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 are right toysoldier. Why would you try and disprove my argument (which is not a strawman) when your entire premise is based in strawmen. I mean, it’d force you to actually go do some work. As we’ve seen your refusal to actually engage, you continue to be a poe. You’ve demonstrated the extent of your rhetorical and intellectually skill consists entirely of magnets, and you do not know how they work. As for using universal and systemic, you are refusing to use context, and they still do not mean the same thing. Go actually look at the definitions again. Let me make it more simple for you. Universal: Whole. System: A combination of complex parts that create a whole. Systemic: Pertaining to a system. Context, specificity, they are not the same thing.
But let us get more specific. Now you are saying you are using the noun version of universal, to systemic. Except systemic is an adjective. So, as I’ve been saying before, you should have been comparing universal (noun) to system (noun). Not universal (Noun) to systemic (adjective).
So, let’s compare the two nouns to each other then. You are using “a trait, characteristic, or property, as distinguished from a particular individual or event, that can be possessed in common, as the care of a mother for her young.” Where is this specific to system? It doesn’t line up with “an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole”. Patriarchy is not exemplified in just one trait, nor is privilege only on one axis. Privilege is a set, a plurality if you will. Let’s take the 2nd definition “any assemblage or set of correlated members” nope, that one is right out. #3? “an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought” No, still doesn’t work. #4? “a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme” Well, with your belief as feminists as schemers, this might say something. Except Patriarchy isn’t a “scheme” on the part of anyone specific. So, no that gets tossed, nor is this the one being used. #5 “any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure:” Tossed for the same reason. Yeah, your method, not working.
Oh, but I do know where system and universal could be the same. But you are not using it nor have you ever used it in that way. Go do your research. It’s not universal that would fit into your definition. It’s a precise word. One that is not even that well looked upon.
This all diminishes the further point. You can’t manage to empirically justify your statements about patriarchy, privilege, or intersectionality. You remain a poe and disconnected from any proper discourse. Since facts are a strawman for you, I don’t think you will ever get away from your personal hatred of feminism and women.
If you don’t blame feminism then your behavior is utterly baffling, as is the amount of time you dedicate to trolling feminist blogs. Please explain?
Should be pretty easy for you to quote yourself answering the question then. Except not, because you didn’t.
Like I said before, I will when you answer mine.
Oh, look, your post on privilege lacks the same things I’ve been mentioning. No empirical justification. Good job, you continue to be a huge poe and liar. Why don’t you go back to your den of hate?
Ah, html fail. I am disappoint.
Joss Whedon???
I guess Whedon is the feminist pope? Clearly I’m about to be excommunicated for finding Buffy incredibly boring.
Actually, I think I may have figured out Toy Soldier’s mysterious motivation that he refuses to share with us. Maybe it’s a get rich quick scheme to drive traffic to his blog and thus reap some ad revenue, given that otherwise no one would read his blog because of the complete lack of logic, humor, and everything else that makes a blog appealing?
CassandraSays:
“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.”
Cut and paste time. The trick to my statement is I did not include neonaticide in my 30-30-30-10% breakdown. I left the following on Toysoldiers page several days ago.
RevSpinnaker says:
October 4, 2011 at 10:23 am
Hey TS. I thought I’d run this by you on your own page because I’d like to string the folks at manboobz along a little longer.
@ TS: “VoiP: Rev’s statistics are incorrect*, but he is correct that women commit most child abuse. From the Child Maltreatment 2009 report… blah blah blah.”
I knew that already and had seen the maltreatment report a couple years ago. First of it’s kind and a solid start to an ongoing study. It’s about time.
I’ll admit, I’ve been a bit disigenuous. I failed to mention that the 30-30-30-10% stats DIDN’T include neonaticide. If you go to the Wikipedia description of it, child murder within the first 24 hours, is perpetrated by women in almost exclusively. They also state that neonaticide represents 45% of all child murder cases. That leaves the remaining 55% to be broken down by the 30-30-30-10% ratio. Gotta love VoiP’s math. Women are already responsible for 45% of child murders, Add to that their 30%+ of infanticide and filicidal murders, subtracted from the 55% and the actual statistic is more around 65%. Maybe girls really are bad at math.
Wikipedia definition, first paragraph third sentence:
“Neonaticide is rare in developed countries, when it does occur, it is most often the mother that kills the neonate; it is an exceptionally rare event amongst fathers.”
“The United States ranks first in child homicide under the age of four years. Forty-five percent (45%) of all child murders occur in the first 24 hours of life, and thus can be classified as neonaticide..”
Filicide extends up to teenage years where it’s occurence is rare and more often committed by men. Subtract filicide from the equation and the number of maternal murders is even higher.
Can’t imagine how they miss this stuff other than flat out denial.
*Leave it to you to be the only one to point that out.
What you brought up earlier were rates of abuse, not murder. I don’t know how you think this “tricked” me, tee hee, tee hee, but abuse and murder are different things.
But now it appears that you think abuse and murder are the same thing. Maybe boys really are bad at reading comprehension.
What VOIP said. You’re not successfully “tricking” anyone, you’re just coming across as incoherent.
Neonaticide, infanticide and filicide are all categories of child murder. The suffix “-icide” means to murder as in homicide, patricide etc. I thought you knew that. I did state earlier that the CDC has verified a 25% increase in maternal abuse AND murder since 1985. So the statement I made so long, long ago still stands. American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. Women are responsible for approximately two thirds of all child murders under the age of four.
My definition of malnurturing regards the children they don’t kill, but sometimes raise with murderous animosity.
Rev…just…Rev. Seriously. Learn to comprehend. Learn to write. Learn LOGIC! For the love of god!
“Actually, I think I may have figured out Toy Soldier’s mysterious motivation that he refuses to share with us. Maybe it’s a get rich quick scheme to drive traffic to his blog and thus reap some ad revenue, given that otherwise no one would read his blog because of the complete lack of logic, humor, and everything else that makes a blog appealing?”
…
That actually sounds plausible.
Seriously, what kind of debate tactic is that? “I’m going to hold back evidence I think is relevant and make cryptic remarks akin to the opening messages of an ARG or viral marketing campaign! THAT’ll show ‘em!” Christ, if you were one of my students I’d fail you.
By the way, Flib thanks for those links. Just had time for a quick overview and I found I agree with much I’ve read so far. I can see maternity leave for both parents, so both have the same bonding experience with their newborn. And if there is any kind of postnatal problem, mom isn’t stuck to deal with it alone. Especially these days when there is less extended family nearby to help out.
“Local sexist discovers secret that the matriarchy doesn’t want you to know. Click here for more info.”
Toysoldier:
A feminist who abuses — even a feminist who abuses and explicitly says it’s an act of feminism, much less one who implies it — no more proves feminism encourages or causes abuse (or even just accepts it) than a Jew eating bacon proves bacon is kosher.
Toysoldier:
Nothing you said on page 4 was a response to Snowy.
I felt as if a million brain cells cried out and were suddenly silent…
Also a strong sense of deja vu. 9_9
“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.”
“I said that feminism — a set of views — caused her to behave as she did.”
“feminism”
0_0
Flib: Your argument is a straw man as I never questioned whether men hold most of the positions of power in society. Look, we are talking about “male privilege”, yes? We are specifically addressing whether feminists argue that all males always possess privilege, yes? We are both talking about males possessing privilege within society, yes? And a society is a whole, yes? I stated that feminists treat “male privilege” as a universal, meaning that all males, regardless of their social status, have it. You stated that feminists treat “male privilege” as systemic. Do you not see that we are saying the same thing just in a different way?
CassandraSays: I see your problem. You did not realize that a person can criticize something without blaming or hating it. My blog has too much stuff about male victimization for any feminist to want to visit it.
Snowy: Except I did. Contrary to what feminists think, dishonesty is not a virtue.
Hershele Ostropoler: Again with the straw man. I never said feminism encourages or accepts abuse, or that my aunt’s actions prove anything. Setting that aside, your analogy is off anyway. A better analogy would be “… than a Muslim killing a Jew proves anti-semitic Islamic doctrine can cause violence against Jews.” Do you agree that anti-semitic doctrine would never lead a person for whom the doctrine forms the core of their thinking to potentially harm a Jewish person? I thought not. So why does this logic apply to Islam and not feminism?
How many fucking times are we going to go ’round this racetrack before we all get brain bleeds and concede the field to Toysoldier’s asshattery? because he seems pretty set on being an asshat, and I can think of better ways to spend my time than aiding and abetting his persecution complex.
Like this:
(see what I did? with the racetrack?)
Your skills are fading with age, Bagelsan.
Maybe if we make him listen to bad 80s metal he’ll go away? It’s worth a shot, since I don’t know how to perform an exorcism for trolls.
And, yeah, TS, that was an insult. You are a dumbfuck. Wear the badge with pride.
If you strike down my brain cells, they will only grow stronger than you can imagine!
Dumbfucks anonymous meeting is right down the hall – all the hottest trolls will be there.
Next time someone violates my body I will remember to enjoy it and keep my mouth shut.
Oh, is it random music time rather than troll feeding time? I can do that.
OFFS, TS, you know fucking well what I’m talking about. This pretend ignorance isn’t fooling anyone – I’m referring to your constant ‘the feminzais hurt my fee-fees and won’t indulge my victimhood by allowing me to be lying asshole’ refrain.
I’m in!
Your anger and your lust for power have already done that. You have allowed this ideology to twist your mind until now…until now you have become the very thing you swore to destroy.
What, your dialog is coming from Michael Bay movies now? Jesus, you are stupid.
KathleenB, as you pointed out before, I could never know why any feminist does what they do. But you can just:
Um, Bagelsan, is there some sort of history between you and Toy Soldier that I’m unaware of that would explain the sharp turn into exerpts from the plot of a bad wu shu movie that he just took there?
Meanwhile, if we’re playing random song generator, here’s one for all the MRAs (affectionately known as “the fuck you song”).
TS: W00t! Random videos! I was actually at this concert – might have been right behind the person holding the camera.
Actually, this one is a bit more apropos:
I’m not doing this Charelston again, TS. You are a lying asshole who wouldn’t know the truth if it bit your bicep. But, by all means, keep it up. I’m sure there are a couple of people left here who think you’re some kind of stand up guy. Shouldn’t take more than a couple of posts to change their minds, too.
Wow, I can’t believe you guys are still going. I’m impressed. Might as well jump into the fray.
I haven’t been fallowing along closely, so forgive me if I say things that have already been said, but I have a few comments.
There is a certain type of person who will twist everything around them to justify their actions, like a highschooler who blames everyone but themselves for their problems.
Ideologies have the power to change how people think. That is what feminism has done for me; It has made me more firm in setting boundaries, and more sensitive to other people who have different backgrounds and therefore different problems then me. It has made me more likely to respect someone else’s boundaries, and less likely to make sweeping, offensive generalizations and insensitive remarks. Because of feminism, I will never deny, belittle or reduce someone else’s lived experience (at least, not on purpose. I do fuck up sometimes.)
There are good ideologies and bad ones. There are ideologies that preach tolerance, acceptance, and levelheadedness. There are ideologies that preach violence and revenge and pettiness.
Feminism does not preach violence. There are not prominent or popular feminist sites that call for rising up against men, there are not prominent or popular feminist sites that cheer at the event of violence against men or any other opponents of feminism.
Feminism does preach equality. Feminism (for the most part, there are exceptions) acknowledges how the current system hurts men. Feminism works to remove those barriers.
Feminism is not perfect, because feminism is made up of people, and people are not perfect. There are feminists who are transphobic, there are feminists who are rape apologists (hii Naomi Wolfe!), there are feminists who belittle men and belittle the very real difficulties that men have to go through. This does not mean that feminism preaches transphobia, rape apologism, or misandry. This means that people suck sometimes.
The MRM for the most part is hateful. The most popular sites glorify violence, manipulation, gender essentialism, sexism, and the oppression of women. For proof, one need only look on this site, or venture to reddit, the spearhead, or the average PUA site.
When we say that the MRM can lead to violence and inspire violent behavior in people, it is because that is what the vast majority of the MRM talks about, preaches, discusses, jacks off too, whatever. If you have proof of otherwise, please, show me.
When we tell you that feminism is not what made your aunt a shitty person, it is because that very shittineess is some of the very basic feminist ideals of what not to do. Seek consent, respect others bodies, do not abuse; these things form the very foundation of feminism.
Feminism did not make your aunt a shitty abusive person. Your aunt was already a shitty abusive person and she twisted and perverted feminism in order to justify her actions and avoid cognitive dissonance.
Here’s one for you, TS.
Here’s another one for you.
Toysoldier:
I love how you posted that right under Bagelsan quoting you doing exactly that.
Ok, so your latest claim is that we’ve denied that you were abused:
So who denied that you were abused, saying that you lied about your aunt’s behavior in abusing you? Feel free to post quotes.
Toysoldier: You asked her to do the impossible, to prove that feminism can’t cause x,y,z.
Based on past performance, I have no reason to think you did this without an agenda. You are single-minded, remorseless and willing to stop at nothing in the pursuit of your aims.
If that means being less than honest, setting up “logic traps”, strawmen, derailing through accusations of ad hominem, or conflating one insult with dismissal of personal history, you won’t scruple to do it.
You are willing to outright lie about what you’ve said, so nothing much you do say can be taken at face value, which is why I (barring the odd occasion like this) don’t bother with replying to you anymore.
Toysoldier: You never engaged legitimately in the first place. As I said, return to your den of hate.
Okay Toysoldier, is this what you’re talking about?
Yeah, the fact that you used the word “ideology” doesn’t actually mean you answered my questions. Sorry! Still your turn! I suspect it will continue to be your turn for kind of a while, if your last comments are anything to go by. So I’m going to stop feeding you, hope you retreat back under your bridge, and end with a youtube video about dicks!
Music:
Oh wait, sorry Toysoldier somehow I missed that you’re a Justin Timberlake fan, maybe this song is more your speed.
I’m still laughing at TSs attempt at performing an oh snap via Timberlake. That was special.
Shora,
Any ideology can change how people think, for better or worse, regardless of the ideology’s positions on an issue. Often times views that treat one group as the cause of the adherents’ problem lead to bias, fear, and violence. It is not an issue of feminism being perfect, but that feminism contains views that can easily influence someone to hate another group, sometimes to the point of wanting to hurt them. It is difficult for feminists to claim their ideology does not do this when you can easily find examples of the “women as perpetual victim” thinking prompts misandry.
The only difference the feminist movement and the men’s rights movement is their age. If you look at feminism back in the early 1980s, the same anger and frustration one sees in the men’s movement was present in the feminist movement. Over the years feminists reforged that anger from a blunt tool to a sharp blade, but one need only visit popular feminists blogs to see the misandry-fueled anger that drives the movement.
The curious thing about feminists’ claims that the men’s movement causes or inspires violence is that they have no examples of it ever doing so. In contrast, there are plenty examples of feminist policies that discriminate against men, that ignore or deny male victimization, that result in men facing harsher punishments than women, views that result support services refusing to help male victims, opinions that treat male boundaries as pathological, and feminists who regard violence against males as less important and less harmful than violence against women.
It is an odd way for feminists to try to discredit another movement. In a way, it is similar to how the right discredits the Occupy Wall Street crowd. The OWLS are no different than the Tea Party, just less organized and more focused on the business sector rather than the federal government. Yet the right treats the OWLS as pariah and hateful, crazy people with no legitimate complaints.
When feminists tell me feminism did not influence my aunt’s behavior, I think it is because feminists do not believe feminism or feminists can ever do anything harmful or wrong. That is a classic no true scotsman, and while I understand no one wants to be associated with a person who does a bad thing, it is kind of silly to claim one’s ideology had no part in shaping the views and behaviors of the bad members of your group.
Snowy, I think his “answer” is that someone once failed to unequivocably (or, to be fair, at all) condemn Mary Kay Letourneau. That the someone in question wasn’t a feminist may be lost on him, but whatever.
“When feminists tell me feminism did not influence my aunt’s behavior, I think it is because feminists do not believe feminism or feminists can ever do anything harmful or wrong.”
You’re right, Toysoldier! Feminism never, ever critiques itself on gender, race, class, or sexuality issues! :P
Shorter Toysoldier: Words mean what I want them to mean, and you are all poopyheads to tell me different.
Holy crap, arguing with Toysoldier is exercise in futility at its finest.
Seriously, bro. Stop trolling feminist blogs and do something useful instead.
Or at least try to educate yourself on the issues you are discussing.
Until then:
Pecunium: I believe Snowy is male. Setting that aside, I have actually gone out of my way not to ask anyone to prove a negative. I even stated before that feminists here are essentially trying to prove a negative. However, since snowy — on his own — argued that feminism cannot cause x,y, or z, it is fair to ask how snowy reached that conclusion. My argument does not mean feminism never causes people to do good things, only that it can also cause people to do bad things. And you really ought to stop projecting your own actions onto others.
Hershele Ostropoler: I love how you posted that right under you quoting me clearly not doing that. Kollege and Bostonian called me a “coward and liar” several pages back. Now, please address my question.
Snowy: There was a link in that comment. It links to a post that lists examples of feminist biases. Now, please answer my question.
CassandraSays, katz, KathleenB: Yes, yes, I know you got:
On second thought, you are probably just thinking this about me:
…
Yeah, I’m done. Really. Toysolider, now you’re just reaching different levels of pettiness. If you were in Debate Club, you would be out on your ass in no time flat.
Uh oh. Kollege has had enough. And now he’s acting like a bully, so he tries to push and pull me, but he knows that he can’t fool me so he’s mad. He has no choice but to scream and raise his voice up at me cuz it annoys him to see that I ain’t scared. Dude, you ain’t no motherfucking:
If he were in any class that dealt with fact, he’d be on his ass for consistently faking his own reality. He’s a singularity of ignorance and hate.
Ah! You’re right Hershele. His link is to his own blog where he goes on about Mary Kay Letourneau hosting a “Hot For Teacher” night at a bar that is somehow the fault of feminism. http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2009/05/24/standards-and-such/
Yeah, no. Nice try Toysoldier.
Also, Justin Timberlake? Eminem? Who’s next?
And that is why I do not hate feminists. Feminists spent 15 pages diving to such depths of pettiness that you would think they were hunting for sunken treasure. Yet when I return their insults, I am being petty. How could I hate a group this prone to irony?
You say you don’t hate us as if we care that you don’t.
Ahhh nuuuuuu why are you still beating me!!!
Toysoldier: Your argument (such as it is) is that feminism causes anything you want it to cause. Your challenge (and not to just Snowy) is that we prove to you (who have said we cannot be trusted, are relentless, will stop at nothing, etc.), that it’s not so.
In your own words it’s impossible to do that. You won’t believe us, no matter what facts, studies, declarations, etc. we find, or make.
You don’t mean what you say, the only thing which might be acceptable to you is abject agreement with you.
As I said, you lie.
TS fails to read or understand. Film at 11.
Music nao though.
Y’know, I look at this seemingly endless back-and-forth and I ask myself: What’s more likely? That feminism somehow, insidiously, exerted a malign influence over a person, to the point where they became an abuser and a rapist, or that an abusive rapist was dishonest about her motivations, and used feminism as pretext for something she would have done anyway.
Personally, I’m more inclined to believe the obvious truth that abusers lie, to their victims, and to themselves.
“Y’know, I look at this seemingly endless back-and-forth and I ask myself: What’s more likely? That feminism somehow, insidiously, exerted a malign influence over a person, to the point where they became an abuser and a rapist, or that an abusive rapist was dishonest about her motivations, and used feminism as pretext for something she would have done anyway.”
The former choice is what TS was arguing for all along…somehow. Really, even when he shared his abuse, that experience alone answers neither question, something that ToySoldier doesn’t realize (or seem to really care about, frankly).
@Shora
“Feminism does not preach violence.”
I gave you this link yesterday, go to link titled “the 18 page message” to get a pdf file of “the law.” Read it. This was written by feminist Russlynn Ali, a woman in a position of immense power. It was signed into law by pro-feminist Obama. It was endorsed by Joe-VAWA-Biden.
http://www.insidehighered.com/layout/set/popup/news/2011/04/04/education_department_civil_rights_office_clarifies_colleges_sexual_harassment_obligations_title_ix
The police investigation does not constitute the outcome of the investigation or the filing of charges.
Police investigations are NOT determinative of whether sexual harrassment violates Title IX.
Schools should instruct their own law enforcement units.
Grievance procedures that us the, ‘clear and convincing standard’ are NOT equitable with Title IX.
Allowing an alleged perpetrator to question an alleged victim may be intimidating and traumatic.
Third party accusation.
How would you like to face “judgement” knowing you’re facing a trained, hostile judge/jury, the evidence which consists of a womans word is gathered by a police force which is above the need for evidence, your innocense must be proven, the fact is merely the word of a woman who you can’t question, is anonymous, and might even be a third party? This is the most violent abuse of power ever concieved. Read it. It is the outcome of a pure hate movement.
————————
“Feminism does preach equality.”
Womens only charities.
Womens only State agencies in health, education, employment, quota’s, every realm of society.
Women only corporate entities in all of the above.
Total promotion of everything any woman does in the MSM.
Where is this equality you speak of?
————————-
“When we say that the MRM can lead to violence and inspire violent behavior in people, it is because that is what the vast majority of the MRM talks about, preaches, discusses, jacks off too, whatever. If you have proof of otherwise, please, show me.
When we tell you that feminism is not what made your aunt a shitty person, it is because that very shittineess is some of the very basic feminist ideals of what not to do. Seek consent, respect others bodies, do not abuse; these things form the very foundation of feminism.”
How is it that the violence toy soldier endured wasn’t due to being instilled by feminism, yet violence against any woman is due to the MRM?
Which is worse? The use of State violence, usurping of every basic right, privilege in every realm of society, or an individual man harming an individual woman?
Since women with their guiding light of feminism have enthusiastically enacted every single one of these laws, you don’t get to say it’s patriarchy.
————————
Read the link I gave you and tell me this isn’t a police State guided by feminism. Read it. This is your law. Do you think men will love women for having every right abolished?
I honestly think his only real goal in any of this is to plod on relentlessly until everyone else gives up on the discussion. That way he can claim that feminists won’t debate him because they’re afraid of the awful truth he’s somehow privy to. It’s not about debate, it’s not about the truth, it’s about getting the last word.
@Dracula-
That’s why I stopped so long ago.
@Dracula
” I honestly think his only real goal in any of this is to plod on relentlessly until everyone else gives up on the discussion. That way he can claim that feminists won’t debate him because they’re afraid of the awful truth he’s somehow privy to. It’s not about debate, it’s not about the truth, it’s about getting the last word.”
I gave the citation all of you scream for. What’s to debate? The truth is written down as feminist law. Anyone of you can get the file and read it. There is no guesswork, no strawman, no ad homenim.
A mans guilt is assumed, he must prove his innocense.
No facts are needed to prosecute a man.
A man cannot face his accuser.
A third party can be the accuser.
There is a trained police force that doesn’t need evidence, or abide by police evidence.
The jury is coached and permanent.
The judge is coached and handpicked.
The only possible debate, since this is now the law you endorsed, is, do you believe this is equitable?
Not talking about you.