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.
Shorter Toysoldier: I know what made my aunt an abuser, and nothing you say will EVAR convince me that it wasn’t feminism. Because correlation is causation. And, of course, James Franco.
Oh I’m sorry, here I thought you were asking about a specific ideology, feminism, hence the commas. In any case, I already answered your question about ideologies in general and feminism specifically in my last comment, so, glad we got that out of the way!
Uh, what? Really not sure what you’re talking about here. Conveniently exclude their ideology without explanation from what? And what clear examples are you talking about? I haven’t seen any.
And once again the circular logic has led us back to – Toy Soldier’s aunt abused him and she was a feminist, thus we have a clear example of how feminist ideology leads to fear, hatred, etc.
Never mind calling him stupid, at this point I think he may be an ouroboros.
Oh dear, and here I was just sitting here desperately hoping the “clear example” wasn’t really that dead horse. Really? Really Toysoldier?
There are neither beginnings nor endings in the turning of the Wheel of Time.
Wow, I think this is the crux of the matter. Universality in action.
If any semi-organized movement has an effect, then ALL semi-organized movements have to have the SAME effect. So if Stormfront’s philosophy causes people to brutalize and murder people of colour or jews, then OBVIOUSLY similar violence is the logical end result of activism by groups like Jews for Jesus, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, and Amnesty International.
Golly, it all makes sense now.
Ahhhh!!!! Stop beating me!!!! Stop beating me!!!
James Franco was in there somewhere? Hotness.
Toysoldier: See previous statements. Also, you are still wrong about systemic and universal. See Kroeber in actual discussions about this. I’m also going to throw the terms back into your face, and point out again that they do not mean the same thing. But you really are just to stupid to figure it out. Let’s add in the 2nd definition of Universal: “applicable everywhere or in all cases; general: a universal cure”. Systems do not describe the world entirely as a whole. Systems are not an “all”. I’m not surprised you want to argue usage so badly and yet it is different. You really are grasping at straws here. Just because both definitions use “of a whole” does not mean they are speaking of the same thing. Nor does their component parts make the words the same. One is detailed, while the other is not. But you’ve failed basic reading comprehension, so this isn’t all that different.
I can see where you might create the confusion of the terms if you actually read academia, but I’m going to rightly assume you are ignorant on the discourse of systems theory and the desire to attempt to apply it universally. So, no really, you are just stupid. You’ve proven time and time again you do not have a fucking clue on feminist scholarship. So you can’t act like you are even close to an authority on it.
So, when we get to discussions of systems in academia, we discuss traits and causal mechanism that creates a bigger picture. They are not universals because they are not necessarily broadly applied everywhere: See: Every discussion about systems. The systems are based in empirical researched evidence. And I’ll note again, you still fail to address this. But then, it is because you are a liar and don’t have the guts nor the ability to successfully challenge it, so you play this stupid bickering over linguistics game. I really should just go back to your main point, in that you do not have one based in any reality. Hell, I’m just wasting time with you right now because you will continue to attempt to misinterpret, badly might I add, to further your inane beliefs. As Cassandra has said, you are just being fed more time to waste. You failed to support your own assertions, you’ve specifically misinterpreted (and still have not addressed my criticisms of your misinterpretations) evidence counter to your assertions, and you ignore my huge walls of text with your minor little responses. You’ve done a bad job so far and are attempting to feast upon the back and forth to create more confusion rather then let your ideas just get shot down. As for my counter statement. I’ve shown Feminist theory to be more complex then your simple statements. The fact that you are trying to finagle your assertions while undercutting the complexity continues to demonstrate your cognitive biases. So, let’s go back to your assertions once again. Go operationalize your terms, and go fucking prove it. That’s not my job, that is yours. It’s been up to you for awhile to do this.
Also, I have insulted you. But are you to stupid to figure that out? I’ve been calling you stupid since the start, and it only just gets confirmed further. You are a liar and a hypocrite as well. World English dictionary on hypocrite: “someone who says they have particular moral beliefs but behaves in way which shows these are not sincere”. So this may be more insulting, and distinguish myself from others here. But I don’t think you give a fuck about those who have been abused. You are putting far to much effort to blame women only of abuse, which none of us have denied happens. Abusers abuse, regardless of gender. But you are making it a mission on your part to place blame. You don’t seem to be seeking to support others in dealing with traumatic times, you are seeking to blame feminism and feminism only, not abusers. My sympathies for whatever you have experienced in life, but you’ve never indicated giving a fuck. You’ve implied far to heavily that the blame is on women and feminism, without ever addressing any of the real issues that goes into childcare, such as parental labor, economic conditions of households, and many of the others. To you, it appears to be only Feminism as your causal root, and you are trying to wage war. Pro-tip: Abuse has been around for a much longer time then the Feminist movement. But hey, I could be wrong on this. You might actually show some measure of compassion to individuals. You’ve just never indicated that you gave a fuck here. Your choices of what to combat to prevent further abuse as an overall is a great teller that you continue to likely not give a fuck. Also, I have looked on your blog. You continue to focus only on blaming women and looking for only cases of women abusers. You’ve got a lot of hate directed to only women, rather then just abusers.
Shorter feminists: I know what feminists and feminism do, and nothing you say will EVAR convince me that feminists or feminism can do bad acts. Because no true feminist would ever abuse. And, of course, Joss Whedon.
Toysoldier, I see you’re still ignoring Flib. What’s the matter, the polysyllabic words too much for you? Or, as I suspect, the proof that you are full of shit too scary for you to engage with?
Snowy: I can see how you would get confused by “ideology, feminism specifically” since there is not that comma and word separating ideology from feminism. What proof is there that feminism cannot cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence?
Dead Horse: Listen, and understand. Feminists are out there. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They do not feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
Flib: The Glen Beck routine really is not working for you. The terms do refer to the same thing. Universal is simply not specific to any “whole”, meaning it can apply to anything, including systems, in which case the word becomes synonymous with systemic. More so, my usage was as a noun, i.e. “a trait, characteristic, or property … that can be possessed in common…”, which is exactly what systemic refers to in regards to all men always possessing privilege in society. If you thought I referred to something else, you should have asked instead of assuming. As I noted before, disagreeing with feminist theories does not mean I am ignorant of them. Feminists on this thread already claimed I lied about my experiences, hate feminists, and do not care about abuse victims. And I already know feminists hate when anyone talks female abusers. I am still not insulted. Try again. Coincidentally, you are ironically behaving exactly as feminists accuse men’s rights activists of behaving, right down to complaining that I focus too much on an issue you do not care about.
GRA: No, it just takes time to translate all of Flib’s gobbledygook from feminist to English. Luckily I grew up with someone versed in
bullshitfeminist.And Toysoldier asks to have a negative proved.
What proof is there that feminism cannot cause fear, hatred, discrimination, or violence?
This, BTW, is the entire point of his little charade with the question about ideology. He wants an answer that says, “ideologies” can cause “x”. Then he will say feminism is an ideology, and so we have admitted it causes fear and hatred, and so feminism is to blame for what his aunt did.
The truth of his opinions is in his response to the snark Dead Horse put out; lacking the wit to see it was a joke he let the mask slip:
Listen, and understand. Feminists are out there. They cannot be bargained with. They cannot be reasoned with. They do not feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And they absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.
That’s what he believes. “Feminist cannot be reasoned with.” It’s why he doesn’t bother to reason. All he can do is try to wear them down and convince others of their perfidy. If he has to lie to do it, it’s for the good. If he has to be an asshole, it’s for the good, because he has to be just as implacable as the evil, remorseless, feminists.
Sorry Toysoldier, but you’re going to have to answer my questions if you want me to answer yours.
But I’m already dead!!!!!!!! Why do you keep beating me!?!?!?!?!??? NUUUUUUUUU!!! Help me Pecunium heeelllppp mmeeeee!!! ehhhhh…
I thought feminists were Daleks, not Terminators. This is getting confusing.
And hooray, happy 1000+ comment thread, everyone! /is late
@ Flib:
“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?”
Other than the evil “patriarchy” which holds men financially responsible for their children, and the biological fact that women nurse infants, I really see little difference. That’s why I use the term primary nurturers to include both parents. So in answer to your question yes, the role of nurturer can be and has been “fulfilled as a whole by opposite genders?”
Regarding the term “malnurturing” sexually abusive fathers can be considered opportunist malnurturers the same as a child pandering mother. Opportunism brings a heavier sentencing guideline than abandonist of isolationist. But the term malnurturing itself is gender neutral.
P.S. Still not hip on this whole cisdude thing. Looked it up. Sounds kind of like today’s version of yesterday’s “metrosexual.”
I have yet to hear anyone respond to the Wikipedia definition of neonaticide. Especially the part that states it is almost always committed by women and represents 45% of all child murders, How doesn’t that fit in to the 30-30-30-10% statistical breakdown of child murder I mentioned earlier. Do the math VoiP. The numbers don’t add up.
“P.S. Still not hip on this whole cisdude thing. Looked it up. Sounds kind of like today’s version of yesterday’s ‘metrosexual’.”
I would really, really like to see where you got this definition. “Cisgender” is just when your gender and your sex match up, not your preferred style of dress! 😛
Oh snap, Mr. Poe, you slipped up! You had us going for a while, but there is no way a person in the world legitimately would say something this profoundly goofy in all seriousness.
…Right? Right? …guys?
(Or maybe he is trying to write a screenplay, hence the Whedon shoutout? I refuse to believe that Toysoldier is not entirely fictional, for the sake of my remaining sanity. :p)
How? How in the name of all that is good still left in this world do you get “Metrosexual” from “Someone who was born with sex that matches their gender identity”?
Oh, I know this one, because you’re Revspin: You didn’t actually look it up, you just asserted your claims again.
Cis gender = kinda maybe gay looking? Is everyone in the entire world some variety of queer, now, or did like 90+% of the population just become way snappier dressers? ‘Cause I’m down with either. 🙂
Bagelsan, I think he’s honestly still laboring under the assumption that “cis” is the same as “sis”, the latter being short for “sissy”.
Of course, “cisgender” and “sissy” *still* don’t mean the same thing, but can you blame the guy for being confused? 😉
Thanks Molly Ren, so that’s the definition of cisgender. Now I can sound like a hip old fart! And I’m sure to you and others in this thread, it’s much more important than the definition of neonaticide. To remind you, that’s child murder within the first 24 hrs. of birth, the vast majority are committed by women and represents a full 45% of ALL child murders. It’s the reason American women rank #1 in child murder among industrialized nations. All that on one page at Wikipedia. Can’t figure out how or why you guys all seemed to miss that. Still no comments or solutions?
VoiP: 45% of ALL child murders. Therein lies the incongruity of my 30-30-30-10% stats you and others jumped on earlier. It’s the heart of the trick statement.
I thought David made it clear. Feminists and Daleks are different. I know it’s a hard concept, because feminists so resemble rubbish bins with plungers attached, but we’re really not at all the same. And besides, the only person a Dalek ever begged mercy from was a woman.