Feminism or death?

We are talking about privilege in the systematic sociological sense. Not in the definition you are going to pull out of your ass from the dictionary.

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.

Then I don’t see your point, sorry. Either feminists agree with your aunt’s treatment of you, or they don’t and what she did is not representative of feminism. You say feminists have agreed with her “opinions”, what were those? What is the point you’re trying to make? This whole thing has gotten confusing.

Sounds exactly like my argument.

Thank you, the only stragglers who weren’t sure you didn’t know what you were talking about when you talked about feminist theory should be caught up with the rest of us now.

Protip: Feminist theory doesn’t say what you think it does. Learn it.

. I believe you meant Precambrian rabbit.

You answered the question… and poorly.

See, I have a few thoughts on contradictory evidence at this point. I think the strongest evidence against intersectionality would be if belonging to two different marginalized groups actually increased your general standing in society. If we could say that, for instance, black women were privileged over black men and white women in general, and had superior earning potential, less representation in poverty, etc, that’d be pretty strong evidence against intersectionality. Good evidence against kyriarchy would be if those who fought to end the enforcement of a particular class’ oppression actually had a fantastic track record of ending all oppression (If feminism had a spectacular track record against racism, heterosexism, cis-sexism, classism, ableism, , if the civil rights movements by PoCs had good track records on ending sexism,cis-sexism…), because kyriarchy predicts that most people, even those who aren’t privileged on a given axis, will perpetrate a number of other forms of discrimination.

I think a great way to disprove class theory in general, and privilege in specific to begin with is if class was *NEVER* a strong predictor of success. But even you don’t think that’s the case, given how you’ve discussed the rich and hte poor, or the racism against black people. You’ve instead mostly confined your arguments against privilege to either dictionary-level sophism (Protip: “ACCORDING TO THE DICTIONARY IT ISN’T A PRIVILEGE NOT TO BE BEATEN BY THE POLICE” is not, in fact, an argument against a sociological principle with a definition distinct from the dictionary’s. It’s like arguing for Great Person history on the grounds that there WERE some really nice people and the other methodologies for teaching history, in denying Great Person History, are saying there’s no nice people and that’s too mean. It’s completely out of touch with what any of what you’re arguing about says or means.), or assertion.

RevSpinnaker, you seem to have this problem where you think “matriarchy” means “feminism”. Or maybe “matriarchy” means “all women who commit abuse”. They’re not the same thing.

By your standards, if the fact that women commit abuse means we’re in a matriarchy, then you can just easily prove that we live in a patriarchy by the fact that *men* commit abuse.

This is like saying that all Roman peasants are in fact Cesar because they beat their wives.

Making up definitions does not help your argument. Just saying.

Molly: I see – I guess that’s as it should be, since we’re a matriarchy and all..

RevSpinnaker, we’re talking about feminism causing *child abuse*, not political protests. From the links you handed us, you seem to think that the two are being equated here–they’re not.

The chicks in the article you cited are asking for things like “hire women of color! Pay women more money! Actual have a woman editing a woman’s magazine!” and, from this excerpt, the majority of them seem to think jumping at the editor wasn’t a good idea either:

“Everyone froze except Karla Jay. With split-second timing she grabbed Shulie’s right arm and expertly flipped her off the desk and out of danger. There was an audible “oooooh” as Shulie sailed in an arc toward three waiting demonstrators who cushioned her fall. A phalanx of hands reached out to detain her while she blinked, looking sheepish. Her passion was spent.

“Karla had been studying judo for all of three months. ‘I have to save this woman from going to jail and destroying her life,’ Karla remembers thinking.

“Without Karla Jay’s intervention, the Journal sit-in might have turned into a disastrous melee. She was our heroine, the woman of the hour. As for Shulie, at the time I thought that the media opportunity had simply gone to her head but in retrospect I believe that her lunge was the first public sign of her growing instability. Disgraced, she walked out the door with Ti-Grace Atkinson and Rosalyn Baxandall. The three veteran activists, accustomed to claiming their place at the eye of the storm, tramped down the back stairs agreeing that Media Women was a finky bunch. Ros had seen us wave sheaves of paper at Carter and Hershey–our precious demands and article suggestions. With little effort she somehow convinced herself that we were brandishing resumes and angling for jobs.”

In case you got mixed up in all the names, Karla Jay, who averted the violent action, is spoken of earlier in the article as a Redstocking–that is, she’s *another radical feminist*. If the whole feminist movement was nothing but women just gnashing to tear men apart at every opportunity, why would Jay have bothered to intervene and why would Shulie later be described as having “growing instability”?

So I ask again: What did Carla Poole’s actions have to do with feminism? How did her killing that boy have political aims?

Also, geez, Rev., do you not have any examples of feminism that happened, I dunno,*this year* instead of a decade or more ago?

“I never defined feminism as matriarchal.”

Then why did you bring up an article about a feminist protest in a discussion about child abuse? Earlier you said that child abuse is a result of “Matriarchal oppression”, so it seems like the two would be related.

You wrote, “Don’t feminists define the patriarchy as ‘all men are potential rapists?’ If I played by your rules that would make all women potential whores. Potential is the operative word here.”

then you write

“* I never said all feminists make up definitions all the time.”

You’re saying we don’t know the meaning of words we use, and yet claim “I never said you were making shit up!”

Maybe *you* don’t know what “patriarchy”, “patriarchy”, “matriarchy”, “feminism”, or “rape culture” means? You certainly haven’t shown it by your discourse.

Molly “The Sow” Ren

Molly Ren: “Rape culture?”

“Brownmiller argues that rape had been hitherto defined by men rather than women; and that men use, and all men benefit from the use of, rape as a means of perpetuating male dominance by keeping all women in a state of fear.”

And that’s ALL men, no “potential” about it.

At the time the only books being written about rape and child sexual abuse were written by women. I called Susan Brownmiller through her publisher to question the notion that “all men benefit from the use of rape…” She was really nice and had already heard from many in the psychological community about the frequency of sexual abuse against boys.

This was the early 80’s and she had already softened her approach. She was sympathetic to the fact that for an impressionable boy who’s been sexually abused the last thing he needs to hear is that he’s a rapist.

In fact boys need to hear the same thing as girls who’ve been abused; you are not alone, you are not to blame and you are good and always have been.

To feminists a boy isn’t “good” until he’s been corrected and cured of the patriarchy. So you call him a rapist.

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.

I don’t see how I was using your experience to insult you.
I believe what you told us about your aunt and what she did to you. Why shouldn’t I? From what I saw no one here didn’t believe you about it.
Just because I think your opinions on feminism and on men’s rights are idiotic and wrong doesn’t mean I don’t believe that you are a survivor. It seems that everything has to be black or white in your world, but this is reality, and it is possible to believe a person has been abused while still finding them to be dishonest about other things.

Nothing you bolded state anything about feminism endorsing, supporting, or condoning abuse.

I don’t know if you are being willfully obstuse or if you are delusional, but let’s do this fancy substituting thing I was talking about before and see what happens!

I said that feminism caused her [to abuse me], and that her views are very much a part of feminism.

My contention is only that feminism caused my aunt’s thinking, which then led to her [abusing me].

Do you see why people here have a problem with this? Unless you mean something completely different when you are talking about her “actions” or “behaviour”, than this is basically what you are saying. I don’t know how to make this any clearer to you.

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.

Ah, okay, I see the problem here.
You are operating under the assumption that the MRM is anti-violence. This really does not seem to be the case. If they were so anti-violence, they wouldn’t be featured on this blog so regularly. A movement that tries to excuse actions of people like Breivik, or refuses to call out other MRAs for hateful and violent comments sure doesn’t seem very anti-violent to me. And this was why I was calling you a liar, because the evidence is right before your eyes.
But if you prefer, I will call you ignorant instead.

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.”

I don’t see the hypocrisy. Where did anyone here say they don’t believe you were abused? By ” feminists support and believe male victims” we mean feminists believe male victims when they tell us about their abuse. It does not mean feminists will believe everything they ever say, when it has nothing to do with the abuse. Like, I dunno, that the sky is green and the grass is pink, or that the MRM is anti-violence.
I don’t see how that means that they don’t believe/support male survivors.

See, I have no reason not to believe you about your abuse. But I have several reasons not to believe you about what you say about feminism, or the men’s rights movement, simply because all evidence speaks against you.

Those things are not mutually exclusive.

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.

Again, does she identify as a feminist?

“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.

I’m not agreeing with you, I’m trying to figure out what you think, because even granting your premises (which hoooo boy I do not) it’s not really clear or internally consistent.

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.

So, here is a point. Good job. But what is that issue?

I’ve simply defined motherhood as ‘the matriarchy’ and use it as an argumentative tool…

Motherhood = matriarchy.

“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.

“Maternal moral authority” = matriarchy.

“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.

Child abuse when perpetrated by women = matriarchal oppression.
Because motherhood = matriarchy.

Molly Ren,

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”….you seem to have this problem where you think “matriarchy” means “feminism”. Or maybe “matriarchy” means “all women who commit abuse”. They’re not the same thing.

It’s more far-reaching than that: matriarchy seems to be the fact that women parent their children, or at least their male children. Matriarchal oppression is maternal child abuse.

Kollege Messerschmitt:

And on a completely unrelated side note, why are you writing my name as “Kollege Kat”? I thought it was a typo at first, but you keep writing it like this, so I’m curious.

Because you’re a giiiirrrl, which is bad.

Isn’t your gravatar a cat, Kollege?

Maybe one of those hairless cats.

Rev., if you just want to bring awareness to the fact that male children are also victims of child abuse, please do! I totally agree that it is a good thing. But the way you talk about it is confusing and inconsistent as hell.

Ah, but you see, he’s used the word Matriarchy as a tool to talk about it!

Because as we all know, completely confusing issues is the best way to generate more awareness of them.