So WF Price of The Spearhead, who responded to my previous post criticizing his and his commenters’ appalling reactions to the Cleveland abductions with thoughtfulness and maturity (by which I mean a bizarre and weirdly racist personal attack on a commenter here), has now taken offense to a darkly satirical piece the Onion ran in the wake of the revelations of what allegedly went on Ariel Castro’s house for the past 11 years.
The Onion piece wasn’t funny, exactly, nor was it meant to be; it was pretty clearly the raw reaction of someone reacting with appropriate horror to the details of Castro’s alleged crimes, which seem to surpass even the worst “man-hater’s” vision of male depravity. Price, rather missing the point, sees the Onion piece as simple “feminist man-hatred” and suggests that it proves his point all along: that patriarchy is a lie.
The Castro brothers were neither patriarchal nor privileged; they were low-life predators from the bottom of society. Not to say that low-class men are all bad people, either, but men without privilege are the most likely to commit crimes, for obvious reasons. …
The myth of male power and privilege is just that, and the Cleveland case is one more pebble on the mountain of evidence that exposes it for a lie.
Empowering men in their families will not lead to more crimes against women and girls, but fewer.
Huh. So I guess if we make all men rich, and order the police to stop responding to all “domestic disturbance” calls, all our problems will be solved!
Never mind that Ariel Castro seems to have lorded it over his now-dead ex when he was involved with her, reportedly brutalizing and terrorizing her and getting away with it in part because he threatened to further brutalize her if she testified against him. He may not have had much power in the wider world, but he certainly seems to have felt quite “empowered” in his dealings with women and girls, and the “justice” system didn’t provide any justice to his apparent victims, even before the kidnappings.
And never mind that Price continues to refer to the “Castro brothers” although the police are saying that Ariel Castro acted alone.
Despite not knowing the basic facts of the case, Price seems to like the idea of using cases like this one to push his antifeminist agenda. According to him, his attempts to use the case to “refute” the feminist idea that
male privilege [is] tied to abuse of women … really enraged them, because how dare I use one of “their” cases to point out that they are wrong. From their perspective, it should be a sacred feminist right to use these incidents against men as a political bludgeon so as to coerce more concessions, more power, etc. Some went so far as to accuse me of blaming women and feminists for the kidnappings themselves (rubbish), while a few others sent me some hate mail.
But you know, I’m going to keep it up, because they do not have the sole right to the narrative when convenient tragedies occur. …
Feminists will doubtless use examples of outrageous crimes in an effort to remove more men from their families, thereby creating both more victims and more criminals. They will use examples like the Castro brothers’ kidnapping whenever and wherever they can. We must stop them from doing so, and we must not be intimidated by their feigned moral outrage when we speak the truth about their agenda.
Dude. if you think the reactions people are having to the Cleveland abductions — or to the terrible things you and your commenters have said about them — are in any way “feigned,” then I can only suggest that you may have completely lost touch with your humanity.
Once again, the Spearhead’s commenters lived up to their past standards of moral monsterhood, continuing to put the blame for Ariel Castro’s crimes (and pretty much every other ill) on feminism and women in general. Here are some selections. You’ll notice the one wishing death on feminists is officially “well-liked” by the commentariat there.
The only vaguely encouraging thing in the entire discussion? That Dana’s call for urban genocide got a couple of downvotes. To the two Spearhead readers who don’t think wiping out an entire community of decent people because of the behavior of one man is a good idea, I would like to say “thanks.” And also suggest that maybe you should stop reading The Spearhead.
EDITED: Added paragraphs about Ariel Castro’s alleged brutality towards his ex, and clarification that only he has been charged, not his brothers.
Boobz, I like your explicit and transparent edits. I’ve meant to say that in the past – I think that’s good of you.
That’s all … I’m not even chiming in about Spearheaders racing to the bottom … What else would we even expect 🙁
“They know full well that they are creating an ever brutal world.”
Yes! Now that “gut feeling of MRAs” has replaced empirical data, we can all conclude we are living in an ever brutal world. Everyone knows that statistics have a feminist agenda. And that the feminist government has been cooking the books to make it look as though North America has had less violent crimes, including rape, since feminist started working on changing the culture. And that the feminist police force is tainting its records to fit with the feminist agenda. And that researchers are going along with the plan. Open your eyes, sheeple!
Hell, I’m thinking those down-votes are from warnerds objecting to Dana misusing the term JDAM. JDAM is a guidance package that turns a dumb bomb into a smart bomb, it’s not itself an actual type of bomb.
(The only reason I know that is because I wondered what the hell a JDAM was, and bothered to look it up.)
On another point, anybody thinks WTF Price might look up the definition of patriarchy one day? His logic amounts to “racism doesn’t exist, because you can find disenfranchised white people and powerful [whatever other group]. Burn!”
Oh wait. He probably thinks that too.
We are if you make the mistake of watching speeches by Republicans at the NRA convention.
Not true but then again, how does that sell newspapers, guns, hate?
I made the mistake of reading more of the comments over at the Spearhead. Lyn87 said
So he thinks that going to divorce court is comparable to being imprisoned, raped, and tortured for eleven years. Agghh, I don’t even have any words for that, seriously. I’m just too horrified.
While we’re talking about the “empowering men” thing, here’s something Price wrote about the subject: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/06/14/force-control-and-responsibility/
The tl;dr version is that women are gonna be ruled by someone, so why shouldn’t it be a compassionate man instead of an uncaring state or corporation? As for his understanding of what patriarchy is, he claims that fathers don’t want their kids to suffer, ergo FGM has nothing to do with any kind of patriarchy (http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/02/28/liberating-egypt-from-female-genital-mutilation/, editor bracket at the top). Also, definition twisting as seen here: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/07/jezebel-weighs-in-on-mra-dad-issue/
“In real patriarchy, the children are always under the authority of the father (this was the norm throughout the West prior to industrialization). That is the definition of patriarchy — father rule. How could default maternal custody possibly reflect patriarchal values? It’s ridiculous on the face of it, but feminists really are a one-trick pony when it comes to the blame game.”
Well, according to these guys (and others), leadership is something that has been given to men by God, or possibly evolution, and it doesn’t have to be earned. If the husband wants it, it’s proof that God wants it. If the husband is a nice guy, that’s great, but it is by no means necessary. However, if the man fails to excercise his authority, or the wife fails to be obedient, they are literally blaspheming God and all that is holy.
Source: various church services I had to sit through with my aunt and uncle*
I agree with your definition of leadership, of course
*Guess what? He hit his wife.
“Feminists will doubtless use examples of outrageous crimes”
I’m glad MRAs have now decided that using anecdotal cases to make generalizations about gender is wrong. [cricket sound]
Not getting all the facts right has never, NOT ONCE, ever slowed WTF Price down.
Fuck off, Troofy. You whole career here (and that lovely Preggo Punchout Game) shows you don’t understand satire or sarcasm.
Those Spearhead comments.
That goes beyond misogyny or even straight up male supremacism. That is pure, unadulterated inhumanity.
What a bunch of fucking degenerates.
@lrr7- oh I know that people not living in the real world have a different definition of leadership than I do. BUT they are not living in the real world.
I continue to lack the mental wear withal to comment on the OP, but this…
“Seriously, is it asking too much for fools like this to read at least on anthropology text book? Just one?”
Yeah, it is, they refuse to do so much as a cursory glance at How To Stastics (typo intentional)
Somebody add “anthropology” to the list of misandrist things.
Okay, sure, I’ll accept your argument. If we don’t call the activity of rape a crime by any measure of legislation, people doing it would not, in fact, be performing a crime. The logic there is actually sound enough. It’s the kind of alien hellscape I like to present to players of my Call of Chulthu game, sure, but it’s… internally consistent. Sure.
Yeah, if you let all men, everywhere, lord over women and you say that husbands protect wives and you mark women down as chattel or property, you can’t really call it a crime if someone beats them or rapes them or locks them up in a basement. So there would be less crime.
It’s sort like when you change the legal definition of the word “chocolate” so you can keep producing “chocolate bars” which has no, not even a trace, compounds of cacoa bean or any kind of actual chocolate in it. You’re still making chocolate bars! Just check the legal definition!
—
Using egregiousness examples of terrible things to support the argument that you need to return wayward wives and lost children to the right, protective spouse else they might be damaged by some stranger is a curious kind of logic. A strange logic. A weird logic. It is, in fact, not logic.
Price is right. In a world where women have no rights under the law, there can be no crime perpetrated against them. I agree with him. What a shitty, shoddy world to live in, though, so I’ll keep fighting against the vision of an alien hellscape, thank you.
This isn’t rights. This isn’t empowerment. This is supremacy. How miserly.
Truthy isn’t the preggo punchout guy, BTW. That was “factfinder.”
@Fibinaci- I may be a truly twisted individual, but your Call of Cuthulu games sound FASCINATING. Right now I’m playing a 1920s era campaign in which I play a 400 pound opera singer and former professional fat lady who carries a knife in her girdle. We also have a black WWI vet who goes nowhere without his mobile laboratory. It is basically the best time.
As for the link Bob Dole provided, I can personally think of excactly *one* historical example of women being, to some degree, exempt from the law due to being under their husband’s authority: In parts of early Anglo-Saxon society, a woman comitting a crime with her husband was actually considered not accountable precisely because he held such power over her, that the responsebility was his.
Why oh why must people with no grasp of history whatsoever attempt to back up their crap with historical “analyses”?
Whenever I read WTF I feel like he just strings a bunch of random phrases together that vaguely represent the outrage he feels toward the straw feminists he lets rent out space in his head. I rearranged that second quote up there and I think it makes as much sense.
Oh and I object to associating this pathetic person with the grandeur – albeit in a horrible kinda way – that is Cthulhu 😉
Ever notice how according to MRAs, horrific criminals like Castro, Sodini, etc. are simultaneously one-off whackos from whom you can determine nothing about men as a whole, and HARBINGERS OF THINGS TO COME if society doesn’t snap back to the way they [the MRAs] want it?
Okay. Hm. So…. okay. So, the fact that poor men commit terrible crimes sometimes means that patriarchy doesn’t exist. Because, the motivating factor for these crimes was that a man was given LESS social power than men are taught their whole lives to expect, and so he went to terrible lengths to gain power by dominating specific individuals.
Because… THAT’S PATRIARCHY. When someone expects power because of the group they belong to, and devalue members of the group they expect to not have power. THAT’S WHAT THAT IS. YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST YOURSELF.
“Give a WOMAN unchecked power and authority over her family and she will create the ghetto.”
Right, because the concept that the word “ghetto” describes in modern day did not exist at the time of the word’s first recorded use as such in English, in 1899, before women were legally empowered to do much of anything at all.
(For those interested, the use of the word originates with the racial exile of Jews into certain neighborhoods of Italian cities going back at least to the 1600s. It was retained that meaning through WWII when the Nazis started doing the same thing, but in America, the term had already acquired a secondary meaning – first recorded in 1899 – of any poverty-stricken neighborhood dominated by a racial minority. So the word as WF Price uses it predates women’s suffrage in America and most European nations, and, furthermore, has two different kinds of racial implications that make it inappropriate to apply to the economic circumstances of the white kidnapper/abuser in this case.)
http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=ghetto&allowed_in_frame=0
These guys will find a way to blame feminism on everything. If one of them got mugged (by a man), they’d be telling the police to blame feminists.
Also, why did they go after Andrew of all people? Wouldn’t it make more sense to go after David? Or hell, there’s a whole bunch of commenters here with feminist blogs. Why not one of them?
Also, I should clarify, the first sentence in my previous post was *~*sarcasm*~*. The concept described by the word totally did exist before women gained the right to vote and whatnot. I was going for the dripping-sarcasm tone but got caught up in “Etymology! Whee!!!” and got distracted.