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.
darksidecat: Cool. I can count on you to provide excellent information. Thanks for New York State’s legal definition of neglect. It’s description is no doubt detailed, but there are no provisions for motivation and sentencing guidlines. Also it only apply to NY State and that’s part of the problem. The Violence Against Children Act will establish federal standards for detecting and punishing abusers and finding safe haven for child victims.
“your example involved two in home abusive parents, yet you still deny that men can and do abuse.”
I’ve been saying all along men are equally abusive. Malnurturing is a gender neutral term considering both parents are primary nurturers. Sometimes moms are abusive, sometimes dads are abusive and sometime they both are.
“I’ve been saying all along men are equally abusive. Malnurturing is a gender neutral term considering both parents are primary nurturers. Sometimes moms are abusive, sometimes dads are abusive and sometime they both are.”
Okay… then why have most of your comments been focusing on women in particular?
So far our conversation with you has been like this:
Rev: Women commit child abuse!
Man Boobz: Yes, we know.
Rev: Obviously this is a huge cover-up!
Pam:
“She wasn’t referring to using a child as an emotional weapon against the other parent or ex-spouse,”
Are you saying this never happens? I’m sorry your father was such a bum. My father was the only real parent in my home.
“My father was the only real parent in my home.”
Is this why you’re acting like the father is the only real parent in *any* home?
Nope, wasn’t saying that at all, was only pointing out how you misunderstood or misconstrued what Amused was saying, and you’re still not addressing the issue that she was raising.
No need to be sorry, my father was not a bum nor did I say or imply anything of the sort. Sorry you read into what I did say as being about my father in particular, it wasn’t.
And just how do men feel about more hands-on caregiving type fatherhood?
From Patriarch to Patsy
“And just how *do* men feel about more hands-on caregiving type fatherhood?”
Damn, that was a depressing article.
Toysoldier: Thank you for continuing to prove how you can’t engage when you are criticized and proven incorrect. Stop whining about it and go actually deal with where you have been shown wrong. I’ve seriously repeated what was wrong with your statements 4 times. You’ve never addressed that because you are whining. So, I get it, you are for sure a liar about your knowledge.
Molly Ren: You must have missed this.
I’ve been saying all along men can be equally abusive. Malnurturing is a gender neutral term in that both parents should be considered primary nurturers. Sometimes moms are abusive, sometimes dads are abusive and sometimes they both are. But more often when dad’s abuse, mom’s involved tacitly or implicitly.
Also darksidecat has had some input with statistics and made a point about single fathers having a slightly higher ratio of neglect than single mothers. But the fact that there are so many more single mothers raises the actual statistics for women. First there are no social support systems for single fathers. Second, if dad ends up with sole custody, mom must have already been criminally abusive, on drugs or both. Some moms will pander their child for a few more hits of crack.
“Rev: Women commit child abuse!
Man Boobz: Yes, we know.
Rev: Obviously this is a huge cover-up!”
Yes, and once when Phil Donahue was confronted by the fact that women abuse children at the same or higher rates than men he responded, “that’s like saying more men hit home runs.” End conversation. That’s the kind of dismissive feminist attitude I’m talking about.
No, no you haven’t. You have claimed that mothers have become increasingly abusive and referred to it as “matriarchal oppression”.
As to statutory law regarding neglect, that is easy to find online, the department of health as a searchable database on its site. http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/state/
Here’s Alabama, the first on the list (it is alphabetical)
You are suggesting an unworkable “solution” without actually demonstrating a problem in the state legal defintions here.
You might want to consider that post-VAWA, many abuse advocates abandoned a strategy of widespread federal criminal and civil penalties as the US Supreme Court said that doing such as a violation of the constitution and struck down those provision in VAWA.
No, it does not justify it, but it does show that this is a common cultural narrative, rather than a feminism specific issue. If you are claiming feminism is especially pro-abuse, you need to demonstrate that feminist are misbehaving worse than the rest of society. You have not displayed that here, you found one play and one specific woman’s comments from decades ago (in Greer’s defense, as much as I dislike her, she was advocating things that would be legal if the genders were reversed, due to gender discrepancies in many age of consent laws historically), and claimed an epidemic. I found a half a dozen films involving men statutorily raping girls in cinema all created since 1990, within a matter of seconds. You don’t get to blame feminism for all of society’s problems, esp. when the wider culture is behaving worse on the matter.
For example, if I could find one or two cases of Game Wardens taking bribes, that would not necessarily show that there was an epidemic of bribes or that game wardens were especially pro-bribery. I would need to compare a larger amount of data about game wardens to discover if these two were the exceptions to the rule and if game wardens took bribes more than other positions. The failure of every single one to behave well on the matter of bribes does not mean that game wardens are pro-bribery.
This just in:
CASSOPOLIS — A 24-year-old Cass County woman who had sex with a 14-year-old boy is headed to jail.
Amy Wilson, a Dowagiac resident, was sentenced Friday to 120 days in the Cass County Jail and five years of probation. She will receive credit for 19 days already served.
Prosecutor Victor Fitz said Wilson leads a “hedonistic, self-indulgent lifestyle.”
Fitz pointed out she has a drug addiction, no job and is in a relationship with a man living with another woman.
Defense attorney Dale Blunier argued his client was abused as a child and is still immature.
120 days? Lower sentences and defense by the abuse excuse. Could be the influence of Barbara (BawaTourneau) Walters. She exploited that story with a “could this be love?” attitude right up through the wedding, which as I recall was televised. Or at least part of it. Mary Kay’s story was Walter’s final installment of 20/20 and she made a huge deal of it. Or we could go back to the “Summer of 42” which was geared more to an adult audience as opposed to the examples you sent me that seemed directed at adolescents. They all send the wrong message.
@Toysoldier:
Dude, you can keep repeating that you superdooper really totally absolutely don’t care that meanie-pants feminists don’t believe you (even though no one said that). But that’s why I don’t get why you are so hellbent on claiming over and over that we don’t believe you were abused, anyway. It just makes you seem really disingenuous and manipulative.
And at this point, you are just denying the overwhelming evidence that proves your assertions to be wrong. Seriously, take a time out, and try to educate yourself on the topics you are arguing against.
Rev, look, I really don’t understand why you’re making an argument about this. We all agree that women can be abusers and we all agree that it’s a problem that should be taken seriously. We’re on the same side here.
RevSpinnaker, can men abuse children? Do they? If so, whose fault is it? How widespread is it?
“We’re on the same side here.”
Except we’re obviously part of the same group of women that supports “The View” and Barbara Walters? That’s the only thing that makes sense at this point.
I think the problem is that Toy Soldier has somehow interpreted “we believe victims” to mean “we believe anything that a victim says, even if what he/she says is that the sky is green and the moon is made of blue cheese” rather than as “if someone says they were abused, we believe them”. Thus disagreeing with anything he says about any subject means that we don’t believe he was abused.
And thus the logic pretzel is complete.
The idea that feminists are the intended or actual audience for The View is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.
RevSpinnaker, can men abuse children? Do they? If so, whose fault is it? How widespread is it?
Disregard this last comment; I now see that others went there before I did.
“The idea that feminists are the intended or actual audience for The View is one of the funniest things I’ve seen in a while.”
We used to think he just meant “feminists”, but then he said, “No, I’m talking about the Matriarchy!” So now we don’t know what he means.
@CassandraSays
Yeah, that seems to be the case for Toy Soldier. I’m sure everyone here would be willing to respect his triggers, but I don’t think “repeatedly proving my assertions to be wrong” is a common trigger.
And wasn’t The View widely criticised by feminists for Whoopi Goldberg’s dismissing “it wasn’t rape-rape” comment about Polanski’s victim alone?
@ Kollege Messerschmitt – Yep. And Goldberg is usually quite popular among feminists, but sometimes she says some dumbass things, and when she does we always call her on it. See, we can criticize people we like! (Not that this was ever in doubt by anyone except sexist dudes.)
I’ve been seeing Toy Soldier around for years and that’s exactly what makes him so frustrating to talk to – it’s impossible to tell if he honestly sees disagreeing with anything he says as not believing that he was abused and revictimising him, or if he’s just being disingenuous (I lean towards the latter assumption, but the former is also possible). In either case he seems to be convinced that the fact that he was abused by a feminist means that whatever he has to say about feminism should be accepted without question, even when it’s blatantly incorrect.
“I suggested the Google search to preempt your claim that my posts about the topic are biased and misrepresentative. And since I also experienced abuse, I fail to see what being a survivor of abuse has to do with running a Google search.”
Like I said, man, if you did some work, you should be able to show it to us on your own, not say, “Just use Google”.
I’m not lazy, but if want to show me and others that you’re serious, you have to show your work.
Also, do you have anything to say about CassandraSays’ assessment of your circular arguments and reasoning? Because that seems to be exactly what you are doing, and it’s no wonder that is conversation is going nowhere.
Also, Rev, I said that you and ToySoldier are on the wrong side because you seem to be taking every chance to say that Child Abuse is the problem of Femenism or the “Matriarchy”, while handwaving every fact or evidence of the patriarchy as “conspiracy theories”. And now…I don’t even know what you’re saying, but it’s certainly not reality-based.
Look, guys, I don’t want to argue with Rev because his main thesis is something we all agree on.
Also, from a more generous perspective, part of the problem here may be that Toy Solider expects feminists to see the fact that a feminist abused him, acknowledge it, and then go “well then obviously you’re right – feminism is horrible”. When our actual reaction is more “your aunt is clearly horrible, but not necessarily because of feminism” he seems to see that as a cruel denial of the pain he experienced. Not sure how we could in theory get around that though, given that we don’t think feminism as a movement is actually horrible, even though some individual feminists are.*
*Some individual members of all social or political movements/religions/etc are horrible. This seems to be inevitable. Even Buddhism, and ideology specifically based around the ideals of compassion and non-violence, has spawned terrorists who want to kill people (in Sri Lanka). It seems to just be an inevitable fact of human nature that some people are horrible.
“Look, guys, I don’t want to argue with Rev because his main thesis is something we all agree on.”
What *is* his main thesis? Women commit child abuse?
@ VoiP: “RevSpinnaker, can men abuse children? Do they? If so, whose fault is it? How widespread is it?”
@ VoiP: “Disregard this last comment; I now see that others went there before I did.”
Thanks VoiP. That’s what I’ve been saying all along. I believe the CDC stats I mentioned earlier on this thread were 30% maternal, 30% paternal, 30% paramours (usually men) and the remainder are relatives or caregivers (usually female). The vague part gets back to that “neglect” term as a sentencing guideline. Target Abuse is a term used by the Canadian Child Care Federation. Target abuse, as opposed to neglect, is a deliberate.act against a child, whereas “neglect” sounds like a bad mommy day. That’s why I prefer the term pathological malnurturing.
You’d be suprised how much we’re on the same page here. I’m really not the lying, stupid, potential rapist MRA some of you like to think I am. And what’s an MRM?