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.
“I may not want to hear this, but how does “the matriarchy” oppress young, poor, uneducated women?”
Never said it did. It does oppress poor, uneducated children apparently at a higher rate. All children are the primary victims of the Matriarchy, that being the social structures women have developed for having and raising children.
Any comments on the Demond Reed murder yet… and a grand proactive feminist plan to prevent that kind of devastation.
“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.”
I think it’s very sad that it happened. The father was in jail and the woman that was supposed to be taking care of the child was also very fucked up.
I’m still not sure how this shows Matriarchal Oppression, though. Let’s make the picture bigger–why do men commit more crimes overall? If society is truly matriarchal, why do women only have a problem in this one category, instead of being more aggressive across the board? What kind of political statement is being made by women abusing their children?
“Never said it did. It does oppress poor, uneducated children apparently at a higher rate. All children are the primary victims of the Matriarchy, that being the social structures women have developed for having and raising children.”
I’d like to hear more about these Matriarchal social structures. How exactly do they work?
So young, poor, uneducated, single women are the primary agents of The Matriarchy. Got it. Now: by what mechanism does that work? How do these women fit into the Matriarchy? Is there, in fact, a systematic social bias in favor of them?
I’d say he’s about Glenn Beck’s intellectual equal and am not remotely surprised he pulled out a Gloonie link.
What happened to your purple swirl?
HellKell: Swell, but what does Post Partum Depression have to do with Susan Smith or Carla Poole and the majority of others?
Tatjna: I didn’t say matriarchal oppression caused Carla Poole’s behavior, I said her behavior was martriarchal oppression in itself. And she taught it to her daughter by having her witness the crime and lie to police.
Were you around in 1985? I heard Germaine Greer speak. Feminists were not talking about child abuse. They were too busy spewing invective at all things male, and from what I’m reading in these posts, continue to blame the patriarchy for their own abuse and murder of children.
I’ll bet before I commented here you really didn’t think about maternal child abuse much.
Molly Ren:
“Let’s make the picture bigger–why do men commit more crimes overall?”
Perhaps they had mothers like Carla Poole and no social support system to help them heal. That’s why I keep asking, what is the feminist proactive solution to child victims of women like Carla Poole? They are the potential criminals of tomorrow.
But in order to be matriarchal oppression, that act would have to take place in a matriarchal social system, a wider context of systematized oppression. Molly Ren’s question, and mine, still stand: how do these so-called matriarchal social structures function and what is the place of young, poor, single women within them? You can’t just state stuff and expect us to take it at face value.
What would that “support system” be like? What would it teach these children? What would it teach the girls especially?
What happened to your purple swirl?
There it is again, but at the time I typed my question, your avatar was green patchwork. Huh.
RS: Yes, I was around in 1985 – that’d be one year after marital rape was made illegal in my country.
You seem unable to explain how matriarchal oppression equates to child abuse except by repeating the assumption that all child abuse by mothers is actually matriarchal oppression. You’re also assuming Ms Poole’s is an example of ‘teaching her daughter’ this matriarchal oppression thing because the person she killed was a boy. This is, frankly, made-up bollocks and unless you can demonstrate some direct links between feminist activity and Carla Poole’s actions, the only logical assumption is that you are grasping at straws in an effort to make feminists appear to be uncaring – for reasons known only to yourself.
If you think you’re doing the world some kind of favour by drawing attention to an issue that feminists are supposedly ignoring, I’d suggest you think again. Then go and read some of the literature, find out who has been behind the support of laws to combat child abuse and programs to support people at risk. Have a look at the actual structural correlations to child abuse and neglect and who’s working to address those, and has been since before I was born.
And then go crawl back under your rock. You are not some heroic champion of the rights of children here because if you were, you’d be out there working with the feminists to fix it. Instead, you’re in some internet forum slagging off feminism and making up ‘reasons’ for maternal filicide. And it disgusts me.
And not only that, but also how these “Matriarchal social structures” fit within other social structures that have sought to ensure that men have less direct involvement with the having and raising of children (and no, I am not specifically referring to primary custodial arrangements in severed relationships between the parents).
Actually it’s a Mismagius.
http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Mismagius
They have a great witch hat, and I always love witch hats. I suspect Facebook wasn’t connecting properly to WordPress that time.
They’re adorable! I guess I just never noticed the tiny face.
Dude, your fucking article has nothing to do with those other women either. Nice goalpost move. Run along now.
VoiP:
“What would that “support system” be like? What would it teach these children? What would it teach the girls especially?”
Is that to admit no such support system currently exists? This really is the question I proposed coming back to me as a question. I would tell boys that sometimes moms do bad things and they can’t blame themselves mom does those bad things to them. We all know boys are less likely to talk about abuse but they are willing to listen. We owe them the whole truth about domestic violence and not just the feminist half of it.
What would I teach the girls? Remember when the only definition of domestic violence was – man beats wife, son sees dad, son beats wife. It was up to feminists to “break the cycle of abuse.” Doesn’t that same logic apply here?
Regarding feminist ommission of boys as victims an women as abusers, I was watching for the story of this horrible Demond Reed murder on the morning news. Not a word about it. I did however see a lengthy bit with Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler promoting the big V-Day 10th Anniversary Convention.
Jane dropped the C-bomb to make a point about stopping “violence against women and girls.”
Like I said, half the truth about domestic violence. As of 2008 mainstream feminists still didn’t include boys as victims and women as abusers. And they knew better.
That inspired me to start researching child abuse statistics. To be honest, I was suprised by what I found out. Shocked yes but more suprised.
So, if it’s up to femnists to break the cycle of abuse committed by men, then it’s up to MRAs to break the cycle of abuse by women? What would that look like, exactly?
Can you scroll back up and read what the posters here have been saying about child abuse, especially darksidecat and Rutee? It’s like you haven’t read their posts at all.
Anyway, I’m still waiting for an explanation of how matriarchy impacts poor women.
I’m asking you to explain your ideas, giving you an open platform within which to develop your ideas more fully, I’m offering a willing ear, nothing hostile…and you still aren’t giving me anything concrete. In fact, you’re avoiding my questions. This does not speak well for the MRA as a forum for ideas. Even if I were a misogynist, I wouldn’t be very impressed with anything you’ve produced so far.
“Regarding feminist ommission of boys as victims an women as abusers, I was watching for the story of this horrible Demond Reed murder on the morning news. Not a word about it. I did however see a lengthy bit with Jane Fonda and Eve Ensler promoting the big V-Day 10th Anniversary Convention.”
Okay–which news outlet? Because I’m looking on the NYT and CNN sites, and their front pages have stories about economic disaster and (on CNN) tainted cantelopes. There’s not a lot about abuse of children on the national news period, whether it’s perpetrated by men or women.
You’re going to have to do way more to convince me we live in a matriarchy.
VoiP: I have been reading darksidecat and we really agree on several points. We differ on my definition of matriarchy. I’ve simply defined motherhood as “the matriarchy” and use it as an argumentative tool, much as feminists have done with “the patriarchy” and “all men are potential rapists.” I don’t agree with darsidecat that somehow “the patriarchy” is responsible for maternal child abuse. Mothers are.
Pam:
“And not only that, but also how these “Matriarchal social structures” fit within other social structures that have sought to ensure that men have less direct involvement with the having and raising of children (and no, I am not specifically referring to primary custodial arrangements in severed relationships between the parents).”
O.K. Pam you got me on that one. Yes, I admit the “matriarchal social structures” fit within the dominant social structure of “the patriarchy.” Does that make the patriarchy inherently bad? Regarding men having less direct involvement with raising children, I think the industrial revolution had alot to do with that.
Rev: We knocked that one down AGES ago. The money went first to Yates’ defense fund (because EVERYONE deserves decent legal representation) and anything leftover went to postpartum depression/psychosis awareness. So that doctors, partners and new moms can recognize the symptoms BEFORE something like that happens again.
“We differ on my definition of matriarchy. I’ve simply defined motherhood as ‘the matriarchy’ and use it as an argumentative tool, much as feminists have done with ‘the patriarchy’ and ‘all men are potential rapists.’”
Oh my god, this is why NOTHING YOU’VE SAID SO FAR HAS MADE ANY SENSE WHATSOEVER. You’re making up definitions and NOT TELLING ANYONE ELSE THAT’S WHAT YOU’VE DONE! Such brilliant debating skills!
Also, that is not really how many feminists define “patriarchy” and you probably shouldn’t think that’s how we mean it either.
Amused: Your example serves to prove my point. Being white does not always confer privilege, contrary to what feminists claim.
Rutee Katreya: Feminist theory does not have useful predictive power as it relies only on selectively chosen evidence to support itself. The feminist model simply reasons away contradictory evidence via “intersectionality”), hence the problem. Any counter evidence presented just gets dismissed. That has nothing to do with your theories being incomplete, but it has a lot to do with feminists’ biased favoring and defending of their ideology.
Flib: Read my comment. I did not say all groups cannot hold privilege. I stated that all members of a group do not always hold privilege. A poor man’s social status disempowers him. To claim that he still possesses power and privilege as a man simply does not hold water because the poor man has no real ability to use it if he had it. In every single situation his social status results in him being on the short end of the stick. It is only when you compare him to those of a lower status, like comparing a poor white man with a poor black man, that you get to see any difference. Yet even then, it is often the other person’s disprivilege at play. Given this, it seems ridiculous to claim that all men always have privilege, when really it is some men and often only in certain circumstances. The link you provided demonstrates this point.
VoiP: I was not trying to impress you by correcting your misrepresentation of my position. I never said that Mormon doctrine was not racist. I stated that it was anti-discrimination. You assumed I referred to race, yet racism is not the only form discrimination. This is what happens when you presume to know someone’s intent. If you are confused, you should ask for clarification instead of resorting to straw man arguments. Coincidentally, your Mormon example supports my argument that an ideology can cause people to behave in a way contrary to the principles of the ideology because of a bias towards a group of people. Feminism has a similar anti-male sentiment, which ironically violate the purported intent of ideology. Both ideologies’ views could cause someone to so fear, distrust, or hate the targeted groups that they may become violent towards them.
Bagelsan: If you read my post in full you would come across the four links to examples of feminists refusing to provide services to male victims. But I can understand why as a feminist you would disregard actual examples of male discrimination and keep moving the goal post.
I’ve got a better idea; how about instead of stringing together links to links to links to your crappy blog (and then whining that I didn’t wade through them in the exact right way when I read them) you just repost them, perhaps even with a brief explanation of how each example is “led to” by feminism. Because in all of the examples you have given — your aunt, the “Hot For Teacher” night — you have utterly failed to establish any kind of correlation between feminism and abuse of men/boys (let alone causation.) And yes, you still haven’t shown that feminism leads to discrimination against men merely by linking to stories of men being mistreated. Whether or not men are mistreated is not he point of contention: the role of feminism in this mistreatment is.
Or does asking you to put both a link and a short explanation in the same comment tax your mental resources too far? Perhaps it would make it too obvious how much bullshit your “easy to show” (yet never actually shown yet) causation is?
VoiP:
“So, if it’s up to femnists to break the cycle of abuse committed by men, then it’s up to MRAs to break the cycle of abuse by women? What would that look like, exactly?”
Good point and very logical. You’re right, it is up to men to bring public awareness to the issue. That really does break the cycle of abuse and is exactly what I’m trying to do. But don’t pigeon-hole me as an MRA. And I don’t like or listen too Glenn Beck. But Glenn Sacks, on the other hand, seems like a great guy. But he gets thrown into the same dismissed class of MRA’s with no distinction. If you need to a moniker to hang on people I’ll go with CRA, Children’s Rights Advocate.
“What exactly would that look like?” Don’t know. I’m kind of winging it here. I just came up with CRA. But I’ll tell you one thing though, define maternal child abuse as matriarchal oppression to a bunch of feminists and all Hell breaks loose. I’ll have to do that more often. For the sake of maternal child abuse awareness.
Molly Ren: Thanks for the link. Gotta love Wikipedia. I looked up their definition of matriarchy too. The first sentence reads:
“A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have central roles of political leadership and moral authority.”
Hmm… matriarchy…motherhood… moral authority… interesting.
“Molly Ren: Thanks for the link. Gotta love Wikipedia. I looked up their definition of matriarchy too. The first sentence reads:
“’A matriarchy is a society in which females, especially mothers, have central roles of political leadership and moral authority.’
“Hmm… matriarchy…motherhood… moral authority… interesting.”
Um, you think mothers hold most of the political offices in the US?