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.
Yes, Rev, what you are doing is dispicable.
It is not a contradiction at all. A person is given the ideology and interperts it for themselves. Let’s feminism holds what you say it does for the sake of the argument. Changing how men treat women will improve women’s lives.
That statement does not say a specific way to bring about that change so what the person does after that is not based on feminism itself but the person.
If they take that statement to mean, rape boys to make them into men that treat women better, there is something underlying in that person’s life experiences(perhaps having even been abuse themselves) that lead them to that messed up decision.
Regardless of what ideology they were in contact with, it would have created a messed up outcome. Take for example the christian belief that homosexuality is a sin, why don’t all christians kill or attack gay people when meeting them? Why don’t I as a feminist have the calling to abuse my sons?
Shorter:Some people are damaged beyond repair and will find an excuse in an ideology to do what they want to do.
So according to TS’s logic, pacifism causes violence. Buddhism causes materialism. Communism causes capitalism. Freedom of speech causes censorship. Veganism causes cruelty to animals. Christianity causes Satanism. (Actually, that last one is kinda true, in that you pretty much have to be some kind of Christian in order to acknowledge that Satan is a thing.)
Bee: I’ll try to find something more specific.
http//:www.freewebs.com/forensicprofilers/sexualoffender.htm
“The mother of the rapists is usually described as having been in the rapists childhood, rejecting, excessively controlling, dominant, punitive, overprotective and seductive. The father is usually described as uninvolved, aloof, distant, absent or passive but occasionally punitive and cruel. Some researchers suggest that in the case of the sex offender parental cruelly inconsistency of discipline envy and sexual frustration as well as over stimulation or seduction are the principle factors that influence the rapist’s personality and criminal behavior.
The rapist may have experienced parental seductiveness in childhood. Usually from his mother this may have ranged from covert seductive behavior to actual sexual involvement. A history of early prolonged bed sharing with a sibling or parent may have sensitized the rapist unduly to sexual stimulation during childhood.
The professional literature suggests that parental rejection domination, cruelty and seductiveness are important factors in the early life of the rapists. During childhood mild to moderate social maladjustments of the future rapist may be evidenced in fighting temper tantrums, truancy and stealing.”
And we’ve always been at war with East-Asia
First of all, this link is not working.
Next:
Described by whom? The rapist?
“some” = a minority of research
“suggest” = they merely throw out the possibility, or they mention it as a factor, but we’ll use the wishy-washy term “suggest” to insinuate that every sex offense EVAH, from sexual harassment to child rape, is proximately caused by the rapist’s mother taunting him with her femaleness and his girl of choice not giving him any.
The keyword here is “may”. He MAY have experienced “parental seductiveness” (whatever the fuck that means). Or he may not. He may have eaten prunes for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Or he may not. He may have been a “Thirty-Something” fan. Or he may not. He may have chewed gum at one point. Or he may not. Etc., etc., etc. ad nauseam.
Such a short sentence, so much bullshit. There “may” have been “seductive behavior”, though there may have not been any “seductive behavior”, and it may or may not usually have been from the mother, which means that it may or may not have been usually from the father, and maybe Santa Claus. Love the term “covert seductive behavior”. Wtf does that even mean? Mom is young and has an hourglass figure — how dare she?
Again with this “may” nonsense. It may, really? I guess that equally means it may not have. There are cultures where bed-sharing is much more common than this one, yet there is no correlation between the prevalence of bed-sharing and the prevalence of rape. Sounds like a conclusion pulled right out of his ass. A more reasonable inference would be that if a person regularly shares a bed with a sibling or a parent for the purpose of sleep, he will be DE-sensitized and will not sexualize the idea of being in bed with another person. By contrast, a person raised with anxieties about physical proximity, one who has been taught that bed-sharing means sex, being alone in the same room means sex, woman not crouching in a closet wearing a burqa wants to get raped, two men can’t have a deep and abiding friendship without sex being involved, and so forth and so on, will have precisely the kinds of hang-ups that will create pressure to act sexually in innocuous situations and to ignore other people’s boundaries.
“Suggests” — but doesn’t establish maternal rejection, “domination” (wtf that means, anyway, tell the kid to brush his teeth before bed, so he’ll be “forced” to rape later?), cruelty and “seductiveness” (again, should mothers have elective mastectomies and disfigure themselves?) are proximate causes of rape.
There is that “may” again. How about this: a future rapist’s inclinations may be evidenced by expressions of entitlement, lack of respect for rules, and disregard for the rights and boundaries of others. I think that’s a bit more accurate.
“Cover seduction”? You know, Rev, you win. Let’s just cut out the uteri of all attractive women and be done with.
Rev’s most recent post reminds me of the sort of nonsense that used to be common in the psychiatric community when talking about both homosexuality and autism.
Please note – more modern research does not support the idea that “cold” mothers “cause” autism. I doubt that it supports his rather vague claims about how maternal seductiveness (note that a proper research paper would define this term more clearly) “may” cause rapists to be created.
@ Amused & Cassandra Says:
Try this one kids. The Canadian Children’s Rights Council blows American child welfare agencies away. I believe they were the first to coin the term “target abuse.” Remember? I mentioned it earlier. It’s the kind of maternal child abuse feminist and media darling Joy Behar makes jokes about; ” was your mother crazy or just one of those mothers who picks out one of her children just to hate them? You know, we’ve all seen that…”
That’s my mom, that’s Oprah’s mom. There’s really nothing funny about a child getting set up by their mother for abuse.
The Canadian CRC as well as the Hague, condemned the Vagina Monologues, not just for overt misandry, but mainly for it’s positive depiction of child rape in the “Little Coochi Snorcher that Could.”
You school girls have probably seen the Monologues. It’s the one where a 26 year old woman plies a 13 year old girl with alcohol and ends with the line, “if that was rape it was good rape.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Of…
[“Finally, there is an alarmingly high rate of sexual abuse by females in the backgrounds of rapists, sex offenders and sexually aggressive men – 59% (Petrovich and Templer, 1984), 66% (Groth, 1979) and 80% (Briere and Smiljanich, 1993). A strong case for the need to identify female perpetrators can be found in Table 4, which presents the findings from a study of adolescent sex offenders by O’Brien (1989). Male adolescent sex offenders abused by “females only” chose female victims almost exclusively.”]
@ Amused:
“First of all, this link is not working.”
Damn semicolon, see if this works. If not try typing it in.
http://www.freewebs.com/forensicprofilers/sexualoffender.htm
@ Cassandra Says:
“Please note – more modern research does not support the idea that “cold” mothers “cause” autism. I doubt that it supports his rather vague claims…”
“I doubt” is testament to your own bias. What “modern research” have you studied to make such a claim?
Bee: “I’ll try to find something more specific.” The CCRC is more specific, if you have doubts about modern research.
My degree is in psychology, Rev, and I got it more recently than the time period that you keep referring back to as your glory days.
From The Daily Mail:
“Wicked” lesbian tennis coach jailed for nearly three years over affair with 13-year-old pupil
Daily Mail, Liverpool, UK,By LIZ HULL, 2nd November 2007
A tennis coach who molested a 13-year-old girl pupil was condemned as “wicked” yesterday as she was jailed for almost three years.
Perhaps this was Eve Ensler’s inspiration for “the Little Coochi Snorcher that Could.” Perhaps it was from her personal experience.
Apparently the judge didn’t find it to be “good rape” at all.
omg. youre still hung up on the vagina monologues? you realize it is two thousand and fucking eleven, right?
First we had Oprah as a source of intellectual legitimacy, and now you’re citing the Daily Fail as a news source?
This makes the kids who try to cite Wikipedia on academic papers look positively reasonable,
That’s my mom, that’s Oprah’s mom. There’s really nothing funny about a child getting set up by their mother for abuse.
Agreed. Who, other than Joy Behar, has even vaguely suggested that children being abused is funny? To the best of my knowledge, none of the commenters here is Joy Behar, so I’m not honestly clear on what response you expect from us.
Similarly, I’m pretty sure no one here is Eve Ensler. No one has said that they support adults of any gender having sex with 13-year-olds of any gender (well, except for a couple of MRAs, who appear to be in favor of being allowed to rape 13-year-old girls). Again, what exactly is it you want from us? You keep hammering on “one female celebrity only had me on her show once, another made a shitty joke one time, and yet another wrote an encounter between fictional characters in a way that arguably comes off as supporting female-on-female statutory rape,” but you never explain how “three famous women at some point in their lives did something Rev doesn’t like” supports your thesis. If “three famous women did something you don’t like” = “all children are abused by the matriarchy,” couldn’t one just point to FOUR famous men doing something bad and disprove your whole thesis? If I sit here and go, “OJ Simpson! Robert Blake! Roman Polanski! Dominique Strauss-Kahn!” will that somehow register as a coherent argument to you? Because it doesn’t to me, but if that’s what it takes, I suppose I can shout celebrities’ names, too.
@Cassandra Says:
“My degree is in psychology, Rev, and I got it more recently than the time period that you keep referring back to as your glory days.”
Then I’m sure you’ve read plenty of Finkelhor. He’s been around for ages, one of the reasons he is so knowlegable and well respected today.
Did you get to this part in the CCRC link? in case you missed it…
http://www.canadiancrc.com/Female_Sex_Of…
According to David Finkelhor, director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire, U.S.A. and stated in one of the largest newspapers in the U.S.A., the rise in recognition and prosecution of female sexual predators is due at least in part to the increased number of female police officers. Apparently, this results in prosecution of female sexual predators for their crimes without the police being labelled misogynistic.
“[B]eing labelled misogynistic.” I wonder who was responsible for that kind of chauvinette bigotry?
Let me guess, you minored in Women’s Studies.
P.S. The UN Convention condemned the Vagina Monologues too.
Well, they’re an anti-feminist group, if that’s what you mean.
It’s interesting, if the studies by Petrovich et al are right. Interesting because if you look at the research, most child sexual abuse perpetrators are men. “Women are the abusers in about 14% of cases reported against boys and about 6% of cases reported against girls.” From here.
Makes one wonder why only those boys abused by mothers (a small minority of sexually abused boys overall) go on to become serial rapists who get caught. Seems a bit difficult to believe.
….also, did you just suggest that a rape that occurred in 2007 might have been the inspiration for a monologue written in 1996? How does that even work inside your head? I mean, I guess I understand why you’re so mad at Eve Ensler, if you think she invented time travel and, instead of assassinating Hitler or something, used it solely to read news stories about statutory rape from a decade in the future.
Also
Yeah, the link doesn’t work. Neither does the other one.
Eveenslerdidit.
the Hague, condemned the Vagina Monologues
by the hague i’m assuming you mean the international criminal court, which would be super weird since that has nothing to do with the hague’s mission and single, fictional acts of statutory rape (or for that matter, any statutory rape, or (almost) anything fictional) wouldn’t fall under the icc’s jurisdiction.
The UN Convention condemned the Vagina Monologues too.
i can’t find any evidence this happened, but then again, that may be because you didn’t specify which convention. ‘the un convention’ is not a thing that exists.
Actually I minored in political science, but nice strawfeminist.
Also, as has been pointed out above, if you’re going to tell us that things have been Officially Condemned, it would help if they’d been condemned by groups that actually exist.
Side note – are we just assuming that all feminists love the Vagina Monologues? Because I’ve never even seen it. I’ve tried to read bits of it, but it’s just too earnest for my liking.
Also, please find a source that supports your claims that isn’t an explicitely anti-feminist group. If “the UN Convention” issued an official condemnation surely you can find a link from them?
i dont think much of the vagina monologues is a great show, but i think the earnestness of it actual plays to the strengths of the amateur actors who are generally the ones performing it.
Rev: I haven’t read the Vagina Monologues. Even if it is what you say it is (and I doubt you have read it), I don’t particularly care. I spent my academic career reading the classics, which is about 50% hardcore misogyny, 40% softcore misogyny and 10% “controversial” and obscure classics consisting of “feminists” like Christine de Pisan, who had the temerity to argue that some women are nice, though inferior to men. Walk into the classics section of your local library — that’s wall-to-wall woman-bashing, thousands of books, which, unlike the Vagina Monologues and that book by Marilyn French, are staples of high school and college curricula. Given how much misogyny is contained in mainstream classics — which MRA’s don’t seem to have a problem with whatsoever — I have a hard time working up an outrage for a lonely couple of fringe books that say something negative about men. If the existence of these books bothers you, you should respond to them the same way that women have been taught for millenia to respond to books that slander our sex — if you don’t like it, don’t read it, and if you read it anyway, appreciate it for its artistic merit and don’t take yourself so seriously, bitch; after all, you aren’t the intended audience.
dang, i meant to write either ‘i dont think much of the vagina monolgues’ or ‘i don’t think its a great show’ but i guess i mashed them both together