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.
Toysoldier: You missed how inequality is involved in privileges. But considering how staunchly you are trying to defend this like a “Gotcha” moment, just further proves how stupid you are. Also, again, systemic is not universal, but you keep failing to address this because it takes apart your initial statements. But I’ll note you are not bothering to really read and have one of the strongest confirmation biases in interpretation that I’ve ever seen. You are trying so hard and you are failing so fucking awfully.
4th quote is empirically true. Look up the vast studies on share of house hold work and labor statistics. You want to challenge it, be my fucking guest. You won’t win any debate over the empirical data. Which you still fail to provide on your own statements.
The sixth quote accepts that there isn’t universal statements. You are the one who has claimed universal statements. And you accuse me of goal post shifting when you do it all the fucking time. Stop being a hypocrite.
Seventh quote isn’t misandrist. It’s also a description of how things are at the time of the writing. See attached studies and studies on the history of children that are associated. You are taking many things out of context, and I’ve told you before, changing the idea behind fathering is something that is important in our society. It is accepted men have been disassociated from childcare for the most part, do you not agree that that is also a problem? Or are you going to further evidence mounting against you that you don’t actually give a fuck about children?
The eighth quote does acknowledge that black men are not as privileged as white men. The problem you can’t seem to get over is the men part. Perhaps you are new to this Intersctionality thing like I said. Emphasis is placed on their race where they don’t get privilege, not because they are just men. Because if it were just men, white men should be experiencing a similar case. They are not. Yeah, pretty plainly clear you are new to this.
As everyone here has said. You have failed to prove anything. You have remained vague as hell and have never bothered to operationalize your terms. As stated before, your statements are flawed from the beginning. Go reanalyze what the fuck it is you are doing before continuing your bloated bullshit.
This evidence never proved your point. You are just a pathetic troll attempting to twist things for your confirmation biases. I like how, in this long string of argument with you, you dropped: Systemic vs. universal, your claims on me pulling a no true Scotsman, and several other questions directly challenging you. Shows what your goals are.
Everyone knows the moon’s made of cheese!
Ah, but you see! It is not blue cheese. As we know, only BLUE cheese is part of the moon. It’s those cheese propagandists who’ve been working in astronomy for years to make us doubt that the moon is not just blue cheese. They had to change the nature of their theories, coming up with “different aging processes” and the like to make themselves more legitimate. Also, they some how control the world and hate all blue cheese lovers.
Am I understanding correctly that the bulk of Toysoldier’s argument is that his aunt was a feminist and an abuser, therefore feminism made her abuse him?
Indeed that is the sum total of his reasoning, such as it is.
Then he ought to be introduced to the concept of ‘correlation does not equal causation.’ It’s really not that difficult. And possibly post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
@Cassandra Says:
“Also feminism does not have doctrines, as it not a religion.”
From Dictionary.com:
fem·i·nism /ˈfɛməˌnɪzəm/ Show Spelled[fem-uh-niz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.
Feminism may not be a religion but it is a doctrine.
@Flib:
“To ask the question, Can men mother, presuming that gender itself is a social
structure leads us to look at all the ways that gender constrains men’s mothering and
under what conditions those change.”
Good question. Equally as good as ,”can women father?”
Mind = Blown.
Oh, wait… no it’s not.
Is that supposed to be some sort of epiphany or “Gotcha” that’s going to amaze us with your trancendent logic?
If you’re going to just JAQ off, at least bring a gym sock to clean up after yourself.
CassandraSays: Doctrine is the set of principles, positions, or teachings, so yes, feminism has a doctrine. It is even in the dictionary definition. A good place to see examples of the misandry in feminist doctrine the often-linked-to-by-feminists site, Finally, A Feminism 101 Blog.
Snowy: Bagelsan’s comment does not address either point. It is just a bunch of rhetorical, unrelated questions. Darksidecat does not address my actual question. Instead, darksidecat presents a straw man argument and argues that the straw position is false. I never argued that because my aunt is a feminists every feminist supports and advocates abuse, or that being a feminist leads to abuse. So I will ask both questions again: can an ideology, feminism specifically, cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence? This is a simple yes or no question.
KathleenB: I do not think you insulted me; you did insult me, as you did in your response to me. Since you are confused, let me help you: “asshole” is an insult. If you do not intend to insult someone, do not use that word. Contrary to what you might think, you are not a repository of universal wisdom, and no matter what you think, you do not know why my aunt did what she did. As for your question, my assertion is that feminism so influenced my aunt’s views that she became hostile towards males, and that hostility and hatred led to her committing violence. I cannot say whether she would not have behaved that way had she not become a feminist, although it is possible. So I have committed no logical fallacy.
Flib: I did not miss anything. Nothing in that paper specifically referred to privilege. If you attach that to the views expressed in the paper, that is your addition. As the paper reads, it does not question whether men at any point as disprivileged or oppressed as men or whether men can lose their privilege at some point. The position appears to suggest that men are always the dominate force and always possess power and privilege as men. If you want to prove that feminists do not hold that position, you need to pick different evidence, because what you presented supports my assertion.
Saying someone is acting like and asshole =/= calling them one.
Toysoldier: Discussions of intersectionality. Search and find function, 22 instances of the word “privilege”, 60 instances of “inequality”, 7 of “intersectionality”. I could search for more related terms within privilege and intersectionality theories. Oh, hey look, more mounting evidence that you will lie in order to support your failed assertions. You are really trying so hard, and failing SO HARD. Like I said, you have interpretive biases. So, no, don’t try and twist here. I’ve already addressed how you’ve misinterpreted the paper, so it’s not like you’ve actually got a defense of yourself here (Not that you had a logical basis to begin with).
Also, it did point out where men would not necessarily benefit due to intersection, but you can’t seem to accept that it is primarily based in race. The position is that men are systematically the dominant force, not always. I’ve mentioned systematic vs. universal several times, brosef. You keep fucking that up. Also, if you want to argue that men are not systematically dominant, that’s another “good fucking luck”. Look at basic institutions of power, and compare gender ratio’s. You are not going to win that argument due to fact. Not that you’ve EVER provided anything empirical on your part. What I presented does not support your assertion. Your specific and intentional misreading and denial on your part is what makes you think it does. But I’ve shot down your denial, you are refusing to engage with what I listed. Again, shows what your priorities are and how you back down every time you get called on for anything empirical. Should I call you a coward now too on top of being a liar? I think that might be to mean of me.
So, really, toysoldier, go take the advice given here and stop being a failed troll.
Rev: Which is a fair question in of itself, when looking at how Mother and Father roles are specifically constructed in the realm of parenting. What is the distinctions between the social constructions of “Fatherhood” and “Motherhood” and can those same roles be fulfilled as a whole by opposite genders?
This is a separate question then looking into how those roles got constructed. I suggested way earlier some of the sociology of childhood studies and books that are out there that goes into further anthropological detail.
“Is that supposed to be some sort of epiphany or “Gotcha” that’s going to amaze us with your trancendent logic?”
Yes. Aren’t you sorry you ever called yourself a feminist now? What are we at now, about the hundredth attempted gotcha? They’re not getting any more impressive over time.
I see Toy Soldier is back to “I know you are but what am I” again. He always does default to that when he can’t come up with anything better.
@Flib – He’s never going to give up as long as we keep feeding him, you know. The more I see of Toy Soldier the more he reminds me of the cop from Les Miserables. In his mind feminism seems to be the thief that must be punished. I can even see how he came to that belief, psychologically speaking, but it doesn’t make him any more correct or any less impervious to logic.
The point several people have been trying to make is: neither do you. You have come up with an explanation (feminism made her do it) that these same several people have pointed out to you is inconsistent with the aims of feminism.
So your supposition that feminism made your aunt a violent, abusive person is probably incorrect. (I can’t rule out the possibility that she’s a complete, self-obsessed whackjob who has twisted her understanding of feminism into some kind of anti-man crusade, but again: feminism didn’t do that to her, she did it to herself.)
Regardless of what caused your aunt’s violence, the only person responsible for it is her. Blame your aunt. And stop being so self-destructive. Wallowing in your victimhood does NOT help you recover from the abuse, as many of us other victims of abuse have learned.
Your continuing attempts to make all feminists, everywhere, responsible for your aunt’s actions is not only tiresome, it’s stupid, wasteful, and keeps you mired in your pain instead of recovering from it. Some things you could do that’s more productive than bitching at everyone online who disagrees with you:
– get some therapy
– join a survivor’s group
– join a group that actively works to protect children from abusers
– join a group that actively works to prevent abusers from having freedom to abuse
– write a book about your experiences
Toysoldier:
Uhm, I wasn’t talking about you talking about your experiences, but about you doing the same ‘Feminism does this and that and if you should ever disagree with me, you don’t believe that I was abused, neener-neener’ schtick.
That is what I meant when I said that you are using your experiences for emotional manipulation – it seems like an assholish thing to do, especially since several people on here have said that they were abused as well.
And yeah… you may have referred to the experience in passing, but your bring it up again and again over the course of the argument, for example when people disagree with you and you want to make their disagreement about whether or not they believe you, even though it had nothing to do with that.
Uhm, yeah, people usually don’t use “but you don’t sell burgers!” as proof that a restaurant is bad, and probably wouldn’t complain if the restaurant staff told them that they should try Burger King if they wanted to eat burgers.
So yeah, that’s some amazing dishonesty right there. What would be the goal of excluding a blog run by mostly feminists that is focused on misandry, just because it’s the “obvious” example?
You keep moving the goal posts, and it makes your arguments look more and more silly, mate.
And yes, I think those examples are pretty good at showing the position of many feminists on misandry. You really don’t seem to understand that sometimes, people who are members of a certain movement do assholish things, because they are assholes, and it has nothing to do with the movement they are part of – especially if the movement is explicitly against that assholish thing they did, by and large. That’s where your “logic” fails.
Correlation does not imply causation.
Again:
Correlation does not imply causation.
So, where is the blog run by MRAs who focus on calling out misogyny, Toysoldier?
Toysoldier: When did I ever say I have a fucking clue why your aunt abused you? I’m saying that her abuse and her feminism don’t necessarily have anything to do with the other.Step back from your eternal victimhood meme and try to think that your aunt might just have been a horrible person and would have abused you whether she was a feminist or not.
And I know damned well that I don’t possess universal wisdom, thanks. The world constantly shows me that I know jack shit in the great scheme of things.
How is this entire debate still going on? Hasn’t it been established already that Toysoldier is being dishonest and an asshole to people who offered help to him for his abuse?
Really, man, I with Kollege, Kathleen and everyone else: You’re confusing words and doing the same shit over and over, just with different words. Come clean: What are you trying to accomplish here?
Oh wow I have no idea, maybe he’s trying for the longest manboobz comment thread record or something?
Oh great, well that’s easy then. No.
KathleenB: It is still an insult to compare a person to an asshole, and as is implying that a person lacks “simple human decency”. I addressed the possibilities in a previous comment. Anything is possible, but I am dealing with likelihood. It is unlikely that feminism had no influence on my aunt’s behavior.
Flib: I stand corrected. The paper does mention privilege, although only 9 times in the paper and once in a source. However, the author does not challenge the notion that men always possess privilege. If you think the author does, please point out the comment. Systemic and universal mean the same thing. If you were not so busy trying (and failing) to smart you would have caught that a while ago. I heard it all before, so call me whatever you want.
red_locker: People here offered me help? I do enjoy how feminists get more elaborate with their distortions. Next you will claim that all of you rescued me.
CassandraSays: The Gotcha! complaints did not work all that well for Sarah Palin, and she makes a lot more sense than feminists. If you are so uninformed that you do not know the definition of your own ideology, that sounds like a personal problem.
Unimaginative: No ideology makes a person do anything. A person’s actions are their own decisions, but that does not mean that their decisions cannot be influenced by an ideology. Feminists would agree with me if I stated feminism caused my aunt to become non-violent. They just disagree that their ideology could cause someone to become violent. They have no problem arguing that other ideologies, men’s activism, can cause people to become violent. I understand why feminists resort to this double standard, yet there is an inherent contradiction in feminist thinking. I also understand why feminists keep throwing out straw man arguments about my positions, yet that does mean I must accept those fallacies. As for your other comments, that kind of condescending nonsense is precisely why I am not a feminist.
Kollege Messerschmitt: Look, feminists decided to make an issue out of my comments and then used my experiences to try to discredit my positions. That is an emotionally manipulative tactic, but unfortunately for feminists it does not work on me because I simply do not care. If feminists call out misandry so often, you should not need to cite a blog that specifically does so. You should be able to find examples on any feminist site. You answered my first question, but not my second. Why would examples of feminists condoning or engaging in misandry not represent the views of many feminists? Here is where your “logic” fails: it is possible that people who do assholish things may do so as a result of the influence of a movement there are involved in, even when the movement is explicitly against what they do. And that position is not fallacious. Your final question is a red herring. Men’s activist blogs have nothing to do with feminists challenging misandry.
Snowy: So to be clear, you do not think that white nationalism can cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence?
If you want to talk about white nationalism, why did you ask specifically about feminism? I answered your question about feminism. Of course, you knew that and are trying to prove what exactly? If you had asked specifically about white nationalism, the answer would have been yes, I do believe that specific ideology can cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence. If you had asked about pacifism, the answer would be no, I don’t think that specific ideology can cause those things. So, what is your point?
He could just be this stupid and/or possibly broken. Get help. And if the problem is stupidity, get fucked. You’ve made what, 50 comments, all lacking in any meaningful substance? Fuck off already.
Toysoldier: I want you to carefully go look at the definitions.
Systemic: of or pertaining to a system.
System: 1. an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole: a mountain system; a railroad system.
2. any assemblage or set of correlated members: a system of currency; a system of shorthand characters.
3. an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought: a system of philosophy.
4. a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme: a system of government.
5. any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure: a system of marking, numbering, or measuring; a winning system at bridge.
Universal: 1. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of all or the whole: universal experience.
These are not the same things, nor are they in common usage. Your claim of universal is a description of “and this will always be this way”. Systemic means “The current system as it is now, an overall multitude of problems”. Systemic deals with the parts and components of a whole. Universal is always. Sorry bro, you are bad at language. So, nope, shot down there. They are not the same thing. Nice try. It’s not a matter of trying to look smart. It’s only a matter of showing how misinformed you are. Let me assure you, you are seriously one misinformed individual who still has yet to operationalize their terms or be even remotely consistent.
Now talk about goal post shifting, AGAIN, Toysoldier. Geez, you are such a hypocrite. You are looking for challenges to the notion that men are systemically dominant? I thought you were looking for how feminism stated men were “ALWAYS IN ALL CASES ALWAYS ALWAYS PRIVILEGED”. You’ve sure toned that down. There are exception cases, I’ve given them to you. But you refuse to accept evidence of race and occupational challenges, and how they function differently. You haven’t actually dismissed the sources. The best you’ve managed to do is intentionally misinterpret statements. I’ve also yet to see you challenge the empirical backing behind how patriarchy is a dominant force. So, yeah, great fucking job you are doing there. You got nothing on it.
Also, you ignore a good chunk of all the challenges to you still. I imagine you should be used to being called a liar, since you do it so god damn often. Red Locker and others are correct. You are a waste of web space in your intentional lying, false engagement, misinterpretative biases, and refusing to construct any coherent statements.
Snowy: Actually, I asked about ideologies in general and feminism specifically, hence the commas. My point is that feminists conveniently exclude their ideology without explanation, and despite clear examples showing the ideology does lead to fear, hatred, discrimination, and potentially violence.
Flib: I am mildly impressed. Even with the definition in your face you still got it wrong. Universal pertains to all or the whole, but does not mean “and this will always be this way”. It means “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general” or “a trait, characteristic, or property … that can be possessed in common…”, which is what systemic means, and precisely how feminists use that term. I only asked you to support your assertion that feminists do not claim that all men always possess privilege and cannot lose it. You keep dancing around that, for reasons I do not understand, even though your own evidence supports my position. For your edification, a hypocrite is a person to pretends to hold views, feelings, or standards they actually do not. That would more accurately describe feminists. Stop trying to insult, and insult me.