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.
darksidecat: Cool. I can count on you to provide excellent information. Thanks for New York State’s legal definition of neglect. It’s description is no doubt detailed, but there are no provisions for motivation and sentencing guidlines. Also it only apply to NY State and that’s part of the problem. The Violence Against Children Act will establish federal standards for detecting and punishing abusers and finding safe haven for child victims.
“your example involved two in home abusive parents, yet you still deny that men can and do abuse.”
I’ve been saying all along men are equally abusive. Malnurturing is a gender neutral term considering both parents are primary nurturers. Sometimes moms are abusive, sometimes dads are abusive and sometime they both are.
“I’ve been saying all along men are equally abusive. Malnurturing is a gender neutral term considering both parents are primary nurturers. Sometimes moms are abusive, sometimes dads are abusive and sometime they both are.”
Okay… then why have most of your comments been focusing on women in particular?
So far our conversation with you has been like this:
Rev: Women commit child abuse!
Man Boobz: Yes, we know.
Rev: Obviously this is a huge cover-up!
Pam:
“She wasn’t referring to using a child as an emotional weapon against the other parent or ex-spouse,”
Are you saying this never happens? I’m sorry your father was such a bum. My father was the only real parent in my home.
“My father was the only real parent in my home.”
Is this why you’re acting like the father is the only real parent in *any* home?
Nope, wasn’t saying that at all, was only pointing out how you misunderstood or misconstrued what Amused was saying, and you’re still not addressing the issue that she was raising.
No need to be sorry, my father was not a bum nor did I say or imply anything of the sort. Sorry you read into what I did say as being about my father in particular, it wasn’t.
And just how do men feel about more hands-on caregiving type fatherhood?
From Patriarch to Patsy
“And just how *do* men feel about more hands-on caregiving type fatherhood?”
Damn, that was a depressing article.
Toysoldier: Thank you for continuing to prove how you can’t engage when you are criticized and proven incorrect. Stop whining about it and go actually deal with where you have been shown wrong. I’ve seriously repeated what was wrong with your statements 4 times. You’ve never addressed that because you are whining. So, I get it, you are for sure a liar about your knowledge.
Molly Ren: You must have missed this.
I’ve been saying all along men can be equally abusive. Malnurturing is a gender neutral term in that both parents should be considered primary nurturers. Sometimes moms are abusive, sometimes dads are abusive and sometimes they both are. But more often when dad’s abuse, mom’s involved tacitly or implicitly.
Also darksidecat has had some input with statistics and made a point about single fathers having a slightly higher ratio of neglect than single mothers. But the fact that there are so many more single mothers raises the actual statistics for women. First there are no social support systems for single fathers. Second, if dad ends up with sole custody, mom must have already been criminally abusive, on drugs or both. Some moms will pander their child for a few more hits of crack.
“Rev: Women commit child abuse!
Man Boobz: Yes, we know.
Rev: Obviously this is a huge cover-up!”
Yes, and once when Phil Donahue was confronted by the fact that women abuse children at the same or higher rates than men he responded, “that’s like saying more men hit home runs.” End conversation. That’s the kind of dismissive feminist attitude I’m talking about.
No, no you haven’t. You have claimed that mothers have become increasingly abusive and referred to it as “matriarchal oppression”.
As to statutory law regarding neglect, that is easy to find online, the department of health as a searchable database on its site. http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/state/
Here’s Alabama, the first on the list (it is alphabetical)
You are suggesting an unworkable “solution” without actually demonstrating a problem in the state legal defintions here.
You might want to consider that post-VAWA, many abuse advocates abandoned a strategy of widespread federal criminal and civil penalties as the US Supreme Court said that doing such as a violation of the constitution and struck down those provision in VAWA.
No, it does not justify it, but it does show that this is a common cultural narrative, rather than a feminism specific issue. If you are claiming feminism is especially pro-abuse, you need to demonstrate that feminist are misbehaving worse than the rest of society. You have not displayed that here, you found one play and one specific woman’s comments from decades ago (in Greer’s defense, as much as I dislike her, she was advocating things that would be legal if the genders were reversed, due to gender discrepancies in many age of consent laws historically), and claimed an epidemic. I found a half a dozen films involving men statutorily raping girls in cinema all created since 1990, within a matter of seconds. You don’t get to blame feminism for all of society’s problems, esp. when the wider culture is behaving worse on the matter.
For example, if I could find one or two cases of Game Wardens taking bribes, that would not necessarily show that there was an epidemic of bribes or that game wardens were especially pro-bribery. I would need to compare a larger amount of data about game wardens to discover if these two were the exceptions to the rule and if game wardens took bribes more than other positions. The failure of every single one to behave well on the matter of bribes does not mean that game wardens are pro-bribery.
This just in:
CASSOPOLIS — A 24-year-old Cass County woman who had sex with a 14-year-old boy is headed to jail.
Amy Wilson, a Dowagiac resident, was sentenced Friday to 120 days in the Cass County Jail and five years of probation. She will receive credit for 19 days already served.
Prosecutor Victor Fitz said Wilson leads a “hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle.”
Fitz pointed out she has a drug addiction, no job and is in a relationship with a man living with another woman.
Defense attorney Dale Blunier argued his client was abused as a child and is still immature.
120 days? Lower sentences and defense by the abuse excuse. Could be the influence of Barbara (BawaTourneau) Walters. She exploited that story with a “could this be love?” attitude right up through the wedding, which as I recall was televised. Or at least part of it. Mary Kay’s story was Walter’s final installment of 20/20 and she made a huge deal of it. Or we could go back to the “Summer of 42″ which was geared more to an adult audience as opposed to the examples you sent me that seemed directed at adolescents. They all send the wrong message.
@Toysoldier:
Dude, you can keep repeating that you superdooper really totally absolutely don’t care that meanie-pants feminists don’t believe you (even though no one said that). But that’s why I don’t get why you are so hellbent on claiming over and over that we don’t believe you were abused, anyway. It just makes you seem really disingenuous and manipulative.
And at this point, you are just denying the overwhelming evidence that proves your assertions to be wrong. Seriously, take a time out, and try to educate yourself on the topics you are arguing against.
Rev, look, I really don’t understand why you’re making an argument about this. We all agree that women can be abusers and we all agree that it’s a problem that should be taken seriously. We’re on the same side here.
RevSpinnaker, can men abuse children? Do they? If so, whose fault is it? How widespread is it?
“We’re on the same side here.”
Except we’re obviously part of the same group of women that supports “The View” and Barbara Walters? That’s the only thing that makes sense at this point.
I think the problem is that Toy Soldier has somehow interpreted “we believe victims” to mean “we believe anything that a victim says, even if what he/she says is that the sky is green and the moon is made of blue cheese” rather than as “if someone says they were abused, we believe them”. Thus disagreeing with anything he says about any subject means that we don’t believe he was abused.
And thus the logic pretzel is complete.
The idea that feminists are the intended or actual audience for The View is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.
RevSpinnaker, can men abuse children? Do they? If so, whose fault is it? How widespread is it?
Disregard this last comment; I now see that others went there before I did.
“The idea that feminists are the intended or actual audience for The View is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.”
We used to think he just meant “feminists”, but then he said, “No, I’m talking about the Matriarchy!” So now we don’t know what he means.
@CassandraSays
Yeah, that seems to be the case for Toy Soldier. I’m sure everyone here would be willing to respect his triggers, but I don’t think “repeatedly proving my assertions to be wrong” is a common trigger.
And wasn’t The View widely criticised by feminists for Whoopi Goldberg’s dismissing “it wasn’t rape-rape” comment about Polanski’s victim alone?
@ Kollege Messerschmitt – Yep. And Goldberg is usually quite popular among feminists, but sometimes she says some dumbass things, and when she does we always call her on it. See, we can criticize people we like! (Not that this was ever in doubt by anyone except sexist dudes.)
I’ve been seeing Toy Soldier around for years and that’s exactly what makes him so frustrating to talk to – it’s impossible to tell if he honestly sees disagreeing with anything he says as not believing that he was abused and revictimising him, or if he’s just being disingenuous (I lean towards the latter assumption, but the former is also possible). In either case he seems to be convinced that the fact that he was abused by a feminist means that whatever he has to say about feminism should be accepted without question, even when it’s blatantly incorrect.
“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.”
Like I said, man, if you did some work, you should be able to show it to us on your own, not say, “Just use Google”.
I’m not lazy, but if want to show me and others that you’re serious, you have to show your work.
Also, do you have anything to say about CassandraSays’ assessment of your circular arguments and reasoning? Because that seems to be exactly what you are doing, and it’s no wonder that is conversation is going nowhere.
Also, Rev, I said that you and ToySoldier are on the wrong side because you seem to be taking every chance to say that Child Abuse is the problem of Femenism or the “Matriarchy”, while handwaving every fact or evidence of the patriarchy as “conspiracy theories”. And now…I don’t even know what you’re saying, but it’s certainly not reality-based.
Look, guys, I don’t want to argue with Rev because his main thesis is something we all agree on.
Also, from a more generous perspective, part of the problem here may be that Toy Solider expects feminists to see the fact that a feminist abused him, acknowledge it, and then go “well then obviously you’re right – feminism is horrible”. When our actual reaction is more “your aunt is clearly horrible, but not necessarily because of feminism” he seems to see that as a cruel denial of the pain he experienced. Not sure how we could in theory get around that though, given that we don’t think feminism as a movement is actually horrible, even though some individual feminists are.*
*Some individual members of all social or political movements/religions/etc are horrible. This seems to be inevitable. Even Buddhism, and ideology specifically based around the ideals of compassion and non-violence, has spawned terrorists who want to kill people (in Sri Lanka). It seems to just be an inevitable fact of human nature that some people are horrible.
“Look, guys, I don’t want to argue with Rev because his main thesis is something we all agree on.”
What *is* his main thesis? Women commit child abuse?
@ VoiP: “RevSpinnaker, can men abuse children? Do they? If so, whose fault is it? How widespread is it?”
@ VoiP: “Disregard this last comment; I now see that others went there before I did.”
Thanks VoiP. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I believe the CDC stats I mentioned earlier on this thread were 30% maternal, 30% paternal, 30% paramours (usually men) and the remainder are relatives or caregivers (usually female). The vague part gets back to that “neglect” term as a sentencing guideline. Target Abuse is a term used by the Canadian Child Care Federation. Target abuse, as opposed to neglect, is a deliberate.act against a child, whereas “neglect” sounds like a bad mommy day. That’s why I prefer the term pathological malnurturing.
You’d be suprised how much we’re on the same page here. I’m really not the lying, stupid, potential rapist MRA some of you like to think I am. And what’s an MRM?
Citation please.
The MRM is the Men’s Right’s Movement. We don’t think you’re a potential rapist any more than any other random person. Any stupid/lying accusations are because you are attributing things we didn’t say and don’t believe to us, and you must be either doing so on accident because you don’t understand what we’re saying, or on purpose even though you know it isn’t really what we think.
And many of us have been saying all along that we agree with you that both men and women can be abusers.
HTML. It was only a matter of time.
/shame
fixed it, katz!
Kollege Kat:
“And wasn’t The View widely criticised by feminists for Whoopi Goldberg’s dismissing “it wasn’t rape-rape” comment about Polanski’s victim alone?”
I heard that coment but didn’t hear about the feminist criticism. But if so, where was their condemnation of Barbara Walters thoroughly exploiting the Mary Kay LaTourneau thing? And as far as feminist standing, Walters, Behar and Goldberg consider themselves feminist, I doubt the other two.
As David Futrelle does here at manboobz to MRA’s, I do the same with Daytime TV programming. The View is my pet peeve. Whoopi (I’m a fan) said jokingly she “really didn’t know she hated men so much until she got her job at The View. Maybe because Behar blurts out things like “don’cha just hate men” to the wild frenzy of the audience. I guess Elliot Spitzer cheating on his wife is a good enough reason to all hate men.
Then there was Behar making that joke about, “mothers who pick out one of their kids just to hate them.” Jokes about target abuse, and no one complained. Or at least not enough. I did. But then again, they hate men. Why would they listen to me?
She did have to make a public apology for one of her anti-child screeds. She blasted a joke about some philandering politicians “bastard children.” View boss Bawa made her apologize because of all the bad Viewster feedback. Then there’s the Behar slur that Leonardo DaVinci was “a flamer.” When questioned about that she confidently responded “Oh yeah, they all are.” Imagine if Don Imus said “all” women in math or science are dykes.
Apparently though, View fans couldn’t get enough of Walter’s homewrecking affair with the first elected black senator. It was a major selling point for her book “Audition” which she promoted shamelessly. Talk about double standards. Given she’s got the same moral integrity and credence as any other philandering politician, I wonder how many of her “auditions” were on the casting couch.
Thanks VoiP. That’s what I’ve been saying all along.
Why are you thanking me? I disagree with you most strongly. I wasn’t agreeing with you there, just I didn’t want a redundant question cluttering shit up.
So: abuse rates are 30% maternal, 60% men (paternal plus “paramours (usually men)”), and the remaining 10% is mostly women; BY YOUR OWN STATISTICS women account for less than half of all abuse cases.
Less than half and you go on and on and on and on about “matriarchal oppression.” Less than half and when women abuse it is evidence of the matriarchy but when men abuse it’s…what? Isolated cases, every one of them?
Which reminds me, you never did explain how, if matriarchy = motherhood itself, we should go about fixing this. Should all children be raised by men? Isn’t that a whole lot of work for men? I mean, I’m fine with this, but I think motherhood as our culture regards it is mostly unremitting drudgery and I’d love it if you guys took that over for a change so we could get down to scientific advancements, cultural achievements, and ruling the business world.
Feminists must denounce EVERY BAD THING EVER before I will admit that they aren't full of hate.
Citations are for chumps. Let’s just assert things.
No sexists here, no sir!
Less than half even though women are responsible for far more than half off all childcare. But still, women are clearly more abusive towards children than men because, um, something about matriarchy.
HTML fail. SAVE ME FUTRELLE
html fixed, Voip!
How is it exactly that feminists are all (collectively and individually) responsible for everything said on daytime TV?
I don’t hold MRAs or men generally responsible for everything said by “shock jocks” on daytime radio.
How is it exactly that feminists are all (collectively and individually) responsible for everything said on daytime TV?
As far as RevSpinnaker is concerned, I think it’s because he identifies motherhood itself — and possibly femininity itself — with the “matriarchy,” which means that anything with women in it, even if it’s not explicitly feminist, is probably culpable for the acts of “the matriarchy” somehow.
html fixed, Voip!
YAAAAY
“As far as RevSpinnaker is concerned, I think it’s because he identifies motherhood itself — and possibly femininity itself — with the “matriarchy,” which means that anything with women in it, even if it’s not explicitly feminist, is probably culpable for the acts of “the matriarchy” somehow.”
So porn is culpable for the evil acts of the matriarchy, ie. mothers abusing their children?
This theory gets more Byzantine all the time.
So porn is culpable for the evil acts of the matriarchy, ie. mothers abusing their children?
He’s already said that the matriarchy is to blame for beauty pageants, especially those with children in them, so probably.
See?
Yes, because daytime television is a bastion of feminism. *rolls eyes*
So this is how this conversation is going to go? You’re just going to name one thing after another and demand that we apologize for it? We didn’t do any of these things. Would you like us to start demanding that you apologize for things other people said and did?
Guys, I am really, REALLY sorry about the Star Wars sequels.
My country inflicted the abomination that is the deep fried Mars bar upon the world. I apologize for that, and also for haggis.
“Guys, I am really, REALLY sorry about the Star Wars sequels.”
Aww, come on, “Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi” were entertaining (however flawed the latter movie is).
The PREQUELS, on the other hand…that’s a paddlin’.
“My country inflicted the abomination that is the deep fried Mars bar upon the world.”
Ooooooh…now feminism has gone too far.
In our defense, we did give you shortbread too.
“My country inflicted the abomination that is the deep fried Mars bar upon the world.”
I refuse to be sorry for us creating something so awesome. That’s like apologizing for creating LOLcats.
Sometimes my apartment is culpable for the acts of “the matriarchy”, but not during the day when my roommate and I are both out at work. And quite often the bus I ride is culpable, too (but sometimes the front half of the bus is not culpable, because occasionally it’s all old dudes.) My family is super culpable ’cause I’ve got two sisters and most of our pets are female, but my sister’s room as a kid was often not culpable ’cause her pet rats were both boys.
…Matriarchy’s fucking complicated, y’all!
As someone who lives in Texas, I am so, so sorry.
1. VAWA is an act, not a feminist organization.
2. Are you saying that federal legislation protecting children against in-home abuse doesn’t count unless passed by feminists? I mean, I can’t really believe that someone who gives a shit about children would split hairs so finely, but that appears to be your complaint. You seem not to care that CAPTA legislation protecting children was widely supported in Congress; only that the agencies created and funded by CAPTA are insufficiently (to you) “feminist.”
I don’t get it. Again: What’s your fucking point, RevSpinnaker?
darksidecat: My mistake. Here is the correct link. It links to my blog post regarding my position privilege and disprivilege. In order to claim an entire group has privilege, one must demonstrate that a significant majority of them share a similar benefit. That evidence is essentially an average experience. As I noted before, this is just using different words to describe the same thing. I do reject that there is universal privilege, i.e. the notion that a group — men, for example — always benefits from privilege regardless of the situation. That notion is clearly false, and as a result one can argue that a group’s privilege depends on the circumstances, meaning that sometimes a group has no privilege.
Flib: But you did not prove anything. You just declared that I was wrong just because you think I am wrong. That is not very logical or reasonable.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Dude, I keep repeating it because you keep trying the ineffective, emotionally manipulative tactics. No one presented “overwhelming evidence” to prove my assertions wrong. You and other feminists claimed I argued a position I did not. Stop trying to dodge that by telling me I need to “educate” myself on feminism. And for the record, I would never tell any feminist what triggers me. My brother is the masochist, not me.
CassandraSays: Considering that I spoke about something specifically related to my experience, and that is the point that feminists appear to disbelieve, yes, I would call it a curious hypocrisy. I do not expect feminists to agree with my disagreement with feminism. However, I would like feminists to objectively consider criticism instead of automatically declaring it wrong and “hateful”. But I think the reason for the feminist objection is because feminists actually do what you wrongfully accuse me of: they expect that once they present some example of something that everyone should go “well then obviously you’re right”. When someone says “that is not necessarily right” feminists seem to see that as a cruel denial of whatever it is they brought up, hence all the straw man arguments, insults, and so on.
red_locker: As I noted, you can visit my blog to see prove feminists discriminating against male survivors. You also could refer to my prior comment about that issue. After all, you are not lazy. You appear not to understand what circular reasoning means. None of my arguments fit that description. There goes that straw man argument again. I said nothing about child abuse being feminism’s problem. Failure to agree with feminists positions does not mean I live in a different reality. It means I disagree with a series of political positions.
Toysoldier: Did you go back and read how you were applying universals to theory that didn’t work? And then you claimed that was the theory? You clearly haven’t been reading what I have been saying. Again, you are a liar. Come bro, stop lying.
I’m just going to link to this http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html because it is late and doing 101 for the clueless is getting tiresome.
Excellent eulogy for Troy Davis by Dick Gregory over at msnbc.com. Very funny and enlightening at the same time.
Flib: Did you go back and read the link to Feminism 101 that describes “male privilege” and “patriarchy” as something all men possess and benefit from regardless of their individual experiences? You clearly have not been reading what I have been saying. Again, you are arguing in bad faith, and your flippant comments make you look more intellectually dishonest and childish..
darksidecat: I addressed the silliness of creating “privilege checklists” in my post about disprivilege. You really need to stop thinking that just because feminists agree with an idea everyone must agree with it to.
@toysolider, did you actually read the piece? Because your criticism of privilege checklists is attacking a strawman, at least in regards to their original use.
However, since you won’t read a very, very short piece on the grounds that it was written by a feminist and you feel you can dismiss it out of hand, let me lay it out for you:
Does a homeless man benefit from being male? The answer to this question is yes. Men of all income quantiles make more than women. Assuming he is not more disabled that a homeless woman, he is more likely to find gainful income than her, and more likely to find such income which provides a living wage. He is far, far less likely than a homeless woman to be the caretaker of homeless children while being homeless. He is far, far less likely to be raped than a homeless woman. He is far less likely to be coerced into prostitution, especially if he is heterosexual. He is more likely to be able to migrate to a city and access the far larger resources for homeless people in urban settings (even among single adults without minor children, women make up a majority of the underaddressed rural and suburban homeless). Most studies on homelessness are around the type of homelessness he is likely to experience (single adult without accompanying children living in an urban area), meaning that programs designed to address homelessness will be centered around the needs of people of his gender. So, yes, he does benefit from being male, though he lacks the substantial benefits of being wealthy.
Does a wealthy woman benefit from being female? No. She is significantly less well off and has significantly more obstacles than her male peers. What she does benefit substantially from is being rich. The beneficial social status she is receiving is not based on her gender, in fact, a similarly situated man would have far more social benefits, it is because of her income class. She has wealthy privilege, not “women’s privilege”.
A failure to benefit from every single social advantage granted to every group does not mean that a person does not benefit from social advantages given to certain groups. I know this can be a tricky concept, but as someone who has done anti-racist work in white majoriy poor spaces, I do think that this is an important concept that applies to other axis of oppression as well as with gender based oppression.
Another case of “neglect?”
Connecticut toddler dies after pit bull attack: police
updated 10/1/2011 5:44:37 PM ET 2011-10-01T21:44:37
Print Font: +-CONWAY, Mass — A 20-month-old girl died after being attacked by as many as three pit bulls Friday evening inside an apartment house in West Haven, Connecticut, police said on Saturday.
..After a neighbor from downstairs called police, officers and paramedics arrived at the top-floor apartment at about 6:13 p.m. Friday and found the toddler on the floor, bleeding and unconscious, said West Haven Police Officer Bret Schneider.
She was rushed to Yale-New Haven Hospital, where she was pronounced dead, he said. West Haven is located a few miles south of New Haven on the central Connecticut coast.
After people in the home had locked the dogs in another room, police managed to subdue and remove them from the three-story building. The dogs were then euthanized.
“We believe all three dogs were involved in the attack, but they have to have (a) necropsy done” to determine that as part of the investigation, Officer Schneider said, referring to a post-mortem examination of the dogs.
Police had not yet determined whether the girl was alone when the attack took place. The infant may have been with family, visiting friends who lived in the apartment and owned the dogs, said Schneider.
It was too early to say whether any charges would be filed in the case, police said.
No charges? That probably depends on whether the “neglectful” one was a man or a woman. The later might get the N.O.W. Legal Defense Team on her side. Regardless, she’d still likely get a lesser sentence than a man.
Joe: I agree completely. Your’s is the first post to stay focused on the death of a child. Everyone else seems more concerned to defend or admonish pit-bulls. That has nothing to do with it. Things like this don’t happen by accident. Neglect is a vague term, especially as a sentencing guideline. That’s why I define “neglect” as Pathological Malnurturing. The report yesterday about the sadistic death of Hanna Wallace is an indication of how terribly some parents can treat children. That story disappeared within a day. How quickly we forget. You are correct in suspecting drugs, which are typically associated with the most heineous of child murders. The saddest part is, and what most people can’t fathom is, this may have been deliberate and there may be maternal involvement. A drug crazed sicko may have thrown the child to the dogs like the Romans threw Christians to the lions. Or to make a murder appear to be a terrible “accident.” “I just stepped away for a second” followed by “living life knowing what happened to that child is punishment enough.” A big question is whether the dogs were trained for fighting. That would be an indication of intent.
The previous can be found at MSNBC.com. But look fast. The Hanna Wallace story came down within a day. Infested cantalope gets more news coverage.
Oh wow, you just … made up a story so that you could get all pissy about something that NOW hasn’t even done.
I’m kinda sick of asking you what your point is. Let me put it a different way: What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker? (And who is Joe?)
RevSpinnaker: Did you just post a case of a pit-bull mauling where, not only are they not yet sure how it happened, *no one is sure which gender was involved* and claimed it “proved” that women were more neglectful?
Your arguments are shit.
Well, infected cantalopes affect more people than pit bull attacks.
Yeah, listeria-infected cantaloupe have only killed … what is it now … 15 people? Damn the feminist news media for wasting their time reporting on stupid cantaloupe deaths!
What the fuck is wrong with you, Spinnaker? I’m totally serious.
Toysoldier: Now go back and read how I showed you wrong through the use of applied studies on intersectionality, and how you were making generalizing sweeping statements about theory that were demonstrated incorrect by multiple sources. Your link to one thing of a feminism 101 doesn’t speak for the WHOLE of feminist theory. My point still stands. You do not hold the knowledge you think you do. You are in fact, still ignorant. I’ve been speaking specifically of theory and it’s applied use the entire time Toysoldier. I’m calling you intellectually dishonest because you NEVER engaged with that. You stuck the your one little link, that is low in any sort of validity to make broad generalizations that was still shot down. Yet you persist in your faulty and illogical argument and instead respond only to my insults. Again, this continues to show just how much you don’t actually know what you are saying.
Also, Toysoldier, just read what Darksidecat has been saying. DSC has been addressing what I’ve been saying at this point, and I see no further use to reiterate your continued ignorance.
The matriarchy is now responsible for the fact that some pit bulls are aggressive?
Wow, this is amazing. What can’t those evil mommies do? I hear they’re planning to blackmail the world government for one billion dollars under threat of firing a missile at them. Mr Bigglesworth, having been deemed insufficiently evil due to his having testicles, has been replaced with a pit bull called Lola.
Joe must be someone at another one of the many message boards that RevSpindoctor is busy spamming with his copy/pastes.
Pam:
“Joe must be someone at another one of the many message boards that RevSpindoctor is busy spamming with his copy/pastes.”
No it was MSNBC.com. Note many of the posts are more concerned about the status of pit-bulls rather than the death of a child, let alone how to prevent those deaths from occuring. Mary Mitchell, feminist editor of the Chicago Sun-Times somehow turned the Demond Reed murder into an endorsement of Obama in the last election. Talk about a spin doctor.
darksidecat: Why do you assume I never read the article before? I have read it several times, and I addressed why I disagree with its premise in my post about disprivilege. How does a (presumably) jobless homeless man make more money than a jobless homeless woman? Homeless men have a harder time finding support and relief than homeless women because the majority of the available services are geared towards homeless women (particularly those with children) and families. Information about physical and sexual violence against the homeless seems to be based on self-reports, which is problematic because most male victims do not come forward. The notion that wealthy women do not benefit from being female clearly does not apply in all cases. As noted before, a wealthy woman is significantly less likely to receive a harsh sentence for committing crime, not only because of her wealth, but also because she is female. Again, one cannot claim that in every single instance a group always has privilege or never has privilege. Your concept is not tricky. Rather, it makes no logical sense, nor does it accurately reflect people’s real experiences.
Flib: So now the definition and explanation of “patriarchy” and “male privilege” from a high-sourced feminist blog that cites a published feminist book does not count? Talk about no true scotsman. Let us try this: you link to the “whole” feminist theory, I will check to see if Feminism 101 got the definition wrong, and I will explain whether I agree or disagree with the “whole” theory and why. And I did respond to your arguments. You ignored that and continued to insult me. If you do not want me to focus on your insults, then do not make insults the core of your argument.