blockquote>
 
<blockquote>
Line 7: Line 7:
 
A Wikipedia article on the topic asserts that it is an informal fallacy but shows significant ideological bias and fails to establish the concept as part of modern philosophy.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism</ref>
 
A Wikipedia article on the topic asserts that it is an informal fallacy but shows significant ideological bias and fails to establish the concept as part of modern philosophy.<ref>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism</ref>
   
  +
== References ==
[[Category:Featured Articles]]
 
  +
[[Category:Glossary]]
 
 
[[Category: Featured Articles]]
  +
[[Category: Feminism]]
 
[[Category: Glossary]]

Latest revision as of 12:57, 24 October 2023

Whataboutery (or whataboutism) is a term often used by feminists to shutdown arguments made by MRAs. This usually involves a feminist is claiming that an MRA is derailing a conversation by bringing up relevant issues that effect men. The definition provided in the Cambridge Dictionary uses just such an example:[1]

He's the kind of person who responds to an attempt to protect women from domestic violence with whataboutery: "What about male victims of domestic violence?"

A Wikipedia article on the topic asserts that it is an informal fallacy but shows significant ideological bias and fails to establish the concept as part of modern philosophy.[2]

References