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.
As a Canadian I like being called a cat 😀
Also Canuck, Soviet Canuckistanian… hockey loving super kitty… poutine loving beaver tail eatin curling cat… Wolverine Jr… Maple Leafian… socialist medicare commie… death from above! Rodeo Catnadian… hmmm… what else…
Raptor! >:D
Raptorized Ami >:D
Thanks for the correction. It’s late, I’m tired, and I’m not as up to date on political geography as I once was.
The breakdown I found for majority religions didn’t separate the Congos. I suspect, given the previous Belgian rule, that the, nominal, religion is largely Catholic in both.
What do you call it if you are Catholic to ward off vampires? o_O
And what do you do to ward off umpires? o:
Oh wait I need to talk more Canadian 😀
And what dou youu dou tou ward ouff umpires? o:
I guess umpires is alrdy Canadian… or it’d be umpiers…
XD
Romans 1, read it an weep, esp. 1:32
Also, First Corinthians
“abusers of themselves with mankind” has been translated as both sodomites and homosexuals during different eras, but note that effeminite dudes get axed either way
Also, considering that Church officials have specifically said that gay people are not welcome in the Vatican, the lack of criminal law is a mere technicality http://www.fridae.asia/newsfeatures/2009/11/06/9327.gay-tourists-not-welcome-in-vatican-city
Also, the Church has never taught that sex can be dirtying? Have you never read…oh, all of leviticus and the unclean and the abominations? There are pretty extensive lists…
But just in case you want a few brief quotes about filth and pollution and queerness from early Christian teachers, here’s just a few samlings
From the same source, a longer quote
Here’s Eusebius of Caesarea
The very notions of sexual impurity vs purity are derived from these Judeo Christian notions of sexual pollution. They were so common as to still be in rhetorical use even today.
Just so that it is clear that the impurity and filth doctrine was not unique to the early church, here’s a medieval saint, Peter Damian, on the subject, in 1051:
Yep, that fine fellow was actually made a saint, and the book that quote is from was praised by the Pope at the time. So, tell me again that the Church has never said queer sexuality was filthy or corrupting.
Magpie…
NSW rape crisis has only recently included males. Last I knew – approx 1 yr ago – they were struggling to find anybody qualified to deal with male survivors. I have sporadic contact with the CEO which I’ll reignite.
Polliwog…
There are certainly a couple of places where help is available, primarily Canberra, Sydney, SE Queensland and all of Victoria. The rest of the country is not so good unfortunately(to an extent we do suffer from a “tyranny of distance”). I’m one of a national group of over a hundred survivors. About four in ten have had the experience I describe. The existence of these few services for males in no way changes, ameliorates or justifies the experiences of those people.
Both of you should note that the inclusion of information re male victims on a website does not always mean the organisation concerned actually takes in male victims. Nor does carefully worded PC gender neutral language. Many of the male victims see websites or other publications that are carefully gender neutral in their language for reasons of politics and make the mistake of thinking those orgs will help all victims. They are often more than disappointed and are frequently further abused for their trouble.
A plea to those intent on casting victims of female abusers as being victims of the patriarchy. It serves only to absolve the perpetrators and position the victims as architects of their own abuse. Whether you realise it or not it’s an act of cruelty.
This is factually incorrect. A heterosexual can ultimately act on that sexuality and still not be sinful, through marriage. A homosexual can not, ever, because the church will not marry them. Why is that, Pecunium?
I didn’t say Catholics try to exterminate the gays, and I don’t believe DSC did when referring to the current church. I said they were hateful.
I understood what you were saying. Unfortunately for you, there is in fact a central guiding authority for catholocism, which doesn’t exist for protestantism or feminism, and it’s pretty specific in saying that gays don’t get to be gay, they have to pretend to be heteros or asexual, or face penalties. Those penalties are not death, but to say this at all is to be hateful.
I’ve only seen it done specifically and with any certainty for Ball, and for Breivik, and then the primary connection was the MRM’s wishy washy dealings; they would say “Well sure he murdered folks/called for the murdering of folks, but HES GOT A POINT AND THAT VIOLENCE WILL HAPPEN”. They’re right here on this site, for one. That is a much stronger hold than just a random man, even a random man with similar views. It is also not a fallacy of association to take a movement’s associations at face value, and outright stating that the violence is ‘inevitable so long as women block men’s rights’ is more or less a backhanded threat.
Finally, dropping the failed subtlety at last. Look, jackass, I will freely grant I am not the best person for consolation. I do my best with folks I know, but it’s not very good. But you? You’re trying to use your problems as an excuse to swing a bludgeon at women. Seriously, your claims about how you ‘care about all false accusations’ ring fucking false from a guy who links to “The False Rape Society” but not “The Innocence Project” You are a liar, and an asshole. I look in the mirror, I don’t see an asshole; because I’m not, even when at my most depressed. I have many flaws, but that isn’t one of them. There’s a reason only Men’s Right’s Idiots (Again, I can’t use your preferred label if you don’t tell me what it is) call me one. Well, technically; I used to be called that by hardcore Christians too, in Christians-don’t-swear-ese, but the point is the same; it’s only ever abject adversaries.
….Now that’s interesting, only one of those links is to a blog that seems to condemn it when it’s from a man (And then only quoting things that phrase men solely as the passive party, not also the doers), as opposed to us roundly and immediately condemning it by women, and also producing links to blogs that do same.
I looked, and there doesn’t even seem to be something on the Catholic Church’s enabling of child rape, and that is an easy fucking target if you actually care about rape victims. You’re not helping the perception that Men’s Right’s Idiots only cares about victims to bludgeon women and feminists with them, a perception that is commonly fostered when Men’s Right’s Idiots try to claim to be allies to other people, such as the Trans, “Who all feminists hate”, only to then, for instance, immediately say all trans women are men with fake vaginas lying to other men to have sex with them.
And you know, pretty much every endeavor to the Gay has been “I feel you dude, I couldn’t get pussy either”. And we just had an MRA troll who was amazingly racist in his whining and complaining about how women just prefer ‘thug cock’, so I’m a little confused about why you so unreservedly protect them.
It only absolves the perpetrators if you think women can’t perpetrate patriarchy. This is demonstrably false, and may have been a key observation that lead to the formation of kyriarchy as a model.
I’m not sure how to word my response to the rest, so I will leave it at that for now.
The eternal cry of the MRAL when demonstrably wrong.
Don’t you call the penalty-callers in Hockey Referees, not Umpires?
Hm, on further consideration, he probably is the gender flipped version of a womanist, if we pretend the MRM was an actual social justice movement for a moment, and that he is actually concerned with social justice. Tricky, because ‘masculist’ is taken by Ozy, who he presumably hates for also being a feminist.
Toysoldier:
Dude. Dude, I quoted you. With blockquotes for better legibility. If me quoting your own words is misrepresenting you, I think you should start saying what you actually meant then. Most people can’t read minds, you know?
Where does it say that, though? Your aunt may have very well considered herself a feminist.
It still doesn’t mean that feminism endorses and supports child abuse/child rape. Because it doesn’t.
If your aunt considered herself as a stout proponent of Feng Shui, and claimed that she has to abuse you to deflect negative energy, the abuse still didn’t happen because of Feng Shui. It happened because your aunt is a sick, abusive individual.
I’m sorry (DISCLAIMER: not really) to tell you that your attempt at emotional manipulation doesn’t work. If your aunt thinks that you are a pathetic coward, I would agree with her on this while still considering her a sick and disgusting human being.
How does the saying go? Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
katz: Funny thing is that only the feminists claimed feminism supports abuse. No non-feminist wrote anything of the sort.
Ami Angelwings: Please read the links I posted for Bostanian. I am not talking about bloggers or online comments. I am talking about real world actions and policies supported by large groups of feminists that actually result in discrimination and bias against male survivors. To my knowledge, few feminist groups try to change that, and even fewer feminist bloggers discuss it. I would love for feminists to follow some basic standards of who represents what group, but feminists tend to change their standards when it suits their argument.
Rutee Katreya: Claiming to understand a violent person’s motives does not mean one endorses violence, nor does warning people that violence may occur in the future. Do not get mad because I threw your insult against me back in your face. I do link to the Innocence Project under Male Abuse Resources, and several of the men’s rights blogs links discussed female-perpetrated sexual violence. Based on those two misinformed comments, I take it that you do not read carefully. Regarding the “patriarchy” comment, the key is that feminists claim that men created and inherently benefit from “patriarchy”, and that it is the source of all sexual violence. This essentially posits that only exposure to “patriarchy”causes women abuse, and posits that male victims benefit from and cause — via “patriarchy” — their own abuse. Now why would I would try to emotionally manipulate people I do not think care about me to begin with? Again, do not get mad because I threw someone’s insult against me back in their face.
No, those are different claims. “Understandable” is not “Understood”. I understand why Al Qaeda carried out its attacks, academically. Their violence is not ‘understandable’, because attacking civilians for a political goal is never, ever okay. ‘Understandable’ means that you can sympathize. That the violence was perhaps not so bad. To say that Ball and Breivik’s violence is understandable, as was so often done, is to provide tacit support for that violence. The difference is subtle, which is perhaps why you fail to understand it… or maybe why you think no one else will. Furthermore, Violence is never inevitable. Claiming it is, especially after a failure to condemn the violence at all (Again, ‘understandable’ invalidates claims not to support it), is much more a backhanded threat than anything else. It says that the person is too cowardly to actually make their threat in non-weasel words.
Ah, you don’t know how to alphabetize correctly. Fair enough, my mistake; you do link to the Innocence Project, then. Too bad you keep focusing on rape, despite having bigger problems with false accusations and imprisonment, but at least you manage the bare minimums your position would require for intellectual consistency. Little else, mind; Pecunium and I have already gone over, in great detail, the lack of consistency with this position. The primary concerns of someone actually worried about false accusations are drug crimes (By far the majority) and murder (The worst penalties). Rape is not only not that commonly brought to trial, and not only not commonly successfully prosecuted, but it is the subject to a narrative of false accusations *to begin with*, and has been for centuries before you were born (Rape law in the common law was specifically designed to make it ludicrously difficult to prosecute, because you know, women are such lying liars. That’s seriously in the Star Court opinions, btw).
Men, as an aggregate, benefit from patriarchy. It is designed to help men, especially those who go along with it most happily. Even a sexual abuse survivor benefits from numerous other manifestations of patriarchy, such as the various economic gaps. Men can suffer from particular aspects of patriarchy, most especially if they go against the grain (A primary caretaker father will suffer some mockery. Men in a number of stereotyped-feminine professions will go through similar.) Male rape survivors’ suffering is amplified by the patriarchal notions that men don’t say no, minimizing their abuse. Their rather sizable remaining benefits are not magically erased by it, just as a white person’s benefits aren’t magically erased in the unlikely event that they are denied a promotion or similar because of actual affirmative action.
Not really. Patriarchy made it worse by a wide margin, and it’s *possible* that a given woman’s abuse centered on that… but ultimately she was supposed to be paying fucking attention. Even if that patriarchal notion is why she thought that way, she was supposed to be paying fucking attention when she was taught taht “No” means “No”.
Not to belabor the point, but if a male survivor previously helped spread forth the notion that men can’t say no, then he did in fact help spread the narrative that helped make it so difficult to get proper help and acceptance. Women who engage in slut shaming and spread narratives that rape just happens to other women, and are then raped, helped spread the narrative that makes it diffcult to help get help and get proper acceptance. Neither really caused their own abuse, because neither has nearly that much power, but they helped perpetuate the culture that makes it difficult to get help.
That was kollegemesserschmidt who said it, and I don’t care. You’re an idiot; stupidity sufficiently explains this idiotic attempt.
I called your aunt an asshole, then you called me one, then I called you one, you twit. If you were actually focusing on the insults I’ve been hurling at you you’d be throwing barbs at my smarts or wit, as that’s been the vast majority.
So I’ll less than gracefully two possible meanings of “hateful” that you all (i.e., Rutee, DSC and Pecunium) could be working with here: “hateful” could signify that the Church is acting out of or expressing hatred, or “hateful” could signify that the consequences/implications/etc. of the Catholic doctrine are detestable and loathsome. The difference between these two might lead to a different character of argument on either side, leading to the perception of non-responsiveness.
“Regarding the ‘patriarchy’ comment, the key is that feminists claim that men created and inherently benefit from ‘patriarchy’, and that it is the source of all sexual violence. This essentially posits that only exposure to ‘patriarchy’ causes women abuse, and posits that male victims benefit from and cause — via ‘patriarchy’ — their own abuse.”
Is this how your aunt justified her abusing you?
darksidecat: We are having, at least, two debates.
1: What is the present postion of the Catholic Church.
2: What was the content of the writings of the early church.
Query: 1: Do you speak Koine Greek?
2: Who did the translations you used, and how good was their Koine?
3: What is the actual issue the writers are talking about? Is it sex, or is sex the hook, on which a larger moral principle is being addressed.
4: What recent translations/comparative texts have you used, to see how authoritative/accurate the texts you used are.
I do translation,and sadly; having just ripped into the boxes still packed, I can’t find my works on exigeses, textual emmendation, and the cultural surroundings of the Pauline Letters, as well as the more recent translations I’ve been reading on those very subjects I can’t support what I am saying with quotation.
But, just as you are familiar, with people who read a passage of a law, and tell you what it means, “in plain English”, and are mistaken comes the problem of what people think* about the texts they have been handed.
Has the Church been stupid on homosexuality? Yes. Show me where I’ve said that wasn’t the case (and good luck with the straw man of saying I what you accuse of me of saying with, So, tell me again that the Church has never said queer sexuality was filthy or corrupting. I said it did. I am, in part of this discussion, saying it was wrong to do so because of the problems I allude to in those queries.)
Do I think the translations you have are indicative of Paul’s thinking? No. Can I address what Paul of Caesaria said? No, for the same reasons you can’t. We don’t have his autograph, we have copies of copies, then translated, and colored by the translators understanding/culture/biases, and then filtered in the lens of what the present day’s churches say it means.
You want me to apologise for, or admit to, saying the Church has always loved and accepted homosexuals, it’s not going to happen, because it’s not true. You want me to say the Church, now, thinks they are inherently evil, and ought to be punished, imprisoned, killed, not going to happen either.
But, when you tell me what my church believes; and you are wrong, I’m not going (no matter how upset what you think to be the case makes you; at it, or me) just sit back and let that go unremarked either. Is the church perfect? Far from it, not on this, not on the ways in which it handles scandals (from trivial, to the monstrous). It’s inconsististent in how it treats the poor (from one hand it gives, in encyclicals, and with the other it takes, in the reprimand of those who speak out for them; or in the ways in which those who are truly active in Liberation Theology are “promoted” to places they can do no good).
It’s, as with every other human institution, flawed. But it’s not arguing for what you say it’s arguing for. Some of the things you have accused it of, in fact, it, as much as it can, works against (the death penalty, in any place, for any reason). Has it always been this tolerant. No?
But Title IX isn’t taking rights away from men, and the Church doesn’t view; no matter what you think of the effect of the ways in which it deals with it’s views, see them as inherently evil, a lesser creation, damned by existing (nor even by action; but that’s an entirely different set of doctrinal, and dogmatic issues; manifestation of sin, repentance, confession, absolution, and judgement (which is non-binary in the Catholic world, It’s not even completely clear, actually, that all the saints go directly to heaven.
You want to be angry, fine, it’s your business. But if want to be effectively angry, be right about the cause. The Church’s stance on civil laws regarding the normal nature of homosexuals in the civic sphere is reprehensible. But she doesn’t condemn them for being; no matter what the vocal idiots you see say.
Just as Scalia is a bad Catholic for his personal (and public) views on capital punishment, Kerry isn’t for his public ones on abortion. The Roman Catholic Church is a body of law, and as with any law, Canon Law evolves. It suffers (and I see no way around it, so long as there is a church) from the problem of the divine. That the temporal laws it deals with are said to be based on divine precepts, and to deal with matters that don’t address the here and now makes them schizophrenic; the sophistries of the Inquisitions, and the “turning over to the secular power”, as well as the rationalisation of torture and allocution, are examples of the evil it can do, and which; given a mixing of sacred and secular it will do.
But, and it’s the crux of the issue, that’s not what is going on here. I’ve spent a long time (something like 35 years) paying attention to the ways of the church. I thought of becoming a jesuit priest. I honestly know what I am talking about. Aspects of these issues are why I didn’t pursue that vocation.
*as Mark Twain, I think it was, said, “It ain’t what you don’t know, it what yo know that ain’t so”
Rutee: I didn’t say Catholics try to exterminate the gays, and I don’t believe DSC did when referring to the current church. I said they were hateful.
I beg to differ, she asked me why I didn’t cite the Catholic countries where being gay is a capital offense.
This is factually incorrect. A heterosexual can ultimately act on that sexuality and still not be sinful, through marriage. A homosexual can not, ever, because the church will not marry them. Why is that, Pecunium?
The heterosexual can only marry, in the church, if said heterosexual is willing/able to fulfill all the requirements of the church. Can’t marry if their partner isn’t catholic. Can’t marry if they are both catholic and aren’t willing to promise to baptise their children, as catholics.
A heterosexual who doesn’t marry is (and this is, perhaps, sublte) and has sex, is, in the eyes of the church just as sinful as a homosexual who has sex.
Anyone who gets a civil divorce, and can’t get an annullment, is committing adultery, if they have sex. My mother has been unable to take communition since 1975.
I think that’s stupid too, and the church is just as wrong. Do I think it’s unjust? Yes. Do I understand being angry with the church, yes.
But, just as I can think a parent (or a school district) who punishes their children for something I don’t think was wrong can do it without being full of hate for them, so to I think the Church can.
Rutee: The primary concerns of someone actually worried about false accusations are drug crimes (By far the majority)
Thanks, I’d forgotten them; and they also have the worst the worst punishment regime; since asset forfeiture doesn’t require conviction, merely “plausible” evidence, hell, it doesn’t even require charges be filed.
Since a significant portion (as many as one in five in some areas) of cash has drug residues on it; and the arresting dept. gets to keep significant portions of siezed assets, and secondary assets can be attainted, it’s a big problem.
I recall a case in Fla. where a farmer was pulled over on his way to buy a tractor; he had the purchase price; in cash, and it was siezed, never mind that he could show why he had it, and how he had earned it.
Add the requirements that banks inform police agencies of, “suspicious” transactions, and the possibility, in some jurisdictions, of rewards to “tipsters” and the system can become really abusive, in very short order.
Toysoldier: katz: Funny thing is that only the feminists claimed feminism supports abuse. No non-feminist wrote anything of the sort.
Where? Here? Because here you are the one saying feminism supports/endorses/demands abuse.
So, from the available evidence 1: A non-feminist said such a thing, or 2: you are a feminist.
You are not engaging honestly here, not even in the slightest. You have tried to assert that members of the oppressed group are just “angry”. You have lied. You have misrepresented claims of your opponents. Asserting that you can believe a person’s acts are impure, inferior, nondeserving of civil rights, etc. and not hate them is ridiculous. If that’s your definition of “love, well, let me respond with some lyrics by the White Stripes
“You don’t know what love is, you do as you’re told. Just as a child of ten might act, but you’re far too old. You not hopeless, or helpless, and I hate to sound cold. But you don’t know what love is, you just do as you’re told.”
Your doublespeak and your pretentious attitude are not creating new claims. Asserting that your opponent “just doesn’t understand the church” whenever they disagree with you is a nonargument. You asked for historical citations, I gave them, you respond by lying about your original claims. I will not engage with you further, because you have zero interest in debate, all you want to do is engage in an absurd apologetics masturbation.
Your habit of misgendering me when arguing with me is once again duly noted as well.
So how do Homosexuals marry in the Catholic Church, Pecunium?
They got the chance not to be sinful, though. Homosexuals don’t, ever.
Ah, asset seizure, my old nemesis. It’s good to be a cop, yeah. Also, there is no need to ever return it, and it can’t be appealed by any process known to mankind.
The short version, Toy Soldier: Any claim to only stand for the ‘falsely accused’ rings completely hollow when you make your biggest concern on the matter ‘false rape accusations’, and not “False Murder accusations”. I don’t care if you tell me you care just as much. I have no reason to believe you when your hobby horse is rape. It’s no different from a Men’s Right’s Idiot making the claim but only ever caring about rape.
Homosexuals have a chance not to be sinful, dumbass. Not that I agree with them or anything.
Only by pretending to be asexuals, lackwit. Weren’t we boring you?
Heterosexuals can be heterosexual and live within the church doctrine; they have to get married, yes, *BUT THEY GOT THE CHANCE*. But you can not do that as a homosexual, because you can’t get married.
Have we gotten to how many gay angels can dance on the head on a pin?
I think I see the distinction you’re trying to make between 1.) the church giving homosexuals no way of being sexual sans sin and 2.) the idea that this bind gay Catholics are put in is not necessarily created out of hate. (Am I interpreting correctly? )
However, as with much social justice work, intent really doesn’t matter. The current church position may not have come from hate, but it certainly is experienced as hateful by those who are told that their very existence guarantees that they cannot be sexual without sinning, that they cannot commit to their partner with the support of the community, that they cannot be trusted to adopt and raise children… the list goes on. There are many instances in which the Catholic church as an institution says gays are less-than. In the church some of my cousins attend they hand out pamphlets on how Catholics can fight against legal civil marriage for same sex couples. In Hawaii, the church was instrumental in passing the anti-gay marriage amendment.
Hate may not be the motivating force in all if this, though personally I have my doubts, but it certainly feels like hate from where I stand.