Toysoldier: Remember this thing with language and how you are bad with it? Lose is the wrong term. Male privilege is not necessarily a benefit in the nursing industry due to the way the role is constructed, it has demonstrated forms of discrimination that differ from other intersected discrimination, but remain discrimination none the less. I’ll say again, your understanding of theory is piss poor. Stop attempting to construct an argument over universals when you can’t honestly engage with it’s components. Systemic is not a universal. Any social model that bases itself in empirical data and case studies, feminist influenced or not, can not engage in universals or else it falls apart. You do not seem to understand the epistemological roots of any social sciences, so I will continue to insist that you go properly educate yourself rather then act like you are taking on some big conspiracy theory. The conclusions you keep reaching demonstrate your ignorance.

Feminist theory does not have useful predictive power as it relies only on selectively chosen evidence to support itself.

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100016

Can your opinions start intersecting with reality at some point? Cause that’d be nice.

The feminist model simply reasons away contradictory evidence via “intersectionality”

You keep saying this, and you never actually link to any contradictory evidence. You do not attack a scientific theory with assertions.

Any counter evidence presented just gets dismissed.

Just because I really have no reason to think you can even get basics right, what do you think would qualify as contradictory evidence for feminist theory? Be specific on which aspect you refer to.

I am not asking you for a citation. I am asking you what you think feminist theory’s Cambrian Rabbit equivalent is before we even get to the citation.

Again, at best what you would see would be poor women’s disprivilege.

It’s so cute that you keep confusing dictionary definitions for sociological ones.

Toysoldier: Dude, be fair. When you see a majority of feminists condoning or defending what your aunt did (like the MRAs defending spree killers, for example), then you’ve got a case. So far I haven’t seen that. Some of them may be jerks, but they don’t condone child abuse.

Kollege Kat: Oprah has a huge influence in the U.S. particularly for women. In fact her backing Obama for the presidency and not Hillary Clinton drew serious consternation from her feminist allies. She is usually smoothly vague when it comes to her personal beliefs. That may be why she backed out, at the last minute, as key-note monologer at the big 2008 Vagina Monologues 10th Anniversary Convention. But she was good friends with Eve Ensler, and has had many feminists on her show, especially those dealing with sexual abuse or violence against women.

Therein lies the sin of omission. Or as I put it, telling half the truth is like telling half a lie. Here’s my feelings. In guyville we have a saying, “evil prevails when good men do nothing.” Oprah, by “going public” with her sexual abuse as a child, established herself as the daytime media forum for the issue.

Not only did she omit boys as victims and women as perpetrators, but she perpetuated the feminist doctrine that “child sexual abuse is the ultimate oppression of women.” Male victims and female perps just didn’t fit that paradigm. That’s why the group I was working with phone blitzed the show’s producers to do a show for men.

It was the first and last until the “200 Man Show” this year. And in that 25 years of media silence, the whole issue of child sexual assault became distorted to the point of Chris Hansen and “peverted justice.” While I commend busting online predators, Hansen’s tawdry exploitation of offenders may have been great for ratings, but the justice really was perverted.

First, to the viewing public a molester is a molester. Round ‘em all up and let God sort ‘em out. First time offender or a hardened pedophile made no difference once the cameras started rolling. Second, because of the dubious nature of perverting justice to sell advertising, most of the cases were thrown out. And third, when one guy drove by but didn’t stop the whole camera crew ended up on his front lawn to confront him.

He went out back and shot himself. The majority of sex offenders are too narccissistic to commit suicide. But to many, justice was served. Perverted as it may be.

Oprah and her feminist friends exploited child sexual abuse to the same extent as Hansen exploited pedophiles. It was packaged and sold to an anxious and angry audience, and delivered the message they wanted to hear. Would that women develop the same sense of angst driven animosity for female child abusers.

Why didn’t Oprah continue to include men in her discussions about child abuse, as survivors not molesters? I don’t know. Bad ratings? Possibly. More likely she was uncomfortable with the perspective of Mike Lew, the foremost expert on sexually abused men at the time.

One of his patients was the first to speak on the panel. What may have bothered Oprah was that his mother was always in the same room while his father molested him. He was also a victim of “target abuse,” singled out from the other kids by his mother and physically and emotionally abandoned. Some call that “neglect.” I call it criminal.

Fast forward to Oprah’s last show. We finally get the big picture of how complex and multi-layered child abuse is. She confided her own mother locked her out of the house when she came to stay with her, after the grandmother who raised her fell ill. Imagine your mother locking you out of the house. For days. And she must have been no older than six. Sometimes the abuse begins with mom.

That’s a huge part of not just her story, but a big chunk of the underlying dynamic of child abuse that went untold for a quarter century. During that time the rate of American maternal violence and murder has quietly escalated by as much as 25%. Like I said, evil prevails when good men do nothing. Same goes for women.

On her “200 Man Show” she said men back then weren’t ready to talk openly about sexual abuse. But we were… on HER show. She, the media and feminists weren’t ready to listen.

We are talking about privilege in the systematic sociological sense. Not in the definition you are going to pull out of your ass from the dictionary.

Hengist: How fortunate then that I never claimed that feminists condone child abuse. However, some feminists have agreed with my aunt’s opinions of me.

Then I don’t see your point, sorry. Either feminists agree with your aunt’s treatment of you, or they don’t and what she did is not representative of feminism. You say feminists have agreed with her “opinions”, what were those? What is the point you’re trying to make? This whole thing has gotten confusing.

Sounds exactly like my argument.

Thank you, the only stragglers who weren’t sure you didn’t know what you were talking about when you talked about feminist theory should be caught up with the rest of us now.

Protip: Feminist theory doesn’t say what you think it does. Learn it.

. I believe you meant Precambrian rabbit.

You answered the question… and poorly.

See, I have a few thoughts on contradictory evidence at this point. I think the strongest evidence against intersectionality would be if belonging to two different marginalized groups actually increased your general standing in society. If we could say that, for instance, black women were privileged over black men and white women in general, and had superior earning potential, less representation in poverty, etc, that’d be pretty strong evidence against intersectionality. Good evidence against kyriarchy would be if those who fought to end the enforcement of a particular class’ oppression actually had a fantastic track record of ending all oppression (If feminism had a spectacular track record against racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, classism, ableism, , if the civil rights movements by PoCs had good track records on ending sexism,cis-sexism…), because kyriarchy predicts that most people, even those who aren’t privileged on a given axis, will perpetrate a number of other forms of discrimination.

I think a great way to disprove class theory in general, and privilege in specific to begin with is if class was *NEVER* a strong predictor of success. But even you don’t think that’s the case, given how you’ve discussed the rich and hte poor, or the racism against black people. You’ve instead mostly confined your arguments against privilege to either dictionary-level sophism (Protip: “ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY IT ISN’T A PRIVILEGE NOT TO BE BEATEN BY THE POLICE” is not, in fact, an argument against a sociological principle with a definition distinct from the dictionary’s. It’s like arguing for Great Person history on the grounds that there WERE some really nice people and the other methodologies for teaching history, in denying Great Person History, are saying there’s no nice people and that’s too mean. It’s completely out of touch with what any of what you’re arguing about says or means.), or assertion.

RevSpinnaker, you seem to have this problem where you think “matriarchy” means “feminism”. Or maybe “matriarchy” means “all women who commit abuse”. They’re not the same thing.

By your standards, if the fact that women commit abuse means we’re in a matriarchy, then you can just easily prove that we live in a patriarchy by the fact that *men* commit abuse.

This is like saying that all Roman peasants are in fact Cesar because they beat their wives.

Making up definitions does not help your argument. Just saying.

Molly: I see – I guess that’s as it should be, since we’re a matriarchy and all..

RevSpinnaker, we’re talking about feminism causing *child abuse*, not political protests. From the links you handed us, you seem to think that the two are being equated here–they’re not.

The chicks in the article you cited are asking for things like “hire women of color! Pay women more money! Actual have a woman editing a woman’s magazine!” and, from this excerpt, the majority of them seem to think jumping at the editor wasn’t a good idea either:

“Everyone froze except Karla Jay. With split-second timing she grabbed Shulie’s right arm and expertly flipped her off the desk and out of danger. There was an audible “oooooh” as Shulie sailed in an arc toward three waiting demonstrators who cushioned her fall. A phalanx of hands reached out to detain her while she blinked, looking sheepish. Her passion was spent.

“Karla had been studying judo for all of three months. ‘I have to save this woman from going to jail and destroying her life,’ Karla remembers thinking.

“Without Karla Jay’s intervention, the Journal sit-in might have turned into a disastrous melee. She was our heroine, the woman of the hour. As for Shulie, at the time I thought that the media opportunity had simply gone to her head but in retrospect I believe that her lunge was the first public sign of her growing instability. Disgraced, she walked out the door with Ti-Grace Atkinson and Rosalyn Baxandall. The three veteran activists, accustomed to claiming their place at the eye of the storm, tramped down the back stairs agreeing that Media Women was a finky bunch. Ros had seen us wave sheaves of paper at Carter and Hershey–our precious demands and article suggestions. With little effort she somehow convinced herself that we were brandishing resumes and angling for jobs.”

In case you got mixed up in all the names, Karla Jay, who averted the violent action, is spoken of earlier in the article as a Redstocking–that is, she’s *another radical feminist*. If the whole feminist movement was nothing but women just gnashing to tear men apart at every opportunity, why would Jay have bothered to intervene and why would Shulie later be described as having “growing instability”?

So I ask again: What did Carla Poole’s actions have to do with feminism? How did her killing that boy have political aims?

Also, geez, Rev., do you not have any examples of feminism that happened, I dunno,*this year* instead of a decade or more ago?

“I never defined feminism as matriarchal.”

Then why did you bring up an article about a feminist protest in a discussion about child abuse? Earlier you said that child abuse is a result of “Matriarchal oppression”, so it seems like the two would be related.

You wrote, “Don’t feminists define the patriarchy as ‘all men are potential rapists?’ If I played by your rules that would make all women potential whores. Potential is the operative word here.”

then you write

“* I never said all feminists make up definitions all the time.”

You’re saying we don’t know the meaning of words we use, and yet claim “I never said you were making shit up!”

Maybe *you* don’t know what “patriarchy”, “patriarchy”, “matriarchy”, “feminism”, or “rape culture” means? You certainly haven’t shown it by your discourse.

Molly “The Sow” Ren

Molly Ren: “Rape culture?”

“Brownmiller argues that rape had been hitherto defined by men rather than women; and that men use, and all men benefit from the use of, rape as a means of perpetuating male dominance by keeping all women in a state of fear.”

And that’s ALL men, no “potential” about it.

At the time the only books being written about rape and child sexual abuse were written by women. I called Susan Brownmiller through her publisher to question the notion that “all men benefit from the use of rape…” She was really nice and had already heard from many in the psychological community about the frequency of sexual abuse against boys.

This was the early 80’s and she had already softened her approach. She was sympathetic to the fact that for an impressionable boy who’s been sexually abused the last thing he needs to hear is that he’s a rapist.

In fact boys need to hear the same thing as girls who’ve been abused; you are not alone, you are not to blame and you are good and always have been.

To feminists a boy isn’t “good” until he’s been corrected and cured of the patriarchy. So you call him a rapist.

“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.

I’m not agreeing with you, I’m trying to figure out what you think, because even granting your premises (which hoooo boy I do not) it’s not really clear or internally consistent.

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.

So, here is a point. Good job. But what is that issue?

I’ve simply defined motherhood as ‘the matriarchy’ and use it as an argumentative tool…

Motherhood = matriarchy.

“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.

“Maternal moral authority” = matriarchy.

“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.

Child abuse when perpetrated by women = matriarchal oppression.
Because motherhood = matriarchy.

Molly Ren,

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”….you seem to have this problem where you think “matriarchy” means “feminism”. Or maybe “matriarchy” means “all women who commit abuse”. They’re not the same thing.

It’s more far-reaching than that: matriarchy seems to be the fact that women parent their children, or at least their male children. Matriarchal oppression is maternal child abuse.

Kollege Messerschmitt:

And on a completely unrelated side note, why are you writing my name as “Kollege Kat”? I thought it was a typo at first, but you keep writing it like this, so I’m curious.

Because you’re a giiiirrrl, which is bad.

Isn’t your gravatar a cat, Kollege?

Maybe one of those hairless cats.

Rev., if you just want to bring awareness to the fact that male children are also victims of child abuse, please do! I totally agree that it is a good thing. But the way you talk about it is confusing and inconsistent as hell.

Ah, but you see, he’s used the word Matriarchy as a tool to talk about it!

Because as we all know, completely confusing issues is the best way to generate more awareness of them.

Kollege Kat: I meant no offense. Your icon is a cat, you’re comments are worth responding to and Kat is quicker to key in than Messerschmitt.

The “alleged doctrine” you refer to actually evolved around the same time as Andrea Dworkin coined the “all men are potential rapists” line. I believe the statement was first made by Susan Brownmiller and repeated profusely on any show (usually daytime) dealing with sexual abuse. Though when I think about it it may have been in Katherine Brady’s “Father’s Day: A True Story of Incest.”

The potential rapist thing has stuck. But child sexual abuse as the ultimate oppression of women was debunked after so many boys came forward and so many women were found to be involved with child sexual abuse. Feminists used to say the same thing about child pornography until a “Frontline Investigation” busted the biggest child porn broker in Europe.

An undercover camera caught her bragging that she bought her mink jacket from “kiddie porn.”

Nope, feminists didn’t say much about child porn after that either. Especially since many (not all) of the children were exploited by their opportunist malnurturing mothers.

Read about Gregg Milligan’s mom at Oprah.com. Women sell boys into prostitution too.

Who’s “her”? Andrea Dworkin? Susan Brownmiller? Katherine Brady?

The “biggest CP broker in Europe,” who was a woman, therefore matriarchal oppression is real.

Feminists used to say the same thing about child pornography until a “Frontline Investigation” busted the biggest child porn broker in Europe.

An undercover camera caught her bragging that she bought her mink jacket from “kiddie porn.”

Again, Rev., you’re talking about stuff that happened at least a decade ago. Discussion of prostitution, child porn, abuse, and sex has changed a lot since then, but you don’t seem to be aware or care that this is so.

It does, however, provide a convenient red herring to your apparent belief that motherhood as such is a system of oppression.

Here’s another awesome quote:

All children are the primary victims of the Matriarchy, that being the social structures women have developed for having and raising children.

I guess the reason poor, uneducated, young women are the vanguard of the Matriarchy is that since their support system sucks and they have few resources, there’s nothing out there to counteract their influence (which, because it’s matriarchal, must be bad.)

Also, “abandonist malnurturing mentality” sounds science-y!

What’s your solution, male-run creches or something?

Nope, feminists didn’t say much about child porn after that either. Especially since many (not all) of the children were exploited by their opportunist malnurturing mothers.

Again you fail to show why feminists need to have this vague reaction you expect–saying something? Saying what?–in order to be consistent/whatever vague thing it is you think it damaged by lack of this vaguely defined expected reaction.

Not that I expect much better from someone defining motherhood as Matriarchy.

I didn’t even consider this as a reason, to be honest. Do the MRAs who post here usually assume everyone is a girl?

If you disagree with them; after all, why else wouldn’t you realize that their beliefs were self-evident?. Although, I think Toysoldier used to think I was a dude, back in that one thread where Pecunium and I schooled him in logic over and over.

@KMesserschmitt:As Molly pointed out, those are not exactly recent events, and feminism moved on. Feminism back then often also wasn’t too good with class, race and trans* issues

Did they really move on? One of the worst transphobic haters in history, Mary Daly (you know what she said about trans people, I’m not going to repeat it) is still constantly praised by contemporary feminists. How can such a person be honored?

One of the worst transphobic haters in history, Mary Daly (you know what she said about trans people, I’m not going to repeat it) is still constantly praised by contemporary feminists.

Can you cite an instance in which contemporary feminists praise Daly for her comment about trans* people? Because if not, I think it’s possible that you’re shitting us.

Are there seriously living feminists who praise Mary Daly without reservation?

Of course not.

@VoIP:
Can you cite an instance in which contemporary feminists praise Daly for her comment about trans* people? Because if not, I think it’s possible that you’re shitting us.

Did I say that she is praised for her “comments” about trans people?

Many bad people did something good at some point in their lives but still they don’t deserve to be praised.

@Bostonian:
Are there seriously living feminists who praise Mary Daly without reservation?

I think she shouldn’t be praised at all. Like Stalin shouldn’t be praised just because he sometimes said something against racism.

Many bad people did something good at some point in their lives but still they don’t deserve to be praised.

For anything? Whoah, I bet my German friends just hate their universal health insurance (Bismark’s idea)

ToySoldier already linked to a post linking to criticism of Mary Daly by feminists. So much for being constantly praised by feminists.

VoiP, something tells me your examples may not be compelling to the average neo-conservative MRA.

Apparently some of you don’t care for feminist “herstory.”