I probably would have ignored this bit of female whining were it not for the Old Navy thing yesterday, wherein some fat woman burst into tears then ran out of the store (slowly, I assume) then ran back into the store, bought a hideous tank top and posted photos of her obese self as a response to criticism of … her obesity! That I could ignore, but a second case so hot on the heels? Well, that’s just too good to let go.

It seems – she wouldn’t be the first woman to make up a story to get some attention – some fattish girl went on a date. Dude liked her but did not fancy her and wrote her a somewhat clumsy message saying so. As letdown letters go, it’s actually a pretty nice one, certainly compared to what most guys would get. But being a strong, independent woman she burst into tears over the whole affair – or rather the lack of a whole affair. She then, being a modern woman, took to the internet to tell us all about her precious feelz. And of course, since this is a woman in some sort of distress, the media has picked up her ludicrous rant and run for the goal posts. Funny thing is, she ain’t that bad looking, but that’s assuming the photos weren’t taken fifty pounds ago. And with a character like hers, you could look like Alexis Texas or that other porn star who married Kanye West and still be deeply unattractive.

If you feel like a good laugh, you can read the entire bucket of dribble here, but I will simply comment on the most pertinent bits.

At the start of the article we are informed that “Michelle wasn’t particularly bothered whether she saw or spoke to her date ever again.”

And yet she burst into tears at being rejected by this man whose existence was pretty much irrelevant to her. What kind of pussy acts this way? I could understand if she was in luuuurve with the dude, but someone she was indifferent to? Another fine example of the insanity so increasingly popular these days – especially amongst women.

“I was on another date when I received your message. He returned from the loo to find me in a flood of tears. He was lovely, but baffled, and hasn’t been in touch since, funnily enough.”

No shit. After finding her crying into the salad he probably figures he’s dodged a bullet. All we have to do now is await another blog post in which she cries about this second dude not contacting her again.

“I’m sure I’d like Charlize Theron, too if I ever met her. I hear good things.”

Like i said, second dude dodged a bullet. A woman who likes someone who hangs out with child-rape apologist Eve Ensler is not someone you want stealing your blankets in the middle of the night.

“I like to think I come across as a confident, happy woman.”

Confident people don’t burst into tears over a clumsily worded “No go, babe.”

“Did you see me and think “She has far too high an opinion of herself, she needs bringing down a peg or two”?”

Paranoid, as well as weak. If he was trying to take her down he would have been a lot meaner and not spent so much time reassuring her by going on about everything from her pretty face to her brilliant mind.

“we all know the internet is a dangerous place to be a woman with opinions”

There’s another sign of full-on feminism. Fact is, the internet’s “dangerous” for anyone with opinions, and some studies even show that you are more likely to be hassled online if you are a man. I’m surprised she didn’t scream “The patriarchy hates my fat ass!”

“Then I cried in my Slimming World group.”

Confident Woman Weeps Again — great title for a feminist action movie!

“There’s nothing you can say that will make me think that you’re not a disgrace to your gender.”

Nice, huh? Imagine if the dude was black and she had written that he was disgrace to his race. Yeah, that’s the kind of thing she’s doing.

“What truly concerns me, the real reason I’m responding so publicly, is the fact that you have a 13 year old daughter.”

In her most shameful act, she is now trying to imply that he is a bad dad for not wanting to fuck fat women with serious mental issues.

She finishes off with this masterpiece of self-ignorance…

“Give her the tools to develop a bomb-proof sense of self-esteem so that if… the time comes that a small, unhappy man attempts to corrode it, she can respond as I do now.”

“ respond as I do now.” Yes, by bursting into tears – not once but twice – and then whining on the internet. That’s what we want, yet another generation of deluded, emotionally fragile women.

There are two primary reasons why I find this entire thing so offensive. The first is the sheer weakness of the woman, and the fact that she actually thinks she is being strong. Humans being, for the most part, irrational monkeys with a tendency to copy the behavior of others, this is an open invitation for the other lemmings to do as she does. Not only do they get the satisfaction of feeling both strong and victimized at the same time, but if they’re lucky they’ll get their names into the newspapers! Of course, by being weak they make it harder for themselves, and the lower classes, to cope with life’s real adversities, but it’s the short term emotional satisfaction that matters. The second thing that makes me feel like there’s a weasel on acid running around in my underpants is the way the media only cares about this kind of crap when it’s a woman that’s feeling bad. Can anyone imagine some fat guy posting a selfie wearing a tank top and going on about how “fierce” he looks being anything other than an instant internet joke? I can’t, but that’s what happened with the Old Navy woman. And can anyone imagine the major sites picking up a blog post in which some fat guy complains – literally cries about – some woman telling him that he’s a great bloke but that she just doesn’t dig him physically? Nope, me neither.

I am really sick of seeing people use the term “Straw Man” to mean a situation in which someone pretends that their opponent is something they are not. Screaming that your opponent is a misogynist because they are against quotas is not “Straw manning,” it’s just making an irrational and unsupported claim. I suppose it’s a type of ad hominem, an attempt to vilify the messenger in order to have the message dismissed, but it is not a “Straw man.” I suspect the problem here is the very term straw man. The last word implies that it is an attack on the man, not the ball – then, quite literally, an “ad hominem.” But that is not what the straw man fallacy actually is.

The real meaning of the straw man fallacy is the replacing of the opponent’s actual argument with a fabricated one which is easier to beat. Once the fabricated argument has been beaten, the dishonest fucker claims victory. Since us amateur logicians don’t get taken very seriously, here is a quote, verbatim, from a US university text entitled “A Concise Introduction to Logic,” by Patrick J. Hurley, a professor emeritus at the University of San Diego…

“The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.”

For example. An MRA says, “Western women have it better than Western men.” Since nobody except a total pinhead could honestly dispute this, the MRA’s feminist opponent gnashes her teeth, rends her garments, and screams hysterically, “OMG! He said women have it better than men! What about all those women in Afghanistan, you misogynist bastard!?!?!” and then proceeds to give all sorts of admittedly valid evidence as to why women in Afghanistan have it worse than men. Problem is, the MRA’s statement was about Western women, not Afghan women. His argument has been distorted, misrepresented – it has been “straw manned.”

Figuratively speaking, what the straw man fallacy adds up to is that you can’t beat Mike Tyson, so you simply put together a dummy that looks somewhat like a big, black guy with no neck, then you beat the shit out of the dummy and prance around shouting “I beat Mike Tyson!” No, you just beat something you claim is Mike Tyson.

I hope this clarifies the true meaning of the Straw Man Fallacy and prevents future confusion. And just remember, you don’t need to trust me — you just need to trust Professor Hurley.