‘Do you remember what group it was?’

Personal anecdotes are best served vague. That way no one can fact check or contradict you.

Moewicus: Yes, the group was called V.O.I.C.E.S. Victims of Abuse Can Emerge Survivors. I didn’t say American women were the most feminist. I said according to the CDC American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. I just found those CDC stats a couple years ago and was quite frankly stunned. I would think feminists would have been on it like a pubic hair on a coke. And where’s the press, we’re talking dead children here. So yes, if I have an agenda it’s repeating the CDC study. So far no one’s refuted the CDC stats. Women’s groups have only recently dealt with maternal child abuse and have a long way to go,

Actually American statistics are quite good. Bias gets rooted out and the remainders vary slightly but are basically consistant. And yes there are many factors to take into account. Income inequality, infant mortality and health statistics are all related and actually do effect the maternal child murder rates. Low income, disaffected single mothers are more likely to kill their children within the first year.

Low income, disaffected single mothers are more likely to kill their children within the first year.

Please show us the study that shows that.

Also, you are ignoring the point about the stats-they are bad because of things that feminism is trying to change-not because feminists are in charge and ruining things.

Also, you are ignoring the point about the stats-they are bad because of things that feminism is trying to change-not because feminists are in charge and ruining things.

Ah, but you see, feminists are supposed to be all over the story because…

I guess he hasn’t filled in that blank yet. Because feminists are all about how terrible women are? He says there’s “no blip on the domestic violence front,” which has not been established since we don’t even know what he’s referring to, and the lack of which we cannot establish the significance of without context.

See why we want specifics, links, etcetera, Rev?

Meanwhile the stuff we do have links for flatly contradicts his main argument.

Yet homosexuality is a sin? You are not being consistent with yourself. Ask the question, “if it is not bad, why does God not want people to do it?”

Being homosexual is no more a sin than being heterosexual.

Hell, as an explanation is complicated too, and Catholics an hell is even more complicated, because the issue of eternal damnation requires issues of volition which are another realm altogether. Fucking (no matter whom) isn’t eternally daming. Rape is. Sex under false pretense (i.e. seduction) is, but simple fucking isn’t.

The Catholic Church doesn’t view (and never has) non-procreative sex as dirtying. The most recent encyclicals on the issue are worded in such a way as to cast doubt on the common belief that birth control is completely forbidden too.

Majority Catholic Countries in Africa:

Burundi
Congo
Kiribati
Cape Verde

In none of those is homosexuality a capital offense. Since you were mentioning the drive to make things criminal offenses, and the people campaigning to do it are, by and large, protestants (though Uganda is one in which male homosexuality is criminalised, Vatican City isn’t).

No, I didn’t mention African countries, because they are few, and the overall culture is more a controlling factor (see my comments on the US), and the present wave of attempts to criminalise is being driven by protestant missionaries. The Catholic Church is adamantly anti-death penalty.\

Only if the only people participating in the argument are so desperately grasping for apologetics straws that they can ignore the context of even new testament prohibitions which call for the death of “passive” partners as well.

Care to cite the texts?

Care to translate the Koine? Care to discuss the cultural issues of the time (and not the post early church exigesis of the Protestant Reformation.

I am not (read what I said again) defending calls for murder. I am, in fact, pointing out those calls are in contradiction of the actual calls for same, just as the explantion that what Toysoldier’s aunt said was feminism wasn’t.

You are saying that things which aren’t actually true, are true, and I don’t appreciate that.

Speaking as a Canadian, I don’t like being called American. For what that’s worth.

‘Speaking as a Canadian, I don’t like being called American. For what that’s worth.’

Likewise. But that’s probably because when you are abroad and confused for an American it carries a lot of negative connotations. It’s generally not meant as a compliment (YMMV).

I cling to that ‘u’ in colour for all I’m worth!

Just so that it is clear that the impurity and filth doctrine was not unique to the early church, here’s a medieval saint, Peter Damian, on the subject, in 1051:

“This vice strives to destroy the walls of one’s heavenly motherland and rebuild those of devastated Sodom. Indeed, it violates temperance, kills purity, stifles chastity and annihilates virginity … with the sword of a most infamous union. It infects, stains and pollutes everything; it leaves nothing pure, there is nothing but filth … This vice expels one from the choir of the ecclesiastical host and obliges one to join the energumens and those who work in league with the devil; it separates the soul from God and links it with the demons. This most pestiferous queen of the Sodomites makes those who obey her tyrannical laws repugnant to men and hateful to God … It humiliates at church, condemns at court, defiles in secret, dishonors in public, gnaws at the person’s conscience like a worm and burns his flesh like fire…

Yep, that fine fellow was actually made a saint, and the book that quote is from was praised by the Pope at the time. So, tell me again that the Church has never said queer sexuality was filthy or corrupting.

Being homosexual is no more a sin than being heterosexual.

This is factually incorrect. A heterosexual can ultimately act on that sexuality and still not be sinful, through marriage. A homosexual can not, ever, because the church will not marry them. Why is that, Pecunium?

In none of those is homosexuality a capital offense. Since you were mentioning the drive to make things criminal offenses, and the people campaigning to do it are, by and large, protestants (though Uganda is one in which male homosexuality is criminalised, Vatican City isn’t).

I didn’t say Catholics try to exterminate the gays, and I don’t believe DSC did when referring to the current church. I said they were hateful.

I am not (read what I said again) defending calls for murder. I am, in fact, pointing out those calls are in contradiction of the actual calls for same, just as the explantion that what Toysoldier’s aunt said was feminism wasn’t.

I understood what you were saying. Unfortunately for you, there is in fact a central guiding authority for catholocism, which doesn’t exist for protestantism or feminism, and it’s pretty specific in saying that gays don’t get to be gay, they have to pretend to be heteros or asexual, or face penalties. Those penalties are not death, but to say this at all is to be hateful.

Actually, when feminists say men’s activism leads to violence they attempt to link some man’s random violence to the men’s movement by claiming the two share similar views

I’ve only seen it done specifically and with any certainty for Ball, and for Breivik, and then the primary connection was the MRM’s wishy washy dealings; they would say “Well sure he murdered folks/called for the murdering of folks, but HES GOT A POINT AND THAT VIOLENCE WILL HAPPEN”. They’re right here on this site, for one. That is a much stronger hold than just a random man, even a random man with similar views. It is also not a fallacy of association to take a movement’s associations at face value, and outright stating that the violence is ‘inevitable so long as women block men’s rights’ is more or less a backhanded threat.

If my presence on an online forum bothers you, I can only imagine how much worse it is for you when you look in the mirror and actually see an asshole.

Finally, dropping the failed subtlety at last. Look, jackass, I will freely grant I am not the best person for consolation. I do my best with folks I know, but it’s not very good. But you? You’re trying to use your problems as an excuse to swing a bludgeon at women. Seriously, your claims about how you ‘care about all false accusations’ ring fucking false from a guy who links to “The False Rape Society” but not “The Innocence Project” You are a liar, and an asshole. I look in the mirror, I don’t see an asshole; because I’m not, even when at my most depressed. I have many flaws, but that isn’t one of them. There’s a reason only Men’s Right’s Idiots (Again, I can’t use your preferred label if you don’t tell me what it is) call me one. Well, technically; I used to be called that by hardcore Christians too, in Christians-don’t-swear-ese, but the point is the same; it’s only ever abject adversaries.

And of course there are no men’s rights blogs condemning child rape.

….Now that’s interesting, only one of those links is to a blog that seems to condemn it when it’s from a man (And then only quoting things that phrase men solely as the passive party, not also the doers), as opposed to us roundly and immediately condemning it by women, and also producing links to blogs that do same.

I looked, and there doesn’t even seem to be something on the Catholic Church’s enabling of child rape, and that is an easy fucking target if you actually care about rape victims. You’re not helping the perception that Men’s Right’s Idiots only cares about victims to bludgeon women and feminists with them, a perception that is commonly fostered when Men’s Right’s Idiots try to claim to be allies to other people, such as the Trans, “Who all feminists hate”, only to then, for instance, immediately say all trans women are men with fake vaginas lying to other men to have sex with them.

And you know, pretty much every endeavor to the Gay has been “I feel you dude, I couldn’t get pussy either”. And we just had an MRA troll who was amazingly racist in his whining and complaining about how women just prefer ‘thug cock’, so I’m a little confused about why you so unreservedly protect them.

A plea to those intent on casting victims of female abusers as being victims of the patriarchy. It serves only to absolve the perpetrators and position the victims as architects of their own abuse. Whether you realise it or not it’s an act of cruelty.

It only absolves the perpetrators if you think women can’t perpetrate patriarchy. This is demonstrably false, and may have been a key observation that lead to the formation of kyriarchy as a model.

I’m not sure how to word my response to the rest, so I will leave it at that for now.

This place has gotten boring. I’m leaving.

The eternal cry of the MRAL when demonstrably wrong.

I guess umpires is alrdy Canadian… or it’d be umpiers…

Don’t you call the penalty-callers in Hockey Referees, not Umpires?

Rutee Katreya: Claiming to understand a violent person’s motives does not mean one endorses violence, nor does warning people that violence may occur in the future

No, those are different claims. “Understandable” is not “Understood”. I understand why Al Qaeda carried out its attacks, academically. Their violence is not ‘understandable’, because attacking civilians for a political goal is never, ever okay. ‘Understandable’ means that you can sympathize. That the violence was perhaps not so bad. To say that Ball and Breivik’s violence is understandable, as was so often done, is to provide tacit support for that violence. The difference is subtle, which is perhaps why you fail to understand it… or maybe why you think no one else will. Furthermore, Violence is never inevitable. Claiming it is, especially after a failure to condemn the violence at all (Again, ‘understandable’ invalidates claims not to support it), is much more a backhanded threat than anything else. It says that the person is too cowardly to actually make their threat in non-weasel words.

I do link to the Innocence Project under Male Abuse Resources,

Ah, you don’t know how to alphabetize correctly. Fair enough, my mistake; you do link to the Innocence Project, then. Too bad you keep focusing on rape, despite having bigger problems with false accusations and imprisonment, but at least you manage the bare minimums your position would require for intellectual consistency. Little else, mind; Pecunium and I have already gone over, in great detail, the lack of consistency with this position. The primary concerns of someone actually worried about false accusations are drug crimes (By far the majority) and murder (The worst penalties). Rape is not only not that commonly brought to trial, and not only not commonly successfully prosecuted, but it is the subject to a narrative of false accusations *to begin with*, and has been for centuries before you were born (Rape law in the common law was specifically designed to make it ludicrously difficult to prosecute, because you know, women are such lying liars. That’s seriously in the Star Court opinions, btw).

Regarding the “patriarchy” comment, the key is that feminists claim that men created and inherently benefit from “patriarchy”,

Men, as an aggregate, benefit from patriarchy. It is designed to help men, especially those who go along with it most happily. Even a sexual abuse survivor benefits from numerous other manifestations of patriarchy, such as the various economic gaps. Men can suffer from particular aspects of patriarchy, most especially if they go against the grain (A primary caretaker father will suffer some mockery. Men in a number of stereotyped-feminine professions will go through similar.) Male rape survivors’ suffering is amplified by the patriarchal notions that men don’t say no, minimizing their abuse. Their rather sizable remaining benefits are not magically erased by it, just as a white person’s benefits aren’t magically erased in the unlikely event that they are denied a promotion or similar because of actual affirmative action.

This essentially posits that only exposure to “patriarchy”causes women abuse,

Not really. Patriarchy made it worse by a wide margin, and it’s *possible* that a given woman’s abuse centered on that… but ultimately she was supposed to be paying fucking attention. Even if that patriarchal notion is why she thought that way, she was supposed to be paying fucking attention when she was taught taht “No” means “No”.

and posits that male victims benefit from and cause — via “patriarchy” — their own abuse

Not to belabor the point, but if a male survivor previously helped spread forth the notion that men can’t say no, then he did in fact help spread the narrative that helped make it so difficult to get proper help and acceptance. Women who engage in slut shaming and spread narratives that rape just happens to other women, and are then raped, helped spread the narrative that makes it diffcult to help get help and get proper acceptance. Neither really caused their own abuse, because neither has nearly that much power, but they helped perpetuate the culture that makes it difficult to get help.

ow why would I would try to emotionally manipulate people I do not think care about me to begin with?

That was kollegemesserschmidt who said it, and I don’t care. You’re an idiot; stupidity sufficiently explains this idiotic attempt.

Again, do not get mad because I threw someone’s insult against me back in their face.

I called your aunt an asshole, then you called me one, then I called you one, you twit. If you were actually focusing on the insults I’ve been hurling at you you’d be throwing barbs at my smarts or wit, as that’s been the vast majority.

“Regarding the ‘patriarchy’ comment, the key is that feminists claim that men created and inherently benefit from ‘patriarchy’, and that it is the source of all sexual violence. This essentially posits that only exposure to ‘patriarchy’ causes women abuse, and posits that male victims benefit from and cause — via ‘patriarchy’ — their own abuse.”

Is this how your aunt justified her abusing you?

Rutee: I didn’t say Catholics try to exterminate the gays, and I don’t believe DSC did when referring to the current church. I said they were hateful.

I beg to differ, she asked me why I didn’t cite the Catholic countries where being gay is a capital offense.

This is factually incorrect. A heterosexual can ultimately act on that sexuality and still not be sinful, through marriage. A homosexual can not, ever, because the church will not marry them. Why is that, Pecunium?

The heterosexual can only marry, in the church, if said heterosexual is willing/able to fulfill all the requirements of the church. Can’t marry if their partner isn’t catholic. Can’t marry if they are both catholic and aren’t willing to promise to baptise their children, as catholics.

A heterosexual who doesn’t marry is (and this is, perhaps, sublte) and has sex, is, in the eyes of the church just as sinful as a homosexual who has sex.

Anyone who gets a civil divorce, and can’t get an annullment, is committing adultery, if they have sex. My mother has been unable to take communition since 1975.

I think that’s stupid too, and the church is just as wrong. Do I think it’s unjust? Yes. Do I understand being angry with the church, yes.

But, just as I can think a parent (or a school district) who punishes their children for something I don’t think was wrong can do it without being full of hate for them, so to I think the Church can.

Toysoldier: katz: Funny thing is that only the feminists claimed feminism supports abuse. No non-feminist wrote anything of the sort.

Where? Here? Because here you are the one saying feminism supports/endorses/demands abuse.

So, from the available evidence 1: A non-feminist said such a thing, or 2: you are a feminist.

The heterosexual can only marry, in the church, if said heterosexual is willing/able to fulfill all the requirements of the church. Can’t marry if their partner isn’t catholic. Can’t marry if they are both catholic and aren’t willing to promise to baptise their children, as catholics.

So how do Homosexuals marry in the Catholic Church, Pecunium?

A heterosexual who doesn’t marry is (and this is, perhaps, sublte) and has sex, is, in the eyes of the church just as sinful as a homosexual who has sex.

They got the chance not to be sinful, though. Homosexuals don’t, ever.

Thanks, I’d forgotten them; and they also have the worst the worst punishment regime; since asset forfeiture doesn’t require conviction, merely “plausible” evidence, hell, it doesn’t even require charges be filed.

Ah, asset seizure, my old nemesis. It’s good to be a cop, yeah. Also, there is no need to ever return it, and it can’t be appealed by any process known to mankind.

The short version, Toy Soldier: Any claim to only stand for the ‘falsely accused’ rings completely hollow when you make your biggest concern on the matter ‘false rape accusations’, and not “False Murder accusations”. I don’t care if you tell me you care just as much. I have no reason to believe you when your hobby horse is rape. It’s no different from a Men’s Right’s Idiot making the claim but only ever caring about rape.

Homosexuals have a chance not to be sinful, dumbass.

Only by pretending to be asexuals, lackwit. Weren’t we boring you?

Heterosexuals can be heterosexual and live within the church doctrine; they have to get married, yes, *BUT THEY GOT THE CHANCE*. But you can not do that as a homosexual, because you can’t get married.

I think I see the distinction you’re trying to make between 1.) the church giving homosexuals no way of being sexual sans sin and 2.) the idea that this bind gay Catholics are put in is not necessarily created out of hate. (Am I interpreting correctly? )

However, as with much social justice work, intent really doesn’t matter. The current church position may not have come from hate, but it certainly is experienced as hateful by those who are told that their very existence guarantees that they cannot be sexual without sinning, that they cannot commit to their partner with the support of the community, that they cannot be trusted to adopt and raise children… the list goes on. There are many instances in which the Catholic church as an institution says gays are less-than. In the church some of my cousins attend they hand out pamphlets on how Catholics can fight against legal civil marriage for same sex couples. In Hawaii, the church was instrumental in passing the anti-gay marriage amendment.

Hate may not be the motivating force in all if this, though personally I have my doubts, but it certainly feels like hate from where I stand.

However, as with much social justice work, intent really doesn’t matter.

This.

I’ve seen way too many online discussions about huge, important, hurtful issues that involve real humans get entirely derailed because people start trotting out theological hair-splitting or philosophical thought experiments, and carry on as though the actual, live humans who are dying or suffering because of church policy don’t matter as much as much as winning points in a debate.

Somebody whose wife or mother died of pre-eclampsia because the catholic hospital refused to abort her fetus doesn’t give a fuck about virtue ethics.

Somebody whose beloved died of AIDS because the catholic church actively campaigned against available, affordable condoms is absolutely right to blame the church for that death.

Somebody who was raped by the person they were told–by their entire community, including their parents–was God’s representative, who suffered for the rest of his or her life because of that abuse, only to learn as an adult that the church KNEW about that priest, and repeatedly, for DECADES, put that priest in the position of being able to rape more children is quite justified in blaming the church for his or her pain.

It doesn’t matter whether the church’s professional theologians spend their careers having detailed debates about the nature of sin, and have all decided that being homosexual isn’t, of itself, sinful. It doesn’t matter if Red Lobster customers are technically being just as, if not more, sinful than sexually-active homosexuals. The facts on the ground are, the policies and practices of the catholic church, today, cause misery, suffering and death.

Your doublespeak and your pretentious attitude are not creating new claims. Asserting that your opponent “just doesn’t understand the church” whenever they disagree with you is a nonargument. You asked for historical citations, I gave them, you respond by lying about your original claims.

Asking readers to pay attention to the context of a written work rather than ripping a paragraph out of (1) the text it’s a part of and (2) its historical setting isn’t doublespeak. And you didn’t provide “historical citations,” you provided a collection of quotes. In order to produce a historical citation from, say, Eusebius’s time, to find out whether or not Eusebius’s opinions were matched by real life in Palestine at that time, you would need some kind of record of actual church practice (because that was often different from things that were officially condemned), or of how people behaved in their daily lives.

Moreover, like Pecunium said, “What is the present postion of the Catholic Church” and “What was the content of the writings of the early church” are two different questions
They’re actually four different questions, because a present position isn’t the same as the position in the past in a lot of cases, and because “writings in the early church” aren’t always the same as “an official or mainstream position.” (Thomas Aquinas believed semen was made from fat. Origen believed in reincarnation.)

And I find what Pecunium said pretty nuanced. Replace [ORGANIZATION] with [THE LAW OF THE US] or [AMERICAN SOCIETY] and it sounds like something you could have said.

You want me to [say] [ORGANIZATION] has always loved and accepted [MARGINALIZED GROUP], it’s not going to happen, because it’s not true. You want me to say [ORGANIZATION], now, thinks they are inherently evil, and ought to be punished, imprisoned, killed, not going to happen either.

But, when you tell me what [AN ORGANIZATION I STUDY] thinks; and you are wrong, I’m not going (no matter how upset what you think to be the case makes you; at it, or me) to just sit back and let that go unremarked either. Is [ORGANIZATION] perfect? Far from it, not on this, not on the ways in which it handles scandals (from trivial, to the monstrous). It’s inconsististent in how it treats the poor (from one hand it gives, in [OFFICIAL WRITINGS], and with the other it takes, in the reprimand of those who speak out for them; or in the ways in which those who are truly active in [UNORTHODOX CURRENT OF THOUGHT] aree “promoted” to places they can do no good).

It’s, as with every other human institution, flawed. But it’s not arguing for what you say it’s arguing for. Some of the things you have accused it of, in fact, it, as much as it can, works against (the death penalty, in any place, for any reason). Has it always been this tolerant. No?

This:

You want to be angry, fine, it’s your business. But if want to be effectively angry, be right about the cause. The Church’s stance on civil laws regarding the normal nature of homosexuals in the civic sphere is reprehensible. But she doesn’t condemn them for being; no matter what the vocal idiots you see say.

is not the same thing as this:

You have tried to assert that members of the oppressed group are just “angry”.

Also, in re. this:

You have lied.

Where has he lied?

Where has he lied?

I’d say trying to present it as “Oh you’re not really hated much more than heteros who don’t get married properly” is blatant misrepresentation, IE lying. Heteros are doing it wrong; Homos are doing it at all. These are not the motherfucking same, and pretending they’re equivalent, in hatefulness, is really fucking infuriating.

I’d say trying to present it as “Oh you’re not really hated much more than heteros who don’t get married properly” is blatant misrepresentation, IE lying.

I thought that this was his opinion of what the Catholic Church’s stance was.

Pecunium: If I have an agenda here it’s that the actual positions, as opposed to the common understandings of the Catholic Church be the things discussed…

Rutee:Is that why you kept dodging the rather salient point that there is no way to act on homosexuality and remain in the church’s good graces?

Pecunium: Is the Church’s position wrong? Yes, I think so.

Also, in re this:
even not counting the fact that I have cheerfully pretended along with you that the theological position is really relevant….
I see no reason to assume that Pecunium and I are pretending that our beliefs are relevant.

I see no reason to assume that Pecunium and I are pretending that our beliefs are relevant.

Incidentally, I’m not Catholic, but my religion shares a lot of foundational assumptions with Catholicism. And for the record, I think my religion’s condemnation of homosexuality is unequivocally wrong

Pecunium: Is the Church’s position wrong? Yes, I think so.

VoIP, he also said he did not feel the church’s practice was hateful, because hey, his married mom is technically in as much sin. He’s saying it’s ‘wrong’, but then offering apologia for why it is not so bad. And in this, he keeps dodging that rather central point.

I see no reason to assume that Pecunium and I are pretending that our beliefs are relevant.

Really? Because he was pretty intent on us not discussing the rather horrific practices because they don’t technically reflect the central organization. I think this at least has some merit, in general.

My parents are ‘unmarried’ in the eyes of the church, because my mom was a Jewish divorcee when they tied the knot. But they are still civilly married.

I just don’t understand how the Catholic church’s position on civil marriage (actively campaigning against civil SSM while not lifting a finger to prevent civil marriages between het people who would not be marriageable within the church) DOESN’T represent a pretty clear ‘less-than’ status for LGBT folk. If this position violates core Catholic values, why is it so institutionalized that the Pope himself says that same sex civil marriage will destroy God’s creation .

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A2XX20100111?irpc=932

Is the Pope not enough of an authority on the official church position on gays? Or is saying that allowing us to get married would destroy the earth not at all hateful?

Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I just don’t get it. And even if the Pope loves gay people and is just saying we’re earth-destroying because he thinks it’s true (ie not out of hate, per se) it really, really feels like hate from here.

I’m not saying that Pecunium and VOIP are hateful. I appreciate that you take issue with you churches’ official positions on gays and civil SSM. I’m Jewish, and while Reform and Renewal Jews are open and affirming, I would never deny that the official policy of most more conservative congregations is extremely homophobic and hateful.

Please allow me to tweak this lengthy, though very interesting, religious dissertation. The discussion so far has centered on the Biblical references to homosexuality. Given the cumulative knowlege of all involved, can anyone tell me what the Bible, or any major religious document, says about child abuse? As far as I’m concerned, a decree from God condemning child abuse should have been the first commandment. Money isn’t the root of all evil, child abuse is. Even the story of Lot and his daughters says “they did seduce him in his drunkeness.” Sounds like blaming the victim to me.

http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/15542397.html?source=error ·There ya’ go. You want a citation, read this article. Then we can discuss Matriarchal Oppression and how it influences male behavior. Feminist anthropologist Dr, Helen Fisher once said, “if you can train a pidgeon you can train a man.” I’m sure this applies even more so for boys. How will Carla Poole’s “training” effect her boys as they develop into men? What lessons did she teach her daughter about matriarchal power and control? What if Poole got away with it? Casey Anthony might have, accept her parents went and called the cops. Think if Demond Reed was Poole’s own boy. His disappearance may well have gone unnoticed.

Then we can discuss Matriarchal Oppression and how it influences male behavior.

No thanks, I’m part of the reality-based community, and that means studying and talking about things that actually exist. Have a good time railing against systematic oppression that doesn’t exist.

Protip: A News Article about a singular event is not actually a citation about a widespread social phenomena being as widespread. You still haven’t engaged with Tatjana and the actual evidence. Good luck with that.

And your definition of reality is that maternal child abuse doesn’t “actually exist.”

No, my definition is that matriarchy does not exist. Women are the disadvantaged class. This does not prevent some of them from beating their children. You’re the one who overblew your rhetoric, and are exiting reality for it. It’s really not my fault that you can’t speak with any precision or accuracy.

So long as you’re talking about Matriarchy, you’re discussing a completely different, and non-existent, problem. There are reality-based solutions to things like Child Abuse, even Child Abuse by women, I suspect. IIRC, you’re the guy who pretended that feminists have the power to force through the legislation through the UK that was linked earlier, yes? I don’t have reason to believe you merely mispoke. I have reason to believe you are only making incidental contact to reality.