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.
Oh yeah, prisons. Did you follow the links to the hellish conditions in the Norwegian prison system?
What’s the difference between a white women smugly watching a black man getting lynched on her behalf, or a black woman trying to get a bunch of white men lynched
When you say things like this with a straight face, there’s really nothing to talk about EXCEPT your views on Cyrillic writing. The rest is a lost cause.
I keep looking at the main piece which inspired this entry, shaking my head, going away, working (busybusybusy) (28 hour days you know!), and coming back to see if it makes more sense.
It doesn’t.
I mean, what sort of mindset does it take in a world of 6 billion or so people (I may be way off, I don’t remember numbers well, and it’s Saturday, and I’m going to fly ten hours and then go to work so to lazy to google) to believe that any one individual OR group can have any effect on a larger group’s “right to exist.” I mean, unless the indivdual/group holds immense state power in some way, and is engaged in genocide (so far, pretty much done only by male leaders of a variety of political and religious and ethnic identities).
Feminists? I’m sitting in rural east Texas — while yes I am an evil commiequeerpervertprofessor indoctrinating the young in blah whatever blah, I hardly control anybody’s existence.
I mean, why even ask such a null question? As people have said who is the audience and what in the world does the speaker expect?
“no, i hate all you non-feminists, and when i clap my hands three times you will all disappear”
It’s….I don’t know if my response was what Fidelbogen expected with his “nail them to the spot” (hmmm very penetratve analogy) but, by gosh, I was hornswoggled fersure.
@Slavey
“Only 1/3 of the lynchings were false accusations? How nice, and forgivable as well. Now if 66% were for other crimes, and women, the accusers of those alleged crimes made up 1/2 of those accusations. That means women make 66% of the accusations. women using men to commit violence on their behalf for the lies they’ve told. Why would you excuse these actions? The saturation of feminism in modern society simply won’t allow you to hold women accountable for their actions.”
Reading comprehension, you do not have it. You have given no evidence that it was a women’s fault. Come on, you lying fake engineer who can’t manage basic math, let’s see your fantasy history here. I’m sure there will be hundreds of written accounts, exchanges, letters, and artifacts that will allow you to squarely place your ignorant blame on the opposite sex that you so despise.
Anyone else notice that NWO just said 2/3rds of lynchings were sort of justified?
After all, if 1/3rd were false, then the other 2/3rds were legitimate accusations, right?
Because of course not a single white man can falsely accuse blacks of anything to justify killing them. Guess NWO is not aware that black women were lynched too, sometimes after being gang raped.
For every false accusation made by a wicked woman, a vigilantee-man will exact revenge – in the name of his unjustly accused brother – through the rape of a teenage girl.
So that both parties are on a par.
At the end of the day, every one can go to bed with the insurance that justice has been served.
Paniorpa, I’m pretty sure you’re just a troll, but don’t you ever, like feel bad about trolling in the way that you do?
Even if you don’t mean that shit, does it really feel all that good having it come out of your mouth?
xtra: No, you didn’t the MATH: False accusation of rape = woman.
All other accusation = 50:50 men/women.
Ergo, 2:3 / .5 = 1:3 women accuse black men = 1:3 = 1:3 = 2/3rds of all lynchings were caused by women.
Somehow, even though the primary period of lynching was in the Good Old Days, before women were infected with International Feminism, and started lying, these were typical.
It kinda makes one think that it’s not Feminism NWO hates, but yanno, women.
Because it doesn’t matter what it is, nor when it was, it’s all the fault of women perverting the natural order of things.
paniorpa: how would raping one person be exacting revenge on another?
Oh wait, the woman hive mind or someshit, I guess?
And I second Holly. Even as a troll, you are seriously lacking empathy if you don’t feel bad about typing that shit.
Holly: No, I don’t think it bothers paniorpa in the least.
1: He is a troll. Anything to get a rise is fair, and fitting, and not beneath him. So no shame.
2: He believes it, and so he feels no shame for disseminating The Truth™.
3: He is acting as some sort of agent provocateur, and this is an elaborate ruse to get MRAs to agree with him. This might allow for some shame, but I suspect anyone who would write the things paniorpa writes, is in the radical mode of, “True Believer” and so going into the realms of the ridiculous and horrendous to make a case is seen as fair agitprop.
Of those, I tend to number 2, and hope it’s not No. 3, because that’s not the way to argue, even with the Mellers and NWOs of the world.
Herp Derp: It’s common to see punishments inflicted on a different person; when the offense isn’t seen as a crime against the person who was actually hurt, but as a property crime against a third party.
So if a man kills a slave, unjustly, he may be deprived of a slave of similar worth. The Code of Hammurabi said that if a man built a house, and it collapsed and killed the resident’s son, his son would be killed in retribution.
It was, all in all, an enlightened view for the time (similar offenses in other areas could have the builder, and his entire family killed). But it was because women/children were property, and so it wasn’t fair to punish a person directly, any more than it was for injuring a cow, or a knocking down a fence.
I tend to number 1, just because he’s so up-front; he doesn’t rationalize anything, just brags about what a terrible person he is and how much he loves hitting and raping women.
Or a 1-2 hybrid, where he isn’t really like this… but he wishes he was, because it would make him a totally badass tough guy.
I could be wrong and he could really be a sociopath, but I prefer to believe he’s just an idiot who thinks “I’ll tell feminists I like rape!” is the height of comedy.
If only there was an Olympic event for clutching at straws, these MRAs might actually benefit from their horseshit.
Isn’t it interesting that the feminists here respond to Toy Soldier’s description of the terrible crime he suffered by acknowledging how terrible abuse is, without any attempts to find any “rationale” for the abuse other than that his abuser was … a terrible abuser.
Why can’t MRAs respond the same way to women who have been abused? Abuse is EVIL.
Pan’s a Poe, no question. But a particularly obnoxious one.
@Comrade Svilova
But see, when women get raped, it’s their own fault! Thus, women do not deserve any empathy. Ever. [/sarcasm]
I don’t get it either. What happened to Toy Soldier is absolutely disgusting and inexcusable.
It still wasn’t caused by feminism, it was caused by an abusive aunt.
I’d also like to repeat Holly’s question.
To me, it often seems that, at least on anti-feminist spaces, false rape accusations (against men by women) are seen as the equivalent of male-on-female rape. But the only equivalent of rape is rape, and the only equivalent of false rape accusations are false rape accusations.
Holly: I can hold two thoughts at once. I can separate my personal experiences from my views about feminism, just as I can support rape victims while wanting those accused of rape to get a fair trial. If feminism can make people great (which feminists argue), then it can also make people terrible. But I do understand your need as a feminist to defend the ideology and my aunt. I am curious, however, as to why you would think I would care whether feminists believe me given their general denial sexual violence against males.
Pecunium: Currently the accepted rate of false accusations is around 8 percent. The conviction rate for rape cases is 56 percent. Since 56 is higher than 8, there are more convictions than cases being ruled false or unfounded. Regardless of whether racism prompted the cruel response, the fact remains that some women maliciously lied about rape. But I suppose that does not matter since going to prison for something that never happened is awesome. Regarding the last point, what my aunt did is just as much feminism as any man who rapes a woman is “patriarchy”.
Comrade Svilova: They did try to find a rationale by absolving feminism of any responsibility for my aunt’s behavior, despite that feminism prompted her actions. And of course feminists said what she did was terrible, just like men’s activists say women’s abuse is terrible. The difference is that men’s activists do that unprompted. Feminists wait until someone mentions it and then throw it back in the person’s face.
Where in The Big Feminist Handbook does it say abuse and rape are okay under any circumstances? All the feminism I’ve seen takes a pretty dim view on that stuff, no matter who does it. Feminism is about treating people equally no matter their sex or gender — child abuse doesn’t follow that ideal; in fact, abuse is basically antithetical to the whole movement. So how was feminism responsible for your aunt’s actions?
Which isn’t, itself, terrible. Do you not read your own side? It’s “The men were justified because-“, even when they shoot people up. They say violence is ‘inevitable’. Pull the other one; if you can’t get me to buy that muslim/hindu violence is inevitable, men’s rights advocates have less than zero chance.
Find for me where feminist thought says the rape of boys is a requisite action to promote equality for women. What your aunt did was fucking horrible. I don’t really see a reason for you to be on board with feminism because of it. But I simply will not allow you to slander an entire movement trying to prevent similar for hundreds of people (Not women, girls, boys, or men, people) because of one person, who can’t even get people to agree with what she did, and who nobody within has apparently defended. Trying to say we’re ‘like’ or worse, *worse* than a movement that just wants to perpetuate enslavement for a gender, because one woman who is a feminist did a horrible thing to you, is not going to fly.
If fucking only.
They don’t do it at all, unless you have confused yourself for all men’s activists, perhaps.
No, it isn’t. Men raping women is part of the system that prevents the advancement and equality of women, and in some cases men who, under the patriarchy, are ‘like women’ (Quick and dirty example, nurses). Patriarchy isn’t “Everything a man does.” Feminism is not “Everything a woman does”. A man who tries to end rape is, if not necessarily trying to help women or feminism as a movement, acting in accordance with feminist principles, not with patriarchy, because those principles, in their least ideal form, want women to be treated as well as men. A woman who rapes a man because of the assumption that all men are ready for sex at any time, is perpetuating patriarchy (to the detriment of that man, and the benefit of most men). A woman who rapes a man because she wants to control him is engaging in neither. And a woman who rapes a child to teach how evil rape is is engaging in neither as well.
…
Do you actually, sometimes, maybe, like, read this blog and the MRAs quoted here?
Just look at this post.
Or just look at the many other posts on this very blog regarding this topic. Maybe start with this tag.
Quite frankly, I fail to see the sympathy these guys allegedly have for women who were victims of violence. It’s rather telling if a mod of the men’s rights subreddit apparently enjoys posting on a subreddit called beatingwomen.
Toysoldier , no one has shown me a single, actual MRA (self declared) site that does not directly and indirectly condone violence.
I have never seen a feminist condone the rape of little boys, or little girls or even teen boys or girls nor can you link a post on any feminist site that does.
I have not seen a feminist condone physical abuse either.
Toy soldier: The rates for rape are about the same as for any other crime. That means false accusations of rape aren’t something which merits special attention; compared to other crimes.
Since most prosecutors boast of conviction rates in the 90-95 pecent rate, Rape is, compared to those other crimes (e.g. murder, assault, theft, burglary), anomalous.
Since the rates for one aspect; false accusation, is the same, but for another aspect; conviction, it’s far worse to be accused of any other crime, falsely, then it is to be falsely accused of rape.
That, of course, assumes that actual false accusation of rape all make it to trial. I’d like to see a breakdown of the results of those 2-8 percent of false accusations; even if everyone of those made it to trial, the odds are 50:50, where as for a false accusation of murder which goes to trial is 1:10.
I know which I’d rather be falsely accused of, given those numbers.
1) Would this apply for accusations of all crimes, or just rape?
2) Would a new trial be started to determine if the accuser acted with malice, or would malice be assumed if the accuser couldn’t prove that it was non-malicious?
Not all accusations of rape in lynching cases came at the behest of the victim or purported victim either. The KKK was fond of killing both sides of a consensual white woman/black man relationship-him for “rape” her for being a “race traitor”. Some women in that situation (held by the KKK on threat of death and often rape) went along with accusations in order to save their own lives knowing their lover was doomed either way. It does not too much digging to discover that KKK’s “protect white women” spiel has never been too genuine. It only ever applied to “good white women”. “Bad white”, the poor women, the butch women, the queer women, the atheists, the Jewish women, the women who associated with black people, the women who slept with black people, the women who tried to divorce their Klansmen husbands, etc. faced brutal violence as well, it just tended to be less public than the race based lynchings. This protectivism was usually nothing more than a thinly veiled threatening violent system of control.
Were there white women who occasionally used the threat of the fear of the black male rapist to abuse and control black men? Yes, but assuming that was the only dynamic that ever occurred in these situations is asinine and ignores the reality of these communities.