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.
Cassandra, last time I checked PTSD did not cause people to become liars, or disingenuous if you prefer that word better. Please don’t be a tone troll.
@CassandraSays
Though I definitely understand where you are coming from, I think I gotta agree with Snowy.
As they said, PTSD doesn’t cause shitty behaviour, and I think it’s a bit othering to imply it, since it’s basically saying that people who suffer from PTSDs can’t be expected to be responsible for their actions (of course, it depends on the situation). It is definitely important to respect triggers, but suffering from PTSD doesn’t excuse people from shitty behaviour.
I do think you have a point, but I guess it’s more complicated than that.
Dog attacks never happen by accident. They are always intentional. Sic em, Spot!
And, no, that is not a typical neglect case, RevSpinnaker. My mother used to work with parental training classes for parents referred to CPS and with low income adult education, I have heard a lot of discussions of these issues.
Here’s a typical neglect case:
16 year old mother of a 2 year old lives in a two room basement apartment (including bathroom in number of rooms), where she stays based on the charity of the homeowner. She dropped out of school while pregnant, and was not up to grade level even then. She has a fourth grade reading level. Wrongly denied welfare benefits, she cannot afford most medical care and cannot always afford healthy food. Having heard that soda was bad for kids, she gives the baby koolaid, thinking that “it is like juice”, because she can’t get real juice. Having never had access to full dental care herself and having had abusive parents who did not teach her good dental hygeine, she overlooks the child’s dental hygeine. She is reported to CPS for neglect due to failure to provide medical care, based on the child’s poor dental health.
Is charging this girl with a felony the solution? CPS diverted her into a program which is no longer existing, because its funding has been cut, to allow her to keep her kid based on allowing home visits, taking parenting classes, and taking educational classes. The adult ed. workers quickly realized she had been wrongly denied benefits, and got her access to a dentist (closest medicaid accepting dentist-two hours away-so they also had to apply for transportation through a seperate state program) and to healthier food (two additional program applications, all of which required a higher reading level than the girl had). The parenting class instructers taught her how to properly care for both the child’s teeth and her own.
Three years later, she is still a loving and attentive parent, but with much better parenting skills. The child is healthy and happy, and in good health. The mother has a GED.
Of course, other “neglectful” parents like her will not have similar opportunities for learning and help, because those programs which helped her are gone.
@Snowy:
“Please don’t be a tone troll.”
I’m new here, but I already noticed one thing: You’re very quick to label others, especially quick to label them as trolls. Trolls, concern trolls, tone trolls, …
Hmm that’s fascinating, Simon. Notice I did not, in fact, call her a tone troll. You on the other hand, I am perfectly comfortable labeling you what you are, which is a troll.
Nazi trolls, pedophile trolls, Nazi pedophile trolls, Holocaust-justifier trolls, antisemitic trolls…
@VoiP:
“So: abuse rates are 30% maternal, 60% men (paternal plus “paramours (usually men)”), and the remaining 10% is mostly women; BY YOUR OWN STATISTICS women account for less than half of all abuse cases.”
“Nooo. What I’ve said twice now, was 30% natural mothers, 30% natural fathers, 30% paramours (which, now when I think about that Little Coochi Snorcher, may include women. And the other 10%, grouping babysitters, relatives (cite TS’s aunt) and friend’s of the family, often women.
So that makes it thrice. But wait… it may even be a trick statement. You smarty pants just haven’t caught it yet. Better check your Wikipedia. hint: Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide.
“30% maternal, 60% men?” Who could ever accuse a feminist of lumping all men together? Your use of the word “men” rather than paternal might even be considered a Freudian-Slip.
But then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
There’s a button you can push if you need to make the text bigger.
Well, I’m trying to find some way to give Toy Soldier the benefit of the doubt, since he’s so convinced that feminists are out to get him. I find being accused of tone trolling for that rather annoying, actually.
Rev, stop acting like an obnoxious snot.
That’s fine. But there’s no reason anyone else need to give him the benefit of the doubt. Your comment to Flib sounded a bit like tone trolling to me. I’m sorry you’re annoyed by that. I’m annoyed by your condescending attitude towards people suffering from PTSD.
I know the thread has moved on from the pitbull-related tangent, but Rev, death from dog attack is vanishingly rare, at least according to the CDC:
Slur women all you like, you illiterate weirdo, but leave pitbulls alone.
Flib: Yes, I never responded to your arguments except for when I did. I did not lie about “intersectionality”. I gave my opinion of why it was created, which is consistent with the purported reason for its creation, although less favorable. What I meant by universal is that every member of a group experiences the same set of privileges. So every male, regardless of his social status, has and benefits from “male privilege”, and there are no degrees to this. Every male has the same level of advantages and can never be disadvantaged because they are male. This is clearly false as there are obvious examples in which females benefit over males (health care services, support services, education, justice system). And you keep calling me stupid because such is your dearth of character.
CassandraSays: My youngest brother and two foster kids I know suffer from PTSD. Your insinuation about people with the disorder is classless and pathetic. Or course, being a feminist does not excuse people from shitty behavior, although it does appear to predispose them to it. But thanks for demonstrating precisely why I do not discuss the details of my experiences with feminists.
Where did I suggest that anyone else was obliged to give him the benefit of the doubt? I’m trying, because my mother was an abuse victim too so I can see how trauma might cause part of his inability to see feminists as anything but malevolent. Doesn’t mean anyone else has to, or that I think he’s right (he isn’t).
The word “troll” has an actual meaning, and it isn’t what you seem to be using it to mean here. I’m not sure how labelling any attempt to tackle anti-feminists that isn’t the way you’d approach things as trolling improves the conversation, but if you want to carry on being condescending and assuming ill intent, there’s not much I can do to stop you from doing so.
Sigh. Timely I suppose of Toy Soldier to prove that my willingness to give him any benefit of the doubt at all is unwise.
This is where you implied it. Maybe you didn’t state directly that but it’s implied with your holier than thou speech about how people ptsd just can’t help being asshats therefore no one should complain.
@ToySolider: We’ve been saying this countless times: We don’t doubt what happened to you, it’s just that you’re directing your anger at the wrong people. Feminism doesn’t cause shitty behavior. Now just give us a chance to discuss with you, because right now we’re going nowhere.
The story of the child killed by the pit bulls is no longer listed at MSNBC.com. Lasted eight hours, if that. ‘Broken Penis’: Karma for Cheating Husbands? is a few days old now and still going strong. Listed in the Health section. No canteloupes about it.
Is that the media intersecting with feminism? Or is it intersecting with the silence of the matriarchy? Both are power structures.
Rev, explain WTF your pit bull attack story has to do with anything or shut up about it.
All right, what does tone troll mean to you? I thought it meant telling people off for the language they’re using, similar to a concern troll. And that’s what it seemed to me that you were doing. If it means something else, let me know, maybe I’m wrong. In any case, it wasn’t your own attempt to tackle anti-feminists in whatever way you see fit that I was calling out, it was your implication that other people should be doing it the same way as you.
Google tells me that condescending means “Acting in a way that betrays a feeling of patronizing superiority” which I don’t think is an accurate description of how I’m talking to you right now. I’m talking to you like an equal. What is condescending, in my opinion, is saying that people with PTSD should be coddled and called things like “disingenuous” instead of “a liar”. I’m also not really assuming that you have any ill intent here. If I was doing something that someone thought might be some form of trolling I would want them to tell me about it because I’m not trying to troll.
The “silence of the matriarchy?” I didn’t know Thomas Harris had a new book out.
Cassandra, while “troll” shouldn’t just be slung around at everyone who disagrees/has a problem, I think it’s appropriate in ToySoldier’s case because he just shows up and repeats the same thing over and over, refusing to listen to what other people say and constantly misrepresenting feminists, women, and this site. Like you, I was inclined to handle him gently at first, but I no longer think such treatment is efficacious.
Toysoldier:
Neither of which means that you were abused by feminism.
And I shouldn’t have to say this, but lest you misread my comment, willfully or otherwise: I absolutely believe you were abused by your aunt. I just don’t think you were abused by feminism.
RevSpin:
What a strange, essentialist belief to hold. Is that belief typical of MRAs or is it just you?
tatjna:
The Rev does, however, illustrate the realtionship between no-true-Scotsman and moving the goalposts.
RevSpin:
I get the sense the Rev thinks feminism and feminists have much more influence among women in general than most actual feminists dare to hope for.
So the answer to the question “if feminists are against X, why are the people who do X almost all women, and why is X so popular among women?” is “most women aren’t feminists.” That’snot an indictment of feminism; most people aren’t actively fighting the oppression of any groups they’re in. It’s a time and energy commitment most people aren’t going to make, however appreciative they may be of people who do.
RevSpin:
It’s more a generational thing than a gender politics thing, though Scott’s work is seen as feminist by some. I’d say anyone around my age who is unfamiliar with Blade Runner is pop-culturally lacking, at the very least.
katz:
“Rev, stop acting like an obnoxious snot.”
Well pooh, pooh to you too!
Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
Snowy, it’s worth mentioning that “disingenuous” isn’t a euphemism; the meaning of “said with insincere motives” is different than simply “knowingly untrue”, and often more applicable to trolls. I agree with you otherwise, though.
Happy 800th comment, everyone!