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 are right toysoldier. Why would you try and disprove my argument (which is not a strawman) when your entire premise is based in strawmen. I mean, it’d force you to actually go do some work. As we’ve seen your refusal to actually engage, you continue to be a poe. You’ve demonstrated the extent of your rhetorical and intellectually skill consists entirely of magnets, and you do not know how they work. As for using universal and systemic, you are refusing to use context, and they still do not mean the same thing. Go actually look at the definitions again. Let me make it more simple for you. Universal: Whole. System: A combination of complex parts that create a whole. Systemic: Pertaining to a system. Context, specificity, they are not the same thing.
But let us get more specific. Now you are saying you are using the noun version of universal, to systemic. Except systemic is an adjective. So, as I’ve been saying before, you should have been comparing universal (noun) to system (noun). Not universal (Noun) to systemic (adjective).
So, let’s compare the two nouns to each other then. You are using “a trait, characteristic, or property, as distinguished from a particular individual or event, that can be possessed in common, as the care of a mother for her young.” Where is this specific to system? It doesn’t line up with “an assemblage or combination of things or parts forming a complex or unitary whole”. Patriarchy is not exemplified in just one trait, nor is privilege only on one axis. Privilege is a set, a plurality if you will. Let’s take the 2nd definition “any assemblage or set of correlated members” nope, that one is right out. #3? “an ordered and comprehensive assemblage of facts, principles, doctrines, or the like in a particular field of knowledge or thought” No, still doesn’t work. #4? “a coordinated body of methods or a scheme or plan of procedure; organizational scheme” Well, with your belief as feminists as schemers, this might say something. Except Patriarchy isn’t a “scheme” on the part of anyone specific. So, no that gets tossed, nor is this the one being used. #5 “any formulated, regular, or special method or plan of procedure:” Tossed for the same reason. Yeah, your method, not working.
Oh, but I do know where system and universal could be the same. But you are not using it nor have you ever used it in that way. Go do your research. It’s not universal that would fit into your definition. It’s a precise word. One that is not even that well looked upon.
This all diminishes the further point. You can’t manage to empirically justify your statements about patriarchy, privilege, or intersectionality. You remain a poe and disconnected from any proper discourse. Since facts are a strawman for you, I don’t think you will ever get away from your personal hatred of feminism and women.
If you don’t blame feminism then your behavior is utterly baffling, as is the amount of time you dedicate to trolling feminist blogs. Please explain?
Should be pretty easy for you to quote yourself answering the question then. Except not, because you didn’t.
Like I said before, I will when you answer mine.
Oh, look, your post on privilege lacks the same things I’ve been mentioning. No empirical justification. Good job, you continue to be a huge poe and liar. Why don’t you go back to your den of hate?
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Npi7DNYapcU&w=560&h=315%5D
Ah, html fail. I am disappoint.
Joss Whedon???
I guess Whedon is the feminist pope? Clearly I’m about to be excommunicated for finding Buffy incredibly boring.
Actually, I think I may have figured out Toy Soldier’s mysterious motivation that he refuses to share with us. Maybe it’s a get rich quick scheme to drive traffic to his blog and thus reap some ad revenue, given that otherwise no one would read his blog because of the complete lack of logic, humor, and everything else that makes a blog appealing?
CassandraSays:
“On the neonaticide issue…OK, so let’s for the sake of argument agree that 45% of newborns murdered are murdered by women (this stat may or may not be correct, I can’t say I’ve ever done any research). This means that the remaining 55% of newborns murdered are murdered by men.”
Cut and paste time. The trick to my statement is I did not include neonaticide in my 30-30-30-10% breakdown. I left the following on Toysoldiers page several days ago.
RevSpinnaker says:
October 4, 2011 at 10:23 am
Hey TS. I thought I’d run this by you on your own page because I’d like to string the folks at manboobz along a little longer.
@ TS: “VoiP: Rev’s statistics are incorrect*, but he is correct that women commit most child abuse. From the Child Maltreatment 2009 report… blah blah blah.”
I knew that already and had seen the maltreatment report a couple years ago. First of it’s kind and a solid start to an ongoing study. It’s about time.
I’ll admit, I’ve been a bit disigenuous. I failed to mention that the 30-30-30-10% stats DIDN’T include neonaticide. If you go to the Wikipedia description of it, child murder within the first 24 hours, is perpetrated by women in almost exclusively. They also state that neonaticide represents 45% of all child murder cases. That leaves the remaining 55% to be broken down by the 30-30-30-10% ratio. Gotta love VoiP’s math. Women are already responsible for 45% of child murders, Add to that their 30%+ of infanticide and filicidal murders, subtracted from the 55% and the actual statistic is more around 65%. Maybe girls really are bad at math.
Wikipedia definition, first paragraph third sentence:
“Neonaticide is rare in developed countries, when it does occur, it is most often the mother that kills the neonate; it is an exceptionally rare event amongst fathers.”
“The United States ranks first in child homicide under the age of four years. Forty-five percent (45%) of all child murders occur in the first 24 hours of life, and thus can be classified as neonaticide..”
Filicide extends up to teenage years where it’s occurence is rare and more often committed by men. Subtract filicide from the equation and the number of maternal murders is even higher.
Can’t imagine how they miss this stuff other than flat out denial.
*Leave it to you to be the only one to point that out.
What you brought up earlier were rates of abuse, not murder. I don’t know how you think this “tricked” me, tee hee, tee hee, but abuse and murder are different things.
But now it appears that you think abuse and murder are the same thing. Maybe boys really are bad at reading comprehension.
What VOIP said. You’re not successfully “tricking” anyone, you’re just coming across as incoherent.
Neonaticide, infanticide and filicide are all categories of child murder. The suffix “-icide” means to murder as in homicide, patricide etc. I thought you knew that. I did state earlier that the CDC has verified a 25% increase in maternal abuse AND murder since 1985. So the statement I made so long, long ago still stands. American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. Women are responsible for approximately two thirds of all child murders under the age of four.
My definition of malnurturing regards the children they don’t kill, but sometimes raise with murderous animosity.
Rev…just…Rev. Seriously. Learn to comprehend. Learn to write. Learn LOGIC! For the love of god!
“Actually, I think I may have figured out Toy Soldier’s mysterious motivation that he refuses to share with us. Maybe it’s a get rich quick scheme to drive traffic to his blog and thus reap some ad revenue, given that otherwise no one would read his blog because of the complete lack of logic, humor, and everything else that makes a blog appealing?”
…
That actually sounds plausible.
Seriously, what kind of debate tactic is that? “I’m going to hold back evidence I think is relevant and make cryptic remarks akin to the opening messages of an ARG or viral marketing campaign! THAT’ll show ’em!” Christ, if you were one of my students I’d fail you.
By the way, Flib thanks for those links. Just had time for a quick overview and I found I agree with much I’ve read so far. I can see maternity leave for both parents, so both have the same bonding experience with their newborn. And if there is any kind of postnatal problem, mom isn’t stuck to deal with it alone. Especially these days when there is less extended family nearby to help out.
“Local sexist discovers secret that the matriarchy doesn’t want you to know. Click here for more info.”
Toysoldier:
A feminist who abuses — even a feminist who abuses and explicitly says it’s an act of feminism, much less one who implies it — no more proves feminism encourages or causes abuse (or even just accepts it) than a Jew eating bacon proves bacon is kosher.
Toysoldier:
Nothing you said on page 4 was a response to Snowy.
I felt as if a million brain cells cried out and were suddenly silent…
Also a strong sense of deja vu. 9_9
“I never said that being a feminist caused my aunt to act as she did. I said that feminism — a set of views — caused her to behave as she did.”
“I said that feminism — a set of views — caused her to behave as she did.”
“feminism”
0_0
Flib: Your argument is a straw man as I never questioned whether men hold most of the positions of power in society. Look, we are talking about “male privilege”, yes? We are specifically addressing whether feminists argue that all males always possess privilege, yes? We are both talking about males possessing privilege within society, yes? And a society is a whole, yes? I stated that feminists treat “male privilege” as a universal, meaning that all males, regardless of their social status, have it. You stated that feminists treat “male privilege” as systemic. Do you not see that we are saying the same thing just in a different way?
CassandraSays: I see your problem. You did not realize that a person can criticize something without blaming or hating it. My blog has too much stuff about male victimization for any feminist to want to visit it.
Snowy: Except I did. Contrary to what feminists think, dishonesty is not a virtue.
Hershele Ostropoler: Again with the straw man. I never said feminism encourages or accepts abuse, or that my aunt’s actions prove anything. Setting that aside, your analogy is off anyway. A better analogy would be “… than a Muslim killing a Jew proves anti-semitic Islamic doctrine can cause violence against Jews.” Do you agree that anti-semitic doctrine would never lead a person for whom the doctrine forms the core of their thinking to potentially harm a Jewish person? I thought not. So why does this logic apply to Islam and not feminism?
How many fucking times are we going to go ’round this racetrack before we all get brain bleeds and concede the field to Toysoldier’s asshattery? because he seems pretty set on being an asshat, and I can think of better ways to spend my time than aiding and abetting his persecution complex.
Like this:
(see what I did? with the racetrack?)
Your skills are fading with age, Bagelsan.
Maybe if we make him listen to bad 80s metal he’ll go away? It’s worth a shot, since I don’t know how to perform an exorcism for trolls.