Categories
antifeminism idiocy MRA violence against men/women

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

1516 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RevSpinnaker
8 years ago

@Molly Ren:

“…and made up a story about children being thrown to pit bulls like Christians to lions.”

Don’t blame me for making up that story, MSNBC must have fabricated the lie. They must be part of some patriarchal conspirasy.

http://world-news.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/02/8099645-connecticut-toddler-dies-after-pit

I simply stated it was an obvious case of pathological malnurturing resulting in the death of a child. Someone was responsible and the fact is, horrible as it is to comprehend, it may have been a deliberate act.

Don’t selectively forget, Carla Poole didn’t need to throw Demond Reed to pit bulls. She left her own bite marks on the child’s torso as she beat him to death, while she ordered her own children to hold their cousin down. He vomited his last breaths. She coached her children to lie to police.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/12/beatingcharges

If you need a reminder.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

Don’t selectively forget, Carla Poole didn’t need to throw Demond Reed to pit bulls. She left her own bite marks on the child’s torso as she beat him to death, while she ordered her own children to hold their cousin down. He vomited his last breaths. She coached her children to lie to police.

How can we forget? You’ve been jerking it all over that poor corpse this entire thread.

RevSpinnaker
8 years ago

Elsewhere on manboobz:

@ Molly Ren: “Heh, maybe I should point RevSpinnaker towards this thread. His whole schtick on the “Feminism or Death?” thread has been that either feminists or women never talk about this stuff.”

“…either feminists or women never talk about this stuff.” Like regular women? Interesting distinction.

Some women do, such as Darlene Barriere, the woman who runs the following web-site. I have an article there called “I Was on Oprah.” She agreed with my take on media and feminist denial and distortion of the issue of maternal child abuse 100%. So apparently she’s not a feminist but a regular woman. Glad you clarified that!

http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/why-parents-target-a-specific-child-for-abuse.html

And in typical chauvinette fashion, feminists don’t cite “target abuse” as a possible cause of misandry, but only misogyny.

Afterall, the patriarchy invented hate.

RevSpinnaker
8 years ago

@unimaginative:

“I would call it an extended family.”

Would you agree that an extended family is an extension of a nuclear family?

KathleenB
KathleenB
8 years ago

I think the only way to put this thread out of our misery is to nuke it form orbit.

Erl
Erl
8 years ago

Rocks fall? Everyone dies?

eons later, Rev emerges from the grave to blame rocks and gravity on the Matriarchy?

red_locker
8 years ago

Well, you know what they say about cockroaches, KathleenB and Erl…

RevSpinnaker
8 years ago

“By and large, society has no problem accepting that fathers are capable of harming their children. Men have had to deal with this unfounded societal bias since the beginning of time. There is a preconception that because boys are more physical and display anger more readily, they are somehow predisposed to violence against children when they become adults. But statistics reflect that women use physical abuse more than men. Society as a whole has difficulty wrapping their minds around this statistic. If society accepts that women, the caregivers and nurturers, are capable of physically harming their children, then it undermines the very core of our belief system.”

Darlene Barriere, Child Abuse Effects and no “MRA” ax to grind.

http://www.child-abuse-effects.com/why-parents-target-a-specific-child-for-abuse.html

“…then it undermines the very core of our belief system.”

That belief system is can be described as matriarchal.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

“If society accepts that women, the caregivers and nurturers, are capable of physically harming their children, then it undermines the very core of our belief system.”

That belief system is can be described as matriarchal.

Right. The belief that women are incapable of physical violence is somehow an expression of women’s overwhelming power in society. Because believing that an entire class of people is too gentle/weak/docile to ever damage another human being means you totally respect them and/or fear them to the extent that they can control society. Also the idea that women are necessarily caregivers and nurturers is super matriarchal, as if we don’t have anything else to do with ourselves. Women as complex and occasionally malicious human beings with the capacity to harm? Oh noes, we couldn’t harm a fly — we can’t even open jars! To the fainting couch with us! Our uteri forbid us to do anything against our mothering natures, like the 3 Laws of Robotics, because autonomy (even fucked up autonomy) is for meeeen! And our limp harmless obedience is because matriarchy. Obviously.

But yeah, shorter Rev = still beating his meat over moms beating kids. It’s like the people who watch pornography in which women kill little animals, except more sanctimonious. :p

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

I think the only way to put this thread out of our misery is to nuke it form orbit.

Misery? It’s like performance art! How low can Rev stoop in his quest to make some women look bad and thus disprove all feminism everywhere? How inept can his math be? How dishonest his sources? How tangled his logic? How chafed his dick?

katz
8 years ago

Western civilization could fall and Rev would be crouching in the back of a burned-out truck with a laptop, posting stories about mothers killing their babies.

RevSpinnaker
8 years ago

@Bagelsan:

“But yeah, shorter Rev = still beating his meat over moms beating kids. It’s like the people who watch pornography in which women kill little animals, except more sanctimonious. :p”

You and Ami Angelwings visit some very morose, sick web-sites.

For a change of pace try the following, unless you’re too busy killing little animals and posting it online.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_abuse

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that for each year between 2000 and 2005, “female parents acting alone” were most likely to be perpetrators of child abuse.[32]

32.^ Stats for 2000; Stats for 2001; Stats for 2002; Stats for 2003; Stats for 2004; Stats for 2005.

Toysoldier already posted the following link to the most comprehensive government study to date (2009).

http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm

I’m sure it was summarily dismissed on principle. Afterall, child abuse isn’t a feminist issue.

But it’s never too late to become a Children’s Rights Advocate (CRA). Or just go back to killing little animals. That might suit Bagelsan better.

cynickal
cynickal
8 years ago

Speaking of dismissing data…

18.5 Million children live in a single parent household with their mothers.
http://www.prb.org/Publications/PolicyBriefs/singlemotherfamilies.aspx
While only 2 Million children live in a single parent household with their fathers.
http://diversityeducation.cas.psu.edu/Newsletters/DIVol7(1).pdf?bcsi_scan_D93EF5AA08308DE4=0&bcsi_scan_filename=DIVol7(1).pdf

So while 9 times more children live with single mothers than with single fathers, there are only twice as many deaths from abuse and neglect among single mothers than single fathers.
That makes single fathers 4.5 times more likely to abuse or neglect their children than single mothers.

RevSpinnaker
8 years ago

cynickal: Your 18.5 million children raised by single mothers is from one study done in 2009. Your 2 million children raised by single fathers is from a completely different, non-referenced article in a college newsletter from 2003. There is no correlation.

“…there are only twice as many deaths from abuse and neglect among single mothers than single fathers.”

Citations please. Here’s the stats Bee provided earlier. They look accurate and came from a reputable source. No mention of whether the mothers or fathers acting alone were single or still a couple..

Mother 358
Mother and other 119
Father 170
Father and other 19
Mother and father 289

@ Bee: “So, 477 mothers without fathers are responsible for their child’s (or children’s) death; 189 fathers without mothers are responsible for their child’s (or children’s death); and 289 mothers and fathers jointly are responsible for their child’s death.”

Also do the statistics include filicide? That includes teenagers and are more often killed by fathers. Children yonger than four are more likely to be killed by mothers.

Nice try.

Bagelsan
Bagelsan
8 years ago

Or just go back to killing little animals. That might suit Bagelsan better.

That is my day job. 😀

As for cites:

“Victim data were analyzed by relationship to their perpetrators. Nearly 39 percent (38.3%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone (figure 3–6). Approximately 18 percent (18.1%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone. Nearly 18 percent (17.9%) were maltreated by both parents.” –http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/cm08.pdf page 28

More than 70 percent (71.0%) of child fatalities were caused by one or more parents.5 More than one-quarter (26.6%) of fatalities were perpetrated by the mother acting alone.6 Child fatalities with unknown or missing perpetrator relationship data accounted for 17.3 percent. –http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/cm08.pdf page 57

For FFY 2008, 56.2 percent of the perpetrators were women, 42.6 percent were men and 1.1 percent were of unknown sex.2 Of the women who were perpetrators, more than 40 percent (45.3%) were younger than 30 years of age, compared with one-third of the men (35.2%) (figure 5–1). These proportions have remained consistent for the past few years. –http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm08/cm08.pdf page 65

So yeah, looks like women account for up to twice the mistreatment that men do. So unless you can prove that men are actually engaging in more than half the childcare that women do, kinda looks bad for the men stats-wise here.

red_locker
8 years ago

“Your 18.5 million children raised by single mothers is from one study done in 2009. Your 2 million children raised by single fathers is from a completely different, non-referenced article in a college newsletter from 2003. There is no correlation.”

Really, Rev? You’re just going to brush these bits of reality aside and post more shit that you THINK supports your argument, but doesn’t?

1 29 30 31