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 137
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

8199 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Jun 2014 at 5:02 PM (14 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-06-11 03:44:34 PM
10 votes:

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 05:46:30 PM
8 votes:

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 05:08:41 PM
8 votes:

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 04:40:38 PM
6 votes:

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 06:22:45 PM
5 votes:
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 04:55:30 PM
5 votes:

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 06:54:00 PM
4 votes:
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 06:28:34 PM
4 votes:

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 06:12:53 PM
4 votes:

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 05:54:12 PM
4 votes:

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 05:52:24 PM
4 votes:
i.imgur.com
2014-06-11 05:47:02 PM
4 votes:

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 05:31:02 PM
4 votes:

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 05:29:32 PM
4 votes:
Raise your hand if you actually read the article and found out Pat said nothing of the sort
2014-06-11 03:47:38 PM
4 votes:

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 03:33:39 PM
4 votes:
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.
2014-06-12 12:31:59 AM
3 votes:

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.
2014-06-11 09:50:31 PM
3 votes:

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 07:51:55 PM
3 votes:

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 07:43:06 PM
3 votes:

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 06:38:28 PM
3 votes:

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 06:23:48 PM
3 votes:

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 06:20:11 PM
3 votes:

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 06:10:57 PM
3 votes:

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 06:06:53 PM
3 votes:

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 06:03:54 PM
3 votes:

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 05:58:52 PM
3 votes:

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 05:53:20 PM
3 votes:
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 05:53:03 PM
3 votes:

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 05:38:47 PM
3 votes:

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 05:27:50 PM
3 votes:
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 05:27:49 PM
3 votes:

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 05:25:13 PM
3 votes:
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 05:16:04 PM
3 votes:
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 05:15:10 PM
3 votes:

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 03:06:42 PM
3 votes:

naughtyrev: Spad31: MRA?

Men's Rights Advocate, I think.


He-Man Woman-Haters and Fedora Aficionados.
2014-06-11 02:35:49 PM
3 votes:
i59.photobucket.com
2014-06-12 12:41:59 AM
2 votes:

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.
2014-06-11 09:23:40 PM
2 votes:
At least now I know how to get a Fark insta-green: just put "MRA" in the headline.
2014-06-11 08:56:35 PM
2 votes:

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 08:51:10 PM
2 votes:

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 08:22:16 PM
2 votes:

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 07:47:29 PM
2 votes:

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 07:45:04 PM
2 votes:

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 07:28:42 PM
2 votes:

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 07:13:37 PM
2 votes:

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 07:11:51 PM
2 votes:

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 07:10:37 PM
2 votes:
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 07:03:12 PM
2 votes:

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 06:44:31 PM
2 votes:

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 06:31:24 PM
2 votes:

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 06:21:42 PM
2 votes:
Pat Robertson is one of the surest signs there is no god.
2014-06-11 06:19:40 PM
2 votes:

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 06:14:11 PM
2 votes:
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 06:01:19 PM
2 votes:

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 05:59:00 PM
2 votes:

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


Some women have been mean to me in the past. I got over it.
2014-06-11 05:58:48 PM
2 votes:

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 05:54:25 PM
2 votes:

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 05:44:09 PM
2 votes:
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 05:41:01 PM
2 votes:

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 05:38:35 PM
2 votes:

Relatively Obscure: D) No one?


QFT. Good jerb with the troll headline though subby
2014-06-11 05:35:48 PM
2 votes:
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 05:34:40 PM
2 votes:
I love this bit.
/nsfw
Link
2014-06-11 05:32:19 PM
2 votes:

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 05:05:06 PM
2 votes:

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 05:01:54 PM
2 votes:

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 04:06:49 PM
2 votes:

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 03:38:40 PM
2 votes:
D) No one?
2014-06-11 02:54:37 PM
2 votes:
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 02:46:23 PM
2 votes:
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.
2014-06-13 12:01:09 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-06-12 08:48:16 AM
1 votes:
Elegy: <snip>


damiaodias.typepad.com
2014-06-12 04:33:17 AM
1 votes:

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 03:17:28 AM
1 votes:

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 02:54:21 AM
1 votes:

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 02:16:42 AM
1 votes:

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 01:35:39 AM
1 votes:

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 01:23:35 AM
1 votes:

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 01:15:25 AM
1 votes:

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.
2014-06-11 11:50:23 PM
1 votes:
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 11:10:44 PM
1 votes:
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 11:06:49 PM
1 votes:

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 10:46:26 PM
1 votes:

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 10:29:25 PM
1 votes:

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 10:20:02 PM
1 votes:

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 10:19:47 PM
1 votes:

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 10:08:35 PM
1 votes:

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 10:06:42 PM
1 votes:

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 10:00:01 PM
1 votes:
Came for the MRA butthurt. Left satisfied.
2014-06-11 09:51:02 PM
1 votes:
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 09:48:16 PM
1 votes:

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 09:45:28 PM
1 votes:

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 09:41:07 PM
1 votes:

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 09:37:10 PM
1 votes:

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 09:31:36 PM
1 votes:

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 08:52:40 PM
1 votes:

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 08:45:35 PM
1 votes:

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 08:29:00 PM
1 votes:

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 08:26:26 PM
1 votes:

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 08:14:26 PM
1 votes:

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 07:52:23 PM
1 votes:

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 07:32:50 PM
1 votes:

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 07:19:46 PM
1 votes:
Why doesn't this farking old twat douche just hurry up and farking die already.
2014-06-11 07:17:51 PM
1 votes:

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 07:14:16 PM
1 votes:
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 06:56:44 PM
1 votes:

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 06:41:43 PM
1 votes:

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 06:40:50 PM
1 votes:

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 06:31:12 PM
1 votes:
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 06:25:17 PM
1 votes:

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 06:21:02 PM
1 votes:

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 06:20:55 PM
1 votes:
Shrug. they likes the bad boyz.
2014-06-11 06:19:03 PM
1 votes:

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 06:17:29 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:51 PM
1 votes:

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 06:09:06 PM
1 votes:

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 06:07:31 PM
1 votes:
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 06:05:37 PM
1 votes:

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 05:58:55 PM
1 votes:
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 05:57:18 PM
1 votes:

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 05:54:34 PM
1 votes:

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 05:43:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:42:02 PM
1 votes:

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 05:40:14 PM
1 votes:
D)  Don't call the police on a family member unless you hate them.
2014-06-11 05:39:52 PM
1 votes:

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 05:37:09 PM
1 votes:

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 05:34:46 PM
1 votes:

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 05:32:08 PM
1 votes:

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 05:21:25 PM
1 votes:

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 05:16:42 PM
1 votes:

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 05:11:40 PM
1 votes:

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 05:09:43 PM
1 votes:

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 04:46:38 PM
1 votes:

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 03:42:40 PM
1 votes:
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 03:25:30 PM
1 votes:
Exactly. It's not the cops' problem until there's a crime scene to clean up.
2014-06-11 03:08:18 PM
1 votes:

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 03:02:50 PM
1 votes:

Spad31: MRA?


Men's Rights Advocate, I think. Though it could be the Murderous Rifle Association.
 
Displayed 137 of 137 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report