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.
Then he ought to be introduced to the concept of ‘correlation does not equal causation.’ It’s really not that difficult. And possibly post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
@Cassandra Says:
“Also feminism does not have doctrines, as it not a religion.”
From Dictionary.com:
fem·i·nism /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
Feminism may not be a religion but it is a doctrine.
@Flib:
“To ask the question, Can men mother, presuming that gender itself is a social
structure leads us to look at all the ways that gender constrains men’s mothering and
under what conditions those change.”
Good question. Equally as good as ,”can women father?”
Mind = Blown.
Oh, wait… no it’s not.
Is that supposed to be some sort of epiphany or “Gotcha” that’s going to amaze us with your trancendent logic?
If you’re going to just JAQ off, at least bring a gym sock to clean up after yourself.
CassandraSays: Doctrine is the set of principles, positions, or teachings, so yes, feminism has a doctrine. It is even in the dictionary definition. A good place to see examples of the misandry in feminist doctrine the often-linked-to-by-feminists site, Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog.
Snowy: Bagelsan’s comment does not address either point. It is just a bunch of rhetorical, unrelated questions. Darksidecat does not address my actual question. Instead, darksidecat presents a straw man argument and argues that the straw position is false. I never argued that because my aunt is a feminists every feminist supports and advocates abuse, or that being a feminist leads to abuse. So I will ask both questions again: can an ideology, feminism specifically, cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence? This is a simple yes or no question.
KathleenB: I do not think you insulted me; you did insult me, as you did in your response to me. Since you are confused, let me help you: “asshole” is an insult. If you do not intend to insult someone, do not use that word. Contrary to what you might think, you are not a repository of universal wisdom, and no matter what you think, you do not know why my aunt did what she did. As for your question, my assertion is that feminism so influenced my aunt’s views that she became hostile towards males, and that hostility and hatred led to her committing violence. I cannot say whether she would not have behaved that way had she not become a feminist, although it is possible. So I have committed no logical fallacy.
Flib: I did not miss anything. Nothing in that paper specifically referred to privilege. If you attach that to the views expressed in the paper, that is your addition. As the paper reads, it does not question whether men at any point as disprivileged or oppressed as men or whether men can lose their privilege at some point. The position appears to suggest that men are always the dominate force and always possess power and privilege as men. If you want to prove that feminists do not hold that position, you need to pick different evidence, because what you presented supports my assertion.
Saying someone is acting like and asshole =/= calling them one.
Toysoldier: Discussions of intersectionality. Search and find function, 22 instances of the word “privilege”, 60 instances of “inequality”, 7 of “intersectionality”. I could search for more related terms within privilege and intersectionality theories. Oh, hey look, more mounting evidence that you will lie in order to support your failed assertions. You are really trying so hard, and failing SO HARD. Like I said, you have interpretive biases. So, no, don’t try and twist here. I’ve already addressed how you’ve misinterpreted the paper, so it’s not like you’ve actually got a defense of yourself here (Not that you had a logical basis to begin with).
Also, it did point out where men would not necessarily benefit due to intersection, but you can’t seem to accept that it is primarily based in race. The position is that men are systematically the dominant force, not always. I’ve mentioned systematic vs. universal several times, brosef. You keep fucking that up. Also, if you want to argue that men are not systematically dominant, that’s another “good fucking luck”. Look at basic institutions of power, and compare gender ratio’s. You are not going to win that argument due to fact. Not that you’ve EVER provided anything empirical on your part. What I presented does not support your assertion. Your specific and intentional misreading and denial on your part is what makes you think it does. But I’ve shot down your denial, you are refusing to engage with what I listed. Again, shows what your priorities are and how you back down every time you get called on for anything empirical. Should I call you a coward now too on top of being a liar? I think that might be to mean of me.
So, really, toysoldier, go take the advice given here and stop being a failed troll.
Rev: Which is a fair question in of itself, when looking at how Mother and Father roles are specifically constructed in the realm of parenting. What is the distinctions between the social constructions of “Fatherhood” and “Motherhood” and can those same roles be fulfilled as a whole by opposite genders?
This is a separate question then looking into how those roles got constructed. I suggested way earlier some of the sociology of childhood studies and books that are out there that goes into further anthropological detail.
“Is that supposed to be some sort of epiphany or “Gotcha” that’s going to amaze us with your trancendent logic?”
Yes. Aren’t you sorry you ever called yourself a feminist now? What are we at now, about the hundredth attempted gotcha? They’re not getting any more impressive over time.
I see Toy Soldier is back to “I know you are but what am I” again. He always does default to that when he can’t come up with anything better.
@Flib – He’s never going to give up as long as we keep feeding him, you know. The more I see of Toy Soldier the more he reminds me of the cop from Les Miserables. In his mind feminism seems to be the thief that must be punished. I can even see how he came to that belief, psychologically speaking, but it doesn’t make him any more correct or any less impervious to logic.
The point several people have been trying to make is: neither do you. You have come up with an explanation (feminism made her do it) that these same several people have pointed out to you is inconsistent with the aims of feminism.
So your supposition that feminism made your aunt a violent, abusive person is probably incorrect. (I can’t rule out the possibility that she’s a complete, self-obsessed whackjob who has twisted her understanding of feminism into some kind of anti-man crusade, but again: feminism didn’t do that to her, she did it to herself.)
Regardless of what caused your aunt’s violence, the only person responsible for it is her. Blame your aunt. And stop being so self-destructive. Wallowing in your victimhood does NOT help you recover from the abuse, as many of us other victims of abuse have learned.
Your continuing attempts to make all feminists, everywhere, responsible for your aunt’s actions is not only tiresome, it’s stupid, wasteful, and keeps you mired in your pain instead of recovering from it. Some things you could do that’s more productive than bitching at everyone online who disagrees with you:
– get some therapy
– join a survivor’s group
– join a group that actively works to protect children from abusers
– join a group that actively works to prevent abusers from having freedom to abuse
– write a book about your experiences
Toysoldier:
Uhm, I wasn’t talking about you talking about your experiences, but about you doing the same ‘Feminism does this and that and if you should ever disagree with me, you don’t believe that I was abused, neener-neener’ schtick.
That is what I meant when I said that you are using your experiences for emotional manipulation – it seems like an assholish thing to do, especially since several people on here have said that they were abused as well.
And yeah… you may have referred to the experience in passing, but your bring it up again and again over the course of the argument, for example when people disagree with you and you want to make their disagreement about whether or not they believe you, even though it had nothing to do with that.
Uhm, yeah, people usually don’t use “but you don’t sell burgers!” as proof that a restaurant is bad, and probably wouldn’t complain if the restaurant staff told them that they should try Burger King if they wanted to eat burgers.
So yeah, that’s some amazing dishonesty right there. What would be the goal of excluding a blog run by mostly feminists that is focused on misandry, just because it’s the “obvious” example?
You keep moving the goal posts, and it makes your arguments look more and more silly, mate.
And yes, I think those examples are pretty good at showing the position of many feminists on misandry. You really don’t seem to understand that sometimes, people who are members of a certain movement do assholish things, because they are assholes, and it has nothing to do with the movement they are part of – especially if the movement is explicitly against that assholish thing they did, by and large. That’s where your “logic” fails.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Again:
Correlation does not imply causation.
So, where is the blog run by MRAs who focus on calling out misogyny, Toysoldier?
Toysoldier: When did I ever say I have a fucking clue why your aunt abused you? I’m saying that her abuse and her feminism don’t necessarily have anything to do with the other.Step back from your eternal victimhood meme and try to think that your aunt might just have been a horrible person and would have abused you whether she was a feminist or not.
And I know damned well that I don’t possess universal wisdom, thanks. The world constantly shows me that I know jack shit in the great scheme of things.
How is this entire debate still going on? Hasn’t it been established already that Toysoldier is being dishonest and an asshole to people who offered help to him for his abuse?
Really, man, I with Kollege, Kathleen and everyone else: You’re confusing words and doing the same shit over and over, just with different words. Come clean: What are you trying to accomplish here?
Oh wow I have no idea, maybe he’s trying for the longest manboobz comment thread record or something?
Oh great, well that’s easy then. No.
KathleenB: It is still an insult to compare a person to an asshole, and as is implying that a person lacks “simple human decency”. I addressed the possibilities in a previous comment. Anything is possible, but I am dealing with likelihood. It is unlikely that feminism had no influence on my aunt’s behavior.
Flib: I stand corrected. The paper does mention privilege, although only 9 times in the paper and once in a source. However, the author does not challenge the notion that men always possess privilege. If you think the author does, please point out the comment. Systemic and universal mean the same thing. If you were not so busy trying (and failing) to smart you would have caught that a while ago. I heard it all before, so call me whatever you want.
red_locker: People here offered me help? I do enjoy how feminists get more elaborate with their distortions. Next you will claim that all of you rescued me.
CassandraSays: The Gotcha! complaints did not work all that well for Sarah Palin, and she makes a lot more sense than feminists. If you are so uninformed that you do not know the definition of your own ideology, that sounds like a personal problem.
Unimaginative: No ideology makes a person do anything. A person’s actions are their own decisions, but that does not mean that their decisions cannot be influenced by an ideology. Feminists would agree with me if I stated feminism caused my aunt to become non-violent. They just disagree that their ideology could cause someone to become violent. They have no problem arguing that other ideologies, men’s activism, can cause people to become violent. I understand why feminists resort to this double standard, yet there is an inherent contradiction in feminist thinking. I also understand why feminists keep throwing out straw man arguments about my positions, yet that does mean I must accept those fallacies. As for your other comments, that kind of condescending nonsense is precisely why I am not a feminist.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Look, feminists decided to make an issue out of my comments and then used my experiences to try to discredit my positions. That is an emotionally manipulative tactic, but unfortunately for feminists it does not work on me because I simply do not care. If feminists call out misandry so often, you should not need to cite a blog that specifically does so. You should be able to find examples on any feminist site. You answered my first question, but not my second. Why would examples of feminists condoning or engaging in misandry not represent the views of many feminists? Here is where your “logic” fails: it is possible that people who do assholish things may do so as a result of the influence of a movement there are involved in, even when the movement is explicitly against what they do. And that position is not fallacious. Your final question is a red herring. Men’s activist blogs have nothing to do with feminists challenging misandry.
Snowy: So to be clear, you do not think that white nationalism can cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence?
If you want to talk about white nationalism, why did you ask specifically about feminism? I answered your question about feminism. Of course, you knew that and are trying to prove what exactly? If you had asked specifically about white nationalism, the answer would have been yes, I do believe that specific ideology can cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence. If you had asked about pacifism, the answer would be no, I don’t think that specific ideology can cause those things. So, what is your point?
He could just be this stupid and/or possibly broken. Get help. And if the problem is stupidity, get fucked. You’ve made what, 50 comments, all lacking in any meaningful substance? Fuck off already.
Toysoldier: I want you to carefully go look at the definitions.
Systemic: of or pertaining to a system.
System: 1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
2. any assemblage or set of correlated members: a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters.
3. an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
4. a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
5. any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.
Universal: 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
These are not the same things, nor are they in common usage. Your claim of universal is a description of “and this will always be this way”. Systemic means “The current system as it is now, an overall multitude of problems”. Systemic deals with the parts and components of a whole. Universal is always. Sorry bro, you are bad at language. So, nope, shot down there. They are not the same thing. Nice try. It’s not a matter of trying to look smart. It’s only a matter of showing how misinformed you are. Let me assure you, you are seriously one misinformed individual who still has yet to operationalize their terms or be even remotely consistent.
Now talk about goal post shifting, AGAIN, Toysoldier. Geez, you are such a hypocrite. You are looking for challenges to the notion that men are systemically dominant? I thought you were looking for how feminism stated men were “ALWAYS IN ALL CASES ALWAYS ALWAYS PRIVILEGED”. You’ve sure toned that down. There are exception cases, I’ve given them to you. But you refuse to accept evidence of race and occupational challenges, and how they function differently. You haven’t actually dismissed the sources. The best you’ve managed to do is intentionally misinterpret statements. I’ve also yet to see you challenge the empirical backing behind how patriarchy is a dominant force. So, yeah, great fucking job you are doing there. You got nothing on it.
Also, you ignore a good chunk of all the challenges to you still. I imagine you should be used to being called a liar, since you do it so god damn often. Red Locker and others are correct. You are a waste of web space in your intentional lying, false engagement, misinterpretative biases, and refusing to construct any coherent statements.
Snowy: Actually, I asked about ideologies in general and feminism specifically, hence the commas. My point is that feminists conveniently exclude their ideology without explanation, and despite clear examples showing the ideology does lead to fear, hatred, discrimination, and potentially violence.
Flib: I am mildly impressed. Even with the definition in your face you still got it wrong. Universal pertains to all or the whole, but does not mean “and this will always be this way”. It means “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general” or “a trait, characteristic, or property … that can be possessed in common…”, which is what systemic means, and precisely how feminists use that term. I only asked you to support your assertion that feminists do not claim that all men always possess privilege and cannot lose it. You keep dancing around that, for reasons I do not understand, even though your own evidence supports my position. For your edification, a hypocrite is a person to pretends to hold views, feelings, or standards they actually do not. That would more accurately describe feminists. Stop trying to insult, and insult me.
Shorter Toysoldier: I know what made my aunt an abuser, and nothing you say will EVAR convince me that it wasn’t feminism. Because correlation is causation. And, of course, James Franco.
Oh I’m sorry, here I thought you were asking about a specific ideology, feminism, hence the commas. In any case, I already answered your question about ideologies in general and feminism specifically in my last comment, so, glad we got that out of the way!
Uh, what? Really not sure what you’re talking about here. Conveniently exclude their ideology without explanation from what? And what clear examples are you talking about? I haven’t seen any.
And once again the circular logic has led us back to – Toy Soldier’s aunt abused him and she was a feminist, thus we have a clear example of how feminist ideology leads to fear, hatred, etc.
Never mind calling him stupid, at this point I think he may be an ouroboros.
Oh dear, and here I was just sitting here desperately hoping the “clear example” wasn’t really that dead horse. Really? Really Toysoldier?
There are neither beginnings nor endings in the turning of the Wheel of Time.
Wow, I think this is the crux of the matter. Universality in action.
If any semi-organized movement has an effect, then ALL semi-organized movements have to have the SAME effect. So if Stormfront’s philosophy causes people to brutalize and murder people of colour or jews, then OBVIOUSLY similar violence is the logical end result of activism by groups like Jews for Jesus, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and Amnesty International.
Golly, it all makes sense now.
Ahhhh!!!! Stop beating me!!!! Stop beating me!!!
James Franco was in there somewhere? Hotness.
Toysoldier: See previous statements. Also, you are still wrong about systemic and universal. See Kroeber in actual discussions about this. I’m also going to throw the terms back into your face, and point out again that they do not mean the same thing. But you really are just to stupid to figure it out. Let’s add in the 2nd definition of Universal: “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure”. Systems do not describe the world entirely as a whole. Systems are not an “all”. I’m not surprised you want to argue usage so badly and yet it is different. You really are grasping at straws here. Just because both definitions use “of a whole” does not mean they are speaking of the same thing. Nor does their component parts make the words the same. One is detailed, while the other is not. But you’ve failed basic reading comprehension, so this isn’t all that different.
I can see where you might create the confusion of the terms if you actually read academia, but I’m going to rightly assume you are ignorant on the discourse of systems theory and the desire to attempt to apply it universally. So, no really, you are just stupid. You’ve proven time and time again you do not have a fucking clue on feminist scholarship. So you can’t act like you are even close to an authority on it.
So, when we get to discussions of systems in academia, we discuss traits and causal mechanism that creates a bigger picture. They are not universals because they are not necessarily broadly applied everywhere: See: Every discussion about systems. The systems are based in empirical researched evidence. And I’ll note again, you still fail to address this. But then, it is because you are a liar and don’t have the guts nor the ability to successfully challenge it, so you play this stupid bickering over linguistics game. I really should just go back to your main point, in that you do not have one based in any reality. Hell, I’m just wasting time with you right now because you will continue to attempt to misinterpret, badly might I add, to further your inane beliefs. As Cassandra has said, you are just being fed more time to waste. You failed to support your own assertions, you’ve specifically misinterpreted (and still have not addressed my criticisms of your misinterpretations) evidence counter to your assertions, and you ignore my huge walls of text with your minor little responses. You’ve done a bad job so far and are attempting to feast upon the back and forth to create more confusion rather then let your ideas just get shot down. As for my counter statement. I’ve shown Feminist theory to be more complex then your simple statements. The fact that you are trying to finagle your assertions while undercutting the complexity continues to demonstrate your cognitive biases. So, let’s go back to your assertions once again. Go operationalize your terms, and go fucking prove it. That’s not my job, that is yours. It’s been up to you for awhile to do this.
Also, I have insulted you. But are you to stupid to figure that out? I’ve been calling you stupid since the start, and it only just gets confirmed further. You are a liar and a hypocrite as well. World English dictionary on hypocrite: “someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way which shows these are not sincere”. So this may be more insulting, and distinguish myself from others here. But I don’t think you give a fuck about those who have been abused. You are putting far to much effort to blame women only of abuse, which none of us have denied happens. Abusers abuse, regardless of gender. But you are making it a mission on your part to place blame. You don’t seem to be seeking to support others in dealing with traumatic times, you are seeking to blame feminism and feminism only, not abusers. My sympathies for whatever you have experienced in life, but you’ve never indicated giving a fuck. You’ve implied far to heavily that the blame is on women and feminism, without ever addressing any of the real issues that goes into childcare, such as parental labor, economic conditions of households, and many of the others. To you, it appears to be only Feminism as your causal root, and you are trying to wage war. Pro-tip: Abuse has been around for a much longer time then the Feminist movement. But hey, I could be wrong on this. You might actually show some measure of compassion to individuals. You’ve just never indicated that you gave a fuck here. Your choices of what to combat to prevent further abuse as an overall is a great teller that you continue to likely not give a fuck. Also, I have looked on your blog. You continue to focus only on blaming women and looking for only cases of women abusers. You’ve got a lot of hate directed to only women, rather then just abusers.
Shorter feminists: I know what feminists and feminism do, and nothing you say will EVAR convince me that feminists or feminism can do bad acts. Because no true feminist would ever abuse. And, of course, Joss Whedon.
Toysoldier, I see you’re still ignoring Flib. What’s the matter, the polysyllabic words too much for you? Or, as I suspect, the proof that you are full of shit too scary for you to engage with?
Snowy: I can see how you would get confused by “ideology, feminism specifically” since there is not that comma and word separating ideology from feminism. What proof is there that feminism cannot cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence?
Dead Horse: Listen, and understand. Feminists are out there. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They do not feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Flib: The Glen Beck routine really is not working for you. The terms do refer to the same thing. Universal is simply not specific to any “whole”, meaning it can apply to anything, including systems, in which case the word becomes synonymous with systemic. More so, my usage was as a noun, i.e. “a trait, characteristic, or property … that can be possessed in common…”, which is exactly what systemic refers to in regards to all men always possessing privilege in society. If you thought I referred to something else, you should have asked instead of assuming. As I noted before, disagreeing with feminist theories does not mean I am ignorant of them. Feminists on this thread already claimed I lied about my experiences, hate feminists, and do not care about abuse victims. And I already know feminists hate when anyone talks female abusers. I am still not insulted. Try again. Coincidentally, you are ironically behaving exactly as feminists accuse men’s rights activists of behaving, right down to complaining that I focus too much on an issue you do not care about.
GRA: No, it just takes time to translate all of Flib’s gobbledygook from feminist to English. Luckily I grew up with someone versed in
bullshitfeminist.And Toysoldier asks to have a negative proved.
What proof is there that feminism cannot cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence?
This, BTW, is the entire point of his little charade with the question about ideology. He wants an answer that says, “ideologies” can cause “x”. Then he will say feminism is an ideology, and so we have admitted it causes fear and hatred, and so feminism is to blame for what his aunt did.
The truth of his opinions is in his response to the snark Dead Horse put out; lacking the wit to see it was a joke he let the mask slip:
Listen, and understand. Feminists are out there. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They do not feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
That’s what he believes. “Feminist cannot be reasoned with.” It’s why he doesn’t bother to reason. All he can do is try to wear them down and convince others of their perfidy. If he has to lie to do it, it’s for the good. If he has to be an asshole, it’s for the good, because he has to be just as implacable as the evil, remorseless, feminists.
Sorry Toysoldier, but you’re going to have to answer my questions if you want me to answer yours.
But I’m already dead!!!!!!!! Why do you keep beating me!?!?!?!?!??? NUUUUUUUUU!!! Help me Pecunium heeelllppp mmeeeee!!! ehhhhh…
I thought feminists were Daleks, not Terminators. This is getting confusing.
And hooray, happy 1000+ comment thread, everyone! /is late
@ Flib:
“What is the distinctions between the social constructions of “Fatherhood” and “Motherhood” and can those same roles be fulfilled as a whole by opposite genders?”
Other than the evil “patriarchy” which holds men financially responsible for their children, and the biological fact that women nurse infants, I really see little difference. That’s why I use the term primary nurturers to include both parents. So in answer to your question yes, the role of nurturer can be and has been “fulfilled as a whole by opposite genders?”
Regarding the term “malnurturing” sexually abusive fathers can be considered opportunist malnurturers the same as a child pandering mother. Opportunism brings a heavier sentencing guideline than abandonist of isolationist. But the term malnurturing itself is gender neutral.
P.S. Still not hip on this whole cisdude thing. Looked it up. Sounds kind of like today’s version of yesterday’s “metrosexual.”
I have yet to hear anyone respond to the Wikipedia definition of neonaticide. Especially the part that states it is almost always committed by women and represents 45% of all child murders, How doesn’t that fit in to the 30-30-30-10% statistical breakdown of child murder I mentioned earlier. Do the math VoiP. The numbers don’t add up.
“P.S. Still not hip on this whole cisdude thing. Looked it up. Sounds kind of like today’s version of yesterday’s ‘metrosexual’.”
I would really, really like to see where you got this definition. “Cisgender” is just when your gender and your sex match up, not your preferred style of dress! :P
Oh snap, Mr. Poe, you slipped up! You had us going for a while, but there is no way a person in the world legitimately would say something this profoundly goofy in all seriousness.
…Right? Right? …guys?
(Or maybe he is trying to write a screenplay, hence the Whedon shoutout? I refuse to believe that Toysoldier is not entirely fictional, for the sake of my remaining sanity. :p)
How? How in the name of all that is good still left in this world do you get “Metrosexual” from “Someone who was born with sex that matches their gender identity”?
Oh, I know this one, because you’re Revspin: You didn’t actually look it up, you just asserted your claims again.
Cis gender = kinda maybe gay looking? Is everyone in the entire world some variety of queer, now, or did like 90+% of the population just become way snappier dressers? ‘Cause I’m down with either. :)
Bagelsan, I think he’s honestly still laboring under the assumption that “cis” is the same as “sis”, the latter being short for “sissy”.
Of course, “cisgender” and “sissy” *still* don’t mean the same thing, but can you blame the guy for being confused? ;)
Thanks Molly Ren, so that’s the definition of cisgender. Now I can sound like a hip old fart! And I’m sure to you and others in this thread, it’s much more important than the definition of neonaticide. To remind you, that’s child murder within the first 24 hrs. of birth, the vast majority are committed by women and represents a full 45% of ALL child murders. It’s the reason American women rank #1 in child murder among industrialized nations. All that on one page at Wikipedia. Can’t figure out how or why you guys all seemed to miss that. Still no comments or solutions?
VoiP: 45% of ALL child murders. Therein lies the incongruity of my 30-30-30-10% stats you and others jumped on earlier. It’s the heart of the trick statement.
I thought David made it clear. Feminists and Daleks are different. I know it’s a hard concept, because feminists so resemble rubbish bins with plungers attached, but we’re really not at all the same. And besides, the only person a Dalek ever begged mercy from was a woman.
“It’s the heart of the trick statement.”
The trick being to make us admit that women commit abuse? *pages Dead Horse*
Please show me where I said that. Seriously. Feminists are human, and humans are crap sometimes. Feminism as a whole is against abuse, but so are most human societies. There are still feminists and humans who abuse, but I think that’s a flaw in humanity, not feminism.
Rutee:
“Oh, I know this one, because you’re Revspin: You didn’t actually look it up, you just asserted your claims again”
In all good faith I tried to look it up but the term was first presented as “cisdude,” That’s what I looked up and found dubious definitions.
By the way, have YOU actually looked up neonaticide yet? You can “assert your claim” to those statistics any time you’re ready.
I would correct that to: “Other than
the evil “patriarchy”society, which holdsmenall parents financially responsible for their children, and the biological fact that some women nurse infants, I really see little difference.So in short, other than the gendered constructs carefully pasted on top of parenting by, yes, the “evil” patriarchy, “mothering” and “fathering” don’t really have to be all that different. Parents of any sex or gender can feed and clothe and love and nurture and discipline and support their children; there isn’t any reason mom has to be the one kissing bruises or dad has to teach how to throw a ball.
Okay, Rev, fucking seriously. There is no possible way you ran a google search for cisgender and came up with a result that said gay. Every single result on the first page (with the exception of the urban dictionary) gives a brief definition. The first result is a wiki article which goes into actual depth.
Or at least not a ‘gay’ result on the first page. All you have to do is plug the word into wiki, it’s right there.
http://carnalnation.com/content/49458/1067/word-day-cis
First result on google for “cisdude”. Be a less transparent liar.
No, DSC did it for me. Your statistics are wrong, your understanding of the data poor. That zie’s bored with you now changes nothing. You have never engaged honestly with the evidence. I’m not going to jump now.
Please relink your source for that? Is it the CDC? WHO? And if that is true, are we honestly astonished that American women have a higher rate of neonaticide than women in countries with better pregnancy/childbirth/infant care resources, and more access to birth control including abortion? Because I’m somewhere in the area of zero percent surprised that that’s the case. (Also, are you counting among those murderous women the children who give birth and whose babies die? Because that’s …stupid.)
@KathleenB:
“Okay, Rev, fucking seriously. There is no possible way you ran a google search for cisgender and came up with a result that said gay.”
Never said “gay,” I said metrosexual. That after searching “cisdude.”
Bagelson:
“Also, are you counting among those murderous women the children who give birth and whose babies die?”
No that’s infant mortality, a completely different thing. The stats I am refering to are on the Wikipedia page defining neonaticide. Their sourses looked very reputable to me.
Rev: Erm… yeah, you actually did. When it was first mentioned, you said it sounded like a homophobic slur. you know, you can get a plugin for most browsers that will run a search on a highlighted word – makes research and looking up definitions a snap.
Toysoldier: No, you just refused to look at what I said. It’s not the Glenn Beck route. Note how you still have never provided anything empirical in your statements? Yeah, sorry bro, your comparisons don’t work. Still waiting by the way for you to find a way that the Patriarchy isn’t a dominant structure. You are still comparing the wrong things, and taking advantage of the generality of the term universal to compare against the specificity of the system here. Pro-tip, of or pertaining to a system is actually not the same definition of universal, you want to be comparing system and universal, but hey, you are bad with language, and you are just continuing to prove it.
You are a liar and you don’t care about the people you claim you do. Your little comment to Dead Horse there shows that you only care about hating feminism and, funny enough, shows how you do exactly everything you claim feminism does. Your constant targeting of women as only abusers further demonstrates this.
Bagelsan:
“Parents of any sex or gender can feed and clothe and love and nurture and discipline and support their children; there isn’t any reason mom has to be the one kissing bruises or dad has to teach how to throw a ball.”
I agree 100%. I meant “evil of the patriarchy” facetiously. I certainly wouldn’t argue the “evil of feminism” or make reference to “feminazis” either.
You paged, Molly? Uh oh, ahhhh!!! Nooooooo RevSpinnaker nuuuuuu!!! Ohhhhh what did I ever do to deserve this beating!! ARRGGGLLgggaaaahhhhh… ehhhh…
Rev: Yes, I agree, both constructed roles of fatherhood and motherhood can be fulfilled by opposite genders. In fact, I too would prefer parenting to be gender neutral, and we have examples of this attempted in action. But the question comes down to; As a massive scale of things, is this the case of what is happening? Is house labor divided? Is Bread-winning more emphasized for one gender, thus hurting further parental interaction? Why do we make distinct gender differences in time off for children? These are but a few of the factors that can be causal mechanisms and evidence for why there is gender distinct parenting. This http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2005.00267.x/pdf discusses some of the issues for instance. I beg of you, please do not fall into the trap of seeking to blame Feminism and Feminism only for creating these current discourses. I mentioned earlier to explore the field of Sociology of Childhood to better educate yourself, here is a short bibliography of all sorts of sources that could be beneficial for you. http://wfnetwork.bc.edu/berkeley/contribution/Cultures.html
Now this is some primo word salad. What the hell?
“What proof is there that feminism cannot cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence?
This, BTW, is the entire point of his little charade with the question about ideology. He wants an answer that says, “ideologies” can cause “x”. Then he will say feminism is an ideology, and so we have admitted it causes fear and hatred, and so feminism is to blame for what his aunt did.”
Yeah, that much has been obvious for a while. It was funny how he doesn’t seem to realize how obvious it is what he’s trying to do. For someone so manipulative he’s really not very good at it. There’s also the possibility that his response was meant to be a joke and he’s the world’s worst comedian, though.
Also – Borg, not Dalek. We lure in and assimilate people and what one of us believes all of us believe, right? Clearly we can’t be Daleks, as we are able to climb stairs.
On the neonaticide issue…OK, so let’s for the sake of argument agree that 45% of newborns murdered are murdered by women (this stat may or may not be correct, I can’t say I’ve ever done any research). This means that the remaining 55% of newborns murdered are murdered by men. This is a damning indictment of mothers and mothers alone in what way?
Pecunium: Actually, I asked Snowy what evidence supports her position, which is a fair request. It is not a charade; it is logic, and Feminists already agree with the logic. They apply it to men’s activism. I am simply pointing out the contradiction of feminists not applying it to themselves. However, I do enjoy the irony of feminists’ responses. Several months ago feminists claimed that because Anders Behring Breivik and the men’s rights movement share similar views regarding feminism, that men’s activists should be concerned, implying that men’s activism can cause to become violent. Yet when presented with an example of a feminist who committed violence, feminists not only reject the notion that someone who shares their views and is a member of their group would commit violence, they claim there is no connection between feminism and feminists’ views and behaviors.
Snowy: I answered your question way back on page four. Your turn.
Dead Horse: That is because feminists think you are the eventuality of an anomaly, which despite their sincerest efforts they have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of ideological precision. Some of them really do believe they live in the Matrix.
Bagelsan: That is right, I forgot that feminists cannot take a joke.
KathleenB: Please show me where I said correlation is causation. You cannot have it both ways. If the flaw lies in humanity, then feminists cannot blame “patriarchy” for anything.
Flib: Why would I try to disprove your straw man argument? And now you accuse me of taking “advantage” of the meaning of a word by using it as it is defined? You are correct. The Glenn Beck analogy was off. Even he does not make these kinds of leaps in logic. You seem to take my discussion of female abusers personally. Is there a reason for this?
Meh, I need coffee so that last comment didn’t come out too clearly. What I’m saying is, even if we accept as fact the most damning statistic about women and the abuse of children that Rev is able to come up with, we’re still left with a scenario in which women are not the numerical majority of those hurting children, even though women are the numerical majority of those providing childcare.
Any time a child is hurt it’s a bad thing, but the stats still don’t say what Rev wants them to say. And I’m not quite sure why he continues to try to make his point in a way that indicates that he thinks we are asserting that no women ever hurt children at all, since nobody has said that. It’s extra hilarious that he thinks that feminists as a group would be really opposed to a loosening of strict gender roles in parenting.
TS: Dude, your whole spiel boils down to ‘feminism made my aunt abuse me.’ Yes, the two correlate: You aunt was a feminist and she did abuse you. But you have no way of knowing if one caused the other. You have correlation, but no causation, and have no way to prove causation. And yet you keep claiming that feminism did it.
And since I’ve danced this Charleston a few too many times, I’m bowing out. You go right on believing whatever the fuck you want. But please try, for a bare second, to consider that you might be wrong.
Nope, you didn’t. I checked. Still your turn.
Oh, and I’m a man btw. There’s quite a few of us non-woman around here, you might want to be think for a few seconds before you make assumptions about people’s gender just because they happen to be feminists. I know thinking isn’t really your strong suit, but hey.
If I were so intent on blaming feminism, why have I not done it yet? Does it not strike you as odd that I apparently so hate feminists that I would lie about my experiences, lie about my aunt, lie about my aunt’s behavior, lie about feminism, and yet never once on this thread, on any other feminist site, on any men’s rights blog, on any feminist critical blog, or on my own blog blame feminism for anything? Would that not suggest that I — wait for it — do not blame feminism for anything?
Toysoldier, what are you trying to do? As far as I can tell, you’ve never made a clear statement of your own purpose or argument here, only pour forth insinuations and try to respond to other commenters.
What do you think about feminism? About the MRM? About the notion of privilege? Clearly you have strong enough opinions to disagree with everyone, but I don’t know what you do actually think. Maybe that would clear a lot up.
Snowy: Yes I did. I know intellectual honesty is not your strong suit, but hey. Now answer my questions.
KathleenB: I never said that being a feminist caused my aunt to act as she did. I said that feminism — a set of views — caused her to behave as she did. Unless you are arguing that what a person thinks has no affect on the person’s behavior, there is no fallacy.
The Semicolon Policeman: I was unaware that saying that I would much rather someone make a violent comment in jest than actually commit violence against me was not a clear argument. I already stated that I do not hold feminism or the men’s rights movement in high regards, and explained my position on privilege on my blog.