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.
Tatjna:
“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.”
Did she learn that kind of behavior from her mother? Then she may be perpetuating intrafamilial maternal abuse, i.e. matriarchal oppression.
He seriously cannot read for comprehension. I think this troll might be full.
ToySoldier wrote:
It’s called Kyriarchy. It’s a feminist-originated concept.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyriarchy
Molly Ren:
“Um, you think mothers hold most of the political offices in the US?”
Of course not. But what about that moral authority thing? darksidecat said matriarchy was more conceptual, and I added philisophical, than patriarchy. Concepts and philosophies are the heart and soul of morals and moral authority.
Given feminists current stance on maternal child abuse, close to non-existant, can they really claim to have moral authority? If so, how?
Because poor women and black women don’t exist, toysoldier? Poor men and black men still receive systematic advantages for being male (just as poor white people still receive societal privilege for being white). Take a look at poor women and black women’s social condition and that is quickly and easily observable. What you are doing is trying to play oppression olympics, and the rest of us aren’t having that. A poor man being oppressed by a wealthy woman is not being oppressed on the grounds of gender, nor has he lost the societal benefits he receives for being male. What is occuring in such a case is an income based oppression dynamic harming him.
@revspinnaker, I specifically posted long, detailed discussions of neglect vs. physical abuse and murder, and you have now decided to pretend like that discussion never happened. Women do not commit more physical abuse killings or more murders, women commit a lower ratio of neglect than men (but have higher numbers, due to the fact that neglect involves the caretaker and women are caretakers at extremely higher rates).
have central roles of political leadership
Are you claiming women have that in the US? Congressional and government demographics beg to differ. Women as a class do not have political and social power dominance in western society, period. And this is even more true of marginalized women, such as poor women and women of color.
Also, it is interesting that you attribute a position of “blaming the patriarchy” for child abuse upon me when I never actually said anything remotely similar. I, in fact, took no specific position on the causes of abuse, other than that they per se involved “dominance through coercion and force” and that feminism was not a statistically significant contributing factor. You see, unlike you, my worldview does not depend on women being either angels or devils, women are human beings, just as prone to bad behavior as other similarly situated human beings. There is an old feminist slogan “feminism is the radical notion that women are people”. Patriarchy is only one of the societal systems of dominance via coercion and force, others exist (for example, heterosexism and white supremecy). Eliminating patriarchy alone would reduce certain forms of abuse, but it would not in and of itself eliminate all abuse, in the hypothetical situation where eliminating patriarchy but continuing other social norms of dominance is possible (I do not think as a practical matter that such a thing is achievable, given social dynamics, but in the hypothetical).
Toysoldier:
Yupp, that was me. And Toysoldier, I talked about emotional manipulation based on your cheap attempts to equate people who disagree with you with the person who raped you, along the lines of “well, I bet you are happy to know that my aunt would agree with you! So you are basically agreeing with a child rapist, just so you know”!
You did that multiple times, so it was definitely not an accident. As a fellow sexual abuse survivor, I’m really, REALLY not happy with you trying to equate me (and others) with the person who raped you when you were a child, because apparently she also thought you were a disgusting coward. I apologize if I overreacted, but it is something I won’t tolerate easily, and I’m asking you to stop doing that.
You sure, bro? Okay, let’s look at what you wrote…
I think it shows pretty well that you think feminism led your aunt to sexually abuse you as a child.
…so? Sarah Palin claimed she is a feminist as well, even if her views and beliefs are very contradictory to feminist views. If someone claims to be a LGBT* ally and still bashes and sees LGBT* people as second class citizens, I still won’t see them as a LGBT* ally.
Because not bashing LGBT* people is a core belief of being an LGBT* ally. Just like not accepting/endorsing/supporting sexual abuse in any way or form is a core belief of feminism.
Listen, this is not about winning an internet fight. The evidence obviously speaks against you. I have no idea what your goal is, but if you are only trying to win an argument on they internet, not having an honest discourse, please do tell me so. It would spare me a lot of time and energy.
I will also repeat the recommendations of other people on this blog; read and research about the things you are trying to argue about. Winning an argument on the internet isn’t anywhere as useful as actually being knowledgeable about the topics you are discussing,
KS – so if we *assume* she learned this behaviour solely from her mother and not from the dysfunctional environment she appears to have been immersed in all her life, if we *assume* that she was abused by only her mother and not anyone else ever in her life, and if we *assume* that’s the reason why she did what she did, then THAT proves your matriarchal oppression concept?
I don’t buy it. Sorry, you have completely overreached yourself and I’m bored with you now.
darksidecat:
” I specifically posted long, detailed discussions of neglect vs. physical abuse and murder, and you have now decided to pretend like that discussion never happened. ”
Sorry, as I posted then, you had a very thoughtful and well reasoned comment. I did say I’d get back after reading it a few times so I’d have an equally informed response. I didn’t and I apologize. But it was not because I “decided to pretend like that discussion never happened.” Not in the least bit. I’ve been preoccupied by the barrage of negative comments putting me on the defensive.
“… women commit a lower ratio of neglect than men (but have higher numbers, due to the fact that neglect involves the caretaker and women are caretakers at extremely higher rates).”
Phil Donahue would agree with you. When confronted with the fact that women kill more children than men he quiped,” [t]hat’s like saying more men hit home runs.” I guess he meant women kill children for sport. He successfully dismissed the issue.
And that bit about lower ratios, that says more about boyfriends and parmours than natural fathers. Ratio of neglect? There we go again with a vague, ineffective, antiquated term for a sentencing guideline.
Tatjna:
“so if we *assume* she learned this behaviour solely from her mother and not from the dysfunctional environment”
Child abuse is almost always multi-layered, especially the worst cases. My point is some mothers deliberately cause dysfunction and that is largely ignored by feminists.
“And that bit about lower ratios, that says more about boyfriends and parmours than natural fathers.” No, it does not. Single fathers commit neglect (including serious injury causing neglect) at higher rates than single mothers. Boyfriends and “paramours” are not primary or legally responsible caretakers in most cases, and therefore very unlikely to be considered neglect perps. Men still commit neglect at a much higher rate compared to their percentage of caretakers. When it comes to physical abuse deaths, mothers and fathers perpetrate at similar rates. When it comes to murder deaths (intentional deaths), mothers and fathers perpetrate at similar rates. Lumping in neglect deaths with physical abuse and intentional murder deaths is very sloppy methodology.
Let me try and explain how women can have higher numbers of neglect but not higher rates, using an example I have used previously (not on this thread, but on others). Consider a field with an overly high percentage of one gender of workers-for example, construction. Construction is an incredibly male dominated field. The vast, vast majority of construction deaths and injuries due to negligence are the fault of a man. Is this because men are automatically more negligent construction workers than women? No, it does not. If we want to know if women are behaving better or worse in this area, we need to compare the percentage of women in the field with their percentage of negligence cases. So, if women are, let’s say, five percent of workers in this field and cause five percent of negligence, and men are ninety five percent and ninety five percent, respectively, their ratios and rates of commiting the bad act are the same. The number of incidents alone does not tell the whole story. This is true of neglect as well. As basically only primary caretakers can be considered neglectful, and women make up 90% or more of those caretakers, if men and women had similar rates of neglect, women would commit roughly 90% and men roughly 10%, because of their disparite numbers in this type of work.
“Ratio of neglect? There we go again with a vague, ineffective, antiquated term for a sentencing guideline.” Ratio is a common basic math term, and I used it in a mathematical sense. Also, I never advocated a distinction in sentencing guidelines between perps of different genders who committed similar types of abuse.
And my point is that you don’t have a point because your ‘argument’ is made up entirely of assumption and fabrication, which you have not yet been able to substantiate.
Now, Toysoldier. Go back and read my comments on why you are stupid. It’s called intersection for a reason. Actually learn what the fuck you are talking about before going off on an ignorant rant about it. The link I provided helped prove that there are no universal statements because intersectionality doesn’t actually make universal statements. The reason I’ve been calling you stupid is because you are saying as if it does, and I provided you a link of applied intersectionality that shows otherwise. There are multiple levels of analysis, the closest intersectionality gets to describing something as “universal” is when it is describing systemic issues. To be systemic, it needs to be in the majority and show common tendencies within power based relationships. It is looking at a snap shot picture of relationships on multiple axis that is empirical backed by large swaths of data. It does not say that all men are favored all the time.
Earlier I mentioned male nurses, that is one sample case. Look at cases of male childcare workers as another example, since there has also been a discussion of children here. The forms of discrimination they face is pretty different then say, women on career business tracks, but there is discrimination that occurs. Work is actually done on this, within actual academia, that uses basic concepts of feminist theory (intersectionality). It’d be great if MRA’s (and I have no clue if you identify yourself as one or not) actually focused on things like this, instead of attempting to write themselves as completely oppressed or act as if all theory born out of feminism must be wrong. Pro-tip: Applied intersectionality is by no means limited by gender. It’s a tool, and empirically, a pretty damn effective one. Or would you like to dismiss the study I linked above?
And yet you think the theory itself is the problem when it is clear your fundamental understanding of intersectionality is just incorrect. This is why I said you were ignorant. It’s pretty clear you haven’t actually read much into it. So excuse me while I point out that you are intellectually dishonest at best. Fess up, you don’t know what you are saying.
Kollege Kat: ”
As a fellow sexual abuse survivor, I’m really, REALLY not happy with you trying to equate me (and others) with the person who raped you when you were a child, because apparently she also thought you were a disgusting coward.”
You sound like a real sensitive broad, especially being a fellow sexual abuse survivor. But then again, I know what it’s like to have feminists tell me I deserved to be raped as a child because of my patriarchal priviledge. “Now you know how it feels” is what I heard. So let me get this straight. You personally feel Toysoldier is a “disgusting coward” and you identify with his aunt for raping him for that reason? Is it therefore reasonable to rape boys because they are part of the patriarchy?
darksidecat: Thanks again for the civil discourse. Please read the comment of mine prior to your last posting. The one about Phil Donahue. Agreed, more women are primary nurturers than men. That doesn’t excuse bad behavior. The analogy you made about construction workers and negligent deaths being the fault of men is telling. If a construction foreman is “negligent” and a death results he may be responsible for man-slaughter among other things.
If a mother is “neglectful” and that results in the death of a child… look at Casey Anthony.
The fuck, dude?
I never said he deserved it. No one EVER deserves to be raped/abused. Not you, not Toysoldier. I don’t identify with his aunt for raping him, because, as I said multiple times, I think she is a disgusting, abusive and sick individual. But I also think that Toysoldier is a disgusting coward. If that is what is her view, I guess that is something I agree with her on.
I still don’t think it is any excuse to abuse him!
Thinking his aunt is a despicable person, and thinking Toysoldier is a despicable person, are not mutually exclusive. I just think it’s really inappropriate of him to compare anyone who opposes to him to his aunt, like “I will keep your personal opinions of me with my aunt’s and those of other full-of-shit assholes.“. It seems really cheap.
Again, I think what those women told you is absolutely unacceptable. Victim blaming and denying a survivor help is something most feminists will condemn, no matter what genders are involved.
And I’d guess you’re a complete douche that has given up even the pretense or arguing in good faith.
Manipulative little bastard, aren’t you? Hiding your agenda and sophistry behind “civil discourse” and trying to get people to “admit” women are evil because if the gross numbers that are left to attend children alone in an increasingly downward spiral of economic pressures.
Go blame victims somewhere else.
RevSpin:
I was seven. Because it was 26 years ago. Do you think, maybe, it’s just possible that feminism may have changed in a fucking quarter of a century?
I wonder how many MRAs are created when someone reads a feminist essay from the ’70s and it says something like “a marriage license is a license to rape” and thinks “feminists are hyperbolic! If they consider married sex ‘rape’, what other innocuous thing do they consider bad! How misandrist!” when in fact, in the ’70s it was literally true.
Kollege Kat:
“Now why would I would try to emotionally manipulate people I do not think care about me to begin with?”
So you emotionally manipulate people you percieve as not caring about you. Do you mean you manipulate patriarchal oppressors or just men & boys in general.
Passive aggression… it’s such a girl thing.
darksidecat:
“Single fathers commit neglect (including serious injury causing neglect) at higher rates than single mothers.”
Citations please. And besides I thought we agreed, the term “neglect” is vague, ineffective and antiquated as a sentencing guideline.
Pssst.
Pssst, Rev.
was a quote from Toysoldier. Just saying. No objection to your observation of Toysoldeir being passive-aggressive though, but why would you say
?
Also, why are you assuming I’m a girl?
Hershelle: All married women in the 70’s were rape victims?
“Hershelle: All married women in the 70′s were rape victims?”
No, Rev. In the 70s, you couldn’t legally call non-consensual sex with your spouse rape. The law has been changed since then so that *if* your spouse rapes you, you can actually report it.
“Yupp, that was me.”
Caught that one out of context kollege kat. I trust Toysoldier was defending himself against emotional manipulation.
And yes, like Oprah denying sexual abuse happens to boys for 25 years, passive aggression is more of a girl thing.
Intersectionality. What ever happened to deconstructuralism? And hyperbolic obsfucation?
You know, at this point, they’re not even incidentally touching reality.