@toysoldier “This paper examines only differences in the sentencing decision, not disparitied that may exist elsewhere in the criminal justice system. Besides sentencing,
differences could exist in arrest patterns, the allocation of police resources, and
the prosecution of alleged offenders.” (The next sentence discusses the crack-cocaine discrepancy not being taken into account even though the standard was in place at the time, a major issue in conviction times for poor vs wealthy and black vs white defendents to the point where it was declared a violation of the 14th amendment because its operation was so racist). The linked study also does not control for type of crime committed, a sentence for murder and one for theft should be different, you need to comparable comparable crimes to get good data about these issues. This is not the best way to determine actual discrepancies in end punishment based on crimes committed in racial discrepancy issues, since it is well documented that black people are arrested more, be charged more, face harsher charges, and are given less lenient plea bargains as well. As to black women vs black men, black men have higher average income, higher net worth, and a lower numerical discrepancy in imprisionment compared to white men than black women to white women, as to the “education gap” contrary to popular myth this is actually lower between black men and black women than it is between white men and white women (here’s a long scholarly piece on that issue http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/diprete/Race%20Paper%2009232009.pdf).

But, again, even forgetting those details, you are still not accounting for all of the permutations, do you think every woman gets lighter sentencing than every man? If so, then doesn’t that undermine your denial of the possibility of gender class based social privileges?

Toysoldier: You have been proven ignorant of the terms you are using. This is not arguing in bad faith. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on multiple occasions. This is not mere disagreement. You literally do not have the knowledge you claim to profess, this has been shown time and time again. You do not hold any authority because of that.

I’m not assuming anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant. In your case, there is no assumption here, you are demonstrably ignorant as I have consistently pointed out your logic flaws and where you have been misinformed.

Should they be raised by men, or what?

Oh no no no, THAT would FEMINIZE men, raising children being women’s work and all, and we can’t have THAT!!

I never said ALL CHILDREN are abused by women,

Yes you did, right here:

Where’s your Vagina Monologues for violence against children? ALL CHILDREN.

Simon:
So, in order to prove that feminists don’t care about how transphobic Daly was, you link to a blog post…criticizing Daly for her transphobia.

Daly’s work was unfortunately marred by a streak of transphobia. Wikipedia summarizes its emergence in her work, including her assertion in Gyn/Ecology that transgender people are “Frankensteinian.” While we want to honor her contributions to feminist thought, we also want to note the limitations of her brand of feminism, which deemed some women monstrous, a view that Shakesville endeavors quite fervently to counter. Cait and Shaker just_some_trans_guy also note she was challenged on her racism as well.

That’s…
…um.
Can you read?

Simon, don’t let me ever catch you saying anything nice about Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Simon Bolivar, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, Winston Churchill, Ho Chi Minh, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, Gaius Octavius Thurinus, Harriet Tubman, or really anybody who ever did anything in history that wasn’t lying down and dying. Because the only way for you to be consistent is to never praise anyone for any positive thing they have done.

Oh man, you dudes would HAAAATE the early modern period, which I have to read about for a class on European military history I’m TAing. It’s all lovely music, beautiful architecture, and war the cruelty of which was only surpassed in the 20th century. I am not kidding, it is mass civilian death all the fucking time up in this house. Should I hate Bach now?

Will this years Vagina Monologues include maternal abuse against boys? Or is that still O.K. with women?

As soon as the Vagina Monologues includes material on global warming, likewise terrible and likewise outside the scope of a play about the personal histories of a number of women.

So…let’s see…

Maly Daly, The Vagina Monologues (for some reason), S.C.U.M. Manifesto (along with Valerie “All I ever fucking did in my life was shot some prick called Andy Warhol” Solanas, along with lots of constant, “Lalalala, I can’t hear you, all feminists are evil and anyone who says otherwise must be girl. Only girls would argue against intelligent but oppressed little me”

Am I missing anything?

Am I missing anything?

Motherhood is oppression. Looks like someone woke up from naptime early.
*puts on sunglasses*
YYYYEEEEEEEAAAAAAHHHHH

But I thought ALL vagina people were against ALL violence because their vaginas made them empathetic and nurturing.

Have we gotten to you? You’re babbling.
I mean, worse than usual.

“Maly Daly, The Vagina Monologues (for some reason), S.C.U.M. Manifesto (along with Valerie “All I ever fucking did in my life was shot some prick called Andy Warhol” Solanas, along with lots of constant, “Lalalala, I can’t hear you”

If I were a feminist I guess I would want to forget that herstory too.

Maybe I misinterpeted Eve Ensler and Jane Fonda on the Today Show in 2008. But the phrase “stop violence against women & girls” sounds alot more sexist than “stop violence against women and children.”

But of course if we included boys in the equation we’d have to include female perpetrators as well.

He’s spouting nonsense faster than I can catch up. No matter; my previous comment stands regardless of which of his statements it succeeds.

“No matter; my previous comment stands regardless of which of his statements it succeeds.”

No point in listening, you’ve already got your responce.

Moewicus | September 30, 2011 at 1:46 am Be It Resolved:

That from this time forward, all feminist blogs, plays, movies, novels, youtube videos, pamphlets, fliers, stamps, press releases, one-woman shows, two-woman shows, monologues and dialogues (vaginal and non-vaginal), formal speeches, casual conversations, and megaphone-assisted announcements be submitted in advance to [the super-sensitive totally empathetic board of feminist anti-child abuse advocates] that the appropriate quota of mentions of maternal child abuse, as determined by [that board,] may be inserted therein.

I rest my case. It’s another comment that my comment-before-last could follow perfectly logically.

I see that Toy Soldier is still attempting to hold the entire feminist movement responsible for the fact that his aunt was a horrible person. Oh well, I suppose his current argument is at least a slight improvement on the old one that he knew, just knew, that all feminists secretly approve of child abuse.

His brand of crazy is at least somewhat understandable as a result of trauma, though (lifelong paranoia about feminists caused by PTSD would be my hey-I-have-a-degree-in-psychology guess). Our “matriarchy means whatever I say it means” friend, otoh, is just a garden variety internet loony. I vote that we spam him with links to Timecube guy – they would probably get along.

“Does every feminist have to fix every problem in the world?”

Yes, because we are ladies and that means that we are everyone’s mommy.

I just saw an episode of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” season 7 episode 3. It seems relevant to this discussion. Any opinions about “Toddler’s in Tiaras” type pagentry?

Toysoldier: I am not arguing in bad faith. You have changed the nature of the dispute multiple times in order to defend your shaky illogical position. I have called you out on how you don’t have the knowledge, multiple times. You have not responded to that and continued to act like you do. Yet you have proven no mastery of the knowledge, and have in fact shown where you lack in knowing anything about feminist theory by attempting to create statements about theory that are not even in the theory. For instance, your knowledge on privilege and intersection is not correct because you keep using dictionary definitions, not sociological ones.

When I say stop pretending like you know what you are saying, that is because you are pretending. It’s not bad faith to call someone out when they are, at best, specifically misinformed, and at worst, lying to make points that don’t work. The fact that we have to go back and forth like this 5 times is further indication that you have not actually studied any sociological theory or basic modeling, feminist or not. Go back, and read. That’s what I have been requesting.

Again, there aren’t universals, the modeling looks at a systemic level that is empirically proven. You are the one who keeps trying to say it makes universal statements which is demonstrably false. You have been given applied studies that utilize intersection not in anyway the manner that you have described it. You have also lied about the history of where intersectionality comes from (“It’s a false notion to deal with my made up logic errors of previous theory, because feminism is bad, and thus it makes the later theory bad” is the gist of your argument).

This is why I am not holding your opinions valid. If you could get your basic premises correct, and your basic logic correct, then I might be arguing in bad faith. But I’m not arguing in bad faith when you have demonstrated a lack of actual knowledge. You do not hold any validity in the statements you make because they are factually incorrect, be it through your lack of knowledge or intentional distortion. I’m going to further believe it is the latter of the two because you keep insisting your opinion holds some measure of validity while refusing to actually engage with how you are incorrect.

So, don’t try and change the argument to how I am insulting you. I’m insulting you on top of pointing out where you have been wrong. You haven’t responded to where you are wrong, your only focusing on the insults. Shows where your ability with knowledge is.

I just saw an episode of “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia,” season 7 episode 3. It seems relevant to this discussion. Any opinions about “Toddler’s in Tiaras” type pagentry?

butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/its-all-about-a-beautiful-dress/

Kollege Kat: If I were making the issue of child abuse “all about me” I would have dragged you through the lurid details of the abuse my mother set me up for. But as a CRA (Children’s Rights Advocate) you quickly find out there’s always someone whose had it worse. Much worse. Like the nine-year old girl who was sold into prostitution by her mother.

The woman made the child stay in a tent in the backyard and pandered her from the kitchen. Ironically, she was caught because one of the “John’s” turned her in. The mother had led him to believe he would be meeting a teenage girl. When he found the terrified child, trembling in fear, he called the cops.

Also if I directed my efforts of child abuse awareness to my personal experiences, I open myself up to having those deep hurtful feelings mitigated and demeaned.

@ Toysoldier: And I see feminists, who claim to care so much about male survivors, are still using my experiences to insult and mock me.

@ Toysoldier: You twice used my experiences to insult me. Back on page 3 you called me “a liar and coward”. On page 4 you claimed to believe me, and then stated, “But I still think you are full of shit.”

I caught those comments of your’s too Kollege Kat, as well as many others.

@ Kollege Kat: “It reminds me of the “well, where’s my white history month/straight pride parade/men’s studies, huh?” folks.”

The same can be said about child abuse. Where’s my child abuse awareness month/CRA activism/parenting studies? I can add, where’s the NFL with black armbands and white ribbons? They wore pink for breast cancer. Where’s the activism in the streets like the walk a mile in her shoes campaigns? What’s the “Women Against Child Abuse” equivalent to Men Against Violence and Men Against Rape. Even those are shill feminist organizations.

@ Comrade Svilova: “Does every feminist have to fix every problem in the world?”

@ Amused: “Yes. And not only that, but every feminist has to fix every problem in the world that affects men before addressing any problem that affects women.”

The VAWA, the White House Council for Women & Girls, the NFL wearing pink… that’s all feminists address are “problems that effect women.”

I’m not asking feminists “to fix every problem in the world.” But it’s about time they start addressing the problems created by women. Like the documented increase in maternal abuse and murder.

I believe darksidecat, who is knowledgeable and has offered great statistics, would not disagree there has been a substantial increase in the past quarter century.

“Holy shit, I just found a german MRA-page on the first page of google results for Mary Daly that says “Mary Daly is not a human being, but a woman” (“Mary Daly ist kein Mensch. Sondern eine Frau.”).”

…

Yikes.

But it’s about time they start addressing the problems created by women. Like the documented increase in maternal abuse and murder.

I would address it by making unpaid paternity a prerequisite to getting custody in divorce. If you didn’t take a hit to your career to care for your kid, while your partner did, then you are not entitled to custody, period. Not even shared custody. If you expected your wife to keep the baby from being a nuisance to you during the marriage then guess what? She’ll get the privilege of keeping that baby out of your presence after the marriage. And I would make failure to spend a certain minimum amount of time with one’s child a ground for losing parental rights. Maybe then more men (and especially men like you) will do their fair share in actually raising children, instead of just pontificating to them about how the bitches are shit.

@Toysoldier, I do feel sorry what happened to you, but how you’re going about the issues that hurt men (and strawmanning feminism in the process) doesn’t do jack shit for them, to be honest.

I was once sexually abused, too, only it was in a situation where (sadly) most of the mainstream wouldn’t even call “abuse”, just “boys will be boys” and “right on, playa”. I was angry about it for a while, too, and I directed a lot of that anger at myself. But I took the time to realize the nuances of my situation, to not be ashamed of myself and to actually LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF CHILD ABUSE as opposed to using it to say, “See, women/feminists are totally selfish pieces of filth. Look at this situation that happened to me once.”

Granted, what happened to me is different from what happened to you, and again, I recognize how hurt you are by that and I emphasize…but how you’re going about it, how you’re defending MRAs (the very people who would, in most situations, look at your pain and say, “Eh, get over it. You’re a man, boy!”, as evidenced by Roosh’s bullshit), and saying that feminists aren’t working hard to fix not just women’s problems, but HUMAN problems (despite lots of evidence to the contrary)…really, man, it’s no wonder that people aren’t taking what you say seriously.

The same thing goes for you, RevSpinnaker. You’re going on and on about how feminists condone child abuse, but you’re not doing shit for anyone who has been abused other than whine about how other people aren’t doing it. I not saying that one HAS to do some action towards fixing child abuse 24/7 (I’m just a victim at this point, too, and while I AM doing the research, I’ve yet to do some community work). Either recognize the reality of the situation, stop blaming feminists for anything, and take some steps to actually HELP children or abuse victims. Otherwise, I have no choice but to not take you seriously and see you as yet another guy who likes to pin the world’s problems on other people so that they can be rid of the responsibility of actually being right about those problems.

Had to get that out of my chest. I know I discussed my being abused with folks on the Manboobz fourms, before, but since Toysolider and RevSpinnaker seem to be repeating their bullshit from time to time, I had to share my take on the whole thing. Hopefully, they’ll listen to me.

Rev:

I’m not asking feminists “to fix every problem in the world.” But it’s about time they start addressing the problems created by women.

This argument is associational rather than sensible.

Feminism is, broadly speaking, a pro-equality movement. Further, it’s a pro-equality movement primarily concerned with inequalities that harm women. (this is my definition; others may differ.)

Now, since inequalities are bad (generally speaking), feminism is working, as best as it is able in accord with its clearest understanding, to fight only things that are bad. However, that doesn’t mean that all things that are bad are legitimate targets of feminism. Toe-stubbing is bad; but that doesn’t mean feminism should address it, for example.

For a bad thing to be a reasonable target of feminism as a movement,* it has to be 1) an inequality, which 2) harms women.

So no, “problems created by women” are a very silly target for feminism. First, such problems need not be inequalities. If only women were the perpetrators of a certain sort of injustice that harmed everyone equally, that would be a problem, but not necessarily an inequality. A different sort of movement would be necessary to address it. Second, a problem created by women might not harm them; in fact, this is a central part of your claim. Feminism is not dishonest when it does not focus its attention on problems that do not particularly harm women. Instead, it is true to it its own mission.

In summary, feminism is not “the women police,” somehow morally responsible for everything that women do and everything that affects them. It is not! It is a legitimate movement, acting in accordance with its own principles, when it only focuses on a subset of problems (social inequalities targeting women). That doesn’t mean feminists as people are off the hook for perpetuating other problems, but it does make it very silly to require the movement to produce some good-faith amount of work on another problem.

Honestly, the only way your logic makes sense is if you know that feminism has something to do with women, and really nothing more about it. Please do correct me if I’ve misunderstood.

*rather than feminists as individuals, who may have many projects–including, notably, masculism, the (nascent) movement targeting inequalities that harm men or otherwise male people.

I believe darksidecat, who is knowledgeable and has offered great statistics, would not disagree there has been a substantial increase in the past quarter century.

Citation sorely needed. It is very difficult to get historical data about child abuse, in large part because many types of child abuse were not historically illegal (in addition, some types of physical abuse are not illegal in all states even now). Historically, children have been treated as property of their parents. It was not until the 1820s that it even became legal to remove abused children from the parent’s custody. States did not have to have any programs in place to prevent child abuse until 1958 (federal mandates for funding under the social security act). It was not until 1974 which the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, that these were expanded to include things like non-intentional neglect and a wide variety of other issues (even then, it was not widespread until the 80s the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act). Finding detailed tracking of any crimes before this period is extremely difficult to impossible. Arguing that this crime has increased in the past half century is rather poorly supported when there is a lack of reporting to create accurate data from before that time period. Since the 1980s in the US, all violent crimes have decreased, the number of convictions compared to the population (the rate of offense) for murder of children, physical abuse, and sexual abuse have all declined significantly. Neglect is harder to track, because neglect that was not “willful and malicious” has rarely been prosecuted until very, very recently, and is prosecuted in uneven ways across the population. Still, I have not seen data which has solid historical statistics citing a dramatic increase in neglect in practice.

This question should go to NWO, MRAL, that peniopra dude (sp?) and the like, too.

Yeah, I really want to hear their reaction to taking their claim that there is an epidemic of mothers killing and maiming children to its logical conclusion. In fact, since the claim is that all women hurt all children, then it’s a national emergency, and the government should jump on it right now! For the good of the children, henceforth men of childbearing age should be ineligible for gainful employment, except in part-time secretarial positions. Men should also be ineligible for college education, except to major in Home-Making and Domestic Arts. It’s a harsh remedy, I know, but we must save the children!! Clearly, men belong in the home, caring for and protecting children from their perfidious mothers, and so our society should do everything it can to keep men there.

See how they like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

(yes, I am being sarcastic)

“Yeah, I really want to hear their reaction to taking their claim that there is an epidemic of mothers killing and maiming children to its logical conclusion. In fact, since the claim is that all women hurt all children, then it’s a national emergency, and the government should jump on it right now! For the good of the children, henceforth men of childbearing age should be ineligible for gainful employment, except in part-time secretarial positions. Men should also be ineligible for college education, except to major in Home-Making and Domestic Arts. It’s a harsh remedy, I know, but we must save the children!! Clearly, men belong in the home, caring for and protecting children from their perfidious mothers, and so our society should do everything it can to keep men there.”

Ah, but then they would somehow handwave it with some half-answer about how the whole institution of marriage is evil and benefits only women, therefore making the argument that no man should get married in this “misandrious society”.

Next we will get some lecture on how the entire realm of society is controlled by women, who are controlled by the Rothschilds, who are now controlled by aliens from Alpha Centauri in a long-winded plan to annihilate the human race.

And then MRAL and peniopra would make some offensive comment.

Toddlers and Tiaras basically seems to be attempting to recreate the indignities that some people inflict upon tiny handbag dogs, but with human children. Do not want.

(And to answer what I suspect was the real question intended there – yes, it’s often a good example of the ability of women to abuse children. Which is why so many feminist blogs keep posting articles about how horrible it is.)