Can you make me shut up for a few hours? »« Why calling out Russell Brand is a revolutionary act

This week’s witterings at large

A couple of things building on familiar HetPat themes elsewhere this week.

On Comment is Free I mused a little on my initial reactions to Angry White Men, the new book by Michael Kimmel, which has pretty strong links to some of what I’ve been discussing in the Malestrom series. I plan to post a bit more of a full review here sometime shortly. In the meantime here’s an extract from my Guardian piece.

However if those attitudes are at least partially stoked by very real and profound economic and social changes that have left some men feeling disempowered, marginalised, maligned and neglected, is it enough to simply demand that they suck it up and deal with it? I’m not sure.

Our newly egalitarian culture has belatedly accepted (in theory if not always practice) that men do not have a monopoly on power and authority, whether financial, political or physical. The man is no longer the master of his household, but an equal partner in a domestic project.

The gender script for women has been largely torn up – a young girl has unprecedented freedom to grow into a doctor or a nurse, a soldier or a solicitor and/or a wife and mother while men, to a large extent, are stuck with a script for a role that barely exists. To be a real man, our culture still insists, is to be the protector and provider within a society that no longer guarantees to deliver that opportunity, and where male protector-providers are not entirely necessary. It is not much of a stretch to assume that this causes immense stress and psychological conflict, which is sometimes directed inward in despair and depression, sometimes outward in anger and violence.

 

Over at the Independent, I have expanded a little on my recent piece about Chris Brown and his child sex revelations. I was mostly prompted by the hideous tabloid cliche “sex romp” when referring to inappropriate and abusive relationships between female adults and male juveniles, but (not surprisingly) the Indie subs picked up on the sleb angle, but there’s a bit more to it than that.

The slavering, salacious tone is not unique to this story, of course. An unscientific but revealing search on Google News archives produces hundreds of returns for the phrase “Sex romp teacher” and of the first dozen different stories, eleven referred to a female teacher with a male pupil, only once were the genders reversed. As a broad rule of thumb for tabloid terminology, a male teacher has “seedy, sordid sex” with a girl, but “abuses” a boy. A female teacher has “an illicit lesbian affair” with a girl, and “sex romps” with a boy.  It goes without saying that the extent of verbal salivation in stories featuring a female offender directly correlates with her youth and conventional prettiness.

It would be tempting to dismiss this as just another manifestation of our exploitative, sexist, tabloid culture, but it speaks to a deeper and more worrying tendency for our culture to trivialise the sexual exploitation of boys by women. Relationships between teachers and young adults happen within the hazy boundaries of consent and coercion. They may not always be experienced as exploitative or traumatising for the juvenile, but they are rightly forbidden by both teachers’ ethics and the law – such relationships are always an abuse of position, an abuse of trust and have enormous potential to be psychologically harmful. That is true irrespective of the genders involved. And yet with a female perpetrator and male victim, they are described with the playful, jokey word “romp” – a journalistic cliché normally reserved for gossipy intrusions into the lives of adulterous footballers and strippers.

I’d be intrigued by your responses to either or both of the above, or feel free to use this as your weekend open thread, to chip in on whatever else has caught your attention lately.

 

 

 

Comments

  1. Superficially Anonymous says

    Just to chime in and say I very much enjoyed your Guardian article. It raised an interesting comments section that was only about 10% made up of ‘men have no right to complain’ or ‘man up’, it was genuinely refreshing being able to explain where one stood and how it felt and I actually felt like for once I didn’t have to reference rape (always comes up for some reason) or how terrible life is for women and how lucky men are.

  2. Lucy says

    “It would be tempting to dismiss this as just another manifestation of our exploitative, sexist, tabloid culture, but it speaks to a deeper and more worrying tendency for our culture to trivialise the sexual exploitation of boys by women. ”

    You can’t draw conclusions about a cultural tendency from the behaviour of the tabloids. There may be a connection, but equally there may be none; the tabloids exist in their own peculiar, international, commercial moral vacuum.

    I know that if one of my younger male relatives was sexually involved with a female teacher at his school, it most definitely would not be treated as a romp by him, his family, the school, the authorities or by the guilty party, their family, the courts. I know that if it was discussed with friends and relatives (which it may well not be), it would be done in the same hushed tones and with the same concerned faces as if the sexes were reversed, lots of “what’s the best way of handling this?”, “how does he feel?”, “should we move him to another school?”, “are you okay?”, “should he see somebody?”, “that woman is coming nowhere near him”, etc.

    When I was at secondary school I knew a girl who had an affair with our teacher, it ended up being a big scandal. People didn’t treat it as abuse, they treated it as star-crossed lovers. And people were unsure about who to blame, in the end they opted for him being foolish and her being a home-wrecker.

  3. Lucy says

    What must it be like to be in the eye of a media storm after something like this? With your school peers, family friends, family reading salacious and inaccurate details about something you considered to be a relationship? It’s likely that school kids will fall back on safe ground amongst their peers: bravado for boys, fragility or rebellion for girls. But it’s unlikely either posture would reflect the complex emotional reality and only their close friend will see that or the adults around them have any insight into it. One would hope that these days, all such kids would have access to a counsellor and the protective posture would only be for the outside world.

  4. John Austin says

    Lucy, 2.

    I think there is a relationship between media ethics and society at large as the former does not operate in a vacuum. I think the tabloids lag popular opinion by about 5- 10 years. On a non-sexual topic, we see it in the Daily Express and Daily Mail with house prices in the UK. Only recently have they began to soften the line that ever-increasing house prices must be a Good Thing, only now are they waking up to a popular view thats been around for at least 5 years since the last crash that it really isn’t.

    There is a tendency for tabloids to think sex between teachers and boys is a lesser evil to teacher- girl sex, I think because of a pervasive newspaper view that the girl is somehow damaged goods. Of course if the teacher is a man and caught engaging in a homosexual liaison with a pupil then he is automatically a “Paedo Sir”.

  5. John Austin says

    AllyF
    One of the first contributions BTL on the AWM thread came from a Graun staff member saying that Angry White Men all came from public schools! Talk about specious and wilful misinterpretation. I think he was a bit taken aback by the ferocity of some of the replies.
    I’m still impressed the G published an article so nuanced TBH…
    Yet they published a Movember article yesterday and made it about something completely different, so nothing new there!

  6. Lucy says

    “I think there is a relationship between media ethics and society at large as the former does not operate in a vacuum. I think the tabloids lag popular opinion by about 5- 10 years. On a non-sexual topic, we see it in the Daily Express and Daily Mail with house prices in the UK. Only recently have they began to soften the line that ever-increasing house prices must be a Good Thing, only now are they waking up to a popular view thats been around for at least 5 years since the last crash that it really isn’t.

    There is a tendency for tabloids to think sex between teachers and boys is a lesser evil to teacher- girl sex, I think because of a pervasive newspaper view that the girl is somehow damaged goods. Of course if the teacher is a man and caught engaging in a homosexual liaison with a pupil then he is automatically a “Paedo Sir”.”

    I think if you get wrapped up in any media at all there is a tendency to think it represents real life. But as soon as you step outside you are reminded that it doesn’t. People just don’t talk in the way tabloids do to one another, they don’t talk how the Guardian does either (which equally exists in its own special moral vacuum). Sure people will parrot what they see in the media when a camera is on them, and they will ape media behavior. But I think the traffic in the opposite direction is very limited. People don’t talk about the media and PR bubble for nothing. The content they write is mostly a rehash of other people’s articles or press releases, their interviewees are friends and family of their colleagues or somebody off a database, very rarely do they check in with the non-media world.

    Do you really think if a 30 year old woman was having sex with your 13, 14 or 15 year old son or nephew you’d be saying “go on son!”? You’d be furious, other adults would be sincere and concerned.

  7. carnation says

    Re the role of men… Well, rejecting the constricting and outdated societal expectations is the thing to do. Patriarchal assumptions have long affected men disasterously. The rejection of these expectations can only cone from within, however.

    Feminist theory facilitates this, despite the inane utterings of MRA buffoons.

    Machismo was once all powerful. It isn’t any longer, though clearly still has an impact.

    Regarding other things that caught my attention, Paul Elam’s gaffe was hilarious:

    http://manboobz.com/2013/11/06/a-voice-for-mens-paul-elam-duped-by-obviously-fake-article-on-satirical-website/

  8. Sans-sanity says

    New global rule! (violators to be punished by nil)

    People offering explanations as to why angry white men* are angry must:

    a) be an angry white man
    b) be quoting an angry white man
    or c) be referring to a phenomonological study of anger amongst white men, carried out under an appropriate paradigm

    Either a) or b) are appropriate for comments, but to publish a book or article (research or journalistic) you must have c)

    Thankiseveryone in advance for the anticipated universal and immediate compliance with this rule. This commentor looks forwards to a whole less stupid :)

    *Or any other demographic**
    **Excluding university students – fuck those guys.***
    ***Don’t.

  9. John Austin says

    Lucy 6

    “Do you really think if a 30 year old woman was having sex with your 13, 14 or 15 year old son or nephew you’d be saying “go on son!”? You’d be furious, other adults would be sincere and concerned.”

    Never meant to suggest I wouldn’t be.

  10. Lucy says

    @John

    Well exactly, and what parent, uncle, aunt, teacher, friend of the family would? In real life.

    The only people who talk like this are this weird breed of professional moralisers and snoopers called staff journalists, but the media are psychopaths or have some kind of special mental illness all of their own, as yet undiscovered. I say this as somebody who knows a fair few personally.

    Sure maybe their school friends might copy it, but they’re kids and they’d equally be egging you on to play chicken with an intercity train. Kids think they’re impervious to pain and think mother people are too, they haven’t learned to empathise very well yet because most of them haven’t experienced much.

    Remember the media industry depends on us being consumers. They engineer us to consume what they have to offer, every it as much as the tobacco or fast food industry does. They feed us what gives us a high so we want more: ie things that make us angry, sad, ecstatic, turned on.

  11. redpesto says

    I was a bit disappointed by the Guardian article: it felt like a ‘boilerplate’ piece about men needing to get their shit together. I read an extract from Kimmel’s book over at Salon, and it had the feeling of him repeatedly wanting to wheel out ‘more feminism’ as the answer when so much of the evidence pointed towards a much bigger economic problem (as in ‘the 1% v the rest’).

    Kimmel might be ‘describing the irrational emotional fallout of the economic gender revolution detailed in books like Stiffed and The End of Men’ but in the same way Faludi’s book apparently rejected ‘adversarial’ gender politics in favour of some vague ‘alliance’ against an opponent she wasn’t able to clearly identify, the idea of targeting ‘a globalised neoliberal economic system that has declared ordinary people expendable – irrespective of their race, class or gender’ is often set aside in a ‘narrative’ best exemplified in the myth that Iceland’s bankruptcy was due to ‘men’. In the absence of alternative politics, policies or social organisations (e.g. social democracy, trade unions, and the legacy of ‘New’ Labour), let alone jobs/decent pay, it’s easy for some men to be sold the snake oil of blaming the Other (women, black people, migrants) and easy for some feminists to think that being male is an economic strategy to which ‘women’ are the solution (see this example from Caroline Criado-Perez).

    Likewise, where Ally says in his conclusion ‘Yes, men need to change and adapt to a rapidly shifting world. So too does the culture in which those angry white men are forged.’ is an interesting contrast to his BTL comment:

    In broad terms I think we do need a quite revolutionary reappraisal of what we mean by masculinity, manhood and all of that.

    It’s important to note that this is already underway and has travelled a huge distance. 40 or 50 years ago we were told that no man would ever accept having a woman as his boss or even his equal in the workplace. Those attitudes are close to extinct now.

    My view is that it’s not underway because of any politicised awakening amongst men or because there is some wholesale ‘reappraisal’ that can be conjured up for men to follow; rather that it’s the pragmatic/stoical response to changed social, economic and domestic circumstances. Men accept female bosses because it means they don’t get sacked, because they actually have a job, because being a dick about it isn’t in their character, or because it’s a good place to work for all concerned (there’s no reason why they should tolerate a bad female boss any more than a bad male one). It is is not simply a question of men ‘doing what they’re told’ by feminists (as Criado-Perez seems to recognise here, in response to Ally, and as Ally explained here).

    Moreover, if that change is really happening, then what ‘we’ seem to be arguing over is the pace of that change, or paying far too much attention to ‘dead-enders’ and ‘sexist hold-outs’ or simply to those small-c conservatives around gender issues who make the loudest noise and/or attract the most attention, while the much slower process of social change for men (which Lynne Segal noticed nearly two decades ago) works away in the background. No wonder so many arguments about gender issues are more ‘culture war’ spats than debates about more substantial change, and no wonder ‘we’ act all surprised when we (re)discover that men can and do change.

  12. Lucy says

    “Machismo was once all powerful. It isn’t any longer, though clearly still has an impact.”

    Was it though? Really?

    My memories of my grandfathers and Great Grandfathers, Great Uncles, etc, who were born in the late 19th and early 20th century, aren’t of macho men. Are yours? They weren’t particularly of providers and protectors either, I mean they did alright, they had jobs, but their wives worked too and their kids had to contribute if they lived at home. They were just men, some with better characters than others, some more employed, reliable, faithful, nicer to their wives and kids than others. The stories they and my parents have told me of men of that generation include the same cross section you get nowadays, (but interestingly a number of men who returned from the war, pretended to their families that they died to shack up with a new woman, a phenomenon that probably deserves a BBC centenary documentary). I think we’re in danger of forgetting if we rely on the media to tell us what our ancestors were like.

  13. sirtooting . says

    Here you, talking about abuse, and when one is blunt about exposing that abuse, and how others associate themselves with known perverts and sing their praises endlessly and this then assists those perverts to achieve a status they should never have, then it makes it appear you are not really interested in exposing abuse but only in assisting its continuation by removing the information that would help people realize who & what they are dealing with.
    People must be held account when promoting known perverts and giving them a status they should never own.

    A person who is in awe of incest and believes incest is beneficial to a child, means that if you align yourself with that person, then you are agreeing with his beliefs and every time you sing his praises, you are giving him a platform to promote his perversions.

    Who would sing the praises of a known rapist? other rapists of course.. who else.

  14. says

    Yet you didn’t see anything wrong with using a made-up explicit incestuous scenario involving real persons as a rhetorical tool in your deleted comment? Wouldn’t that make you a known pervert?

  15. sirtooting . says

    Being blunt and getting to the crux of the matter is the most important thing.
    Can you align yourself knowingly with a pervert and then ignore the fact that he wishes his perversions were yours?
    If a man thinks incest is beneficial to a parent child relationship, then he means your relationship with your child, he means YOU.
    He believes you sucking yours sons genitals would be beneficial to you & your son & that is what it means to align yourself with a known pervert and sing his praises, because all his ideas will be affected by that one thought.
    Would you allow your child around him for one second, would you trust him with your child? and if the answer is a resounding NO, then why are we expected to listen to you singing his praises? When you don’t trust him yourself.

  16. Ally Fogg says

    sirtooting

    I’m well aware of the allegations you are bringing up, I also know that they have been denied. I’m also pretty sure you were embellishing specific details in your previous post. I’m not in a position to judge the accuracy of what you wrote but I do know that as publisher of this blog I hold legal responsibility for what is posted here and it would be me being sued for libel were someone to take exception.

    More to the point, to conjure up specific and explicit scenarios of the type you did above, involving specific named adults and children, is not just exploitative, it is downright creepy as fuck, and I entirely agree with Tamen. Being all self-righteous about it, as if you imagine you are some kind of campaigner against sexual abuse, does not make it any better, quite the reverse. .

    I’ve only ever banned one person from this blog, please don’t make yourself the second.

  17. Michael Amherst says

    @Lucy 6

    I’m afraid what you say isn’t true. I know a judge, a good, liberal minded man, who had to judge a case much like the one Ally posted. The boy in question was 15. He was concerned that everyone would expect him to make an example of the woman when ‘we all know that most boys have that as a first educative experience and would certainly never complain’ (I paraphrase). God only knows what a hang ‘em-flog-‘em judge would have made of the same case. And I don’t think it being a non-family relationship negates the seriousness of the act. I remember Barbara Ellen writing something offensive, along the lines of the judge’s view but of a different case, for the Observer. Quite why, when this poor boy and his family had put up with all the jeers of the press, one imagines his classmates (for complaining and not having said he enjoyed it), not to mention the interrogative questions by the police, the CPS and then in court, quite why Barbara Ellen feels that when *in spite of all that* actually the kid must have loved every minute of it and was being forced along by parents beats me.

  18. Lucy says

    @Michael

    Well you’ve pointed out that one judge said something insensitive/crass when overseeing a sex-crime case, which does tend to be a problem, although I expect when you are overseeing loads of cases, it will happen from time to time for whatever reason – boredom, lack of concentration, desire to make a name for themselves, irritation, context. Without knowing the details of the case it’s difficult to form an opinion on that.

    And then a psycho staff journalist did. Rehashing old media tropes for whatever reason – laziness most likely.

    I don’t deny that there are traditionally different, sexist and agist attitudes to boys and girls having sex, with women calibrated further down the spectrum than men: the bad and somewhat fascinating man is rapacious, the good (young) man is red blooded, the bad and somewhat fascinating woman is red blooded, the good (young) woman is reluctant. And I don’t deny that these are the attitudes that surface in specific, superficial situations, like online, and in the press or when a child is presenting a front to his or her class mates, but I still don’t think these are the attitudes that people close to the situation, who can see and feel the emotion, or who are involved professionally, actually have. I find it very implausible that a police liaison officer or child psychologist or school counsellor or a parent or best friend would act this way.

    So I think there is a disconnect between popular culture and actual culture, popular culture may or may not ever catch up. If you look at what Ally Fogg did when he decided to write this article about cultural attitudes, he looked online at what other writers had written, he didn’t apparently interview victims or perpetrators or speak to their families or the agencies who deal with them. So in his own way he perpetuated the disconnect.

  19. WhineyMalone says

    Hi Ally, since this is an open thread, could I ask: you know this thing you’ve said recently, that feminist elements in the Brit media are balanced out by anti-feminist ones, how is this meant to work in practice? One of the arguments you’ve put forward is that columnists like Oborne and Delingpole act as a counterweight to the feminist narratives put forward by the BBC and your own paper (including indeed the generally pro-feminist arguments in your own columns).

    Yet since those columnists hardly ever write on feminist subjects, how does this come about? Surely you need to actively challenge something to take it on in a serious way, not just cryptically hint that you don’t like it here and there in a manner that doesn’t really count for anything.

    Also, you’re aware that the BBC itself actively preaches a certain form of highly politicised feminism (for instance, which other political pressure groups do they allow to have members as presenters on prime-time discussion programmes?) When the BBC actively breaches its charter like that, then surely nothing can balance it out, since no other media organisations can match the billions of pounds in revenue a monopoly like that possesses.

    Finally, you’ve seen how papers like the Telegraph have churned out the same pro-women propaganda on, say, women’s prisoners, with hardly any criticism of the discrimination against men involved. Where is the proper balance to all that, and why isn’t it happening if your theory is correct?

  20. WhineyMalone says

    Oops, sorry obviously *women prisoners, not women’s prisoners – sounds like something out of a lesbian movie!

  21. Sasori says

    re the Guardian article.
    I think that there might be a tiny grain of truth to it but the ‘angry white men’ idea to me is like a left wing a moral panic, especially in the way a small number of websites are said to be out of control or dangerous etc with grave but unspecified consequences for the future.
    Regarding online abuse and hate brigades/griefing; since the first ‘malestrom’ article I’ve had an eye out for incidences of people receiving death threats, threats of violence and sexual violence on the internet and I’ve seen enough from enough diverse places to think that it is just a part of mainstream internet culture. It happens so often that it is not newsworthy to anyone, for every kind of reason that you could think of. I think that the idea that there is some kind of special anger that white men have can only be distilled by assiduously ignoring the grater part of internet culture including obvious ‘social justice’ hate brigades/griefing.

    Also from the Guardian article…”The hate campaigns seem firmly rooted in outrage that uppity girls should be intruding upon men’s inalienable right to behave how they like, harass who they want, control culture as they wish and shape society in their own image. Like: ‘You’ll prise Lara Croft’s skimpy shorts from my cold, dead hands.”‘ Is there any evidence for this, or that it is somehow different from any other griefing episode. I have had conversations with one of the people who was griefing Stella Creasy on twitter and his reasons were basically because he wanted attention and it was fun, he does it to loads of other people (of all genders) mostly for the same reason.
    A hypothetical thought experiment: somebody named Antonio Sarkesian critiques (in a particular way) romance novels or tv aimed at women/girls (teen wolf etc) as bad for men and evidence of hatred of them, this gets linked to parts of the Tumblr fandom and shipping community, what do you think would happen? I’m pretty sure that it would be similar. The attempts by gay bloggers to start a debate on the ‘fetishisation of gay relationships’ by shippers have been less than cordial iirc and Dr Who fans reaction when the new Dr Who was revealed to be a middle aged white man was not pretty and included loads of death threats. The reaction is the similar whenever a lot of people care about a particular thing and have anonymity.

    I haven’t read his book but (if it’s what I think it is) I find Kimmel’s framing of school shootings as somehow a reaction to changing gender roles/the position of men etc, rather than the increased stress and bullying etc (especially for boys) in schools in the US kind of unpleasant. Does he think that the postal shootings, which began after the Regan era reforms to the postal service made work extremely stressful among other things, were a reaction to this aswell, or the workplace shootings that followed the worsening working conditions in many other US workplaces. Ignoring things that don’t fit the pattern of a particular narrative is a common feature of journalism.

  22. sirtooting . says

    @ Mr Fogg, You claim, regarding Warren Farrell
    ” I’m well aware of the allegations you are bringing up, I also know that they have been denied” .. HAVE THEY?
    ” I’m not in a position to judge the accuracy of what you wrote” .. Really? ..

    But it only took me two minutes to check on the internet to confirm that the allegation was actually TRUE..

    Mr Fogg .. You seem less capable than I? But maybe that is the difference between wanting to know the truth and not wanting to know it, .. Hey?..

    Warren Farrell believes incest benefits families especially the daughters of those families, who he is most interested in.

    Knowing that, would you trust Farrell near your children?
    Warren Farrell, believes in having sex with children, this makes him a paedophile in every sense of the word, but Mr Fogg doesn’t want anyone to focus their attentions on that.

    Mr Fogg is telling me to shut up and getting all upset about what?
    “Being all self-righteous about it, as if you imagine you are some kind of campaigner against sexual abuse, does not make it any better, quite the reverse.”

    Mr Fogg, I could agree with you there, but then that would make us both wrong, wouldn’t it.?

    As far as the MRA’S are concerned Warren Farrell is one of their chief guru’s and they happily quote him endlessly and he is all for promoting fathers rights but one wonders exactly how those rights he supports are influenced by his ideas he holds that sex with children is A OK, especially when it is behind the closed door of a family home.

    It makes me nervous to imagine what he is encouraging men to think and more what he would encourage them to do to their children if he could give them that right which he believes they should be entitled to have..

  23. Ally Fogg says

    @WhineyMalone (23)

    Hi Ally, since this is an open thread, could I ask: you know this thing you’ve said recently, that feminist elements in the Brit media are balanced out by anti-feminist ones, how is this meant to work in practice? One of the arguments you’ve put forward is that columnists like Oborne and Delingpole act as a counterweight to the feminist narratives put forward by the BBC and your own paper

    Yep.

    It’s a mistake to think that the only anti-feminist stances or arguments are those which overtly declare themselves as anti-feminist, because 99% of the time (everywhere except on MRA blogs), the topic of debate is NOT feminism. The topic is economic policy, or workplace policy, or domestic arrangements, or lifestyles, or criminal justice policy, or media representations of women, or political representation of women etc etc etc.

    Example: Imagine you have a columnist writing a piece saying “there is too much red tape for employers – bosses should be able to hire who they like and fire who they like without the government or the EU interfering.”

    Another columnist replies with a blog saying “Without anti-discrimination laws bosses will refuse to hire young women in case they get pregnant and will sack pregnant women rather than pay maternity leave.”

    There you have a straightforward debate: A feminist position versus and anti-feminist position. The two sides don’t need to identify themselves in such a way in order to fulfill that position.

    However in practice, many people will look at the latter example and say “that position is feminist” but they usually won’t look at the former one and say “that position is anti-feminist” even though it quite blatantly is.

    Similarly (leaving aside arguments about the Page 3 campaign within feminism for a moment) if on the one hand a feminist writer or activist believes that Page 3 is demeaning to women and should be abolished, and on the other hand the world’s most powerful media magnate and newspaper proprietor decides that it isn’t (or more accurately that he doesn’t care if it is or not, providing it sells) which party holds the most power? Which voice is the most influential?

    Or as a final example, if you have one of the bestselling papers in the country running endless articles every day about how female celebrities have been showing their cellulite or bulges, flaunting their curves, losing their figures etc etc etc, and you’ve got a journalist on the woman’s page of the Guardian writing about how this is harmful – again you have a feminist with minimal profile and influence on one side, and an anti-
    feminist empire of massive power on the other.

    What you are missing, I suspect, is that social conservatism, economic conservatism, the industry of sexualised portrayal of women etc etc etc, are all anti-feminist positions. They don’t need to bill themselves as such in order to serve that function.

  24. Ally Fogg says

    sirtooting

    But it only took me two minutes to check on the internet to confirm that the allegation was actually TRUE..

    Three points

    1. Not everything on the internet is true.

    2. By sloppy, inaccurate paraphrasing, you went further in your allegations than either the Manboobz or the Lizlibrary posts you linked to, and said things that don’t appear in either article.

    3. You also envisioned a pretty grotesque imaginary scenario involving a specific, named person and her son which was my main objection to your post. Your justification that “she supports MRAs and MRAs support Warren Farrell and Warren Farrell wrote stuff like this 40 years ago therefore it is justified” was pretty spurious and very unpleasant.

  25. says

    Lucy @22:

    It’s not just one judge. This study published in Feminist Crimonology (http://fcx.sagepub.com/content/7/2/146.abstract) finding that female sex offenders are sentenced less harshly than male sex offenders for the same offense may be of interest – it certainly suggests that this view of female offenders as less harmful is pretty prevalent among judges.

    [It's irritating that SAGE has pulled many articles that a year ago were freely available in full behind a paywall].

  26. Adiabat says

    Ally (27): What a weird way to frame things. How are you defining ‘feminist position’?

    You seem to be defining it as any position espoused by a feminist. You then reach the conclusion that anyone disagreeing with anything any feminist says is holding an ‘anti-feminist position’. Is my interpretation correct?

    leaving aside arguments about the Page 3 campaign within feminism for a moment

    How can you? The way you have framed this implies that each side of the argument you want to ignore is both ‘feminist’ and ‘anti-feminist’ at the same time (Schrodinger’s Feminist!). Unless you clarify it seems to me that the thing you are asking us to ignore is the very thing which discredits the point you are trying to make.

    Finally, would you say that conservative women who also identify as feminists aren’t “real feminists”? Is there a “big tent” within feminism or not?

  27. Ally Fogg says

    Adiabat

    You seem to be defining it as any position espoused by a feminist.

    Yep, that’s a pretty good working definition of feminism!

    You then reach the conclusion that anyone disagreeing with anything any feminist says is holding an ‘anti-feminist position’. Is my interpretation correct?

    To an extent. Feminism is, at least in theory, a challenge to the established political and cultural structure of society. So any position that seeks to retain the established political and cultural structure of society in those respects is anti-feminist.

    Finally, would you say that conservative women who also identify as feminists aren’t “real feminists”? Is there a “big tent” within feminism or not?

    Yes, I have to admit, I’ve always found the phrase “conservative feminist” to be pretty much a contradiction in terms. I’d say anyone who lays claim to that title is either not really a feminist or not really a conservative – but it is also true that both those labels do indeed cover very big tents indeed and are so broadly used in practice as to be almost meaningless. Ho hum.

  28. Sasori says

    @WhineyMalone (23) Ally Fogg 27

    They aren’t directly opposing each other though, one is pushing north and the other is pushing west.

    A good example is the “one of the bestselling papers in the country running endless articles every day about how female celebrities have been showing their cellulite or bulges, flaunting their curves, losing their figures etc etc etc, and you’ve got a journalist on the woman’s page of the Guardian writing about how this is harmful,”
    Heat etc also runs articles about men who were once attractive being fat and nobody writes counter articles. This feeds into a narrative that body image issues are only a female thing which is probably not true, especially as those guardian articles are part of a middle class culture in which practically nobody reads Heat or the Sun. Also when being griefed on twitter is the summer national news story of the year it is obvious that there is not zero power there. Most social forces are secondary to large corporations in modern Britain but it doesn’t mean that conservatives, say, have no power.

  29. Adiabat says

    Ally (32): I haven’t the time to respond in full right now but for now, how do you get around the Schrodinger’s Feminist problem?

    The opinion of NewsCorp is shared by many (most?) feminists. Does this mean that as well as being anti-feminist their position is also feminist, and UKFeminista is anti-feminist?

    You also seem to imply that the opinion that is against the current setup is the “true feminist” view (perhaps as a solution to the schodingers feminist problem?). Is this true in all cases? For example paper abortion* (which we won’t go into beyond using it as an example) is “a challenge to the established political and cultural structure of society”. A few feminists even agree with it, though they are rare. Does that mean that the true feminist position is ‘pro-legal surrender’ and those who argue against it are anti-feminists?

    * Though I believe the preferred term is now ‘legal surrender’.

  30. Ally Fogg says

    Sasori

    Heat etc also runs articles about men who were once attractive being fat and nobody writes counter articles. This feeds into a narrative that body image issues are only a female thing which is probably not true, especially as those guardian articles are part of a middle class culture in which practically nobody reads Heat or the Sun.

    Yes they do, occasionally. And occasionally people like me write articles pointing out that this is a bad things. But I don’t see your point. Nobody is saying women are the only people who are ever exploited or badly treated by the media, capitalism or whatever.

    Also when being griefed on twitter is the summer national news story of the year it is obvious that there is not zero power there. Most social forces are secondary to large corporations in modern Britain but it doesn’t mean that conservatives, say, have no power.

    Well, that kind of depends on what happens as a consequence. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by your second point. Large corporations *are* conservatism.

  31. carnation says

    @ Ally

    picking up on your point that “conservative feminist” is a contradiction (oxymoron?), is “liberal MRA” the same?

    Not being mischevious, just curious. For discussion’s sake, let’s assume the liberal MRA us an avfm/mhra type.

  32. Sasori says

    35 Ally Fogg/
    But that is the narrative of the Guaridan articles in your example (in my experience) that ‘x, y and z does a, b and c to women and women only,’ there is no nuance or acknowledgement of other problems; this is not just true of Heat (although it’s not as frequent as their stuff about women, it’s not occasionally, it’s all the time or whenever an attractive male celebrity puts weight on etc) etc and body image, but lots of much more serious things aswell. In aggregate, it creates a set of axioms in this comparatively powerful middle class culture that don’t necessarily reflect the real world.

    (I am not a conservative but ), imho one of the big ‘contradictions’ of modern (c)onservatism (and Conservatism) is that many of the things they don’t like about society, like; the death of ‘old values’ communal ‘looking out for each other’ culture, sex and drugs etc especially in the media and on and on (even immigration), are influenced by (are partly the result of the actions of or are in the interests of) large companies. MTV, Sony records, the Film and fashion industries etc. Also, the death of the old values that many conservatives (like Peter Hitchens) lament, imho were caused in part by the Thatcher style deregulation and the cultivation of individualist culture. Whenever these people come up against the interests of large corporations they loose. imho they have evolved to avoid discussion of the influence of large corporations in the media, but irl conservatives don’t really, for instance, the other day it was reported that a majority of polled conservatives support re-nationalisation of the most of the utilities, including rail.

  33. Ally Fogg says

    how do you get around the Schrodinger’s Feminist problem?

    Don’t really see it as a problem.

    Any conversation about feminism is going to be underpinned by the question “well what do you mean by feminism?” We could raise the exact same question to anyone identifying as “anti-feminist” – what is it you are against? How can you be against something if you don’t know what it is? etc etc etc

    Yes, there are pro-censorship and anti-censorship feminists, pro-porn and anti-porn feminists. However pro-porn, anti-censorship feminists are still opposed to the ways in which they see society restraining or oppressing women, and especially women’s sexuality. So there is still a radicalism there – pro-porn feminists are not simply accepting society’s status quo.

    The opinion of NewsCorp is shared by many (most?) feminists. Does this mean that as well as being anti-feminist their position is also feminist, and UKFeminista is anti-feminist?

    I very much doubt that the opinion of NewsCorp is shared by (m)any feminists. I think pretty much all feminists have profound and fierce disagreements with Rupert Murdoch. It’s just that not all of them consider Page 3 to be the frontline or the most important difference between them.

    If you can find me a pro-Murdoch feminist (with the possible exception of Louise Mensch) I’ll be pretty astonished.

  34. Ally Fogg says

    carnation

    picking up on your point that “conservative feminist” is a contradiction (oxymoron?), is “liberal MRA” the same?

    Not being mischevious, just curious. For discussion’s sake, let’s assume the liberal MRA us an avfm/mhra type.

    I don’t think so, but ‘liberal’ is an even more problematic adjective than either ‘conservative’ or ‘feminist’ since it actually has several distinct different meanings within political and economic theory.

    I’m not entirely sure whether there’s enough agreement on what an MRA is or is not in terms of their beliefs for that to be really meaningful either.

  35. Ally Fogg says

    Sasori (37)

    Sorry, really don’t see your point.

    I don’t deny that there is a certain strain of Guardian feminist article that views women’s issues (indeed views society) through a specific lens.

    I do dispute that those articles are in any way effective or influential when contrasted to the forces of conservative interests they come up against.

  36. Sasori says

    Fair enough but I’ll have another try at expressing myself.
    I am saying that when one distinct interest/agenda comes to dominate a particular area of debate (i.e. gender) this is bad for people who aren’t served by that interest/agenda, an example; both black and tabby cats are kicked a comparable amount (maybe black cats are kicked more maybe not), although there is the occasional report about how tabbies are kicked, the cat press and cat academics write mostly about how black cats are kicked, so much so that it is taken as an axiom that being kicked is inherently a black cat problem, I think this is a problem for tabby cats.

    I think it is something a little like the “white working class” debate a few years ago, when for a long time one of the only ways the problems of poverty and poor schooling etc were discussed was through the lens of ethnic minority pressure groups. This may or may not have lead to the concentration of services in inner city (more likely to be ethnic minority) schools and now rural white poor kids have worse outcomes than almost every other major ethnic group in UK schools.
    Another example comes from your blog, it became such an axiom that female on male sexual violence was not a problem that very few people checked seriously.

    >”Well, that kind of depends on what happens as a consequence. Also, I’m not sure what you mean by your second point. Large corporations *are* conservatism.”

    I would argue that the summer campaign against ‘twitter trolls’ was ultimately conservative, as it resulted in increased legitimacy for the police arresting people for saying things on the internet, not just for sexist things but for saying rude things about soldiers and footballers etc.
    I think most of the cultural social change over the last decades has in part been through business selling various things to people, sex as rebellion, multiculturalism etc, the Thomas Frank book “the conquest of cool” covers this quite well. Look at the debate on the sexualisation of children, that is conservatives (among others) vs business interests. Business is not socially conservative, or really opposed to most of the program of various liberal feminists (Sheryl Sandburg etc), especially when it can be linked to perceived meritocracy they are also mostly for gay marriage and other progressive social issues. The Harvard Business school is one of the most progressive there is, having a gender calculated grade among other things. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/education/harvard-case-study-gender-equity.html?_r=0

    Also, there are lots of conservative feminists, the Susan B Anthony list (the US anti abortion organisation) for example I find terms like ‘anti American,’ ‘anti communist’ and anti feminist to be troubling as they are often used to conflate legitimate criticism with irrational opposition and create ingroup/outgroup dynamics “you aren’t a real X,” “Stalin wasn’t a real communist” etc.

  37. Lucy says

    Sasori

    “think that the idea that there is some kind of special anger that white men have can only be distilled by assiduously ignoring the grater part of internet culture including obvious ‘social justice’ hate brigades/griefing.”

    On YouTube, the female videos that reach a male audience tend to be covered in sexist, intrusively and often aggressively sexual comments (unless the vlogger is moderating them), the (white) male ones get a much easier time, black males get some abuse, but they enjoy some level of street cred protection. Non-white women are treated with some level of sexual fascination and phoney respect. It’s pretty clear from the language and cultural references that the commenters are American and British white male teens and this is confirmed by the response vlogs. There is also a popular video genre of men kicking and hitting women which get howls of approval because apparently women can’t be equal until men can punch them too, and a watered-down version of this with boyfriends playing rather nasty practical jokes on their girlfriends for laughs from their bros.

    The use of derogatory sexist terms is completely ubiquitous on line in a way that racist terms are not. Maybe homophobic language competes.

    It”s a shame that this a Geography of Hate research project by Humboldt State University only included homophobia, racism and disability hate, don’t know why they didn’t think sexism was worth investigating too: http://users.humboldt.edu/mstephens/hate/hate_map.html.

    But there would be an easy way to make an assessment, you could use an online market research tool designed to trawl the net for certain terms (e.g. google alerts) and more sophisticated ones designed to interpret mood.

  38. bugmaster says

    @Ally / Adiabat:

    Wait, this sounds odd to me. Adiabat asked:

    You then reach the conclusion that anyone disagreeing with anything any feminist says is holding an ‘anti-feminist position’. Is my interpretation correct?

    Then, Ally, you replied:

    To an extent. Feminism is, at least in theory, a challenge to the established political and cultural structure of society. So any position that seeks to retain the established political and cultural structure of society in those respects is anti-feminist.

    Bit that did not answer the question.

    Is it possible for a person to agree with all (or perhaps some) of the goals of feminism, while disagreeing with some of the methods feminists use to achieve these goals; or does doing so automatically makes a person an anti-feminist, and therefore a sexist ?

    Or, to make the question even more dire, is it possible for a person to believe that there are values more important than even feminism, without automatically becoming a sexist ?

  39. Sasori says

    43 Lucy
    >”the (white) male ones get a much easier time”
    I think it’s a bit more complicated than that. imho everybody who is physically attractive gets (not necessarily complimentary and often creepy or rude) comments about how they look and how attractive they are on youtube, but there are more women who are perceived as attractive than men, you have to be a very attractive man to get these types of stuff. I could find some examples of loads of comments by girls to male youtubers if you like. I also think that men get slightly more general rude or abusive things said about them and female youtuers get slightly better treatment but with more sexual comments and gendered abuse. This is true of friends who play computer games aswell, they get slightly better treatment, but more gendered insults.

    I think that you only get a ‘genre of videos of men hitting women’ if you ignore all the other videos of everybody of every description hitting everybody of every description, there are lots of videos of girls hitting boys aswell. Do you think that the genre of videos of bears hitting people is due to the unique anger at the change in the relationship between bears and humans. The only boyfriend/girlfriend practical joke youtube channels I’m aware of (“bfvsgf” etc) the girlfriend is playing practical jokes aswell.

    Youtube comments puzzled me for a while but it was most useful to me to understand them as the internet equivalent of the conversations that people have when they are watching tv. With men and women, if they are watching something that is not particularly distracting, most of the talk will be about who fancies who etc (and this will not necessarily be complimentary). It also helps make sense when you think that the average youtube commenter is in their early teens.

    This is what I was trying to explain to ally fogg above, this is something that affects most people but the response to it is along the fault lines of social movements, leaving people out. I am also not so sure that the geography of hate counter is evidence that there is more homophobia, iirc attitudes to gay people are better among younger people than their parients and are getting better all the time.

  40. Ally Fogg says

    Sasori

    I am saying that when one distinct interest/agenda comes to dominate a particular area of debate (i.e. gender) this is bad for people who aren’t served by that interest/agenda, an example; both black and tabby cats are kicked a comparable amount

    OK, I’m with you on this, but I think you are conflating two points. You’ve actually hit on a longstanding bugbear of mine.

    I agree that in practice, in the media but also culture more generally, feminists hsve close to a monopoly on discussions of (explicitly) gender issues, and I agree that this is not ideal or even healthy.

    The reason for that is quite obvious, it was (by and large) feminists who made gender a political dynamic, who were for a long time the only people who wanted to talk about gender (they even pretty much identified that gender was even a ‘thing’ as opposed to biological sex.) However, now that discussions have been opened up, it is important that men (and indeed non binary peeps) can also have those discussions.

    You can see how this plays out in practice at the Guardian, because when I write pieces as a man, about men, for men, they get tagged and classified on the Guardian website as “Lifestyle > Women” because they don’t even have the tags to file it any other way! If it is a piece on gender issues then it must = “Women”

    However where I think we’re parting ways is that I don’t blame feminism for that. Feminists are there to do their thing, to make their case for women, fight causes for women, and are under no obligations to represent men and their interests. I think it is up to the rest of us to make the case for men where it is needed, to carve out our own spaces, our own arguments, our own agendas.

    Now the whole basis of my gender politics is that we can do that alongside women, even alongside feminism. The problem, it seems to me, is that the majority of writers and activists on men’s issues appear more interested in dragging women down than in raising men up. That’s why the mainstream media won’t grant space to the likes of Paul Elam or even Mike Buchanan, because nobody wants to be associated with ideas that are clearly all about trampling over the welfare of those who are already vulnerable and in need (eg young single mothers or female rape victims).

    I think the fact that the likes of me and Glen Poole have been able to get into mainstream media spaces shows that it is possible to advocate for men’s interests, providing you do so with a modicum of human decency. I would be much, much happier if there were a lot more of us around, and if our ideas were closer to the centre of the mainstream, of course. But I’m also aware that things have moved on quite significantly in the right direction over the past five years or so.

    Having said all that, I don’t think it is really the heart of the debate that started this though. My position on the big question is that the main opposition to feminist ideas in society comes not from self-identifying anti-feminists, but from the conservative and reactionary establishment, and it is they who really call the shots.

  41. Ally Fogg says

    bugmaster

    Is it possible for a person to agree with all (or perhaps some) of the goals of feminism, while disagreeing with some of the methods feminists use to achieve these goals; or does doing so automatically makes a person an anti-feminist, and therefore a sexist ?

    Sure, of course.

    To be honest, I don’t think being a feminist is a yes/no, on/off binary switch.

    Someone can identify as a feminist or not, by choice, and that choice tells you a little bit about them, but not very much.

    Someone can speak or act in ways that can be interpreted as feminist or not. That tells you something about them too, but not necessarily whether they ARE a feminist.

    You can identify as being anti-feminist without being sexist or anti-women, and you can be anti-feminist without identifying as anti-feminist.

    Hope that clears things up for you ;-)

  42. Sasori says

    It is interesting,
    >”Feminists are there to do their thing, to make their case for women, fight causes for women, and are under no obligations to represent men and their interests.”
    I would not have a problem with any of this if the same people didn’t say that ‘gender equality for all’ etc was one of their main goals. I now think that, with some prominent activists/writers, this is a kind of Leo Strauss style esoteric/exoteric political strategy or the selling of a movement dear to you as the perfect answer to everyones problems that goes on with socialists a lot. It’s understandable I guess, but I think that when you hold people to very high and stringent moral standards it would do to have similar standards aswell.
    >”That’s why the mainstream media won’t grant space to the likes of Paul Elam or even Mike Buchanan”
    I think this is a chicken and egg kind of situation. I am not sure if the reason people like Elam have come to be popular is because that talking about gender from a (non chastising) male perspective was not permitted in the respectable press/academia, especially not on the left and especially not in the US, so it formed as a kind of counter culture. (

    I think aswell that the tendency to hyperbole of various internet communities makes it more likely that the person who can shout the loudest and martial collective outrage etc is more likely to be successful and forming ingroups/outgroups and siege mentalities is effective in doing this.
    I’m a bit sketchy on this but) in some countries where this kind of cuckooing didn’t happen to the same extent (like Sweden) there is a social democratic/left wing mens, or fathers movement and also much more adequate provision for male domestic abuse victims, I have no idea about media and columnists though, maybe Tamen can help out.

  43. 123454321 says

    “To be honest, I don’t think being a feminist is a yes/no, on/off binary switch.”

    You’re not wrong, more like an incessant quantum state of superposition – all states of mind fucked up simultaneously.

    I can sniff out a feminist a mile away; it doesn’t take long.

  44. bugmaster says

    @Ally #47:

    Yep, that makes sense to me. I think I was inadvertently confusing your position with Aron Ra’s, whose position is a lot less nuanced — or, to put it a positive way, a lot more bold and uncompromising.

  45. says

    Lucy @41:

    Maybe female offenders are less harmful. I expect judges are in the best position to judge.

    That argument is kind of like arguing that any wage gap is perhaps caused by women being less effective since I’d expect employers to be in the best position to judge.

  46. sirtooting . says

    @ Mr Fogg
    I understand that the article in question was written as a result of an interview with Mr Farrell in the 1970’s. Mr Farrel himself has verified the truth of this written account, and so it is quite clear he is a paedophile and paedophiles do not change either because they cannot or will not and just as a leopards cannot change their spots, neither can paedophiles.
    I’m afraid Mr Farrell has only confirmed he is a paedophile and believes sex with children is A OK.
    So, should a known paedophile, who asserts incest is an acceptable idea, head a campaign for fathers rights?

  47. Sasori says

    Tamen 51 and Lucy 41.

    I remember seeing this article/study of gender sentencing disparities in Finland
    http://euc.sagepub.com/content/6/3/225.short
    A free version used to be available and it brought up some interesting stuff. Apparently, gender bias in prison sentencing may shrink the more gender equal labour and family care are. In Finland (featured in the study) gender disparity in sentencing may even be non existent and is certainly much less of a factor than in the US.
    This seems to be related to social policy that allows men and women to take part in child care and participate in the labour market more equally, softening rigid ‘male provider female nurturer’ sex roles. There is apparently a reluctance to send parents of either sex to prison, as well as other social biases that you would (sadly) expect in sentencing.

    Also mentioned in the paper that rural working class female in-comers in 19th Century Canada were treated more harshly by courts as they were behaving in a manner thought to be ‘unfeminine’ for the protestant middle class mores of the time, some middle class women may have even been involved in campaigning for harsher treatment.

  48. says

    Sasori:

    I can see that happening for victimless crimes or for crimes where the outcome isn’t thought to be biased by the gender of the perpetrator (like theft – what is stolen is stolen regardless of whether a man or a woman stole it).It would’ve been interesting if the paper you linked to had broken the crimes down into categories including “sexual offenses” – a crime where there is a common perception that a male sexual offender is more harmful than a female sexual offender.

  49. JT says

    who asserts incest is an acceptable idea, head a campaign for fathers rights?(Sirtooting)

    A few questions for you, does he still assert that idea? Or is that something he said 40yrs ago? What is his position today?. Go google it, Im sure you can have the answer very soon.

  50. sirtooting . says

    @ JT.. A question for you, ,, Can you change your sexuality, which ever it might be, either heterosexual or homosexual or paedophilia .. Your sexual orientation, is what you are born with. A leopard can’t change his spots and neither can you or a paedophile.

    “When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, wow 6 out of 200
    “The incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

    Farrell. “The average incest participant can’t evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy “
    Children aged, 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10.. Can’t evaluate his or her experience for what it was, Farrell says .. Oh yes they can .. Ask the young boys and girls molested by priests.

    Warren Farrell admires Giaretto’s rehabilitative mission among legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category. But he faults “Weekend” for its skewed perspective. “It was like interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. ‘Weekend’ recorded sexually abused children speaking about their sexual abuse, which is valuable, but the inference is that all incest is abuse, And that’s not true.”
    In a typical traumatic case, an authoritarian father, unhappily married in a sexually repressed household [i.e it's the mother's fault] and probably unemployed, drunkenly imposes himself on his young daughter. [I.e it's not a traumatic case if dad is sober and gentle.] Genital petting may have started as early as age eight with first intercourse occurring around twelve [i.e. its "genital petting", not "molestation"]. Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him. [i.e. give him joint custody, he needs more time] If she is unaware of society’s taboo and if the mother does not intervene [it's the mother's fault], she has no reason to suspect the enormity of the aberration. But when she grows up and learns of the taboo, she feels cheapened. [i.e. it's everyone's but the father's fault.] If she comes from the lower class, she may turn to prostitution or drugs… The trauma is spread through all classes, Farrell observes, but incest is more likely to be negative in the lower class… [i.e. rules don't apply to important men.]

    “When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200,” says Farrell, “the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.” [just a wholesome family, not a couple of perverts.]

    [Re one of Farrell's reported "case studies"] … the writer happened to be at his beach house alone with his attractive fifteen-year-old daughter…. His wife’s appendix operation had curtailed his sex for the previous five months… the women on the beach and a few beers had led him into special temptation. When the daughter emerged from the bathroom in a towel, he greeted her in the nude and erect. Although he had never consciously desired incest before [that seducing vixen], he told his daughter he missed sex. Without further prompting, she fellated him…Two weeks later the daughter walked around the house naked until the father approached her. That day he deflowered her to their mutual satisfaction. But the father was careful not to push things. He did not want to hurt his daughter, who seemed to have an active sex life with boys her own age. [He "deflowered" her but she had an active sex life.] Several weeks later, the daughter took the initiative again… [note how innocent the man is throughout this entire little scenario.]

    Farrell realizes the risks that attend publication of this book. “In a society where men are powerful and exploitive and insensitive to women’s feelings, which is reinforced by female adaptiveness and a daughter’s lack of power, data like these can be used as an excuse for the continuation and magnification of that exploitation. When I consider that, I almost don’t want to write the book.” [liznote: cf Myth of Male Power: Farrell does not believe that this is the way society is, but rather, that it’s women exploiting men.

    Since neither victim nor benefactor needs Farrell’s confirmation, why does he gamble with bringing on a sexual deluge? “First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration.”

    “Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.” [He's a psychologist? No. Farrell''s Ph.D. is in political science]

    Farrell also hopes to change public attitudes so that participants in incest will no longer be automatically perceived as victims.

    If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? “Incest is like a magnifying glass,” he summarizes. “In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship.”

    Despite some advertisements, calling explicitly for positive female experiences [now there's objective research for you], Farrell discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest. [Could we phrase this a little more mildly?] Only 15 percent felt positive about the experience. On the other hand, statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse — 60 percent positive 10 percent mixed, and 20 percent negative. “Either men see these relationships differently,” comments Farrell, “or I am getting selective reporting from women.” [i.e. men tell the truth, women lie.] Farrell couldn’t believe the women were telling the truth .. and so they must be lying, they must have enjoyed being raped by their fathers, because he knows the fathers enjoyed raping them, because the fathers said so

    There goes a man who was not objective in anyway, quite the contrary, and he didn’t want to believe his subjects because it was totally opposite to what he believed and it was not the publicity he was hoping for when he was intending to publish a book on the benefits of incest, & he found he couldn’t justify those benefits due to 194 out of 200 victims surveyed, there was no benefit at all.

    Man who views sex with children as A OK., is a paedophile

  51. John Morales says

    sirtooting @56:

    @ JT.. A question for you, ,, Can you change your sexuality, which ever it might be, either heterosexual or homosexual or paedophilia .. Your sexual orientation, is what you are born with. A leopard can’t change his spots and neither can you or a paedophile.

    You are confused; pedophilia is a paraphilia, not a sexual orientation.

    (Prepubescence ain’t a gender!)

  52. JT says

    @Sirtooting

    Interesting, that is a lot of talking and no answer to my question. The man may very well be a pedophile but does he still assert that the act of incest is an acceptable idea?

  53. sirtooting . says

    @ John Morales ..
    No, I am not confused, a paedophile is born a paedophile, it is his sexual orientation and those in the know say .. No cure for pedophilia has been developed … and it never will be .. that is exactly what they said about Homosexuality .. there is no cure for it! .. No of course not,.. it would be like looking for a cure for heterosexuality and why do they bother to look for a cure .. Well because it is not normal .. but dear .. it is for them.

  54. WhineyMalone says

    Well thanks for the reply Ally, it’s certainly enlightening, although I can’t say I’m in agreement on many of its points.

    After all, what happens if a dominant form of feminism forms a cosy symbiosis with those forces you label conservative? (As we often see happening in public life, so much so, that these forces themselves often cannot be told apart). How do you make the argument that this is not feminism, or not conservative?

    Like, for instance, as happened last year, a report from the Women’s Business Council being pronounced uncritically as fact on BBC news bulletins (is not the BBC a large and influential organisation?), to the effect that women had been far worse hit by the recession, and that all government efforts ought to be concentrated upon them.

    How does the concept of the Women’s Business Council fit with your thinking? A high-profile capitalist institution, run for the benefit of middle-class career women, which calls itself feminist. As a man, who would you be to disagree?

  55. sirtooting . says

    @ JT .. if a man is a paedophile, then he will assert sex with children is quite acceptable, especially to him.
    Mr Farrell asserted that very thing and when he found virtually no one else agreed with him and realised everyone started to regard him as abnormal, he chose to deflect that focus away from himself by never mentioning it again.
    And when a website put the long forgotten article up on their website for everyone to peruse, Mr Farrell threatened to sue them if they didn’t remove it .. and the websites response to that threat was .. GO ON THEN .. Sue us.
    A pedophile is always a pedophile and he will always believe sex with children Is A OK and to fit into a culture that isn’t ok with that, they keep their mouths shut and announce of course fathers having sex with their daughters is wrong ..
    When in Rome do as Roman’s do unless you want a finger pointing at YOU and singling you out as abnormal, not one us , but one of them.
    Mr Farrell cannot change his views, because it is normal to him to be that way inclined and just because he lies so the finger won’t be pointing at him, does not change that fact he is a paedophile who believes sex with children is A OK.

    You can tell me Mr Farrell says he doesn’t hold these views, but we know he does, he has already confirmed he does and those ideas will never change .. when there is no cure for paedophilia.

  56. redpesto says

    @AllyFogg #27:

    Example: Imagine you have a columnist writing a piece saying “there is too much red tape for employers – bosses should be able to hire who they like and fire who they like without the government or the EU interfering.”

    Another columnist replies with a blog saying “Without anti-discrimination laws bosses will refuse to hire young women in case they get pregnant and will sack pregnant women rather than pay maternity leave.”

    There you have a straightforward debate: A feminist position versus and anti-feminist position. The two sides don’t need to identify themselves in such a way in order to fulfill that position.

    To be honest, the first position is anti so many things one would lose track. The ‘feminist’ position simply points out one possible consequence. It depends on whether your point of reference is The Tolpuddle Martyrs or the women at the Ford plant in Dagenham. These days, however, it appears to be the latter reference some writers would use to define or ‘frame’ the issue (i.e. ‘gender’ trumps ‘class’), sometimes to the exclusion of anything else.

  57. Adiabat says

    Ally(38):

    how do you get around the Schrodinger’s Feminist problem?

    Don’t really see it as a problem.

    Fine, I just wanted clarification. I just find it strange that you’ve framed things in such a way that any particular view can be both feminist and anti-feminist at the same time, and that basically labels all feminists ‘anti-feminists’ as well. As long as you’re okay with that then we’ll leave it there but, like I said, I think it’s a weird way to frame things.

    As for a conservative feminist being a contradiction: I find campaigns such as no-more-page-3 to be extremely conservative. Sure they’ve dressed it up in new language and bullshit theory but it’s still the same stuff that Mary Whitehouse was doing decades ago. Social conservatives long ago adopted the feminist label in order to make their ideas seem progressive. Now, it seems, these conservatives are the most influential faction within feminism.

  58. says

    how do you get around the Schrodinger’s Feminist problem?

    Um…by carrying on as usual and remembering there was nothing to steer around?

    The opinion of NewsCorp is shared by many (most?) feminists.

    Who/what the fuck are you talking about?

    I can sniff out a feminist a mile away…

    You say that like it’s a bad thing. Some of them smell rather nice. Then again, if an odor is coming from a mile away, you really can’t tell where it’s coming from, can you?

  59. says

    I just find it strange that you’ve framed things in such a way that any particular view can be both feminist and anti-feminist at the same time, and that basically labels all feminists ‘anti-feminists’ as well.

    Where, exactly, did anyone other than yourself say anything like that?

    Social conservatives long ago adopted the feminist label in order to make their ideas seem progressive.

    Well, that just gets back to Ally’s point that “conservative feminist” is a bit of an oxymoron (with extra moron); and that “conservative feminists” either aren’t really conservative or aren’t really feminists.

    Now, it seems, these conservatives are the most influential faction within feminism.

    Um, no, conservatives are influential all over, and actual feminism is being smeared, tarred, and marginalized by said conservatives.

  60. redpesto says

    @Ally Fogg #32:

    Yes, I have to admit, I’ve always found the phrase “conservative feminist” to be pretty much a contradiction in terms.

    I think it’s more of a paradox: such people (male or female) might believe in ‘equality’ but think it’s best achieved through ‘conservative’ ends – e.g. the free market, individual effort, a lack of regulation by the state, etc. A more cynical view would be that they believe in equality when it it suits them, and everyone else can go hang when it doesn’t, especially if it challenges the rest of their conservative beliefs.

    Secondly I dispute your response to Adiabat:

    Adiabat: You seem to be defining it as any position espoused by a feminist
    Fogg: Yep, that’s a pretty good working definition of feminism!.

    This isn’t so much ‘Schrodingers Feminist’, as Ms Humpty Dumpty: ‘feminism means whatever a feminist wants it to mean, neither more nor less’ – though that might explain the endless go-arounds about ‘what is feminism’ and who gets to be a feminist or not (which the Guardian is currently giving another spin here and here respectively). I don’t expect unanimous agreement, however, if only because I stopped believing in a ‘kumbaya’ model of feminism round about the time I came across the sex wars: some ‘feminist’ positions ended up being not much more than warmed-over sexual conservatism and neo-Victorian pearl-clutching.

  61. Lucy says

    @sirtooting

    “No, I am not confused, a paedophile is born a paedophile, it is his sexual orientation and those in the know say .. No cure for pedophilia has been developed … and it never will be .. that is exactly what they said about Homosexuality .. there is no cure for it! .. No of course not,.. it would be like looking for a cure for heterosexuality and why do they bother to look for a cure .. Well because it is not normal .. but dear .. it is for them.”

    Except nobody actually knows whether people are born homosexual. Or paedophiles. Or shoe fetishists. Or heterosexuals. Homosexual behaviour varies considerably according to culture, there have been historical eras when it was more common than it is now for instance.

    Personality and sexual development isn’t well enough understood yet to make definitive statements.

  62. Adiabat says

    redpesto (67):

    This isn’t so much ‘Schrodingers Feminist’, as Ms Humpty Dumpty

    I agree. What I dubbed ‘Schrodingers Feminist’ is merely an extension of that. If you define a ‘feminist position’ as one espoused by a feminist, and an ‘anti-feminist’ position as one which is arguing against that, then if you find two feminists with opposite views you get two ‘Schrodingers Feminists’. Each of their views are both feminist and anti-feminist at the same time.

    (Until you measure them then no doubt both views collapse to a mess of bad logic and ridiculous identity politics. :) )

  63. sirtooting . says

    That must be like a political party, where individuals have their different ideas and opinions but they still belong to the same political party and say if they were conservative, they would not be considered anti conservative because their opinions differed.
    That is how things are thrashed out, different opinions and different solutions are put forward and considered, everyones opinion is valuable, that is called a democracy as opposed to tyranny, where only one opinion, one genders viewpoint is considered the only one valuable.
    Schrodingers Feminist .. LMAO
    Close the box, open the box, is it still there? it’s always been there.. the feminists opinion .. but men kept closing the lid on it, in the hope it would at some point, go away.
    Wrong..

  64. says

    This isn’t so much ‘Schrodingers Feminist’, as Ms Humpty Dumpty…

    Oh, right, gotta make sure we’re using the RIGHT silly-assed empty phrase, not the wrong one.

    …‘feminism means whatever a feminist wants it to mean, neither more nor less’…

    Well, yeah, the specific tenets of a movement do tend to be defined by the people in the movement. Who else do you think is supposed to do the defining? The movement’s opponents? The apathetic fence-sitters? Seriously, that’s a fucking ridiculous complaint — and what the fuck does it have to do with Humpty Dumpty anyway?

  65. says

    If you define a ‘feminist position’ as one espoused by a feminist, and an ‘anti-feminist’ position as one which is arguing against that, then if you find two feminists with opposite views you get two ‘Schrodingers Feminists’. Each of their views are both feminist and anti-feminist at the same time.

    Really?! Is that all you have to offer — stupid little mind-wanking over the use of labels? I suggest you grow up two decades and come back when you’re ready to deal with the real world.

  66. Copyleft says

    So, feminism is not a monolith, and feminists can disagree… but feminism is also anything a given feminist says it is, and any person (even another feminist) who disagrees with that is an anti-feminist!

    Very rational; very useful definition. Thanks for clearing that up.

    It would be more logical, of course, to say that “most feminists” support X, or “a portion of feminists” disagree with Y, and that such disagreements should not be lazily labeled “anti-feminism” by paranoid zealots who are looking to stifle all dissent and discussion.

    But then, that wouldn’t serve the Desperate Crusade mentality that so many radical feminists rely on, to the great amusement of everyone else.

  67. Adiabat says

    Mr Bee (72):

    feminism means whatever a feminist wants it to mean, neither more nor less’

    what the fuck does it have to do with Humpty Dumpty anyway

    rofl, and Mr Bee makes his usual “educated” and well-read contributions to the debate.

  68. sirtooting . says

    What is male privilege? The right to say what rights the female can and cannot have.
    For centuries the males have been discussing between themselves, what rights they will allow women, in their male run totalitarian world ..
    The male of the species believes he owns the right, to say what rights the female of the species can and cannot have.
    That is male privilege and what is radicalism?
    The holding or following of principles advocating drastic political, economy, or social reforms.
    Yes, viva radicalism, we are moving away from male totalitarianism and more towards a democracy.. And the misogynists are having problems coming to terms with those facts and at every corner they will do their damnedest to put a spanner in the works if they can..
    In these kind of cultures the male has always promoted the male whilst denigrating the female, so nothing new in their tactics to stifle and suffocate the females potential to promote their own as paramount.

  69. JT says

    @Adiabat

    We all enjoy the Raging of the Bee. Maybe we should title an musical piece for him. Buzzzz, buzzz, buzzz the Bee is back. We have someone to lay down some Toots for the rhythm part. Toot, toot. ;)

  70. redpesto says

    Raging Bee:

    Seriously, that’s a fucking ridiculous complaint — and what the fuck does it have to do with Humpty Dumpty anyway?

    WTF? You’re complaining about a fucking literary reference now? You’ve never fucking read Lewis fucking Carroll’s Alice in Fucking Wonderland? What fucking planet are you from? Just so you fucking know, I’ll paste the fucking quote for you:

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory,’ ” Alice said.
    Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t—till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!’ ”
    “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
    “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
    “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
    “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
    [emphasis fucking added for extra fucking clarity]

    So if Ally is fucking right, then any fucking attempt to criticise feminism is going to be met with the same fucking response of ‘well that’s not my feminism’ or with a fucking response like yours of ‘you don’t get to fucking define it’ – unless, of fucking course, you are an actual fucking bona fide feminist. And no feminist gets to say who fucking is or isn’t a feminist, even when every other feminist spat on fucking Twitter is about just that fucking topic (see fucking TERFs v sex workers for fucking starters).

    The other fucking possibility, as I’ve tried to fucking point out, is that the term gets to be defined for the fucking convenience of the fucking speaker – hence the fucking reference to Lewis Carroll’s fucking children’s classic. If you haven’t fucking done so, you should fucking well read it – it’s fucking brilliant.

    Hope that that fucking helps, which means I don’t have to fucking write like this ever a-fucking-gain.

    [And relax...]

  71. JT says

    @redpesto

    Brilliant! If you need a massage after that joyous rant you can have one on the house, lmao. :)

  72. JT says

    Oh, by the way. I have never read Alice in Wonderland(I know, another planet) but I think I am thus inspired to now. ;)

  73. says

    Lucy (68),

    At the same time employers have a stronger personal incentive to decide correctly. Further there is clear evidence in sentences biases against black people, despite the alleged training judges receive. I think your line of argument does not work well.

  74. Ally Fogg says

    copyleft

    and any person (even another feminist) who disagrees with that is an anti-feminist!

    Something literally nobody has said and I myself said (explicitly) the precise opposite. Good work.

  75. sirtooting . says

    @ Lucy
    “Except nobody actually knows whether people are born homosexual. Or paedophiles. Or shoe fetishists. Or heterosexuals.
    Homosexual behaviour varies considerably according to culture, there have been historical eras when it was more common than it is now for instance.”

    Cultures are man made social constructs other species of animals knows nothing about the moon or the sun or the human mind, except that they are there, bearing that in mind how do you account for homosexuality being rife in many other species of animal?
    Are they not born homosexual, is it not their sexual orientation.
    Life is diverse, for every niche that exists, there is a different life form ready to fill it.
    Life is diverse and so is sexual orientation, just because it isn’t normal for you to behave that way, doesn’t mean it isn’t normal for them.

  76. says

    So redpesto throws a huge temper tantrum over the suggestion that someone other than himself gets a say in what the word “feminism” means? What a jucking foke.

  77. Bugmaster says

    @JT #80:

    This is a bit off-topic, but still: I recommend reading Alice in Wonderland twice. Read the regular version first, then read the annotated version. There are a ton of really cool references to things like set theory that are easy to miss; but there are also references to things like the British school system which can be quite scathing once you know they’re there. I missed most of them the first time I read the book, but IMO reading the annotated version first would be too immersion-breaking.

  78. redpesto says

    Dear Raging Bee:

    In your last post you wrote:

    So redpesto throws a huge temper tantrum over the suggestion that someone other than himself gets a say in what the word “feminism” means? What a jucking foke.

    In my humble opinion, I was merely trying to convey an explanation in response to your question ‘Seriously, that’s a fucking ridiculous complaint — and what the fuck does it have to do with Humpty Dumpty anyway?’ in a vernacular you seem to prefer. Alas, I appear have failed in this attempt, as you have assumed I was throwing what you, with perhaps more knowledge or experience of such matters, term a ‘temper tantrum’. Moreover, it is still unclear whether you now understand my reference to Humpty Dumpty. Such lack of understanding, I fear, is not a ‘jucking foke’, as you put it, but I cannot see what more I can do to help.

    Yours sincerely,
    redpesto

    PS: I do most thoroughly recommend you read Lewis Carroll, by the way.

  79. Copyleft says

    Ally: Ah, so your post #32 wasn’t actually written by you. Got it. Might want to check your security settings.

    Raging Bee continues to live up to the name: lots of incoherent fury, but ultimately a trivial annoyance.

  80. John Austin says

    Disagree with your take on David Davis Mr.F.

    Sure he used rather intemperate language (the chains bit) but I don’t think he was getting at men who cannot afford to support their kids but those who simply will not, no matter what they earn. You can’t force people to care, but you sure as can shake them down. The State seems to hound those who want to support their kids and do bugger all about those who won’t.

  81. bugmaster says

    @redpesto #86:

    Firstly, thanks for brightening up my morning. But secondly, I don’t believe that Raging Bee is entirely to blame for his lack of understanding regarding the Humpty Dumpty metaphor.

    Most people in the USA are not familiar with the original Alice in Wonderland, but rather, with the Disney movie that is loosely based on it. In fact, many people (in my personal and entirely anecdotal experience) are not even aware of the book’s existence. Even those people who are aware that the book exists, do not know that it is a very different work as compared to the movie, and that the movie preserves virtually none of the philosophical/mathematical subtleties of the book.

    As far as I can tell though, in the USA, movies are the primary item of popular culture, and books are somewhat of a curiosity. It’s just a peculiarity of our culture; in Japan, they have manga, here, we have movies. Thus, it would be unreasonable to expect someone from the USA to pick up on the Humpty Dumpty metaphor right away, since, IIRC, it wasn’t present in the movie.

  82. redpesto says

    @bugmaster: thank you. It is unfortunate, however, that Raging Bee chose not to say this himself.

  83. bugmaster says

    @redpesto #91:

    Well, like I said, it would be unreasonable to expect Raging Bee to understand the metaphor; so he probably interpreted “Humpty Dumpty” as “something that is easy to break”, and went off on an unintentional tangent because of that.

    That said though, there are ways to disagree politely even while laboring under a misunderstanding, but Raging Bee consistently fails to utilize them…

  84. 123454321 says

    “…..unreasonable to expect Raging Bee to understand the metaphor….”

    I’d say it would be unreasonable to expect Raging Bee to understand anything.

  85. Ally Fogg says

    Copyleft

    Post 32 does not say that anyone who disagrees with a feminist about anything is anti-feminist.

    it says any position that seeks to retain the established political and cultural structure of society with respect to gender is anti-feminist.

    That’s not the remotely the same thing.

  86. bugmaster says

    @Ally #95:

    What you said makes perfect sense, but on the other hand, I’ve seen many conversations go like this:

    A: I think you have some good ideas, B, but I don’t think that implementing your specific policy X is the best way to go.
    B: If implemented, X will overturn the established political and cultural structure of society with respect to gender. If you are against it, then you’re just a sexist who seeks to retain his privilege.
    A: I do believe that all that stuff needs to be overturned, I just think that X is not the best way to go about doing that.
    B: Shut up and die, you sexist MRA pig-dog !

  87. Sans sanity says

    @Ally, but take something like a legal presumption of shared custody post divorse. It is readily observable that many feminists oppose this, and certainly the majority of established feminist organizations do. Whether or not you think that it’s a good idea, ( and it’s my understanding that you do not) opposition is clearly a “position that seeks to retain the established political and cultural structure of society with respect to gender,” and therefore anti-feminist. You also support the idea that feminism is any position espoused by a feminist.

    So, opposition to shared parenting is simultaneously feminist and anti-feminist.

    Your definitions do not coexist very well, and personally I think that they are both flawed. Far too many people who self identify as anti feminists, and are identified as such by feminists, seek to change the established political and cultural structure of society with respect to gender (after all quite a number of existing political and cultural gender elements were created or shaped by feminism; it’s been kicking around for a fair while now after all and while you make good points about its power relative to other forces, feminism has established structures in society, good bad and indifferent.
    A good example of progressive anti-feminism would be furry girl, whom I remember you linking to previously? On the other hand, with your all inclusive definition, when a feminist goes off the deep end, other feminists cannot say ‘not feminism’. As a definition goes, I think it would ultimately be crippling to the cause.

    For my own purposes I find that the feminist research paradigm provides the most useful definition of feminism.

  88. WhineyMalone says

    it says any position that seeks to retain the established political and cultural structure of society with respect to gender is anti-feminist

    That’s interesting Ally, so it would follow that the Guardian’s ‘Women’s Section’ and the Labour Women’s Conference held each year with leading feminists like Yvette Cooper etc. are, in fact anti-feminist in that they seek to maintain and preserve the impression that gender is there to be discussed and focussed upon women only? (Which, let’s face it, has now been the position in public life for many decades).

    Seems that what would be useful here to maintain your stance would be a feminist version of the ‘No True Scotsman’ argument. No ‘true feminist’ accepts conventional orthodoxies and prejudices around gender – yet funnily enough, I’ve never yet heard any of these high-profile people in politics and the media complain or criticise the situation when they benefit from these things, so I guess they ought to be excluded from the movement.

    But then another possibility: if instead of challenging and changing the approach taken towards gender, feminists seek to entrench and harden some of the old ways and prejudices for their own benefit, then it would surely follow, unavoidably, that they themselves are the conservatives, and you as a writer, Ally, are aiding and abetting conservative forces, by constantly giving them protection and encouragement in the way that you do. Now is that not a slightly uncomfortable thought?

  89. sirtooting . says

    @ whiney
    What are you saying, women shouldn’t be allowed to discuss politics or have articles published in newspapers?
    I can’t say I have ever heard women judging men or criticizing them for talking politics in newspapers, especially when the politics concern men. Virtually all newspapers are filled with men’s issues and interests, the entire back pages are devoted to sports that overwhelmingly focus on the male & report in great detail his highs & lows of the week and who scored what goals & who didn’t, whereas females involvement in sport will barely gets a mention and women are lucky if they get a sentence devoted to them, let alone a paragraph or a whole page.

    For the males amusement some newspapers even supply a picture of a half naked woman for the males to wank them selves stupid over, if this is equality, then if a woman can be shown with her sexual organs on display for the male to stare at then, there ought to be a photo of a male, with his sexual organs hanging out, for females to amuse themselves over, seems only fair..
    A few times I have heard men snigger & say to women when opening these newspaper, revealing the half naked woman inside.. are yours that big.. i think women should at least have the same opportunity to say it to men, when they open the newspaper revealing the picture of a naked man inside .. but that is just my opinion of course :) .. hahaha

  90. John Morales says

    bugmaster @96:

    I’ve seen many conversations go like this

    I disbelieve you.

    (Can you adduce even one citation for your putative many observed instances?)

  91. John Morales says

    [meta + OT]

    bugmaster:

    That said though, there are ways to disagree politely even while laboring under a misunderstanding, but Raging Bee consistently fails to utilize them…

    You imagine you have been politely disagreeing?

    (Your attempted condescension is weak)

  92. John Morales says

    sirtooting @99, again you are confused — breasts are mammary glands, not sexual organs, and have nothing to do with the physiology of reproduction.

    (Admittedly, when developed they constitute secondary sexual characteristics — much like beards on men)

  93. sirtooting . says

    Each sexual organ in one sex has a homologous counterpart in the other one. See a list of homologues of the human reproductive system. In a larger perspective, the whole process of sexual differentiation also includes development of secondary sexual characteristics such as patterns of pubic and facial hair and female breasts that emerge at puberty.
    Since they are intwined with each other, we will count them in and they are definitely considered sexual and that is why they are displayed in newspapers for men to gawp at, isn’t it?

  94. John Morales says

    sirtooting:

    Since they are intwined with each other, we will count them in and they are definitely considered sexual and that is why they are displayed in newspapers for men to gawp at, isn’t it?

    Sorta, but not really. They are indeed considered sexual in our milieu, but that’s a cultural thing, not a biological one.

    You are conflating sexual organs with sexual characteristics.

    (BTW, Ally has previously posted about those page 3 pictures, and that had its attendant discussion there)

  95. Lucy says

    @sheaf

    “At the same time employers have a stronger personal incentive to decide correctly. Further there is clear evidence in sentences biases against black people, despite the alleged training judges receive. I think your line of argument does not work well.”

    Well most employers are not self-employed, they work within organisations and so they are buffered by layers of bureaucracy and time from accountability for the effects of their salary decision. And unless they work in HR, they are unlikely to be selected or trained to make the necessary assessments to do this accurately or fairly. They are a varied bunch of people of varying quality and ability and are working within an quasi-democratic system. Having been an employer, I would say the biggest personal incentive you have is to not make things more difficult than necessary, by upsetting your managers or your staff too much, and therefore you pay the going rate.

    Judges are self-employed, they are directly accountable, they are competitively selected from an already filtered group of people, trained to judge cases fairly and dispassionately according to well-defined principles. There are checks and balances within the system to correct inevitable mistakes, including the appeals process. Most importantly, they are trusted by the public within a democratic system to do it; if we don’t trust them to do it then why are we letting them do it?

    “Further there is clear evidence in sentences biases against black people, despite the alleged training judges receive.”

    It’s not alleged, it’s actual training.

    What is the clear evidence you are referring to? But regardless, evidence of racial bias isn’t evidence of sex-bias.

  96. Lucy says

    @sirtooting

    “@ Lucy
    “Cultures are man made social constructs”

    Higher mammals have cultures too: languages, accents, localised social behaviour.


    “other species of animals knows nothing about the moon or the sun or the human mind, except that they are there”

    Pigeons have shown signs of superstitious behaviour and chimps signs of rudimentary spirituality towards waterfalls.


    “bearing that in mind how do you account for homosexuality being rife in many other species of animal?”

    Opportunism? Socialisation?


    “Are they not born homosexual, is it not their sexual orientation.”

    Not necessarily, they may be born sexually indiscriminate. Or they may experience sexual socialisation as humans apparently do when they develop sexual fixations or fetishes. I’m just speculating of course, I’m not a behavioural scientist.

    They may be born that way, they may not be, we just don’t know yet how personality and sexuality or sexual orientation develops.


    “Life is diverse, for every niche that exists, there is a different life form ready to fill it.
    Life is diverse and so is sexual orientation, just because it isn’t normal for you to behave that way, doesn’t mean it isn’t normal for them.”

    Why are you bringing me into it? I’m not making a personal observation.

  97. Lucy says

    Sans sanity

    “New global rule! (violators to be punished by nil)

    People offering explanations as to why angry white men* are angry must:

    a) be an angry white man
    b) be quoting an angry white man
    or c) be referring to a phenomonological study of anger amongst white men, carried out under an appropriate paradigm

    Either a) or b) are appropriate for comments, but to publish a book or article (research or journalistic) you must have c)

    Thankiseveryone in advance for the anticipated universal and immediate compliance with this rule. This commentor looks forwards to a whole less stupid

    *Or any other demographic**
    **Excluding university students – fuck those guys.***
    ***Don’t.”

    Unless angry white men aren’t very self-aware, in which case other opinions are invited.

  98. Lucy says

    @redpesto

    “So if Ally is fucking right, then any fucking attempt to criticise feminism is going to be met with the same fucking response of ‘well that’s not my feminism’ or with a fucking response like yours of ‘you don’t get to fucking define it’ ”

    That’s a fair criticism, it’s the same frustrating problem critics face when dealing with proofs of religious claims, staying slippery is undoubtedly sometimes a cynical tactic, or can be a symptom of amateurism. As everyone knows, the first step is any philosophical argument is to agree definitions of terms. But there are definitions of feminism and the various branches/sects within it, it’s not a chimera in reality.

    Let me try to straighten out one area of terminology confusion that I often see cropping up: sex equality does not mean the same thing to all feminists and as it may do to non-feminists. Feminism means to act as a counterpoint to the masculinisation of all aspects of our culture. Equality in Feminism’s lexicon is a genuine and profound level of ‘actualisation’ for females (different feminist branches see that played out in different ways, from sex apartheid, through complementarity through to sex parity or irrelevance). Feminism’s aim for equality, in case anyone is labouring under the misapprehension, is not for women to slip seamlessly into the existing culture and get the same remuneration/sentences for it.

  99. Ally Fogg says

    WhineyMalone (98)

    That’s interesting Ally, so it would follow that the Guardian’s ‘Women’s Section’ and the Labour Women’s Conference held each year with leading feminists like Yvette Cooper etc. are, in fact anti-feminist in that they seek to maintain and preserve the impression that gender is there to be discussed and focussed upon women only? (Which, let’s face it, has now been the position in public life for decades).

    No, you are either misunderstanding or deliberately twisting what I am saying. The notion that ‘gender is there to be discussed and focussed upon women only’ is utterly irrelevant to the mechanisms of genuine power in society. Neither the Guardian women’s page nor the Labour Party women’s section have any meaningful power in comparison to, say, Goldman Sachs or Rupert Murdoch.

    Both the Labour Party and the Guardian occupy certain complex niches within the political establishment. Hegemonic society requires at least the illusion of diversity and plurality of poitical opinion. Within both the Labour Party and the Guardian there is a further plurality of poliical opinion, ranging from neoliberal centrists to anti-capitalist socialists and even Marxists, and of course both the Labour Party and the Guardian have strong feminist wings. But in what ways are they ever allowed to exercise power and influene? That’s the real question. Ultimately it comes down to this: do you think the Labour Party at the highest levels and/or when in power is more worried about Rupert Murdoch; the stock market; Goldman Sachs, the CBI, Nissan and Motorola, or Suzanne Moore and the Fawcett Society? Really?

    Seems that what would be useful here to maintain your stance would be a feminist version of the ‘No True Scotsman’ argument. No ‘true feminist’ accepts conventional orthodoxies and prejudices around gender – yet funnily enough, I’ve never yet heard any of these high-profile people in politics and the media complain or criticise the situation when they benefit from these things, so I guess they ought to be excluded from the movement.

    The logical endpoint of the No True Scotsman fallacy is that there is not really such a thing as a true Scotsman. I’m more than happy to accept that there is no such thing as a true feminist – that implies some kind of essential perfection.

    However there is such a thing as true feminism, and by my definition (and I stress it is only my definition) true feminism is a movement for change for the welfare and emancipation of women – of course that leaves vast scope for argument about what kind of change would be most helpful. Nonetheless my definition does make conservative feminism an oxymoron – a contradiction in terms.

    But then another possibility: if instead of challenging and changing the approach taken towards gender, feminists seek to entrench and harden some of the old ways and prejudices for their own benefit, then it would surely follow, unavoidably, that they themselves are the conservatives,

    This is about much, much, much more than “the approach taken towards gender” which is an arcane and largely incidental point of ideological philosophy. Feminism is not about theory of gender, which to be honest nobody cares about bar me, you and Judith Butler, it is about practice of gender. So if I were to rephrase your point, if women seeks to entrench and harden traditional gender roles in society for their own benefit, they themselves are the conservatives. That’s true.

    and you as a writer, Ally, are aiding and abetting conservative forces, by constantly giving them protection and encouragement in the way that you do. Now is that not a slightly uncomfortable thought?

    Notwithstanding the points above, no, not in the slightest. I neither encourage nor discourage feminism. I encourage some feminist ideas and discourage others. I encourage some feminist people and discourage others. I’ve always said that I do not seek to tell feminists what to do, but if feminists find anything I write of use, then that makes me happy. Nothing there has changed.

  100. says

    Lucy

    Well most employers are not self-employed, they work within organisations and so they are buffered by layers of bureaucracy and time from accountability for the effects of their salary decision. And unless they work in HR, they are unlikely to be selected or trained to make the necessary assessments to do this accurately or fairly. They are a varied bunch of people of varying quality and ability and are working within an quasi-democratic system. Having been an employer, I would say the biggest personal incentive you have is to not make things more difficult than necessary, by upsetting your managers or your staff too much, and therefore you pay the going rate.

    So from your personal experience would you say that nothing would happen if you consistently hired completely incompetent idiots? I think this proposition is unlikely to be true. Of course as long as a certain standard is met you have error bars depending on the exact company structure. BTW the training of HR departments does not seem to be effective: http://www.economist.com/node/21551535

    Judges are self-employed, they are directly accountable, they are competitively selected from an already filtered group of people, trained to judge cases fairly and dispassionately according to well-defined principles. There are checks and balances within the system to correct inevitable mistakes, including the appeals process.

    I am astonished. You think judges are paragons of rationality in their decision making because of checks in the system? This is empirically untrue.
    Example 1:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    Example 2:
    http://www.psycontent.com/content/80l2707x26h01111/

    Most importantly, they are trusted by the public within a democratic system to do it; if we don’t trust them to do it then why are we letting them do it?

    My alliance with democracy only goes as far as saying it seems partly consistent with my utilitarian views. I do not think it will help finding the most rational decision makers (maybe above average decision makers). If you have evidence otherwise you can present it.

    What is the clear evidence you are referring to? But regardless, evidence of racial bias isn’t evidence of sex-bias.

    No it is evidence for irrationality in judges based on superficial characteristics despite the factors you cite. In parting here is a study controlling for offense type showing greater sentencing for males:
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320276

  101. says

    sheaf: That was an interesting paper. One result (from Table 6) is that females receive even shorter sentences relative to men than whites relative to blacks. The paper noted that over half of the unaccounted‐for differences are generated by departures from the (sentencing) guidelines, rather than from differential sentencing within the guidelines. Blacks and males not only receive longer sentences but also are less likely to receive no prison term when that option is available, more likely to receive upward departures, and less likely to receive downward departures. When downward departures are given, blacks and males receive smaller adjustments than whites and females.

  102. 123454321 says

    Sirtooting #99

    What a complete load of crap that you wrote in that post just there – every single freaking line is written on the back of misguided, illogical nonsense. I despise it when people perpetuate these types of arguments because they are fundamentally wrong and full of purposefully skewed non-facts which are designed to make it look like women have it bad.

    If I feel like it later I might take the time to respond line by line and put your so-called facts in the gutter where they belong. If you’re lucky, though, I might be preoccupied with better things to do and so your ill-based facts will continue to fulfil the feminist indoctrination agenda with the usual supply of air-filled stench that has become ubiquitous in today’s society. Despite the fact that some people still choose to breath it in, many people have gone past that now and, thankfully, choose to spit it out before they choke!

  103. redpesto says

    AllyFogg @ # 109:

    Neither the Guardian women’s page nor the Labour Party women’s section have any meaningful power in comparison to, say, Goldman Sachs or Rupert Murdoch.

    True. I recall reading a book by Tamsin Wilton on the ‘lesbian sex wars’ where she used a ‘prefect’ analogy. prefects don’t have much power compared to the teachers and headteacher (i.e. Goldman Sachs, Murdoch). However they do get to wield some form of power in a narrower context (in her book it was lesbianism and/or feminism; in this context, feminism and gender issues or the editorial content of the Guardian).

  104. Ally Fogg says

    True. I recall reading a book by Tamsin Wilton on the ‘lesbian sex wars’ where she used a ‘prefect’ analogy. prefects don’t have much power compared to the teachers and headteacher (i.e. Goldman Sachs, Murdoch). However they do get to wield some form of power in a narrower context,

    Ha. that’s quite nice. Although if we’re using a school as an analogy, I suspect a closer analogy might be something like the local vicar, who is invited in for coffee once a month, told his opinions are really, really important to us, is described as a “very valuable friend” but then completely ignored when it comes to making any meanimngful decisions.

  105. says

    Oh dear.

    Let’s use Madeleine Martin, the teacher named, shamed, fired, sent to prison for 32 months and put on a sex offenders register for having a 9 day affair with a 15 year old pupil as an example.

    She wrongly tried to make a relationship work DESPITE the imbalance of power.
    Like, like…well sorry to generalise, but car crash similes for sexual assault do seem quite popular in these sort discussions sooo…..like, driving drunk, hitting someone but putting them in the recovery position, phoning an ambulance and trying to keep them conscious and talking til it arrives, and then confessing on the spot.

    The people you watch out for are the ones who believe it’s a “relationship” BECAUSE of the imbalance of power, eg Josef Fritzl.
    They drank, for sure but mostly just wanted to hit someone else with a car for their own amusement.

    Somewhere between those two wrongs are people who simply can’t see the imbalance there at all. eg, so many, many cases.
    They’ll metaphorically drink, hit someone and then panic in ignorance, flee the scene, try CPR on a conscious person, blame an adverse reaction to homeopathic medicine…etc.

    (incidentally, the commenters here are primarily in the third category, although some are worryingly edging into the second…)

    We are sentenced not just as punishment, but in the hope we’ll also learn what we did wrong, and not make that mistake again.
    A person with zero fucking clue how their actions aversely affected other people will have a harder sentence than a person who does have a clue. Someone who say, can’t tell what enthusiastic consent is, or how Feminists are trying to adjust a distorted balance, might well find this happening to them…

    This is a far stronger force at work in the proceedings than society still believing that proven sexual desirability is the most important attribute a woman can possess.

  106. redpesto says

    @Ally Fogg # 114:

    Although if we’re using a school as an analogy, I suspect a closer analogy might be something like the local vicar, who is invited in for coffee once a month, told his opinions are really, really important to us, is described as a “very valuable friend” but then completely ignored when it comes to making any meanimngful decisions.

    True, but that doesn’t stop the vicar from being a ‘hellfire and damnation’ type to their congregation.

  107. Adiabat says

    Ally: I’m mulling over your viewpoint, but am seriously lacking the time to join in the discussion as much as I’d like.

    For now, how do you factor in the Co-ops response to the anti-lads-mags campaign run by object and Uk feminista to your ‘feminism is powerless’ view?

    Surely if the capitilist monsters are so powerful that wouldn’t happen.

  108. WhineyMalone says

    I suspect a closer analogy might be something like the local vicar, who is invited in for coffee once a month, told his opinions are really, really important to us, is described as a “very valuable friend” but then completely ignored when it comes to making any meaningful decisions

    Oh yes, sorry, of course Ally you’re absolutely right, here.

    I mean, Baroness Corston, she’s a feminist, as far as I know the authorities didn’t listen to anything she put in her report at all, just tore it up and threw it in the bin. They certainly never spent nearly 20 million pounds of public money to establish a network of ‘support centres’ as an alternative to prison or anything like that. And ‘gender specific guidelines’ for female prisoners, which have meant that Grayling’s tough new crackdown on ‘privileges’ only apply to men, that’s probably just a figment of imagination as well:

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/…/PSO_4800_women_prisoners.doc‎

    Oh yes, what else, the educational programmes you yourself have described, which paint domestic violence as being male-on-female only… Or the way you’ve highlighted a qualification scheme in your own area being available to everyone except (able-bodied) men, nothing to do with the influence of a certain type of identity politics that.

    But then these are probably not important aspects of social policy, either?

    Of course there are dozens more instances than these, but I thought I’d just list a few.

    (Flippin’ heck, why does it naff one off so, when journalists try and maintain positions which are so clearly contrary to reality?)

  109. Ally Fogg says

    Corston is an interesting case in many ways.

    First, I’d ask you to look back at the history of British feminism and ask yourself how much priority or interest was shown to prison reform. I was involved in the issue in the late 80s when Ann Widdecombe was demanding that women prisoners give birth in shackles, it was largely considered a human rights / penal policy issue, not a feminist one. I follow these issues pretty closely, and I don’t remember prominent feminist organisations demanding reform of women prisons as a major concern over the decade leading up to 2005.

    Meanwhile Jean Corston was never really known as a feminist. She was a Labour party MP / hack with a track record on human rights rather than feminism. I would challenge you to find any record of feminist activism pre-2005 with Corston at the helm.

    The people who were really pushing for reform of women’s prisons were the likes of the Howard League and the Penal Reform Society – prison reformers, in other words – who in the early days of New Labour pretty much gave up on the big picture and turned their attention on women as a more winnable objective.

    Meanwhile New Labour liked the idea of the Corston review because it offered the potential to save vast amounts of money and they reckoned they could win the political / media argument over locking up women and couldn’t win the same argument around locking up male offenders.

    Yes, the Corston review was good news for women, and was certainly welcomed by feminism, but it is not an example of feminists getting what they want, because they never really asked for it in the first place.

    The domestic violence / sexual violence sector is a much stronger case. It is seen as feminism’s home turf – primarily because it was feminism that demanded it be on the agenda. That is a victory for feminism, and it is a good example of something that I often argue, which is that feminism can be quite effective and powerful in any area that does not challenge economic and political interests. The powers that be have been quite happy to let feminism ringfence the issue of domestic violence, because generally it makes them look good to say “yes, we share your concerns and want to help” and it doesn’t really cost them much. Similarly, the powers that be have been quite happy to bring women into the workforce, provide equal opportunities etc etc etc, because it suits their interests to have an expanded workforce.

    I’ve never argued that feminism is entirely without influence or power. It has some, in very limited and restricted realms – basically anything that is seen as “women’s issues.”

    But it is a huge mistake to leap from there to the assumption that the government or the economic and political establishment is in thrall to the power of feminism. It is more the case that they throw it a scrap from the table every now and again.

  110. Copyleft says

    Amy @115: “A person with zero fucking clue how their actions aversely affected other people will have a harder sentence than a person who does have a clue. Someone who say, can’t tell what enthusiastic consent is, or how Feminists are trying to adjust a distorted balance, might well find this happening to them…”

    Wow. You do realize how close this comes to saying “Those who disagree with my political and social views deserve longer sentences than those who don’t,” right?

    Speaking of worryingly edging into problematic territory….

  111. Gjenganger says

    @Ally Fogg 119
    Interesting and believable account, as always.
    Might one way of lookng at the Corston thing be that even if the moving force was not feminists, other groups harnessed a political climate of ‘we-need-to-improve-things-for-women’, largely created by feminists and their allies, to push through things that they wanted anyway – paying the price of doing them for women only?

    If you look at areas where feminist goals have realistic chances of success, there are the symbolic (women on banknotes, female Tour de France), cultural (appropriate relationship education for coming generations, social norms for consent, representation of women in media, computer games etc. …), domestic violence (as you said), positive discrimination in the labout market (bureaucratic pressure of various kinds, boardroom quotas, equal pay for ‘comparable’ jobs, …), media and free speech (norms for public discourse, the fight against sexist speech, images, pornography, up to possibly putting sexism unde the hate speech laws), prostitution (criminalizing paying for sex), prisons and penal policy (as you said), … It is by no means (yet) the case that feminism is getting its way on all these points, but it is not a bad little list, eh?

    You are quite right that feminism does not dominate the entire political establishment, but what is a scrap and what is a concession is a bit in the eye of the beholder. Feminism is there to fight for women, after all – they say that readily enough – so it is natural that feminist policies would tend to be on ‘women’s issues’. What would be your example of policies that are specifically feminist (and so favour mainly women), but that the establishment would refuse to consider?

  112. bugmaster says

    @Lucy #108:
    I’m not sure I understand your definition of feminism. You say,

    Feminism means to act as a counterpoint to the masculinisation of all aspects of our culture. Equality in Feminism’s lexicon is a genuine and profound level of ‘actualisation’ for females (different feminist branches see that played out in different ways, from sex apartheid, through complementarity through to sex parity or irrelevance). Feminism’s aim for equality, in case anyone is labouring under the misapprehension, is not for women to slip seamlessly into the existing culture and get the same remuneration/sentences for it.

    Firstly, does the final sentence mean that you disagree with Ally’s definition ? He said:

    …and by my definition (and I stress it is only my definition) true feminism is a movement for change for the welfare and emancipation of women – of course that leaves vast scope for argument about what kind of change would be most helpful.

    But it sounds like, by your definition, mere “welfare and emancipation of women” would not be enough.

    But what I’m really confused about are the terms “masculinisation” and especially “actualization”. I could invent several definitions for them, but I’m pretty sure I’d get them wrong, so perhaps you could clarify ?

    Finally, how could proponents of “sex apartheid” (is that different from “gender apartheid” ?) and proponents of “sex parity or irrelevance” (ditto) work side-by-side in the same organization under the same label, when their goals are diametrically opposed ? To me, this sounds kind of like saying, “there are many kinds of people fighting for racial equality: some fight for racial apartheid, others fight for integration, but they are all proponents of equality and opponents of racism”. I don’t see how this could work, so I’m probably missing something.

  113. Gjenganger says

    @Lucy 108
    Having read bugmasters answer, how do you feel about this alternative definition:
    Feminism is equivalent to a trade union for women. It is fighting to improve conditions for its members (and those who ought to be members) in all possible aspects, leaving the interests of non-members to the care of other groups. All feminists share this basic aim, but may disagree on the best way of fulfilling it.“That is short and clear, and would seem to be compatible with your post.

  114. Copyleft says

    It would certainly be more honest and would curtail a lot of pointless quibbling to admit that feminism is simply Advocacy for Women, period. Whether there are side benefits or drawbacks for men is not a concern.

    There wouldn’t even be anything wrong with that, per se. After all, nobody complains that the Arbor Day Foundation doesn’t focus on saving the whales; it’s just not their area of concern.

    Of course, that also points out the need for a corresponding men’s rights movement, and we can’t have THAT. (chuckle)

  115. WhineyMalone says

    Ally@119

    Bluddy hell, Ally, words fail me! :-)

    The idea that Corston was not in essence a feminist project, which was encouraged and vocally backed by
    feminist advocacy groups, it’s just utterly preposterous. It’s almost as bad a re-writing of history as the Tories are engaged in at the moment, with their attempts to alter the pages on the ‘way-back-machine’!

    Firstly, let’s take the idea that she herself was not thought of as a feminist, or didn’t identify as one herself.
    This from a BBC profile in 2002:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2055891.stm

    She has strong links with feminist and civil liberties organisations and is chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

    What’s more, if you’re trying to deny the feminist nature of Corston as a project, just who were the ministers taking the lead in guiding it through parliament at the time: Baroness Scotland, Fiona Mactaggart, Vera Baird,
    Angela Eagle – which of these would you not recognise as feminist, which of these did not actively identify with that cause?

    Just taking Vera Baird, from her Wikipedia profile:

    She was Chair of the Fawcett Commission on Women and Criminal Justice 2002 – 2006. This latter was a seminal review of women as defendant, as victims & witnesses and as workers in the criminal justice system which triggered a number of major legislative and non-legislative changes including the Corston Review on Women with Vulnerabilities in Prison. Baroness Corston succeeded Baird as Commission Chair when Baird became a Minister.

    So, from various sources, it’s a matter of record that the genesis of the report was based in advocacy from feminist pressure groups like Fawcett, there’s no getting around it. The idea that motivation just came soley from gender-netural organisations and charities, I’m sorry Ally, it’s just complete and utter balderdash!

  116. sirtooting . says

    @Lucy 106

    I can only speculate and give my opinion from my own observations but I am not a behavioral scientist and in my opinion trying to find a cure for paedophilia would be the same as trying to search for a cure for heterosexuality.
    I believe paedophilia is just another form of sexual orientation. It would be better not to regard it as an illness when it is not and squander time trying to cure a sexuality.

    Now back to Warren Farrell where I began, he believes girls enjoy being molested by their fathers and has stated they are lying when they say they do not.
    How does this affect what he has to say about date rape and spousal rape, when with a biased mind he states young girls are not victims of sexual abuse because he doesn’t accept they are being abused?

    An An Interview with Warren Farrell, 1997 by J. Steven Svoboda.
    “Steven:” What evidence did they have that supposedly you were promoting incest or rape? Was there any evidence of that?”

    “Warren:” None whatsoever except that I mentioned both words. The incest thing was very ridiculous because I just made an analogy about workplace sex being incestuous. I said that when colleagues in the same company have sex together, it was like people in the same family having sex together. And they took that and said I was recommending incest. It really shocked me that the producers didn’t read for themselves what was being said. And with the rape, I was showing why the rape statistics are exaggerated, and saying that date rape was much more complex than the way feminists had portrayed it, as men oppressing women”

    Mr Farrell blatantly lied in this interview and he has been lying ever since because he is a paedophile who believes sex with children is not sexual abuse and due to that, he claims women aren’t raped.
    The MRA’S regard Mr Farrell a leading Guru of their organization and his influence is apparent.
    A leading figure in a fathers rights movement is a paedophile.

    Mr Farrell has many admirers who do their best to deflect attention away from his past admission and hurriedly dismiss it as, well he said that 40 yrs ago and it was all taken out of context.

    Mr Farrell is a paedophile, what he thought then, he still thinks now, he doesn’t believe females are raped, instead he believes they regret having sex & cry rape out of malice, which is an idea he perpetually promotes to all who will listen to him.
    It is apparent Farrell refused to accept the word of young girls who explained in great detail to him, how they were traumatized by their fathers sexual abuse in the 1970’s, and it is as plain as day he hasn’t shifted from that position in over 40 years, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence that proves that they are, psychologically devastated by this abuse.

    A paedophile is the voice of the MRA and he leads a fathers rights campaign .. God almighty

  117. sirtooting . says

    @Whiney,
    It’s not a criminal offence to be associated with feminism, even if MRA’S would like it to be.

    “Feminists should be charged with nothing less than Crimes Against Humanity, sentenced, and summarily executed in public squares.”
    NICK SZABO
    SIGNER, FATHER’S MANIFESTO–
    THE POLITICAL PLATFORM TO REPEAL WOMEN’S RIGHT TO VOTE.

    What is Male Privilege? The right to decide what Freedoms and Rights the Female should be allowed to have, in a male run totalitarian world..
    What you want equal rights?.
    Well, me & the lads have discussed it between ourselves and the answer is a resounding .. No .. Now fuck off, and get back in the kitchen before I beat the crap out of you, for your nerve for asking.

  118. Ally Fogg says

    Gjenganger (121)

    What would be your example of policies that are specifically feminist (and so favour mainly women), but that the establishment would refuse to consider?

    Oh now that is a really, really interesting question. I’d be very interested to know what any self-defining feminists would say to that.

    From my own point of view, the first thing to note is that “the establishment” is not immutable and unchanging. It has changed massively over the past hundred years (or thousand for that matter) while ensuring that the bulk of power still remains in the same (or similar) hands. One of the tricks that it uses to sustain itself is to assimilate opposition. Look at what has happened to the Labour Party for the perfect example. For a more trivial pop culture example, look at how much money gets made out of radical youth cultures – the hippies, punks, ravers or whatever.) The same has certainly happened with feminism – from the days of the suffragettes onwards.

    This is what my own feminist hero, Emma Goldman, was getting at when she wrote “The tragedy of women’s emancipation” – she argued that simply giving women the vote was not an adequate end if the only outcome was to afford women a new role in supporting the system as it was rather than seriousy undermining or overthrowing it.

    So I don’t think the answers are about policies, laws etc. They’re much deeper than that. I don’t think it’s any great secret that I’m not a great fan of what some call ‘banknote feminism.’ I have no particular objection to people campaigning on things like that but if doesn’t exactly enthuse me. I’m much more interested in radical reinvention of the system, and part of that is our construction of gender, how our culture manufactures, instills and polices gender roles, the performances we are required to make as men and women and how genders relate to each other in their power dynamics. So it is really about (sorry about this) the residual survival of patriarchy or (if you prefer) kyriarchy – the ways (mostly unspoken and informal) in which society continues to systematically empower some people above others.

    That’s only a small part of a much bigger political-social-cultural project that is about exploring and creating alternatives to capitalism. The kind of feminism that I, personally admire is much more focussed there.

    Now, if you’re following, I suspect you are probably about to say that I am suggesting that most liberal feminism – the banknotes, Page 3, glass ceiling feminism – isn’t really very feminist at all. And if you were to push me, I’d probably agree. On the other hand, that strain of feminism is still challenging certain gender norms, it is attempting to change the cultural status quo, how we think about women’s lives, women’s bodies etc. So I certainly wouldn’t lump it in with the conservative or reactionary right wing. I certainly wouldn’t accept that the NMP3 campaign etc are anti-feminist in the way that I think, say, Paul Dacre, Richard Littlejohn or Rupert Murdoch are anti-feminist.

    Sorry, I have no idea if I’ve answered your question, but you sent me off on an amusing train of thought!

  119. 123454321 says

    Sirtooting,

    “I can’t say I have ever heard women judging men or criticizing them for talking politics in newspapers, especially when the politics concern men.”

    Rubbish. Virtually every single female politician supports criticism of the male gender and actively contributes towards the female-friendly policy decision-making. The media is riddled with feminist agendas and there isn’t a day that goes by without a story related to women’s issues whilst men’s issues get completely swept under the carpet. You only have to listen to Woman’s Hour or watch Loose Women to witness the onslaught and bombardment of criticism aimed squarely at men. Newspapers have plenty of female journalists and a plethora of writers, many of whom aren’t frightened to rip into men and openly condemn them in the interest of the obvious feministic superiority agenda. If the roles were reversed with some of the things they get away with all hell would let loose!

    “Virtually all newspapers are filled with men’s issues and interests”

    Err, no, and what a complete insult to women! I just zipped through dozens of pages of several newspapers and found plenty of factually based news and promotional material, special feature stories aimed at both genders and other interpretative events and reports covering : International news stories, local news, financially related articles, stock-market news, adverts, reviews, media guides and sports that women can participate in and are interested in. Are you saying that women aren’t interested in any of that lot?

    “the entire back pages are devoted to sports”

    And why shouldn’t it be? That’s like moaning that the centre pages or free mags are devoted to TV! What’s your point?

    “that overwhelmingly focus on the male”

    No they don’t, they focus on the popular sports that people happen to like to read about. It just so happens that more men are driven to get involved with these popular sports. During the Olympics there were plenty of females featured in the sports pages because the sports often consisted of female participants. You have it all the wrong way around.

    “& report in great detail his highs & lows of the week and who scored what goals & who didn’t”

    Oh, so sorry. Please forgive the newspapers for reporting the sport details. What a sexist disloyalty against women!

    “whereas females involvement in sport will barely gets a mention and women are lucky if they get a sentence devoted to them, let alone a paragraph or a whole page.”

    Bullshit. Female sports personalities and athletes get plenty of coverage where there is interest in a particular sport that they happen to participate in.

    “For the males amusement some newspapers even supply a picture of a half naked woman for the males to wank them selves stupid over”

    Are you kidding? One God-damned page in a newspaper showing a topless woman constitutes that kind of inane comment! Now go pick up some newspapers as well as other mags aimed at women and count the number of topless men posing shirtless for the pleasure of women who like to indulge in their fantasies whilst they ogle and compare the male physique. Funny how culturally embedded male objectification always passes without scrutiny. Another privilege for women?

    “if a woman can be shown with her sexual organs on display”

    Boobs are not sexual organs, you fool. And they’re not even close to genitals in terms of taboo or public visibility acceptability.

    “there ought to be a photo of a male, with his sexual organs hanging out, for females to amuse themselves over, seems only fair..”

    I don’t like to abuse people and I feel I ought to apologise before I say this but…you’re an idiot. No, you really are, if you think that a man’s penis hanging out of his trousers is the same as a pair of boobs then, yes, you’re an idiot. I’m sorry. And I suspect that most people would agree with me.

    “A few times I have heard men snigger & say to women when opening these newspaper, revealing the half naked woman inside.. are yours that big.. i think women should at least have the same opportunity to say it to men, when they open the newspaper revealing the picture of a naked man inside”

    Ok, so let’s straighten things up and play by your rules. You want a naked man with his genitals hanging out on page 3 of The Sun based on the fact that there is a topless woman on page 3? So let’s straighten things up for TV, too, shall we? From what I have seen on UK terrestrial TV over the past two to three decades, there have been an abundance of graphic, close-up images of male genitalia in films, documentaries and comedies etc. What’s more, I have witnessed this on numerous occasions before the watershed and sometimes contained within programmes that you wouldn’t have dreamt would go so far – even some children’s films. However, whilst I have seen countless examples of male genitalia I can’t recall seeing many examples of female genitalia at all. I’ve seen one or two full-frontals but they always censor the genitals using a merkin or else blur the image. Once again, this is down to bias censorship policies and guidelines set by feminist-friendly Ofcom.

    So playing by your rules, Sirtooting, let’s straighten life up a bit and call for plenty of graphic, close-ups of female genitals to be broadcast across our terrestrial TV channels for a change. Does that sound fair?

  120. sirtooting . says

    I can’t say I have ever heard women judging men or criticizing them for talking politics in newspapers.

    your reply .. opinion & no evidence
    Rubbish. Virtually every single female politician supports criticism of the male gender and actively contributes towards the female-friendly policy decision-making.
    Really? .. if that is the case, you can give us evidence then, after all you said you would be able to.

    Another opinion from you & still not a jot of evidence
    The media is riddled with feminist agendas and there isn’t a day that goes by without a story related to women’s issues whilst men’s issues get completely swept under the carpet.
    Are there, wow who knew?
    Show us that evidence then..

    Newspapers have plenty of female journalists and a plethora of writers, .. Do they? What percentage of Journalists are actually Female?
    What percentage of news stories are written by women that are printed in the newspapers?

    the entire back pages are devoted to sports that overwhelmingly focus on the male & report in great detail his highs & lows ..
    No they don’t, they focus on the popular sports that people happen to like to read about. It just so happens that more men are driven to get involved with these popular sports. …
    Because 99% of all sport shown on the TV is aimed at the male and the male is completely catered for and pandered to.
    During the Olympics there were plenty of females featured in the sports pages because the sports often consisted of female participants. You have it all the wrong way around.
    Yeah we know, they do exist.. Yes, it shows there are plenty of very good female athletes playing sport and plently of women who would be willing to watch them, if only they could get the chance, but those sports women & women spectators, don’t get a look in ordinarily.
    Virtually every night of the week on some tv station you can find sport on a channel and that sport is aimed directly at the male, women are sidelined, marginalised in favour of the male. Publicity and advertising help publicise different sports and the male is by 99% the gender that will get benefit from that assistance. Money roles in for men, advertising the male and his talents pays him many dividends and women rarely are able to benefit in the same way as men from these revenues.
    Women get very little airtime on TV compared to men, because men in the culture are pandered to, they come first .. first first ..

  121. sirtooting . says

    Mr Fogg didn’t like me dishing the dirt on Warren Farrell, in fact he tried to dismiss the evidence, by denying there was any.
    @ Mr Fogg, You claim, regarding Warren Farrell
    ” I’m well aware of the allegations you are bringing up, I also know that they have been denied” .. HAVE THEY?
    ” I’m not in a position to judge the accuracy of what you wrote” .. Really?.
    But it only took me two minutes to check on the internet to confirm that the allegation was actually TRUE..

    Mr Fogg reply
    Three points

    1. Not everything on the internet is true.

    2. By sloppy, inaccurate paraphrasing, you went further in your allegations than either the Manboobz or the Lizlibrary posts you linked to, and said things that don’t appear in either article.

    3. You also envisioned a pretty grotesque imaginary scenario involving a specific, named person and her son which was my main objection to your post. Your justification that “she supports MRAs and MRAs support Warren Farrell and Warren Farrell wrote stuff like this 40 years ago therefore it is justified” was pretty spurious and very unpleasant.

    sir tooting reply
    it’s all true & it is all justified

    sirtooting
    Should a known paedophile be leading figure in a fathers rights campaign?

    Mr Fogg reply
    there isn’t one.. surprise surprise
    sirtooting – I’m afraid Mr Farrell has only confirmed he is a paedophile and believes sex with children is A OK.
    So, should a known paedophile, who asserts incest is an acceptable idea, head a campaign for fathers rights?

    Mr Fogg reply – Silence.. No response .. zippididdydoodah .. nothing..

    sirtooting
    Mr Farrell has many admirers who do their best to deflect attention away from his past admission and hurriedly dismiss it as, Well he said that 40 yrs ago and it was all taken out of context.

    Mr Farrell is a paedophile, what he thought then, he still thinks now, he doesn’t believe females are raped, instead he believes they regret having sex & cry rape out of malice, which is an idea he perpetually promotes to all who will listen to him.
    It is clear Farrell refused to accept the word of young girls who in detail explained to him their feelings & how they were traumatized by their fathers sexual abuse in the 1970′s, and regarded them liars and it is as plain as day he hasn’t shifted from that position in over 40 years, even in the face of the overwhelming evidence that proves that they are, psychologically devastated by this abuse.

    Mr Fogg is a fan of Mr Farrell one thinks, and he won’t hear a bad word said about him .. he sees no evil, hears no evil, and speaks no evil
    Mr Fogg said
    You also envisioned a pretty grotesque imaginary scenario involving a specific, named person and her son which was my main objection to your post… Imaginary, hey .. if only we could see into the minds of men like Farrell, how grotesque would that be?
    Children all over the world suffer because of people like Farrell, women who are raped suffer and are being denounced as liars by Farrell & men just like him, who fall over themselves to support him & who won’t hear a bad word said against him.
    Mr Fogg, it doesn’t go unnoticed..

  122. sirtooting . says

    @ 131 .. correction .. Women get very little airtime on TV compared to men, because men in the culture are pandered to, they come first .. first first ..
    = Women get very little airtime on TV compared to men regarding sport.

  123. sirtooting . says

    @ Mr Fogg
    And that woman we mentioned .. “You also envisioned a pretty grotesque imaginary scenario involving a specific, named person and her son which was my main objection to your post.
    She has made a statement in which she advises men to slap their wives or girlfriends if they are being nagged by them .. Because violence works in her eyes .. She has told men to physically assault their partners .. Advising them to break the law .. These so called self proclaimed MRA advisors, shouldn’t be advising anyone, on anything, anytime. Anywhere.
    I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HER IN COURT FOR INCITING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN when those that take her advice try and use her as their defence .. Well she told me, it was the best way to solve my problem .. LMAO
    I pray for that day and I’m an Atheist..

  124. Lucy says

    @sheaf

    “So from your personal experience would you say that nothing would happen if you consistently hired completely incompetent idiots? I think this proposition is unlikely to be true. Of course as long as a certain standard is met you have error bars depending on the exact company structure. BTW the training of HR departments does not seem to be effective: http://www.economist.com/node/21551535

    No, I didn’t mention their competence. Of course you hire competent people (not too competent – you don’t want them to threaten your own job, and your measure of competence is of course completely arbitrary and subjective for most roles, the overiding criteria is for them to to fit into the existing team and be somebody you can work with). What I said is that you pay them the going rate: when you advertise a job you give a salary range according to what other people in a similar role are on and what your competitors are offering, if you decide to hire them, you offer them just above the lower end of that, they counter offer and you pay that in most cases. There’s no science in it, it’s a balancing act of how little you can get away with without pissing them off and how much you can get away with without pissing your boss or your other team members off, and then you make them sign a non-disclosure agreement to try to keep a lid on any discrepancies and start a stream of discontented employees coming in to ask for more. I’m sure HR people are pretty bad at it, unless they have the resources and the technology exists to accurately assess roles, people, the market, eliminate role or people bias, then how could they not be?


    “I am astonished. You think judges are paragons of rationality in their decision making because of checks in the system? This is empirically untrue.
    Example 1:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/magazine/do-you-suffer-from-decision-fatigue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
    Example 2:
    http://www.psycontent.com/content/80l2707x26h01111/

    Luckily I don’t. I remember saying that judges will inevitably make mistakes from time to time because of boredom, etc. And of course I think they have biases, I think the scientific method has innate biases, so I definitely think the law does.

    But they are absolutely the best decision-makers we have, because of their personal qualities, their training, their proximity to the case and their position. Who is qualified or able to judge a judge’s decision, apart from another judge?

    “My alliance with democracy only goes as far as saying it seems partly consistent with my utilitarian views. I do not think it will help finding the most rational decision makers (maybe above average decision makers). If you have evidence otherwise you can present it.”

    You don’t think accountability, independence and checks and balances help us find the best people? Do you think mistakes or crass statements come to light in companies? Or other non-democratic systems?


    “No it is evidence for irrationality in judges based on superficial characteristics despite the factors you cite. In parting here is a study controlling for offense type showing greater sentencing for males:
    http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/320276

    Greater sentencing of males does not indicate bias, that’s what started this conversation. Sentences are not consistent for offence type, the judge has discretion to sentence according to mitigating and aggravating factors.

    I will take a look at the links later and come back to you.

  125. says

    sirtooting:

    That’s your defense? Really? This person said something ill-adviced/bad/horrible which you consider to be horrible and that gives you charte blanche to top that by saying something horrible and perverted about not only her, but her children?

  126. carnation says

    @ Ally Fogg

    For me, most modern feminist theorising, at least, is about challenging the constraints of gender norms. The bulk of feminist activism remains dedicated to the tough slog of supporting victims (admittedly female) of sexual abuse and DV. Sure, high profile commentators and feminists spend time on NP3, Slutwalks etc, but most of the campaigns are flashes in the pan.

    Within feminism there are MOPEs (Most Oppressed People Ever), unable to see the advances and changes brought about and who need perceived or actual examples of sexism/misogyny to justify their existence. The MOPE model applies, in my opinion, to the entirety of the MRM that exists exclusively and largely anonymously online. MOPEs generate nothing except contempt, bemusement, some column inches and the confirmation of widely held biases.

    I contend that the bulk of problems facing young men (the most severely marginalised section of society, IMHO) could start to be addressed most effectively within a traditional,gender binary – basically, give idle hands something to do, pay them for it, and if it posits them back in a traditional wage earner (dare I say provider?) role, then so be it. It’s a better situation than that which currently exists. Government subsidised industries could start the process, nothing else. Society wold benefit. Perhaps, outwith a national crisis of mostly youth, mostly male, unemployment, we could start challenging young people (particularly males) to de and reconstruct gender roles, but such academic wankery/much needed theorising is a luxury and within society as it is, there is no scope for all but a privileged few to engage in it.

    That’s my somewhat confused take on gender as we approach 2014.

    PS I was recently in a Scottish Govt building, beside the dangers of prostrate cancer posters in the men’s toilets, there were AMIS posters saying that domestic abuse happens to men and to contact them if it was happening. Actual activism leading to progress.

  127. Lucy says

    Bugmaster

    “I’m not sure I understand your definition of feminism.

    ‘Feminism means to act as a counterpoint to the masculinisation of all aspects of our culture. Equality in Feminism’s lexicon is a genuine and profound level of ‘actualisation’ for females (different feminist branches see that played out in different ways, from sex apartheid, through complementarity through to sex parity or irrelevance). Feminism’s aim for equality, in case anyone is labouring under the misapprehension, is not for women to slip seamlessly into the existing culture and get the same remuneration/sentences for it.'”

    Well that wasn’t meant to be my definition of feminism, it was my explanation of sex equality.

    “Firstly, does the final sentence mean that you disagree with Ally’s definition ? He said:

    ‘…and by my definition (and I stress it is only my definition) true feminism is a movement for change for the welfare and emancipation of women – of course that leaves vast scope for argument about what kind of change would be most helpful.’

    But it sounds like, by your definition, mere “welfare and emancipation of women” would not be enough.”

    Yes I would disagree with that definition of feminism, it doesn’t go far enough. I don’t think it takes account of various branches of feminism including Radical Feminism which seeks to change our philosophical paradigms (the area I’m most interested in).

    “But what I’m really confused about are the terms “masculinisation” and especially “actualization”. I could invent several definitions for them, but I’m pretty sure I’d get them wrong, so perhaps you could clarify ?”

    Well I’m not using them in any formalised way here. But what I mean is that as MRAs talk of the feminisation of primary education, the NHS, the BBC, feminists talk of the masculinisation of our industries, science, culture, education system, economic system, language, political system, religious system. But, because of the longevity of that masculinisation process (from our very earliest evolutionary beginnings), they also talk of all the philosophical and even biological underpinnings of those (due to sex selection for certain characteristics for example). Masculinisation is in the metaphorical, and perhaps the literal, DNA of human beings. So female actualisation means unpicking all of that, and over very long periods of time remaking our philosophies, our culture, our industries and perhaps even our biology so that this is no longer the case and women reach their full potential and also shape the world in their image as men have so far done. Different branches of feminists want the world shaped to be more or less along feminised lines; some are happy for men and women to share equally, others feel that to share equally means women need to counteract the masculine tendencies to dominate.

    “Finally, how could proponents of “sex apartheid” (is that different from “gender apartheid” ?) and proponents of “sex parity or irrelevance” (ditto) work side-by-side in the same organization under the same label, when their goals are diametrically opposed ? To me, this sounds kind of like saying, “there are many kinds of people fighting for racial equality: some fight for racial apartheid, others fight for integration, but they are all proponents of equality and opponents of racism”. I don’t see how this could work, so I’m probably missing something.”

    Well they don’t, there are different feminist branches. There is much debate and conflict within feminism about political stances, as well as efforts to set those aside for the greater good. It’s a huge subject, I would recommend you buy a good, academic anthology of feminist philosophical essays if you want to get to grips with it.

    Sex is biological, chromosomal. Gender is cultural.

  128. Lucy says

    Sirtooting

    “@Lucy 106

    I can only speculate and give my opinion from my own observations but I am not a behavioral scientist and in my opinion trying to find a cure for paedophilia would be the same as trying to search for a cure for heterosexuality.
    I believe paedophilia is just another form of sexual orientation. It would be better not to regard it as an illness when it is not and squander time trying to cure a sexuality.”

    I think it’s an accepted psychological position that paedophilia is a sexual orientation, but as I say, not that we are born with our sexual orientations. It’s also so far not very amenable to treatment as you say. But given that it has detrimental social consequences, I think we have no choice but to spend time trying to figure out ways to manage it. Lots of natural things aren’t good and present challenges for us to solve (e.g. disease and other forms of anti-social behaviour, superstition).

    “Now back to Warren Farrell where I began, he believes girls enjoy being molested by their fathers and has stated they are lying when they say they do not.”

    Has he said that? That link you posted earlier quoted him as saying that there may be a self-selection bias in his study responses from female respondents. The blogger got the wrong end of the stick on that point I think.

    “How does this affect what he has to say about date rape and spousal rape, when with a biased mind he states young girls are not victims of sexual abuse because he doesn’t accept they are being abused?”

    I’m sure you’re right, but I’m not interested in him, the guy sounds like a prize nob who occasionally says true things for all the wrong reasons and is basically a giant media whore. I keep confusing him with a Will Farrell which might be a bit unfair.

  129. Ally Fogg says

    sirtootling

    Let me explain this as fully as I can.

    I have close to zero interest in Warren Farrell. He’s an intellectually dull, politically corrosive, factually disingenuous hack writer and anti-feminist ideologue who needs to be beaten around the head with a heavy volume of Das Kapital.

    I find the views he expressed about incest in the 1970s, when he was a prominent male feminist spokesperson repellant. I’m also aware that similar views were widely expressed at the time in radical liberal circles, including by many respected gay rights, feminist and civil liberties groups. Harriet Harman, now the UK’s most prominent feminist politician was at the time leader of the NCCL which fought for the rights of the Paedophile Information Exchange to organise, meet and share materials. It’s disturbing to look at now, but child sex was actually a pretty trendy, fashionable cause at the time when, to be fair, there was little understanding of the psychological harmfulness and trauma it often causes.

    I haven’t been engaging much with your slightly obsessional rantings on this issue because, to be blunt, it is not something that especially interests me. If Farrell were still saying the same things today it would be a different story. To the best of my knowledge he does not, and to the best of my knowledge he no longer believes or advocates what he did then. So it is not a topic I consider to be of particular interest.

    So I’m not sure why you keep bringing this here, to me and this blog. There are hundreds of blogs all over the internet populated by people who admire Warren Farrell and might want to defend him. Go tell them about it. Go find someone who wants to argue with you. I’m like, meh.

    I try to avoid censoring comments at any time, and this was tagged as an open thread, so I’ve allowed you to keep posting – with the exception of one post which, I reiterate, was potentially libellous and in my view obscene and exploitative. If you disagree that it was obscene and exploitative, hey, tough, it’s my blog. Go write your own.

    I do not feel any obligation to answer your questions just because you jump up and down and stamp your feet, or engage with you on any terms but my own.

  130. Gjenganger says

    @Lucy 139
    Would it be fair to summarise your explanation like this?”SInce the dawn of our species, millions of years ago, men have dominated women and have changed culture to suit themselves and keep women down. Turn and turn about. For the next few million years, it is now women who should dominate men, and change culture to suit themselves and keep men down? Or can you tell me where I am getting it wrong?

  131. Ally Fogg says

    Whiney Malone (125)

    I’m afraid you are just wrong on pretty much every point.

    Here are a whole of political news reports covering demands for an inquiry into women in Prison from 2003-2006, when Corston was commissioned.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/3170687.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3798201.stm
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/apr/25/gender.prisonsandprobation
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3706959.stm
    http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/aug/15/prisonsandprobation.helencarter
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5237030.stm

    Not a single one of them mentions any type of feminist campaigns, whether Fawcett or any other. They are driven by Penal Reform Trust and the Howard League.

    Meanwhile I’d challenge you to find any feminist list of demands from anywhere in the years leading up to Corston that make so much as a passing mention of prison reform as a priority.

  132. Gjenganger says

    @Allyn 129
    Good answer. It sounds like you are saying that the only aim and result that matters is the revolutionary overthrow of the present system, and anything less is not much worth bothering about. I can only say I am glad that you are mostly campaigning for improving things, rather than robbing banks and running guns for the cause.

    By your standards most feminism seems inconsequential and powerless, but then your standards are quite demanding. The only movement I can think of that lived up to them is communism. Now, you could certainly argue that Czarist Russia and feudal China wre so badly off that nothing less than communism (millions of deaths and all) could have brought an improvement, and that any more social-democratic approach would have failed or been unfeasible. But European capitalism is nowhere near as rigid, or as horrible to most of the population. Now, I am by tempreament conervative. I would much prefer trying to improve the system we have, than smashing it all to smithereens (with our without violence) and placing our hopes in some unknown, unproven, and unpredictable alternative.

  133. Lucy says

    Gjenganger

    “Would it be fair to summarise your explanation like this?”SInce the dawn of our species, millions of years ago, men have dominated women and have changed culture to suit themselves and keep women down. Turn and turn about. For the next few million years, it is now women who should dominate men, and change culture to suit themselves and keep men down? Or can you tell me where I am getting it wrong?”

    Is that a serious question? My explanation of what, by the way – feminism? If so, no.

    My explanation of male hegemony is that since the dawn of our species (and before), males have dominated females and as a natural and engineered consequence of this have shaped every single aspect of our culture in their own image (whether this suits men is debatable and varies), which has necessarily meant that women haven’t. My explanation of feminism is to undo that and shape it differently to reflect feminine principles (yet to be discovered and determined); they differ on the proposed methods and goals. Some want to keep men down for various pragmatic and prosaic reasons, some want to keep them out of the way, some don’t.

  134. Gjenganger says

    @Lucy 145
    Yes, I was serious. And what you say still sounds very like what I said – to me at least.

    My explanation of feminism is to undo that and shape it differently to reflect feminine principles

    Here ‘that’ means male hegemony and I assume ‘it’ means society, or maybe culture. Either way, if women want to unpick male hegemony and live in a society shaped by feminine principles, I can only see two ways of achieving that:
    – Female hegemony takes over from male hegemony.
    – Partition. Seems hard to arrange in practice, though. Do women get Eurasia, men get Australia and the Americas, and Iceland is made into a Checkpoint Charlie where male babies are exchanged for sperm samples?
    One could aim for some kind of compromise between the sexes, I guess, but that would no longer be a society shaped by feminine principles, would it?

    Sorry for sounding facetious, but if you are not saying that feminism wants to introduce female hegemony (which would be clear and logical) I find it hard to interpret your words in a way that makes sense.

  135. John Morales says

    [meta]

    Gjenganger @146:

    Here ‘that’ means male hegemony and I assume ‘it’ means society, or maybe culture.

    Either you are confused or you’re being sophistic; clearly, ‘that’ and ‘it’ share the same referent.

    (Also, you are presuming that “feminine principles” entail a form of hegemony)

  136. Sans-sanity says

    Ally said,

    “I have close to zero interest in Warren Farrell. He’s an intellectually dull, politically corrosive, factually disingenuous hack writer and anti-feminist ideologue who needs to be beaten around the head with a heavy volume of Das Kapital.”

    That’s interesting. I haven’t read any of his work in a few years, but he was the first gender-author I was exposed to and I found him quite illuminting. On the other hand being over impressed by “intellectually dull, politically corrosive, factually disingenuous hack writer(s)” is somewhat obligatory for early twenties Uni students.

    I would be very interested in a more detailed explanation of your dislike of his work?
    (While at the same time respecting your “close to zero interest” in the subject :)

    Lucy said:
    “I’m sure you’re right, but I’m not interested in him, the guy sounds like a prize nob who occasionally says true things for all the wrong reasons and is basically a giant media whore. I keep confusing him with a Will Farrell which might be a bit unfair.”

    I disagree with most everything you say, but I laughed at this :)

  137. Gjenganger says

    @John Morales 147
    We disagree on the grammar, but never mind that.

    you are presuming that “feminine principles” entail a form of hegemony

    Well, how are you going to introduce them otherwise? Current culture, we are told, has been adapted since the dawn of time so that males feel comfortable in it. Lucy want to unpick it all, literally down to the DNA level, and replace it with a culture where women are comfortable and men, presumably, less so. Would you expect that men should voluntarily dedicate themselves to changing the culture in a way that do not like and do not feel comfortable with, because it makes women happier? “Here you are dear, it is your turn for the next 100 000 years!“? I gather that communism planned a period of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, in the realistic expectation that existing groups would not collaborate in a reorganisation of society that made them worse off, so that true, unforced communism could only start when all people had been indoctrinated up with the right attitutdes from childhood. Surely feminism would have to count on something similar?

  138. Gjenganger says

    @John Morales 147
    Besides, one definition of hegemony is “the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group” (Merriam-Webster). Is that not exactly what Lucy wants for her ‘feminine princples’?

  139. says

    Lucy,

    No, I didn’t mention their competence. Of course you hire competent people (not too competent – you don’t want them to threaten your own job, and your measure of competence is of course completely arbitrary and subjective for most roles, the overiding criteria is for them to to fit into the existing team and be somebody you can work with).

    The competence of the people for hire is exactly the issue here. I was responding to your argument where you tried to explain the sentences disparity between males ad females for the same crime due to the fact that judges are trained to make the correct decision, in comparison to employers who are not. The correct decision in the case of the employer would be to hire a competent employee and there are weak checks in place to enforce that.
    So if you did not mean the competence of the employees, then what the fuck were you talking about?

    Luckily I don’t. I remember saying that judges will inevitably make mistakes from time to time because of boredom, etc. And of course I think they have biases, I think the scientific method has innate biases, so I definitely think the law does.

    But they are absolutely the best decision-makers we have, because of their personal qualities, their training, their proximity to the case and their position. Who is qualified or able to judge a judge’s decision, apart from another judge?

    When the decision strongly depends on whether he has eaten something in the last 2 hours, I myself feel qualified in saying it is little more than dowsing. In any case, even if judges were the best human decision makers they are a long way from optimal decision makers. Therefore an argument of the form:
    “Except Judges are selected and trained to judge, employers aren’t.” in response to “That argument is kind of like arguing that any wage gap is perhaps caused by women being less effective since I’d expect employers to be in the best position to judge.” is not a good argument, because despite their training judges are far from optimal, and we have evidence that they decide wrongly based on superficial characterisitcs like skin color.

    You don’t think accountability, independence and checks and balances help us find the best people? Do you think mistakes or crass statements come to light in companies? Or other non-democratic systems?

    It helps to find moderately suitable people, sometimes the best people we have. Similar in companies. The exact effectiveness of the respective systems depends o the exact structure in question.

    Greater sentencing of males does not indicate bias, that’s what started this conversation. Sentences are not consistent for offence type, the judge has discretion to sentence according to mitigating and aggravating factors.

    Yeah but having a huge gape because female sentences are downsized against recommendation indicates bias. Does not prove bias, but is evidence for bias.

  140. John Morales says

    Gjenganger @149 & @150, my comment was based on what Lucy wrote and your response to it.

    you are presuming that “feminine principles” entail a form of hegemony

    Well, how are you going to introduce them otherwise?

    You are imagining things; Lucy unambiguously stated that the goal was to change (and thereby ameliorate) the existing hegemony to improve overall well-being by including those principles*, not of replacing it with its converse.

    (Or: You’re thinking in terms of a zero-sum game, and she ain’t)

    * The which she was explicit in stating are “yet to be discovered and determined” in specific

    (You’d do far better to attack that vagueness than to impute to her that which she didn’t claim, though it would then suffice for her to respond with a privative definition)

  141. Gjenganger says

    @John Morales

    Just to avoid misunderstnadings: We are discussing the opinions of Lucy and her friends, not of all feminists.

    Lucy unambiguously stated that the goal was to change (and thereby ameliorate) the existing hegemony to improve overall well-being by including those principles

    Really? She says nothing about ‘overall wellbeing’, or a world that ‘reflects the principles of all human beings’, or where ‘both sexes feel equally at home’, nor about deconstructing the genders, nor about males having any right to contribute alongside of females, If she wants a world equally for both genders, she really ought to say it herself – unambiguously. Here is what she does say:

    So female actualisation means unpicking all of [male hegemony], and over very long periods of time remaking our philosophies, our culture, our industries and perhaps even our biology so that this is no longer the case and women reach their full potential and also shape the world in their image as men have so far done.

    My explanation of feminism is to undo that and shape it differently to reflect feminine principles (yet to be discovered and determined); they differ on the proposed methods and goals. Some want to keep men down for various pragmatic and prosaic reasons, some want to keep them out of the way, some don’t.

    So, she wants a world that ‘women shape in their image’, to ‘reflect female principles’. Since nobody yet knows what those principles are, the only way to identify them is that this is for women to decide (or what is your alternative?). I call that hegemony. And if parts of feminism think that men need to be kept down or out of the way to make room for female self-realization that does not really suggest that feminism as such is a two-gender project.

    Changing gender roles is not necessarily a zero-sum project. But that does not mean that the interestes of the genders never conflict. They do. If the genders have different interests, many different choices will favour one gender over the other, and it seems wilfully naive to pretend otherwise. Actually I do not think that Lucy is seeking overall well-being in any way, just that like a good trade union member she seeks to benefit her own group and does not acknowledge or consider the effects for anyone else. Zero-sum or not, I would feel very uncomfortable to entrust :Lucy and her friends to remake our culture uncontested, just like we had better not leave it to dolphins to remake the planet ‘in their image’.

  142. sirtooting . says

    @ Mr Fogg ~ 141

    ” If Farrell were still saying the same things today it would be a different story. To the best of my knowledge he does not, and to the best of my knowledge he no longer believes or advocates what he did then”

    A man who didn’t believe the claims of young girls that they were abused, & was convinced they were lying and that was 40 years ago.. Has his opinion magically changed at some point, has he changed his mind, when he claims there is no date rape or spousal rape only female remorse in being involved sexually with another person and then they only cry rape out of malice?
    Although the evidence is overwhelming that rape is psychologically devastating for the victim Mr Farrell doesn’t agree with that overwhelming evidence because

    ” Fathers tended to express positive feelings about incest they perpetrate, but daughters gave more negatives responses.
    Farrell stated
    “Either men see these relationships differently, or I am getting selective reporting from women.”
    Farrell clearly doesn’t believe women, when they say they are raped, he hasn’t changed his mind in 40 years.

    He dismisses the woman’s word & her trauma as selective reporting and he suggests she selects to not think positively about being raped instead, she chooses out of malice to not agree her experience of rape is the same as the one who raped her..

    This is the current thinking of Mr Farrell, this is what he says about date rape and spousal rape .. The victim is choosing to accuse men out of malice, not because they are victims of a crime committed against them.

    98% of people who claim they have been robbed are true claims, 2% are false, that is the same percentage regarding those who are raped, only 2% are false claims.
    However Mr Farrell would have us believe no one is actually robbed, they are just selectively reporting and they select to not think positively about being robbed instead, they choose out of malice to not agree their experience of robbery is the same as the one who robbed them.. because hey .. the robber said he enjoyed the experience and it’s got to be the same for the victim .. and how can it not ..

    & re Harriet Harman ..Harriet Harmen never accused young girls of lying about being raped, she has never said she didn’t believe females are raped, she never said she believes they regret having sex & cry rape out of malice.
    She has never said any of those things and yet again, you try to justify why Mr Farrell said what he said because at that time it was in vogue to say it .. but he is still saying it, and he hasn’t stopped saying it .. and that is the point .. at no point has he changed his views, they are still exactly the same.

  143. sirtooting . says

    @ Mr Fogg

    Just as Mr Farrell does not acknowledge women’s experience of rape is totally different to that of the rapist, you in turn do not acknowledge Mr Farrell is a paedophile, in fact you will dismiss his own admittance that he is, by claiming he said that in the past and it isn’t relative now!

    BUT Mr Farrell still insists women experience of rape is the same as the rapists and women are only claiming rape out of malice and remorse.

    Farrell “Fathers tended to express positive feelings about incest they perpetrate, ( But that is why they perpetrated it, THEY wanted Sex with their daughters, the men thought of it and acted on their thoughts) THERE THOUGHTS) but daughters gave more negatives responses. No the children didn’t think of it, that was their fathers sexual desires being acted out of them

    “Either men see these relationships differently, or I am getting selective reporting from women.”
    Or perhaps Mr Farrell you are selectively ignoring who it is who is perpetrating crimes against their children in order to realise their own sexual fantasies and you can’t believe those sexual fantasies are psychologically devastating to those who they are exacted on?

  144. JT says

    @Toot

    Why don’t you just …. off and go visit Mr. Farrell and rant on him. I think Mr. Fogg made his point clear. Take the hint.

  145. WhineyMalone says

    Ally@143

    Meanwhile I’d challenge you to find any feminist list of demands from anywhere in the years leading up to Corston that make so much as a passing mention of prison reform as a priority

    Crikey, Ally, would you possibly care to re-read the section where I quoted from Vera Baird’s Wikipedia entry, and see if there is anything factual in that account (I mean in that particular paragraph) you’d want to dispute? Dear oh dear! :-)

  146. 123454321 says

    #138 Tamen

    “Oh, I forgot to ask you, have you by any chance read The Beautiful Boy by Germaine Greer?”

    I haven’t seen the book (wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole!) but it sounds outright disgusting and hypocritical. it’s things like this that have turned me against feminists, and many other men, I’m sure.

    How germaine greer has got away with that is well beyond me.

  147. 123454321 says

    Would someone please explain to me why that book was approved for publication and why Germaine Greer has got away with it?

  148. WhineyMalone says

    Oh yes sorry also here

    http://www.crimlinks.com/News2004/April12004.html

    and here

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/may/13/justice-law

    It’s also worth noting the introduction to this report here by the Baroness herself:

    http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Engendering-Justice-from-Policy-to-Practice.pdf

    Since its inception, the Commission’s work has benefited from the considerable and diverse expertise of its
    Commissioners, drawn from across the criminal justice system and areas of public life. Vera Baird MP QC
    expertly chaired the Commission until 2006 when she stepped down following her appointment as a minister in the Department of Constitutional Affairs. I have been privileged to Chair this Commission since that time.

    So if she took up the role in 2006 that means she would have chaired that Commission even before she published the Corston Report itself.

    I’m sorry, Ally, I just don’t see how yours is a tenable position, and if you could just have the good grace to admit you’re wrong it would be greatly appreciated.

  149. John Morales says

    Gjenganger @153, perhaps an analogy will help you follow: consider the women’s suffrage movement of yesteryear — do you think that what they sought was to overturn the existing gender political participation rights so that men and women’s positions became reversed?

    (What were their actual claims and what were the actual results, in the light of history?)

  150. John Morales says

    123454321 @158,

    it’s things like this that have turned me against feminists, and many other men, I’m sure.

    Heh. Your syntactic competence amuses me.

    (Not all men are feminists, you know! ;) )

  151. John Morales says

    [oops]

    @162, I should have written “(Not all feminists are men, you know! ;) )”

    (Due chagrin has occurred)

  152. bugmaster says

    @Lucy #139:

    I’m afraid I’m still two steps behind you, so to speak. You explained the history of the “masculinisation of society”, and the influence that it exerts on us; but the problem is, I still don’t know what you mean by “masculinisation”. You contrast it with the “feminisation” that MRAs are railing against, but unfortunately I don’t know what MRAs mean by “feminisation”, either (other than, perhaps, using it as a catch-all term meaning “stuff we don’t like”, which is not terribly interesting).

    As far as I can guess — and this is just my guess, so if I am wrong I apologize — you subscribe to a sort of sex-essentialist view of human behaviour. That is, you believe that certain modes of thought and patterns of actions are ingrained in our chromosomes; and that people with XX chromosomes will always think and act differently from people with XY chromosomes (though obviously not in all situations; we all breathe the same oxygen and consume the same nutrients and stuff). Historically, the kinds of behaviors that are only exhibited by XX individuals have been marginalized in our society, and thus the goal of feminism would be to push XY-type (i.e. masculine) behaviors to the background, while pulling XX-type (i.e. feminine) behaviors into the foreground.

    Is that in any way close to what you mean ? If so, what methodology do you use to determine which behaviors are “masculine” and which are “feminine” (other than the purely biological examples such as “carrying a fetus to term inside one’s womb”) ?

  153. Gjenganger says

    @Lucy 139,@Bugmaster 164

    I think bugmaster has a point, Lucy.

    Now, your history of ‘male dominance’ is clearly not total nonsense. I would point out, though, that this was a division of labour within a tight-knit group, not a kind of slavery.What we can be sure of is that men, being stronger and more expendable, did more of fighting, travelling, ploughing, and maybe hunting, and women did more child-care, nurturing and anything else that allowed them to stay close to the hearth. Power relations in the stone age household is really beyond our knowledge. There were advantages and disadvantages on both sides – even if one side may have been a bit better off.

    As it happens I agree that male and female values, preferred behavior, etc. are different (to some extent). But where do these differences come from? And what makes them legitimate to build on (as opposed to just a coincidence of current culture)? To some extent the differences are cultural, formed with our culture through our history as a species. I would say that the fact that we have been formed this way gives a certain legitimacy to the result. It certainly gives the groups involved (be they women, men, or Australian Aborigines) a legitimate aspiration to have their principles and culture continue into the future and not just have them thrown o the scrap-heap. But you reject the result of human history and want to rebuild it from zero, so you can find no legitimacy there. I would also say that the gender differences are not arbitrary but (up to a point) rooted in biological differences, and that gives them further legitimacy. It is how men and women are. But you want to remake also our biology, in your quest for women’s self-realization. You cannot derive legitimacy from our biological nature. You could of course argue that men and women have certain differences because God created us that way, but I assume you would not go that way. Or you could argue that ‘feminine principles’ would be better for everybody, but when you do not even know what the ‘feminine principles’ are? The only thing that is left is that you want women to be the dominant group i the future, and their values, whatever they turn out to be, to hold sway.

    Basically, what I would like from you is one of two things: Either say that yes, you do indeed want women to decide things in the future, down to remaking our culture and biology. Or say what kind of space you want to leave for other groups (men) and their principles in your future world. In which case I will acknowledge that I have misunderstood you.

  154. Gjenganger says

    @John Morales 161
    No offense but you are not my high school teacher. If you think that Lucy is arguing for more female space in a shared world, rather than female dominance, why not say so? If you could come up with some arguments why this is the case, and what kind of shared space we were talking about, you might even convince me

  155. John Morales says

    Gjenganger @166, you are attributing positions to Lucy which are not evident to me; she was responding to an enquiry about the nature of male hegemony and of feminism with her own understanding of those terms, and made no claim nor argument that she personally sought feminist outcomes.

    (My interjection into your conversation was due to my belief that you were not basing your own response to what she had written, but to the position you attributed her to hold)

  156. Gjenganger says

    @John Morales 167
    True enough. She was giving a definition, not an opinion, and I assumed the two coincided. Apologies, Lucy.
    But either way I would still love to hear what space her (definition of) feminism leaves for other groups to put also their stamp on the world.

  157. sirtooting . says

    What is comes down to was, women were owned by men, they had to get married, they had no choice. They couldn’t be single, it wasn’t safe for them, and why wasn’t it safe for them?. Well, we all know why .. Men were unsafe to be around.
    Marriage and the marriage vow, women were forced to sign, sealed their fate .. Obey .. Not a relationship between two equals, but a master and slave relationship.. Where he dictated the rules, where he decided what he would and would not allow her .. The tyrant, first he says he has come as a protector. Yes protecting his own interests. It reminds me of loan sharks, who drop in on companies telling them, they must pay them for protecting them, otherwise, they will let those companies know exactly what it means, not to pay them protection money.

    Men try to justify rape, a protection racket run by men.. let me protect you my dear, marry me, obey me & do as you are ordered & I will protect you from all those other men and let me fuck you over instead, otherwise I will leave you to the other wolves who are just as viscous and frothing from the mouth, & will tear into you just as viscously as me.. there are no lesser of two evils, they are both the same..

    Men couldn’t be trusted, he imagines he is a hero, strange i only see a violent abusive self indulgent thug and he who never saw the woman as an equal, never treated her as an equal, never regarded her as an equal, never thought her potential as valuable as his.
    iF HIS WORLD IS A VIOLENT WORLD, AND HE THINKS HE HAS TO PROTECT THE WOMAN FROM IT, iT DOESN’T SAY MUCH ABOUT HIS WORLD, HE CREATED FOR HIMSELF, DOES IT..

    Men can’t be trusted, they make the world unsafe, Well if that is the case, then just turn that around, make it so, men can’t leave their homes, then they are under female protection and females will be able to freely walk where ever they please without fear of male violence.
    That would make for a very peaceful society, men at home caring for their kids, washing and ironing, hoovering, making sure the dinner is on the table for when she gets home,.
    He will be a very busy lad .. but it will keep him out of trouble, that is for certain..
    You see, cultures have always had it the wrong way round, the least violent are far better at running a country, than the most violent, & containing the violent has always been it’s problem..

  158. 123454321 says

    “You see, cultures have always had it the wrong way round, the least violent are far better at running a country, than the most violent, & containing the violent has always been it’s problem..”

    But the Lion must be credited with having created evolutionary strength in the gene pool through fighting to the death, unlike the Lioness who sat at home licking her paws.

  159. John Morales says

    123454321 @171, cute, but ‘Lion’ is to ‘Man’ as ‘Lioness’ is to ”Woman’, and it’s the species that counts.

    Or, on a different tangent and perhaps less obliquely: a particularly interesting example since the lioness is the one who does the hunting for the pride.

    (I guess that, for some, being prone to fight to the death is more admirable than routinely sustaining the community. Not for me.)

  160. 123454321 says

    “(I guess that, for some, being prone to fight to the death is more admirable than routinely sustaining the community. Not for me.)”

    I agree. It’s not for me either.

    However, me and you wouldn’t be where we are today based purely on sustainability. It’s the hard-core, evolutionary tactics of yesteryear that provided us with our current position.

    I’m afraid it was the poor old Lion that really did the difficult job. Rather be a Lioness any day of the week!

  161. says

    Or, on a different tangent and perhaps less obliquely: a particularly interesting example since the lioness is the one who does the hunting for the pride.

    That can only be seen as simplification. Lions live in a lot of areas with different cultures and prey. An example are the Savuti prides who take on elephants, in these hunts males actively participate. (1)

    Further there are simply differences in preferred prey between males and females, with males tackling less mobile but fearsome prey while living in coalitions (2, 3).
    This indicates that male lions are less suited for tackling the same prey as females, which is unsurprising since there is a large sexual size dimorphism. Therefore they are less likely to participate in the same hunting effort.

    (1) R. John Power, R.X. Shem Compion (2009) Lion predation on elephants in the Savuti, Chobe National Park, Botswana

    (2) Dunston et al. (1998) Hunting by male lions: ecological influences and socioecological implications

    (3) Frans G. T. Radloff, Johan T. Du Toit (2004) Large predators and their prey in a southern African savanna: a predator’s size determines its prey size range

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>