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.
Snowy: The links are there. Nice try, though. But I understand why you keep dodging my question.
hellkell: Feminists are the ones who brought it up, so apparently they do care what I think about them.
Pecunium: My argument is that feminism, like any ideology, can cause good and bad behavior as a result of its doctrine. I realize that is a hard thing for feminists to wrap their heads around because it means viewing things as shades of gray rather than black and white. My challenge is that you prove your own assertion. It is not a gotcha question if I ask the person who argued it what evidence supports their position. Now, you essentially admit you cannot prove your own position, so I am curious as to why any of you would continue to argue it. And where did I say feminists cannot be trusted? Feminists need to understand that disagreeing with your positions is not the same as not believing you. Again, I realize that is a hard thing for feminists because they disbelieve anyone they disagree with, but I promise you the thoughts are not mutually exclusive.
Rutee Katreya: We have the same taste in music, although I prefer Inner Universe.
Dracula: My aunt never said she did anything because of feminism, though. This seems to confuse feminists, but what my aunt did is no different than an Evangelical father beating his gay son to teach the boy that homosexuality is a sin. I do not think the father lied about Evangelical views on homosexuality, do you? I do, however, think that Evangelicals who may agree with and hold those views would try to distance themselves from that father by claiming the man lied or was not a “true” Christian or that their church opposes violence. Feminists started the debate, but it appears they are not interested in debating or the truth, just getting me to agree with any and everything they say, even if it means denying my own experiences.
Toysoldier:
There’s independent evidence that “homosexuality is a sin” is a part of Evangelical Christianity. Evangelicals may distance themselves from the fathers actions but I doubt anyone would say “that’s not what we teach.”
Try again.
Not dodging, just waiting for you to answer mine first. Toysoldier, why are you doing this like, online equivalent of putting your finger really close to my arm and going, “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” Are you getting something meaningful from this exchange?
Oh and how’d you like the Bieber? How about a little Enrique!
“…when I was a child to teach me how evil “patriarchy” is.”
Your own words, describing your abuse. Did your aunt actually tell you this, or did you just make up this justification on your own?
And seriously, what is this supposed feminist doctrine you consider comparable to “homosexuality is a sin”?
Dracula: Didn’t you know that femism = men are bad, women are good? Haven’t you been reading the Book O’ Larnin’?
Hershele Ostropoler: There is independent evidence that “patriarchy is evil” is a part of feminism. How impressive then that here are feminists arguing “that’s not what we teach”. Nice try, though.
Snowy: If you read my post, I can only assume that you either refused to follow the links I listed or did follow them and simply do not want to admit it. Either way, this is simply your attempt to dodge defending your own claim. But thanks for showing how feminists engage in intellectual dishonesty.
Dracula: My aunt would say something akin to that,yes. I am referring to this this doctrine.
Huh, I think you forgot to quote the second half where it says “patriarchy is evil, and patriarchy means individual dudes, therefore rape little boys.” Perhaps that extrapolation to individuals, and a subsequent call for child abuse, are not actually included? 9_9
Those are the only two options, Toysoldier? I’m going to have to go with option three, “didn’t think they actually supported your argument that feminism causes all the woes of the world”.
I actually would have no problem answering your questions, but I’m going to keep on refusing to do that until you answer mine. Wouldn’t it be way easier to just answer my two simple questions than keep on with this continual, “oh I already did answer you! In this vague comment to someone else and on my website that now you have to read, and then links to somewhere else! That actually doesn’t say what I claim they say!” If anyone is being intellectually dishonest and dodging here it would be you. But you already knew that.
TS, do you even read the stuff you link to?
So you claim she didn’t say she was acting on behalf of feminism, while simultaneously describing her doing exactly that. Interesting.
Also, I fail to see the similarity between “Women are equal to men, and should be treated as such.”* and “Homosexuality is a sin.”
*”Patriarchy is evil.” is, to me at least, a gross oversimplification of this idea, commonly used to distort and discredit feminism. Kind of like what you’re doing right now.
Toysoldier
Any feminist worth her salt knows the women can contribute to the patriarchy just as much as men can. Outside of the twisty faster circle, you’re not gonna see a whole lot of feminists going “Men always oppress women on purpose. Most modern feminists do not blame men for everything and understand that men are hurt by patriarchy too, but that doesn’t stop feminists from calling out privilege when it does happen (and it does).
Also, saying “oh, women just think they’re perpetual victims!” belittles the real issues women go through simply for being women and that in and of itself is oppressive. Don’t believe me? What If I said to you “God, why do you have to always be a perpetual victim! It just makes you hate women/feminists!” You’d think I was kind of an asshole, right?
There is a difference between “angry” and “hateful”. Yea, sometimes feminists get pissed. But we don’t get “Let’s enslave all men” pissed. Please, find me something in any modern feminist website that even comes close to the examples of the vile garbage MRM spews that are all over this site.
…These seem to me like things that feminists (at least, all the ones I know) are really focused on changing.
And how are “male” boundaries different than female boundaries?
“You don’t view half the population as fully deserving of human rights” is an odd way to discredit another movement? Sure, you can drag out the strawfeminist and say that feminists don’t think of men as fully deserving of human rights, but that wouldn’t make you less wrong
I don’t think feminism made your aunt a shitty person. I do think it influenced how your aunt was a shitty person, but degree of shittiness?
Do me a favor and google “feminism race fail” before you talk about how feminists don’t think feminism is ever wrong. Thanks.
Bagelsan: Why you I include your ridiculous straw man?
Snowy: In other words, you are stalling. Again, thanks for showing how feminists engage in intellectual dishonesty.
Unimaginative: That does not disprove that feminists teach that “patriarchy is evil”. Nice try, though.
Dracula: Where did I describe my aunt saying she acted on behalf feminism? And lose the red herring. “Patriarchy is evil” accurately describes the position that feminists hold. Do you, as a feminist, disagree with the notion that “patriarchy”? Do you believe most feminists disagree with it?
Shorter TS: I cast magic missile! I’m attacking the feminists!
…Can I get that in English?
“So you claim she didn’t say she was acting on behalf of feminism, while simultaneously describing her doing exactly that. Interesting.”
I’m just reposting this point, because this is the whole contradictory crux of Toysoldier’s act.
TS: Here is a link to an article that proves that there “patriarchy is evil” is a feminist doctrine.
Unimaginative: That article doesn’t actually say that. In fact, it kind of says the opposite.
TS: Your comment on the article I linked to (which does not say what I say it does) does not disprove my fact claim (which I haven’t proved either, but wevs).
Unimaginative: Fuck it. I’m going to go eat some turkey. Happy Thanksgiving to everyone celebrating it.
Shorter Toysoldier: I’m still not touching you! I’m not touching you I’m not touching you! Nyah nyah nyahhhh!
I’m not seeing how one can hold such contradictory views at once without their brain exploding. Perhaps this is Toysoldier’s superpower? We shall call him… Cognitive Dissonance Man! Defeating feminism with the awesome migraine-inducing powers of contradictory ideas!
I find it hard to believe you actually don’t get this, but I’ll bite.
A professed feminist told you she was trying to show you the evils of the patriarchy through her abuse. What else could she be claiming to do? If, according to you, she wasn’t acting toward advancing feminism, or at least pretending to, then you have no argument here, not even the weak one you won’t even fully own up to making.
As to your second point, I did not say feminists aren’t opposed to patriarchy. I said “Patriarchy is evil.” is an oversimplification, intended to distort. I stand by that.
I have no intention of arguing this any further, since all you’re interested in doing is splitting hairs to misrepresent other people’s positions while refusing to properly define your own.
Shora:
While it is true that most feminists do not argue “men always oppress women on purpose”, many modern feminists do argue “men always oppress women”, just as many of them hold all men collectively responsible for whatever ills “patriarchy” may cause women.
I never said “oh, women just think they’re perpetual victims!” I said “the “women as perpetual victim” thinking prompts misandry.” That thinking is unfortunately common within the feminist movement, and it can lead to feminists projecting all their problems onto men, just as the “men as perpetual victim” thinking in the men’s movement can lead to men’s activists projecting all their problems onto feminists. The moment a person holds a group mostly or wholly responsible for most or all their problems, they invite scapegoating.
If you said, “God, why do you have to always be a perpetual victim! It just makes you hate women/feminists!” I would not consider you an asshole, but just a typical feminist. And it is really not difficult to find hateful, vile, feminist nonsense. Setting that aside, all anger is not always justified, reasonable, or understandable, and I think that applies to a lot of the anger feminists display.
Perhaps the feminists you personally know try to change things, but in general most feminists do not acknowledge, let alone focus on, feminist discrimination against males. As for your question about boundaries, why is male in quotes?
Regarding the way feminists try to discredit men’s rights activism, it is odd because not only do feminists rely on a straw man argument, but it is behavior that feminists object to when someone does it to them and something feminists claim they oppose. It is hypocritical at best, and down right malicious at worst.
I do not think feminism made my aunt a terrible person, either, although I curious as to why you think an ideology would not influence the degree of a person’s bad behavior. As for the race issue, bell hooks covered this several years ago. To my recollection, no one questioned feminism, only feminists for failing to include the experiences opinions of women of color in their theories. If I got that wrong, please correct me.
“Straw man” like… direct quotes and links? I think at that point it’s a plain old “man.” :p
Bagelsan: Why would I include your ridiculous straw man?
Dracula: I find it hard to believe you actually do not get this, but I will bite: there is a difference between committing an act to forward a view and telling someone you are committing the act to forward a view. I never stated that my aunt told me, “I’m going to show you the evils of the patriarchy through my abuse.” I agree that she acted to advance feminism, but that does not mean she specifically stated that. But I do get why you are playing this game. You desperately want my aunt not to be a feminist, but you have no argument — not even your weak “your aunt said” nonsense — so you hope to confuse me or trap me in a “lie” of some sort.
Unimaginative: In other words, “Why, oh why won’t Toysoldier accept my completely unrelated, irrelevant quote as proof feminism does not argue ‘patriarchy is evil’?”
Snowy: In other words, you cannot support your argument, but you lack the integrity to admit.
We don’t want your aunt to “not be a feminist”; no one is arguing that. We’re arguing that her feminism did not influence her abuse of you anymore than the color of her hair or her job or her height or middle name or her ice cream preferences did. Because, for example, liking strawberry ice cream doesn’t make a person hate boys anymore than feminism does.
But yeah, I realize you will “na na NA” this too.
Then you should have no problem finding examples from every prominent men’s rights blog stating that half the population is not fully deserving of human rights. Yeah, that is what I thought. You cannot. Look, feminists do not have to care about men’s issues, but you do not get to claim that anyone who does thinks women should not have rights. But thanks again for showing precisely why I am not a feminist.