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.
@VoIP:
Can you cite an instance in which contemporary feminists praise Daly for her comment about trans* people? Because if not, I think it’s possible that you’re shitting us.
Did I say that she is praised for her “comments” about trans people?
Many bad people did something good at some point in their lives but still they don’t deserve to be praised.
@Bostonian:
Are there seriously living feminists who praise Mary Daly without reservation?
I think she shouldn’t be praised at all. Like Stalin shouldn’t be praised just because he sometimes said something against racism.
Toysoldier: You have not demonstrated any knowledge of what privilege is nor intersectionality. When I called you intellectually dishonest, it is because you were claiming things about theory that weren’t actually in the theory. Ergo, you were never using terms in a sociological sense due to your failure in knowledge in the first place. There is a reason I am calling you stupid, go figure it out. Go back and read over what has actually been in response to you, and stop trying to play this game.
Let me remind you again; It’s not feminists generalizing theory about privilege and applying universals. It is YOU who is making the CLAIM that they do, with no actual evidence that they have done so. WE have provided you with recent applied studies that show otherwise. What this means is that your claim is FACTUALLY INCORRECT. Stop acting as if still holds credence. Your knowledge is lacking. You do not have knowledge over the things you are saying. You are not intellectually honest because you are not actually engaging with the terminology and theory, you are inserting claims into it that are not actually part of it, and have been demonstrated to multiple times why your revisions do not work due to applied intersectionality. You do not hold a single shred of validity when you are wrong on all scales, be it epistemological or actual usage within studies sphere. This is what we have all been telling you. The fact that it’s being repeated again continues to indicate that you do not actually engage with the material, you just make up some shit and say it must be this way.
Also, pro-tip: Reality has a liberal bias. Sorry to burst your bubble there, bro. You do not know what sociology is if you think privilege/power analytical tools are termed specifically just for feminism or “progressive liberalism”.
Many bad people did something good at some point in their lives but still they don’t deserve to be praised.
For anything? Whoah, I bet my German friends just hate their universal health insurance (Bismark’s idea)
And the EPA was Nixon’s!
ToySoldier already linked to a post linking to criticism of Mary Daly by feminists. So much for being constantly praised by feminists.
Also, I agree with Hitler*.
* On the grounds that smoking is definitely bad for your health. That whole holocaust thing was pretty bad, though.
VoiP, something tells me your examples may not be compelling to the average neo-conservative MRA.
“RIP Adolf Hitler, radical anti-smoker.
While we want to honor his contributions to the tobacco control movement, we also want to note the limitations of his brand of anti-tobacco thought, which deemed some non-smokers monstrous.”
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2010/01/rip-mary-daly.html
Apparently some of you don’t care for feminist “herstory.”
Toysoldier:
If you said it was police department policy to assault people of certain races, and actual cops responded and said no, that’s not true, I’d certainly want to see cites, but that wouldn’t invalidate your personal experience of being assaulted by cops.
Do you understand the difference between reporting that your feminist aunt abused you and claiming that feminists support your aunt’s abuse of you?
@toysoldier “This paper examines only differences in the sentencing decision, not disparitied that may exist elsewhere in the criminal justice system. Besides sentencing,
differences could exist in arrest patterns, the allocation of police resources, and
the prosecution of alleged offenders.” (The next sentence discusses the crack-cocaine discrepancy not being taken into account even though the standard was in place at the time, a major issue in conviction times for poor vs wealthy and black vs white defendents to the point where it was declared a violation of the 14th amendment because its operation was so racist). The linked study also does not control for type of crime committed, a sentence for murder and one for theft should be different, you need to comparable comparable crimes to get good data about these issues. This is not the best way to determine actual discrepancies in end punishment based on crimes committed in racial discrepancy issues, since it is well documented that black people are arrested more, be charged more, face harsher charges, and are given less lenient plea bargains as well. As to black women vs black men, black men have higher average income, higher net worth, and a lower numerical discrepancy in imprisionment compared to white men than black women to white women, as to the “education gap” contrary to popular myth this is actually lower between black men and black women than it is between white men and white women (here’s a long scholarly piece on that issue http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/soc/faculty/docs/diprete/Race%20Paper%2009232009.pdf).
But, again, even forgetting those details, you are still not accounting for all of the permutations, do you think every woman gets lighter sentencing than every man? If so, then doesn’t that undermine your denial of the possibility of gender class based social privileges?
Kollege Kat:
“I still don’t understand where you got the notion that we don’t believe women can be abusive?”
Because feminists don’t talk about it. Where’s your Vagina Monologues for violence against children? ALL CHILDREN.
VoiP: According to feminists women do not and cannot possess privilege as women at all, yet I can show clear instances disproving that argument. What I presented was not “intersectionality”. White women also receive many of those advantages and several not afforded to non-white women.
Flib: Disagreeing with the feminist view does not mean I am ignorant of it. You really need to stop assuming that anyone who challenges or critiques feminist theories is stupid. Not only does make you look petulant, but also implies that you are arguing in bad faith. The evidence you request is in the above link. Feel free to read Feminism 101’s posts on “male privilege” as well. It contains the same absolutist views I mentioned, and those views represent the general feminist view on privilege.
Hershele Ostropoler: And what if I stated that the police department’s opinions towards certain groups caused them to treat those people violently? If you found no fault with the police department’s views, would that make me a liar or misinformed? Honestly, do you not understand the difference between stating that feminism can cause people to become violent and claiming that feminists support child abuse? I promise that you will not spontaneously combust or lose your feminist cred by acknowledging that there is a difference.
darksidecat: The paper demonstrates there is a difference in how people are sentenced, and contrary to what feminists might think, women benefit from female privilege via receiving lesser sentences compared to men. The paper you linked to does not disprove that black women have more educational advantages and opportunities than black men. The issue is how much difference, just whether there is a difference. I never said “every” woman receives a lesser sentence. I spoke in general, meaning on average women receive lesser sentences compared to men. Nice try though.
@toysoldier “women benefit from female privilege” And what exactly is that? Define “privilege” for us please. Is it suddenly okay to discuss class based structual issues so long as you coach them as being about “averages”?
So things that are different on average can be considered evidence towards group privilege? (just making sure the rules are consistent :3 )
ALL CHILDREN are abused by women? Huh. I guess, if motherhood is the same thing as a “matriarchy,” then the matriarchy does, indeed, abuse ALL CHILDREN. Should they be raised by men, or what?
Toysoldier: You have been proven ignorant of the terms you are using. This is not arguing in bad faith. You have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on multiple occasions. This is not mere disagreement. You literally do not have the knowledge you claim to profess, this has been shown time and time again. You do not hold any authority because of that.
I’m not assuming anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant. In your case, there is no assumption here, you are demonstrably ignorant as I have consistently pointed out your logic flaws and where you have been misinformed.
Is ALL CHILDREN the new “There is no context!”?
Oh no no no, THAT would FEMINIZE men, raising children being women’s work and all, and we can’t have THAT!!
I never said ALL CHILDREN are abused by women, but my father was a much better parent than my mother. And he had to work harder as a great dad despite my mother’s pathological malnurturing.
Yes you did, right here:
Simon, don’t let me ever catch you saying anything nice about Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Simon Bolivar, Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, Winston Churchill, Ho Chi Minh, Karl Marx, Ayn Rand, Gaius Octavius Thurinus, Harriet Tubman, or really anybody who ever did anything in history that wasn’t lying down and dying. Because the only way for you to be consistent is to never praise anyone for any positive thing they have done.
Simon:
So, in order to prove that feminists don’t care about how transphobic Daly was, you link to a blog post…criticizing Daly for her transphobia.
That’s…
…um.
Can you read?
Rev, this has been categorically disproven much earlier in the thread. Perhaps you should read the thread and either retract this statement or quiet your lying fingers.
Oh man, you dudes would HAAAATE the early modern period, which I have to read about for a class on European military history I’m TAing. It’s all lovely music, beautiful architecture, and war the cruelty of which was only surpassed in the 20th century. I am not kidding, it is mass civilian death all the fucking time up in this house. Should I hate Bach now?