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.
Argle bargle evil feminists bargle? Gargle smargle evil feminists argle!
I think our trolls have run out of new things to say… 🙁
(Also 1984 is recent now… how old are you, Rev? And how have you lived so long without learning a damn thing? :p)
According to MrB, my source for all things SF, Daleks do, indeed, want to kill everything for not being Daleks. And sometimes, they kill each other off for not being Dalek enough. Racist little shits, they are.
@Bagelsan: “(Also 1984 is recent now… how old are you, Rev?”
Old enough to know better.
“And how have you lived so long without learning a damn thing?”
With maturity you’ll find the more you learn the less you know. Given that you appear to know everything, I suspect in 1984 you were still a gleam in your patriarchal oppressor’s eyes.
And how did you miss the part about, “…a 2004 U.S. Department of Education mass study…” in the very next paragraph? Stop reading? Never going to learn anything that way.
OOPS! ‘scuse me. You already know everything.
Yeah, I saw the 2004 thing, but it didn’t support your thesis (or in any way contradict anything feminists have ever said) so I politely ignored it in the hopes you would repeat it in a coherent way*, or at least go back and copypasta in the bit that was relevant. There is a relevant bit, right? Maybe you’re saving it for last? 🙂
(*Okay, that last part was a lie; I have long sense lost all hope for coherency from you.)
–he said, pages and pages into a discussion that everyone else has retired from, except for the people who are idly and openly mocking him.
@Toysoldier:
The first point is not related to the second… at all. Apparently you’ve just spent pages upon pages arguing about something that is irrelevant to your point… great…
So your actual point is that feminists are hypocritical? What “things” are you talking about? You really need to sit back and figure out exactly what point you’re trying to make… Apparently the only thing you’ve managed to do is bore everyone to tears.
Thank you for that, Kirby, I thought he’d made a point in there somewhere and I missed it (though when he refused to be pinned down two pages ago that should have been a clue).
And here’s Desmond Tutu’s message to men and boys urging them not to commit violence against women and never mentioning anything about violence by women and/or against men.
@CassandraSays: “Yes, Rev., we know women commit abuse.”
And feminists choose to do nothing about it. (I did read earlier in this thread that feminists don’t abuse children.)
“No, Rev., we still don’t live in a matriarchy.”
But children do. And always will.
“Also, Rev is aware that America is not the only country with a significant feminist presence, right?”
Certainly. Feminism has it’s roots in mid-19th Century England where the Patriarch Queen was sending men to fight in more expansionist wars than ever before. Men who chose not to fight the Queen’s wars often emmigrated to America. The result was a large demographic imbalance leaving women with no viable way to support themselves other than the traditional “feminine” occupations of seamstress or governess. At that time, early feminists like John and Harriet Stuart Mills were some of the first to speak and write about gender inequities, and to pressure political and educational institutions to accept women. That included law and medical schools.
Recently, English feminists have petitioned for child murder BY THE MOTHER within the first 12 months to not be considered criminal, arguing no mother would kill a child unless suffering from post partum depression. Even after a year. As I’m sure you recall, that includes neonaticide and infanticide.
Do you agree with English feminists that decriminalizing neonaticide and infanticide is the solution to stop maternal child abuse?
Bwah? Are you trying to say that children live in a different society than adults? Or are you trying to say that all children are controlled by women? Or that all children have mothers? Even those statements aren’t true, let alone the matriarchy bit! :p
English feminists never said that…
katz: You certainly are one of the more well reasoned people on this never-ending thread. The other links you’ve provided have been as thoughtful as this one. But consider that in some African countries babies are literally born on a dirt road and left to die. Laura McKenzies “Traveler” show had a special on “volentouring,” where some big name stars came along to help out with the overwhelmed orphanages. Child abandonment is a big problem in some African nations that gets little attention. The media focus is strictly on violence against women.
So here’s a question for you, and I don’t mean to offend you personally by being a bit cynical. What do you think Winnie Mandella would have to say concerning the civil treatment of men and boys?
Rev, I don’t know anything about Winnie Mandella, so I can’t say.
Rev, why are those women abandoning infants to die? There’s a long history of infanticide in the human race, and it usually happens because there isn’t effective birth control and families are severely limited in how many children they’re able to support. People will often choose to let a newborn die rather than risk older children, who are more likely to live to adulthood anyway. Unless you can show that that situation doesn’t apply to African women (and good luck with that!), I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with that example.
He’s trying to say women are evil. Like he’s been trying to say this whole thread. Whether or not he thinks American women or African women are more evil I’m not sure. :p
@Rev: I’m wasting my time, but you do understand that there’s a good argument that violence (which means systemic oppression, not just individual actions against individuals) against women AFFECTS children, right? So that the reported actions (you provided no link, typical) against newborn children, plus the issues of horrifically overcrowded orphanages, are often tied to systemic violence against women, including rape and no access to abortion. It’s not as if women in these patriarchal cultures (which would not be as poor today were it not for systematic theft of resources over centuries of colonization) who leave newborns to die by the road (IF in fact they do) are living it up somewhere else. They are dying too.
So my suggestion is more or less STFU until you’ve learned more about what you’re flapping your mouth about on the internet.
If women are evil, I want my damn fuzzy white cat.
@ithiliana: Of course, so that’s why MRAs hate the idea of building roads for poor folks! It’s so that women won’t leave babies to die beside them! Because poor women freaking love letting their infants die, and they also apparently love roads, therefore quid pro quo MRAum ergo veni vidi vici roads kill babies! It all makes sense now.
And now Rev is showing his true colors. I thought that he was just…innocently dumb, but now I see that he’s purposeful in his condescending act and his “LALALA I can’t hear you!”
Then again, it was only a matter of time, given how long he has been doing his thing in this thread.
@Bagelsan: DOH! And silly me, forgetting that teh wimminz need roads so they can sit in the middle to cry and get handouts from all teh menz going by!
No love for this post, you guys? This. is. EPIC.
IN THE MID NINETEENTH CENTURY, THERE WAS ONLY WAR
I guess, the Crimean conflict metastasized or something. XD
Also, lolling forever at John Stuart Mills.
In ancient Greece, infanticide was the main method of birth control. The decision as to whether to kill a newborn or let it live was entirely up to its father. In fact, a newborn was not even a person until its father picked it up and acknowledged it as his child. However, if the father did not want the baby (usually, because it was a girl), it was the mother who was responsible for getting rid of the child. It’s just one of a myriad examples of how in a patriarchal culture, women are charged with the task of doing the dirty work of indulging men’s wishes.
VoiP: There were also no wars prior to the 16th century! As long as England’s rulers were male, England did not fight a single offensive war, ever. One Hundred Years’ War, Wars of the Roses — never happened; feminists made them up. And even if they did happen, I’m sure it was because of women.
Rev, can you tell me how many wars the British Empire (which, except during World War Two and the second half of World War One, has always had an all-volunteer army, and which had an all-volunteer navy at the time) was involved in from, say, 1850-1900?