Fathers 4 Justice:solutions lies in our families, not our family courts


Note: I ran this at the Guardian yesterday. It’s a topic that some of the regulars here have seemed keen to discuss, so here’s a repost

 

It appears to be the season for symbolic gestures. Last week Fathers4Justice (F4J) activist Paul Manning was arrested and charged for gluing a photo of a child to Constable’s The Hay Wain in the National Gallery. The incident occurred two weeks after another F4J activistspray-painted over a portrait of the Queen in Westminster Abbey, and three days before a similar attack on a statue in the same cathedral. That act was done in the name of a different group, Stolen Children of the UK, although a F4J activist was also reported to be in attendance.

After Manning’s arrest, F4J put out the daddy of all passive-aggressive statements. It is calling on their supporters to continue independent acts of nonviolent direct action, adding:

 

“The organisation said it was also now refusing to engage with national media over what it described as deliberately inaccurate and misleading reporting of the campaign and the crisis in the family courts. It was also refusing to deal with the government, police, courts, judiciary and any other organisations involved in family law and said it was considering shutting down all conventional social media.”

 

This may come as good news to the national media, government, police, courts, judiciary and the nation’s fine art restoration business, but to everyone else it can be little more than a symbolic gesture. F4J has always despised the political and media establishment and the feeling has been mostly mutual. Their speciality was always the symbolic gesture.

If ever an issue required willingness to compromise and negotiate, it is family dispute settlements. The latest F4J gambit portrays them as stubborn, immutable and hostile – not the symbolism intended. I do not question that the men (and women) involved in F4J feel a sincere and burning sense of anger and frustration at their circumstances. They would counter that a willingness to compromise and negotiate gets them nowhere, either politically or personally. However the timing of this particular announcement is intriguing.

This week the children and families bill entered its second reading. The bill offers changes to family court proceedings, including the introduction of a statutory assumption of shared (though not necessarily time-equal) parenting. The proposals are a hotchpotch of ideas, largely ignoring therecommendations of the Norgrove report and pleasing virtually no one. Legal commentators warn that the proposed wording is sufficiently vague to make rulings more complex than ever. F4J has dismissed it as “a feeble cocktail of proposals [and] a charter for conflict and fatherlessness”. One might call it a symbolic gesture.

We need more than gestures on all sides. Family courts rule on the 10% of breakups that present the greatest difficulty. These are, almost by definition, marked by conflicting accounts, bitter allegations and at least one if not two unreasonable parties. Each is usually convinced of their own rectitude and their ex-partner’s wickedness. The adversarial legal system then throws petrol on the flames. Every ruling on the best interests of a child is a best guess and a judgment call, and so subject to assumptions, prejudice and prevailing cultural values. It is not just that we don’t know for sure whether the system is working adequately, it is that it is literally impossible to say objectively whether the system is working adequately in any one case, far less for all 500,000 adults and children entering the system per year.

If the workings of the court are an opaque mess, the political debate around it is often worse. Commentators often quote statistics on initial residency rulings, without acknowledging that most unresolved disputes centre on maintaining the agreed contact – an entirely different issue. The Ministry of Justice’s own research finds that fewer than half of cases that return to court due to non-compliance result in secured contact. Sweeping generalisations are made about “deadbeat dads”; separated fathers are portrayed as probable abusers or, from the other side, innocent victims of terrible injustices. In reality every case is unique and adversarial courts are not only the last resort, they are the worst resort.

Arrangements for shared parenting cannot begin in the family court. They need to begin from the moment of birth. Far more separated fathers maintain satisfactory relationships with their children in Sweden than the UK, and it is not because their courts have a magic formula, it is because fathers are assumed to be equally responsible parents from the word go. We don’t need symbolic gestures. We need a wide-ranging and holistic revolution in parenting, and fatherhood in particular. Without that, the family courts will continue to wrestle with impossible knots, and separated fathers will continue to cry out in anger and frustration.

Comments

  1. Sid says

    Quite the bind

    Fathers right get together, they are depicted as an abusers lobby. If they don’t make public protest and activism they are wrong, if the do make public protests and activism they are wrong. They are incapable of knowing whether or not they are being treated fairly by the legal system.

    This is what growing up reading the guardian and watching mainstream media advertisements and popular sit com narratives can do to you.

  2. Sid says

    Love the top comment

    “Quite so. I have been told by my soon-to-be ex-wife that unless I play ball on all things then she’ll limit access to my child as much as possible. From my understanding, without a long and painful legal battle, there is little I can do about this.”

    Nope, nothing wrong that that all, man up, be stoic, don’t complain and certainly do not show the emotion anger, that wouldn’t be on at all don’t you know.

    Thanks for clearing that up Ally, I don’t know where we’d be without these conservative guidelines.

  3. mildlymagnificent says

    Sid quoting aggrieved father

    I have been told by my soon-to-be ex-wife that unless I play ball on all things then she’ll limit access to my child as much as possible. From my understanding, without a long and painful legal battle, there is little I can do about this.

    Final sentence of Ally’s OP

    We don’t need symbolic gestures. We need a wide-ranging and holistic revolution in parenting, and fatherhood in particular.

    Sid, how do you think that this particular dysfunctional pair of parents would behave if they’d had more equal parenting roles right from the time the children were born. To quote Ally’s post yet again …..

    Far more separated fathers maintain satisfactory relationships with their children in Sweden than the UK, and it is not because their courts have a magic formula, it is because fathers are assumed to be equally responsible parents from the word go.

    Father’s roles, rights and responsibilities should be firmly established in families from the time children are born, not arbitrated by last resort courts after they’ve been erratically faffed about with or abandoned/ ignored or taken for granted by different families in their own various circumstances.

  4. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @Sid-

    “Nope, nothing wrong that that all, man up, be stoic, don’t complain and certainly do not show the emotion anger, that wouldn’t be on at all don’t you know.
    Thanks for clearing that up Ally, I don’t know where we’d be without these conservative guidelines.”

    See Sid, this sort of thing makes you sound so bitter and jaded and so used to flinging such messy sarcasm all the time, you don’t even know who you’re trying to be sarcastic to anymore, or for what reason. Is it that you imagined Ally’s advice would be like your mock advice? Conservative guidelines… c’mon man, pull the lips away from the tailpipe, you’re breathing too much of that shit in

  5. Sid says

    Unfamiliar

    Its perfectly acceptable to tell feminists / conservatives that are putting out the constant man up message where to go.

    That is what’s at the core of mens issues.

  6. Sid says

    Ally.

    “Arrangements for shared parenting cannot begin in the family court. They need to begin from the moment of birth.”

    Look at this whopper of a lie.

    The truth is that its perfectly possible to give the main caregiver and whoever is under the pressure to be out working more parental and visitation rights as a starting point.

  7. Sid says

    Hi mildlymagnificant

    but Allys closing comment is a lie. Its perfectly possible to give parental and visitation rights to the parent that is under more pressure to be out working as a starting point.

    >Sid, how do you think that this particular dysfunctional pair of parents would behave if they’d had more equal parenting roles right from the time the children were born.<

    Its also a lie that the man is responsive for this woman's abuse.

    Women are responsible for their own bad behaviour, not men. How long is it going to take us to get rid of that aspect of gender role playing.

  8. Ally Fogg says

    Sid

    Fathers right get together, they are depicted as an abusers lobby.

    As i said: “If the workings of the court are an opaque mess, the political debate around it is often worse. Commentators often quote statistics on initial residency rulings, without acknowledging that most unresolved disputes centre on maintaining the agreed contact – an entirely different issue. The Ministry of Justice’s own research finds that fewer than half of cases that return to court due to non-compliance result in secured contact. Sweeping generalisations are made about “deadbeat dads”; separated fathers are portrayed as probable abusers or, from the other side, innocent victims of terrible injustices.”

    If they don’t make public protest and activism they are wrong,

    Nowhere in the article do I say F4J would be wrong to NOT make public protest and activism.

    if the do make public protests and activism they are wrong.

    Nowhere in the article do I say F4J are wrong to make public protest and activism.

    They are incapable of knowing whether or not they are being treated fairly by the legal system.

    As I said: “Family courts rule on the 10% of breakups that present the greatest difficulty. These are, almost by definition, marked by conflicting accounts, bitter allegations and at least one if not two unreasonable parties. Each is usually convinced of their own rectitude and their ex-partner’s wickedness. The adversarial legal system then throws petrol on the flames. Every ruling on the best interests of a child is a best guess and a judgment call, and so subject to assumptions, prejudice and prevailing cultural values. It is not just that we don’t know for sure whether the system is working adequately, it is that it is literally impossible to say objectively whether the system is working adequately in any one case, far less for all 500,000 adults and children entering the system per year.”

    “Quite so. I have been told by my soon-to-be ex-wife that unless I play ball on all things then she’ll limit access to my child as much as possible. From my understanding, without a long and painful legal battle, there is little I can do about this.”

    Nope, nothing wrong that that all, man up, be stoic, don’t complain and certainly do not show the emotion anger, that wouldn’t be on at all don’t you know.

    The woman described here is being a dick. There is no law can be drafted or court system put in place that will prevent someone from being a dick. It is perfectly reasonable and understandable to get angry when someone is being a dick. However being uncontrollably angry, particularly in a situation like this, is highly unlikely to secure the results you want.

    What one individual should do in such circumstances is very hard to say. But I would hazard a guess that 9 times out of 10, solicitors, barristers and magistrates will make the situation much worse – especially for the kids – and there is not a single imaginative proposal for reform of family courts that could alter that.

    What society should do for those specific individuals is to do everything possible to encourage them to reach a solution that is amenable to both in the first place.

    But much more importantly, what society should do is adopt a wholesale reappraisal of what we really mean by shared parenting. That would be worthwhile on its own terms, but would have the added advantage of making it much less likely that such situations would arise in the first place.

  9. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @5. Sid-

    I know you feel that way, but again, when instead of focusing on helping men, you mostly attack feminism…

    what’s a brother to think about your movement? that you guys don’t stand for anything positive, that you are only ever anti-feminists

  10. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    similarly, what do feminists have to do with what Ally was just reporting on? i don’t see a connection, unless you want to go chase that blame tiger around for a while.

  11. carnation says

    @ Sid

    Hello Sid. Perhaps a lot of people frankly don’t give a fuck about men losing contact, because of the actions of F4J.

    What do you think about that?

    (For any new readers/commenters, please note these are most certainly NOT my views, see previous article).

  12. mildlymagnificent says

    The truth is that its perfectly possible to give the main caregiver and whoever is under the pressure to be out working more parental and visitation rights as a starting point.

    Another truth is that it’s entirely possible for the “main” caregiver not to be the same person all day every day, year in, year out.

    If you add in the kind of arrangements promoted by the scheme in Sweden that Ally cited, more people would be able to have more involvement in the lives of their children right from the start. Seeing as everyone’s main concern here is the welfare of children, it’s a bonus to be able to enhance the welfare of both parents with one simple system.

    (On a personal note, such a scheme would have made life a lot easier for my husband when our second child arrived along with some serious injuries to me making it impossible to do simple things like bath the baby, let alone lift or play with the toddler. But I could have sat at a desk and done my usual job. Instead, he worked full-time, prepared all meals, did all the nappies and other baby care while he was home as well as most of the work of caring for the toddler. We got through it OK, but it would have been a lot easier on all of us if he’d been able to do the first few months and I’d taken over later when I’d recovered a little – or, more accurately, the baby was less demanding to care for.)

  13. Sid says

    Unfamiliar

    I was being critical of the attitudes that causing men the most problems. Conservatism and feminism, that is helping men.

    What do feminists have to do with it, follower feminists very little – family law and feminist jurisprudence are intertwined, the anti father propaganda is feminist and Ally is putting forward a pro feminist position as far as father rights go – No shared parental rights until various feminist objectives are met.

  14. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    The general theme of your article, that the role of fatherhood and shared parenting needs to be given wider societal acceptance: do you think that F4J’s high profile campaign against “fatherlessness” shares a similar aim?

  15. Sid says

    Mildlymagnificant.

    What Ally is proposing is a lie.

    You can have the Swedish system (in which its still easy for abusive mothers to deny contact, there have been heart breaking Swedish fathers rights documentaries).

    You can have the current British system.

    Both systems can easily support both parents being guaranteed some parental rights, both systems can either support women abusing everyone involved by denying contact and its possible for both systems not to support that.

    What Ally is proposing is blackmail.

    Here are feminist objectives for more egalitarian parenting, (her is the blackmail and the lie) in the meantime its not possible to give both parents rights until those objectives are met.

    These aren’t very nice people.

  16. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @13. Sid-

    Ok, chase the blame tiger, enjoy yourself. When you’re done there’s cookies and milk on the table.

    The rest of this last post I’ll admit I could not understand… Critical of attitudes, check. Conservatism and feminism… are those attitudes? Or institutions? And [they] are helping men? As one who followers feminists very little… I still don’t know what you meant to say/ Clarify plox?

    Also… again with the assumptions about Ally’s motives. If that’s what you took from the article, that Ally agrees with mollifying the feminist-galvanized mother’s demands first and foremost… try reading it all again, way more slowly this time

  17. Sid says

    Hi unfamiliar

    I’m just more familiar with this stuff than you are. Ally is parroting a party line. The obvious lie that its not possible for both parents to be given parental rights, until various other feminist objectives are met, is a party line.

    The fact that feminists are even making this argument and trying to dictate terms, demonstrates the strangle hold the movement has over family law issues.

  18. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @Sid

    I hear what you’re saying about feminism’s influence in the arena of family courts, that they produce very sexist rulings based on all sorts of bullshit assumptions… but you’ll have to point out for me where Ally says “its not possible for both parents to be given parental rights, until various other feminist objectives are met”, because it certainly didn’t appear in the body of text he’s typed… this is what i’ve been cautioning you about, you come into threads like this and react loudly to your assumptions about what is being said, regardless of writer’s intent, and then we have to spend the rest of the comments vainly attempting to convince you that what has been said has been said, not the boogeyman versions you keep yelling at us for saying… no one said that stuff, dude. We played that game yesterday, I found it unamusing, so instead, I’m just letting you know up front you’re making the same mistake again already, and I won’t bother with you if you keep doing it today.

  19. Sid says

    Ally @ 8

    I didn’t say you literally said things, I was paraphrasing the sort of binds that feminist leaning people tie men’s rights people up it. Its also an abusers strategy, there is no way to ever be right.

  20. Nick Langford says

    I used to be the chief researcher for F4J until I was chucked out last year for refusing to support one of their mad-cap campaigns, so I have an interest in this debate. I take no responsibility for the statistics they are currently using, but uncovering facts and figures was part of my role.

    I had expected to take issue with Ally’s article, but actually he makes some very good points. I agree that the level of political debate is lamentable; it is nice to see someone recognising that the MoJ’s research on the outcomes of contact orders – which is used to counter allegations of anti-father bias – is misleading, the levels of contact it reveals are very low. This recognition is something of a marker, and indicates that Ally is someone who actually thinks about this issue and doesn’t just accept the orthodoxy.

    The 10% figure is almost certainly wrong. I (and F4J) dispute it and suggest a more accurate figure of at least 20%. The reason the government and others want to mislead (assuming it isn’t an honest error, which it may be) is that the lower percentage can be presented as dysfunctional families in which one party may be violent or abusive and shared parenting is not an appropriate option.

    I agree that there needs to be a cultural change to accept fathers as parents, but the courts have a significant role to play, and many parents not in the 10 or 20% nevertheless act ‘in the shadow of the law’ and adopt parenting arrangements which mirror those the courts would order. The principal allegation has to be that the courts don’t monitor the outcome of interventions and so cannot predict what effect their interventions will have. The claim that they act in the ‘best interests of the child’ is purely speculative and has no basis in evidence. The secrecy (allegation the second) in which the courts operate ensures that there can be no independent assessment of this claim – nor of claims made by activists. The third allegation is that the courts do not enforce their own orders, despite being given the powers to do so which they had long demanded. Enforcement orders are very rare.

    Of course parents ideally should avoid the courts, that goes without saying, but for now they are often the only option. Mediation correctly conducted can work, but the sort promoted by the government is focused on finances rather than children and isn’t always much use in keeping parents out of the courts. Most mediators are solicitors anyway who will want couples to litigate eventually.

    The relevant measure in the Bill is likely to be watered down even further – and it is only a presumption of ‘involvement’, not of shared parenting. There is some evidence from other jurisdictions that even a weak presumption can have significant effects, so we may have to wait and see. I doubt there will be any other legislation along for another 20 years or so, and F4J have made it very clear that they are no longer willing to engage with the only people who can actually effect a change in the law. By so doing they undermine the entire campaign for reform.

  21. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    “Ally is parroting a party line”

    “I didn’t say you literally said things”

    I dunno man, gotta watch it, “is parroting” implies verbatim recitation, and then you’re straight-up genuflecting.

    ” I was paraphrasing the sort of binds that feminist leaning people tie men’s rights people up it.”

    Right… which no one here is or has said… so… why are you reacting to something unsaid as if its whats being said? this is a problem, it is not conducive to productive discourse. You MUST take an argument partner at the face value of the words being spoken, or we all end up talking past one another

  22. Sid says

    Ally, you are a feminist leaning guy. All your solutions will involve men changing and carrying the heavier load while simultaneously not recognising women’s and feminism’s ability to act.

    The problem with parental rights is simple, the non caregiver doesn’t get any, that needs to change. Whether or not equal parental leave is sorted out first (I believe the feminists in UK gave men the most unequal parental leave Europe) is a red herring, that could take 20 years, meanwhile there are many women abusing their children and ex partners through access that nobody wants to talk about.

    Again, we are brushing womens abuse under the rug, and blaming men for it.

  23. Ally Fogg says

    I didn’t say you literally said things, I was paraphrasing the sort of binds that feminist leaning people tie men’s rights people up it. Its also an abusers strategy, there is no way to ever be right.

    You know what Sid? Not just in this thread but as a general observation…

    Our conversations would be much more fruitful, constructive and I suspect more interesting for everyone if you could discuss the words that I literally say, (or anyone else’s words, for that matter) rather than your spurious imaginings about secret agendas. You know? Like quoting a specific sentence or paragraph and saying why you disagree with it specifically?

    Just a handy tip.

  24. Ally Fogg says

    @NickLangford

    Really appreciate that comment, thanks Nick.

    Should clarify, because a lot of people on the Graun thread seemed to miss it, I am not saying that reforms in the family court are not needed. I’m certainly not saying (and I hope I did make this clear) that we should accept assurances from within the system that everything is fine, nothing to see here, move along.

    The family court system is a mess, and I strongly suspect that fathers / non-resident parents get the shitty end of the stick more often than not. I’m actually not against the introduction of a legal assumption of shared parenting, although I am cynical about how effective it would be.

    But I am, broadly, saying that focusing our attention on the family courts is like looking at one particularly nasty blister when the whole patient has measles. Great if we can make it a bit better, but not the solution.

    As for my take on Fathers 4 Justice and their latest efforts:

    I doubt there will be any other legislation along for another 20 years or so, and F4J have made it very clear that they are no longer willing to engage with the only people who can actually effect a change in the law. By so doing they undermine the entire campaign for reform.

    I couldn’t have put it better myself. Indeed, I didn’t!

  25. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    “Ally, you are a feminist leaning guy. All your solutions will involve men changing and carrying the heavier load while simultaneously not recognising women’s and feminism’s ability to act.”

    The first sentence was debatable but whatever. But from word 1 of sentence 2, you show that you will not listen to things he says, that you assume everything he might say will boil down to the same (wrong) point you assume he will always be making. And it means you’re flat-out lying when you say that “all [his] solutions” will be one thing or another. And lying makes Buddha cry.

  26. Sid says

    Ally@23

    I can’t quote you, this forum or feminism specifically on what is an overwhelming and and in ground attitude. Its an impossible task you set. The feminist position is abusive and an abuse of power, we dominate this discussion, and you are always wrong, even when you are right.

    You aren’t nice people to negotiate with, that is why the decision was taken to radicalize against you.

  27. Bill Openthalt says

    @ Ally

    But much more importantly, what society should do is adopt a wholesale reappraisal of what we really mean by shared parenting. That would be worthwhile on its own terms, but would have the added advantage of making it much less likely that such situations would arise in the first place.

    Isn’t this a conundrum similar to prenuptials? If you’re in love, they’re useless, and when love has turned to hate, they don’t prevent the legal battles.

    I suppose a majority of couples divorce amicably (although I cannot but wonder why they would divorce if this is the case, especially when they have children, as it means less free time, more expenses, and more stress), and never need to go to family court. For those who have come to dislike each other so much they need a judge, how could better arrangements when they’re still in love make a difference?

    It’s not like we’re still beleiving in the blank slate, and some people are (or become) very difficult to live and negotiate with.

  28. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @26. Sid-

    wow man. that’s pretty pathetic logic. perhaps the reason you have trouble finding that caliber of quote is that it is mostly happening in your head.

    Think hard! When is the last time you actually found a feminist who was willing to say the kind fo thing you’ve been accusing us all of. Was it never? I think it was probably never.

    Perhaps your jaded perspective on feminism has been fueling your jaded perspective on feminism for so long, you just can’t hear people say real things anymore. If you can’t participate in a discussion like an adult, I would propose banning you from participating at all

  29. carnation says

    @ Nick Langford

    Thanks for your comments.

    Elsewhere on this blog, I have stated that a major failing of F4J was the absence of a comparative study that demonstrated bias against fathers, based on their sex. I’d genuinely appreciate your comments on this.

    Similarly, F4J have stated that a “200 children a day lose touch with their father in secret courts” but offered no citation or commentary on the circumstances.

    Unrelated to family courts, but related to the modes operandi of F4J is this. F4J placed an ad accusing Mumsnet of promoting hatred of men and boys, and targeted Marks & Spencer as a Mumsnet advertiser. Matt O’Connor’s ice cream business marketing partners used Mumsnet in the establishment of the business. Hypocrisy. No?

    And of course, Advetising Standards Agency damned the F4J campaign.

    I don’t believe F4J to be a credible organisation, based on the statistics and claims that it promotes.

    Do you still believe them to be a suitable vehicle for estranged parents?

  30. thetalkingstove says

    There isn’t a topic that Ally could write about without Sid (and other regulars here) complaining about feminism in the comments.

    Ally: “I went for a walk today, and then had a nice dinner”

    Sid: OH BUT HOW CAN YOU EAT FOOD WHILST FEMINIST!

  31. Sid says

    Hi carnation

    >Hello Sid. Perhaps a lot of people frankly don’t give a fuck about men losing contact, because of the actions of F4J.

    What do you think about that?>

    I think there were men like you long before F4J came along. The lack of empathy for men long predates f4j.

    When people like f4j get out and express emotion and pain, there were men like you that will try to shame them and blame for it.

    You are giving a perfect example of how toxic the mix of conservatism and feminism is for me.

    I would agree that appeals to emotion and appeasement are the wrong way to go for F4J though, they are fishing in an empty pond for that.

    They would be far more effective of they modeled themselves on people like the suffragettes, or the angry brigade, not going as far as terrorism though – just taking a much harder line.

  32. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg and everyone else who comments

    Engaging with Sid is pointless. He’s either a very effective troll, or he’s incapable of understanding very basic principles of discussion, even argument. He admits to holding double standards for men and women and refuses to acknowledge other people’s input or word, prefeijg to lie about their thoughts or intentions and responding accordingly.

    His infantile name calling, reliance on metaphor, repitition of dubious sources and complete of absence of logic make him something of an attraction, in one respect. But largely, his is a negative and pointless presence.

    I propose ignoring him for here. Anyone else think that this is a preferred option? I’m open to all suggestions and critiques.

  33. Jessie says

    Sid
    When you write things like ‘on the side of men’, you just show that you consider this to be a gender war.

    There are no ‘sides’.

  34. Ally Fogg says

    Sid [26]

    I can’t quote you, this forum or feminism specifically on what is an overwhelming and and in ground attitude. Its an impossible task you set.

    Oh on the contrary. If the attitudes you are objecting to are overwhelming and inground, you should be seeing them everywhere. For example, you could quote a sentence of mine and say:

    “You see, this sentence is a clear example of Ally saying one thing about MRAs and holding feminists to different standards.”

    Or

    “You see, this sentence is a clear example of Ally showing indifference and ignorance of the suffering of male victims.”

    And then we could discuss it. Perhaps you’ll be right and I’ll apologise for the slip or reappraise my position.

    By comparison, I could put forward the case that the blogs on AVfM are riven with misogyny and bigotry. You might challenge that. Then it would be my responsibility to go through AVfM, quote examples of misogynistic and bigoted language. You’d be perfectly free to disagree that, say, calling women bitches, whores and sluts or revelling in ‘satirical’ celebrations of violence and rape is misogynistic, and I dare say you would, but at least we would be talking about the words there in front of us, and both you and me and anyone reading can ponder who has the more convincing argument.

    A briefer version of that would be that if you are going to make extravagant and occasionally offensive generalizations about me or anyone else, the advice might be put up or shut up.

  35. Ally Fogg says

    carnation [34]

    It’s your choice whether you read and / or respond to anyone’s comments. Likewise everyone else’s decision to do the same – or not.

    Cheers

  36. Sid says

    Ok Ally.

    Have you absorbed any new knowledge from the mens movement or ever had anything positive to say about it?

    Did you not say satirical article with the genders reversed to make a point is on a par with the horror of decades of the deliberate covering up of male abuse victims and protection of abusers and anti male propaganda?

    Did you not exploit the fact that there was decades of the deliberate covering up of male abuse victims and protection of abusers and anti male propaganda to take a pot shot at the mens movement.

    Are you not deliberately representing the Jezebele / satirical retort story and leaving out important context?

    Do you not know you are doing these things. yet do not yield or admit them?

    Do the baboons here not dismiss and smear mens rights 100% of the time they are speaking about them?

    Are you not going to hand wave everything I’ve just said?

    Do you not have a permissive attitude towards the baboons mobbing and bully tactics here, so long as the target is an mra?

    Do you not see responding to the people that addressed you in the AVF comments section as beneath you?

    Its an in ground.

  37. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    When people like f4j get out and express emotion and pain, there were men like you that will try to shame them and blame for it.

    You are giving a perfect example of how toxic the mix of conservatism and feminism is for me.

    The irony is glorious.

    Have you absorbed any new knowledge from the mens movement or ever had anything positive to say about it?

    Have you read Ally?

    Did you not say satirical article with the genders reversed to make a point is on a par with the horror of decades of the deliberate covering up of male abuse victims and protection of abusers and anti male propaganda?

    Any quotes? No?

    Do the baboons here not dismiss and smear mens rights 100% of the time they are speaking about them?

    ‘Cause you’d never do that to feminism.

    Its an in ground.

    Yes, your false assumptions about Ally’s behaviour and thoughts is indicative of an ingrained bias.

  38. Sid says

    Jesse

    “When you write things like ‘on the side of men’, you just show that you consider this to be a gender war.

    There are no ‘sides’.”

    Yes that’s the way it should be, men looking for abuse services shouldn’t be seen as derailing and taking from women. Feminism shouldn’t be producing antimale propaganda … and so on.

    A early mra made that point and was abused be feminists for it
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Lyndon

    The gender debate because balkinized because of a gender war that is being waged against men. Men have been put in the position where they have to respond.

    I think there will be “sides” until feminism is gone and there is something new, some sort of egalitarian movement.

  39. Sid says

    JS

    “The irony is glorious.”

    Yes, I find it amusing myself that feminists think they are so different from conservatives, when really they are both selling different versions of the same female protectionism and male disposibility.

    Its very toxic for men though.

  40. Jessie says

    No Sid, there is no men v women and no men’s rights v women’s rights. It is perfectly possible for everyone to be better off, as this is not zero-sum. I would love to see men take a more active role in the lives of their children, as would every feminist I know. Shared parental leave from the very start of a child’s life is a great idea.

    Your attitude appears to be fixed and anti-women, refusing to acknowledge any view other than your own and resorting to name-calling rather than debate.

  41. Ally Fogg says

    Have you absorbed any new knowledge from the mens movement or ever had anything positive to say about it?

    Yes. I both blogged and wrote in the New Statesman in favour of David Benatar’s book The Second Sexism. I think I was the only British journalist to write about the tragic life and death of Earl Silverman. I’ve credited Warren Farrell for his insights into male disposability. I’ve quoted Erin Pizzey on domestic violence. That’s just off the top of my head.

    Did you not say satirical article with the genders reversed to make a point is on a par with the horror of decades of the deliberate covering up of male abuse victims and protection of abusers and anti male propaganda?

    Nope. I said that pieces which mock or celebrate violence are wrong, whoever is writing them. I never even attempted to quantify or compare.

    Did you not exploit the fact that there was decades of the deliberate covering up of male abuse victims and protection of abusers and anti male propaganda to take a pot shot at the mens movement.

    Nope. I said that pieces which mock or celebrate violence are wrong, whoever is writing them.

    Are you not deliberately representing the Jezebele / satirical retort story and leaving out important context?

    Nope.

    Do you not know you are doing these things. yet do not yield or admit them?

    See above.

    Do the baboons here not dismiss and smear mens rights 100% of the time they are speaking about them?

    Nope.

    Are you not going to hand wave everything I’ve just said?

    Nope.

    Do you not have a permissive attitude towards the baboons mobbing and bully tactics here, so long as the target is an mra?

    Nope, I have a hands off moderation policy, which allows you to say mean things about other people and other people to say mean things about you.

    Do you not see responding to the people that addressed you in the AVF comments section as beneath you?

    Nope. I can only argue on so many platforms at once. If anyone from AVfM wishes to discuss it with me, they’re perfectly at liberty to leave their comments or questions here.

  42. Sid says

    Jessie

    “No Sid, there is no men v women and no men’s rights v women’s rights.

    This is incorrect, you might well not be aware of it but there is a war being waged against men
    http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628

    > It is perfectly possible for everyone to be better off, as this is not zero-sum>

    This is correct. That’s how it should work, but not how the dominate group in the gender debate is doing things.

    >I would love to see men take a more active role in the lives of their children, as would every feminist I know. Shared parental leave from the very start of a child’s life is a great idea.as would every feminist I knowYour attitude appears to be fixed and anti-women>

    This is incorrect, I’m anti the attitude of many feminists and various feminist policies, feminism is a political ideology, women are a biological demographic. I’m pro- woman, equal or complementary rights, responsibilities, obligation and empathy – many mistake this for misogny however.

  43. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg
    @ Sid

    “Yes. I both blogged and wrote in the New Statesman in favour of David Benatar’s book The Second Sexism.”

    I think that Sid was commenting on that article, under the pseudonym “feministsmakethingsup”

    I could be wrong, but I think I’m right.

  44. Sid says

    edit

    > Iwould love to see men take a more active role in the lives of their children, as would every feminist I know. Shared parental leave from the very start of a child’s life is a great idea.as would every feminist I know>

    The feminists in the UK negotiated the most unequal parental leave rights for men in Europe, these are the same people that complain about wage gap! What a bind these people make.

    The issue of both parents having some rights in the even of separation is nothing to dowith parental leave. Its to do with discrimination against the non care giver (they do not have rights) and care givers that use access to children as a means to dominate, hurt and control their ex partner.

  45. carnation says

    @ Sid

    “you might well not be aware of it but there is a war being waged against men”

    Are any men aware of the war being waged against them?

    Is the army fighting men aware of it?

    Have there been any casualties?

    This is an example of the ridiculous nonsense and reliance of metaphors that you have been asked to cease.

    Can’t you see how completely without foundation, substance, intellect and reason your comments are?

  46. says

    I don’t get the model here. How is vandalizing stuff supposed to get people to support father’s rights? This, disposability and disparate sentencing are the best issues MRAs have, but their activists always make them look like nutters.

  47. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    ‘Ally: “I went for a walk today, and then had a nice dinner”

    Sid: OH BUT HOW CAN YOU EAT FOOD WHILST FEMINIST!’

    I lol’d again

  48. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @51. Ace of 7s-

    People who feel so desperate and helpless start really lashing out (from PETA destruction of property all the way up to suicide bombers). It stops being about accomplishing anything and becomes about attention alone. My take on it, anyway

  49. Sid says

    Ally

    Did you not leave out this context for your readership, who are already primed to believe in misandric wife beater stereotypes and female protectionist hysteria, that runs contrary to what you have published here about it, which was trying to pass it off as misogynist and an actual call for violence David Futrelle type?

    Three years ago I wrote a satirical, and somewhat belated response to an article on Jezebel.com in which the staff of that publication and their readers were having a grand old time bragging to each other and backslapping over who had been the most physically abusive with their male partners.

    It was the most disgusting display of domestic violence glorification I have seen, before or since.

    I wrote a particularly provocative response to it, in order to demonstrate how that sort of mentality might appear in a scenario where the perpetrator was male and the victim was female. In it, I made some overtly graphic references to the violence and proclaimed that we were declaring a “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”

    “Yes, Paul’s piece had a great deal of anger but here’s the context:

    A group of people who are often legally and always socially exempt from being held accountable for their violence wrote a triumphalist piece celebrating their violence against the group of people who have few to no legal protections against said violence.”

  50. Sid says

    Ace of Sevens

    Father for justice have been running impotent campaigns. They appease by dressing up as superheroes “look we are not bad dads like the propaganda says”. They make appeals to emotion in a culture where there no empathy for men.

    Their more hardline activism gets more results, more exposure, a feminist conservative is now trying to censor them … there is less mockery, that is success.

    That’s how social movements work. The civil rights movement, feminism, the LGBT movements all have terrorism in the history.

    Im not suggesting that f4j engage in terrorism, I’d never suggest that, they just need to drop this ides that they can make change by appeasing their feminist critics and appeals to emotion and show they are serious.

  51. Bill Openthalt says

    @ Jessie

    I would love to see men take a more active role in the lives of their children, as would every feminist I know. Shared parental leave from the very start of a child’s life is a great idea.

    What do you understand under “parental leave from the very start of the child’s life”?

    If you’re talking about a period of several months, that might be too much, too soon. Infants spend most of their time sleeping, and since men cannot (for all practical purposes) lactate, the time the father can spend with the child is limited.

    What would be beneficial is a relatively brief period of shared leave after birth, to allow both parents to adapt to the child, and to allow the father to help the mother recover from the birthing process (especially if she’s had a caesarian). The rest of the father’s parental leave is, in my opinion, better taken when the child is older, to avoid having to send the child to a creche before it is two (or preferably three, but that might be too expensive) years old. This would have the added benefit that it would be the parents, instead of the educators at the creche, who spend the most time with the young child.

  52. Sid says

    @carnation

    I didn’t coin the term class warfare.

    No most men are oblivious, but most know something is wrong and many are taking part in attacking men. You are quite aware that men need to attacked and silenced when they speak up about their rights, or legal discrimination or being lied about in abuse statistics, but you don’t really know why, or where you got the cultural messages that’s the correct thing to do.

  53. Sid says

    Jesse

    >If you’re talking about a period of several months, that might be too much, too soon. Infants spend most of their time sleeping, and since men cannot (for all practical purposes) lactate, the time the father can spend with the child is limited>

    I’ve fed a new born with breast milk with out the presence of the mother. You express the the milk and keep it in the fridge. Anyhow, its irrelevant to discrimination against the non care giver and care givers using access as a means to abuse, hurt and control their ex partner.

    If anyone is saying the reason there is a problem with the non care giver being given not rights and care givers using access to children and a way of abusing their ex partner, they are misleading you.

  54. carnation says

    @ Sid

    Has there been another war waged is history where the group of people being targeted ate “oblivious”

  55. Sid says

    Edit

    If anyone is saying the reason there is a problem with the non care giver being given no rights and care givers using access to children and a way of abusing their ex partner is paternal leave, they are misleading you

  56. Ally Fogg says

    Did you not leave out this context for your readership,

    I left out the context for the very good reason that the context does not and could not excuse the response.

    Jezebel could have written an orgiastic fantasy about naked lesbian frolics in a pool of the blood of recently slaughtered baby boys and it still wouldn’t make Elam’s article excusable or justified. For the simple reason that two wrongs don’t make a right.

    It is not a difficult philosophical concept to grasp.

  57. Sid says

    Of course the context does not excuse what you made it out to be Ally.

    You made it out to be misogynist and a literal call to violence.

    Had you included that context, your depiction wouldn’t have rung true.

  58. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    ” the reason there is a problem with the non care giver being given no rights”

    like some kind of paid maternal/paternal leave they could take together, or subsequently, or something? ok, rights in that sense are a good idea,

    “and care givers using access to children and a way of abusing their ex partner is paternal leave”

    head=asplode

    abusing their ex partner

    wat

  59. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    Their more hardline activism gets more results, more exposure, a feminist conservative is now trying to censor them … there is less mockery, that is success.

    That is the most blatant use of post hoc/propter hoc reasoning I have ever seen (within gender debates anyways; religion and pseudoscience get the top title in that area).

    thetalkingstove

    OH BUT HOW CAN YOU EAT FOOD WHILST FEMINIST!

    I have been giggling like a child all morning. I love it.

    Bill Openthalt

    What do you understand under “parental leave from the very start of the child’s life”?

    Well that’s for the actual parents to decide, isn’t it? I want a system where both parents are given a certain number of months (say 20; maybe that’s not enough, maybe it’s too much, I dunno) they can use as they please. If the mother doesn’t want hers except for 1 month to rest up, she should be able to sign over the other 19 to the father so that he can use them. If they want to save them for 15 years and take the kid on vacation for 3 months in the summer, go for it. Anything. You get 20 months (or however much) each with your kid uninterupted by vocational duties. Go nuts.

  60. Jacob Schmidt says

    You made it out to be misogynist and a literal call to violence.

    Actually, the statement was that such a call to violence isn’t wrong, even if he was kidding.

  61. Sid says

    @carnation

    “Has there been another war waged is history where the group of people being targeted ate “oblivious””

    All group that have been targeted by equality / class warfare movements in the past were oblivious to what was really going on, until later.

    Its a normal feature of class warfare for the group deemed oppressors and most of the designated victim groups not to know whats really going on.

    As I said earlier, you know men that stand up for their rights and against anti-male propaganda are to be attacked and silenced, but you don’t really comprehend why you are doing it or what ideology is prompting you to behave badly towards designated bad groups, while overlooking the bad behaviour of designated good groups.

  62. Paul says

    Hi Ally

    Broadly agree with much of what you said but just wanted to make a few points.

    1) It’s depressing that so many people seem to think that it’s a myth that fathers face discrimination at the Family Courts. And that those who have problems with access only have themselves to blame because they’re abusive etc

    2) I’d like some research to be done on the number of fathers who don’t even go to the Family Court either because they know any contact order they get won’t be enforced and/or they know they may ruffle the feathers of the mother so much they could lose all contact with their children altogether.And they won’t be able to do anything about it.So they accept whatever contact the mother is prepared to give them.

    3)I don’t condone the behaviour of some of the members of F4J. However i can’t get my head around this idea that their direct action is undermining the reforms that are so badly needed. The issue of shared parenting rights is imo one of basic common justice .And given that childhood goes so quickly i can understand the desperation of those fathers who’re being either marginalized or excluded from their childrens lives and who feel powerless to do anything about it. Members of other groups who’ve faced discrimination have always resorted to direct action which arguably has been unhelpful to their cause.But it hasn’t stopped the fight for what is fundamentally right .And on occasion has actually raised public awareness of what they’re fighting for. I suppose what i’m saying is that fathers shouldn’t in effect be punished purely on account of the behaviour of some members of F4J..

  63. Sid says

    @JS

    Ally initally painted it as misogynist, a literal call to violence and thew in some bizarre stuff about an agenda to undermine abuse serviced for women.

    These are hot buttons the readers here, who are already primed to jump on stereotypes of evil men and damsels in distress.

    The full context totally changes both Allys and the original David Futrelle misrepresentation of the article.

  64. Sid says

    JS

    “That is the most blatant use of post hoc/propter hoc reasoning I have ever seen (within gender debates anyways; religion and pseudoscience get the top title in that area).”

    Its just a fact. F4J needs to move from being laughed at to being fought against. The fact that the establishment have made moves to silence them shows that they are being taken more seriously.

    Thats how movements work.

  65. says

    Hi Ally,

    You don’t actually say whether you agree with the vandalising of the UK’s national works of art or one of the Church of England’s cathedrals.

    Neither do you say anything about the viability of the F4J’s claim that it is following in the footsteps of the Suffragettes, something that displays as much historical ignorance as it does hyperbole.

    I cannot imagine a more welcome present for mothers struggling to protect their children via the services of the Family Court.

  66. Sid says

    Bitethehand

    If it was MFJ trying to get access to children that were being used and abused as weapons against their mothers by men, would your view of what was justified change?

  67. carnation says

    @ Paul

    I was hoping you’d come to the discussion.

    Your points:

    1. I think it’s quite the opposite, the cliche is the mother preventing a father access. See the comments under Ally’s srticle for examples.

    2. I agree with this proviso – it collates data on parents, not fathers, and includes non attendance or either parent in contact centres. In fact, having received assurances about its indrpendence and academiv credentials, I woukd donate to this cause.

    3. Basically, these recent actions sum up F4J: good for headlines, virtually nothing else.

    Apols for typos, on a phone on a train!

  68. Jacob Schmidt says

    I’m still waiting on those quotes, Sid. Do you actually have anything?

  69. says

    Hey Sid:

    I know this is just a bit more feminist propaganda, but standard practice on FTB when replying is to put the thing you’re replying to in <blockquote> tags like this </blockquote>.

    The result looks like this,

    and it’s easier to follow discussions that way.

  70. Sid says

    Hi Jacob

    What are you looking for quotes on and if I get you these quotes do you intend on then moving the goal posts when they arrive?

    I don’t want to get into another mobbing situation where there are a group of baboons all badgering me at once with deliberate dishonesty, I don’t have much time for internet bullies.

  71. Adiabat says

    The problem is that the family courts values work done outside the home as “less valuable” as work done in the home. Providing means to put food on the table by working in a job you hate is just a loving and valuable an act to a child than being the one slaves in the kitchen cooking it. The problem isn’t that men aren’t “stepping up” as a parent, it’s that society completely devalues what they do as a parent.

  72. Sid says

    Hi sidhe3141

    Thanks I was going to ask someone for the code for that.

    No, that doesn’t look like feminist propaganda, feminist propaganda is deceiving people about abuse rates, PSAs that tell only half the truth, the patriarchy conspiracy theory etc

    test

  73. Jessie says

    Adiabat (76)
    I don’t agree. It’s not about ‘value’, it’s about causing as little disruption to the lives of the children as possible. If one parent has been principal caregiver and the other most of the financing, placing children with the former whilst the other continues to provide financially is likely to be the least disruptive arrangement. It would be good if parents could share care, but that is not always possible if schools are involved or there is no room for the children to sleep in both homes. Even then, spending one week in one home and the next in another can also be disruptive.

    Incidentally, I have two male friends who work from home and were principal caregivers, whilst their wives worked outside the homes. In both cases, the children live with the men because of that.

  74. Adiabat says

    Jessie: The point is that they are both the caregiver, but we devalue the care of the father. You yourself have just categorized providing the means to buy food as somehow separate from caregiving in this line:

    “If one parent has been principal caregiver and the other most of the financing”

    That attitude is part of the problem.

  75. Ally Fogg says

    Ally initally painted it as misogynist, a literal call to violence

    No I didn’t Sid. At no point did I call it a literal call to violence. .

    You see, this is why it would be really useful if you would actually quote the lines you are talking about because you persistently and repeatedly misrepresent the truth.

    In the first piece I described it as a violently misogynistic reaction.. Which it blatantly is.

    In the second piece I said he was “revelling in a fantasy of retaliatory violence, peppered with shamelessly misogynistic language and imagery” Which it blatantly is.

  76. Jessie says

    Adiabat
    Please don’t resort to dictionary tactics. By ‘caregiver’ you are aware that I mean the parent who is doing the ‘home stuff’. I even separated that from the one doing the financing.

    I notice you assumed the latter to be the father. That attitude is also part of the problem.

  77. says

    What you need to address Adiabat is that even where mothers work full time they still undertake most of the care her child needs.

    When father’s can demonstrate that they as a whole have reversed this, they can expect some support from the Family Court.

  78. Sid says

    @Ally

    “violently misogynistic reaction.. Which it blatantly is.

    In the second piece I said he was “revelling in a fantasy of retaliatory violence, peppered with shamelessly misogynistic language and imagery” Which it blatantly is”

    Right, you didn’t explain what the activism was about or what it was and you said this was a reaction to something that was “perceived”, misleading the reader and substituting the context for frightening imagery of a crazy person that actually hates women and was excited by fantasizing about violence against them. You just went with the Futrelle version.

    The actual context, changes what you described quite significantly.

  79. Sid says

    No I didn’t Sid. At no point did I call it a literal call to violence.

    .

    Ok, I apologize for that. Its more accurate to say that you depicted him as in some sort of frenzy and happy fantasy about actually carrying out what was described.
    .

  80. carnation says

    Hi Sid,

    You’re an MRA. I am opposed to MRAs.

    If I said the following to you, because of your complaints of bullying, would it be acceptable?

    “by the time we are done you will wax nostalgic over the days when all you had to deal with was someone expressing a desire to fuck you up your shopworn ass.”

  81. Sid says

    Hi carnation.

    That wouldn’t be a nice thing to say.

    However, I reserve the right for mra’s to be as nasty towards feminists as feminists have been towards mra’s and to use controversial rhetoric just like feminists have.

    To have it any other way would be sexist, misogynist and misandrist and the mens movement wouldn’t get anywhere.

    There shouldn’t any special way to treat women and a whole other set of rules for men, I think that’s one of the parts you are struggling with, the whole rejection of traditional gender roles thing.

    If men decide to treat women, the way women treat men, is it really misogny?

    You have a lot of examined sexist assumptions to unpack.

  82. carnation says

    Thanks Sid.

    Can you find some instances of feminists using psycho-sexual imagery towards MRAs?

    And do you believe that having your personal conduct and behaviour decided upon by those you profess to oppose is sensible?

  83. Sid says

    Hi canration

    What is the game, whoever finds the most horrible quote from the other group wins?

    What is the prize, I think I know what it is for you, that high you get from feeling morally superior to others but what do I get other than a silly conversation with sexist baboon?

  84. carnation says

    @ Sid

    You have no way of knowing my motivations or feelings, so it’s silly to speculate.

    I feel pity for you, that’s my main feeling. I think you’re lost and confused. Not because you’re an MRA, but because you’re an MRA unable,to critically analyse anything. You revert to inane name calling and metaphors when you get confused.

    To answer your points:

    “What is the game, whoever finds the most horrible quote from the other group wins?”

    I point out egregious, misogynistic, hateful comments, full of sexual imagery, dismissing victims of sexual abide, and you defend them on the grounds that ” I reserve the right for mra’s to be as nasty towards feminists as feminists have been towards mra’s”

    But you can’t provide any evidence of feminists being that “nasty”. I don’t doubt that you believe that they have, but you just can’t prove it.

    The second part of my question remains unanswered:

    And do you believe that having your personal conduct and behaviour decided upon by those you profess to oppose is sensible?

  85. Sid says

    Carnation

    The least sophisticated of mra’s, well I don’t know if they are mra’s … congregate somewhere called the MGTOW forums, that’s where David Futrelle gets most of his quotes, anyhow some of these people think producing some quote from Dworkin or Solanas constitutes proof that all feminism and all feminists are evil and always wrong. Ask them about anything to do with feminism or construct an argument beyond vilification by quote, and many of them are lost.

    That’s you, that is.

    Anyhow, you don’t seem to be aware that for years, sexual shaming, sexual slurs and homophobic shaming was the usual way for feminists to abuse mra’s. It has tapered off in recent years, possibly due embarrassment and an mra publishing a list off all these things that feminists will predictably say, now the main “argument” is producing quotes by Paul Elam.

    Here is an example of the sort of thing that was common from back in the 1980s.

    The work received a large amount of attention in the media,[10] most of it hostile and abusive, vilifying Lyndon.[11]
    Rather than addressing the issues and arguments raised by Lyndon, most critics instead chose to abuse him personally. They suggested he was sexually inadequate, questioned the size of his penis, his masculinity, his ability to attract women and even the smell of his breath.[11] Almost two decades later feminist writer Julie Burchill continued the attack, suggesting he was a “sad-sack” and “the opposite of a man”.[12] In a review of book of the year, Helena Kennedy refused to even discuss the publication, simply instructing people not to buy it.[11]
    Even more serious abuses of Lyndon were to come such as an assault at Heathrow Airport.[11] At Cambridge university, Lyndon’s Alma-mater, the female president of the student’s union encouraged students to burn his writings and a don told her pupils that she would like to see him shot.[7]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Lyndon

    Someone else compiled a list of shaming tactic that feminists have typically used, some of it sexual, someone of it is homophobic, its called the “Catologue of Anti-male Shaming Tactics”, I suspect that this list had something to do with feminists using those cliches.

    This is all before your time though I’d imagine.

  86. Sid says

    edit

    I suspect that this list had something to do with feminists no longer using those cliches.

  87. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    For those who might be interested:

    “whatever you do, do not say you love your children”

    Bob Geldof on Fathers Rights after separation or divorce:

  88. carnation says

    @ Sid

    So you have no evidence whatsoever, then?

    And do you believe that having your personal conduct and behaviour decided upon by those you profess to oppose is sensible?

  89. Sid says

    What do you allege you didn’t get proof of

    that you are a petty fool who relies on vilification by quote like the least sophisticated of mra’s doand holds women and men to different standards?

    Or

    Proof that well known feminists were sexually shaming mra’s as far back as the 1980s?

  90. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    Hi Jacob

    What are you looking for quotes on and if I get you these quotes do you intend on then moving the goal posts when they arrive?

    I actually hadn’t planned my reaction. I’m pretty sure you don’t have any. And why do you care if I move the goal post? Anyone reasonable will recognize that; just point it out, laugh at me, and be done with it.

    But here’s some of the things I’ve ask you for:

    Did you not say satirical article with the genders reversed to make a point is on a par with the horror of decades of the deliberate covering up of male abuse victims and protection of abusers and anti male propaganda?

    You accused me of thinking this:

    feminists committing actual acts of violence against men pales by comparison to a man satirizing and parodying them to draw attention to their permissive attitude to violence against men.

    If you’re gonna provide, please do it in the other thread. Some of us actually care about fathers, and would like to discuss them without boring derails of irrelevant topics.

    Bitethehand

    When father’s can demonstrate that they as a whole have reversed this, they can expect some support from the Family Court.

    Bullshit. You don’t throw all fathers under the bus because some are shitty.

  91. Sid says

    Hi Jacob

    Thats right, I can’t provide those quotes, I must have been assuming that you believed those things because you were objecting to me, and I was pointing those disparities and inconsistencies I saw in an earlier article.

  92. carnation says

    Sid, you’re getting boring.

    You defended the psycho-sexual imagery of the quotes I gave you, on the grounds that MRAs have been subjected to the same from feminists.

    I asked for examples. You don’t have any.

    I asked if it was sensible to have your conduct and behaviour decided upon by your professed enemies. Like yesterday, you display cowardice and hypocrisy and avoid the question.

    The reasonable conclusion from that is the following.

    You don’t have any examples of feminists using sexual fantasies to attack MRAs

    You realise it ISN’T sensible to have your conduct dictated to by “enemies”

    You’re too cowardly and/or immature to admit you’re wrong

    You’re too intellectually stunted to engage in mature discussion

  93. Sid says

    How about we settle this here for once and for all carnation.

    You occupy the morally superior high ground, feminism covering up of abuse victims and protecting abusers for 30 years pales by comparison to the absolute horror of the off colour things that Paul Elam has said to create controversy.

    Clearly you are a moral superior on the internet, your movement is morally superiour, you belong to that movement, therefore its moral superiority reflects on you.

    Now, there is no real need to keep vilifying by quote to make yourself feel better carnation, you are just better, in every way.

  94. Sid says

    edit

    I almost forgot

    Of course because of your moral superiority, and vilification, bullying, dishonesty and other baboonery you chose to engage is perfectly justified. Moral superiors are not bound by the same laws as their inferiors.

  95. Jacob Schmidt says

    Thats right, I can’t provide those quotes, I must have been assuming that you believed those things because you were objecting to me, and I was pointing those disparities and inconsistencies I saw in an earlier article.

    Credit where due. Took you long enough, though.

    Adiabat

    Jessie: The point is that they are both the caregiver[1], but we devalue the care of the father[2]. You yourself have just categorized providing the means to buy food as somehow separate from caregiving[3] in this line:

    “If one parent has been principal caregiver and the other most of the financing”

    That attitude is part of the problem.[4]

    1) No. Care in this case means “direct care”, direct interaction with the child. Providing for the child and interacting are two seperate things. The reason “direct care” is given more weight in custody battles is because it causes less strain on the child. Such policies are also gender neutral, btw. The father may very well be the care giver.

    2) This is likely true.

    3) It is seperate. Providing for the child and interacting with the child are two seperate things.

    4) I think a larger problem is your (and societies) association with provision and fatherhood. In my family (well, my mothers family), there was no “provider” or “caregiver”, both my mother and stepfather worked, and both spent plenty of time with us.

  96. carnation says

    @ Sid

    I’m holding you to account, personally, for your support and endoresment of indefensible statements, which, by the way, had NOTHING to do with the Elam/Jezebel issue.

    Instead, they were a collection of misogynistic, sexually charged, hateful comments and threats.

    I reversed the genders and asked you to comment.

    You refused this challenge and blamed feminists for the way MRAs talk to women and feminists.

    Ten you write a paragraph about “superiority”, something that hasn’t been mentioned at all, you are projecting your own fears of inadequacy, I would guess.

    You know that uncomfortable feeling that you have just now? It’s caused by not being comfortable with your own beliefs. So you accuse me of things I haven’t said and of holding opinions that I haven’t stated.

    I’m talking to you, an individual MRA.

    And, as I’ve said, I don’t identify as a feminist…

  97. Sid says

    Yes carnation

    You as my moral better are holding me to account for the off colour things that someone else has said to generate controversy, that are just soo serious.

    I am not worthy, I am ashamed, I fail your vilification by quite challenges. What will you chose to do with me, or moral superior of the internet.

    Are we done here you petty minded insecure imbecile?

  98. carnation says

    Hi Sid,

    I am holding you to account for your *defence* of the statements that I listed, and for your obvious double standards. And your dishonest, diversionary debating tactics, and your (inept) attempts to insult me.

    In what way am I petty minded?

    Justify your declaration of my insecurity?

  99. Sid says

    The reference to your insecurity is to do with your near constant quest for moral superiority with me, the earlier pretensions tones and talking down your nose. I suspect you have a psychological need to feel better than other people, I think this trait is common among baboons who see themselves as the most moral ideologically pure of all skeptics and is what in their minds justifies the behavior they are known for. This is why you vilify and fling feces.

    Moral superiority is the belief or attitude that one’s position and actions are justified by having higher moral values than one’s opponent.
    It can refer to:
    Morality, when two systems of morality are compared
    Self-righteousness, when proclamations of moral superiority become a negative personal trait
    Superiority complex, when the moral superiority is a psychological reaction to insecurity and self-doubt

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_superiority

  100. carnation says

    Examples. Sid? Otherwise it’s just a lot of nonsense, letting your imagination run wild…

  101. Sid says

    And I already let you be the best, I said you are my moral better and accept your judgement, I admitted that the quotes you dug up are proof of that, so can we end this.

  102. Sid says

    Yes my better. I have totally imagined all your behavior, just like I imagined proving that sexual shaming of mra’s has been a normal abuse tactic of feminists. Feminists are the female anyway, they cannot act or abuse, their words do not count, only men can do that.

    You are also the best white knight, the way you save the women from evil elams words is amazing.

    No wonder you are so fond of pretentious tones and talking down your nose, how could not use those tones from your great moral height.

    Ok.

    So there isn’t really any thing more to discuss.

  103. carnation says

    Sid, you’re currently fantasising. It’s like talking to an unruly child who believes in monsters.

    Enjoy your Friday, Sid.

  104. Sid says

    Yes carnation, Im an unruly child. I am a moral child by comparison to your moral superiority and brilliant vilification by off color quote arguments, and the way you were speaking down your nose earlier, wow, you truly hold me accountable for evil elams off colour quotes that are designed to generate controversy.

    I bow down at your baboon alter.

  105. says

    Jacob Schmidt

    @98: Bitethehand

    When father’s can demonstrate that they as a whole have reversed this, they can expect some support from the Family Court.

    Bullshit. You don’t throw all fathers under the bus because some are shitty.

    On the contrary, it’s men who’ve not only driven the bus, thrown themselves under the bus and then complained that they don’t even use the bus to get to work.

    When men as a whole can demonstrate through the results of legitimate opinion polls, that the population at large recognises that they play an equal part in nurturing and caring for their children, then I’m quite sure the Family Courts will give them a sympathetic ear.

    Until then I suggest that as long as they (the men) allow the clowns in Fathers4Justice in their hired party outfits, to desecrate the UK’s finest artistic and architectural treasures, I suspect the Family Court will quite correctly decide that they and the men they represent are not fit people to have responsibility for the care of children.

  106. Sid says

    No bitemyhand

    Men are not responsible for women that decide that they are going to use children and the courts as a weapon of abuse.

    Men are not responsible for the lie that family violence is male or the laws and attitudes that were born out of those lies.

  107. Sid says

    bitemyhand

    Did you answer my earlier question, if it was mothers for justice fighting for access to children that fathers had kidnapped and were using as a tool for emotional and psychological abuse would your level of empathy change?

  108. says

    @bitethehand: So men as a class should be punished because some men are shitty? Good fathers only deserve the support of the system if they can get all the bad fathers to straighten up, too? How is that a legit argument. You sound like my racist uncle last reunion arguing that black people shouldn’t get upset with the police for mistaken shooting because black people do commit more crimes.

  109. says

    @117 Ace of Sevens

    @bitethehand: So men as a class should be punished because some men are shitty? Good fathers only deserve the support of the system if they can get all the bad fathers to straighten up, too? How is that a legit argument. You sound like my racist uncle last reunion arguing that black people shouldn’t get upset with the police for mistaken shooting because black people do commit more crimes.

    On the contrary, men are just under half the world’s population, they are not a class and they will never be one.

    And I’m not suggesting men should be punished, quite the contrary, they should be rewarded. And rewarded by taking on the real tasks that their children will appreciate, like doing the cooking and the washing up, remembering their friends’ birthdays, making sure their school uniform is washed and ironed and they’ve had sufficient encouragement with their homework, and the toilet is clean along with the shower and the wash basin, and the shopping’s included their favourite sweets and savouries, and their teeth have been brushed properly and so on. You know all those things that women seem to find so easy but men find so difficult.

    As such to try to equate what men suffer or enjoy or appreciate or disdain with one ethnic minority group is specious.

    So if I sound like your racist uncle, I think you’ve been spending too much time with your male relations and not enough time with your female ones. :)

  110. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @ Ally and all others:

    My apologies to everyone for embedding the video. I should have used preview before submitting and I will try to not let it happen again.

  111. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @96, carnation

    And of course, despite the alleged discrimination, he won his custody case:

    I was under the impression that he won custody due to reasons in 1996, lost it and then won custody back in 1998, and got custody of her child in 2000 after Yates finally suceeded in killing herself. Anyway, seeing as we are apparently for some strange reason reticent about using that bastion of journalistic integrity the Daily Mail as a source, I am going to use Auntie Beeb instead:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/929725.stm

    Anyway, the following is roughly my understanding of the case. I offer no guarantees that it is complete and accurate.

    Timeline:
    – 1995
    – Yates leaves Geldof for INXS frontman Michael Hutchence.

    – 1996
    – Files for divorce.
    – Yates gives birth to Hutchence’s daughter Tiger.
    – Yates nanny reports opium found in a smarties tube to police.
    – Geldof wins temporary custody of his three children.

    – 1997
    – Hutchence apparently hangs himself.

    – 1998
    – Yates lost custody of the children again when a bout of depression and an apparent suicide bid saw her admitted to a rehabilitation clinic.
    (no idea when she regained custody before this)

    – 2000
    – Yates apparently ODs on Heroin.
    – Geldof gets custody of Yates’s child Tiger, apparently on the grounds that she is now an orphan, and her half-sisters live with Geldof.

  112. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @118, Bitethehand

    I always did the homework with my kids, family dinner and the traditional reading before bed time. As for the rest of it, I hired a nanny in addition to a maid.

    This was absolutely no different to when the ex had the children. She also had a nanny and a maid.

    Just be careful about your assumptions please, because I am pretty certain that if neither of us could have afforded domestic services that it would have been any different.

  113. Ally Fogg says

    Andrew V69

    My apologies to everyone for embedding the video. I should have used preview before submitting and I will try to not let it happen again.

    No worries. I literally didn’t know you could do that. I’m quite excited now.

  114. carnation says

    @AndrewV69

    Yes, so even in the less enlightened times of the mid 90s, it appears the family court could and did make sensible decisions

  115. Jacob Schmidt says

    Bitethehand

    On the contrary, it’s men who’ve not only driven the bus, thrown themselves under the bus and then complained that they don’t even use the bus to get to work.

    Speaking as the son of a father whose worked his ass off for his kids, only for his ex to use his visitation rights as a privilege to be slowly chipped away, fuck off.

    When men as a whole can demonstrate through the results of legitimate opinion polls, that the population at large recognises that they play an equal part in nurturing and caring for their children, then I’m quite sure the Family Courts will give them a sympathetic ear.

    Again, bullshit. You don’t fuck over good people just because they fall into a superficial category with a bad track record as a whole. Why is that confusing to you?

    Until then I suggest that as long as they (the men) allow the clowns in Fathers4Justice in their hired party outfits, to desecrate the UK’s finest artistic and architectural treasures, I suspect the Family Court will quite correctly decide that they and the men they represent are not fit people to have responsibility for the care of children.

    And how does the family court decide just who F4J represents? Are all men to be tarred? Surely not, that’d be asinine. Do men proclaim there representative in court? Do they sign a waiver? How the bloody fuck is that supposed to work?

  116. Paul says

    Bob Geldof was one of the first to publicly talk about the problem of false claims of domestic violence and child abuse being used to demonise fathers at the Family Courts.And that some judges gave the women making them the benefit of the doubt.even though there was obviously no evidence.

    I know from people i’ve spoken too that it can be a problem.And this is backed up by some of the findings in the following research which i’m assuming most people here have seen. There’s clearly an overlap between the issues of fathers rights and domestic violence and more often than not one can’t be addressed without the other.

    http://www.dewar4research.org/DOCS/cafcassdewres2.pdf

  117. says

    @bitethehand. You say that men aren’t a class, but then advocate that men should be treated based on how men in general act, which sounds like the are a class. You seem to say that the men who cook and clean up and remember their kids’ birthdays don’t count unless men in general do this.

  118. Paul says

    ps Just so i’m not misleading anyone the research i linked too stated that more research needs to be done in this country as to the extent to which false allegations of domestic violence are made in custody battles.For those who make the alleged false claims are rarely if ever prosecuted for perjury. Research in Canada indicates that false allegations of domestic violence during custody battles are a problem.and the Family Courts there are rife with perjury. And there’s nothing to suggest it’s any different here although obviously more evidence is needed.

  119. carnation says

    @ Paul

    As you’ll know from dealings with the family court, an allegation made by either party is NOT considered without official state corroboration. Even when violence has been admitted to, even in front of the children, contact is not completely denied to a parent as a matter of course. Same with mental health and addiction issues, allegations about a parent’s mental state and substance use can and will be made (as will counter allegation), but they simply won’t be considered without official corroboration.

    You know this.

    It’s mischievous, perhaps even devious, to infer that a mere “false allegation” can have significant influence on a family court case.

    Bob Geldolf is a self confessed woman hater (though he said he got over that sweeping hatred) deeply embittered that his wife left him for another man. He was NEVER denied access to his children, he was instead unhappy with limitations put on the contact.

    Where there are two parents that despise each other, at some point, time will be allocated. During the day, during the week, school age children are at school. That leaves evenings and weekends. Factor in keeping disruption to a minimum and stability to a maximum, and that arrangements often have to be made for the parents never to meet, and it’s a situation external agencies will never be able to get “right” because there are so many conflicting versions of what “right” is.

    Looking over the Geldof/Yates cae, it seems that the family court showed pragmatism and realism. Was he discriminated against because he is a man?

    Look at Matt O’Connor’s case – you’ll see the same thing.

    Do false allegations occur? Of course. Is it primarily women doing it? There’s no credible research to prove it. Just as there’s no credible research to show that men break contact orders more often, or that women are comparatively more likely to be favoured in disputed cases.

    Paul, I feel like I’m sniping at you,many I feel a measure of regret for disagreeing with you as you seem genuine, committed and informed by very negativemexperincs, but I just can’t let these points go unchallenged.

    It is said that the law is an ass, and in family law, that’s particularly apt. But the way the family court is portrayed in the media. By F4J and, to an extent, by yourself, doesn’t reflect the reality I witnessed repeatedly (not just in court, but in mediation sessions, contact centres and support groups).

  120. Schala says

    1) No. Care in this case means “direct care”, direct interaction with the child. Providing for the child and interacting are two seperate things. The reason “direct care” is given more weight in custody battles is because it causes less strain on the child. Such policies are also gender neutral, btw. The father may very well be the care giver.

    In situations where the guy in the couple is rich…like billionaire rich.

    Like say, Guy Laliberté, the Cirque du Soleil owner. His girlfriend (not even married) gets custody of the 3 kids, a manor, and house staff including a chauffeur, a chef, a nanny and more – how did she provide direct care? How? By birthing?

    They had house staff.

  121. Jacob Schmidt says

    Like say, Guy Laliberté, the Cirque du Soleil owner. His girlfriend (not even married) gets custody of the 3 kids, a manor, and house staff including a chauffeur, a chef, a nanny and more – how did she provide direct care? How? By birthing?

    They had house staff.

    I’m not sure how you want me to respond. Assuming she didn’t provide direct care, she shouldn’t have been considered the care giver. If that legally counts, then the legal definition needs to change to account for that, but such a change isn’t what Adiabat proposed.

    Also, AndrewV69 gave an example of providing direct care while having house staff, so I’m not convinced in any case.

  122. Schala says

    Also, AndrewV69 gave an example of providing direct care while having house staff, so I’m not convinced in any case.

    Laliberté’s gold digger girlfriend was asking for 50 million outright and 30,000$ more per month, for HERSEKF, even as she had 50k for the kids per months, plus the manor and staff paid.

  123. DeepThought says

    Ally,

    I disagree with you. My sympathies are completely with F4J. For the record I am a custodial father living in the US. (Things are not perfect here, and they vary from state to state, but my impression is that in many places here they are much better for fathers than in the UK, and those states are ones that are neither extremely conservative (Bible Belt) nor extremely liberal (California, Massachusetts, etc.) This is because in the Bible Belt traditional gender roles are enforced, while in very liberal states feminist groups have the political clout necessary to fight shared parenting bills. And yes, it is feminist groups such as National Organization for Women.)

    Anyway my civil rights are not open for debate. If they are denied it is not for society to cluck-cluck at me for whatever remedies I might feel are appropriate, and it is not for anyone to bemoan how I lack “civility”. Yes it would be wonderful if remedies were provided through the law, but in these types of cases this has already been tried and failed. You may recall that for a long period of time even very basic civil rights were denied to a large class of people in this country, with the complete approval of its legal structures. So screw civility. That is the attitude of F4J and they are correct in so doing. Ability to have sufficient contact with their children in order to maintain a meaningful relationship is a civil right. If this right is denied, either because courts refuse to order this, or refuse to enforce their orders, then it’s time for civil disobedience, as much as is necessary to bring about societal change. My agreement to follow the social contract is completely dependent on society’s holding up its end of the bargain. I would have much more of an issue if F4J were advocating actual violence against individuals. But defacing a few paintings and sculptures? Go for it. (This is maybe easier in the US since there are a slew of Supreme Court and lower court opinions holding that the parent-child relationship is a civil right. I don’t know what the situation is in the UK. Also, we have a long history of civil disobedience, one of the most striking examples being Rosa Parks’ refusal to sit on the back of the bus.)

    Now do societal attitudes need to change, regarding that fathers are equally capable and responsible as parents? Of course, that goes without saying. However, the expectation that courts and society will uphold my civil rights is not dependent on that. Justice is supposed to be blind, and especially to societal prejudices.

    @82:

    What you need to address Adiabat is that even where mothers work full time they still undertake most of the care her child needs.

    When father’s can demonstrate that they as a whole have reversed this, they can expect some support from the Family Court.

    What matters and should matter to a Family Court is not what fathers do or don’t do on average, but what I do. If you do not see this you are a despicable bigot.

  124. karmakin says

    Yeah, I think that Bitethehand’s as well as the last paragraph of the OP really show how it’s easy to reinforce the gender binary and gender roles, tropes and stereotypes in the guise of combating them.

    The idea that removing the stereotypes requires internal change, generally speaking is usually seen as a non-starter. The term that people generally use for this is “victim blaming”. Which as we all know, is generally seen as a bad thing. Maybe it’s not. If there does need to be change, the other part of it is that it’s not just internal. It’s not just fatherhood in particular. Maybe it’s with what we see fatherhood as it should be, but it’s an external force placed upon an individual father, and not entirely personal choices that person makes.

    To put on my leftist hat for a second, we’re really talking about our materialistic culture, that basically demands that the father work long hours to provide the materialistic comforts (or even just basic survival, to be honest) with that being their primary role. Put on top of that a culture that values suburban/rural…Big Lawn…lifestyle which adds an ever increasing commute (at least in the US and Canada).

    These are parts of a problem which are much bigger than men, and cannot be fixed unilaterally.

    I’m actually open to the idea that fixing a problem may require internal change. I’m even open to the idea in this case, that barring those structural factors listed above, more men need to take a more active stance with their children. However, that means that the logical bar for “victim blaming” has risen (as it should be, IMO..we all have a role to play in fixing these big issues, which is why I reject the oppressor/oppressed model). I hope that’s remembered in future discussions.

    However, by mentioning that in terms of the family court system, it is a self-derailment of sorts. The reality is that making changes to the system that help to remove eliminate the gender roles and stereotypes that we have in our society, is something entirely different. Removing the stereotypes in the system is about achieving equality of opportunity. Increasing the role of individual fathers to make their claims on the children more sound is about achieving equality of outcome.

    Two entirely different notions.

  125. Nick Langford says

    @ Paul

    I agree with much that you say. It is certainly depressing that so many people seem to think that it’s a myth that fathers face discrimination in the Family Courts, however this is partly the fault of the fathers’ rights movement itself in failing to get its message across. That in turn is the result of relying on sound-bites and slogans rather than analysing in detail the issues facing fathers. The discrimination and bias are very complex and exist in many forms, in legislation, in public attitude in judicial training, in CAFCASS policy, etc. Picking all this apart to a high academic standard is beyond most MRAs.

    There is very little research available on non-resident fathers, and nothing at all (please correct me if I am wrong) since 1998. Those who commission research, such as governments, believe their prejudices to be sufficient and further research to be unnecessary. Much of what there is relies on responses from resident mothers and is unreliable. There is almost no research, for example, into why some fathers appear to walk away from their families and responsibilities, despite the fact that this is widely believed to be the main cause of fatherlessness. Some of the available research dates back to the 70s.

    The ‘Art Attack’ antics of F4J do not represent a coherent campaign. Tim Haries acted independently and F4J then jumped on the band-wagon and used his actions to boost their publicity and waning profile. Paul Manning also acted on his own – probably because he craved some of the attention and sympathy Haries was getting – and again F4J exploited this very damaged man for their own purposes. F4J certainly haven’t given any thought to how this will promote shared parenting or whether it might damage the campaign – it’s all about self-aggrandisement.

    @ Carnation:

    I obviously don’t know what your experience of the family justice system is, but I have no idea what you mean by “an allegation made by either party is NOT considered without official state corroboration” or “allegations about a parent’s mental state and substance use… simply won’t be considered without official corroboration”. In my experience (first hand and in support of many other cases over 10 years) neither statement is true. What on earth do you understand by “state corroboration”?

    You then say, “It’s mischievous, perhaps even devious, to infer that a mere “false allegation” can have significant influence on a family court case.”

    No, it isn’t. It is simply a statement of truth. False allegations are extremely effective at preventing contact. The courts usually stop contact or substantially reduce it when allegations are made. There then follows a very long period of time during which directions are made, reports are compiled, experts are instructed, further reports are sought, etc. By then many months if not years will have elapsed and the relationship will have been damaged. Contact, if it is allowed at all, will be supervised in a centre or be indirect (which is not really contact at all).

    The only way to overturn a false allegation effectively is via a finding of fact hearing, but these are becoming as rare as hens’ teeth and the courts are under instruction not to hold them. One study (sorry – can’t remember which) looked at a large number of cases involving allegations and a fact finding was held in only one case. Without such determination allegations tend to hang over cases, neither proved nor dismissed, and continue to exert a baleful influence.

    Not really having a go, Carnation, just baffled by your assertions.

  126. carnation says

    @ Nick

    Thanks for the response.

    State corroboration: the judge in family law cases considers reports submitted by CAFCASS, police and social work. A simple allegation, without evidence, unconfirmed by CAFCASS /police/social work simply wouldn’t be considered by the judge.

    The idea that a sympathetic judge listens to a mother lying about a father and acts accordingly doesn’t reflect reality.

    And again, even when a parent has admitted DV, it very often won’t be considered dangerousmtomthe child. Rightfully, in many cases, wrongly in many more.

    This is conjecture, but I believe that the myths peddled by F4J play a part in men walking away from families, believing that they will lose contact with their children anyway.

    I put a couple of comments/questions to you in #29, Nick.

    I’ll say to you what I said to Paul. It gives me no great pleasure to challenge people who’ve been through the ringer of the family court, but my experiences are that admitted instances of DV aren’t given due consideration, let alone false allegations. False allegations of mental ill health weren’t considered without a psychiatric report, false allegations of drug abuse weren’t considered without medical attention.

  127. Sid says

    carnation

    The major stumbling block for men’s issues has always been the men that stand on the deck with a hand gun shooting the men that try to get on the lifeboats, whether they are traditionalist men, or pro feminist men, its these men that are main problem.

    Another big problem is their sexism, the refuse to recognise women’s agency and wrong doing, of course if fathers are absent, it’s f4js fault.

    Get out the way, put down the hand gun.

  128. Nick Langford says

    @ Carnation

    Thank you for the reply.

    You say, “A simple allegation, without evidence, unconfirmed by CAFCASS /police/social work simply wouldn’t be considered by the judge.”

    This is neither my experience, nor that of many litigants. In my own case very serious allegations were made, of domestic violence and child sexual abuse. They were never confirmed, but had a profound influence.

    “The idea that a sympathetic judge listens to a mother lying about a father and acts accordingly doesn’t reflect reality.” I didn’t say this, and I didn’t specify genders. I am familiar with cases where fathers have made serious false allegations and again, they have had a very damaging effect on the case.

    As I say, the only way to refute these allegations effectively is through a fact finding hearing, and the courts are reluctant to hold these very time-consuming and costly hearings.

    “This is conjecture, but I believe that the myths peddled by F4J play a part in men walking away from families, believing that they will lose contact with their children anyway.”

    No, it is direct experience. I don’t have much sympathy for F4J and their tactics, but they don’t peddle myths, though I accept that the perception that they will fail in the courts – often true – may well influence fathers who don’t even bother with the process. Many fathers will know they haven’t a hope. Even the President, Munby, called one case an “exercise in absolute futility”.

    “I put a couple of comments/questions to you in #29, Nick.”

    I know, and I replied, but some gremlin intervened! This is what I said:

    No, I don’t believe that F4J is still a suitable vehicle for estranged parents, I think they have lost their way. Inconsistency, hypocrisy and confusion are all part of that general degeneration of the campaign.

    The “200 a day” figure was carefully calculated and refers to the number of children who lose all or significant contact with one or other parent following litigation in the family courts – the calculation was actually 1,000 a week. I stand by the figure, though it depends on taking an average of wildly differing estimates for the number of children who eventually lose all contact. The problem was that it replaced F4J’s earlier figure of 100 children a day which was presented without any indication of how it was calculated and was actually the reason why I became involved in research in the first place. F4J wanted a sound-bite and simplified my figure, thereby misrepresenting it.

    Unfortunately they tend to do this; for example, they took the ONS figure of 3.8 million which refers to the number of children who do not have primary residence with their fathers and interpreted it to mean that those children never see their fathers, which is obviously nonsense. The problem of fatherlessness is very grave, but it doesn’t help the cause to exaggerate it, or misrepresent the statistics.

    Bias is a more complicated area. Most bias is cultural – ranging from the general idea that mothers make better parents to the falsehood that fathers represent a threat to their children and should be excluded. Some bias is easy to identify – such as bias regarding child benefit or parental responsibility legislation – and some is more insidious. The best person to read regarding bias is Karen Woodall. Have a look at her blog.

    “My experiences are that admitted instances of DV aren’t given due consideration, let alone false allegations. False allegations of mental ill health weren’t considered without a psychiatric report, false allegations of drug abuse weren’t considered without medical attention.”

    I don’t contradict your experience, so please don’t contradict mine. This is indeed one of the many problems with the courts, which have an inability to distinguish between true and false allegations and do not investigate allegations effectively.

    An allegation of drug abuse, for example, requires a hair strand test, but if this is not ordered the court cannot know if the allegation is true or false, and must make what is little more than an uneducated guess. Parents who have been violent are often awarded the same meagre levels of contact parents who are not violent get. This can have devastating consequences for children either way. The family courts are not criminal courts and do not have the means or the tools to test allegations; they must simply find whether the thing alleged was probable or not, and what a judge considers probable depends on his or her experience, training and prejudices, all of which introduce additional evidence into proceedings which parents cannot challenge.

  129. Schala says

    ““My experiences are that admitted instances of DV aren’t given due consideration, let alone false allegations. False allegations of mental ill health weren’t considered without a psychiatric report, false allegations of drug abuse weren’t considered without medical attention.””

    Did you read about this woman who hired a hitman to kill her husband, her father even participated in the scheming. She went to a real hitman who just took her money and went away. Then went to a RCMP hitman, who caught her on tape.

    She claimed that she was a victim of DV from her husband, and that it’s the reason which made her do it. Her claims have never been verified.

    In the lowest court she was found not guilty, appealed to appeal’s court, found not guilty too, appealed to supreme court – found guilty, since there was no immediate danger to her when she schemed to kill him, she was not under duress, so it’s not a valid defense…but they dropped the damn charges, because “she has suffered through so much already” – something never actually proven.

    Maybe it OUGHT to not be taken in considerations, but mere allegations have huge effects on cases.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/21/the-abuse-excuse-were-courts-right-to-drop-case-against-woman-who-hired-hit-man-to-kill-her-husband/

  130. says

    @124 Jacob Schmidt

    “Speaking as the son of a father whose worked his ass off for his kids, only for his ex to use his visitation rights as a privilege to be slowly chipped away, fuck off.”

    I can understand why you would have problems persuading a court of law about your suitability.

  131. says

    @126 Ace of Sevens

    “You say that men aren’t a class, but then advocate that men should be treated based on how men in general act, which sounds like the are a class.”

    Sorry I was referring to “class” in a sociological / opinion poll sense – working class, middle class, A, B, C1, C2, D and E.

    “You seem to say that the men who cook and clean up and remember their kids’ birthdays don’t count unless men in general do this.”

    No what I’m saying is that the court will decide what’s best for the child.

  132. Sid says

    Jacob Schmidt, Ally etc.

    Look at the hate. You’re all oh so offended by strong words by Elam (bitch!, that’s no way to speak in front of a lady!!) but look at the hate poring out of Bitethehand,how its socially acceptable here and to them. .

    This is a huge problem for men, the men’s movement and men organizing, traditionalist and pro feminist men would rather attack other men over some minor slight against women, than defend each other from people like that. If there was some man here being anyway near as hateful towards women, you would be gallantly jumping up on your white horses to defend and attack.

    The fathers rights and men’s movement needs solidarity and Malcolm Xs, Germaine Greers, suffragettes (without the terrorism) and more Paul Elams, that’s whats missing.

    Its going to be a real problem having feminist leaning men getting involved as they will be following sexist codes of gallantry, female protectionism, male disposibility and intermale aggression and shaming before they will be supporting other men.

  133. Jacob Schmidt says

    Bitethehand

    I can understand why you would have problems persuading a court of law about your suitability.

    Your inability to read is duly noted. And honestly, rudeness to someone on the internet determines suitability of parenthood?

    Sid

    Look at the hate. You’re all oh so offended by strong words by Elam (bitch!, that’s no way to speak in front of a lady!!) but look at the hate poring out of Bitethehand,how its socially acceptable here and to them.

    As is yours. You did notice that I told Bitethehand to fuck off, yes? Or is your reading selective?

  134. Sid says

    As is yours. You did notice that I told Bitethehand to fuck off, yes? Or is your reading selective?

    No I saw that, my point still remains.

    All the effort of trying to turn Elam into some crazed figure who is hiding bizarre and sociopathic desires to be violent inside satire, when there are actual ideologically driven hate mongers in your company.

    These people read manipulated stats and misinformation about patriarchy and abuse being largely gendered and predictably it turns into mistrust hatred of men.

    That’s the real hate, not some guy who dared to speak back to jezebele feminists the way they see fit to speak in order to make and point about how wrong they are.

  135. Jacob Schmidt says

    No I saw that, my point still remains.

    Does it? Lookee: “Look at the hate. You’re all oh so offended by strong words by Elam (bitch!, that’s no way to speak in front of a lady!!) but look at the hate poring out of Bitethehand,how its socially acceptable here and to them.

    Except it isn’t. No one is accepting Bitethehand’s views. Nowhere in this thread. You tried demonstrating a double standard, but there is none. Elam is despicable; Bitethehand is despicable. This is really simple.

  136. Sid says

    A man that uses satire to make an anti violence statement is as despicable a someone that’s ideologically driven to and legitimately, openly hating on men, and there is no double standard,

    I don’t see multiple people demonizing bitethehand either.

    You are judging a man and a women at totally different standards. Its just that you have not examined your own biases properly.

  137. Sid says

    That’s like Allys perception, JS – that Elam’s off colour but ultimately anti-violence satire is somehow on a par with the horror of what amounts to 30 years of producing ideologically driven hate propaganda by way of covering up female abusers and male victims.

    The only way to arrive at these lopsided conclusions is by seeing men and women in totally different ways. it’s gallantry, misogny, misandry, female pedestalization and male disposibility in action.

  138. carnation says

    @ Sid

    In all seriousness, to what level have you been educated?

    Your messages are stunningly incoherent, to the extent that it’s impossible to understand what you are saying. It seems that you’re so completely immersed in MRA “ideology” that your responses flit from myth to myth, paying no regard to what point is being addressed.

  139. wpa says

    @Carnation:

    In all seriousness, to what level have you been educated?

    Carnation, this is bullshit. If you think something Sid says is dumb, fine. Cite the dumb thing and say why it is dumb. Calling out education level, as a way to discredit someone, is classist bigotry.

    I say this as a feminist who disagrees with quite a lot of what Sid has said in these threads. Carnation, if you think that being a classist bigot is gonna help your cause, you are wrong. On the other hand, if you are an MRA sockpuppet troll, mission fucking accomplished.

  140. wpa says

    And a note to Sid: satire and irony only work by inverting normal speech. For instance, Swift’s Modest Proposal works as satire, because it is surprising to hear someone “seriously” proposing to eat babies. Because, you know, proposing eating babies is not normal speech.

    But for Elam or any other MRA to claim irony or satire, we would have to be surprised to hear misogyny from an MRA. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Misogynistic speech is “normal speech” among MRA’s, so when they try to use it satirically or ironically, it just doesn’t work.

    And please, don’t defend MRA misogyny as a “just response” to misandry of many feminists. “They did it first” is a childish justification, and it infantilizes men as a justification. Note that I am not saying that they shouldn’t be angry about misandry. I am just saying that shitting themselves with misogyny is a crummy way to use their anger to better their situations.

  141. Jacob Schmidt says

    Carnation

    In all seriousness, to what level have you been educated?

    Gonna have to agree with wpa on this. Knock that shit off.

    Sid

    That’s like Allys perception, JS – that Elam’s off colour but ultimately anti-violence satire is somehow on a par with the horror of what amounts to 30 years of producing ideologically driven hate propaganda by way of covering up female abusers and male victims.

    Two things:

    1) Do you actually have any quotes to support this assertion?
    2) Once more, you’re in the wrong bloody thread; respond in the proper one, please.

  142. carnation says

    @ wpa
    @ Jacob

    “classist”? Are you kidding me? Questioning someone’s level of education doesn’t make me Katie Hopkins. Elsewhere on this blog, I and others have written things such as “I’m assuming you haven’t gone to university” and “do you know how debate works”? Nothing was said.

    I have no idea what Sid’s social class is, nor do I care, it’s irrelevant. Nor is mine. What is important is the capacity and ability to engage in discussion. As both of you,have noted. Sid doesn’t do this, he repeats a standard set of unrelated cliches and metaphors, regardless of what points have been raised. And, as has been pointed out, he seems to comment more than anyone else.

    This is the same Sid who called me a baboon repeatedly, a misandrist, said I was blinded by hatred and then accused me of “talking down my nose” at him and of “moral superiority”.

    I stand by my question. It’s relevant.

    Unless we’re going to veer right off into Bourdieu, in which case I will respectfully wish you both all the best and leave you to it.

  143. wpa says

    I don’t know how to break this to you, Carnation, but the fact that you think it is “relevant” to question educational attainment is a sign that you might be a bigot. It is a fact that educational attainment correlates much better with class status than it does to general intelligence. And what that means is that your question is more “relevant” to determining social class than general intelligence.

    And really, the words “Sorry, my bad” are a lot easier and more effective than a bunch of defensive gobbledygook.

  144. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @154. carnation-

    pretty much agree with the others on this one, friend. I certainly understand your frustration, and everytime i respond to Sid, that exact question goes through my head too, along with “are you serious” and “how dumb do you have to be…”, but bringing it up is a way to discredit him by demeaning his origins (education available). that’s why they’re calling it classist. I wouldn’t call it bigotry… but it is not necessary to point out, we can all tell, the point is to do our best to communicate past our various origins.

    which, with sid, admittedly, is pretty infuriating, possibly futile. but he does show signs of hope, like the few sensible responses he’s given (that are so few and far between i can’t actually point one out now that i want to)

  145. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @147. Sid-

    “I don’t see multiple people demonizing bitethehand either.”

    despite some hostility between bitethehand and some others, you don’t see bitethehand calling everyone here baboons.

  146. Jacob Schmidt says

    Questioning someone’s level of education doesn’t make me Katie Hopkins.[1] Elsewhere on this blog, I and others have written things such as “I’m assuming you haven’t gone to university”[2] and “do you know how debate works”?[3] Nothing was said.

    1) I don’t actually know who this is.
    2) I don’t remember seeing this. And so what? “But they do it too” is no argument.
    3) So?

    I have no idea what Sid’s social class is, nor do I care, it’s irrelevant. Nor is mine.

    The issue is that university is something only some can afford. It is a class issue.

    I stand by my question. It’s relevant.

    The hell it is. You realize that there are university educated creationists, right? Many of them doctors, engineers, and some of them even biology majors? Then there’s the fact that some of our best proponents for evolution never actually attended university (Aron Ra, for instance, only attended university well after he began engaging in debates).

    There are plenty of university educated people who are incapable of forming a coherent argument once bias comes into play, and there are plenty of uneducated people who can make very well reasoned arguments. Sid’s education level is irrelevant.

  147. carnation says

    “The issue is that university is something only some can afford. It is a class issue.”

    It’s NOT a class issue, it’s a competency issue. Sid doesn’t understand nuance, complexity or the principles of debate, or else he does, and is wilfully, and quite skilfully, pretending not to. Therefore, a question on his level of education is relevant.

    “The hell it is. You realize that there are university educated creationists, right? Many of them doctors, engineers, and some of them even biology majors? Then there’s the fact that some of our best proponents for evolution never actually attended university (Aron Ra, for instance, only attended university well after he began engaging in debates).”

    I couldn’t agree more, high school level education introduces people to the need for evidential requirements in discussion. University doesn’t guarantee an openmind, or indicate intelligence, it does however mean that the graduate has been able to construct several arguments, based in evidence and fact.

    I previously called Sid a troglodyte – this was probably more a classist statement than enquiring after his educational attainment.

    I find your comments on this deeply patronising. University, or indeed further education and self education, are not the preserve of the middle classes, something that I understand very, very well.

    Nobody jumped on Nick Langford for this (accurate) statement:

    “Picking all this apart to a high academic standard is beyond most MRAs.”

    Sid has chosen to argue, insult and obfuscate with reckless abandon. That his messages are incoherent is obvious, I’m trying to establish whether he’s a very effective troll, or just doesnt understand how things work.

  148. carnation says

    Re: the above.

    If Ally Fogg is about, I’d like to ask him if he thinks asking Sid to what level he’s educated is classist or not.

    I’m aware it’s a possibly,contentious statement, and in the interests of not derailing this thread, I’ll happily accept his thoughts on this and act accordingly.

    I am many things,,but dogmatic is not one of them. I’d join F4J if the price was right.

  149. karmakin says

    @Carnation: Not Ally (obv) but I’m going to give you my opinion on it, and also why I think it’s beside the point and what the actual problem is.

    A university degree is actually traditionally a class thing. It’s actually only over the last few decades where it’s become more and more not. What I mean by that, is that how it used to be, for a LOT of jobs, if you had a BA or whatever, you could get a lot of jobs even without having the specific training for that job because you’ve proven a certain level of class awareness and “intelligence”. Basically you’ve proved you’d be able to fit in. It’s only in the last few decades…and in reality it’s the rise of MBA corporate culture (and I’m pretty sure this isn’t a good thing overall..my joke is that they teach MBA’s economics 101 in year one then the rest of the time teach them how to break it) where they’ve demanded specific training for more and more jobs, especially in business.

    However, I don’t think that’s the real issue with what you said.

    Neofeminist culture, one of the problems with it and why it..well..is pretty bad right now, is that it has a overly academic viewpoint. There are these models, and they are absolutely correct and explain things in every circumstance. And you must educate yourself and learn and accept this “Feminism 101″ before you are able to converse about these issues in any way shape or form.

    That’s a problematic attitude, because these sorts of over-arching models are always changing, as society changes. As well, there are cases where they are more correct or less correct. But a lot of neofeminist culture focuses way too strongly on these models. (How to fix issue X? Smash the patriarchy! Errr…)

    Please note that I don’t think this is unique to gender issues. I think that economics at a 101 level is horribly broken as well, and because of academic culture where there’s right and wrong and right is always right, there’s a lot of opposition to changing it. (If people are familiar with the terms, we’re moving from a supply-limited economy to a demand-limited economy more and more, which entirely changes the models)

    I think that anger is rarely helpful, IMO, because it tends to obscure what you’re saying. So basically Sid is just gibberish to me. But I understand the gist of it, and there’s a point there and I’ll try and take the rage out. What Bitethehand said, and what was said or at least heavily implied in the last paragraph of the OP is this:

    Group A is suffering from an injustice because a stereotype B is applied to them. In order to correct the injustice, Group A needs to change to make stereotype B not happen.

    The double standard, is if Group A is men, it’s pretty common for that logical pattern to be accepted. However, if Group A are women, then it’s attacked as being victim blaming. That’s a very real double standard. Now, I’m a moderate, and I think that sometimes that logic mode applies and sometimes it doesn’t. But the difference has to be more than just gender. (Again, unidirectional oppressor/oppressed models suck)

    It’s the same with the whole Elam thing. I think what Elam says is beyond the pale. But I think the same thing about the Jezebel article. But to be treating Jezebel the same way that we treat Elam/AVFM we need to be trying to ostracize anybody who may have written for them/linked to them/may think some of the same things that they do. And it’s pretty clear that we’re not. And that’s a problem. Now personally I think that the ostracizing thing is awful, and I condemn it, personally. But if we’re going to see consistency in this regard, that’s what is needed.

    In short the problem is that there’s a lot of very real double standards (I.E. hypocrisy) going around and it’s set a lot of people on edge.

  150. wpa says

    @karmakin

    Way too many words, but I agree.

    @Carnation:

    It was not my intent to call you out and make a big deal about it. I just care about winning the debate in the public sphere. And to that end, I oppose elitism on my side, because it hurts my cause.

    To that end, I hear a lot of whinging about Sid’s “debate style.” Hate to break it to you, but his “style” (ignoring what your opponents actually say, banging on endlessly repeating the same talking points over and over and over and over….) is pretty effective in the public sphere.

    My point is not to persuade anyone to adopt Sid’s “style.” I just want to point out that the best counter is to recognize it for what it is, and to adapt to it. Two suggestions:

    -Don’t get goaded into personal attacks, especially ones that carry the scent of elitism. This is what Sid wants. It validates a view that MRA’s stand with the “people” against the “elite.” Believe me, if the MRA’s can sell that line in public debate, it is game over.

    -Dealing with Sid’s endless repetition: simply repeat along with him. Point out that Sid is never actually responding to what is actually said in the conversation. Point out that Sid is saying the same thing over and over. Be willing to repeat these observations as endlessly and repetitively as Sid is.

    -Failing that, ignore Sid. You do yourself no favors by giving Sid an opportunity to repeat the same talking points.

  151. wpa says

    Wow, I just made three suggestions after enumerating two.

    Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!

  152. says

    WordPress tells me:

    “Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!”

    And it’s quite right although despite posting the comment over 12 hours ago, it’s yet to appear.

  153. Sid says

    Now the bullying and personal attacks are falling back on attempts at classicism.

    My level of education makes zero difference to the way people are behaving here.

    People are building a fictional story based in misandrist stereotypes around Elam’s bad taste anti violence satire and are engaging in intramale aggression on the basis of this fiction while simultaneously playing down the real hate – which is deliberately covering up abuse victims and abusers for 30 years and Bitethehands comments.

    I’m looking people acting out gender roles and men standing on the deck shooting me that try to get on the lifeboats as well as absorbing bullying and personal attacks because I’m pointing out the elephant in the room.

  154. says

    @143 Jessie

    “Seriously? That was totally uncalled for.”

    I’m told to “fuck off” and point out that it’s exactly that attitude and approach that sets the Family Court so much against the arrogant father.

    And you think my post is “uncalled for”?

    Fair enough it’s a point of view but hardly one you’d expect me to agree with. :)

  155. Schala says

    I’m told to “fuck off” and point out that it’s exactly that attitude and approach that sets the Family Court so much against the arrogant father.

    And you think my post is “uncalled for”?

    If a woman was saying she was raped. And then someone said she should have dressed differently, and it’s her fault being raped.

    And this woman said “fuck off” to this victim-blaming person.

    Would you think this is what makes people rightfully set so much against women? That the victim-blamer was reasonable, but not the victim?

  156. wpa says

    @Sid

    I know it is off topic for this thread, but I will point out again that, for what Elam said to be satire, speech that advocates misogynistic violence would have to be abnormal coming from an MRA. As satire, it was a fail.

    On topic, from the point of view of considering Elam, or MRA’s who defend him, as advocates for men who want to be trusted with care for children, it was horrific.

    I actually admire your ability to bang the drum. Cheers.

  157. Schala says

    @168

    from the article:

    Traditional views about men and women’s roles play a huge part. And those pressures are only cemented when maternity services pretty much ignore fathers, the baby change is always in the women’s loos and baby groups are routinely advertised for mums and toddlers.

    At playgroups, I’ve had women sit at the opposite end of the room to avoid me. Outside the pre-school, some women do little to make men part of their world. Out in town with my kids I’m still asked: are you babysitting today?

    Yet, since when has a little social embarrassment stopped men from doing exactly what we want?

    Can’t say, but it’s the NUMBER ONE reason why more women don’t go into IT and other “nerd” fields. Because of the social embarrassment of being called a nerd. So I’d say it matters at least some.

    Men pretty much run the government, most private companies, the public sector and the media. If we really wanted a fairer deal, we could make it happen very quickly. We don’t, because it’s not in our interests.

    Men are not Borg. People who run companies can fucking hire nannies. They don’t have to do it themselves. Why would they care for people who have no choice but to do it themselves due to budgeting issues? They’re poor, their own fault, right? Why would he care about his fellow penis owners? There is NO universal male solidarity. In fact it’s actively discouraged from all angles.

    A full third of men don’t take the fortnight’s paid paternity we are entitled to.

    If it means the mother gets less, there might be pressure from the mother.

    For it to work, you need to put it as a “father takes it or it vanishes and no one gets it” leave. Or she gets first dibs.

    Why? Because it’s his role to “man up” and go work. So says society.

    And one last reason why men would be less tempted to do childcare especially in public?

    Assumptions of pedophilia, yes, you heard right – with their very own children. It could traumatize many over the long term. And I can’t fault them for this.

  158. Schala says

    I know it is off topic for this thread, but I will point out again that, for what Elam said to be satire, speech that advocates misogynistic violence would have to be abnormal coming from an MRA. As satire, it was a fail.

    Poe’s law doesn’t invalidate satire.

    Radical feminist separatists can still do satire, even if some really do wish to make trans women stop existing.

  159. karmakin says

    I read that article and I read that he’s going to library sing-alongs and cafes and seeing only women with their kids and all I can think is….Well THERE’S your problem.

    Actually, reading through the comments, I think this is a huge part of it. It seems like in the UK there’s a pool that both parents can pull from for parental leave. I know of few guys that will take any of that from the wife. That’s probably the problem right there, and that sets the tone for not only the childrearing in the early stages, but probably has massive economic impact as well.

    Maybe a solution would be to stop pooling it and give each parent 4 months instead, which is apparently done in some other European nations. (I’m in Canada which has similar guidelines, and I only know of one person who didn’t give the lion’s share to the mother…and that person’s family are relatively recent immigrants from Continental Europe)

  160. wpa says

    @Schala:

    Radical feminist separatists can still do satire, even if some really do wish to make trans women stop existing.

    Seriously, the moral equivalency argument again? Who cares?!?!

    The question is, what is going to help men who are victimized by the family law system. And I am here to say, that men, particularly men who are marginalized and mistrusted, are not, repeat NOT, helped by advocacy that includes “satire” like Elam’s.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion about the best way to marginalize radical feminists who advocate violent misandry, I am all ears.

  161. Schala says

    “Now, if you want to have a discussion about the best way to marginalize radical feminists who advocate violent misandry, I am all ears.”

    Wasn’t what I was talking about.

    I’m saying Poe’s law does NOT invalidate satire.

  162. wpa says

    @karmakin:

    While I think that we can safely assume that more paternal involvement would have tremendous benefit, we should be cautious about thinking that we can eliminate the problem of early childcare gender asymmetry.

    The fact that mothers play some essential and irreplaceable role comes from longitudinal work on the death of the mother in early childhood. Almost all studies agree that death of the mother in early childhood is, from the standpoint of lifelong mental health, the worst thing that can happen to a child. The effect is worse, and more difficult to ameliorate, than any other childhood trauma, even severe sexual abuse. While that fact may end up being socially conditioned, the strength of the effect seems to suggest that there is something essential and irreplaceable that infants and small children must get from their mothers.

    Fathers are important and irreplaceable as well, but we should be prepared to understand that there may be a fundamental caregiver gender asymmetry that no social policy can uproot.

  163. wpa says

    @Schala:

    Internet memes such as Poe’s law notwithstanding, Elam’s “satire” fails because of MRA misogyny. If you are bummed out about that fact, maybe you should take it up with an MRA who spouts misogyny unironically. Believe me, those types are not hard to find.

  164. Schala says

    “@Schala:

    Internet memes such as Poe’s law notwithstanding, Elam’s “satire” fails because of MRA misogyny. If you are bummed out about that fact, maybe you should take it up with an MRA who spouts misogyny unironically. Believe me, those types are not hard to find.”

    I’ll repeat for a third time:

    Just because some extreme people who share his ideology REALLY think this, does not invalidate his own satire.

  165. Schala says

    While that fact may end up being socially conditioned, the strength of the effect seems to suggest that there is something essential and irreplaceable that infants and small children must get from their mothers.

    if it’s socially conditioned, then it is NOT essential that they get this from mothers. Or even that they get this at all.

    For example, if every child gets beaten up at least once…the child who does not is going to feel awkward compared to others. The opposite is also true. So it’s very relative.

    Something that happens to everyone, regardless of how horrible, harsh, or stupid, is called a rite of passage. If everyone had their mothers killed, it would be a norm, not horrible trauma.

    That we deify motherhood as a society probably has a lot to do with how traumatic it is.

    I’m sure in a more traditional bygone era, a girl who didn’t actually like wearing dresses would have felt alienated and “too different” from other girls, same as a boy with “softer” tastes, like an artist. Even if those are entirely cultural.

  166. wpa says

    Okay, you’ve repeated yourself. Nicely done.

    But satire is social commentary. Social context matters. MRA’s, in very large numbers, spout violent misogyny. MRA’s never challenge it within their own ranks. Until they do, please excuse the rest of us from seeing the “irony” in what Elam said.

  167. Schala says

    But satire is social commentary. Social context matters. MRA’s, in very large numbers, spout violent misogyny. MRA’s never challenge it within their own ranks. Until they do, please excuse the rest of us from seeing the “irony” in what Elam said.

    I read some MRAs, never seen this “in very large numbers” deal. No larger than misanthropist* radfems, proportionally (meaning in absolute numbers, they’re very very less prevalent).

    *I think this subset of radfems (the hateful kind) hate themselves (and femaleness) just as much as they hate men and maleness.

  168. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @181, wpa

    I am curious about this. Can you show example(s) of MRAs in very large numbers spouting violent misogny?

  169. Sid says

    Wap

    I know it is off topic for this thread, but I will point out again that, for what Elam said to be satire, speech that advocates misogynistic violence would have to be abnormal coming from an MRA. As satire, it was a fail.

    It is abnormal, and it is satire.

    You are making very serious accusations – that the mrm is someone sort of deranged mob that advocated violence against women … but you have no evidence of this bar the odd marginalized outlyer and the misandrist stereotypes and false accusations that feminists have historically tagged on to people that advocate for men.

    You are also applying a double standard and projecting the characteristics of the feminists in the story onto Elam and mra’s, as the only people that are actually and gleefully celebrating violence against the other gender in this story, are the feminists on Jezebele.

    Thats is the elephant in the room here.

  170. wpa says

    @Schala

    Wow, I didna’ realize that you were a radical feminist. Social conditioning uber alles!

  171. says

    @171Schala

    “Assumptions of pedophilia, yes, you heard right”

    Are you really suggesting that men won’t look after their own children because they fear being branded as paedophiles?

    I’ve heard some excuses, but this really does scrape the proverbial barrel.

    Have you tried that one on the judge at the Family Court?

    And what are you saying about the men like Gideon Burrows who do look after their own children and seem to be making an excellent job of it?

  172. Schala says

    “Are you really suggesting that men won’t look after their own children because they fear being branded as paedophiles?”

    They will look after them, but avoid, as much as possible, being in public with them. Meaning they will favor doing it at home.

  173. Sid says

    Can the accusers here please provide some evidence to back up the accusation that Elam and the men’s rights movement display the same characteristics as the feminists on Jezebele that were gleefully celebrating violence against men?

    Also, can those accusers see how they sort of misandrist stereotypes you deal in have a negative impact on fathers and fathers rights?

  174. Schala says

    @185

    @Schala

    Wow, I didna’ realize that you were a radical feminist. Social conditioning uber alles!

    Come on, what reasoning could TERF be using that simultaneously considers femaleness to be the most horrible of all conditions on Earth, but also want to “police entry” (deny trans women are women until they’re blue in the face) to it?

    They hate trans women because they think they are men, and maleness is tainted, evil, deformed. But they also hold femaleness in such utter contempt that they cannot comprehend why someone would want it…but they want to protect it from “invasion”.

    Where are the groups of slaves wanting to protect against owners “invading them” and becoming slaves permanently?

    Where are the groups of men wanting to protect against women “invading them” and becoming men permanently?

    Where are the groups of poor people wanting to protect against rich people “invading them” and becoming poor permanently?

    Oh right, the one thing those have in common is that radfems simultaneously think they have it the worst possible, but want to “protect something valuable” as well. Except that, following their own reasoning, the only possible thing to protect is martyrdom and/or the moral high ground.

  175. Schala says

    By the way, the groups of men who do want to protect manhood from female invasion ARE like the TERFs: wanting to protect martyrdom.

    Except they’re way way fewer, and don’t think they have it the worst possible, or write bible-length books about it.

  176. wpa says

    @183 Andrew V69:

    Sorry, I can’t upload the entire mra section of the internet for you. I am honestly more interested in seeing if MRA’s can challenge their own. Go into your own community, and show me examples of that and I will add MRA to my self-description.

  177. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @191, wpa

    I am getting the impression from your response that you perhaps think I am being anantagonistic. This is quite simply not the case. You did say :

    MRA’s, in very large numbers, spout violent misogyny.

    And I asked for an example because I am genuinly curious and wish to see for myself what you consider to be misogyny in very large numbers.

    You must have had at least one site in mind when you stated what you did?

    I really do not think it is ureasonable to ask for example(s). Did you have a particular site in mind? Perhaps Reddit? Perhaps a bulletin board? I really do not know and I can not know unless you provide an example.

  178. Schala says

    Sorry, I can’t upload the entire mra section of the internet for you.

    The entire MRA section of the internet is spouting violent misogyny all the time? Wow, I must have missed it.

    I consider patriarchy ideology to be misandry, but most feminists who use it are not misandrists. The loud ones are. And many feminists seem to be misandrists (including men who are feminists) by accident (they don’t think it’s discrimination), or by ideological brainwashing (usually of the “men are the oppressors!” variety), rather than maliciously.

    Someone being misandrist maliciously usually argues, without even hiding it, in favor of discrimination against men, using prejudice. Such as saying pedophilia scares (and policies built around it) about men (and only men) are justified. Not just the cultural view, but daycare/babysitter/playground and other overt discrimination against men about it.

    So, on the other side. Show me this “very large number” of people who identify as MRA, and are accepted as MRA by others (PUA and MGTOW alone do not qualify, as it’s not specifically MRA), who regularly spout this kind of thing in favor of discriminating against women, using prejudice. I’m hard-pressed finding an actual example, though they no doubt exist.

  179. Sid says

    Wpa

    You are making very serious accusations about a specific man, and the entire men’s movement.

    I know in feminists culture its normal to make false accusations, but this is slightly different, its an moderated forum inside a feminist culture, so people have the opportunity to ask you to back up your accusations and misandrist stereotyping.

    Can you back up your nasty claims?

  180. Sid says

    Same goes for Ally Fogg actually,

    can you back up your extraordinary claims that the Elam article is in the same same spirit as the Jezebele article ie. a gleeful celebration of violence against the opposite sex, but is hiding inside a satire that’s masquerading as an anti violence statement.

    What you are all alleging here is absurd and absurdly bigoted.

  181. wpa says

    Sid, Schala, Andrew V69:

    Yes, this is a moderated forum, and you three have my admiration for posting here on FTB. Andrew, I don’t view you as antagonistic. I have my own reasons for posting in this thread, primary of which is to let you know that I am persuadable, and the conditions under which that persuasion must happen.

    Along those lines, Andrew, I wanted to thank you for posting the Geldorf video above. I had seen outtakes from it before, but had never watched it in entirety. It is an excellent example of effective persuasion, in that it indulges in no misogyny, keeping its focus keenly upon injustice. Thank you.

    Sid, you are correct, I am almost certainly a bigot toward MRA’s. I do not say this as a point of pride. I say it based upon my experience of MRA’s, both in person and on the internet. I would be glad to be corrected in my bias and bigotry by the actions of MRA’s themselves. When their advocacy takes a positive form, and their leadership openly rejects misogyny, I will be glad to add MRA to my self-description.

    Cheers.

  182. carnation says

    @ Schala 187

    Another popular myth within the MRM.

    And your source and evidence for this is…?

    Plenty of evidence of misogyny, including sexualised fantasy here*:

    http://manboobz.com/category/harassment/

    http://manboobz.com/category/violence-against-menwomen/

    * Please note that Sid will state David Futrelle is a liar, but will offer no evidence to support this. He isn’t a liar, he uses direct quotes, with links, from MRAs, and notes if they’ve been “up voted” on Reddit, AVfM, Spearhead etc.

  183. Schala says

    “When their advocacy takes a positive form, and their leadership openly rejects misogyny, I will be glad to add MRA to my self-description. ”

    Same deal with feminism and misandry. We know it won’t happen.

    I don’t have feminist or MRA to my self-description, because both are too flawed to me.

    NOW, which is feminist leadership, embraces misandry, presumes all or most fathers wanting custody are batterers wanting to abuse the mother and children, and that presumed shared joint custody will hurt women as a whole (since they have presumed sole custody now).

  184. Schala says

    Ahahaha, Manboobz. Jezebel and Manboobz, the two hellholes of the internet mainstream feminism. Not as hateful as radfemhub and gendertrender, but definitely more socially accepted.

  185. AndrewV69, Visiting MRA, Purveyor of Piffle & Woo says

    @195, Sid

    It might be more productive to exchange viewpoints and accept that different people see things differently, and come to conclusions based on them.

    I think it is fair to say that Ally has demonstrated why he believes what he believes. I for one am far more interested in why someone thinks what they do than what they think.

    So even if you disagree, you can have the basis for some sort of discussion, even if the end result is to agree to disagree.

    I do not see any point in “spitting over the fence” myself. I know I would rather not.

    YMMV

  186. wpa says

    @Schala:

    “When their advocacy takes a positive form, and their leadership openly rejects misogyny, I will be glad to add MRA to my self-description. ”

    Same deal with feminism and misandry. We know it won’t happen.

    I don’t have feminist or MRA to my self-description, because both are too flawed to me.

    Feminism is very flawed, but that is no reason not to be one. Feminism has become a pretty big tent, with a lot of differing views. This promotes very healthy internal debate, so its flaws have a way of self-correcting. For example, I see misandry all the time among feminists, but I also see it challenged, by feminists.

    Again, I am sympathetic to the aims of the MRM. I don’t see its flaws as fatal, it just needs a bit more internal critique so that the movement’s errors become self-correcting. This is not a change that can come from outside, for instance from feminists. It has to start from within the movement.

  187. Sid says

    WPA

    I appreciate your honesty, but you shouldn’t go around making false accusations against people.

    That’s one of the reasons that feminists are being rooted out and the gender debate is so balkinized – the normal practise of making false accusations relating to violence and sex criminality against people that advocate for men that has being going on relentlessly for decades now.

  188. Schala says

    For example, I see misandry all the time among feminists, but I also see it challenged, by feminists.

    I see people on Feministe and Feministing having a eulogy over Mary Daly, and saying her racism and transphobia were beyond the pale and indefensible, while her misandry gets nary a mention. If someone mentions it, someone gets the “What about the menz” rhetoric. As if it wasn’t bad, maybe was actually deserved.

    I see mainstream feminists condemning TERFs. But not the misandry inherent in their transphobia. It’s recast as femmephobia or misogyny.

  189. Schala says

    “Coming from an apologist for GWW and AVfM, that is spectacularly amusing!”

    GWW is astronomical units away from Manboobz.

  190. wpa says

    You’re welcome, Sid. I should be glad to have my accusations proved false. I assure you that persuading people like me is both possible and worthwhile.

  191. wpa says

    Geez Carnation, if you are going to play language police, at least get it right. Balkinization is a pretty fair description of what has happened between among the people who would be sympathetic to both the MRM and to feminism. We are forced, by ideologues, into small polities which can be induced to conflict.

    Perhaps you would prefer it if Sid had described the MRM and feminism as “fell, incensed points”? Does my literary reference pass your test?

  192. Sid says

    @wpa

    You’re welcome, Sid. I should be glad to have my accusations proved false.

    Guilty until proven innocent eh? Story of men’s lives. No, sorry you are making the bizarre accusations its up to you provide evidence.

    I assure you that persuading people like me is both possible and worthwhile>/blockquote>

    Why do you believe that you are some kind of judge? Its true you identify as part of the dominant group, but you can only abuse that position if you are let, and I/we deny you that.

    You cannot reason people whose minds are already made up about their ideology anyway, skeptics know this from dealing with the religious and besides, most feminists don’t know anything about feminist jurisprudence or any of the things we are talking about,that just go straight into accusations of ill will towards women and holding men to different standards than women.

    The pool for mens rights to fish in is the general population, to try to convince a feminists, is to get caught up in endless and pointless false accusations and sophistries, that is why the gender debate became so balkinized, and feminists are being rooted out.

    Its useful for me/us to point out how baldy feminists treat people that advocate for men because people on the fence are always watching, but I don’t believe that you yourself will change.

  193. Sid says

    I’ll try 208 again, hope it works this time, I’ve c’p’d the same text and the code seems to have been right first time round.

    @wpa

    You’re welcome, Sid. I should be glad to have my accusations proved false.

    Guilty until proven innocent eh? Story of men’s lives. No, sorry you are making the bizarre accusations its up to you provide evidence.

    I assure you that persuading people like me is both possible and worthwhile>/blockquote>

    Why do you believe that you are some kind of judge? Its true you identify as part of the dominant group, but you can only abuse that position if you are let, and I/we deny you that.

    You cannot reason people whose minds are already made up about their ideology anyway, skeptics know this from dealing with the religious and besides, most feminists don’t know anything about feminist jurisprudence or any of the things we are talking about,that just go straight into accusations of ill will towards women and holding men to different standards than women.

    The pool for mens rights to fish in is the general population, to try to convince a feminists, is to get caught up in endless and pointless false accusations and sophistries, that is why the gender debate became so balkinized, and feminists are being rooted out.

    Its useful for me/us to point out that you make false accusations and treat us so badly because people on the fence are always watching, but I don’t believe that you yourselves will change. I think a new more reasonable type of feminist will end up emerging and push the mainstream to one side.

  194. Jacob Schmidt says

    Bitethehand

    I’m told to “fuck off” and point out that it’s exactly that attitude and approach that sets the Family Court so much against the arrogant father.

    Exactly how do I, as a childless university student, represent arrogant fathers?

    You were told to fuck off for assigning blame to an entire group based on the actions of some, and nothing else.

    carnation

    It’s NOT a class issue, it’s a competency issue. Sid doesn’t understand nuance, complexity or the principles of debate, or else he does, and is wilfully, and quite skilfully, pretending not to. Therefore, a question on his level of education is relevant.

    How is university not a class issue? You do realize that prohibitive costs are a massive issue for students?

    The emboldened is your non sequitur. Given that we know of highly educated people who behave in similar ways, how does your argument follow? Indeed, if we allow that such behaviour is willful, education is entirely irrelevant.

    Schala

    Just because some extreme people who share his ideology REALLY think this, does not invalidate his own satire.

    No, what invalidates his own satire was explicitly stating that his satire wasn’t wrong.

    They hate trans women because they think they are men, and maleness is tainted, evil, deformed. But they also hold femaleness in such utter contempt that they cannot comprehend why someone would want it…but they want to protect it from “invasion”.

    Uh… what? I think you’re confusing something. TERFs view trans women as “invasion” because they see it as a man controlling a women’s body, and as a man invading women’s spaces (spaces they need to get away from oppressive men; can’t do that with a trans women there, at least according to them). “Femininity” isn’t held in contempt; it’s thought to be oppressed.

    Where are the groups of slaves wanting to protect against owners “invading them” and becoming slaves permanently?[1]

    Where are the groups of men wanting to protect against women “invading them” and becoming men permanently?[2]

    Where are the groups of poor people wanting to protect against rich people “invading them” and becoming poor permanently?[3]

    You’re forgetting that TERFs, being gender essentialist, don’t view trans women as actually being women. With that in mind:

    1) I’d imagine a group of slaves wouldn’t want a slave owner in their midst as they’re planning their escape.

    2) There are; they’re called conservatives (at least the ones who keep voting against trans rights; with that in mind, there are plenty of liberals too).

    3) There are; grass roots groups can be very paranoid about who they allow in, because the police have a habit of sending in undercover cops to either instigate or report.

    They will look after them, but avoid, as much as possible, being in public with them. Meaning they will favor doing it at home.

    I have never seen a man afraid to spend time with his kids. Most men I know love spending time with their kids, in public and everything. There’s one young man on the bus every morning doting on his two toddlers he has in tow (I bring this anecdote up because that man and his kids are the cutest things ever).

    The entire MRA section of the internet is spouting violent misogyny all the time? Wow, I must have missed it.

    Out of curiosity, I went to the r/MensRights and the second thing on the list was this.

  195. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    Next to the ‘submit’ button, there’s a ‘preview’ button. It’ll show you what your comment will look like without actually posting it. It’s a little wonky with the ‘a href’ tag though (the one for posting links within text, rather than a URL).

  196. wpa says

    Sid, I am on the fence. And I am a feminist. And I am an undeconstructed male. And I have a small son and a daughter. And I hold leadership positions in my community. And I coach a lot of little boys. And I am politically active. And I am persuadable, I actually change my mind on things as new info comes in.

    If I give you the impression that I am judging you, please forgive me. What I am trying to tell you is that many of the fence sitters who watch conversations like ours are like me. They, like me, can be persuaded. They, like me, are turned off by nasty rhetoric.

    For instance, it took a long time for me to be persuaded to become a feminist. Radical feminism (I read the SCUM Manifesto, and was turned off by it, back in the 80’s) made the process take longer than it should have. Feminism has made me a better person, a better father, and a better member of my community. Given that finally becoming persuaded by the claims of feminism bettered me, I regret that it took so long for me to be persuaded. I am not judging radfems, I just think that it is a bummer that off-putting extremism is so intrinsic to social movements.

    Likewise, I suspect that the social changes that the MRM is pursuing are worthwhile. I would like to count myself among those helping to carryout worthwhile social change. But folks like me, who have spent a lifetime building social capital in our communities, will not throw that capital away by associating with movements that consider the word “cunt” a acceptable rhetorical device.

    You are communicating with fence sitters who watch conversations like these. Good. I am communicating with MRAs who are may be watching this conversation.

  197. Schala says

    TERFs view trans women as “invasion” because they see it as a man controlling a women’s body, and as a man invading women’s spaces (spaces they need to get away from oppressive men; can’t do that with a trans women there, at least according to them). “Femininity” isn’t held in contempt; it’s thought to be oppressed.

    A man controlling a women’s body?

    Also, the singular of women, is woman. (Tons of people do this mistake apparently)

    Feminity isn’t held in contempt, femaleness is.

    You see, TERFs describe femaleness as meaning being pissed on, shat on, destroyed, destitute, so much that all those become an identity. And this is THE ONLY WAY they accept identity to exist. To them, gender identity, a component of the brain which tells you of your bodymap, cannot exist. To them femaleness is defined as “having had the experience of being pissed on, shat on (metaphorically), and made destitute and considered inferior”. You identify with those others who have been similarly situated, and call this group of people “women”.

    To me, defining femaleness in such a Martyr-power way, is holding femaleness in contempt.

    So much that they think trans women are really perverted and evil men – because why else would they transition? There’s ZERO social benefits to womanhood, in fact it makes you 2000x more oppressed. So they HAVE to have nefarious motives.

    Funny enough, people who put transsexual in the DSM initially put in the criteria for diagnosis that one could not transition for perceived advantages accorded to one sex. And this was in a time where they thought it was virtually 90% of trans women vs 10% of trans men, if not JUST trans women. So they DID think some cissexual men would possibly want to transition for female privilege reasons, and pre-emptively shot it down.

    Out of curiosity, I went to the r/MensRights and the second thing on the list was this.

    I don’t know how tumblr works, or who this tumblr post is quoting, or what was initially said.

  198. karmakin says

    @Jacob: I think that’s a pretty bad example. I don’t really agree with it, for a variety of reasons, (I think that it frames rape incorrectly, to be honest), but I wouldn’t call it misogyny let alone violent.

    If you want to see the misogynistic movement within Reddit, check out http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill which is where most of the actual misogyny happens. There’s not too much that’s violent however, just a lot of negative generalizations and sexist attitudes. Reminds me a lot of separatist radical feminism actually.

    In the early days MRA-dom was really primarily pushed by people who are Red Pillers, more or less, and it’s never really been able to shake that particular sub-group IMO.

    The bar isn’t the misogyny or the misandry btw. Personally, I think the bar to be cleared for ethical behavior is not making sexist generalizations. And that’s something that both sides, or at least a part of both sides are pretty bad with.

  199. wpa says

    The bar isn’t the misogyny or the misandry btw. Personally, I think the bar to be cleared for ethical behavior is not making sexist generalizations.

    I disagree. Sexist generalizations are pretty common errors made by people of good will and bad. To be challenged, certainly, but I am not going to think ill of someone who just hasn’t caught a clue yet. But the hate speech that constitutes misogyny and misandry, when left unchecked with a community, inevitably leads to condoning rape or violence against women and men. Which to me, make misogyny and misandry clear and unambiguous markers of sociopathy.

  200. says

    @211 Jacob Schmidt

    Exactly how do I, as a childless university student, represent arrogant fathers?

    You were told to fuck off for assigning blame to an entire group based on the actions of some, and nothing else.

    Oh all we humans “represent” arrogant fathers and have a duty to try to change them for the sake of innocent children everywhere. It really is quite simple. And being obscene does not help resolve the problem.

  201. says

    @187 Schala

    “They will look after them, but avoid, as much as possible, being in public with them. Meaning they will favor doing it at home.”

    Well you must live in a completely different visible world to me.

    Now admittedly in China where I’ve lived for a good part of my life over the past 11 years, and maybe as a result of the one child family policy, children are doted on like no where else on earth that I’ve visted. But even in the UK I see men out with their children all the time and I’m sure in the few months I’ve lived in the USA it was the same. And there’s plenty of photographic evidence on Google and Facebook etc to confirm this.

    And even if I take your claim at face value, most of the “looking after children” does take place in the home – as any father who does look after his children will tell you. (I’ve never seen one ironing his children’s clothes in the park.) :) So I’m not really sure what your point about “avoiding being in public with them” is all about.

  202. Schala says

    So I’m not really sure what your point about “avoiding being in public with them” is all about.

    Some will, more than women.

    Many don’t mind being presumed pedophiles because they know its false, and want their kid to have fun at the playground, or wherever they go, but I wouldn’t fault those who choose to do more “homely” entertainment, that doesn’t involve going to the park.

    Fact is, you can have fun and do parenting…while at home, with stuff that doesn’t involve housework (ironing is a bad example of what I mean).

    You can play videogames, you can make homework fun, you can play board games, you can read to the kid, you can read with the kid, heck you can have the kid read to you for either something they personally wrote, or to assess their ease at reading/speaking aloud (which would make sense for oral examinations in school – what The Simpsons call “show and tell”). You can play-fight in the living room, or in the yard. You can make bath time actually fun. You can play in the home’s swimming pool. You can play with them on the home swing-set, or the home sandbox. You can play with matchbox cars, or with mylittlepony figurines, you can pretend play about two fighting factions (we did burglar + police when I was young), or about play acting a play where people mostly improvise, you can also dance, freestyle or on DDR, or a ballroom style, or a breakdance style, you can play dressup too…and thousands more things that can all be done at home.

    Not just cooking food and ironing shirts.

  203. Jacob Schmidt says

    Karmakin

    I don’t really agree with it, for a variety of reasons, (I think that it frames rape incorrectly, to be honest), but I wouldn’t call it misogyny[1] let alone violent[2].

    1) I can’t see victim blaming women as anything else but contempt or hatred. How do you see it otherwise?

    2) You’re right; I had missed that criteria.

    Bitethehand

    Oh all we humans “represent” arrogant fathers[1] and have a duty to try to change them for the sake of innocent children everywhere[2]. It really is quite simple. And being obscene does not help resolve the problem[3].

    1) People who aren’t members of a group represent said group? Do I represent Hindu’s and communists as well?

    2) Tell me, how does saddling good fathers with the blame for bad ones help anyone?

    3) Neither does tone trolling, yet you spent three comments on it.

    Schala

    Also, the singular of women, is woman.

    I’m aware; it’s a common typo of mine. Look through my past comments, and you’ll see it often. I’m surprised you hadn’t noticed until now.

    Honestly, I’m not the best writer or editor.

    To me, defining femaleness in such a Martyr-power way, is holding femaleness in contempt.

    I think I see where our wires got crossed. Are you arguing that TERFs are contradicting themselves when they claim trans women are trans for frivolous reasons, since the experience they claim all women have is so horrible that no one would want to be a women?

    Many don’t mind being presumed pedophiles because they know its false, and want their kid to have fun at the playground, or wherever they go, but I wouldn’t fault those who choose to do more “homely” entertainment, that doesn’t involve going to the park.

    You’re vastly overstating the fear of being seen as a pedophile; there are tonnes of father’s in parks. Many of them taking there kids to sporting events, swimming on weekends, camping, etc.

  204. Schala says

    1) I can’t see victim blaming women as anything else but contempt or hatred. How do you see it otherwise?

    Do you agree that not taking any precautions and leaving it to luck entirely, is an advised thing to do?

    Do you lock your car or home doors? Or just hope no one would even think about stealing from you? Thieves are responsible for their burglary, but it’s nice to not make their work easier.

    For rape, it’s mostly about not trusting gifts from strangers (something little kids are taught), including opened drinks, and not purposely make yourself so drunk you can’t walk or even fall unconscious. Clothing has little to do with it. And avoiding drinking entirely is not really common in young people – like abstinence – so not practical. Not being alone (always go with at least one other) can always help, it might deter some.

    I was targeted for bullying because I was alone. No one cared for me (had no friend). I was an easy target, and wouldn’t fight back. They also knew the consequences would be zero for their act, even if they did get caught.

    Men would be told this, for their own well-being. Because no one is expected to pick him up when he does fall. Of course, people don’t expect he even could be raped, but they do expect he could be assaulted, mugged, or even killed by his own stupid drunken antics (like driving drunk).

    I think I see where our wires got crossed. Are you arguing that TERFs are contradicting themselves when they claim trans women are trans for frivolous reasons, since the experience they claim all women have is so horrible that no one would want to be a women?

    I’m saying they think womanhood/femaleness is horrible. They do not see anything positive with it, except “having survived it”, which is matyrdom. They even go so far as to want to protect their precious martyrdom. Because most TERFs don’t value female privileges, even when they’re given them. Some spit on them. Some aren’t afforded them due to looks (too butch) or sexuality (too lesbian) either. So it’s either protecting martyrdom, or jealousy at someone “wanting to have it both ways”, either way it’s not rational and cannot be argued against.

  205. karmakin says

    @Jacob: Honestly, one could make the argument that thinking that women are capable of looking after themselves is the exactly opposite of misogyny. I’ve seen similar statements worded in such a way that are definitely misogynistic, I just don’t think the linked statement qualifies. Like I said. I’m not someone who thinks that negative gender stereotypes against women don’t exist (I just think that they exist against men as well, and it’s a roughly even split in terms of suckitude, even if I do think that women have it slightly worse), but I don’t think it’s qualifies here.

    I do think that the logic model is the same as the one put forward by some people in this thread as well as in the OP, as I mentioned in an earlier comment, and I don’t like that. However, I do think that at least in this case, both men and women do have a role to play in terms of lowering the rate of rapes (even if one assumes that 100% of the rapes are men raping women) in terms of changing the sexual scripts that are all too common that lead to a good portion of the rapes. Praising aggressive sexual behavior in men, combined with a cultural purity fetish and mixed with a great deal of alcohol…

    It’s a horrific thing IMO.

  206. Jacob Schmidt says

    Schala

    Do you agree that not taking any precautions and leaving it to luck entirely, is an advised thing to do?

    Do you lock your car or home doors? Or just hope no one would even think about stealing from you? Thieves are responsible for their burglary, but it’s nice to not make their work easier.

    Which misses the bloody point; most rapes aren’t by strangers. It’s not some stranger breaking into your house, it’s your acquaintance you trusted.

    Karmakin

    Honestly, one could make the argument that thinking that women are capable of looking after themselves is the exactly opposite of misogyny. I’ve seen similar statements worded in such a way that are definitely misogynistic, I just don’t think the linked statement qualifies.

    I’d maybe be willing to buy that if a) they weren’t claiming that feminism puts forward an argument it (by and large) doesn’t and b) if they didn’t mock the idea of the responsibility of rapists. The “women just don’t want to be responsible” is an old sexist claim.

  207. Schala says

    Which misses the bloody point; most rapes aren’t by strangers. It’s not some stranger breaking into your house, it’s your acquaintance you trusted.

    You trust acquaintances to do the right thing when you pass out drunk? I don’t trust even longtime friends to do that (I trust them to not rape me themselves, but I don’t expect them to do much more – like carry me to their car and get me home). I would only trust family for this.

    So whenever I’m with someone who is not family, I arrange things so I don’t end up passed out drunk. I try to do so the rest of the time too, but feel safer.

    My own brother was stealing from me and my mother (right in her purse too). So, it’s not a guarantee either. Really depends on your relationship with them. Something you can’t even begin to know with an acquaintance.

  208. Ally Fogg says

    wpa / carnation / Sid

    Sorry for the delayed response folks.

    If people would still like a ruling, I’m pretty much with wpa on this one. I think pulling someone up on formal education is a pretty low blow.

    There are people I know who left school at 16 who have opinions and perspectives that are worth a dozen Oxbridge degrees. .

    So yes, Yellow Card for carnation, and (as ever) if Sid or anyone else would like me to edit or delete that comment and follow-up, I would be happy to delete the offending remarks.

  209. Sid says

    wpa.

    Ok I get you now. The mrm is basically dealing with the parts that feminism has overlooked, ignored, misrepresented or got wrong.

    The view is that feminism and conservatism are basically the same thing, male disposibility and female protectionism expressed in different ways, or to use feminist terminology they are both patriarchy.

    You are asking about what to do with boys in the community. I think an mra answer would be to protect them from the violence against women propaganda and guilt, and teach them that men and are both capable of violence and not to feel ashamed, or guilty or that they need to fight other men to protect women, because they are male.

    The mens movement recognizes a large empathy gap and a large responsibility gap between men and women, men are held more responsible and get less empathy so carry a heavier load, and its trying to fix that.

  210. Sid says

    edit-

    Beyond that it gets more complicated – looking at the patriarchy theory conspiracy theory, looking at issues only from the female perspective and how problematic that is, the fact that feminism produces deliberate misinformation that demonizes and creates fear and hatred of men, and feminist legislation that discriminates against men. This bit causes clashes with average feminists, because they don’t know what he business end of feminism is doing, and they think they themselves are being talked about when in fact we are talking about actions of organised feminism and feminist jurisprudence that they are unaware of.

    http://www.amazon.com/Legalizing-Misandry-Systemic-Discrimination-Against/dp/0773528628

  211. somedude says

    Schala said:

    They will look after them, but avoid, as much as possible, being in public with them. Meaning they will favor doing it at home.

    Holy shit, she’s still at it, posting nonsense non-stop.

  212. Adiabat says

    Jacob (104):

    No. Care in this case means “direct care”, direct interaction with the child. Providing for the child and interacting are two seperate things. The reason “direct care” is given more weight in custody battles is because it causes less strain on the child. Such policies are also gender neutral, btw. The father may very well be the care giver.

    Hi Jacob, I am aware I’m using an unorthodox version of caregiver. This is because things like ‘cooking the meal’ is considered caregiving, or ‘direct care’, under the usual meaning. It’s not, there is no difference between cooking and buying the meal in terms of the level of ‘direct care’ involved. It’s those small things in how we consider ‘caregiving’ that I am criticising. Dropping off at school is not really any greater ‘caregiving’ than kissing goodbye to wife and child half an hour earlier. Like I said, we either overvalue one “role” and undervalue the other.

    You say “Providing for the child and interacting with the child are two separate things” but show how cooking a meal is automatically interacting with the child (It can be if you get them involved, as is take your child to work day, but that is separate from simply cooking a meal which is considered ‘direct care’).

    I think instead of judging cases based on what arrangements have been in place before, (arrangements that people may have been unhappy with but did because knowing they got to go home to a loving partner and kid got them through the day), we should instead assume shared parenting than alter this based on what the parents are willing to do now. The previous “provider” may be willing to cut back hours at work post-separation so they could drop kids off and cook more, but because of how things were before they are prevented from having this option.

    P.S As usual there’s lots of grey area and variations that should be considered.

    I think a larger problem is your (and societies) association with provision and fatherhood. In my family (well, my mothers family), there was no “provider” or “caregiver”, both my mother and stepfather worked, and both spent plenty of time with us.

    I was assuming that since this thread is specifically about fathers, particular fathers who lose access to children, and the most common reason for this is due to caregiver and provider roles, something which disproportionately affects men, I would be given a bit of leeway for ease of conversation and talking about the issue. I guess not :). Normally I would talk about roles which I will do from now on if you wish.

  213. Adiabat says

    Schala (219):

    You can play videogames, you can make homework fun, you can play board games, you can read to the kid, you can read with the kid, heck you can have the kid read to you for either something they personally wrote, or to assess their ease at reading/speaking aloud (which would make sense for oral examinations in school – what The Simpsons call “show and tell”). You can play-fight in the living room, or in the yard. You can make bath time actually fun. You can play in the home’s swimming pool. You can play with them on the home swing-set, or the home sandbox. You can play with matchbox cars, or with mylittlepony figurines, you can pretend play about two fighting factions (we did burglar + police when I was young), or about play acting a play where people mostly improvise, you can also dance, freestyle or on DDR, or a ballroom style, or a breakdance style, you can play dressup too…and thousands more things that can all be done at home.

    All while the “primary caregiver” is boiling some rice and chopping some veg in the kitchen…

  214. Adiabat says

    Me (230): lol, that reads as bitter when I read it back for some reason. It shouldn’t be, just highlighting that the way we “measure” caregiving is messed up. The “primary caregiver” could be cooking a lavish 3-course meal, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that the “other parent” is also caregiving by keeping the child active and engaged while the “caregiver” cooks.

  215. Gjenganger says

    @222 Karmakin

    However, I do think that at least in this case, both men and women do have a role to play in terms of lowering the rate of rapes (even if one assumes that 100% of the rapes are men raping women) in terms of changing the sexual scripts that are all too common that lead to a good portion of the rapes. Praising aggressive sexual behavior in men, combined with a cultural purity fetish and mixed with a great deal of alcohol…

    That is a much better way of looking at it. We have these sexual scripts, which involve both the behaviour and the expectations of men and women. It makes sense to discuss in terms of what scripts we want and how we want them to work – which includes behavour rules for both sexes.

    We should just remember that avoiding rape is not the only thing that mattters. We also want a set of scripts that allow people to meet up and have fun, and that fits well enough with current behaviour norms to be possible in practice. Maybe rape reduction past a certain point will not be possible. Sexually aggressive behaviour in men remains favoured because our culture expects men to take the initiative and any man who does not can look forward to a long period of chastity. The purity fetish likewise comes from the fact that in our culture women are sought- after, and men are the seekers. Alcohol is needed as a social facilitator, certainly in the UK, to overcome the embarassment of talking to strangers, let alone seducing them. Can you realy go beyond all that? Mandating that we all stay sober and all stay passive and wait for someone else to become enthusiastically interested does not sound like a realistic plan.

    Actually, if you or someone had a sketch for how they think those sexual scripts ought to work, that would be an interesting starting point for a discussion.

  216. wpa says

    The mens movement recognizes a large empathy gap and a large responsibility gap between men and women, men are held more responsible and get less empathy so carry a heavier load, and its trying to fix that.

    The empathy and responsibility gap. Hmmm. I can see that in the case of family law governing divorce in the UK. I don’t see it in rape statistics, the DV statistics, or the single parenthood statistics in the community where I live. I see the opposite gap in those statistics.

    I don’t see any hope of closing the “empathy and responsibility gap,” for anyone, in an ongoing war between feminism and the MRM.

  217. Schala says

    I don’t see it in rape statistics, the DV statistics, or the single parenthood statistics in the community where I live. I see the opposite gap in those statistics.

    You see male victims helped more than female victims? How did you put on those glasses?

  218. wpa says

    You know Schala, I could explain exactly what I am talking about to you. But the fact that you would rather obfuscate than address the main point of what I am talking about, means that I would be wasting my time. You would undoubtably come up with some other bullshit metaphor (glasses, seriously?), and I just don’t have the time or interest. My interest is in lowering the temperature rather than raising it.

    Cheers

  219. Schala says

    I’m saying that there IS an empathy gap working against men. Especially male victims. Definitely including victims of rape and DV. Twice as much if they have female perpetrators.

    You seem to imply they’re either a minority of victims, or already better served than female victims. When they virtually have no services and no recognition it CAN even happen from government, feminist organizations, most shelters, the UN, and more – let alone lay people.

    The CDC decided to not classify male victims of rape as rape, because it didn’t want to “conflate” being penetrated (the most horrible crime) with being enveloped (not as bad). Which is stupid double standard reasoning to start off. Rape should be sex without consent, not limited to penetration of the victim.

  220. says

    Defacing paintings and statues? Really?! That’s pathetic even by symbolic-geture standards. What a fucking joke. If fathers want their concerns to be taken at all seriously, the first thing they have to do is stop acting like children, and stop supporting “advocacy” groups that make them look stupid and pathetic.

  221. says

    Quite the bind…Fathers right get together, they are depicted as an abusers lobby. If they don’t make public protest and activism they are wrong, if the do make public protests and activism they are wrong. They are incapable of knowing whether or not they are being treated fairly by the legal system.

    Therefore you have no choice but to act like children in a perpetual temper-tantrum, saying stupid shit that’s observably false and throwing blame and accusations in all directions indiscriminately? Sorry, boys, there’s no “bind” that can ever justify any of the laughably ridiculous behavior I’ve seen from MRAs like Sid, Shala, the Slymepitters, etc. In fact, whatever “bind” you are in requires you to be MORE sensible, not less.

  222. wpa says

    I’m saying that there IS an empathy gap working against men

    I am not arguing with you. The only real issue is the best way to close that gap. I’d be glad to discuss that.

  223. Schala says

    Look, a troll!

    If you don’t identify as MRA, you cannot expect them to respect this. Because trolls don’t care about self-identification, except for the Manboobz Challenge. Then it becomes Super Important, just so they can claim nothing was ever done.

  224. Sid says

    Wpa

    The empathy and responsibility gap. Hmmm. I can see that in the case of family law governing divorce in the UK. I don’t see it in rape statistics, the DV statistics, or the single parenthood statistics in the community where I live. I see the opposite gap in those statistics.

    Not sure what your point is. The rate at which women commit domestic violence and force others to gave sex is largely hidden. Its the way the crime is defined that makes it mainly male to female – Rape stats. do not include women forcing people to penetrate them, in the UK I’m even sure if they include women penetrating men.

    Domestic violence research has been showing that men and women commit DV against each other at roughly equal rates, and research on frequency shows women are initiating it more often than men … its just that women aren’t held are responsible and there is a lack of empathy for the victims, especially if they are male.

    Single parent hood, that is largely a lifestyle choice isn’t it? Women have complete control over whether they have unwanted and unplanned children or not. That is something else that women are not held responsible for … deciding to have children even though there is no agreement to have children in place.

  225. somedude says

    Tamen said:

    Although Schala’s statement is too broad

    You betcha.

    Of course a “pedophile craze” exists these days and it targets mostly men. I’m a man and I happen to browse “hetpat” on the internet so it’s kinda hard for me not to be aware of it even if I haven’t personally encountered it.

    But this is all about making an impression on readers and creating an insane narrative with Schala. Overblown comment after overblown comment after overblown comment. It’s too tiring.

  226. says

    But this is all about making an impression on readers and creating an insane narrative with Schala. Overblown comment after overblown comment after overblown comment. It’s too tiring.

    I agee that she has overstated her case on several occasions. I disagree that she is therefore guilty of ‘creating an insane narrative’. Claiming that she does won’t do you any favors.

  227. wpa says

    Look, a troll!

    At last we finally have gotten to some real irony.

    If you don’t identify as MRA, you cannot expect them to respect this. Because trolls don’t care about self-identification, except for the Manboobz Challenge. Then it becomes Super Important, just so they can claim nothing was ever done.

    I have no expectation to be respected by MRA’s. I am just trying to help a brother out. The inability to recognize your friends is, I suppose, something you are going to have to work out on your own.

  228. wpa says

    @Sid:

    Women have complete control over whether they have unwanted and unplanned children or not.

    Um, I dunno if you have been keeping score, but here in the States, the “Women don’t get a say in whether they have kids or not” team has netted a few goals lately.

    You can keep repeating your narrative Sid, and for all I know it may all be true where you live, but where I live men are still kicking the shit out of women at an alarming rate. Men are suffering too, and I have no objection to highlighting all aspects of that suffering.

    You see Sid, that is what this is all about for me. Earlier you spoke of “balkinization.” That hits the nail on the head for me. In a just world, MRA’s and feminists would be natural allies.

  229. Schala says

    I have no expectation to be respected by MRA’s. I am just trying to help a brother out. The inability to recognize your friends is, I suppose, something you are going to have to work out on your own.

    Raging Bee says I’m a MRA, despite me publicly disavowing membership with any gender faction. Someone who cannot listen and who would rather smear me (because yes, to someone like that MRA = bad, meaning it’s intended as an insult – I don’t care if it inherently is insulting), is no brother of mine, but a troll.

  230. Jacob Schmidt says

    Adiabat

    Hi Jacob, I am aware I’m using an unorthodox version of caregiver. This is because things like ‘cooking the meal’ is considered caregiving, or ‘direct care’, under the usual meaning. It’s not, there is no difference between cooking and buying the meal in terms of the level of ‘direct care’ involved. It’s those small things in how we consider ‘caregiving’ that I am criticising. Dropping off at school is not really any greater ‘caregiving’ than kissing goodbye to wife and child half an hour earlier. Like I said, we either overvalue one “role” and undervalue the other.

    I’m not considering “cooking the meal” automatically care giving. But, during the summer at least, the one cooking 3 meals a day for the child (i.e. the one consistently present in the home) is going to interact more with the child.

    You say “Providing for the child and interacting with the child are two separate things” but show how cooking a meal is automatically interacting with the child (It can be if you get them involved, as is take your child to work day, but that is separate from simply cooking a meal which is considered ‘direct care’).

    See above; I did not say this.

    I think instead of judging cases based on what arrangements have been in place before, (arrangements that people may have been unhappy with but did because knowing they got to go home to a loving partner and kid got them through the day), we should instead assume shared parenting than alter this based on what the parents are willing to do now.

    I’m happy with this; however, it requires cooperation from both parties. In the scenarios in question, cooperation is unlikely. That’s the issue. The state, at least in some cases, is going to have to make some decisions on behalf of the child.

    I was assuming that since this thread is specifically about fathers, particular fathers who lose access to children, and the most common reason for this is due to caregiver and provider roles, something which disproportionately affects men, I would be given a bit of leeway for ease of conversation and talking about the issue. I guess not . Normally I would talk about roles which I will do from now on if you wish.

    YOU GET NO LENIENCY!

    In all seriousness, I shouldn’t have assigned that view point to you. I’m sorry. I just think it’s a bad habit to always talk about certain things with a certain framing (fathers as providers, women as rape victims, etc). I try to keep from doing it even when speaking about a given group.

    Schala

    You trust acquaintances to do the right thing when you pass out drunk?

    I don’t remember “pass out drunk” being a phrase I used.

    (Aside, it’s interesting to see someone so anti feminist to use Schrodinger’s rapist as an argument; usually anti feminists hate it)

  231. says

    I don’t understand why you guys keep using the comparison to children’s behavior as though the fact that children do it makes it inherently irrational.

    Do you know why a child’s course of action is often a temper tantrum or lashing out at something unrelated to the source of their problem? Because the child has no power. This is how human beings react when they have zero options.

    This is actually quite rational behavior.

    If you can’t solve the real problem, maybe you can draw attention to the fact that you have a problem by acting out. Even if it’s just so they can yell at you, you’ve managed to draw their attention to you.

    If they’re paying attention to you, the people with actual power might coincidentally hear you mention the problem and decide it’s worth doing something about.

    Whereas if they aren’t paying attention to you at all, there is zero chance anyone’s going to notice there’s a problem, and zero chance any change will take place, the problem will persist, and you’ll be no worse off than if you hadn’t thrown your fit.

  232. Schala says

    (Aside, it’s interesting to see someone so anti feminist to use Schrodinger’s rapist as an argument; usually anti feminists hate it)

    The difference is I don’t profile. I’m an equal opportunity misanthropist: I suspect everyone I don’t trust. I don’t care if they’re bigger, or have more penis than zero, they’re the same potential threat to me. I don’t feel safer in female-only space because “at least men can’t come here”, and see no reason why I would. Women are no more safe inherently, especially to a woman.

  233. Jacob Schmidt says

    I don’t feel safer in female-only space because “at least men can’t come here”, and see no reason why I would

    Good for you; I’d imagine other women who’ve been repeatedly victimized by men feel different (men’s services offer men only spaces, btw).

    Women are no more safe inherently, especially to a woman.

    In general, maybe. About rape specifically? It’s almost always men who victimize women.

  234. says

    The difference is I don’t profile. I’m an equal opportunity misanthropist: I suspect everyone I don’t trust. I don’t care if they’re bigger, or have more penis than zero, they’re the same potential threat to me.

    That seems strange. Physical size should at least to some degree be a predictor of threat as regardless of actual mindset of the person, greater strength would probably produce more damage in the same timeframe.

  235. Schala says

    That seems strange. Physical size should at least to some degree be a predictor of threat as regardless of actual mindset of the person, greater strength would probably produce more damage in the same timeframe.

    I profile solely based on intent. Not size.

    If someone is 3x my size, but not hostile, it doesn’t matter if the hostile one is 3 feet tall and 50 lbs wet – they’re attacking me.

    Any damage at all is bad. Even minimal damage.

    And you think I judge people on how easily I can fight back? I can’t fight back someone my size. I can’t fight back someone smaller. I can hold a child of 8 years old or less, who isn’t really violent, at bay. After that, there will be inevitable damage to me. I don’t punch, I don’t kick, I don’t know martial arts, I can’t restrain someone, and I’m physically weak. I judge everyone the same.

  236. says

    I profile solely based on intent. Not size.

    If someone is 3x my size, but not hostile, it doesn’t matter if the hostile one is 3 feet tall and 50 lbs wet – they’re attacking me.

    Any damage at all is bad. Even minimal damage.

    And you think I judge people on how easily I can fight back? I can’t fight back someone my size. I can’t fight back someone smaller. I can hold a child of 8 years old or less, who isn’t really violent, at bay. After that, there will be inevitable damage to me. I don’t punch, I don’t kick, I don’t know martial arts, I can’t restrain someone, and I’m physically weak. I judge everyone the same.

    Have you considered taking self defense courses? Maybe it could help you with a lot of your fears.

    I am sorry about making assumptions about how and if you judge people. I judge the immediate threat coming from other persons I do not know based on their physical constituency since I could fight back to some extent. I was a victim of a very severe beating by a gang of skinheads once – they left me hospitalized for two weeks and I should have stayed longer in the hospital but decided to go back to military service since else I would have had to restart the service…. Austrian mandatory military yay :(, but in most other situations evaluation of risk based on these factors seemed to help me to get out of unpleasant situations.

  237. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    @251/3. Schala~
    “I’m an equal opportunity misanthropist: I suspect everyone I don’t trust.”

    This is intriguing. I have encountered other transgender people who, in my estimation, are WAY too mistrusting of the world. Would you mind perhaps elaborating on why you feel this way?

  238. Lucy says

    Of course there is another solution for a father who wants justice for himself, the mother of his children, for the extended family of his children and most importantly for his children: don’t get divorced.

    Think about the consequences of cheating, not listening, over-working, under-working and all the rest. Women don’t dream of becoming single mothers, children don’t dream of broken homes, two bedrooms and living out of a suitcase.

    And I know, divorce just happens even when you don’t jump into marriage without working out practical things first, pull your weight, are attentive, are faithful and have counselling when things get tricky, it’s unavoidable, sometimes you just fall out of love and don’t feel fulfilled and it’s the other party’s fault, not yours.

  239. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    And I know, divorce just happens even when you don’t jump into marriage without working out practical things first, pull your weight, are attentive, are faithful and have counselling when things get tricky, it’s unavoidable, sometimes you just fall out of love and don’t feel fulfilled and it’s the other party’s fault, not yours.

    Since you know all that, why do you feel the need to hand out patronising and oversimplified advice? Did you just fancy taking a shit all over divorcees, or were you labouring under the impression that that advice was somehow useful?

  240. Adiabat says

    Jacob:

    I’m not considering “cooking the meal” automatically care giving.

    But the standard usage of “caregiver” does. That’s what I’m addressing. It’s not just cooking but most household chores that would get have to be done anyway whether a child was present or not (though, believe me, cleaning does become a never-ending task). These tasks are associated with the ‘primary caregiver’ when they shouldn’t be. Therefore, work done outside the home isn’t considered as ‘valuable’ as work in the home.

    But, during the summer at least, the one cooking 3 meals a day for the child (i.e. the one consistently present in the home) is going to interact more with the child.

    If we’re talking school age then the kid is only around during the day for six weeks in the summer. And how much are they around really during the summer holidays anyway? Even if they are in the house they may be in their room playing video games all day while the parent at home does chores that would have to be done even if they were childless. So I don’t think simply cooking is any indicator of direct interaction. I don’t think it’s something that can be measured by simply looking at ‘presence in the home’, as it’s possible that the few hours between finishing work and bedtime could be used for better bonding and caregiving (in my unorthodox sense), than a full day of ‘being present in the house together’. This is why an assumption of shared parenting is an important default position.

  241. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @sid #242

    Not sure what your point is. The rate at which women commit domestic violence and force others to gave sex is largely hidden. Its the way the crime is defined that makes it mainly male to female – Rape stats. do not include women forcing people to penetrate them, in the UK I’m even sure if they include women penetrating men.

    It specifies penetration but not gender; so a woman can rape a man under our law in that manner but it does not allow for women forcing men to penetrate them, despite the fact this is an obvious possibility. It is presumably based on the idea that if the man didn’t want it they wouldn’t get a hard on, which betrays a woeful ignorance of biology on behalf of the lawmakers; though it could equally be down to gender essentialism. Because all men want it all of the time, right? Besides, big manly men should always be able to fight off little dainty women, and we all know rape only ever happens by physical force, amiright?

    Domestic violence research has been showing that men and women commit DV against each other at roughly equal rates, and research on frequency shows women are initiating it more often than men … its just that women aren’t held are responsible and there is a lack of empathy for the victims, especially if they are male.

    I agree there’s a lack of empathy for male victims, again due to gender essentialism. Big manly men should always be able to fight off little dainty women, and if they can’t then they’re not real men. Therefore no sympathy, because they must have “allowed” it to happen. This is a huge problem with our culture, and since judges and jurors are members of and thus products of our culture it is a problem which has a direct and negative effect on our courts and justice system.

    What do you mean when you say women are “initiating it more than men”?

    Single parent hood, that is largely a lifestyle choice isn’t it? Women have complete control over whether they have unwanted and unplanned children or not. That is something else that women are not held responsible for … deciding to have children even though there is no agreement to have children in place.

    Presuming you meant this seriously, it is utter bollocks; the first two sentences in particular.

  242. Sid says

    WPA

    Yes in the states I believe the “women don’t get a say over whether they have kid or not” crowd have made some minor moves.

    None the less, women have control over whether they have children or not, so blaming men for examples of single mother hood baring a couple that planned a child and the split up or decided to make a go of a genuine accident is denying female responsibility. .

  243. Sid says

    Thumper AM @ 260

    Re. DV and rape, the new force keeping rape limited to penetration (I can show you numerous examples of feminism working to keep it that way), and domestic violence against men in the closet is feminism I can show you how its been covered up and a study showing the general population is more supportive of male DV victims than the official DV agencies.

    Presuming you meant this seriously, it is utter bollocks; the first two sentences in particular.

    Why would you say that?

    In most western countries women have the choice to have children. Baring the cases where a couple split up after making a legitimate try at parenthood after they have decided to have a baby or after a legitimate accident, motherhood single or not is a lifestyle choice but because we lean towards erasing female responsibility and holding men responsible for women’s choices, we fail to see that.

  244. Sid says

    edit, that last paragraph is inaccurate.

    Children planned by both parents are a lifestyle choice too, as is a decision taken by both parents to convert a genuine accident into parenthood.

  245. Adiabat says

    Sid (262): There are also occasions where the woman doesn’t realise she’s pregnant until after the cut-off date for abortion. In some places it may also be expensive to have an abortion, though in the UK it is free and available to all.

    There are also minority cultures in western societies which will prevent women from having an abortion. And some people may not be religious but still have moral issues with abortion.

    But yeah, in general you have a point, as long as the exceptions are recognised.

  246. Sid says

    Adiabat@264

    Yeah, of course there are outlier cases, there are also people that believe that they cannot have abortions for moral and religions reasons.

    I think the fact that most people don’t see the elephant in the room though, is a really good example of how we erase women’s responsibility.

  247. mildlymagnificent says

    None the less, women have control over whether they have children or not, so blaming men for examples of single mother hood baring a couple that planned a child and the split up or decided to make a go of a genuine accident is denying female responsibility. .

    Perhaps you should read more widely. http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/05/when-men-sabotage-birth-control.html

    Surveying 641 women who received routine ob-gyn care at Providence’s Women and Infants Hospital, Clark found that 16 percent had received unwelcome pressure to get pregnant. Their boyfriends and partners made it hard for them to use birth control — poking holes in condoms or hiding their pills — or threatened to leave or harm them if they didn’t get pregnant.
    …….
    “Personally, it was incredibly destabilizing,” Miller recalled. “It was like, ‘How could I have missed this?” Later, she interviewed girls who were known to have been in violent relationships for a 2007 paper on the topic. “A quarter of them said, ‘He was trying to get me pregnant.’”

    My bolding.

    Even if these groups are more than the rate you might find in a larger sample, even if it’s double, that’s still a quite significant proportion of child-bearing age women admitting to coercion from a partner about contraception and pregnancy.

  248. Sid says

    Hi Mildlymagnificat

    That’s a feminist style source (only telling one half of the story), its not telling you that american men are slightly more likely to catch their partner attempting B/C sabotage than women or that when men sabotage BC, women have various ways out and when women sabotage BC, the state will force the father into parenthood under the treat of violence, kidnapping and incarceration.

    But back to your point, I think its moot and supports my point.

    You are also conflating pregnancy and parenthood, and erasing the following – when a woman gets pregnant even through BC sabotage, she has the choice to convert it into parent hood, or not.

    This is one of the elephants in the gender and single mother issue room.

  249. punchdrunk says

    Having an abortion and abandoning a child are not the same thing.
    That’s a dangerous false equivalence.

  250. Sid says

    Who is saying having an abortion and abandoning a child are the same thing?

    What I am saying is that we as a culture, erase the fact that women generally don’t have children by mistake and the reality is that parenthood is a choice for women. That is why we look at single mothers and blame men when in reality, many of these single mothers, chose to be single mothers and bring children into dysfunctional situations.

  251. Sid says

    and you get all these americans thinking that womens reproductive and bodily autonomy is under attack

    The reality is an american woman can rape, sabotage B/C, lie about B/C or accidentally get pregnant, then chose to have a baby and then chose to take control over a mans body and labour for 21 years under the threat of violence, Kidnapping and incarceration.

    So who is really oppressing who through reproduction?

    Most people are blind to this reality.

  252. punchdrunk says

    “We” don’t look at single mothers and blame men.
    Women choose not to have abortions for many reasons, and many women don’t have a real, practical choice. That’s their right. It’s their decision to make.
    Once a child is born, both parents have equal rights and responsibilities with regard to that child.
    Neither can walk away easily.

    You seem angry that women can make a decision alone, without the father being able to force an abortion. Much like ‘pro-life’ men are angry about women deciding to have abortions without the father being able to force them to give birth.

    It all looks like the same coin to me, and you seem remarkably unconcerned about what’s in the best interests of the child in this situation.

  253. Sid says

    Punch drunk.

    When a woman chooses to have baby with out prior arrangement to be in a loving family where both parents planned and chose to be parents, its the woman’s choice.

    No, Im not angry that women make this decision, I support womens reproductive freedom, I don’t support their reproductive oppression of others.

    Once a child is born, both parents have equal rights and responsibilities with regard to that child.
    Neither can walk away easily

    Women have various choices after birth and only the woman is responsible for the choice to give birth.

  254. Sid says

    edit

    both parents do not have equal rights and responsibility. The man has no rights, no choices and has responsibilities under the treat of violence, even if they were raped.

  255. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @sid

    Re. DV and rape, the new force keeping rape limited to penetration (I can show you numerous examples of feminism working to keep it that way), and domestic violence against men in the closet is feminism I can show you how its been covered up and a study showing the general population is more supportive of male DV victims than the official DV agencies.

    Please, show away. I have never met any self-described feminists who openly acknowledged that they do not view forced envelopement as rape. I’m sure they’re out there on the lunatic fringe of the movement, but feminism is a fragmented movement with different factions often at odds. I would describe myself as a feminist, but generally find the radfem fringe fairly repulsive, for example. Taking the opinion of a radfem and applying it to feminists as a whole is like saying all Muslims share the opinions of Al Qaeda. It is recognising the similarities in a core ideology without taking into account the differences, and assuming the extremists are representative of the whole.

    I would also like to remind you that I have openly acknowledged that male victims of DV and rape are often trivialised, and I stand by that assessment. I do not agree that this is in any way down to feminism, but feel free to prove otherwise.

    Why would you say that?

    Because it’s true.

    In most western countries women have the choice to have children. Baring the cases where a couple split up after making a legitimate try at parenthood after they have decided to have a baby or after a legitimate accident, motherhood single or not is a lifestyle choice but because we lean towards erasing female responsibility and holding men responsible for women’s choices, we fail to see that.

    In most cases, yes. But you are missing the influence of religion and of actively harmful “pro-life” legislation which often mean that they do not have that choice. At least you acknowledge that people splitting up is not a lifestyle choice, which is where the vast majority of single parenthood comes from. I entirely disagree that our culture erases female responsibility, the onus is far more on women to “take responsibility” for sexual choices than men are. I am a heterosexual man and I am perfectly capable of recognising that.

  256. Sid says

    Hi thumper,

    It doesn’t really matter what follower feminist define as rape, it has no bearing on organised feminism working to keep envelopment not rape and avoiding collecting and publishing data on the rate of female perpetration. These are polices higher up and have nothing to do with follower feminists, follower feminists just take the one sided information they are given in good faith.

    I do not agree that this is in any way down to feminism, but feel free to prove otherwise.

    One of many sources on the ways in which feminism erases, covers up and trivializes female to male DV.

    http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

    Because it’s true.

    If it true why did you then agree with me and say that it is true?

    In most cases, yes

  257. Jacob Schmidt says

    What I am saying is that we as a culture, erase the fact that women generally don’t have children by mistake and the reality is that parenthood is a choice for women.

    Source? Anything? Do you actually like to back up your statements?

    That’s a feminist style source (only telling one half of the story), its not telling you that american men are slightly more likely to catch their partner attempting B/C sabotage than women or that when men sabotage BC, women have various ways out and when women sabotage BC, the state will force the father into parenthood under the treat of violence, kidnapping and incarceration.

    Source? Anything? No?

  258. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Sid

    What do you mean by “organised femisnism”? Why do you distinguish between that and “follower feminism”? What’s the difference?

    And how can I define rape based on the information I’m given? Words have meanings, either rape means what I think it does, or it doesn’t. One could distinguish between different definitions for different contexts, certainly, but if someone comes to me and says “rape does not include envelopment” how can I simply “take that on good faith”? Your argument makes no sense.

    Back to DV, that paper is nonsense. He cites seven methods supposedly used by feminism to subvert public knowledge of DV and make it look as if it’s all perpetrated by men, but utterly fails to provide evidence of it actually happening and utterly fails to prove it’s down to feminism. For example he blithely states that people publish the results only on DV committed by men, names a few journals that did so (without linking to them or quoting from them) and just assumes it’s a concious effort on the part of the researcher to suppress information. He never explains why they might want to suppress such information, never makes an attempt to rationalise or to explain their reasons for witholding such information. He just states that they do, states it’s feminism, and moves on. It proves nothing. It’s a fucking travesty of a paper. There is no evidence anywhere in it, mere supposition and declarations of “fact” without ever backing any of it up.

    One thing mentioned in it which we have glossed over; he states that frequency of assaults is the same but seriousness is not. He also states that the seriousness of man-on-woman assaults as compared to woman-on-man assaults raises the public conciousness with regards to man-on-woman assaults and thus skews the public perception, causing the public to assume man-on-woman assaults are more common than they are. I am willing to concede that this is plausible and even likely, and I think by conflating seriousness and frequency I may have misunderstood your overall point, assuming that you have been making that distinction the whole time.

    However I would point out that while I think public perception would be that man-on-woman assaults are higher than they actually are, this does not mean the two are equal in frequency and they are certainly not equal in seriousness.

    He also uses a phrase you previously used, which I asked you to clarify and which you haven’t: “initiated by the woman”. What does that mean? To explain my issue with this phrase, if a couple have an argument, she slaps him, and he kicks the shit out of her, is that “initiated by the woman”? Because technically it would be but it seems pretty clear to me that it’s no excuse for causing serious harm and such a phrase glosses over that, allowing you to claim women initiate the violence but absolving you of the responsibility of acknowledging disproportionate reactions. It seems to me to be an entirely useless term.

    If it true why did you then agree with me and say that it is true?

    What are you talking about? “Because it’s true” was referring to what I wrote, i.e. I said what I said because what I said was true. Single parenthood is not “largely a lifestyle choice”. The fact that it is generally the case in Western countries that women have control of whether or not they have an abortion does not mean that single parenthood is “largely a lifestyle choice”. I agreed it was the case that women in the Western world have higher rates of bodily autonomy than the world as a whole, that doesn’t mean I agreed with your argument in it’s entirety.

  259. Sid says

    JacobSchmidt

    Why are you aggressive, what have do to prove aggression this time, anything legitimate, No?

    Also, do you not see the trend my my backing up my claims, its there so why treat me as my claims are suspect. Why do you mistake me for a legitimate target for aggression?

    Give you see me as a legitimate target for rudeness and aggression I’ll repay you in kind, here is your source you ignorant baboon, page 48

    http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

  260. Tamen says

    @274 Thumper; Atheist mate

    Mary P Koss consider it inappropriate to call a man who has been subjected to unwanted PIV sex with a woman for a rape victim. The latest revision of her SES instrument for measuring rape prevalency bear additional witness to her stance. What she considers rape or not has a much larger impact than I suspect the opinions of any commenters on this blog.

  261. says

    I don’t understand why you guys keep using the comparison to children’s behavior as though the fact that children do it makes it inherently irrational.

    Because children’s behavior tends to be OBSERVABLY irrational. That’s kind of a consequence of not being able to learn rational behavior as soon as you learn to walk. If you don’t understand this, there’s really no hope for you, and you don’t belong in an adult forum.

    Do you know why a child’s course of action is often a temper tantrum or lashing out at something unrelated to the source of their problem? Because the child has no power.

    Um, no, it’s because the child hasn’t learned how to express himself any other way, doesn’t fully understand his problems, is not yet able to control himself, and is thus not able to take responsibility for his words or decisions. That’s why the child has no power. That’s why we consider children irrational, that’s why we consider grownups who act like children irrational, and that’s why we are right not to let children dominate adult discussions of adult issues. That’s also why we are right not to let OVERGROWN children dominate adult discussions until they can prove they’re able and willing to reason and act like adults.

    This is actually quite rational behavior.

    It’s rational from a child’s point of view. That dodesn’t make it justifiable or effective for grownups.

    If you can’t solve the real problem, maybe you can draw attention to the fact that you have a problem by acting out.

    Or maybe you could draw attention to the problem by proving you know what you’re talking about. Ever think of that option? If you haven’t, then maybe you should shut up and let smarter people do the thinking.

    If they’re paying attention to you, the people with actual power might coincidentally hear you mention the problem and decide it’s worth doing something about.

    But if you act like a fucking idiot, they won’t take you as seriously as they need to, and if you can’t express yourself sensibly, you can’t expect them to understand what your problem really is, can you?

    Whereas if they aren’t paying attention to you at all, there is zero chance anyone’s going to notice there’s a problem, and zero chance any change will take place, the problem will persist, and you’ll be no worse off than if you hadn’t thrown your fit.

    All the more reason to shut up and let the more intelligent people describe your problem for you, instead of relentlessly squalling and screaming until everyone gives up on you because you’re not giving them any useful information.

  262. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @ Tamen

    Who is she? Because common sense clearly says she is wrong. Rape is sex without consent. No, an erection is not consent. Done and dusted.

    Besides, going to back to the argument me and Sid are actually having, I know there are people out there who believe that forced envelopment is not rape, my issue is that Sid seems to think this is down to feminism. Indeed he has declared so several times without ever proving it. I would argue, and have argued, that a far more logical theory is that it is down to gender essentialism.

  263. carnation says

    The “envelopement” argument is yet another MRA factoid, based on a single study, that, when given due attention loses the significane attached to it by MRAs.

    MRAs reference it a lot because it portrays women as aggressors and men as their victims, thus confirming the existing MRA hypothesis of men being oppressed, with the added bonus of having a female oppressor,

    It’s almost like Sid is some kind of metaphorical primate, hurling around metaphorical waste, hoping some of the metaphorical primeate’s metaphorical waste metaphorically sticks.

    And, of course, according to some MRAs, 80% of those reporting sexual assault are lying, so, yeah, that.

    I actually feel stupid writing MRA theory down.

  264. Sid says

    Thumper, AM

    my issue is that Sid seems to think this is down to feminism. Indeed he has declared so several times without ever proving it. I would argue, and have argued, that a far more logical theory is that it is down to gender essentialism.

    No, this is incorrect. I’m saying these things predate feminism and feminism is the new force that is keeping them that way. Here is one example for Israel.

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape

    You see. feminism would be very damaged if it told the truth about domestic violence and rates of forced sex,and rape was not defined in such a way the only possible outcome is over whelming male perpetration.

    Much of the narrative that it uses to get followers and support would fall apart.

  265. Adiabat says

    I think it’s sad comment on modern feminism that an MRA knows more about what influential and powerful feminists are actually doing in the world than feminists themselves. Who cares what some uninfluential follower feminists think on a website wrt rape and DV when the influential ones are making things harder for men.

  266. carnation says

    @ Adiabat 285

    That’s an interesting assertion. Unfortunately, you’re going to,have to justify it for it to have any meaning.

    Can you do that?

  267. says

    I think it’s sad comment on modern feminism that an MRA knows more about what influential and powerful feminists are actually doing in the world than feminists themselves.

    I hear ignorant Christian bigots say the same thing about atheists. It’s bullshit in both cases.

  268. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Sid

    Ah, you did not make that clear before. That’s a slightly more reasonable hypothesis, but one I still disagree with because again you are treating feminism as a monolith, which it simply isn’t.

    The Israel situation; I think the women’s groups have some legitimate fears regarding the counter-action of rape suits by counter-accusations of rape merely to muddy the waters. Any smart lawyers would sieze on that and they have to be careful how they phrase the law in order to avoid such situations. However I agree that such a law is necessary and disagree entirely with the thought process behind their objections.

    Reading that article the women’s groups appear to be buying into two erroneous ideas: that rape is only ever the product of physical force (Israeli law may very well define it that way, they don’t quote the actual law in the story) and gender essentialism. A quote there argues that the law makes it possible for men to counter-accuse, while ignoring that men are physically stronger. The latter point clearly only applies if A) you buy into the idea that all rape is the product of physical force and B) the gender essentialist idea that all roughy toughy men are capable of fighting off all those dainty women. This may be a feminist group upholding gender inequality in rape law, and I agree that it is and that it is wrong, but they are doing it because they buy into gender essentialism and an erroneous definition of rape; they are not doing it because the feminist ideology compells them to. Your anger is misdirected.

    That was my point earlier about feminism not being monolith: the actions of certain members of certain feminist groups do not have an effect on the core ideology. The core ideology is, essentially, that women are equal to men and deserve to be treated as such, and that this is not the current situation in the modern world. No part of this ideology compells its followers to disadvantage men, and most self-described feminists (including me) would be as ideologically opposed to a world where men are oppressed as we are to the current world.

  269. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Adiabat

    I describe myself as a feminist because I agree with the core ideology (which I defined, as far as my understanding of it, in comment #288), which is a self-evident truth. If some other self-described feminists take actions which inhibit or oppress other groups then it’s not going to shake my conviction that the sexes are equal and ought to be treated as such, nor is it going to change my evidence-based belief that women generally have it worse than men the world over. I don’t want to pull out the No-True-Scotsman fallacy, but I will certainly say that any groups who consistantly make it worse for other groups are certainly not someone I would count as allies.

  270. Ginkgo says

    Thumper @ 289, do you as a feminist accept the Redstockings Manifesto as a fair statement of your feminism?

  271. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Gingko

    Dunno, never read it. I defined my feminism in the last paragraph of #288.

  272. Sid says

    Thumper AM,

    I specifically said that follower feminists beliefs have no bearing on the policies of organised feminism to keep rape viewed as by penetration only or feminism’s policy to lie about domestic violence.

    I said follower feminists off all kinds believe these myths and take the nonsense they are given to believe about gendered domestic violence at face value. I didn’t deny the existence of different kinds of feminism, I do say there are monolithic beliefs inside feminism, largely gendered domestic violence for example but that there are different kinds of feminism.

    Here is some of the work that’s been done on uncovering how american feminist research has deliberatly avoided collecting data on female perpetration of forced sex.

    http://www.genderratic.com/p/2551/male-privilege-defining-male-victims-out-of-existence/

    I think there is a disparity between what you think feminism is and what feminism actually does.

  273. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Gingko

    Having just gone and read it; partly, but not in it’s entirety. For example they claim that all prejudices (racism, homophobia etc.) are extenisons of misogynistic oppression, which is self-evidently bollocks. They also make quite clear that they blame men as individuals, whereas I blame culture and gender essentialism. While it must be acknowledged that men are the primary purveyors of such prejudice it must be acknowledged that this is learned behaviour and, for the most part, not a concious oppression.

    However I firmly agree with such comments as those which demand that men give up their privilege and make a concious effort to treat women as equals. This is simply being a decent person. I also agree that societies the world over see women as sex objects, baby cannons and domestic servants; and while it must be acknowledged that the problem is far more severe in some countries than other I would say it is entirely wrong to say that the problem has been entirely eliminated anywhere.

    Anyway, if we could eliminate this rather irrelevant sidetrack and get back to the subject at hand…?

  274. unfamiliar w/ your ways says

    292. Sid~

    Dang, dude, see, this is why I don’t read the links from any of you guys. It was an opinion piece about a report, a review of some rape statistics projects. Obviously that’s what you found to convince you of the veracity of their accusations, but I’m sorry, just cuz this guy feels this way doesn’t mean its so. You knew it was opinion, didn’t you? Why would you post that? Surely you know you can’t convince people of jack shit on an atheist community forum without proof of some kind. I mean, it was written on the door on the way in, as I recall.

    See, I got burnt on Facebook reading links people posted to my as their ‘proof of research’. It’s always ALWAYS some bit of opinionated punditry!

  275. Sid says

    Unfamiliar /your ways

    That is very dishonest, on this thread I’ve linked to a number of peer reviewed sources, a newspaper article and one blog entry, yet you seize on the blog a try to pretend that all I’ve posted are blog entries.

    I’m familiar with your ways, I’ve been dealing with it for years.

  276. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Sid

    You still haven’t explained why you make a distinction between organised feminism and follower feminism, nor have you defined the two terms. Until you do they are not very useful.

    And you clearly still don’t understand that feminism isn’t a monolith, or you wouldn’t be using phrases like “feminism’s policy”. Feminism is an ideology; an ideology is a comprehensive and generally supportive set of ideas, it is synonomous with “worldview”; they are personal and dynamic. An ideology cannot have a policy. “Feminism’s policy” is an entirely meaningless statement.

    What “myth”? The myth that all violence is committed by men? That’s self-evident nonsense, so you’ve got one feminist here that doesn’t believe it, and indeed I’ve met no self-described feminists who do. The “myth” that most DV is comitted by men? Yeah, I believe they committ more than half, and I believe man-on-woman DV generally results in more serious injuries to the victim. Is that a myth?

    And please stop posting opinion pieces as “proof”. Your last was a piece discussing some research rather than the research itself, so is this one. However, to address the opinion piece, I am yet again headdesking at your inability to see the role of gender essentialism in Koss’s conclusions. I am also facepalming at your continued inability to recognise that feminism as an ideology does not motivate this sort of thinking. What you are doing here is equivalent to what theists do when they try to argue that Stalin’s massacres were motivated by his Atheism. They weren’t, they were motivated by his Totalitarianism and paranoia, he just happened to also be an Atheist. The trivialisation of male rape victims is due to gender essentialism, you are merely citing examples from people who also happen to be feminists. Being a feminist does not exclude you from holding bad ideas, and correlation =/= causation. Not that two examples even make a correlation. I have come across this (men can’t be raped) attitude from non-feminists and anti-feminists, and could probably find some examples online if I could be bothered/had time to do some Googling.

    Maybe there is somewhat of a disconnect between my opinions on the feminist ideology, which I agree with, and it’s effects in the real world; but I’ve yet to see incontrovertible proof that feminism is a force for evil rather than good. I never denied that individual feminists can do bad things, nor did I deny that they can do them in the name of their ideology. But I maintain that feminism as a whole is a force for good, and I maintain that none of the examples you have cited are motivated by feminism. Indeed, you have yet to explain why you think they are motivated by feminism.

  277. Ginkgo says

    Thumper @ 293 -“Anyway, if we could eliminate this rather irrelevant sidetrack and get back to the subject at hand…?”

    It wasn’t a sidetrack. It clarified that you and I agree on the basics and we can have a dialog.

    UWYW @ 294 – “It was an opinion piece about a report, a review of some rape statistics projects. ”
    ” Surely you know you can’t convince people of jack shit on an atheist community forum without proof of some kind. ”

    Surely I know you can’t convince someone with evidence they are unwilling to read. I found that out talking to creationists. The way you evaluate the validity of an opinion on a report is to compare it to the report and see if it is a valid interpetation. You don’t just dismiss it because it is an opinion.

  278. carnation says

    @ Thumper

    Believe it or not, Sid has made a lot of progress lately. Linking to an opinion piece is actually an improvement in his style of debate. His usual modus operandi is to powerfully unleash a clashing cacophony of meddling metaphors, that blindly thrash against the otherwise steady stream of dour debate on this bloody blog.

  279. Schala says

    Have you considered taking self defense courses? Maybe it could help you with a lot of your fears.

    They’re irrational fears, not real fears. They were caused by trauma, and I can’t become a Nevia.

    Never went to the hospital for being beaten up in elementary school. But it happened often enough that I became suspicious of all children.

    This is intriguing. I have encountered other transgender people who, in my estimation, are WAY too mistrusting of the world. Would you mind perhaps elaborating on why you feel this way?

    Being beaten up for probably-unrelated reasons to being trans:

    -I was a first of the class without efforts (I’ve never been the really studious type, except about stuff that REALLY interests me – and most school topics never went there, sadly). So called and treated like a nerd. I’m one of the few who has eagle-like vision (20/15 vision), according to stereotypes that say they ALL have glasses, despite being glued to a TV and computer screen all the time.

    -I was many years behind in average growth, and also born in August (meaning some people born in October of the previous year were in my classes), so I was very very small compared to my bullies. And compared to everyone, for my entire school “experience” (I hit 5’6″ at 18, I was 5’0″ at 15, I graduated before I turned 17).

    -I never learned how to really fight, and never wanted to fight either, even in self-defense (I’m a principled pacifist). My last recourse is to use my nails and bite, it’s not my first response. Back then my nails were bitten, and sharp because of it – today my nails are pretty long, and I could plant them deep (my thumb nails are 1/2 inch longs over the finger), but they’re not sharp because I file them rounded.

    -I’m terrible socially and can’t really make friends, I’ve been hopelessly naive before, too. So I have been taken advantage of, while no one cared for my well-being, and no one thought better to attack me because they felt I was protected…although my brother (2 years younger) defended me a couple of times, he usually wasn’t there, and my bullies were much older than him (so kinda scary for him, even if he loved fighting).

    -I think aloud and might say too much to the point of boring people to death. From my end, it’s to not leave an awkward silence. From their end, it’s apparently plain annoying. Contributes to not making friends.

    This made me socially anxious (especially with kids in the 5-17 range) and deeply cynical about the human race as a whole. I’m still generally courteous, but if it turns to snark, I’ll be super snarky in response. I’m very touchy about trans stuff, and will assert myself about it the most. I’m also vehemently against imposed gender roles, and will points out double standards whenever I see them (my boyfriend is very tired of this).

    I’m extremely principled about true justice (always have), and I think feminism and MRM movements have both “lost it”, but their members are salvageable. Feminist ideology and MRM’s anger are not. Still, half of me has given up on the world ever becoming a better place, with the idea that humans like swimming in their own filth.

  280. Sid says

    Thumper

    I differentiate between follower feminists and organised feminism and different feminism’s in the same way I differentiate between different Catholicisms, Catholics and professional catholic policy makers at the Vatican.

    Feminism requires a belief in some form of patriarchy theory. Domestic violence data is manipulated to support this theory, this manipulated and one sided data on domestic violence is proliferated among follower feminists by professional feminists.

    When I’m talking about feminism covering up data relating to rape or domestic violence, or legislating against men, of course I am not talking about followers who have no idea this stuff is going on. Followers have no influence and little to no knowledge about it.

  281. says

    When I’m talking about feminism covering up data relating to rape or domestic violence, or legislating against men, of course I am not talking about followers who have no idea this stuff is going on.

    You’re not talking about ANYTHING in the real world except for one or two organizations fiddling with ONE country’s data. And now you’re alleging some all-powerful secret conspiracy that no one knows about except the alleged conspirators’ enemies. Care to tell us how such a nefarious conspiracy can have ANY success when its supporters don’t know about it and its opponents do?

    Your conspiracy theory is on the same level as the troofers and the birthers: just another excuse to cling to a cherished prejudice with no proof whatsoever.

    I can’t believe such a decent blog can attract such an asinine commentariat. Maybe I’ll just read the OPs from now on — that seems to be where all the worthwhile content is.

  282. Sid says

    RagingFool, you have a huge penis and save the most fair damsels on the internet through intramale aggression.

    Read this OP, its about the feminist cover up of domestic violence to support the patriarchy conspiracy theory.
    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/06/23/malestrom-pt-2-when-anger-is-justified/

    See the lunacy of feminists gender roe playing, even though this movement is covering up abuse against them, they fight with other men to defend and deny it.

  283. says

    Thank you, Sid, your last incoherent response pretty much proves my point — as does your citation of an OP that’s far more coherent, plausible and informative than anything you’ve ever written here.

  284. carnation says

    @ Sid 301

    Hi Sid,

    Could you elaborate on the different Catholicisms that you’re aware of? The theological differences and how this affects praxis?

    You have previously stated that you accept certain aspects of patriarchal theory. However, you couldn’t be a feminist because you have also previously agreed that it’s acceptable to say “I don’t give a fuck about victims of rape”. So that’s a false analogy, and a ludicrous point to try and make.

    Let’s face it Sid, you are to debate what Vanilla’s song No Way, No Way is to music: a barely plausible distraction

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=EGwB-f1xfxM

  285. says

    @sid: Are you saying that patriarchy theory is necessarily a conspiracy theory or just that the form that most feminists believe in is a conspiracy theory?

  286. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    Why are you aggressive, what have do to prove aggression this time, anything legitimate, No?

    Asking for evidence is aggressive now? And I have nothing to prove.

    Also, do you not see the trend my my backing up my claims, its there so why treat me as my claims are suspect. Why do you mistake me for a legitimate target for aggression?

    I saw you repeatedly accuse me, Ally and half a dozen other’s of holding positions we don’t. No, I don’t trust you.

    Give you see me as a legitimate target for rudeness and aggression I’ll repay you in kind, here is your source you ignorant baboon, page 48

    Awesome, thank you. You are indeed correct.

    Now justify the first of the two claims I asked about.

    I differentiate between follower feminists and organised feminism and different feminism’s in the same way I differentiate between different Catholicisms, Catholics and professional catholic policy makers at the Vatican.

    So start differentiating, then. None of us are policy makers.

  287. Sid says

    Jacob S

    It wouldn’t cost you anything to ask for a source in polite, non aggressive way instead of the typically aggressive way feminists demand sources when they hear information that contradicts their gender stereotypes.

    I do differentiate between you. You are one of the many followers that think its appropriate to blindly attack people that take issue with feminist policies and have information that contradicts feminist beliefs, while having no idea of the existence of those polices.

    The problem is that follower feminists aren’t able to differentiate between themselves and organised feminism, or know that organised feminism is feeding them with misinformation about reality.

    When your ideological commitments are causing you behave in strange ways, like becoming rude and aggressive when facts contradict your ideology or when people object to a aspect of your ideology, the problem is inside you and your ideology, not the messenger.

  288. Jacob Schmidt says

    It wouldn’t cost you anything to ask for a source in polite, non aggressive way instead of the typically aggressive way feminists demand sources when they hear information that contradicts their gender stereotypes.

    Waaaiiit for it…

    You are one of the many followers that think its appropriate to blindly attack people that take issue with feminist policies and have information that contradicts feminist beliefs, while having no idea of the existence of those polices.

    It wouldn’t cost you anything to stop making false assertions. Your consistent false assertions are the reason I am impolite. I am rude because you deserve it.

    The problem is that follower feminists aren’t able to differentiate between themselves and organised feminism, or know that organised feminism is feeding them with misinformation about reality.

    Can you name a belief I hold that is inconsistent with reality? And who, exactly, am I following? And why is organised feminism considered one massive group?

    When your ideological commitments are causing you behave in strange ways, like becoming rude and aggressive when facts contradict your ideology or when people object to a aspect of your ideology, the problem is inside you and your ideology, not the messenger.

    What, exactly, do you think my ideology is? I have expressed nothing on the matter of birth control tampering before now. I had no opinion on the rates of birth control tampering before now. What are you basing your assertion of off ? (Nothing; the answer to that last question is nothing)

    Quick question for you: How rude was I to Tamen? Karmakin? Ally? Adiabat? Not very, eh? So it seems you are the only anti feminist I’ve been rude too. I’ve been equally rude to Bitethehand as well. To me, that indicates that the catalyst for such rudeness is something other than saying bad things about feminists (most of which, you consistently refuse to admit, are things I agree should be criticized).

  289. Sid says

    Jacob Schmit

    You belong to a group of people (feminists) be incredibly rude to and bully people for matters as simple as them having information that contradicts your quaint ideas about men and women, or pointing to peer reviewed evidence that feminism is covering up abuse and legislation against men.

    You and others have chose to mob and bully me, because you see me as the softest target here, that’s how bullies operate and also because I am the one that’s putting up the most objections to the miss characterizations, false accusations, white knighting, double standards and so on that are being applied to Elam.

    This behavior is a problem within feminism, its being going for decades. I’ve seen it consistently for 5 years now, feminists abusing people and being shockingly rude while thinking their abuse is just.

    I’ve limited experience with free thought blogs, but your reputation proceeds you, Thaddeus G. Blanchette spoke of the mobbing and what he called “symbolic violence” and of course there is all the writing about “free thought bullies” and “baboons”.

    You’re ignorant and rude, even about the ideology you chose to abuse others on behalf of. This is why feminists have such a bad reputation.

    You have not been equally rude to Bitethehand. They are female and a feminist, they do not belong to the group that people like you see fair game for abuse and rudeness.

    Go fuck yourself.

  290. says

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    I don’t understand why you guys keep using the comparison to children’s behavior as though the fact that children do it makes it inherently irrational.

    Because children’s behavior tends to be OBSERVABLY irrational.

    If that were the case, you would be able to critique the behavior independently on its own merrits, rather than trying to tar it by association with children (as though being associated with children were anything to be ashamed of).

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    That’s kind of a consequence of not being able to learn rational behavior as soon as you learn to walk. If you don’t understand this, there’s really no hope for you, and you don’t belong in an adult forum.

    How about you let the guy running the forum decide who does and doesn’t belong here?

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    Do you know why a child’s course of action is often a temper tantrum or lashing out at something unrelated to the source of their problem? Because the child has no power.

    Um, no, it’s because the child hasn’t learned how to express himself any other way,

    Temper tantrums continue well past the prelingual stage, I’m afraid.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    doesn’t fully understand his problems,

    Depending on how you’re defining “fully”, I’d argue that you don’t fully understand his problems either. If nothing else, you’re dismissing his lived experience.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    is not yet able to control himself,

    My tantrums as a child were always treated as willful acts rather than involuntary ones. Crying is involuntary, but acting out is not.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    and is thus not able to take responsibility for his words or decisions. That’s why the child has no power.

    You have the cause and effect backward. Again. He has no power, and thus is not able to take responsibility for his words or decisions.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    That’s why we consider children irrational, that’s why we consider grownups who act like children irrational, and that’s why we are right not to let children dominate adult discussions of adult issues.

    You’re assuming as fact something that we haven’t established or agreed upon yet. That it is, in any way, right that we exclude children from adult discussions of adult issues. You may have noticed my handle.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    That’s also why we are right not to let OVERGROWN children dominate adult discussions until they can prove they’re able and willing to reason and act like adults.

    Good thing for you that name calling has never been defined as a childish trait, don’t you think?

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    This is actually quite rational behavior.

    It’s rational from a child’s point of view. That dodesn’t make it justifiable or effective for grownups.

    A child’s point of view is not inherently invalid simply because it is a child’s point of view.

    And effectiveness is pretty much beyond debate at this point, given that every civil rights movement in history has used attention-grabbing techniques in exactly the same way to tremendous effect.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    If you can’t solve the real problem, maybe you can draw attention to the fact that you have a problem by acting out.

    Or maybe you could draw attention to the problem by proving you know what you’re talking about.

    That isn’t how gathering attention works. You can’t prove you know what you’re talking about if no one is paying attention to you in the first place.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    Ever think of that option? If you haven’t, then maybe you should shut up and let smarter people do the thinking.

    When some smarter people show up, I’ll let them. Saddly, I don’t think I can trust your judgement on the matter, otherwise I’d ask you to let me know when one arrives.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    If they’re paying attention to you, the people with actual power might coincidentally hear you mention the problem and decide it’s worth doing something about.

    But if you act like a fucking idiot, they won’t take you as seriously as they need to, and if you can’t express yourself sensibly, you can’t expect them to understand what your problem really is, can you?

    Depends. Are they fucking idiots incapable of working things out for themselves? If so, then yes, you do need to be a lot more articulate in explaining the details to them when you’ve finally got their attention. If they can be trusted to do even the smallest bit of intellectual legwork on their own, however, all you really need to do is point to where the problem is and let them use their own intelligence to work out the source of the problem and move towards a solution.

    After all, if you’re accusing the MRAs here of being too stupid to handle these issues themselves, obviously someone of your superior intellect should be able to look at what the source of the pain that triggered the tantrum is and work out why it was a problem.

    Do we expect toddlers to articulate, in detail, what the problem is when they’re screaming and waving a blistered hand in your general direction, or do we trust parents, in general, to meet them halfway on this communication thing and figure out for themselves that the problem is that the hand is burned?

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 281

    Whereas if they aren’t paying attention to you at all, there is zero chance anyone’s going to notice there’s a problem, and zero chance any change will take place, the problem will persist, and you’ll be no worse off than if you hadn’t thrown your fit.

    All the more reason to shut up and let the more intelligent people describe your problem for you, instead of relentlessly squalling and screaming until everyone gives up on you because you’re not giving them any useful information.

    Agreed.

    The ones squalling and screaming serve to gather attention, and the ones with the actual arguments and facts can then follow behind and use the gathered attention to articulate the issues and provide useful information and arguments. It is a time honored tactic after all.

    Originally posted by Raging Bee in post 302

    And now you’re alleging some all-powerful secret conspiracy that no one knows about except the alleged conspirators’ enemies. Care to tell us how such a nefarious conspiracy can have ANY success when its supporters don’t know about it and its opponents do?

    Patriarchy?

  291. Jacob Schmidt says

    You belong to a group of people (feminists) be incredibly rude to and bully people for matters as simple as them having information that contradicts your quaint ideas about men and women, or pointing to peer reviewed evidence that feminism is covering up abuse and legislation against men.

    Right; all feminists are totally the same. What quaint ideas have I expressed? What peer reviewed research have I denied? (The answer to the latter two is, once again, nothing)

    You and others have chose to mob and bully me, because you see me as the softest target here, that’s how bullies operate and also because I am the one that’s putting up the most objections to the miss characterizations, false accusations, white knighting, double standards and so on that are being applied to Elam.

    Oh c’mon. You whined endlessly about reading motives into the writings of others.

    You’re ignorant and rude, even about the ideology you chose to abuse others on behalf of. This is why feminists have such a bad reputation.

    What ideology? You can’t even identify it, can you?

    You have not been equally rude to Bitethehand[1]. They are female and a feminist[2], they do not belong to the group that people like you see fair game for abuse and rudeness[3].

    1) I told Bitethehand to fuck off within 2 comments. What have I said to you that was so bad? Or is mere disrespect all you’re complaining about.
    2) So bloody what?
    3) Actually, Bitethehand does. The group I’m rude and contemptuous towards are those who write asinine, thoughtless comments. The affiliation is irrelevant.

    Go fuck yourself.

    Heh.

  292. Tamen says

    @282 Thumper; Atheist mate

    Part 1

    Rape is sex without consent. No, an erection is not consent. Done and dusted.

    Yes, yes and no. I for one don’t consider it done and dusted when the leading researchers, CDC, UK law, several US state laws and so on continues to not consider sex without consent as rape when the man is the one not consenting.

    I appreciate that you are clear on the matter, but as people are prone to point out: There is no One True Feminist Idea of anything. But Mary P Koss’ having an operational definition of rape and arguing for it academically in peer reviewed journals and very possibly on advisory boards for federal agencies who conduct national surveys on sexual victimization and publish reports on the results is a tad bit more influental than Jane/Joe/non-binary feminist blogger/blog commenter who thinks it’s should be classified as rape.

    …continued in next comment

  293. Tamen says

    @282 Thumper; Atheist mate

    Part 2

    Who is she [Mary P Koss]?

    From her biography at University of Arizona:

    In her work on gender-based violence Dr. Koss served on the National Academy of Sciences Panel on Violence Against Women and sat on the Coordinating Committee of the Sexual Violence Research Initiative, funded by the Global Forum and the Ford Foundation and based in Johannesburg, South Africa. She is currently member of the AZ Reach Rapid Research Response Team on military families funded by the US Departments of Agriculture and Defense. She consults nationally with the Gallup Organization on sexual assault prevalence and response and with Social Sciences International on rape prevention. She recently served as Rapporteur on gender-based violence at the 4th Milestones of a Global Campaign for Violence Prevention in Geneva. She is co-editor a two book series for the American Psychological Association, Violence Against Women and Children (2011).

    She also has and do serve as a advisor to the CDC on multiple occasions as can be seen in her CV

    …continued in next comment

  294. Tamen says

    @282 Thumper; Atheist mate

    Part 3

    She also wrote paper in 1993 on methodologies for studying rape prevalency: Detecting the Scope of Rape : A Review of Prevalence Research Methods.

    She mentions male victimization three places in that article, here are the full quotes (with my emphasis):

    p.206:

    Although consideration of male victims is within the scope of the legal statutes, it is important to restrict the term rape to instances where male victims were penetrated by offenders. It is inappropriate to consider as a rape victim a man who engages in unwanted sexual intercourse with a woman.

    She goes on to discuss screening for rape using adopted colloquial or euphemistic language (like “Has anyone ever tried to make you have sexual relations with them against your will”), but felt the need to clarify on
    p.208:

    Among men, the terms “sex” and “sexual relations” may activate schemas for situations where they penetrated women. Clarification is necessary to ensure that male respondents realize that the situations of interest are those in which they were penetrated forcibly and against their will by another person, and not situations where they felt pressure or coercion to have sexual relations with a woman partner.

    The conclusions in that paper include 10 recommendations for the design of future studies of rape prevalence, one of the recommendation was related to male victims (p218):

    2. If men and boys are to be included, care must be taken to ensure that their data are accurate counterparts of rape prevalence among women. This means that men must be reporting instances where they experienced penetration of their own bodies (or attempts).

  295. Tamen says

    @282 Thumper; Atheist mate

    Part 4

    Now, one might feel compelled to point out that 1993 is quite a while ago and that Koss’ stance may have been changed since then. Let’s examine that a bit closer. She was co-author on a 2010 paper on male victimization in Chile (although it’s still not called rape and we’ll see why): Sexual Victimization in College Men in Chile: Prevalence, Contexts and Risk Factors ( “ht tp://paa2011.princeton.edu/papers/110484 )
    That study used the original SES instrument developed by Mary P Koss (more on SES and revised SES later). SES originally had to set of questions, on for victims (female) and one for perpetrators (male). This study is based on results from a survey which posed the victimization questions to both women and men.

    I’ll cite from the article:

    It would also be desirable to conduct further quantitative inquiry using the revised SES (Koss et al. 2007), which contains items that have been crafted with behavior-specific wording to elicit information on a range of SV experiences. This will make it possible to base men’s rape prevalence estimates with more specificity on acts that involve sustaining forced penetration, leaving less leeway for men’s individual perceptions of what constitutes ‘forced sex.’

    Think about that for a while, apparently what we need is less leeway for men’s individual perceptions of what constitutes ‘forced sex’ (when men are victims). This is kind of ironic coming from the woman who documented that a large number of female rape victims (73%) wouldn’t call what happend to them for rape, yet argued that it still is rape

    But let’s not leave any stones unturned, let’s look at the revised SES she thinks would measure men’s victimization better. Let’s look at the 2007 paper by Koss et al: Revising the SES: A Collaborative Process to Improve Assessment of Sexual Aggression and Victimization ( ht tp://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/J_White_Revising_2007.pdf )

    We acknowledge the inappropriateness of female verbal coercion and the legitimacy of male perceptions that they have had unwanted sex. Although men may sometimes sexually penetrate women when ambivalent about their own desires, these acts fail to meet legal definitions of rape that are based on penetration of the body of the victim.
    Furthermore, the data indicate that men’s experiences of pressured sex are qualitatively different from women’s experiences of rape. Specifically, the acts experienced by men lacked the level of force and psychologically distressing impact that women reported (Struckman-Johnson, 1988; Struckman-Johnson & Struckman-Johnson, 1994).
    We worked diligently to develop item wording that captured men’s sense of pressure to have sex and draw their responses into an appropriate category of coercion instead of to rape items. The revised wording is discussed in more detail later in the article.

    I should point out that there exists in several states legal definitions of rape that are not based on penetration of the body of the victim. So Koss et al willfully choose to use that legal definitions of rape that does require a penetration of the victim.

    Well, at least they state that they have worked diligently to capture male victimization (although they would rather categorize it as coercion rather than rape) – or have they? Let’s look at the questions in the revised SES. Both the SES-LSV (questions included in linked article above) and SES-LVF ( ht tp://www.midss.ie/content/sexual-experiences-survey-long-form-victimization-ses-lfv ) does not ask any questions about men being made to penetrate women without the man’s consent. They do ask men whether they have been anally penetrated without consent. So much for their diligent work and acknowledgment.

  296. Tamen says

    WordPress for some reason wouldn’t let me post the link to University of Arizona’s biography page for Mary P Koss. It’s however easily googled and comes up as the first result for the search string “mary p koss biography”.

  297. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    Morning all!

    @Gingko #298

    Apologies, maybe I was a bit hasty in dismissing it as irrelevant. I didn’t realise you were making sure we were working to the same definition.

    @Carnation #299

    I came across Sid in Ally’s earlier posts. I agree even this “evidence” is an improvement.

    @Sid #301

    I differentiate between follower feminists and organised feminism and different feminism’s in the same way I differentiate between different Catholicisms, Catholics and professional catholic policy makers at the Vatican.

    Yes I understand the purpose of differentiating, but I don’t understand your reason for differentiating between these different types of feminism because you haven’t explained what your basis is for differentiating between them. The differentiation is pointless if you don’t define the terms. You keep differentiating between “organised feminism” and “follower feminism”, and below you referr to “professional feminists”, but you have yet to define any of the terms. What is the point in differentiating if no one understands the basis for the differentiation?

    Feminism requires a belief in some form of patriarchy theory. Domestic violence data is manipulated to support this theory, this manipulated and one sided data on domestic violence is proliferated among follower feminists by professional feminists.

    That depends entirely on what you mean by “patriarchy theory”. I’m not sure that DV being more committed by men does support the existence of the patriarchy. All it really supports is that men are bigger and stronger than women, and a lot of men think it’s OK to hit their partners. Patriarchal attitudes could be posited as a reason for that thinking, and I think there’s some validity to that, but I think you’ve got your premise and your conclusion mixed up again.

    When I’m talking about feminism covering up data relating to rape or domestic violence, or legislating against men, of course I am not talking about followers who have no idea this stuff is going on. Followers have no influence and little to no knowledge about it.

    There you go again, differentiating “follower feminism” without ever defining the term. Seriously Sid, until you define these terms they are useless, because no one here knows what you are talking about.

  298. Sid says

    Thumper AM,

    I’m not sure that DV being more committed by men does support the existence of the patriarchy.

    Patriarchy theory predicts that men commit more DVagainst women as a means to dominate keep them oppressed. This is why feminist researchers cover up the fact that men and women commit DV against each other at roughly equal rates and for similar reasons and why feminists tend to blindly attack anyone that has true information about domestic violence.

  299. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Tamen

    I used “done and dusted” merely in the sense that my argument was over; perhaps I should have written QED. Apologies if it came off as flippant.

    As for the rest of your post(s), you have successfully proven that Koss was working to the legal definition of rape as it existed in the States during that time period, and that she disregarded the fact that rape laws differ internationally. I’m not sure what that says about her own beliefs on the subject, but since she has apparently argued that the contemporary legal definition of rape was not adequate to cover all instances of man-on-woman rape it would appear that at the very least she does not consider it worth changing the definition for the benefit of men. I disagree with this strongly, as I have said many times; as such I’m afraid I don’t see your point.

  300. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    Patriarchy theory predicts that men commit more DVagainst women as a means to dominate keep them oppressed.

    [Citation needed].

  301. Sid says

    JS

    I’m not painting motives onto people that aren’t there at all. On this forum there is a sexist and political bias, Ally thinks Elams shoe on the over foot anti violence rant is comparable to a political movement deliberately protecting abusers and covering up victims – clear sexism and white knighting. There is mobbing, bullying, smearing, false accusations, use of accusations relating to rape as a rhetorical bludgeon, groups,, quoting out of context, designated bad groups and people, designated good groups of people. People, even men so bound in their own gallantry, blindly attacking people for the crime of pointing out that men are being lied about and legislated against.

    It’s pretty much the standard feminist area with the standard feminist behaviour, without the heavy censorship.

  302. Adiabat says

    Thumper; Atheist mate (289):

    I describe myself as a feminist because I agree with the core ideology

    This seems to me to be a crazy reason to associate yourself with a group. It reminds me of those older Labour voters who still vote Labour because the “core ideology” is that they represent the interests of the working class, despite the fact that they haven’t actually done that for decades. It’s even crazier when you defend that group against criticism even when prominent members of said group are doing things you seem to fundamentally disagree with.

    As for ‘big tent’ and ‘monolith’ arguments, they are equally crazy in the level of equivocation that feminists demand for their group. For every other (voluntarily joined) group we judge them by the words and actions of those who seem most influential, why should feminism be any different?

    Feminism is what feminists say and do when it matters, not some token catchphrase they don’t actually follow. So I don’t see it as unreasonable to judge feminism by the things that feminists say and do, with more weight given to those feminists who are most influential.

    P.S sorry for using the word ‘crazy’ above if you’re offended. I just can’t think of a more apt word for what you’re describing.

  303. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Adiabat

    I’ve explained this many times; feminism is not a defined group. It’s entirely different to associating yourself with a political party, which demands membership and support and votes etc etc. Feminism is an ideology, a comprehensive and generally supportive group of ideas, and it is personal and dynamic and subject to individual perspective. Either your own personal worldview can be defined as feminist or it can’t, you can’t simply declare “I believe women as a group are generally disadvantaged in our society as compares to men and I believe this needs to change, but I am not a feminist”. That is feminism. It is not a group, it is an ideology. That is different. The fact I disagree with the conclusions and actions of some other self-described feminists does not mean that my belief in the above stated principal is diminished, and as long as my belief in that principal is not diminished then I am still a feminist because that’s what a feminist is.

    This really is not a difficult concept to get your head around, and I fail to see why you, and previously Sid, are having so much trouble doing so. Ideology =/= group.

    And I am not personally offended because I have no mental disabilities nor am I particularly close with anyone who has, but maybe have a think and come up with a better adjective.

  304. Sid says

    Thumper AM

    I’m loath to put another citation here because I know there is not right answer or right citation but how and ever.

    >Feminist scholars have produced abundant writings on violence against women, yet theory development has stagnated. The effort to construct a theory of patriarchy to explain violence against women was derailed by criticism. In this article, the author addresses some of these criticisms, uncovers the explanatory strengths of this concept, and lays some foundations for a more fully developed theory of violence against women. The concept of patriarchy holds promise for theorizing violence against women because it keeps the theoretical focus on dominance, gender, and power. It also anchors the problem of violence against women in social conditions, rather than individual attributes.
    http://vaw.sagepub.com/content/15/5/553.abstract

  305. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Sid

    What is what you mean by follower? Christ Sid, is it so much to ask that you define the words you are using? You can’t just make up terms and expect everyone else to know what you are talking about, define the term.

    That’s the same link you supplied earlier in the thread; I was unimpressed with it then and I fail to see why my opinion would change with yet another reading. It is also not a citation which proves that “Patriarchy theory predicts that men commit more DVagainst women”, which is what I asked for.

    I think you and I are operating under different definitions of the word patriarchy. Here is a fairly good explanation of my understanding of the patriarchy and how patriarchy relates to the overall kyriarchy. The most relevant part is below, but please read the whole piece:

    Historically, patriarchy operates through the disproportionate (sometimes exclusive) conferring of leadership status (and formal titles indicating that status) on men, a tradition characterised by casting all women as naturally unsuited to lead men, no matter what talents and expertise they might possess (unless there are exceptional circumstances resulting from intersections with other social hierarchies conferring high status that gives rare women political authority e.g. the royal lineage of Elizabeth I, or the divine claim to authority of Joan of Arc). This view of women normalises the restriction of women’s opportunities and choices throughout the whole of society via strict gender expectations which constrain individualist expressions.

    Some societies are more patriarchal than others, but patriarchal social traditions are universal in human societies, taking the physical strength disparity between the sexes as signs of a general female inferiority, a “natural order” that indicates women are meant to be subordinate.

    That, by the way, is how to define a term. Perhaps you could define your understanding of the patriarchy while you define the other terms I have asked you numerous times to define.

  306. Jacob Schmidt says

    I’m not painting motives onto people that aren’t there at all[1]. On this forum there is a sexist and political bias, Ally thinks Elams shoe on the over foot anti violence rant is comparable to a political movement deliberately protecting abusers and covering up victims[2] – clear sexism and white knighting. There is mobbing, bullying, smearing, false accusations[3], use of accusations relating to rape as a rhetorical bludgeon[4], groups,, quoting out of context[5], designated bad groups and people, designated good groups of people[6]. People, even men so bound in their own gallantry[7], blindly attacking people for the crime of pointing out that men are being lied about and legislated against[8].

    1) Liar: “You and others have chose to mob and bully me, because you see me as the softest target here, that’s how bullies operate and also because I am the one that’s putting up the most objections to the miss characterizations, false accusations, white knighting, double standards and so on that are being applied to Elam.

    2) For the 4th (5th?) time, do you actually have any quotes of Ally saying this? Or are you speaking about a caricature in your head?

    3) From you, at least.

    4) Uh… Where? We usually speak about male rape victims around these parts. Are you gonna tell me that we use male rape victims as a bludgeon?

    5) Where?

    6) Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing right now?

    7) What the fuck?

    8) Right; it has nothing at all to do with your repeated false accusations.

    Adiabat

    ‘Irrational’ might be a better word for your use.

    Tamen

    I agree with Thumper on this. I don’t see your point.

  307. Adiabat says

    Don’t know what happened there, or why that posted before I pasted the quote:

    Typically, argues Jamieson, pervasive public stories originate with people in powerful positions within powerful institutions. However, in relation to the public story about domestic violence, its origin has not been from within any powerful institutions, but the result of feminist activism and scholarship over several decades and, more recently, the coincidence of this with a generation of feminists and/or sympathisers within government. The outcomes have been both a story of success and a story of exclusion. The public story about domestic violence locates the phenomenon inside heterosexual relationships within a gendered victim/perpetrator dynamic (the stronger/bigger man controlling the weaker/smaller woman), and forefronts the physical nature of the violence.

  308. Adiabat says

    Thumper; Atheist mate (325):

    I’ve explained this many times; feminism is not a defined group. It’s entirely different to associating yourself with a political party, which demands membership and support and votes etc etc. Feminism is an ideology, a comprehensive and generally supportive group of ideas, and it is personal and dynamic and subject to individual perspective.

    And you can explain it as many times as you want but it doesn’t make it true. Your understanding of how such voluntary identifiers work in the real world seems very simplistic and naive.

    As an experiment go, well anywhere, and state that because you agree with the core ideology of “advocat[ing] a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence through protectionist and interventionist economic policies”* and so you are a fascist. See how you get on with that…

    These identifiers and ideologies don’t exist in a vacuum, they change based on the actions of prominent members. In a purely theoretical sense yes, you can call yourself something based on “core ideology”. In a practical, real world, sense you can’t, as the end result is that you end up lending those prominent individuals, and the things they do, your support and assent; you provide them cover for the horrible things they do.

    * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

  309. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Adiabat

    But I’m afraid it is true. If you cannot wrap your head around the difference between an ideology and a defined political group then I’m not sure what more I can say on the matter. Feminism is not a defined political group. It is a highly splintered ideology of different factions and sub-groups, all of whom have their own version of feminism and all of whom have reached different conclusions based on their similar but slightly differing outlooks.

    I’m aware ideologies have real world ramifications. Me saying I am a feminist will inform you to a certain extent of where my sympathies lie and to certain extent about the politics I am likely to advocate. It in no way means that I agree with the actions of every other self-identified member of that group, nor does it even mean that I agree with their definition of what that ideology is. Hitler’s fascism, for example, was entirely different from Mussolini’s fascism, but they are both still fascism. A better way of putting it might be that they reached different conclusions based on the same or a very similar outlook. Equally, my feminism is entirely different from the sort of femnism advocated by TERFs, for example. Me saying i am a feminism also only informs you about one aspect of my overall ideology, namely that I feel women are disadvantaged and this should not be the case. It does not inform you about other aspects of my overall ideology. For example, I am a liberal, pro-sex, pro-choice, anti-authoritarian egalitarian. All of this informs my view on feminism and the way in which I think it best to further the goal of achieving equal rights for women. Other people, who also have the goal of advancing women’s rights, may have different ways of going about it informed by different political and ideological outlooks which intersect with their feminism to produce a slightly different overall ideology. That is why the feminist movement is so splintered, and it is why it is ridiculous to point out individual examples of self-described feminists disadvantaging men and then demand that I renounce all femnism because of their actions.

    tl;dr

    I think what I am trying to say is this: your contention appears to be that the actions of Koss etc typify the movement. My contention is that this is not the case, and that even if it can be proven that their actions typify one subset of femnism does not mean that it typifies my feminism. What you are asking is equivalent to talking to a liberal, pro-democracy Shi’ite living in the UK and demanding they renounce Islam because you have come to eroneous conclusion that the writings of Osama Bin Laden typify islam as a whole.

  310. Sid says

    JS

    The fact that you, Ally and others cannot see the vast difference between Elam’s shoe on the other foot anti violence rant, and the sheer horror of a political movement deliberately covering up abuse to support a theory and demonize men, and the mobbing, babbonery and offense at my pointing out that elephant in the room is the proof that they things I am observing are true.

    You just cannot see it because you are in it.

  311. Sid says

    Feminist movement covers up abuse for 30 years -meh.

    Paul Elam said the word bitch and spoke back the feminists they way they spoke about men to make a point – OMG I’m so offended, quick call in the white knights!! Mob and abuse anyone that points out the irrationality and sexism!!

  312. Sid says

    Here is another example for your Jacob

    I said something that wouldn’t sound outlandish at all to a non sexist – that men and women catch each other committing reproductive abuse at similar rates bit because of you strange (to me), conservative and feminist, and biased way you view men and women, became aggressive and assumed that it was me that was saying something outlandish and wouldn’t be able to back up the claim.

    You cannot see this behavior as being off or irrational, or others behaving the same way as being odd, because its your normal.

  313. Schala says

    I’m aware ideologies have real world ramifications. Me saying I am a feminist will inform you to a certain extent of where my sympathies lie and to certain extent about the politics I am likely to advocate. It in no way means that I agree with the actions of every other self-identified member of that group, nor does it even mean that I agree with their definition of what that ideology is.

    Either mainstream feminism denounces the evil political ones who have nothing to do with the core ideology as not feminist (not as “not all feminists are like that”, but excommunicated, just like the feminists who advocate for men’s rights are then cited as anti-feminists), or they themselves abandon the group name to save face. If no sanction is applied to those who control the policies and politics of feminism, this is defacto supporting them. And it makes you no better.

    Anyone who thinks Sheila Jeffreys is still a feminist, is supporting her in her anti-trans efforts, since she was doing activist work at Vancouver Rape Relief and giving voice to concepts that go far against the core ideology of feminism, by wanting to reject Kimberly Nixon (a trans woman), go in court for it, and even blame Kimberly for having to go in court defend themselves (instead of accepting their policy was stupid and backwards, changing it and avoiding court).

    Anyone who thinks Germaine Greer is still a feminist, is supporting her anti-trans and anti-intersex efforts, which go against the core feminist ideology.

    Anyone who thinks NOW is a feminist organization worthy of supporting (ie consider as feminist), is supporting their opposition to shared custody on spurious grounds.

    Anyone who thinks the Fawcett organization is a feminist organization worthy of supporting, is supporting their opposition to shared custody on spurious grounds.

    Clean your house, then you can throw stones.

    I decided housing sucked and to sleep on the grass, but if you think the house is fine, by all means clean it.

    Mainstream feminism is so quick to throw out the Christina Hoff Summers out, but not so quick to throw out the Germaine Greers, while the latter are way more hateful, why is that?

  314. carnation says

    @ Adiabat 331

    That is one of the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard.

    Are you and Sid competing?

    Fascists work towards the same goals, perhaps with different methods.

    Many feminisms openly contradict each other. Hence the widespread conflict, obvious to anyone who looks.

    Also, there is no feminist organisation. There are thousands of feminist organisations.

    It suits MRA mythology to believe there’s a “well funded”, violent, influential movement that’s infiltrated the government, is drugging boys to keep them compliant, plotting mass murder, producing videos promoting murder and otherwise waging a war on men (all literal examples from the most mainstream MRA sites) but it’s delusional nonsense, dreamed up by the dullard MRA foot soldiers and their ideological masters.

  315. carnation says

    @ Schala

    Without resorting to typical MRA metaphorical gymnastics, demonstrate how “mainstream” feminists “throw out” other feminists?

    Is that like a man who previously called himself The Happy Misogynist stopping guest articles on his blog from an MRA because she objected to misogyny?

  316. Adiabat says

    Thumper (332):

    Feminism is not a defined political group. It is a highly splintered ideology of different factions and sub-groups

    And fascism is an ideology. Initially, at it’s “core”, it was a rather innocuous ideology (though anyone with any understanding of human nature could perhaps see how it would end). Sorry but the problem here isn’t that I can’t wrap my head around some non-existent distinction you’re relying on to make your case.

    I know of no other group that demands of its critics such an obscene level of differentiation as feminism. It’s ridiculous! Let’s put it this way:

    I don’t care about your personal version of feminism. All I care about when judging feminism is what prominent feminist groups and individuals do. I really couldn’t give a shit whether in the tenth wave a bust up occurred over the definition of ‘sausage’ leading to two groups called “Lincolnshire Feminists” and “Cumberland Feminists”.

    And that’s how such identities work in the real world. So please explain why feminism should be different.

    I think what I am trying to say is this: your contention appears to be that the actions of Koss etc typify the movement. My contention is that this is not the case

    Yet you are being provided links showing prominent feminists influencing government research practice, blocking law changes and preventing the recognition of male DV victims for the past 30 years.

    Who cares if you don’t agree with what they are doing, you have no influence within feminism. Your entire influence as a feminist is to provide cover and deniability for the prominent feminists screwing over men. You are just one more number they can use to claim to represent and you are just one more number they can point to when they get called on their shit and say “Look! Random Inconsequential Internet Feminists are reasonable and care about men, so ignore what we are actually doing to screw over men in the legislature and DV research!”

    That’s what a “follower feminist” is.

  317. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @carnation

    ^ This. Perhaps better put than what I said.

    @Schala

    No. You don’t get it either. Just because I identify as a feminist doesn’t mean I get to run around playing “No True Feminist” with every self-identified feminist whose actions I disagree with. The only reasonable course is to loudly and proudly declare that I disagree with them.

    For example, some Conservatives are Eurosceptic. Some are not. They’re still both Conservatives. Equally, some feminists are sex-positive. Some are not. Some are transphobis, some are not. Some oppose shared custody, some don’t. Some feminists do bad things and have bad ideas. I disagree with those bad things. But I’m not going to try and make out that the feminist movement is perfect by saying that every feminist who does a bad thing isn’t a feminist. And I can no more simply decide that I am not a feminist than I can declare other people not to be.

    I believe that women are not treated equally in our society, and I believe they should be. That makes me a feminist. They believe that too. That makes them a feminist. The fact we disagree on the details doesn’t change that. But we do disagree on the details, in some places so fundementally that I would refuse to count those people as allies, despite the fact we both subscribe to the same core ideology.

  318. Adiabat says

    carnation (337): Is it as idiotic as claiming that MRA arguments aren’t known enough to influence an academic paper, even after Tamen provides you an academic paper where an MRA argument is cited?

  319. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    ‘Adiabat

    Fascism is not highly splintered though, is it? As Carnation so aptly put it, fascists work towards the same goals, perhaps with different methods, whereas many feminisms openly contradict each other. The important point here is feminism is a splintered movement.

    I’ve been provided with links that show Koss excluded forced envelopment from her definition of rape, which is hardly suprising given that she was working to the contemporary legal definition of rape in the US and the very idea that a man can be raped by a woman is very recent. I disagree with her assessment. She is wrong. What more do you want? You think that her opinions prove that the whole of feminism is geared towards the oppression of men? That it somehow proves every self-described feminist out there is a misandrist who wishes to change the patriarchy to a mariarchy? Then you are an idiot.

  320. Sid says

    Thumber, AM

    All ideologies have schisms, feminism is no different. Also, your opinions on feminism’s covering up rape, have no bearing on the fact the movement covers up rape and engages in the mass proliferation misleading and dehumanizing propaganda about rape and DV.

  321. Adiabat says

    Thumper (340): For god’s sake stop saying we don’t get it. We get it! We just think the argument is bullshit and we have said why.

    For example, some Conservatives are Eurosceptic. Some are not. They’re still both Conservatives. Equally, some feminists are sex-positive. Some are not. Some are transphobis, some are not. Some oppose shared custody, some don’t.

    Except that the euro debate is visibly tearing the Conservatives apart, with each faction having a large amount of influence in the party.

    On the other hand: Where are the prominent feminist groups challenging the sex-negative UKFeminista and Object? Why does it seem that the transphobic feminists are in charge of Women’s Shelters? Where are the prominent feminist groups releasing statements to the government challenging the Fawcett Society etc?

    I’m sure some nobody feminist has posted a rant on the internet somewhere ‘calling them out’, but who gives a fuck about some nobody on the internet? You know, I’m even willing to bet that there is a feminist group somewhere stating their opposition to Fawcett, but are they anywhere as near as influential? I doubt it.

    Fascism is not highly splintered though, is it?

    It was. There were various different ‘types’ of fascism, each with the same “core ideology”, just like feminism. Now, nobody identifies as a fascist because the actions of the most prominent groups caused the definition to change. So no, the fact that there are Lincolnshire Feminists and Cumberland Feminists is not a counter argument or a distinction to exclude them from the general principle that applies to all other ideologies.

    I’ve been provided with links that show Koss excluded forced envelopment from her definition of rape, which is hardly suprising given that she was working to the contemporary legal definition of rape in the US and the very idea that a man can be raped by a woman is very recent. I disagree with her assessment. She is wrong. What more do you want?

    She’s also highly influential in how the topic is researched and how the government gather data. Her influence is harming men. Because of her prominence and influence as a feminist I consider her actions more representative of feminism than yours. As for what I want you to do? I don’t know what you can do. You could get together with likeminded feminists and work to get her and feminists like her excluded from the overall feminist movement, feminist academia, feminist organizations, and especially anything related to decision-making processes, ensuring that feminist advocacy in future is egalitarian. But I think you are unlikely to succeed. Personally I think the only thing you can do within your power is to stop identifying as a feminist, as the rank-and-file follower feminists are what gives them their influence.

    At the very least you can stop caring more about the label than the harm caused by those who adopt the label.

    You think that her opinions prove that the whole of feminism is geared towards the oppression of men? That it somehow proves every self-described feminist out there is a misandrist who wishes to change the patriarchy to a mariarchy? Then you are an idiot.

    You are quite obviously misrepresenting me there. I’ve stated that there is dissent within feminism, just that the most prominent ones are all that matter when judging feminism, just like with every other ideology.

  322. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    Paul Elam said the word bitch and spoke back the feminists they way they spoke about men to make a point – OMG I’m so offended, quick call in the white knights!! Mob and abuse anyone that points out the irrationality and sexism!!

    Still no quotes, eh? It’s almost like you’re making shit up.

    I said something that wouldn’t sound outlandish at all to a non sexist – that men and women catch each other committing reproductive abuse at similar rates bit because of you strange (to me), conservative and feminist, and biased way you view men and women, became aggressive and assumed that it was me that was saying something outlandish and wouldn’t be able to back up the claim.

    Jesus fuck you’re whiny. I assumed nothing; I had no opinion on the rates of birth control tampering before now. My opinion currently is that the it happens to men and women at similar rates, with men being at greater risk over all. You made a claim; you asserted a parameter pertaining to a population. Back that shit up. I don’t care if you’re claiming that women are assaulted more, men are raped more, that it’s all equal, or that there are only 600 bengal tigers left in Asia. If you appeal to statistics, justify it.

    Adiabat

    Because of her prominence and influence as a feminist I consider her actions more representative of feminism than yours.

    You don’t know what representative means. If she’s largely unique in that regard, she’s not representative. “Representing” and “being representative” are two seperate things; Ross does the former.

    Personally I think the only thing you can do within your power is to stop identifying as a feminist, as the rank-and-file follower feminists are what gives them their influence.

    Really? I thought what gave them their influence was government commities, acedemic authority, and convincing politicians to vote certain ways on such issues. Bureaucratic inertia, in other words.

    And how are we rank and file followers if we don’t follow or agree with them? Your label makes no sense.

    At the very least you can stop caring more about the label than the harm caused by those who adopt the label.

    Right; because defending the label necessitates apathy toward victims.

    I’ve stated that there is dissent within feminism, just that the most prominent ones are all that matter when judging feminism, just like with every other ideology.

    The bolded is your non sequitur. It’s more important when judging it’s influence.

  323. Tamen says

    I’ve been provided with links that show Koss excluded forced envelopment from her definition of rape, which is hardly suprising given that she was working to the contemporary legal definition of rape in the US and the very idea that a man can be raped by a woman is very recent.

    There is no the legal definition of rape in the US – it’s governed by state laws and as such there are a multitude of legal definitions of rape and some states have even abandoned the term and use “sexual assault” as a legal term in it’s place – Koss’ homestate Arizona is one of those.

    The latest paper where she excludes forced envelopment from the definition of rape was published in 2010. She also did so in 2007 when the revised SES instrument were published. At both point in time there existed laws in US states which do not exclude envelopment from the definition of rape. For example for Ohio (Effective Date: 06-13-2002; 01-02-2007; 2007 SB10 01-01-2008). I sincerely doubt that Mary P Koss is unaware of that fact considering her field of research.

    As for my intention: Here is your statement which prompted me mentioning Mary P Koss:

    I have never met any self-described feminists who openly acknowledged that they do not view forced envelopement as rape. I’m sure they’re out there on the lunatic fringe of the movement, but feminism is a fragmented movement with different factions often at odds.

    Mary P. Koss does not (at least per 2010 – I haven’t researched her later papers yet) view forced envelopment as rape and she is hardly considered to be on the lunatic fringe of the feminist movement. By saying that people who thinks forced envelopment isn’t rape are on the lunatic fringe you also are implying that they are marginal, without any real power. Mary P Koss wield a considerate amount of power when it comes to politics surrounding sexual abuse/violence.

    I would hope more feminists who do think that forced envelopment is rape would more openly criticize Koss for her stance, yet I see none and when I do bring it up I am treated as a hair in the soup. When I point out something I believe is wrong to people who assures me that they too would think it’s wrong my intention for doing so are questioned and apparently considered much more important than the wrong I point out. It makes me question how much the assurances really were worth.

  324. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Tamen

    I would hope more feminists who do think that forced envelopment is rape would more openly criticize Koss for her stance, yet I see none…

    What, the multiple fucking times that I have done exactly that on this very thread don’t count? If you’re dissapointed with the reaction of feminists in general that’s fine, but don’t imply that my reaction has been less than critical. She is wrong, and I have said so many times.

  325. Ginkgo says

    Thumper @ Sorry, forgot which it was – “@Gingko #298

    Apologies, maybe I was a bit hasty in dismissing it as irrelevant. I didn’t realise you were making sure we were working to the same definition. ”

    No offense taken so we’ll save the apology as a raincheck; I took your response as normal caution.

    The reason I used the Redstockings Manifesto as a metric is that it lays out some foundational memes in feminism – male privilege, women as an oppressed class and men as an oppressor class, and so on. These have become foundational for a lot of feminists of the kind who comment at feministe, although there they are pretty nuanced about it – but that does not mean you must accpet these tenets to be feminist. Rejecting them makes you what epople call an egalitarian feminist rather than a gender or gynocentric feminist.

    Thise are Chrisitna Hoff Somer’s terms by the way, and she is the most notable example of a feminist who mainstream feminists hounded out of the movement and who they now deny is any real feminist at all.

  326. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Adiabat

    jacob has done an admirable job of answering your post and it’s pretty close to what I would have written, so I’ve only one more question to add:

    How exactly do you propose that someone be “excluded from the overall feminist movement, feminist academia, feminist organizations, and especially anything related to decision-making processes” by me?

  327. Schala says

    You don’t know what representative means. If she’s largely unique in that regard, she’s not representative. “Representing” and “being representative” are two seperate things; Ross does the former.

    She wields power, in the name of feminism. Ergo, representative. She’s not proportionally whatever, but we don’t care about that. People who don’t wield her kind of power don’t even count, except in as much as they make feminism appear to be more widely supported, and thus fuel her power by giving politicians the idea that she has backing.

    What, the multiple fucking times that I have done exactly that on this very thread don’t count? If you’re dissapointed with the reaction of feminists in general that’s fine, but don’t imply that my reaction has been less than critical. She is wrong, and I have said so many times.

    Disavow her as not-feminist, because she doesn’t align with the core ideals. Or renounce feminism as too tainted to salvage. Or you’re fair game to be accused of supporting her by mere identification with the movement – regardless of what you think.

  328. Sid says

    JS

    The direct quotes of the attitude, sexism and double standards I’m describing all are over the thread.

    Your aggressive reaction and disbelief to the perfectly reasonable and supported claim that men and women report reproductive abuse at roughly equal rates, is just one example of the sexism and you and the other aggressive men here have not examined and apparently cannot see, even when its spelled out for you.

  329. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Ginkgo

    I certainly accept that men have a privileged position in comparison to women, yes. I accept they are oppressed in the sense that society and societal mores force them to occupy that less privileged position, but it is here I think a distinction has to be drawn between active oppression and passive oppression. Most people who self-describe as feminists are obviously aware of what they mean when they say it, but to many other people the word “oppressed” conjures up images of whips and shackles and squallor. They are oppressed in the sense that society has designated them a lesser position than men and this keeps a lot of women from realising their potential. A minority of, generally socially conservative, people actively attempt to preserve that oppression, but it must be acknowledged that this is so deeply assimilated that most people make remarks and do things which disenfranchise women without ever realising they are doing so. I’ve done it myself, many times.

  330. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    What are you talking about?

    @ sid, Schala, Adiabat

    Re forced envelopment

    What percentage of respondents, by your estimate, will be making false allegations? Given that MRAs claim up to 80% of all reports are made up by alleged victims¿

    Or is it just women that do that?

    Also, if the man happened to be drunk, already in bed with the woman naked, or had consented to kissing, should the male victim be “held to account” for his role in the alleged crime?

    If man A was in prison and taunted and humiliated man B in front of their peers, and then man B raped man A later on, should man A’s actions be taken into consideration?

    If man B forced man A to orally copulate him, leaving no marks or evidence, should man A be beloved?

    And evaluate the utility of MRA theories in supporting these male victims.

  331. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Schala

    Disavow her as not-feminist, because she doesn’t align with the core ideals.

    The core ideals of “Women are disenfranchised, and they shouldn’t be”? How does she not allign with that?

    I’ll say it again: I don’t get to run around playing “No true Feminist” because I dislike a few things she said. In exactly the same way Christians don’t get to announce that Anders Breivik “isn’t a Christian” because they don’t like the effect he has on their public image. It doesn’t matter; he is. Equally, I don’t like what this woman is saying, but I don’t get to blithely announce she’s not a feminist. And no, her opinion does not mean the movement is tainted or useless or negative. She’s one voice. Feminists are many.

    That’s called being honest. the movement has flaws. I’ll admit that. But overall it’s a force for good. The advancement of women’s rights is a good thing. The advacement of anyone who is disadvantaged by our society is a good thing. You will not persuade me otherwise.

  332. Sid says

    Look at carnations peculiarities, see how angry straying from the male perpetrator female victim stereotyping makes him.

  333. carnation says

    @ Sid 357

    You are simply deluded if you think you make me angry. Your comments and general demeanour elicit a range of emotions and reactions, but anger is simply not one of them. The pathos of my approach to dealing with you clearly escapes you.

    @ Sid 356

    Bully for you for responding, but you haven’t responded to,what I asked.

    Respond to what I asked and I’ll come back. That’s how it works, you see?

    Your response was like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife, but without the irony. Don’t you think.

  334. Schala says

    The core ideals of “Women are disenfranchised, and they shouldn’t be”? How does she not allign with that?

    I thought it was about equality.

    Since she is going against equality, then she’s going against core ideals.

  335. Jacob Schmidt says

    Sid

    The direct quotes of the attitude, sexism and double standards I’m describing all are over the thread.

    Really? Can you find them?

    Your aggressive reaction and disbelief to the perfectly reasonable and supported claim that men and women report reproductive abuse at roughly equal rates, is just one example of the sexism and you and the other aggressive men here have not examined and apparently cannot see, even when its spelled out for you.

    You’re really grasping at straws now, eh?

    Carnation

    You know very well that they don’t think such things about women. C’mon.

    Schala

    She wields power, in the name of feminism. Ergo, representative.

    Oi. No. She’s not. It may be argued (and has been well argued by Tamen) that she represents the feminist influence with respct to policies that deal with male rape victims in the United States. That is not the whole of feminism; that not even a significant fraction; it certainly doesn’t represent the behaviour and thoughts of feminists.

    People who don’t wield her kind of power don’t even count, except in as much as they make feminism appear to be more widely supported, and thus fuel her power by giving politicians the idea that she has backing.

    Merely identifying as a feminist gives a specific brand of feminism significant political power? Than why the fuck do the liberal parties keep loosing in Canada, despite the majority of us being liberals? It’s almost like active organizations behave differently than the general self identification of the populace.

    Disavow her as not-feminist, because she doesn’t align with the core ideals.[1] Or renounce feminism as too tainted to salvage.[2] Or you’re fair game to be accused of supporting her by mere identification with the movement – regardless of what you think.[3]

    1) Can’t do that; she is, unfortunately, a feminist, even if I find some of her policies dispicable. I’m not playing games with labels. And even if I dismiss her as a feminist, that doesn’t change her self identification, which means she still gets to claim support from me, at least according to your argument. Given that, I can’t help but feel that your argument here is nothing but ad hoc bluster.

    2) Hello false dichotomy; yes, if I can’t kick out Ross, the whole of feminism (including NOW’s campaign to end gendered conscription) totally becomes tainted.

    3) That’s an odd claim. So by accepting the same label, I’m fair game for accusations of support? That’s almost like blatant tribalism. The only difference, of course, is demonising the outgroup rather than elevating the in group.

  336. Sid says

    No Jacob

    My showing you working off the assumption that men and women aren’t reporting reproductive abuse at equal rates is not my clutching at straws for examples of the sexist attitudes of some of the men here. Its demonstrative of it.

    Carnation, I didn’t really read the rest of your question on account of the anger and attitude at the beginning.

    There isn’t anything legitimately wrong with taking about what the stats for women forcing men to penetrate them are saying. If it makes you angry, there is something wrong with you.

  337. Jacob Schmidt says

    It may be argued (and has been well argued by Tamen) that she represents the feminist influence with respct to policies that deal with male rape victims in the United States.

    Actually, I need to take that back. Tamen demonstrated that Koss was active, not that she was representative.

  338. Jacob Schmidt says

    …you working off the assumption that men and women aren’t reporting reproductive abuse at equal rates…

    This didn’t happen. I had no opinion on the rates of birth control tampering. How can I be working off an assumption with respect to a subject I had no opinion on?

  339. Schala says

    1) Can’t do that; she is, unfortunately, a feminist, even if I find some of her policies dispicable. I’m not playing games with labels. And even if I dismiss her as a feminist, that doesn’t change her self identification, which means she still gets to claim support from me, at least according to your argument. Given that, I can’t help but feel that your argument here is nothing but ad hoc bluster.

    Why are certain self-identified feminists disavowed and even vilified as anti-feminist (of the wants women back in the kitchen type) then?

    Warren Farrel for example. Didn’t he identify as feminist, was on the board of NOW, and wrote books about feminism? But suddenly his self-identity isn’t good, because “he works for the big bad oppressor men, he actually thinks they should REALLY have equal rights, including DV services, we can’t have that!”

  340. Sid says

    JS

    Koss is part of the feminist establishment, she is more representative than follower feminists that are only just learning that their movement covers up DV and rape.

  341. Sid says

    Jacob

    You had a strong enough feeling that my claim was false to be incredulous and aggressive about demanding a source.

    Were you not sexist, the claim would have seemed reasonable to you and you would not have started babooning about it.

  342. Jacob Schmidt says

    Schala

    Why are certain self-identified feminists disavowed and even vilified as anti-feminist (of the wants women back in the kitchen type) then?

    Warren Farrel for example. Didn’t he identify as feminist, was on the board of NOW, and wrote books about feminism? But suddenly his self-identity isn’t good, because “he works for the big bad oppressor men, he actually thinks they should REALLY have equal rights, including DV services, we can’t have that!”

    Was that me doing that? No? Then what the fuck do you want me to do about it? (also, disgust with Farrel has to do with his waffling about whether or not something counts as rape, and his support for incest)

    Sid

    Koss is part of the feminist establishment, she is more representative than follower feminists that are only just learning that their movement covers up DV and rape.

    Cool. Now when you demonstrate this, I’ll accept it as true.

  343. Jacob Schmidt says

    You had a strong enough feeling that my claim was false to be incredulous and aggressive about demanding a source.

    I had no such feeling. Now are you going to actually live up to your words and stop prescribing motivations that aren’t there?

    Were you not sexist, the claim would have seemed reasonable to you and you would not have started babooning about it.

    You do realize that what seems reasonable and what is true are two separate things, right? It seems reasonable to claim the poor population use more drugs, but it’s false. I don’t care how reasonable your claim sounds.

  344. Sid says

    JS

    Don’t make accusations about rape and incest against him based on what feminists say. Read the original context and see him explain for himself. Ask yourself, how plausible are these preposterous claims anyway, would a respected academic and author really be saying these things, if they are saying these things why are only feminists saying it …

    As for the reproductive abuse argument, yes what you saying is plausible, but given your extreme reaction, and the fact that you are feminist leaning and therefore tend to see men and women in conservative stereotypes. I’m sticking with what I saw. You having an extreme and incredulous reaction to the suggestion that men and women report reproductive abuse, and I think that’s most likely due to sexist prejudice.

  345. Sid says

    as for Koss, she was originator in the date rape movement, she did work on victim blaming too, which is on the tip of many follower feminists tongues.

    She is a professional feminist, part of the feminist establishment.

  346. Jacob Schmidt says

    Read the original context and see him explain for himself.[1] Ask yourself, how plausible are these preposterous claims anyway, would a respected academic and author really be saying these things[2], if they are saying these things why are only feminists saying it …

    1) I did.
    2) Yes. Are you unaware of the dozens of repsected individuals who support Roman Polanski?

    As for the reproductive abuse argument, yes what you saying is plausible, but given your extreme reaction, and the fact that you are feminist leaning and therefore tend to see men and women in conservative stereotypes.

    You clearly don’t know what plausible means. You’re arguing here that my claim is implausible.

    I’m sticking with what I saw. You having an extreme[1] and incredulous[2] reaction to the suggestion that men and women report reproductive abuse, and I think that’s most likely due to sexist prejudice[4].

    1) What was extreme about my reaction?

    2) I literally just dealt with this: what seems reasonable and what is true are two separate things. I don’t believe because I have no reason to believe you; “I think it should be true” is no good reason.

    3) You think maybe that’s because of a bias of yours? You have already false accused me of several other notions.

  347. Sid says

    Had you goneto the source, instead of people that are prone to making false accusations about rape and incest about that man, you would not be parroting the latters implausible narrative.

    Your extreme reaction was aggression, rudeness and incredulous tones that were provoked only in your mind.

    I’ve seen it 1000s of times at this stage, its the same thing with DV and data for female perpetrated rape, mention what reproductive abuse, domestic abuse or envelopment stats say near a feminist and you are guaranteed aggression and disbelief.

  348. Sid says

    Feminist leaning men here.

    There is no point on going to war with other men, your aggression is pointless. Your defense of things that are hurting you is stupid. Your senseless fighting on behalf of what you perceive to be damsels in distress is sexist.

  349. says

    A child’s point of view is not inherently invalid simply because it is a child’s point of view.

    No, it’s invalid because it fails to grasp and understand reality. Your childish point of view is a perfect example: you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re not even aware of your ignorance.

    …every civil rights movement in history has used attention-grabbing techniques in exactly the same way to tremendous effect.

    There is not one single progressive or liberation movement that has used tactics as childish, incoherent, or blatantly dishonest as the tactics of the MRAs. Stop pretending every other civil-rights movement is as stupid as yours — it’s simply not true. Even the dumbest attention-whores of those movements were far more flexible and imaginitive than the MRAs. They HAD to be, because they knew they needed to establish credibility — something overgrown spoiled brats like you don’t seem to understand.

    The ones squalling and screaming serve to gather attention, and the ones with the actual arguments and facts can then follow behind and use the gathered attention to articulate the issues and provide useful information and arguments. It is a time honored tactic after all.

    Your laughable self-importance is matched only by your total ignorance of how effective political movements actually work. For starters, the people with actual arguments do not “follow behind” the screamers and attention-grabbers, they LEAD. And the attention-grabbers follow, otherwise their efforts fail and the leaders have to dump them and get some new PR guys.

  350. Jacob Schmidt says

    Your defense of things that are hurting you is stupid.

    Ooh, this’ll be good. What have I defended that hurts me? I’ve done plenty of condemnation, but I don’t think I’ve defended anything.

  351. Sid says

    RagingBee

    I think we’ll be just fine, you need to evolve and stop playing out some silly gender role.

    Feminism has traditionally been our PR guy, thats why we have small penises (not like you big man), live in our mothers basements, are gay. That’s why equal rights for fathers and abuse victims is really an abusers lobby you see. Its also why Warren Farrell is pro rape and incest.I agree we need a new, unfortunately we have to make the best of what and the only choice is destroy the our PR man.

  352. Sid says

    JS

    I’m not attacking women, there are no women here for you to defend, there is no need for aggression.

    I simply pointed out some of the sexism here, and linked to a few sources.

  353. Jacob Schmidt says

    I’m not attacking women, there are no women here for you to defend, there is no need for aggression.

    What the bloody fuck? When did I accuses you of attacking women? And why are you accsusing me of defending things if there’s nothing for me to defend? My “agression” is actually bemusement.

  354. Schala says

    Was that me doing that? No? Then what the fuck do you want me to do about it? (also, disgust with Farrel has to do with his waffling about whether or not something counts as rape, and his support for incest)

    Why do I care if its you doing that? The result is

    1) Some people can be disavowed from feminism as a whole
    2) Man-hating and transphobia don’t disqualify people, wanting to help men does

    and the accusations of supporting rape and incest are stupid

    I read the damn quotes, he says no such thing.

    He says that AFTER THE FACT, from people who already suffered, they may not view it as traumatic. Exactly like the guy who got statutory raped by his teacher – he might see himself as “having scored” (and regardless, he’ll be told that by culture at large), and that telling him how he should feel horrible about it is pointless (ie if its not broken, don’t fix it), while still considering it a crime.

  355. Schala says

    and the fact that man-hating and transphobia don’t disqualify people from feminism is all I need to know to judge if its about equality for real

    It’s about equality – but from its own point of view.

    The point of view that men have a score of 100% on the get it good meter, while women get less. Men need no help, women need to be brought to the level of men. One sided and stupid notion, which doesn’t even apply to reality.

  356. FloraPoste says

    The point of view that men have a score of 100% on the get it good meter, while women get less. Men need no help, women need to be brought to the level of men.

    Nope. This is projecting your black and white thinking. I identify with the strong stream of feminism whose message is that forcing individuals to conform to nonsensical gender roles is oppressive. That liberation from forced conformity to gender roles benefits everyone. That the opportunity to be one rung up above some other group in the ladder of oppression is not really a privilege worth hanging on to.

  357. Sid says

    JS

    The odd behaviour, the aggression from the various men here is rooted in chivalrous role playing. If you can remember back to where the white knighting started, Ally Fog perceived Elam saying bitch and putting the shoe the the feminists were wearing on the other foot as akin to the horror of a political movement systematically protecting female abusers and erasing male victims, I was putting perspective on it … which made various men here become very aggressive.

    Also,the suggestion that reproductive abuse isn’t gendered generated knee jerk aggression from you.

    I perceive the senseless aggression here as rooted in various men playing out some misguided gender role.

  358. Schala says

    Nope. This is projecting your black and white thinking. I identify with the strong stream of feminism whose message is that forcing individuals to conform to nonsensical gender roles is oppressive. That liberation from forced conformity to gender roles benefits everyone. That the opportunity to be one rung up above some other group in the ladder of oppression is not really a privilege worth hanging on to.

    Then Mary Koss and Germaine Greer should be banned from feminism post-haste. They don’t believe in this, obviously.

  359. Sid says

    FloraPoste@385

    Right, because feminism is just iike the Politburo

    It is if you are an egalitarian feminists like Christina Hoff Sommers or Warren Farrell, or a feminist researcher like Straus that isn’t going to toe the part line on domestic abuse.

    Man haters and people that cover up rape get to stay at the party though.

  360. says

    A child’s point of view is not inherently invalid simply because it is a child’s point of view.

    No, it’s invalid because it fails to grasp and understand reality. Your childish point of view is a perfect example: you clearly have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re not even aware of your ignorance.

    You do realize you didn’t actually say anything there, right?

    I mean, I’m not unfamiliar with the use of insults in place of argumentation. I tend to get that a lot from my opposition, but it seems like you thought you said something of value there.

    …every civil rights movement in history has used attention-grabbing techniques in exactly the same way to tremendous effect.

    There is not one single progressive or liberation movement that has used tactics as childish, incoherent, or blatantly dishonest as the tactics of the MRAs.

    Not one, you say? That’s quite a charge.

    Can you name one tactic that they’ve used that I will be able to find not a single example of a member of another civil rights group in the past hundred years using?

    I’m willing to play if you are.

    Stop pretending every other civil-rights movement is as stupid as yours — it’s simply not true.

    I don’t think you understand what movement I represent.

    I’m a feminist, amongst other things.

    Even the dumbest attention-whores of those movements were far more flexible and imaginitive than the MRAs.

    Do you realize how greatly you hurt your own credibility with hyperbole like this?

    You may not be aware of this, but there is a class of readers and debators who consider the logical integrity of an argument absolutely critical. These are the same sorts of people who find the Problem of Evil to serve as an absolute disproof of the existence of an omnimax god.

    I realize, being on the popular side in your arguments makes it easy to not recognize the things that will harm your credibility, so consider this a bit of friendly advice.

    They HAD to be, because they knew they needed to establish credibility — something overgrown spoiled brats like you don’t seem to understand.

    Again, you may not be aware of this, but I’ve made a total of two posts on this blog, in its entirety. Both of them consisted of me telling you that you were being an idiot, and explaining how reality works to you. Just because you and I are both feminists does not mean you get a pass on doing stupid shit that makes all of us look bad.

    And once again, I’m going to ask you to stop using ageist slurs.

    The ones squalling and screaming serve to gather attention, and the ones with the actual arguments and facts can then follow behind and use the gathered attention to articulate the issues and provide useful information and arguments. It is a time honored tactic after all.

    Your laughable self-importance is matched only by your total ignorance of how effective political movements actually work. For starters, the people with actual arguments do not “follow behind” the screamers and attention-grabbers, they LEAD. And the attention-grabbers follow, otherwise their efforts fail and the leaders have to dump them and get some new PR guys.

    Once again, not how reality works. The extremists blaze trails and get the guardians of the status quo nervous. Said gaurdians then look for someone more sane and reasonable to negotiate with in order to try to marginalize the extremists, and that’s when the polite face of a movement steps into the mainstream, articulates its points, gets legislation passed, and ideally makes its core ideals mainstream.

    The leaders of said movement need to be able to denounce the loose cannons as not representative of their movement, even as they take advantage of the fact that those loose cannons give them an excuse to talk about the issues they care about.

    You’re far too used to being a defender of the status quo.

  361. Sid says

    RagingBee said attention whore which is actually gendered slur. That right there is the most egregious misogny, quick feminist men saddle up and forget about this nonsense of feminists covering up abuse of and rape of men and those silly fathers and their “rights”, we are invulnerable anyway, while a gendered slur represents grave danger to a delicate maiden, attack attack!!.

  362. Tamen says

    @347 Thumper; Atheist mate:

    What, the multiple fucking times that I have done exactly that on this very thread don’t count? If you’re dissapointed with the reaction of feminists in general that’s fine, but don’t imply that my reaction has been less than critical. She is wrong, and I have said so many times.

    Here I’ve failed to follow my own adage: when one speak in absolute the probability of being wrong approaches 1. My apologies; I clearly should’ve said nearly none. I stated in @313, I appreciate that you’re clear in the matter and I mean that.

    To clarify: I do feel disappointed that there has been very little critcism of this stance of her from feminists at large and from feminists who have a platform and some clout.(bloggers, journalists, academics etc.).

  363. FloraPoste says

    I have some thoughts about comparing MRA tactics to temper tantrums

    YouthRightsRadical , I agree with that a child’s tantrum can be, if not completely rational, at least not an irrational response to situation where the child is powerless to solve a real problem.* So I agree with the association between tantrums and a sense of powerlessness to make reality conform to desire. What I disagree with is the assumption that I see implicit in your argument with Bee, that this sense of powerlessness is always associated with a lack of institutional authority or relative personal power.

    If you’ve ever seen a parent or a teacher or a boss in the throes of uncontrolled rage because her will was thwarted in some slight detail, you’ll know what I mean.

    So the question is whether MRA tactics most resemble the adult tantrum brought on by feeling thwarted by supposed inferiors, or the child’s tantrum that is a reaction to a legitimate problem she lacks the ability or power to solve.

    That leads into your other assumption, that AVfM, Fathers4Justice,etc, are examples of an extremist wing that is going to blaze a trail for more moderate men’s rights advocates. I see those extreme groups as more like the KKK, channeling the real grievances of poor whites into hate and rage, rather than into solutions that would really challenge the status quo.

    * I actually think most tantrums whether child or adult are due to low blood sugar or need for a nap.

  364. says

    @FloraPoste

    Well, there is one obvious means of checking which of the two scenarios most closely fits.

    Are the grievences of Fathers4Justice an example of a “slight detail”?

    As to the KKK comparison, is the goal of equal parental rights and equal access to their children when disolving a relationship between the parents really so abhorent a goal? Would it be a descent into barbarism for contact orders to start being enforced?

  365. Jacob Schmidt says

    Why do I care if its you doing that? The result is

    1) Some people can be disavowed from feminism as a whole
    2) Man-hating and transphobia don’t disqualify people, wanting to help men does

    1 is something I don’t hold to be true, which collapses your whole reasoning. If I could, I would ban Koss from feminism. I can’t. I can neither ban Farrell.

    and the accusations of supporting rape[1] and incest[2] are stupid

    1) I actually accused him of waffling about what counts as rape
    2) “Support” is indeed the wrong term (“defense” would be better), though his reason for not doing so seems to be that he thinks the fathers can’t help but harm their daughter (they’re too sexist, you see). It’s also rather odd that he only talks about female victims, despite male victims being equally or more common.

    and the fact that man-hating and transphobia don’t disqualify people from feminism is all I need to know to judge if its about equality for real

    The same reasoning (literally) can be applied to MRA’s.

    And didn’t Farrell leave feminism of his own accord? That’s the story I was told; that Farrell was totes a feminist before he realized how sexist we all were, the he gave us the middle finger and did a barrel role, because he’s a really cool guy and doesn’t afraid of anything (I may be taking liberties with that paraphrasing).

  366. carnation says

    @ Youth Radical 391

    F4J base their mission statement on erroneous or simply absent “evidence”. Do you honestly believe the EDL rank and file are merely opposed to extreme, militant Islam?

  367. mildlymagnificent says

    Schala

    and the accusations of supporting rape and incest are stupid

    I read the damn quotes, he says no such thing.

    Well, that’s exactly how I read this statement.

    “Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he summarizes. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship…”

    It’s from the infamous 1977 interview with Penthouse. And there’s very little else in there to ameliorate the ghastliness of this particular excerpt, and quite a lot to make the eyebrows lift even more. http://www.thelizlibrary.org/site-index/site-index-frame.html#soulhttp://www.thelizlibrary.org/warren-farrell/warren-farrell2.htm

  368. Jacob Schmidt says

    Tamen

    I do feel disappointed that there has been very little critcism of this stance of her from feminists at large and from feminists who have a platform and some clout.(bloggers, journalists, academics etc.).

    Wait, are you critical of feminists for not criticizing her specifically, or her stance in general? If the latter, dude, look around you (by that, I mean this site).

    mildlymagnificent

    “Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he summarizes. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship…”

    Oh jesus, I had forgotten about that one. “Magnifies the beauty” is pretty explicit support, whether in “some instances” or not. Funny how there wasn’t one single word about the child’s consent in that whole thing, too.

  369. mildlymagnificent says

    Jacob “Magnifies the beauty” is pretty explicit support, whether in “some instances” or not.

    And he misses the obvious extension. If it “magnifies the beauty” then perhaps this “magnifying lens” might also magnify negative impacts like distress or trauma. Seeing as his own work shows negative effects reported by a whopping 85% of daughters affected, you’d think this might temper his enthusiasm.

  370. says

    Funny how there wasn’t one single word about the child’s consent in that whole thing, too.

    Why would it be present? Why would that not be such an obvious standard as to not need to be pointed out?

    Not that I would expect anyone outside the relationship to respect the child’s consent even if it were present.

  371. Sid says

    Warren Farrell, there was an attempt to turn him into a pro rape, pro incest monster by people that habitually make cheap informal false accusations and mischaracterization relating to rape for rhetorical effect. His only “crime” was egalitarian feminism.

    Various angry, feminist leaning men here, don’t be lead and manipulated into attacking other men on the basis of false accusations, rape hysteria and white knighting by these people.

  372. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Scahala

    I thought it was about equality.

    Since she is going against equality, then she’s going against core ideals.

    Feminism is the recognition that women are dienfranchised and the advancement of their rights in order to correct that disenfranchisement. Egalitarianism is about equality for all. You cannot be an egalitarian without being a feminist. You can be a feminist without being an egalitarian, but I fundementally disagree with those people that are. Koss appears to be one of them.

    @Tamen #389

    Thank you, I appreciate the retraction. I’m reasonably new to feminism and have not come across Koss before this thread, but I would be dissapointed in anyone who disagrees with the opinion that forced envelopment does count as rape from a moral perspective and therefore should count as rape from a legal perspective. Anyone who disagrees with that opinion should be called out.

    @Sid

    I note you have still not deigned to define any of the words or terms you apparently made up.

  373. Tamen says

    Wait, are you critical of feminists for not criticizing her specifically, or her stance in general? If the latter, dude, look around you (by that, I mean this site).

    Both. Primarily the first due to Koss’ power to influence change in policies regarding rape. Note that I used the idiom “at large” to signify that I spoke of feminists in general – not every one. So for the latter I’ll just have to say that I don’t think the people here on this board who have disagreed with the “envelopment is not rape” stance are a sufficiently large enough subset of feminism to criticize me for saying that feminists at large have criticised Koss’ stance. And again, it’s a prompted response, a reaction to someone else bringing it up. Where is the feminist discourse on this borne from within feminism? I’d really like to read it.

    I had a surprisingly candid feminist present the following argument (link goes to my response since her original comment has been deleted) to me on Reddit as to why she thinks CDC is doing the right thing by not classifying “made to penetrate as rape” while she at the same time personally thinks men who has been “made to penetrate” someone else has been raped:

    I have reason to believe that male victims, in particular, won’t be helped by this new wording in any significant way, but I feel as if female victims will be disproportionally disadvantaged because of it.

    I believe that this will allow male perpetrators to feel less responsible for their actions, because in a sexist culture, men eschew responsibility.

    Your reaction to the fact that men do most of the raping … is to actually change the definition in order not to have to dwell on the overwhelming numbers of male perpetrators of female victims: like a “women do it, too! Checkmate”, conversation over.

    A pet peeve of mine is when a mentioning of male victimization and/or female perpetrators prompts the response: “The overwhelmingly majority of rape victims are women” and/or “The overwhelmingly majority of rapists are men”.
    The antonyms of overwhelming are insignificant, negligible, paltry. There is nothing insignificant, negligible or paltry about the rates of male victims and rate of female perpetration we are seeing in surveys like the NISVS 2010. Even if we go for lifetime numbers 25% of victims are men and 20% of perpetrators are women.

    And then we have the article by Soraya Chemaly about rape culture which I’ve linked in another comment (on another thread?) where she first acknowledge male (at least boys) victims of female perpetrators, but yet end up with a conclusion that “only men can stop rape”.

    So, when I hear feminist say that “that is male rape”, “I am sorry that happened to you” and so on I have learned to be wary of any “but” coming.

    Non-feminist on the other hand either deny male victimization up-front, but when they don’t I find them less likely to inject a “but”.

    Feminist Abigail Rine have written three good article about male victimization without coming off as minimizing nor insincere:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/don-draper-was-raped/276937/

    http://mamaunabridged.com/2013/06/27/what-about-the-boys/

    http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/no-rape-victim-male-or-female-deserves-to-be-blamed/277598/

    In particular I liked this quote from her:

    Many feminists have written, particularly in the wake of Steubenville, of the need to teach boys the importance of consent. I agree – but I think we must begin by teaching them the importance of their own consent, and the sacredness of their own bodies, and to empower them to speak out if anyone, anyone, ever violates that.

    But yet I have to wonder why it took 1.5 years before any feminist blogger/journalist I a aware of (with the exception of ballgame at FeministCritics) even mentioned the “last 12 months” prevalence numbers for male victims from the NISVS 2010 Report in a post or article? It’s not like the “last 12 months” prevalence numbers for women weren’t mentioned.

    Yet, it’s nice to know that my “derailing” have in some minor way contributed to something positive.

  374. says

    You do realize you didn’t actually say anything there, right?

    You can keep covering your ears and telling yourself that if it makes you feel good. It’s still provably wrong.

    Do you realize how greatly you hurt your own credibility with hyperbole like this?

    I’ll take that comment seriously when it comes from someone who actually has credibility himself.

  375. Schala says

    Feminism is the recognition that women are dienfranchised and the advancement of their rights in order to correct that disenfranchisement. Egalitarianism is about equality for all. You cannot be an egalitarian without being a feminist. You can be a feminist without being an egalitarian, but I fundementally disagree with those people that are. Koss appears to be one of them.

    You can be an egalitarian without being a feminist.

    You just recognize that both men and women are disenfranchised, and are for the advancement of their rights, the end to discrimination and the end to double standards, same responsibility for all (which means longer sentences for women, more profiling for women for violent and sexual crimes and more services for male victims – amongst others).

    If you do this, you’ll be called anti-feminist, a MRA, “not really for equality”, or outright “against equality”.

    Also, if you reject patriarchy theory, no feminist will take your claim of being feminist seriously. And I do reject it, while acknowledging that there are stupid laws and norms and cultural flaws and double standards which hurt everyone in different ways. I just don’t blame the male boogie man for it. I blame the tendency of humans to want control over others (this is a human instinct) and xenophobia (which killed outliers, sometimes literally), and the lack of viable contraception played a major part in this.

    It is human to want a predictable, controllable environment, it is psychopath to want to control others despite their individuality, but governments sometimes have to be that psychopath for survival’s sake. Nowadays though? No need. We could do without gender roles and norms, without double standards which say what women do are less bad, less evil, less responsible for. You want the number one contributor to misogyny? Double standards where Man #1 doing X thing is punished while Woman #2 doing X thing is unpunished, for vagina reasons. It starts in elementary, maybe even earlier.

  376. Schala says

    “Double standards where Man #1 doing X thing is punished while Woman #2 doing X thing is unpunished, for vagina reasons. It starts in elementary, maybe even earlier.”

    Speaking of this, someone hypothesized that women would possibly be punished more harshly for doing similar crimes than men, because she would not only be doing a crime (punishable in itself), but also going against the gender role (since crimes are manly apparently).

    Got proven wrong for every single crime except petty thievery. Men get arrested, charged, convicted more, and get longer sentence, and more chance to get death sentence, for the very same crimes. Black people get this too (a bit less a difference), making it stack on black men, who get the worst end of it. Guess who gets the best deal? White women.

  377. FloraPoste says

    YouthRightsRadical @301:

    Well, there is one obvious means of checking which of the two scenarios most closely fits.

    Are the grievences of Fathers4Justice an example of a “slight detail”?

    Yeah, no, that’s not the salient part of the scenario. Leave out slight detail or change it to being thwarted over something important. The salient part is the display of uncontrolled rage by someone who believes they deserve to be in control. So your question is irrelevant. The question is whether these fathers are in the position of helpless toddlers who need to throw a tantrum to get attention or whether they have other means to communicate with adults in order to get the needs of their children met.

    As to the KKK comparison, is the goal of equal parental rights and equal access to their children when disolving a relationship between the parents really so abhorent a goal? Would it be a descent into barbarism for contact orders to start being enforced?

    Again, a misreading. I referenced legitimate grievances being channelled into violence and rage rather than solutions. The idea that fathers should share parenting equally is not a radical idea. Which is why it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to go around vandalizing priceless art rather than look into the approach Ally advocates in the OP.

  378. FloraPoste says

    <blockquote

    Why would it be present? Why would that not be such an obvious standard as to not need to be pointed out?

    Not that I would expect anyone outside the relationship to respect the child’s consent even if it were present.

    Wait, what? No, it’s not reasonable to expect that someone who thinks incest is a lens that “magnifies the beauty of the relationship” adheres to obvious standards. Ugh. “anyone outside the relationship” wtf?? I don’t even….

  379. Ginkgo says

    Flora Poste @ 405 –

    “The salient part is the display of uncontrolled rage by someone who believes they deserve to be in control.”

    So now wanting to raise oyur own children = wanting total control. You just said something eery damning about those mothers wanting to to raise those children alone.

    “The question is whether these fathers are in the position of helpless toddlers who need to throw a tantrum to get attention or whether they have other means to communicate with adults in order to get the needs of their children met.”

    Communicate with adults how – as in going to court? Is the court system adult enough for you? The questoin answers itself; their mistreatment in the court system is what started this whole mess.

  380. Jacob Schmidt says

    So now wanting to raise oyur own children = wanting total control.

    I don’t remember ‘total’ being a word used.

    Communicate with adults how – as in going to court?

    Again, this was not written.

    Ahem: “The organisation said it was also now refusing to engage with national media over what it described as deliberately inaccurate and misleading reporting of the campaign and the crisis in the family courts. It was also refusing to deal with the government, police, courts, judiciary and any other organisations involved in family law and said it was considering shutting down all conventional social media.

    That’s not refusing to go to court; that’s a little closer to refusing to talk to anyone.

    And if they want to throw a tantrum, why don’t they through a proper fucking tantrum? Look at what just happened in Texas. In response to conservatives trying to sneak in an unpassed bill into law, the on lookers screamed. Literally; they were so loud you could here them from down the street. That’s awesome. I’m all for that. F4J could be staging demonstrations, taking donations (as much as they can) and organizing and recruiting. They could be dealing with the channels the have available. Instead, F4J is vandalising property.

  381. says

    In response to conservatives trying to sneak in an unpassed bill into law, the on lookers screamed. Literally; they were so loud you could here them from down the street. That’s awesome. I’m all for that.

    Problem is, it didn’t stop the bill from passing. And such demonstrations rarely have any effect bigger than forcing lawmakers to wait a few days until the demonstrators have expended all their energy, before resuming whatever they planned to do in the first place. If any protest movement wants to have any more effect than that, they need mature, articulate, smart, effective leadership — which is something I have yet to see in the squalling, infantile MRAs, who can’t even control themselves long enough to stop attacking people who try to explain their own cause, like they’ve attacked Ally here for not being pure enough or something.

  382. Ginkgo says

    Jacob, as Raging Bee points out, that tactic is ultimately ineffectual as we are seeing Texas where people are trying to write gross sexism into law and succeeding, in a context of entrenched gross sexism in the legal regime.

    “I don’t remember ‘total’ being a word used. ”

    That’s the substance of your objection to that point of mine? Good.

    Flora @ 405 – “The idea that fathers should share parenting equally is not a radical idea. ”

    Not radical to you because as you have shown, you are operating off a basis of common sense, even if we may disagree on some conclusions. But NOW thinks this is not only a radical but an anti-woman idea.

    Even Gloria Steinem when she siad feminism would have to see men take an equal place in family life if it wanted to see women take an equal place in economic life, she knew she was shaking a lot of people’s worldview.

  383. FloraPoste says

    But NOW thinks this is not only a radical but an anti-woman idea

    I’m guessing that you’re equating supporting equal parenting with imposed joint custody.

    Why would you equate “taking an equal place in family life” with “automatically getting 50% custody after divorce? ”

    Can you remind me again why it is fathers who are the truly helpless, voiceless victims of family court dysfunction?

    Can you explain how vandalizing art and then “refusing to deal with the government, police, courts, judiciary and any other organisations involved in family law” furthers the goal of taking an equal place in family life?

  384. says

    FloraPoste @405:

    Yeah, no, that’s not the salient part of the scenario. Leave out slight detail or change it to being thwarted over something important. The salient part is the display of uncontrolled rage by someone who believes they deserve to be in control. So your question is irrelevant. The question is whether these fathers are in the position of helpless toddlers who need to throw a tantrum to get attention or whether they have other means to communicate with adults in order to get the needs of their children met.

    I don’t think you understood your own analogy. Both the boss and the toddler have “the display of uncontrolled rage by someone who believes they deserve to be in control” in common. The only point of difference between the two was the “minor detail” point.

    Well, I suppose there’s also the “this person is usually in charge, so screw him and his grievances the handful of times he finds himself legitimately powerless” argument, but I was being charitable in not ascribing that particular hateful viewpoint to you.

    Again, a misreading. I referenced legitimate grievances being channelled into violence and rage rather than solutions. The idea that fathers should share parenting equally is not a radical idea. Which is why it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to go around vandalizing priceless art rather than look into the approach Ally advocates in the OP.

    What are the KKK’s legitimate grievances? What grave injustices are they trying to shine a light on with their antics? If the KKK has some legitimate grievance that I’ve been ignoring, I’d like to have that corrected.

    FloraPoste @406:

    Wait, what? No, it’s not reasonable to expect that someone who thinks incest is a lens that “magnifies the beauty of the relationship” adheres to obvious standards. Ugh.

    I see, so this is just an inherent assumption of bad faith.

    Tell me, what relationships have you seen where there is no consent that have any beauty to be magnified?

    “anyone outside the relationship” wtf?? I don’t even….

    Oh please. Every country on earth that has a functioning rule of law at all, has laws that say the state should ignore a person’s consent, and treat a “yes” the same as we would a “no” for some category of people. It’s the entire point of the age of consent.

    So it should come as no surprise that even if everyone was saying “yes” people other than the “victim” would still be treating it as nonconsensual anyway, no matter how loudly the “victim” protested that it was indeed consensual.

  385. Schala says

    So it should come as no surprise that even if everyone was saying “yes” people other than the “victim” would still be treating it as nonconsensual anyway, no matter how loudly the “victim” protested that it was indeed consensual.

    Unless it’s a male adult victim of a female adult or teenager who is not very ugly or fat. If the girl or woman in question is above Ann Coulter levels of attraction – then he got lucky, and should thank his lucky stars that he “scored” tonight.

    While there will be a lot of people who will see it for what it was (rape), many many many people seem to find it inconceivable that:

    1) A man could even want to refuse sex with a woman who was neither very ugly nor fat and not related to him or his family.
    2) That a man could even be overpowered at all.
    3) That a man could have an erection without his explicit consent.

    So you end up with Huffington Post circlejerk about how 95-99% of rapists are men, and 90-98% of victims are female. Statistics that are only true if you do a Mary Koss (ie ignore the rape of men who were not penetrated during their rape).

  386. Jacob Schmidt says

    Ginkgo

    Jacob, as Raging Bee points out, that tactic is ultimately ineffectual…

    I didn’t know the republicans managed to pass the bill after midnight that night. Sure, they might manage to pass it after the fact, but the protest was in response to underhanded tactics that night. They had another chance to fight the bill from protesting, which is far more than F4J vandalism will ever accomplish.

    You also ignored the back half of my paragraph.

    That’s the substance of your objection to that point of mine? Good.

    Oi. Father’s wanting control is a fair thing to want; Flora never said otherwise. Father’s wanting total control is not a fair thing to want. Despite Flora not accusing fathers of wanting total control, that was how you chose to interpret it. Your disingenuous interpretations is the point.

    YouthRightsRadical

    So it should come as no surprise that even if everyone was saying “yes” people other than the “victim” would still be treating it as nonconsensual anyway, no matter how loudly the “victim” protested that it was indeed consensual.

    The fact that you seem to think this is a problem is disgusting. Do you actually, or have I misread you?

  387. says

    Every country on earth that has a functioning rule of law at all, has laws that say the state should ignore a person’s consent, and treat a “yes” the same as we would a “no” for some category of people. It’s the entire point of the age of consent.

    “Deep Thinking Hebephile,” is that you?

  388. Ginkgo says

    Flora @ 412 – “I’m guessing that you’re equating supporting equal parenting with imposed joint custody.”

    Do you mean that you are equating imposing sole custody with equal parenting? What part of “equal” do you not understand?

    “Why would you equate “taking an equal place in family life” with “automatically getting 50% custody after divorce? ”

    Because 50% is equal to 50%? Tell me, what division of parenting time would oyu consider equal if not that?

    “Can you remind me again why it is fathers who are the truly helpless, voiceless victims of family court dysfunction?”

    Patriarchal assumptions about gender roles, specifically that it is women who should be in charge of children. It’s sick and retrograde and NOW should be ashamed of supporting it. If it’s patriarchal, NOW should be attacking it as an exmaple pf the “golden birdcage” or pedstalization of women.

    JS @ – “Your disingenuous interpretations is the point.”

    What Flora actually said was “The salient part is the display of uncontrolled rage by someone who believes they deserve to be in control.”

    What other kind of control is there in that situation besides total control?

    What’s disingenuous is your pettifogging invetiion of nonexistent semantic distinctions.

  389. FloraPoste says

    YouthRIghtsRadical:

    No, you don’t understand my analogy. You really think that a boss has no other alternative than to throw a tantrum in order to get her way? The salient difference is that she’s the boss and has the institutional authority, neurological development, impulse control, linguistic skills, etc, that a toddler lacks.

    I believe every toddler has the right to understanding caregivers that will honor the impulse behind raging meltdowns and help the child to develop better impulse control and negotiation skills.

    As adults, the most we can expect is that friends and loved ones will understand and support us through the occasional stress-induced meltdown. Failing that, we can seek out counseling or anger management classes. We can’t expect the general public to take us seriously when we throw a tantrum. And there’s no excuse – none – for adults who melt down and lash out at children, students or employees.

    Re: the KKK analogy, I specifically referenced channelling the grievances of poor whites, I never claimed the KKK had legitimate grievances. Poor southern whites had legitimate grievances, the KKK channelled them in ways that preserved rather than challenged the status quo.

    WTF was in response to romanticizing fa parent having sex with a child by calling it a relationship.

  390. Jacob Schmidt says

    Ginkgo

    What other kind of control is there in that situation besides total control?

    Partial control. Control in only some circumstances, with the approval of another, only at certain times, etc.

    You seem to think “control” means “absolutely determining”. It doesn’t; the term can be used more generally.

    What’s disingenuous is your pettifogging invetiion of nonexistent semantic distinctions.

    What amazes me about crap like this is that very few people ever think to themselves “Maybe there’s a definition or common use I’m not aware of”. If you must, substitute “influence” for “control” in Flora’s posts.

  391. says

    @Jacob Schmidt 415

    The fact that you seem to think this is a problem is disgusting. Do you actually, or have I misread you?

    You’re damn right I think ignoring people’s consent is a problem. The fact that you’re disgusted by the idea of people deciding what to do with their own bodies tells me all I really need to know about your position. Are you actually, or have I misread you?

    @Raging Bee 416

    “Deep Thinking Hebephile,” is that you?

    Never heard of her.

    If you want to talk about my sexual orientation, though (given the attempted jab), I’ve provided a space for that at my own blog so we don’t have to clutter up Ally’s.

    @FloraPoste

    No, you don’t understand my analogy. You really think that a boss has no other alternative than to throw a tantrum in order to get her way? The salient difference is that she’s the boss and has the institutional authority, neurological development, impulse control, linguistic skills, etc, that a toddler lacks.

    And per your scenario, none of those things made a difference, since he was, in fact, thwarted.

    I believe every toddler has the right to understanding caregivers that will honor the impulse behind raging meltdowns and help the child to develop better impulse control and negotiation skills.

    As adults, the most we can expect is that friends and loved ones will understand and support us through the occasional stress-induced meltdown. Failing that, we can seek out counseling or anger management classes. We can’t expect the general public to take us seriously when we throw a tantrum. And there’s no excuse – none – for adults who melt down and lash out at children, students or employees.

    So we’re inclined towards discriminatory behavior, is that it? Me, I think treating people as equals works better, regardless of what side of whatever magic age line they happen to be on.

    Now, it is valid to adjust your behavior depending on what level of communication ability and knowledge a person may have, as well as recognizing whatever power dynamics are at play, but just discriminating on the basis of age like you seem to be advocating is profoundly distasteful.

    Re: the KKK analogy, I specifically referenced channelling the grievances of poor whites, I never claimed the KKK had legitimate grievances. Poor southern whites had legitimate grievances, the KKK channelled them in ways that preserved rather than challenged the status quo.

    So you don’t think F4J has articulated any legitimate grievances, and instead that they’ve just taken men with legitimate grievances and used them to fuel a hate-driven agenda? How did they get those men on board if they haven’t spoken out against the things that the men in question actually care about?

    WTF was in response to romanticizing fa parent having sex with a child by calling it a relationship.

    That was the word used in the original quote. Why are you surprised I continued to use the term that was being used in the original quote?

  392. FloraPoste says

    Yeah, it’s totally discriminatory to expect adults to control their temper and not to lash out in anger at children. I’m done with you.

    What’s that the OP was saying about the PR problem the fathers’ rights groups are having?

  393. FloraPoste says

    Gingko at 417:
    What about family life before divorce? You know, the approach Ally was talking about in the OP, that has been successful in Sweden? Or do you think vandalizing art and then refusing to talk to anyone is the way to go?

    I’ll try again with this question:
    “Can you remind me again why it is fathers who are thetruly helpless, voiceless victims of family court dysfunction?”

  394. FloraPoste says

    Oh darn, I borked the tags

    That should be:
    “Can you remind me again why it is fathers who are “the truly helpless, voiceless victims of family court dysfunction?”

  395. Jacob Schmidt says

    YouthRightsRadical

    The fact that you’re disgusted by the idea of people deciding what to do with their own bodies tells me all I really need to know about your position.

    I guess “informed consent” is an alien phrase to you?

  396. Ally Fogg says

    Hi folks

    For your information, YouthRightsRadical has been banned from this site, his offence being linking to a site that actively promotes and defends paedophilia.

    More info on the Just Checking In… thread.

  397. Sid says

    Just shows that social conservatives can be as bad as feminists typically are.

    None the less, even if a couple or father has those views, both parents deserve visitation rights as a starting point in the event of separation. Otherwise you get abuse of the system and lots of damage.

  398. Sid says

    Hey Ally

    I’ll be waiting for you to Storify someone with equally problematic views that belongs to a combination of designated “good” groups – female, feminist, left wing etc. and present them to be mocked.

    That would be straying from the manboobz format though.

  399. Ally Fogg says

    Hey Sid

    I promise you if anyone from the feminist / female / left wing camp ever assails me with dozens of tweets of similarly comedic nuttiness, I shall do exactly that.

    They’ll have a hard job though.

  400. carnation says

    @ Sid 427

    “None the less, even if a couple or father has those views, both parents deserve visitation rights as a starting point in the event of separation.”

    Who’s disagreeing that a parent who’s not a danger to their child “deserves” visitation rights?

    Out of interest, Sid, in your opinion, should feminists, including “radfems” be allowed to raise children? And/or foster/adopt them?

  401. el dermo says

    its all about the money. the reality is that the finances in terms of CM and general divorce settlements are driven by who has most care of the children. that’s why many of these wonderful mums (and some dads)attempt to cut their ex partners out of the picture.
    dads options are mediation which can become a process to soak up more cash and simply stall the court process. 10% of couples end up in court but i guarantee there are many dads who give up under the emotional/financial strain. our mediator was a highly qualified family law solicitor and firmer chair of her local womans aid. during our sessions she denied all knowledge of “Payne versus Payne” and said that if mum did move abroad i could stay in contact by Skype.
    We should have a “presumption of contact” as in Norway which takes the loaded gun out of mums hands. In these countries more children have contact with both parents and particularly with their dads in the medium long term. Equally it would be helpful to have a family support network community based for families to access post separation.

    The former will never happen because it would upset the feminist lobby who support the staus quo ie mum as primary care giver at home, dad out hunting and sending his CM money as an offering to the gods.

    no one cares in this country whether children in post separation families have a meaningful relationship with both parents that’s why the current bill is the shambles it is. I always vote for Norway in the Eurovison song contest.

  402. says

    Valuable information shared..Iam content to read this report..thanks for providing us nice info.Wonderful walk-through. I appreciate this post.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>