Poll: Biased Gender Politics and Violence
- Thread starter Spoonius
- Start date
Recommended Videos
So does that mean that whenever Christians denounce WBC, they are also guilty of this fallacy?[/quote]They can be depending on what exactly they are denouncing, not that this question has anything to do with the OP's subject.Sean951 said:
They can be depending on what exactly they are denouncing, not that this question has anything to do with the OP's subject.[/quote]Helmholtz Watson said:
No, but I feel it does address your quote. If someone claims to be X, but acts otherwise, then someone who actually is X can say they aren't a true X. In this case, a feminist.
Just wanted to let you know that I'm stealing that sentence for future use, and will treasure it always.I_am_a_Spoon said:
I'm just curious because you bring up her ethnicity, but is she an immigrant or a native born person? If the former, do you think cultural differences could be the issue?mrblakemiller said:
It doesn't address my quote at all. The OP's mom sounds like a Second Wave feminist.Sean951 said:
Of course, I did a quick search and found this cited:I_am_a_Spoon said:
Maybe it's different in Australia and one in three really is an issue, but I'm oft skeptical of any of these numbers trying to equate the two.
Sorry, I misread part of your post and flew off the handle (where did that expression come from, I wonder?). I spent a little over ten years being abused by female social workers and then being punished for "making them do it", so this is a bit of a sensitive issue for me and I sometimes react without thinking. Again, you have my apologies.Colour-Scientist said:
To correct one statement in your original post, if the OP's mother was alive when Western feminism was in its infancy, at least one of them must be well over a hundred years old. Western feminism is generally held to have begun with Mary Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman in 1792. More recent thinkers have a bad habit of erasing a lot of first wave feminism from their discourse (and consequently from the public consciousness). There's been an increasing trend to ignore many of the second wave branches as well, which is a shame, because they contained some really interesting people and great ideas that are now long out of print as a result of this revisionist history. I think a lot of them (like Eve "no one knew what a vagina was before my play, now listen to all this stuff about the Chinese language I made up out of thin air" Ensler) do it to make themselves seem more edgy and original than they actually are. Also, I would argue that the first wave was probably the most concerned with men's issues of the three. Second wave radicals like the separatists were a whole new wave because they represented a massive departure from the even-handed compassion displayed by so many of the finest early feminist thinkers.
Additionally, I would argue that the most politically and socially active branches of second and third wave feminism could be doing an awful lot more than they actually are to challenge traditional gender roles, to the extent that a decent portion of their rhetoric and policies actually support them. When Mackinnon lead the charge into the political arena she shifted the focus of the movement away from ordinary women and onto the nascent Women's Studies crowd, who are even more of a detached clique than is usual in academia and also draw much more heavily from economically privileged backgrounds. They have brought a manufactured and toxic victim consciousness into the movement which dovetails perfectly with traditional perceptions of gender and has seriously undermined much of organized feminism's work since (several prominent first wave thinkers gave very explicit warnings about this possibility, but most of the second wavers were too busy being rebellious and overconfident to take them seriously).
To be perfectly clear, I am not against feminism, but I believe that a failure to criticize issues and failings within the movement will lead to it becoming everything its critics claim it to be.
As I explained earlier:Zachary Amaranth said:
Actually, there is an enormous body of peer reviewed research (mostly conducted by psychologist and sociologists) which contradicts this. The most recent and reliable data I have seen for the US showed parity in initiation of reciprocal violence and women initiating 70% of unilateral violence (hardly surprising, given that men are trained no to hit back). The arrest record does not reflect this because quotas limit the gender ratios of arrests for DV to 15% women, 85% men, a number in keeping with no serious academic study in the past two decades (professional activists groups who derive a great deal of money, media attention and political clout have a documented history of misrepresenting data and conducting surveys which deliberately refuse to count DV cases which do not fit their established and highly marketable narrative). Combined with laws requiring an arrest on a DV call and a series of previsions in VAWA which define DV differently for men and women, many male DV victims are actually arrested for sitting there and doing nothing ("primary agressor" laws, in particular, require the arrest of the individual judged to possess the greater capacity for violence, regardless of whether any evidence suggests they have actually been violent). Injuries sustained by men are no less severe than those sustained by women because, while men are on average physically stronger, women are three times as likely to employ a weapon.
This only applies to heterosexual couples. As for the rest, lesbian couples have an alarmingly high DV rate, easily outstripping DV in relationships between homosexual men. I have not seen any definitive studies on domestic violence as it relates to transfolk, but the data appears to indicate that they are at higher risk of victimization than other groups.
I just read that article and holy hell! Did you see the spin "Shelley Serdahely, executive director of Men Stopping Violence" tried to put on it all?Naeras said:
?Women might be more likely to get frustrated because men are not taught how to be active listeners and women feel like they are not being heard,? she said. ?Often women are more emotional because the relationship matters a lot to them, and while that may come out in a push or a shove or a grab, all of which are considered dating violence, it doesn?t have the effect of intimidating the man.?
Basically saying "Yes, women might be the perpetrators, but they do it for justifiable reasons." To anyone on this thread who was wondering about the extreme feminists people keep talking about, this is one of them.
Said as in "relationships only matter to women and men are only in relationships to satisfy their schlongs"? Hello, statistics for after-breakup depressions and suicides would like to have a word with this woman, because men totally aren't three times more represented there.Ledan said:
It should honestly just be called female-chauvinism, because that's what it is. It's not related to feminism in the slightest, because it's not about having genders be treated equally here, it's letting about one gender have advantages over the other, because... well, because. It's flat-out sexism.
...or, more likely, she's amongst those who are actually abusing her partner, thus her getting defensive. Gwuh.
From my experience, actually sensible feminists are usually really cool people. Most of my female friends are, and my girlfriend's one of them. I haven't ever witness them do or say anything sexist.
Thanks for those links. My criticism of the study detailed in the law review journal, and cited in other links there is that it really doesn't focus on the damage done in domestic violence episodes, and I think this is really important.Dastardly said:
Interviewing spouses and determining that there is a roughly equal share on who initiates domestic violence acts and trying to use an arbitrary scale to quantify the severity of those effects is potentially quite misleading.
For example: if on various times, both my wife and I initiated an act of spousal violence (such as attempt to strike) it would get chalked up as 1 - 1 in this study. Is it "of equal significance"? Not by a long shot in my opinion. If my wife hit me as hard as she could she would not be able to inflict any real harm, one punch from me could easily knock her out and break her jaw etc. Is a punch from me and a punch from her of equal value in benchmarking domestic violence? I wouldn't think so.
I get the underreported nature of female on male violence due to social norms, stigma etc, but could another reason be that it just doesn't hurt men so they don't make a big deal about it.
A better comparison would be: deaths or hospital admissions due to domestic violence for each gender.
EDIT:
http://www.monash.edu.au/miri/research/reports/muarc063.html
- 90% of domestic violence deaths are women)
- Females comprised 75% of the victims of domestic violence requiring hospital admission
Violence shouldn't be condoned at all in a civilised society. Self defence, sure but we shouldn't have to defend ourselves at all. One day we'll have it right but we're not there yet.
I'd like to be truly equal minded but unfortunately I still cringe more seeing male on female violence outside of self defence, than I do when I see the reverse. I'm not even sure why, it's an instinctual feeling that I can't fully figure out or control.
I'd like to be truly equal minded but unfortunately I still cringe more seeing male on female violence outside of self defence, than I do when I see the reverse. I'm not even sure why, it's an instinctual feeling that I can't fully figure out or control.
The sheer mental energy being expended here by dudes who refuse to accept that they might be privileged and might just not understand the struggle less privileged people go through is astounding. It's really telling of how deep this problem goes; that otherwise thoughtful, articulate, introspective people can nonetheless fill themselves to capacity with what is essentially a fantasy and then cling to it until their knuckles go white.
I can't help but think that these are people who cannot live in a world where they, themselves, might be on the unfair side and just not understand the other side. Where admitting to just not getting it, to being unable to see things from other perspectives, to perhaps having a worldview that is skewed to favor themselves, is so utterly unthinkable that they must drown such ideas in a flood of baseless psychobabble and weird fallacious logic.
So much mansplaining. So much sad 'me too' forced victimhood. Oh well. Enjoy a relevant link.
http://memegenerator.net/Privilege-Denying-Dude
I can't help but think that these are people who cannot live in a world where they, themselves, might be on the unfair side and just not understand the other side. Where admitting to just not getting it, to being unable to see things from other perspectives, to perhaps having a worldview that is skewed to favor themselves, is so utterly unthinkable that they must drown such ideas in a flood of baseless psychobabble and weird fallacious logic.
So much mansplaining. So much sad 'me too' forced victimhood. Oh well. Enjoy a relevant link.
http://memegenerator.net/Privilege-Denying-Dude
My sides are splitting, where can I get tickets to your next show? There is no comedy quite like explaining away any conversation regarding bias against a group with the singular word; privilege. A white man complaining about anything? Privilege! A fat woman complaining about her knees hurting? Privilege! Will Smith complaining he only got $10million for his last picture? Privilege! A woman fighting for the government to cover her birth control? Privilege!itsthesheppy said:
Plus there's the whole hypocrisy thing you've got going on. But you probably can't realize it because of your privilege... oh snap!
Really? A meme generator link is relevant? Hey, at least it wasn't ponies!itsthesheppy said:
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to return to my easy mode life, where nothing bad ever happens to me and I suck overly priced scotch out of the navel of a young Swedish supermodel in the back of my private limo fight jet to my tower full of money! Whoops... can't forget my top hat and cane!
You're trying to make this a "who's got it worse" thing. It's an attempt to compare apples and oranges, when I'm saying that's exactly the problem. The prevailing attitude is "Because oranges exist, apples do not (at least not really)."BringBackBuck said:
I feel that focusing the wrong way on the physical harm can contribute to an anti-male slant. Rather than being used to reinforce the severity of domestic violence, it's being used to insinuate that female-on-male violence isn't "really" a problem since it's not causing immediately-measurable physical damage of an equal degree.
That's like telling the cops not to pursue Robber A, but instead to pursue Robber B, on the basis that Robber B stole more -- and even that only because Robber B's store just happened to have more money in the register at the time. Both criminals are equally criminal, both demonstrate the exact same disregard for the rights and property of others, so both victims deserve the attention of the authorities.
I think it's less the idea of an advantageous starting position that these people deny, but rather the cavalcade of implications that far too many people bring with that idea. Namely, that they should feel bad for having been born to this advantageous position, that it means they deserve no redress for legitimate grievances, that they forfeit even the ability to recognize such grievances, and that denying any of these add-ons means they're denying reality itself.itsthesheppy said:
(Again, it's not comparing apples and oranges, it's saying that since apples exist, oranges cannot.)
All I see in this post is "Shut up! You're privileged!"itsthesheppy said:
Oppression can happen to even the most privileged groups. Yes, that means that white heterosexual men can experience oppression in some ways. They may be more privileged than other groups and they may not experience it to a larger degree, but that does not mean we should ignore these injustices.
Please don't use privilege to shut people up, it undermines your position.
*edited