Cynical skulduggery or lazy indifference? How the Director of Public Prosecutions continues to betray male victims


Autumn is drip dripping down my  window pane and in true back-to-school spirit, I fully intend to drag myself out of my near-total blogging hiatus, with a few interesting developments on the way. But to get us started, this week we can revisit an old favourite.

As you may have seen, I had a piece in the Guardian yesterday, the latest volley in the ongoing campaign to drag some clarity out of the Crown Prosecution Service over the figures they describe – wrongly – as Violence Against Women and Girls.

As a brief recap for anyone joining this story late, last summer around 30 of us, including some of the most distinguished and respected charity heads and academics in the field of men’s welfare, signed an open letter criticising the CPS for presenting statistics on VAWG that secretly included many thousands of men and boys – around one in six of all victims. In the aftermath the UK Statistics Authority got involved, echoing our concerns. They instructed the CPS to rewrite the report with more honest clarity and also chided them, not only for the way the report had been written but also for the way the statistics had been presented to the press and, from there, to the public.

The re-written report was an improvement but, unsurprisingly, a bit of a cobbled together mess. The real test of progress would come in 2016 with the publication of the next annual report.

So, on Tuesday this week the new annual report was published. As my Guardian piece yesterday points out, it is still hugely problematic. Male victims are still being described and quantified under categories of crime called ‘Violence Against Women and Girls.’ Nonetheless there has undoubtedly been a massive step forward. Not only does the front page explicitly state “inclusive of data on men and boys” but (crucially) within the report itself, the gender ratios of victims and perpetrators are now stated clearly. So it becomes transparent that, for example, the victims of ‘trafficking and prostitution-related crimes’ are 60% female, 40% male; nearly a quarter of victims of ‘honour crimes’ are boys or men, as are one in six victims of domestic abuse. Anyone taking trouble to read the report would be left in no doubt that male victims are a significant minority of the crimes under discussion.

There is, unfortunately, another twist in this tale.

Reports like this tend to circulate in draft form for a few days or even weeks before they come out, and they are always accompanied by a note of strict embargo. I had a sneaky glimpse of the report before it was published, on a promise that I would tell no one before 00.01am on Tuesday September 6th. The actual report and the accompanying media release (dutifully including the important caveat that 17% of the victims in the data were men and boys) emerged sometime around 10am that morning – but that wasn’t when the news broke.

At about 10pm on the Monday night, two hours before the embargo elapsed and 12 hours before the report was published, the Guardian ran a long news story which took its information not from the report or even the press release, but directly from an interview with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders herself. She had spoken to the paper’s reporter Sandra Laville, talking about the rise in prosecutions, the new offences of coercive control and revenge pornography and much else besides. One thing she appears to have failed to mention is… yes, you’ve guessed it…. that the statistics for victims of violence against women and girls do in fact include men and boys.

Late on Monday night I stared in incredulity as Twitter and Facebook began to circulate and animatedly discuss the details of the latest statistics on violence against women and girls. When I switched on my PC the next morning, the CPS report and press release still hadn’t been published, however all the leading newspapers and broadcasters including the BBC and Sky had already prepared and run their own news stories, quoting not the report, not the CPS press office, but the Guardian’s exclusive.  Virtually none of them (the Mirror appeared to be the only exception) contained even a passing mention of the fact that the ‘women and girls’ in these statistics included male victims.

What happened next is predictable. By the time the actual press release and report were published, the journalists had already covered the issue and moved on to other stories. When the opinion writers and pundits lined up for the commentary pieces, of course they took their information from the news reports, not the actual publication.

I will leave it to you to decide whether you think this sorry story is a case of calculated skulduggery deliberately designed to cynically mislead the public about the true nature of so-called violence against women and girls, or lazy indifference to the actual facts. The most charitable explanation is that those involved were merely trying to convey a strong narrative about the problem of VAWG and didn’t want to confuse their audiences with inconvenient statistical details. Neither version should be considered acceptable.

The reasons why the CPS were obliged to rewrite their VAWG report last year were strong and irrefutable, and that is why our campaign was so quickly successful. However this sorry tale has revealed that obliging public bodies to recognise the existence of male victims of sexual violence, abuse and exploitation only gets you so far. For as long as the individuals involved continue to show abject indifference to the needs and wishes of male survivors, those men and boys will remain nothing more than an awkward afterthought.

Comments

  1. Carnation says

    @ Ally

    I wonder if it isn’t really in anyone’s interests to include the men & boys caveat because, frankly, a depressingly large percentage of society doesn’t really consider them genuine victims, service providers and funders included.

    Police authorities don’t really have a vested interest to rock the boat, nor do local authorities or charities. Neither, it seems, do media outlets, unless they need an “out-of-the-ordinary” story to run, usually sensationalised and restricted to a single story.

    I feel for you, Ally, you’re doing tough and demanding work and the odds are stacked against you.

  2. 123454321 says

    Excellent piece, but you know very well by now, Ally, that it’s a clear case of contemptuous skullduggery strategically and dishonestly delivered via media channels to an audience which has lived through decades of twisted lies and devious factual fabrications and is thus now so far indoctrinated that they know nothing other than to take the news at face value i.e. no one actually reads these reports or the small print, they merely focus on the headline statements and conclude that violence against women and girls is the only key component to debate or consider within the spectrum of matters relating to violence. Clear skullduggery in action and Alison Saunders knows exactly what she is doing but she is in a position where she can’t possible derail the momentously long and heavy gravy train that keeps chugging down the track spewing buckets full of cash and support to only those humans who happen to be born with a vagina! Also, most the fucking population don’t question or challenge what she is doing probably because they are, yes, indifferent and completely clueless as to what is going on. The CPS is clearly capitalising on the current social conditioning situation and delivering what they think they can get away with. This is why everyone needs to present clear facts and make a huge noise until they bow to social pressure and rename this ridiculously named report to something applicable and representative. Only then will more men will come forward in relation to violence/harassment against men and boys, and the truth will come out. Only this morning on BBC2, Victoria Derbyshire (I wonder where the funding comes from promoting these types of stories), they were talking about University sexual violence saying that half of all females have fallen victim to sexual harassment but very briefly somewhere it said that the stats included comments aimed at women, presumably only unwanted comments coming from unwanted, creepy males they don’t fancy or weren’t interested in, whereas I’m sure comments coming from a desirable, attractive or rich male didn’t make it into the stats! This is a complete joke and the biased nature of these reports are socially polarising and damaging beyond belief. Has anyone actually ever been out with a group of young, drunk women and seen/experienced what they get up to after a couple of cocktails?!? Maybe you should tag along one day! It seems everyone conveniently forgets about this when they sober and suddenly play victim as they whine about patriarchal lad culture and misogyny, effectively erasing the importance of recognising real sexual harassment. Even the guy on the programme lamely describes and plays down the harassment that men and boys often face, probably because he feels hugely guilty going against the grain – I suppose the BBC made doubly sure that he wouldn’t completely wreck the narrative before he was permitted to speak! The CPS is clearly taking advantage and using exploitation tactics which feeds and perpetuates the myths, lies and misrepresentations out there right now. This is all so very damaging to men AND also to women as they all appear to go around together on a reckless merry-go-round of shame and deceit. Taking a look at the comments on the internet, thankfully men are wising up as they are being sent into a dizzy frenzy and they’re rapidly hopping off as this feminist driven bullshit spins itself out of control. Let’s see if the CPS finally takes note by taking true equality into consideration and renaming the VAWG report in line with common fucking sense.

  3. 123454321 says

    # 2

    Carny – Sorry bro, that tactic ain’t going to work any longer. Hats off and nice try though!

  4. Groan says

    Well I guess yours is a rhetorical question. Deliberate manipulation quite probably because the CPS had been “found out” last year. All I can say is well done to you for plugging away at this sort of thing. There is often disagreements between those concerned about men and boys but the really central point is that those issues aren’t entering public debate and discussion because the one time “outsiders” views are now the orthodoxy of those in positions of power and authority.

  5. Paul says

    interesting post Ally

    I think deep down we all know the problem with the CPS figures is rooted in cynical skulduggery rather than lazy indifference. And has to be seen in the context of a much wider and deeper problem in our society with male victims of anything being viewed as being of secondary importance to female victims.With the role of women as either perpetrators or instigators of any form of criminality played down or ignored completely.

    Based on nothing more than my own subjective opinion i think deeply rooted as well as institutionalized chivalrous attitudes towards women in our society can have both an upside and a downside for women.For on the downside it encourages males to believe that females are second class people in need of special protection.But on the upside allows women in some respects to get away with a lot more than men .And has allowed feminists of both sexes to control the narrative with regard to how issues such as domestic violence and child abuse are addressed .For the chivalrous men who still hold most of the real power in this country have little or no interest in issues which cast men and boys in the role of victims.And so allow people lime Alison Saunders to distort the stats according to whatever agenda she’s pursuing.just like these powerful chivalrous men themselves will distort statistical data to underpin their own agendas.

  6. says

    I find CPS’s conduct totally perplexing. If they want to write a report about violence against women and girls — a perfectly reasonable subject to have a report about — why not do just that? Is the weird bureaucratic notion that “violence against women and girls” is a category of crimes (rather than a category of crime *victims*) really that hard to undo?

    If I had to guess at motive here, I’d lay my bet on childish spite. The conduct of the CPS here sounds like nothing more than a petulant “You can’t make me!”

  7. Sans-sanity says

    Yeah, I’d put my money on spite as well. Hopefully having “shown” Ally and co things will be more professional next year.

  8. Carnation says

    @ Paul

    “I think deep down we all know the problem with the CPS figures is rooted in cynical skulduggery rather than lazy indifference. And has to be seen in the context of a much wider and deeper problem in our society”

    With respect, have you worked in a public sector organisation before? The forces at work are far more likely to be ar$e-covering and social conservatism rather than cynical skulduggery.

  9. 123454321 says

    #6 Paul
    “…deeply rooted as well as institutionalized chivalrous attitudes towards women in our society…”

    Feminism (often trying to empower women in all the wrong ways) is destroying chivalry and quite frankly the sooner it dies away the better. Chivalry perpetuates the view that women are like children who need to be treated like fluffy little bunny rabbits. But with today’s women swearing, smoking, drinking, turning to crime, doing drugs, deceitfully exploiting the system when it suits them, being violent etc. it’s no surprise that men are pissed off and confused because one minute they are encouraged to lump women alongside children and next minute they are told to treat women, who they often see sprawled completely inebriated outside the local boozer, as equals. Cake and eat springs to mind. But while journalists in the media (and people in general) talk about the latest disaster in terms of “women and children” what the hell do people expect other than for men and boys to get completely confused and label women as selfish little children who require special treatment? If I were a feminist (thank God I grew out of that one early on) my first priority would be to campaign for women NOT to be associated with the “women and children” phase often used by the BBC and such like. Feminists are making the world very, very confusing for men. Not good.

  10. 123454321 says

    #8 “Yeah, I’d put my money on spite as well. Hopefully having “shown” Ally and co things will be more professional next year.”

    Exactly. Today’s out of control feminism is doing nothing more than making women look childish and spiteful. This is how it often goes:

    1. For example, CPS manipulates data to suit the unchallenged narrative and support their agenda. Or perhaps a documentary demonstrates an unfair bias or fails to address the other side to the story. Or perhaps it’s myths and distorted facts in a news article that goes out to the masse. Either way, it’s another slap to men.

    2. Men cotton on to this and it makes them angry, especially as they don’t have a platform other than the internet, so they all find their own ways to challenge, expose and demonstrate the falsities.

    3. Then the clan of feminists and clueless white-knight clowny fucknumsters take to the mainstream media (more than just the internet) where they claim the growth and prevalence of misogyny.

    So it appears that men get slapped, then they react, then they get slapped again, then they react even more, then they get slapped even harder. Example: Phillip Davies’ attempt to draw out some facts and stamp out the myths around judicial inequality. Oh how the media tried to deal Phillip several almighty slaps!

    Feminism needs to grow up!

  11. 123454321 says

    “With respect, have you worked in a public sector organisation before? The forces at work are far more likely to be ar$e-covering and social conservatism rather than cynical skulduggery.”

    Your entire point is moot as the only root driver for public or private sector success is money. And there are plenty of ways to obtain that objective including cynical skulduggery as well as arse-covering and a whole plethora of other available tactical approaches including knowingly exploiting and manipulating trending social perceptions, which is what the CPS is doing i.e. everyone thinks only women can be victims, everyone knows that men will protect women rather than themselves and everyone knows that women only care about the protection of the male up until he’s about 16 or 17 after which they are viewed as self empowered, fully capable individuals who require no protection. That’s why they are using tactical hoodwinking and only partly addressing Ally’s callout last year. More noise is required otherwise your Sons out there will continue to get hoodwinked and potentially end up committing suicide or at least living dismal lives as second-class citizens only good for anything which specifically supports women. I completely agree with campaigns to end violence against women and girls but there should be no hoodwinking within the stats and there should be a similar emphasis on writing an accompanying report detailing violence against men and boys (VAMB), which would be very interesting (perhaps someone could emulate and write one and pass it to CPS for publication). Alternatively, as I said before, just rename the VAWG report to something that isn’t going to piss men off and ultimately undermine feminism! Feminism needs to take a step back, capitulate and recompose its objectives and define a different, all-inclusive strategy. FFS, the money would still be there.

  12. Carnation says

    I notice Mike Buchanan has posted Ally’s article, with the caveat that he is “no fan” of Ally.

    This is despite the fact that Ally has achieved more for men & boys than the leader of J4MB, his membership and their wider support ever has. Literally.

  13. Ally Fogg says

    Hush now Carnation, you know what happens…. it’s like Candyman.

    Anyway, thanks for the comments folks.

    For what it is worth, my own best guess at the answer to the question in the title is that it is a little bit of all of the above.

    Carnation is quite right to talk about the nature of bureaucracies, everything tends to happen like the old story about trying to design a racehorse by committee and it ends up as a camel. With civil service & quangos, an awful lot of stuff ends up coming out as a compromise between members of staff being ordered to produce something out of half a dozen contradictory and incompatible instructions.

    At the same time, I do get the strong impression that Saunders is going out of her way to suppress data about male victims. I doubt it is spite, as such. Based on her articles and interviews I think it is more that she still, genuinely doesn’t get why it is a problem, doesn’t understand why the likes of me keep complaining. I suspect she is just passionately immersed in the narrative about male violence against women and her one and only concern is to make sure that as much attention and as many efforts as possible are devoted to that issue and it is not that she has any animosity towards male victims, it is just that she has got absolutely no handle on their issues and needs.

    All pure speculation, of course.

  14. Carnation says

    @ Ally

    Off-topic and tell me to mind me own effing business, but what have you been up to lately? You’ve been missed.

  15. Paul says

    With respect, have you worked in a public sector organisation before? The forces at work are far more likely to be ar$e-covering and social conservatism rather than cynical skulduggery.

    @ Carnation

    Before you completely disappear up Ally’s arse -no offence Ally- i was responding to the heading of this article.And then went on to make my point which of course you’re perfectly entitled to disagree with.

  16. Paul says

    @14 Ally

    I suspect she is just passionately immersed in the narrative about male violence against women and her one and only concern is to make sure that as much attention and as many efforts as possible are devoted to that issue and it is not that she has any animosity towards male victims, it is just that she has got absolutely no handle on their issues and needs.

    Maybe,or maybe like so many she just can’t or won’t accept that male victims need to be taking every bit as seriously as female victims.And that there are forces at work-which i know sounds a bit melodramatic-which she may be part of which consistantly and relectlessly cherry pick the research that’s available to play down levels of male victimization compared to female victimization.

    I don’t think anyone in positions of power and influence have any animosity towards male victims.They can however be guilty of either indifference or embracing an agenda which demands that female victims are more deserving of help and support.And that the full level of complicity of females in violent crime -as a for instance-is not deemed worthy of acknowledgement either because they can’t/won’t believe it or because they have a vested interest in not addressing that dimension to the problem.

  17. WineEM says

    ‘it is not that she has any animosity towards male victims’

    Yeah, although there is the counterargument that if something walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and appears to have all the general organic qualities normally associated with duckness, then the likelihood of it being a duck may be quite high.

  18. says

    @ Ally (#14): “I do get the strong impression that Saunders is going out of her way to suppress data about male victims.”

    But wouldn’t the easiest and most effective way to “suppress” data about male victims be to exclude such data from the report? Particularly since it’s pretty bizarre that the data was in there in the first place?

    I actually have worked extensively in the public sector, and my observation has been that the two most powerful forces at work at the senior levels are (a) fear of public embarrassment and (b) resentment of those who have embarrassed us publically. Now, readers of this blog probably view Saunders’ conduct within the context of broad neglect of social problems that affect men as men. Fair enough. But the general public doesn’t really know or care very much about that. (That’s kinda the point of non-misogynist men’s activism, right?) For the general public, the revelation that the CPS literally can’t tell the difference between boys and girls simply makes the agency, and Saunders as the face of the agency, look very, very stupid.

    And to be forced by another agency to re-write your own report is the public sector equivalent of being compelled to write “I will not be this stupid again” one hundred times on a blackboard. Hell hath no fury like a senior official humiliated in public.

    Now, there may be forces in play that I know nothing about. Perhaps the Attorney General ordered Saunders to keep male victims in the report, and this is Saunders’s way of complying with his direction while undermining the intent. (Another thing senior officials hate: admitting that they have a boss, *especially* a political boss. Sigh; democracy is hard.) But on the Interwebz, doubling down on an obviously untenable position is usually taken to be a symptom of a childish unwillingness to admit *to oneself* that one has gotten it wrong. And much as I would like to believe that the director of the CPS is more serious than the average thin-skinned Twitter user, the evidence seems to point in the other direction.

  19. Carnation says

    @ Paul

    Oh dear, something rattling you? Maybe you’ve been spending too much time on the F4J Facebook page, it’s affecting your already limited debating skills.

    Have a lovely weekend, son.

  20. Lucy says

    “some of the most distinguished and respected charity heads and academics in the field of men’s welfare,”

    And Martin Daubney

  21. Lucy says

    Perhaps Alison Saunders wasn’t impressed by your nepharious masculinist in the heart of government sidling up to her to successfully put pressure on her to change her previous report produced by all these nepharious feminists in the heart of government.

  22. Lucy says

    “Ally (#14): “I do get the strong impression that Saunders is going out of her way to suppress data about male victims.”

    That there is a nefarious feminist cabal at the heart if government is certainly one (paranoid, neurotic, misogynist, self-regarding) theory.

    Another is that there’s no budget for researching violence against women and girls, that police forces don’t capture the gender of victims and perpetrators in a reliably consistent way and that these types of crimes aren’t recorded as separate to assault or murder. What with them affecting women and girls, our legislature, police force and media being historically and still overwhelmingly male and therefore not giving a shit and that.

  23. Lucy says

    “As a brief recap for anyone joining this story late, last summer around 30 of us, including some of the most distinguished and respected charity heads and academics in the field of men’s welfare, signed an open letter criticising the CPS for presenting statistics on VAWG that secretly included many thousands of men and boys – around one in six of all victims. In the aftermath the UK Statistics Authority got involved, echoing our concerns. They instructed the CPS to rewrite the report with more honest clarity and also chided them, not only for the way the report had been written but also for the way the statistics had been presented to the press and, from there, to the public.

    Or

    A couple of journalists used to getting listened to, some junior academics in pseudo scientific subjects in minor universities, somebody who knows about the sociology of sport, and some CEOs of charities with some truly bizarre names (who require precisely no qualifications and don’t even need to be registered with the charities commission) clubbed together to try to publicly blackmail an official into reproducing her report by accusing her of nefarious corruption. Then employed the services of a nefarious masculinist in the heart of government to sidle up to her at a drinks do in a rather corrupt and secret manoeuvre.

    It must be a shock to find that being a Guardian columnist, not to mention a rankly sexist Telegraph opinionator doesn’t carry the universal weight it so clearly deserves.

  24. Lucy says

    “With respect, have you worked in a public sector organisation before? The forces at work are far more likely to be ar$e-covering and social conservatism rather than cynical skulduggery.”

    Of course they haven’t. They get all their information about government from BBC imagineering about the workings of government (which is much more revealing about the workings of the BBC).

    If they had they’d know that the forces at work are far more likely to be some bloke who’s worked there since he left school and wouldn’t be employed by any other company or a contractor with a very tenuous grasp of English, under the guidance of a succession of inept managers and their exciting new directions for the department being given the onerous task of producing that report over twelve months with no budget, IE6, and a lock down on accessing anything but the intranet.

  25. Lucy says

    Paul: “Based on nothing more than my own subjective opinion i think deeply rooted as well as institutionalized chivalrous attitudes towards women in our society can have both an upside and a downside for women.For on the downside it encourages males to believe that females are second class people in need of special protection.But on the upside allows women in some respects to get away with a lot more than men .”

    What like war? Nuclear bombs? Rape? Religion? Ecological disaster? Stealing all the public land? Golf courses? Stadia dedicated to celebrating yourselves and forcing the surrounding roads to grind to a halt every weekend? Spending billions of women’s money on national defence against other men? Stopping the capital city every year to remind everyone about it? Committing 90% of crime and costing the country 42 billion a year policing you? Building 100 storey buildings in the shape of cocks? Making town centres no go zones every Friday and Saturday night? Landing your plane on spectators because you want to show off loop the loops? Driving tanks to Downing Street to protest that your programme about ecologically disasterous, noisy, penis extensions’s presenter got sacked for punching a producer? Doing half the housework? Doing less homework and being considered a victim for getting lower grades? Having multiple TV channels dedicated to football and talking about football? Walking around town in your pants with your top off without ending up on the front page of the Daily Mail? Going to the gym and showering without being instagrammed? Making laws to criminalise your critics? Inventing a whole philosophy that blames women for provoking you by being too blatantly female in public?

  26. Lucy says

    The guy on the Internet: “Is the weird bureaucratic notion that “violence against women and girls” is a category of crimes (rather than a category of crime *victims*) really that hard to undo?”

    What’s wrong with it being a category of crime?

    Categorising the victims according to their sex might assist with victim support, but it’s categorising motive and perpetrators according to theirs that will assist with prevention.

    In my view the solution to this statistical quagmire is to criminalise sex and gender -motivated incitement, harassment and attacks as hate crimes and start recording them as such.

  27. Lucy says

    Paul: “Maybe,or maybe like so many she just can’t or won’t accept that male victims need to be taking every bit as seriously as female victims.And that there are forces at work-which i know sounds a bit melodramatic-which she may be part of which consistantly and relectlessly cherry pick the research that’s available to play down levels of male victimization compared to female victimization.”

    Why in god’s name would anyone do this?

    Don’t you think it is infinitely more likely that she feels that threats and violence against women and girls is a national epidemic that daily deprives half the population of its civil liberties and influence, that the few women who have managed to get into public office have against enormous odds and apathy have successfully campaigned to get it onto the public agenda, have managed to get funding for one researcher to produce a report from the available data, which is inadequate and neglects to accurately measure violence against women and girls, and have produced it whilst adding caveats to the introduction and throughout that it doesn’t accurately measure violence against women and girls, but lumps them in with men and boys, and are squeezing every last drop of media coverage out of it from a media more interested in pruriently sensationalising violence against women and girls as a form of sexy entertainment, in the vain hope of improving the appalling situation. Only to come up against a bunch of self-entitled journalists and “journalists” complaining about lack of coverage of men and boys from the front pages of major newspapers in the traditional journalist way of public shaming. Meanwhile apparently easily laying their hands on a mysterious masculinist in government whilst having the gall to hint at mysterious feminists in governmen?

    What might be more effective that attacking Alison Saunders for not doing something she didn’t set out to do by ganging up on her in the letters page, would be to offer to help.

  28. 123454321 says

    “What’s wrong with it being a category of crime?”

    Nothing, as long as you are clear, accurate, open, transparent and FULLY INCLUSIVE with respect to other similar categories like MEN AND BOYS. It’s not hard, Lucy, and it fits in with your obvious yearn for true equality.

    And post 26, by the way, is just pure comedy brilliance. I’d love to spend time pulling apart each of your ludicrous (but chucklesome) assertions but quite frankly I’ve got better things to do on a Saturday, and besides, it would be completely lost on you what with your innate, hard-wired hatred of men!

  29. 123454321 says

    “Don’t you think it is infinitely more likely that she feels that threats and violence against women and girls is a national epidemic”

    There is more violence against men and boys. Check the stats.

  30. Ally Fogg says

    Lucy,
    I don’t ban people for being embarrassingly wrong about stuff.
    I don’t ban people for being outrageously rude to me on my own blog.
    I don’t ban people for being quite revoltingly offensive to people coping with issues such as being survivors of sexual abuse.

    However I am < -> this close to banning you just for being quite mind-bendingly boring, intrusively narcissistic and attention seeking.

  31. Lucy says

    Ally

    “I don’t ban people for being outrageously rude to me on my own blog.”
    Outrageously? For saying you’re self entitled? Exaggerating the credentials of your fellow letter signees in order to denigrate a woman who actually has some? And implying you might share some of the characteristics of Martin Daubney?
    I wouldn’t call that outrageously rude, I could be much more outrageously rude than that, I feel I’m being a model of decorum in the face of considerable provocation frankly.

    “I don’t ban people for being quite revoltingly offensive to people coping with issues such as being survivors of sexual abuse.”

    Where have I done that? Are you sure you aren’t projecting?

    “However I am this close to banning you just for being quite mind-bendingly boring, intrusively narcissistic and attention seeking.”

    That’s hardly fair is it.

  32. 123454321 says

    Ally, I am begging you not to ban Lucy as she will no longer be able to demonstrably contribute with contemptuous puerility towards the final demise of the radical, militant-style, man-hating, bigoted branch of feminism that will soon fuck itself over. She’s doing a bloody great job!

  33. Lucy says

    “Ally, I am begging you not to ban Lucy as she will no longer be able to demonstrably contribute with contemptuous puerility towards the final demise of the radical, militant-style, man-hating, bigoted branch of feminism that will soon fuck itself over. She’s doing a bloody great job!”

    666

    It’s Ally’s blog, he can ban who he likes I guess.

    If he wants an echo chamber were smug conspiracists can pat each other on the back over their compassion whilst sharing their interesting theories on how women get away with more than men, and feminists run the government, or is it it the media? I can never remember. And where he can conflate criticism of his own high handed, bullying dishonesty with repulsive attacks on people struggling to cope with sexual abuse because he’s not an outrageously rude narcissist or something, then that’s his call.

    You, I’m sure I’ll meet in plenty of other comment sections, so don’t fret pet.

  34. Paul says

    Lucy

    i’ve never sought to detract from the fact that men are responsible for most of the violent crime in this country.I’ve often argued that those who always blame feminists for the issues that affect men and boys aren’t necessarily attacking the right target. I’ve always accepted that the outcomes of dv are more serious for women than they are for men.And i’ve never sought to put the entiire blame on women for the way men are.And i’ve never sought to play down the fact that women are more likely to suffer from sexism than men.

    If you think i’m talking bollox that’s your perogative.But what i try and do is address dimensions to certain issues which never seem to get addressed by feminists or anyone else for that matter.Rightly or wrongly i do believe that women can and do wield a lot of covert sexual,maternal and emotional power in society. I do think some women who talk the talk of equality between the sexes actually want the best of both worlds as and when it suits them.I do think women abuse power and are as corrupted by it-in whatever shape or form it takes -as men.I do think the level at which women are guilty of abusing their partners and children is often played down.I do think that mutual respect rather than chivalry should underpin relations between the sexes.I do think that chivalry can and does allow women do get away -to a point-with more than men.And one example of that is the way some women can get away with playing the victim with men when they’re just as guilty of the behaviour they say is unacceptable from men.I do passionately believe that fathers are important to children but are often seen as being of secondary importance to mothers and as a result can and do face discrimination.And i do think that women can and do play a key role in encouraging gender specific behaviours as well as gendered divisions of labour in the home.

    There’s much more i could say but hopefully i’ve made my point.And i’d politely suggest to you that your views on gender are somewhat blinkered.And you’re seemingly unwilling to acknowledge that men and boys can and do face problems .And that addressing them not only challenges some strands of feminist thinking but also challenge much wider and deep rooted attitudes in our society which have nothing to do with feminists

    ps And just for the record my views on gender aren’t totally set in stone.I see them in some respects as being more of a work in progress.

  35. JohnHB says

    AllyF

    I first followed you as a poster on Cif, way back. Taught me a great deal about the pitfalls of gender statistics. Contrition rates and conviction rates, for example.

    So good were you, you seemed to get a regular gig. Then–and I once plotted this–your appearances gradually declined. And, well, statistical idiocy took over at the Guardian. I remember once, in an exchange, your once saying that gender issue’s weren’t worth arguing about anymore. They were too inflammatory. Something like. And you were right, The pay gap, for example, has been constantly debunked and in the Guardian constantly ignored.

    I sort of wish you would come out and say the Guardian has frozen you out. But I understand why you can’t. (Or maybe it isn’t true and you get better and better paid work elsewhere? Still, we miss you.)

    I am a long, longtime reader of the Guardian, I mean since it’s Manchester days. The truth about gender matters (and I think it is much more is hard-wired, innate, than you do) will eventually emerge. I am optimistic about that. Nature cannot be fooled, but I do worry about the damage done in the meanwhile by refusing to acknowledge fundamental truths: men are different from women, boys from girls. They deserve different approaches if they are to succeed.

    Oh, and ‘fluidity’ is a tiny phenomenon at the margins. Spectrum? Two enormous bumps and a little bit of fuzz between? I speak metaphorically. But so does ‘spectrum’. It is sort of laughable people don’t understand. See in biology ‘lumpers’ and ‘splitters’. It is simply a different viewpoint. Look at the large or the small. Identity politics insist we look at the small. Small and smaller groups as they organise themselves. Each with special need, wants, and rights

    Eventually we get back to where we started in the Enlightenment. We all have universal rights, and we are all different. Sorry to clog up your blog with such mundane thoughts.

    But, you know, perspective!

    [Ps: the formatting here is horrible!]

  36. JohnHB says

    @14 Ally F
    “I doubt it is spite, as such.”
    Me too. People especially heads of CPS are generally well-meaning. At least I like to think so. But they may be hidebound by the prevailing ideology. You remember Keir Starmer (basically a good guy) on the figures of ‘false rape’? Widely quoted. In fact they were figures of the prosecutable (or actually prosecuted). On that sort of basis 94% of men accused of rape are innocent. Or what ever. That is, most are not convictible.
    It is an ideological game. I admire you for playing and it is important that you do. But it is politics, the art of the possible, rather than a search for truth.
    And even without ideology, the truth is elusive. Elsewise the road to Hell would not be paved as it is,

  37. JohnHB says

    I think what I am staying, Ally, and I say this with respect since I admire you in many ways, is shape up! Like you, I think women and men should have equal rights, In much of the world, society, people don’ t even have proper human rights thanks to poverty, etc. Gender aside. Poor men and poor women are poor, but in rather different ways.

    I have visited your blog for several years, because I value what you have to say. When I read the comments, my eyes tend to cross. Sure, human behaviour is complicated. But here people, even you, don’t seem to accept that men and women are fundamentally different. Alike in many ways, of course. We are all human. But also different in absolutely basic ways. Even as simple as the way we pee!

    Am I advocating biological determinism? Of course not! I don’t know any serious thinker who does. Although many supposedly serious thinkers seem to ignore it entirely. Feminists routinely do, until they feel the need to evoke penises or testosterone. Frankly, it is pathetic.

    Rather that the starting point of how to solve the myriad problems of gender, or sex, (almost always they overlay 99%–a guess–of the time), that the starting point be “We Are Different”. Now what?

    I may do you and your posters a disservice, but it seems to me often your starting point is ‘We are the same, why do we behave so differently?’

    If so, in short, you are wrong!

    Although I may also be underestimating the sophistication of you and your posters. Who may know biology has little or nothing to do with it. If so, apologies. Or indeed may understand better than the rest of us how biology does or doesn’t interact with society.

  38. Paul says

    @John

    When you say men and women are different you’re kind of making a generalization about the sexes which ignores the enormous diversity that exists within the sexes as opposed to between them . And the varying levels of overlap that can exist between people of the opposite sex.There’s also the role cultural pressures play on both sexes to determine how they behave. And the issue of the varying levels of inter-dependance that exists between the sexes which flys in the face of those who believe that all men are powerful and all women are powerless.

    I’ve kind of switched off from the ongoing nature versus nurture debate because it’ll likely go on forever without producing any form of consensus..I do however believe that making generalizations about either sex can be unhelpful so personally i try and avoid making them.

  39. Marduk says

    What is troubling about this is that its on both sides as you say, the CPS don’t unpack the stats, the journalists have given up doing journalism. Nobody comes out of this very well but a CPS head can be replaced and institution reformed, I’m more concerned about a journalism that (almost systematically at this point) fails to serve the public interest.

    What happened to telling the truth to shame the devil?

    Because there are a few decent people fighting the good fight who aspire to be Bernstein & Woodward rather than PewDiePie or Zoella and they do need the special privileges and protections that others are making a joke out of. I would expect the Putlitzer prize winning “leading liberal voice” to be a bit more careful about shit like this but I know I’m pissing in the wind.

  40. mostlymarvelous says

    At last. This report, unlike practically every other such report I’ve seen from a few countries, explicitly shows gender ratios for both victims and perpetrators.

    Of those defendants where gender was recorded,
    … 92.1% were male defendants and 7.9% female;
    of those victims where gender was recorded
    … 83.3% were female and 16.7% were male.

    All the person discussing the report needs to point out is that men are a disproportionately large number of defendants/ perpetrators >90%, and women are disproportionately >80% of victims. Job done.

    (I tried looking up equivalent Australian reports/statistics and got nowhere despite grinding my teeth near to powder.)

  41. mostlymarvelous says

    Who may know biology has little or nothing to do with it. If so, apologies. Or indeed may understand better than the rest of us how biology does or doesn’t interact with society.

    While it seems to be pretty common worldwide for men to be more violent than women, that’s about the limit of how far biology can take you for this argument. The crucial statistics to look at is the difference between physical and sexual abuse of women and girls in various countries/regions around the world.

    When some countries statistics show that a woman’s lifetime risk of physical abuse from a partner-husband may be 20% or lower and other countries show that same risk as being 65% or higher for women within their borders, that is most definitely down to cultural rather than biological differences. For all we know the whole problem could be entirely cultural everywhere.

  42. WineEM says

    @38 “Although I may also be underestimating the sophistication of you and your posters.”

    This is a fatal mistake – never underestimate the sophistication of Ally’s posters! 🙂

  43. JohnHB says

    @#39 Paul
    “When you say men and women are different you’re kind of making a generalization about the sexes which ignores the enormous diversity that exists within the sexes as opposed to between them .”

    Well, I am rather focussing on the huge differences! Women have babies, men don’t. More generally, females have babies, males don’t. Throughout the whole of biology ever since sex was invented! Think evolution hasn’t had something to say about this?

    Of course, in theory, and indeed practice, we may be able to overcome this. Humans are uniquely flexible. My point, rather, is that this HUGE difference is widely overlooked, trivialised, or ignored. And that it is fundamental to the differences between men and women, overall.

    Ally makes the point, for example, that the way men and women, boys and girls, react to childhood sexual abuse is rather different. Boys hurt others, girls hurt themselves. This, in many variants, can be seen throughout society. For example, if you look at the way boys and girls hurt, damage, or cost society, the bills add up in very different ways. Boys cause crime, and it takes resources to track ’em down and imprison of try to reform them, and repair the victims; girls get pregnant, and it costs us, because we are a humane society and it is not the the kid’s fault, to bring them up.

    Dunno what the equivalent costs are. Probably more male-based, at a guess. Which would suggest we devote more resources to ‘curing’ or helping them. Which is the exact opposite of current social policy. Funny, that. Or maybe not, given the dominant ideology.

    Vastly diffrent damages and costs. All ‘socialisation’? I doubt it very much.

    Still, here is the good thing. It will, eventually, come out in the wash. If empiricism, the facts, are allowed to triumph ideology. It always does, of course. Consider Galilleo and the Catholic Church. Who won? Eventually.

    Took a while, and that was simple physics. Human nature is vastly more complex. On the other hand, the rate of progress of of knowledge is vastly greater, too.

    Fact gathers and analysts like Ally are a wonderful, if currently rare, resource. And invaluable even if, as I claim, their analysis is still too ‘socialised-biased’.

  44. JohnHB says

    @ 43
    This is a fatal mistake – never underestimate the sophistication of Ally’s posters!

    Indeed, I never would! Just their relationship with the real world, you know, actual real people, rather than theoretic constructs.

  45. JohnHB says

    @42 mostlymarvelous says
    “While it seems to be pretty common worldwide for men to be more violent than women, that’s about the limit of how far biology can take you for this argument.”

    On the contrary, in my view, it is the beginning of the argument. That is, men and women are greatly, fundamentally different. We have the same rights, being all human, but we are not the same. This is mostly a rant against feminists who wish to measure outcomes and complain ‘discrimination’ anytime they find it is not 50:50. It is idiotic.

    For example, just look at the ‘men should share child care equally’ argument. Where does the ‘should’ come from? Certainly it is good if society makes that possible, removes hurdles. But ‘should’? Isn’t that up to the couple concerned? And, mostly, they don’t ask women what and why they feel. Or do as they do. Try separating a mother from her child and see the heart-rending howls of protest.

    Even the ultra-equality Guardian reported today that a ‘mother’ was imprisoned in Iran. Not a person, or woman, a mother, as she was. “According to the Associated Press, she said she missed her daughter, asking: “Do you understand what it is like to be a mother kept away from her child this long?”” Indeed.

    Being a mother is special, in a different way from being a father (a father’s anguish is rarely similarly reported). Guardian feminists tend to embrace this and reject it it, as needed. See complaints about women being asked about their child-bearing status, or it being reported at the Olympics, etc. The ‘conversation’ is utterly confused. Or, two-faced.

    Then, look at the very different histories of men and women with their babies. Sure men provide half the DNA and, in the best circumstances, protection and provision while a woman is gestating. And the women? Growing the bloody baby! All day every day in ways we still have only the most rudimentary grasp of. And they all do it, mostly, without a second thought. Females have throughout history, ever since sex was invented.

    It is a deep, deep biological divide. A wonderful thing. And glibly glossed over, often, by feminists. In my view, to their shame. Men are not just humans who do not carry babies, nor women humans who do. It is little more complicated than that, with more profound implications. In many aspects of behaviour.

    Eventually we will all come around again to acknowledging that. And with full human rights on both sides. All the genders in-between may have to wait bit til we work out where they all fit.

    In my view…

  46. Holms says

    #24 Lucy
    A couple of journalists used to getting listened to, some junior academics in pseudo scientific subjects in minor universities, somebody who knows about the sociology of sport, and some CEOs of charities with some truly bizarre names (who require precisely no qualifications and don’t even need to be registered with the charities commission) clubbed together to try to publicly blackmail [etc.]

    Blackmail is a word with a specific meaning: information is being held in reserve, and a person is being threatened with the [presumably unwanted] release of that information unless demands are met. Unless you have information that this is truly the case, your use of the term is a blatantly false statement against Ally and all involved in that open letter. And if you do have information suggesting your accusation is warranted, you should probably take it to police, as blackmailing someone to change public policy is certainly a crime.

    But of course you won’t because you have no such information; this is just another example of the same hyperbole for which you are already known. Comment 26 is a similar mess.

    As an aside, what does it matter if someone has a ‘bizarre’ name?

    #32 Lucy
    “I don’t ban people for being quite revoltingly offensive to people coping with issues such as being survivors of sexual abuse.”

    Where have I done that? Are you sure you aren’t projecting?

    One memorable example that comes to mind is the time you stated that a woman raping a man is not as serious as vice versa, because it is what he ‘secretly wants’ anyway.

    #33 1234
    Ally, I am begging you not to ban Lucy…

    The only objection I have to banning Lucy is that you are pretty much the a mirror image of her, and so banning her but leaving you would be like banning only one side of of a coin 🙂

  47. Adiabat says

    It seems that whenever I see a news story highlighting some recent sexism in the justice system, Alison Saunders’ seems to be involved. Maybe that’s just because she’s the director of public prosecutions but that excuse doesn’t work as long as she is pulling stunts like this, where she’s giving agenda-driven interviews that undermines the instructions her department has received from the UK Statistics Authority.

    I think you sum the problem up very well with your last line: “as long as the individuals involved continue to show abject indifference to the needs and wishes of male survivors, those men and boys will remain nothing more than an awkward afterthought.”

  48. Marduk says

    #19
    Well if you look at her statement last year its the strangest bit of damage control while still pretending not to quite get what the problem is ever. I suspect she probably regrets it now because by defending the (“non”-)mistake she is honour-bound to carry on making it.

    In fairness to Saunders, she was uniquely promoted from within to push the VAWG agenda at the recommendation of her predecessor.. I’d imagine she probably feels “commissioned” to do so and like a good solider, will carry on plugging away once the mission has been set until someone relieves her of it. Problem is there isn’t really an authority that can instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions in anything at all. This is exactly why you shouldn’t promote career civil servants to jobs like this of course.

  49. says

    Let’s try to apply the logic behind the VAWG name elsewhere:

    * The majority of victims of DV, sexual violence, honor-based violence and stalking are women; let’s call it “Violence against women and girls”.

    * The majority of suicide victims are men, let’s call suicide “male suicide”.

    * The majority of murder victims are men, let’s call murder “murder of men and boys”.

    * The majority of workplace deaths are men, let’s call it “male workplace deaths”.

    And to be fair we’ll include some notes:

    * Men and boys can be victims of violence against women and girls.

    Oops, we can’t have an oxymoron – let us, as CPS have done, rephrase this oxymoron to: Men and boys can also be victims of the acts categorized as violence against women and girls.

    * Women and girls can commit male suicide.

    Or rephrase it as: Women and girls can also commit the acts categorized as male suicide.

    * Women and girls can be victims of murder of men and boys.

    Or rephrase it as: Women and girls can also be victims of the acts categorized as murder of men and boys.

    * Women and girls can be victims of male workplace deaths.

    Or rephrase it as: Women and girls can also be victims of the accidents and violent deaths categorized as male workplace deaths.

    Personally I find all four to be moronic.

  50. David S says

    At about 10pm on the Monday night, two hours before the embargo elapsed and 12 hours before the report was published, the Guardian ran a long news story which took its information not from the report or even the press release, but directly from an interview with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders herself.

    I’ve just noticed that the graphs at the bottom of that news story are a little interesting. They show numbers of prosecutions and convictions for child abuse and rape and, on first sight, appear to demonstrate rather disappointing conviction ratios, particularly for the latter offence. However when you look a bit closer you see that both graphs are truncated so that the y axis does not go all the way down to zero. Instead the graph cuts off at y=3,000 for child abuse, and y=2,000 for rape. This has the effect of making the ratio of convictions to prosecutions look much smaller than it really is. For example the conviction ratio for rape is actually around 58% but the truncated graph makes it look more like 15%.

    There can be honest reasons to truncate a graph so, as with the timing of the Guardian story, this is not necessarily skulduggery. However it is a fairly classic way to skulldig (I’ve a feeling it’s one of the techniques mentioned in Darrell Huff’s famous book “How to lie with statistics”).

  51. Carnation says

    @ Tamen

    “Personally I find all four to be moronic.”

    You make interesting points, laid out quite starkly. Getting back to “cynical skulduggery or lazy indifference”, one might well ask whether domestic violence or, indeed, sexual abuse, would be subject to the scrutiny it currently is without feminist activism. The answer is, quite obviously, no. There is an unfortunate historical hangover which leads to the bureaucratic idiocy that you rightly point out.

    Now, when you categorise suicide as “male suicide” etc, I personally have no real problem with this. Why? Because I think male suicide is, or at least can very often be, distinct from female suicide. Just as male victims of DV are often in need of distinct service provision.

    As I often say on this blog, the problem is not only the lack of credible, committed, capable men’s activists, but the existence of delusional, hateful misfits masquerading as activists.

    Until men have credible, committed and capable people and organisations actively seeking to represent their interests, without the toxic misogyny almost exclusively associated with anti-feminism, there won’t be what there should be: dedicated services and provision for those vulnerable men that need it.

    TL/DR – ditch the wingnuts and anti-feminists and find dedicated activists motivated by positive outcomes, not negative trolling.

    Feminist activists

  52. 123454321 says

    #51 David S – Yes, another case, amongst hundreds of others, that deceitful, misrepresentation (albeit always questionable) is potentially in operation wherever you look and it seems that even when algebraic manipulation can’t be exploited, the ideology can still successfully hoodwink the audience using underhanded, graphical tricks like these. Seen it all before and the really sad thing is that it works.

    Carny – “As I often say on this blog, the problem is not only the lack of credible, committed, capable men’s activists…”

    Sorry, I think you may have provided a couple of names before but can you list them again please Carny. Genuinely interested.

  53. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “Sorry, I think you may have provided a couple of names before but can you list them again please Carny. Genuinely interested.”

    There’s a dire lack, thus it’s difficult to provide names. You’re asking me to detail something that doesn’t exist.

  54. 123454321 says

    Could have sworn that you listed 2 or 3 before but perhaps I’m mistaken.
    Anyway, I’m surprised Ally isn’t on your list? Presumably not Mike Buchanan or Philip Davies either?
    Anyhoo, if your list of credible advocates is nonexistent, then it looks like, for now, you’ll have to make do with a bunch of delusional wingnuts (shame), but at least they’re making and setting the scene – you know, my point about raising awareness/providing a reason for someone to fix things and all that.
    No doubt some “credible” guy or gal who you approve of will come along and take the credit for the finishing touches once the “wing nuts” have done their thing. And then you’ll set to task preaching that the wingnuts were always a waste of time and did nothing more than cause delays. But I’m guessing you will never apply the same reasoning to the suffragettes.

  55. says

    Carnation @52:

    If you don’t mind I’ll skip the “skuldiggery or indifference” part of the discussion. I have my belief, but I can’t divine the motivation of others. It also isn’t very important, what is important is the outcome. This is a fine example where the adage “intent isn’t magical” fits.

    Now, when you categorise suicide as “male suicide” etc, I personally have no real problem with this. Why? Because I think male suicide is, or at least can very often be, distinct from female suicide. Just as male victims of DV are often in need of distinct service provision.

    According to your argument above it follows that female suicide is distinct from male suicide. If all suicide were categorized as “male suicide” there would be a “Male suicide report” – including the statistics of female suicides – and there would be no “Female suicide” report. In essence 25% of the victims would be marginalized and largely overlooked just because they were a minority. I would still find that moronic.

    I have to say (again) that I disagree with your assertion that male victims of DV often need distinct services from female victims. After shelters in Norway had to provide services for men and children as well as women in order to receive public funding we’ve seen a sharp increase in men spending time at shelters (from 4 a year prior to the law change to 125 men in 2015), the men spend on average more nights at the shelters than women on average. A number of men also bring children with them to the shelter.

    All publicly funded shelters in Norway has to provide certain statistics about the demographics of their clients, details about the situation they’re seeking shelter from and what services they used as the shelters. Although male clients are fewer than the female clients they largely use the same type of services. When the services for men have become available and their existence have been known (through articles in news media and the public discourse at the time the law was enacted) the demand for shelter services from men have appeared.

    Do men and women have different thresholds for seeking help?
    12% of the male shelter locations reported receiving threatening phone calls.
    9% reported perpetrators loitering around the shelter
    5% reported perpetrators trying to break into the shelter
    2% reported perpetrators successfully managing to break into the shelter
    5% reported other threatening situations
    7% had called the police due to a threatening situation

    The numbers for female shelter locations had generally higher numbers:
    47% of the male shelter locations reported receiving threatening phone calls.
    37% reported perpetrators loitering around the shelter
    5% reported perpetrators trying to break into the shelter
    0% reported perpetrators successfully managing to break into the shelter
    16% reported other threatening situations
    42% had called the police due to a threatening situation

    But the difference seems much less stark when one considers that men made up about 6% of the shelter clients. Also relevant are the fact that the male shelter locations have generally lesser security than the female locations (probably why 2% of them had a perpetrator successfully breaking into the shelter while no female location had a perpetrator break into the shelter). The male locations are usually not manned during nights and weekends which would affect the reporting rate in general as well as the calling the police rate.

    These numbers suggests to me that the average man seeking shelter space is at a higher risk of these threats than the average woman seeking shelter space. Which again suggests to me that the threshold for men seeking help from shelters are still too high and that many men who could’ve used the help a shelter provides don’t do so due to not understanding the seriousness of their situation or not understanding that there indeed exists shelter service for men.

    There also have been some research done on men seeking help from shelters which found a number of similarities between male and female shelter’s clients fear and behaviour: fear of more violence, shame, worries about what will happen to the children, warm feelings towards the perpetrator are commonalities that often appear in both men’s and women’s stories about their life with the violence they suffer. More men than women though expressed fear that their story wouldn’t be believed when they tell about the violence they suffer.

  56. Carnation says

    @ 123454321

    “Anyhoo, if your list of credible advocates is nonexistent, then it looks like, for now, you’ll have to make do with a bunch of delusional wingnuts (shame), but at least they’re making and setting the scene – you know, my point about raising awareness/providing a reason for someone to fix things and all that.”

    I’ve dealt with this particular piece of delusional here; “Until men have credible, committed and capable people and organisations actively seeking to represent their interests, without the toxic misogyny almost exclusively associated with anti-feminism, there won’t be what there should be: dedicated services and provision for those vulnerable men that need it.

    TL/DR – ditch the wingnuts and anti-feminists and find dedicated activists motivated by positive outcomes, not negative trolling.”

    You don’t understand, because you are either too invested in being an anti-feminist wingnut and/or intellectually incapable, that the “scene setting” done by Buchanan, Davies et al poisons the narrative and posits men’s activists on the outer limits of the lunatic fringe.

    Ally, as I have already said, has done far, far more than an entire political party allegedly set up to advocate for men.

  57. Carnation says

    @ Tamen

    “I have to say (again) that I disagree with your assertion that male victims of DV often need distinct services from female victims.”

    More power to you. I disagree with you on many things.

  58. Sans-sanity says

    You have often said that male victims of DV need different services to female victims, Carnation. However, I can’t recall when you’ve ever expounded on how those services should differ beyond dismissing calls for increased male shelters as me-too ism.

  59. Marduk says

    So I was wondering how to move this on beyond rage alone. I think any analysis would have to work out what consequences this actually has (beyond ‘cultural’) and what decisions are made using it.

    It would be nice to think that government agencies would be at the forefront of prioritizing uncomfortable (to many) truths over lazy received opinion and stereotype but we know they never have. Long after public opinion had moved on as regards homosexuality, everyone from the CPS to the NHS still acted like it was 1955 for far too long.

    This might also shed light on what Saunders is up to if she believes the consequences are of mutual benefit. If there is a pot of money and if reports grow that pot of money which must be then fairly divided… she is doing male victims of abuse a solid by including them and playing down ways in which they could be “non-mainstreamed” (a hideous public sectorism). Admittedly I’m scraping the barrel that has straws that can only be clutched at the bottom of it.

    It does seem to be the case that those who shriek about “invisibilisation” (where people have been overlooked in a more accidental manner) are the most adept practitioners of it as a deliberate cynical tactic. There is a piece in the Graun at the moment that wants visibility for rape victims and maintains that the history of vigilantism around rape started with a feminist group in the 1960s waving placards (this is because they want to present it as an acceptable activity). But you can’t honestly expect me to believe that university credentialed American ‘liberal activists’ have never heard of lynching or the role white women played in supporting organizations like the Klu Klux Klan around perceived fears of sexual assault by freed slaves. This is very different from someone who just isn’t aware that the conviction rate isn’t as high as some people think it should be.

  60. Lucythoughts says

    I don’t know whether you really have to scrape the barrel for straws on this one. I think the purpose of the annual VWG report is pretty self-evident and it isn’t to hide male victims, it is to focus the minds of the prosecution service on these crimes which have historically been grossly under reported and mishandled by the authorities. I should much prefer it to be made explicit that male victims are included in these figures and should be happy to see a more inclusive name, such as “gender-based violence” as I think all of these crimes could be described that way whatever the gender of the victim or perpetrator. That notwithstanding, it seems to me that the annual report is needed; these crimes make complex cases to prosecute and until recently have been woefully neglected. This is meant to be a kick up the backside to improve practice.

    And let’s be realistic here, rape, dv, child abuse etc, these are all crimes which our society as a whole has preferred to sweep under the carpet in the past. I think we all know that is true. For example, I remember more than once being (unsuccessfully) targeted by paedophiles as a child in a very open way; I have to assume it was pretty common. I remember one at a swimming pool when I was probably about nine, trying to chat me up and persuade me to leave with him. He was quite persistent and when he gave up on me I assume he just started on someone else. No one questioned what the hell he was doing, fully dressed, sitting on the seats at the edge of the pool and accosting passing kids. The point is, I think nowadays that just might have been picked up on, because attitudes have changed substantially. People have realised that maybe this stuff shouldn’t just be ignored as all rather embarrassing but should be viewed in a serious light and tackled. It really wasn’t that people didn’t know it was going on. The same was true of dv, although others here know far more about those issues than I do. We are in the middle of a cultural shift on a whole range of issues.

    Male victims of these types of crimes are still being swept under the carpet and I agree that that is a major problem, but let’s not forget how far we have come in a short space of time or pretend that the services available for female victims are now quite satisfactory thank-you-very-much and the only purpose to all this is somehow ulterior. Male victims need to be put onto the public consciousness, yes, but ultimately better policing and prosecution practices will help them, not hurt them and, although my knowledge is scanty, the impression I get is that it is already starting to help them, in that they are more likely to be taken seriously when they go to the police, more liked to be treated with some dignity and more likely to get justice than was true even in the very recent past.

    # Davis S

    I have just looked at that graph and I can’t honestly agree with your suspicions. The purpose of the graph isn’t to highlight the conviction rates but to demonstrate the rise in the prosecution rates relative to previous years (the title is “There were a record number of rape prosecutions…”). The Y axis has been truncated to emphasis the year on year changes. Consider the flattening off of the line you would get if the Y axis ran from 0 – 4,500 instead of 2,000 – 4,500 and you’ll see what I mean. I think that was all there was to it.

  61. David S says

    @lucythoughts (61)
    If the graph is meant to demonstrate the rise in the prosecution rates relative to previous years, then truncating the y-axis is subject to exactly the same criticisms as I made regarding conviction ratios. In other words it creates a false impression of the magnitude of the changes. In the case of the rape graph, the truncation has the effect of making any year-on-year change appear about twice as big as it really is (so for example the 20% rise that occurred between 2009 and 2015 looks more like a 40% rise). The “magnification factor” is even bigger for the other graph. This visual magnification of differences is one of the main reasons why y-axis truncation features in books like “How to Lie with Statistics”. I had intended to include it in my original post, but forgot. However I was intending to include it as a further criticism, not as some mitigating factor.

    It would, in any case, be wrong to think that the sole purpose of the graph is to demonstrate the rise in the prosecution rates because, if that was so, then there would be no point in including convictions on those graphs at all.

    I would agree that there are, on occasions, sensible grounds for truncating the y-axis of a graph. The effect of truncation is to magnify differences between figures that appear on the graph, and there are some circumstances in which you might want to do that for honourable reasons. For example you might want the viewer to be able to read off those differences with greater precision. However I don’t think any of these reasons apply here (in fact one of the main problems with statistics in this field is that they are often expressed with more precision than is meaningful). The graphs would present a much more honest and accurate picture, both of both year-on-year differences and of conviction ratios, if the graph was not truncated.

    I would be more inclined to dismiss the truncation as thoughtlessness if it was an isolated incident, but it isn’t. Conviction ratios have been the subject of various kinds of statistical sleight of hand for over two decades, and this sleight of hand has regularly come in for public criticism (for example in Lady Stern’s review of 2010, on the BBC “More or Less” programme, and elsewhere). You would have to be remarkably uninformed about the issue (which I presume Sandra Laville is not) to be unaware of the ease with which people can, and have been, misled on this issue, and somewhat dishonest not to take fairly careful efforts to avoid misleading them. Also if you are weighing skulduggery against incompetence here, you have to bear in mind the suspicious timing of the Guardian article, which effectively allowed the CPS to break its own embargo, as Ally has explained.

    Regarding the rest of your post, I don’t think anyone is scraping the barrel for straws, but obviously some straw is available, because you have managed to construct a strawman. Ally’s main complaint (and he can contradict me if I am wrong) was not about the VAWG report, which is a lot better than the previous year’s. The problem is that, by either careful or careless timing (depending on how cynical you are), the CPS has allowed a remarkably inaccurate precis of the report to appear in the press without there being any more accurate account available (because of the embargo). As a consequence it is this precis the CPS has either manoeuvered itself into (or simply found itself in, again depending on how cynical you are) a position where its report nominally contains caveats addressing the concerns raised by the Office for National Statistics, but where no one is likely to be aware of those caveats.

  62. Holms says

    #55 1234
    Anyhoo, if your list of credible advocates is nonexistent, then it looks like, for now, you’ll have to make do with a bunch of delusional wingnuts (shame), but at least they’re making and setting the scene – you know, my point about raising awareness/providing a reason for someone to fix things and all that.
    No doubt some “credible” guy or gal who you approve of will come along and take the credit for the finishing touches once the “wing nuts” have done their thing. And then you’ll set to task preaching that the wingnuts were always a waste of time and did nothing more than cause delays. But I’m guessing you will never apply the same reasoning to the suffragettes.

    Ahahaha wow, you’re still carrying on about that theory.

  63. Marduk says

    62.

    But can we really hold a public body responsible for shoddy reporting?

    I expect someone who read the report carefully or had a background in this area would be aware of the caveats involved.

    I think we know about burying key data in appendices and “good days for bad news” but there has to be some sort of limit to how culpable you can be for the behaviour of the press (scientists for example take a very dim view of the way their work is routinely reported and I’m sure that is true of lots of other professional groups less at liberty to complain).

    Alison Saunders has given a defence of this handling of statistics as a deliberate policy decision by the CPS. We might quibble (and then some) with the wisdom of this but I have to give her some credit, people carrying out cover-ups rarely write controversial newspaper articles and give speeches drawing attention to exactly what they did. Nobody can claim this time round the rabbit wasn’t out of the bag, they just didn’t care enough.

  64. Marduk says

    Let me contrast the CPS report to the Plan UK report on quality of life of children and you’ll see what I mean.

    The CPS does include statistics about boys and men. It states this on reading but doesn’t “bill” it particularly convincingly.

    The Plan UK work looked at the quality of life of girls in the UK taking an “unapologetic in its focus on girls and their lives”. It concluded that “Overall, the UK is failing girls”. It collected no data about boys and discovered that girls in rich parts of the country do better than girls in poor parts of the country. Of course, anyone with any common sense might conclude that social class was a factor in this, but Plan UK remains committed to a feminist view.

    Question is, which approach do you prefer? I was as annoyed as anyone at the CPS and still am but honestly, at least the research has been done and the data compiled even if the press choose to misrepresent it.

  65. Lucythoughts says

    #62 David S
    “I don’t think anyone is scraping the barrel for straws, but obviously some straw is available, because you have managed to construct a strawman”

    You may have misinterpreted this, I wasn’t suggesting that Ally was clutching at straws, I was reusing a phrase Marduk had used in the post before. I guess I liked the mixed metaphor. What I understood him to be staying was that if you looked hard enough there could be an upside to all this. I think there is a clear upside; I think the motives behind the report are good, I think the fact that it is commissioned at all in an indicator of how much has changed in the way these crimes are approached and I think the continued pressure to improve the handling of these cases will be good for everybody, including male victims. I am a bit of an optimist; I think that male victims have been rather left behind in the changing tide on how these crimes are viewed both by the public as a whole and by the CPS but I don’t think they will be left behind forever. There’s no such thing as a rising tide that lifts all boats, some get beached, but I trust that sooner of later this one will be re-floated because the tide really is rising. As I said, I believe they are already getting better help than they ever did in the past and that is the start of something, not the finish. It is important to consider where we are relative to where we have been, not only relative to where we might think we should be.

    On the graphs, whether this is a good representation of the data or not isn’t really the point I was responding to. You suggested that the data has been represented in this way specifically to mislead people about conviction rates and that is what I disagree with, I think it was represented in this way for a different reason entirely. Conviction rates aren’t really touched on in the article which largely focuses on increases in prosecutions. That is why the graphs are included, and when journalists use some graphical representation of the point they are making (in this case that prosecutions are going up) they aren’t particularly scrupulous about what they pull out. They aren’t particularly scrupulous about the exaggerations they make with words either; they don’t consider it part of their job. As far as your suggestion that they could have left conviction rates off entirely, that would have been even more misleading because most readers would assume that they were looking at numbers of successful prosecutions. I have no particular urge to defend the way the data is laid out, I just don’t buy your explanation for it.

  66. Marduk says

    61.

    Perhaps but I come back to a pretty core belief I’ve rehearsed here a million times, when you take social problems and submit them to identity politics and the politics of ownership it makes them harder and slower to deal with, leads to a smaller lobby and tends to lead to poorer law making.

    I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to accept that violence and abuse are societal issues that harm us all and would benefit from a consensus that they must be dealt with.

    In this age of cultural appropriation, ‘mansplaining’ and all the rest of it, what male would be stupid enough to express any view on VAWG in the public sphere. Better to say nothing and leave it to the ‘experts’ to continue to make glacial progress on. For example, as I’ve said many times before, there are plenty of new, effective ideas for both treatment and even the magic bullet of prevention because they don’t emphasise feminist critical theory so we don’t use them. I can’t see how this is a good thing.

    The current interest in historic child abuse proves this. Since the dam broke, its become a public issue of wide interest about which serious people with serious intentions care. I think at least in part you have to attribute this to the fact that once the true scale of it became horrifically apparent, it clearly knows no borders of identity. Its not a class issue, its not a race issue, its not a gender issue, its an issue that every adult in the country should take an interest in and I believe every responsible adult is trying to. Prior to this it was safely “owned” by feminist campaigners for a very long time who at their peak invented false “satanic cults” when the whole time it was going on in the Church.

    I’m just saying, Martin Luther King changed the world, Malcolm X didn’t.

  67. David S says

    @marduk(65)

    62.

    But can we really hold a public body responsible for shoddy reporting?

    Well, it’s certainly not unknown for people who produce reports or research articles to connive at, or even conspire in, the misrepresentation of those reports. For example scientists and social scientists have been known to issue press releases that deliberately misrepresent their own research, with the aim of raising their own media profiles. I could give a few examples, but we’d be going a bit off-topic. In this case, if Ally’s account is to be believed, Saunders has done something similar. She has given an on-the-record interview that gives a misleading account of a report that had not, at the time, been officially published. Of course that doesn’t let the Guardian off the hook, but I don’t think that it leaves Saunders in the clear either.

  68. David S says

    @lucythoughts (67)

    You suggested that the data has been represented in this way specifically to mislead people about conviction rates and that is what I disagree with, I think it was represented in this way for a different reason entirely.

    Well, you suggested that the reason for truncating the graph was because of “the flattening off of the line you would get if the Y axis ran from 0 – 4,500 instead of 2,000 – 4,500”. If that is true, then the Guardian are still deliberately misrepresenting the data. It is true that you get a flatter graph if the y-axis goes down to zero, but that is because the trend genuinely is flatter than the Guardian’s graph suggests. Truncating an axis does make flat graphs more interesting and curvy, but that is precisely why you are not supposed to do it.

    You have to bear in mind as well, that journalists don’t usually draw their own graphs. They get the help of professionals to do it. Someone who draws graphs for a living will know that truncating an axis is usually considered to be fairly naughty. They will also know that, if you do truncate a graph, you are supposed to indicate that you have done so by putting some sort of mark on the axis to make it look “torn” (a jagged line crossing the axis for example). It is hard to see the Guardian’s misrepresentation as being entirely accidental.

    That said, I am not closing my mind to lazy indifference as an explanation for those graphs, but I don’t think it is as plausible an explanation as you do. I think perhaps you are underestimating how much past history there is here. People have been pointing out the naughtiness of “torn” graphs at least since the days of Darrell Huff, and that is sixty years ago. People have been criticising misrepresentation of conviction ratios for a couple of decades. Here we have a graph, that is probably drawn by someone who knows about graphs, in an article by a crime correspondent who ought to know about conviction ratios. The fact that the graph gives a misleading impression of the conviction ratio is something I find harder to treat as an accident than you do, and the fact that it also gives a misleading picture of the trend over time doesn’t alter that impression.

  69. Marduk says

    69.

    Thing is we don’t know what Saunders said or was given the opportunity to say, we just have what Laville wrote and worse than that, we just have how the Guardian’s increasingly dwindling band of subs actually put the article together.

    If there is any skullduggery here I’m more tempted to ascribe it to Saunders wanting to put her own narrative on a report that could be deemed problematic for the CPS. I don’t really believe she was thinking “lets make sure men and boys are excluded”, I think she wanted to explain where the rise in CPS prosecutions was coming from and that they were justified given each one costs taxpayer money. Keeping in mind the CPS also gets into trouble for the cases it doesn’t take, she had some fast footwork to do because the defence there is always based on the use of consistent standards. This is actually what the story is about and consistently what Saunders discusses, its in the “deck” (the Guardian calls this something else, anyhow, the line under the headline summarising the piece) and “the lead” if you know your newspaper article layout but as usual, Guardian headlines just can’t be trusted and there is an odd reprise at the end of the article where someone called Rachel Krys is randomly quoted misrepresenting the report as per the headline. Its quite possible this wasn’t even part of Laville’s filed copy.

    I’d also point out Saunders herself didn’t mention gender at any point in her reported comments. She spoke of “individuals” and “people”. If she meant “women and girls” she’d have said so.

  70. Adiabat says

    Holms (63):

    Ahahaha wow, you’re still carrying on about that theory.

    Lol, someone’s still sore about losing an argument a year ago.

    It’s undeniable that the Overton Window for men’s issues has shifted in the last 5 or so years. And by your and carnations own arguments there is no other ‘credible’ group that could be responsible for that shift.

    You may not like them but MRA’s have been in every comment section, on Youtube, and across social media for years talking about those issues. And y’know what? They were right about a lot of them, unlike those who were shrieking “What about teh Menz! hurr durr” for most of that time. I don’t see why you find it so inconceivable that people have seen these arguments and accepted them, even if they rejected the people making them.

  71. Adiabat says

    “What about teh Menz! hurr durr”

    For those who don’t know the history: “What about teh Menz!” was a mocking phrase feminists would use a few years ago whenever anyone would bring up an issue that affected men, mainly because they didn’t think that men had any problems (because “Patriarchy”) and also because they got annoyed at MRA’s appearing in ‘every comment section, on Youtube, and across social media’ bringing up things like male suicide.

    Eventually it fell out of use as they realised that attitudes towards men’s issues were shifting away from them and they gradually switched to “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” in an attempt to acknowledge the issues but retain control of the narrative by placing it under their mythical “Patriarchy”: a term essentially used as a synonym of ‘society’ or ‘culture’ but where they can pick-and-choose elements of a culture that they don’t like without any real rules or restrictions and twist them to suit whatever narrative they are trying to push at that moment.

    Now even that is becoming less common and they are now starting to acknowledge some issues such as male suicide are a real problem, while pretending that they always cared about it. They are still trying to blame men for it through “Toxic Masculinity” bunkum*, but it’s progress.

    * Otherwise known as: “Men need to learn to learn to seek help from non-existent services before we’ll actually support services being put in place to help them.”

  72. David S says

    @Marduk(71)

    I think that the thing you call the “deck” is known as the “standfirst” in Guardian terminology (and for some reason “standfirst” has become one of my favourite words). I get very annoyed about standfirsts and headlines in the Guardian because they are so often belied by the content of the article itself (that’s a general problem affecting articles on all sorts of subjects, not just gender and crime). I did try to persuade the Readers’ Editor to devote some attention to it at one point but I didn’t get anywhere (I think I might have become persona non grata with the then Readers’ Editor, because I was a bit of a frequent complainer).

  73. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    “You may not like them but MRA’s have been in every comment section, on Youtube, and across social media for years talking about those issues. And y’know what? They were right about a lot of them, unlike those who were shrieking “What about teh Menz! hurr durr” for most of that time. I don’t see why you find it so inconceivable that people have seen these arguments and accepted them, even if they rejected the people making them.”

    Spoken like a true delusional. I’ll enlighten you. Because you’re an internet dwelling Gamergater, you won’t really have a realistic idea of how policy, polity and provision work. The chances of anyone with any influence (except farcical right-wingers a la Philip Davies) paying the slightest bit of attention to conspiracy theory halfwits spamming comments sections is close to nil.

    You, as a Gamergater, are not an activist. You, as a Milo fanboy, are not a Conservative. You are someone who desperately needs an identity and have leached onto the most wretched identikit ideology available to anonymous buffoons online.

    The cornerstone of your belief system is that people who wouldn’t appear out of place in Louis Theraux’s Weird Weekends have somehow managed to influence systems that they simply don’t understand by copying & pasting anti-feminist conspiracy theories. That MRAs are indistinguishable from Islamophobes and Trump supporters is telling. Trolls, meeting racists, just for the lolz.

    And these, Adiabat, are your people. Instead of being repelled by the misogyny, stupidity and rancid subculture, you leap right in. You don’t seem aware of just how basic you are. Just like your gym.

    Have a lovely weekend, Prince xx

  74. 123454321 says

    …so says Carny who has achieved precisely zabbady zoodle jack shit for men’s rights and is very likely going to continue with this strikingly lacklustre, zero-gradient performance, which even if one wanted to truncate on a graph in order to look even slightly reasonable, would find it absolutely impossible because the data hasn’t even gotten past y=0. Wait, we could do an inverse truncation using the data in the negative portion….

    You have a lovely weekend too xx

  75. Lucythoughts says

    #68
    “I don’t understand why it is so hard for people to accept that violence and abuse are societal issues that harm us all and would benefit from a consensus that they must be dealt with.”

    I couldn’t agree more but I feel like this is a brick wall I’ve battered my head against before. It just raises two questions: firstly, how do you build that consensus when the issue at stake is one which is viewed (rightly or wrongly) as disproportionately affecting only one demographic? And secondly, even if there is a general consensus that tackling an issue would be a good thing, what do you do when every strategy tabled just gets a lot of people’s backs up? People don’t really like change; they like it even less when they perceive those changes as only there for someone else’s benefit. You can blame identity politics, and it may have a lot to answer for, but identity politics only exists because there is a deeper current of thinking which instinctively opposes any change which requires some accommodation without any direct benefit to yourself. I suspect that to achieve a consensus you would have to convince everyone that the remedy on offer actually helps us all, or at least costs no one anything. Children are a demographic who’s interests we are all invested in and we do have some consensus on child abuse. However, I think you would need to have infinite patience, stamina and good faith to come up with enough of those win-win solutions to tackle something really divisive like rape. Most people don’t have that much patience, even less when they perceive a problem as being huge and urgent while the opposing concerns appear comparatively trivial. That is the birthplace of identity politics. You are right that it tends to polarises and to kill solidarity, but it exists because, sadly, we’ve never really been that solid.

    “there are plenty of new, effective ideas for both treatment and even the magic bullet of prevention…”

    I would be very interested in looking into those if you have some useful links?

    “The current interest in historic child abuse proves this. Since the dam broke, its become a public issue of wide interest about which serious people with serious intentions care. I think at least in part you have to attribute this to the fact that once the true scale of it became horrifically apparent, it clearly knows no borders of identity. Its not a class issue, its not a race issue, its not a gender issue, its an issue that every adult in the country should take an interest in and I believe every responsible adult is trying to. Prior to this it was safely “owned” by feminist campaigners for a very long time who at their peak invented false “satanic cults” when the whole time it was going on in the Church.”

    Agree / disagree. My story about the swimming pool was to illustrate a point: people knew it was going on even if they didn’t openly acknowledge it. People knew it was happening in churches, they knew it was happening in care homes and institution and they knew it was happened in public places and in the home and in their communities. They didn’t think it was fine, they just understood that it was something you turned a bind eye to, didn’t talk about or talked about in whispers. Why didn’t a consensus form earlier? Feminist groups may not have brought about the change of attitudes but I don’t believe they hindered it either; I think it was happening all around them, all around all of us. As far as I remember it was brought to a head by the tabloids; “Name and Shame” etc may have been unethical but it marked a tipping point. Tabloids are like bellwethers for this stuff, they are just ahead of the flock. They have a talent for absorbing the diffuse discontent that precedes a change and giving it something to coalesce around. MPs expenses was another example of this. The explosion that followed was an indicator of what had been bubbling underneath with nowhere to go.

    What caused the change in attitudes to child abuse? In my opinion it was part of a broad change in our attitudes to children; we began to see children (all children, not just our own) as uniquely precious and valuable and as always deserving of protection, care and love (ideas which had lip service paid to them before but never truly permeated the culture). I would attribute the change to improvements in contraception which led to genuine family planning, the dropping birth rate and, most crucially, plummeting infant and childhood mortality. When the worst stuff goes away the bad stuff becomes more visible. As a society we have become massively less inured to suffering and death and it has focussed our minds on the preventable suffering we still have. That is the rising tide I was talking about.

  76. Holms says

    #72
    Say rather that it continues to be an endless source of eyerolling that you truly believe arguments are won by declaring “I won” in a thread everyone else abandoned out of sheer boredom. Progress is made by people that don’t use the MRA tactic of tantrums, lying, and harassment, and are in fact hampered by having to continually distance themselves from that morass.

    Progress happens in spite of your best sabotage efforts. Feel free to have the last word on the topic again, I’m sure you are fatuous enough to declare victory again.

  77. Marduk says

    We don’t have an open thread but I TOLD YOU SO.
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/20/donald-trump-jnr-compares-refugees-poisoned-skittles-twitter-reacted

    “Tweet, which echoes racist memes, prompts outrage and slew of rebuttals on social media”

    No, it echoes an SJW meme by TheFrogman.me circa 2014 re:#yesallwomen that the Guardian and other liberal outlets got very excited about. There was even an eye-rolling “let me explain to you stupid men what this means” piece. I said at the time it was a bad argument and should be criticised on that basis and ultimately would get used like this. We shouldn’t use bad arguments even when they are in the service of something we care about precisely because of shit like this.

    Or is the Guardian seriously claiming its not a bad argument if it involves M&Ms but is a bad argument if it involves Skittles. Maybe, who knows at this point.

  78. Adiabat says

    Holms (80): Ah yes, ‘eyerolling’: The last refuge of a man who lost an argument, yet periodically brings it up just to show how he’s so over it.

    You didn’t lose just because I declare it so, you lost because you failed to argue against the points that were made (yet you did try poorly, so no, the post hoc ‘boredom’ excuse isn’t going to fly). I reject the ‘debate norm’ that arguments are never won or lost unless one side concedes; that’s just a rule invented by losers.

    I’m happy to never mention it again, but you’re going to have to stop with the ego-saving theatrics and just get over it. We all lose arguments sometimes; it’s not a big deal.

    Progress is made by people that don’t use the MRA tactic of tantrums, lying, and harassment, and are in fact hampered by having to continually distance themselves from that morass.

    You’re unable to provide a list of ‘credible advocates’, but the Overton Window for men’s issues has undeniably shifted in the last few years… Without a list of ‘credible advocates’ to explain the shift, the only explanation left is whatever wingnuts have been around in that time in every corner of the internet talking about men’s issues. It’s simply Sherlock Holmes’ old maxim.

    Also, the claim that progress is only made by ‘reputable’ groups was debunked in the thread you lost. I fail to see how making that point again to someone who already saw you fail to defend that position, re: the window-bricking suffragettes, is a viable tactic for you here.

    Feel free to have the last word on the topic again, I’m sure you are fatuous enough to declare victory again.

    I find it funny how you think coming onto new threads and sneering at people for making the same arguments you couldn’t argue against in debate isn’t also a form of “declaring victory”. I’m just pointing out that after that thread you are in no position to sneer at others. I wouldn’t even bring it up if you didn’t keep raising it.

  79. Adiabat says

    Marduk (81): We all said it was an awful argument. We all tried applying it to different topics to show them it was an awful argument. They either wouldn’t listen or are too stupid to see the issues until something like this happens.

    You mentioned upthread how you can’t believe ‘university credentialed American ‘liberal activists’’ didn’t know or understand something. I can, because I’ve seen them repeatedly fail to understand the simplest arguments when they go against what they’ve been told. It’s a kind of selective stupidity akin to Orwell’s ‘crimestop’:

    the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Socjus, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity

  80. Adiabat says

    While we’re using this thread as an open thread I’d like to expose the horrible “regime of rationality” at our universities leading to students resisting feminist course content:

    https://twitter.com/RealPeerReview/status/776718289355628544

    The author argues that a regime of rationality still operates in the academy and is made evident when feminist course content is met with continual dismissal or disavowal.

    Apparently this regime of rationality is a bad thing to have at universities?!

  81. Marduk says

    Well, heres my review.

    Synoposis:
    – Interviewed some feminist professors in Canada
    – Course is “cross listed” sociology and feminism; many students don’t understand this means they are feminist courses.
    – Some students don’t like this when they find out, some are ok with it
    – Some instructors ease off on “male bashing”, some don’t and are unapologetic and see themselves as “missionaries”.
    – Some students complain that they have to agree with the Professor to get marks or the course was one-sided for what they thought was a general social science module. Most don’t though, there wasn’t much of this feedback presented anyway.
    – This is ascribed to Foucault’s notions of resistance and the exercise of privilege and oppression.

    Conclusion (authors): 2000 words of sociological theory about patriarchy.
    Conclusion (me): A university in Canada needs to edit a table in its course listings.

  82. Adiabat says

    I don’t think the courses were called ‘sociology and feminism’ and that the students simply didn’t understand this means they are feminist courses. The paper doesn’t name the cross-listed courses, but does state that some of the professors would hide the fact that they were feminist courses, knowing that students wouldn’t take them if it was obvious. So basically they’re doing the equivalent of offering scientology ‘personality tests’ without making it obvious that they’re pushing scientology. The paper states that “in retrospect if [the students] knew to what extent the feminist perspective was incorporated into the course they probably would have dropped it”.

    I found the whole paper hilarious, from describing students criticising feminist professors as ‘personal attacks’ to the paper describing being rational as a ‘masculine trait’ (sexist much?), so it’s hard to pick out any one bit. I think this is my favourite:

    The author wanted to investigate why students “resist” feminist theory in class and don’t consider feminist ‘ways of knowing’ to be worthwhile. To do this she recruits a total of nine students for her “study” using the following method:

    I used a snowball method of recruiting student participants, beginning with a student with whom I was acquainted. While this proved a reliable method of recruitment, I failed to secure the participation of non-feminist friendly students.

    Notwithstanding the issues around selection, blinding, controls, statistical analysis, reproducibility: In the end she asked (“semi-structured interviews”) a few feminist students, and some feminist colleagues, why the other students were (from the paper) “Rolling eyes, huffing, crossing arms, and snickering” when her and her colleagues taught feminist theory in cross-listed courses. According to one of her colleagues ‘the body movements are carried out ‘just enough to make you feel ridiculous’”. And most of the students exhibiting this behaviour, as far as I can gather from the paper, were female students.

    And at no point is there any self-reflection or awareness that the reasons for the “resistance” may be completely valid.

    Here’s the full paper btw, though it seems you managed to find a copy: http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~tkennedy/Courses/38H3/Webber.pdf

    P.S Just had to add this quote: “The one faculty member who does openly name the material she uses in class as feminist also makes a point to welcome any students who are men to her feminist class… Making a production out of men’s presence in these classes communicates to students that men as a gender are privileged.” So the professor intentionally treats men better to “demonstrate” to the female students that men are privileged. And the author of this piece lacks so much self-awareness that she thought she’d add this point to a paper asking why people don’t take her, her colleagues, or the subject matter they teach, seriously.

  83. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat, Holms, LucyThoughts

    It’s worth noting that Adiabat, a Gamer Gate supporter, Milo fan and MRA, gets his knowledge of Orwell and Crime Stop, like most of his other theories, from Reddit, in this case, the most egregiously awful GamerGate Reddit. It’s always funny to Google the name of a Troll and what he’s trying to pass off as his own thoughts and finding the actual origin of it.

    Adiabat and his ilk have been claiming “victory” for literally years. Since they aren’t interested in positive outcomes for men and simply enjoy any type of publicity, they do, to an extent, have a point. More and more people *are* aware of the wretched, awful, attention-seeking troglodytes in our midst. That they are, as they acknowledge, “universally despised” is a victory for them. When you’re an anonymous troll on the internet, any validation is good validation.

  84. Marduk says

    86.
    Well, there is a meta-meta-meta problem here. There is nothing wrong with qualitative research and arguing it should be quantitative is probably not quite fair, but there is lot wrong with poorly executed qualitative research.

    That paper could have been improved by comparing the feedback comments with comments received for other related or randomly chosen courses, this wouldn’t make it science but would make it a fairer look. I submit that they’d have found pretty much the same grumbles and use of language in maths or geography except two that show “resistance” (i.e., I wasn’t told what this course was going to be about) which seem specific to the institution rather than having any general value.

    The article taken as a whole actually explains the central mystery it purports to solve. Because feminism has a well-developed field of pathologising people who disagree with it within their own paradigm, its not that they perform poor scholarship, its that they are incapable of evaluating their own poor scholarship. If you wrote a paper making the point above, the author would explain the criticism in terms of the same theories she uses in the paper. What she wouldn’t do is perform the work better next time.

    They are creating a massive problem for themselves.

  85. Holms says

    #82
    Fact check: 1234 brought it up, at #55. And yes eyerolling, the proper response for when a person continually dredges up an idiotic argument to re-declare himself the winner over and over. As you’ve just done again.

    You’re unable to provide a list of ‘credible advocates’, but the Overton Window for men’s issues has undeniably shifted in the last few years… Without a list of ‘credible advocates’ to explain the shift, the only explanation left is whatever wingnuts have been around in that time in every corner of the internet talking about men’s issues.

    We happen to be commenting on the blog of one of those credible advocates, who banded together with others to berate / cajole an actual admission of error out of the government on the topic of biased crime statistics reporting. You know, more progress than Mike Buchanan / J4MB and all MRA trolls combined have ever achieved.

  86. Paul says

    I think it was Germain Greer who said that once the various factions within the feminist movement had agreed on the basics -eg equal pay-it was likely to be much harder to get a consensus on how best to tackle other forms of discrimination women face at whatever level it takes place-.And that once these basics have been achieved individual feminists/factions thereafter would be jostling with each other for power and prominence within the feminist movement..

    Ditto the Mens Movement except it feels like indivuals and factions within the Mens Movement can’t even agree on the basics -eg equal rights for fathers and male victims of dv-and how best to tackle them.And some seem to put all their eggs in one basket by blaming feminists for the discrimination men and boys face rather than acknowledging that the problems go much deeper than that.And that whilst some feminists clearly have agendas which are hellbent on keeping the spotlight on women and girls as victims it’ll actually take a pretty seismic shift in often deeply held social and cultural beliefs before male victims of gender discrimination are taken as seriously as they should be .

    It seems to me that whilst individual feminists should at times be robustly challenged about their views simply blaming feminists per se for the problems men and boys can face is actually counter-productive. For whilst i think conflicting interests between the feminist movement and the mens rights movement will make working together on certain issues really difficult and perhaps even impossible i don’t see the point in attacking feminism just for the sake of it.

    Fighting for equality for men and boys in those areas they’re discriminated has got to primarily come from men themselves.And alientating the decent ,fair-minded majority of women is something we should bend over backwards to avoid doing at all costs.But ultimately i think men-and their female supporters- should challege discrimination against men and boys on an issue by issue basis rather than being part of a movement which promotes the myth that men and boys are under attack on all fronts and that feminists are primarily to blame for that..

  87. Carnation says

    The problem is, Paul, remove the misogynists and rabid anti feminists from the so-called Men’s Rights Movement and you’re left with virtually nothing. That is how odious their modus operandi is

  88. Paul says

    There’re are plenty of men-and women-who’re neither missogynists nor rabid anti feminists who’re part of a growing and diverse movement which recognizes that men and boys in our society can and do face discrimination on account of their sex.And are as turned off by the activities of some factions in the Men Rights Movement as some of those fighting inquality against women and girls are turned off by the Rad Fem faction of the Feminist Movement.

    I remember when i first started posting here you were highly dismissive of the Fathers Rights Movement claiming they face little or no discrimination and intimating that F4J are representative of the whole Fathers Rights Movement which clearly isn’t the case.

    So you do come across as being someone who has little genuine interest in issues which affect Men and Boys and are more interested in lumping all MRA’s together rather than acknowledging the discrimination men and boys face and discussing how best these issues can be tackled.

  89. Carnation says

    I was and am totally correct about F4J. Like the wider online MRA “movement” they have achieved nothing tangible, are utterly disreputable, intensely and stupidly anti feminist, reliant on absolute bullshit statistics, led by egotists and followed by plenty of right-wing permanently outraged wingnuts.

    Oh, and George Galloway.

  90. Paul says

    Why does a woman avoid getting a custodial sentence for repeatedly assualting police officers when we all know a man wouldn’t even if he hadn’t inflicted any serious injuries ? Is it because she’s a mother and therefore the primary carer of her children or is it because she’s a woman and traditional masculine chivalry dictates she should be treated more leniantly than men ?

    Feminists might exploit double -standards like this and they’re certainly not going fight to change them.But they’re really not responsible for them.It goes deeper than that.So men are well within their rights to challenge double-standards which favour women but they’re being a bit naive if they think feminsts are responsible for their very existance.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/19/woman-who-treated-police-like-a-personal-punchbag-avoids-jail-af/

  91. Paul says

    ps just like feminists aren’t responsible for the fact there’s currently a high profile drive to reduce the numbers of women sent to prison but there’s no similar high profile drive to reduce the male prison population.

  92. Carnation says

    @ Paul

    “ps just like feminists aren’t responsible for the fact there’s currently a high profile drive to reduce the numbers of women sent to prison but there’s no similar high profile drive to reduce the male prison population.”

    Do you agree that that’s because almost all of those attracted to the cause of “men’s rights” are right-wing and/or anti-feminist, with no interest in positive outcomes for men?

  93. Adiabat says

    Apologies for the multiple comments everyone, but I like to reply to people when I can. Plus for once I have some free time :).

    Carnation (87): Lol, still stalking me I see. Yet despite your little years-long obsession with me you still can’t back up your claims that I’m an MRA or a Milo fanboy beyond what I’ve already told you: that I find him entertaining while recognising his best arguments are taken from others, and that I think MRA’s are right about some issues but am not one myself. I’ve been telling you for years, back when you did your first “revelation that I don’t only post here”, that there’s nothing elsewhere that I haven’t already said on this blog. There’s no point lying on the internet, because there’s always some creepy loser who’s willing to search for and read everything you’ve ever posted. In this case you’re that weirdo. Get some help.

    And please, link us to “the real origin” for any of the arguments in the 4 posts I’ve made in last few days? I don’t know, maybe find someone else in some reddit thread I’m in who’s made the same quotes from the paper that I did in post #86, and made the same points. That might substantiate your claims. Otherwise you’re just full of bullshit.

    (Of course you can’t because as always you’ve invented a version of me in your head that you’re railing against. If I had to guess, I’d say that you’re seeing other people make similar but different arguments in reddit threads, ones where I haven’t even commented on or even seen and, due to confirmation bias, jumped to conclusions that ‘Adiabat is copying his arguments from there’ rather than me simply reading a linked paper that’s trending in several places, mentioning it here due to shared topics and interests and posting my thoughts on it. Just like everyone else does across the internet. You’re constructing elaborate theories in your head to try and smear me rather than face the fact that you are unable to provide arguments against anything I say.)

    Adiabat and his ilk have been claiming “victory” for literally years

    Have I? Can you substantiate that, or is this yet another one of your delusions? Even now, my position on men’s issues is that the Overton Window has shifted, something I consider undeniable, not that anyone has any kind of victory. And if anything I would be a result of MRA’s spreading awareness of these issues rather than a spreader myself.

    You need to learn to separate the fantasy of me in your head from reality. And get a life rather than posting here every now and again about your creepy obsession with me. Who brags about googling someone whenever they make a post, and somehow thinks that their target is the one coming off badly from that?

  94. Adiabat says

    Marduk (88):

    There is nothing wrong with qualitative research and arguing it should be quantitative is probably not quite fair, but there is lot wrong with poorly executed qualitative research.

    I agree. It’s just that most of it is poorly executed. I’d love to see these fields adopt some standards and become useful areas of inquiry.

    I submit that they’d have found pretty much the same grumbles and use of language in maths or geography except two that show “resistance” (i.e., I wasn’t told what this course was going to be about) which seem specific to the institution rather than having any general value.

    I disagree. I don’t think the students would be “Rolling eyes, huffing, crossing arms, and snickering” in maths or geography: that behaviour is outright contempt for the subject matter, and I don’t think you’d see the same in more credible fields. I’d also question whether it was specific to the institution: I have no reason to believe that the students who go to Brock University are any different to those who go to other universities.

    its that they are incapable of evaluating their own poor scholarship

    Peer review stops being useful when all the peers are of a really low quality, and I’m not aware of anyone in the field who is trying to push for higher standards. It’s not only creating a problem for themselves (I don’t care what people do if they’re not affecting anyone else), but for everyone else: for some reason those with power and influence treat the field as having more worth than it really does, which affects policy.

  95. Adiabat says

    Holms (90):

    Fact check: 1234 brought it up, at #55

    No, he mentioned the hypothesis; you referenced the discussion we all had a year ago. There is a difference between mentioning a theory that may have been previously discussed, and referring to a previous discussion of said theory (which doesn’t even support your position) in an attempt to sneer? So much for that “Fact check”.

    And yes eyerolling, the proper response for when a person continually dredges up an idiotic argument to re-declare himself the winner over and over.

    You’re the one dredging up the discussion because you’re obviously still sore over it. If you’re going to sneer at people and refer to an old discussion as though it supports your sneering (when it doesn’t), I’m going to mention that you came off badly in that discussion. There’s no point whining to me for pointing this out when it’s not me bringing the discussion up. So tell me, considering that you so completely failed to rebut the theory when we discussed it, why shouldn’t 1234etc make it again to debunk the same point carnation brings up every couple of threads?

    It’s okay to disagree with 1234etc argument, but it’s a dick move to pretend the argument isn’t valid because of a discussion a year ago where you completely failed to rebut the same argument.

    We happen to be commenting on the blog of one of those credible advocates, who banded together with others to berate / cajole an actual admission of error out of the government on the topic of biased crime statistics reporting.

    So you disagree with carnation that there is a “lack of credible, committed, capable men’s activists”? You not only disagree but think that the “credible, committed, capable men’s activists” is sufficient to be solely responsible for the shift in the Overton Window for men’s issues, despite it being sabotaged by MRAs? Have I understood your position correctly because it undermines your earlier position, and carnations entire argument, if I have?

    For those who don’t know: the Overton Window, also known as the window of discourse, is the range of ideas the public will accept. This has clearly shifted over the last few years for men’s issues, from something ‘unthinkable’ and ‘radical’ to almost acceptable.

    P.S Please note that to accept your submission of ‘credible advocates’ I’m having to ignore at least 4 signatories of the letter who have criticised feminists for preventing men’s issues from getting heard (and that’s just the ones that I know of), as well as one who’s old blog had MRA’s on his ‘Like Minds’ link section, and who has already stated that he won’t reject the possibility that his advocacy was influenced by MRA arguments.

  96. Adiabat says

    Paul: In my first post on this site I stated that I’m fully aware of ‘good feminists’, no doubt with blogs, but that I criticise the shit things that prominent feminist individuals and groups in the media and the overall movement do, including academia. I also stated that I consider ‘prominent’ members of a group to represent that group, and if good feminists don’t like that they can work to reduce the influence of the prominent ones. The whole point is to encourage the ‘good’ feminists to do something about the harmful ones, and the harmful and ridiculous ideas. And I think we’ve seen some areas where that’s happened, such as the drift from WATMz, to PHMT, to this almost-acceptance of men’s issues, with caveats about “Toxic Masculinity”. That didn’t happen because people were nice and validated what feminists were saying. It happened because other feminists started getting embarrassed and to stay ahead of broader opinion the more prominent ones had to change their views, which in turn spread it further.

    I’ve said before my preferred outcome is for feminism to reform rather than go away completely, but that reformation has to come from within, hopefully because they’re sick of being embarrassed by the likes of the “academic” author I linked to above and the typical commentators defending it.

  97. Marduk says

    I don’t know about cause and effect with this but I think its fair to say in recent months there has been signs of the tide turning on SocJus (as opposed to normal left wing or liberal though). Owen Jones and Zoe Williams for example have both recently written pieces moving themselves away from it. Lionel Shriver’s speech when finally published was widely agreed to make a lot of sense. It feels a lot like a paradigm is dying and not before time.

    It wasn’t that long ago that those things were getting to the point of being unsayable.

    I think it has less to do with Milo bringing the LULZ at their expense and possibly a lot more like when you’ve got a Brexit vote and a real live Donald Trump stomping around, the mind turns more towards serious issues than trivia. All of a sudden vilifying someone who would have been on your side but, alas, ate Sushi in public (cultural appropriation of Japanese cuisine) doesn’t feel like the wisest survival tactic and more like the childish act born of complacency that it really is.

    99.
    I disagree. But the point is, we wouldn’t be speculating if they’d done the work properly.

  98. 123454321 says

    Paul, I don’t agree that feminism isn’t partly to blame, especially when you consider the notorious and relentless actions of those whom associate with the movement – those whom are nothing less than man-hating, radical, militants who knowingly use the female power of collaboration to brainwash society into thinking that only women can be victims and consistently sneer in the face of issues raised concerning men because they know very well men won’t fight back and support themselves. They know exactly what they are doing and the root cause is often jealousy (which leads to hatred) and covert control that is done in a far slicker and sophisticated way than men could pull off. It’s been going on for far too many decades and it has to stop.
    The internet will be the saving grace for men and boys as it’s becoming quite clear that men, albeit not comfortable with speaking out in public, can now use the freedom of anonymity to declare their dismay using a platform they know is far-reaching and absolutely definitely making an impact (even though the likes of BarmyCarny is seething with dismay as he stubbornly refuses to recognise or accept that we’re seeing technological and evolutionary progress at work – poor thing needs more comforting little bubble baths).

    Take this report in the Daily Mail today. There are some good points contained and you can’t get away from the fact that the ant-feminist perception is out there right now and it’s all down to the fault of feminism which despite having massive social power has persistently excluded men and boys from the equation. I said two decade ago it would come. Backlash time.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-3803122/As-father-four-boys-reject-feminist-tosh-girls-confident-sex-writes-TOM-UTLEY.html

  99. ajay says

    Why is there a VAWG campaign and no violence against men and boys campaign when women and girls are the least likely part of the population to suffer from violence? Why are boys not included so it was at least violence against women and children?

    It is not possible to know the motivations of the peopel involved but VAWG fits into a pattern where male disadvantage is not just ignored but actively encouraged by government while any potential female disadvantage is vigourosuly addressed. Thsi even applies in cases where tehe goveernment knos that the reality behind the apparent female disadvanatge is female advanatge such as the penal system or health. You can choose your own examples but its is ubiquitous so examples are easy, health, education, suicide, homelessness, violence. VAWG is clearly intended to direct attention and resources to women and away from men.

    The fact is that the British establishment is in this sense strongly misandric and the state strongly discriminates against men and boys. Anyone who questions this is dismissed as misogynistic and worse. What opened my eyes was a report I read in teh New Statesman that the NHS had failed women in the UK because whereas the life expectancy of men and women and had gone up the gap between men and women had reduced. My comment that it was odd to call it a failure when when the outcome for both men and women had improved but that the disadvanatge of men relative to women had declined was met by a barrage of accusations of misogyny. It took a while to sink in but I finally realised that acceptable main stream opinion was that a goal of policy should be that men (me!) shoudl live shorter live sthan women and any suggestion that this was not equitable was not acceptable. It may seem strange but I shaken by the thought that my life was worth less simply because I was a man.

    Once you look beyond the constant media message of women as victims you realise that ignoring even encouraging male disadvantage is ubiquitous. Male victims of anything are discounted and ignored. Male victimisation, even pseudo victimisation, is met with outrage and calls for immediate action. Male victims recieve in general nothing.

    People like Alison Saunders must know that more men are victims of violence than women, she must know that the proportion of domestic violence victims who is men is at least 40% and probably quiet close to 50% yet VAWG goes on and you get a report like the one described. Is this simply a desire for conformity and avoiding criticism by going alone

  100. H. E. Pennypacker says

    @ 123454321

    I said two decade ago it would come. Backlash time.

    I think you’re confusing yourself with Susan Faludi.

  101. WineEM says

    Blimey, so without giving a second’s thought Corbyn says of – and to – Sarah Champion :-

    You have our total, full, and absolutely warm support.

    So I would kindly – and gently – point out to Ally that this is the kind of pattern you will continue to get if you offer unconditional support to a leader who already has signalled a completely uncompromising bigotry on men’s issues (now quite explicitly on a number of occasions). Don’t expect this guy to change overnight, and since you really do care about men’s problems, this ought to be something to dwell over quite seriously before continuing with the whole ‘back Corbyn’ thing.

  102. WineEM says

    Blimey, so without giving a second’s thought Corbyn says of – and to – Sarah Champion :-

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-corbyn-pays-warm-tribute-8906955

    You have our total, full, and absolutely warm support.

    So I would kindly – and gently – point out to Ally that this is the kind of pattern you will continue to get if you offer unconditional support to a leader who already has signalled a completely uncompromising bigotry on men’s issues (now quite explicitly on a number of occasions). Don’t expect this guy to change overnight, and since you really do care about men’s problems, this ought to be something to dwell over quite seriously before continuing with the whole ‘back Corbyn’ thing.

  103. Paul says

    @107

    The double standard with regard to Sarah Champion is striking.And your comment with regard to Jeremy Corbyn in effect endorsing it highlights the key role men -as well as women-play in underpinning it.For i very doubt Corbyn -or anyone else for that matter -would have been so quick to pay such a warm tribute to any male who’d allegedly been guilty of abusive behaviour to their partner even if the abuse was mutual.

    It’s a fact that lesbian and bisexual women suffer from the worst levels of domestic violence -at the hands of women-but because the worst outcomes of domestic violence occur for women at the hands of men that fact is almost always ignored in public discourse .As is the fact that a significant amount of domestic violence-and possibly the majority-is actually mutual irrespective of whether it takes place between gay or straight couples.For despite all the talk of equality between men and women the principles of equality go straight out of the window when addressing this issue.For men are still constrained by traditional male chivalry whilst women are in effect treated like children who can never be blamed or held responsible for their abusive behaviour. Or the role they play in encouraging their sons and their male partners and brothers etc to embrace those very masculine attributes which most people of both sexes agree are unacceptable.

    One of the biggest successes feminists have had in this country is not only with regard to raising awareness of domestic violence-which they should be credited for-but also in controlling the narrative with regard to the problem.But they can’t be blamed for that because the fact is they’ve been allowed to control the narrative to the detriment of those straight men,lesbian women and children who’re victimised by abusive women.And they’ve been allowed to get away with preventing any serious discussion as to the extent to which domestic violence between adults is mutual and the extent to which women-as well as men-are involved in the abuse of children.

  104. WineEM says

    @109. Well said. Fool that I am I actually voted for Corbyn in the first contest. That was at the time when he kept on repeating at his rallies “I want equality, because I want everyone to be treated the same as everyone else.” I put his lack of awareness about men’s issues down to a naivity rather than a deliberate calculated attitude. I now know that it was me being naive. It’s one of the worst things in the world when politicians say do as I say, not as I do.

  105. Holms says

    #93 Paul
    There’re are plenty of men-and women-who’re neither missogynists nor rabid anti feminists who’re part of a growing and diverse movement which recognizes that men and boys in our society can and do face discrimination on account of their sex.

    To expand slightly on Carnation’s post to which you were replying:

    The problem is, Paul, remove the misogynists and rabid anti feminists from the so-called Men’s Rights Movement and you’re left with a small proportion of the whole. Doing the same to the feminist movement – removing the misandrists etc. from the larger movement – and you are left with a fairly large proportion of the whole. While awful people and policies exist on both sides, it is plain to any observer that feminist groups are not dominated by them to the degree that MRA groups are.

    #100 Adiabat
    No, he mentioned the hypothesis; you referenced the discussion we all had a year ago. There is a difference between mentioning a theory that may have been previously discussed, and referring to a previous discussion of said theory (which doesn’t even support your position) in an attempt to sneer?

    He referenced an old argument without mentioning that it was an old argument here. A distinction without a difference.

    So you disagree with carnation that there is a “lack of credible, committed, capable men’s activists”?

    No, I completely agree with him – the reasonable voices are hard to hear against the backdrop of hooting MRAs. Remeber, ‘lack of’ can mean ‘insufficient numbers of’ and not necessarily ‘zero of.’ There are very few reasonable, non-antagonistic men’s advocates… and this is the blog of one of those rare creatures.

    You … think that the “credible, committed, capable men’s activists” is sufficient to be solely responsible for the shift in the Overton Window for men’s issues, despite it being sabotaged by MRAs?

    Men’s advocacy is progressing in spite of, rather than because of, the hooting baboon contingent within the MRA movement, yes. It would be nicely aided by them shutting up, or even -brace yourself – doing something productive rathern than antagonistic.

    Clearly, there is no undermining of nor conflict with Carnation’s point, which in fact is identical to mine.

  106. Carnation says

    @ Adiabat

    “Apologies for the multiple comments everyone, but I like to reply to people when I can. Plus for once I have some free time :).

    Carnation (87): Lol, still stalking me I see. Yet despite your little years-long obsession with me you still can’t back up your claims that I’m an MRA or a Milo fanboy beyond what I’ve already told you: that I find him entertaining while recognising his best arguments are taken from others, and that I think MRA’s are right about some issues but am not one myself. I’ve been telling you for years, back when you did your first “revelation that I don’t only post here”, that there’s nothing elsewhere that I haven’t already said on this blog. There’s no point lying on the internet, because there’s always some creepy loser who’s willing to search for and read everything you’ve ever posted. In this case you’re that weirdo. Get some help.”

    Let’s deal with these one by one, shall we?

    “Lol, still stalking me I see. Yet despite your little years-long obsession with me you still can’t back up your claims that I’m an MRA”

    You perfectly meet the profile of an MRA. You are an anti-feminist, endorse and applaud the “theories” of Paul Elam, Tweet and comment like an MRA and claim victory, just like MRAs. Just saying “I’m not an MRA” doesn’t get you off the hook. I get it, I’d be embarrassed too, but your beliefs are analogous to that or an MRA and your “activism” is identical. Face it, son, you’re an MRA. It’s alright, we all have our problems. Mine isn’t the cornerstone of my identity, however.

    “or a Milo fanboy”

    Oh really? Commented about his hair, admired his efficacy in “debating” (as you’d see it) his (and your) enemies? Marvelled at the tactical brilliance of a (snigger) gay man hating on so-called SJWs? You’re a Gamergater, too stupid to see that your hero despises you.

    Because you’re an MRA, Gamergater and Milo fan-boy, it effortlessly follows that you aren’t sophisticated intellectually or cultured. Therefore, it’s oh so simple to expose you as a Reddit copy & paster.

    Look, I get it, you tried to look brighter and better read than you are. But you failed.

    Still, Brexit for the Lulz, haha.

    Off you go to Reddit, Prince. Have a lovely weekend xxx

  107. ajay says

    #112 Holm
    “The problem is, Paul, remove the misogynists and rabid anti feminists from the so-called Men’s Rights Movement and you’re left with a small proportion of the whole.”

    I have a problem with this sort of statement. Firstly it casts doubt on the validity of men’s rights as a whole and implicitly on whether there are any issue at all facing men. There are many areas where there is strong evidence that men are significantly disadvantaged. Secondly I do not think it is true. In my experience actual misogyny is quite rare, certainly much rarer than misandry, and what exactly does rabid anti-feminist mean? This is very close to dismissing everyone who thinks that men are disadvantaged and feminists contribute to that disadvantage. There is ample evidence that people who self identify as feminists hamper addressing mens issues in many areas such as education or domestic violence so I have difficulty with rulling out anyone who holds that belief. Not leats because I beieve it myself. It is not difficult tto find feminsits who say that discrimination against men is impossible. I think you would struggle to find similar statements about women even from MRA sites although everything exists somewhere on the internet.
    Nobody objects to statements that women are disadvantaged and the, frankly bizarre and far more extreme, concept of patriarchy is acceptable in the mainstream. Why are men’s issues and similar but less extreme concepts of the effest of feminists dismissed out of hand?

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *