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 already provided citations…but you can also go and crunch the numbers and read the data on the NIS-3, if you’d like (actually read the data, not the not so great executive summary). The data for serious injuries, single mothers 10.0 per 1,000 children, single fathers 14.0 per 1,000. Neglect, single mothers 16.7 per 1,000 children,
single fathers 21.9 per 1,000 children.
“And yes, like Oprah denying sexual abuse happens to boys for 25 years, passive aggression is more of a girl thing.”
I know Oprah is a giant media maven, but I wouldn’t trust her on the important stuff as far as I can throw her.
Actually… I know Oprah has probably done a great deal of positive things with women in mind, but does she identify as feminist? I wasn’t aware that she did.
Nah, it was the other way around, but no hard feelings. I’d appreciate it if you would read my responses in their entirety, though.
As always, [Citation needed].
Here’s a reference site link to some of the data tables, you can scroll right down to the one about single mothers vs single fathers, single fathers do not perform better in any abuse category http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/1386/How-Many-Children-are-Maltreated-NATIONAL-INCIDENCE-STUDY-CHILD-ABUSE-NEGLECT.html
Thanks darksidecat, that’s the only point I was trying to make. Equal rights means recognizing women are equally abusive.
Molly Ren: Can’t contend on this one.
“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.”
Most men could never imagine raping their wives. Much like most feminists can’t imagine a woman like Carla Poole. Your laws have changed. Demond Reed’s hasn’t.
Notice that after 3 or 4 citations of women being less likely to abuse children, he has shifted his claim from “Women are much more abusive and likely to kill children than men” to “Women and men are equally abusive”. I’d say it’s interesting but he’s just a garden variety misogynist, so it’s really not.
Kollege Kat: Regarding Oprah and citations, I have a videotape of the Oprah show that really was the first to deal with men who were sexually abused as children. I was there. She denies the show’s existence. That was in 1987, her follow-up show was the “200 Man Show” last year,after 25 years of silence and shaming men. Talk about an abandonist malnurturing mentality.
Rutee: “Women are much more abusive and likely to kill children than men”
I never said that.
Hey Kollege Kat, I have to agree with Toysoldier on this one.
“Regarding the last point, what my aunt did is just as much feminism as any man who rapes a woman is “patriarchy”.”
And how do you get those cool looking quote boxes?
“Most men could never imagine raping their wives.”
Because discussion of things like “mutual consent” is crap in the US, and has been for a long time. The sexual revolution is still being worked out, unfortunately.
“Much like most feminists can’t imagine a woman like Carla Poole. Your laws have changed. Demond Reed’s hasn’t.”
Rev., One of our regular commentators, Holly, has written about being abused by her mom on her blog and has sometimes mentioned it in the comments on here. We all know that women can do evil things. What we’re contesting is your theory that “Because women do evil things, we live in a matriarchy”.
Bagelsan: Feminists link to random men’s activists posts and expect people to read the posts, but when asked to do the same thing feminists refuse to read the post, and claim that a post that provides the very explanation they request does not prove anything. I cannot tell if this just lazy, disingenuous, or yet another feminist attempt to deny discrimination against male victims. But I can say that this level of intellectual dishonesty just makes you look foolish.
Moewicus: Changing the name does not change the flaw in the logic, and it does not fool anyone. When people use ‘kyriarchy’, everyone knows they really mean ‘patriarchy’.
darksidecat: Changing the sexes would not change anything. A poor man is still disempowered even when compared with poor women. Or are you honestly arguing that poor men fair better if charged with a crime, if seeking social support, or if seeking assistance compared to poor women? Again, at best what you would see would be poor women’s disprivilege.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Again, why would I emotionally manipulate people who do not care about me to begin with? I do not care what feminists think of me, so your disingenuous apology is unnecessary. However, if you want to hurt me so badly that you personally attach me, you should know someone already beat you to it. Do not get sensitive because I threw your cheap shots back in your face. Where in those quoted comments do I state that feminism condones, supports, or endorses child rape? My aunt’s situation is akin to Catholics claiming a priest who molested children is not a Catholic despite his being a practicing Catholic for years. It is silly and juvenile. This not about winning an internet argument. This is about challenging feminists’ misinformation, hypocrisy, and biases. I realize few feminists are interested in that, but I do encourage you and other feminists read and research the things you try to discredit. Rev exaggerated Oprah’s comment. Oprah claimed she never heard of the 1 in 6 statistic for boys before, despite the stat being around for almost two decades.
Flib: Where in your link does it state that men lose their male privilege?
“Changing the name does not change the flaw in the logic, and it does not fool anyone. When people use ‘kyriarchy’, everyone knows they really mean ‘patriarchy’.”
No, I’m pretty sure they mean “kyriarchy”. Cuz words mean things!
darksidecat’s quoted statistics indicate that women are not equally abusive, however. So claiming that they are would be false, and not equal.
Sigh. Bro, I did read your post; it didn’t establish anything like what you claim it does ie. that feminism causes women to abuse. It mentioned a woman who abused, basically that she exists, but in no way connected that abuse to feminism or showed any causality. I can’t fathom how to explain this more clearly to you.
Toysoldier: Remember this thing with language and how you are bad with it? Lose is the wrong term. Male privilege is not necessarily a benefit in the nursing industry due to the way the role is constructed, it has demonstrated forms of discrimination that differ from other intersected discrimination, but remain discrimination none the less. I’ll say again, your understanding of theory is piss poor. Stop attempting to construct an argument over universals when you can’t honestly engage with it’s components. Systemic is not a universal. Any social model that bases itself in empirical data and case studies, feminist influenced or not, can not engage in universals or else it falls apart. You do not seem to understand the epistemological roots of any social sciences, so I will continue to insist that you go properly educate yourself rather then act like you are taking on some big conspiracy theory. The conclusions you keep reaching demonstrate your ignorance.
So, you now think that women have systematic advantage, toysoldier? That’s not denying a class analysis, it is just being completely out of touch with reality when it comes to which group is the privileged one.
http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100016
Can your opinions start intersecting with reality at some point? Cause that’d be nice.
You keep saying this, and you never actually link to any contradictory evidence. You do not attack a scientific theory with assertions.
Just because I really have no reason to think you can even get basics right, what do you think would qualify as contradictory evidence for feminist theory? Be specific on which aspect you refer to.
I am not asking you for a citation. I am asking you what you think feminist theory’s Cambrian Rabbit equivalent is before we even get to the citation.
It’s so cute that you keep confusing dictionary definitions for sociological ones.
RevSpin:
Well, perhaps not in the face of her actively objecting. But if he thinks — especially if this belief is supported in law — that once they were married she was in a permanent unalterable state of consent, he can rape her (as sensible people understand the term) without having to be able to imagine it.
And I would suggest that if not consenting isn’t an option in practical terms, consenting really isn’t either.
And that there’s a difference between being protected from violation by your partner’s good will and being protected by law.
Toysoldier:
See, this is what I’m talking about. Maybe it’s just me, but I think comparing people who disagree with you or are mean to you on the internet to a child rapist is just a liiiiiittle inappropriate, you know?
Oh for fucks sake, do I really have to bold the relevant parts for you?
Now, keep in mind that I’m assuming that by “behaviour”, “correcting”, “actions” and “hurt” you are referring to the abuse/rape by your aunt. If they actually refer to petting kittens, I have no way to know because I can only work with the information that was given to me.
Dude. Dude naw.
Our issue with you here is that you keep claiming that feminism caused your aunt to abuse/rape you, while we keep telling you that feminism does in no way endorse or support child rape and abuse, and thus, her actions don’t have anything to do with feminism but with her being an abusive individual.
I think what you are doing here can be best described with the Hitler Ate Sugar trope:
A logical fallacy that assumes that anything done or liked by a bad person must be bad itself.
I don’t really see you challenging anything to be honest. The claims you made here have been proven false again and again, and you also repeatedly demonstrated how little you know about the topics at hand, so discourse with you is tiresome at best.
So…uhm, yeah. You, uh, sure showed us the errors of our ways, I guess!
But the 1in6 site is being linked to from the Oprah page.
So apparently, she was corrected on her statistics and updated her views accordingly. I don’t really see the issue here, Care to explain?
But what does Oprah have to do with this discussion anyway? I wasn’t aware she identified a feminist, and I don’t know how reputable her show is considered to be.
(I’m not from the US and not very familiar with Oprah, so please feel free to correct me)
Toysoldier: Dude, be fair. When you see a majority of feminists condoning or defending what your aunt did (like the MRAs defending spree killers, for example), then you’ve got a case. So far I haven’t seen that. Some of them may be jerks, but they don’t condone child abuse.
Toysoldier: Dude, be fair. When you see a majority of feminists condoning or defending what your aunt did (like the MRAs defending spree killers, for example), then you’ve got a case. So far I haven’t seen that. Some of them may be jerks, but they don’t condone child abuse.
Hershele: Agreed. And with one word substitution I hope I make my point.
“And that there’s a difference between being protected from violation by your [mother’s]* good will and being protected by law.”
* “partner’s”
Kollege Kat: Oprah has a huge influence in the U.S. particularly for women. In fact her backing Obama for the presidency and not Hillary Clinton drew serious consternation from her feminist allies. She is usually smoothly vague when it comes to her personal beliefs. That may be why she backed out, at the last minute, as key-note monologer at the big 2008 Vagina Monologues 10th Anniversary Convention. But she was good friends with Eve Ensler, and has had many feminists on her show, especially those dealing with sexual abuse or violence against women.
Therein lies the sin of omission. Or as I put it, telling half the truth is like telling half a lie. Here’s my feelings. In guyville we have a saying, “evil prevails when good men do nothing.” Oprah, by “going public” with her sexual abuse as a child, established herself as the daytime media forum for the issue.
Not only did she omit boys as victims and women as perpetrators, but she perpetuated the feminist doctrine that “child sexual abuse is the ultimate oppression of women.” Male victims and female perps just didn’t fit that paradigm. That’s why the group I was working with phone blitzed the show’s producers to do a show for men.
It was the first and last until the “200 Man Show” this year. And in that 25 years of media silence, the whole issue of child sexual assault became distorted to the point of Chris Hansen and “peverted justice.” While I commend busting online predators, Hansen’s tawdry exploitation of offenders may have been great for ratings, but the justice really was perverted.
First, to the viewing public a molester is a molester. Round ’em all up and let God sort ’em out. First time offender or a hardened pedophile made no difference once the cameras started rolling. Second, because of the dubious nature of perverting justice to sell advertising, most of the cases were thrown out. And third, when one guy drove by but didn’t stop the whole camera crew ended up on his front lawn to confront him.
He went out back and shot himself. The majority of sex offenders are too narccissistic to commit suicide. But to many, justice was served. Perverted as it may be.
Oprah and her feminist friends exploited child sexual abuse to the same extent as Hansen exploited pedophiles. It was packaged and sold to an anxious and angry audience, and delivered the message they wanted to hear. Would that women develop the same sense of angst driven animosity for female child abusers.
Why didn’t Oprah continue to include men in her discussions about child abuse, as survivors not molesters? I don’t know. Bad ratings? Possibly. More likely she was uncomfortable with the perspective of Mike Lew, the foremost expert on sexually abused men at the time.
One of his patients was the first to speak on the panel. What may have bothered Oprah was that his mother was always in the same room while his father molested him. He was also a victim of “target abuse,” singled out from the other kids by his mother and physically and emotionally abandoned. Some call that “neglect.” I call it criminal.
Fast forward to Oprah’s last show. We finally get the big picture of how complex and multi-layered child abuse is. She confided her own mother locked her out of the house when she came to stay with her, after the grandmother who raised her fell ill. Imagine your mother locking you out of the house. For days. And she must have been no older than six. Sometimes the abuse begins with mom.
That’s a huge part of not just her story, but a big chunk of the underlying dynamic of child abuse that went untold for a quarter century. During that time the rate of American maternal violence and murder has quietly escalated by as much as 25%. Like I said, evil prevails when good men do nothing. Same goes for women.
On her “200 Man Show” she said men back then weren’t ready to talk openly about sexual abuse. But we were… on HER show. She, the media and feminists weren’t ready to listen.
Bagelsan: Actually, it did establish that feminists discriminate against, fear, hate, and even harm boys and men, in that case specifically by denying male victims access to support services. Perhaps you should read past the first paragraph to the part where I stated “There are plenty of people who can attest to experiencing the same thing in regards to helping male victims, just as there are many recent examples of feminists actively fighting against efforts to help male victims.”
Flib: Just to be clear: we are talking about privilege, specifically the privileges men have, but ‘male privilege’ is the wrong term?
darksidecat: In certain situations women do have systemic advantages. For example, if a woman commits a crime, especially violent crimes, her status as a woman typically results in her receiving a significantly lower sentence than a man. My point is that all privileges fall under into “in certain situations” category.
Rutee Katreya: Curious how the abstract states, “We find that race and gender do intersect in the labor market under certain conditions.” Sounds exactly like my argument. I believe you meant Precambrian rabbit. At any rate, my position is that the feminist privilege doctrine is flawed and inaccurate, so your request makes no sense.
Kollege Messerschmitt: You twice used my experiences to insult me. Back on page 3 you called me “a liar and coward”. On page 4 you claimed to believe me, and then stated, “But I still think you are full of shit.” I simply informed you that I regard your comments the same as I do other people who do not like me, including my aunt. If that offends you, then stop using my experiences to attack me. Nothing you bolded state anything about feminism endorsing, supporting, or condoning abuse. It is not a logical fallacy to state that ideologies can cause people to become violent. The fallacy is the feminist argument that unless an ideology explicitly states, “Go abuse people”, it is incapable of causing violence… except for men’s activism. That ideology, despite being anti-violence like feminism, apparently can cause people to become violent. Here is a curious example of feminist hypocrisy on this thread: several feminists, including you, claimed that feminists support and believe male victims, yet when several feminists, including you, called me liar not one feminist said, “I may disagree with Toysoldier’s views on feminism, but don’t call a male survivor a liar and coward for talking about his abuse.” As for Oprah, the problem is the claim that she never heard of the statistic before despite having being involved in victim advocacy for years.
Hengist: How fortunate then that I never claimed that feminists condone child abuse. However, some feminists have agreed with my aunt’s opinions of me.