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.
But I find women in general, not just feminists, are particularly adverse to entertain the discussion.
…he says in the midst of a lengthy conversation about just that.
She was overcharged by an ambitious or public opinion-oriented DA and didn’t actually get nailed for the crimes she did because they were aiming too high, and double jeopardy protected her from the things she did do because she already went to court once. You should probably pay attention to your case studies.
Fairly busy atm, so can’t say much more than that right now.
Kollege Kat: Thanks for the cool links. I’m still pretty new to blogging and to be honest, I haven’t figured out how to import a link. Also, I could cite (link) reasonable statistics to have them rebuffed by politically mandated statistics. Like the one I heard on PBS’s “To the Contrary.” An “expert” said the number of men molested as children was 1 in 30. Even Oprah says it’s 1 in 6, and the CDC puts it even higher, close to 1 in 4. One in thirty, and no “citations” in the world will convince her otherwise.
And what have you got against anecdotes?
darksidecat: Disobedience to god is seen as bad/evil.
No. Evil is different from being less than completely attendant/obedient. Honest.
It’s, to draw a local analogy, much the same as saying someone who disagrees with an MRA hate men. There can be overlap, but the sets are not, of necessity, overlapping.
What god dislikes are bad things, presumably, if one is presupposing a benevolent deity. Saying “we don’t hate you, god does”, just deflects responsibility for hate,
And the Catholic church doesn’t say that. Some (too many) Catholics do. The Church doesn’t even say God hates murderers. The only people whom God can be said to hate, doctrinaly, are those who “blaspheme the Holy Spirit”, but there is no defintition of that. God, and apparently God alone, knows what He meant when Jesus said that.
There are Catholics who preach the lie, “We don’t hate the sinner, just the sin.” They are, per the church, in error (because one is not supposed to hate individual sins, but the idea of sin; that is of being in discord with God).
Being a homosexual is not to be in discord with God. Fucking outside of marriage is to be in discord with God. From the Church’s viewpoint my mother and Andrew Sullivan are equal in their sin.
The underlying difficulty is, in some ways, the irresolvable paradox of the Abrahamic religions, if God is all the good things He is required to be, how can it be that he made a world/universe in which there is evil.
And the problem of theodicy is convolute. Each religion has come to some form of living with/inside the quandary, and it’s really hard to convey to those who didn’t grow up in it what those understanding/rationalisations are and how they work for those inside them.
Are there a lot of catholics who hate homosexuals? Yes. Are they at odds with the actual doctrine? Yes. Will this change? I certainly hope so, and I do my little bit to bring it about.
As to the issue of pissing down your neck to tell you it’s raining don’t tell me what my church actually believes. Don’t, also, conflate my discussion of the present church, and the past.
Moreover, don’t try to take a universalist position on the issue of the Church’s attitudes to homosexuality, as it’s been consistent across neither time, nor place. We can, if you like, look at the views of the Romans and the Greeks (which were, in fact, a far cry from tolerant; it was fine to be the one who penetrated, and it was permanently sullying to be the one who accepted pentration; which is arguably the cause for the Church’s early stance against it; because to do something which makes someone else a permanent outcast from social equality was an evil, but I’m digressing).
The 17th century British views of homosexuality are the much more specific genesis for the US pathologies, and the modern pathologies of the US are all of our own doing; comparing us to Italy, France, Spain, all of which are much more Catholic (you know the religion you are specifically beating up on here) shows a very different social standing than one sees here.
So it’s not “The Roman Catholic Church” which is driving the bus of persecution, and sure as hell not the one doing it here; unless you want to tell me Palin, Bachman, Robertson, Santorum, etc. are crytpo-catholics.
And now I need to 1: go and be a bit more social with my family, and 2: cool off a bit.
RevSpinnaker:
You are welcome! Shakesville also has a tag called Patriarchy Ain’t a Picnic for Men Either, where a lot of examples of misandrist media portrayals of men and more are listed. It’s certainly worth the read. The comments are usually very supportive of male survivors, too!
RINN, a feminist organisation for survivors of sexual abuse and rape, link to 1in6.org on their information site about male survivors.
Here are probably the statistics you were looking for.
I don’t think you have to import links, you can just copy-paste it in if you want! I just like me some fancy HTML.
Well, I certainly don’t have anything against anecdotes! Anecdotes can be very interesting!
I just think that replies like
are not very reliable.
Look at Bostonian’s reply:
See? I have no doubt that both of your stories are true, but this is exactly why anecdotes are useless as evidence for general social trends. Your theory that you try to prove with personal experiences can easily be refuted by someone who has personal experiences that contradicts your’s.
” but the idea of sin; that is of being in discord with God””Being a homosexual is not to be in discord with God.”
Yet homosexuality is a sin? You are not being consistent with yourself. Ask the question, “if it is not bad, why does God not want people to do it?” The notion that something can at once be a sin, be forbidden of God, and cause discord with God is anathema to the notion that it is an equally valid and non-inferior mode of behavior. And the notion of sending people to hell directly condradicts the notion of not hating them. “You aren’t bad, but you deserve eternal torture” or “you aren’t bad, but doing what you do causes discord with all that is good” is nonsensical.
“Moreover, don’t try to take a universalist position on the issue of the Church’s attitudes to homosexuality”
I didn’t, I specifically said that it was a “direct descendent” not the same exact thing, but some of these ideas are actually pretty consistent throughout the history of the Catholic Church (such as non-procreative sex as dirtying and as social corruption). And, yes, modern protestent ideas do derive from traditional Catholic ones in this arena. Of course, they are also responsible for adopting and continuing it, but that does not absolve the Catholic Church from spending hundreds of years creating, building, and fostering this in order for that adoption to occur. And the fact that a few high Catholic percentage of the population cultures have managed to secularize parts of their state does not mean the Church does not still do this internationally as well (funny how places like Poland, or almost exclusively Catholic countries in Africa where a person can be jailed or even put to death for being queer aren’t your chosen examples).
“is arguably the cause for the Church’s early stance against it”
Only if the only people participating in the argument are so desperately grasping for apologetics straws that they can ignore the context of even new testament prohibitions which call for the death of “passive” partners as well.
You are defending calls for the murder of me and mine, Pecunium, and I don’t appreciate it. You are apologizing for thousands of years of ongoing brutalization, and I don’t appreciate that either.
Moewicus: O.K. so annihilate was a bit over-the-top. I was looking for something that rhymed. Character assassination was what I really felt when that woman told me I deserved to be raped as a child, in front of a large group of women we were invited to speak to.
darksidecat: I’ve seen the 1 in 6 site before, it’s linked from Oprah.com. It’s based on studies from the Center for Disease Control. That’s where I get most of my information. They have the most reliable, current and unbiased studies of child abuse. They are also the one’s who concede their own statistic,1 in 6, is probably very low. The reason groups like 1 in 6 have taken so long to form is because of feminist and media exploitation of child sexual abuse as a political device. “Child sexual abuse is the ultimate form of male oppression of women.” Boys were not politically correct victims at the time and were abandoned by the feminist dominated “domestic violence” socio-political system.
People throughout the two American continents, rather than just in the United States of America.
That’s fucking stupid. If you called a Chilean an American, they’d look at you like you were a god damn idiot. Which you are.
I thought that’s what our resident MRA trolls do when they pull “facts” out of their asses.
RevSpinnaker:
I assume your reply from 5:32pm was directed at me.
I got the link to the 1in6 site from RAINN. RAINN is a network that lists feminist.com as their first national partner.
You still claim that:
Rev, I am trying my best to assume you are arguing in good faith, and also that you are being open minded here.
I usually provide links when arguing for something. You can keep claiming that feminists are responsible for, or even endorsing, male survivors not being taken seriously.
This is not my experience at all.
My experience is, that feminists are fighting harmful gender stereotypes that lead to mainstream media using sexual violence against men/boys as punchlines or jokes. Every feminist I know/follow is against prison rape jokes. Every feminist I know/follow is against the media painting young boys being abused by older women as “lucky bastards”.
So why should I believe you, Rev? I provided you with several links from a feminist site that supported male survivors. You are not providing links. What you are saying utterly contradicts my experiences.
Why should I believe your claims?
You sure, bro? You do know most spanish speaking countries use “Estadounidense” for USian, right? Not “Americano”.
Shit, son, even Puerto Ricans use Estadounidense, in my experience, and they *ARE* technically US Citizens.
MRAL, not this “American” shit again, por favor.
This place has gotten boring. I’m leaving.
@Kollege Messerschmitt…
I live in Victoria, Australia, which is the only state in which male victims can access rape crisis services. Throughout the rest of the country male victims are rejected outright by these services and are often laughed at and called liars. Those services are almost always run by feminist groups and funded by the taxpayer.
I can only presume these are “different” feminists to yourself.
gwallon, do you mean rape crisis services generally, or the “Rape Crisis Centre”?
NSW Rape Crisis Centre provides a 24/7 telephone and online crisis counselling service to anyone whose life has been impacted by sexual violence. It is a non profit community organisation managed by a group of committed women. http://www.nswrapecrisis.com.au
This is a different organisation from NSW Health Sexual Assault Services, provided at hospitals and community health centres. The NSW Health P&P manual says in the introduction “Sexual assault occurs against men as well as women of all ages. Although women can commit sexual assault, research findings consistently report that 95-98% of offenders are male.”
Gwallan: It would unquestionably be terrible if male rape survivors in Australia could only access help in Victoria…but even a very cursory Google search seems to indicate that that’s not actually the case at all. This website appears to be a good resource to help you find rape crisis services for men in Australia: https://livingwell.org.au/Counsellingandsupport/Australiawidesexualassaultservices.aspx
And this organization also looks pretty helpful: http://easybizit.info/samssa
(Incidentally, both of those organizations explicitly identify themselves as feminist.)
Moewicus: Do not play semantics, and do not change the subject. We are not talking about excesses, but whether an ideology causes a person to behave differently than they would have had they not be exposed to those ideas. Feminists put themselves in a double bind by claiming that a gender-based ideology analogous to feminism can cause violence, while claiming that feminism itself cannot. I do agree, however, that feminist thinking is messed up, which is partially why I am not a feminist.
Futrelle: As I noted before, that two parties share similar views does not mean one caused or influenced the other. Likewise, that an individual member of a group agrees with another person’s views does not mean that member’s entire group shares those views.
darksidecat: I had hoped no one would break Godwin’s Law, but since you did, switch out Hilter with Germans and vegetarianism with Nazism. Do you honestly believe Nazism in no way caused Germans to be violent against Jews? I never stated that Pecunium made that argument, only that the argument was made. However, your misunderstanding highlights the problem: instead of addressing my actual comments, feminists resort to straw man arguments.
Pecunium: As I noted before, an ideology need only present a group in a negative light to prompt some of its members to lash out violently against the hated group. Feminism is not immune to this. Quoting from one person’s website is not the same as belonging to that person’s group. Feminists are all too fond of calling anyone who disagrees with them MRAs, by virtue of such disagreement. I, at least, distinguish between those who actually belong to a group and those who do not.
Bostonian: It is pretty easy to find examples of feminists refusing to help male victims.
Rutee Katreya: Actually, when feminists say men’s activism leads to violence they attempt to link some man’s random violence to the men’s movement by claiming the two share similar views. That is a classic association fallacy. If my presence on an online forum bothers you, I can only imagine how much worse it is for you when you look in the mirror and actually see an asshole.
Kollege Messerschmitt: I would appreciate if you stopped arguing against those straw MRAs, stopped misrepresenting my comments, and start addressing the things I actually wrote. Bagelsan wrote, “Feminism is absolutely about treating people of all sexes and genders with respect, bodily autonomy and humanity — if you do not believe in these very core criteria then you are not a feminist.” In other words, feminists cannot commit abuse. I will keep your personal opinions of me with my aunt’s and those of other full-of-shit assholes.
‘This place has gotten boring. I’m leaving.’
I believe that’s MRAL-speak for: ‘I haven’t managed to turn this thread into a pityfest all about me, so therefore it’s stupid. Nyah Nyah.’
RevSpinnaker: So now you’re talking to several feminists who’ve flat out contradicted everything you’ve said about feminists not taking male victims of abuse seriously. With anecdotes, which you seem to prefer, and also with links to articles in which feminists do talk about the very topic which you’ve stated they refuse to talk about. End result: Rape and abuse are horrible no matter who is the victim and no matter who is the abuser. No victims ever deserve it. Full stop.
So basically, your argument was just shot to the ground. Repeatedly and ungloriously. Care to rethink what you’re saying?
Toysoldier, I heard about the Mary Kay LeTourneau DJ event on feminist websites, all explicitly condemning her actions.
one in particular
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/05/child-rape-hilarious.html
and a quote from the above link
“It’s one thing to condone creepy schoolgirl fantasies (see: the poster for this very event, linked here, plus every fetish night in the world); it’s quite another to hold a party for a convicted child rapist who began grooming her victim when he was in the second grade. Would a nightclub have hosted a similar party for this guy, who raped three boys, between 6 and 10? Or this guy, 25, who raped a 12-year-old girl? Or this guy, 24, who raped a 10-year-old girl? Or the first two guys in this post–self-defense instructors who raped their female teenage students?
Of course not. And we shouldn’t give Letournau a pass just because she’s a sweet-looking white lady and her now-husband says he gave his consent. Victimization is victimization, even when it comes in a female (and thus non-“threatening”) package.”
Complete, explicit condemnation of the rape of the child in question.
Any MRA sites condemning the rape of children?
Any at all?
Since yours is not an MRA site, it does not count as part of the movement.
Also, you spend that thread on you own site shouting down one feminist who points out that there is no policy of child rape in feminism.
I will note that there are many, many posts by self identified MRAs which denounce age of consent laws as misandric, because it prevents them from raping young teenage girls.
Yaz: I’m not sure I was making an arguement to shoot down. I was merely recounting my experiences and not trying to convince anyone of anything. I was stating the facts that existed 25-30 years ago, during the genesis of harangue-banger feminism. I don’t deny, times have changed. You’re the one doin’ the rootin’ tootin’ shootin’. You’re right I must be wrong, the CDC is a Patriarchal Conspiracy. American moms are the best in the world, let’s see your stats to back that up.
Barbara Walters is the one who capitalized on Mary Kay LeTournau. Her whole angle was to exploit the question if the same rules about sexual abuse applied for boys. She pimped it right up to the big wedding day too. After Mary Kay spent a couple years in the slammer for love.
My question then RevSpinnaker is why you keep insisting times have not changed which you just did once again.