I just discovered a blogger I find interesting; her name is Gretchen Koch* and she has a Ph. D. in the cognitive science of religion. She mostly writes about that.
One of the things she writes about when she's not writing about the psychological underpinnings of religion and ethics, though, is feminism. A while back she wrote a pretty decent, thoughtful, well-argued post on objectification (a much-discussed topic, on which she managed the not-inconsiderable feat of adding something new).
That post drew the predictable ire from the knuckle-dragging community, but it took a really bizarre form:
After noticing a number of hits here that came from [sexist douchebag]'s blog, I returned to see that he had written a follow-up post which talked about my post. Want to guess what it said? I'll make it a multiple-choice question:
A. You know what? I am actually reading too much into this, and should go with the simplest explanation rather than making other men's attraction all about my particular ideological agenda.
B. You know what? I don't think I was given a fair shake -- there are actually differences in the appearance of feminists vs. non- or anti-feminists, and while I didn't go to much trouble to articulate these or why they should exist, that's a factor that should be taken into account here.
C. You know what? It's really weird that I didn't make a distinction between "attractive" and "attractive to me," since I can only speak for myself and since (as with everybody, whether they admit it or not) my own perception of what I consider attractive is shaped by my ideological convictions.
D. You know what? Gretchen's ugly. And probably autistic.
I'll give you a moment to think before answering.
Done? Yeah, I didn't think it would take long. The answer is ... D!Yes, it's my favorite rhetorical tactic in the world, Disagreeing by Diagnosing!
Here is normally where I would spell out what the writer is arguing, how he or she is using autism as a metaphor, and what the implications of that metaphor are, but it's not being used as a metaphor in this instance. He's just saying "all feminists are autistic," and that the only reason they are feminists is because they are so bad at social interaction that they have become completely alienated from men, and from society in general.
I was actually really conflicted about posting this, because it's a really stupid instance of Disagreeing by Diagnosing, and there isn't actually much to pick apart and criticize in it, but I've developed a collector's mentality about this fallacy, so I feel compelled to post about every instance of it that I hear about.
The quality of the blog may suffer as a result of this compulsion, but gosh darn it, at least you'll know just how widespread this fallacy is!
*Presumably not related to Charles and David Koch, though if she were I probably wouldn't hold it against her.