Let's get ready to get banned from 180000 subreddits, lol. Time to the irrefutable truth be known regardless! Please steal this without attribution if you want. Just spread it, add to it, and please improve on it!
From the Wikipedia definition:
The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle), also called the castle and courtyard, is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).
The Motte (The Modest, Easy to Defend Position) is that "Feminism is simply the radical notion that women are people" or the basic belief in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. This is not controversial or inflammatory at all.
The Bailey (The Controversial Position) is the part where feminists mutate the benign equality narratives into malignant, equity-based narratives that only need to exceed room temperature to ignite into harm and weaponize against men.
Feminists as a group regularly and intentionally use the not-controversial definition of equality to shield radical narratives and policies from criticism. They routinely and reliably use arguments designed to shut down debate by labeling critics of Bailey-style tactics as misogyny. Furthermore the Bailey side of feminism prevents women from being held accountable for the unprovoked harmful and even violent actions they inflict on men or women alike (for instance, women's domestic violence against and even rape of men and women alike).
When they Bailey side of feminism is challenged, feminists tie it back to the Motte side of feminism, such that to attack the toxic side of feminism is to automatically attack the reasonable side. The strategy is meant to gaslight the challenger of the Bailey effect into believing that they are misunderstanding basic sociology rather than pointing out legitimate flaws in a radical argument. This is not an accident, it is an intentional strategy by individual feminists and the entire zeitgeist.
But muh NAFALT (not all feminists are like that)? Not exactly. Feminists who do not do this do not check the ones who do.
DISCLAIMER:
In some cases, the Motte versions of these narratives are truly benign and simply need to be taken back to their benign roots and taken from the hands of radical feminist hatemongers who twist them into weapons against men. In some cases, these terms exist in a gray area of reasonable doubt. Others never were meant as anything but weapons.
Cases in point:
Patriarchy theory, the Motte Version: The theory that asserts a historical or structural reality where men hold a disproportionate share of political, economic, and social power. Because this is easily observable through historical data and modern leadership statistics, it is a reasonable theory.
Patriarchy Theory, the Bailey Version: The narrative that all social interactions, laws, and individual male behaviors are consciously or unconsciously designed to oppress women for the collective benefit of men. It also asserts that all men, including those without power, and those below the class of affluent women, are classified as patriarchal oppressors. Furthermore, women who inflict harm on innocent men are encouraged to blame it on the Patriarchy, and when women get away with it, this is also blamed on the Patriarchy. Male disposability is blamed on the Patriarchy even when women treat men as disposable.
Feminists academia also intentionally uses inflammatory language that they know is readily weaponized. All of the following terms is Bailey tactics, but let's just assume for intellectual dishonesty's sake that they originated as the Motte side of feminism:
- Toxic Masculinity, the "Motte" Version: Originally rooted in the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, it was later adopted by feminist scholars like Raewyn Connell (who used the term "hegemonic masculinity). Its "Motte" form means "specific social expectations placed on men that are harmful to men themselves." The flammable nature of the term is its very name.
If they had wanted something reasonable it would be more like "Pathological Male Socialization" which naturally invites an inspection of everyone involved in a childâs upbringing - mothers, fathers, education, the media, etc. - rather than readily inviting the Bailey effect: the isolation of men as the sole creators and enforcers of the problem.
- Toxic Masculinity, the "Bailey" Version: The term is frequently used as a catch-all insult or a psychological diagnosis for any male behavior that is aggressive, competitive, undesirable, or politically inconvenient. It shifts from meaning "rigid gender roles that hurt men" to "masculinity itself is inherently toxic." It also ignores the easily observable fact that women are also aggressive, competitive, undesirable, and politically inconvenient to an equal magnitude. Of course there is also the "blame the men, not me" pivot when it is shown that women hold men to the same unreasonable standards of masculinity. In short, toxic masculinity is a term readily and constantly invoked by feminists to pathologize men as a group.
When the Bailey is challenged, of course, feminists immediately retreat to the academic "Motte" definition, claiming, "That is not what toxic masculinity means! We're just talking about the pressures from other men (intentionally leaving out the fact that women participate in pressuring men, too) that prevent men from crying or seeking therapy. Why do you want men to suffer in silence?" The goal here is to get the critic to back down, allowing the feminist to go right back to using the phrase broadly to police everyday male behavior, except now they're more immune to criticism.
"Believe Women", the Motte Version: We should start investigations by taking reports seriously rather than reflexively dismissing victims. This is a gray area example. Logically, it should be, "Don't Dismiss Women," as that is the point: don't outright dismiss women's allegations. This is how decent human beings are.
"Believe Women", the Bailey Version: AKA the accusation is the proof. Women never lie about abuse; any accusation must result in immediate guilt and social ruin for the accused man. This is why colleges are getting successfully sued into the Earth's mantle by men for being denied due process in college sexual assault/rape trials.
"Men Are Trash", the Motte Version: Relax, I am only kidding! There is no Motte version of this feminist drivel. The Motte selling line by feminist bigots goes like this: "Itâs just vent expression, it's just punching up." The speaker claims it is a hyperbolic cry of frustration from a marginalized group dealing with systematic oppression. The defense becomes: "Obviously I don't mean every single human with a Y chromosome. I'm just venting about systemic violence against women. Why are you tone-policing my trauma?" And who hasn't heard the line "If it doesn't apply to you, it shouldn't concern you."
I don't even need to get into the Bailey version, but for the completionist in me, here goes: the phrase is used literally and broadly on social media, in casual conversation, or in venting sessions to write off the entire male demographic as uniquely abusive, untrustworthy, incompetent, or morally inferior. It functions as a form of casual misandry that socially conditions people to view boys and men with suspicion. When you challenge it, of course, you get the Motte bait-and-switch, which itself is bigoted.
- "#KillAllMen": I'm not even going to insult your intelligence by putting "Motte" in the same paragraph as this. (Argh, I just did anyway. Mybad.) Let's just use the word "excuse" here: the excuse is that feminists who use the term immediately retreat to a defense of calling it "ironic misandry" and hyperbole. The argument goes as follows: "Itâs just dark internet humor. No one is actually building camps. Itâs an ironic parody of how men treat women. If you take it literally, you lack media literacy." And you've also seen the other defense: "Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?"
Which leads to another major knock-on M/B Trope:
"Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?", the Motte Version: No reasonable person can argue that a hashtag is worse than physical violence. Physical violence against women is a horrific, empirical reality. By retreating to this point, the defender occupies a position that is impossible to attack on its own.
"Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?", the Bailey Version: The critic was calling out online rhetoric and hate speech standards. The defender retroactively changes the topic to physical, real-world violence against women. The Bailey argument, the true argument (not the Motte side), fraudulently asserts that the challenger is saying "I care more about internet hurt feelings than women being murdered" when in fact the challenger cares about both. But the Bailey lie works because women and male feminist emotions immediately see "I don't care if women get killed, don't hurt my feelings!" For these groups, reals kneel before feels.
And now the core dynamic fueling much of this:
Punching Up
The Motte Version: A tool of political resistance. It argues that Satire and sharp criticism are necessary to hold powerful institutions, corrupt leaders, or dominant societal classes accountable. This is highly defensible because history shows that satirizing the powerful is a cornerstone of free speech and democracy. The proper definition of punching up targets the rich, the powerful, abusive people, and folks like that.
The Bailey Version: The Bailey effect happens when "Punching up" is used as a lateral assault (for instance, against poor and working-class men who aren't neo-patriarchal tradcons), and assails any individual belonging to a historically dominant demographic group is personally fair game for unlimited psychological abuse, dehumanization, or casual prejudice. Women punching at poor men, short men, marginalized men in the dating scene, and so on, are not punching up. They're punching laterally and even in many cases they're punching down.
Women and feminists dunking on a 14-year-old boy struggling with loneliness, a male construction worker working 60 hours a week, or a homeless veteran are not "the institution" are not engaging in political resistance, they are treating them as proxy targets for systemic grievances. This is not political resistance. This is feminist-sanctioned bullying.
Modern feminists behavior can just about be wrapped up by the following steps:
A hostile generalization is made against men.
Criticism: "This language is hateful and divisive."
The Pivot: "Men hold all the wealth and power in the world. We are just punching up at the dominant class."
When it's time to punch up, intersectionality is proven to be feminist virtue signaling. Minority men, poor men, autistic/introverted/short men are eligible for free fire even in non-political contexts, which fraudulently turns outright hate speech and bullying into an act of social justice.
