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.
Who cares? You can’t respond to substance. You can’t read substance! Nobody gives a fuck about your opinion. You’re an idiot. Oh no, I’m a name caller? At least I fucking learn about an issue before I speak about it, however mean I might be. You spew your idiotic crap at passerby and expect us to clean it up. And then you dare to claim some form of ‘civility’, when you don’t even have the good graces to actually learn about something before you form an opinion on it, and us? No, the ‘name calling’ is perfectly justified at this point. Learn, then speak.
Huh. Google tells me “No results found for “N.O.W. defends woman accused of stabbing child.” Oh, wait, the Rev must be thinking of his earlier bullshit comment that he couldn’t find a link for “NOW defends woman accused of drowning child”, even though that’s the first hit you get (Andrea Yates) for that search term.
S.C.U.M. never existed. That title was slapped on Solanas’s psychotic manifesto by a male editor who was doing the print equivalent of trolling for pagehits.
@Rutee, the guy’s a liar. DNFTT.
OOPS! You’re right mythago, It was a drowning. And it does appear in manboobz posts for another article. There are pages of listings for “woman drowns child” and not near as many for “woman stabs child.” The stabbing listings also include alot of “man stabs child” headlines. Apparently drowning is the favored MO of women who kill their children. You mention Andrea Yates and there’s Susan Smith, both drownings.
So you tell me, since you have all the answers. You can’t deny women kill children, so how do they do it? How often? Show me your citations.
People jumped on my case for saying maternal abuse has increased and that the most vulnerable are poor, single and undereducated. darksidecats stats said the same thing. darksidecat, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think those stats are for post-natal murders, in the first week or days after birth. They often result from a young girl being unprepared for the responsibility, overwhelmed with no support system and possibly suffering post-partum.
I’m all for Planned Parenthood and educating kids, so young girls don’t get pregnant to begin with. And if they do they need all the help they can get, if not from family, then from social services. Especially during that crucial first week of the child’s life.
VoiP: Ugh, yes. My point is that an ideology can influence people in ways contrary to its stated beliefs. That was why — and I will go slowly as I remember you are not super big on that thing we in the real world call “logic” — my example was of Mormonism making people turn to racism, not Mormonism making people atheists. RACISM. AN IDEA. A SET OF BELIEFS THAT OFTEN CAUSE PEOPLE TO DO HARM TO OTHERS. WHICH IS THE OPPOSITE OF (most) IDEOLOGIES’ STATED INTENTIONS. Honestly, it does not do any of you well to keep resorting to straw man arguments when it is clear I am talking about ideologies’ influence on people’s views and behaviors towards other groups of people. As for who says black men have privilege, check Bagelsan and Rutee’s comments. Both argue that as a result of “intersectionality” black men have privilege and power as men, even though that notion is demonstrably false in the vast majority of situations.
Bagelsan: I did show examples of feminists discriminating against, fearing, hating, and even harming boys and men. However, you ignored the links. How typically feminist to ignore evidence that does not fit your argument.
Flip, Rutee Katreya, and darksidecat: I am aware of the history of the theory of “intersectionality”. What led Crenshaw to create the theory supports my argument that privilege is not as universal as feminists claim. Clearly there are instances in which women possess power and privilege, yet the initial feminist argument was that women (meaning white women), regardless of their social status, were disempowered. Crenshaw’s theory turns that notion on its head. However, the theory still holds to the flawed notion that privilege and power can be universally held by every member of a group, which is demonstrably false, hence VoiP’s comment, “Who here has been saying that black people have privilege?”. My point is that privilege and power are not constant, and that plenty of people who belong to a “class” have no privilege or a means using it use it if they had it. The only reason feminists object to this notion is because I applied it to males, specifically abused males. Simply put, the only reason the existence of people without privilege within a purported privileged “class” discredits feminists’ theory is because feminists apply the theory universally. If you applied it only to specific circumstance, which better reflects how privilege and power actually works, there would be no issue. And darksidecat, my aunt had me read feminist books, particularly bell hooks, aloud to her, so I am quite familiar with these theories. I just find them as irrational and illogical as believing in original sin, creationism, or the Matrix.
Dude, if you think SCUM was an actual group or that Valerie Solanas is lionized among modern feminists, you’re dumber than advertised. Maybe you should… oh, what’s the term? Oh, yeah, LOOK SHIT UP before you spew it, eh?
“They often result from a young girl being unprepared for the responsibility, overwhelmed with no support system and possibly suffering post-partum.”
Funny, at the start of this post you were blaming feminism. Maybe you’ve learned something through being called out so much.
Re, intersectionality: There was an excellent article in the New Yorker a couple of years ago about Southern liberalism and race relations in the early part of the 20th century. Yes, a black man accused of raping a white woman would be faced with an extremely biased system and likely be convicted — provided that the victim fit the standard of a “proper” white woman: that is, middle- to upper-class, well-to-do and of impeccable behavior. The author showed that white juries in segregationist South were more than willing to acquit a black defendant of raping a white woman even in the face of incontrovertible evidence, if the woman in question was poor, “slutty”, came from a family that was not respected in the local community, or if she was known to, Heaven forbid, associate with black men. If a black defendant was nevertheless convicted in such a case, he stood a fairly good chance of being pardoned or paroled, anyway, on the ground (again) that the victim was not a “good” victim. In other words, if ever racism and misogyny had a contest for the souls of those men in power, they went with misogyny.
Let me set this comparison up for you correctly: feminist theory has useful predictive power. It has evidence supporting it. We’re more or less arguing for heliocentrism, with the observations of Brahe, Copernicus, and dozens of other astronomers. You’re whining about how everyone knows we must be wrong, because everyone knows that a geocentric model with the planets and stars painted onto beautiful celestial spheres, must be accurate. I am positive current feminist theory is incomplete; but you’re not actually debunking it, nor are you providing useful competing explanations for the observable effects (Observable effects even you concede. Shit, son, you think not being beaten isn’t a privilege, because you’re still thinking of the dictionary definition of the term, not the technical one sociology uses).
You have no evidence to countermand even a cursory examination of privilege. You have failed to understand every clarification, and despite your loud insistence that you know the history and the terms, you have failed to even meet the low standard of “Can successfully regurgitate a wikipedia article”. You clearly have not had a remotely decent education in general, and you don’t understand what you’re trying to talk about now; I almost feel bad, but the stupid shit you’re saying has consequence if it’s believed. Learn something before you talk. Learn a *LOT* of things.
Toysoldier, do you not read your own language. I’m sticking with the “You are not as knowledgeable as you think” because that’s the only way you are reaching those conclusions by basic language.
Privilege CAN be held by all groups. Privilege IS NOT a zero sum game. Did you miss the “can” in your statement? Why are you the one assuming it is a zero sum game? You have started off from the wrong assumption. Of course privilege and power are not constant, not all models assume constants. Systems change. This is why I think you have no knowledge of intersectionality, because you have clearly never seen it applied, and likely have read only part of the wikipedia page at that. The conclusions you are reaching are extremely indicative of that. Hell, your claim, that it is applied universally and therefore, in ALL cases white men can never have problem with intersection is just incorrect. Have you seen labor studies of the “default” (White, cis, middle class, able bodied hetero men) aiming to be nurses or child care workers? http://www.jstor.org/stable/4120914 is not a bad place to start.
Furthermore, you are continuing this claim of constant rather then looking at how most anthropological and sociological models define at what level of society they are looking at. As a current picture now, patriarchy is systemic (as in, it largely exists in a majority). There are interactional (Interaction events between two smaller subsets, Male nurses and the nursing industry for instance) and individual (Your abuse by an abuser when women are stated to not be abusers) elements as well. Systemic is not universal. Go read many of the applied intersectionality studies before you start making claims that simply just don’t work.
Toysoldier:
Wow, “I know you are but what am I.” Not only is that not really, um, impressive, but as history would have it, Mormon doctrines are actually pretty racist. Mormon men weren’t allowed to be priesthood holders until 1978, a position granted to all other Mormon males when they hit the age of 12, if I recall correctly.
That’s two fails in one response. We’re golf-clapping over here, just for you.
Katz:
Have you heard about the militant agnostics? They don’t know, and they’re willing to die to prove that you don’t either.
ERRATUM: BLACK Mormon men weren’t allowed to be priesthood holders until 1978…
Amused: Now that is interesting. I’d always assumed (probably thanks in part to To Kill a Mockingbird) that white juries almost always voted to convict black men when it came to rape. I guess i kinda thought that racial purity trumped class or being a ‘good’ victim.
VoiP: Honestly cannot resist:
I’d thought so too, because it would fit with the rest of the criminal justice system, where a low class black man is almost certainly going to go to prison if that’s a possibility. If what you said is true, that’s.. an interesting exception, yes.
Dude, Toysoldier. You said:
And your link was to a blog post you wrote about “Mary Kay Letourneau hosting a ‘Hot For Teacher’ night at a bar.” So what about that “Hot For Teacher” night was caused by feminism? How did feminism lead to it?
‘Cause I’m not saying boys and men are never harmed, or even that women/feminists never harm boys and men; I’m saying that you still haven’t shown how feminism can influence people to hate or abuse boys and men. That claim of causality requires a lot more rigor than you have shown so far — just linking to ‘bad crap some women do’ isn’t proving anything.
Here is the article I was talking about.
It’s not just about misogyny, and, this being New Yorker, it takes a very long time to lay out the background, but it’s really thorough. And it includes a searing critique of “To Kill a Mockingbird”.
Tatjna:
“They often result from a young girl being unprepared for the responsibility, overwhelmed with no support system and possibly suffering post-partum.”
Funny, at the start of this post you were blaming feminism. Maybe you’ve learned something through being called out so much.
Funny, at the start of this post I said the exact same thing, The biggest increase in maternal abuse and murder has been among poor, uneducated, single women. I was trashed for stating it. Once darksidecat provided the same evidence and agreed with the stats, all of a sudden I learned something. He still blames the great boogey-man patriarchy for maternal child abuse and that’s where we disagree.
It will always be matriarchal oppression to me.
Still haven’t heard any comments about the Demond Reed murder or what happened to Carla Poole’s children. I dare you to read about her. Then ask yourselves, “where’s the violence come from?” Mom’s like Carla Poole who teach it, that’s where. What organization have feminists implemented to stop women like her from teaching children that kind of violence? What are they doing to prevent her daughter from repeating the behavior and continuing the cycle of matriarchal violence and murder?
TS: The 2009 Child Maltreatment Report was a real eye-opener. First of it’s kind and the beginning of an ongoing study.
Folks at this blog could learn something if they actually read it. But I’m sure several won’t bother because it’s obvious they already know everything.
Well, you keep true to your delusions.
Feminism does not have any initiatives for combating antisemitism, either. Does that mean feminism endorses antisemitism?
http://archive.glennbeck.com/archives/08-28-01.shtml
Turns out N.O.W. was raising money for the defense of Andrea Yates. They said something positive could come out of the multiple child strangulation-drownings.
Isn’t that special.
I may not want to hear this, but how does “the matriarchy” oppress young, poor, uneducated women?
Maybe I have it wrong, maybe you are saying that these women are the agents of the matriarchy? How does that work? Is there any evidence, any at all, for a systemic social bias in favor of young, poor, uneducated, single women?
Even if I didn’t think you were wrong, you haven’t supported your assertions in any detail. How does a class of impoverished, undereducated, etc etc people oppress everyone else?
Oh, Christ, how are we supposed to take you seriously when you whip out a link from Glen Beck? And if it won’t strain your limited comprehension too much, the reason NOW raised money was so that it could help other victims of PPP and, y’know, prevent something like this from happening again.
We’ve been overrun with some seriously dishonest trolls lately, but you, Rev, are taking the cake. Just admit you hate women already, then go about your life.
cynickal: Got a kick out of the clip. I’m not sure you’re accurate that we have a failure to communicate. In fact by putting it in the context of Matriarchal Oppression, I’ve probably drawn alot more attention to the issue of maternal child abuse than I would have otherwise. And maternal child abuse, as several in this thread have agreed, is not a major talking point for feminists.
At least I got you talking.
Still no comments on the Demond Reed murder. Pretending stuff like that doesn’t happen for the sake of a political idealogy might be considered delusional too.
It’ll always be about Matriarchal Oppression for RevSpinnaker, even when it’s clearly not.
Actually at the start you were trying to say that feminism tacitly approves of child abuse and that this had something to do with how in 1985 feminists made it so only women and girls were recognised as victims of abuse. Which you have yet to actually substantiate.
I looked up Carla Poole. She is one messed up individual. Now please demonstrate to me how Matriarchal Oppression caused her to do what she did.