Trollololol, BMJ »« Courts must not rule on circumcision, even in Israel

Just dropping by

Hi there.

Just a quick fly-by to say I’m doing some contract work at the moment, generally up to my eyeballs, and haven’t had time to blog.

If any regular readers are in London, you might like to know that I’m in Hackney on Thursday night, at the near-legendary BBC Question Time Watchalong  night. I’m doing an In conversation with… type thing alongside Laurie Penny and that’s about as much as I know, other than comedian Kate Smurthwaite is also doing a turn, and there will be beer. It should be light-hearted, friendly and fun. At least if I have my way. And then after 10.30 we all shout abuse at the big telly for an hour.

A few things round and about that have caught my eye of late. Of all the deserved tributes and moving commentary around the death of Nelson Mandela, I’m one of those bitter lefties of a certain age who cannot easily forgive those who were fiercely, furiously resisting sanctions, solidarity and other forms of activism to secure Mandela’s release and bring about an end to apartheid. When I was at university, our student union Conservative group campaigned for new members with Hang Nelson Mandela posters at the freshers’ fair.  Mark Steel captures my feelings pretty well.  

On my more familiar territory, this story about a father who still cannot see his daughter despite 82 court judgments in his favour is a pretty damning indictment of the failures of our family courts to impose any authority.

Finally, for those with an interest in the cutting and occasionally downright bleeding edge of feminist theory, I’m mulling over this post on intersectionality, which makes some really interesting points. I have the luxury (or privilege) of being able to consider it purely on an intellectual basis, I have no dog in the fight, but I do think it is a really good argument.

Any thoughts on these, or anything else?

What’s caught your eye of late, my friends?

Comments

  1. CalamityJane says

    That Telegraph story is grim. Judges have a variety of sanctions at their disposal, including financial penalties, imposing community service and even imprisonment, but they seem to be really reluctant to deploy them in the regions, for some reason.

    I have seen Mothers in the Principal Registry in London get the bollocking of their lives from judges – enough to make them buck up their ideas a bit. We can’t possibly comment authoritatively because we know little about the background to this story, but it does seem outrageous.

    What I find most depressing is the very real harm this is causing to the daughter. It may not manifest immediately, but there is every likelihood that it will be having an adverse effect on her – one that could potentially damage her psychologically, particularly w/r/t the way in which she interacts with and regards men in the future.

    So sad.

  2. CalamityJane says

    Oh, and have fun in Hackney. Wish I could come along and heckle, but I am stuck to the sofa with a slipped disc atm. Gah.

  3. Thil says

    @Ally Fogg

    I live with mum and dad in Stoke-On-Trent, ….so basically thanks anyway but you might as well be talking about something on Pluto

  4. Danny Gibbs says

    That story about the 82 court orders and 0 enforcement is f’n horrible. That family court system let down that daughter and that dad and rewarded that mother for terrible behavior.

    And unfortunately the concept of intersectionality has been turned another buzzwordy catchphrase meant to derail and disrupt conversation.

  5. avern says

    “Finally, for those with an interest in the cutting and occasionally downright bleeding edge of feminist theory, I’m mulling over this post on intersectionality, which makes some really interesting points. I have the luxury (or privilege) of being able to consider it purely on an intellectual basis, I have no dog in the fight, but I do think it is a really good argument.”

    Where is the really good argument? All I see here is a white feminist trying to establish “social justice” cred by showing how enlightened she is in relation to other white feminists. It’s typical oneupmanship.

    Whether you agree with them or not, MRAs, especially the younger, anti-social conservatives, are far more cutting edge than anything coming out of feminism nowadays.

  6. avern says

    By “anti-social conservatives,” I of course mean those who are against social conservatism. Not conservatives that are anti-social, lol.

  7. carnation says

    @ Avern

    Couldn’t let this beauty pass without comment:

    “MRAs are… far more cutting edge”

    Well, in a sense, yes. Doing nothing except writing in comments sections *is* a novel form of activism, but blaming women for society’s ills isn’t new, nor is victim blaming, portraying a group as victims (not even original, some feminisms got there first) or numerous proclamations of imminent victory. Nothing about MRAs is anything other than reactionary and usually hysterical.

    A re-evaluation of masculinity is taking place, slowly. MRAs aren’t involved and are irrelevant

  8. carnation says

    Re the 82 court orders, failure to abide by court orders should have real, enforceable penalties. I cannot think of any activists that would disagree. Included in this should be failing to attend contact centres as agreed or to mean8ngfully engage with mediation. Grant those abusing the system no quarter.

    Outta interest, what are F4J up to? Is O’Conner still as embarrassingly needy for any media attention?

  9. Lucy says

    “We don’t experience the intersection of race and gender.”

    Tell that to the street-groomed girls, harassed women of Bethnal Green and Tower Hamlets, white porn “actresses”, trafficked Eastern Europeans and Central Park gang-rape victim.

  10. thetalkingstove says

    All I see here is a white feminist trying to establish “social justice” cred by showing how enlightened she is in relation to other white feminists. It’s typical oneupmanship.

    What I see is a white feminist trying to be more considerate and raise awareness of the ways in which feminism can trample on non-white women.

    Where’s the oneupmanship? Does the writer crow about how much more enlightened she is? No.

    You could apply your ‘social justice cred’ criticism to anyone saying ‘hey, let’s not do this’ about a whole range of issues. It’s a boiler plate objection. It’s vapid. You may as well say ‘it’s political correctness gone mad!’.

  11. Lucy says

    “Finally, for those with an interest in the cutting and occasionally downright bleeding edge of feminist theory, I’m mulling over this post on intersectionality, which makes some really interesting points. ”

    No it doesn’t. It makes the same points people always make about white feminists: that they don’t understand race and that they override black feminists’ perspectives. It’s the point every lazyass MRA reaches for every day. It’s the point made a whole lot better by loads of black feminists, but which frequently reveals they haven’t been following the feminist conversation of the last 3 decades.

    As to this blogger’s central premise that white women don’t experience the intersection of their race and gender, it’s total nonsense. They don’t experience it the same way as other races do, but understanding that is the whole point of intersectionality.

    I live in an area of the country with a high Asian population and where I am often in a minority. I daily experience the intersection of my race and gender. In the work place, in public and in the media and politics; with the subtle, multilayered and not so subtle or multilayered forms of discrimination both in my favour and against it. At work I’ve been ignored in meetings, sat separately to male colleagues, had people refuse to shake my hand, had a show of deference for my seniority and race, while being undermined for my gender, had my white male colleagues collude in sexual discrimination and objectification out of concern for cultural and racial sensitivity. When I walk in certain areas I am self-conscious, aware of the various judgements being made about me, at pains to undermine various sexist, racist or justified prejudices that have been communicated to me by the media. In other areas I can be stared at, leered at, hissed at, sucked at, I once had my hair stroked on the bus and was encouraged to take it as a compliment; when I go to certain countries multiply it to the point where I cannot travel alone. I’ve been told on the Asian Network that we are “looser” than Asian women because we talk to men, which apparently means we can be treated with disdain, by the media that we are self-entitled, vain materialists, in the Guardian that we are a “blonde distraction before marriage” and racist deluded princesses, by Peter Oborne on Question Time that grooming is caused by our love of crisps, booze, boyfriends with cars, crap parents and going outside, by Muslim dogmatists that we are uncovered meat. I’ve been called racist names, twice had it suggested that I ought to be raped as revenge for colonialism or my vague involvement in a vague appreciation of Georgian atrocities, an opinion stoked by numerous films, books, plays, reality BBC and Channel 4 series and internet comments (see your blog a few days ago) by white men with a zombie agenda of palming off responsibility. And I frequently watch with interest how incidents of rank misogynistic discrimination morph into whitewashed, silenced, incidents of potential racial discrimination as politicians, the authorities and the leftwing press and business colleagues coalesce around them.

  12. Adiabat says

    On my more familiar territory, this story about a father who still cannot see his daughter despite 82 court judgments in his favour is a pretty damning indictment of the failures of our family courts to impose any authority.

    This story was on the front page of the Daily Mail (of all places) yesterday and has been reported by the Telegraph. Do you have a link to the Guardian’s reporting of this? Or the BBC’s?

    No? I wonder why…

    It seems to me that the ‘right wing’ newspapers are increasingly overtaking the left wing on what should be ‘social justice’ or ‘progressive’ issues. The far left wing seems too steeped in it’s own bigotry and intolerance and is getting left behind.

    Finally, for those with an interest in the cutting and occasionally downright bleeding edge of feminist theory, I’m mulling over this post on intersectionality, which makes some really interesting points.

    I disagree that any interesting points are made in that post. If someone invents a piece of theory they, or their race, don’t “own” that theory. This is known as ‘the free exchange of ideas” (I can’t believe I even need to point this out).

    While I have no doubt that some “intersectional feminists” are using it more as it’s the latest trendy buzzword and are not really being intersectional, there is nothing in the theory behind intersectionality that logically leads to the conclusion that some white feminists can’t be considered intersectional. If someone is claiming to be intersectional but really aren’t then the correct thing to do is criticise their ideas and their arguments, not to attack them for the race they happen to be. Because that’s racist*.

    * Here I’m using the word as 99% of the English speaking world use the word, not the made up version that SJW insist is the “correct” one.

  13. carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    Or perhaps furthering (thankfully rare) stories about twisted women confirms right-wing prejudices?

  14. lelapaletute says

    Have to say I strongly disagree with the intersectionality tumblr-post (and not just because I’m an oblivious white feminist – I hope…). I pretty much object to anyone claiming to ‘own’ a concept or theory. And to insist that intersectionality as a concept cannot be expanded to take in other intersections beyone race and gender from the perpsective of women of colour, just because that’s where it started out, is like suggesting that the theory of gravity can’t be extended beyond falling apples in my view. It’s like feminists who get narky because MRAs ‘appropriate’ the language and theories of feminism to attack it. Yes, it’s illogical, but it demonstrates the validity and versatility of that language and theory. And ultimately, language and theory are tools for advancing understanding – you can’t treat them as private property, for use only by the select few, or that defeats the purpose. By all means tell white feminists they’re getting intersectionality wrong, explain to them if you think they’ve misapprehended and abused its meaning, if they’re dominating the discourse without properly listening, have the debate. But you can’t just say “drop it!” otherwise what’s the point of the discourse?

    And the family court story sounds heartbreaking. Clear reflection of the sometimes pervasive view that a mother, any mother, must be better for a child than any father. It’s sexist, it’s stupid and it does real harm. I don’t see how, if these judges have fully investigated the case and established that there are no grounds for preventing the father from seeing his daughter (who obviously wants to see him too) they don’t enforce sanctions on the mother to force her to comply.

  15. Adiabat says

    Carnation: Can you clarify what your argument is?

    Is your argument that this story isn’t newsworthy and has only been reported by the Mail and Telegraph due to some unspecified prejudice against women? Because I think most people would disagree with you that this story isn’t newsworthy, as it represents a serious injustice in our family court (also the court of appeal and high court), and the question still remains as to why the Guardian etc haven’t reported on it.

  16. Danny Gibbs says

    carnation:
    Well, in a sense, yes. Doing nothing except writing in comments sections *is* a novel form of activism, but blaming women for society’s ills isn’t new, nor is victim blaming, portraying a group as victims (not even original, some feminisms got there first) or numerous proclamations of imminent victory. Nothing about MRAs is anything other than reactionary and usually hysterical.

    A re-evaluation of masculinity is taking place, slowly. MRAs aren’t involved and are irrelevant
    If blaming women for society’s ills was the only thing going on among MRAs you’d have a point but since its not you don’t. You remind me of those few MRAs that do nothing but look for attack angles to go after feminists.

    Or perhaps furthering (thankfully rare) stories about twisted women confirms right-wing prejudices?
    So a story isn’t newsworthy because it just happens to fall under someone’s prejudices? Instead of trying to ignore and bury the story by linking it to right wingers why just go after the right wingers? I don’t see any around here though.

    Simply put this was a terrible injustice suffered by father and child and a mother was allowed to go on with horrible behavior for years and no one in the system stepped in. That’s a problem no matter how often it happens.

  17. Adiabat says

    lela:

    if these judges have fully investigated the case and established that there are no grounds for preventing the father from seeing his daughter (who obviously wants to see him too) they don’t enforce sanctions on the mother to force her to comply.

    If she’s willing to sabotage her child’s relationship with her father, potentially causing untold harm to the child’s mental and emotional well-being, then I see no reason why she shouldn’t be considered an unfit parent and custody awarded to the father. Or do you think this is too extreme? What kind of sanctions do you think would be effective?

    One of the things that jumped out at me about this case is that every time it goes to court the mother is entitled to free legal aid while the father has to pay. He’s currently spent £100,000 so far to win the right to see his daughter, while there is no cost at all for her. I wonder how many men through financial cost alone are forced to just give up, as the system practically encourages the mother to delay as long as possible without repercussions.

    Danny:

    I don’t see any around here though.

    Just in case it isn’t clear to anyone, I wouldn’t consider myself on the Right. I’m just happy to defend anyone, or any organization, who does the right thing, regardless of what other views they hold. I actually think it’s a shame that the left has allowed the right to become more progressive on some issues.

    (I thought I’d best post this as some people have trouble distinguishing between “this organisation is ahead on this issue” with “I fully support everything this organisation does”.)

  18. Superficially Anonymous says

    The Mandela thing is tricky, having had the privilege of watching both the Conservative and Liberal societies at my university I suspect if one side came out in favour of ice cream the other side would have some ‘melt ice cream’ posters up before the week was out. It wouldn’t matter which side either, it’s not in any way a sincere statement of political or personal opinion and is more along the line of a team game.

  19. Copyleft says

    With Mandela’s death, it’s time for conservatives to rewrite history again. In the new version, they were always on Mandela’s side and staunchly opposed apartheid, since racism is Obviously Wrong. Everyone got that?
    Now go write some more conspiracy theories about Obama’s secret Kenyan birth and Black Panther ties.

  20. Lucy says

    “If blaming women for society’s ills was the only thing going on among MRAs you’d have a point but since its not you don’t. ”

    *White* women are blamed for society’s ills. Non-white women are many things in British culture, but blamed isn’t one of them.

    The words, “white woman” conjures up many things, all of them negative. Where does that propaganda come from? Who benefits from it? The answers to that are, I’d say, worthy of the title, intersectional. White men take part in lieu of self-criticism, non-white men do it in lieu of taking on white men, non-white women do it in lieu of taking on non-white men, and white women collude in it because they are racked with media-induced self-loathing.

  21. TMK says

    I have to agree with others. Where is the cutting edge there? Tendency of some feminists to treat feminism as a Grand Narrative (yeah, still alive, apparently some people did not got the news that GN are dead) and subsequent blindness to others axes of stratification (in the US context, racism) is really, really old news. As is others calling this out, like in the mentioned blog post. Now, Ally, if you havent seen it enough, i get it, but it is really not a cutting edge thing.

    I mean, if they wrote about how their understanding of race and their insistence that everyone else who does not view it their way (especially Latin Americans!) was prime example of imperialism, and thus American privlege, that would be interesting. But i guess what they say about privilege is true, people are blind to it. And when they talk among, mainly, Americans, well…

    And btw, Avern, for a while i thought you were praising (anti-social) conservatives and wanted to say something to the contrary, good that you cleared that up! I would agree. I mean, look at Ally, he is anti social-conservative MRA, isnt he? ;)

    @Carnation, the analysis of masculinity by feminism was and still is, AFAIK, rather shallow. Now, most MRAs arent much better, but it is something that i always found weak point among feminists (with some great exceptions like Clarisse Thorn). In fact, that got me interested in sites like Feminist Critics, and all the folks that post there (which lead me here, btw) in first place, since i firstly (and still) identify as feminist.

  22. TMK says

    Also, i have a ignorant question. I have trouble imagining the situation in the 82times story. I mean, i know it happens quite often, but how is it possible that they cannot met? I mean, the daugther wants to see the father, the father too? Couldnt they just met after her school, or whatever free time she has? I mean, her mother couldnt prevent it, right, not anymore than her seeing a classmate or something.

    So, what am i missing?

  23. Thil says

    @Copyleft

    are you talking about actual instances of people claiming they held positions it’s a matter of fact that they did not, like a politician saying he didn’t support apartheid when it’s meter of record that he did? or are you just taking issue with people changing their minds?

  24. Copyleft says

    @Thil: I’m talking about the former–conservative pundits and politicians who now heap praise on Mandela, even though they loudly condemned him and shouted down any attempts to oppose apartheid. The U.S. has quite a few hypocrites who have followed this pattern on other social issues as well.

  25. carnation says

    I would agree that a pattern of wilfully breaking a contact order indicates that the transgressive parent isn’t fit to care for the child. Mechanisms should be in place to measure and act on this.

    The DM and Telegraph wholeheartedly support the MRA (and societal) myth that women can and often do abuse laws to deny loving, caring, fit and proper fathers contact with their children, whilst men can’t and don’t. It remains a popular myth but it is simply that: a myth.

    What would be courageous would be for a journalist or academic to research the comparative sex difference in contact order breakers (and those refusing to mediate). An interested organisation, F4J, perhaps, could also stop being silly attention seekers and measure the problem they are (allegedly) dedicated to ‘fighting’. Perhaps they understand that the findings would negate their reason for being (and the attention would stop).

    The family court has systemic problems. Persecuting men for being men simply isn’t one of them.

  26. Copyleft says

    @Thil: Your response is puzzling.

    You asked if I was talking about hypocrisy or simply people changing their minds; I replied that I was talking about actual hypocrisy; and your response is “But there’s nothing wrong with changing your mind.”

    Why do I get the feeling you asked your question with no interest in the answer?

  27. Thil says

    @Copyleft

    You said
    “I’m talking about the former–conservative pundits and politicians who now heap praise on Mandela, even though they loudly condemned him and shouted down any attempts to oppose apartheid”

    that might just mean they’ve changed their mind at some point in the last 23 years

  28. Jacob Schmidt says

    Thil

    that might just mean they’ve changed their mind at some point in the last 23 years

    They probably have. The problem comes when they pretend like it was always their position. That’s when I suspect intellectual dishonesty, if not hipocrisy per se.

  29. Thil says

    @Jacob Schmidt

    It’s not “hypocrisy”. There is in fact a word that means exactly what you are describing, ….it’s “LYING” :)

    Seriously though is that what Copyleft is thinking of, because what’s coming out of his key board just sounds like getting pissed of at people for changing their minds?

  30. John Morales says

    Thil @34,

    Seriously though is that what Copyleft is thinking of, because what’s coming out of his key board just sounds like getting pissed of at people for changing their minds?

    I refer you to comment #21: “With Mandela’s death, it’s time for conservatives to rewrite history again. In the new version, they were always on Mandela’s side and staunchly opposed apartheid, since racism is Obviously Wrong.”

    No examples were provided, but the claim was more than merely a change of mind.

    (You’re right that it’s better described as lying than as hypocrisy, though)

  31. Adiabat says

    Carnation (28):

    The DM and Telegraph wholeheartedly support the MRA (and societal) myth that women can and often do abuse laws to deny loving, caring, fit and proper fathers contact with their children, whilst men can’t and don’t. It remains a popular myth but it is simply that: a myth.

    You don’t seem to have understood the article we are discussing. It is highlighting that the family courts don’t enforce contact orders, even in extreme cases as the one highlighted in the story, and states nothing about the prevalence of this or the MRM.

    And I’ll ask again: Do you think this story is newsworthy? Your responses indicate that you don’t.

    What would be courageous would be for a journalist or academic to research the comparative sex difference in contact order breakers (and those refusing to mediate). [And something about FFJ]

    The problem with your argument is that there is no audit in private family law, so there is little data to work with. This is a partly a feature of the closed nature of the courts, and also of the lack of political will to investigate the outcomes. The courts assume that if no-one comes back to court after a hearing, that it has all gone well. This is often not the case, the non-resident parent gives up dispirited and impoverished, and the child loses out on a childhood of seeing half their family. I’ve already pointed out in my last post how the disparity in legal aid, and the subsequent lack of enforcement, can lead to fathers giving up on trying to fight for their rights to parental time with their children.

    The family court has systemic problems. Persecuting men for being men simply isn’t one of them.

    When you have weasel-word your argument I find it hard to believe that you are engaging honestly. The bias is in favour of the de facto custodial parent, which in the majority of cases is the mother, and against the other parent, in the majority of cases the father. Therefore the systemic problems you agree exist are likely to affect men much more than they affect women. Hence why the MRM focus on it. I don’t understand why you persistently misunderstand the argument that is being made.

    But we’ve covered all this before carnation, and I laid all this out in much more detail, with the citations for the points I make above, here:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/27/the-hetpat-first-directive/#comment-7650

    I’m won’t say that you have to respond to that post, as you’re under no obligation to respond to anything, but It seems to me that you are purposely ignoring that post and just pop up in new threads with a fresh “reset”, making the same debunked claims about “MRA myths” and about the family courts.

  32. carnation says

    @ Adiabat.

    You are wrong. There is simply no proof that men are treated unfairly by the family court because of their sex. None. Nor is there any proof that in disputed cases, men are comparitively worse off. None whatsoever.

    I disagree with Nick Langford about many things but agree that MRAs aren’t capable (or willing) to undertake such research.

    Why? To me, it’s obvious that the truth will degrade there stated reasons for existing.

    You will not agree, I respect your right to do so, but cannot respect such crass obliviousness to reality.

    The MRA narrative is rarely challenged about family courts. It needs to be.

  33. Adiabat says

    carnation (37):

    You are wrong. There is simply no proof that men are treated unfairly by the family court because of their sex.

    Adiabat (36):

    When you have [to] weasel-word your argument I find it hard to believe that you are engaging honestly. The bias is in favour of the de facto custodial parent, which in the majority of cases is the mother, and against the other parent, in the majority of cases the father. Therefore the systemic problems you agree exist are likely to affect men much more than they affect women. Hence why the MRM focus on it. I don’t understand why you persistently misunderstand the argument that is being made.

  34. carnation says

    Adiabat,

    Here’s the truth. You cannot tell me if there is a bias against men in the family court. There has never been a comparative study done on disputed cases. It is perhaps the most obvious of the continuing and continuous epic failures of you and your MRM cohorts that a credible piece of research has been produced.

    No bias has been proven. You put your faith in myths to confirm what you want to believe. For reasons that you should really try and reflect on.

    Accuse me of using weasel words, be assured that your blind devotion to the cretins of F4J and the reactionaries of the Tory press mean that I take pleasure and pride in your disapproval.

    You have failed in this thread, like your fellow travellers have in life, to prove anything other than a bovine mindset inforned by cliched prejudices.

    Mike Buchanan at least is kind to his dog. I don’t even know if you have one.

    Have a nice day. You are Sid with spell check.

  35. Adiabat says

    To Anyone: Is it me? Am I not making any sense here?

    I don’t know how many times I can say that the bias, as shown in the newstory, the lack of enforcement, and the legal aid situation, is against the parent who does not have custody (which in most cases is the father), and not against “men for being men”.

    And I’m not even including the post of mine I linked to, which carnation has read, which offers a short but comprehensive look at government papers, professional legal assessments and academic papers supporting such a bias.

    Quite simply if you remove the weasel words “because of their sex” then strong evidence that “men are treated unfairly by the family court” has been presented, right? They are treated unfairly by the family courts disproprotionately to women by virtue of being a significantly higher proportion of non-custodial parents.

    And I did point out the issue of the lack of audit possible on private family courts, meaning that the particular goalpost carnation is demanding be passed is impossible, right? (Even though many other avenues of evidence has been presented). Does that make sense to you all? Because I can explain it in more detail if it is the case that I’m not being clear and carnation isn’t just being obtuse.

  36. Copyleft says

    Adiabat, you have to understand Carnation’s agenda here. ALL issues raised by MRAs must be discredited as worthless, even if they must be rewritten into something that’s easier to attack.

    When you point out the bias in family courts toward non-custodial parents, Carnation must rewrite that as “Waahhh, courts are being unfair to men because they’re men” so that the lack of supporting studies for that specific claim can be pointed out… thereby (supposedly) discrediting MRAs for failing to support the argument they didn’t make.

    It’s quite simple once you get the hang of it.

  37. carnation says

    @ Adiabat, Copyleft

    Your points would stand if a/ MRAs didn’t constantly claim this was part and parcel of wider alleged misandry b/ MRAs didn’t invent gendered statistics and further gender myths vus a vus the family court c/ didn’t blame that all powerful monolith “feminism” for all family court ills.

    Lastly, but particularly, MRAs, in this instance as in most others, harm those e they fantasise about advocating for: men without the skills or resources to negotiate the family court. If they absorb your lurid tales if livibg men banned from their children’s lives, they won’t be instilled with confidence, will they?

  38. D506 says

    “Lastly, but particularly, MRAs, in this instance as in most others, harm those e they fantasise about advocating for: men without the skills or resources to negotiate the family court. If they absorb your lurid tales if livibg men banned from their children’s lives, they won’t be instilled with confidence, will they?”

    Woah. Too far mate. That’s like telling women to stop talking about how hard it is to report rape because you’ll discourage other women from reporting.

  39. Ginkgo says

    carnation @ 39 – “Here’s the truth. You cannot tell me if there is a bias against men in the family court.”

    That much is true. No one can tell you that and no amount of evidence will change your mind. (So when you ask for it, you are just being disingenuous.) Now tell us all please how many days it took to create the Earth.

  40. D506 says

    @carnation

    It’s absolutely identical. MRAs tell feminists that all this talk about the justice system mistreating rape victims is scaring people away from reporting and so they should shut up. You just said that all this talk about the family courts mistreating men is scaring men away from pursuing their cases there and so they should shut up.

    That’s not an analogy. It’s a clearly garbage argument being used applied to two different causes. That you support it in one case and oppose it in the other does not make it a different argument; it makes you incapable of seeing bad ideas when they’re used to argue causes you support. Speaking of idiotic.

  41. Jacob Schmidt says

    Thil

    It’s not “hypocrisy”.

    Indeed. I wrote as much.

    carnation

    Lastly, but particularly, MRAs, in this instance as in most others, harm those e they fantasise about advocating for: men without the skills or resources to negotiate the family court. If they absorb your lurid tales if livibg men banned from their children’s lives, they won’t be instilled with confidence, will they?

    Suppose that there is a bias against men.* How is that to be addressed without bringing it up? This is just ad hoc nonsense. It’s not even good ad hoc nonsense. Being prepared for some bias keeps one from being blind-sided; it keeps fathers from floundering under unexpected pressure.

    All that said, I don’t think the courts are the best place to address this imbalance. I think the courts just amplify an already existing stereotype. But what you have above is just nonsense.

    *Frankly, I’m willing to assume that there is, unless shown evidence to the contrary. There is a bias in the culture, and it’s idiotic to assume that the courts are magically immune to that.

  42. carnation says

    @ Gingko

    Aw, you’re cute when you get angry :-)

    @ Jacob Schmidt

    “Suppose that there is a bias against men.* *Frankly, I’m willing to assume that there is, unless shown evidence to the contrary. There is a bias in the culture, and it’s idiotic to assume that the courts are magically immune to that.”

    That’s the point – there is no bias. There is no proof of bias. There are disparate groups of public nuisances, fantasists and sexists claiming that there is but offering no proof.

    But you have a point – there is still a patriarchal assumption that mothers make better parents. This, and the fact that more women than men assume the bulk of caring for children, is what generally informs the decision of *parents* in the family court.

    MRAs often cite the fact that more women than men assume primary residency as proof of a grand misandric plot. It does nothing of the sort. There is no evidence that, in comparative, disputed custody cases, men are discriminated against.

    Nothing. Those who constantly and consistently claim that men are discriminated against in the family court because of their sex are deluding themselves.

    Now, let’s assume you’re Joe Public. Joanna Public has initiated divorce proceedings. You are fed a diet of stories in your favourite right wing newspapers about vindictive women stopping caring, loving fathers from seeing their children. You’re unaware that a small percentage of custody battles are disputed, let alone that a statistically tiny number result in a denial of contact. How would you feel? Particularly is Joanna Public decides to use that myth for leverage? You might Google “father’s rights” and come across the lurid MRA myths peddled on the net… And how does Joe Public feel then?

    Men’s Rights Advocates? No, I don’t think so.

  43. Lucy says

    “there is still a patriarchal assumption that mothers make better parents”

    I thought men liked meritocracies when it came to job applications. Rather than quotas. Surely a court decision is a fairer job interview than most.

  44. avern says

    “Well, in a sense, yes. Doing nothing except writing in comments sections *is* a novel form of activism, but blaming women for society’s ills isn’t new, nor is victim blaming, portraying a group as victims (not even original, some feminisms got there first) or numerous proclamations of imminent victory. Nothing about MRAs is anything other than reactionary and usually hysterical.”

    A bunch of assertions with absolutely no backing arguments or evidence. Thanks for being the very stereotype of a blathering feminist in a comments section.

    “A re-evaluation of masculinity is taking place, slowly. MRAs aren’t involved and are irrelevant.”

    MRAs are involved, relevant and offering something truly new, which is opposed to the same old disposability and chivalry offered by conservatives and feminists.

  45. Lucy says

    Lelapaletute

    “I don’t see how, if these judges have fully investigated the case and established that there are no grounds for preventing the father from seeing his daughter (who obviously wants to see him too) they don’t enforce sanctions on the mother to force her to comply.”

    Clearly this family court’s decision can be trusted. Unlike the others than find in favour of the mother.

    What sanctions? A fine, imprisonment or transfer of the child’s custody? What would be appropriate?

    I suspect the reason the mother isn’t complying would be worth listening to. I also suspect the tabloid narrative of hostile mother and compliant father isn’t.

  46. Lucy says

    Avern

    “Thanks for being the very stereotype of a blathering feminist in a comments section.”

    What is the stereotype of a blathering feminist? I thought the stereotype of feminists was that they harangued, caterwauled, shrieked (shrilly) rather than blathered. Who are the blatherers? On radio, TV, press, films, novels, non-fiction, plays, sport, meetings, emails, forums, blogs…, comment sections. blather blather blather.

  47. carnation says

    The juxtaposition of these triumphant points is simply hilarious:

    Avern:

    “A bunch of assertions with absolutely no backing arguments or evidence. Thanks for being the very stereotype of a blathering feminist in a comments section.”

    And a little later:

    “MRAs are involved, relevant and offering something truly new, which is opposed to the same old disposability and chivalry offered by conservatives and feminists.”

    Conscious of being accused of blathering in a comments section and being a stereotypical MRA, Avern justified his assertion with no backing arguments or evidence.

    Gawd bless ye, Avern. You cheered me up no end.

    @ Lucy

    I don’t think your comments are particularly helpful to be honest. Parents can and do break contact orders and agreements and not much is done about it. I included in my suggestions earlier an idea about a range of censures being available to the authorities to prevent this, and to prevent abuses and breaking of agreements in contact centres. Interestingly, it is primarily violent fathers who are required to attend contact centres in order to see their children (in my experience)They are truly heartbreaking places, often it is not a case of the parent being prevented from seeing the child, but the other parent bringing the child to the contact centre, the child being excited about seeing the other parent and that pArent not showing up.

  48. CalamityJane says

    As an erstwhile family lawyer – I do the odd bit now but it is not really my field any more – I have represented both mothers and fathers in contact cases. The court doesn’t discriminate against men, it discriminates against gender roles.

    What I mean by that is that if the woman is the primary carer, it is rare that the court will transfer primary care to the man. But there are cases where the man is the primary carer and retain residence of their children as a result.

    The key is the welfare of the child. Also, when it comes to divorce settlements, housing the child/children is paramount. If the woman is the primary carer she will likely end up with the former matrimonial home as well. But ditto if the man is the primary carer.

  49. Jacob Schmidt says

    Carnation

    Now, let’s assume you’re Joe Public.
    -SNIP-
    And how does Joe Public feel then?

    Is this a thing now? Assuming that men will all react the same way?

    I’m happy saying that MRAs live up poorly to their name sake, but it’s hardly due to their attempts at spreading awareness.

    But you have a point – there is still a patriarchal assumption that mothers make better parents. This, and the fact that more women than men assume the bulk of caring for children, is what generally informs the decision of *parents* in the family court.

    And Adiabat’s point is that the courts are poorly enforcing those decisions, leaving the custodial parent in an undue position of power. Should the custodial parent restrict contact arbitrarily, the other parent has little recourse. Because the custodial parent is typically the mother, the father is at risk of losing contact with their child.

    Whether such a situation is particularly common is a separate matter. But such situations likely affect men more than women.

    Now, notice how at no point have I used, as a premise, systemic discrimination against men qua men in the courts? That’s because it’s a separate matter. One you’ve addressed with gusto, but separate none-the-less.

  50. sirtooting . says

    “And Adiabat’s point is that the courts are poorly enforcing those decisions, leaving the custodial parent in an undue position of power.”
    And what can the courts do where fathers choose not to maintain a relationship with their children.?
    Nothing is the answer.. Absolutely Nothing
    Whether such a situation is particularly common is a separate matter. But such situations likely affect the abandoned children far more than their absent fathers.

  51. Jacob Schmidt says

    And what can the courts do where fathers choose not to maintain a relationship with their children.?
    Nothing is the answer.. Absolutely Nothing
    Whether such a situation is particularly common is a separate matter. But such situations likely affect the abandoned children far more than their absent fathers.

    Indeed, though I doubt a man who’s sat through 82 court decisions attempting to have the right to see his daughter could be described as having chosen not to maintain a relationship. In fact, his choice seems rather clear.

    The courts have some serious flaws and limitations. I don’t deny that, nor do I deny that absent fathers is a serious problem. None of that changes the nature of this particular problem.

  52. Lucy says

    “I don’t think your comments are particularly helpful to be honest. Parents can and do break contact orders and agreements and not much is done about it. I included in my suggestions earlier an idea about a range of censures being available to the authorities to prevent this, and to prevent abuses and breaking of agreements in contact centres. ”

    But the point people are missing is that the reason courts aren’t applying the available sanctions on non-compliant parents is because there isn’t just one non-compliant parent, but rather two of them. The obstructive mother trope is a myth and courts deal in evidence. Sanctions are counter-productive in an already fraught situation that is taking place between multiple parties. It says so quite clearly in the family court guidance if anyone cares to actually read it.

  53. lelapaletute says

    @ Lucy

    Clearly this family court’s decision can be trusted. Unlike the others than find in favour of the mother.

    I generally speaking believe the judgments of the family courts can be trusted. The general trend finding in favour of mothers is based (in my view) on the general fact being that mothers (in general) do most of the hands-on child-rearing. The fact that this general truth itself is upheld and maintained by a social structure and a culture that diminishes men’s willingness and ability to play an equivalently hands-on role in their child’s life is neither here nor there in the individual court case, but is something we have to deal with at the societal level. Of course the mother should have primary custody if she has been the primary carer; usually this will be the case; which is why usually the mother is awarded custody. So don’t impose your views of what I think on me.

    I think given the length of this case, and the strength of the judge’s conclusions, they are not deciding to side with the father on a whim. So yes, I do believe this judgment (along with most judgments by the courts) can be trusted. Do you have any reason to suggest otherwise?

    What sanctions? A fine, imprisonment or transfer of the child’s custody? What would be appropriate?

    At no point do either the Mail or Telegraph articles indicate that the father WANTS custody, just visitation rights.
    If the mother can be compelled to appear in court, I think she can be compelled to produce her daughter at agreed times and places for visitation with the father. To refuse to appear in court when summoned is contempt of court; I don’t see why whatever sanctions apply to that could not equally apply to refusing to comply with the order of the court. It is, obviously, less than ideal, for the child more than anybody else. But by refusing to allow the father court-approved visitation rights on any terms, she has forced this situation.

    I suspect the reason the mother isn’t complying would be worth listening to. I also suspect the tabloid narrative of hostile mother and compliant father isn’t.

    And I am quite certain the court has listened to these reasons at great length, and has found them to be spurious. We do have to have some sort of objective analysis of the situation.

    From what the father has said in court, it is clear he thinks the mother is an abusive influence on the child; it is clear the court disagrees, or they would have imposed a care order for the child. The mother may likewise have a host of allegations and griefs against the father; it is the business of the court to establish the objective truth of these perceptions, and to assess what impact they have on the suitability of the father having contact with the child. They have done so, and decided that the mother’s reasons for wishing to prevent contact, do not impair the father’s right to a relationship with his child.

    Do you honestly believe that several different judges over the course of many years have been so hoodwinked by the father, and so insensitive and hostile to the mother, that this process has not been duly observed? or do you think they just picked up a copy of the Fail and decided that all mothers are vindictive liars and all fathers saints?

  54. John Morales says

    [meta]

    avern @51 responding to carnation @9:

    A bunch of assertions with absolutely no backing arguments or evidence. Thanks for being the very stereotype of a blathering feminist in a comments section.

    Notably, assertions you have made no attempt to dispute other than implicitly by assertion.

    (Therefore, they stand unrefuted by you, though admittedly not uncriticised)

  55. sirtooting . says

    @ No.58
    No, what your problem is, is it is not a problem, it’s an exceptional case, where a woman has a personality disorder and due to it has irrationally decided not to allow a father access to his child.
    It is an exception not the rule and I don’t know why anyone bothered to mention it.. And if they are trying to claim, this is the rule and not the exception then that is a fail.
    Selecting to highlight an exception, choosing to claim it is something it is not, is grasping at straws, it’s a straw man.
    It is an individual case, where the mother is suffering from a mental illness and in such a case it is very difficult to persuade someone who is mentally ill to see reason because their illness affects the way they think.
    Courts cannot deal with or force mentally ill people to do anything, because the mentally ill, display erratic behaviour in that regard.
    It is a terribly sad situation for the whole family to be in, not just the man, and no one chooses to be mentally ill, it is just their bad luck and their families, who have to bear the consequences of it and try and deal with it, the best they can.

  56. Jacob Schmidt says

    No, what your problem is, is it is not a problem, it’s an exceptional case, where a woman has a personality disorder and due to it has irrationally decided not to allow a father access to his child.[1]
    It is an exception not the rule and I don’t know why anyone bothered to mention it.. And if they are trying to claim, this is the rule and not the exception then that is a fail.[2]
    Selecting to highlight an exception, choosing to claim it is something it is not, is grasping at straws, it’s a straw man.[3]

    1) The a given case is relatively rare does not mean that it isn’t a problem.

    2) I’ve made no claims as to the frequency of this particular problem. I don’t know how common it is. I don’t have any statistics. Still, that a given problem may be exceptional does not mean that it isn’t worth mentioning.

    3) I don’t think you know what a strawman is. It is not “grasping at straws.” It’s a mischaracterization of a given argument.

  57. sirtooting . says

    A straw man is claiming an exception is the rule, it would be like claiming Aerial Castro is a typical man in the way men treat women.
    I know exactly what a straw man is, it is grasping at straws, it is referring to the exception, rather than the rule, and inferring that the exception is the rule.
    The problem you refer to is not a cultural problem but an individual one, hence it is not a problem that affects you in any way, is it.?

  58. Jacob Schmidt says

    A straw man is claiming an exception is the rule, it would be like claiming Aerial Castro is a typical man in the way men treat women.

    :sigh:

    No, what you’re describing would be more along the lines of a false premise. A strawman requires a mischaracterization of a given argument.

    I have not mischaracterized anyone’s argument. I can not have, in any capacity, constructed a strawman.

    The problem you refer to is not a cultural problem but an individual one, hence it is not a problem that affects you in any way, is it.?

    So? Lot’s of problems don’t affect me. Most sexism doesn’t. No racism. Very few economic problems. The list goes on. I’m pretty lucky, all told. Still, being capable of empathy, I’d rather not have people experiencing such problems.

  59. summerblues says

    Please make a donation to prostate cancer research. Prevention and not just a cure. Thank you.

    No, not yet. Hospice has been to see them. Nothing more can be done.

  60. StevoR : Free West Papua, free Tibet, let the Chagossians return! says

    @65.Jacob Schmidt :

    “A straw man is claiming an exception is the rule, it would be like claiming Aerial Castro is a typical man in the way men treat women.”
    :sigh:
    No, what you’re describing would be more along the lines of a false premise. A strawman requires a mischaracterization of a given argument.

    Actually sounds more like cherry-picking to me – focusing on the one selective example that supports ones case and ignoring the rest of the evidence that does not.

    A “straw man” / straw person is an creating and attacking exaggerated extreme caricature of an opponents argument rather than the actual argument that was really made. Or so I understand anyhow.

  61. avern says

    @Carnation

    “Gawd bless ye, Avern. You cheered me up no end.”

    Your mindless snark remains as empty and pointless as ever, carney. And if your endless verbal frothing is any indication, I honestly doubt you’re capable of feeling cheer.

    I’ll help you, sweetheart, obtain some mental clarity, if you’re capable of it. Feminists have a irrepressible habit of expecting people to accept their assumptions about MRAs while offering no backing evidence, so for any feminist to expect evidence pertaining to MRA viewpoints is the height of hypocrisy.

  62. summerblues says

    Thank you all for giving this a rest for a day. It’s appreciated.

    Now, back to the regularly scheduled program.

    Ally, have fun and break a leg.

    Avern @ 68,

    “Feminists have a irrepressible habit of expecting people to accept their assumptions about MRAs while offering no backing evidence, so for any feminist to expect evidence pertaining to MRA viewpoints is the height of hypocrisy.”

    ROTFLMAO. Extremists of all kinds don’t care about facts, the viewpoints of others, etc. That’s why they’re extremists. Feminists, in general, are not extremists.

  63. summerblues says

    avern @ 51,

    “MRAs are involved, relevant and offering something truly new, which is opposed to the same old disposability and chivalry offered by conservatives and feminists.’

    No, they are not “offering something new”. Those of us who have behaved like this recognize it for what it is: childish, self-pitying, blame-shifting, selfish. It has nothing to do with being a feminist or MRA (or Muslim or Christian or atheist or childfree or childfull or skin of color or white or American..etc). If you are human, you’ve probably been through this. Sometimes introspection is your friend.

  64. carnation says

    @ Avern

    Well, well, well duckie, your assumptions vis gender and ideology have certainly rendered you looking like the rump of a chump.

    Vast majority of feminists haven’t heard of MRAs.

    Your babble certainly does cheer me. May I have more?

  65. avern says

    @ carney

    “Well, well, well duckie, your assumptions vis gender and ideology have certainly rendered you looking like the rump of a chump.”

    Lol, “rump of a chump”? Are you feeling okay, carney? Your responses are lacking the high-intensity derangement I know and love them for. Now you’re just coming off like drunk and sleepy undergrad. Maybe you just need a nap.

    And your line about the vast majority of feminists having not heard of MRAs is a ridiculous Rush Limbaugh-level obvious lie. Feminists are pathetically obsessed with MRAs which your easily induced frothing is clear evidence of. Feminism is a crumbling old-guard ideology and you know it.

    @ summerblues

    “Sometimes introspection is your friend.”

    Strange coming from you since you and introspection are clear lifelong enemies.

  66. summerblues says

    avern @ 72

    “@ summerblues

    “Sometimes introspection is your friend.”

    Strange coming from you since you and introspection are clear lifelong enemies.”

    If you know me so well then why don’t you share with everyone here why I’ve been crying over the last 4 days, why I cleaned my house really well yesterday and why my phone was in my pocket with the volume turned way up…waiting for updates.

    Introspection was not my friend for a while since I took it too far. Now I put blame where it belongs. It doesn’t seem to me that you are looking at yourself, your own behaviors and thoughts, to see if maybe the problem really is you.

    OT: I really don’t believe that patriarchy exists. I decided to do a little bit of research on my own, not much but a bit. The evidence so far really does point to patriarchy, maybe even back as far as the times of the gods and goddesses of Greece. Interesting and annoying. Not that I’m wrong, just that it’s that freaking old. I may end up with a hell of a lot more respect for the pioneers of feminism, not to mention the pioneers of other downtrodden (wrong word, but i cant think of the right one at this moment) groups that have put up with this for centuries even.

  67. Ginkgo says

    carnation @ 49 – “@ Gingko – Aw, you’re cute when you get angry ”

    And they say women can read emotions better than men! This one can’t distinguish revulsion from anger.

    @ 71 – “Vast majority of feminists haven’t heard of MRAs”

    Perhaps in your naricissiverse, but not in the world the rest of us live in:

    http://jezebel.com/5992479/if-i-admit-that-hating-men-is-a-thing-will-you-stop-turning-it-into-a-self+fulfilling-prophecy
    http://prospect.org/article/good-mens-rights-movement-hard-find

    Now…wait for it…. Jaclyn Friedman and Lindy West are somehow going to “unrepresentative” or “not real feminists” or we’ll get the old “Well I have never heard..” as if that’s supposed to be some kind of rebuttal.

  68. Jacob Schmidt says

    Jaclyn Friedman and Lindy West are somehow going to “unrepresentative”

    How exactly are they representative? That’s not something you’ve substantiated in anyway. I mean, I can assert Paul Elam as representative of most MRAs, but that would be ridiculous. Were I to do so, pre-emptively mocking the idea that I’m wrong would be also ridiculous.

    You can complain about people noticing substantive flaws in your reasoning all you want; you can even pretend it isn’t a rebuttal; but it won’t get you far.

  69. carnation says

    @ Gingko

    Aw, you’re cute when you’re frustrated :-)

    @ Jacob Schmidt

    Actually, I think Paul Elam is representative of MRAs, if anything he’s somewhat more moderate than a lot of the even loopier outer edges of the MRA blogosphere.

    @ Avern

    Looks like I’ll need to walk you through this.

    I don’t claim to be a feminist, nor do I claim to be a woman. And in fact, I am neither. Therefore, in making your assumption, you merely made yourself look like an ass, as the saying goes. Rump can have the same meaning as ass, and you are a chump, which is also a type of steak, like rump. So, really, I was mocking you using a poetic kaleidoscope of related words and you didn’t pick up on it. But no matter, I’m explaining now.

    Now, leaving aside your inane, masturbatory comments about feminism crumbling, let’s concentrate on my point, which is that the vast majority of feminists have never heard of MRAs. MRAs are mainly, but not exclusively, part of the wider online misogynistic fraternity. It’s pretty much the only “activism” that MRA bloggers indulge in: the trolling of prominent women online. The wackier radfem sorority will be aware of MRAs because they need something to rail against, but feminist activists, those working for Women’s Aid as an example, will most likely have never heard of the esoteric blogging rabble that constitutes the wildly inaccurately named MRM.

    Now, that some online misogynistic trolls have a blog where they list ridiculous theories alongside their lurid fantasies, will not matter, be noticed or register with most feminists. Thus, my statement is correct and you have, again, made yourself look ridiculous.

    Please do be assured that I never froth when dealing with you and your ilk: it’s a source of amusement.

  70. Jacob Schmidt says

    Feminists have a irrepressible habit of expecting people to accept their assumptions about MRAs while offering no backing evidence, so for any feminist to expect evidence pertaining to MRA viewpoints is the height of hypocrisy.

    I refer you to John Morales at 61, with a slight edit: “Notably, [assumptions] you have made no attempt to dispute other than implicitly by [assumption].

  71. Danny Gibbs says

    avern:
    I’ll help you, sweetheart, obtain some mental clarity, if you’re capable of it. Feminists have a irrepressible habit of expecting people to accept their assumptions about MRAs while offering no backing evidence…
    I just had this happen yesterday in a group on Facebook. Someone posted that they were horrified to find MRA topics on at Good Men Project. But when I asked exactly what topics they were talking about they offered absolutely zero specifics. Oddly enough the assertion was accepted without question.

    All I’m saying is if you’re going to say something like that at least be able to point to something specific and say “this is why I think this way” and don’t dodge when asked to do so.

  72. says

    Dany Gibbs,

    That sounds a lot more like a problem of tribalistic apes in general, than a problem of feminists in particular. If you want you can go and disagree with Elam and see how much intelligent discussion gets going.

  73. Ginkgo says

    carnation @ – “@ Gingko
    Aw, you’re cute when you’re frustrated ”

    Still batting zero on the mind reading. Give it up, there’s a love.

  74. Ginkgo says

    “I don’t claim to be a feminist, nor do I claim to be a woman. And in fact, I am neither.”

    That’s odd, carnation. I distinctly remember you saying months ago that your low-down dog of an ex-husband had gotten cutsody of your children.

  75. carnation says

    @ Gingko

    Link?

    Nope, didn’t think so… You arguing with the straw feminist in your head again?

  76. JT says

    @Sheaf

    #79

    I agree. I got booted from there the first day because I disagreed with Elam. Lol, I wonder if he’s a Libertarian. ;)

  77. WhineyM says

    Whatcha Ally (if you are around at any point): Will there be an MP3 download of the ‘Watchalong’ thing, or was it for audience members only? Could be fun to hear you lot rabbiting on, though as far as I know the most entertaining thing Laurie Penny has ever done was that bust-up with David Starkey. :-)

  78. summerblues says

    OT update:

    It appears that my father in law will not make it to the weekend. He went downhill fast. His name is Brian. Thoughts/prayers would be appreciated. Thank you.

    Okay, stop with the straw-feminists. Yes, Elam is a leader of the MRA’s No, most people don’t know who or what MRA’s are. No, I don’t have evidence to back that up; it’s just folks that I talk to. Yes, patriarchy has been around for a while, nothng new. Keeps coming back like bad 1980’s fashions. It’s also boring. “Men” have been given privileges that they shouldn’t have. If you’re white, you are probably steeped in privileges. Same thing if you’re hetero. Yes, I’m bossy this morning. Cancer is a lousy, rotten, cruel disease. This is a cruel, undignified death. It leaves the mind intact but the body betrays.

  79. avern says

    @Carney

    “I don’t claim to be a feminist, nor do I claim to be a woman. And in fact, I am neither. Therefore, in making your assumption, you merely made yourself look like an ass, as the saying goes. Rump can have the same meaning as ass, and you are a chump, which is also a type of steak, like rump. So, really, I was mocking you using a poetic kaleidoscope of related words and you didn’t pick up on it. But no matter, I’m explaining now.”

    Hahaha! I love how you’re actually trying to make it seem like your dorky “rump of a chump” retort has some kind of subtle, linguistic complexity and commentary buried within it. Protip: just because you’re drunk when you post doesn’t mean everyone else is too. And I never said you were a woman, sweetheart. I actually assumed you were a man, since I vaguely remember you stating as such in some old thread.

    But you are a feminist. Don’t even try to claim otherwise.

    “Please do be assured that I never froth when dealing with you and your ilk: it’s a source of amusement.”

    There’s more froth in every single one of your posts than a twelve-ounce dry cappuccino.

    You like the vast majority of feminists are not only aware of MRAs, but you’re hopelessly obsessed with them.

  80. avern says

    @summerblues

    I’m sorry for your loss. Family tragedy always outweighs online squabbling.

    That said; you are not offering nearly as much empathy as you are expecting.

  81. carnation says

    @ Summerblues

    As useless as these platitudes can seem, I am sorry for your troubles.

    It is probably that you are unable or uninterested in responding, so this is to anyone who is paying attention to the points raised.

    Summerblues wrote ““Men” have been given privileges that they shouldn’t have. If you’re white, you are probably steeped in privileges. Same thing if you’re hetero.”

    This is problematic and is, in fact, a theory that I largely disagree with. *Some* men are born into privilege, most men are not. In my opinion, a woman born into a middle class family will have privileges that most men will not have had. To a lesser extent, the same is true with race and to a greater extent, sexuality.

    And within every conceivable comparison there are variables. Small men born into middle class families arguably have less privilege than tall men from less moneyed backgrounds. Children born to stable, sober parents in deprived areas will benefit more so than children raised with rich alcoholic parents.

    The point is that a lot of gendered privilege is lost within the wider inequities of a capitalist society, particularly one under the Tories. I am not for a moment saying that there are gendered privileges, but I am saying that they are not automatic and definitely not clear cut.

    I disagree wholeheartedly with the notion that MRAs are seeking to maintain some kind of privileged position, for I do not believe that they have or believe they occupy such a position. Theirs is the shrill cry of the ignored, the wail to get noticed, the tantrumatic outburst to get noticed. Not for political gain but for personal validation. This, even more so than the ever-present misogyny, is the main motivation of the standard MRA blogger, in my opinion. What is interesting is that they seek this attention anonymously: that it is given is the important thing, not that it is seen by real life peers.

    Yes, they are unpleasant. No, they are not seeking to preserve privilege. No, they are not to be feared.

  82. John Morales says

    carnation @89:

    This is problematic and is, in fact, a theory that I largely disagree with. *Some* men are born into privilege, most men are not. In my opinion, a woman born into a middle class family will have privileges that most men will not have had. To a lesser extent, the same is true with race and to a greater extent, sexuality.

    You evince a weak ontology no less than unimaginativeness by this misapprehension of the actual claim.

    That feminist claim is a categorical one, and I would offhand adumbrate it to “In any given situation, ceteris paribus, any given man has unwarranted privilege relative to non-men” as I understand it.

    This is significant universal claim which I personally consider an excellent heuristic and explanatory to boot, but not actually universal; however, it’s more nuanced and stronger than you imagine it is.

  83. says

    That feminist claim is a categorical one, and I would offhand adumbrate it to “In any given situation, ceteris paribus, any given man has unwarranted privilege relative to non-men” as I understand it.

    This is significant universal claim which I personally consider an excellent heuristic and explanatory to boot, but not actually universal; however, it’s more nuanced and stronger than you imagine it is.

    The heuristic “In any given situation, ceteris paribus, any given man has unwarranted privilege relative to non-men” is completely useless. There are many situations which are completely privilege free: Using a ATM machine for example with no one else present for example. Ad then there is the manifold of situations were women are privileged, the most powerful example being war. If you truly believe this heuristic has any use you are an even greater idiot than your cryptic approach to making yourself understood and your feeble grasp of zoology would suggest.

  84. John Morales says

    Sheaf @92, it is otiose to explicitly note that in privilege-free situations, a heuristic relating to privilege is useless.

    Your conceit that women are privileged in war is remarkable but ahistorical.

    If you truly believe this heuristic has any use you are an even greater idiot than your cryptic approach to making yourself understood and your feeble grasp of zoology would suggest.

    <snicker>

  85. says

    Your conceit that women are privileged in war is remarkable but ahistorical.

    You mean not being forced in a merciless authority structure ad ordered to kill others just like you is no privilege or that these things did not predominantly happen to men throughout history? I what sense do you use ahistorical to give truth ad meaning to your claim?

    it is otiose to explicitly note that in privilege-free situations, a heuristic relating to privilege is useless.

    Given how much effort it costs to consistently use the most obscure formulations, I was taking you for a person that takes time to formulate his or her sentences with precision. I guess I was wrong.

  86. John Morales says

    Sheaf @94, I suppose if you see not being considered good enough to be cannon-fodder to be privilege, you have a point.

    (But that’s not the sociological sense of ‘privilege’, which is the one relevant to that feminist claim)

    [meta + OT]

    Given how much effort it costs to consistently use the most obscure formulations, I was taking you for a person that takes time to formulate his or her sentences with precision. I guess I was wrong.

    Through a glass, darkly, you perceive my observations: thus the seeming obscurity; and to leave trivial tautologies unstated is not to lack precision.

    (But hey, I can’t dispute your wrongness!)

  87. says

    Following the wikipedia article on social privilege, what woman had was indeed a prvilege with regards to their duties in war time. In any case, I invite you define privilege in a non question begging way to make sense of the idea that being forced into lethal combat is not a lack of privilege, even if it stems from the fact that you are deemed capable for it.

    Through a glass, darkly, you perceive my observations: thus the seeming obscurity; and to leave trivial tautologies unstated is not to lack precision.

    Given your history of being unable to model my intentions and operating procedures, I would stop doing so with the arrogance you exhibit. You made a wrong statement, even if one category of counterexamples are of trivial nature. Leaving them unstated is intellectual sloppiness, which is particularly amusing, given the amount of effort it would cost me to produce such obscurity while suffering delusions of eloquence.

  88. says

    Just wanted to add, that the point about my “conceit being ahistorical” was dropped in the last post. I would really want to see an explanation on this one as well.

  89. John Morales says

    sheaf @96,

    In any case, I invite you define privilege in a non question begging way to make sense of the idea that being forced into lethal combat is not a lack of privilege, even if it stems from the fact that you are deemed capable for it.

    Heh.

    It must bemuse you that feminists are the ones pushing to allow for an equal role for women in the armed forces, though it is true that Traditionally conscription has been limited to the male population. Women and handicapped males have been exempt from conscription. Many societies have traditionally considered military service as a test of manhood and a rite of passage from boyhood into manhood.

    (Why do you think they seek to abandon what you see as a privilege?)

  90. says

    What actually bemuses me that you bring up actions of feminism in this context. What feminists do and dont is irrelevant with regards to whether nonconscription is a privilege.

  91. John Morales says

    Hm. “The soldier is the Army. No army is better than its soldiers. The Soldier is also a citizen. In fact, the highest obligation and privilege of citizenship is that of bearing arms for one’s country”
    ― George S. Patton Jr.

  92. says

    Do want to point out that if Patton’s view is different from mine? Because I accept that military men often have a very warped sense of semantics. I remember how the officers during my service told us that it was an honor to serve in the specific division (How can it be honorable to me, if I neither had a choice in it and no qualifiaions in being there other than being able bodied I still dont understand) or that we did voluntary service since we could have gone to jail as well. The linguistic incompetence of people is not an argument on its own.

  93. avern says

    @carney

    “You are engaging in fantasy. Enjoy them.”

    Hahaha! I looove how you tried to–incorrectly, I might add–correct my grammar in another thread, while at the same time using the wrong pronoun, “them,” for the mass noun, “fantasy,” when mass nouns are treated as if they’re singular.

    Carney, you are the best.

  94. John Morales says

    [meta]

    @103: The Grandmother, Donna Pacia Luciano, an unreasonable, dishonourable woman of disreputableness spurned injustice after the harmless attacks on someone else’s family by admitted associates of the unknown Silly Nosa Costra. This is a tedious tale of hate, dishonour, forgiveness and the boringly obvious trite attempt by a spammer to hoick crap.

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>