Now one handy graphic –
Clarification – not all people seem to “get” the point of this graphic due to not having been exposed to freefromthoughtblogs idiocy long enough. The citation needed! squawk is a stock standard get out of jail card used by baboons when cornered on some kind of vileness they know they can’t defend. Usually, it is about something that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt a 100 times previously (e.g. Watson’s calls to boycott Dawkins; her vandalism and subsequent ban from randi.org) and some new commentor points it out, without also including all of the evidence from scratch – the response is Pavlovian: Citation needed!
In many ways, this is the FfTB equivalent of the Creationist’s squawk of “but what about the gaps!”
grey lining 
September 9, 2012 at 4:39 pm
Another version of this would make a great comic strip.
Panel 1: The feminist explains to her male colleague that men are scary to her and why she feels justified to mistrust men and demand special harassment policies that apply only to them.
Panel 2: The male colleague explains that this is blatant misandry.
Panel 3: The feminist cracks open a dictionary to show that feminism is not hating men.
It’s hilarious to see feminists do this all the time. They act in an anti-social manner all the time, but if you call them out on their *behavior*, they’ll pull a citation to explain otherwise. I’ve lost count of how many times this has happened to me when trying to talk to one of these nuts.
September 9, 2012 at 5:33 pm
You know that’s true. I’ve encountered that so often now.
The dictionary definition is problematic anyway. Many versions (including Wikipedia) refer to “the equality of women.” which really only means the equality of women among each other.
The problem with dictionaries is they’re no more truth reliable than any other academic work even though they get treated like an oracle. They simply use the definition of a term that is largely agreed upon by academics in the field. In most academic fields and definitely the natural sciences, this is sufficient but women’s studies or feminism in academia are heavily corrupted by political ideology. In other words, dictionaries simply tell us what feminists think feminism means. And they’ll only change that definition when a significant number of feminist researchers contests that definition.
September 9, 2012 at 10:45 pm
But then when you turn to the accurate dictionary definition of atheism to point out how it does not support subsets, they call foul also! It is maddening!
September 9, 2012 at 11:11 pm
You should know better than to ever actual ‘reason’. See Myers Law in the glossary here. You can never “win” in any conventional sense.
September 10, 2012 at 6:32 pm
I’m not just talking about “feminism” not describing subsets.
I can make a case that the dictionary definition contradicts every feminist excepting a negligible minority of less than 0.1%.
Atheism is easier as it’s simply the absence of a belief in a deity. As such it automatically includes all subsets. Feminism does not because those subsets also contradict the definition – even the egalitarian ones.
September 10, 2012 at 3:50 am
Panel 1: The feminist explains to her male colleague that men are scary to her and why she feels justified to mistrust men and demand special harassment policies that apply only to them.
Panel 2: The male colleague says that black people are scary to him and why he feels justified to mistrust black people and demand special policies that apply only to them.
Panel 3: The feminist calls him racist and that just because a few black people are bad does not justify prejudice against all of them.
Panel 4: Repeat panel 1. She will never understand.
September 10, 2012 at 4:25 am
That damn phrase is like so many others beloved of the pseudo-rational crew so misused and overused it’s rapidly losing all meaning.
I once observed the ‘Citation Needed’ card played in regards to someone’s personal opinion being expressed. Despite the lack of need as I would see it this person actually supplied some links to information that they interpreted as substantiating their position. This information was of course casually dismissed without further ado by the one demanding citations, and they followed up with the old reliable get out of jail card, the ‘Troll’ card.
September 10, 2012 at 8:17 am
These idiots love to demand “citation” and “evidence” for your personal opinions (as if it you have to write a fucking dissertation paper to be valid or well thought out) and pretend they’ve won when you don’t provide them to their satisfaction (BTW, they’re never satisfied).
A smarter question is, “Why do you think that?” But they really don’t care about that. Their only goal is to come out looking superior to you in the eyes of their fellow pseudos.
September 10, 2012 at 6:46 pm
Yes. Much of the dogma can easily be exposed as false by using basic logic. Even statistics based research doesn’t need to be proven fallacious with more statistics.
Example:
The supposed under representation of women in politics. The fallacy lies in the misuse of the word “representation”. A politician does not need to be a member of a group in order to represent its interests. Assuming that men cannot represent women’s interests is sexist. Most women seem to agree with me since they happily vote for male politicians.