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.
gwallan, thanks for the info
However, as with much social justice work, intent really doesn’t matter.
This.
I’ve seen way too many online discussions about huge, important, hurtful issues that involve real humans get entirely derailed because people start trotting out theological hair-splitting or philosophical thought experiments, and carry on as though the actual, live humans who are dying or suffering because of church policy don’t matter as much as much as winning points in a debate.
Somebody whose wife or mother died of pre-eclampsia because the catholic hospital refused to abort her fetus doesn’t give a fuck about virtue ethics.
Somebody whose beloved died of AIDS because the catholic church actively campaigned against available, affordable condoms is absolutely right to blame the church for that death.
Somebody who was raped by the person they were told–by their entire community, including their parents–was God’s representative, who suffered for the rest of his or her life because of that abuse, only to learn as an adult that the church KNEW about that priest, and repeatedly, for DECADES, put that priest in the position of being able to rape more children is quite justified in blaming the church for his or her pain.
It doesn’t matter whether the church’s professional theologians spend their careers having detailed debates about the nature of sin, and have all decided that being homosexual isn’t, of itself, sinful. It doesn’t matter if Red Lobster customers are technically being just as, if not more, sinful than sexually-active homosexuals. The facts on the ground are, the policies and practices of the catholic church, today, cause misery, suffering and death.
Rutee:
Actually not that pedantic. Saying “feminists need to ratify X Bill” takes for granted that “feminists” are empowered to directly determine U.S. law.
In reality, feminists have the same right and means to petition elected officials as anyone else (in principle), but no more power than that, and certainly don’t get to decide whether a bill passes. Someone who says otherwise has then established that those same feminists are to blame for government action condemned as misandric.
Toysoldier:
Cite please? You’re the only one here saying that, for all you’re attributing it to others
Toysoldier:
And that sucks and it’s wrong (and I’m technically a feminist and technically a blogger and I’m technically discussing it, so nyah). But it’s not the same as — not as bad as — celebrating it and agreeing with it, the way MRAs celebrate the Tomas Balls and Anders Breiviks and George Sodinis.
Asking readers to pay attention to the context of a written work rather than ripping a paragraph out of (1) the text it’s a part of and (2) its historical setting isn’t doublespeak. And you didn’t provide “historical citations,” you provided a collection of quotes. In order to produce a historical citation from, say, Eusebius’s time, to find out whether or not Eusebius’s opinions were matched by real life in Palestine at that time, you would need some kind of record of actual church practice (because that was often different from things that were officially condemned), or of how people behaved in their daily lives.
Moreover, like Pecunium said, “What is the present postion of the Catholic Church” and “What was the content of the writings of the early church” are two different questions
They’re actually four different questions, because a present position isn’t the same as the position in the past in a lot of cases, and because “writings in the early church” aren’t always the same as “an official or mainstream position.” (Thomas Aquinas believed semen was made from fat. Origen believed in reincarnation.)
And I find what Pecunium said pretty nuanced. Replace [ORGANIZATION] with [THE LAW OF THE US] or [AMERICAN SOCIETY] and it sounds like something you could have said.
This:
is not the same thing as this:
Also, in re. this:
Where has he lied?
I bolded the wrong thing. This:
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.
is not the same as this:
You have tried to assert that members of the oppressed group are just “angry”.
I’d say trying to present it as “Oh you’re not really hated much more than heteros who don’t get married properly” is blatant misrepresentation, IE lying. Heteros are doing it wrong; Homos are doing it at all. These are not the motherfucking same, and pretending they’re equivalent, in hatefulness, is really fucking infuriating.
Rutee: Is the Church’s position wrong? Yes, I think so.
And I quit. You guys win I am not going to convince you, and my honest attempts to do so are being met with… I don’t know, hatred seems a pretty good word, sometimes. darksidecat took my statement about the Church’s position on marital sex, and moved it to homosexual sex, and then used that to call me a liar,and acting in bad faith.
Fine. There is no way to engage with someone on a topic in which one’s honest opinions, and; as best I can present them, the facts, are taken as willful dishonesty in pursuit of an agenda.
If I have an agenda here it’s that the actual positions, as opposed to the common understandings of the Catholic Church be the things discussed, and, as needed, calumnised.
So fine, be infuriated. I care, but there’s no point in my trying to talk about it, because what I say is dismissed out of hand.
I’d say trying to present it as “Oh you’re not really hated much more than heteros who don’t get married properly” is blatant misrepresentation, IE lying.
I thought that this was his opinion of what the Catholic Church’s stance was.
True, I don’t think he hates me at all. But he is minimizing the hate an organization is projecting at me and people like me, though. He is pretending that “Well my mom is technically hated just as much for making a reasonable choice” is a fair presentation of the fact that *I don’t get a choice*. Act on my sexuality, I am sinning, and sinning big. I don’t have the “Get married, etc” option at all, because of my class.
And that’s ignoring the elephant in the room; I shouldn’t give a shit what the technically official position from theologians is when the things the people on the ground, including representatives (IE Priests/Bishops) are saying are consistently different.
That is not an honest presentation of the facts, Pecunium. It is apologia by skating over relevant points, even not counting the fact that I have cheerfully pretended along with you that the theological position is really relevant.
Is that why you kept dodging the rather salient point that there is no way to act on homosexuality and remain in the church’s good graces? That this is by definition hateful because of the effect it has on homosexuals, even if we pretended the people on the ground never go further in their condemnations? I raised it several times, not ‘just now’.
I’m sorry, but you seem more concerned with protecting the church from outsiders.
Pecunium: If I have an agenda here it’s that the actual positions, as opposed to the common understandings of the Catholic Church be the things discussed…
Rutee:Is that why you kept dodging the rather salient point that there is no way to act on homosexuality and remain in the church’s good graces?
Pecunium: Is the Church’s position wrong? Yes, I think so.
Also, in re this:
even not counting the fact that I have cheerfully pretended along with you that the theological position is really relevant….
I see no reason to assume that Pecunium and I are pretending that our beliefs are relevant.
I shouldn’t give a shit what the technically official position from theologians is when the things the people on the ground, including representatives (IE Priests/Bishops) are saying are consistently different.
Huh; it looks like you agree with my criticism of darksidecat’s methodology:
In order to produce a historical citation from, say, Eusebius’s time, to find out whether or not Eusebius’s opinions were matched by real life in Palestine at that time, you would need some kind of record of actual church practice (because that was often different from things that were officially condemned), or of how people behaved in their daily lives.
I see no reason to assume that Pecunium and I are pretending that our beliefs are relevant.
Incidentally, I’m not Catholic, but my religion shares a lot of foundational assumptions with Catholicism. And for the record, I think my religion’s condemnation of homosexuality is unequivocally wrong
Darksidecat is doing him a favor, in my book. Because if we open up actual practice, the bullshit the catholic church cheerfully secondhand endorses is opened up, and it is much worse than one saint saying it’s bad 1000 years ago. It seemed to be trying to grant the request to stick to Theology even though it’s better for the church
VoIP, he also said he did not feel the church’s practice was hateful, because hey, his married mom is technically in as much sin. He’s saying it’s ‘wrong’, but then offering apologia for why it is not so bad. And in this, he keeps dodging that rather central point.
Really? Because he was pretty intent on us not discussing the rather horrific practices because they don’t technically reflect the central organization. I think this at least has some merit, in general.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Quoting my words does not stop you from misrepresenting them in your own comments, as you just illustrated. You claim I think feminism condones or endorses child rape, despite I said nothing of the sort. Bagelsan essentially argued that because feminism opposes abuse, any feminist who commits abuse ceases to be a feminist. In other words, feminists cannot commit abuse. My aunt does not consider herself a feminist; she is a feminist. She does not stop being so just because it inconveniences you.
Rutee Katreya: You stated, “they would say ‘Well sure he murdered folks/called for the murdering of folks, but HES GOT A POINT AND THAT VIOLENCE WILL HAPPEN’.” This implies that men’s rights activists found the man’s opinions understandable. Finding the reasons motivating violence understandable does not mean one agrees with violence. I am quite familiar with “patriarchy” and the notion, which you just posited, that even as my aunt sodomized me I still had privilege and power over her and benefited at her expense. That idea sounded just as stupid when I was five as it does now. For the record, you called me and men’s activists “you assholes” three times before turning to my aunt, then insulted me and men’s activists again. If you cannot keep track with your own insults, stop making them.
Molly Ren: Since that view is core of the theory of “patriarchy”, I suspect my aunt would agree with it.
Pecunium: That is a fine example of only a feminist saying anything about feminism supporting, endorsing, or demanding abuse. But if someone else did made that claim, quote them.
Hershele Ostropoler: Read Moewicus’s comment. And just to clarify: you think feminists ignoring their own group’s efforts to block male survivors from abuse support service is less bad than than some online men’s rights activists agreeing with a violent person’s views?
My parents are ‘unmarried’ in the eyes of the church, because my mom was a Jewish divorcee when they tied the knot. But they are still civilly married.
I just don’t understand how the Catholic church’s position on civil marriage (actively campaigning against civil SSM while not lifting a finger to prevent civil marriages between het people who would not be marriageable within the church) DOESN’T represent a pretty clear ‘less-than’ status for LGBT folk. If this position violates core Catholic values, why is it so institutionalized that the Pope himself says that same sex civil marriage will destroy God’s creation .
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60A2XX20100111?irpc=932
Is the Pope not enough of an authority on the official church position on gays? Or is saying that allowing us to get married would destroy the earth not at all hateful?
Sorry to beat a dead horse, but I just don’t get it. And even if the Pope loves gay people and is just saying we’re earth-destroying because he thinks it’s true (ie not out of hate, per se) it really, really feels like hate from here.
I’m not saying that Pecunium and VOIP are hateful. I appreciate that you take issue with you churches’ official positions on gays and civil SSM. I’m Jewish, and while Reform and Renewal Jews are open and affirming, I would never deny that the official policy of most more conservative congregations is extremely homophobic and hateful.
Again, not necessarily hateful in intent — hate isn’t necessarily the motivation that causes Hassidic Jews to stage anti-gay rallies and call us filthy. But the effect is second-class citizenship, violence, psychological disorders for gay Hassidic youth, and more. I can’t see into a religious authority’s mind and say ‘zie hates gays’ but I can say that their policies, positions, and officially – sanctioned actions create a dangerous and unequal world, and it feels hateful to be told that one is less-than, and that one’s loving partnership will do irreparable damage to the world.
Please allow me to tweak this lengthy, though very interesting, religious dissertation. The discussion so far has centered on the Biblical references to homosexuality. Given the cumulative knowlege of all involved, can anyone tell me what the Bible, or any major religious document, says about child abuse? As far as I’m concerned, a decree from God condemning child abuse should have been the first commandment. Money isn’t the root of all evil, child abuse is. Even the story of Lot and his daughters says “they did seduce him in his drunkeness.” Sounds like blaming the victim to me.
@toysoldier, you only had privilege in the general, societal sense. Like, ask the question of whether or not a white person, who happened to be the victim of a violent crime, stil has white privilege. Yes, yes they do. You don’t really seem to understand privilege/oppression dynamics at all. You say you are familiar, but do not show a grasp of the basics.
@VoiP, I was addressing a specific claim (that the church had never claimed that out of marriage sexuality was dirtying), made by Pecunium. When I found a number of influental historical Catholic figures saying just that, Pecunium responded by claiming that he had never said that the Catholic Church had never taught this, and accused me of misrepresenting him. That is the lying I spoke of, his specific total reversal of a claim and accusing me of being dishonest for addressing his first claim. See the blockquotes for his first statement and absolutely contradictory second one. I suggest looking back to his original statements that I was disagreeing with, because his response is a complete reversal of position, hence my refusal to deal with him and my assertion that he is being dishonest. His original position was that the Church had never taught these things and had not spread homophobia and instilled it into law (when even a quick look at Roman legal changes alone post Christianity being made the official religion in terms of sexuality quickly rebuts that), not that the Church had done these things, but it was homophobic because it arose from a homophobic culture (a problematic view in and of itself, considering things like the Italian Inquisitions where the social opinions and city state governments were relatively neutral to favorable and the Church came down brutally hard). His response claims are not his original claims at all. He accuses me of not addressing his arguments in the second post, and that’s “fair”, I didn’t-because none of them were presented in his first post.
And, Voip, calling the oppressed group members angry when they disagree with you is playing the “angry oppressed person” card. Heteros have no fucking right telling queer people what rage we are allowed to have about our oppression. And calling me “angry” was completely unnecessary in the discussion. Dismissing the arguments of an oppressed person on the grounds that they are “angry” is bigotry.
(Again, this is a response to VoiP, I will not deal with Pecunium here, because he will not debate honestly)
http://www.startribune.com/local/minneapolis/15542397.html?source=error ·There ya’ go. You want a citation, read this article. Then we can discuss Matriarchal Oppression and how it influences male behavior. Feminist anthropologist Dr, Helen Fisher once said, “if you can train a pidgeon you can train a man.” I’m sure this applies even more so for boys. How will Carla Poole’s “training” effect her boys as they develop into men? What lessons did she teach her daughter about matriarchal power and control? What if Poole got away with it? Casey Anthony might have, accept her parents went and called the cops. Think if Demond Reed was Poole’s own boy. His disappearance may well have gone unnoticed.
It’s nice to know you haven’t intellectually developed since you were 5!
Wait, no, actually, I don’t think even you’re this stupid. I think you haven’t really thought through what you just said and are actually special-pleading that this is the case for *men*, and men alone. Do you believe that white women are beaten to death by the police nearly as frequently as black men? Because there are almost as many white woman survivors as there are black men total, IIRC, so if what you said is true, there would be nearly as many cases of white women being beaten to death by the police. You would no longer have the right to marry, as a heterosexual, because homosexuals lack it. Do you think that a rich woman who is raped is suddenly thrown through the same economic maelstrom as a poor woman? I doubt even you are that stupid…. so why do *men* who are raped lose all their other privileges as men when no other privileged class can lose their privileges so easily?
No thanks, I’m part of the reality-based community, and that means studying and talking about things that actually exist. Have a good time railing against systematic oppression that doesn’t exist.
Protip: A News Article about a singular event is not actually a citation about a widespread social phenomena being as widespread. You still haven’t engaged with Tatjana and the actual evidence. Good luck with that.
No thanks, I’m part of the reality-based community,
And your definition of reality is that maternal child abuse doesn’t “actually exist.”
That’s just the kind of denial that makes pathological malnurturing go unchecked and victims uninformed.
And you still didn’t answer my question. How did Carla Poole’s behavior effect her children?
You choose to believe crimes like her’s are rare but they’re not. Go to
badbreeders.net/tag/parents-behaving-badly and see what reality can be for some kids.
No, my definition is that matriarchy does not exist. Women are the disadvantaged class. This does not prevent some of them from beating their children. You’re the one who overblew your rhetoric, and are exiting reality for it. It’s really not my fault that you can’t speak with any precision or accuracy.
So long as you’re talking about Matriarchy, you’re discussing a completely different, and non-existent, problem. There are reality-based solutions to things like Child Abuse, even Child Abuse by women, I suspect. IIRC, you’re the guy who pretended that feminists have the power to force through the legislation through the UK that was linked earlier, yes? I don’t have reason to believe you merely mispoke. I have reason to believe you are only making incidental contact to reality.
I said nothing of the sort. Abuse is not a feminist action, but feminists can abuse. Your aunt abused because she is an abuser, not because she is a feminist — if anything I’d say she abused despite her feminism, because feminism is pretty darn clear that abuse is not okay under any circumstances against anyone. Sometimes feminists do unfeminist things; this isn’t a novel concept.
You don’t have to agree with us, but you at least have to understand the very basic points we’re making if you want to argue about stuff. 9_9