Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Raw Story)   "If a husband threatens to murder his wife with a gun, that's her problem, not the cops'." Was this from: A) Elliot Rodger's manifesto B) some MRA douche-blogger or C) "Reverend" Pat Robertson   (rawstory.com ) divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8245 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2014 at 5:02 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



305 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-06-11 02:35:49 PM  
i59.photobucket.com
 
2014-06-11 02:46:23 PM  
Am I supposed to be surprised by this?  Robertson is all over the place on all sorts of different issues.  I'm never surprised by anything he says.
 
2014-06-11 02:54:37 PM  
Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.
 
2014-06-11 02:55:46 PM  
MRA?
 
2014-06-11 02:59:41 PM  
Airquote "Reverend" for Sharpton and Jackson too. They're equally douchey.
 
2014-06-11 03:02:50 PM  

Spad31: MRA?


Men's Rights Advocate, I think. Though it could be the Murderous Rifle Association.
 
2014-06-11 03:06:42 PM  

naughtyrev: Spad31: MRA?

Men's Rights Advocate, I think.


He-Man Woman-Haters and Fedora Aficionados.
 
2014-06-11 03:08:18 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: naughtyrev: Spad31: MRA?

Men's Rights Advocate, I think.

He-Man Woman-Haters and Fedora Aficionados.


It's a Trilby!
 
2014-06-11 03:25:30 PM  
Exactly. It's not the cops' problem until there's a crime scene to clean up.
 
2014-06-11 03:33:39 PM  
Here's a picture of the submitter:

thepigmancometh.com

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.
 
2014-06-11 03:38:40 PM  
D) No one?
 
2014-06-11 03:42:40 PM  
The fact that Pat is still alive to be able to share his beliefs is proof God does exist...and he's a dick.
 
2014-06-11 03:44:34 PM  

gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.


What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.
 
2014-06-11 03:47:38 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.


Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that.
 
2014-06-11 03:47:55 PM  

Spad31: Airquote "Reverend" for Sharpton and Jackson too. They're equally douchey.


BSAB
 
2014-06-11 04:06:49 PM  

naughtyrev: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: naughtyrev: Spad31: MRA?

Men's Rights Advocate, I think.

He-Man Woman-Haters and Fedora Aficionados.

It's a Trilby!


THANK YOU!

gamergirl23: Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.

Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that.


Ditto.
 
2014-06-11 04:40:38 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


That headline generated this response from you? Your fedora might be on too tight.
 
2014-06-11 04:46:38 PM  

timujin: Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.

That headline generated this response from you? Your fedora might be on too tight.


www.evilmilk.com

The feminist on the left isn't bashing MRA at every chance.
The feminist on the right bashes MRA every chance she gets.

See the difference?
 
2014-06-11 04:55:30 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: timujin: Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.

That headline generated this response from you? Your fedora might be on too tight.

[www.evilmilk.com image 380x251]

The feminist on the left isn't bashing MRA at every chance.
The feminist on the right bashes MRA every chance she gets.

See the difference?


Right.  Do you have a one with of a couple of guys where I get to pick which one whines about being oppressed anytime someone makes a joke that touches on MRA?
 
2014-06-11 05:01:54 PM  

timujin: Right.  Do you have a one with of a couple of guys where I get to pick which one whines about being oppressed anytime someone makes a joke that touches on MRA?


p.gr-assets.com
 
2014-06-11 05:05:06 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: timujin: Right.  Do you have a one with of a couple of guys where I get to pick which one whines about being oppressed anytime someone makes a joke that touches on MRA?

[p.gr-assets.com image 500x375]


Aww, puddin', don't cry, it's just Fark.
 
2014-06-11 05:06:32 PM  
strongly feel there's likely a context issue here.
 
2014-06-11 05:08:41 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

...

he says, making false claims about what feminists are about...

/hypocrisy is nothing new to MRAs
 
2014-06-11 05:09:43 PM  

Geoff Peterson: strongly feel there's likely a context issue here.


Yeah, this.

I am not saying that Robertson isn't a Grade-A derp machine. He is. But I find myself wondering if maybe this wasn't taken out of context to make his normally idiotic statements sound overwhelmingly egregious instead of just blatantly stupid.
 
2014-06-11 05:09:49 PM  
"But you're a kid, what do you do? You know?" he said. "Your mother ought to take care of that."

I agree. She should use a .45 to give him a third eye.
 
2014-06-11 05:10:26 PM  

I_Am_Weasel: The fact that Pat is still alive to be able to share his beliefs is proof God does exist...and he's a dick.


Hell doesn't want Pat Robertson.
 
2014-06-11 05:10:40 PM  
You would think that by now people would know he's a looney and ignore him.
 
2014-06-11 05:11:40 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


Trolling is an unbecoming trait for a young lady.
 
2014-06-11 05:15:06 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: [i59.photobucket.com image 450x546]


If only.
 
2014-06-11 05:15:10 PM  

Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

...he says, making false claims about what feminists are about...

/hypocrisy is nothing new to MRAs


Headline falsely attributes a pro-violence statement as something that MRA's would write.

I suppose that you weren't paying attention when they taught you how to do this in your advanced womyn's studies classes.

x2.fjcdn.com
 
2014-06-11 05:16:04 PM  
One of my favorite things about feminists is how they go on and on about the importance of language and how if we say something like "mankind" it's discriminatory because it's not mentioning women, yet the moment you point out that if they're about equal rights why are they called feminists in the first place you get a spiel about how it's not the same and how you don't get what feminism is all about.

Well, if language matters, then feminism is wrong. It also implies men have all the rights. (Yes, men have more rights, but that doesn't mean they have all the rights. Women have rights over men too).
 
2014-06-11 05:16:42 PM  

Aigoo: Geoff Peterson: strongly feel there's likely a context issue here.

Yeah, this.

I am not saying that Robertson isn't a Grade-A derp machine. He is. But I find myself wondering if maybe this wasn't taken out of context to make his normally idiotic statements sound overwhelmingly egregious instead of just blatantly stupid.


You could, I suppose, watch the video in TFA to see his actual comment in context.
 
2014-06-11 05:18:15 PM  

Geoff Peterson: strongly feel there's likely a context issue here.


he said, instead of getting the police involved, try to get him help.

/ or something, i didn't read the whole article.  just skimmed a couple sentences.  this seemed like the jist of it.
 
2014-06-11 05:20:43 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: I_Am_Weasel: The fact that Pat is still alive to be able to share his beliefs is proof God does exist...and he's a dick.

Hell doesn't want Pat Robertson.


God doesn't want him either.  Thus, Pat Robertson keeps on living.

Maybe God can make a deal with Mormon God and send him to another planet.
 
2014-06-11 05:21:25 PM  

Vector R: "But you're a kid, what do you do? You know?" he said. "Your mother ought to take care of that."

I agree. She should use a .45 to give him a third eye.


I ain't never killed no man that didn't need killing. - J W Hardin
 
2014-06-11 05:22:08 PM  
I could have sworn that was a Chief Wiggum quote.
 
2014-06-11 05:24:26 PM  
If you threw every married person that threatend to murder their spouse in jail all married people would be locked up.
 
2014-06-11 05:25:13 PM  
There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN
 
2014-06-11 05:25:49 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

...he says, making false claims about what feminists are about...

/hypocrisy is nothing new to MRAs

Headline falsely attributes a pro-violence statement as something that MRA's would write.

I suppose that you weren't paying attention when they taught you how to do this in your advanced womyn's studies classes.

[x2.fjcdn.com image 300x196]


women need to re learn their place,
they should stay at home and make baby, preferably man child.
//love watching the women's movement.
 
2014-06-11 05:27:49 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

...he says, making false claims about what feminists are about...

/hypocrisy is nothing new to MRAs

Headline falsely attributes a pro-violence statement as something that MRA's would write.

I suppose that you weren't paying attention when they taught you how to do this in your advanced womyn's studies classes.

[x2.fjcdn.com image 300x196]


And this is why you come off as a pants wetter, the headline attributes a pro-violence statement as something that a MRA douche-blogger would write.  Are you arguing that there aren't any people who would fall into such a group?
 
2014-06-11 05:27:50 PM  
I assume what's happening in this thread is outright trolling, but I don't even care anymore. At this point I just hit ignore for anything that irritates me around here.  So I miss an occasional funny comment from people who spend lots of extra time trying to be 'funny'.  It saves me the aggravation of the rest of the time.
 
2014-06-11 05:28:08 PM  
When did Pat Robertson become Dear Abby?
 
2014-06-11 05:28:11 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: [i59.photobucket.com image 450x546]


With horrible constipation from the looks of it.
 
2014-06-11 05:29:32 PM  
Raise your hand if you actually read the article and found out Pat said nothing of the sort
 
2014-06-11 05:30:15 PM  

3.bp.blogspot.com

"Judge not. Shoot first and let dad handle it."

 
2014-06-11 05:31:02 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN


I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?
 
2014-06-11 05:31:21 PM  

factoryconnection: Am I supposed to be surprised by this?  Robertson is all over the place on all sorts of different issues.  I'm never surprised by anything he says.



Heck, I'm surprised he can still use language. I just hope he isn't driving anywhere near farmer's markets.
 
2014-06-11 05:31:48 PM  
It's uncanny how the good Rev can channel exactly what AmericanJesus would do.
 
2014-06-11 05:32:08 PM  

Duke_leto_Atredes: //love watching the women's movement.


4.bp.blogspot.com


I've actually read quite a bit of Womynist literature.
 
2014-06-11 05:32:19 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: timujin: Right.  Do you have a one with of a couple of guys where I get to pick which one whines about being oppressed anytime someone makes a joke that touches on MRA?

[p.gr-assets.com image 500x375]


Pot, meet kettle. Self-awareness is clearly not your strength, crybaby.
 
2014-06-11 05:33:37 PM  
A thread with gun issues and gender equality issues. This could be epic, it's already chalk full of doucebags.
 
2014-06-11 05:34:40 PM  
I love this bit.
/nsfw
Link
 
2014-06-11 05:34:46 PM  

aagrajag: So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group


Because their group is a joke?

Kidding!

Sort of!
 
2014-06-11 05:35:12 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


I, for one, appreciate the fact that your post reflects the random capitalization evident in your username. I like that kind of consistency in a troll.
 
2014-06-11 05:35:48 PM  
No comment yet on how this is obviously a fake letter?  No child would write "As a child,..."  This is probably the abused wife writing from the child's perspective because she's so farked in the head that that's the only way to confront what's happening to her.

/oh yeah, dropping in a sexist "honey" or "sweets" into your comment just makes you look sad.
 
2014-06-11 05:37:04 PM  

gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.


Except he didn't mean it that way, and you know it as well as I do
 
2014-06-11 05:37:09 PM  

CruJones: Raise your hand if you actually read the article and found out Pat said nothing of the sort


Exactly.

Pat Robertson didn't say anything like what the fark headline said.  In fact, everything he said was completely reasonable.
 
2014-06-11 05:38:09 PM  
So according to Pat, who should have called the cops at the Copacabana?
 
2014-06-11 05:38:35 PM  

Relatively Obscure: D) No one?


QFT. Good jerb with the troll headline though subby
 
2014-06-11 05:38:47 PM  

Aigoo: Geoff Peterson: strongly feel there's likely a context issue here.

Yeah, this.

I am not saying that Robertson isn't a Grade-A derp machine. He is. But I find myself wondering if maybe this wasn't taken out of context to make his normally idiotic statements sound overwhelmingly egregious instead of just blatantly stupid.


A misleading article that took something completely out of context on RawStory?

f1208.hizliresim.com
 
2014-06-11 05:39:52 PM  

gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.


This. There was nothing wrong with his answer, although I can understand how it could be misunderstood.

He said the kid shouldn't get his father arrested, but that he should tell mom that his father's actions are terrifying him and that she needs to get help for him, because this is serious and he could kill easily her. He's absolutely right that the kid should not be the one calling the police, because next thing you do, dad could be killing that kid, and it's a farked up decision for a kid to have to make anyway. This is squarely grownup territory.

/ Although the kid should call the cops if a supportive conversation with mom won't get her to wake the fark up.
 
2014-06-11 05:40:14 PM  
D)  Don't call the police on a family member unless you hate them.
 
2014-06-11 05:41:01 PM  

timujin: And this is why you come off as a pants wetter, the headline attributes a pro-violence statement as something that a MRA douche-blogger would write.  Are you arguing that there aren't any people who would fall into such a group?


My guess is that politeness and subtlety is not your strong suite.

I'm saying that unreasonably discrediting any discussion of men's rights is part of an overall pattern which itself is an issue concerning men's rights. If I wrote something similar about feminists, I'm more than certain that tears would be streaming down your cheeks and you would come here hurling pejoratives at the offender.

regornam: Pot, meet kettle. Self-awareness is clearly not your strength, crybaby.


And clarity is not your strength. I have no idea what you are talking about.
 
2014-06-11 05:42:02 PM  

jst3p: A thread with gun issues and gender equality issues. This could be epic, it's already chalk full of doucebags.


Chalk? And this is the second time in as many days that I've seen someone use "doucebags".
 
2014-06-11 05:42:25 PM  

freewill: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

This. There was nothing wrong with his answer, although I can understand how it could be misunderstood.

He said the kid shouldn't get his father arrested, but that he should tell mom that his father's actions are terrifying him and that she needs to get help for him, because this is serious and he could kill easily her. He's absolutely right that the kid should not be the one calling the police, because next thing you do, dad could be killing that kid, and it's a farked up decision for a kid to have to make anyway. This is squarely grownup territory.

/ Although the kid should call the cops if a supportive conversation with mom won't get her to wake the fark up.


And the part subby put in quotes wasnt in my article, can we make up quotes now?

/off my lawn
 
2014-06-11 05:42:32 PM  

freewill: / Although the kid should call the cops if a supportive conversation with mom won't get her to wake the fark up.


Yup. This.
 
2014-06-11 05:42:51 PM  

Cataholic: Aigoo: Geoff Peterson: strongly feel there's likely a context issue here.

Yeah, this.

I am not saying that Robertson isn't a Grade-A derp machine. He is. But I find myself wondering if maybe this wasn't taken out of context to make his normally idiotic statements sound overwhelmingly egregious instead of just blatantly stupid.

A misleading article that took something completely out of context on RawStory?

[f1208.hizliresim.com image 500x500]


Didn't RTFA, did you?
 
2014-06-11 05:43:46 PM  

CruJones: Raise your hand if you actually read the article and found out Pat said nothing of the sort


I read it, and it's in the ballpark at least. God help me, I'm actually about to defend that cretin, but his advice wasn't terrible. Tell your mom it scares you, and ask her to get help. But the whole "you don't want to get your father busted" thing -- if he's threatening your mother with a gun, why shouldn't he get busted? I kinda think there's nothing whatsoever wrong with telling the kid to call the cops. Or telling him to confide in a teacher or some other adult than his mother RIGHT AWAY since she doesn't seem to care much about her husband pulling a gun on her in front of their kids.
 
2014-06-11 05:44:09 PM  
i.imgur.com

I don't understand why the Raw Story, about a year or two ago, decided to fire reporters and hire political bloggers with no journalism experience and claim they did reporting and then adopt Newsmax principles of journalism.

But um, Raw Story is no longer a credible source of journalism.
 
2014-06-11 05:45:38 PM  
"I have to say it in your presence, sir, I think that the title reverend is something people should be more concerned to live down than live up."  - Christopher Hitchens
 
2014-06-11 05:46:30 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: timujin: And this is why you come off as a pants wetter, the headline attributes a pro-violence statement as something that a MRA douche-blogger would write.  Are you arguing that there aren't any people who would fall into such a group?

My guess is that politeness and subtlety is not your strong suite.

I'm saying that unreasonably discrediting any discussion of men's rights is part of an overall pattern which itself is an issue concerning men's rights. If I wrote something similar about feminists, I'm more than certain that tears would be streaming down your cheeks and you would come here hurling pejoratives at the offender.

regornam: Pot, meet kettle. Self-awareness is clearly not your strength, crybaby.

And clarity is not your strength. I have no idea what you are talking about.


As you have written something similar about feminists in this very thread, I have not resorted to tears, I just think you come off like an ass.  If you're trying to defend or otherwise support the MRA movement, you've failed.  If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.
 
2014-06-11 05:47:02 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: Because People in power are Stupid: Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

...he says, making false claims about what feminists are about...

/hypocrisy is nothing new to MRAs

Headline falsely attributes a pro-violence statement as something that MRA's would write.


And whether true or not, that's entirely irrelevant to your hypocrisy, but thanks for playing.
 
2014-06-11 05:49:16 PM  

jst3p: A thread with gun issues and gender equality issues. This could be epic, it's already chalk full of doucebags.


Nice of you to show up.

/you left that open.
 
2014-06-11 05:49:23 PM  
The only thing that will stop a bad daddy with a gun from shooting mommy is a good "new" daddy with a gun.

/Well, a gun and a better job
//Actually, a gun, a better job and a 9" penis
///and it wouldn't suck if his house had a pool
 
2014-06-11 05:51:47 PM  

Theaetetus: your hypocrisy,


Feel free to elaborate.

timujin: As you have written something similar about feminists in this very thread, I have not resorted to tears, I just think you come off like an ass.  If you're trying to defend or otherwise support the MRA movement, you've failed.  If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.


Ironic that your own expressed belief in feminism doesn't seem to move me towards your position either. I wonder if a fark thread is truly the right forum for such evangelism.
 
2014-06-11 05:52:24 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-11 05:53:03 PM  

freewill: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

This. There was nothing wrong with his answer, although I can understand how it could be misunderstood.

He said the kid shouldn't get his father arrested, but that he should tell mom that his father's actions are terrifying him and that she needs to get help for him, because this is serious and he could kill easily her. He's absolutely right that the kid should not be the one calling the police, because next thing you do, dad could be killing that kid, and it's a farked up decision for a kid to have to make anyway. This is squarely grownup territory.

/ Although the kid should call the cops if a supportive conversation with mom won't get her to wake the fark up.


Except, there IS something wrong with his answer.  He's telling the kid that instead of calling the police he should leave it up to his mom.  All the while, he's learning this type of behavior from his father, and if it is allowed to go on unpunished, will likely model that same behavior as an adult.

You shouldn't WANT to get your dad arrested, unless he's a giant farkwad.  A giant farkwad like the kind of guy who threatens another person with a freaking gun.  If dad's first inclination during an argument is to get a gun and threaten people with it; the only help he needs is a visit from the police.  Eventually dad's gonna have too much to drink and fire off a round, then the kid has to live with that the rest of his life.

Robertson's answer was wrong.
 
2014-06-11 05:53:20 PM  
That is one troll-tastic headline, subby. What Robertson actually said was "don't rat your dad out to the cops, kiddies; go to mom first." I'm pretty much OK with that.

But then you made fun of those MRA nancies, so you're back on my good side.

thepunkeffect.com
 
2014-06-11 05:53:29 PM  

someonelse: But the whole "you don't want to get your father busted" thing -- if he's threatening your mother with a gun, why shouldn't he get busted? I kinda think there's nothing whatsoever wrong with telling the kid to call the cops.


In some models, telling a child that a parent is evil or that they should betray that parent is considered de facto child abuse. Having dad arrested, even if he deserves it, is an extremely farked up thing that can traumatize the kid for a long time. (Though not as much as mom getting shot because he didn't.) Think about how hard kids struggle with perceptions that they caused their parents to split up and how hard that is, even when there is no truth to it.

More than that, dad's a violent lunatic with anger management problems. This is a child. The kid gets involved, he's liable to end up stuffed into his own backpack and buried in the woods somewhere. Adults have resources to protect themselves that children do not, and telling him to do something that could get him beaten to death would be wildly irresponsible.

Mom is the adult. She needs to be mature enough to realize that she and her kids are in mortal danger from a nutjob and make the decision to have dad taken away in handcuffs. The kid doesn't need to be responsible for that. On the other hand, if mom had her act together, she'd have likely already taken care of it, so it's, uh, tricky.
 
2014-06-11 05:54:12 PM  

freewill: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

This. There was nothing wrong with his answer, although I can understand how it could be misunderstood.

He said the kid shouldn't get his father arrested, but that he should tell mom that his father's actions are terrifying him and that she needs to get help for him, because this is serious and he could kill easily her. He's absolutely right that the kid should not be the one calling the police, because next thing you do, dad could be killing that kid, and it's a farked up decision for a kid to have to make anyway. This is squarely grownup territory.

/ Although the kid should call the cops if a supportive conversation with mom won't get her to wake the fark up.


I guess perhaps he could talk to his mom first but honestly if she isn't already in a place where she can tell her husband not to routinely brandish a gun at her, I doubt a heart to heart with her son is going to get her there.

Chances are, even though the son sees her reaction to the gun as "calm"  she's probably very afraid and trying not to escalate the conflict.

I think calling the cops or telling a teacher who can contact a social worker is the right answer.  "You don't want to get your dad busted"....uh yeah I do.  Preferably before someone's brains are on the wall.
 
2014-06-11 05:54:25 PM  

aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?


1. Most of the feminists I know haven't been the all out war type, every MRA person I've met has lived up to it.

2. One group is actually fighting against social injustice and for equality, the other is fighting against perceived slights and women getting to be treated as equals.
 
2014-06-11 05:54:34 PM  

timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.


That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.
 
2014-06-11 05:56:07 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: I_Am_Weasel: The fact that Pat is still alive to be able to share his beliefs is proof God does exist...and he's a dick.

Hell doesn't want Pat Robertson.


Even the kittens will refuse to eat him.
 
2014-06-11 05:56:47 PM  

Crass and Jaded Mother Farker: The only thing that will stop a bad daddy with a gun from shooting mommy is a good "new" daddy with a gun.

/Well, a gun and a better job
//Actually, a gun, a better job and a 9" penis
///and it wouldn't suck if his house had a pool


You're good at this.
 
2014-06-11 05:57:18 PM  

gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.


Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?
 
2014-06-11 05:58:18 PM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: You shouldn't WANT to get your dad arrested, unless he's a giant farkwad.  A giant farkwad like the kind of guy who threatens another person with a freaking gun.  If dad's first inclination during an argument is to get a gun and threaten people with it; the only help he needs is a visit from the police.  Eventually dad's gonna have too much to drink and fire off a round, then the kid has to live with that the rest of his life.


I don't disagree with any of this. I just disagree with the wisdom and even the humanity of instructing a child to take on an adult's role opposing their own parent in a violent, potentially life-threatening situation, especially if they haven't already communicated with the mother, who may be sufficiently under his thumb that she'll side with him against the child.

Yes, he will learn the wrong behavior if it goes unpunished, but Robertson said the same thing you just did: dad will eventually kill mom if this isn't stopped, so it has to stop. He just says that the child is not the one in the position to take this on.
 
2014-06-11 05:58:48 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: your hypocrisy,

Feel free to elaborate.

timujin: As you have written something similar about feminists in this very thread, I have not resorted to tears, I just think you come off like an ass.  If you're trying to defend or otherwise support the MRA movement, you've failed.  If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

Ironic that your own expressed belief in feminism doesn't seem to move me towards your position either. I wonder if a fark thread is truly the right forum for such evangelism.


Scroll up, find anywhere I've expressed a belief in feminism.  From the start I have only pointed out that your apparent need for victimization isn't warranted by the headline.
 
2014-06-11 05:58:52 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Theaetetus: your hypocrisy,

Feel free to elaborate.


You replied to my post earlier, so I know you read it. What about it do you find confusing?

Let me try again, though, really slow and using as few polysyllabic words as possible so that you can understand:

You make false claims about what feminists are about: "Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality."
You then whine that feminists "make false claims about what Men's Rights are about".
You're whining about the same thing you did one sentence earlier.
That's hypocritical, regardless of whether Subby's headline is false.
Therefore, you're a hypocrite.
 
2014-06-11 05:58:55 PM  
So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.
 
2014-06-11 05:59:00 PM  

Elegy: [i.imgur.com image 501x1500]


Some women have been mean to me in the past. I got over it.
 
2014-06-11 05:59:38 PM  

tiamet4: I think calling the cops or telling a teacher who can contact a social worker is the right answer.  "You don't want to get your dad busted"....uh yeah I do.  Preferably before someone's brains are on the wall.


Like I said, if talking to mom doesn't get it done, then I agree completely.

This is a grownup job first, though.
 
2014-06-11 06:01:19 PM  

Mikey1969: So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.


Well, you sure sucked all the fun out of this thread.

/ Sorry.
// Seriously.
 
2014-06-11 06:01:36 PM  
Jeebus H. Christ, what an asshat...
 
2014-06-11 06:02:10 PM  
I am going to step in here and see if I understand things going on in this thread. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

A feminist is seen as a crybaby.

An MRA is seen as wearing a trilby, who might also be a crybaby.
 
2014-06-11 06:02:56 PM  

Mikey1969: So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.


She really should have made him that turkey pot pie.
 
2014-06-11 06:03:51 PM  

Mikey1969: So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.


weknowmemes.com
 
2014-06-11 06:03:54 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?

1. Most of the feminists I know haven't been the all out war type, every MRA person I've met has lived up to it.

2. One group is actually fighting against social injustice and for equality, the other is fighting against perceived slights and women getting to be treated as equals.


Seriously, this is like saying "why don't you treat the NAACP and the Klan as equals?" *** Feminists actually had a completely farked-up society to fix in the 1960s (and their success is why most women don't bother to label their modern, quite feminist beliefs as feminism any more). The Men's Rights movement exists for whiney losers to complain about non-existent oppression by feminists.

/ ***Yes, I'm aware there are farkers who say exactly that. They're a slightly different species of troll.
 
2014-06-11 06:04:28 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Duke_leto_Atredes: //love watching the women's movement.

I've actually read quite a bit of Womynist literature.


More of a leg man, to many boltons out there.
 
2014-06-11 06:05:37 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?

1. Most of the feminists I know haven't been the all out war type, every MRA person I've met has lived up to it.

2. One group is actually fighting against social injustice and for equality, the other is fighting against perceived slights and women getting to be treated as equals.


To be fair, I've met a few that are either entirely on the 'custodial father' issue, or if you talk to them about that seem perfectly reasonable.  It's just 50/50 90/10 any time the topic of women comes up in any other context whether the reasonable seeming human being you're talking to will suddenly and vitirolically turn out to be an MRA.

I have a kid.  Don't raise it.  I'm fine with getting shafted.  I consider it an 18 year stupidity tax.  but I sympathize with guys who actually would like custody.  Out of everything, that seems to be the only issue EVER mentioned by any of them that has any reality to it.  Everything else EVER deserves little more than scorn and the 'help help we're being oppressed' graphic.
 
2014-06-11 06:06:36 PM  

Empty H: I am going to step in here and see if I understand things going on in this thread. Someone correct me if I am wrong.

A feminist is seen as a crybaby.

An MRA is seen as wearing a trilby, who might also be a crybaby.


Not quite.

Feminists are crazy biatches that don't want equal rights, they want more than equal rights as evidenced by the name "feminist".

MRA's are indeed crybabies who often subscribe to this magazine:

img.fark.net
 
2014-06-11 06:06:53 PM  

Mikey1969: So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.


Is the boyfriend rotting in prison?
/i hope so
 
2014-06-11 06:06:53 PM  

Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.


You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.
 
2014-06-11 06:07:31 PM  
what Pat should have said:

"Call the cops, you father is a psychotic dick who needs to have a real man mansplain to him how to be a man, his gun needs to be taken from his possession and shoved up his ass and test fired,  your mother is suffering from Stockholm syndrome and may need some medical attention herself and whatever you do kid, don't ever call me again for anything, i'm a worthless POS con man."
 
2014-06-11 06:09:06 PM  

freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: You shouldn't WANT to get your dad arrested, unless he's a giant farkwad.  A giant farkwad like the kind of guy who threatens another person with a freaking gun.  If dad's first inclination during an argument is to get a gun and threaten people with it; the only help he needs is a visit from the police.  Eventually dad's gonna have too much to drink and fire off a round, then the kid has to live with that the rest of his life.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just disagree with the wisdom and even the humanity of instructing a child to take on an adult's role opposing their own parent in a violent, potentially life-threatening situation, especially if they haven't already communicated with the mother, who may be sufficiently under his thumb that she'll side with him against the child.

Yes, he will learn the wrong behavior if it goes unpunished, but Robertson said the same thing you just did: dad will eventually kill mom if this isn't stopped, so it has to stop. He just says that the child is not the one in the position to take this on.


Robertson flat told the kid not to call the police, which is wrong.  When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.
 
2014-06-11 06:09:51 PM  

timujin: Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.

You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.


Are you talking about feminist assholes? I am honestly lost and only half way paying attention to what is going on here.

Can we get the legal representative of the Feminist and the legal representative of the MRA in this thread please. I don't really know what is going on.
 
2014-06-11 06:10:50 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: UncomfortableSilence: aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?

1. Most of the feminists I know haven't been the all out war type, every MRA person I've met has lived up to it.

2. One group is actually fighting against social injustice and for equality, the other is fighting against perceived slights and women getting to be treated as equals.

To be fair, I've met a few that are either entirely on the 'custodial father' issue, or if you talk to them about that seem perfectly reasonable.  It's just 50/50 90/10 any time the topic of women comes up in any other context whether the reasonable seeming human being you're talking to will suddenly and vitirolically turn out to be an MRA.

I have a kid.  Don't raise it.  I'm fine with getting shafted.  I consider it an 18 year stupidity tax.  but I sympathize with guys who actually would like custody.  Out of everything, that seems to be the only issue EVER mentioned by any of them that has any reality to it.  Everything else EVER deserves little more than scorn and the 'help help we're being oppressed' graphic.


Easy solution: make the mother look very bad to the court. ( for details on this please subscribe to my newsletter)
Get full custody
Go to Utah and put the kid up for a closed adoption.
 
2014-06-11 06:10:57 PM  

freewill: tiamet4: I think calling the cops or telling a teacher who can contact a social worker is the right answer.  "You don't want to get your dad busted"....uh yeah I do.  Preferably before someone's brains are on the wall.

Like I said, if talking to mom doesn't get it done, then I agree completely.

This is a grownup job first, though.


I think a better grown up for the job would be a teacher and/or a social worker who can hopefully give them tools to get away from this asshat.

Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I'll agree with the person above who said simply that Pat's answer is wrong.  There's nothing correct about it.

\Also, I'd love to see the result if mom actually was inspired to tell her gun-brandishing husband that he should stop pointing a gun at her during an argument
\\Actually I wouldn't love to see it.  It would probably be very unpleasant
 
2014-06-11 06:12:53 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?

1. Most of the feminists I know haven't been the all out war type, every MRA person I've met has lived up to it.

2. One group is actually fighting against social injustice and for equality, the other is fighting against perceived slights and women getting to be treated as equals.


Well, you know one now.

Feel free to check my previous posts; you'll find nothing remotely misogynistic in them.

I have a good relationship with every female in my life, even my ex-girlfriends.

There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be. It is not reasonable to expect any but the most noble members of a group to actively fight for the elimination of their privileges.

So someone else has to.

I would love to talk more, but I have class to teach. I'll be back in a few hours.

Cheers
 
2014-06-11 06:13:46 PM  

Empty H: Can we get the legal representative of the Feminist and the legal representative of the MRA in this thread please. I don't really know what is going on.


Here is a funny "debate" between a feminist and an aspiring MRA

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-11 06:14:11 PM  
I hate subby for putting me in the position of defending Pat Farking Robertson, but that is not what he said.   Damn you, subby!  Damn you to Hell!!
 
2014-06-11 06:16:21 PM  

jst3p: MRA's are indeed crybabies who often subscribe to this magazine:

[img.fark.net image 194x259]


Oooh, men's magazines!

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-11 06:16:58 PM  
Man, I just love to poop.
 
2014-06-11 06:16:58 PM  
Very Confucian of him.
 
2014-06-11 06:17:29 PM  

jst3p: Empty H: Can we get the legal representative of the Feminist and the legal representative of the MRA in this thread please. I don't really know what is going on.

Here is a funny "debate" between a feminist and an aspiring MRA

[i.imgur.com image 850x615]


Honestly, both those people come off as horrible immature people. I also feel like there is a lot more to this "debate" that we don't get to see.
 
2014-06-11 06:19:03 PM  

Elegy: jst3p: MRA's are indeed crybabies who often subscribe to this magazine:

[img.fark.net image 194x259]

Oooh, men's magazines!

[i.imgur.com image 850x1151]


So what you are saying is every group of people have members that poorly represent what that group stands for?
 
2014-06-11 06:19:37 PM  

LeroyBourne: Mikey1969: So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.

Is the boyfriend rotting in prison?
/i hope so


Unfortunately, no... He got 7 years. Not 'Out after 7 years, due to good behavior'. 7 years. Back in the mid 90's, I learned that he had been in prison for locking a woman and her kid in their house and dousing it with gas, trying to set it on fire. And was out again at the farking time.
 
2014-06-11 06:19:40 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.


If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.
 
2014-06-11 06:19:50 PM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.


I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.


I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."
 
2014-06-11 06:20:04 PM  
This is why men should only fark cheap skanky meth whores...the ones who don't have pimps for protection.
Have your way with them and dispose in the nearest dumpster.

/if pickup isn't the next day you can go back for seconds. Free bonus.
 
2014-06-11 06:20:11 PM  

Mikey1969: So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.


Dude, Pat's so full of shiat he forgot how to squeak millenia ago.

Do NOT do that to yourself.
 
2014-06-11 06:20:55 PM  
Shrug. they likes the bad boyz.
 
2014-06-11 06:21:02 PM  

soporific: If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.


This 40 sec video does a good job too.

Link
 
2014-06-11 06:21:42 PM  

Mikey1969: Unfortunately, no... He got 7 years. Not 'Out after 7 years, due to good behavior'. 7 years. Back in the mid 90's, I learned that he had been in prison for locking a woman and her kid in their house and dousing it with gas, trying to set it on fire. And was out again at the farking time.


Well, I don't want to live on *this* planet anymore.
 
2014-06-11 06:21:42 PM  
Pat Robertson is one of the surest signs there is no god.
 
2014-06-11 06:22:45 PM  
The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.
 
2014-06-11 06:23:02 PM  

I Like Shiny Things: /if pickup isn't the next day you can go back for seconds. Free bonus.


hahaha, oh wow
 
2014-06-11 06:23:48 PM  

timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.


Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.
 
2014-06-11 06:25:17 PM  

RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 612x144]

I don't understand why the Raw Story, about a year or two ago, decided to fire reporters and hire political bloggers with no journalism experience and claim they did reporting and then adopt Newsmax principles of journalism.

But um, Raw Story is no longer a credible source of journalism.


Probably because bloggers are cheaper.
 
2014-06-11 06:26:09 PM  

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.


On this note some are coming around. I have 50/50 custody in Colorado and I didn't have to fight for it, the court are more accepting of recent research that shows that kids can thrive in a situation where they have two homes if it is done properly. Logistics can be tricky and getting along with the ex can be trying but it can work.
 
2014-06-11 06:26:54 PM  

Mikey1969: LeroyBourne: Mikey1969: So that's what happened when I was 5. I spent 30 years blaming myself because I didn't do "something" when my mother's boyfriend beat her to death. I finally realized that there was nothing I could have done. Now I have to feel guilty all over again because I didn't bring her the phone so that she could call the police on her own.

Thanks, Pat.

Is the boyfriend rotting in prison?
/i hope so

Unfortunately, no... He got 7 years. Not 'Out after 7 years, due to good behavior'. 7 years. Back in the mid 90's, I learned that he had been in prison for locking a woman and her kid in their house and dousing it with gas, trying to set it on fire. And was out again at the farking time.


7 years for murder two, that's farked up.  He was probably on paper for another 7 years if he was out on good behavior.  But still, that's light.
 
2014-06-11 06:28:01 PM  

LeroyBourne: I love this bit.
/nsfw
Link


Funny bit, but holy shiat the dude who posted that to youtube needs some serious therapy.
 
2014-06-11 06:28:34 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: regornam: Pot, meet kettle. Self-awareness is clearly not your strength, crybaby.

And clarity is not your strength. I have no idea what you are talking about.


Well, of course you don't. And no-one is surprised either.
 
2014-06-11 06:31:12 PM  
Where the hell did all these guys come from, anyway? What did they do before this MRA stuff blew up?

My theory is that there's a critical mass of young men now who were raised entirely by the internet, and thus have poor self-esteem and little sense of identity from lack of socialization.
 
2014-06-11 06:31:24 PM  

Elegy: timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.


No, my entire argument can be boiled down to "don't go looking for ways to be offended".

It's like this.  If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't.
 
2014-06-11 06:31:43 PM  
An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?
 
2014-06-11 06:31:49 PM  
The 700 Club isn't live, right? Makes you wonder what gets left on the editing room floor...
 
2014-06-11 06:32:27 PM  
If you actually label yourself an MRA you are a dumbass. For that matter if you use the term mansplain in everyday conversation you are also a dumbass.
 
2014-06-11 06:34:28 PM  
If anybody were to try to beat up on my mom, I wouldn't suggest to her that she should call the cops, I would flat-out do it myself.

Pat Robertson is a dickbag, plain and simple.

/no, I don't give a shiat if what he actually said seems more reasonable than Subby's headline
//Pat Robertson is a DICKBAG
 
2014-06-11 06:35:00 PM  

LeroyBourne: I love this bit.
/nsfw
Link


Only kinda related, but also a favorite of mine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDMdaGhTDS4
 
2014-06-11 06:35:06 PM  

RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?


Follow up question:

If you believe a child should call the police to protect an adult woman from a man threatening both the adult woman and the child are you

[ ] Fighting the Patriarchy?
[ ] Reinforcing the Patriarchy?
 
2014-06-11 06:35:18 PM  

RoyBatty: Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?


Yup.
 
2014-06-11 06:35:53 PM  

timujin: Elegy: timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.

No, my entire argument can be boiled down to "don't go looking for ways to be offended".

It's like this.  If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't.


So you agree with Pat Robertson? Daddy was kicking mama in the shin and she should complain about it, not me.
 
2014-06-11 06:38:28 PM  

Elegy: timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.


Whiners of any ilk are generally a pain in the ass, or hadn't you noticed? You're not special. You're not being singled out. You're whining and, this being Fark, you are being mocked for it. Deal with it.
 
2014-06-11 06:40:50 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


Oh no! Fire alarms. It's not like <A href="http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/tag/montana-state-univ ersity/ ">MRAs don't abuse public systems to shut down rape awareness campaigns</a>. Or, you know, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/santa-barbara-shoot er-elli ot-rodger-police-report">killing people</a>.
 
2014-06-11 06:40:58 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-11 06:41:43 PM  

RoyBatty: RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?

Follow up question:

If you believe a child should call the police to protect an adult woman from a man threatening both the adult woman and the child are you

[ ] Fighting the Patriarchy?
[ ] Reinforcing the Patriarchy?


Little kids shouldn't be encouraged as a general thing to snitch on their parents to the cops, because little kids generally don't understand what the fark is even happening most of the time, and they lie. They are lying little liars, little kids. You know societies that encourage kids to narc on their parents? Those are bad societies.

watsonwork.files.wordpress.com
 
2014-06-11 06:44:31 PM  

soporific: Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.


Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.

Except the fact the Men's Rights isn't an internet fad - been around since the feminist movement kicked off in fact. And the fact that Eliot Rogers had no connection to even the douchebaggiest MRA sites.

i.imgur.com

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.


Ahh! A variant on the old "the patriarchy caused this so men have no right to complain" with a good dose of 'dumb men don't realize that it's the patriarchy farkin them over.'

Which makes for good pop social theory but means exactly shiat for the individual men caught up in the family court system.
 
2014-06-11 06:44:57 PM  

I8B4U: LeroyBourne: I love this bit.
/nsfw
Link

Funny bit, but holy shiat the dude who posted that to youtube needs some serious therapy.


Yeah, dude has issues.  He's probably didn't laugh once during that and just recalled his past failed relationships seething with anger.
 
2014-06-11 06:45:13 PM  

Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?


You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.
 
2014-06-11 06:46:17 PM  

Elegy: Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.


You sound afraid of women.
 
2014-06-11 06:46:45 PM  

Spad31: Airquote "Reverend" for Sharpton and Jackson too. They're equally douchey.


True

At least Robertson hasn't killed Jews or led lynch mobs like Sharpton.
 
2014-06-11 06:47:55 PM  
img.fark.net

Must be a shop. Not a single fedora or neckbeard.
 
2014-06-11 06:49:38 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


Every "MRA" I've ever spoke too also has a creepy fetish for cartoon Ponies from a show meant for little girls. Somebody please explain this to me.
 
2014-06-11 06:50:55 PM  
media.tumblr.com

images.huffingtonpost.com
 
2014-06-11 06:51:11 PM  

Elegy: soporific: Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.

Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.

Except the fact the Men's Rights isn't an internet fad - been around since the feminist movement kicked off in fact. And the fact that Eliot Rogers had no connection to even the douchebaggiest MRA sites.

[i.imgur.com image 460x364]

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.

Ahh! A variant on the old "the patriarchy caused this so men have no right to complain" with a good dose of 'dumb men don't realize that it's the patriarchy farkin them over.'

Which makes for good pop social theory but means exactly shiat for the individual men caught up in the family court system.


Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.
 
2014-06-11 06:54:00 PM  
When did Fark become the love child of Tumblr and Jezebel? I mean I hate reddit too (why I read Fark instead), but Jesus.
 
2014-06-11 06:54:01 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-06-11 06:54:02 PM  

DrBenway:

Whiners of any ilk are generally a pain in the ass, or hadn't you noticed? You're not special. You're not being singled out. You're whining and, this being Fark, you are being mocked for it. Deal with it.



i.imgur.com
Please cite where I have whined about anything in this thread. Should be easy.
 
2014-06-11 06:54:18 PM  

trotsky: Every "MRA" I've ever spoke too also has a creepy fetish for cartoon Ponies from a show meant for little girls. Somebody please explain this to me.


Much as I love shiatting on bronies, it's just the Reddit zeitgeist effect.
 
2014-06-11 06:55:28 PM  

Empty H: timujin: Elegy: timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.

No, my entire argument can be boiled down to "don't go looking for ways to be offended".

It's like this.  If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't.

So you agree with Pat Robertson? Daddy was kicking mama in the shin and she should complain about it, not me.


Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain.  The headline was about "douche-bloggers".  Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline.  Are you a "douche-blogger"?
 
2014-06-11 06:56:13 PM  

Elegy: DrBenway:

Whiners of any ilk are generally a pain in the ass, or hadn't you noticed? You're not special. You're not being singled out. You're whining and, this being Fark, you are being mocked for it. Deal with it.


[i.imgur.com image 500x320]
Please cite where I have whined about anything in this thread. Should be easy.


To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.
 
2014-06-11 06:56:44 PM  

OneTimed: When did Fark become the love child of Tumblr and Jezebel? I mean I hate reddit too (why I read Fark instead), but Jesus.


January 20th, 2009.
 
2014-06-11 07:02:34 PM  

Spad31: Airquote "Reverend" for Sharpton and Jackson too. They're equally douchey.


Douchey, yes.
Equally so, no.

Wait, are both sides bad?
 
2014-06-11 07:02:55 PM  

LazyMedia: Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites


So Eliot Rogers  not having any connection to MRA or their causes or concerns  got on a website and said mean things about women and in your mind that make him a MRA.   Well seeing you got your genders studies degree from Cracked.com I can understand why you might think that.  In that great leap of logic I made a comment on a website for lesbians , I must be a lesbian then ,, as I guy I am okay with though
 
2014-06-11 07:03:12 PM  

RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?


This is remarkably addle-brained, even for you. Good job. There are so many influencing variables and qualifiers that can be attached to your scenarios that it is little more than a pointless exercise in "look how stupid I am."
 
2014-06-11 07:05:35 PM  

skinink: So according to Pat, who should have called the cops at the Copacabana?


Lola.
 
2014-06-11 07:06:34 PM  
Is this the thread where we all insult one another?
 
2014-06-11 07:07:51 PM  

timujin: Empty H: timujin: Elegy: timujin: You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

Ah, yes, the old "stop playing the victim card" canard.

Which was precisely my point. Your entire argument thus far has boiled down to "suck it up and be tough, you're men, quit whining you crybabies."

Way to reinforce those patriarchal gender roles. I guess you want men to be in touch with their feelings and discuss them openly, at least until they say something you don't like. In which case, they need to suck it up and be tough because manly men are strong and don't cry and whine about things.

Got it.

No, my entire argument can be boiled down to "don't go looking for ways to be offended".

It's like this.  If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't.

So you agree with Pat Robertson? Daddy was kicking mama in the shin and she should complain about it, not me.

Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain.  The headline was about "douche-bloggers".  Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline.  Are you a "douche-blogger"?


Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain.  If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.
 
2014-06-11 07:07:59 PM  

fusillade762: Is this the thread where we all insult one another?


Are you new here? To the internet I mean.
 
2014-06-11 07:09:01 PM  

freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."


So, the lesson to the kid is that it's not his responsibility to report criminal behavior?  I agree, the mom SHOULD be the one reporting it.  That it's happened more than once is pretty clear evidence that mom isn't going to be reporting it.  If the kid doesn't wanna watch daddy redecorate the walls in whatever color mommy's brain is, he needs to call the police.  That should have been the message Robertson gave.  "If mom isn't going to report it to the police after it happens, and is unable to report it when it's happening, you need to call the police to make sure you and mommy are safe."
 
2014-06-11 07:09:15 PM  
Well in the moment is it her problem. Later it turns in to part of te job of the police but it's still not their problem, it's work.
 
2014-06-11 07:09:30 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.


Your lies are tiresome.  Try some new material.
 
2014-06-11 07:09:38 PM  

fusillade762: Is this the thread where we all insult one another?


And even when we aren't trying to insult people they are still insulted.
 
2014-06-11 07:10:37 PM  
Me:

web.mit.edu

This thread:

web.mit.edu
web.mit.edu

This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.
 
2014-06-11 07:11:46 PM  
Because People in power are Stupid:[www.evilmilk.com image 380x251]

The feminist on the left isn't bashing MRA at every chance.
The feminist on the right bashes MRA every chance she gets.

See the difference?


I take it back.  You've found a new way to make me laugh.  Bravo.
 
2014-06-11 07:11:51 PM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: You sound afraid of women.


This says quite the opposite.

LazyMedia: Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.


Sadly, there is a father's rights movement. Just as sadly, they've been lumped into the MRA movement by people like you, people like you who then tell them to stop whining and being misogynists after the courts farked them over.

There's also quite a bit more inequality than just family courts out there that the feminist movement - despite the claims that the feminist movement is there for men and women - have largely ignored over the past two decades. This, of course, doesn't even touch on the more general response of 'you have no right to comment on feminism because you are a man, sit down and shut up and quit whining' that this thread has so thoughtfully exhibited.

When you marginalize a group of people and tell them their concerns are irrelevant and not valid concerns, is it any surprise they go off and form their own little radicalized groups? It's how you get Islamic radicalized Islamic terrorists in the Middle East, and it's how you get radicalized MRAs on the internet.

And yeah, there are a lot of douchebag MRAs out there. Lot of douchebag radfems too. Please tell me how that contributes to the factual truth of the claims made by either?
 
2014-06-11 07:12:42 PM  

DrBenway: RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?

This is remarkably addle-brained, even for you. Good job. There are so many influencing variables and qualifiers that can be attached to your scenarios that it is little more than a pointless exercise in "look how stupid I am."


Don't let me stop you. You're on a roll. Keep with it.
 
2014-06-11 07:13:37 PM  

timujin: Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.

You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.


No.

If you were a black man, and there were to appear a headline including the phrase "negro gangbangers", would you not be somewhat annoyed at the co-location of a highly negative adjective with a perfectly benign one? It's a deliberately insulting conflation.
 
2014-06-11 07:14:16 PM  
Hmm not sure who I hate more: this old douchbag con artist of a "reverend" or that late and not so great Phelps bastard from the Westoboro Baptist Lunatics. What ever, they're all the same.
 
2014-06-11 07:17:51 PM  

LazyMedia: Elegy: soporific: Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.

Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.

Except the fact the Men's Rights isn't an internet fad - been around since the feminist movement kicked off in fact. And the fact that Eliot Rogers had no connection to even the douchebaggiest MRA sites.

[i.imgur.com image 460x364]

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.

Ahh! A variant on the old "the patriarchy caused this so men have no right to complain" with a good dose of 'dumb men don't realize that it's the patriarchy farkin them over.'

Which makes for good pop social theory but means exactly shiat for the individual men caught up in the family court system.

Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.


And honestly, the language that guys use when they complain about how unfair the courts and their big bad ex-wives are treating them leads me to believe that there is nuance in those situations that the judge can clearly see that those men simply don't want to admit.

/frankly, it makes me feel relieved that those men in particular don't have children under their care
 
2014-06-11 07:19:46 PM  
Why doesn't this farking old twat douche just hurry up and farking die already.
 
2014-06-11 07:21:13 PM  

gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.


Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.
 
2014-06-11 07:21:21 PM  

LazyMedia: Elegy: DrBenway:

Whiners of any ilk are generally a pain in the ass, or hadn't you noticed? You're not special. You're not being singled out. You're whining and, this being Fark, you are being mocked for it. Deal with it.


[i.imgur.com image 500x320]
Please cite where I have whined about anything in this thread. Should be easy.

To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.


Yeah, but his white-knighting was more-than-a-little-bit tinged with passive-aggressive whining. Resorting to that sort of defensiveness is not an endearing quality.
 
2014-06-11 07:22:42 PM  

The My Little Pony Killer: LazyMedia: Elegy: soporific: Because People in power are Stupid: Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

If you want to know what MRA is all about, this article paints a pretty clear picture.

Oh god, you just dropped an atom bomb on this debate. Bar none, the single most authoritative source in academia today is cracked.com. How can anyone refute that.

Except the fact the Men's Rights isn't an internet fad - been around since the feminist movement kicked off in fact. And the fact that Eliot Rogers had no connection to even the douchebaggiest MRA sites.

[i.imgur.com image 460x364]

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.

Ahh! A variant on the old "the patriarchy caused this so men have no right to complain" with a good dose of 'dumb men don't realize that it's the patriarchy farkin them over.'

Which makes for good pop social theory but means exactly shiat for the individual men caught up in the family court system.

Well as long as no TRUE Scotsman is into the pickup artist scene, or the anti-pickup artist scene, or hangs out slagging women on MRA websites, then I guess they're OK. You want to help fathers get custody in family court, fine. Seems like that would be a Father's Rights movement, and it would have absolutely nothing to say about feminism, unlike 99 percent of the pro-MRA posts on here. Most of the guys I see biatching about family court are just mad that they have to pay child support for kids they don't want.

And honestly, the language that guys use when they complain about how unfair the courts and their big bad ex-wives are treating them leads me to believe that there is nuance in those situations that the judge can clearly see that those men simply don't want to admit.

/frankly, it makes me feel relieved that those men in particular don't have children under their care


So you base the ability to childcare on "language" people use. Change the sex on your statement and read it again. It sounds pretty funny.

MRA haters are just as funny to listen to as actual MRA's.
 
2014-06-11 07:23:30 PM  

freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."


Okay.  Well that is reasonable.
 
2014-06-11 07:24:47 PM  

Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.


Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."
 
2014-06-11 07:25:42 PM  

unchellmatt: This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.


I must have missed those.
 
2014-06-11 07:25:45 PM  

fusillade762: jst3p: A thread with gun issues and gender equality issues. This could be epic, it's already chalk full of doucebags.

Chalk? And this is the second time in as many days that I've seen someone use "doucebags".


The latter was a typo, the former was ignorance. I will not make that mistake again. Thanks!
 
2014-06-11 07:27:40 PM  

fusillade762: unchellmatt: This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.

I must have missed those.


I think we are better people for missing those.
 
2014-06-11 07:28:42 PM  

Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.


No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"
 
2014-06-11 07:32:50 PM  

aagrajag: I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?



Well, there's a limit to how much I know about the whole MRA thing.  For the most part I just ignore them.  So perhaps someone who knows more can comment, or maybe even someone who considers himself (or herself) and MRA can comment without coming across as having a seizure while posting.  But to take a stab at it, there are two reasons.

First, because "MRA" is a self-applied label.  You can post what you think about women's rights and other people will label you a feminist (or not a feminist) based on their criteria of what makes someone feminist (or not).  Of course you CAN label yourself a feminist (and many people do), but you may well find that other people assign you the title whether or not you want it or think it's fair.  Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"  You take it upon yourself.  That makes it more of a personal choice to identify with the group, which increases your responsibility for being associated with that group, and entitles other people to make judgments about you based on your association with that group, moreso than with some other ideologies, such as feminism.

(Of course I could be wrong about this, but you'd have to demonstrate it by giving an example of someone who was labeled a MRA without ever claiming the title himself first.)

Second, MRA has a pretty tight focus, whereas "feminism" is a broad category.  There are many different "waves" of feminism, with any number of issues that they disgree on.  Pornography is one example: there are some feminists who think porn is inherently misogynistic or anti-women, and on the other hand, there are "sex-positive" feminists who think porn is empowering.  And because it's such a broad field, it's very hard to say much about feminists as a whole that it's a grossly unfair stereotype.

The same is much less true, so far as I know, about MRAs because of their narrower focus.  There seem to be a few key ideas that all MRAs agree on, and because anyone who doesn't subscribe to those doctrines doesn't get to count himself (or herself) as an MRA, it's fair to hold all MRAs accountable for those specific points.
 
2014-06-11 07:34:03 PM  

unchellmatt: Me:

[web.mit.edu image 330x182]

This thread:

[web.mit.edu image 841x692]
[web.mit.edu image 625x468]

This is almost as much fun as the old Dickwolf threads.


You're a half black half white child molester with a Peter Pan complex?
img.fark.net
 
2014-06-11 07:34:52 PM  

timujin: Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.

No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"


In response to your first paragraph:

...Anyway.

In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.
 
2014-06-11 07:36:35 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: I've actually read quite a bit of Womynist literature.


I'm reminded of the exchange from A Fish Called Wanda.

"MRA's don't read feminist literature!"
"Yes, they do, BPIPAS.  They just don't understand it."
 
2014-06-11 07:40:57 PM  

jst3p: Empty H: Can we get the legal representative of the Feminist and the legal representative of the MRA in this thread please. I don't really know what is going on.

Here is a funny "debate" between a feminist and an aspiring MRA

[i.imgur.com image 850x615]


Holy shiatballs.
 
2014-06-11 07:41:36 PM  

Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."


Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!
 
2014-06-11 07:43:06 PM  

spamdog: Where the hell did all these guys come from, anyway? What did they do before this MRA stuff blew up?


Before, their privilege and opinions were unchallenged.  99% of society at least passively supported their thoughts and feelings.

Now people are actually calling them out on their bullshiat, and they don't like it.
 
2014-06-11 07:44:02 PM  

Theaetetus: Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."

Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!


I try to think that people just get caught up in an argument and miss some stuff. I have hope for people.
 
2014-06-11 07:45:04 PM  

Empty H: timujin: Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.

No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"

In response to your first paragraph:

...Anyway.

In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.


So your contention is that if you see someone kicked in the shin, then you personally feel pain?  To quote, well, you, "...Anyway."

Fine, I won't bother with metaphor, I'll simply restate.  The headline was about "MRA douche-bloggers", not even in whole, but only as part of a larger joke.  Dude #1 took serious offense and then came into the thread and made a big scene about how MRA's were being persecuted by feminists.  I pointed out that he was overreacting and he ramped up his "I'm the victim here" posts.  Dude #2 got involved and I pointed out, using a metaphor, that if the headline wasn't about Dude #1, then he shouldn't be acting offended by it.  You stuck your nose into the middle of a conversation because you didn't understand what I was talking about.  My analogy had relevance to the discussion I was having with Dude #2, not to the contents of the link the headline referred to.
 
2014-06-11 07:45:24 PM  

freewill: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

This. There was nothing wrong with his answer, although I can understand how it could be misunderstood.

He said the kid shouldn't get his father arrested, but that he should tell mom that his father's actions are terrifying him and that she needs to get help for him, because this is serious and he could kill easily her. He's absolutely right that the kid should not be the one calling the police, because next thing you do, dad could be killing that kid, and it's a farked up decision for a kid to have to make anyway. This is squarely grownup territory.

/ Although the kid should call the cops if a supportive conversation with mom won't get her to wake the fark up.


I'm fine with saying "You should try other things before calling the cops."  So long as you're prepared to tell the kid that calling the cops IS the right thing to do if other means fail.
 
2014-06-11 07:46:12 PM  

if_i_really_have_to: spamdog: Where the hell did all these guys come from, anyway? What did they do before this MRA stuff blew up?

Before, their privilege and opinions were unchallenged.  99% of society at least passively supported their thoughts and feelings.

Now people are actually calling them out on their bullshiat, and they don't like it.


As with everything in life, everyone involved holds some of the blame.
 
2014-06-11 07:46:31 PM  

Empty H: In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.


The key word is "empathy," isn't it?  While I agree with most of what I've read of his comments in the thread, his analogy doesn't allow for empathy. Either that, or else more information is needed about the person who was kicked in the shin and the circumstance of the shin-kicking. But as a simple parallel the way he's stated it, it doesn't strike me as being a good one.
 
2014-06-11 07:46:33 PM  

ciberido: Because People in power are Stupid: Here's a picture of the submitter:

[thepigmancometh.com image 200x266]

Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality.

Example one: Make False claims about what Men's Rights are about.

Your lies are tiresome.  Try some new material.


All it takes is more than one feminist to think they have that monopoly and then make false claims about MRAs for him to be right. Two feminists in all of feminism living up to his statement makes it correct. I'd say that's highly likely. So instead of accusing him of lying maybe you should be saying

#notallfeminists

/disclaimer: Because People in power are Stupid must have a whole lot more power than I'd give him credit for based on his posts
 
2014-06-11 07:47:29 PM  

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.


Your statement is only sort of true and only sort of true if you restrict it to family courts since 1910, when family courts basically came into existence.

Before that, when custody issues came before the court, so called  patriarchal ideas about gender roles ruled in favor of the father for a very long time and then swung with the growing feminist movement to be in favor of the mother.

So in fact, in truth, you are actually completely wrong on the history and in your claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_court

Now however, your statement is very truthy.

It is feminist groups, not fathers rights groups, who time and again lobby against shared custody and lobby to retain primary custody systems and other laws that favor the mother.

http://www.nomas.org/node/244
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1po78q/do_you_think_fe mi nists_should_support_a/


A very prominent 2nd wave feminist, Karen DeCrow died just this week. She was a strong proponent of shared custody.

But she was just about the last one. That was 1977.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow- la st-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies

I gather from your comments here you think you know quite a bit about a father's rights movement, based on comments and posts you read on the net, but I actually don't think you've done much research. Many of your opinions seem shaped by cant, not by historical fact, reasoning, or reading into what the Father's Rights groups have to say.

I would greatly encourage you to place the national parents organization blog on your feed list.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog

Here are some other interesting blogs you might wish to read:

http://www.dadsrights.org/  - written by Anne Mitchell, attorney

http://parentalalienationsupport.com/

http://sometimesdaddiescry.blogspot.com/

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/author/barbara-kay/
 
2014-06-11 07:51:55 PM  

ciberido: Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"


First "guys cant pee while hard" and now this. Just stop. You have no idea. I've been called MRA for saying I've never raped anyone. It's one of the first things people pull on you when you acknowledge any type of female privilege whatsoever.
 
2014-06-11 07:52:21 PM  

timujin: Empty H: timujin: Empty H: Did I say if someone kicks someone in the shin don't say, "hey, don't kick people in the shin"? No, I said don't complain about the pain. The headline was about "douche-bloggers". Unless you or the other dude are "douche-bloggers" there's no reason for you to take offense at the headline. Are you a "douche-blogger"?

Really? I try to point out how your argument is invalid and you insinuate that I am a "douche-blogger". Out of all the ways you could have responded you chose that one. That is really sad.

I actually wasn't on either side of the argument but just wanted to point out that your argument of "If someone kicks you in the shin, complain about the pain. If someone kicks someone else in the shin, don't." makes no sense. But I am sure you already know that. Your attack on me shows that you know it doesn't make any sense.

I wasn't attacking you or your position, I was trying to give you a chance to say it a different way.

No, I did not insinuate anything, I asked you a question.   I assumed the answer to the question would be "no, I'm not a douche-blogger", which means that the headline wasn't about you.  That was my point.  If the guy who was all up in arms about the headline isn't a "douche-blogger" then he doesn't have a reason to be offended by it.  I am not sure how you failed to comprehend that.

The earlier comment about shins was made to evoke the same meaning. "If it's not about you, why are you taking offense?" restated metaphorically as "If you weren't the one kicked in the shins, why are you complaining about the pain?"

In response to your first paragraph:

...Anyway.

In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.

So your contention is that if you see someone kicked in the shin, then you personally feel pain?  To quote, well, you, "...Anyway."

Fine, I won't bother with metaphor, I'll simply restate.  The headline was about "MRA douche-bloggers", not even in whole, but only as part of a larger joke.  Dude #1 took serious offense and then came into the thread and made a big scene about how MRA's were being persecuted by feminists.  I pointed out that he was overreacting and he ramped up his "I'm the victim here" posts.  Dude #2 got involved and I pointed out, using a metaphor, that if the headline wasn't about Dude #1, then he shouldn't be acting offended by it.  You stuck your nose into the middle of a conversation because you didn't understand what I was talking about.  My analogy had relevance to the discussion I was having with Dude #2, not to the contents of the link the headline referred to.


You were having a public conversation and I pointed out that your metaphor was incorrect. I had assumed you understood the basic idea of empathy, and that you also had empathy for other humans, and maybe you were trying to say something else. It is now obvious that my assumption, possibly even both, were wrong.
 
2014-06-11 07:52:23 PM  

LazyMedia: To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.


DrBenway: Yeah, but his white-knighting was more-than-a-little-bit tinged with passive-aggressive whining. Resorting to that sort of defensiveness is not an endearing quality.


Please cite where I have white knighted anyone in this thread. This one should also be easy.

Oh, and passive aggressive? How the fark have I been passive aggressive?

Denigrating your opponents by attempting to emasculate them: whining, defensiveness, passive-aggressiveness - nice!

Look, I get it: any man that has the audacity to say "hey, this might just be unfair" is no man at all, right? Men are stoic, and tough. We don't complain, so any man that does is obviously no man.

Tell me more about those patriarchal gender roles I've heard so much about, because you guys seem to be applying a full court press of them at them moment.
 
2014-06-11 07:54:17 PM  

Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."


Except he DID say that the kids shouldn't call the cops and get dad busted. It should be left to Mommy to deal with it.
 
2014-06-11 07:56:48 PM  

DrBenway: Empty H: In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.

The key word is "empathy," isn't it?  While I agree with most of what I've read of his comments in the thread, his analogy doesn't allow for empathy. Either that, or else more information is needed about the person who was kicked in the shin and the circumstance of the shin-kicking. But as a simple parallel the way he's stated it, it doesn't strike me as being a good one.


It was intended as a parallel to getting offended because of a joke made about a group that doesn't include you, not about the topic the thread is actually about.  However, sine the topic is about someone having issue with something happening to someone else, I can understand the confusion.
 
2014-06-11 08:00:17 PM  

Theaetetus: Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."

Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!


That was what I referencing, yes.  Thank you.
 
2014-06-11 08:00:42 PM  

Empty H: You were having a public conversation and I pointed out that your metaphor was incorrect. I had assumed you understood the basic idea of empathy, and that you also had empathy for other humans, and maybe you were trying to say something else. It is now obvious that my assumption, possibly even both, were wrong.


Using a situation that involved pain was not the ideal metaphor, especially considering the actual topic of the thread.
 
2014-06-11 08:04:58 PM  

aagrajag: timujin: Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.

You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

No.

If you were a black man, and there were to appear a headline including the phrase "negro gangbangers", would you not be somewhat annoyed at the co-location of a highly negative adjective with a perfectly benign one? It's a deliberately insulting conflation.


and the best way to counter it is to come into a thread like this and act like an MRA douche-blogger?
 
2014-06-11 08:07:16 PM  

timujin: Empty H: You were having a public conversation and I pointed out that your metaphor was incorrect. I had assumed you understood the basic idea of empathy, and that you also had empathy for other humans, and maybe you were trying to say something else. It is now obvious that my assumption, possibly even both, were wrong.

Using a situation that involved pain was not the ideal metaphor, especially considering the actual topic of the thread.


This is probably going to sound way too "feely" but that is seriously all I was trying to say. I had you Favorited and thus expected better.

Okay, so um, how about that local sports team.
 
2014-06-11 08:14:26 PM  

Elegy: LazyMedia: To be fair, you were white-knighting a whiner, not actually whining. But Jesus, HE was whining.

DrBenway: Yeah, but his white-knighting was more-than-a-little-bit tinged with passive-aggressive whining. Resorting to that sort of defensiveness is not an endearing quality.

Please cite where I have white knighted anyone in this thread. This one should also be easy.

Oh, and passive aggressive? How the fark have I been passive aggressive?

Denigrating your opponents by attempting to emasculate them: whining, defensiveness, passive-aggressiveness - nice!

Look, I get it: any man that has the audacity to say "hey, this might just be unfair" is no man at all, right? Men are stoic, and tough. We don't complain, so any man that does is obviously no man.

Tell me more about those patriarchal gender roles I've heard so much about, because you guys seem to be applying a full court press of them at them moment.


Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.
 
2014-06-11 08:22:16 PM  

Relatively Obscure: D) No one?


This.  Pat Robertson says plenty of things we can legitimately biatch about without needing to make shiat up.  You suck, Subby.

/you don't help by making shiat up, because when someone else points out that your complaint is made up, even those making legitimate complaints lose credibility
 
2014-06-11 08:26:26 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.


It's also emotionally damaging to be the kid who sent daddy to jail.  I'm not snarking; I want you to consider how that's going to scar a child, because you known damn well that is how the kid is going to internalize it.  I don't agree with Pat Robertson about much, but I don't think it was bad advice to tell the kid: go tell your mother that you're scared and something needs to change.
 
2014-06-11 08:28:38 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-11 08:29:00 PM  

Because People in power are Stupid: They also have been known to pull fire alarms to prevent anyone from discussing gender equality.


I remember seeing that youtube video.  It just made me want to listen to the guy more.  I mean, if what he was going to say was going to be so bad, they wouldn't NEED to shout him down.
 
2014-06-11 08:45:35 PM  

DrBenway: Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.


Uh, dude, the sum of your arguments here amount to: he's whining, he's white knighting a whiner, he's passive aggressive.

I have directly challenged you to show where I have done any of the above in this thread. The words are right there on the screen.

You're response: "lalala stop typing"

Truly, you are a master debater.
 
2014-06-11 08:51:10 PM  

Theaetetus: Empty H: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Mikey1969: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

Yeah, you know what? It's OK for the kid to call the cops, especially if the father is threatening the mother at that time. Jesus, to listen to you and Pat, the kid should step up in the middle of the altercation to give Mommy the phone so that SHE can dial 911.

Also, you haven't known people who end up in destructive co-dependent relationships, have you?

You may have wanted to keep reading a few posts after that.

Why? Did it turn out th at someone else was posting as you and supporting Pat? That sux, you should probably log out when you walk away from the computer if that's an issue.

Pretty sure she was talking about this:

"Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.  There are plenty of reasons Pat Robertson's an asshole without doing that."

Maybe Mikey thinks that counts as supporting Pat? You know, if you can't criticize 100% of what someone does or says, then you must support them 100%, everything is a complete dichotomy, us vs. them, go team, rah rah rah!


Sorry, but trying to claim that he didn't say that is utter bullshiat.

He says "You don't want to get your father busted"

He says the daughter should 'take the discussion to her mother' to tell her it scares her.

Finally, he says the "mother" should take care of it.

So I'm still not sure how he didn't say that. It's exactly what he said "don't call the cops on daddy, mommy will just have to figure it out on her own".
 
2014-06-11 08:52:40 PM  

Elegy: DrBenway: Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.

Uh, dude, the sum of your arguments here amount to: he's whining, he's white knighting a whiner, he's passive aggressive.

I have directly challenged you to show where I have done any of the above in this thread. The words are right there on the screen.

You're response: "lalala stop typing"

Truly, you are a master debater.


He or she actually hasn't made any "arguments". He or she has only engaged in name calling and dismissals.

I have no idea why DrBenway thinks what I wrote is addle brained and she or he did not bother to explain why to us, but most likely could not explain why.

Nevertheless, I am confident DrBenway feels she or he has unlocked "Master of Thread" accomplishments.

Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.
 
2014-06-11 08:54:35 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-11 08:56:35 PM  

brimed03: Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.

It's also emotionally damaging to be the kid who sent daddy to jail.  I'm not snarking; I want you to consider how that's going to scar a child, because you known damn well that is how the kid is going to internalize it.  I don't agree with Pat Robertson about much, but I don't think it was bad advice to tell the kid: go tell your mother that you're scared and something needs to change.


I don't think anyone is arguing with that. The point that's being made though, best I can tell, is that there are intances in which the mother is not just physically battered but psychologically battered, sometimes quite severely. That can result in a sort of paralysis where they can't do much of anything no matter whether they want to or not. You hear a lot about "fight or flight" but less about the third "F": freeze. That's the circumstance that I'm picturing anyway, and I'm not seeing how it's right to hold that against the mother in that case.
 
2014-06-11 09:22:05 PM  

timujin: DrBenway: Empty H: In response to your second paragraph:

When someone else is in pain it is common human empathy to feel that pain and want to do something about it. Your assertion that your shin analogy had relevance to this topic is incorrect. I had assumed you meant something else and was wanting to understand what you were actually trying to say.

The key word is "empathy," isn't it?  While I agree with most of what I've read of his comments in the thread, his analogy doesn't allow for empathy. Either that, or else more information is needed about the person who was kicked in the shin and the circumstance of the shin-kicking. But as a simple parallel the way he's stated it, it doesn't strike me as being a good one.

It was intended as a parallel to getting offended because of a joke made about a group that doesn't include you, not about the topic the thread is actually about.  However, sine the topic is about someone having issue with something happening to someone else, I can understand the confusion.


Got it. No problem.
 
2014-06-11 09:23:40 PM  
At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.
 
2014-06-11 09:26:08 PM  

HideAndGoFarkYourself: freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."

So, the lesson to the kid is that it's not his responsibility to report criminal behavior?  I agree, the mom SHOULD be the one reporting it.  That it's happened more than once is pretty ...



This exactly what he said.

Well again, you dont want to get your father busted but you could, uhmm you know, umm.
What do you mean?
Well misuse of a firearm.
You ought to go to your mother and say "mom this thing is scaring me and and I I'ah
will ask you please to get my fa, father to have some help."
This is the kind of *incomprehensible* I mean one day he is going to pull the trigger
It doesnt take too much if you have got a loaded weapon that you are brandishing
around.
I'm gonna kill you and the next thing you know the thing goes off, maybe accidently but you mother winds up dead
You are a kid, what are you going to do? Your mother ought to take care of that.


Since you don't understand english I will explain what this sentence implies.
"Well again, you dont want to get your father busted but you could, uhmm you know, umm."

Lets break this sentence down, "Well again", this is in reference to a previous remark he said.

"you dont want to get your father busted but you could", from this you get what he was talking about in past, about turning people in, probably in a previous question.  Instead of saying exactly what he probably said before, "but you could" as in you could call the police.  Since he has gone down this road before he cites the previous solution quickly, because he figures people have been watching his show remember the last few minutes of the show.  Then he gives an alternative solution because turning your dad in sucks, and if they could actually do it, they would have done it already.  The obvious solution is obvious, the *kid* that posed this question wanted an alternative solution to calling the cops on his Dad.

Please stop commenting until your brain fully matures. (this may never happen)  Actually I am totally kidding please continue, your dumbness makes life so colorful.
 
2014-06-11 09:27:52 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.


^^^ ^^^^
OMG this! (thanks Bathia_Mapes)

Yes - its incredibly hurtful to the kids (and their future relationships) to see that behavior continue.
 
2014-06-11 09:28:47 PM  
Oh oh oh, I know it...it's the SCOTUS in the Castle Rock V, Gonzales case
 
2014-06-11 09:31:36 PM  

RoyBatty: Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.


Too true. I'd be much more impressed if anybody would brings anything to the table besides the old, tired, whining trope.

How's life been? Haven't seen you around since the Eliot Rogers thing, but then again I haven't been around much.

fusillade762: At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.


Works for anything loony radfem too. It helped that subby was a liar and most people - with the exception of a few holdouts - came to the conclusion that Robertson's advice was actually rather reasonable, all things considered.
Once you realize TFA is pretty boring, what else is there to talk about besides people's naughty parts?
 
2014-06-11 09:32:05 PM  

jst3p: On this note some are coming around. I have 50/50 custody in Colorado and I didn't have to fight for it, the court are more accepting of recent research that shows that kids can thrive in a situation where they have two homes if it is done properly. Logistics can be tricky and getting along with the ex can be trying but it can work.


i know your story, and I bet you know at least some of mine, but I have never seen a situation where one of the parents got full custody, no matter how many claims there were of domestic violence or drug abuse. This went out years ago. In any divorce that i've been aware of for most of my life, custody is split. And I've done a few rounds (years) in family court. If the parents move apart, usually one parent gets the kids for the school year, then the other gets them during the summer. If they live close to each other, the old "Wednesday night and every other weekend" applies for the non-custodial parent. This is the standard write-up for a custody order, I saw it from every lawyer I ever met, and it didn't vary much. The idea is that the kids need to be in one home during the school week, it's better for them.

But here's the thing: you aren't required to stick with the custody order to the letter, if you can work something else out. That is just the minimum required. If you're still on speaking terms with the ex, you all can work out anything you want. Swap the kids every single school night, if you can deal with each other. In fact, if you can trick your ex into giving you more and more time, you can then petition the courts to let you have that custody officially. Jst3p might know a little about that one.

Now, probably a man will have trouble getting primary custody still, but think about it, guys--before you split, who took care of the kids most of the time? It may have been you--maybe your ex-wife is a coke fiend who lives down at the bar--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids.

You know why MRAs are so loud and strident about their rights being denied? BECAUSE THEY'RE MEN. That's what men do. I have yet to see this overwhelming bias against men having any custodial rights. Women get farked over just as often as men do. We just don't go on a shooting spree over it.
/Now make sure and tell me about your MAN friend who was totally screwed.
//I was screwed worse. Spare me.
 
2014-06-11 09:37:10 PM  

nanim: Bathia_Mapes: gamergirl23: Not to defend this douche, but he said it's something the mother should deal with, not the children, and that something needed to be done about the father, at least implying that the mother should be the one to call the cops.

What if the mother doesn't do after being repeatedly abused and/or threatened by her husband? Are the children supposed to watch daddy mistreating & threatening their mother and take no action?

Is it emotionally damaging to a child to see and hear one parent mistreating the other.

^^^ ^^^^
OMG this! (thanks Bathia_Mapes)

Yes - its incredibly hurtful to the kids (and their future relationships) to see that behavior continue.


I don't know, what would be the alternative? Robertson is pointing the "kid" - and I say that in the same sense that penthouse forum publishes "true stories" - to the seemingly only trusted adult in his or her life.

As someone pointed out, the emotional scarring of sending your daddy to jail and having your co-dependent mommy hate you for it is also rather large.

As someone else pointed out, the potential danger from abusive daddy when abusive daddy realized kid just called the cop on him is also not inconsequential.

There are no perfect answers here. "Go tell your mom that this scares you and she needs to make it stop" is not a bad answer, or at least a less bad answer, than many others he could have given.
 
2014-06-11 09:38:57 PM  

cryinoutloud: jst3p: snip--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids. ...


cdn.pophangover.com
 
2014-06-11 09:41:07 PM  

cryinoutloud: jst3p: On this note some are coming around. I have 50/50 custody in Colorado and I didn't have to fight for it, the court are more accepting of recent research that shows that kids can thrive in a situation where they have two homes if it is done properly. Logistics can be tricky and getting along with the ex can be trying but it can work.

i know your story, and I bet you know at least some of mine, but I have never seen a situation where one of the parents got full custody, no matter how many claims there were of domestic violence or drug abuse. This went out years ago. In any divorce that i've been aware of for most of my life, custody is split. And I've done a few rounds (years) in family court. If the parents move apart, usually one parent gets the kids for the school year, then the other gets them during the summer. If they live close to each other, the old "Wednesday night and every other weekend" applies for the non-custodial parent. This is the standard write-up for a custody order, I saw it from every lawyer I ever met, and it didn't vary much. The idea is that the kids need to be in one home during the school week, it's better for them.

But here's the thing: you aren't required to stick with the custody order to the letter, if you can work something else out. That is just the minimum required. If you're still on speaking terms with the ex, you all can work out anything you want. Swap the kids every single school night, if you can deal with each other. In fact, if you can trick your ex into giving you more and more time, you can then petition the courts to let you have that custody officially. Jst3p might know a little about that one.

Now, probably a man will have trouble getting primary custody still, but think about it, guys--before you split, who took care of the kids most of the time? It may have been you--maybe your ex-wife is a coke fiend who lives down at the bar--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids. ...


Well I kind of know your story, and I have always sympathized, and no women don't shoot up their kids, sometimes they drown them, sometimes they repeatedly run over the father, and yes, whoops, sometimes they do shoot them down dead.

https://www.google.com/search?espv=2&q=woman+shoots+her+children
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2014/05/05/schenecker-julie-opening-sta te ments-murder-trial-florida

The standard deal, the every other weekend and Wednesday nights is a horror show ,and encourages the custodial parent to chip away at the hours on Wednesday, and the drop off time on Friday and the pick up time on Sunday, and offer the kids a chance to go to a football game if they ask their dad for permission to go to that football game on his Saturday but they have to ask, or a birthday party, or a shopping trip to the mall, and how often can Dad really say "no"?

You may not see the bias, but it's there. It's there in how quickly courts and states and police act against parents who do not pay custody, but how they make parents whose custody is being interfered with file a suit in civil court on their own dime and wait months and months and pay for attorneys and court psychs and delays and delays and literally years go by and nothing has been done to enforce custody.

And while in your scenario, mom was dealing with the kids? Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head.
 
2014-06-11 09:45:28 PM  

Elegy: RoyBatty: Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.

Too true. I'd be much more impressed if anybody would brings anything to the table besides the old, tired, whining trope.

How's life been? Haven't seen you around since the Eliot Rogers thing, but then again I haven't been around much.


As FARK gets more polarized, I visit less often too. We used to be able to have these discussions and they were discussions. Now everyone leaps to be the first to play the troll/whiner/whatever card.

The interesting discussions come up when Mikey1969 and cryinoutloud and other people reveal personal experiences -- those are real, give one pause and make one think -- and then the discussions are shutdown with cries of MRA!!, Feminazi!! and other kind of bullshiat.
 
2014-06-11 09:47:52 PM  

timujin: aagrajag: timujin: Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.

Toughen up men. Just suck it up and take it. You don't need to voice your opinion when you see something you think is unfair. You're a man. Be a man. Be tough.

Just suck it up, you crybaby.

You realize that by taking my point that what this gue has written in this thread makes him come off as someone with a fetish for victimization and write what you do, you're actually doing the same thing, right?  Making it seem like everything is about you and that you're the "real victim" here?

He's not talking about inequality, he's taking a joke and making himself a martyr.  Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.  If you don't realize that, you haven't been on Fark long enough.

No.

If you were a black man, and there were to appear a headline including the phrase "negro gangbangers", would you not be somewhat annoyed at the co-location of a highly negative adjective with a perfectly benign one? It's a deliberately insulting conflation.

and the best way to counter it is to come into a thread like this and act like an MRA douche-blogger?


There are some people here who are Not Helping, 'tis true, but the objection itself is quite valid.
 
2014-06-11 09:48:16 PM  

RoyBatty: Elegy: DrBenway: Uh, dude... maybe just stop typing?

Unless this is some sort of performance art, that is, in which case I enthusiastically applaud your efforts.

Uh, dude, the sum of your arguments here amount to: he's whining, he's white knighting a whiner, he's passive aggressive.

I have directly challenged you to show where I have done any of the above in this thread. The words are right there on the screen.

You're response: "lalala stop typing"

Truly, you are a master debater.

He or she actually hasn't made any "arguments". He or she has only engaged in name calling and dismissals.

I have no idea why DrBenway thinks what I wrote is addle brained and she or he did not bother to explain why to us, but most likely could not explain why.

Nevertheless, I am confident DrBenway feels she or he has unlocked "Master of Thread" accomplishments.

Such is FARK, such is modern day Internet fora.


To me, anyway, your little checklist was eminently dismissible, for the reasons I noted, albeit less than diplomatically, and for that I apologize. That "Because" guy (the one who Elegy totally wasn't white-knighting) had already made me edgy and you caught some of the spillover. Again, sorry about that. Anyway, each one of those brief scenarios you offered present a substantial number of variables that influence any "yes" or "no" response to them. Do you really see them as being straightforwardly black and white, purely this way or that?

As far as the other fellow goes, everything he has typed in this thread exemplifies the basis of my complaints, hence the bolding of his entire comment in the last instance. Short of repeating every single remark he's made, that was to me a fine example of what I had observed. Being defensive and thin-skinned is a pretty good way to attract responses that one might not like, and their apparent lack of self-awareness doesn't help matters. Given where he appears to stand on the root issue here, there is no small irony to that. "How I am not self-aware? Show me where I'm not self-aware!" I can hear it now...

Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
 
2014-06-11 09:50:31 PM  

Elegy: timujin: If you're trying to make those who support it seem like victimized crybabies, you've succeeded.

That's right. Talking about any inequality you face makes you sound like a victimized, whiny crybaby.


No.  But the pathetically-obvious straw-man you've just built DOES make you sound like a whiny crybaby.

I don't think anyone outside of your imagination denies that some of the points MRAs make are legitimate concerns.  Domestic abuse and child custody are two areas where there are biases in the court system (and in law enforcement) that need to be addressed.

But, even with that, there are two major problems.  First, these are the very positions on which the MRAs and most feminists agree.  So there would be no need for a "MRA movement" if domestic violence and child custody were all that the "men's rights movement" was about --- you could just become a feminist.

Second, the majority of what "men's rights" seem to be about are aversion and distrust of women, or a desire to preserve as much as possible the inequalities and injustices that feminists are trying to fight.  So the few good points they have are buried under a toxic brew of resentment, hostility, and a selfish desire to preserve injustice, which makes all claims to be FOR justice seem like risible hypocrisy.

In short, put your house in order, get rid of the toxic resentment and childish complaints about how evil women are, and then people will start to take the men's rights movement seriously.
 
2014-06-11 09:51:02 PM  
If the kid is old enough to reach out to Pat Robertson for advice, the kid is old enough to call the cops, go to a neighbors house, or tell a teacher. Advising the kid to talk to mom sounds like a great way to guilt Mom into confronting Dad, and possibly getting herself shot in the process. Her blase attitude is a defense mechanism to avoid provoking Dad any further. And if Daddy shoots Mommy, continuing the job by offing the kids, then himself is entirely within the realm of possibility.

Nowhere does Pat suggest that maybe the kid being removed from the home, regardless of what Mommy does, might be a good idea for the health and well-being of the kids?
 
2014-06-11 10:00:01 PM  
Came for the MRA butthurt. Left satisfied.
 
2014-06-11 10:06:42 PM  

RoyBatty: Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head.


Well, that's the thing. I mean, talking about custody, rates really haven't changed in the past 20 years. I know you're a well read guy, so here's some some source material from the census bureau for you

At table 1, the proportion of custodial mothers in 1995 to custodial fathers in 2009 remained largely the same: 11,000,000 mothers to 2,000,000 fathers. So actually, men aren't receiving custody more often.

Family courts are also about more than custody of course. Table 2 shows that only 30% of men received child support, while almost 55% of women received child support. Men are also better at paying: only 34% of men received all child support payments while 42% of women received all child support - the proportion of out and out deadbeats was roughly the same between genders, with 27% of men never receiving any payments versus 29% of women. And on page 5, custodial mothers were more likely to not work than custodial fathers, and were more than twice as likely to be on some form of government assistance.

RoyBatty: As FARK gets more polarized, I visit less often too. We used to be able to have these discussions and they were discussions. Now everyone leaps to be the first to play the troll/whiner/whatever card.

The interesting discussions come up when Mikey1969 and cryinoutloud and other people reveal personal experiences -- those are real, give one pause and make one think -- and then the discussions are shutdown with cries of MRA!!, Feminazi!! and other kind of bullshiat.


I know right? It's not even that it makes me mad, it's just so damn boring and unoriginal. I don't care if someone disagrees with me, but the same 3 lines over and over again, with no room for actual discussion.... Yawn.
 
2014-06-11 10:08:35 PM  

DrBenway: Do you really see them as being straightforwardly black and white, purely this way or that?


With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.

The child is a child.
The adult is an adult.

While there is an unhinged person running around with a gun, I would never suggest the child call the cops except as a last resort. I would suggest try and leave the house and find a neighbor and have them call the police.

The child is a child.
The adult is an adult.
The person with the gun has ran around several times with a gun.

When the incident is over, I would still not suggest the child go first to the cops. The child should be directed to find an authority figure. Mom, a neighbor, or a teacher.

It truly is Mom's responsibility to protect her child when Dad is going off with the gun.

NOTHING, absolutely nothing in the scenario suggests mom is so battered she cannot act. That is what you and others are putting on top of the situation, and in doing so, you make the child responsible for the mother.

But the child is a child.
The parent is an adult.

Given what we are told, I see no reason to think the default position must be that mother is helpless and psychologically battered to the point that AFTER the attack she cannot go to the police.  That may indeed be a possibility, but that is what you have to hitch your argument to in order to morally justify telling a child to become responsible for the mother.

And I suspect it is a sexist belief on your part that takes you in that direction.

If the situation was reversed, and there are many fathers who physically do fear for their safety and their children's safety from abusive mothers, we would sympathize with the father, but we would tell the father it is his responsibility to get out, to call the police and make the child's environment safe.

So yes, stripped of how each of us want to project our bigotries and fears and suspicions onto the scenario, what we know is that

+ a child
+ an adult woman, the child's parent
+ were victimized by a man with a gun

And I say it is wrong to tell the child he has to be responsible for the mother before speaking to the mother first.

Telling the mother, "Dad scares me" is the right thing to do.
Telling the kid, "when this happens you must escape, and take your younger brother with you"
Telling the kid, "when this is over, let a teacher know"

Those are correct. Telling a kid to pick up a phone during a gun confrontation is idiotic and dangerous and sexist and likely to wind up with the kid dead and many other members of the family.
 
2014-06-11 10:19:47 PM  

Elegy: RoyBatty: Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head.

Well, that's the thing. I mean, talking about custody, rates really haven't changed in the past 20 years. I know you're a well read guy, so here's some some source material from the census bureau for you

At table 1, the proportion of custodial mothers in 1995 to custodial fathers in 2009 remained largely the same: 11,000,000 mothers to 2,000,000 fathers. So actually, men aren't receiving custody more often.

Family courts are also about more than custody of course. Table 2 shows that only 30% of men received child support, while almost 55% of women received child support. Men are also better at paying: only 34% of men received all child support payments while 42% of women received all child support - the proportion of out and out deadbeats was roughly the same between genders, with 27% of men never receiving any payments versus 29% of women. And on page 5, custodial mothers were more likely to not work than custodial fathers, and were more than twice as likely to be on some form of government assistance.



There's so much terrible logic at play in these discussions.

"I don't see a bias. Most men don't contest custody therefore I conclude it's reasonable for women to get custody more often".

Well, men don't contest custody for the same reason so many innocent people accept plea bargains marking them guilty.

+ Going to court is VERY VERY expensive
+ Regardless of the truth, they will probably lose

"When men go to court, they get custody 50% of the time"

+ Yes, when the very best cases go to court, when you've stripped off all the men who couldn't afford good lawyers, or haven't the documentation, and who have paid $25K to $250K or more to get to court, then at those times, it's a 50/50 chance the father might win.

All of that is indicative of bias, not indicative of no bias.

RoyBatty: As FARK gets more polarized, I visit less often too. We used to be able to have these discussions and they were discussions. Now everyone leaps to be the first to play the troll/whiner/whatever card.

The interesting discussions come up when Mikey1969 and cryinoutloud and other people reveal personal experiences -- those are real, give one pause and make one think -- and then the discussions are shutdown with cries of MRA!!, Feminazi!! and other kind of bullshiat.

I know right? It's not even that it makes me mad, it's just so damn boring and unoriginal. I don't care if someone disagrees with me, but the same 3 lines over and over again, with no room for actual discussion.... Yawn.


Exactly. Waste of time reading the same comments over and over. I visit threads that seem interesting, scan down the comments looking for either wit or insight or hopefully both, and then as soon as I see it hit a very rote and unoriginal political ad hominem blame game, I'm out. Sadly these days it seems like that's about 3 comments in on many threads.
 
2014-06-11 10:20:02 PM  

ciberido: aagrajag: I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?


Well, there's a limit to how much I know about the whole MRA thing.  For the most part I just ignore them.  So perhaps someone who knows more can comment, or maybe even someone who considers himself (or herself) and MRA can comment without coming across as having a seizure while posting.  But to take a stab at it, there are two reasons.

First, because "MRA" is a self-applied label.  You can post what you think about women's rights and other people will label you a feminist (or not a feminist) based on their criteria of what makes someone feminist (or not).  Of course you CAN label yourself a feminist (and many people do), but you may well find that other people assign you the title whether or not you want it or think it's fair.  Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"  You take it upon yourself.  That makes it more of a personal choice to identify with the group, which increases your responsibility for being associated with that group, and entitles other people to make judgments about you based on your association with that group, moreso than with some other ideologies, such as feminism.

(Of course I could be wrong about this, but you'd have to demonstrate it by giving an example of someone who was labeled a MRA without ever claiming the title himself first.)

Second, MRA has a pretty tight focus, whereas "feminism" is a broad category.  There are many different "waves" of feminism, with any number of issues that they disgree on.  Pornography is one example: there are some feminists who think porn is inherently misogynistic or anti-wom ...


I have to say that I would far rather identify myself as a humanist than an MRA, especially as the word has become poisoned of late. Many people perceive MRAs as a misogynist group of malcontents, with few real grievances because that fringe would be the ones to most loudly identify by that label.

There is a lot of confirmation bias going on these days. Perhaps we non-crazies need to start a "This is what an MRA looks like" campaign, just as feminists did before us. I very much have to admit that there are some seriously ugly undercurrents in what little I've seen of the on-line MRA communities (in which I do not participate).

I have a pet theory which states that the recent radicalization of the MRA movement is strongly tied to the bipolar nature of American politics: right and left, Dem and Repub. As feminism is largely aligned with the left, those who oppose its excesses (such as the staunch opposition to assumptive shared-parenting) will be drawn to the right, and often then poisoned with the genuine, vicious misogyny that so infects it. I've certainly read more than a few forums that bring out the Yourenothelpingjonstewart.jpg

But it's the casual dismissal of other genuine concerns that so aggrieves me: grotequely out-of-proportion rates of drop-outs, homelessness, imprisonment, workplace deaths and injuries, biased family law and courts, non-existent resources for male victims of domestic violence... none of these things affect me directly, but they hurt others. Yet somehow, the immediate assumption is that I have been personally injured by the system; that I have suffered personal injustice at the hands of feminism or some of the biased law it supports. I haven't. I'm a happy guy who was lucky enough to get to marry his best friend.

So why do I care? Because someone has to. I don't expect feminists to fight men's battles or tear down their own privileges. They advocate for their injustices; we advocate for ours. Men didn't wake up in the 1920s, slap their foreheads and exclaim: "Wow! We've been right dicks to these women who just want the vote! Here, have some franchise!" Whites didn't realise all of a sudden in the 1960s that they'd been royal assholes to black people and shower them with civil rights. Heterosexuals did not unilaterally grant marriage right to gays. Each group had to biatch and march and complain and sue over and over for redress of its grievances. And -- just like MRAs -- each group was perceived by the "other", the group that held a privilege in that area of society, not as advocating for what they deserved as equal human beings: the vote, civil right, marriage, but as wreckers of society:

"The suffragettes don't just want the vote! They want to destroy the family!"
"The black don't just want civil rights! They want to oppress the white man!"
"Gays don't just want marriage rights! They want to destroy the family (again) and turn your children gay!"

So, it is only to be expected that MRAs would get the same treatment, sad though it be.

I should also note that while I don't always agree with the *female* feminists or Fark, I can always have a rational and civil discussion with them. It always seems to be the males who step into the Limbaugh-feminazi-stereotype. They do exist, but they aren't plaid-clad, workboot-wearing, buzzcut-sporting lesbians; they're straight men. Ah, we are always our own worst enemies.

But, to those men who haven't been abused, who haven't suffered a serious injustice in family court, who haven't had the law wielded as a sword by a mentally ill woman: there is a word we use around here for people who don't care about injustice until it affects you personally:

Republicans.

//this screed is not directed at you ciberido; just had to get some things out there.
//cheers everyone, and try not to take anything too seriously that does not need to be
//also, slashies
 
2014-06-11 10:28:28 PM  

fusillade762: At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.


What the hell IS MRA anyway?

Michigan Rape Attorney? MaxioRectalAbrasions? Mars Rovers Anonymous? Mom's Rockin' Applesauce?

Whatever it is, it seems to have taken up more space on this board than if someone posted the uncut version of The Stand. ..
 
2014-06-11 10:29:25 PM  

RoyBatty: With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.


I frankly saw no reference to a video and took your checklist as something general and not referring to a specific example. Are you referring to the Robertson clip on the link? You appear to be reading a lot more into the very brief scenario they discuss and fleshing it out with a lot more details than what I heard. Is there another video you're referring to? I really don't see how you can take something so abbreviated and produce so much black-and-white absolute certainty about the circumstances from it.

Again, if there's another video or some other source you're referencing that has provided more detail, let me know.
 
2014-06-11 10:35:41 PM  

DrBenway: RoyBatty: With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.

I frankly saw no reference to a video and took your checklist as something general and not referring to a specific example. Are you referring to the Robertson clip on the link? You appear to be reading a lot more into the very brief scenario they discuss and fleshing it out with a lot more details than what I heard. Is there another video you're referring to? I really don't see how you can take something so abbreviated and produce so much black-and-white absolute certainty about the circumstances from it.

Again, if there's another video or some other source you're referencing that has provided more detail, let me know.


Yes that's the video, but I think it's the other way around. I am stripping the scenario we are given from the various interpretations that were placed on it in this thread.

All we really know is:

Mother, father, two kids, repeated incidents where father is brandishing the gun and making threats with it.

I'm out of here (gym in 26 minutes.)
 
2014-06-11 10:37:36 PM  
So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?
 
2014-06-11 10:46:26 PM  

RoyBatty: You may not see the bias, but it's there. It's there in how quickly courts and states and police act against parents who do not pay custody, but how they make parents whose custody is being interfered with file a suit in civil court on their own dime and wait months and months and pay for attorneys and court psychs and delays and delays and literally years go by and nothing has been done to enforce custody.
And while in your scenario, mom was dealing with the kids? Dad was working one or more jobs that probably sucked just trying to keep a roof over everyone's head


RoyBatty, I lived through all this. I didn't get some green card because I was a woman. Fark, I'll never recover from all the years and money I spent during that time. My son will take a lifetime to get over some of the things that were done to him. And I still lost my ass. I'll be the one working two sucky jobs just to keep a roof over my head, because I lost 20 good years to a psycho and trauma.
Now I ain't a young woman anymore, and thank god it is all over for me. I know better to bring this up around Fark. And you bet your ass that I'm a little bitter if I stop to think about it. But I don't blame MEN for any of it.

But I am still saying that I have NEVER personally seen a court case where one parent got complete custody of a kid. Wait, I take that back--I knew a man who did. His ex came into court during the final hearing and accused him of sexually abusing their kid. Their 8-month old kid. She'd never mentioned it before. Judge told her to fark off and get out of his court, and gave him full custody.
 
2014-06-11 10:54:18 PM  
Well if there's one thing I've learned about civil rights, it's that they tend to act as a pendulum.  When it leans too far to one side, the oppressed party tries to push it back in the other direction.  When it finally reaches balance and equality, a minority of said oppressed party carry its momentum and tries to push it too far, leading to the oppressors feeling oppressed, and retaliating.

Men are from Iran and Women are from Isreal.  Everybody is just retaliating for something that the other party has done.
 
2014-06-11 11:06:49 PM  

RoyBatty: LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Your statement is only sort of true and only sort of true if you restrict it to family courts since 1910, when family courts basically came into existence.

Before that, when custody issues came before the court, so called  patriarchal ideas about gender roles ruled in favor of the father for a very long time and then swung with the growing feminist movement to be in favor of the mother.

So in fact, in truth, you are actually completely wrong on the history and in your claim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_interests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tender_years_doctrine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_court

Now however, your statement is very truthy.

It is feminist groups, not fathers rights groups, who time and again lobby against shared custody and lobby to retain primary custody systems and other laws that favor the mother.

http://www.nomas.org/node/244
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists/comments/1po78q/do_you_think_fe mi nists_should_support_a/


A very prominent 2nd wave feminist, Karen DeCrow died just this week. She was a strong proponent of shared custody.

But she was just about the last one. That was 1977.

https://www.nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/21752-karen-decrow- la st-now-president-to-support-shared-parenting-dies

I gather from your comments here you think you know quite a bit about a father's rights movement, based on comments and posts you read on the net, but I actually don't think you've done much research. Many of your opinions seem shaped by cant, not by historical fact, reasoning, or reading into what the Father's Rights groups have to say.

I would greatly encourage you to place the national parents organization blog on your feed list.

https://www.nationalparentsorga ...


Yeah, don't have kids. Don't know much, or particularly care about divorced-father's rights. Think that anyone who claims that men have fewer rights than women, and need some sort of special protection is a complete idiot, and that anyone who claims biases in the system are the result of feminism must have been dropped on his head as a child.
 
2014-06-11 11:10:44 PM  
Sometimes I don't understand feminism.  One minute it's not okay to show a woman getting beaten up, because of violence against women in society, and the next minute it's not okay to *avoid* showing women getting beaten up, because it implies that you think that women are a weaker species who have no place getting in fights.
 
2014-06-11 11:12:09 PM  

timujin: Thing is, the joke should only be offensive to "MRA douche-bloggers".  Are you one?  If not, why be offended?  Are you suggesting there are no such people?  Every group has assholes.


I guess the question is whether you think "MRA douche-bloggers" is implying that ALL MRAs are douche-bloggers or whether it's merely referring to those MRAs who are also douche-bloggers.  If the former, then it's insulting every MRA in the world.  The term is a bit ambiguous, but it's possible to be offended by it without being an MRA douche-blogger yourself.
 
2014-06-11 11:13:35 PM  
img.fark.net

"Are you saying that men and women are identical?"
"Oh, no, of course not! Women are unique in every way."
"Now he's saying men and women  aren't equal!"
"No, no, no! It's the differences of which there are none that makes the sameness exceptional. Just tell me what to say!"
 
2014-06-11 11:16:35 PM  

RoyBatty: DrBenway: RoyBatty: With what we are given in the video, I think it boils down to what I laid out.

I frankly saw no reference to a video and took your checklist as something general and not referring to a specific example. Are you referring to the Robertson clip on the link? You appear to be reading a lot more into the very brief scenario they discuss and fleshing it out with a lot more details than what I heard. Is there another video you're referring to? I really don't see how you can take something so abbreviated and produce so much black-and-white absolute certainty about the circumstances from it.

Again, if there's another video or some other source you're referencing that has provided more detail, let me know.

Yes that's the video, but I think it's the other way around. I am stripping the scenario we are given from the various interpretations that were placed on it in this thread.

All we really know is:

Mother, father, two kids, repeated incidents where father is brandishing the gun and making threats with it.

I'm out of here (gym in 26 minutes.)


Well... that certainly simplifies things I suppose. Seems like a pretty good way to get it wrong though. That leaves out way too much information that would influence the making of a useful judgment, and I'm not seeing how you can go on so much and for so long with such surety, given so little to work with. There are various interpretations because there is so much missing information that would influence any sort of capable assessment of the situation. You would appear to have created some rigid evaluation of matters almost entirely out of whole cloth.

The possibility that a psychologically battered woman would not be capable of dealing with the situation is exactly that: a possibility. Suggesting that it is sexist to even consider such a possibility, or that it is seen as a default interpretation, is more than a little bit over the top, and doesn't lend itself to forming a positive impression of anything else you put forth. It is one of a number of variables that would influence the appropriate or most helpful action of the child.

I would have to reckon that weighing the many details and nuances that may or may not present themselves in any situation is sort of important in coming to useful, helpful solutions or courses of action. Maybe it's not the case, but you're giving a distinct impression that you don't see things that way.
 
2014-06-11 11:33:27 PM  

Fart_Machine: Came for the MRA butthurt. Left satisfied.


Don't leave. The cow still has milk to give.
 
2014-06-11 11:39:29 PM  
gamergirl23: Oh no, I'm all in favor of the kids calling the cops and putting that psycho away, but I dislike misleading headlines.

I was kinda hoping the mom would declare first strike...
 
2014-06-11 11:40:44 PM  

aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be


That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.
 
2014-06-11 11:50:23 PM  
Men's Rights Advocates are a real group? I thought they were just manchildren whining about how they shouldn't have to pay their child support.
 
2014-06-11 11:53:17 PM  

Mikey1969: So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?


You could watch the video. It's right there in the link. This advice also goes to the "Hurr, durr, Raw Story is teh lame" people. If you think they're quoting out of context, prove it.
 
2014-06-12 12:26:04 AM  

ciberido: the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court"


Thanks for this link. It made me feel good about my situation. I'm confident after reading it that if we were to ever get divorced, it would go relatively smoothly and we'd be able to handle any post-divorce co-parenting without any major issues (I don't plan on divorce, but you never know).

And while I'm sure this applies to a great many people:

"In order for fathers to be considered equally worthy caregivers in the eyes of the court, they must first be equal caregivers within the home"

...I'm not going to start helicoptering the shiat out of my kid. Rather than asking Dad to step it up, for some couples asking Mom to step down a little would be a better way to reach that 'equal caregiver' status.

I guess I just can't fathom who these absent fathers are, or what they'd rather be doing than raising their kids.

"Using an evolutionary defense to discourage fathers from bonding with and nurturing their children just creates unnecessarily absent fathers."

Seriously who the fark are these people? "The Patriarchy" discourages fathers from bonding? Who exactly is discouraging this? And what kind of father would actually listen to that shiat?
 
2014-06-12 12:31:59 AM  

fusillade762: Mikey1969: So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?

You could watch the video. It's right there in the link. This advice also goes to the "Hurr, durr, Raw Story is teh lame" people. If you think they're quoting out of context, prove it.


They're all direct quotes... Can't watch the video because I'm on my phone, and this "Sign In" thing on the website is annoying. I get an authentication window popup over and over. It's scroll, hit 'Cancel', scroll a little more, hit 'Cancel' again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now, if he didn't say those things, that's one thing, but if he did say them, but I'm supposed to forgive him because he said them in his best Pat Robertson voice, that's not going to happen.

But as it stands, he said that it's up to a battered woman and not an observer to call the cops. It's blame the victim mentality, and it displays a total misunderstanding for the actual issue, yet he feels qualified to hand out advice on the air about it.
 
2014-06-12 12:41:59 AM  

ciberido: So there would be no need for a "MRA movement" if domestic violence and child custody were all that the "men's rights movement" was about --- you could just become a feminist.


Doesn't this go against your assertion upthread that feminism doesn't claim a monopoly on gender issues? I love how you say they could 'just' be feminist, like it's easier that way. Maybe they want to discuss what directly affects them without having to sit down and stfu and go through the motions of every other stupid thing on the agenda first like how advertising affect peoples self esteem and how all of modern society is one big rape monster.

Actually, probably not. MRAs complain about the same dumb media stereotype bullshiat. It's so damn stupid. Everyone is stupid.
 
2014-06-12 12:59:22 AM  

Fafai: ciberido: Whereas, with MRAs, so far as I know nobody every tells a guy, "Hey, you must be an MRA!" or "What are you, some kind of MRA?"

First "guys cant pee while hard" and now this. Just stop. You have no idea.


Do you have some kind of reading disorder that makes "so far as I know" a complete enigma?

Or are you just really, really angry at feminists today?

I freely admit that there are things I don't know.  I try to be honest about when my knowledge is limited, or I am speculating without certainty.  I don't know why you think I should "just stop," but the answer is no, and you may consider yourself invited to enjoy conjugal relations with a cactus for demanding it.
 
2014-06-12 01:12:05 AM  

rocky_howard: One of my favorite things about feminists is how they go on and on about the importance of language and how if we say something like "mankind" it's discriminatory because it's not mentioning women, yet the moment you point out that if they're about equal rights why are they called feminists in the first place you get a spiel about how it's not the same and how you don't get what feminism is all about.

Well, if language matters, then feminism is wrong. It also implies men have all the rights. (Yes, men have more rights, but that doesn't mean they have all the rights. Women have rights over men too).


You misunderstand. It's about norms and othering. Our language sets maleness as the norm, with femaleness as the other. A term like feminism does not change this.
 
2014-06-12 01:14:23 AM  

ciberido: you may consider yourself invited to enjoy conjugal relations with a cactus


i.imgur.com

Accepted!
 
2014-06-12 01:15:25 AM  

aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?


Because MRA is considered a hate group. Advocating equality for men is not the same thing as MRA. MRA is specifically about hating women, and focuses little on true inequities males face (limitations to their free expression, clothing, profession, parenthood/custody, etc placed on them due to gender roles and stereotypes). You won't hear many MRAs advocating a man's right to have sex with another man, or two wear a dress, or be a nurse or kindergarten teacher. They don't really care about men's equality, it's just a veil for their hate.
 
2014-06-12 01:23:35 AM  

ennuie: aagrajag: Dusk-You-n-Me: There was an MRA joke in the headline

MRA BEACON ACTIVATED

ALL MRAS REPORT TO THREAD TO DEFEND THE MOST HELPLESS AMONGST US - MEN

I can show you some genuinely nutty, misandrist feminists, but to paint all feminists as such would be wrong and bigoted, and people would be perfectly justified to call it out as such.

So why is it acceptable to denigrate the advocates of the other group, then excuse it with a Rush Limbaugh-esque "It's just a joke! Lighten up, guy!"?

Because MRA is considered a hate group. Advocating equality for men is not the same thing as MRA. MRA is specifically about hating women, and focuses little on true inequities males face (limitations to their free expression, clothing, profession, parenthood/custody, etc placed on them due to gender roles and stereotypes). You won't hear many MRAs advocating a man's right to have sex with another man, or two wear a dress, or be a nurse or kindergarten teacher. They don't really care about men's equality, it's just a veil for their hate.


I support all of those things. I'm a flaming liberal, an as such I have empathy for many different groups of people.

I'd ask what I should call myself, but I already know what the answer will be.
 
2014-06-12 01:32:31 AM  

aagrajag: I already know what the answer will be.


i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-12 01:35:39 AM  

ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.


Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

-there are almost no resources available for men suffering domestic violence. Note that this also makes it *extremely* difficult for a father to bring his child out of a situation with an abusive mother

-google for the percentage of men who are homeless versus women

-male suicides versus female

-highly unequal treatment by criminal courts: you are better off walking into criminal court as a black woman than as a white man. In the US, that means something.

-significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

- the attitudes toward intimate violence are revolting. Do a google (sorry, on mobile) for an experiment in which a couple recorded peoples reactions to a man striking a woman and a woman striking a man: the former was stopped almost immediately, while people cheered on the latter.

That's a start.
 
2014-06-12 01:37:22 AM  

Fafai: aagrajag: I already know what the answer will be.


I don't get it. Why is that Monopoly set pink?
 
2014-06-12 02:00:23 AM  

ciberido: No. But the pathetically-obvious straw-man you've just built DOES make you sound like a whiny crybaby.


Right. People called me whiny, and I asked where I was whining. Of those people, not one could take me up on repeated invitations and show me a place where I whined. And here you are, calling me whiny again.

Yet I'm building the straw man..... riiiiiiiiiggggggghhhttt.

I'm not a 19 year old dickhead MRA, and calling me a whiner doesn't do anything constructive except mark you at as tired and unoriginal. If you want to keep playing that card, feel free, but I know you can do better: I berieve in you!

I don't think anyone outside of your imagination denies that some of the points MRAs make are legitimate concerns. Domestic abuse and child custody are two areas where there are biases in the court system (and in law enforcement) that need to be addressed. But, even with that, there are two major problems. First, these are the very positions on which the MRAs and most feminists agree. So there would be no need for a "MRA movement" if domestic violence and child custody were all that the "men's rights movement" was about --- you could just become a feminist.

Second, the majority of what "men's rights" seem to be about are aversion and distrust of women, or a desire to preserve as much as possible the inequalities and injustices that feminists are trying to fight. So the few good points they have are buried under a toxic brew of resentment, hostility, and a selfish desire to preserve injustice, which makes all claims to be FOR justice seem like risible hypocrisy.

In short, put your house in order, get rid of the toxic resentment and childish complaints about how evil women are, and then people will start to take the men's rights movement seriously.


To address your last point first: there are, I think we would all agree, disgusting examples of radical feminism that want nothing more than to use feminist theory to browbeat men. Does this discredit the entire feminist movement, or invalidate the (completely legitimate) concerns that the wider feminist movement has about gender inequality?

No. So why does it work this way for MRAs? The point that everyone seems to ignore is that the shiathead MRA websites are overwhelmingly populated by angsty and angry 18-25 year olds. This is not a condition unique to men: if you are going to hear some really, really stupid feminist "theory" come out of a woman's mouth, it's a good bet she's college age. That is the age for stupid pseudo-intellectualism.

So yes, the MRAs are visible, they're angry, and they're misogynistic dicks. Big deal: there are lots of stereotypically angry and unreasonable feminist everywhere you look on the internet. People, as a group, are nasty, mean and vicious. But somehow a few shiathead MRAs are representative of all men that take an interest in gender equality without kowtowing to feminist theory, while radfems are just radfems and not representative.

Perhaps feminist should look to their own housework?

Moving backwards through your post as to why there needs to be a specific consciousness of men's issues separate from feminism, a men's movement if you will, and why feminism is inadequate for addressing issues specific to men aagrajag said it very well:

aagrajag: I don't expect feminists to fight men's battles or tear down their own privileges. They advocate for their injustices; we advocate for ours.


In theory: yes, feminism is nominally about equality, and therefore it idealistically addresses men's concerns as well.

In practice, feminism is about addressing and rectifying social disadvantages that women face, and as a movement it has little inclination or desire to take on advocacy for issues unique to men.

I'm talking here beyond the common experience that any man who believes in gender equality and interacts with feminist have had - that of being told to sit down and shut up because men didn't get a vote in feminism.

I'm talking about specific issues, that feminist theory SHOULD address as a matter of routine if 3rd wave feminism were actually dedicated to equality.

Take the issue of body image. Feminist have for decades fought to raise awareness of unrealistic images of female bodies, and the role that social image plays in promoting eating disorders. Entire volumes of feminist theory, over a period of decades, have been written about the female body and it's image in patriarchal society. One classic in the field, Susan Bordo's unbearable weight (1993) concerns itself with "feminism, western culture, and the body". This is one of the texts that was critical in putting anorexia and bulimia on the map as a serious gender issue that women face.

Notice: "the body." Ungendered. Yet Bordo focuses exclusively on women's bodies in Unbearable Weight, with not a single critical analysis of men's bodies. In fact, Bordo didn't even think to critically analyze men's bodies until over SIX YEARS later, in 1999, and even then she focuses almost exclusively on men's bodies from the perspective of female desire, female relationships to their father's bodies, their impact on her developing sense of femininity etc. Other famous feminist texts on the body like The Beauty Myth and Adios, Barbie also paid no attention to men's bodies, except through their relationship to the primary object of study: the woman's body.

Well, guess what? It turns out that men actually have just as bad - and arguably worse - body image disorders as women. These disorders, however, are differently oriented from women's and went entirely unrecognized by the feminist movement for decades. Men's body dysmorphia - and it is only in the past 3 years that this was recognized as an issue at all, since research has largely been focused on the women's disorders of bulimia and anorexia - fixates on being big and muscular, something that has been popularly termed "bigorexia." It is the feeling that men have that they can never be big enough, never be muscular enough; that they are always too small.

Men exhibiting bigorexia show a "shockingly high rate of use of anabolic steroids" (In this case, 46% of men diagnosed had used steroids), something that is more destructive than all but the worst binge/purge cycles. The early research that had been done shows that body dysmorphia is equally prevalent in men as it is in women. Body dysmorphia is strongly linked to depression and mood disturbances, and men are twice as likely as women to suffer from mood disorders, suggesting that in certain groups like body builders, men actually might have far higher rates of severe body dysmorphia and unhealthy lifestyles than comparable groups of women.

How many men do you know that obsessively go to the gym, that focus on "gains" and getting bigger? How many weight rooms have you seen filled to bursting with huge ass men lifting weights in large groups? How socially acceptable is it for men to eat unhealthy diets of 6000-8000 calories per day and 80-100% protein for months at a time, in an effort to meet an unrealistic standard of male muscle mass, body weight, and lean muscle composition? How many men like this are out there, obsessively trying to gain muscle mass? How many women's sports allow athletes to use heavy duty weight loss drugs, versus sports like the UFC where TRTs have become so prevalent as a way of gaining mass that they have become unremarkable and largely unremarked upon?

A lot. It's been there, in plain sight, for years. The hell of it is that the current academic and scientific awareness of body dysmorphia in men is being driven by psychiatry and medicine, NOT by feminist social theory. Feminist social theory has been focusing on critical analysis of "the body" for over 60 years, but it has focused on almost exclusively on female bodies - and when it did focus on men's bodies, it was always through the lens of how men's bodies related to women's bodies as the oppressor, the patriarch, the father, the rapist, and the object of desire - not how men's bodies related with and to themselves and other men's bodies.

Sixty years of developing critical theories of the body, and feminist theory completely overlooked male body dysmorphia. They're still overlooking it, for the most part, and popular feminism has picked it up not at all. At most there is a tentative awareness that men too face unrealistic standards, but the consensus seems to be that men's standards drive them towards being healthy, while women's standards drive them to being unhealthy, so men's unrealistic standards aren't as important as women's. The answer is almost always the same as the one you gave me: "well if we fix the patriarchy we'll fix this too, so be a feminist."

Great plan, I'm sure it will really help to raise awareness that this is an issue now more than ever before, and that steps can and need to be taken NOW to help mitigate harm among a burgeoning population of men with psychological body disorders.

There are examples of feminist completely overlooking male issues scattered throughout the past 6 decades of feminist herstory: HIV & AIDS, for example, did not become a 'feminist' issue until the early to mid-2000s, when women finally caught up to men as 50% of the worldwide HIV+ population. Only then was there was a big push to "feminize" AIDs and make it a 'feminist' issue. During the 80's and 90's, when hundreds of thousands of gay men were dying of AIDs and few women were affected, feminism had little to say or contribute. Feminist theory could have cared less, actually, and the burgeoning AIDs epidemic was left almost entirely to the nascent movement of queer theory to force into the popular consciousness.

So that is why I think your argument of "feminism addresses men's problems too, so shut up and be a feminist" is ridiculous. Because herstorically speaking, the evidence is quite clear - feminism prioritizes women's issues because it is FEMINism, and addressing the issues that men specifically face is considered secondary to women's issues, if men's issues issues are recognized at all.

Critical theory and feminism are nothing but lenses through which you view the world. No one social theory will ever capture all of the truth, all of the perspectives.

I think it is interesting that so many self-described 'feminist' are completely unwilling to listen to someone who does not first pay homage to feminism as the One True Philosophy and the Only True Perspective.

More equality for me does not mean less equality for you - something both feminists and MRAs overlook all too often - and regardless of whether we subscribe to identical social theories we can all work together to evolve and get the fark off this planet.

/hell that was a novel
//fark is not my blog
///off to bed
 
2014-06-12 02:02:44 AM  

Fafai: aagrajag: I already know what the answer will be.

[i.imgur.com image 300x263]


moar funny pictures before bed...

i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-12 02:03:26 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-06-12 02:16:42 AM  

aagrajag: But it's the casual dismissal of other genuine concerns that so aggrieves me: grotequely out-of-proportion rates of drop-outs, homelessness, imprisonment, workplace deaths and injuries, biased family law and courts, non-existent resources for male victims of domestic violence... none of these things affect me directly, but they hurt others.


There's a book you might want to read.  Don't take umbrage at the title: it's called "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women," not it's not the misandrist screed one might suspect from the name.  The author actually writes with a good bit of concern and compassion for some of the things happening to men in modern American society.

I know you probably don't want to hear "patriarchy hurts men, too," but it does, and believe it or not, a lot of feminists DO care about how men are harmed by society's norms and expectations.
 
2014-06-12 02:54:21 AM  

cryinoutloud: jst3p: On this note some are coming around. I have 50/50 custody in Colorado and I didn't have to fight for it, the court are more accepting of recent research that shows that kids can thrive in a situation where they have two homes if it is done properly. Logistics can be tricky and getting along with the ex can be trying but it can work.

i know your story, and I bet you know at least some of mine, but I have never seen a situation where one of the parents got full custody, no matter how many claims there were of domestic violence or drug abuse. This went out years ago. In any divorce that i've been aware of for most of my life, custody is split. And I've done a few rounds (years) in family court. If the parents move apart, usually one parent gets the kids for the school year, then the other gets them during the summer. If they live close to each other, the old "Wednesday night and every other weekend" applies for the non-custodial parent. This is the standard write-up for a custody order, I saw it from every lawyer I ever met, and it didn't vary much. The idea is that the kids need to be in one home during the school week, it's better for them.

But here's the thing: you aren't required to stick with the custody order to the letter, if you can work something else out. That is just the minimum required. If you're still on speaking terms with the ex, you all can work out anything you want. Swap the kids every single school night, if you can deal with each other. In fact, if you can trick your ex into giving you more and more time, you can then petition the courts to let you have that custody officially. Jst3p might know a little about that one.

Now, probably a man will have trouble getting primary custody still, but think about it, guys--before you split, who took care of the kids most of the time? It may have been you--maybe your ex-wife is a coke fiend who lives down at the bar--but in most instances, it was the wife dealing with the kids. ...


Your mileage may vary (considerably) depending upon the jurisdiction involved.  Some states as a matter of public policy award joint physical custody only if both parents consent to the arrangement but award joint legal custody to avoid problems of parental consent while the child is in the care of the non custodial parent.  There are a number of jurisdictions that do presume that joint custody (legal and physical) is in the best interests of the child, absent evidence that a parent is unfit and poses a risk of harm to the child through neglect, domestic violence, drug use, etc.  But your urging parents to put the kids first and do as much as you can to make peace and cooperate with your ex is totally sound advice in the overwhelming majority of cases.  Your ex may have been a lousy spouse but that doesn't automatically make them a bad parent.  In the long run, swallowing your pride and hurt and refusing to battle with your ex pays off.
 
2014-06-12 03:10:09 AM  

Mikey1969: fusillade762: Mikey1969: So for those claiming that subby is lying and that whole Pat can be a douche, but in this case he's a stand up guy, please enlighten the rest of us on what we're missing in this article.

Because I've read it through multiple times, and I still seem to hear him saying that the little girl should talk to Mommy, that she shouldn't get her daddy busted, and that her mom should be the only one to handle it.

Maybe it's a filter on RawStory like the April Fool's filter on here? All of Pat's illogical shiat is replaced by nuggets of wisdom on everyone else's browser? Or vice versa?

You could watch the video. It's right there in the link. This advice also goes to the "Hurr, durr, Raw Story is teh lame" people. If you think they're quoting out of context, prove it.

They're all direct quotes... Can't watch the video because I'm on my phone, and this "Sign In" thing on the website is annoying. I get an authentication window popup over and over. It's scroll, hit 'Cancel', scroll a little more, hit 'Cancel' again. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Now, if he didn't say those things, that's one thing, but if he did say them, but I'm supposed to forgive him because he said them in his best Pat Robertson voice, that's not going to happen.

But as it stands, he said that it's up to a battered woman and not an observer to call the cops. It's blame the victim mentality, and it displays a total misunderstanding for the actual issue, yet he feels qualified to hand out advice on the air about it.


That's my understanding as well.  If the kid is worried about getting Dad arrested or afraid of retaliation (both of which are common and reasonable fears for kids in this situation) and Mom hasn't gotten Daddy some help or gotten the rest of the family the hell out of there until he does after repeated instances of him brandishing a gun,  there's little chance the kid will convince her to act.  Talking to some other trusted adult is the best option- a teacher,  an aunt, uncle  grandparent, or someone from the YWCA or a domestic abuse hotline.  Let them call the cops and/or talk to Mom and get her to make an escape plan.  If Dad gets help, great!  But the kids and Mom shouldn't have to wait in the danger zone until he does.  I know you know this, but thought it was worth mentioning if it gets to someone who might need it.  I'm sorry there wasn't someone who could help was there for you when you and your Mom needed it.
 
2014-06-12 03:13:12 AM  

Mikey1969: fusillade762: At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.

What the hell IS MRA anyway?

Michigan Rape Attorney? MaxioRectalAbrasions? Mars Rovers Anonymous? Mom's Rockin' Applesauce?


Men's Right Advocate.

What exactly that means depends on who you ask.  Urban Dictionary is not kind.  Most feminists have a pretty low opinion.   Geek Feminism Wiki is succinct but unfavorable.  Wikipedia is more neutral, though some people argue it isn't.   Rational Wiki's article is probably more critical than your average MRA would consider fair.

I'd love to link some MRA websites' own definition, in the interest of fairness, but I don't know which ones are considered representative.  Maybe this Australian website is worth a look, but again, I make no claims that it's representative of, or fair to, the men's rights movement as a whole.

You'll have to wait for another post, or do some searching of your own, to get both sides of the story.  I can't present both sides equally.
 
2014-06-12 03:17:28 AM  

moeburn: Well if there's one thing I've learned about civil rights, it's that they tend to act as a pendulum.


That's just about the least true thing I've read or heard said about civil rights today, and that includes every post in this thread before you.

Civil rights isn't a zero-sum game wherein team A loses a point every time team B gains one.

Then again, the misconception that civil rights IS a zero-sum game goes a long way to explaining the MRA, as well as complaints about "reverse racism" and so on.  So maybe you've hit on something after all.
 
2014-06-12 04:33:17 AM  

aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:


And perhaps you should re-read my post.  I asked specifically about injustices  not being addressed.  Is it your contention that everything you listed is being completely ignored by everyone except the MRA?


aagrajag: -significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.


Let me get this straight.  On the one hand, you're complaining that more scholarships and preferential placements are awarded to female students, and that's bad; but in the very next breath you're complaining that "almost no resources are being allocated to remedy" the gap between male and female students in  universities?  So which is it?  Should  scholarships and preferential placements be awarded to assist minority (in this case, male) or disadvantaged students, or not?
 
2014-06-12 05:09:33 AM  

ciberido: aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

And perhaps you should re-read my post.  I asked specifically about injustices  not being addressed.  Is it your contention that everything you listed is being completely ignored by everyone except the MRA?


aagrajag: -significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

Let me get this straight.  On the one hand, you're complaining that more scholarships and preferential placements are awarded to female students, and that's bad; but in the very next breath you're complaining that "almost no resources are being allocated to remedy" the gap between male and female students in  universities?  So which is it?  Should  scholarships and preferential placements be awarded to assist minority (in this case, male) or disadvantaged students, or not?


There is no contradiction there:

I never said that giving aid to female students was bad; don't put words in my mouth.

What is bad is that male students are *not* being similarly helped in in which they are struggling or underrepresented.
 
2014-06-12 05:11:05 AM  

aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

And perhaps you should re-read my post.  I asked specifically about injustices  not being addressed.  Is it your contention that everything you listed is being completely ignored by everyone except the MRA?


aagrajag: -significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

Let me get this straight.  On the one hand, you're complaining that more scholarships and preferential placements are awarded to female students, and that's bad; but in the very next breath you're complaining that "almost no resources are being allocated to remedy" the gap between male and female students in  universities?  So which is it?  Should  scholarships and preferential placements be awarded to assist minority (in this case, male) or disadvantaged students, or not?

There is no contradiction there:

I never said that giving aid to female students was bad; don't put words in my mouth.

What is bad is that male students are *not* being similarly helped in in which they are struggling or underrepresented.


That second "in" should be "areas".
 
2014-06-12 07:07:10 AM  

LazyMedia: The dumbest thing about MRAs is that they think family courts are rigged against fathers who want custody because of feminist ideology. Family courts have ALWAYS been rigged against custodial fathers, because of patriarchal ideas about gender roles.

Also, to MRAs, all feminists are Andrea Dworkin and a handful of other fringey loons hanging out in academia.


Painting with a broad brush is behavior befitting your handle.
 
2014-06-12 08:28:57 AM  

RoyBatty: [i.imgur.com image 612x144]

I don't understand why the Raw Story, about a year or two ago, decided to fire reporters and hire political bloggers with no journalism experience and claim they did reporting and then adopt Newsmax principles of journalism.

But um, Raw Story is no longer a credible source of journalism.


Raw Story has never been credible.  During the GW Bush administration, they would run stories every few days about how impeachment proceedings against the president were just days away...and of course we all know how that turned out.  It's left-wing fantasies and nothing more.

/Is left-wing
 
2014-06-12 08:45:29 AM  

cathode26: HideAndGoFarkYourself: freewill: HideAndGoFarkYourself: When you're staring at somebody waving a gun at your mother in anger, you call the police.  You don't HOPE that your dad decides not to kill your mom that day, then talk to your mom later and get her to call the police.  If mom was interested in the police being called, she'd have done it, or she's so terrified of her husband that she's not going to call regardless of how scared little Timmy is.  The time for a family discussion is after daddy gets out of rehab, or mommy gets a divorce.  It's a lot easier to counsel a kid that calling the police was the right thing, and that he ultimately may have saved a life, than it is to counsel a kid that his inaction was part of the reason his mommy got killed in front of him.

I was assuming that Robertson was not responding to a situation that was occurring in real-time. As in, I didn't think his father was pointing the gun at his mother while Robertson was giving the kid instructions, so it was not, in fact, an emergency at that very moment. I do agree that in the moment, calling 911 is the right thing to do.

Robertson was pretty clear with the kid that his father is going to kill his mother eventually and something has to be done.

tiamet4: Also, he should not be asking his mom to "talk to his dad about getting help".  He should be asking his mom to get him the hell out of this situation.

I can agree with this completely. If "help" is limited to asking him to please stop and see a therapist, then Robertson's answer is certainly wrong. LIke I said, I understand how it could be read that way, but I read it as "you need to tell her this isn't OK and to do something, she knows what that means".

When I hear "help" in the context of a violent psycho, I hear "Baker Act".

/ Alternately, "shoot him first, mom."

So, the lesson to the kid is that it's not his responsibility to report criminal behavior?  I agree, the mom SHOULD be the one reporting it.  That it's happened mo ...


No, mental midget, I read what he said, I heard what he said and his message is STILL wrong.  Your dumbness on the entire scenario is what is truly laughable.  The proper response would have been "What your father is doing is wrong, and you don't WANT to get your dad in trouble, but if that's what needs to happen to protect you and your mother, then that's not your fault, it's your father's fault for putting you in that situation.  Next time your dad pulls a gun in an argument with your mom, you need to call the police" Period.  End of answer.

You are a complete idiot if you can't realize that.  It's not about alternative solutions.  Alternative solutions don't mean shiat if mom has a hole in her head because dad was allowed to pull guns on her and wave them all around like he just don't care, and happens to pull the trigger...whether intentional or not.

Sometimes when you call into a show to ask somebody for advice, or for an alternate solution to a problem, the right solution is the one they don't want to do.  Sometimes you have to do something that seems wrong, but is actually right in the long run.  Plenty of kids have called the police on their parents and been just fine for it.  Plenty more have seen mom's head caved in by an angry father, and not been just fine afterwards.  Which one do you think is more likely to occur?  Wait, don't answer that, you're far too stupid to grasp common sense.
 
2014-06-12 08:48:16 AM  
Elegy: <snip>


damiaodias.typepad.com
 
2014-06-12 08:56:28 AM  
Just a responsible gun owner.  Nothing to see here.
 
2014-06-12 09:04:41 AM  

ciberido: "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women,"


When linking to a book most people go straight to the amazon page so that people can get a more detailed synopsis and also check out some user reviews. One look at that page gives me a clue as to why maybe you didn't do that with this one. There's a lot of criticism there about unoriginality, confirmation bias, anecdote-as-data, distorted facts and errors...

I don't usually lol, but this quote made me chortle out loud. I think it pretty much tells me all I need to know: "women are described in the most gushing diction as literally, "Katniss-like.""

Ha! Is that reviewer's use of 'literally' and quotation marks accurate? Is that really a direct quote? Oh man.
 
2014-06-12 09:46:51 AM  

RoyBatty: RoyBatty: An adult woman and a child witness a man threatening them with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

The man is no longer threatening the adult woman and the child with a gun. A phone is nearby.

Who here thinks the child should call the police?
Who here thinks the adult woman should call the police?

Who is abusing the child?
[ ] the man threatening the child and adult woman woman?
[ ] the adult woman who will not call the police to protect her child?
[ ] the farkers demanding the child call the police to protect the adult woman?

Follow up question:

If you believe a child should call the police to protect an adult woman from a man threatening both the adult woman and the child are you

[ ] Fighting the Patriarchy?
[ ] Reinforcing the Patriarchy?


Two people witness another threatening them with a gun.

I want both to call the police.  Either to call the police.  Anyone who thinks of it to call the police.  God to call the police.  The peeping tom who wanted to whack it to Mom changing to call the police.  I want every person who can reach it to gangbang the phone so hard it ends up on Maury trying to prove the paternity of your cellphone.

Whichever 'side' you think you're on, you're certifiably a nutjob.
 
2014-06-12 09:49:01 AM  

aagrajag: ciberido: aagrajag: There are real, quantifiable injustices affected men (primarily in family courts) that are not being addressed, and while these do not directly affect my happily-married ass, they hurt others. They are not being addressed by feminist groups, nor do I expect them to be

That's a fairly strong assertion to make.  Can you specify exactly which "real, quantifiable injustices affecting men" in the USA are not being addressed?

Because the very first hit when I do a Google search on "feminism family court" seems to indicate that you're wrong.

Perhaps you should re-read my post; I mentioned several:

-there are almost no resources available for men suffering domestic violence. Note that this also makes it *extremely* difficult for a father to bring his child out of a situation with an abusive mother

-google for the percentage of men who are homeless versus women

-male suicides versus female

-highly unequal treatment by criminal courts: you are better off walking into criminal court as a black woman than as a white man. In the US, that means something.

-significant scholarship and preferential placements are available for female students (particularly in STEM fields), whereas almost none are earmarked for men in fields in which they are underrepresented, education, namely.

-women already outnumber men in most universities, and the gap is growing, yet almost no resources are being allocated to remedy this.

- the attitudes toward intimate violence are revolting. Do a google (sorry, on mobile) for an experiment in which a couple recorded peoples reactions to a man striking a woman and a woman striking a man: the former was stopped almost immediately, while people cheered on the latter.

That's a start.


These are all good points, but in regards to your last two:

-There are more women than men in universities. What is happening to the men who are not going to college? Are they un/underemployed? That's bad. Are they instead going into trades that don't require a college degree such as mechanic, electrician, plumber? Few women do that, which may explain the disparity. And those fields often pay well and there is no massive college tuition to repay.

-Domestic violence is a serious problem and both men and women should be held accountable. However, the video you recommend (http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/05/27/mankind-men-domestic-viol en ce-video-abuse_n_5396154.html ) is not the best one to champion. It's heavily edited so there's no way to know if all the smiling/laughing is because of the F on M violence. Look at all the cut scenes, how the reactions are never in the same scene as the act.
 
2014-06-12 10:22:01 AM  

Theaetetus: You make false claims about what feminists are about: "Feminists think they have a monopoly on discussions about gender inequality."
You then whine that feminists "make false claims about what Men's Rights are about".
You're whining about the same thing you did one sentence earlier.
That's hypocritical, regardless of whether Subby's headline is false.
Therefore, you're a hypocrite.


I'm glad you broke it down because it's not hypocritical because my statements are verifiably true. Being a female supremacist, you have a bias whereby no negative statement can be made about feminism without forcing feelings of cognitive dissonance.

In other words, what I said was true, your refusal to accept it as truth does not make me a hypocrite.


Obama's Reptiloid Master:
Oh no! Fire alarms. It's not like <A href="http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/tag/montana-state-univ ersity/ ">MRAs don't abuse public systems to shut down rape awareness campaigns</a>. Or, you know, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/santa-barbara-shoot er-elli ot-rodger-police-report">killing people</a>.

As far as your link showing any such "abuse" -it doesn't. MRA's are allowed to spread awareness as are feminists. I wonder why many people see the feminist perspective on rape as a hysterical over-reaction?

dkzstslcvgwbc.cloudfront.net
 
2014-06-12 10:58:08 AM  

Because People in power are Stupid: Obama's Reptiloid Master:
Oh no! Fire alarms. It's not like <A href="http://radicalcentristblog.wordpress.com/tag/montana-state-univ ersity/ ">MRAs don't abuse public systems to shut down rape awareness campaigns</a>. Or, you know, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/santa-barbara-shoot er-elli ot-rodger-police-report">killing people</a>.

As far as your link showing any such "abuse" -it doesn't. MRA's are allowed to spread awareness as are feminists.


Seriously, Obama's Reptiloid Master just equated posting information freely with actively shutting down discussion through illegal activity. I think you're pretty out there with some messed up views, Because, and I'm surprised to find myself agreeing with you here. Of course, that doesn't happen with your originaI posts at face value, only when someone even dumber responds to you. I'm not a part of your cause, and I can't imagine you are helping your own cause any. But you expose extremists from the other side as well, so maybe it evens out. I don't know or care. But I do note from reading your interactions with posters that there are people who aren't quite consistent with how they judge the actions of one group to the next, especially regarding certain fallacies like the no true scotsman.

And "female supremacist" is a perfect term for Theaetetus. He once said it 'makes sense' that underage rape victims are made to pay child support to their abusers.

Elegy: People called me whiny, and I asked where I was whining. Of those people, not one could take me up on repeated invitations and show me a place where I whined.


Maybe not technically but you come off sounding like a whiner for sure with all the sarcastic "Men should just take it and shut up," stuff. That would be whining about what others expect of men. That doesn't help either. If you're trying to highlight the hypocrisy in these people's claims at tearing down gender norms there are probably better ways to do so than sarcastically imitating them. That does sound like whining.
 
2014-06-12 11:11:04 AM  

Fafai: ciberido: "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women,"


I just linked the amazon page to a friend who I know would like it, because she's always going on about the removal of men from society since men are so worthless and have run their course and have nothing of value to add. She's always talking about men with their pathetic animal sex drive and how they have no say in sexual matters now that women can provide for themselves. She talks about how men have no reproductive rights and enthusiastically awaits the days of synthetic sperm and all this. This person tells me she won't let me know her real thoughts on men and society because they are even more hardcore than what she tells me.

Her response to that link: "Yeah I started reading that last year but I never finished. The author has some extreme views I don't agree with."

/anecdote!
 
2014-06-12 12:35:52 PM  

cryinoutloud: But I am still saying that I have NEVER personally seen a court case where one parent got complete custody of a kid. Wait, I take that back--I knew a man who did. His ex came into court during the final hearing and accused him of sexually abusing their kid. Their 8-month old kid. She'd never mentioned it before. Judge told her to fark off and get out of his court, and gave him full custody.


I do know of one similar story: a divorcing couple had a (IIRC) two-year-old child, and the wife tried to get sole custody by claiming that her soon-to-be-ex-husband wasn't the child's biological father.  Sure enough, a DNA test revealed that she wasn't the father, and by extension that she had cheated on him.

I don't know the precise details of the ruling, but judge declared the wife unfit and awarded full custody to the husband.  And as far as I know, the baby-daddy never returned anyone's phone calls.
 
2014-06-12 12:37:01 PM  

anfrind: I do know of one similar story: a divorcing couple had a (IIRC) two-year-old child, and the wife tried to get sole custody by claiming that her soon-to-be-ex-husband wasn't the child's biological father.  Sure enough, a DNA test revealed that she he wasn't the father, and by extension that she had cheated on him.


Oops.
 
2014-06-12 01:37:09 PM  

Fafai: Maybe not technically but you come off sounding like a whiner for sure with all the sarcastic "Men should just take it and shut up," stuff. That would be whining about what others expect of men. That doesn't help either. If you're trying to highlight the hypocrisy in these people's claims at tearing down gender norms there are pr ...


More a sarcastic approach to the gendered expectation that men always be stoic and enduring. But really, why should it matter if I actually were whining? Are men not allowed to whine and vent occasionally? Women are - hell it is expected, to much feminist frustration. Expecting men to never whine is the opposite side of the gender dichotomy from dismissing everything women say as whining. Are we trying to move past patriarchal gendered roles or not?

Regardless, I'll alter my approach to the rather tired whining trope, because I know you are a reasonable person and trust your input. Perhaps something less directly confrontational and more humerous - I want to be provocative and stimulate discussion, not come off as a whiner.

Thanks for the feedback, fafai. Once again you've been a cool cat.

/or dog
//or whatever
 
2014-06-12 02:47:01 PM  

Elegy: why should it matter if I actually were whining?


Because whining is annoying regardless of who it's coming from. If you see it as a feminine gender expectation, I don't think the goal should be to reach a more equal status by emulating even the negative traits from the other side. Kind of like how women becoming rapists or reducing men's value to their physical attractiveness wouldn't be good either.

I understand to your mind you weren't actually whining, but trying to make a point. But in text-based conversation like this there isn't much room for tone or nuance. People will misread you. I save the sarcasm for cheap shots or for when the overall discussion has devolved into a flame war or whatever but I try to avoid it when trying to make a valid point.

/the correct answer is frog
//cool frog
 
2014-06-12 03:28:44 PM  

Starshines: No comment yet on how this is obviously a fake letter?  No child would write "As a child,..."  This is probably the abused wife writing from the child's perspective because she's so farked in the head that that's the only way to confront what's happening to her.

/oh yeah, dropping in a sexist "honey" or "sweets" into your comment just makes you look sad.


This is actually a very real, very horrible thought.

It means that if Daddy found the letter before "the child" could turn it in, then Daddy would get mad and beat up the person responsible for the letter for trying to get him in trouble.

You know, the kid.

I'm all for using tactics to escape, Mom, but it's your job to protect your kids- and that means not using them as human shields on your way out the door with them.
 
2014-06-12 03:41:57 PM  

Fafai: ciberido: "The End of Men: And the Rise of Women,"

When linking to a book most people go straight to the amazon page so that people can get a more detailed synopsis and also check out some user reviews. One look at that page gives me a clue as to why maybe you didn't do that with this one. There's a lot of criticism there about unoriginality, confirmation bias, anecdote-as-data, distorted facts and errors...



Really?  You think linking to the Amazon page instead of the Wikipedia page is both some kind of standard I violated and an intentional choice I made so as to hide reviews from whoever might read my post?

That's just farking sad.  I don't know what the everliving fark is wrong with you, but I'm tired of your persecution complex.

Go pay your cactus lady friend another conjugal visit.  I am done with your crap.
 
2014-06-12 03:50:04 PM  

Fafai: Elegy: why should it matter if I actually were whining?

Because whining is annoying regardless of who it's coming from. If you see it as a feminine gender expectation, I don't think the goal should be to reach a more equal status by emulating even the negative traits from the other side. Kind of like how women becoming rapists or reducing men's value to their physical attractiveness wouldn't be good either.

I understand to your mind you weren't actually whining, but trying to make a point. But in text-based conversation like this there isn't much room for tone or nuance. People will misread you. I save the sarcasm for cheap shots or for when the overall discussion has devolved into a flame war or whatever but I try to avoid it when trying to make a valid point.

/the correct answer is frog
//cool frog


As many people at FARK will attest, I honestly don't know what "whining" means. I'd love a simple clearcut definition.

On the net, I mostly encounter claims of "whining" similar  to how "concern troll", "mansplaining", "addle brained" is used. Usually as ways of dismissing an argument, or a person without addressing their arguments. Mostly an ad hominem attack. But that's mostly. As I said, I'd love a clearcut definition.

It does seem to be another way to silence men, and does used more to silence men when they speak of complaints that feminists or women demand be taken seriously.

It also seems to be used to silence people of different political beliefs.

I know when a dog whines, I know when a child whines, I don't really buy into "stop whining" style arguments on the net.
 
2014-06-12 03:56:11 PM  

ciberido: done with your crap.


I'll take this as yes, it was a real quote. Hilarious.
 
2014-06-12 04:01:22 PM  

LowbrowDeluxe: I assume what's happening in this thread is outright trolling, but I don't even care anymore. At this point I just hit ignore for anything that irritates me around here.  So I miss an occasional funny comment from people who spend lots of extra time trying to be 'funny'.  It saves me the aggravation of the rest of the time.


Go ahead and add me to that ignore list.  I don't someone as close minded and ignorant as you seeing what I write.
 
2014-06-12 06:13:09 PM  

RoyBatty: It does seem to be another way to silence men, and does used more to silence men when they speak of complaints that feminists or women demand be taken seriously.


See, that right there -- you know how that sounds to a lot of people? I'm guessing you don't. Just as you don't seem to get that some arguments don't especially merit the sort of serious response you yourself may feel is due, no matter how much you temper them with polite language. I tried to backtrack from my initial remarks and engage with you, attempted to suss out what exactly you were on about, but after getting the expanded version, and even with the asked for clarifications you provided, I ultimately was left with much the same impression I started with. A worse one, if anything.

If you want to think that's all on me, you go ahead with that, but I've seen the short version and I've seen the long version and neither one engenders much sympathy for or even comprehension of your point of view as you put it across. A civil presentation will only take you so far; at some point, though, the content still isn't going to come across as being any more palatable or coherent.
 
2014-06-12 08:27:29 PM  

DrBenway: RoyBatty: It does seem to be another way to silence men, and does used more to silence men when they speak of complaints that feminists or women demand be taken seriously.

See, that right there -- you know how that sounds to a lot of people? I'm guessing you don't. Just as you don't seem to get that some arguments don't especially merit the sort of serious response you yourself may feel is due, no matter how much you temper them with polite language. I tried to backtrack from my initial remarks and engage with you, attempted to suss out what exactly you were on about, but after getting the expanded version, and even with the asked for clarifications you provided, I ultimately was left with much the same impression I started with. A worse one, if anything.

If you want to think that's all on me, you go ahead with that, but I've seen the short version and I've seen the long version and neither one engenders much sympathy for or even comprehension of your point of view as you put it across. A civil presentation will only take you so far; at some point, though, the content still isn't going to come across as being any more palatable or coherent.


Yeah, well, I do think it's all on you.

Why?

Because not a single time have you actually made a logical argument, supported by facts.  You apparently think a discussion starts off with insult, goes next to dismissal and winds up with feelz.

But yeah, it's okay for you to insult others, dismiss their arguments on site and without providing reasons, and then tell them they are whining.

Thread Master Achievement Unlocked DrBenway. Congratulations.
 
2014-06-12 11:08:17 PM  
lol
 
2014-06-13 12:01:09 AM  

DrBenway: See, that right there -- you know how that sounds to a lot of people? I'm guessing you don't.


It sounds like someone who has a legitimate complaint.
 
Displayed 305 of 305 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report