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.
In other words, you are acting in bad faith, by which I mean, “grounded not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons.”
In other words, you are acting in bad faith, by which I mean, “grounded not on a rational connection between the circumstances and the outcome, but on antipathy toward the individual for non-rational reasons.”
@Hershele Ostropoler: “On what basis do you conclude that feminism as an ideology is misandrist?”
How about “all men are potential rapists?” Ala Dworkin to Oprah.
Yet not a word about America’s drastic increase in maternal child abuse and murder.
Be a big girl and address that issue.
@ Molly Ren: “…it’s not that we don’t care about abuse, Rev. We just don’t believe you when you talk about its causes.”
Did I mention causes? Where?
@Molly Ren: “Well, maybe not if we talk about “the patriarchy”. But talking about consent and not having sex with people who are drunk and unconscious might do something, right?”
Good start Ms. Ren, first stop blathering about the patriarchy. Then you can work on staying on the subject. I was addressing the issue of maternal violence against children, not date rape.
The majority of serial rapists were sexually molested by women as children. If you really want to stop rape, maybe that would be a good place to start. Yet some feminists, like a so-called “specialist” on PBS’s “To the Contrary” recently stated as fact that “ONLY 1 in 30 men were molested as children” (even Oprah put it at 1 in 6, yet she never included female perpetrators). “Only” is the operative word here. Diminish and dismiss. That gets back to the inherent misandry of feminist booga-booga anti-patriarchal ideology.
What are YOU personally doing, as a feminist to stem the drastic increase in American maternal child abuse? You seem to know everything, so YOU tell me, what are the causes of the increase in maternal child abuse and murder and what’s the feminist solution?
“…it’s not that we don’t care about abuse, Rev.”
Then prove it.
“…it’s not that we don’t care about abuse, Rev.”
“Then prove it.”
Erm…Feminists have been proving it for years. Stop ignoring it.
“How about “all men are potential rapists?” Ala Dworkin to Oprah.
Yet not a word about America’s drastic increase in maternal child abuse and murder.
Be a big girl and address that issue.”
Dude, seriously, women ARE addressing that issue. What the fuck are YOU doing?
He’s lecturing women on a blog, red_locker. This is very important work, and sure to change the world.
@red_locker:
“Dude, seriously, women ARE addressing that issue. What the fuck are YOU doing?”
Seriously dudette, let’s see the citations, N.O.W.
“Erm…Feminists have been proving it for years. Stop ignoring it.”
You’re right, feminists have been proving they ignore maternal child abuse for years. This lenghty thread is testament to that fact.
@Cassandra Says:
“He’s lecturing women on a blog, red_locker. This is very important work, and sure to change the world.”
What exactly have you been doing?
And you still didn’t answer my question. What is the feminist solution to America’s maternal child abuse and murder crisis? You’re still #1.
Who’s # 1, again, Rev? I’m not American.
Rev, what you’re saying is that nobody is allowed to talk about issues that they care about until they’ve completely solved the issues that you care about. Of course nobody else is going to listen to you when you say that.
Also, Rev, you’re the person here for whom this seems to be the specific issue that you consider most pressing. So, given that it’s so important, what are you actually doing about it?
“All men are potential rapists” — um, isn’t everybody a potential rapist? I could theoretically end up raping someone at some point (odds are very low, I believe) and if I lived in a culture where my sexual partners were heavily pressured to have sex with me, and/or did not know that I would honor either their consent or lack of consent, then my odds of raping someone would likely go up considerably because the line between consensual sex and rape would be blurred and more easily transgressed.
@Rev: I promise that I’ve not murdered any babies, and the ones I have murdered were totally asking for it.
More seriously, many feminist goals are designed (in part) to improve mothering and parenting, and likewise improve children’s health and safety: better sex-ed so people can learn how babies are made and what parenting entails, access to birth control and abortion for people who don’t want to be parents (yet or again or ever), access to childcare for parents who need help, better paternity and maternity leave so everyone has a chance to parent their infants without choosing between a baby and a livelihood, access to paid work outside the home for women so they can afford to care for their children, healthcare and social support for parents and children so that any mental of physical health problems in the family can be caught and/or treated before someone is harmed, etc. etc.
So what has the MRM done along these lines? Y’all made any strides on any of these issues yet? Some of them are particularly dude-related, so surely you’ve been pretty focused on that! 🙂
oh my god this thread
it’s still going on
AAAAAAA
@katz: “Rev, what you’re saying is that nobody is allowed to talk about issues that they care about until they’ve completely solved the issues that you care about.”
Sorry katz, I thought feminists were concerned about stopping “violence against women & girls.” Seeing as violence in general, and especially that against “women & girls” is caused by traumatic, violent experiences in childhood, most of which, under the age of four, is perpetrated by women, it would appear logical to expose and prevent those experiences to begin with.
@Cassandra Says: “Also, Rev, you’re the person here for whom this seems to be the specific issue that you consider most pressing. So, given that it’s so important, what are you actually doing about it?”
As I mentioned earlier, I was speaking out about child abuse issues 25 years ago on the Oprah Show, writing articles for the Chicago Sun-Times, helping organize the first groups for men at the Ravenswood Hospital in Chicago back in 1987, doing speaking engagements and panel discussions, including national radio shows, DCFS Conferences… What have you been doing? Trashing Toysoldier and sniveling about the patriarchy?
Why would you assume that this is my specific area of focus, Rev? I never said that it was, and I have my own areas of specific interest to work on.
Also, the Oprah show only ran for 25 years. So were you on the very first episode or what?
…Cite?
Aaaand Rev keeps resting on his laurels from the ’80s. Cool stories, bro; you do anything this century?
@ Bagelsan – Never get between a zealot and their wacky theory which they’re convinced is the Eternal Truth. I had a very similar conversation recently with an optician who’s convinced that once people hit 40 it’s necessary to gradually decrease the strength of their prescriptions in order to compensate for the weakening of their ability to focus. Which then means that they can’t read, of course, so you make them wear contacts and glasses as the same time. She was very evangelical about this theory, and quite put out that I wasn’t interested in signing up for the plan to start weakening my prescription in a few years time.
Cassandra: “Also, the Oprah show only ran for 25 years. So were you on the very first episode or what?”
Yep, our little band of gypsies was on during her first year. She never had another one to deal with male victims until last years “200 Man Show.”
That show still didn’t mention female perpetrators, which account for at least 30% of intrafamilial sexual abuse against both boys and girls.
Dismiss and diminish. That’s the ideology of chauvinette sow denial.
Oink Oink Oink.
@Bagelsan:
“More seriously, many feminist goals are designed (in part) to improve mothering… ”
In America, whatever those “goals” were have failed miserably, hence the 25 to 50% increase in maternal child abuse and murder.
There’s something particularly funny about someone trying to use Oprah, who’s famous for her support of all kinds of quackery, as a source of legitimacy.
@Rev: Uh yeah, we know that the US doesn’t have good sex-ed or parental leave or healthcare yet… welcome to feminism? :p
Rev, you should really read your own source: http://www.aafp.org/afp/990315ap/1577.html
Among other things, there’s a pretty big difference between your claim that “Neonaticide accounts for 45% of all child murders” and what it actually says, which is “Neonaticide (i.e., the murder of a baby during the first 24 hours of life) accounts for 45 percent of children killed during the first year of life.”
Also, I’m very puzzled as to why you think stats showing that reports of child abuse increased during the time from 26 years ago to 18 years ago is somehow evidence of a current trend. (I’m less puzzled as to why you’ve pretended that that number is an increase in “maternal child abuse and murder,” seeing as you’ve made your agenda pretty clear, but that’s still not actually what it says.)
And, of course, last but not least, from your source:
“Children are three times more likely to be abused by their fathers than by their mothers.”
How on earth is this meant to be evidence of the supposed terrible epidemic of maternal child abuse?
Now, to be clear, lest you try and misinterpret me, I absolutely acknowledge that child abuse is committed by people of all genders against children of all genders, and the gender of the perpetrator or their victim has nothing to do with how terrible it is. Abuse by mothers happens, and is awful. Abuse by fathers happens, and is also awful. Abuse of girls happens, and is awful. Abuse of boys happens, and is also awful. But none of this magically creates a “matriarchy” or makes feminists somehow responsible for the existence of abusers. I 100% support you or anyone else trying to raise awareness of all kinds of child abuse and fight for better protections for kids. Can you maybe try to do that without calling women pigs and oinking at them for, as far as I can tell, sharing a gender with a talk show host whose audience was apparently rude to you upwards of two decades ago?
I believe that the logic goes something like this…
First, (deliberately?) misinterpret the one statistic that may suggest that women perform more of a certain specific form of child abuse than men do. Then completely ignore all the other statitics in which men clearly lead the way in child abuse. Now go back to the initial statistic, and pick a time period in which it got worse. Ignore anything that’s happened since then.
Result? Women are more abusive towards children than men, and thus…actually he’s never bothered to outline any sort of possible solution other than some vague rambling about getting rid of “matriarchy” which he seems to use interchangeably with the concept of motherhood in general.