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.
“Also, what’s with your weird “training” shtick all of a sudden? Are you aware that Amnesia was just parodying MRAs, and their beliefs that feminist men manginas are just the trained lapdogs of feminist women?”
I doubt you will get a straight answer. Best case scenario: Rev links to another article that has the only word, “Woman” or “Feminist” in the title and uses it as a case of the Silence of the Matriarchy.
It’s like the Silence of the Lambs, but with a mother in place of Lecter and all children as the lambs
He puts the lotion on his skin or he gets the “clicker”* again.
*I like humane man-training, thank you.
It’s like the Silence of the Lambs, but with a mother in place of Lecter and all children as the lambs
ALL CHILDREN
I have seen a book on using animal techniques on your partner — ostensibly gender-neutral, but written by a straight woman.
However, the author doesn’t claim to be a feminist. I think there’s some circularity going on here, where the proposition that feminism is about female supremacy is used to label instances of female supremacy as feminist, and the proposition that female supremacy is feminist is used to show that feminism is about female supremacy.
I actually have applied one principle from dog training to human relationships:
When you give a dog a command, you should wait at least 30 seconds for it to respond, rather than immediately repeating the command. Same with when you ask someone something.
Of course that’s also common, if not commonly offered, courtesy. No one likes being pestered.
Rev: Kollege Messerschmitt answers your statement towards me. Which comes back to part of the reason why I’ve been hounding Toy Soldier so much. Feminism is actually more accurately stated as Feminisms, as in there is a multitude of discourse (visably so) within the movement. That also, discourse changes over time and does evolve, but not in the way that TS describes it (Some collusion of oppressors). Feminism is not the same as it might have been 30 years ago, and is an evolving movement that has multiple discourses, some that don’t always agree with each other, some that are very dated, some that are likely even flawed (Especially if you look at the dated ones). Discourse tends not to be static, in nearly any epistemological analysis of fields. Especially in the current era.
CassandraSays: Remember how feminists say that a handful bad feminists do not represent of all feminists? The same logic applies men’s activists. And perhaps it is just me, but I think people actually committing violence is much worse than people writing violent comments in jest. Feminists on this thread already claim that men’s activists as group support violence, so I am not sure what your point is. Last time I checked, the “I can’t be biased against X group because I hang out with X” was a logical fallacy. And if you have tell me you are mocking me, you are not doing it right.
Flib: Now you are moving the goalposts, and ironically so. Allow to correct my previous comment. You did link to one source. But just one. I assume your rule does not apply to you, right? At any rate, the source only states that male nurses experience tokenism that is different from what females experiences. It says nothing about privilege. And you are being intellectually dishonest because you are, “… knowingly aware that there may be additional evidence but purposefully [fail] to check, and then [act] as though [your] position is confirmed…” Again, that is rather pathetic.
Bagelsan: Just for clarify, feminists do not believe men as a collective oppress women? Feminists do not believe in “male privilege” or male dominance? They do not assert that by changing men’s behavior that things will improve for women?
Kollege Messerschmitt: Hershele made a comment and I informed Hershele that I do not care whether feminists believe me or not. My issue is that feminists keep misrepresenting my positions, which you are still doing. You can disagree with me without insulting me, using my experience to deride and discredit my positions, or claiming I am uninformed because I disagree with you. I suggest you drop the straw man arguments and other fallacies and engage in a honest discussion. Can you provide a recent example of feminists (other than those from No Seriouisly What About Teh Menz) calling other feminists out on misandry?
Hershele Ostropoler: An ideology is not a person, and can therefore not bear responsibility. However, it can change people’s behavior for better or for worse. Now, believing me does not get feminists out of being told that they are misrepresenting my positions, being called out for questioning my understanding and recounting of my experiences, or being called out for using my experiences to insult and mock me to discredit my positions. As I noted before, I do not care whether feminists believe me, although the subtext of their comments suggest they may not, but I do care that feminists claim I argued something I did not. If you do not agree that feminism can cause violent or bad behavior, you do not get to claim I said feminism condones, endorsed, or condones abuse.
“Clicker” is also slang for “carpet licker” (and it rhymes!), so technically you just implied you’d force a boy or man to go down on you. Not exactly humane. The smell gets in the nose and lingers.
Well, Toy Soldier, apparently I do have to tell you when I’m mocking you in order to distinguish those occasions on which I actually am mocking you from all the other occasions on which you assume I’m mocking you because feminists are just evil that way. I’m trying to help you out a bit, since reading comprehension doesn’t seem to be one of your strong points.
Remind me why no women want to sleep with you, again?
@toysoldier: Oh, look, you are specifically ignoring all my statements to change what is being talked about again and refusing to answer my questions. Good job bro, just keep digging that hole.
Also, seriously, I’m laughing at your attempts to call me intellectually dishonest. Good job AVOIDING specific information. Good job FAILING to address my reasons in the first place. Good job FAILING to look at where your whole statements fall apart. Did you even see what I put about validity?
I asked you several questions about the basics of your argument. I have pointed out where it fails. Still not addressing it I see. Still failing. Pro-tip: “We are both assholes” is not a very strong argument on your part, never mind that my “rule” (Or rather, your failure to back up your claims) was already dealt with in terms of sources.
Also, at this point, I haven’t even linked to one source. I’ve provided multiple sources. That are more rigorous then your supposed single one, that applies intersectionality in a way that does not fit your claims. Nor am I making a grand scheme of conspiracy theory, like you are doing, from one single source. Nor am I making a catch all claim to define all of Feminism under one heading. Funny how you still haven’t addressed that.
You do know what Tokenism is right? Never mind that the one source I linked was as a place to start (And that others also brought in other sources that disagreed with your assertion). Never mind that the source I linked spoke specifically of discrimination where privileges are not always held. Never mind that it is part of the greater body of work that specifically disprove your faulty claims. Geez, have you ever looked at the knowledge inflow and outflow of papers? I’m guessing no since you lack any intellectual rigour. Follow the path, o padawan of the internet and discourse.
At least when I was insulting you, I was taking apart the entirety of your ideas. You still have failed to address your inconsistent logical faults. Go back and address what I’ve actually put.
Also, I’m pretty sure that isn’t actually what Bagelsan implied, so once again we’re back to the issue of Toy Soldier not being very good at reading comprehension.
Because they would rather have sex with me instead.
Toysoldier: You are just determined to be an asshole, aren’t you? There are very few thing one can go through in life that will excuse living in an asshole moment – I don’t cut that slack for my war hero brother in law who can barely walk because of nerve damage in his leg (fifteen bullets will do that) and who’s on a fucking HIT LIST. What you went through (horrible as it was) does not excuse you from simple human decency.
I’m fairly certain that there are many women for whom “pedantic blowhard who thinks feminism is the boogeyman” is not what they are looking for in a sexual partner.
According to urban dictionary (your number one source for slang), clicker as an alt to “carpet licker” applies only to lesbians. Lesbian men are a pretty damned small class, I highly doubt you are one of them.
Also, your “pussy is nasty” jeer does make one wonder who would ever want to have sex with you (except perhaps a cis dude…)
I’ll have my fetus with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
And here I was thinking, “Clicker?, why would you want to give him the remote control?”
Clicker? I thought that was a derogatory slang term for robots, like in Top Ten.
CassandraSays: My response to Bagelsan is called a “quip”. I would explain it to you, but reading comprehension does not seem to be one of your strong points.
Flib: Right. I specifically refer to points from the your source, so I am avoiding specific information. The portion of the source available to the public does not mention anything about privilege at all, let alone where it is not always held. Furthermore, tokenism does not refer to privilege. It refers to the false impression of inclusion. More so, my contention is that feminists assert that males always possess “male privilege”, despite that there are clear instances in which they do not. Are you arguing that your source is an example of a case in which a group of males do not possess “male privilege” or that feminists do not assert that men always possess “male privilege”? And put the lightsaber down before you hurt yourself, Jar Jar.
KathleenB: I am sure your brother-in-law is a decent person. I am not sure you share that quality.
darksidecat: So if I got this right: feminists joking about torturing men and boys = cool, non-feminist joking about vaginal smells = man only men should have sex with, and men’s activists joking about torturing feminists = raving sexists whose whole movement supports violence against women?
@darsidecat:
“(except perhaps a cis dude…)
What a chauvinette slur. Kind of like Behar’s Leonardo was a flamer comment.
@xtra:
“And here I was thinking, “Clicker?, why would you want to give him the remote control?”
Exactly, another bastion of male domination. And we never stop to ask for directions either.
@Toysoldier:
“Not exactly humane. The smell gets in the nose and lingers.”
If it smells like fish, that’s my dish. If it smells like cologne, leave it alone.
Words to live by…
Toysoldier: I called you out on asshole behavior and I’m a bad person? Or I’m a feminist and I’m a bad person? I’m a gamer… sometimes bitch, happily married, have two cats, read fanfiction, would like to smack whoever invented menstrual cramps? What, exactly, makes me a bad person other than disagreeing with you in public?
What a chauvinette slur. Kind of like Behar’s Leonardo was a flamer comment.
How is cisgender a slur?
Toy Soldier:
I can quote you saying that. So I “get to claim” it regardless of what I do or do not agree to.
I would be surprised if you can quote anyone using your experiences to insult and mock you to discredit your positions (see, I can copy and paste too).
@ Toy Soldier – You really need to learn some conversational rebuttals other than “I know you are but what am I?”. That one is so very 2005.
@Kathleen – Pointing out that Toy Soldier is being kind of a prat makes you a vile, horrible person. You really should stop that before he incorporates it into his grand theory of how feminists are persecuting him by not agreeing with him.