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.
I may not want to hear this, but how does “the matriarchy” oppress young, poor, uneducated women?
Maybe I have it wrong, maybe you are saying that these women are the agents of the matriarchy? How does that work? Is there any evidence, any at all, for a systemic social bias in favor of young, poor, uneducated, single women?
Even if I didn’t think you were wrong, you haven’t supported your assertions in any detail. How does a class of impoverished, undereducated, etc etc people oppress everyone else?
Oh, Christ, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you whip out a link from Glen Beck? And if it won’t strain your limited comprehension too much, the reason NOW raised money was so that it could help other victims of PPP and, y’know, prevent something like this from happening again.
We’ve been overrun with some seriously dishonest trolls lately, but you, Rev, are taking the cake. Just admit you hate women already, then go about your life.
cynickal: Got a kick out of the clip. I’m not sure you’re accurate that we have a failure to communicate. In fact by putting it in the context of Matriarchal Oppression, I’ve probably drawn alot more attention to the issue of maternal child abuse than I would have otherwise. And maternal child abuse, as several in this thread have agreed, is not a major talking point for feminists.
At least I got you talking.
Still no comments on the Demond Reed murder. Pretending stuff like that doesn’t happen for the sake of a political idealogy might be considered delusional too.
It’ll always be about Matriarchal Oppression for RevSpinnaker, even when it’s clearly not.
Actually at the start you were trying to say that feminism tacitly approves of child abuse and that this had something to do with how in 1985 feminists made it so only women and girls were recognised as victims of abuse. Which you have yet to actually substantiate.
I looked up Carla Poole. She is one messed up individual. Now please demonstrate to me how Matriarchal Oppression caused her to do what she did.
“I may not want to hear this, but how does “the matriarchy” oppress young, poor, uneducated women?”
Never said it did. It does oppress poor, uneducated children apparently at a higher rate. All children are the primary victims of the Matriarchy, that being the social structures women have developed for having and raising children.
Any comments on the Demond Reed murder yet… and a grand proactive feminist plan to prevent that kind of devastation.
“Still no comments on the Demond Reed murder. Pretending stuff like that doesn’t happen for the sake of a political idealogy might be considered delusional too.”
I think it’s very sad that it happened. The father was in jail and the woman that was supposed to be taking care of the child was also very fucked up.
I’m still not sure how this shows Matriarchal Oppression, though. Let’s make the picture bigger–why do men commit more crimes overall? If society is truly matriarchal, why do women only have a problem in this one category, instead of being more aggressive across the board? What kind of political statement is being made by women abusing their children?
“Never said it did. It does oppress poor, uneducated children apparently at a higher rate. All children are the primary victims of the Matriarchy, that being the social structures women have developed for having and raising children.”
I’d like to hear more about these Matriarchal social structures. How exactly do they work?
I’d say he’s about Glenn Beck’s intellectual equal and am not remotely surprised he pulled out a Gloonie link.
So young, poor, uneducated, single women are the primary agents of The Matriarchy. Got it. Now: by what mechanism does that work? How do these women fit into the Matriarchy? Is there, in fact, a systematic social bias in favor of them?
What happened to your purple swirl?
HellKell: Swell, but what does Post Partum Depression have to do with Susan Smith or Carla Poole and the majority of others?
Tatjna: I didn’t say matriarchal oppression caused Carla Poole’s behavior, I said her behavior was martriarchal oppression in itself. And she taught it to her daughter by having her witness the crime and lie to police.
Were you around in 1985? I heard Germaine Greer speak. Feminists were not talking about child abuse. They were too busy spewing invective at all things male, and from what I’m reading in these posts, continue to blame the patriarchy for their own abuse and murder of children.
I’ll bet before I commented here you really didn’t think about maternal child abuse much.
Molly Ren:
“Let’s make the picture bigger–why do men commit more crimes overall?”
Perhaps they had mothers like Carla Poole and no social support system to help them heal. That’s why I keep asking, what is the feminist proactive solution to child victims of women like Carla Poole? They are the potential criminals of tomorrow.
But in order to be matriarchal oppression, that act would have to take place in a matriarchal social system, a wider context of systematized oppression. Molly Ren’s question, and mine, still stand: how do these so-called matriarchal social structures function and what is the place of young, poor, single women within them? You can’t just state stuff and expect us to take it at face value.
What would that “support system” be like? What would it teach these children? What would it teach the girls especially?
What happened to your purple swirl?
There it is again, but at the time I typed my question, your avatar was green patchwork. Huh.
RS: Yes, I was around in 1985 – that’d be one year after marital rape was made illegal in my country.
You seem unable to explain how matriarchal oppression equates to child abuse except by repeating the assumption that all child abuse by mothers is actually matriarchal oppression. You’re also assuming Ms Poole’s is an example of ‘teaching her daughter’ this matriarchal oppression thing because the person she killed was a boy. This is, frankly, made-up bollocks and unless you can demonstrate some direct links between feminist activity and Carla Poole’s actions, the only logical assumption is that you are grasping at straws in an effort to make feminists appear to be uncaring – for reasons known only to yourself.
If you think you’re doing the world some kind of favour by drawing attention to an issue that feminists are supposedly ignoring, I’d suggest you think again. Then go and read some of the literature, find out who has been behind the support of laws to combat child abuse and programs to support people at risk. Have a look at the actual structural correlations to child abuse and neglect and who’s working to address those, and has been since before I was born.
And then go crawl back under your rock. You are not some heroic champion of the rights of children here because if you were, you’d be out there working with the feminists to fix it. Instead, you’re in some internet forum slagging off feminism and making up ‘reasons’ for maternal filicide. And it disgusts me.
And not only that, but also how these “Matriarchal social structures” fit within other social structures that have sought to ensure that men have less direct involvement with the having and raising of children (and no, I am not specifically referring to primary custodial arrangements in severed relationships between the parents).
Actually it’s a Mismagius.
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Mismagius
They have a great witch hat, and I always love witch hats. I suspect Facebook wasn’t connecting properly to WordPress that time.
They’re adorable! I guess I just never noticed the tiny face.
Dude, your fucking article has nothing to do with those other women either. Nice goalpost move. Run along now.
VoiP:
“What would that “support system” be like? What would it teach these children? What would it teach the girls especially?”
Is that to admit no such support system currently exists? This really is the question I proposed coming back to me as a question. I would tell boys that sometimes moms do bad things and they can’t blame themselves mom does those bad things to them. We all know boys are less likely to talk about abuse but they are willing to listen. We owe them the whole truth about domestic violence and not just the feminist half of it.
What would I teach the girls? Remember when the only definition of domestic violence was – man beats wife, son sees dad, son beats wife. It was up to feminists to “break the cycle of abuse.” Doesn’t that same logic apply here?
Regarding feminist ommission of boys as victims an women as abusers, I was watching for the story of this horrible Demond Reed murder on the morning news. Not a word about it. I did however see a lengthy bit with Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler promoting the big V-Day 10th Anniversary Convention.
Jane dropped the C-bomb to make a point about stopping “violence against women and girls.”
Like I said, half the truth about domestic violence. As of 2008 mainstream feminists still didn’t include boys as victims and women as abusers. And they knew better.
That inspired me to start researching child abuse statistics. To be honest, I was suprised by what I found out. Shocked yes but more suprised.
So, if it’s up to femnists to break the cycle of abuse committed by men, then it’s up to MRAs to break the cycle of abuse by women? What would that look like, exactly?
Can you scroll back up and read what the posters here have been saying about child abuse, especially darksidecat and Rutee? It’s like you haven’t read their posts at all.
Anyway, I’m still waiting for an explanation of how matriarchy impacts poor women.
I’m asking you to explain your ideas, giving you an open platform within which to develop your ideas more fully, I’m offering a willing ear, nothing hostile…and you still aren’t giving me anything concrete. In fact, you’re avoiding my questions. This does not speak well for the MRA as a forum for ideas. Even if I were a misogynist, I wouldn’t be very impressed with anything you’ve produced so far.
“Regarding feminist ommission of boys as victims an women as abusers, I was watching for the story of this horrible Demond Reed murder on the morning news. Not a word about it. I did however see a lengthy bit with Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler promoting the big V-Day 10th Anniversary Convention.”
Okay–which news outlet? Because I’m looking on the NYT and CNN sites, and their front pages have stories about economic disaster and (on CNN) tainted cantelopes. There’s not a lot about abuse of children on the national news period, whether it’s perpetrated by men or women.
You’re going to have to do way more to convince me we live in a matriarchy.
VoiP: I have been reading darksidecat and we really agree on several points. We differ on my definition of matriarchy. I’ve simply defined motherhood as “the matriarchy” and use it as an argumentative tool, much as feminists have done with “the patriarchy” and “all men are potential rapists.” I don’t agree with darsidecat that somehow “the patriarchy” is responsible for maternal child abuse. Mothers are.
Pam:
“And not only that, but also how these “Matriarchal social structures” fit within other social structures that have sought to ensure that men have less direct involvement with the having and raising of children (and no, I am not specifically referring to primary custodial arrangements in severed relationships between the parents).”
O.K. Pam you got me on that one. Yes, I admit the “matriarchal social structures” fit within the dominant social structure of “the patriarchy.” Does that make the patriarchy inherently bad? Regarding men having less direct involvement with raising children, I think the industrial revolution had alot to do with that.
Rev: We knocked that one down AGES ago. The money went first to Yates’ defense fund (because EVERYONE deserves decent legal representation) and anything leftover went to postpartum depression/psychosis awareness. So that doctors, partners and new moms can recognize the symptoms BEFORE something like that happens again.
“We differ on my definition of matriarchy. I’ve simply defined motherhood as ‘the matriarchy’ and use it as an argumentative tool, much as feminists have done with ‘the patriarchy’ and ‘all men are potential rapists.’”
Oh my god, this is why NOTHING YOU’VE SAID SO FAR HAS MADE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. You’re making up definitions and NOT TELLING ANYONE ELSE THAT’S WHAT YOU’VE DONE! Such brilliant debating skills!
Also, that is not really how many feminists define “patriarchy” and you probably shouldn’t think that’s how we mean it either.
Amused: Your example serves to prove my point. Being white does not always confer privilege, contrary to what feminists claim.
Rutee Katreya: Feminist theory does not have useful predictive power as it relies only on selectively chosen evidence to support itself. The feminist model simply reasons away contradictory evidence via “intersectionality”), hence the problem. Any counter evidence presented just gets dismissed. That has nothing to do with your theories being incomplete, but it has a lot to do with feminists’ biased favoring and defending of their ideology.
Flib: Read my comment. I did not say all groups cannot hold privilege. I stated that all members of a group do not always hold privilege. A poor man’s social status disempowers him. To claim that he still possesses power and privilege as a man simply does not hold water because the poor man has no real ability to use it if he had it. In every single situation his social status results in him being on the short end of the stick. It is only when you compare him to those of a lower status, like comparing a poor white man with a poor black man, that you get to see any difference. Yet even then, it is often the other person’s disprivilege at play. Given this, it seems ridiculous to claim that all men always have privilege, when really it is some men and often only in certain circumstances. The link you provided demonstrates this point.
VoiP: I was not trying to impress you by correcting your misrepresentation of my position. I never said that Mormon doctrine was not racist. I stated that it was anti-discrimination. You assumed I referred to race, yet racism is not the only form discrimination. This is what happens when you presume to know someone’s intent. If you are confused, you should ask for clarification instead of resorting to straw man arguments. Coincidentally, your Mormon example supports my argument that an ideology can cause people to behave in a way contrary to the principles of the ideology because of a bias towards a group of people. Feminism has a similar anti-male sentiment, which ironically violate the purported intent of ideology. Both ideologies’ views could cause someone to so fear, distrust, or hate the targeted groups that they may become violent towards them.
Bagelsan: If you read my post in full you would come across the four links to examples of feminists refusing to provide services to male victims. But I can understand why as a feminist you would disregard actual examples of male discrimination and keep moving the goal post.
I’ve got a better idea; how about instead of stringing together links to links to links to your crappy blog (and then whining that I didn’t wade through them in the exact right way when I read them) you just repost them, perhaps even with a brief explanation of how each example is “led to” by feminism. Because in all of the examples you have given — your aunt, the “Hot For Teacher” night — you have utterly failed to establish any kind of correlation between feminism and abuse of men/boys (let alone causation.) And yes, you still haven’t shown that feminism leads to discrimination against men merely by linking to stories of men being mistreated. Whether or not men are mistreated is not he point of contention: the role of feminism in this mistreatment is.
Or does asking you to put both a link and a short explanation in the same comment tax your mental resources too far? Perhaps it would make it too obvious how much bullshit your “easy to show” (yet never actually shown yet) causation is?
VoiP:
“So, if it’s up to femnists to break the cycle of abuse committed by men, then it’s up to MRAs to break the cycle of abuse by women? What would that look like, exactly?”
Good point and very logical. You’re right, it is up to men to bring public awareness to the issue. That really does break the cycle of abuse and is exactly what I’m trying to do. But don’t pigeon-hole me as an MRA. And I don’t like or listen too Glenn Beck. But Glenn Sacks, on the other hand, seems like a great guy. But he gets thrown into the same dismissed class of MRA’s with no distinction. If you need to a moniker to hang on people I’ll go with CRA, Children’s Rights Advocate.
“What exactly would that look like?” Don’t know. I’m kind of winging it here. I just came up with CRA. But I’ll tell you one thing though, define maternal child abuse as matriarchal oppression to a bunch of feminists and all Hell breaks loose. I’ll have to do that more often. For the sake of maternal child abuse awareness.
Molly Ren: Thanks for the link. Gotta love Wikipedia. I looked up their definition of matriarchy too. The first sentence reads:
“A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have central roles of political leadership and moral authority.”
Hmm… matriarchy…motherhood… moral authority… interesting.
“Molly Ren: Thanks for the link. Gotta love Wikipedia. I looked up their definition of matriarchy too. The first sentence reads:
“’A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have central roles of political leadership and moral authority.’
“Hmm… matriarchy…motherhood… moral authority… interesting.”
Um, you think mothers hold most of the political offices in the US?
Tatjna:
“I looked up Carla Poole. She is one messed up individual. Now please demonstrate to me how Matriarchal Oppression caused her to do what she did.”
Did she learn that kind of behavior from her mother? Then she may be perpetuating intrafamilial maternal abuse, i.e. matriarchal oppression.
He seriously cannot read for comprehension. I think this troll might be full.
ToySoldier wrote:
It’s called Kyriarchy. It’s a feminist-originated concept.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
Molly Ren:
“Um, you think mothers hold most of the political offices in the US?”
Of course not. But what about that moral authority thing? darksidecat said matriarchy was more conceptual, and I added philisophical, than patriarchy. Concepts and philosophies are the heart and soul of morals and moral authority.
Given feminists current stance on maternal child abuse, close to non-existant, can they really claim to have moral authority? If so, how?
Because poor women and black women don’t exist, toysoldier? Poor men and black men still receive systematic advantages for being male (just as poor white people still receive societal privilege for being white). Take a look at poor women and black women’s social condition and that is quickly and easily observable. What you are doing is trying to play oppression olympics, and the rest of us aren’t having that. A poor man being oppressed by a wealthy woman is not being oppressed on the grounds of gender, nor has he lost the societal benefits he receives for being male. What is occuring in such a case is an income based oppression dynamic harming him.
@revspinnaker, I specifically posted long, detailed discussions of neglect vs. physical abuse and murder, and you have now decided to pretend like that discussion never happened. Women do not commit more physical abuse killings or more murders, women commit a lower ratio of neglect than men (but have higher numbers, due to the fact that neglect involves the caretaker and women are caretakers at extremely higher rates).
have central roles of political leadership
Are you claiming women have that in the US? Congressional and government demographics beg to differ. Women as a class do not have political and social power dominance in western society, period. And this is even more true of marginalized women, such as poor women and women of color.
Also, it is interesting that you attribute a position of “blaming the patriarchy” for child abuse upon me when I never actually said anything remotely similar. I, in fact, took no specific position on the causes of abuse, other than that they per se involved “dominance through coercion and force” and that feminism was not a statistically significant contributing factor. You see, unlike you, my worldview does not depend on women being either angels or devils, women are human beings, just as prone to bad behavior as other similarly situated human beings. There is an old feminist slogan “feminism is the radical notion that women are people”. Patriarchy is only one of the societal systems of dominance via coercion and force, others exist (for example, heterosexism and white supremecy). Eliminating patriarchy alone would reduce certain forms of abuse, but it would not in and of itself eliminate all abuse, in the hypothetical situation where eliminating patriarchy but continuing other social norms of dominance is possible (I do not think as a practical matter that such a thing is achievable, given social dynamics, but in the hypothetical).
Toysoldier:
Yupp, that was me. And Toysoldier, I talked about emotional manipulation based on your cheap attempts to equate people who disagree with you with the person who raped you, along the lines of “well, I bet you are happy to know that my aunt would agree with you! So you are basically agreeing with a child rapist, just so you know”!
You did that multiple times, so it was definitely not an accident. As a fellow sexual abuse survivor, I’m really, REALLY not happy with you trying to equate me (and others) with the person who raped you when you were a child, because apparently she also thought you were a disgusting coward. I apologize if I overreacted, but it is something I won’t tolerate easily, and I’m asking you to stop doing that.
You sure, bro? Okay, let’s look at what you wrote…
I think it shows pretty well that you think feminism led your aunt to sexually abuse you as a child.
…so? Sarah Palin claimed she is a feminist as well, even if her views and beliefs are very contradictory to feminist views. If someone claims to be a LGBT* ally and still bashes and sees LGBT* people as second class citizens, I still won’t see them as a LGBT* ally.
Because not bashing LGBT* people is a core belief of being an LGBT* ally. Just like not accepting/endorsing/supporting sexual abuse in any way or form is a core belief of feminism.
Listen, this is not about winning an internet fight. The evidence obviously speaks against you. I have no idea what your goal is, but if you are only trying to win an argument on they internet, not having an honest discourse, please do tell me so. It would spare me a lot of time and energy.
I will also repeat the recommendations of other people on this blog; read and research about the things you are trying to argue about. Winning an argument on the internet isn’t anywhere as useful as actually being knowledgeable about the topics you are discussing,
KS – so if we *assume* she learned this behaviour solely from her mother and not from the dysfunctional environment she appears to have been immersed in all her life, if we *assume* that she was abused by only her mother and not anyone else ever in her life, and if we *assume* that’s the reason why she did what she did, then THAT proves your matriarchal oppression concept?
I don’t buy it. Sorry, you have completely overreached yourself and I’m bored with you now.
darksidecat:
” I specifically posted long, detailed discussions of neglect vs. physical abuse and murder, and you have now decided to pretend like that discussion never happened. ”
Sorry, as I posted then, you had a very thoughtful and well reasoned comment. I did say I’d get back after reading it a few times so I’d have an equally informed response. I didn’t and I apologize. But it was not because I “decided to pretend like that discussion never happened.” Not in the least bit. I’ve been preoccupied by the barrage of negative comments putting me on the defensive.
“… women commit a lower ratio of neglect than men (but have higher numbers, due to the fact that neglect involves the caretaker and women are caretakers at extremely higher rates).”
Phil Donahue would agree with you. When confronted with the fact that women kill more children than men he quiped,” [t]hat’s like saying more men hit home runs.” I guess he meant women kill children for sport. He successfully dismissed the issue.
And that bit about lower ratios, that says more about boyfriends and parmours than natural fathers. Ratio of neglect? There we go again with a vague, ineffective, antiquated term for a sentencing guideline.
Tatjna:
“so if we *assume* she learned this behaviour solely from her mother and not from the dysfunctional environment”
Child abuse is almost always multi-layered, especially the worst cases. My point is some mothers deliberately cause dysfunction and that is largely ignored by feminists.
“And that bit about lower ratios, that says more about boyfriends and parmours than natural fathers.” No, it does not. Single fathers commit neglect (including serious injury causing neglect) at higher rates than single mothers. Boyfriends and “paramours” are not primary or legally responsible caretakers in most cases, and therefore very unlikely to be considered neglect perps. Men still commit neglect at a much higher rate compared to their percentage of caretakers. When it comes to physical abuse deaths, mothers and fathers perpetrate at similar rates. When it comes to murder deaths (intentional deaths), mothers and fathers perpetrate at similar rates. Lumping in neglect deaths with physical abuse and intentional murder deaths is very sloppy methodology.
Let me try and explain how women can have higher numbers of neglect but not higher rates, using an example I have used previously (not on this thread, but on others). Consider a field with an overly high percentage of one gender of workers-for example, construction. Construction is an incredibly male dominated field. The vast, vast majority of construction deaths and injuries due to negligence are the fault of a man. Is this because men are automatically more negligent construction workers than women? No, it does not. If we want to know if women are behaving better or worse in this area, we need to compare the percentage of women in the field with their percentage of negligence cases. So, if women are, let’s say, five percent of workers in this field and cause five percent of negligence, and men are ninety five percent and ninety five percent, respectively, their ratios and rates of commiting the bad act are the same. The number of incidents alone does not tell the whole story. This is true of neglect as well. As basically only primary caretakers can be considered neglectful, and women make up 90% or more of those caretakers, if men and women had similar rates of neglect, women would commit roughly 90% and men roughly 10%, because of their disparite numbers in this type of work.
“Ratio of neglect? There we go again with a vague, ineffective, antiquated term for a sentencing guideline.” Ratio is a common basic math term, and I used it in a mathematical sense. Also, I never advocated a distinction in sentencing guidelines between perps of different genders who committed similar types of abuse.
And my point is that you don’t have a point because your ‘argument’ is made up entirely of assumption and fabrication, which you have not yet been able to substantiate.
Now, Toysoldier. Go back and read my comments on why you are stupid. It’s called intersection for a reason. Actually learn what the fuck you are talking about before going off on an ignorant rant about it. The link I provided helped prove that there are no universal statements because intersectionality doesn’t actually make universal statements. The reason I’ve been calling you stupid is because you are saying as if it does, and I provided you a link of applied intersectionality that shows otherwise. There are multiple levels of analysis, the closest intersectionality gets to describing something as “universal” is when it is describing systemic issues. To be systemic, it needs to be in the majority and show common tendencies within power based relationships. It is looking at a snap shot picture of relationships on multiple axis that is empirical backed by large swaths of data. It does not say that all men are favored all the time.
Earlier I mentioned male nurses, that is one sample case. Look at cases of male childcare workers as another example, since there has also been a discussion of children here. The forms of discrimination they face is pretty different then say, women on career business tracks, but there is discrimination that occurs. Work is actually done on this, within actual academia, that uses basic concepts of feminist theory (intersectionality). It’d be great if MRA’s (and I have no clue if you identify yourself as one or not) actually focused on things like this, instead of attempting to write themselves as completely oppressed or act as if all theory born out of feminism must be wrong. Pro-tip: Applied intersectionality is by no means limited by gender. It’s a tool, and empirically, a pretty damn effective one. Or would you like to dismiss the study I linked above?
And yet you think the theory itself is the problem when it is clear your fundamental understanding of intersectionality is just incorrect. This is why I said you were ignorant. It’s pretty clear you haven’t actually read much into it. So excuse me while I point out that you are intellectually dishonest at best. Fess up, you don’t know what you are saying.
Kollege Kat: ”
As a fellow sexual abuse survivor, I’m really, REALLY not happy with you trying to equate me (and others) with the person who raped you when you were a child, because apparently she also thought you were a disgusting coward.”
You sound like a real sensitive broad, especially being a fellow sexual abuse survivor. But then again, I know what it’s like to have feminists tell me I deserved to be raped as a child because of my patriarchal priviledge. “Now you know how it feels” is what I heard. So let me get this straight. You personally feel Toysoldier is a “disgusting coward” and you identify with his aunt for raping him for that reason? Is it therefore reasonable to rape boys because they are part of the patriarchy?
darksidecat: Thanks again for the civil discourse. Please read the comment of mine prior to your last posting. The one about Phil Donahue. Agreed, more women are primary nurturers than men. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior. The analogy you made about construction workers and negligent deaths being the fault of men is telling. If a construction foreman is “negligent” and a death results he may be responsible for man-slaughter among other things.
If a mother is “neglectful” and that results in the death of a child… look at Casey Anthony.
The fuck, dude?
I never said he deserved it. No one EVER deserves to be raped/abused. Not you, not Toysoldier. I don’t identify with his aunt for raping him, because, as I said multiple times, I think she is a disgusting, abusive and sick individual. But I also think that Toysoldier is a disgusting coward. If that is what is her view, I guess that is something I agree with her on.
I still don’t think it is any excuse to abuse him!
Thinking his aunt is a despicable person, and thinking Toysoldier is a despicable person, are not mutually exclusive. I just think it’s really inappropriate of him to compare anyone who opposes to him to his aunt, like “I will keep your personal opinions of me with my aunt’s and those of other full-of-shit assholes.“. It seems really cheap.
Again, I think what those women told you is absolutely unacceptable. Victim blaming and denying a survivor help is something most feminists will condemn, no matter what genders are involved.
And I’d guess you’re a complete douche that has given up even the pretense or arguing in good faith.
Manipulative little bastard, aren’t you? Hiding your agenda and sophistry behind “civil discourse” and trying to get people to “admit” women are evil because if the gross numbers that are left to attend children alone in an increasingly downward spiral of economic pressures.
Go blame victims somewhere else.
RevSpin:
I was seven. Because it was 26 years ago. Do you think, maybe, it’s just possible that feminism may have changed in a fucking quarter of a century?
I wonder how many MRAs are created when someone reads a feminist essay from the ’70s and it says something like “a marriage license is a license to rape” and thinks “feminists are hyperbolic! If they consider married sex ‘rape’, what other innocuous thing do they consider bad! How misandrist!” when in fact, in the ’70s it was literally true.
Kollege Kat:
“Now why would I would try to emotionally manipulate people I do not think care about me to begin with?”
So you emotionally manipulate people you percieve as not caring about you. Do you mean you manipulate patriarchal oppressors or just men & boys in general.
Passive aggression… it’s such a girl thing.
darksidecat:
“Single fathers commit neglect (including serious injury causing neglect) at higher rates than single mothers.”
Citations please. And besides I thought we agreed, the term “neglect” is vague, ineffective and antiquated as a sentencing guideline.
Pssst.
Pssst, Rev.
was a quote from Toysoldier. Just saying. No objection to your observation of Toysoldeir being passive-aggressive though, but why would you say
?
Also, why are you assuming I’m a girl?
Hershelle: All married women in the 70’s were rape victims?
“Hershelle: All married women in the 70′s were rape victims?”
No, Rev. In the 70s, you couldn’t legally call non-consensual sex with your spouse rape. The law has been changed since then so that *if* your spouse rapes you, you can actually report it.
“Yupp, that was me.”
Caught that one out of context kollege kat. I trust Toysoldier was defending himself against emotional manipulation.
And yes, like Oprah denying sexual abuse happens to boys for 25 years, passive aggression is more of a girl thing.
Intersectionality. What ever happened to deconstructuralism? And hyperbolic obsfucation?
You know, at this point, they’re not even incidentally touching reality.
I already provided citations…but you can also go and crunch the numbers and read the data on the NIS-3, if you’d like (actually read the data, not the not so great executive summary). The data for serious injuries, single mothers 10.0 per 1,000 children, single fathers 14.0 per 1,000. Neglect, single mothers 16.7 per 1,000 children,
single fathers 21.9 per 1,000 children.
“And yes, like Oprah denying sexual abuse happens to boys for 25 years, passive aggression is more of a girl thing.”
I know Oprah is a giant media maven, but I wouldn’t trust her on the important stuff as far as I can throw her.
Actually… I know Oprah has probably done a great deal of positive things with women in mind, but does she identify as feminist? I wasn’t aware that she did.
Nah, it was the other way around, but no hard feelings. I’d appreciate it if you would read my responses in their entirety, though.
As always, [Citation needed].
Here’s a reference site link to some of the data tables, you can scroll right down to the one about single mothers vs single fathers, single fathers do not perform better in any abuse category http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1386/How-Many-Children-are-Maltreated-NATIONAL-INCIDENCE-STUDY-CHILD-ABUSE-NEGLECT.html
Thanks darksidecat, that’s the only point I was trying to make. Equal rights means recognizing women are equally abusive.
Molly Ren: Can’t contend on this one.
“No, Rev. In the 70s, you couldn’t legally call non-consensual sex with your spouse rape. The law has been changed since then so that *if* your spouse rapes you, you can actually report it.”
Most men could never imagine raping their wives. Much like most feminists can’t imagine a woman like Carla Poole. Your laws have changed. Demond Reed’s hasn’t.
Notice that after 3 or 4 citations of women being less likely to abuse children, he has shifted his claim from “Women are much more abusive and likely to kill children than men” to “Women and men are equally abusive”. I’d say it’s interesting but he’s just a garden variety misogynist, so it’s really not.
Kollege Kat: Regarding Oprah and citations, I have a videotape of the Oprah show that really was the first to deal with men who were sexually abused as children. I was there. She denies the show’s existence. That was in 1987, her follow-up show was the “200 Man Show” last year,after 25 years of silence and shaming men. Talk about an abandonist malnurturing mentality.
Rutee: “Women are much more abusive and likely to kill children than men”
I never said that.
Hey Kollege Kat, I have to agree with Toysoldier on this one.
“Regarding the last point, what my aunt did is just as much feminism as any man who rapes a woman is “patriarchy”.”
And how do you get those cool looking quote boxes?
“Most men could never imagine raping their wives.”
Because discussion of things like “mutual consent” is crap in the US, and has been for a long time. The sexual revolution is still being worked out, unfortunately.
“Much like most feminists can’t imagine a woman like Carla Poole. Your laws have changed. Demond Reed’s hasn’t.”
Rev., One of our regular commentators, Holly, has written about being abused by her mom on her blog and has sometimes mentioned it in the comments on here. We all know that women can do evil things. What we’re contesting is your theory that “Because women do evil things, we live in a matriarchy”.
Bagelsan: Feminists link to random men’s activists posts and expect people to read the posts, but when asked to do the same thing feminists refuse to read the post, and claim that a post that provides the very explanation they request does not prove anything. I cannot tell if this just lazy, disingenuous, or yet another feminist attempt to deny discrimination against male victims. But I can say that this level of intellectual dishonesty just makes you look foolish.
Moewicus: Changing the name does not change the flaw in the logic, and it does not fool anyone. When people use ‘kyriarchy’, everyone knows they really mean ‘patriarchy’.
darksidecat: Changing the sexes would not change anything. A poor man is still disempowered even when compared with poor women. Or are you honestly arguing that poor men fair better if charged with a crime, if seeking social support, or if seeking assistance compared to poor women? Again, at best what you would see would be poor women’s disprivilege.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Again, why would I emotionally manipulate people who do not care about me to begin with? I do not care what feminists think of me, so your disingenuous apology is unnecessary. However, if you want to hurt me so badly that you personally attach me, you should know someone already beat you to it. Do not get sensitive because I threw your cheap shots back in your face. Where in those quoted comments do I state that feminism condones, supports, or endorses child rape? My aunt’s situation is akin to Catholics claiming a priest who molested children is not a Catholic despite his being a practicing Catholic for years. It is silly and juvenile. This not about winning an internet argument. This is about challenging feminists’ misinformation, hypocrisy, and biases. I realize few feminists are interested in that, but I do encourage you and other feminists read and research the things you try to discredit. Rev exaggerated Oprah’s comment. Oprah claimed she never heard of the 1 in 6 statistic for boys before, despite the stat being around for almost two decades.
Flib: Where in your link does it state that men lose their male privilege?
“Changing the name does not change the flaw in the logic, and it does not fool anyone. When people use ‘kyriarchy’, everyone knows they really mean ‘patriarchy’.”
No, I’m pretty sure they mean “kyriarchy”. Cuz words mean things!
darksidecat’s quoted statistics indicate that women are not equally abusive, however. So claiming that they are would be false, and not equal.
Sigh. Bro, I did read your post; it didn’t establish anything like what you claim it does ie. that feminism causes women to abuse. It mentioned a woman who abused, basically that she exists, but in no way connected that abuse to feminism or showed any causality. I can’t fathom how to explain this more clearly to you.