Systemsuckology vs. the Pre-Conceived Notions of the Feminist Doctrine of Child Abuse Denialism

While I could probably pick a hundred different reasons to go off on these people, I am going to focus on one point.

Yesterday I came across an article written by a feminist who was going off on homeschoolers, Christians, the HSLDA and fathers while glorifying CPS and calling anybody who is critical of a corrupt and cruel system a "child abuse denialist" and bla bla bla.

You are free to click the link and read the comments but I should remind you that their method of arguing is to delete or rather moderate out your comments which are contradictory to their beliefs as such comments might make people think and corrupt the belief system so to say.  Then they'll accuse you of being disrespectful and use that as their justification for deleting comments, even when no disrespect was meant in any way and only because she disagreed with them.  Therefore this argument would not be presented as it took place and is incomplete.

Under the definition given, I and most of my readers would certainly fit her description of a "Child Abuse Denialist," which would be defined most accurately as one who does not agree with and accept HER DEFINITION of the word abuse.  Of course her definition of the word abuse is rather extreme, unrealistic and would include anything which she decides should be included.

I decided to comment as I rarely do on these silly blogs anymore based on my understanding that arguing with idiots often makes it hard for others to tell the difference regarding which one is which, when the inevitable happened. Something that I said tweeked the nipple of one of this feminist bloggers readers or group members or whatever you want to call it.

It basically started like this...

And escalated to this...

And even continued to this...

Notice how I'm suddenly being disrespectful to the person who accused me of wanting to "kill and eat my own family..." by refering to her and her cult as "Feminazi's".  For doing so I lack any shred of basic human decency.  

Now lets consider this argument for a moment.  There is an obvious difference of agreement here right on the surface. That would be the part regarding what to do with a teenager who tells his grandmother to go fuck herself.

I'll say it right now.  If my teenage daughter ever told my mother to go fuck herself and my mother responded by slapping her in the face, I would turn my back and say don't you ever tell your grandmother to go fuck herself again.  Why?  Because I respect my mother enough to know that she would never ever harm my child in any way, and would never slap my daughter in the face without damn good reason and because my mother has been nothing but good to my daughter for her entire life.  I would consider that an act of aggression against my mother by my child.  I could not tolerate that even from my own child.  Of course that would be contrasted with this commenters view that there is NEVER any acceptable reason to slap a child and is debated in a one sided discussion in the comments section of that article, which if I ever tried to pull something like that on my mother she'd turn around and slap my 46 year old mouth for letting my daughter talk to her like that and I would have to stand there taking it like a bitch because I would never hit my mom.   Fortunately I've never been put into that position as my daughters are good kids who absolutely love and respect my mother who loves and respects them even more.

Now let me explain where all of this came from.  Earlier in this conversation it was suggested that there were not enough resources allocated for child protection efforts.  I suggested that in many cases there were but such resources are misspent on social workers chasing shadows and false or unwarranted reports rather than investigating real situations where a kid was at risk of real abuse.  The didn't get that.  So I attempted to break it down for them.  I referenced a case...

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/florida-woman-arrested-slapping-granddaughter-face/story?id=10539757

And then suggested that when allocating resources to child protection efforts, some cases were much worse than others such as the psycho violent grandma as compared to a sicko who molests and beats an infant to within an inch of her life.  Said resources should go to the child who really needs them.

Fortunately the judge would rather agree with me.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/humaninterest/charges-dropped-against-largo-grandma-who-slapped-teen/1092557

Here's where I tripped up.  I gave these people the benefit of the doubt that they would be able to understand a point that is outside of their "one tracked mind" boxes.  I was very wrong in making such an assumption.  I tripped.  I admit it totally.  I am only an imperfect human male who by virtue of my demon-penis should never argue against the infinite feminist wisdom which is never wrong.

This does, however, demonstrate a point about the mentality that justifies the existence of the child protective industry in it's current form.  That is that the feminist does not understand that it is harmful to destroy a family, nor do they understand how the Child Protective Industry is harming children.  They are simply whining for more and stronger, tougher, stricter and unfair social and domestic policies that help her to achieve her agenda's in regards to the control of the child who just happens to be a human being with rights of his or her own.

I should also mention that not only are said policies harmful to the parents and other family members whose needs, according to her, should never be considered when dealing with children in any way.  Nor does she understand how said policies are harmful to the children, as Legally Kidnapped should adequately demonstrate.

They also believe that just because a CPS Agent is not able to find evidence of abuse does not mean there was no abuse.  Only that the standards used to substantiate claims of abuse are too high.

So the point is this: There are a lot of pre-conceived notions that are not only incorrect in a realistic sense but which result in policy decisions that harm families and especially children AND that are not subject to discussion.   Many of these are moral arguments by feminists which become doctrine, meaning that they are unarguable in any way shape or form.

That same mentality has also taken over our schools thus justifying multiple unwarranted reports of child abuse from feminist teachers which add up to nothing but do give her a sense of control over the child and which rob resources from the children who really need them thus resulting in kids falling through the cracks and dying at the hands of abusive parents because CPS Agents spend too much time, for whatever reason, investigating that which is frivolous and unwarranted because it's better destroy an innocent family than it is to leave one kid in a situation that she would consider to be abuse.

The solution to this mess would be to examine these belief's, doctrines and policies and not label that which is frivolous as abuse regardless of the severity levels being high or low.   I'm sure, for example, the mouthy teenager will go on with her life and the child who really needs help will become an angel way too soon.

And to those of you who none of this makes any sense to I do apologize.  This is feminist bullshit.  It's really not my fault.

Peace, love and flowers...
LK