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.
It’s true. For the sake of brevity I left out the part of my comment where I was going to explain that even if each mother were murdering multiple children, we would have to assume that each murdering mother had murdered about nine children, to reach a conclusion that mothers are the only ones murdering children.
I figured that that conclusion was so ridiculous as to not need to be explained, so I left it out. Good ol’ Rev. Of course, nothing’s too ridiculous for him…
I made sure to point out the math, because to be honest I didn’t even check it at first and then had to do a double-take when I realized how bafflingly terribly wrong it was. That’s what I get for assuming an MRA can do basic division. ;p
The article stated, “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.”
I said, “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.”
Molly Ren said, “God, Rev, you’re such a fucking weasel. How in hell does “his wife had the child ask the husband for money…”
Do you really think I said the mother had a six month-old child shake the man down for alimony?
I suggested she may have had the child to get child support money from her husband.
RevSpinnaker: and that’s relevant to the fact that he KILLED the child how, you little weasel?
“That doesn’t mean more mothers kill children than men do, though. ”
This is part of what’s so frustrating about trying to talk to Rev – his own statistics don’t mean what he thinks they mean. Now if the rate of maternal infanticide is higher in the US than in other countries, that’s a concern and we should try to figure out what’s going on. But to assume that it’s caused by “matriarchy”, whatever he thinks that means (which is not what the word actually means – there aren’t many genuinely matriarchal cultures around at the moment, and none of them are in the US), or by feminism, without providing any actual evidence to support that claim, just doesn’t make any sense. It’s an Underpants Gnomes argument – there’s a missing step here that so far he hasn’t even attempted to explain. (Possibly because he knows that he can’t)
Also, going back to the whole “how do statistics work” issue – OK, let’s say for the sake of argument that maternal infanticide is higher in the US than in other places. How does the overall rate of violent crime in the US compare to other places? Usually when societies are violent they’re violent in many different ways. What’s the overall murder rate in the US, compared to other places?
And then there’s the fact that a significant percentage of women who kill their own infants seem to have post-natal depression. How does the rate of post-natal depression in the US compare to that of other countries? How do family support structures look? I grew up in the Middle East and Asia, in countries where there was a lot more sharing of childcare duties among members of the extended family. In cultures that work like that, if a new mother does not appear to be coping well with the baby, other female family members will usually step in. In the US, there’s often no one around to even notice that the new mother is not coping well at all. That’s probably a part of the overall picture too.
But Rev wants us to believe that any rise and female infanticide is because of what, feminism plus “matriarchy”? And he’s not even trying to prove it, he’s just stating it over and over again, often in a rather incoherent way. So basically he’s Toy Soldier with a twist.
@ Bee:
“It’s true. For the sake of brevity I left out the part of my comment where I was going to explain that even if each mother were murdering multiple children, we would have to assume that each murdering mother had murdered about nine children, to reach a conclusion that mothers are the only ones murdering children.”
Right again Bee. That’s why I said, “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,” right before I pushed Post Comment.
Did anyone actually watch the Katty Kay interview yet?
No, Rev, no one watched, because we just hate the children.
WHY are you still here?
Oh, wow, I just read the bit where Rev was arguing that maybe this one person who killed a child wasn’t so bad, since his ex, the child’s mother, was kind of a nagging bitch.
Rev – You do not actually care about children. You have made this very clear. Now piss off.
CassandraSays: Yeah, that was pretty fucked up for a guy who says there’s a “crisis” of women murdering their children, isn’t it?
CassandraSays: Yeah, that was pretty fucked up for a guy who says there’s a “crisis” of women murdering their children, isn’t it?
Molly Ren, “crisis” was Katty Kay’s term, I was quoting her. Again, Morning Joe on MSNBC with guest Katty Kay talking about a British study that backs up everything I’ve said. It should still be online if you’re open minded enough to watch it.
Sure, RevSpinnaker, just keep avoiding the fact that you just shoved the fact that a child was killed aside because you wanted to stick in a dig about women who have children for child support. Just keep digging that hole.
Molly Ren: “Not at all to excuse his behavior…” is what I said. Children should never be, but often are, used as leverage in divorce cases.
Cassandra Says:
“I grew up in the Middle East and Asia, in countries where there was a lot more sharing of childcare duties among members of the extended family. In cultures that work like that, if a new mother does not appear to be coping well with the baby, other female family members will usually step in.”
Could that be described as a matriarchal system? My point is we seriously lack that in America.
I thought matriarchy was bad and oppressive and led to maltreatment or whatever words you’ve pulled directly from your ass.
You can’t even keep your bullshit straight.
No.
“Could that be described as a matriarchal system? My point is we seriously lack that in America.”
Wait… weren’t you saying people were sweeping instances of child murder under the rug BECAUSE we lived in a Matriarchy before? o.O
@Rev: first comment glitched.
No, it’s not. An extended family is a different structure than a nuclear family (either could exist in a matriarchal or patriarchal social system). But historically, as far as we know, actual matriarchies did not exist. Women being solely responsible for child care is associated with patriarchies.
Words do have meanings. people do study these things.
Learn something:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/198830/extended-family
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/421619/nuclear-family
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/369468/matriarchy
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/446604/patriarchy
@Molly Ren: Yes, he was. Or something like all children live in a matriarchy, all women have all power over all children, so somehow all child abuse is done by women but hidden by the matriarchal super sekrit conspiracy.
Oh, and btw, there are sub-cultures here in the US where extended families are the norm rather than the nuclear family seeing as how you have to be pretty well off as a group/family/person for a “newly wed couple” to set up their own establishment.
My comment: “Could that be described as a matriarchal system?”
Unimaginative: No.
Then how would you define it?
@Rev: Another new work:
Kyriarchy
http://feministphilosophers.wordpress.com/2008/05/01/word-of-the-day-kyriarchy/
And if you complain about people making up words, I absolutely forbid you to use ANY word coined in the context of computers. PERIOD.
Rev, how would I define what? A matriarchal system? Or are you asking what label I would give to the situation Cassandra described?
“Or are you asking what label I would give to the situation Cassandra described?”
Yes, that’s what I’m asking. To describe that situation as matriarchal isn’t near as far reaching and obtuse as the 101 definition of “the patriarchy.”
I thought that 200 number was a little low. This was the first thing that popped up with the key-words mothers & murder. All the listings were about child murder.
http://www.expertclick.com/NewsReleaseWire/ReleaseDetails.aspx?ID=10548
“More than 600 mothers kill their children each year, which gives rise to a psychological condition described as “maternal filicide,” according to a child psychologist who has reviewed the worldwide research on this topic.”
Not sure if that stat included neonaticide and infanticide.
I would call it an extended family.
You may be confused because so many movies and books talk about the family matriarch. Having a strong female personality in even a large number of families does not make our society matriarchal.
Hershele, I still refuse to play the game of “that’s what I think you wrote, therefore you wrote even if I can’t prove it.” That kind of delusional thinking may work for you here in this feminist circle jerk, but in the real world it just makes you look foolish.