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.
Might I also point out that there’s a small bit under the History section at the wikki on neonaticide that is just a smidge innaccurate or incomplete:
“Still, mothers who killed their infants or newborns received lesser sentences under both the laws of the church and the state. The church consistently dealt more leniently with those mothers whose children died by “overlying,” an accidental death by smothering when a sleeping parent rolled over on the infant.”
That particular leniency in sentencing was only reserved for MARRIED mothers… unwed mothers who were found guilty of committing infanticide (I don’t think that, at that time, neonaticide was distinct from infanticide) received death sentences which could be rendered in various ways: decapitation, sacking, impalement, or being buried alive. The preferred penalty was “sacking” (cramming the infanticidal mother into a sack and then throwing her into a body of water.
Yep, keeping those slutty slut sluts in their place is a hallmark indicator of matriarchy.
I think… you still don’t know what you’re talking about. Nor do you know anything about feminism. “Misandry” is not “inherent in feminism”, nor does feminism rely on an “‘us versus them’ dichotomy” or vilify anyone. It is a movement that says “people are equal regardless of sex or gender” — nowhere in there is anything about an us or them, or about trying to treat one group better than another. You’d probably make a more convincing argument that feminism “caused” your aunt to abuse you if you could demonstrate even the most basic grasp of what feminism is.
I think there is an us and them in feminism. The us is people that believe women’s humanity equal to men’s. The them are those that would have women as a lower human being whose purpose is to serve men and birth babies. Toysoilder’s aunt clearly had a messed up idea of how to teach that women are not lesser beings. It is not the ideology that is the problem but her using it to justify horrible acts. People can do that with any ideology.
Toysoldier: You keep claiming I’m doing a no true scotsman. However, you still have failed to demonstrate this. You can’t claim a no true scotsman when I have actually linked you sources that disagree with your assertion. You have not provided a solid source to keep with your thesis of Feminist theory being monolithic. Your argument remains wrong because it is sourced in this fallacy where there is a lack of information on your part that backs your assertion.
A no true scotsman requires something without reference to a specific object rule and a statement that “well, not all feminists are the same”. While the latter is true, not all feminists are the same, we aren’t discussing feminists here. We are discussing theory. For it to be a no true scotsman, I need to not have a sourced claim, like you have said yourself. EXCEPT I HAVE GIVEN YOU APPLIED STUDIES AND A DIRECTION TO LOOK. You have specifically ignored them. You can not claim a no true scotsman because my statement against yours is referencing specific theory.
Additionally, you still haven’t provided a pervasive argument for feminist theory being monolithic and deceptive like you have claimed. You have given ONE feminist blog. Let me count that again, in case your bad at it. ONE. You are running on the assumption that feminism theory is exactly as you have claimed. You haven’t provided a very strong empirical example of similarities. You still need to do that, and you’ve needed to do it since you’ve opened your ignorant trap here in this discussion. I admit though, I did not bother to read the source. Do you know why? Because it is one feminist blog. It is not a theory paper, it is not applied studies. Do you know what we are arguing over? I assume it’s the theory itself. That’s why I have been telling you that you were wrong, because you don’t have a grasp on the theory.
It’s not ‘disagreeing’ on how privilege works, Toysoldier. It’s you continuing to make fake claims of theory that aren’t actually true. Hence, you are lying still.
Also, did you actually read my links? I’m going to go with no. Because your still arguing while conveniently forgetting what I have already provided.
Seriously, bro. Your ignorance routine and ability to back up your assertions of logic is what is pathetic here. It’s great that you have access to some of the language of discourse, but you do not seem to know how to use it. For instance, you failed at applying a no true scotsman because that doesn’t work in what I have said. You are still creating straw feminists. You are still not backing up your own claims. This a reason you don’t get any level of respect from me, not that it matters to you.
But here are a few more examples. Some of them may be behind a pay wall. But when discussing theory, we look at actual theory. Not you likely misreading one source with a low validity claim.
Anthropology & Education Quarterly
Volume 39. Issue 3. September 2008 (Pages 247 – 265)
Black Metropolis and Mental Life: Beyond the “Burden of ‘Acting White’ ” Toward a Third Wave of Critical Racial Studies: A. A. Akom
Choo, H. Y., & Ferree, M. M. (2010). Practicing intersectionality in sociological research: A critical analysis of inclusions, interactions, and institutions in the study of inequalities. Sociological Theory, 28(2), 129-129-149. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01370.x
Shields, S. A. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 59(5-6), 301-301-311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8
Hankivsky, O., & Cormier, R. (2011). Intersectionality and public policy: Some lessons from existing models. Political Research Quarterly, 64(1), 217-217-229. doi:10.1177/1065912910376385
Lindsay, K. N.(Re)reading intersectionality and identity in the discourse on marginalized black men. Dissertation Abstracts International, A: The Humanities and Social Sciences
From that one “intersectionality suggests a political reality in which we inhabit identities, including racialized gender identities, that can both facilitate and impede our efforts to resist domination”. Yeah, sounds pretty universal there brosef. /sarcasm.
Kirk, J. (2009). Using intersectionality to examine the new complexities of work identities and social class. Sociology Compass, 3(2), 234-234-248. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2009.00196.x
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9(1), 67-67-85. doi:10.1177/1464700108086364
Yuval-Davis, N. (2002). Reflecting on intersectionality — gender, ethnicity, race and class. Paper presented at the International Sociological Association
Gressgard, R. (2008). Mind the gap: Intersectionality, complexity and ‘the event’. Theory and Science, 10(1)
McCall, L. (2005). The complexity of intersectionality. Signs, 30(3), 1771-1771-1800.
@Toy Soldier – I’m not mocking you. I’m trying to figure out what it is that you want. However, you seem to interpret just about anything a feminist says to you as an act of cruelty and/or mockery, which seems to be part of the problem here. Maybe this is the reason you keep interpreting things that way.
“I expect feminists to respond negatively to things that does not fit their worldview.”
You expect it and so you see it everywhere. And also what Bagelsan said – my mental understanding of the concept “us” contains lots of men. It just doesn’t contain men who don’t understand that women are people and/or who wish to hurt me.
I’m as baffled as to what Rev is getting at as everyone else, just for the record. I’m really not sure how anyone gets from “dog kills child, this is tragic” to “evil mommy clearly decided to use a dog to commit infanticide, and we know this because the matriarchy does things like that”.
Pit bull attacks 3-week-old baby! (Warning: graphic violence)
I think the Rev. just can’t accept the fact that we think women commit abuse as well. If we did, what would he have to argue about?
Well that’s the thing, y’see, the Rev can’t understand how everyone is NOT jumping to the same conclusion that he has reached and publicly denouncing the evil mommy, and he’s chalking it up to “The Silence of the Matriarchy”.
Snowy: Cassandra’s PTSD comment is a good place to start.
Bagelsan: Thanks for demonstrating my point. Instead of honestly and objectively considering my criticism of feminism, you resort to talking points. Unfortunately, you cannot claim feminism does not rely on an “us versus them” dichotomy when the feminist position is that men as a collective oppress women as a collective, and that it is only by changing men’s collective dominance will women finally be equal.
Flib: At no point have any of you claimed the theory you presented was only a theory and not at all representative of the general feminist position. But that is irrelevant since you admit to not reading the link I provided. That proves that you engage in intellectual dishonesty, and ironically, lied about my position. How can you claim I made “fake” arguments if you never looked at my evidence? Thanks for proving how disingenuous you are. And by the way, I cannot read links you did not provide.
CassandraSays: How do you expect to figure someone out if you keep misrepresenting their positions, insulting them, and then questioning their mental state? That does not sound someone trying to figure a person out. It sounds like someone slandering another person. What you did goes to show why so many people dislike feminism and feminists, and why feminists have such a hard time with men’s activists. But I simply enjoy the irony of feminists doing the very things they accuse men’s rights activists of doing. The two groups are so similar that if you took their comments and flipped the genders you could never tell which was which.
Um, yeah, except for the part where some MRAs want to remove the vocal chords of little girls. Or the one where some of them advocate throwing Molotov cocktails at court officials who displease them. Or the one where some of them want to deny women the right to vote.
Other than minor details like that, it’s exactly the same!
Toysoldier: I commented on your statements knowing that we were discussing feminist theory. You linked to only a blog. You provided one source of evidence. You have no excuse for this. How did I reach the conclusion that you are a liar? Because your position is based in faulty knowledge. Do note, that at first I stated you did not hold the knowledge you thought you did. I am calling you a liar NOW because you systematically reject or avoid any information that provides an empirical counter to your failed attempt at discourse.
You are avoiding the subject that you hold no validity in your statements Toysoldier. I have given reasons for why I didn’t bother to read your source because it pails in comparison to the vast quantities of literature that already exist on the subject that are about actual theory. A single source is not a representative body of work. Now I could look over your single source and engage over that, where I imagine you likely have misinterpreted, but that isn’t what I am bothering to contest with your statements. This isn’t intellectually dishonest of me, it is in fact a valid reason for why I have discounted your single source. You, on the other hand, still have not answered for what I have stated above.
Also, have you ever heard of citations? Clearly not. I gave you clues. It is not my job to provide you direct links, even though I have already given you an applied study that you still never read yourself (That is intellectually rigorous as academic literature, in that it holds greater validity as a single source compared to others plus it’s own citations to create a knowledge stream). You still have failed to source any evidence of feminist theory being monolithic in its development of knowledge.
Actually, I’m pretty sure you don’t even know what intellectual honesty is. Again, this is where the crux of the issue with you is. You aren’t intellectually honest because your convictions are not in proportion to the valid evidence. Which is what I have been saying the whole time, you don’t have the knowledge nor any significant evidence for your claims on theory. I’ve given you multiple sources of theory in both practice and as theoretical that do not do the things that you say it does. You do not hold intellectual honesty due to avoiding valid data.
Do note, you are the one making the claim that feminist theory is monolithic, applies universals, and fits to one standard. Your only source on that claim is a single feminist 101 blog. Do you see why this doesn’t actually fly? Before you even get into trying to run away from answers again, can you AT LEAST try to answer this? Or how about you answer for your misuse of the no true Scotsman fallacy? Can you answer for that?
As an official Scottish person I object to the good name of my people being even vaguely associated with Toy Soldier and his conspiracy theories about feminism.
Also, isn’t oversimplification kind of the nature of 101 blogs? They’re not exactly aiming for nuance, for the most part.
PS – BTW, Toy Solider, this would be an example of me actually mocking you.
Nope, sorry, not buying it. I don’t see it. Please show me where either Cassandra or really anybody here, anyone at all, has harassed, belittled, or mocked you. If you don’t I will be forced to conclude that you’re just making shit up as usual.
Jinx! There’s one! Prior to that, however, there has been nothing.
@ Snowy – Well, to be fair, I am sort of gently mocking him right at the end here. Just not in the sense that he keeps claiming that we are, ie. I’m mocking his ideas, not him as a person.
Double jinx! You owe me a soda! :3
Just a soda? Wow, you’re a cheap date. If you’re a woman this may cause me to mock MRA theories some more.
Oversimplification is the nature of many 101 blogs. I’m trying to discuss theory here and TS is only going off on a single blog. I’m curious how one makes a leap in logic from a single blog post to being indicative of the entirety of feminism and feminist theory forever, from 1950’s to now. From there, then claim it as a conspiracy by a collusive group of feminists to fix logic errors in previous discourse so they can… somehow continue oppressing men? Remain a matriarchy? Prevent dudes from getting laid? I find the latter to be most silly, sex isn’t something that is looked down on by most modern feminism.
Never mind the epistemological nature of research and how knowledge is generated. Never mind all this other evidence of theory put into practice, being discussed with rigour, and discourse itself ever-changing. Nope. Just one blog post. That is everything that is wrong about the whole of feminism. All that from a single blog post. Maybe add in some hatred for spice.
That’s like saying someone trying to educate a group of people has an “us vs. them” dichotomy. The patriarchy is not a group of men, dude. There is no “them” to oppose; instead, feminism is opposition to a set of societal ideals and norms, and to the mindset that many women and men alike have that perpetuates these ideals and norms.
Oh for fuck’s sake!
Toysoldier,
You just see what you want to see. You are trying to interpret even the tiniest detail as somehow proving you point. It’s very…tiring. What exactly are you trying to achieve?
And yeah, it’s seriously not okay that you are attempting to guilt-trip people with your experiences. Apparently, the fact that we believed you when you said you were abused somehow means that we have to accept all of your other claims without any question, or else we are not being honest or are mocking/belittling you.
Besides, I don’t think there was a single person here who voiced disbelief in that regard, so I don’t understand why you have to bring it up ever so often.
On another note, several people in this comment thread have also mentioned that they were abused, and no one used the fact that you didn’t have a word of sympathy as an argument against you – because that would be derailing, and doesn’t have much to do with the discussion at hand. So please try to give us the same courtesy.
And also try to stick to the actual arguments instead of arguing against straw men, and educate yourself on issues like the various branches of feminism, privilege and intersectionality, before arguing against them.
We don’t disagree with you because we are feminists and you don’t like feminism. We disagree with you because you are factually wrong, and because you refuse to listen.
If I were to apply the logic Toy Soldier is using to MRAs I could claim that they all, each and every one of them, are in favor of rape, or domestic violence. But I’m not going to do that, because it’s ridiculous. It’s true to say that some MRAs support violence. It’s not true to say that all of them do. It’s true to say that some feminists are genuinely anti-male. (Daly would be a good example) It’s not true to say that misandry is a core principle of feminism. If it was, why would we all be hanging out on this blog, which is run by a man? We all seem to like him just fine.
@Cassandra
It’s because we trained him to be a good little mangina.
Exactly.
Feminists who are anti-male (or racist, transphobic etc.) usually get called out on it by other feminists. Again, I think this is the main problem with the MRM. The ones who are spewing the really, really hateful and misogynist stuff may be only a handful guys – the problem is that they rarely get criticised -or in the worst case, actually get cheered on- for it by fellow MRAs.
And that really doesn’t cast a positive light on the MRM as a whole.
Toy Soldier:
Which is it? Do you hold feminism responsible for your abuse or not?
Now, abuse doesn’t get you out of being told you are factually wrong when you are factually wrong, being called a liar when you are saying something demonstrably untrue, or being mocked when you say something worthy of mockery. And I think it’s safe to say that the consensus of opinion here is that your aunt is/was an abuser, and feminism was the excuse rather than the reason. None of that, however, means that anyone here doubts or approves of you having been abused — and I don’t recall if you’ve said as much in the last 13 pages, but it’s certainly the subtext of your comments taken in aggregate.
Amnesia:
@Cassandra
“It’s because we trained him to be a good little mangina.”
“If you can train a pidgeon you can train a man.” Statement by Rutgers University Professor, Anthropologist, author and feminist Dr. Helen Fisher Phd. on the Today Show, regarding the book “How to Train Your Man Like Shamu.”
I guess since men are animals to many women, they must feel obligated to “train” us. What is the feminist strategy to “untrain” boys like Demond Reed’s cousins?
@Flib:
“A no true scotsman requires something without reference to a specific object rule and a statement that “well, not all feminists are the same”. While the latter is true, not all feminists are the same, we aren’t discussing feminists here. We are discussing theory.”
But feminism, like the feminist definition of Patriarchy at 101, is a theory. Betty Freidan had some differences with “mainstream feminism” as did Christna Hoff Sommers. Would you still consider them feminists? If not, why?
….uhm, Rev?
Dr. Fisher even stated herself that she is “definitely not a feminist”. Those are her own words.
Seriously, are you just trolling at this point?
Good one Kollege Kat, ya got me. I guess I should have known that given her making statements like “[e]ach gender has a different way of falling in love.” “Loving feminist” is almost an oxymoron compared to “angry feminist” or misandrist feminist. Training men must be a universal trait of feminists AND regular women.
By the way, the question still stands. What is the feminist strategy to “untrain” boys like Demond Reed’s cousins?
Thanks for the article. I like her a lot more now.
Good one Kollege Kat, ya got me. I guess I should have known that given her making statements like “[e]ach gender has a different way of falling in love.” “Loving feminist” is almost an oxymoron compared to “angry feminist” or “misandrist feminist.” Training men must be a universal trait of feminists AND regular women.
By the way, the question still stands. What is the feminist strategy to “untrain” boys like Demond Reed’s cousins?
Thanks for the article. I like her a lot more now.
Sorry for the double posting. My comment stayed in the reply box and I inadvertently posted it again.
If women train men, then how come you aren’t trained? How come tons of men hate or do horrible things to women?
Some mind control.
And Rev is going back and forth again. Oy.
Oh, I absolutely don’t agree with the article. And I’m not the only feminist, either. I think I shouldn’t be surprised that you buy into gender-essentialist bogus like that, but I dunno. I find that gender essentialism hurts men and women,
I also don’t really consider Christna Hoff Sommers to be a feminist. Not only because she is a right-winger, but some of her views are outright anti-feminist. There are several posts on Alas! A Blog alone, criticising her. (she even got her own tag, check it out!)
Betty Friedan was certainly important to the movement, even though her views still had issues with race, homosexuality and class. So yeah, I consider her a feminist, because for that time her views were pretty progressive.
You see, amazingly, feminism moved on and didn’t actually stay the same for decades!
Seriously, you don’t exactly seem very up to date when it comes to feminism.
How about you start with David’s Antidotes To Boobery blogroll?
Also, what’s with your weird “training” shtick all of a sudden? Are you aware that Amnesia was just parodying MRAs, and their beliefs that
feminist menmanginas are just the trained lapdogs of feminist women?^
@Rev.
@Holly,
but don’t you know, women actually trained them to DO those horrible things! Because women love assholes, amirite?
(note to Rev: this was sarcasm. Women generally don’t want to be treated horribly, and it’s assumed there aren’t any women with mind control powers either)
“Also, what’s with your weird “training” shtick all of a sudden? Are you aware that Amnesia was just parodying MRAs, and their beliefs that feminist men manginas are just the trained lapdogs of feminist women?”
I doubt you will get a straight answer. Best case scenario: Rev links to another article that has the only word, “Woman” or “Feminist” in the title and uses it as a case of the Silence of the Matriarchy.
It’s like the Silence of the Lambs, but with a mother in place of Lecter and all children as the lambs
He puts the lotion on his skin or he gets the “clicker”* again.
*I like humane man-training, thank you.
It’s like the Silence of the Lambs, but with a mother in place of Lecter and all children as the lambs
ALL CHILDREN
I have seen a book on using animal techniques on your partner — ostensibly gender-neutral, but written by a straight woman.
However, the author doesn’t claim to be a feminist. I think there’s some circularity going on here, where the proposition that feminism is about female supremacy is used to label instances of female supremacy as feminist, and the proposition that female supremacy is feminist is used to show that feminism is about female supremacy.
I actually have applied one principle from dog training to human relationships:
When you give a dog a command, you should wait at least 30 seconds for it to respond, rather than immediately repeating the command. Same with when you ask someone something.
Of course that’s also common, if not commonly offered, courtesy. No one likes being pestered.
Rev: Kollege Messerschmitt answers your statement towards me. Which comes back to part of the reason why I’ve been hounding Toy Soldier so much. Feminism is actually more accurately stated as Feminisms, as in there is a multitude of discourse (visably so) within the movement. That also, discourse changes over time and does evolve, but not in the way that TS describes it (Some collusion of oppressors). Feminism is not the same as it might have been 30 years ago, and is an evolving movement that has multiple discourses, some that don’t always agree with each other, some that are very dated, some that are likely even flawed (Especially if you look at the dated ones). Discourse tends not to be static, in nearly any epistemological analysis of fields. Especially in the current era.
CassandraSays: Remember how feminists say that a handful bad feminists do not represent of all feminists? The same logic applies men’s activists. And perhaps it is just me, but I think people actually committing violence is much worse than people writing violent comments in jest. Feminists on this thread already claim that men’s activists as group support violence, so I am not sure what your point is. Last time I checked, the “I can’t be biased against X group because I hang out with X” was a logical fallacy. And if you have tell me you are mocking me, you are not doing it right.
Flib: Now you are moving the goalposts, and ironically so. Allow to correct my previous comment. You did link to one source. But just one. I assume your rule does not apply to you, right? At any rate, the source only states that male nurses experience tokenism that is different from what females experiences. It says nothing about privilege. And you are being intellectually dishonest because you are, “… knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully [fail] to check, and then [act] as though [your] position is confirmed…” Again, that is rather pathetic.
Bagelsan: Just for clarify, feminists do not believe men as a collective oppress women? Feminists do not believe in “male privilege” or male dominance? They do not assert that by changing men’s behavior that things will improve for women?
Kollege Messerschmitt: Hershele made a comment and I informed Hershele that I do not care whether feminists believe me or not. My issue is that feminists keep misrepresenting my positions, which you are still doing. You can disagree with me without insulting me, using my experience to deride and discredit my positions, or claiming I am uninformed because I disagree with you. I suggest you drop the straw man arguments and other fallacies and engage in a honest discussion. Can you provide a recent example of feminists (other than those from No Seriouisly What About Teh Menz) calling other feminists out on misandry?
Hershele Ostropoler: An ideology is not a person, and can therefore not bear responsibility. However, it can change people’s behavior for better or for worse. Now, believing me does not get feminists out of being told that they are misrepresenting my positions, being called out for questioning my understanding and recounting of my experiences, or being called out for using my experiences to insult and mock me to discredit my positions. As I noted before, I do not care whether feminists believe me, although the subtext of their comments suggest they may not, but I do care that feminists claim I argued something I did not. If you do not agree that feminism can cause violent or bad behavior, you do not get to claim I said feminism condones, endorsed, or condones abuse.
“Clicker” is also slang for “carpet licker” (and it rhymes!), so technically you just implied you’d force a boy or man to go down on you. Not exactly humane. The smell gets in the nose and lingers.
Well, Toy Soldier, apparently I do have to tell you when I’m mocking you in order to distinguish those occasions on which I actually am mocking you from all the other occasions on which you assume I’m mocking you because feminists are just evil that way. I’m trying to help you out a bit, since reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong points.
Remind me why no women want to sleep with you, again?
@toysoldier: Oh, look, you are specifically ignoring all my statements to change what is being talked about again and refusing to answer my questions. Good job bro, just keep digging that hole.
Also, seriously, I’m laughing at your attempts to call me intellectually dishonest. Good job AVOIDING specific information. Good job FAILING to address my reasons in the first place. Good job FAILING to look at where your whole statements fall apart. Did you even see what I put about validity?
I asked you several questions about the basics of your argument. I have pointed out where it fails. Still not addressing it I see. Still failing. Pro-tip: “We are both assholes” is not a very strong argument on your part, never mind that my “rule” (Or rather, your failure to back up your claims) was already dealt with in terms of sources.
Also, at this point, I haven’t even linked to one source. I’ve provided multiple sources. That are more rigorous then your supposed single one, that applies intersectionality in a way that does not fit your claims. Nor am I making a grand scheme of conspiracy theory, like you are doing, from one single source. Nor am I making a catch all claim to define all of Feminism under one heading. Funny how you still haven’t addressed that.
You do know what Tokenism is right? Never mind that the one source I linked was as a place to start (And that others also brought in other sources that disagreed with your assertion). Never mind that the source I linked spoke specifically of discrimination where privileges are not always held. Never mind that it is part of the greater body of work that specifically disprove your faulty claims. Geez, have you ever looked at the knowledge inflow and outflow of papers? I’m guessing no since you lack any intellectual rigour. Follow the path, o padawan of the internet and discourse.
At least when I was insulting you, I was taking apart the entirety of your ideas. You still have failed to address your inconsistent logical faults. Go back and address what I’ve actually put.
Also, I’m pretty sure that isn’t actually what Bagelsan implied, so once again we’re back to the issue of Toy Soldier not being very good at reading comprehension.
Because they would rather have sex with me instead.
Toysoldier: You are just determined to be an asshole, aren’t you? There are very few thing one can go through in life that will excuse living in an asshole moment – I don’t cut that slack for my war hero brother in law who can barely walk because of nerve damage in his leg (fifteen bullets will do that) and who’s on a fucking HIT LIST. What you went through (horrible as it was) does not excuse you from simple human decency.
I’m fairly certain that there are many women for whom “pedantic blowhard who thinks feminism is the boogeyman” is not what they are looking for in a sexual partner.
According to urban dictionary (your number one source for slang), clicker as an alt to “carpet licker” applies only to lesbians. Lesbian men are a pretty damned small class, I highly doubt you are one of them.
Also, your “pussy is nasty” jeer does make one wonder who would ever want to have sex with you (except perhaps a cis dude…)
I’ll have my fetus with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
And here I was thinking, “Clicker?, why would you want to give him the remote control?”
Clicker? I thought that was a derogatory slang term for robots, like in Top Ten.
CassandraSays: My response to Bagelsan is called a “quip”. I would explain it to you, but reading comprehension does not seem to be one of your strong points.
Flib: Right. I specifically refer to points from the your source, so I am avoiding specific information. The portion of the source available to the public does not mention anything about privilege at all, let alone where it is not always held. Furthermore, tokenism does not refer to privilege. It refers to the false impression of inclusion. More so, my contention is that feminists assert that males always possess “male privilege”, despite that there are clear instances in which they do not. Are you arguing that your source is an example of a case in which a group of males do not possess “male privilege” or that feminists do not assert that men always possess “male privilege”? And put the lightsaber down before you hurt yourself, Jar Jar.
KathleenB: I am sure your brother-in-law is a decent person. I am not sure you share that quality.
darksidecat: So if I got this right: feminists joking about torturing men and boys = cool, non-feminist joking about vaginal smells = man only men should have sex with, and men’s activists joking about torturing feminists = raving sexists whose whole movement supports violence against women?
@darsidecat:
“(except perhaps a cis dude…)
What a chauvinette slur. Kind of like Behar’s Leonardo was a flamer comment.
@xtra:
“And here I was thinking, “Clicker?, why would you want to give him the remote control?”
Exactly, another bastion of male domination. And we never stop to ask for directions either.
@Toysoldier:
“Not exactly humane. The smell gets in the nose and lingers.”
If it smells like fish, that’s my dish. If it smells like cologne, leave it alone.
Words to live by…
Toysoldier: I called you out on asshole behavior and I’m a bad person? Or I’m a feminist and I’m a bad person? I’m a gamer… sometimes bitch, happily married, have two cats, read fanfiction, would like to smack whoever invented menstrual cramps? What, exactly, makes me a bad person other than disagreeing with you in public?
What a chauvinette slur. Kind of like Behar’s Leonardo was a flamer comment.
How is cisgender a slur?
Toy Soldier:
I can quote you saying that. So I “get to claim” it regardless of what I do or do not agree to.
I would be surprised if you can quote anyone using your experiences to insult and mock you to discredit your positions (see, I can copy and paste too).
@ Toy Soldier – You really need to learn some conversational rebuttals other than “I know you are but what am I?”. That one is so very 2005.
@Kathleen – Pointing out that Toy Soldier is being kind of a prat makes you a vile, horrible person. You really should stop that before he incorporates it into his grand theory of how feminists are persecuting him by not agreeing with him.
CassandraSays: I’ll keep that in mind. And I’m sure MrB will be overjoyed to know that I’m contributing to the oppression and persecution of men by pointing out asshole behavior.
Toysoldier: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2095160,
http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/brines/risman.pdf
http://asr.sagepub.com/content/75/6/894.full
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2578353
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/sp.2002.49.2.258
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120769
Right, you don’t read sources and what cites what. I got it, you are terrible with information flow and dealing with concepts. No need to dig your hole deeper. I’ll note, you still haven’t addressed your failures, and logic inconsistency. There are multiple levels of intersectionality. What you claim as universals are describing systemic problems. Again, it’s not a universal. Again, we see cases where male privilege isn’t entirely a benefit. This is what it is an example of. Where is your case for all of feminism? Still don’t see it. Your assertions are still not supported by anything but the bullshit that comes from your mouth. You are still up at bat here, padawan, start swinging or you will never get to first base.
What, you’re allowing Mr B to have opinions of his own? Really now, if you keep this up the entire foundation of Toy Soldier’s universe may crumble.
Wait, I’m pretty sure Hershele is a pro-feminist masculist but isn’t actually a feminist. Did you guys make him an Honorary Mangina when I stepped out or what?
Holly P.:
“If women train men, then how come you aren’t trained?”
But I am. My mother did train me, by instilling fear on many levels. After the way she used me to hurt my father I have a deeply ingrained fear of intimacy with women. My dictionary’s definition of misogyny is hatred, dislike or mistrust of women. Maternal mistrust has made me into a misogamist. Not that I hate marriage, I just fear it.
“How come tons of men hate or do horrible things to women?”
There are a lot worse mothers than mine out there. Look at Demond Reed’s aunt. It’s all in the “training.”
That’s why I asked earlier. What’s the feminist strategy to “untrain” boys like Demond’s cousins, who were taught murderous sadistic behavior by a woman.
If you want to stop violence against “WOMEN & GIRLS” I suggest you start there.
There are a lot worse mothers than mine out there. Look at Demond Reed’s aunt. It’s all in the “training.”
Yes, all men who do horrible things to women were trained to do that by women, and “untraining” them is women’s job, so if they aren’t “untrained” women have nobody to blame but themselves!
Cassandra: Sometimes, I let him pick the movie we watch! And get his opinion on what we should have for dinner!
KathleenB:
“How is cisgender a slur?”
The term was “cis dude” which sounds to me like a gender stereotype of effeminate man.
The term was “cis dude” which sounds to me like a gender stereotype of effeminate man.
How, short of drinking a lot of tequila, do you possibly get that interpretation?
@_@
Ha.
Ha.
Hahahahaaaaaahahaha
It means a man who was born with a male body, you dumbfuck.