Malestrom pt 4: Trolling is more than a game »« What should a men’s movement look like?

The HetPat First Directive

Following a discussion thread about moderation, I agreed with the regular commenters here that there should be an extra rule, which we hereby dub The HetPat First Directive (HPFD).I have now amended my Comments on Comments page to include the following

HPFD: Thou shalt not generalise about gender activist movements or judge people’s arguments by their association.

What this means in practice is that I shall consider moderating any comments that make sweeping generalisations about feminists, MRAs or any similar group. This is not because all such generalisations are necessarily false (although in my view they usually are) but simply because such sweeping generalisations act, almost without exception, to derail threads and discussions, spark angry reactions and foster an atmosphere that is corrosive to debate.

Examples would include statements like these:

“Feminism is a hate movement committed female supremacy and the subjugation of men  and boys.”

“Men’s Rights Activists are misogynistic trolls with no interest in the real issues affecting men and boys.”

“Your opinions are worthless because you are a feminist / MRA”

Et cetera.   

We’ve already identified a need for a First Exemption

HPFD1;X1: “In cases where the poster generalises about all movements equally without discrimination, the First Directive shall be held inapplicable.”

Example: “I think all social movements are prone to failing, turning sour or collapsing under criticism.”  This is not a provocative statement about feminism or whatever, and is instead an observation on the nature of organisations. That has to be allowed.

I’m more than happy to consider additional exemptions, corollaries or sub-clauses as the need arises, if there is a strong consensus from you guys of course. Post your suggestions below and we’ll talk about it.

Comments

  1. Ally Fogg says

    In more boring news, I’m going to be away for a few days. I contemplated turning commenting off, but decided I can just about trust you all to play nice.

    And I will still have broadband access and will be keeping an occasional watchful eye, so you shan’t be completely unmoderated, but please bear in mind that it might take slightly longer than usual.

    Particularly watch out for leaving comments including lots of links, which will trigger the spam filter and your comment may not appear for a while. Not looking at anyone in particular, Tamen :-)

  2. Ally Fogg says

    And for good measure, I’ve added the Musings on Moderation thread to the sidebar on the left for easy access, should you wish to discuss particular issues, make complaints, suggestions or comments about issues of moderation. Thanks.

  3. carnation says

    Have a good trip, Ally.

    Bit of clarification…. On your most recent article, I have commented that mgtow doesn’t constitute a movement, it is basically a few forums and admins.

    Would this be allowed under the first directive?

  4. says

    I’d just say I think it should be judge people by their *irrelevant* associations… As I’ve seen people have a go because someone associates themselves with AVfM and won’t call out or criticise even the worst things to come from that place. Its not a guilt by association fallacy when the association is a relevant one.

  5. Ally Fogg says

    carnation

    No, I don’t think that’s a generalisation about MGTOW, it is an observation and opinion. It’s a bit like saying something specific about, say, Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists, which would also be allowed, or arguing about whether Jezebel should be classed as a feminist site or not, also allowed I reckon.

    oolon

    I think it’s OK to argue about the rights and wrongs of a specific site or specific wing of a movement, and criticising a site, whether it be AVfM, Good Men Project or Feministing for hosting objectionable content, and even asking people whether they will dissociate themselves from that content or not. It’s something else to say “what you say is rubbish because it sounds like something you’d find on AVFM” or even “Why should I believe a word you say, you’re a feminist.”

  6. summerblues says

    This is a good idea. MRA’s, ProLifers, ProChoicers, Feminists, etc. do have valid points and observations.

    I’m going to say stupid shit. I’m new to this still and very, very ignorant and sheltered. This is where I learn. I give my word that I will do my best to keep my mouth shut, to read and try to see things from other perspectives and will do my best to keep my lady parts out of it. This isn’t about women, thank the gods.

  7. N4M says

    Ally, I’m sorry but I really think this is a very daft idea. All political movements which enjoy any degree of power or influence should be prepared for criticism, and to be cast in a negative light if their actions do not match up to their promises (so most obviously, to claim to stand for equality, whilst pursuing something very different to that.)

    How, for example, could you have a current affairs forum, where all negative assertions about the Labour Party or the Labour movement were forbidden? People should be free to say pejorative things about MRAs or feminism as collective endeavours, and in a democratic society, these should stand or fall depending on the veracity of the claims and the evidence provided.

  8. hoary puccoon says

    N4M @ 7–

    There’s a big difference between saying (in American terms) “I disagree with this plank of the Republican platform” and saying, “anybody who votes Republican obviously has nothing of value to contribute.”

    I don’t know about criticisms of certain men’s organizations. Are they specific organizations that have specific agendas? If so, the agenda should be fair game– as should, for instance, specific statements by a spokesperson for the National Organization for Women. But feminism as such isn’t an organization, it’s a general attitude or belief, with a lot of room for individual variation. Criticizing all feminists because of something silly that somebody who claimed to be a feminist said in 1980 doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. It just derails it.

  9. says

    Yeah. All the threads were quickly dissolving into people picking arguments with people who weren’t in the thread, and in many cases dead, and demanding their alleged ideological allies answer for them. It was never going to lead to any useful discussion. This is a good rule.

  10. J. J. Ramsey says

    I’d rewrite the First Directive as “Thou shalt not overgeneralise about gender activist movements …,” especially since both your examples of generalizations about gender activist movements are examples of overgeneralizations. Also, that would make the First Exemption unnecessary.

  11. abear says

    Shouldn’t you discourage sweeping generalizations about any groups, not just MRA’s and feminists? Is it OK to do that to racial or age groups for example?
    Perhaps you are considering banning the troll that wrote the following:

    There are lessons to be learned from the crimes of the baby boomers. If we want to understand why people hurt each other, harm each other, damage each other on our streets, in our homes, in our boardrooms. In the meantime, we can take comfort in knowing that the generation responsible for the selfish individualism and crime boom of the late twentieth century is gradually passing into retirement. Goodbye Baby boomers. You won’t be missed.

  12. johngreg says

    Ally said:

    I think it’s OK to argue about the rights and wrongs of a specific site or specific wing of a movement, and criticising a site, whether it be AVfM, Good Men Project or Feministing for hosting objectionable content, and even asking people whether they will dissociate themselves from that content or not.

    But, how does that sit with your comment earlier that you will not allow criticism of other FTB / Skepchick / Pit blogs or blog hosts and/or commenters? Or have I misunderstood you? Unless I have misunderstood you, I have the feeling that if anyone asked you to dissociate yourself from some of the more egregious comments/posts posted by other FTB bloggers and commenters, you would get rather steamy.

    N4M said:

    All political movements which enjoy any degree of power or influence should be prepared for criticism, and to be cast in a negative light if their actions do not match up to their promises (so most obviously, to claim to stand for equality, whilst pursuing something very different to that.)

    How, for example, could you have a current affairs forum, where all negative assertions about the Labour Party or the Labour movement were forbidden? People should be free to say pejorative things about MRAs or feminism as collective endeavours, and in a democratic society, these should stand or fall depending on the veracity of the claims and the evidence provided.

    I think those are very valid points. as, too, is: “Criticizing all feminists because of something silly that somebody who claimed to be a feminist said in 1980 doesn’t contribute anything to the discussion. It just derails it.” — hoary puccoon

    I think abear has a strong and valid point too.

    My, my, I’m all agreementy today.

  13. N4M says

    Hi there hoary puccoon; Yes, I’d agree that saying something like “anybody who is a feminist/MRA obviously has nothing of value to contribute” would plainly be extremist nonsense. Yet Ally himself on this blog has described
    feminism as “a political movement”, and I’m really of the conviction that all political movements should be prepared to entertain some harsh criticisms about their nature.
    And to Ally Fogg, just as a thought experiment, I’d like him to imagine just how acceptable it would be to him to have a discussion forum on UK politics where it was forbidden to make negative generalisations about British Conservatism and Conservatives. This, because it would be too ‘indelicate’, and impede discussion through being gratuitously antagonistic & confrontational. Would that not be a farce?
    Plus, I think it would be healthy, if feminism is indeed ‘a political movement’, that it should take some responsibility for some of the things being done in its name, on a political level and in the media. The ‘broad church’ rationalisation
    won’t wash when the church under consideration adopts policies and measures which are harmful and to many minds deeply reprehensible.

  14. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @N4M

    Ally’s not saying you can’t make negative assertions (though good practice demands that any assertions be backed up), he’s saying you can’t generalise and/or dismiss concerns based on ideological loyalties. That is not the same thing.

  15. hoary puccoon says

    N4M @13–

    I don’t care if Ally described feminism as a gardening club. It still isn’t a unified movement, with a written agenda like American political parties’ platforms. And even if it were, arguing with somebody who completely disavows what you’re arguing against doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

    It’s like my husband’s reaction when an Austrian waiter announced, “Oh, you’re an American. You Americans like sweet, white wine and your meat very well done.”

    Now, the United States of America is a much more formal entity than feminism. It hands out passports to its citizens, and everything. My husband carries one of those passports. But the fact remains, he still likes strong, red wine and steaks so rare a dinner companion once remarked, “I’ve seen ‘em hurt worse than that and get well.” So he had no way of making an argument for sicky-sweet wine and overcooked meat. Because that wasn’t his position.

    I will not presume to argue with you about how to conduct British political discussions, and I haven’t a clue what “broad church” means. But on this blog, holding someone who hasn’t even identified him/her self as a feminist, who has simply stated one, particular position congruent with feminism– holding that person responsible for every other statement ever made by anybody anyone ever suggested *might* be a feminist, instead of debating what the person writing on this particular blog actually said– THAT is what I see derailing discussions here.

  16. N4M says

    Thumper@14.

    I think if you try and characterise the nature of a political movement in one way or another, it’s almost bound
    to be an assertion which is generalist/generalised on some level. Say, for instance, ‘the Republican party is highly traditionalist in its outlook.’ Or say, ‘in my view, Republicans do not pay sufficient attention to the needs of ethnic minorities’. In a democratic society, these are notions which may thankfully be put forward and debated.

    One does note that Ally does not even say that the generalisation need be negative for statements to be moderated, simply:
    Thou shalt not generalise about gender activist movements, OR, etc…’

    @Puccoon – 15.

    I don’t care if Ally described feminism as a gardening club

    I understand, but it does surely matter for the purposes of this discussion, since it’s Ally who is drawing up
    the rules and defining the parameters of debate. Again, the directive refers to ‘activist movements’, rather than anything else here.

  17. Old At Heart says

    You know… It’s not about the message, its about the wording and the respect. Contrast and compare:

    “(Group Members) have been doing wrong for centuries!”
    “(Group Members) such as (name), (name), and (name) have been doing wrong and it seems to be a recurring trend.”

    Exact same message. More words in the second one, and likely needed more research to get three names, but suddenly it isn’t about the group as a whole (Feminists, MRAs, humanists, red sox fans), but rather a subsection of the group that identifies with those views (say, “Republicans who are like Reagan, Limbaugh, and Bush”, “Feminists who rely on the Koss rape study as sole evidence”, “Thumper, N4M, johngreg, and similar FTB commenters”.)

    I view it perhaps a bit as concern trolling, but once you apply specifics, and if you are polite about it, suddenly a lot more is in the realm of the criticizable. Watch: “Greta Christina is an important voice for her movement, but I feel her history with the adult film industry may have slanted and created a bias in her views about the role of pornography and fetish play in feminism.”

    Whether or not I agree with the statement (which is obviously true, no one can experience something and completely segregate its effect upon their life outlook, but internet people can argue about anything), I bet I could post that phrase in any comment thread pertaining to her or feminism or pornography ethics, and it would not be censored. Meanwhile, saying instead “Citing Greta Christina in this debate is stupid because she was an amateur pornstar” is completely open to attacking the source, poisoning the well, and a host of other metaphors, and WOULD get censored in many forums.

    I could get away with a huge amount of generalizing, as long as I’m respectful while doing it. “For the most part, feminists try to do good” might get a rise out of the rules. “In the spheres of abortion rights and bodily autonomy, feminists of the new age movement try to do good” is suddenly more specific yet just as vague, and while it can start a conversation about the verity of the statement, I doubt it would get censored.

    But yes, the rules as written are a bit vague, and you will need to establish a few precedents to make it work. I think the readjustment of “Not make overgeneralizatons” is good, but who decides if something is an overgeneralization? “Jack is mean” / “Jack’s mormon church is mean” / “Local mormon church is mean” / “Mormons are mean” / “Organized religions are mean” / “religion is mean” / “humans are mean”.

    Where is the “too generalized” point? Some would argue step 2: His church is mean, is the break point, others would say . Mormons are mean would be the tipping point. Yet more would go right to Religion is mean to say “too far”. And by your own words, “humans are mean” is suddenly okay again, and some may say “religions are mean” is also general enough to be allowed to overgeneralize.

  18. hoary puccoon says

    N4M @ 16–

    I was under the strong impression that Ally was trying to get posters to respond to what other posters actually wrote, not what group they belonged to, whether it was a political movement or a gardening club. Hence my comment.

    Let’s try it this way. I get the strong impression from your comments that you are a British citizen. As I understand it, you have an established church, the Church of England. That means, if I’m right about your citizenship, you have an actual legal connection to that church. If you want to break the connection, you have the legal– albeit drastic– option of renouncing your citizenship and moving to a secular nation. So, do you think it would be fair for me to attribute to English atheists all the teachings and positions of the Church of England? After all, if they don’t like being blamed for “their” church, they can completely rip their lives apart and emigrate. (To make myself perfectly clear, I think blaming British atheists for the Church of England would be a terribly unfair thing to do.)

    Now look at someone who expresses a feminist position (or an MRA position) and gets blamed for something completely different somebody else who claimed to be a feminist (or MRA) said. They have no control at all over what that other person said. They can’t kick the other person out of their organization, because there’s no formal organization of which they are both members. They don’t even have the drastic legal option of emigrating. They are simply being hammered for an opinion they don’t hold, with no recourse at all, except to reiterate that they don’t hold the position they’re accused of holding. Which their accuser then insists they do “really” hold….

    And at that point, the thread derails. As in, it turns into a train wreck.

  19. Adiabat says

    I read the rule suggested, and agreed, in the other thread as saying that while you can make generalisations about a movement, you cannot prescribe particular views to a particular member of that movement just because they are a member.

    For example: you can say the Republican party opposes gay marriage, but you can’t accuse any individual republican posting here of opposing gay marriage just because they are a republican. They may personally disagree with the larger movement on that particular issue.

    However the rule in the OP is very different. It implies that you cannot say anything at all about any movement, only about individuals within that movement (who then of course can be distanced from by other members without any affect on the reputation of the movement whatsoever, no matter how influential they are). Sorry but that’s not how the real world works; movements and groups are judged by the actions of their most influential members. To be prevented from criticising the general ‘direction’ and trends of such movements will probably stymie any discussion here for me, as I don’t particularly care about someone’s personal opinion on whatever we are discussing if they are also willingly part of a movement that is generally doing the opposite of what they claim to believe. Not being able to talk about the wider movement would make any participation here a bit pointless. For example, in the DV thread I find it ridiculous that under this rule we would’ve been unable to talk about the general impact that feminism has played in preventing the acknowledgement of male victims.

  20. Adiabat says

    hoary puccoon: The Church of England has a voluntary membership, so unless you identify as CofE I don’t see how your argument applies. Otherwise all Muslims and Sikh’s in the UK would be Christians as well. So no, not applicable at all.

    Any accusation you make to someone who lives in the UK based on your fallacious association of them with CofE is easily solved by them replying that they are not CofE.

    Now look at someone who expresses a feminist position (or an MRA position) and gets blamed for something completely different somebody else who claimed to be a feminist (or MRA) said. They have no control at all over what that other person said. They can’t kick the other person out of their organization, because there’s no formal organization of which they are both members. They don’t even have the drastic legal option of emigrating. They are simply being hammered for an opinion they don’t hold, with no recourse at all, except to reiterate that they don’t hold the position they’re accused of holding. Which their accuser then insists they do “really” hold….

    You (general you) can try to kick them out: when they say or do something you disagree with tell them. Tell everyone else as well. When one of their idiotic ‘feminist’ campaigns gets into the press release your own statements disavowing any part of it, declare it ‘not feminist’ or ‘not furthering equal rights for women’ and generally try to stop them. Or you could do fuck all, as usual, but that approach doesn’t seem to be working out very well for the “reasonable” feminists is it? You can’t blame everyone else for judging feminism by what prominent feminists say and do, as they do with every other group.

    Or you could distance yourself from them by stop identifying with them. That’s the simplest option people have to prevent them being associated with people they are willingly associating themselves with by identifying with them.

  21. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @N4M #16

    I think if you try and characterise the nature of a political movement in one way or another, it’s almost bound
    to be an assertion which is generalist/generalised on some level. Say, for instance, ‘the Republican party is highly traditionalist in its outlook.’ Or say, ‘in my view, Republicans do not pay sufficient attention to the needs of ethnic minorities’. In a democratic society, these are notions which may thankfully be put forward and debated

    I think you could say those things as long as you back them up, and as long as you acknowledge the difference between an organisation and individuals who support that organisation. For example, “the Republican party is highly traditionalist in its outlook” is an assertion about the driving philosophy of a coherent political organisation (not a movement, an organisation) which can be proven. “Republicans do not pay sufficient attention to the needs of ethnic minorities”, on the other hand, is a subjective statement which casts aspersions upon all the myriad individual people that support th Republican party, and since it is impossible to prove that every individual member of the party ” [does] not pay sufficient attention to the needs of ethnic minorities”, that would be a sweeping and unfair statement. If you were to say “The Republican party does not pay sufficient attention to the needs of ethnic minorities”, that would still be a subjective statement but one which I think is fair since it does not cast aspersions on individuals based on nothing more than party affiliation. I would think the same principal would apply here in regards to feminist/MRA loyalty; though it’s slightly more complicated because it has to be acknowledged that these are not coherent political organisations but splintered political movements.

  22. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    Hmm, actually, regarding the second statement; since it is an opinion (“does not pay sufficient attention”), I would think it is fair providing you make clear it is merely your opinion and do not cast it as fact. However, I’m sure you get my drift :) distinguish between organisations/movements and their members/supporters etc.

  23. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Adiabat #20

    So your solution is to indulge in the “No True Scotsman” fallacy? Great, problem solved then. We’ll get right on that.

  24. hoary puccoon says

    Adiabat @ 20–

    But the thing is, I can’t “kick them out.”

    I’m not a member of any feminist group. I can’t remember any time in the last ten years when I described myself as a feminist. (When I did describe myself that way, I was working on a specific issue that’s since been settled.

    I have no role in the media, and no way of influencing whom they decide to declare a “prominent” feminist. I know for a fact that some of the “prominent” feminists the media have hauled out as examples were cordially loathed by women’s groups working on concrete issues. They might have been prominent in the eyes of the media, but they were doing less than nothing to further any concrete efforts.

    If I make a point either accept it because you think it’s right or argue with it because you think it’s wrong. But don’t change the subject to what somebody else said on a completely different topic. And especially, don’t keep hammering me with what the other person said after I’ve said I’m in complete disagreement with it.

    As far as I can see, what you and N4M are advocating is the precise equivalent of Christian apologists hammering every atheist for Stalin’s atrocities, because Stalin called himself an atheist, too. As I’m sure you know, that argument is not much respected around here.

  25. summerblues says

    Isn’t what Ally is trying to say “don’t go after the person, go after the argument/opinion/claim”? I believe that I have grudgingly admitted that it was MRA’s hateful attacks against women that brought men’s issues to my attention and which forced me to think and realize that I am looking at men’s issues through a woman’s viewpoint. Those that argue MRA viewpoints may not agree with everything MRA’s stand for. Same thing with Christians: they are not all the Westboro Baptist Church.

    Not sure what I’m trying to get at.

  26. Adiabat says

    Thumper (23): A Scotsman trying to stop another Scotsman to stop lifting his kilt up because it’s giving people a bad idea of what Scotsmen are like is not engaging in the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It’s trying to get Scotsman to set a new standard of what it means to be a Scot. Can you see the difference between this and the logical fallacy or do I need to explain it further?

    I find it… interesting that you accept bigots and people who are working against equality as feminists.

    hoary puccoon (24): But the thing is, I can’t “kick them out.”

    I’m not a member of any feminist group. I can’t remember any time in the last ten years when I described myself as a feminist.

    And if you re-read my post you’ll see I specifically pointed out that I was using a ‘general you’, meaning that the argument applies to any “reasonable” feminist who is annoyed about being linked to the people they are willingly linking themselves to by identifying with them. I wasn’t specifically telling you to do it unless you are in that category.

    I also said try, as in just do something about it rather than moan about how unfair it is that people judge you by the company you keep. Even a ‘letter to the editor’ after an article about some crazy feminists campaigning is something.

    As far as I can see, what you and N4M are advocating is the precise equivalent of Christian apologists hammering every atheist for Stalin’s atrocities, because Stalin called himself an atheist, too.

    Except that atheists can say that Stalin didn’t do what he did in the name of atheism. They can say that there is no “atheist theory” or body of work which Stalin used to justify what he did. “Reasonable” feminists don’t get to use such argument to disassociate themselves with the “radicals”.

    Look, at the end of the day this just isn’t my, or anyone else’s, problem. It’s the ‘reasonable’ feminists’ problem. I and most other people are going to keep judging feminism by what we see prominent feminists say and do. If any feminist has a problem with that then they need to get their own house in order.

    I’ll support any feminist who has a genuinely equality-centred view, and practice, of feminism. But this includes not engaging in feminist-apology: which includes not calling out the bigots, making excuses for them, NAFALTing, and constantly telling me every reason that we shouldn’t blame them for the actions of the people wearing the same uniform, while refusing to do the one sensible thing and try and get rid of said radicals!

    How on earth can you expect other people to work with you on the equality of an entire society when you won’t even work with us on a little housekeeping?

  27. Adiabat says

    Missed a blockquote right after “hoary puccoon (24): ”

    that and the next line are quotes.

  28. Adiabat says

    Summerblues (25): I think you explained it well enough.

    And I agree: if we were talking about an unrelated subject then there’s no point bringing in whether someone’s a feminist/MRA. And I agree that being one of these doesn’t automatically prescribe an individual having a particular view. But the rule as described in the OP implies that we can’t bring up the general impact of a group even when it is relevant; such as Feminism’s role in DV “research” for the past 30 years. In this case it really doesn’t matter what any particular feminists personal view is on DV. What matters is the overall impact of the group on the topic at hand. Someone’s individual view has no impact on the role of feminism in this case.

    Am I making any sense at all? :)

    I’ll try and explain it better if not.

  29. Gjenganger says

    @Adiabat.
    I dont think we should get our knickers in a twist on this one. There has been a lot of tribal warfare on this blog; there has also been a lot of arguing against some generic feminist or MRA position while pretty much ignoring what the person on the other side actually said. Cutting down on those problems would be a good thing. As for potential side effects, this is being enforced by Ally, and he is reasonable to a fault. I suspect we can trust him to enforce his rules in a way that promotes rather than stifles debate

  30. summerblues says

    Adiabat (28)

    You’re making sense. The only part I disagree with you on is the personal opinion. Legally I can do nothing. But I can type and talk. I can link over information. I’m not the only one who learns through the comments from others. Facts can only be denied for a small amount of time before the denier starts to look silly.

  31. hoary puccoon says

    Adiabat–

    You have absolutely no idea what someone who posts from a feminist perspective under a ‘nym on this blog may be doing or not doing in other venues to counter so-called feminists who are just using the term as an excuse to vent their anger at men. Demanding that posters here show what they are doing is going to force them to reveal personal information that could compromise their anonymity. So basically, what you’re demanding is that anyone who posts from a feminist perspective has to dox him/her self. That has become a foolhardy thing to do on social media, given the increasingly frequent rape and death threats toward anyone who posts from even the mildest feminist perspective.

    I can’t help noticing that you consider yourself entitled to demand that feminists clean up their act, but you haven’t mentioned a thing about what you’re doing to clean up the rape and death threats.

  32. Schala says

    I can’t help noticing that you consider yourself entitled to demand that feminists clean up their act, but you haven’t mentioned a thing about what you’re doing to clean up the rape and death threats.

    Today I learned that Adiabat controls 4chan.

  33. summerblues says

    “I can’t help noticing that you consider yourself entitled to demand that feminists clean up their act, but you haven’t mentioned a thing about what you’re doing to clean up the rape and death threats.”

    “Owning the crappy things our gender does” seems to be a problem across the board.

  34. Gjenganger says

    @sumerblues 36
    Why expect that I should own rape in wartime Congo, denying women freedom in Saudi Arabia, or the rape and pillaging of the VIkings? If people can accept and deal in reality and own up to the consequences of their own opinions, that should surely be enough. It would certainly be an improvement.

  35. Adiabat says

    hoary puccoon (34):

    I can’t help noticing that you consider yourself entitled to demand that feminists clean up their act

    I’m not demanding anything, I’m saying that the problem of being associated with people you (general ‘you’ again) don’t agree with yet willingly identify with is your problem. If you want to fix that then it is up to you to do something about the impression people get about feminism and feminists by observing what prominent feminists say and do, for example when the latest mental ‘feminist campaign’ gets in the news, or a crackpot “women’s studies professor” says something ridiculous. I don’t give a damn whether you’re (general ‘you’ remember) willing to do this, I’m happy to keep judging feminism for the shitty things done under it’s banner, so I’m definitely not “demanding” anything. What you can’t do though is moan about “how unfair it is”.

    but you haven’t mentioned a thing about what you’re doing to clean up the rape and death threats.

    I have no idea how that follows from what I’m saying. I’m not part of a voluntarily joined group that does this, so I’m not moaning about being associated with such behaviour. Unless you’re referring to the fact that I’m a man and other men do these things, but saying that I’m responsible for the behaviour of others in my birth-group would make you a sexist and a bigot, so that can’t be it (surely?). There’s a reason why I’ve specified voluntary identities in all my posts above.

    You have absolutely no idea what someone who posts from a feminist perspective under a ‘nym on this blog may be doing or not doing in other venues to counter so-called feminists who are just using the term as an excuse to vent their anger at men.

    You don’t seem to get it, I don’t need individuals on here to “dox” themselves and prove to me how egalitarian they are. My argument is that if enough reasonable feminists do the work you claim they are doing then maybe, maybe, peoples view of the movement will change from the current one that they have obtained from observing the things they’ve seen feminists do. But it has to be visible; you can’t argue out of public view on your websites that only feminists visit but leave them unchallenged when news of their campaigns hits mainstream media (or in some cases government policy). And that’s the problem: where are all the “reasonable feminist” organisations releasing statements and generally opposing the campaigns of the “radical” feminists? Which leads me to:

    Summerblues (33):

    Legally I can do nothing. But I can type and talk. I can link over information. I’m not the only one who learns through the comments from others. Facts can only be denied for a small amount of time before the denier starts to look silly.

    I understand you feel powerless to stop the highly organised and influential organisations that the “radicals” have managed to set up, you being just one person. I see a lot of similar replies to the argument I have made from the minority of egalitarian feminists who adopt the identity. But what do you think I, and others, hear when you make such arguments: all they do is confirm to us that there is a problem with feminism; that the radicals who get their views publicised and enable change are the ones running the show; that the reasonable feminists just don’t matter when forming a view of feminism. Why should I care about what the reasonable feminists say, or factor their views into my general impression of feminism, when they can’t even get organised enough to release a damn statement?

  36. summerblues says

    Adiabat, I am not convinced that feminism has a problem. Since I didn’t specify any group in my comment, you added feminism in on your own. I don’t feel all that helpless so much anymore either.

    Are MRA’s a valid representation of all men in all countries? Should I judge all men by the MRA’s actions and words? Should I dismiss all “reasonable” (per my definition) men’s opinions simply because of MRA’s?

    It sounds like what you want is for folks to condemn all people associated with a particular movement/organization/group/etc. That’s unfair as each of those folks is an individual, a person. “Sheep” follow and believe everything the leaders say. Most folks have thoughts and their own thoughts and opinions don’t always agree with the leaders.

  37. Schala says

    Are MRA’s a valid representation of all men in all countries? Should I judge all men by the MRA’s actions and words? Should I dismiss all “reasonable” (per my definition) men’s opinions simply because of MRA’s?

    You got it backwards.

    Men = unvoluntary accident of birth.
    MRA = voluntary association, willful

    Judge MRAs by what other prominent MRAs do, leave the men out of this. Same for feminism.

    Most folks have thoughts and their own thoughts and opinions don’t always agree with the leaders.

    So if your general and other high officers knowingly poison the water of the enemy army, and you learn of this, will you keep standing behind that army? Because this is what you’re doing. By keeping the name feminism and not denouncing the radicals, you implicitly support stuff like this:

    http://www.theduluthmodel.org/

    Which defines DV like so:

    Believes that battering is a pattern of actions used to intentionally control or dominate an intimate partner and actively works to change societal conditions that support men’s use of tactics of power and control over women.

    It’s radical feminist, it’s 35 years old. But guess what, its still supported by feminism, including 3rd wave orgs.

  38. summerblues says

    I’ll try to explain my dilemma.

    I can make the claim that women don’t rape. Many factual examples will be brought in to show that I am wrong. Throwing my hands up and taking steps backward saying “It wasn’t me! I don’t rape! I don’t support rape!” doesn’t feel right. To me, that’s not “owning it”. So now what? “Well, some women rape, sure” Seems like dismissive hand waving to me. That’s not right either. No, I don’t rape but somehow I have to acknowledge this fact.

    I’m not sure what I’m asking for from either myself or others. Yes, each person owning up to the consequences of their own actions would be good. It just doesn’t seem like it’s enough. And, no, it’s not that I’m looking to punish.

  39. Schala says

    @42

    Identify as feminist without repudiating all DV shelters and government policies that have been influenced by feminist advocacy to adopt the Duluth Model, and you implicitly support it by omission.

    If you identify as a right-wing republican, I’ll think you’re for low taxes, low government, against abortion, and against same-sex marriage, unless you clarify that you consider people who advocate for it to not be republican, and possibly take action against them. Last recourse is to simply drop the label and present your ideas on their own. Like I did.

  40. says

    @Schala: I’m not sure it’s fair to say that, for one, as many self-identified feminists don’t have domestic violence as their pet issue and it’s unfair to expect them to know all about it. Also, I think your criticism is off base. The Duluth model is a treatment method designed for situations where a man is abusing a woman, but as far as I can tell, it doesn’t involve any claims that this is the only kind of abuse that occurs.

    The analogy to the Republicans doesn’t work, because there are no Feminist caucuses where we elect the feminist leadership for the next four years, but I don’t think even that example works. Plenty of Republicans don’t support everything on your list. If someone supports a candidate who supports those things, it’s certainly OK to challenge them as to why they support that candidate, but you seems to be saying that any Republican who doesn’t claim that no true Republican opposes same sex-marriage opposes same-sex marriage. That makes no sense.

    You seem to be operating on the assumption that for a group ID to be legit, there has to be a single identifying ideology. Obviously, there has to be some commonality for there to be an ID at all, but what’s so wrong with saying that “some feminists say X, but they are wrong” or “some feminists say X, but I don’t know enough to comment on the issue” instead of “anyone who says X is not a feminist”?

  41. summerblues says

    I’m not going to speak against all DV shelters simply because of one model. That’s absurd.

  42. carnation says

    @ Schala 40

    You say “Judge MRAs by what other prominent MRAs do, leave the men out of this. Same for feminism”

    Interesting, unfortunately, you hypocritically don’t hold yourself to the same standards.

    On the one hand, you espouse, support and frequently defend the most egregious MRA theories and proclaim your support for the “MHRM” yet simultaneously object to being described as an MRA.

    So I ask again: how can someone who supports the “MHRM” NOT be an MRA?

    What, for example, in terms of theories supported and general praxis, is the difference between you and Paul Elam? You don’t have your own blog, but that’s the only difference that I can see.

    Schala, this isn’t going away. You can’t hold two contradictory viewpoints at the same time and expect to get a free ride, or to be taken seriously.

  43. carnation says

    @ AceOfSeven @ SummerBlues

    The MRA obsession with DV shelters is telling. Instead of lobbying for a study into the type of provision best suited to male victims of DV, along with prevention and consciousness raising, MRAs like Schala prefer to loudly, frequently and pointlessly complain about what individual feminists and feminist organisations have done to provide for women.

    It is a question of activism. The average volunteer at Women’s Aid doesn’t give her time out of a deep commitment to the Duluth model but due to a sense of empathy and a desire to help other women.

    MRAs loathe women/feminism more than they care about vulnerable men. And, of course, it’s far easier to b an “activist” when that activism consists of writing comments in blogs and newspaper articles. Most often pointless, and certainly doesn’t help vulnerable men, but provides, arguably, instant gratification forth pseudo “activist”.

    Until MRAs are willing, in sufficient numbers and with adequate organisation, to engage with statutory agencies in a mature and relevant way, they will remain on the sidelines, ignored by the overwhelming majority of people.

    Despite the volume of their words online, MRAs don’t really exist as a “real life” movement. This, and the bitter misogyny prevalent in the theories, is why I am implacably opposed to MRAs, whilst remaining a committed advocate for vulnerable men.

  44. hoary puccoon says

    Gjenganger @ 37–

    Given my known heritage (English and French) and my coloring (blond and blue eyed) there’s a good chance I wouldn’t be here were it not for the rape and pillage of Vikings.

    I’ll make a deal– I won’t blame you for the rapes in wartime Congo and the subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia if you don’t blame me for every badly written, execrably researched article coming out of the women’s studies programs of every Podunk university in the Western world. I can agree that a lot of those papers are awful. I’ll bet I can even point out ways that they are awful that you hadn’t thought of. But when I have to go through some proof of purity before I can even the most minor point on this blog, the conversation can’t go beyond that. Because, I can tell you, the supply of stupid things said and done by people who claimed to be representing “women’s liberation” is not a diminishing resource.

  45. summerblues says

    carnation @ 47,

    The MRA’s are becoming more well known. They may not be an activist group but their talking points are getting more air time.

    This focus on what women are getting and not on opening shelters for men is baffling. I got into a back & forth conversation with an MRA regarding the police intervening in DV situations. This MRA saw the police as a bigger weapon than men, therefore the police needed to be removed from the situation. At least that was my take on his comments. He didn’t outright say that. I don’t think I ever got him to clarify any better. I just kept telliing him that it sounded to me like he wanted the police out of his way so he had better access to his target. (not him personally) He just kept calling the police a bigger weapon than men.

  46. Ally Fogg says

    Hi everyone,

    Back in civilisation. Will read through and respond to some points when I have the energy! Thanks all.

  47. carnation says

    @ 47

    MRA theory isn’t based on what men need, it’s based on what they perceive women have (usually they’re laughably deluded about this). This means that MRAs aren’t required to actually help men, just gripe about injustices, most often perceived, sometimes real.

  48. Schala says

    MRA theory isn’t based on what men need, it’s based on what they perceive women have (usually they’re laughably deluded about this).

    Projection much?

    Feminist theory isn’t based on what women need, it’s based on what they perceive men have (usually they’re laughably deluded about this).

    See, it actually FITS BETTER, even.

  49. says

    @Schala: You seem to be responding as if feminism and MRA movements are theoretical things. They are actual things with actual participants and dealing with an actual cultural context, so you can’t just reverse the genders and come up with an equivalent statement. Carnation was talking about how when it comes to DV, a lot more energy seems to be spent complaining about shelters that only serve women than trying to develop resources for men.

    I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to read malice into this. It’s always easier to complain about problems than address them and it definitely isn’t fair to project that attitude onto people who haven’t said anything along those lines, but it is a real tendency.

  50. summerblues says

    Schala @ 50,

    The MRA’s that I’ve encountered seem more interested in taking away from women what the MRA’s think are “goodies” or “hey! they are getting special treatment!” They don’t seem at all interested in getting these goodies or special treatments for men, they just want to take them away and “put women back in their place”.

    You do realize that no man ever got himself into trouble by bringing his woman a sammich, right?

  51. Schala says

    Carnation was talking about how when it comes to DV, a lot more energy seems to be spent complaining about shelters that only serve women than trying to develop resources for men.

    The money should be unisex right now. The shelters should be forced to provide resources for men right now. They are GOVERNMENT FINANCED for the most. The government should FIX the issue, not think that half the problem is enough, the other can go fuck themselves. They don’t do this for homeless women and suicidal women, why would they do this for male DV victims and male rape victims? Because feminism says so?

    The MRA’s that I’ve encountered seem more interested in taking away from women what the MRA’s think are “goodies” or “hey! they are getting special treatment!” They don’t seem at all interested in getting these goodies or special treatments for men, they just want to take them away and “put women back in their place”.

    You think it’s evil to want everyone to be on a equal footing? If someone has an unfair advantage, you give it to everyone, or you remove it. Or its not equality. Whichever is done matters little, as long as it betters the life of people and is fair. I do think that DV shelters should be for all, or for no one. And NOT have “this money is for women, bring up your own” stupidity. This is NOT equality, this is “white first, black second, if at all”, this is entitlement, this is privilege.

    It is a question of activism. The average volunteer at Women’s Aid doesn’t give her time out of a deep commitment to the Duluth model but due to a sense of empathy and a desire to help other women.

    Too fucking bad, the people who developed the Duluth Model have managed to convince every damn government who tackles DV that ALL DV is the male perp, female victim model. With a token minority of male victims, of mostly male batterers. Because they say it’s male dominance and patriarchy that causes it.

    Not just PLAIN dominance, desired to control, helplessness, mental issues, complicated by drug and addiction issues? No, that would be too much common sense.

    Let’s invent a theory that men are out to get us and are evil. And we can convince governments, and then people who work for shelters can say “But I didn’t do it for the model” and be ignored, because we have the power to change the government and they give us legitimacy by passing us off for moderates while we’re radicals. They have none.

    We direct Vancouver Rape Relief, they at best work for us, or most likely just identify with us and are a target for elected people to pander to. We tell the politicians “women want this”, which are radical ideas. We say its feminist ideas. And magic – feminists generally support the idea (see Finally Feminism 101). We can even pass 2nd wave misandrist arguments as if they were 3rd wave egalitarian ones, because critical thinking is fucking dead.

  52. says

    They don’t seem at all interested in getting these goodies or special treatments for men, they just want to take them away and “put women back in their place”.

    It seems to me that most MRA’s on the internet identify as anti traditionalist – they don’t want women back in their place as far as I can tell. Many talking points focus on things like male suicide or male genital mutilation- things that are relatively unrelated to woman’s issues. While there is certainly a combative anit feminist streak there are a lot more concerns than just that. For the record, I don’t identify with the MRM and think some of their concerns and initiatives are highly problematic. On the other hand I rather recently stopped calling myself a feminist as well, for the same reason. I rather do not want to get mixed i with either of these parties.

  53. carnation says

    @ Schala 50

    Hi Schala, how can you describe yourself as a supporter of the Paul Elam led “MHRM” yet claim you aren’t and MRA?

    You gave no examples in post #50, suffice to say your logic is laughable. The DV idiocy is one such example.

  54. Schala says

    I don’t reply to trolls except when I deem they have arguments. Trying to prod me with leading questions will only waste your time. Not mine.

  55. carnation says

    Schala,

    You must realise how ridiculous you sound calling people evil, seeing feminist conspiracies everywhere, ignoring the points made and pushing your own MRA agenda.

    There isn’t a credible study anywhere that shows a need for DV shelters for men. Not one. Further more, as far as I can see, no MRAs are calling for a study into whether they are needed or not. Until there’s proven need for provision, there will be no provision.

    You are, like most MRAs I notice, obsessed with any money being spent on women, or any “rights” being granted to them, being similarly given to men, regardless of need, practicality or, indeed, common sense.

    This proves instantly and obviously my earlier point: MRA theory isn’t based on what men need, it’s based on what they perceive women have (usually they’re laughably deluded about this).

  56. carnation says

    Has Sid come back disguised as Schala?

    You’re laughable Schala, I’m a troll?

    You’re a non MRA supporter of the MHRM who espouses and supports MRA theory, swears, copy and pastes endless paragraphs on this and any blog, and it’s all standard MRA, anti feminist bleurgh.

  57. Schala says

    There isn’t a credible study anywhere that shows a need for DV shelters for men.

    You see, Ally, this is what trolls think of male DV victims – non-existent.

    Or apparently having extremely different needs “Just Because We Said So”. She says there has been no study on it. Because DV studies that find male victims is not actually enough. They also need to have the exact same point of view as female victims, of being deemed afraid of reoffense or destitute financially (note that not all female victims are in this position, and it NEVER changed the offer of shelters that it wasn’t universal, so it’s a bunk argument).

    You are, like most MRAs I notice, obsessed with any money being spent on women, or any “rights” being granted to them, being similarly given to men, regardless of need, practicality or, indeed, common sense.

    Common sense says you make a service for everyone and serve people based on need. Not that you make a service for half of victims, say the other half can go fuck themselves, and consider the issue fixed.

  58. carnation says

    Schala 60

    Whilst I accept,logic, intellect and nuance aren’t skills you posses, even for,you, th following statement is ridiculously stupid:

    “You see, Ally, this is what trolls think of male DV victims – non-existent.”

    It’s obvious that’s not what I wrote and even more obvious it’s not what I meant,

    Men definitely DO need DV provision. However, just as boys and mem sexually abused by men need specialist provision, male victims of DV require specific provision too. And, of course, the feelings of shame that affect male victims of DV need reduced, another area that requires,funding.

    Can you allow yourself to stagger out of the immature, puerile MRA ghetto that your mind lives in and understand that specific scenarios require thinking that goes beyond an inane chant of “women have that, men should so!!”.

    Your theorising is the dictionary definition of pathetic.

    Your next statement is woeful, you go to piece when robustly challenged, it’s actually quite amusing.

    Ok, let’s deal with it, it won’t be hard:

    “Common sense says you make a service for everyone and serve people based on need. Not that you make a service for half of victims, say the other half can go fuck themselves, and consider the issue fixed.”

    OK, so let’s, again, take victims of child sexual abuse….

    Same provision across the board? Or specific to general, identified need?

    What about adult, male victims of sexual abuse? Should a man raped in prison receive the same provision as a man enveloped by a woman when unable to consent?

    Your argument, like most MRA arguments, falls apart when exposed to reality.

    Schala, up your game, you’ve become a joke. At one time I thought you were someone who could be reasoned with.

  59. Schala says

    You missed this bit of my post:

    Or apparently having extremely different needs “Just Because We Said So”.

    Let’s provide zero services, in the off-chance men need different services. Because zero is better than some.

  60. carnation says

    @ Schala 62

    When you get this excited, along with a detour into foul language, you start inventing things that people have said.

    You’re lying. In comment after comment, I state services *are* required for men and boys.

    The point I’m making is that MRAs, like you, do nothing about it, other than write comments on blogs blaming women/feminists.

    It’s truly pathetic. You are not an advocate for men, you are an advocate *against* your deluded version of feminism.

  61. summerblues says

    sheaf @ 54,

    Some individual MRA’s seem to want the traditional roles back, some want nothing to do with it; My thought is that they are each searching for what it is that they do want. They just don’t know right now.

    I haven’t encountered very many that want studies on suicide unfortunately. Wish I would. I’m just coming across a lot of anger, bitterness and downright hatred targeted at feminists but hitting women. The impression that I get is that they want women to step behind them instead of men stepping forward (DV shelters, money going toward specific cancers that affect men, etc)

    Feminism is just an easy target and the target isn’t complete, IMO. I find it curious that some of the negative things told to MRA’s (thus, men) were also told to me, a woman. I am not schooled in feminism.

  62. Paul says

    @49 Carnation

    MRA theory isn’t based on what men need, it’s based on what they perceive women have (usually they’re laughably deluded about this). This means that MRAs aren’t required to actually help men, just gripe about injustices, most often perceived, sometimes real.

    You making one helluva generalisation there.And your above quote is every bit as daft as those who make similar generalisations about feminist theory.You can’t treat MRA’s as a homogenous group just like you can’t treat feminists as a homogenous group.

  63. carnation says

    @ Paul 66

    “You can’t treat MRAs as a homogenous group”.

    OK, I’ll tell you what. I’ll reclassify. When I say “MRA” I am referring to supporters of the theories and thoughts of the Spearhead, AVFM, MGTOW Forums and F4J.

    Schala is a supporter of the “MHRM”, a term first mooted on AVFM. From the “editors” on down, of that and other blogs, the theories are the same. Women have DV shelters, men “need” them too (no evidence to support this). Women have reproductive rights, let’s invent some for men (this ridiculousness is dealt with in another thread). Feminism controls the Govt and treats men as ATM machines (enough said…). And finally the subject Rea we came to have harsh words about: men are treated unfairly on a huge scale in the family courts (no evidence, as confirmed by a former F4J “Research Director” – he also debunked some F4J stats and confirmed that carrying out the necessary research was beyond the capabilities of mot MRAs).

    From the leadership down, the MRM as it stands isn’t fit for purpose. It’s puerile obsession with feminism, it’s lack of intellectual,integrity and its continuing scapegoating of women in a lowest common denominator fashion mean it is spectacularly incapable of engaging in real world activism or lobbying.

  64. carnation says

    @ Schala,

    You are a liar. You allege I have said things that I obviously didn’t say.

    Not only are you a liar, you’re also an intellectual coward, you avoid direct questions and hurl insults like “troll” to deflect from the obvious humiliation being heaped upon you by your actions. You ignore rebuttals and then state and restate more MRA theories,

    TL/DR: you’re a more articulate Sid. Same beliefs, same avoidance/accusation strategies, same sources, same allegiances.

    You must be proud.

  65. Adiabat says

    Sorry for long post, responding to several people at once.

    Summerblues (37): Why on Earth are suddenly conflating MRA’s with men? That’s as nonsensical as conflating women and feminism. I honestly have no idea where you just pulled that out of, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation or anything I said. Why would you dismiss men’s opinions because of the MRM, or women’s opinions because of feminism? They don’t equal one another.

    Do you equate women with feminism and is that the source of your confusion? If so you shouldn’t, as they are different. Most women distance themselves from identifying with feminism, mostly due to the dynamic I’m describing above; it’s why many of the say “I believe in equality, but I’m not a feminist”. They see the things that prominent feminists say and do and distance themselves from it.

    It sounds like what you want is for folks to condemn all people associated with a particular movement/organization/group/etc. That’s unfair as each of those folks is an individual, a person

    They are willingly associating themselves with that group, and we judge people by who they associate with. This is normal, this is how the world works and I don’t see why I’m suddenly getting such push back just because I’ve pointed out that this also applies to people who call themselves feminist? Would you also fail to condemn someone who willingly calls themselves a fascist? Would you insist that you can’t condemn fascism because there may be a few who don’t agree with the worst aspects of it?

    I really don’t understand this pushback for what is a normal fact of societal interaction.

    Summerblues (39): I may be misunderstanding you but you seem to be claiming that all men should “own rape” because there are some men who rape. Do you realise that you are being sexist and bigoted in saying that people are responsible for the actions of others just because they share a birth group?

    If you continue with this bigotry I don’t know if I can keep discussing anything with you.

    Ace of Sevens (42):

    I’m not sure it’s fair to say that, for one, as many self-identified feminists don’t have domestic violence as their pet issue and it’s unfair to expect them to know all about it.

    It is fair to expect people have knowledge about the group they are willingly identifying with. Especially something that has been at the forefront of feminist advocacy, and especially on a topic where that group has done so much harm. If they don’t then it is their responsibility to “go and educate themselves about feminism”.

    At the very least I’d expect them to stop identifying with the group when such things are pointed out to them.

    You seem to be operating on the assumption that for a group ID to be legit, there has to be a single identifying ideology.

    No, you’ve got it wrong. As I keep saying you can call yourself whatever you want, there can be many different views under that same identity, but people are going to judge that identity by what they see people with that identity say and do. They are going to give more weight when forming an view of that identity to people and groups who seem most prominent and influential.

    This is normal. It’s what people do with every group, identity and organization. This is what _you_ do. But for some reason you all want to make an exception for feminism.

    Obviously, there has to be some commonality for there to be an ID at all, but what’s so wrong with saying that “some feminists say X, but they are wrong” or “some feminists say X, but I don’t know enough to comment on the issue” instead of “anyone who says X is not a feminist”?

    Knock yourself out, but people are still going to judge feminism by what they see prominent feminists say and do. If your criticisms aren’t as visible as the actions as those you are criticising then you’ll make little difference to people’s view of feminism.

  66. Adiabat says

    Carnation (68): No offense carnation but your questions are rather ridiculous; I can’t blame Schala for thinking you aren’t arguing in good faith.

    Surely you realise that you can agree with arguments that a group puts forward without being a member of said group? For example I agree with some Labour policies, some Conservative policies and some Lib Dem policies. And, believe it or not, I am not simultaneously a member of all parties!

    This is so obvious that the fact that you would ask the question can only be the result of two possibilities: Either stupidity or bad faith so, as you can see, Schala is actually taking the kindest option by calling you a troll!

  67. summerblues says

    I’m not sure what I expected when I started commenting here but it is interesting that I’m talking mostly to the ones with the MRA arguments. I guess I had figured that the middle grounders would be the ones chastising me for bringing too much “woman” into this blog…that’s about men.

    Adiabat, take a look at my comment #39 and get back to me if you have any further questions. You and Schala both are making assumptions about me based on your biases. You are only reading into it what you want to read.

  68. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @Adiabat

    Apologies for the long delay in reply.

    Thumper (23): A Scotsman trying to stop another Scotsman to stop lifting his kilt up because it’s giving people a bad idea of what Scotsmen are like is not engaging in the No True Scotsman Fallacy. It’s trying to get Scotsman to set a new standard of what it means to be a Scot. Can you see the difference between this and the logical fallacy or do I need to explain it further?

    I find it… interesting that you accept bigots and people who are working against equality as feminists.

    It is the second point that is the No true Scotsman. Your first point is entirely reasonable, and indeed I do call people out for bad behaviour whether they are feminist or not. But I can’t simply declare them to be “not a feminist” because they have indulged in bad behaviour. All I can do is call it out when I see it, and I do.

  69. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @carnation

    Women have DV shelters, men “need” them too (no evidence to support this).

    In fairness, I’d have thought that was fairly obvious. Your other points I support, but I see no reason male-only DV shelters shouldn’t exist if female-only ones do. The logic behind them is presumably that female victims of DV face issues male victims do not. The reverse is surely true too, so either both genders should have access to shelters catering to gender-specific issues, or all shelters should be unisex. I would prefer a mix of all three.

  70. Adiabat says

    Summerblues (71): I am open to the idea that I’ve misread you. I did admit the possibility in my last post to you. But I read #39 with your post #34 still in my mind which says ““Owning the crappy things our gender does” seems to be a problem across the board.” I don’t see what anyone has to “own” just because others of their birth group does something. You don’t need to “own” the fact that some women rape, nor do men have to “own” the fact that some men rape. I’d go as far as to say that claiming that they do counts as sexist.

    But maybe I’m misreading you still. There have been occasions in this thread where I have been misread, perhaps my post wasn’t clear or maybe I’ve not been explaining myself well enough. What I’ve done is tried to explain it in another way, in as simple terms as possible. Since I’m getting nothing new after re-reading post 39 several times perhaps you could try and explain to me exactly what you mean?

    Also, I really don’t know if my argument is “an MRA argument”, inasmuch as it’s a pretty standard argument against the claim that we should treat feminism, and feminists, differently to how we treat every other group. I’ve never seen an MRA make that argument, but I don’t read many MRA’s. What about that argument makes it “an MRA argument”? Also, does the fact that MRA’s make the same argument mean that it isn’t valid, or deserving of a rebuttal?

  71. Adiabat says

    Thumper (72): No worries about the delay. No-one’s under any obligation to reply in a certain time-frame (which is good because I’m often the worst at replying quickly.)

    It is the second point that is the No true Scotsman. Your first point is entirely reasonable, and indeed I do call people out for bad behaviour whether they are feminist or not. But I can’t simply declare them to be “not a feminist” because they have indulged in bad behaviour. All I can do is call it out when I see it, and I do.

    I believe that I’ve read in another thread that, to you, feminism is simply the belief in equality between the genders. (I disagree with that definition but let’s assume it for now because we’re talking about your reaction to ‘feminists’ you disagree with.)

    If you believe that a feminist is someone who simply believes in equality, then surely if you are presented with someone who says and does things that work against equality you are able to say that they are not a feminist?

  72. Adiabat says

    carnation, do you know about the Dyn Project Helpline? They provide support to men fleeing violence by their intimate partners. Nolan, J (2011) quotes one of their support workers thusly:

    So, at the moment I’m trying to help a man to access refuge accommodation in another part of Wales. His ex-partner has made allegations that he abused her, as a result of which his local police force have labelled him as a ‘grave and serious risk’ and in consequence he can’t be allocated refuge space anywhere. We know that his partner has made these allegations because she’s trying to find out where he’s hiding at the moment; she hopes that if he appears in court she can discover his address and carry out her threat to have him beaten up really severely.

    There’s already evidence that men need refuges. Arguing about “different needs” is a common diversionary tactic that those providing services to men know all too well. From Dempsey (2013):

    Yet, in the face of substantial evidence of violence against men in mixed-sex relationships the response of many feminist academics has not only been to ignore the needs of men and their children but to seek to explain the abuse that heterosexual men… experience as fundamentally different to heterosexual women’s experience of abuse

    Dempsey, B (2013) Men’s experience of domestic abuse in Scotland (University of Dundee)

    Nolan, J (2011) An evaluation of the Dyn Project’s Advocacy and Support Service: Final evaluation report (University of Glamorgan: Pontypridd)

  73. carnation says

    @ Adibat 70

    Oh dear… Is it back to school day at Hetpat?

    Supporters and participants in MRA blogs are known as MRAs. Add an “H” for Elam’s “second wave” (lol).

    I asked Schala to explain how a supporter of the “mhrm” could NOT be an MRA. Her untellectual cowardice meand she prefers to call me a troll than answer. Amusingly, you do the same.

    Thumper

    I think money for male victims of DV would be better spent on shame reducing publicity and support services, rather than refuge. That’s what my experience and research suggests.

    post edited by AF in accordance with the HPFD

  74. carnation says

    @ Adiabat 76

    Wasn’t hard, was it? Other MRAs couldn’t be bothered doing what you just did.

    I’ve read one Scot Gov article with an opposing conclusion to that and another account of a lack of uptake of provision.

    Links in next few hours

  75. carnation says

    @ Adiabat 76

    Your response is why I view you differently to MRAs like Sid and Schala. This endorsement will mean nothing to you, but hey ho.

  76. Paul says

    @67 Carnation

    Thanks for the clarification .And re-reading your post i should have seen you were clearly talking about the Mens Rights Movement as opposed to the Mens Movement..I sometimes wrongly use the term MRA’s to encompass activists from both groups so it was my mistake.

  77. Paul says

    ps- obviously the Mens Movement -as opposed to Mens Rights Movement – isn’t a homogenous group.Plus the Fathers Rights movement -which i have a particular interest in -includes activists from both the Mens Movement and Mens Rights Movement . So the Fathers Rights Movement should never be viewed as being a homogenous group.

  78. Adiabat says

    Carnation:

    I asked Schala to explain how a supporter of the “mhrm” could NOT be an MRA. Her untellectual cowardice meand she prefers to call me a troll than answer. Amusingly, you do the same.

    Except the part where I said it’s possible to support a particular argument made by a group without being a member of said group. I really don’t know what you are trying to achieve by making that argument tbh. The answer’s so obvious I think it’s reasonable for people to assume you are just trolling.

    And if you decide to consider anyone who agrees with a particluar argument an MRA then you’re free to do so, but you have no real basis for doing that and people should be free to write you off as a troll when you do it.

    I’ve read one Scot Gov article with an opposing conclusion to that and another account of a lack of uptake of provision.

    Links in next few hours

    Please don’t be the Gadd research *fingers crossed*. Here’s another quote from Dempsey (2013):

    When involved in Community Safety Partnership work in Edinburgh in 2002 I was told, on an unattributable basis, by a senior government figure that the Gadd research had been commissioned so that the then Scottish Executive would not have to provide refuges for men.

    It’s not reputable research.

  79. Paul says

    I just want to clarify my own position. I’m not a member of the MRM but with specific regard to the issue of Fathers Rights i do think the wider Mens Movement -along with the MRM- is on a collision course with many feminists over this.

    Being a father is very much an integral part of being a man for most of the adult male population. And the fact is we live in a society where too many fathers are either marginalised or excluded in the lives of their children.And some feminists have played their part in legitimising this by (mis)using the issue of domestic violence and child abuse to demonise the male population. And to promote the myth that the safety of children is tied up with the safety of women.Hence much contemporary feminist narrative concerning dv is about the safety of women and children .In other words fathers are primarily viewed as being a problem.You don’t need to be a MRA to recognize that this needs to be challenged.

  80. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @adiabat

    Thanks :)

    I believe that I’ve read in another thread that, to you, feminism is simply the belief in equality between the genders. (I disagree with that definition but let’s assume it for now because we’re talking about your reaction to ‘feminists’ you disagree with.)

    If you believe that a feminist is someone who simply believes in equality, then surely if you are presented with someone who says and does things that work against equality you are able to say that they are not a feminist?

    Not exactly. A feminist is someone who recognises that women are disadvantaged by our society and wishes to correct that. A subtle difference but an important one. You can be a feminist without being an egalitarian, but you can’t be an egalitarian without being a feminist; not unless you deny that it is easier to be a man in our society than a woman. I am generally hostile to non-egalitarians of any stripe, whether they are a feminist or not. To give an extreme example, TERFs are feminists but are not egalitarians. Likewise some radfems advocate matriarchies, I also am hostile towards them. I will call them on their bullshit when I see it, but they are still feminists.

    I am an egalitarian; I also believe that women are more disadvantaged by our society than men (though that is not to say there aren’t gender-specific problems which men face and which need to be solved). My feminism naturally follows from these two premises. I am generally hostile to anyone who actively wishes to privilege one group above another.

  81. Thumper; Atheist mate says

    @carnation

    I think money for male victims of DV would be better spent on shame reducing publicity and support services, rather than refuge. That’s what my experience and research suggests.

    I certainly agree that needs to happen, because men are reluctant to seek help due to feeling shame at being abused. It doesn’t fit in with the macho gender role. However, there is little point in reducing the shame men feel about needing help and suffering abuse if, when they finally seek help, the resources don’t exist.

  82. summerblues says

    Adiabat @ 71 (have i been calling you schala? If so, sorry about that, for getting you mixed up)

    “You don’t need to “own” the fact that some women rape, nor do men have to “own” the fact that some men rape. I’d go as far as to say that claiming that they do counts as sexist.” You’re going to have to explain how it’s sexist. Women, my gender, raping men – killing thier children – not paying child support – abusing dv systems – lying cheating stealing using people – etc. – shames me. How in hell am I supposed to hold my head up when my gender is doing this. Am I really just supposed to say “oh, yeah, women do this stuff” and then walk away? Seriously? No, I don’t do these things therefore I am not really responsible for the way the rest of my gender behaves. So, why should I care? Why am I here? Why are you here?

    You might want to take a look at what the MRA’s are saying, both the articles and the comments.

    Feminists are supposed to be treated differently from women..how? Never come across that one, only the stuff that applies to all women. (devils’ advocate) Am I supposed to be treating MRA’s differently from “men” and differently from …what else? Do men become another species when they become MRA’s? Am I a different species because I’m an atheist now instead of a christian? (btw, that’s what I was doing further up, with the mra and men thing, I don’t even remember what i said now but whatever it was ..was obviously stupid. i meant it that way, devils advocate, obviously wrong)

  83. hoary puccoon says

    Paul @ 83–

    As I said in a post upthread, I haven’t been involved in feminism for a while. But the only case I know of where our feminist organization got involved in a child custody matter, it was to support a woman who voluntarily gave up custody.

    It was an unusual case. The children, two very bright teenage boys, were being tutored by their father in science and math, to supplement the woefully inadequate public school they attended. The mother wasn’t able to provide that very specialized parenting those particular kids needed. So she agreed with their father that he should have the main custody. For that, she was being trashed in her church and community. (It says a lot about her church that a good science education for the children didn’t seem like a useful objective.) The feminist organization she belonged to was her main moral support in sticking by what she thought was the right thing for her children.

    So I’m very surprised to hear that feminists as a general rule reject paternal rights. I know that there are some cases where the father– or more commonly, the stepfather– is a danger to the children. But I have never heard that any feminist organization would assume a father would hurt his own children, without some kind of evidence pertaining to that particular case.

  84. Schala says

    You can be a feminist without being an egalitarian, but you can’t be an egalitarian without being a feminist; not unless you deny that it is easier to be a man in our society than a woman.

    I’m an egalitarian without being a feminist. I’m egalitarian and WILL deny that it is easier to be a man in our society than a woman.

    I won’t say it’s on the net easier to be a woman. Or a man. It’s something you have no choice but to be agnostic about. Because you’re not Everyman or Everywoman. And you can’t decide if Better Quality of Life is better than Easier Career Ambitions except on a subjective individual basis.

    Male privilege is basically of the Easier Career Ambitions type.

    Female privilege is basically of the Better Quality of Life type.

    You can’t get both in our society. Either you’re coddled and protected, helped and nurtured. Or pushed to be a leader, respected if you actually achieve it, and get perks for it women generally don’t get at that time and/or to reach this position.

    Being rich makes male privilege better. Being rich doesn’t really make female privilege that much better. Being poor makes male privilege almost become a drawback (see black men). Being poor doesn’t really make female privilege that much worse. That’s because ambition is easier if you start way up there already, but useless if you’re in the trash heap. While a safety net will save you from way down there but not be of much use when way up there.

    I’m not ambitious and am just a bit short of “way down there” (welfare ain’t much income, but I’m not homeless). Which do you think is more useful to me?

  85. Schala says

    Women, my gender, raping men – killing thier children – not paying child support – abusing dv systems – lying cheating stealing using people – etc. – shames me. How in hell am I supposed to hold my head up when my gender is doing this. Am I really just supposed to say “oh, yeah, women do this stuff” and then walk away?

    Yes, you should. Involuntary group membership.

    It’s like if tall people, or brown haired people did it. Why the fuck would I care?

    Voluntary membership is completely different. If you convert in some faith freely (no coercion), you have much more “blood on your hand” and responsibility than if you had your penis snipped at birth to come in that religion. The latter can renounce it (the religion), but apparently not the culture (Jewish ethnicity), which I find fascinatingly stupid.

    I’m from Quebec, French-speaking Canada. Historically Catholic. Catholicism is part of my culture. Except I can denounce and renounce the religion and nobody will say “You’re still ethnically Catholic” as if it was a damning thing.

    Feminists are supposed to be treated differently from women..how?

    Someone CHOOSES to be feminist.
    Someone DOES NOT CHOOSE to be a woman.

    See?

    Same for men and MRAs. Also male feminists and female MRAs exist.

  86. says

    Not exactly. A feminist is someone who recognises that women are disadvantaged by our society and wishes to correct that. A subtle difference but an important one. You can be a feminist without being an egalitarian, but you can’t be an egalitarian without being a feminist; not unless you deny that it is easier to be a man in our society than a woman.

    This is not valid reasoning. In cases of (reasonably strong) uncertainty regarding the proposition ‘it is easier to be female in our society’ one woud still not be a feminist according to your definition. I don’t deny ‘it is easier to be female in our society’ since it seems borderline impossible to quantify and I see conflicting evidence regarding it.

  87. carnation says

    @ hoary puccoon 87

    “So I’m very surprised to hear that feminists as a general rule reject paternal rights”

    It’s utter nonsense that feminists in any great numbers, let alone a general rule, reject paternal rights.

    It’s another fantasy brought to us by MRAs. The same people that believe feminists infiltrated the governments of the US and UK and have been waging a war on men.

  88. carnation says

    @ Thumper 85

    The MRA obsession with shelter obfuscates the issue.

    [Edited by AF under the HPFD]

    It suits MRAs to constantly, wearily drone on about shelters, because they can claim a “well funded enemy” (feminism) is using them to wage war on men. It’s so inane. And it detracts from the serious issue of male victims ofmDV.

  89. says

    dammit blockquotes…

    Again:

    The MRA obsession with shelter obfuscates the issue. Is obvious to everyone except MRAs that a different approach to DV provision is needed for men.

    I am not sure that there is resistance about this point. A little test:

    To people identifying as MRAs, Schala,or others that have been called MRAs during their time here, please answer the following questions.

    Would you be in favor of studies about the exact need of male domestic abuse victims?

    Is your main concern about the general lack of funding for the help of male domestic abuse victims or about the fact that services for males don’t mirror those for females or else?

    As you might have guessed these questions are borderline rhetorical.

  90. Paul says

    @Carnation

    i don’t pretend to be especially knowledgable about the contemporary Mens Movement in this country but i do know that anti-feminist mras are only part of it. Yet your entire focus seems to be on these anti-feminist mras and you appear to use your contempt for them to largely dismiss the idea that men can and do face gender discrimination .

    For instance In previous exchanges with you i’ve conceded that more research is needed to find out the extent to which fathers face discrimination in the Family Courts .And the extent to which false claims of dv are made to demonise those fathers fighting for either custody or improved access. Yet you dismiss out of hand the idea that this is happening citing nothing more than your own personal experiences to justify that. So we have this impasse where we both need more independent evidence to support our views which are currently based on nothing more than our respective experiences.

    As i’ve tried to explain to you before F4J is just one of a number of groups who’re supporting those fathers prevented from playing a full and meaningful part in their childrens lives following the breakdown in their relationship with the mothers. I don’t know how many fathers in total but if my own experiences are anything to go by most feel that as well as failing to enforce contact orders the Family Courts also discriminate in favour of mothers. .So other than giving subjective opinions we desperately need research to be conducted to ascertain whether this perception is justified.

  91. Paul says

    @hoary puccoon

    As i said to carnation we all need more independent evidence to support our differing views. As you know the feminist movement like the mens movement isn’t a homogenous group. Nevertheless some feminists promote the idea that all women should have the right to be mothers and to view fathers as optional extras.Whilst the rhetoric of some feminists suggests they view the safety of children as being tied up with the safety of women and that men are therefore viewed as being a threat to women and children. And let’s not forget that feminists in this country have had and still have considerable input in the way the issue of dv is addressed..And it may be the case that women are getting away with making either false or one-sided accusations of dv in order todemonise those fathers challenging them in the family courts either for custody or increased access.

    In all fairness i would agree with you that the overwhelming majority of feminists aren’t blatantly against the granting of paternal rights per se. However to my knowledge few feminists have acknowledged the difficultiies fathers can face in remaining fully engaged with their children once their relationships with the mothers have broken down and when the mothers are proving to be obstructive. And let’s not forget not all fathers risk going to the Family Courts given they rarely enforce contact orders and given there’s therefore a risk they may lose all contact with their children… Sowhilst i may be wrong i feel the diverse fathers rights movement may well find itself on a collision course with feminists if/when shared custody rights finally get on the statute book.

  92. carnation says

    @ Paul 95

    “Yet your entire focus seems to be on these anti-feminist mras and you appear to use your contempt for them to largely dismiss the idea that men can and do face gender discrimination .”

    I have no problem accepting and indeed promoting the idea that men, particularly economically disadvantaged men, can and do face a set of barriers made worse by their sex. On that, we can agree. I would, with all due respect (genuinely) go as far as saying that I have a better understanding of the breadth of the challenges faced, which go way beyond the recital of factoids churned out by Schala et al.

    As I have said repeatedly, my issue with the MRAs, is that they obfuscate, scapegoat, lie and do literally nothing to help men. So I ask you, why shouldn’t I hold MRAs in contempt?

    F4J is a contemptible organisation, riddled with MRAs, mgtow, fantasists and bullies. They lie. Why shouldn’t I hold them in contempt?

    I understand that there are other fathers groups, indeed, I have referred a number of young men to one. Run by an actual activist, it provides a range of support for fathers, especially teenage fathers and those who grew up fatherless.

    In the real world, feminism has basically no impact on the lives of marginalised men. So why is there a “movement” (of trolls and bloggers) set up to “fight” it (through the unusual medium of blogging and writing comments)?

  93. Adiabat says

    Thumper (84): Schala and sheaf covered the problems with holding that particular belief required to be feminist so I won’t repeat what they say.

    Summerblues (86): and again Schala has covered the difference between voluntary and involuntary identities.

    hoary puccoon (87):

    So I’m very surprised to hear that feminists as a general rule reject paternal rights. I know that there are some cases where the father– or more commonly, the stepfather– is a danger to the children. But I have never heard that any feminist organization would assume a father would hurt his own children, without some kind of evidence pertaining to that particular case.

    How about the foremost feminist organisation in the UK? Is that enough for you? Here’s a quote from an official statement from the Fawcett Society’s giving their reason for opposing introducing the assumption of shared parenting in family courts following separation:

    Fawcett is concerned that Part 2, Clause 11 of the Children and Families Bill establishes an assumption of shared parenting following a separation, instead of making the welfare of the child the paramount concern. This may put women with abusive former partners and their children at risk. Fawcett maintains that the current law already contains sufficient provisions for contact with non-resident parents and that the assumption of shared parenting will dilute protections for women and their children.

    So they’re basically trying to stop a measure that will resolve much of the discrimination men face in the family courts based on nothing but a cry of “won’t somebody think of the children” and based on an assumption that it will enable men will beat their partners and children. Note that the possibility that it may the mother beating her partner and children, and this assumption will prevent such women getting sole custody to continue beating their children, doesn’t even come into consideration.

    Carnation/sheaf:

    Would you be in favor of studies about the exact need of male domestic abuse victims?

    Is your main concern about the general lack of funding for the help of male domestic abuse victims or about the fact that services for males don’t mirror those for females or else?

    Yes, and lack of funding. Lack of recognition as well.

    We don’t have exact figures on the extent that male shelters are needed mainly due to the ‘hard to reach’ problem but, as the quote from Dyd Shelter I provided upthread, and many many more examples, we do know that there is a need. We can’t quantify it yet but that doesn’t make the two positions (“provide some refuges” and “don’t provide refuges”) morally equivalent as we know “some people” need them. Which is one reason why carnation’s position appears so heartless and why I question any supposed “understanding” he/she claims of the issue.

    It should be noted that the exact figures weren’t available when we started funding women’s shelters either. It is only when we had some shelters, and access to the victims of DV, that decent research was able to be done to quantify the problem (e.g. Dobash and Dobash 1979, Pizzey 1979 and Pizzey 2011). Right now we provide very few services for men that they can go to (which would enable us to get a grasp of the extent of the problem and exact services required), all while people like carnation moan about how we aren’t giving exact numbers.

    We should approach the problem like we did for women’s refuges: provide some services, use the newfound access to victims to research the problem further to provide better figures, and then increase services as required.

    Carnation (97):

    In the real world, feminism has basically no impact on the lives of marginalised men.

    Donovan and Hestor (2010) looked at how the power of the “public story” of domestic abuse to marginalise all those who are not female victims in a relationship with a male partner. Here’s a quote (my emphasis):

    Typically, argues Jamieson [Jamieson 1998], 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.

    Carnation, you need to read up on what feminism has actually done for the past 30 years. It is they who should be getting your scorn and derision.

    ______
    Dobash, R E and R P Dobash (1979) Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy (New York: The Free Press)

    Donovan, C and M Hester (2010) “‘I Hate the Word “Victim”’: An Exploration of Recognition of Domestic Violence in Same Sex Relationships”, 9 Social Policy and Society 279-290

    Jamieson, L (1998) Intimacy: Personal Relationships in Modern Society (Polity: Cambridge)

    Pizzey, E (2011) This way to the revolution (Peter Owen: London)

    Pizzey, E (1979, first published 1974) Scream quietly or the neighbours will hear (Penguin: Harmondsworth)

  94. N4M says

    ‘Thou shalt not generalise about gender activist movements’

    The ultimate goal of all feminists, male or female, is and rightly should be the welfare and social and political emancipation of women.

    Yes, also, this.

    How would it be appropriate Ally for you to set out to deny commentators here rights which you
    happily attribute to your good self on other forums?

    Also, it strikes me that feminism has gone through a big stage recently of trying to ban and censor things:
    lads mags in supermarkets; hectoring speech on Twitter (criminal threats being already covered); misogynist – though naturally not misandrist – speech on Facebook. Yet if this rule were to be enforced, then even
    the proposition that feminism is overly censorious would itself be blocked and censored (by a writer who is admittedly not a feminist, but who admits to having very strong feminist sympathies).
    How bluddy infuriating! :-)

  95. hoary puccoon says

    Adiabat @ 98–

    What you quoted does not prove what you apparently think it does. Fawcett is advocating “making the welfare of the child the paramount concern” rather than making *any* parental rights paramount. She (or he) uses an example of putting “women with abusive former partners and their children” at risk. The word “women” is unfortunate in that context. If Fawcett had referred to *spouses* with abusive former partners, it would be the same principle without any gender bias.

    The MRAs on this site have repeatedly cited evidence that women as well as men can perpetrate domestic violence. But you are now disagreeing with a feminist who criticizes a law that would work to the detriment of abused men as well as abused women.

    If this is the only kind of evidence you can find to prove some great feminist conspiracy against men, you’ve got a long, LONG way to go to prove your point to an unbiased observer. If you are really opposing “making the welfare of the child the paramount concern” in a case of separation or divorce, my reaction is– shame on you. And that has NOTHING to do with thinking women should have more rights than men. It’s only thinking real children should have more protection from the state than adults who are behaving like children.

  96. summerblues says

    Not that it really matters but Schala’s response back to me still doesn’t explain how I am to be treated differently as a feminist vs. just a woman. The only thing I can think of is that Schala, Adiabat and others who despise feminism will treat me with contempt and scorn if I admit that I’m a feminist as opposed to …shrug, with respect if I am just a woman? I don’t get it.

  97. Adiabat says

    hoary puccoon (100):

    Fawcett is advocating “making the welfare of the child the paramount concern” rather than making *any* parental rights paramount.

    Except that there’s nothing, I repeat nothing, in the proposed changes that even suggests that the welfare of the child will cease to be the primary concern. It’s a complete non-sequitar on Fawcett’s part. To even bring it up makes no sense unless it’s a blatant “won’t somebody think of the children” attempt to misdirect. It’s “an assumption of shared parenting”; it doesn’t mean that abusive men will be given it, just that it’s the ‘starting point’ when the judge makes a decision before they factor things in like abuse.

    She (or he) uses an example of putting “women with abusive former partners and their children” at risk. The word “women” is unfortunate in that context.

    No, the use of “women” wasn’t “unfortunate”, it was what they meant to say. Otherwise where’s the correction no doubt released when one of the diligent “reasonable” feminists contacted them to point out their “mistake”? Have you contacted them to point out their “error”? I bet you haven’t.

    Note that you only way you can defend them is by basically rewriting what they said in a official statement to make it seem egalitarian. Where’s the official correction? If you can’t put up then you can’t claim they “really mean” something that’s the opposite of what they said in an official statement. The same argument was made by several other feminist organizations; let me guess, they all completely by coincidence made exactly the same “mistake”?

    It’s sad that you feel the need to do this to defend what is obviously a feminist organisation using spurious arguments to preserve some female privilege in the family courts, to the detriment of men. It’s sad that you seem to think they didn’t read and re-read, and double-checked again, an official statement to the government to make sure it means what they really want it to mean.

    But you are now disagreeing with a feminist who criticizes a law that would work to the detriment of abused men as well as abused women.

    It does nothing of the sort. Point me to the bit in the official correction that does this. Otherwise my evidence stands.

    Why do you feel the need to go through such extreme mental contortions to defend them? Why do you fail to address the point I made in the last post that the current system actually causes more children to be left solely under the responsibility of abusive women and that men who are victims of abuse often, under the current system, feel they have to stay otherwise they will be leaving the kids alone with their abusive mother.

    I hate to admit it but I find your spurious defence of Fawcett’s official position sickening. It betrays such bias and such willingness to screw over men just to save the reputation of some ideology that I am actually disgusted by it.

  98. hoary puccoon says

    Adiabat @102–

    I am not a British citizen. I have no knowledge of the British law to which you are referring except what YOU posted. What YOU posted made no reference to any other aspect of the law except a switch from putting the best interests of children first. You set me up. You had all kinds of information I couldn’t be expected to know. You didn’t share any of it with me. Then you interpreted what I said in the light of that other information.

    I have absolutely no interest in screwing over men “to save the reputation of some ideology” or for any other reason. You posted a quotation that did not appear to have any connection to screwing over men. I responded to that quotation. I stated that I felt the statement would have been improved by replacing the word “women” with “spouses.” That should be positive proof that I had no interest in attacking the rights of men. If you want to criticize what I write, please cite it in context. Don’t put it in some completely different context in order to take a cheap shot.

    And no, I will never, ever reveal to you any information about any correspondence I have written under my real name. This is not the first time you have tried to manipulate me into doxing myself. Please have the courtesy not to do it again.

  99. Adiabat says

    Rereading your post I may need to apologise for that last paragraph. Judging by the fact that you keep referring to the Fawcett Society as he/she it may be that you just don’t know enough about what is being discussed. The Fawcett Society is the UK’s leading feminist organisation.

    An assumption of shared parenting would be an instruction to the judge to start from a position that it is in the best interests of the child for both parents to remain an active part of their lives as much as possible, and safe, instead of the current position that they should fall under the main custody of one parent, usually the mother, with a distant father who may be allowed to be involved the occasional Saturday. It’s a very flexible assumption that can fully take into account the individual circumstances.

    In both the current situation and the proposed change the welfare of the child comes first and the judge is to take anything into account that would advise against shared parenting. This renders the Fawcett Society’s main argument moot, as there is no change to the view regarding the priority of the child’s welfare. It is very unlikely that they do not know this.

    Changing the current system will also prevent occasions where the current assumptions will leave children under sole custody of one parent, who may be abusive themselves. So as you can see the changes may actually improve the welfare of the child.

    Considering the discrimination that men are experiencing in the family courts Fawcett’s claim that “the current law already contains sufficient provisions for contact with non-resident parents” is insulting, doubly so as this change may affect who we consider to be non-resident parents. This is not a good sign that feminism takes men’s issues seriously, and is in fact a denial that this is actually an issue.

    Their further claim that “the assumption of shared parenting will dilute protections for women and their children” are also erroneous, especially as the current protection that they are talking about is the very bias which it is designed to stop. The Fawcett Society is basically saying that we should keep the current bias against all men because any change may lead to a small number of incidents that slip through the system. This is obviously not an egalitarian position or a position that treats men as worthy of being considered an equal parent to women. It’s actually a very sexist position, which also fails to consider the abuse the changes might stop.

    The main thing this change will achieve is to remove some female privilege they experience after separation. It is my contention that maintaining this privilege is Fawcett’s ‘real’ aim in opposing this legislation with such spurious reasons, as they have a track record of opposing legislation which will further equality but which they believe will damage female privilege.

  100. Adiabat says

    Ah, cross-posted. I was hoping to get that in there before you read it.

    I realised afterwards that you probably weren’t British and had no idea about the debate surrounding shared parenting so I’ve provided context. I also apologise for my first reply. You have no idea some of the defences I’ve heard of Fawcett’s position. I’ve got to the point where my patience is wearing a bit thin of those who defend them. It’s no excuse for my post just an explanation.

    I disagree that it was a ‘set-up’ as much as a provision of incomplete information.

    Rest assured I care very little about who you are so there’s no need to “dox” yourself.

    Nevertheless, you have now been provided with a feminist organisation, the foremost feminist organisation in the UK no less, denying parental rights to men based on nothing more than spurious arguments.

  101. carnation says

    @ Adiabat 104

    “instead of the current position that they should fall under the main custody of one parent, usually the mother, with a distant father who may be allowed to be involved the occasional Saturday.”

    Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. What you have written is incredulous nonsense. That is so far removed from the current situation that it defies belief an adult, other than an MRA, would compose such idiocy.

    The current position is for a mediated settlement between the parents. Where this isn’t possible (a tiny minority of cases, generally accepted by everyone except MRAs to be 10%), a ruling will be made by the family court, which can be appealed:

    “A study by the Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy was set up by the Ministry of Justice to look into non-resident parents being awarded little or no contact with their children for the flimsiest of reasons. Last week, the study concluded that the vast majority of separated fathers enjoy access to their children. Only one in 10 cases ends up in court, the rest having been agreed between the parents. When the cases do go to court, more than three-quarters of the applicants, mainly fathers, are able to resolve contact issues, with only a small percentage denied contact altogether, in the interests of the children involved.”

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/sep/28/comment.fathers.justice

    Adiabat, what you are doing is espousing the most crass kind of propaganda possible, it’s acutely embarrassing to read.

    Regarding the Fawcett Society, let’s isolate the point made:

    “Fawcett is concerned that Part 2, Clause 11 of the Children and Families Bill establishes an assumption of shared parenting following a separation, instead of making the welfare of the child the paramount concern.”

    Thought experiment, if a proposal was to “make the welfare of the child the paramount concern, instead of establishing an assumption of shared parenting following a separation” would anyone, except MRAs, object?

    Will you extent your criticisms of organisations that campaign for one sex to, for example, Fathers 4 Justice? The ones who lie so blatantly that their former “Research Director” described them as “not fit for purpose”?

    “Considering the discrimination that men are experiencing in the family courts”

    More nonsense. There isn’t any evidence whatsoever to support this ridiculous claim.

    In response to my assertion that “In the real world, feminism has basically no impact on the lives of marginalised men.”

    You reiterated a quote from a single study and summarised thus:

    “Carnation, you need to read up on what feminism has actually done for the past 30 years. It is they who should be getting your scorn and derision.”

    A few questions for you:

    What impact did feminism have on de-industrialisation and the resulting marginalisation of huge numbers of men no longer able to work?

    What impact has feminism had on the UK’s decision to invade a number of countries in the past 30 years, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths and injuries to (overwhelmingly) men in the armed forces?

    What impact has feminism had on the men who are beaten and stabbed (overwhelmingly) by other men, of the same social class, because of machismo? Or, to give it another name, patriarchy?

    What impact has feminism had in the “war on drugs”? Leading to the impisonment of huge numbers of (mainly) men?

    What impact has feminism had on the introduction of the bedroom tax? The cuts to benefits? The curtailing of a huge array of existing benefits?

    What impact has feminism had on the global financial crisis?

    Adiabat, you literally have to search to find instances of feminism having any negative impact on an “average marginalised man”. It is so incredibly pathetic.

    And here’s a provocative few words to finish. If the mothers of the young men that I have dealt were feminists, the young men would have undoubtedly led better lives. Fewer would have endured dysfunctional abusive relationships, more would have understood that didn’t “need a man” to support/help them and, I imagine, far fewer of the young men would be so keen to exert themselves physically over other young men.#

    Men need help, yes, they do, undoubtedly. MRAs won’t do it, and feminism isn’t against it.

    Keep the positive discrimination/affirmative action – men will need it. Keep gender quotas – men will need that too. Get funding for male victims of DV – find out what’s needed first.

    And stop scaring anxious men facing the family court with your F4J propaganda. It’s inane, pathetic, childish and wrong.

    And, in keeping with the HetPat first directive, RadFems (and a number of other feminisms) are as useless as MRAs.

  102. Adiabat says

    Carnation: You seem oblivious to the fact that many men are advised against even fighting for more in the current system because their lawyers know they won’t win. They know that if they don’t accept what little they can get in mediation they stand a good chance of getting even less when it goes to family court.

    Your Oxford study doesn’t show anything. “Men enjoy access to their children” and settle for what they get: yeah, but in a fairer system with the assumption of shared parenting they may get more than just “access”, they may get custody for 3-4 days out of the week. They may get an equal say in their upbringing. They may get to be a dad rather than just have “access”.

    That’s what you consistently fail to grasp on this topic!

    Thought experiment, if a proposal was to “make the welfare of the child the paramount concern, instead of establishing an assumption of shared parenting following a separation” would anyone, except MRAs, object?

    They aren’t in contradiction to each other, that’s the point I’m making! There need be no “instead”. This isn’t hard to understand.

    Will you extent your criticisms of organisations that campaign for one sex to, for example, Fathers 4 Justice?

    I’ve got no problem with organisations that only campaign for one sex, as long as they aren’t also screwing the rights of the other sex over in the process. Fawcett wants to prevent a change which will lead to men getting recognised as equal parents to women, father’s rights groups just want men to be treated equally to women. Do you see the difference?

    In response to my assertion that “In the real world, feminism has basically no impact on the lives of marginalised men……[and include all your “examples” to save space]

    Why do you think that the fact that other things impact the lives of men then feminism does not? That makes no sense. Do you even understand how others doing wrong doesn’t make the things that feminism does wrong go away? Do you have any response whatsoever to the published academic study showing that feminism has caused considerable harm to men with its propagation of the public story of DV, instead of just pointing to the things others do to deflect?

    Keep the positive discrimination/affirmative action – men will need it. Keep gender quotas – men will need that too. Get funding for male victims of DV – find out what’s needed first.

    Discrimination is wrong. So are gender quotas. You do not fix issues by pasting over the top of them. Men don’t need positive discriminate or quotas; they just need to be treated fairly.

    As for that last line: I find it morally bankrupt and a double standard. I’ve put forward a response to that in post 98. Please don’t ignore it and post the exact same argument again. I find it reprehensible that you are willing to hold off providing a service which has been shown is needed on some level, just because you haven’t been provided exact figures. Especially when that’s not what we did when we started providing shelters for women. I can’t help but wonder why you would hold such a position.

  103. carnation says

    Heading out, but will deal with your first point.

    You have justified your previous propaganda with more propaganda. You can’t have actually had any dealings with the family court, you simply don’t understand what happens.

    Of course, you have no evidence for your lunatic assertions, whilst there is ample to contradict it, starting with the Oxford Study.

    Fact one: relationship breaks down.

    Fact two: children need cared for.

    Fact three: parents can’t agree

    Fact four: someone has to decide

    Fact five: some disgruntled men are unhappy about this and climb on some buildings, yet collect no credible evidence to justify a claim of discrimination

    Fact six: despite this, MRAs dogma holds that men low contact with their children almost at a whim (of an evil woman and feminist government),

    There isn’t a shred of evidence to prove what you claim, or that men are discriminated against in the family court because of their sex. It just doesn’t exist. You have to get over that and move on, you just look really silly.

  104. Adiabat says

    carnation: You’re accusing me of propaganda when I’m still waiting for those links you promised 50 posts ago?!

    You make these wild claims and completely fail to support them. Not once in this thread have you backed up anything you’ve said, then you just ignore all the evidence I’ve provided from academic publications and the experiences of those who are working to help men and go off on wild tangents.

    As for “fact” five, why do you think it’s mostly only men who end up disgruntled?

    “Fact “six: No, on this topic the government are trying to fix the problem: they are agreeing with the Father rights campaigners. It’s just the feminist groups that are campaigning to screw men over. Please stop purposefully misrepresenting me.

    And sorry, but I think I’m going to trust the word of family court lawyers, the government and those working to reform the system over you. You’ve repeatedly shown that you have no idea what you are talking about on all the topics we have discussed. If it’s true, then I worry about the men you claim come to you for help.

  105. says

    Adiabat,

    You seem oblivious to the fact that many men are advised against even fighting for more in the current system because their lawyers know they won’t win. They know that if they don’t accept what little they can get in mediation they stand a good chance of getting even less when it goes to family court.

    Do you have evidence that these problems are indeed systematic as opposed to a few anectodes?

  106. Schala says

    Do you have evidence that these problems are indeed systematic as opposed to a few anectodes?

    If this is the standard of evidence, let me ask for evidence that cat-calling is systematic as opposed to a few anecdotes.

    Let me ask for evidence that the sun is hot, also.

    I’ve never been cat-called or harassed in the street, and I can still believe it happens often enough, probably mostly in bigger cities or very small towns, enough to merit attention.

    I don’t plant my head in the sand asking for proof.

  107. says

    Schala,

    If evidence was as easy to obtain as for high temperatures on the sun, then I would not ask. Being skeptical of claims is a virtue, not a vice. Adiabat seems relatively well organized when it comes to his sources, so I thought I would just ask if he has more to offer on this topic.

    As your post seems to imply differently, I will say that I know about the dangers of hyperskepticism, especially in ideological debates. However at the moment I am just making up my mind without having a strong stance on most of the issues, which will probably preclude me from falling into this hole at first. Other threats, such as all too readily embracing a narrative seem more dangerous.

  108. carnation says

    @ Schala 111

    Yep, who needs proof, facts and evidence when you’ve got MRA blogs!!

    @ Adiabat

    It’s mothers and fathers. The mothers offer tangible support, instead of getting publicity to get publicity:

    http://www.matchmothers.org/

    @ Adiabat

    Nope, they are trying to fix issues with the family court. Those noted academics F4J rejected the Nogrove Report, so I wouldn’t crack open the Prosecco just yet.

    http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2002/09/15201/9609

    I couldn’t find the article about the shelter that I was looking for. However, I did find a number which I read. I agree that some supported accommodation provision is needed. However, I stick by my original point that is is shortsighted, indeed stupid, to insist on equivalent services for male victims of DV.

  109. says

    carnation,

    Adiabat seems to have been preemptive regarding your study. Just read 82. In any case Dempsey (2013) seems to provide effective counterpoints. I would advice you to read it.

    Brian Dempsey (2013) “Men’s experience of domestic abuse in Scotland”

  110. carnation says

    @ Sheaf 114

    Yes, that’s how debate works. One point of view or study, then another. Contradictory studies abound in all areas.

    “Unattributable source” is surely more than a little bit contentious, no?

  111. Paul says

    @carnation 115

    “Unattributable source” is surely more than a little bit contentious, no?

    On that we can agree. Which is why your arguments concerning the Fathers Rights movement are more than a little bit contentious given you’re unable to underpin them with anything other than your own subjective opinions.

  112. carnation says

    @ Paul 116

    I’ll accept your point. However, you have to accept that equally you have no proof to justify your arguments.

  113. Adiabat says

    Sheaf (110): If it was anyone else asking I don’t think I’d bother considering that all evidence I’ve provided on DV has just been ignored by the ideologues. But you seem to have kept an open mind throughout this thread.

    I’m not as organised on this topic as I am on DV; we all have areas we generally focus on more, but I have a bit. I’m assuming you will be unimpressed by the anecdotes of hundreds if not thousands of men, as you should be; its only feminism that overemphasis the value of “lived experience”.

    But the claims by law professionals should hold more weight. Many of these can be found with google, but the most powerful example is by Martin Mears, former President of the Law Society (for non-UK readers: “The Law Society is the professional association that represents the solicitors’ profession in England and Wales. Members of the Society are often consulted when important issues are being debated in Parliament or by the executive.” Basically you don’t become its president if you don’t know your shit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Law_Society). Mears (2005) argues, with plenty of detailed examples to back up what he says, that the family courts are deeply biased against men. They claim to act in the best interests of children but, as Mears shows, they frequently don’t. When forced to choose between the interests of the mother and those of the children, they will come down on the side of the mother, time after time. You can hear him arguing this point here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2006_02_fri_01.shtml

    It is hard to gather data on bias in the family courts as explained in the evidence submitted by Dr Tim Hughes to the Constitutional AffairsCommittee’s inquiry into Family Justice: the operation of the family courts (http://www.parliament.uk/documents/upload/familyjusticememopart1.pdf):

    The problem is that there is no audit in private family law. This is a partly a feature of the closed nature of the courts, and also of the lack of political will to investigate the outcomes. The courts assume that if no-one comes back to court after a hearing, that it has all gone well. This is often not the case, the non-resident parent gives up dispirited and impoverished, and the child loses out on a childhood of seeing half their family.

    Note that this also what carnation is doing and what the Oxford study s/he cites does. In fact it’s the primary characteristic of those who argue that there isn’t bias. As is obvious, their argument has no merit.

    I also recommend the evidence given by Tony Coe, President of the Equal Parenting Council starting on page 78 of the report. Read the whole thing but here are a few quotes:

    There is a clear bias in the system and it is not a “perceived” bias. The bias is in favour of the de facto custodial parent, usually the mother; occasionally the father. Only a non-resident parent has the legal burden to prove to a court of law that
    (a) his or her involvement is in the best interests of the child and
    (b) the court should make a contact order to secure that involvement. The resident parent has no such burden and can introduce new spouses at will. They become instant stepparents regardless of whether they pose any safety risk to the child. It is plainly wrong that the law should discriminate against non-resident parents in this way and it is this discrimination that is working against the best interests of the children.

    Nowhere in the law are judges told unequivocally that they should proceed from the outset on the basis that contact is in the best interests of the children unless it would be unsafe. Further they are certainly not told that they should make an order (as soon as possible or ever for that matter) to secure the child’s contact with the other parent.

    Note that fixing this is what the government are trying to do and what Fawcett is fighting against.

    We should get away from the inadequate term “contact” which belittles one parent’s importance in the child’s life. EPC would like to see the term “parenting time” adopted into law instead.

    This is getting long enough so I’ll just add one more piece of evidence showing systematic bias for now, something a bit different to mix it up: A linguistic study showing that the very forms issued by the family courts show bias. In Wharton (2009) Dr Sue Wharton analyses a legal form, D8A, used to determine child residence after divorce. The form is obligatory and is often one of the first things done, so of course has a high potential to bias the rest of the case. I can only provide a snapshot of what it says here and recommend reading it all:

    The form’s ostensible function is to ask divorcing parents about plans for child residence and contact. However, analysis reveals that it already encodes a number of assumptions about these arrangements. For example, it does not appear to acknowledge the possibility of a current shared living arrangement…[examples given]…The assumption is therefore that they live with the spouse filling in the form, and the situation represented is one of residence and contact, rather than one of shared living.

    The form is sent to the person who has petitioned for divorce and currently 69% of divorces in England and Wales are granted to the wife (UK Office of National Statistics).

    The form, because it represents children as living with the petitioner, again tends to represent children as living with their mothers. As we shall see below, it also positions petitioners – probably mothers – as experts regarding the circumstances of their children….

    The form of these questions is an unmodalised interrogative: 9a Are the children generally in good health?. There is no subjective marking, e.g. ‘Do you think that the children are in good health’. The form of question used here admits no doubt about the petitioner’s ability to answer.

    The other partner, usually the father, gets no option to present their answers to these questions. This privileges the mother in court proceedings, not only the assumption that they are the fitter parent, but the ability to present the only narrative.

    It is essential to note that the respondent has no opportunity of explaining their disagreements, or making their own proposals, on form D8A itself. At this stage of the proceedings, their only options are either to agree, or to withhold their agreement without making counter-proposals. The final part of the form, addressed to the respondent, says: I agree with the arrangements and proposals contained in Part I and II of this form. [space for signature]. There is nowhere for the respondent to sign if s/he does not agree. It seems that a respondent who does not agree with proposals must simply withhold their signature and await developments.

    This form is evidence of systematic bias. Is it conclusive evidence that the whole court process is biased, at least when presented alone? No, but it’s enough to show that the claims of propaganda etc from people like carnation are unjustified and actually harmful to the debate. It’s enough to make a reasonable person approach the topic with an open mind and take it seriously instead of calling people names like carnation does.

    ______________

    Mears, M (2005) Institutional Injustice: The Family Courts at work (Civitas)

    Wharton, Sue. (2009) Women and children first? Potential gender bias in a legal text in the UK. Women and Language, Vol.32 (No.1). pp. 99-102. ISSN 8755-4550. Available from: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/3348/1/WRAP_Wharton_Revised_for_Women_and_Lang_8_Aug_%282%29.pdf

  114. Adiabat says

    Carnation (115): It’s an unattributable source in an official report though. I doubt the author is just lying. But nonetheless as sheaf says in #114 Dempsey (2013) does provide effective counterpoints to Gadd as well as providing that source.

    Here’s a few counterpoints (my emphases):

    It may be noted that Gadd does not give any figures for the number of women who, when subsequently questioned, claimed their earlier report that they had been abused was inaccurate. Such a comparison would have allowed for some contextualisation; whether a proportion of all victims become “visibility upset” when subjected to further questioning (and for the nature of the questions see below) and call on their partner to confirm that they were never abused by that partner would surely be illuminating. Instead, Gadd considers the possibility of “false positive” reports in the context not of fear of being disbelieved on further questioning or of being subject to on-going control by the abusive partner (to the point of calling on that partner to verify there had been no abuse) but of confusion over the definition of domestic abuse

    If women or children who had indicated that they had experienced a form of abuse subsequently denied this while displaying overt signs of emotional distress and inviting confirmation that nothing had happened from the person who would be in the position of abuser it is perhaps doubtful that this would readily be accepted by researchers as mere surprise and annoyance.

    It’s very suspicious that Gadd does this. (It’s almost as if he had an agenda…)

    “Frank” is labelled a retaliator because, in response to the questions above, he “said he may have threatened Hilary but he could not actually remember a specific time” (Gadd et al 2002, p.69). It would be revealing to establish whether questions such as “can you tell me about any times you think your abuser may have felt threatened by you” have been posed to anyone other than a man reporting domestic abuse and whether, should the victim report that they may have threatened their abuser but could not recall having done so, that victim would be denied a clear “victim” label and be classed as a retaliator.

    The above implies that Gadd is actually discriminating against men in the way that he has studied male victims of DV.

    A fair use of Gadd would include his conclusion that
    “[s]ome of our interviewees had experienced genuinely harrowing forms of abuse” (Gadd et al 2002, p.45)
    and
    “… the number of men who had experienced force or threats from current or former partners was not inconsequential” (Gadd et al 2002, p.55)
    and (ironically, given their treatment of “Frank” and other so-called “retaliators”) that
    “[d]isbelief and lack of service provision are both factors that can compound male victims’ experience of abuse regardless of their sexual orientation” (Gadd et al 2002, p.11).
    These are aspects of Gadd’s research that one rarely hears or sees referenced by those who seek to challenge efforts at recognising and responding to the needs of men who experience abuse.

    Women’s Aid is highlighted as doing this selective reporting of Gadd to downplay male victims of DV. And of course you are doing it.

    That’s just some of the criticisms of Gadd from Dempsey (2013). Hopefully you can provide some better evidence for your position.

  115. Adiabat says

    carnation:

    However, I did find a number which I read. I agree that some supported accommodation provision is needed. However, I stick by my original point that is is shortsighted, indeed stupid, to insist on equivalent services for male victims of DV.

    Then you are arguing against strawmen. It has been pointed out to you several times on this thread that we are not arguing for exactly the same services, just that more refuges for men are needed. But you seemed to deny upthread that refuges should be provided at all.

  116. Ally Fogg says

    N4M

    How would it be appropriate Ally for you to set out to deny commentators here rights which you
    happily attribute to your good self on other forums?

    The examples you quote are not in contradiction. The claim that “feminism is and should be a movement… etc” is a good faith definition, not a generalisation. If I (or anyone else) were to write something like “the Men’s Rights Movement is and should be a movement to protect men’s interests and to campaign against feminism” then that would be equally acceptable as a relatively neutral definition.

    Also, it strikes me that feminism has gone through a big stage recently of trying to ban and censor things: lads mags in supermarkets; hectoring speech on Twitter (criminal threats being already covered); misogynist – though naturally not misandrist – speech on Facebook. Yet if this rule were to be enforced, then even the proposition that feminism is overly censorious would itself be blocked and censored (by a writer who is admittedly not a feminist, but who admits to having very strong feminist sympathies).
    How bluddy infuriating! :-)

    No it wouldn’t, I assure you. The proposition that “current feminism is overly censorious” – if backed up by arguments at least – would be considered a justifiable or falsifiable opinion which could be discussed.

    If you were to say “feminism just want to ban everything” would definitely fall foul.

    See the difference?

    If it helps, I pretty much accept J.J Ramsay’s suggestion way up top, that it should be “thou shalt not overgeneralise…” or another version might be “thou shalt not unreasonably generalise about…” but I opted not to word it that way, because it invites all sorts of debate about what is an overgeneralisation as opposed to just a generalisation, or what we mean by ‘reasonable.’

    So I’ll opt not to reword it for now, but I assure you all, that is exactly how it will be applied.

    What I want to do here is keep discussions vaguely on track and prevent every single one descending into debates about strawman caricatures of other people’s opinions, rather than what they are actually saying. The last thing I want to do is stifle those discussions.

    With that in mind, I did just edit a couple of carnation’s posts above, where they clearly did cross a line in saying things like “all MRAs ever do is….” and “MRAs are only interested in X and never do Y” They are exactly the types of comments I think we need to stop.

    On the other hand, I did leave in place plenty of harsh criticisms of the MRM but which were supported by a reasonable level of argument or evidence.

    So if you want to know how the HPFD will work in practice, just look at this thread.

  117. Ally Fogg says

    Oh, and everyone, it is a bit too late to do anything about it now, but had I been paying my usual close attention, I’d have probably asked you all to rein in the off topic on this thread.

    It’s actually a pretty good discussion about the issues of DV provision, but we have had plenty of threads to discuss those things in the past and we doubtless will again.

  118. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    You closet MRA!!! Only joking, and please accept my apologies for breaching the directive.

    @ Adiabat

    “Note that this also what carnation is doing and what the Oxford study s/he cites does. In fact it’s the primary characteristic of those who argue that there isn’t bias. As is obvious, their argument has no merit.”

    That’s a misrepresentation of my opinion and the facts. I have said that the family court has got it wrong, what I am also saying is that mothers can and are “unfairly” treated. Your/the typical MRA thesis is clearly and demonstrably wrong:

    ” the current position that they should fall under the main custody of one parent, usually the mother, with a distant father who may be allowed to be involved the occasional Saturday..”

    I am refuting your statement.

    @ Adiabat

    “Then you are arguing against strawmen. It has been pointed out to you several times on this thread that we are not arguing for exactly the same services, just that more refuges for men are needed. But you seemed to deny upthread that refuges should be provided at all.”

    Nope, I’m arguing against Schala’s insistence that half of existing DV resources should be allocated to men and that an equal number of shelter placements should be provided.

    Please do the courtesy of not misrepresenting me.

    @ Adiabat

    Regarding Gaad/Dempsey. Dempsey’s findings fits your ideology and/or personal experinces, so you give him more credence, which is fine and understandable.

    I will re-read and read respectively at some point, until then, I’ll withhold further comment.

    @ Adiabat @ Paul

    Both of you, I feel, are individuals I could converse with rationally. In the heat of ‘net debate, I’ve been undoubtedly irritating and for this I apologise.

  119. Adiabat says

    Sheaf: No problem.

    Carnation (123):

    I am refuting your statement.

    Then refute it instead of making grandiose claims.

    Regarding Gaad/Dempsey. Dempsey’s findings fits your ideology and/or personal experinces, so you give him more credence, which is fine and understandable.

    There’s also the massive methodological flaws in Gadd, don’t forget those. Plus the fact that you’ve presented no additional evidence for your position. Also, in the other thread you gave high praise to Dempsey’s report, so what’s changed?

    All this comment from you is doing is calling into question the whole point of anyone citing evidence. Why should I bother posting source after source upthread if all you’re going to do at the end of it is pull the “you’re just following an ideology” card? And then you, and others on here, moan when Schala doesn’t want to waste her time providing citations. I’m starting to feel like I shouldn’t waste my time either, as it obviously makes no difference.

    Ally (122): I think the derail was my fault. Early on I casually gave DV as an example to you of an area where it’s possible to criticize the effect of “feminism” in general, in reference to the OP. I think others then jumped on this and started the discussion on DV, which I, to my shame, joined in on later.

    I think this is a problem that is going to keep on reoccuring mainly because several topics are all linked. The OP led to me referring to DV as an example (assuming others had read the DV threads on your site), which led to others denying it’s an issue (because they haven’t read the other threads), which led to the derail. The problem is that it’s not a derail, as the DV discussion needed to be resolved to support my original point regarding the OP.

    There’s a reason why the same topics keep coming up: it’s because they’re fundamental issues that need addressing first before we can talk about many other things, and often people haven’t read the previous theads where we addressed them.

  120. Old At Heart says

    Adiabat @most of the messages, but particularly #124:

    Keep giving citations. While I will admit that I once managed the fabled “your well-worded argument and backup of facts and logic has changed my mind” over a gay rights debate, very rarely, if ever, will most people ever hear that response. The debate is not for the other person. It is for the onlookers who are undecided. Carnation will never change Hir mind, but you did seem to do something for the far less involved Sheaf. When you aren’t an active arguer, you’re much more likely to get the point as opposed to look for flaws to counter. The lurkers ARE judging and watching the debates, and they appreciate good faith arguments. So use those sources, keep with the good grammar and spelling, be educated, and never back down from a request for more information. In a debate, information is your only weapon, so when someone desires you to bear more of it, do so.

    Carnation @lots too:

    Similar statement applies, use lots of sources, use well-worded arguments, attack the arguments and not the people. You won’t change Schala’s mind, but if you seem logical and well-researched then you can change the minds of the onlookers as well. (which until the end here, you really didn’t, Adiabat won the debate by my perspective due to that [and pre-empting your evidence, really strong showing], while many, such as yourself AND Schala, floundered in my opinion in that regard, on both sides of the debate, but I shan’t continue off-topicness more than I already am)

    Moderates moderate themselves, not others. They don’t get in 100-comment-long wars, they watch. And judge. Being a respectful discussion-maker gives you more ears, and saying more with less is not a good thing. Argument from Authority may be just as much a fallacy as Argument from Anecdote, but authorities are still nice viewpoints to have at your back. The onlookers appreciate the sources. From both sides.

    …And I claim this as on-topic as it discusses debate etiquette. Neener neener.

  121. says

    Hi would you mind sharing which blog platform
    you’re using? I’m going to start my own blog in the near future but I’m
    having a hard time deciding between BlogEngine/Wordpress/B2evolution and
    Drupal. The reason I ask is because your design seems different then most
    blogs and I’m looking for something completely unique.

    P.S Sorry for getting off-topic but I had to ask!

  122. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    Forgive me for commenting here, but I thought it was better to do so on this discussion rather than de-rail an already de-railed thread.

    It’s a suggestion for another directive, I have previously made it elsewhere, but it got lost in the maelstrom of discussion.

    If there was an “open Thread*” for discussions about the “hot” topics that keep popping up in the comments section, I think it would help to keep things “on topic”. People could say – “move that to the open thread” or “this has been done already”, instead of having the same discussion repeatedly.

    I think it would also focus the minds of those commenting on the issue at hand.

    I’m guessing that you might not want to have an “open thread” on your blog as it could turn into a free-for-all (and take up more of your time), but thought I’d put the idea out there.

    * possibly known by another name, or even given a specific name more in tune with what it is (discussion chamber, hot topic discussion etc)

  123. Ally Fogg says

    Hi carnation

    Don’t have any particular objection to open threads, although I’m not convinced it would make much difference to the other threads, which would continue to descend into chaotic, furious barneys whatever I do!

    I’ll maybe have an open thread to ask people what they think about having an open thread ;-)

  124. says

    Have you ever considered writing an e-book or guest authoring on other sites?
    I have a blog based on the same ideas you discuss and would love to have you share some stories/information. I know my visitors would enjoy your work.
    If you are even remotely interested, feel
    free to send me an e mail.

  125. says

    The only dissimilarity is that extended aeration requires
    longer hydraulic and solid residence during the process.
    This recycled water is not considered potable water to be used as drinking H2O.
    The water must travel into unsaturated soil so that microbes there and
    in the mat can feed on the waste and nutrients in the effluent.

  126. says

    Soft parmesan cheesse together with tender use:Unpasteurized milk might have bacterium likeListeriathat may causemiscarriageand stillbirth. Live milk plus softer cheeses will not check out pasteurization process, in which wipes out from unwanted organisms. Avoid delicate dairy products, for example brie or possibly red mozzarella cheese, and judge difficult cheese, for example parmesan along with cheddar, to have with your food items.. Trans extra fat is actually a exclusively robust ally connec

  127. says

    avec vos pommes delaware terre au hair alors à mesure dont usually are cuisson puede poursuit. Terminer a par les oignons coupés en lamelles puis l’ail. Saler sur ces oignons,Herve Leger Aline Dress, ajouter the cumin alors le poivre. Critical: main course chaque rajout signifiant légumes il faut mettre 1 couvercle à are generally couscoussière fill éviter dont chicago vapeur ne s’échappe 相关的主题文章&#6

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>