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.
To summarise Toy Soldier’s position again.
1. I don’t hate feminists because my abusive aunt was one, I just hate them because they’re wrong
2. But still, I’m going to remind you that she was a feminist, and feminism can make people violent, and she did abuse me. I’m going to just leave that hanging there and not actually state the fact that I think her feminism made her abuse me, because if I stated it outright people would call me on it. But still, she was a feminist, and abusive, so…
3. But that’s not why I hate feminism, oh no! What an amusing thought.
4. BTW since I’m an abuse victim if you point out that my arguments make no sense that means that you’re mocking me because I’m an abuse victim, not because my arguments make no sense.
People don’t mock you because you’re an abuse victim, dude. They mock you because your arguments are blatantly disingenuous.
“Yeah, I really want to hear their reaction to taking their claim that there is an epidemic of mothers killing and maiming children to its logical conclusion. In fact, since the claim is that all women hurt all children, then it’s a national emergency, and the government should jump on it right now! For the good of the children, henceforth men of childbearing age should be ineligible for gainful employment, except in part-time secretarial positions. Men should also be ineligible for college education, except to major in Home-Making and Domestic Arts. It’s a harsh remedy, I know, but we must save the children!! Clearly, men belong in the home, caring for and protecting children from their perfidious mothers, and so our society should do everything it can to keep men there.”
Ah, but then they would somehow handwave it with some half-answer about how the whole institution of marriage is evil and benefits only women, therefore making the argument that no man should get married in this “misandrious society”.
Next we will get some lecture on how the entire realm of society is controlled by women, who are controlled by the Rothschilds, who are now controlled by aliens from Alpha Centauri in a long-winded plan to annihilate the human race.
And then MRAL and peniopra would make some offensive comment.
Amused:
“She’ll get the privilege of keeping that baby out of your presence after the marriage.”
Privilege? That says alot. Using a child as an emotional weapon against the other parent or an ex-spouse is opportunist malnurturing. I consider it criminal. It causes horrific damage to the child when made the psychological punching bag for parents who want the child to take “their side.” Withholding a child from visitation damages the child as much as it hurts the non-custodial parent, usually the father.
“Maybe then more men (and especially men like you) will do their fair share in actually raising children… ”
Never had kids. “That Goddamn little bitch” * Mom scared me away. She had five children and only one grandchild. She scared us all that much. That’s too bad too. My dad was a fantastic father and a good man. He was always there for us, despite what my mother put him through. I’m alot like him and he was a great paternal influence. I regret not having children.
* Mom’s favorite swear words, not mine.
Toddlers and Tiaras basically seems to be attempting to recreate the indignities that some people inflict upon tiny handbag dogs, but with human children. Do not want.
(And to answer what I suspect was the real question intended there – yes, it’s often a good example of the ability of women to abuse children. Which is why so many feminist blogs keep posting articles about how horrible it is.)
Buh? Where did you take this “all about me” thing from? I don’t really see a reply form me, or anyone else for that matter, that would make your reply work in context.
However, I do believe that anecdata is not really sufficient in proving any social trends.
My father was abusive, so was the step-father of my half-sister. See? Our experiences are completely different, so it would be silly of me to base representative statistics on the available data, because the sample size is insignificant.
I am very sorry that your mother abused you, but it is important that you try to stay objective. Dragging someone ” through the lurid details” doesn’t make the statistics that you were given by other commenters any less valid. It also reeks of emotional manipulation, which you described as “such a girl thing” before.
Darcsidecat and others have provided you with information and statistics. They have proven your assertions to be false.
See, tatjna even made the research for you.
I still don’t see anyone preventing you (or the MRM, for that matter) from starting those organizations and campaigns, by the way. I’m sure there are many feminists who would support them!
So care to explain what your problem is?
Redlocker:
Yeeepp.
He also talks about how we are living in a “Gynocracy” and Matriarchy, and how women getting the right to vote is like Lucifer trying to be like God (his comparison), and that women “fell” like Lucifer after getting the vote. Unfortunately there is no english version.
His quotes would fit here very well.
Tatjna: “Additionally, every single one of these sites used entirely non-gendered language to talk about the abusers of children…”
Are these feminist organizations? It’s hard to imagine any feminist organization using “non-gendered language.” Reading these posts, neutrality is not the hallmark of feminism.
“and all of their stats agreed that all abuse has increased, not just that by women, and that one of the reasons for this is increased reporting of abuse due to raised awareness – which women have been deeply involved in creating.”
http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/162/9/1578
Better forensics revealed that suspect “neglect” cases and sudden death syndrome were sometimes homicides.
ChildHelp.org is a great organization. The woman who founded it, was she a feminist? Traditionally in wealthy families the matriarch would often assume the philathropic and cultural responsibilities.
What years were the other organizations formed?
You know, for someone who calls “passive-agressiveness” a girl thing, this statement is packed fat with it.
“He also talks about how we are living in a “Gynocracy” and Matriarchy, and how women getting the right to vote is like Lucifer trying to be like God (his comparison), and that women “fell” like Lucifer after getting the vote. Unfortunately there is no english version.
His quotes would fit here very well.”
Ah. Well, I know a little German (albeit from a failed attempt at German Class. Maybe I should just get Rosetta Stone instead :D), so perhaps it would be a morbidly entertaining read.
“But I thought ALL vagina people were against ALL violence because their vaginas made them empathetic and nurturing.”
Oh, I get it now. He thinks all feminists are Heart.
That’s kind of funny given the existence of entire communities dedicated to mocking her brand of sacred yoni-based woo woo.
Privilege? That says alot. Using a child as an emotional weapon against the other parent or an ex-spouse is opportunist malnurturing. I consider it criminal. It causes horrific damage to the child when made the psychological punching bag for parents who want the child to take “their side.” Withholding a child from visitation damages the child as much as it hurts the non-custodial parent, usually the father.
Wrong — using a child is an emotional weapon is what’s done by the parent who did little to no childcare, yet sues for custody come divorce time — and that’s usually the father in our culture. “Criminal” is also failure to actually, physically care for your child — that’s also usually the father in our society. And it causes horrific damage to the child to have to interact with a parent who didn’t want much to do with that child until the divorce.
I don’t know what you mean by saying that your father was “always there”. There — where? Available by phone? Commiserating with you in a monthly heart-to-heart? Because by MRA logic, if your father was actually there, caring for you instead of your mother, your mother wouldn’t have the opportunity to abuse you. It doesn’t take much to be a “wonderful father” in our culture, seeing that all that’s necessary for a man to be considered a hero dad is to take the kids to a baseball game twice a year and pat them on the head every once in a while. That’s all. Mothers, however, are always villains; if she’s not actually abusive, then she’s the “bad cop”, a controlling bitch who makes the kid clean his room, while the “wonderful dad” nods sadly and pontificates about the evil nature of women.
You know, you’re capable of reading those sites yourself. I am not your personal research assistant.
You have been provided with information that demonstrates women are, and have been, deeply involved in child abuse prevention for as long as child abuse prevention has been a thing. You have been provided with information that demonstrates that child abuse prevention organisations recognise that it is not just men who abuse children, and that male children are also abused. You have been provided with information that demonstrates that the known correlates of child abuse are things that affect both genders.
And now, you insist that child abuse prevention organisations have to also have big banners across the top of them saying “We are a feminist organisation” or that someone who isn’t you goes and researches the history of every woman involved to prove she’s a feminist before her work is valid.
There’s a name for this – it’s called backing into a corner. Face it, you’ve been proven wrong. Now all you’re doing is proving that it’s not child abuse you care about at all, but slagging off feminism.
Kollege Kat:
“As if Beauty Pageants were “invented” by feminists in the first place.”
That’s my point. Feminists protested Miss America back in the sixties as patriarchal objectification of women. Since then the whole pagentry thing has gotten much bigger and the outfits more revealing. Even the core demographic for Victoria’s Secret pagents are women. Now we have toddlers in tiaras which, like most feminists, I also find to repugnant.
But the fact is the audience and patrons of these pagents are largely women objectifying other women.
And how is the patriarchy responsible for that?
“That’s my point. Feminists protested Miss America back in the sixties as patriarchal objectification of women. Since then the whole pagentry thing has gotten much bigger and the outfits more revealing. Even the core demographic for Victoria’s Secret pagents are women. Now we have toddlers in tiaras which, like most feminists, I also find to repugnant.
But the fact is the audience and patrons of these pagents are largely women objectifying other women.
And how is the patriarchy responsible for that?”
What. The. Fuck.
Yeah, tatjna is right. You are seriously backing yourself into a corner.
And have you read what I had to say about my abuse as a child, and how you are not helping people like me AT ALL?
@Kollege Kat
1. What is privilege?
2. Is privilege class based?
3. Does privilege exist in current society?
4. Who/which groups are privileged over which other who/groups?
“She’ll get the privilege of keeping that baby out of your presence after the marriage.” *
*@Amused
Because it teaches women that their only value is in their appearance. Next!
I don’t know why this one particular trivial bit of nonsense made me laugh harder than the rest, but it did: It’s hard to imagine any feminist organization using “non-gendered language.”
I mean, dude, have you ever so much as spoken to any feminists ever? Because of all the stereotypes I’ve ever heard about feminists, “Oh those feminists, they sure hate gender-neutral terms! They make sure that roles in life are always talked about in terms of the ‘correct’ gender! That’s why feminists totally hate terms like ‘flight attendant’ or ‘police officer’ and make sure always to say ‘stewardess’ and ‘policeman’!” has got to be one of the most bizarrely ass-backwards. Next you’ll be telling us that the goal of feminism is to make sure women know their place is in the kitchen making sandwiches and/or babies.
Kollege Kat: Where did you take this “all about me” thing from?
“They are so steeped in privilege that they see everything that isn’t about them…”
I took it from your post of 9/30/11 at 11:30 a.m.
Ah. Well, I know a little German (albeit from a failed attempt at German Class. Maybe I should just get Rosetta Stone instead 😀 ), so perhaps it would be a morbidly entertaining read.
Oh, you should definitely try! I think german is an awesome language, but it does have its pitfalls.
If there are any issues, I reccomend the Promt online translator. It’s a lot more accurate than babelfish or google translator.
I feel bad about giving him even more page hits, but holy shit. It’s morbid alright.
He actually compares men raping women to women having abortions in one of his articles. And that rape shouldn’t be illegal anymore. Just ewwwww…
Here is the article about women being allowed to vote were like Lucifer.
@katz:
“Because “it” ( pagents promoted and patronized by women) teaches [other] women that their only value is in their appearance. Next!”
What did the Patriarchy have to do with that again?
^@red locker.
Stupid blockquotes didn’t work.
…you gotta be fucking kidding.
Antecedents, how do they work?
@Kollege Messerschmitt: Cool, thanks (for the translator…maybe for the page, too…but yeah, I agree with you, hooooooly shit at the content).
Off topic, but here’s a little translation of that page Kollege linked to:
“The consequence has to be: Abolition of the women’s franchise! Is this “anti-women”? By no means. The example of the mentioned queens (which still let themselves numerous other zugesellen) shows, that women also without franchise, presumably just thereby, can develop into the highest blossom. Sophie Charlotte possibly was high formed and that’s why enjoyed the extraordinary esteem by G.W.Leibniz, to one of the most intelligent men of all times. But the idea of a women’s franchise might completely have to her ferngelegen.
The idea of the equality is fateful, because equality is much too often put with justice in respect and is disguised by them morally. But it is just the inequality which makes the life coloured and maintains the tension of the genders. Women, the rights have like men, and children, the rights have like adults – recently “human rights for animals” – which destroyed only and have depressed. And the depression has risen to an endemic disease.”
…
I think Dave Sim has a new buddy.