Feminism or death?
Here’s the entirety of a recent post by an MRA who calls himself Snark:
Uh, dude, I think you’ve confused “feminists” with “Daleks.”
Our new friend Fidelbogen thought this was such a brilliant idea he devoted a post to it himself, declaring:
Such economy, such concision. …
Really now, we wouldn’t go far wrong to make our rhetoric revolve around this above all, and very little more. The saying is deceptively simple, for it goes deep and reaches into many corners.
It puts them on the spot, and nails them there.
I knew Fidelbogen was a bit of a pompous doofus, but this is a whole new level of stupidity for him. I don’t even know what to say about something this idiotic.
Also, check out the comments to Snark’s piece. There’s something about potatoes you kind of have to see to believe.
Posted on September 22, 2011, in antifeminism, idiocy, MRA, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 1,516 Comments.
Redlocker:
Yeeepp.
He also talks about how we are living in a “Gynocracy” and Matriarchy, and how women getting the right to vote is like Lucifer trying to be like God (his comparison), and that women “fell” like Lucifer after getting the vote. Unfortunately there is no english version.
His quotes would fit here very well.
Tatjna: “Additionally, every single one of these sites used entirely non-gendered language to talk about the abusers of children…”
Are these feminist organizations? It’s hard to imagine any feminist organization using “non-gendered language.” Reading these posts, neutrality is not the hallmark of feminism.
“and all of their stats agreed that all abuse has increased, not just that by women, and that one of the reasons for this is increased reporting of abuse due to raised awareness – which women have been deeply involved in creating.”
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/9/1578
Better forensics revealed that suspect “neglect” cases and sudden death syndrome were sometimes homicides.
ChildHelp.org is a great organization. The woman who founded it, was she a feminist? Traditionally in wealthy families the matriarch would often assume the philathropic and cultural responsibilities.
What years were the other organizations formed?
You know, for someone who calls “passive-agressiveness” a girl thing, this statement is packed fat with it.
“He also talks about how we are living in a “Gynocracy” and Matriarchy, and how women getting the right to vote is like Lucifer trying to be like God (his comparison), and that women “fell” like Lucifer after getting the vote. Unfortunately there is no english version.
His quotes would fit here very well.”
Ah. Well, I know a little German (albeit from a failed attempt at German Class. Maybe I should just get Rosetta Stone instead :D), so perhaps it would be a morbidly entertaining read.
“But I thought ALL vagina people were against ALL violence because their vaginas made them empathetic and nurturing.”
Oh, I get it now. He thinks all feminists are Heart.
That’s kind of funny given the existence of entire communities dedicated to mocking her brand of sacred yoni-based woo woo.
Privilege? That says alot. Using a child as an emotional weapon against the other parent or an ex-spouse is opportunist malnurturing. I consider it criminal. It causes horrific damage to the child when made the psychological punching bag for parents who want the child to take “their side.” Withholding a child from visitation damages the child as much as it hurts the non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Wrong — using a child is an emotional weapon is what’s done by the parent who did little to no childcare, yet sues for custody come divorce time — and that’s usually the father in our culture. “Criminal” is also failure to actually, physically care for your child — that’s also usually the father in our society. And it causes horrific damage to the child to have to interact with a parent who didn’t want much to do with that child until the divorce.
I don’t know what you mean by saying that your father was “always there”. There — where? Available by phone? Commiserating with you in a monthly heart-to-heart? Because by MRA logic, if your father was actually there, caring for you instead of your mother, your mother wouldn’t have the opportunity to abuse you. It doesn’t take much to be a “wonderful father” in our culture, seeing that all that’s necessary for a man to be considered a hero dad is to take the kids to a baseball game twice a year and pat them on the head every once in a while. That’s all. Mothers, however, are always villains; if she’s not actually abusive, then she’s the “bad cop”, a controlling bitch who makes the kid clean his room, while the “wonderful dad” nods sadly and pontificates about the evil nature of women.
You know, you’re capable of reading those sites yourself. I am not your personal research assistant.
You have been provided with information that demonstrates women are, and have been, deeply involved in child abuse prevention for as long as child abuse prevention has been a thing. You have been provided with information that demonstrates that child abuse prevention organisations recognise that it is not just men who abuse children, and that male children are also abused. You have been provided with information that demonstrates that the known correlates of child abuse are things that affect both genders.
And now, you insist that child abuse prevention organisations have to also have big banners across the top of them saying “We are a feminist organisation” or that someone who isn’t you goes and researches the history of every woman involved to prove she’s a feminist before her work is valid.
There’s a name for this – it’s called backing into a corner. Face it, you’ve been proven wrong. Now all you’re doing is proving that it’s not child abuse you care about at all, but slagging off feminism.
Kollege Kat:
“As if Beauty Pageants were “invented” by feminists in the first place.”
That’s my point. Feminists protested Miss America back in the sixties as patriarchal objectification of women. Since then the whole pagentry thing has gotten much bigger and the outfits more revealing. Even the core demographic for Victoria’s Secret pagents are women. Now we have toddlers in tiaras which, like most feminists, I also find to repugnant.
But the fact is the audience and patrons of these pagents are largely women objectifying other women.
And how is the patriarchy responsible for that?
“That’s my point. Feminists protested Miss America back in the sixties as patriarchal objectification of women. Since then the whole pagentry thing has gotten much bigger and the outfits more revealing. Even the core demographic for Victoria’s Secret pagents are women. Now we have toddlers in tiaras which, like most feminists, I also find to repugnant.
But the fact is the audience and patrons of these pagents are largely women objectifying other women.
And how is the patriarchy responsible for that?”
What. The. Fuck.
Yeah, tatjna is right. You are seriously backing yourself into a corner.
And have you read what I had to say about my abuse as a child, and how you are not helping people like me AT ALL?
@Kollege Kat
1. What is privilege?
2. Is privilege class based?
3. Does privilege exist in current society?
4. Who/which groups are privileged over which other who/groups?
“She’ll get the privilege of keeping that baby out of your presence after the marriage.” *
*@Amused
Because it teaches women that their only value is in their appearance. Next!
I don’t know why this one particular trivial bit of nonsense made me laugh harder than the rest, but it did: It’s hard to imagine any feminist organization using “non-gendered language.”
I mean, dude, have you ever so much as spoken to any feminists ever? Because of all the stereotypes I’ve ever heard about feminists, “Oh those feminists, they sure hate gender-neutral terms! They make sure that roles in life are always talked about in terms of the ‘correct’ gender! That’s why feminists totally hate terms like ‘flight attendant’ or ‘police officer’ and make sure always to say ‘stewardess’ and ‘policeman’!” has got to be one of the most bizarrely ass-backwards. Next you’ll be telling us that the goal of feminism is to make sure women know their place is in the kitchen making sandwiches and/or babies.
Kollege Kat: Where did you take this “all about me” thing from?
“They are so steeped in privilege that they see everything that isn’t about them…”
I took it from your post of 9/30/11 at 11:30 a.m.
Ah. Well, I know a little German (albeit from a failed attempt at German Class. Maybe I should just get Rosetta Stone instead :D ), so perhaps it would be a morbidly entertaining read.
Oh, you should definitely try! I think german is an awesome language, but it does have its pitfalls.
If there are any issues, I reccomend the Promt online translator. It’s a lot more accurate than babelfish or google translator.
I feel bad about giving him even more page hits, but holy shit. It’s morbid alright.
He actually compares men raping women to women having abortions in one of his articles. And that rape shouldn’t be illegal anymore. Just ewwwww…
Here is the article about women being allowed to vote were like Lucifer.
@katz:
“Because “it” ( pagents promoted and patronized by women) teaches [other] women that their only value is in their appearance. Next!”
What did the Patriarchy have to do with that again?
^@red locker.
Stupid blockquotes didn’t work.
…you gotta be fucking kidding.
Antecedents, how do they work?
@Kollege Messerschmitt: Cool, thanks (for the translator…maybe for the page, too…but yeah, I agree with you, hooooooly shit at the content).
Off topic, but here’s a little translation of that page Kollege linked to:
“The consequence has to be: Abolition of the women’s franchise! Is this “anti-women”? By no means. The example of the mentioned queens (which still let themselves numerous other zugesellen) shows, that women also without franchise, presumably just thereby, can develop into the highest blossom. Sophie Charlotte possibly was high formed and that’s why enjoyed the extraordinary esteem by G.W.Leibniz, to one of the most intelligent men of all times. But the idea of a women’s franchise might completely have to her ferngelegen.
The idea of the equality is fateful, because equality is much too often put with justice in respect and is disguised by them morally. But it is just the inequality which makes the life coloured and maintains the tension of the genders. Women, the rights have like men, and children, the rights have like adults – recently “human rights for animals” – which destroyed only and have depressed. And the depression has risen to an endemic disease.”
…
I think Dave Sim has a new buddy.
Like magnets, katz. It’s all a great cosmic mystery.
Rev: Your density is approaching that of a black hole. You might want to read the provided links, find a 101 blog or a blog with a 101 section (I like Shakesville, but not everyone does), and think about what you’ve been told. Because you keep saying these words, but they really don’t mean what you think they mean.
@katz
grammar, statistics – learn and lurk
Fucking antecedents, how do they work?
And I don’t wanna talk to a feminist
Y’all motherfuckers lying, and getting me pissed
@red locker
Ugh, now that you say it, that does sound a bit like Dave Sim.
Do you think I should link that page on the forum even though it’s not in english?
Polliwog:
“I mean, dude, have you ever so much as spoken to any feminists ever?”
You bet. My sister is a card carrying member of N.O.W. So is her significant other. I remember reading her first edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves.” In earlier posts I mentioned attending feminist lectures at college including Germaine Greer. I’ve read a great deal of feminist perspectives about child sexual abuse. I went as far as to call Susan Brownmiller to disagree with her “rape culture” perspective as she applied it to child sexual abuse. I even spoke to Chrstina Hoff Sommers (but I’m sure you don’t consider her a feminist) for a good half hour about the 11 out of 17 no shows at the 2008 Vagina Monologues Convention. That’s when Oprah and 10 out of 17 other advertised headline acts blew Eve off. There were reports of Eve Ensler weeping backstage and class action lawsuits. There was no press coverage which is unusual for the P.T. Barnum of feminism. Something big must have happened.
Maybe they all finally read the monologue, “The Little Coochi Snorcher that Could.” The one about the 26 year old woman plying a 13 year old girl with alcohol and “seducing” her. The girl concluded, “If that was rape it was good rape.”
Kollege Kat:
“Because “it” ( pagents promoted and patronized by women) teaches [other] women that their only value is in their appearance. Next!”
What did the Patriarchy have to do with that again?
…you gotta be fucking kidding.
If pagentry were institutionalized, like the patriarchy, then wouldn’t it be taught in public school? Pagents are strictly voluntary. Would you agree some women use sex as power? Or as a coersive means to a self-interested end? Isn’t THAT what pagentry teaches girls? Those “values” are passed intergenerationally from mother to daughter. If anything, pagentry, homecoming queens, cheerleaders etc. are matriarchal social constructs. I mean can you imagine a bunch of guys coming up with homecoming queens?
I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.
Attack ships on fire off the should of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
You keep bringing this up. Do you honestly think the author of this piece was condoning rape? It’s not a rhetorical question, I’ve not heard of it before.
@Kollege Messerschmitt
Sure, go ahead, post about in on the fourms. It’ll be an interesting conversation piece. :D
@Kollege Messerschmitt: Plus, maybe Dave can write about it?
So, one conservative non-feminist, and Germaine Greer, my comment about them skipping Hooks and going right to Greer was a very good prediction.
@revspinakker, because male statutory rapist and abusers are never, ever praised or apologized for
-Lolita, hello
-Mallrats contains numerous mentions of statutory rape of a girl by men
also,
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0226009/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Education
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117482/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0796302/
Aslo, come on, have you not seen the statutory rape threads on manboobz? There are a shit ton of statutory rape advocates among MRAs, so you might want to check your double standards.
It’s funny that you bring up P.T. Barnum in your very next post, since he is involved in the history of beauty pageants. According to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauty_pageant
In short, you might want to look shit up before you talk out of your butt. BTW, the Eglinton tournament mentioned was “funded and organized by Archibald Montgomerie, 13th Earl of Eglinton”. And yes, I can imagine men in a patriarchal culture setting up a competition in which women were systematically presented and judged according to their beauty, even if I didn’t have wikipedia to tell me they did.
“If pagentry were institutionalized, like the patriarchy, then wouldn’t it be taught in public school? Pagents are strictly voluntary. Would you agree some women use sex as power? Or as a coersive means to a self-interested end? Isn’t THAT what pagentry teaches girls? Those “values” are passed intergenerationally from mother to daughter. If anything, pagentry, homecoming queens, cheerleaders etc. are matriarchal social constructs. I mean can you imagine a bunch of guys coming up with homecoming queens?”
Mmm…
Interesting word salad here. There’s the rankcluelessness, which has a nice texture, and the context dodging is cool and crisp, but it’s missing some…information. And the gish gallop isn’t fully done yet.
All in all, an interesting dish, but you have a long way to go before “Iron Chef”.
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/21/faq-isnt-the-patriarchy-just-some-conspiracy-theory-that-blames-all-men-even-decent-men-for-womens-woes/
Patriarchy is not “a bunch of guys”. You really aren’t going to be able to discuss this issue until you understand what the patriarchy is, so perhaps you should read up on it and then come back.
Moewicus: It does appear that way. Perhaps in a tittilating, is this really wrong, Mary Kay LaTourneau kind of way. The age of the girl was much later changed to 16, after the Monologues were already entrenched in American Academia.
“I’ve seen things you people wouldn’t believe.
Attack ships on fire off the should of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
All these moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.”
Is that your’s? Is it part of larger poem? Sounds interesting.
“Is that your’s? Is it part of larger poem? Sounds interesting.”
So you’ve never seen Blade Runner?
I thought you were clueless before, but this takes the cake.
Rev: it’s from the movie Bladerunner.
And here’s one o’ them Matriarchs I keep hearing about talking to her daughter about the new Starfire:
http://io9.com/5844355/a-7+year+old-girl-responds-to-dc-comics-sexed+up-reboot-of-starfire
red_locker: Sorry didn’t see Blade Runner. As such it seemed a little out-of-context to me. It was intended as a compliment. Would not having seen Blade Runner make a feminist clueless too?
“red_locker: Sorry didn’t see Blade Runner. As such it seemed a little out-of-context to me. It was intended as a compliment. Would not having seen Blade Runner make a feminist clueless too?”
No…look…I was joking, ok?
There are no jokes here! Humor is one of the matriarchy’s more evil creations, and it must be stamped out.
Moewicus: Thanks for the link. I never said the matriarchy was all bad, as implied about the patriarchy in the link from NullPointer. This mother is night and day from the toddlers & tiaras type. If she treats her boys the same way they’ll grow up to love women. Regarding the sexist content of DC Comics I couldn’t agree more. I also find the new beefed-up macho Tony the Tiger and the changes of many sports franchises, which make their mascots look tougher and meaner, to be equally offensive.
red_locker: “No…look…I was joking, ok?”
I’m not exactly preaching to the choir here, so sometimes it’s a little hard to tell.
OK, normally I would embed the scene in question so you could watch it, but this really is one of the greatest endings in cinema history and it doesn’t work half as well out of context, so all I can say is: Go watch it. Now. The director’s cut, NOT the theatrical cut (unfortunately it’s the latter that’s on Netflix streaming, so get the disk instead).
Here’s the Hades Landscape instead. It’s the opening scene, so it isn’t a spoiler.
darksidecat:
“-Mallrats contains numerous mentions of statutory rape of a girl by men”
So this justities the Little Coochi Snorcher that Could? That’s a little like saying the evils of the patriarchy justifies abusive behavior towards men. Isn’t that what Toysoldier is saying about feminism?
Rev, you’re not very good at reading comprehension. You’re pretending this is just a feminist thing. It’s demonstrably not. You’re too stupid to talk to, you just keep not understanding what other people are saying. You and Toy Soldier should get together, match made in heaven.
Thanks Katz: They’ve got Blade Runner free on 1channel. I’m not big into action sci-fi but I wasn’t into murderous cannibalism either. Everyone was saying how great “Silence of the Lambs” was. When I finally worked up the nerve to watch it I found they were right. I’m sure the same will go for Blade Runner, I’ve heard before it’s a great flick so I’ll check it out. I’m more of a comedy fan and have “Smoke Signals” set to go right now. Showtime. You can also catch “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia ” at 1channel. Thats where all the toddlers and tiaras stuff came from.
“Smoke Signals” is really good, too–not so much outright funny, although it has its moments, but very thoughtful. I haven’t seen “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” but I’ve heard good things about it.
Rutee:
“You’re too stupid to talk to.”
Then don’t.
Flib: I did not change the nature of the dispute. You began by stating that because you think I am ‘stupid’ and an ‘idiot’ for challenging the feminist position on privilege that I am ignorant and wrong. That is a classic ad hominem. When I presented my arguments, you dismissed them outright while asking me to continue to present an argument. That is arguing in bad faith. I understand that a lot of feminists argue this way, so I take no offense from it. But do not get upset because I called you out on it. I suggest you take your own advice and go back and read my comments.
darksidecat: You equivocated by arguing that the average experience of a group is something different than the experiences of class of people. It the same thing, just different words. Your questions make no sense given that I addressed them before. Follow the link on that link. I am curious though: where did I contradict myself?
Kollege Messerschmitt: Look, you are not the first feminist to call a male survivor a liar. You will live. My linking to a blog is not an example of me arguing in bad faith. What feminists here have done is claim I argued a position I did not, and repeated that in order to dodge addressing my initial argument regarding the men’s rights blog comment and my follow-up argument regarding feminism causing violence due to its misandry (speaking of which, please provide an example from this blog of feminists calling other feminists out for being misandrous). I understand feminists disagree with me, yet it is rather sad for them to keep tossing out logical fallacies, insults, and passive aggressive retorts. Holding feminism to a higher standard than the men’s movement is no more weird than holding the Tea Party to a greater standard than MoveOn.org. Both do nutty things, but one (the former) actually has political power and social impact.
red_locker: Talking about sexual violence against boys does nothing to help them? So when male survivors speak publicly about their experiences, it is for nothing? Men’s rights activists comment on and link to my posts about sexual violence against boys. Only a handful of them have ever mocked me. In contrast, I have had feminists say to my face at a survivor’s forum I was invited to speak at that I was a liar and rapist. After a decade advocating for male victims, I attest to the lack of feminist support. It iswell documented, and you can find it via a Google search. Unless you know for a fact what Rev does with his time, you should not claim he does nothing for male victims.
CassandraSays: I do not hate feminists, although I do dislike most of their political views. Nice try, but saying an ideology can cause (i.e. create) violent behavior does not mean the ideology makes a person act on (i.e. compels) their violent tendencies. It makes no logical sense to hate an ideology. If a person uses my experiences to deride and discredit my arguments, then I certainly consider that mockery. I cannot be disingenuous if I actually hold the positions I argue. It seems that logic is not your forte, but nice try.
Toysoldier: I still shot down your arguments. You still haven’t responded to them. Stop trying to hide behind tone. You do not hold the knowledge you think you do. Regardless of how I have told you this, this remains a fact. There is a reason I am calling you stupid that has nothing to do with just simple disagreement.
Toysoldier, what do you mean to argue? I’m genuinely curious. What are you trying to contend about the relationship between feminism and child abuse?
Hey katz: “Smoke Signals” wasn’t the film I thought it was, but like you said, it was really good. More poignant than funny. A strange coincidence both my entertainment selections today involved issues on this thread. In Victor’s case his journey was to find forgiveness for his father. With mine it’s my mother and I have to work on that every day. The “Sunny in Philadelphia” episode managed to make statements about child abuse in a humorous way. Talk about walking a fine line. And Danny DeVito cracks me up everytime.
You seem to be a bit of a film buff, maybe you can help me out. I think the movie I was looking for was by the same production company, Shadow Catcher Entertainment. But it’s crazier. I caught a bit of it on TV but didn’t get the title. The lead character looks like a Native American Mel Brooks. And he’s every bit as funny. The plot involves him protesting the electric comany and plans to blow up a hydro-electric damn to return the salmon run.
The bit I caught on TV was hysterical. Just wondering if you might know the title.
“red_locker: Talking about sexual violence against boys does nothing to help them? So when male survivors speak publicly about their experiences, it is for nothing? Men’s rights activists comment on and link to my posts about sexual violence against boys. Only a handful of them have ever mocked me. In contrast, I have had feminists say to my face at a survivor’s forum I was invited to speak at that I was a liar and rapist. After a decade advocating for male victims, I attest to the lack of feminist support. It iswell documented, and you can find it via a Google search. Unless you know for a fact what Rev does with his time, you should not claim he does nothing for male victims.’
Look, what I’m saying is that talking about sexual violence against boys is just ONE STEP. It’s not to really devalue anyone (I’m just a person who is sharing their experience at best right now), and it’s not the reason I’m mad against you and Rev. I’m mad because you two are focusing all of your energy at the wrong people, and siding with exactly the wrong people.
Also, you’re not giving me, or anyone else, any reason to believe that feminists have called you a liar and a rapist, while MRAs have supported you, due to how both in this thread and in other places on the web (including your blog), you have demonstrated yourself to be someone who will completely misrepresent the people you’re talking to. You have said one thing here on Manboobz, and on your blog you have taken people out of context, exaggerated your claims and in general have made it difficult for anyone to discuss human rights issues with you honestly.
Plus, you should be able to pull out your “well documented” advocating for male abuse victims, not say to someone who has also been through abuse that they can find it on their own. If you’re serious about what you’re doing, you should bring it with you to the table.
That above comment of mine is directed at Toysoldier, BTW. Sorry about that omission.
red_locker:
“and siding with exactly the wrong people.”
Tell me, just exactly whose “side” I am on, and why are THEY the “wrong people.”
How did you come to that conclusion?
Not ringing any bells, sorry.
re: Murder of adopted Ethiopian girl. Opportuinist malnurturing resulting in the death of a child. Target abuse:
Police: Adopted child was starved, left outside to die
Washington state couple charged with homicide abuse in horrific death
Hanna Williams, 13, is seen in an image from KING 5.NBC News and msnbc.com
updated 9/30/2011 7:16:22 PM ET 2011-09-30T23:16:22
Print Font: +-MOUNT VERNON, Wash. — The parents of a 13-year-old girl adopted from Ethiopia have been accused of starving and locking the girl outside — resulting in hypothermia that killed her.
Hanna Williams was found dead in her backyard on May 12, naked and wrapped in a sheet. She had been living with her adoptive parents, Larry and Carri Williams, since coming to America from Ethiopia in 2008.
Larry Williams, 47, and Carri Williams, 40, were arrested Thursday in Skagit County and are charged with homicide by abuse. They are being held in lieu of $500,000 bail.
Skagit Count Prosecutor Richard Weyrich told NBC station KING 5 that Hanna Williams’ death ranks right up there among the worst cases he’s ever prosecuted.
..Probable cause affidavit in Hanna Williams case (PDF)
According to the charging documents, Carri Williams is alleged to have talked about how much she disliked her two adopted Ethiopian children, a 10-year-old boy and Hanna. The couple have six biological children.
“She died of hypothermia and you know part of that relates to having lost so much weight over the past year, months … she had lost nearly 30 pounds,” Weyrich told KING 5.
According to allegations in the charging documents, Carri and Larry Williams starved Hanna for days, put her in a locked closet and forced her to sleep outside in the barn in the cold. She wasn’t allowed to use the bathroom in the house, instead having to go to a porta-potty behind the barn. In addition, according to an affidavit, Hanna was struck daily with a plumbing tool, a flexible plastic tube with a round ball on the end.
Last Christmas when Hanna was forced to watch the family celebrate Christmas from outside and only let in when her parents had guests.
Read the original story and see video at KING5.com
An autopsy showed that the cause of death was hypothermia, but malnutrition and a stomach infection were contributing factors, the Skagit Valley Herald reported. All of the Williamses’ biological children and adopted son have been removed from the home.
Advertise | AdChoicesIn the documents, a book entitled “To Train Up a Child,” was referenced. Weyrich says it includes punishment techniques the Williamses mimicked. There have been other child abuse cases linked to the book across the country, he said.
KING 5’s Natasha Ryan and Jake Whittenberg contributed to this report.
!#303 – Sat Oct 1, 2011 10:14 AM EDT.RevSpinnaker
“According to the charging documents, Carri Williams is alleged to have talked about how much she disliked her two adopted Ethiopian children…”
That statement by the mother says it all. This is a clear case of “target abuse.” It has little to do with politics or religion. We are in a crisis of pathological malnurturing in this country. According to the Center for Disease Control American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. A 25% increase since 1985. Attitudes about child abuse need to change. I actually heard Joy Behar make a joke about “target abuse” on The View. Alan Alda wrote a book about his “mentally ill” mother. Behar chimed in with a grin, “Yeah, but was your mother crazy or was she just one of those women that picks out one of her kids just to hate them?” The panel looked uncomfortable. Behar continued still grinning, “You know, we’ve all seen it,” and repeated her statement describing “target abuse” as funny. No one contested her statement, as in what a sick thing to say. How do we tolerate that? But the sad fact is she’s right. A common theme in this thread is “someone else must have suspected something.” Well yes, all of her other children knew. But we live in a society where motherhood is sacrosanct. Let me tell you as a CRA (children’s rights advocate) mothers (and women) are responsible for some of the most horrific cases of child abuse and murder. More natural mothers kill children than natural fathers, and are often involved, as in this case, as a co-abuser. Until we widely disseminate information about child abuse, so children in abusive families know to come forward, these kinds of tragedies will continue. Neighbors, teachers, friends need to speak up when they suspect abuse, and not passively let it go. Like Behar’s “target abuse” joke.
There’s currently an excellent thread dealing with child abuse at David Furtelle’s manboobz blog. The heading is “Feminism or Death.” Check it out.
Flib: Thank you showing that you are still arguing in bad faith.
Erl: Are you not familiar with the meaning of ‘argue’? I made no contention about the relationship between feminism and child abuse. Feminists did. I stated that feminism can cause some people to become violent due the misandry inherent in the ideology.
red_locker: I am not siding with anyone. When men’s activists make similar moronic claims I challenge them as well. I do not have give you or any feminist a reason to believe me, although your unwillingness to contradicts the claim that feminists always believe and support male survivors. Where did I take someone out of context, misrepresent them, or make exaggerations on my blog? Considering that you apparently visited my blog, you could easily check my posts regarding feminist discrimination against male victims. I suggested the Google search to preempt your claim that my posts about the topic are biased and misrepresentative. And since I also experienced abuse, I fail to see what being a survivor of abuse has to do with running a Google search.
What’s your argument, RevSpinnaker? I don’t think anyone here is under the impression that child abuse never happens, or that it’s not horrifying when it does happen, or that child abusers shouldn’t be punished. Your news story is about two parents, an adoptive father and an adoptive mother, who murdered a young girl. I don’t have words to say how repulsive and sad and wrong that is, that a girl was murdered by the two people she should have been able to trust the most. But it doesn’t really say anything about sex or gender, certainly, which I think was where this conversation started out. And the thing about The View — god, I don’t know why people keep bringing up ideas espoused on The View and The Talk, like Manboobz commenters run that show, but trust me — we really have nothing to do with them. Including: The “joke” you recounted was dumb and in poor taste, and it sounds like the rest of the co-hosts thought so too.
I dunno, Rev. What’s your point?
Has anyone even heard of Barbara Boxer’s “Violence Against Children Act?” She introduced it several years ago and it’s languished in Judiciary Committee ever since. In the mean time we’ve passed the Violence Against Women Act and established the White House Council on Women & Girls. Feminists turna blind eye to child abuse issues.
How about a White House Council for the protection of children? The following are provisions to Boxer’s Act written by a good friend who grew up in a maternally abusive household.
Demond Reed’s Law
Violence Against Children Act James Wilcox © 2011
*(Includes provision for Caylee’s Law)
Congressional Bill S. 1370 was sponsored by Barbara Boxer [D-CA] and introduced in 2009. The last actions pursuant to the bill were that it was read twice and then referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. I propose the following punitive guidelines to the Committee, to be established in accordance with the redefinition of child abuse in terms of Pathological Malnurturing, as the foundation of the Violence Against Children Act. The Malnurturing format of defining child abuse clarifies succinct categories of specific criminal pathologies, with assigned punitive ramifications. As a legal definition “neglect” is vague, ineffective and antiquated. “Felony neglect” is an oxymoron, not a viable sentencing guideline.
Definitions of the Pathologies of Malnurturing.
Abandonist: Deliberate emotional and affectionate rejection of a child.
Isolationist: Social and/or physical isolation of a child, with deliberate intent to allow the child to fall into harms way. *Includes but not limited to, failure to report the disappearance or death of a child.
Opportunist: Having or exploiting a child for personal gain, sadistic gratification or profit, including but not limited to, selling a child into prostitution or slavery. Using a child to seek revenge against a spouse.
The motivations for Malnurturing.
Delusional: Harming a child as a result mental illness and/or alcohol and drug addictions. Also, but not limited to, cult or religious fanaticism, as with denial of medical care or the Jim Jones massacre.
Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy: Physically or psychologically abusing a child to garner attention by creating false medical traumas, illnesses and psychoses. The later is particularly applicable in “reality TV” i.e. Munchausen by Dr. Phil.
Homicidal: Susan Smith, who brutally drowned her two boys, to be free to divorce her husband and marry a wealthy man.
Sentencing guidelines for these Pathologies are assigned according to:
a) results in emotional and/or psychological damage to a child.
b) results in physical and/or sexual abuse, starvation, disappearance or abduction of a child.
c) results in the death of a child
*Posted at MSN regarding murder of Hanna Williams.
Bee asked this already but I’ll just ask again since you seem to have missed it, what is your point?
Oh wait, I think I found it.
Sorry, I missed it in the middle of that huge copy and pasted comment. But yeah, this is really not true at all, as other people here have repeatedly shown.
Well, you have your timeline wrong, RevSpinnaker, and you appear to think that there are no federal laws protecting children currently. VAWA was introduced to Congress in 1990, and passed in 1994. VACA was introduced (as far as I can tell in a quick and dirty search) in 2004 and hasn’t been passed, but there really was no “in the mean time.”
We also have CAPTA and VAWA, both of which provide funding and protections for children suffering in abusive families. VACA, on the other hand, seems to deal primarily with violence outside the home — gangs and such. Which is worthy of being addressed, of course, but doesn’t really seem to be your focus here.
Snowy:
“Feminists turna blind eye to child abuse issues.”
Actually that wasn’t in the pasted comment. Which you apparently didn’t read.
I guess one page is too huge for you. Maybe it was those big words and legalese
Toysoldier, I followed the link, it leads to a comment by RevSpinnaker, perhaps you linked wrong? Also, I never presented an argument as to whether or not average experiences were the genuine description of a class based dynamic (I do not think they are, I think they can be an expression of the power dynamics, but that said expressions vary based on situation and on other social positioning). That was you, asserting that women have privilege because they there is an “average experience” in a certain area. This came after your denial that privilege existed. The issue of averages is your definition, not mine, which you used to claim that something existed which you had been denying the rest of the conversation.
@RevSpinnaker, your example involved two in home abusive parents, yet you still deny that men can and do abuse. The debate here is not over whether or not women ever abuse children, the debate is whether or not they abuse at higher rates than men and whether or not they are “responsible” for all abuse. The fact that you take a case with two parents, in the home, both clearly involved in the situation, and erase the male perpetrator to blame everything on his co-offender is indicitive of just how much of a double standard you are operating under.
“Barbara Boxer’s “Violence Against Children Act?” I adressed this in discussion, that I thought it would be unlikely to withstand constitutional scrutiny, esp. with the current conservative court. It is not even a sensible legal plan, and therefore warrants not a great deal of investment.
Also, the standards you list are far more vague and overbroad than current neglect laws.
For example, here’s New York State’s legal definition of neglect
That’s not half as vague as the standard you site, esp. considering that existing standards have decades of case law to further define the limits of the definitions.
Oh, I read it. Did you? Perhaps next time you could link to something like that instead of copy and pasting? Then I’ll be able to focus on your actual comment, and not have to worry about trying to understand those big words, because the only thing I’ll have to parse then will be your incoherent rambling.
Children’s Rights Activist my ass!! You artfully dodged Amused’s point that more men should be doing their fair share in the raising of the children, not just being buddies with them during the fun times and then passing them off onto Mom…erm, I mean, **”privileging” Mom by allowing her to deal with them now… when they get tired, hungry, cranky, demanding, etc., and therefore not-so-fun anymore.
Yes, that is why we live in a society where motherhood is sacrosanct, so that Dad is assured that he won’t have to deal with caring for the children during the not-so-fun times, and we can continue guilting Mom and beating women over the head (metaphorically speaking) for the lousy job they’re doing at childcare, while ignoring the fact that many (maybe even most) Dads are doing little-to-no childcare and pretending that there is no way that children could ever try the limits of one’s patience.
** you either misconstrued or misunderstood Amused’s point when she said “She’ll get the privilege of keeping that baby out of your presence after the marriage.”, since you didn’t include her preceding sentence, which puts the one you quoted into context, “If you expected your wife to keep the baby from being a nuisance to you during the marriage then guess what?” She wasn’t referring to using a child as an emotional weapon against the other parent or ex-spouse, she was referring to the wife being “privileged” (yes, Father’s Rights Activists who used to be frequent commenters here, when the blog was on blogspot, stated that fathers privilege mothers by allowing them to be the primary caregivers) by being tasked as being the one to keep the baby from being a nuisance to Dad after his long, trying day at the office, so she should continue to keep the baby from being a nuisance to Dad when the cohabiting relationship has ended… Dad will still need his “quiet time after work” when the cohabiting relationship has ended since he needed it so desperately while the relationship was intact.
Bee: To my knowlege the US Departmant of Health & Human Services, the Administration for Children & Family. and the Childwelfare Information Gateway are not feminist organizations. The VAWA is. CAPTA was originally ratified in 1974. Were feminist groups backing it like they did the VAWA and the Clarence Thomas Hearings?
Oh, and btw, I, too, do not have children, and that was by choice also. But my reasons for opting to not have children are due to my own personal “failings”, being selfish with my free time, not having the patience to deal with children, etc. I don’t blame my childless state on my Mom, as blessed with human failings as she is, too.
RevSpinnaker, let’s just get back to your main thesis, which I’m still not clear on.
Are you saying that, in America, there has been an outbreak of “malnurturing” that is causing mothers to commit most acts of child abuse?
Why has this happened? Because of feminism?