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.
Katz, I know that it means the same thing. This is what I was referring to, where Cassandra seems to be saying that it’s better to call someone disingenuous rather than a liar if you suspect they might have suffered from some kind of trauma, when you actually do think that they’re a liar.
@katz:
“Rev, explain WTF your pit bull attack story has to do with anything or shut up about it.”
I repeat. Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
And this has what to do with pit bulls?
Toy Soldier is an actual troll, I think. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that maybe he honestly believes what he’s saying due to trauma, though the more I see of him the less likely that seems. It’s just hard for me to completely dismiss a victim as doing nothing but trolling due to my family history. No one else is obliged to extend him any sympathy at all just because I’m trying to, and I had no intention of implying that anyone should. If I’d actually meant “hey, everyone stop being so mean to him” I’d have said so. At no point did I say that no one should complain about his attempt to imply in a roundabout way that since his aunt was abusive that means something about feminism as a whole.
Basically what I’ve been attempting to do is figure out what Toy Soldier is trying to do. Is he trolling? Or does he actually believe the things he says because of his personal history? Certainly that history could explain why he’s so convinced that feminism is a malignant force. My gut says he’s being disingenuous, but I feel like maybe I’m being unfair not to at least consider the possibility that he’s sincere and just horribly misguided (ie as red_locker said, angry for justifiable reasons, but blaming the wrong people). That’s me feeling that maybe I’m being unfair – me, specific person, feeling guilty about wanting to tell a victim of child abuse to quit trying to hold an entire political movement responsible for his pain.
No one else is required to share my conflicted feelings about this, and I didn’t intent to suggest that they should.
@katz: re: Sappy pitbull-kitten video.
“Rev, I must take issue with your propagating the narrative of pit bulls as a dangerous, uncontrollable species.”
Way to divert the issue katz. Kind of like Donahue and that “more men hit hime runs” line. The real question is not about pit bulls but who was responsible for the child’s brutal death.
The aunt? Tune in tomorrow. Then again, we may never find out.
“And this has what to do with pit bulls?”
I think he’s saying that since murders of younger children are most often committed by women, and the victim was 20 months old, the person who let the pit bulls out HAD to be a woman!
…which still makes no effing sense.
Rev., you’re basically saying someone is guilty without a trial, or even any knowledge of who was involved except the victim. Just say “I bet it was a woman!” and get it over with, that’d be a lot clearer.
I’ve come to the conclusion that the Rev has a lot of time on his hands and a bitter bone to pick. I picture him poring over newspaper articles looking for ones that mention women and injured children in the same article, gleefully posting them and thinking “This’ll show em! No? Mabe this’ll show ’em. This one? How about this one then?”
Meanwhile, we’ve all agreed that yes, women hurt children too about 700 comments ago but we didn’t get wound up enough to satisfy him. We’ve disproved every other statement he’s made, which seems to lead to a lightning fast subject change and some ingratiation with whoever will listen, followed shortly by another random news article. Nobody’s buying it any more so now he’s all “Please pay attention to me?”
And we’re doing it because he’s kind of cute like a pit bull puppy.
Ummm … so, the pit bull story wasn’t getting enough hits, according to whatever calculus determines what’s on the msnbc.com front page, and that means, um, feminism is bad, or something? What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker?
Lemme guess. That’s what passes for clever in your mind.
What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker? I’m just gonna keep asking.
@Molly Ren:
“Just say “I bet it was a woman!” and get it over with, that’d be a lot clearer.”
@ Snowy:
“And this has what to do with pit bulls?”
I repeat again. Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
hint: Try Wikipedia.
Bee:
“What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker? I’m just gonna keep asking.”
I repeat again & again. Did you look into that whole Neonaticide, Infanticide, Filicide thing yet?
Even bigger hint for the particularly feeble minded. NEONATICIDE intersecting with Wikipedia.
Hmm… Neonaticide… Infanticide… Filicide… where are the pit bulls? I can’t seem to find any mention of them… I guess I better try wikipedia again! Because RevSpinnaker told me so it must be true!
@CassandraSays
So basically you didn’t understand why snowy took issue with what you were saying.
PTSD doesn’t cause you to think x group is bad, it doesn’t make you lie, and it certainly doesn’t make you an asshat. What you are doing isn’t helping anyone and certainly not toy solider. Pitying the mentally ill just because their mentally ill is condescending.
And you turned a story of a pit bull attack into a platform for you to proclaim that “this may have been deliberate and there may be maternal involvement.” (bold emphasis mine)
Gotta keep those evil women, those agents of matriarchal oppression in the spotlight. Talk about a spin doctor.
Naw, that’s just a myth that men like to hook their wagon to in order to justify their lack of empathetic and nurturing involvement with children while berating women if they’re not empathetic and nurturing 24/7/365.
Neonaticide…are you saying that someone intentionally used a pit bull to try to kill a child?
Yes, katz, that is what he is saying in the latter portion of his copy/paste here of the comment he made on the story at msnbc.com
“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.”
Yeah. Some people kill their children. It’s very sad.
What the fuck is wrong with you, RevSpinnaker?
Molly Ren:
You know, what he’s probably actually saying is stupid enough as it stands: while clearly none of this child’s parents were paying adequate attention, only the mother’s failure to do so constitutes neglect (or “malnurturance” or whatever bullshit term he’s using).
Then he goes on to suggest that someone deliberately fed her — and since this is all happening in the Rev’s head anyway, this person is a woman if he says she is — child to pitbulls and claimed it was an accident. Which manages to be stupider still.
So, he knows almost nothing about this dog attack and yet assumes that it was intentional and that it was the mother’s fault. Yeesh, you are just grasping for straws to villainize women at this point.
RevSpinnaker, whatever you are doing at this point…is very sad. People have said that they acknowledge that, yes, women can capable of evil, too. Shouldn’t that be enough? One can be a feminist and still recognize that no one has a monopoly on evil, but that anyone can commit it and should be held responsible for it (Can’t believe that I have to type that, but hey).
RevSpinnaker, now you’re just not making sense at all. I’ll spell it out for you; the math is really quite simple. I can’t believe I’m doing this.
This is what you said at first. These are your own words.
<blockquote.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).
Using the statistics you brought up, we have:
30% of abuse cases are maternal
+10% are relatives or caretakers (usually female)
——
40% of abuse cases are committed by women, roughly.
30% of abuse cases are paternal
+30% are paramours (usually men)
——
60% of abuse cases are committed by men, roughly.
60% is bigger than 40%. According to the statistics you provided, half again as many men as women commit child abuse. Two-thirds of all abusers, according to your own words, are men.
Your response is:
That doesn’t change things very much. Now we have
30% natural mothers
+10%, including babysitters, relatives and friends of the family, often women
+whatever small number from your adjusted category of “paramours, may include women.”
—–
Slightly more than 40% women
30% natural fathers,
30% paramours (which may include women)
—–
About 60% men.
That doesn’t change anything. “May” means you don’t know.
This is so breathtakingly stupid, I’m not sure whether or not one of us is hallucinating.
Did you notice the word “men” in your original post? I was quoting you. Not all the men in that 60% are fathers.
Listen Rev, maybe this is a silly suggestion, but perhaps your child abuse advocacy might more effective if spend your time, I dunno, actually advocating for abused children, instead of pestering feminists on the internet.
Unless of course your only interest is being an annoying asshole, which seems fairly likely at this point.
Once again, an HTML fail. In my defense, my eyesight really is quite bad.
Toysoldier: Except I already addressed your first claim. Discussing privileges is looking at systemic issues within a system as a whole. That intersection allows for individual and interactional incidents as well (Look, AGAIN, at male nurses and childcare workers, I linked an applied study earlier, and there is a fair amount of them littered through out this thread). You continue this claim, that is incorrect, that the idea behind intersectionality only applies universals. You’ve been shown wrong with applied studies. So, no, you never actually addressed what I’ve been saying for the entire time. Which is, when you talk about intersectionality, you are incorrect in your assessment. You are still creating the straw feminist, and you still don’t know what you are talking about. I’ll keep calling you a liar because you are actually lying about how intersectionality works.
I agree, if it had universal statements, that would be silly. The thing is, modern intersectionality does not create these universal statements. You are making a claim that it does, with your cited evidence being one feminist blog (Not a study, not even a theoretical paper, but one single blog). You’ve been given a multitude of information that disagrees with your assessment of feminist literature on intersectionality. That is where the crux of the issue is, and that is where you are lying.
Your opinion for how it came about historically is also built upon the very same flawed premise. Rather then noting that there was differences within feminist literature over the concepts of privilege (Specifically within 2nd wave and later movements), you create the idea that Feminism, as a whole monolithic movement, had to “cover up it’s logic errors”. This is a deceitful description, at best. At worst, it is straight up misinformation and lying. It makes it plainly clear what your objective is.
@ katz – I guess what I’m trying to figure out is, what would be an effective way to handle Toy Soldier? Because he’s been derailing conversations on feminist blogs over this same issue for years. So I’m trying (clearly not very effectively) to figure out what it is that he’s trying to get out of what he’s doing. Does he feel compelled to do it for some reason? Does he want an apology from the Official Feminist Hivemind for what his aunt did that includes us saying “yes, clearly feminism was to blame”? Is it just trolling? Most trolls aren’t as dedicated as he seems to be, and they tend to break character occasionally, which he doesn’t.
I guess I’m hoping that if we could eventually figure out what he wants from us, or he could figure out what he wants from us and state it clearly, this ongoing cycle might finally end. Because I’m tired of it.
@Snowy:
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.
Ok, and do you have ANY evidence for such accusations?