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.
Toysoldier: You never responded to my arguments. You specifically ignored applied studies of intersectionality. You specifically gave the wrong information about the history of intersectionality. You specifically lied about it, and called it an excuse, without actually engaging the tenants of it. Your claims about it having universals is false. You aren’t actually engaged with the material and argue against a feminist strawman that you continually create. This is why I keep calling you stupid.
Rev, I must take issue with your propagating the narrative of pit bulls as a dangerous, uncontrollable species. Most pit bulls are sweet, affectionate, smart, and easy to train, and they make great pets.
On pit bulls – my old landlord in London had a dog that was a pit/rottweiler mix. I was terrified of that dog for months after I moved in. But then I met landlord and dog in the street going for a walk, and the dog jumped up at me…and licked my face. And then rolled over on his back for a belly rub.
Pits can be scary and dangerous if they’re raised as fighting dogs, or abused, but they’re not some sort of evil demon spawn by nature. They can be lovely dogs if brought up correctly.
“This is why I keep calling you stupid.”
This is why I keep calling him disingenuous, because I don’t think he’s stupid at all. It’s either that or PTSD. Regardless of the reasons, he’s factually incorrect, I’m just reluctant to call someone a liar or tell them to fuck off (tempting as that is) when it’s possible that they may be acting out of trauma rather than malice.
Fair enough Cassandra. I certainly won’t deny being an ass of it.
Cassandra, last time I checked PTSD did not cause people to become liars, or disingenuous if you prefer that word better. Please don’t be a tone troll.
@CassandraSays
Though I definitely understand where you are coming from, I think I gotta agree with Snowy.
As they said, PTSD doesn’t cause shitty behaviour, and I think it’s a bit othering to imply it, since it’s basically saying that people who suffer from PTSDs can’t be expected to be responsible for their actions (of course, it depends on the situation). It is definitely important to respect triggers, but suffering from PTSD doesn’t excuse people from shitty behaviour.
I do think you have a point, but I guess it’s more complicated than that.
Dog attacks never happen by accident. They are always intentional. Sic em, Spot!
And, no, that is not a typical neglect case, RevSpinnaker. My mother used to work with parental training classes for parents referred to CPS and with low income adult education, I have heard a lot of discussions of these issues.
Here’s a typical neglect case:
16 year old mother of a 2 year old lives in a two room basement apartment (including bathroom in number of rooms), where she stays based on the charity of the homeowner. She dropped out of school while pregnant, and was not up to grade level even then. She has a fourth grade reading level. Wrongly denied welfare benefits, she cannot afford most medical care and cannot always afford healthy food. Having heard that soda was bad for kids, she gives the baby koolaid, thinking that “it is like juice”, because she can’t get real juice. Having never had access to full dental care herself and having had abusive parents who did not teach her good dental hygeine, she overlooks the child’s dental hygeine. She is reported to CPS for neglect due to failure to provide medical care, based on the child’s poor dental health.
Is charging this girl with a felony the solution? CPS diverted her into a program which is no longer existing, because its funding has been cut, to allow her to keep her kid based on allowing home visits, taking parenting classes, and taking educational classes. The adult ed. workers quickly realized she had been wrongly denied benefits, and got her access to a dentist (closest medicaid accepting dentist-two hours away-so they also had to apply for transportation through a seperate state program) and to healthier food (two additional program applications, all of which required a higher reading level than the girl had). The parenting class instructers taught her how to properly care for both the child’s teeth and her own.
Three years later, she is still a loving and attentive parent, but with much better parenting skills. The child is healthy and happy, and in good health. The mother has a GED.
Of course, other “neglectful” parents like her will not have similar opportunities for learning and help, because those programs which helped her are gone.
@Snowy:
“Please don’t be a tone troll.”
I’m new here, but I already noticed one thing: You’re very quick to label others, especially quick to label them as trolls. Trolls, concern trolls, tone trolls, …
Hmm that’s fascinating, Simon. Notice I did not, in fact, call her a tone troll. You on the other hand, I am perfectly comfortable labeling you what you are, which is a troll.
Nazi trolls, pedophile trolls, Nazi pedophile trolls, Holocaust-justifier trolls, antisemitic trolls…
@VoiP:
“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.”
“Nooo. What I’ve said twice now, was 30% natural mothers, 30% natural fathers, 30% paramours (which, now when I think about that Little Coochi Snorcher, may include women. And the other 10%, grouping babysitters, relatives (cite TS’s aunt) and friend’s of the family, often women.
So that makes it thrice. But wait… it may even be a trick statement. You smarty pants just haven’t caught it yet. Better check your Wikipedia. hint: Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide.
“30% maternal, 60% men?” Who could ever accuse a feminist of lumping all men together? Your use of the word “men” rather than paternal might even be considered a Freudian-Slip.
But then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
There’s a button you can push if you need to make the text bigger.
Well, I’m trying to find some way to give Toy Soldier the benefit of the doubt, since he’s so convinced that feminists are out to get him. I find being accused of tone trolling for that rather annoying, actually.
Rev, stop acting like an obnoxious snot.
That’s fine. But there’s no reason anyone else need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Your comment to Flib sounded a bit like tone trolling to me. I’m sorry you’re annoyed by that. I’m annoyed by your condescending attitude towards people suffering from PTSD.
I know the thread has moved on from the pitbull-related tangent, but Rev, death from dog attack is vanishingly rare, at least according to the CDC:
Slur women all you like, you illiterate weirdo, but leave pitbulls alone.
Flib: Yes, I never responded to your arguments except for when I did. I did not lie about “intersectionality”. I gave my opinion of why it was created, which is consistent with the purported reason for its creation, although less favorable. What I meant by universal is that every member of a group experiences the same set of privileges. So every male, regardless of his social status, has and benefits from “male privilege”, and there are no degrees to this. Every male has the same level of advantages and can never be disadvantaged because they are male. This is clearly false as there are obvious examples in which females benefit over males (health care services, support services, education, justice system). And you keep calling me stupid because such is your dearth of character.
CassandraSays: My youngest brother and two foster kids I know suffer from PTSD. Your insinuation about people with the disorder is classless and pathetic. Or course, being a feminist does not excuse people from shitty behavior, although it does appear to predispose them to it. But thanks for demonstrating precisely why I do not discuss the details of my experiences with feminists.
Where did I suggest that anyone else was obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt? I’m trying, because my mother was an abuse victim too so I can see how trauma might cause part of his inability to see feminists as anything but malevolent. Doesn’t mean anyone else has to, or that I think he’s right (he isn’t).
The word “troll” has an actual meaning, and it isn’t what you seem to be using it to mean here. I’m not sure how labelling any attempt to tackle anti-feminists that isn’t the way you’d approach things as trolling improves the conversation, but if you want to carry on being condescending and assuming ill intent, there’s not much I can do to stop you from doing so.
Sigh. Timely I suppose of Toy Soldier to prove that my willingness to give him any benefit of the doubt at all is unwise.
This is where you implied it. Maybe you didn’t state directly that but it’s implied with your holier than thou speech about how people ptsd just can’t help being asshats therefore no one should complain.
@ToySolider: We’ve been saying this countless times: We don’t doubt what happened to you, it’s just that you’re directing your anger at the wrong people. Feminism doesn’t cause shitty behavior. Now just give us a chance to discuss with you, because right now we’re going nowhere.
The story of the child killed by the pit bulls is no longer listed at MSNBC.com. Lasted eight hours, if that. ‘Broken Penis': Karma for Cheating Husbands? is a few days old now and still going strong. Listed in the Health section. No canteloupes about it.
Is that the media intersecting with feminism? Or is it intersecting with the silence of the matriarchy? Both are power structures.
Rev, explain WTF your pit bull attack story has to do with anything or shut up about it.
All right, what does tone troll mean to you? I thought it meant telling people off for the language they’re using, similar to a concern troll. And that’s what it seemed to me that you were doing. If it means something else, let me know, maybe I’m wrong. In any case, it wasn’t your own attempt to tackle anti-feminists in whatever way you see fit that I was calling out, it was your implication that other people should be doing it the same way as you.
Google tells me that condescending means “Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority” which I don’t think is an accurate description of how I’m talking to you right now. I’m talking to you like an equal. What is condescending, in my opinion, is saying that people with PTSD should be coddled and called things like “disingenuous” instead of “a liar”. I’m also not really assuming that you have any ill intent here. If I was doing something that someone thought might be some form of trolling I would want them to tell me about it because I’m not trying to troll.
The “silence of the matriarchy?” I didn’t know Thomas Harris had a new book out.
Cassandra, while “troll” shouldn’t just be slung around at everyone who disagrees/has a problem, I think it’s appropriate in ToySoldier’s case because he just shows up and repeats the same thing over and over, refusing to listen to what other people say and constantly misrepresenting feminists, women, and this site. Like you, I was inclined to handle him gently at first, but I no longer think such treatment is efficacious.
Toysoldier:
Neither of which means that you were abused by feminism.
And I shouldn’t have to say this, but lest you misread my comment, willfully or otherwise: I absolutely believe you were abused by your aunt. I just don’t think you were abused by feminism.
RevSpin:
What a strange, essentialist belief to hold. Is that belief typical of MRAs or is it just you?
tatjna:
The Rev does, however, illustrate the realtionship between no-true-Scotsman and moving the goalposts.
RevSpin:
I get the sense the Rev thinks feminism and feminists have much more influence among women in general than most actual feminists dare to hope for.
So the answer to the question “if feminists are against X, why are the people who do X almost all women, and why is X so popular among women?” is “most women aren’t feminists.” That’snot an indictment of feminism; most people aren’t actively fighting the oppression of any groups they’re in. It’s a time and energy commitment most people aren’t going to make, however appreciative they may be of people who do.
RevSpin:
It’s more a generational thing than a gender politics thing, though Scott’s work is seen as feminist by some. I’d say anyone around my age who is unfamiliar with Blade Runner is pop-culturally lacking, at the very least.
katz:
“Rev, stop acting like an obnoxious snot.”
Well pooh, pooh to you too!
Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
Snowy, it’s worth mentioning that “disingenuous” isn’t a euphemism; the meaning of “said with insincere motives” is different than simply “knowingly untrue”, and often more applicable to trolls. I agree with you otherwise, though.
Happy 800th comment, everyone!
Katz, I know that it means the same thing. This is what I was referring to, where Cassandra seems to be saying that it’s better to call someone disingenuous rather than a liar if you suspect they might have suffered from some kind of trauma, when you actually do think that they’re a liar.
@katz:
“Rev, explain WTF your pit bull attack story has to do with anything or shut up about it.”
I repeat. Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
And this has what to do with pit bulls?
Toy Soldier is an actual troll, I think. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he honestly believes what he’s saying due to trauma, though the more I see of him the less likely that seems. It’s just hard for me to completely dismiss a victim as doing nothing but trolling due to my family history. No one else is obliged to extend him any sympathy at all just because I’m trying to, and I had no intention of implying that anyone should. If I’d actually meant “hey, everyone stop being so mean to him” I’d have said so. At no point did I say that no one should complain about his attempt to imply in a roundabout way that since his aunt was abusive that means something about feminism as a whole.
Basically what I’ve been attempting to do is figure out what Toy Soldier is trying to do. Is he trolling? Or does he actually believe the things he says because of his personal history? Certainly that history could explain why he’s so convinced that feminism is a malignant force. My gut says he’s being disingenuous, but I feel like maybe I’m being unfair not to at least consider the possibility that he’s sincere and just horribly misguided (ie as red_locker said, angry for justifiable reasons, but blaming the wrong people). That’s me feeling that maybe I’m being unfair – me, specific person, feeling guilty about wanting to tell a victim of child abuse to quit trying to hold an entire political movement responsible for his pain.
No one else is required to share my conflicted feelings about this, and I didn’t intent to suggest that they should.
@katz: re: Sappy pitbull-kitten video.
“Rev, I must take issue with your propagating the narrative of pit bulls as a dangerous, uncontrollable species.”
Way to divert the issue katz. Kind of like Donahue and that “more men hit hime runs” line. The real question is not about pit bulls but who was responsible for the child’s brutal death.
The aunt? Tune in tomorrow. Then again, we may never find out.
“And this has what to do with pit bulls?”
I think he’s saying that since murders of younger children are most often committed by women, and the victim was 20 months old, the person who let the pit bulls out HAD to be a woman!
…which still makes no effing sense.
Rev., you’re basically saying someone is guilty without a trial, or even any knowledge of who was involved except the victim. Just say “I bet it was a woman!” and get it over with, that’d be a lot clearer.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the Rev has a lot of time on his hands and a bitter bone to pick. I picture him poring over newspaper articles looking for ones that mention women and injured children in the same article, gleefully posting them and thinking “This’ll show em! No? Mabe this’ll show ‘em. This one? How about this one then?”
Meanwhile, we’ve all agreed that yes, women hurt children too about 700 comments ago but we didn’t get wound up enough to satisfy him. We’ve disproved every other statement he’s made, which seems to lead to a lightning fast subject change and some ingratiation with whoever will listen, followed shortly by another random news article. Nobody’s buying it any more so now he’s all “Please pay attention to me?”
And we’re doing it because he’s kind of cute like a pit bull puppy.
Ummm … so, the pit bull story wasn’t getting enough hits, according to whatever calculus determines what’s on the msnbc.com front page, and that means, um, feminism is bad, or something? What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker?
Lemme guess. That’s what passes for clever in your mind.
What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker? I’m just gonna keep asking.
@Molly Ren:
“Just say “I bet it was a woman!” and get it over with, that’d be a lot clearer.”
@ Snowy:
“And this has what to do with pit bulls?”
I repeat again. Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
hint: Try Wikipedia.
Bee:
“What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker? I’m just gonna keep asking.”
I repeat again & again. Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
Even bigger hint for the particularly feeble minded. NEONATICIDE intersecting with Wikipedia.
Hmm… Neonaticide… Infanticide… Filicide… where are the pit bulls? I can’t seem to find any mention of them… I guess I better try wikipedia again! Because RevSpinnaker told me so it must be true!
@CassandraSays
So basically you didn’t understand why snowy took issue with what you were saying.
PTSD doesn’t cause you to think x group is bad, it doesn’t make you lie, and it certainly doesn’t make you an asshat. What you are doing isn’t helping anyone and certainly not toy solider. Pitying the mentally ill just because their mentally ill is condescending.
And you turned a story of a pit bull attack into a platform for you to proclaim that “this may have been deliberate and there may be maternal involvement.” (bold emphasis mine)
Gotta keep those evil women, those agents of matriarchal oppression in the spotlight. Talk about a spin doctor.
Naw, that’s just a myth that men like to hook their wagon to in order to justify their lack of empathetic and nurturing involvement with children while berating women if they’re not empathetic and nurturing 24/7/365.
Neonaticide…are you saying that someone intentionally used a pit bull to try to kill a child?
Yes, katz, that is what he is saying in the latter portion of his copy/paste here of the comment he made on the story at msnbc.com
“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.”
Yeah. Some people kill their children. It’s very sad.
What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker?
Molly Ren:
You know, what he’s probably actually saying is stupid enough as it stands: while clearly none of this child’s parents were paying adequate attention, only the mother’s failure to do so constitutes neglect (or “malnurturance” or whatever bullshit term he’s using).
Then he goes on to suggest that someone deliberately fed her — and since this is all happening in the Rev’s head anyway, this person is a woman if he says she is — child to pitbulls and claimed it was an accident. Which manages to be stupider still.
So, he knows almost nothing about this dog attack and yet assumes that it was intentional and that it was the mother’s fault. Yeesh, you are just grasping for straws to villainize women at this point.
RevSpinnaker, whatever you are doing at this point…is very sad. People have said that they acknowledge that, yes, women can capable of evil, too. Shouldn’t that be enough? One can be a feminist and still recognize that no one has a monopoly on evil, but that anyone can commit it and should be held responsible for it (Can’t believe that I have to type that, but hey).
RevSpinnaker, now you’re just not making sense at all. I’ll spell it out for you; the math is really quite simple. I can’t believe I’m doing this.
This is what you said at first. These are your own words.
<blockquote.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).
Using the statistics you brought up, we have:
30% of abuse cases are maternal
+10% are relatives or caretakers (usually female)
——
40% of abuse cases are committed by women, roughly.
30% of abuse cases are paternal
+30% are paramours (usually men)
——
60% of abuse cases are committed by men, roughly.
60% is bigger than 40%. According to the statistics you provided, half again as many men as women commit child abuse. Two-thirds of all abusers, according to your own words, are men.
Your response is:
That doesn’t change things very much. Now we have
30% natural mothers
+10%, including babysitters, relatives and friends of the family, often women
+whatever small number from your adjusted category of “paramours, may include women.”
—–
Slightly more than 40% women
30% natural fathers,
30% paramours (which may include women)
—–
About 60% men.
That doesn’t change anything. “May” means you don’t know.
This is so breathtakingly stupid, I’m not sure whether or not one of us is hallucinating.
Did you notice the word “men” in your original post? I was quoting you. Not all the men in that 60% are fathers.
Listen Rev, maybe this is a silly suggestion, but perhaps your child abuse advocacy might more effective if spend your time, I dunno, actually advocating for abused children, instead of pestering feminists on the internet.
Unless of course your only interest is being an annoying asshole, which seems fairly likely at this point.
Once again, an HTML fail. In my defense, my eyesight really is quite bad.
Toysoldier: Except I already addressed your first claim. Discussing privileges is looking at systemic issues within a system as a whole. That intersection allows for individual and interactional incidents as well (Look, AGAIN, at male nurses and childcare workers, I linked an applied study earlier, and there is a fair amount of them littered through out this thread). You continue this claim, that is incorrect, that the idea behind intersectionality only applies universals. You’ve been shown wrong with applied studies. So, no, you never actually addressed what I’ve been saying for the entire time. Which is, when you talk about intersectionality, you are incorrect in your assessment. You are still creating the straw feminist, and you still don’t know what you are talking about. I’ll keep calling you a liar because you are actually lying about how intersectionality works.
I agree, if it had universal statements, that would be silly. The thing is, modern intersectionality does not create these universal statements. You are making a claim that it does, with your cited evidence being one feminist blog (Not a study, not even a theoretical paper, but one single blog). You’ve been given a multitude of information that disagrees with your assessment of feminist literature on intersectionality. That is where the crux of the issue is, and that is where you are lying.
Your opinion for how it came about historically is also built upon the very same flawed premise. Rather then noting that there was differences within feminist literature over the concepts of privilege (Specifically within 2nd wave and later movements), you create the idea that Feminism, as a whole monolithic movement, had to “cover up it’s logic errors”. This is a deceitful description, at best. At worst, it is straight up misinformation and lying. It makes it plainly clear what your objective is.
@ katz – I guess what I’m trying to figure out is, what would be an effective way to handle Toy Soldier? Because he’s been derailing conversations on feminist blogs over this same issue for years. So I’m trying (clearly not very effectively) to figure out what it is that he’s trying to get out of what he’s doing. Does he feel compelled to do it for some reason? Does he want an apology from the Official Feminist Hivemind for what his aunt did that includes us saying “yes, clearly feminism was to blame”? Is it just trolling? Most trolls aren’t as dedicated as he seems to be, and they tend to break character occasionally, which he doesn’t.
I guess I’m hoping that if we could eventually figure out what he wants from us, or he could figure out what he wants from us and state it clearly, this ongoing cycle might finally end. Because I’m tired of it.
@Snowy:
Hmm that’s fascinating, Simon. Notice I did not, in fact, call her a tone troll. You on the other hand, I am perfectly comfortable labeling you what you are, which is a troll.
Ok, and do you have ANY evidence for such accusations?
@CassandraSays:
The word “troll” has an actual meaning, and it isn’t what you seem to be using it to mean here.
Yeah, nowhere I have met this extreme level of suspicion as here. You just write a simple post somebody disagrees with and you’re labeled a troll.
Cassandra: I really don’t know. Handling trolls is difficult; if he honestly won’t change his tune or leave no matter what you say, I suppose the only real choice is whether or not to ban him.
In fairness, I think I can see where some of ToySoldier is coming from. Not to put words in his mouth, but it seems to go something like this:
1. His aunt self-identified as a Feminist.
2. ToySoldier identifies his aunt as a Feminist.
Unless we are (1) his aunt, (2) ToySoldier, (3) a third party that knows the aunt, we have no basis to argue that the aunt is not a Feminist. To do so is very much an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
ToySoldier’s initial point seems to be that his aunt used Feminist theory to justify her abuse; ergo, the abuse may not have happened were his aunt not a Feminist. (Consequently, one might be able to argue that Feminism negatively impacted both ToySoldier and his aunt).
One could certainly argue back that this is a case of attempting to know the unknowable – did Feminist thinking drive a balanced human being to become abusive? Or was an abusive human being simply looking for a reason to act out their abusiveness? I certainly could not say; and I suspect this is probably not the forum to answer such a question.
What I do think we can do is appreciate the following: firstly, ToySoldier is a self-identified gender egalitarian and Feminist critic. (The latter is rather understandable given ToySolder’s personal history; one can argue that this stance is a result of a skewed encounter with a single Feminist, but that is a careful subject to approach). Secondly, ToySoldier is not an MRA; he has chosen not to identify as such, and his arguments seem primarily concerned with criticism of Feminism, rather than Mens’ Rights advocacy.
Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, ToySoldier is not a troll in the sense that he seems earnest in his position (one critical of Feminism). Now, that viewpoint may very well be incompatible with certain spaces; but that’s one for the owners and administrators to figure out.
If nothing else, consider this: ToySoldier may very well have a valid point. If ToySoldier was indeed abused by his aunt; and his aunt’s abusive nature was informed by Feminist thought; then perhaps some serious consideration should be given as to how such a situation could arise?
Maybe Rev’s brain went “pitbull…dog…bitch…OMG WOMEN EAT BABIES” and he’s surprised we can’t follow his logic.
Dude, I don’t have any statistics on *intentional* death by dog bite, but you can bet if only 16 Americans die per year at the paws of the family pet, only a small subset of those deaths can be caused by someone intentionally feeding their baby to the dog.
I mean, 2 or 3 Americans die each year of bubonic plague. Are you going to post a story on that now and expect us to infer that it’s all their mothers’ fault?
katz:
“Neonaticide…are you saying that someone intentionally used a pit bull to try to kill a child?”
No. I’m saying there is a potential there. I didn’t say it was a woman but it doesn’t look good for the aunt. Was it intentional? Probably not. But someone is responsible and that’s the issue. Not whether pit bulls can be cuddley puppies and great around kids. If they are trained to be around children they are actually very protective of family members. If they are tormented from birth and taught aggression they will be killers. Kind of like people. But the fact remains, some of the most sadistic cases of child torture are intentional.
Did you actually read the definition of neonaticide? That’s child murder within the first 24 hours after birth. Therein lies the secret to the trick statement,
kristenmh:
“I know the thread has moved on from the pitbull-related tangent, but Rev, death from dog attack is vanishingly rare…”
You are absolutely right. But child abuse isn’t, many more children die of abuse every day. Can you tell me how many? You seem to know all the stats about dog maulings and bubonic plague, how about children?
What’s the major cause? I’ll direct you back to the definition of neonaticide at Wikipedia.
Wait a minute, is the secret to the trick statement the fact that you’re just talking out of your ass right now and neonaticide actually has nothing to do with the pit bull story? That wasn’t much of a secret!
I know the stats on dog-mauling deaths because I looked them up, my good sir. Same with bubonic plague. It’s called Google.
I’m not going to get sucked into your alternative logic style here. Please explain what your pitbull story had to do with the alleged matriarchal epidemic of child abuse, because my explanation (that the word “dog” made you think of the word “bitch” and your brain jumped to blaming women) seems about as good an explanation as any.
CassandraSays:
Here is the curious thing: if you think I am so traumatized by my experiences that I hate feminism, why would you insult me, mock me, use my experiences to deride me, call me a liar, or accuse me of misunderstanding what happened to me? Do you honestly believe doing that would change my opinion of feminism for the better? There are three reasons why you tried this approach: 1) you are too stupid to know it would not work, 2) you wanted to humiliate me, or 3) you were upset because my criticism of feminism hit the nail on the head. The first is unlikely because few people are that stupid. That leaves the remaining two, and the third one is most probable because when I made my initial comment, the immediate response was “that’s not feminism”, despite that I made no assertion about feminism. I am not offended by the reaction or the insults. I expect feminists to respond negatively to things that does not fit their worldview. However, I do find it odd that anyone genuinely concerned about victims of abuse would think harassing, belittling, and mocking them would be helpful.
And remind me where exactly she did that again? Or for that matter where anyone here did anything even close to harassing, belittling, or mocking you for being a victim? Because really I’m not seeing it.
That definition would be: the killing of a newborn infant less than 24 hours old.
The major cause? Well, that would probably depend upon whether it was within a culture/society that practices selective neonaticide or not. In a culture/society that practices selective neonaticide, a major cause is female offspring being undesirable/unwanted. In a culture/society that does not practice selective neonaticide, studies are still being conducted to determine the cause in order to, hopefully, prevent more incidences from occurring.
Well, I think the major cause of killing newborns within the first 24 hours is that the pitbulls don’t like ‘em any older. Too stringy.
…Or are we still trying to meaningfully engage with Rev on this? :D
Hershele Ostropoler: I never said feminism abused me. I stated that feminism caused my aunt to become violent due to the ideology’s misandry. Those are two very different ideas. I do not care if you believe me, but I do care that you keep misrepresenting my comments.
CassandraSays: I do not think that you are trying to figure anything out. I think that you simply do not agree that feminism cause can bad behavior and because you do not want to address that point you resort to insults, ad hominems, and straw man arguments. I think that the misandry inherent in feminism can in the right, or I should say wrong, circumstances cause a person to harm boys and men. That is not an indictment of feminism because I think every ideology has that capacity cause violence. Yet ideologies that rely on the “us versus them” dichotomy, that vilifies the other side, like feminism does, seem to do it more. I do not think the way to address this is by falsely claiming that anyone who points out this problem thinks feminism is “teh evil”. I think the way to address it is by having an honest, open discussion about the misandry in feminism.
VoiP: Rev’s statistics are incorrect, but he is correct that women commit most child abuse. From the Child Maltreatment 2009 report, “More than 40 percent (44.4%) were men and more than one-half (53.8%) were women; 2 percent (1.8%) were of unknown sex.” From earlier in the report, “Three-quarters (75.8%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more parents. More than one-quarter (27.3%) of fatalities were perpetrated by the child’s mother acting alone and more than one-fifth (22.5%) of child fatalities were caused by both parents. Child fatalities with unknown perpetrator relationship data accounted for 8.7 percent.” Unfortunately, none of the recent reports list the abuse type by sex. However, the 2000 report does, and shows that women commit more child abuse than men, with the exception of sexual abuse (yet since female-perpetrated sexual violence is grossly underreported the actual rate is likely much higher).
Flib: We disagree on what privilege entails, how pervasive it is, and how it works. That does not mean I am “wrong” or lying. We can agree to disagree and move on. Likewise, the way “intersectionality” works is how I described. According to feminists, at no point does any male lose his “male privilege”, including situations in which he is clearly disprivileged as a male. To this point, do you believe that male nurse do not have “male privilege” at least within the confines of the medical community? Now you are claiming that “modern intersectionality” does not use universal statements and that there are different versions of the feminist privilege doctrine? Okay, link to the “correct” feminist theory we should rely on and I will explain whether I agree or disagree with the “correct” theory and why. But honestly, this no true scotsman routine is of yours is getting really pathetic.
Snowy: Where did I say that anyone harassed, belittled, or mocked me for being a victim? I believe I wrote, “However, I do find it odd that anyone genuinely concerned about victims of abuse would think harassing, belittling, and mocking them would be helpful.” If a person thinks someone is so traumatized that they are projecting their anger unfairly onto a group, what sense does it make for members of that group to harass, belittle, or mock that person? At best, you would simply prove the person’s biases correct. At worst, you will cause them to hate the group even more. If the goal is to change the person’s opinion for the better, doing that seems counterproductive, no?
All right, and where did she or anyone here do that? Show me please. I don’t see it.