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.
1. VAWA is an act, not a feminist organization.
2. Are you saying that federal legislation protecting children against in-home abuse doesn’t count unless passed by feminists? I mean, I can’t really believe that someone who gives a shit about children would split hairs so finely, but that appears to be your complaint. You seem not to care that CAPTA legislation protecting children was widely supported in Congress; only that the agencies created and funded by CAPTA are insufficiently (to you) “feminist.”
I don’t get it. Again: What’s your fucking point, RevSpinnaker?
darksidecat: My mistake. Here is the correct link. It links to my blog post regarding my position privilege and disprivilege. In order to claim an entire group has privilege, one must demonstrate that a significant majority of them share a similar benefit. That evidence is essentially an average experience. As I noted before, this is just using different words to describe the same thing. I do reject that there is universal privilege, i.e. the notion that a group — men, for example — always benefits from privilege regardless of the situation. That notion is clearly false, and as a result one can argue that a group’s privilege depends on the circumstances, meaning that sometimes a group has no privilege.
Flib: But you did not prove anything. You just declared that I was wrong just because you think I am wrong. That is not very logical or reasonable.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Dude, I keep repeating it because you keep trying the ineffective, emotionally manipulative tactics. No one presented “overwhelming evidence” to prove my assertions wrong. You and other feminists claimed I argued a position I did not. Stop trying to dodge that by telling me I need to “educate” myself on feminism. And for the record, I would never tell any feminist what triggers me. My brother is the masochist, not me.
CassandraSays: Considering that I spoke about something specifically related to my experience, and that is the point that feminists appear to disbelieve, yes, I would call it a curious hypocrisy. I do not expect feminists to agree with my disagreement with feminism. However, I would like feminists to objectively consider criticism instead of automatically declaring it wrong and “hateful”. But I think the reason for the feminist objection is because feminists actually do what you wrongfully accuse me of: they expect that once they present some example of something that everyone should go “well then obviously you’re right”. When someone says “that is not necessarily right” feminists seem to see that as a cruel denial of whatever it is they brought up, hence all the straw man arguments, insults, and so on.
red_locker: As I noted, you can visit my blog to see prove feminists discriminating against male survivors. You also could refer to my prior comment about that issue. After all, you are not lazy. You appear not to understand what circular reasoning means. None of my arguments fit that description. There goes that straw man argument again. I said nothing about child abuse being feminism’s problem. Failure to agree with feminists positions does not mean I live in a different reality. It means I disagree with a series of political positions.
Toysoldier: Did you go back and read how you were applying universals to theory that didn’t work? And then you claimed that was the theory? You clearly haven’t been reading what I have been saying. Again, you are a liar. Come bro, stop lying.
I’m just going to link to this http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html because it is late and doing 101 for the clueless is getting tiresome.
Excellent eulogy for Troy Davis by Dick Gregory over at msnbc.com. Very funny and enlightening at the same time.
Flib: Did you go back and read the link to Feminism 101 that describes “male privilege” and “patriarchy” as something all men possess and benefit from regardless of their individual experiences? You clearly have not been reading what I have been saying. Again, you are arguing in bad faith, and your flippant comments make you look more intellectually dishonest and childish..
darksidecat: I addressed the silliness of creating “privilege checklists” in my post about disprivilege. You really need to stop thinking that just because feminists agree with an idea everyone must agree with it to.
@toysolider, did you actually read the piece? Because your criticism of privilege checklists is attacking a strawman, at least in regards to their original use.
However, since you won’t read a very, very short piece on the grounds that it was written by a feminist and you feel you can dismiss it out of hand, let me lay it out for you:
Does a homeless man benefit from being male? The answer to this question is yes. Men of all income quantiles make more than women. Assuming he is not more disabled that a homeless woman, he is more likely to find gainful income than her, and more likely to find such income which provides a living wage. He is far, far less likely than a homeless woman to be the caretaker of homeless children while being homeless. He is far, far less likely to be raped than a homeless woman. He is far less likely to be coerced into prostitution, especially if he is heterosexual. He is more likely to be able to migrate to a city and access the far larger resources for homeless people in urban settings (even among single adults without minor children, women make up a majority of the underaddressed rural and suburban homeless). Most studies on homelessness are around the type of homelessness he is likely to experience (single adult without accompanying children living in an urban area), meaning that programs designed to address homelessness will be centered around the needs of people of his gender. So, yes, he does benefit from being male, though he lacks the substantial benefits of being wealthy.
Does a wealthy woman benefit from being female? No. She is significantly less well off and has significantly more obstacles than her male peers. What she does benefit substantially from is being rich. The beneficial social status she is receiving is not based on her gender, in fact, a similarly situated man would have far more social benefits, it is because of her income class. She has wealthy privilege, not “women’s privilege”.
A failure to benefit from every single social advantage granted to every group does not mean that a person does not benefit from social advantages given to certain groups. I know this can be a tricky concept, but as someone who has done anti-racist work in white majoriy poor spaces, I do think that this is an important concept that applies to other axis of oppression as well as with gender based oppression.
Another case of “neglect?”
Connecticut toddler dies after pit bull attack: police
updated 10/1/2011 5:44:37 PM ET 2011-10-01T21:44:37
Print Font: +-CONWAY, Mass — A 20-month-old girl died after being attacked by as many as three pit bulls Friday evening inside an apartment house in West Haven, Connecticut, police said on Saturday.
..After a neighbor from downstairs called police, officers and paramedics arrived at the top-floor apartment at about 6:13 p.m. Friday and found the toddler on the floor, bleeding and unconscious, said West Haven Police Officer Bret Schneider.
She was rushed to Yale-New Haven Hospital, where she was pronounced dead, he said. West Haven is located a few miles south of New Haven on the central Connecticut coast.
After people in the home had locked the dogs in another room, police managed to subdue and remove them from the three-story building. The dogs were then euthanized.
“We believe all three dogs were involved in the attack, but they have to have (a) necropsy done” to determine that as part of the investigation, Officer Schneider said, referring to a post-mortem examination of the dogs.
Police had not yet determined whether the girl was alone when the attack took place. The infant may have been with family, visiting friends who lived in the apartment and owned the dogs, said Schneider.
It was too early to say whether any charges would be filed in the case, police said.
No charges? That probably depends on whether the “neglectful” one was a man or a woman. The later might get the N.O.W. Legal Defense Team on her side. Regardless, she’d still likely get a lesser sentence than a man.
Joe: I agree completely. Your’s is the first post to stay focused on the death of a child. Everyone else seems more concerned to defend or admonish pit-bulls. That has nothing to do with it. Things like this don’t happen by accident. Neglect is a vague term, especially as a sentencing guideline. That’s why I define “neglect” as Pathological Malnurturing. The report yesterday about the sadistic death of Hanna Wallace is an indication of how terribly some parents can treat children. That story disappeared within a day. How quickly we forget. You are correct in suspecting drugs, which are typically associated with the most heineous of child murders. The saddest part is, and what most people can’t fathom is, this may have been deliberate and there may be maternal involvement. A drug crazed sicko may have thrown the child to the dogs like the Romans threw Christians to the lions. Or to make a murder appear to be a terrible “accident.” “I just stepped away for a second” followed by “living life knowing what happened to that child is punishment enough.” A big question is whether the dogs were trained for fighting. That would be an indication of intent.
The previous can be found at MSNBC.com. But look fast. The Hanna Wallace story came down within a day. Infested cantalope gets more news coverage.
Oh wow, you just … made up a story so that you could get all pissy about something that NOW hasn’t even done.
I’m kinda sick of asking you what your point is. Let me put it a different way: What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker? (And who is Joe?)
RevSpinnaker: Did you just post a case of a pit-bull mauling where, not only are they not yet sure how it happened, *no one is sure which gender was involved* and claimed it “proved” that women were more neglectful?
Your arguments are shit.
Well, infected cantalopes affect more people than pit bull attacks.
Yeah, listeria-infected cantaloupe have only killed … what is it now … 15 people? Damn the feminist news media for wasting their time reporting on stupid cantaloupe deaths!
What the fuck is wrong with you, Spinnaker? I’m totally serious.
Toysoldier: Now go back and read how I showed you wrong through the use of applied studies on intersectionality, and how you were making generalizing sweeping statements about theory that were demonstrated incorrect by multiple sources. Your link to one thing of a feminism 101 doesn’t speak for the WHOLE of feminist theory. My point still stands. You do not hold the knowledge you think you do. You are in fact, still ignorant. I’ve been speaking specifically of theory and it’s applied use the entire time Toysoldier. I’m calling you intellectually dishonest because you NEVER engaged with that. You stuck the your one little link, that is low in any sort of validity to make broad generalizations that was still shot down. Yet you persist in your faulty and illogical argument and instead respond only to my insults. Again, this continues to show just how much you don’t actually know what you are saying.
Also, Toysoldier, just read what Darksidecat has been saying. DSC has been addressing what I’ve been saying at this point, and I see no further use to reiterate your continued ignorance.
The matriarchy is now responsible for the fact that some pit bulls are aggressive?
Wow, this is amazing. What can’t those evil mommies do? I hear they’re planning to blackmail the world government for one billion dollars under threat of firing a missile at them. Mr Bigglesworth, having been deemed insufficiently evil due to his having testicles, has been replaced with a pit bull called Lola.
Joe must be someone at another one of the many message boards that RevSpindoctor is busy spamming with his copy/pastes.
Pam:
“Joe must be someone at another one of the many message boards that RevSpindoctor is busy spamming with his copy/pastes.”
No it was MSNBC.com. Note many of the posts are more concerned about the status of pit-bulls rather than the death of a child, let alone how to prevent those deaths from occuring. Mary Mitchell, feminist editor of the Chicago Sun-Times somehow turned the Demond Reed murder into an endorsement of Obama in the last election. Talk about a spin doctor.
darksidecat: Why do you assume I never read the article before? I have read it several times, and I addressed why I disagree with its premise in my post about disprivilege. How does a (presumably) jobless homeless man make more money than a jobless homeless woman? Homeless men have a harder time finding support and relief than homeless women because the majority of the available services are geared towards homeless women (particularly those with children) and families. Information about physical and sexual violence against the homeless seems to be based on self-reports, which is problematic because most male victims do not come forward. The notion that wealthy women do not benefit from being female clearly does not apply in all cases. As noted before, a wealthy woman is significantly less likely to receive a harsh sentence for committing crime, not only because of her wealth, but also because she is female. Again, one cannot claim that in every single instance a group always has privilege or never has privilege. Your concept is not tricky. Rather, it makes no logical sense, nor does it accurately reflect people’s real experiences.
Flib: So now the definition and explanation of “patriarchy” and “male privilege” from a high-sourced feminist blog that cites a published feminist book does not count? Talk about no true scotsman. Let us try this: you link to the “whole” feminist theory, I will check to see if Feminism 101 got the definition wrong, and I will explain whether I agree or disagree with the “whole” theory and why. And I did respond to your arguments. You ignored that and continued to insult me. If you do not want me to focus on your insults, then do not make insults the core of your argument.
Toysoldier: You never responded to my arguments. You specifically ignored applied studies of intersectionality. You specifically gave the wrong information about the history of intersectionality. You specifically lied about it, and called it an excuse, without actually engaging the tenants of it. Your claims about it having universals is false. You aren’t actually engaged with the material and argue against a feminist strawman that you continually create. This is why I keep calling you stupid.
Rev, I must take issue with your propagating the narrative of pit bulls as a dangerous, uncontrollable species. Most pit bulls are sweet, affectionate, smart, and easy to train, and they make great pets.
On pit bulls – my old landlord in London had a dog that was a pit/rottweiler mix. I was terrified of that dog for months after I moved in. But then I met landlord and dog in the street going for a walk, and the dog jumped up at me…and licked my face. And then rolled over on his back for a belly rub.
Pits can be scary and dangerous if they’re raised as fighting dogs, or abused, but they’re not some sort of evil demon spawn by nature. They can be lovely dogs if brought up correctly.
“This is why I keep calling you stupid.”
This is why I keep calling him disingenuous, because I don’t think he’s stupid at all. It’s either that or PTSD. Regardless of the reasons, he’s factually incorrect, I’m just reluctant to call someone a liar or tell them to fuck off (tempting as that is) when it’s possible that they may be acting out of trauma rather than malice.
Fair enough Cassandra. I certainly won’t deny being an ass of it.