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.
Yeah, I see your point about VM. I wouldn’t say that it sucks necessarily, it’s just not a style of theater that I care for.
It’s also interesting (to me, anyway) that Rev. brought up a *Canadian* institution condemning the Vagina Monologues. In the US, at least, the VM seem to be something put on by amateur thespian troops–I took publicity photos when they put it on at my college, but I wouldn’t call it “relevant feminism” by any means.
ithiliana: Deliberately “misreading” a person’s comment can constitute a straw man, and anyone can engage in logical fallacies.
cynickal: When I asked people to quote me stating, “feminism condones, supports, and endorses child rape” not one single feminist could find any such comment. Look, I understand the purpose of this game. Feminists keep saying I wrote something I did not, and I am supposed to finally, in a fit of rage, agree with your warped straw men so feminists can go “Ah ha! See, you admitted you’re sexist and a liar!” I am sure that works quite often on men’s activists, but it does not work on me, and by now you should have realized I am not going to deny my experiences because it offends feminists when I mention my aunt. You cannot claim that you are not engaging in a consensus fallacy when you state, “[…]you blame multiple readers who reach the same conclusion about your poorly hidden insinuations.” Again, it is possible, and this case true, that the whole lot of you are wrong. As for your final remark, I think a person would use a victim’s experience to attack him is far more troubled and in need of counselling.
Unimaginative: No, that is a straw man argument. My argument is that any ideology can cause negative behavior, including violence. My argument deals with possibility, not certainty. But I can understand how something that nuanced would confuse feminists, since they deal in absolutes.
I am sure that works quite often on men’s activists,
It does? o_O
xD
Is this thread still going? O:
It’s… O_O A month old O_O
I think I’ll try to beat it 😀
So you’re saying that while this problem exists, no one is allowed to care about other problems.
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.
Assuminge verything you say is true and feminists do not care aboutt his. Why do you believe feminists don’t care if feminists do care about women and girls? o: Why do feminists want the abuse of women and girls to continue? o:
*clicks YES* I would like to know more :3
@katz:
“So you’re saying that while this problem exists, no one is allowed to care about other problems.”
Violence is learned behavior. My point is that maternal child abuse needs to be included in all discussions of domestic violence. Feminists need to loose the “women & girls” exclusive ownership of victimization, and the deliberate denial of maternal abuse if they want to effectively prevent sexual abuse and/or violence against anybody. Because that may include “women & girls,” and that would be bad.
I think the point Toysoldier continues to make is valid. Correct me if I’ve misinterpreted but he’s been saying feminist anti-male ideology, i.e. blame it all on the patriarchy, becomes a useful though misguided excuse to legitimize a vengeful attitude towards all men and boys. That may realize itself through overt abusive behavior, or more covert denial of social resources for men such as therapy.
Toysoldier’s aunt was most likely molested herself as a child and feminism provided a convenient excuse to repeat the behavior. Early on when speaking about sexual abuse against boys I was occasionally confronted with feminists who told me I was part of the problem and “now you know how it feels.”
cool, youre back. can you clarify the nonsense statements you made about international courts condemning the vagina monologues.
My point is that maternal child abuse needs to be included in all discussions of domestic violence.
So you’re saying that no one is allowed to talk about adult domestic violence as long as maternal child abuse exists.
@katz:
“So you’re saying that no one is allowed to talk about adult domestic violence as long as maternal child abuse exists.”
No, I’m not saying anyone is not allowed to talk about anything. What I am saying is maternal child abuse IS ALSO domestic violence but as a result of feminist domination of the issue has not been included in the socio-political dialogue.
“What I am saying is maternal child abuse IS ALSO domestic violence but as a result of feminist domination of the issue has not been included in the socio-political dialogue.”
Except one can’t walk two inches without hearing about Casey Anthony (well, ok, not as much as months ago, but maybe it’s the people around me). It’s not just talked about today, it’s been in the dialogue for years, and awareness of child abuse (no matter who perpetrates it) is increasing.
Also, hey, RevSpinnaker, I’m curious (also, Trigger Warning for infantcide and child abuse)…what do you think of the case of the Alabama man who was recently executed for killing a 6-month old: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/10/20/20111020alabama-execution-son-killing20-ON.html ?
Plus, here’s a thread on the manboobz fourms, no less, talking about it: http://manboobz.forummotion.com/t506-alabama-man-to-be-executed-for-killing-infant-son#14414
A full on case of maternal child abuse…and it was widely publicized. No “feminist domination” taking it out of the socio-political dialogue. So, any comment?
(Great, now I feel bad for making this thread even longer)
@ red_locker:
I’ve never heard of a woman being executed for child murder. Not even the cold-blooded, calculated murders of Susan Smith or the barbaric rampage of Carla Poole. You remember Carla Poole, right?
Also there is conflicting testimony. The police report and court records state:
“The child was found unresponsive on a couch where Christopher Johnson had fallen asleep, authorities said at the time. According to court records, Johnson told Atmore police that he earlier had tried to get the baby to stop crying by placing his hand over Elias’ mouth and by sticking his fingers down the child’s throat.”
If he fell asleep after killing his own child he was likely drunk. Not an excuse but a mitigating circumstance. And given just that testimony could indicate a parent who inadvertently kills a child to stop them from crying. That’s where the term “shaken baby syndrome” comes from.
But…
“Johnson, who represented himself during part of his trial…” was likely under cross examination when…
“He testified at trial that he killed and suffocated his son in February 2005 because he hated his wife and didn’t want to be near her. He said in his testimony that he didn’t want to worry about his wife’s threats of putting him in jail for alimony or child support.”
Not at all to excuse his behavior, but his wife used, and may have even had the child to threaten him for money in apparent divorce proceedings. That’s opportunist malnurturing.
Now katz, before anyone’s “heads explode,” by his own admission he’s guilty of opportunist homicidal malnurturing resulting in the death of a child. I personally don’t believe in the death penalty, but since he was executed I can’t help wonder why Susan Smith and Carla Poole weren’t.
My question for you red_locker; why do you think the Casey Anthony trial became such a media spectacle as compared to Carla Poole and the Demond Reed murder? Was it race? Looks? Anthony was a pretty party girl, Carla Poole was not. Or was the gruesome nature of the Demond Reed case, and the fact that Poole involved her own children in his murder, not appealing to the largely female audience that lined up for a glimpse of the Anthony trial?
Could it be that sexy sells? Even child murder?
revspinnaker, still waiting for you to explain how you came to the conclusion that the international court system condemned a play
FYI:
Christine Riggs
Frances Newton
Teresa Lewis
That is close to my position. I think that feminist misandry prompts the vengeful attitudes in some people and in other magnifies the views those people already hold, and that in some instances this can prompt a person to act on those views, sometimes violently.
No, my aunt was not abused at all, a fact she is bizarrely proud of.
I have gotten similar comments before. I always find them amusing, and usually respond with some variant, “What makes you think you know how it felt?”
TS, the sum total of your proof of the existence of feminist misandry is a (willful?) misunderstanding of what feminists mean by “patriarchy” and a blog post you wrote about the actions of people who do not identify as feminists.
No, the sum of my proof is the feminist position on men and patriarchy, the anti-male policies feminists create, the anti-male bias many feminists express, and the hypocrisy feminists engage in whenever anyone addresses men’s issues. What blog post are you referring to?
My comment: “I’ve never heard of a woman being executed for child murder.”
Bee’s response
FYI:
Christine Riggs
Frances Newton
Teresa Lewis
None of these cases bear any similarity whatsoever to the Alabama “execution” murder.
First it’s a stretch to call it an execution, especially when compared with Riggs. The only similarity with her case is she killed her children but it was completely premeditated. The use of potassium chloride is evidence of that.
Frances Newton also killed children but she killed her 23 year old husband as well. The premeditated motive was to collect on life insuance policies she had taken out without her husband’s knowledge. She forged his name on payments.
I’m not sure why you included Teresa Lewis on your short list. She didn’t even kill a child. The 19 and 21 year old assailants she exchanged sex and money with for the murders, probably wouldn’t have killed a child. But they did kill her husband and stepson who had a military life insurance policy worth $250,000.00. Her own daughter was old enough to spend five years in prison for not disclosing the plot to police, meaning she stood to profit as well.
Lewis waited 45 minutes before notifying the police while she rummaged through her husband’s belongings, not realizing he was still alive. His last words informed the police of his wife’s involvement. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor the only dissenting judges.
Always begs the question, would they have argued for a stay of execution had Newton been a man?
And what exactly does a woman who payed for the contract murder of two adults for insurance money have to do with child murder?
@ Hershele O:
“TS, the sum total of your proof of the existence of feminist misandry is a (willful?) misunderstanding of what feminists mean by “patriarchy” and a blog post you wrote about the actions of people who do not identify as feminists.”
Do you “identify” any of these women feminists?
http://www.fatherhoodcoalition.org/cpf/newreadings/2001/feminist_hate_speech.htm
Here you go, Rev: an entire page of women who killed their children. Clicking on the women’s names will bring you to pages detailing the crimes and the women’s sentences. Guess what? They’re on death row! (Or have been executed since the article was originally written. One also died of liver failure before she could be executed.)
RevSpinnaker: I mean, seriously, dude, it took me TWO MINUTES OF GOOGLING to find a list of women on death row/had been executed for child murder from a decent source. If you really gave a shit about kids being murdered, wouldn’t you actually KNOW about instances of it?
@Rev: David has a whole post or two debunking the link you sent (i.e. in one case, a statement by a fictional character is attributed to the author of a novel). I’ll see if I can find it — but yeah, INACCURATE AND FALSE REPORT.
Yes, you guys are right, we hate men and want to deny them services. HAPPY NOW?
No, no, hellkell, we actually hate CHILDREN and want to see all of them thrown to the pit bulls.