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.
@hellkell: shhhhh! I’m pocketing money hand and fist and you’re gonna blow my cover!
@ Rev: here you go. FACTCHECKING the list.
http://manboobz.com/2011/02/15/factchecking-a-list-of-hateful-quotes-from-feminists/
See dood, you cannot always believe what you read on the internet or any source for that matter!
CHECK UR FACTZ
Oh, right. Hating men goes on the other thread TS is currently beshitting. I just can’t keep all my hate straight!
Oops, David’s post debunks slightly different list but a lot of same quotes appear, so I stand by teh link.
OK… feminism was about hating men? Fuck… why didn’t I get the memo in time??? You guys… are you going to exclude me from your ranks since I don’t hate men on general basis?
I know I will never be accepted in the MRA ranks, because I also don’t hate women, but somehow I can live with that.
P.S. Come to think about it, I actually don’t have any group… huh…
Also, wow: “Always begs the question, would they have argued for a stay of execution had Newton been a man?”
Like men on death row NEVER argue for that!
Spinnaker, you’re an idiot. You said that you had never heard of a woman being executed for child murder, not that you had never heard of a woman being executed for a child murder that exactly mirrored the fact pattern in the Alabama case. And, although Lewis’ stepson wasn’t a child in the sense that child = minor, he was Lewis’ child in the familial relationship sense. I am my mom’s child even though I’m well past 18; my boyfriend is his stepfather’s child even though he’s well past 18, etc.
I would have to know a lot more about the case and about their feelings about the death penalty — I’d probably have to read their dissenting opinions — to answer that. I’m guessing, though, that as Supreme Court Justices, they’re probably thinking a little bit more deeply about things than your average MRA, whose knee jerks every time he reads about a woman behaving badly.
Those women were put to death by the state for their crimes. Generally, that’s called an execution. Like I said, dude, you’re a fucking idiot.
Rev wrote:
“’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.”
God, Rev, you’re such a fucking weasel. How in hell does “his wife had the child ask the husband for money” even come into a discussion where the man KILLED THE CHILD? Your “apology” is less than dirt on my shoe after that.
I don’t know about Susan Smith, but as to Carla Poole, I believe that’s explained by Minnesota not having the death penalty.
@Molly Ren:
Thanks for the excellent link. So lets’s see, the article states 200 women kill their children every year. Three to five children die a day in America, a fact corroborated on MSNBC News, currently online on a segment of Morning Joe with guest Katty Kay. They called it a “crisis.” Some put the the stats as high as seven a day.
NBC put the number at approximately 1,770 a year. According to the article you linked, there are eleven women currently on death row for child murder, with cases going back to 1989. Three of those women murdered their husband’s as well.
Considering the 11 women on death row represent decades of convictions, and 200 women kill their children every year, that’s not a heck of a lot of executions. You didn’t hear about them in the press either and you never would have looked them up had you not intended to take issue with me.
The article, by the way, kind of proved my point. And did you catch the last sentence?
“The public has to be better educated in recognizing how to intervene and how to support child abuse prevention,” she said in an AAA press release.”
Consider yourself “better educated.”
Jesus fuck…
This is going nowhere fast. And Molly is right, you ARE a fucking weasel, Rev.
And your point is… what exactly?
Less women are executed, because less women overall kill their children… wow… the shocker.
Any chance you’ll be moving on, now that you’ve “educated” us, Spinnaker? Lots of other people need this information too! Like, oh, I dunno, those 1570 child killers per year who aren’t mothers!
You don’t believe in the death penalty, and yet here you are complaining that more mothers aren’t executed for murdering children. And the ones who are don’t count because they also killed their husbands. Or something.
I don’t think anyone here thinks that child abuse or child murder is a good thing, that mothers never abuse or murder their kids, or that female defendants generally aren’t treated somewhat more leniently than male defendants (read “Ultimate Punishment” if you’re really interested in the death penalty; it’s good). But we also don’t think that men never physically or sexually abuse or murder children, or that when they do, that they shouldn’t be punished for it.
Can we just draw a line under this and say that child abuse is bad, no matter who does it, or what form it takes, or will you just not be happy until we agree that all the mothers are locked up, Spinnaker?
Sorry … that last line should be: “will you just not be happy until we agree with you that all mothers should be locked up?”
“Can we just draw a line under this and say that child abuse is bad, no matter who does it, or what form it takes,”
Now, now, that’s asking for too much, Bee. 😉
TS, I still refuse to play the game of “that’s not a direct quote from me, therefore you have absolutely no basis for claiming I believe that.” You did repeatedly cite a post from your blog, though.
Rev Spin, just because it’s on a page that says “hate speech” at the top doesn’t make it hate speech. Skimming it, the quote attributed (without citation) to MacKinnon was, like I’ve said, a touch hyperbolic but otherwise fairly accurate at the time. I think I’ve seen someone addressing that list, in fact — possibly David — and it was noted that many of the objectionable quotes are apocryphal.
i should probably have read this through, but yes, it was on Manboobz that the list was debunked. So no, I don’t consider the sources for most of those quotes to be feminists. I consider them anti-feminists. The people they attributed the quotes to are feminists, but that’s not the same thing.
@ Bee:
My statement: “First it’s a stretch to call it an execution, especially when compared with Riggs.”
Bee’s response: “Those women were put to death by the state for their crimes. Generally, that’s called an execution. Like I said, dude, you’re a fucking idiot.”
You’re right Bee. I glanced at the link below and “execution-son-killing” read very similar to the actual headline. It sounded like he executed his son. My mistake. I wasn’t refering to the execution of the child murderers being “a stretch.”
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/10/20/20111020alabama-execution-son-killing20-ON.html ?
This is like troll whack-a-mole. :p Rev and TS say some random shit that is either totally unsubstantiated or nearly incoherent, then get whacked by a dose of logic and information, then pop back up with some slightly tweaked (or, in TS’s case, entirely identical) bullshit to try out, only to be whacked again. No wonder this thread won’t die; trolls are perpetual bullshit machines!
@ Bee: “Like, oh, I dunno, those 1570 child killers per year who aren’t mothers!”
Apparently you dunno. You subtracted the number of female child murderers, 200, from the number of children killed in a year, as reported on MSNBC. Then you implied the remaining 1570 must be men.
Do you see how far off you were to placate your own beliefs? The vast majority of children murdered under the age of four are killed by women, most often mothers. Don’t take it from me, listen to Katty Kay on the Morning Joe spot which still should be up on NSNBC online.
Do the math. DIVIDE 1770 by 200 and get the average number of children killed by one mother. Three was about the average of the women on death row.
And 200 female child murderers was a low figure from the article, not MSNBC. That number may not be in cync with the British study presented by Kay.
@Eneya:
“Less women are executed, because less women overall kill their children… wow… the shocker.”
No, you’re wrong. It has clearly been established that American women kill more of their own children than any other mothers in the industrialized world. Five times more than the UK, 7 x more than Japan and 11 x more than Italy.
That spot on Morning Joe with Katty Kay conveniently corroborates those facts. Ms. Kay uses the word crisis to describe the maternal child murder rate in America.
But that’s OK. Maybe if you pretend the “crisis” doesn’t really exist for a long enough time it will magically go away.
@Rev: Where does it say that all the children murdered were under age 4? That’s the only way in which your “vast majority” point makes sense. And saying that some of the people who murdered children were not mothers doesn’t mean they were men, obviously. Are you sure you’re not just reading what you want to hear?
And, well, I have to ask yet again… cite? Can we get a cite? For any of that shit? :p
Also. 1770 / 200 does not equal 3. If the 200 child murderers who were mothers killed an average of 3 children, that’s 600 children killed by mothers, leaving over 1000 who were killed by people other than their mothers.
Rev., your cause would be admirable if you didn’t mix it with such randomness. First it was the Matriarchy, then pit bulls, then the fact that you think Oprah is a credible source, then it was the fact that you’d *never* heard of a woman getting the death penalty for killing children.
In the face of all these unreasonable statements, why should we believe there’s a crisis?
I’m sorry … how did you get that? I said “who aren’t mothers.” People who are mothers are (usually) women, but saying “people who aren’t mothers” isn’t at all the same as saying men only. As a woman who is not a mother, I resent that, frankly.
That doesn’t mean more mothers kill children than men do, though. It just means that more American mothers kill children than mothers in other countries; that could well reflect the overall high murder rates in the US, actually, and it tells us nothing about the gender divide in murders among those various countries.
@Rev: In short, learn to math and logic, bro!