Feminism: internet vs. reality

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Just as an aside, I find the "women should be heard first in the classroom" rather amusing: it appears they want to return to "ladies first" - wasn't that what feminists were complaining about? - that it was "patronising"?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Greetings,

Just as an aside, I find the "women should be heard first in the classroom" rather amusing: it appears they want to return to "ladies first" - wasn't that what feminists were complaining about? - that it was "patronising"?

Kindest regards,

James

The way I understood it, it is a short cut in addressing the statistic that show boys answered and asked the majority of questions in a classroom. As I pointed out, all things being equal, it is dumb, but in the reality that is a U.S. classroom, it just might help. As I also said, paying teachers more (making it so that teaching is actually an attractive option for a person that just earned a Bachelors or Masters) and short cut measures like this would not be needed and rightfully chastised.

 

[SpecialFrog]

t is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers.

i'm not sure where you got that quote, but i think you are being mislead.

I know who Gelles is and I have every reason to think that the quote is accurate. I can find multiple sources for it, such as here.

While I agree that men are victims of abuse by partners, most likely in greater numbers than many people realize, I have posted two articles that show that abuse of women by partners is still a sigificantly larger issue and that both Gelles and Straus agree.

You show no indication of having read either article as your random bits from Wikipedia don't actually refute what either of them says.

Incidentally, Wikipedia is generally reliable for scientific articles but not so much for feminism. All the quotes you are pulling seem to trace back to one website, breakingthescience dot com, which does not seem to be a source that meets normal Wikipedia standards.

here is an interesting question for you to answer.
For whom would such findings be detrimental? who would go so far as sending death threats?
this is not an accusation, just a question.

I don't know without much more context.

and is also not helpful to slander a group.

By definition, it isn't slander if it is true. Who do you consider to be some significant individuals or groups in the MRA movement? Give me some names and we can look at what they say and do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_rights_movement
Men's rights activists have said that they believe that feminism has overshot its objective and harmed men

if this is indeed true, the claim that feminism is a movement for equality for women and men is false.

Too bad it isn't true. And really, the article at RationalWiki is better on this subject than Wikipedia.

On the same wiki page, they listed several issues.
in my opinion, this are interesting points for discussion, and i actually hope that the MRA are wrong on those points.
Given the more i've been digging ino the matters, it's seems likely that they are true. my best hope is that these points are imbelished and less severe then described.

Many issues identified by the MRA movement are real issues that disproportionately affect men. However, they claim that they are virtually all caused by feminism and / or women in general. Moreover, they do fuck all to try and address any of them except by yelling at women on the internet.

While in actual fact, feminism does work towards addressing many of those issues.

I don't see what any of that has to do with the situations of Greer, Dawkins or Hoff-Sommers.

Am I being silenced by not being invited to speak at university functions? Is this lack of invitation an infringement on my rights to free speech?

Is it "silencing" creationists by not letting their ideas be taught to public school students?

Greer is being criticized for things she says. She is allowed to say them but free speech doesn't mean that there are no consequences to what you say. Students are perfectly free to object to their tuition money being used to pay her to speak at their university. Universities shouldn't fire / expel staff / students for agreeing or disagreeing with Greer. But they don't have to give her money and officially-sanctioned time either.

As for silencing, read the quote above from Mr. Gelles about what happened to him and his colleague Suzanne Steinmetz.

What does that have to do with Greer, Hoff-Sommers or Dawkins? I agree that no one should be getting death- or bomb-threats, but that isn't what they are talking about when they claim they are being "silenced" by feminists.

And as I have asked previously, do you agree that feminism seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles? If so, do you agree that this also benefits men?

Based on your responses, i have yet to be convinced that feminism indeed seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles..

I haven't tried to convince you of that. I asked if you thought that feminism did do this. Do you agree that combatting rigid idead of gender roles helps men?

If so I can provide evidence that feminism does do this which demonstrates that it does indeed help men.

If you don't think combatting rigid ideas of gender helps men then there is little point in providing evidence for this.

 

[nemesiss]

Actually, I was thinking this exact same thing, but for a completely different reason when I asked for an example. You think this should be addressed because the rates at which it happens are roughly equal. I believe spousal/partner abuse should be an issue we need to focus on and have authorities take far more seriously for the simple fact that it is causing harm (and we need to de-stigmatize being a victim of it so more people will come forward with it). I believe this should be a major issue to address, not because the numbers are equal, but because you are helping decrease the suffering of people in those terrible situations. I feel examples like this are things that should be moved to the forefront of any feminist or egalitarian movement. Seeing as how both fall under humanism and one of humanism’s focuses is to decrease human suffering, addressing spousal/partner abuse should be a high priority. Beyond this, making it a gender-neutral issue seems easy, since all one needs to do is actually take the accusations of the possible victim seriously (no matter what their gender or orientation is).

I agree with that statement and also for the same reasons.
i'm sorry if i wasn't able to articulate it clearly.

Do you honestly believe that we should wait until something is clear enough before addressing it? Furthermore, do you honestly believe that someone transitioning into another gender is somehow in limbo and should not be identified with the gender they see themselves as? Beyond that, when do you think an issue is clear enough for one to start addressing an issue? I mean at the very least, one would think we could try to repeal laws that allow cis people a legal out in an abuse/murder of a trans person. Thus, even if you are correct, and this issue were as unclear as you think it is, there are steps that could be taken and help them as well. In addition, if you do not know what gender one identifies themselves as; it is far more polite to use “them” and not “it” to refer to them. I mean, say what you want, but do not be upset when people judge you based on what you have said.

The example you've given is a strange one. Why allow for a legal out for murder anyway? i'd say you've given an example where indeed it doesnt matter how we define transgender, we only need to acknowledge they exist.
to be honest, this i would consider this rather simple, im not sure if it will be that easy with more complicated cases.
don't mind proving me wrong, again.

Now, you claim that men are not subconsciously oppressing women, but it has to do with access to resources. I would agree with you that (at least in the west) for the most part, men are not consciously oppressing anyone. Than what is left if they are not actively suppressing resources? Are you not familiar with the literature on implicit biases? Someone on the surface can know that it is wrong to treat women or minorities poorly, but subconsciously still have biases that make them act in ways to “other” women or minorities. It appears that everyone has these to one extent or another and one has to actively work against them. As James Randi loves to point out, the moment you believe you stopped making assumptions, is the moment you have fooled yourself.

actually, I had forgotten that, thank you for reminding me of it.
i loved Mr. Randi's "Magician in the laboratory"
ill take another read of it, hopefully not to make too much of a fool of myself, again.

t is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers.

i'm not sure where you got that quote, but i think you are being mislead.

I know who Gelles is and I have every reason to think that the quote is accurate. I can find multiple sources for it, such as here.

But can you find one, done by Gelles or Murray themselves?
The link provided only attributed the quote to Gelles, but i wasn't able to find Gelles making it himself.

While I agree that men are victims of abuse by partners, most likely in greater numbers than many people realize, I have posted two articles that show that abuse of women by partners is still a sigificantly larger issue and that both Gelles and Straus agree.

You show no indication of having read either article as your random bits from Wikipedia don't actually refute what either of them says.

I had read through it, but i found little to be meaningfull for the discussion.
If you found the wiki not sufficient, then read this, especially, the second sentence.
Something written by Murray A. Staus himself
http://gauss.unh.edu/~mas2/VB33R%20Women's%20Violence%20Toward%20Men.pdf

A second purpose is to show that, dispite the much lower probability of physical injury resulting from attacks by women, women produce a substantial percentage of all injuries and fatalities from partner violence.

Incidentally, Wikipedia is generally reliable for scientific articles but not so much for feminism.

are you sure? I found the wiki article on feminism to be quite extensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

here is an interesting question for you to answer.
For whom would such findings be detrimental? who would go so far as sending death threats?
this is not an accusation, just a question.

I don't know without much more context.

Well then, isn't about time to investigate it and obtain more content and context?

I haven't tried to convince you of that. I asked if you thought that feminism did do this. Do you agree that combatting rigid idead of gender roles helps men?
If so I can provide evidence that feminism does do this which demonstrates that it does indeed help men.
If you don't think combatting rigid ideas of gender helps men then there is little point in providing evidence for this.

So i first need to agree with you, before you can/will show me the evidence?
you think, because i (might) disagree with you, that i will not be able to change my mind?

Somehow, this reminded me of this video


On a side-note...

 

[nemesiss]

A must see/listen, in my opinion.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Do you honestly believe that we should wait until something is clear enough before addressing it? Furthermore, do you honestly believe that someone transitioning into another gender is somehow in limbo and should not be identified with the gender they see themselves as? Beyond that, when do you think an issue is clear enough for one to start addressing an issue? I mean at the very least, one would think we could try to repeal laws that allow cis people a legal out in an abuse/murder of a trans person. Thus, even if you are correct, and this issue were as unclear as you think it is, there are steps that could be taken and help them as well. In addition, if you do not know what gender one identifies themselves as; it is far more polite to use “them” and not “it” to refer to them. I mean, say what you want, but do not be upset when people judge you based on what you have said.

The example you've given is a strange one. Why allow for a legal out for murder anyway? i'd say you've given an example where indeed it doesnt matter how we define transgender, we only need to acknowledge they exist.
to be honest, this i would consider this rather simple, im not sure if it will be that easy with more complicated cases.
don't mind proving me wrong, again.

Oh, I am not that knowledgeable in this field, thus I will not pretend to speak for them. However, if you are truly interested in this, I would say you could start by watching Zinnia Jones’s Gender Analysis series. Honestly, from watching her videos, the issue seems very straightforward to me and not as unclear as you seem to believe it to be.

Now, you claim that men are not subconsciously oppressing women, but it has to do with access to resources. I would agree with you that (at least in the west) for the most part, men are not consciously oppressing anyone. Than what is left if they are not actively suppressing resources? Are you not familiar with the literature on implicit biases? Someone on the surface can know that it is wrong to treat women or minorities poorly, but subconsciously still have biases that make them act in ways to “other” women or minorities. It appears that everyone has these to one extent or another and one has to actively work against them. As James Randi loves to point out, the moment you believe you stopped making assumptions, is the moment you have fooled yourself.

actually, I had forgotten that, thank you for reminding me of it.
i loved Mr. Randi's "Magician in the laboratory"
ill take another read of it, hopefully not to make too much of a fool of myself, again.

Honestly, it seems like many people have forgotten that implicit biases exist and that they can be fooled. In fact, most of the times I bring up this issue, the person I am talking with will retort with something along the lines of, “I am an atheist, I have no biases, thus this does not apply to me.” Once again, this conversation is a refreshing one to have (YouTube is draining my soul). However, research shows that one of the best steps in combating implicit biases is just being mindful that they exist. That step alone can remind you that your gut impression of a situation is not always the right one and you might be blinded by an implicit bias and not know it. Keeping in mind that no one is special, thus everyone is just as likely as anyone else to fall victim to implicit biases, allows one to remind themselves that their first impressions of a situation are not always right.

I just want to throw my two cents into this, because I am subscribed to both Gary Edwards and Steve Shives and have been watching the e-drama build. I will just come out and say that in this situation, I believe Gary Edwards is coming off better than Steve Shives. However, I believe this has far more to do with Gary Edwards responding with a well thought out (most likely drafted several times) response to a live discussion Steve Shives was having with someone else. I remember watching the Steve Shives hangout Gary Edwards is responding to and thinking several times that Steve Shives was handling it poorly. Nevertheless, keep in mind that Steve Shives is having a live informal discussion, thus thinking of things on the fly. I am not sure what Steve Shives does for a living (it appears he is a fulltime YouTuber), but I do not think he does “social justice warrioring” as his day job or hobby. My take on it; Steve Shives saw something he believes the “atheist community on YouTube” has been handling very poorly and wanted to at least help the cause of feminism on YouTube by bringing it attention. What I am trying to say is since I am an archaeologist and I spend my free time arguing with reality deniers, I believe I would do well in a live discussion about evolution or anthropogenic climate change (I could probably do it in my sleep). I always cringe when I see a random atheist trying to defend evolution against a creationist in a live discussion, because they are making almost as many factual errors as the creationist. I am sure in a live discussion about feminism, I would come off just as poorly as Steve Shives did; that subject is not in my domain. Thus, as a novice feminist seeing things wrong with Steve Shives’s discussion, I can only imagine how bad an actual feminist activist must feel watching that live discussion.

However, this video once again shows what AronRa was saying; in that, “feminism can only be fixed from within”, seeing as Gary Edwards is also a feminist.

 

[SpecialFrog]

t is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers.

i'm not sure where you got that quote, but i think you are being mislead.

I know who Gelles is and I have every reason to think that the quote is accurate. I can find multiple sources for it, such as here.

But can you find one, done by Gelles or Murray themselves?
The link provided only attributed the quote to Gelles, but i wasn't able to find Gelles making it himself.

The book has a citation. I'm on mobile now so can't look it up now.

While I agree that men are victims of abuse by partners, most likely in greater numbers than many people realize, I have posted two articles that show that abuse of women by partners is still a sigificantly larger issue and that both Gelles and Straus agree.

You show no indication of having read either article as your random bits from Wikipedia don't actually refute what either of them says.

I had read through it, but i found little to be meaningfull for the discussion.

The first arcitcle cited other data -- such as that from shelters -- that is inconsistent with what you are claiming. How is that not meaningful?

A second purpose is to show that, dispite the much lower probability of physical injury resulting from attacks by women, women produce a substantial percentage of all injuries and fatalities from partner violence.

I don't dispute that but it does not support your claim that it happens equally to men and women. A "substantial percentage" is not the same as "50%". 10% is "substantial" in terms of real numbers.

Incidentally, Wikipedia is generally reliable for scientific articles but not so much for feminism.

are you sure? I found the wiki article on feminism to be quite extensive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

I didn't say all articles on feminism were bad, just that it was less reliable. I gave specific examples of questionable sources used as a basis for quotes you pulled from other articles.

here is an interesting question for you to answer.
For whom would such findings be detrimental? who would go so far as sending death threats?
this is not an accusation, just a question.

I don't know without much more context.

Well then, isn't about time to investigate it and obtain more content and context?

To what end? If you link something I'll read it.

I haven't tried to convince you of that. I asked if you thought that feminism did do this. Do you agree that combatting rigid idead of gender roles helps men?
If so I can provide evidence that feminism does do this which demonstrates that it does indeed help men.
If you don't think combatting rigid ideas of gender helps men then there is little point in providing evidence for this.

So i first need to agree with you, before you can/will show me the evidence?

Read what I said again.

I asked you to agree that men would be helped by combatting rigid ideas of gender. This is unrelated to whether or not feminism does this, which I am not asking you to agree with without evidence.

If you agree with the first statement then I can demonstrate to your satisfaction that feminism helps men by demonstrating the second premise only. If you do not I have to demonstrate both statements are true.

Surely you have seen enough discussions with creationists on here to recognize the value in finding what parts of your argument the other person already accepts.

you think, because i (might) disagree with you, that i will not be able to change my mind?

Let's not pretend to know what the other thinks but has not said.

Also, you declined to name any MRA entities we could evaluate to see whether or not calling them "misogynist" is accurate.

 

[nemesiss]

But can you find one, done by Gelles or Murray themselves?
The link provided only attributed the quote to Gelles, but i wasn't able to find Gelles making it himself.

The book has a citation. I'm on mobile now so can't look it up now.

That's not an answer, that's an excuse.
if you can/want address it at a later time, that is fine.
if you can't/don't want to, that is fine too.

While I agree that men are victims of abuse by partners, most likely in greater numbers than many people realize, I have posted two articles that show that abuse of women by partners is still a sigificantly larger issue and that both Gelles and Straus agree.

You show no indication of having read either article as your random bits from Wikipedia don't actually refute what either of them says.

I had read through it, but i found little to be meaningfull for the discussion.

The first arcitcle cited other data -- such as that from shelters -- that is inconsistent with what you are claiming. How is that not meaningful?

citing other data, from shelters?

let's first state how to properly use citations, this seems to be decent representation.
http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/apa/citations

conclusion: they are not citations.
if you can't tell how or where you get the data and someone can't verify it (easily), it's not very useful and losses it's meaning.
note: This is not your fault, but that of the author. unless you happen to be the author.

As for as providing articles,
you've shown no good argument against using CTS for studies.
You've shown no alternative methodologies to use.
you've shown no evidence that the results of the studies using the CTS methodology is wrong, at best incomplete.
you've shown nothing on how the MRA interprets such studies and how their interpretation is wrong.
you've shown no reason for a dispute between the MRA and Strauss and Gelles.

you've got quite the work cut out for you....

I haven't tried to convince you of that. I asked if you thought that feminism did do this. Do you agree that combatting rigid idead of gender roles helps men?
If so I can provide evidence that feminism does do this which demonstrates that it does indeed help men.
If you don't think combatting rigid ideas of gender helps men then there is little point in providing evidence for this.

So i first need to agree with you, before you can/will show me the evidence?

Read what I said again.
I asked you to agree that men would be helped by combatting rigid ideas of gender. This is unrelated to whether or not feminism does this, which I am not asking you to agree with without evidence.
If you agree with the first statement then I can demonstrate to your satisfaction that feminism helps men by demonstrating the second premise only. If you do not I have to demonstrate both statements are true.
Surely you have seen enough discussions with creationists on here to recognize the value in finding what parts of your argument the other person already accepts.

In discussions with creationists, i do find it important to know what said creationist understands of evolution. what (s)he agrees with/accept, but also what (s)he does NOT agrees with/accept and why. some of those disagreements are simply due ignorance or not understand the topics and those need to be addressed.

As already shown in this same discussion with he_who_is_nobody,
it's not about combatting, it's the solution and outcome that is important.

With just combatting it, you have 4 possible outcomes.
1 - problem has been solved (partially).
2 - the problem has not been solved
3 - the problem has been made worse
4 - the problem has been solved, but a new problem is created, no real change.

You need a (good) solution to make certain you obtain the desired outcome.
as already stated, the solution that Judy Haiven proposed would result in the fourth outcome, at worse the third.
the solution he_who_is_nobody proposed, would result in the first.

due to the vagueness of your statement, you have giving no indication what the outcome will be.
due to vast and different situations, it's not good to address it with a broad approach without any clear description.
If you want a discussion on the effectiveness of combatting gender roles, you need to present them and it must be clear what is being combatted.
Based on that, we might be able to establish which groups are being helped, which groups are being hurt and also if it actually solves anything.

you might be to demonstrate (with statisfaction) that your statements are true... or not. depending on what you bring forth.

you think, because i (might) disagree with you, that i will not be able to change my mind?

Let's not pretend to know what the other thinks but has not said.
Also, you declined to name any MRA entities we could evaluate to see whether or not calling them "misogynist" is accurate.

As for declining to name MRA entities, im interested in ideas not identities.
such discussions i find juvenile, boring and non-productive, I think i've made that clear already.
if you want to make a list of misogynists and misandrists and see which is longer, be my guest but im not going to help you with it.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

As already shown in this same discussion with he_who_is_nobody,
it's not about combatting, it's the solution and outcome that is important.

With just combatting it, you have 4 possible outcomes.
1 - problem has been solved (partially).
2 - the problem has not been solved
3 - the problem has been made worse
4 - the problem has been solved, but a new problem is created, no real change.

You need a (good) solution to make certain you obtain the desired outcome.
as already stated, the solution that Judy Haiven proposed would result in the fourth outcome, at worse the third.
the solution he_who_is_nobody proposed, would result in the first.

I will make myself clear. I am not opposed to Haiven's solution. Honestly, I am happy to see anyone take a stand and try to combat terrible statistics that are unfair to any group. Haiven solution is something teachers could try and implement today (while still being underpaid and having 15+ students in their classes) to try and address something they see as a disparity.

My solution is pie in the sky. It would take an act of congress to get something like that implemented, and I am not sure how familiar you are with the politics of the U.S., but that is not going to happen anytime soon. We have one whole party that thinks solutions to our problems are outlawing abortion and cutting money to education (to name just two of their [sarcasm]brilliant[/sarcasm] ideas). Trying to get any laws to increase teacher pay is not going to happen for the foreseeable future.

I will praise any teacher that wants to try to take matters into their own hands and try something to fix a problem. The U.S. government is not going to step in and help. The problem (and and solutions) fall directly on the teachers. Thus, I am sure if you hand any solutions to this problem, teachers across the U.S. would be all ears.

 

[Laurens]

I'm not quite sure what a debate over who has the correct interpretation of domestic violence statistics is trying to achieve. I've never heard a feminist denying that men are sometimes the victims of domestic abuse. Surely what all parties should strive for is a world in which no domestic violence occurs.

I don't know what "it happens to us too" contributes other than a distraction from the real issue of what we can do about it.

It's an unproductive point to raise considering that no one so far as I can tell is arguing the opposite. Statistics and methods can always be debated and interpreted, but behind all this are people who are suffering and that is what we should address.

Using the statistics as a red herring in order to make an argument against feminism where it's not warranted is pretty pathetic. From what I see it's feminists saying "look at these statistics we need to address these societal ills" and a few disgruntled men going "men get attacked too, you must hate men"

Sent from my HTC Desire 510 using Tapatalk

 

[nemesiss]

I'm not quite sure what a debate over who has the correct interpretation of domestic violence statistics is trying to achieve. I've never heard a feminist denying that men are sometimes the victims of domestic abuse. Surely what all parties should strive for is a world in which no domestic violence occurs.

I don't know what "it happens to us too" contributes other than a distraction from the real issue of what we can do about it.

It's an unproductive point to raise considering that no one so far as I can tell is arguing the opposite. Statistics and methods can always be debated and interpreted, but behind all this are people who are suffering and that is what we should address.

Using the statistics as a red herring in order to make an argument against feminism where it's not warranted is pretty pathetic. From what I see it's feminists saying "look at these statistics we need to address these societal ills" and a few disgruntled men going "men get attacked too, you must hate men"

This isn't about correct interpretation, this is about having all the facts.
If every domestic/partner violence expert is saying that it's equal for both genders for years now, why hasn't it become common knowledge?
A part of this is indeed media coverage and public perception, but there is more to it.

Here is a video of Murray Straus explaining it and what methods are used for prevention, starts around 18 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0eSqoXVwjI

If you rather read then watch:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf

As for you argument of "never heard a feminist denying that men are sometimes the victims of domestic abuse", i'm glad that you are around feminists that do not trivialise the issue, I really am.
Unfortunately, they are not the problem. the problem lies with the feminist theory. (note: feminist theory is not the only problem for domestic abuse)
Feminist theory relies on the existence of patriarchy, a social system where males hold the power.
If patriarchy can't be the (sole) reason that causes these issues (can't be a victim if you have the power), this means they have to either admit this... or do "something else"... see the methods mentioned.

At first, i also held the same position as you... but now that i've been looking into the subject more and more... i can no longer hold that position.

 

[Laurens]

This isn't about correct interpretation, this is about having all the facts.
If every domestic/partner violence expert is saying that it's equal for both genders for years now, why hasn't it become common knowledge?
A part of this is indeed media coverage and public perception, but there is more to it.

That is a rather bold statement to be making. To say that every domestic violence expert is saying that it is equal for both genders would require some evidence to back it up.

A cursory search for me finds that it affects 1 in 4 women, and 1 in 6 men. The same source states that roughly 2 women are murdered in domestic violence compared to 30 men per year. That's roughly 3.5 times more women than men. So according to this a woman is significantly more likely to die at the hands of a man in domestic abuse than the other way around.

Here is another link that suggests higher percentages of women facing domestic violence.

Of course the lower percentages of men still matter, but I have a hard time finding anything that indicates it to be equal.

Here is a video of Murray Straus explaining it and what methods are used for prevention, starts around 18 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0eSqoXVwjI

If you rather read then watch:
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf

This seems to be a fairly comprehensive rebuttal of his arguments. Or if you prefer a source without feminism in the title Wikipedia has a nice summary of the problems with the CTS

As for you argument of "never heard a feminist denying that men are sometimes the victims of domestic abuse", i'm glad that you are around feminists that do not trivialise the issue, I really am.
Unfortunately, they are not the problem. the problem lies with the feminist theory. (note: feminist theory is not the only problem for domestic abuse)
Feminist theory relies on the existence of patriarchy, a social system where males hold the power.
If patriarchy can't be the (sole) reason that causes these issues (can't be a victim if you have the power), this means they have to either admit this... or do "something else"... see the methods mentioned.

I can't quite tell whether you are denying that the patriarchy exists. Men do undoubtedly hold much of the positions of power in the world. If you look at the government in England for example, 191 out of 650 MPs are female, which is nowhere near representative of 50% of the population. I won't go too far down that rabbit hole though.

I haven't seen anything to convince me that men suffer equally at the hands of women, other than the guy you mention, who relies on questionable methods.

Every death, and every victim at the hands of domestic violence matters. But given that women appear more likely to suffer from it, and far more likely to be murdered because of it, I'd say it is something that women should justifiably speak against.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

As for you argument of "never heard a feminist denying that men are sometimes the victims of domestic abuse", i'm glad that you are around feminists that do not trivialise the issue, I really am.
Unfortunately, they are not the problem. the problem lies with the feminist theory. (note: feminist theory is not the only problem for domestic abuse)
Feminist theory relies on the existence of patriarchy, a social system where males hold the power.
If patriarchy can't be the (sole) reason that causes these issues (can't be a victim if you have the power), this means they have to either admit this... or do "something else"... see the methods mentioned.

I can't quite tell whether you are denying that the patriarchy exists. Men do undoubtedly hold much of the positions of power in the world. If you look at the government in England for example, 191 out of 650 MPs are female, which is nowhere near representative of 50% of the population. I won't go too far down that rabbit hole though.

I read that statement and thought the same thing (i.e. denying patriarchy’s existence) as well. However, I believe this stems from the word “patriarchy” and how it is used in different context. Much like evolution, faith, and a whole host of other terms, context is key and equivocations about these terms are a dime a dozen. That is why I think SpecialFrog’s track of questioning is the best way to handle this conversation.

SpecialFrog[/url]"]That's not the point. Do you agree that feminism seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles? If so, do you agree that this also benefits men?

To state this slightly differently: In a custody dispute for children, courts side with the mother because it is believed mothers are more caring. Does questioning that assumption (i.e. rigid idea of gender) help men?

 

[Laurens]

SpecialFrog[/url]"]That's not the point. Do you agree that feminism seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles? If so, do you agree that this also benefits men?

To state this slightly differently: In a custody dispute for children, courts side with the mother because it is believed mothers are more caring. Does questioning that assumption (i.e. rigid idea of gender) help men?

Whilst this is true, I don't think its necessarily productive for a group of men to frame feminism in terms of how it benefits men.

Sure men suffer due to gender roles, but women have suffered far more substantially from it throughout history and sadly to this day. I mean how long has it been that leaving a husband was even an option for a woman?

The reason I think it is not productive is because men shouldn't have to see things in terms of how it affects them to support it.

How about the fact that women are paid substantially less than men? How about the fact that women are not fairly represented in politics or as CEOs etc? How about the fact that women suffer harassment in the street from entitled men who think they have the right to make lewd remarks at strangers because they find them attractive? Or face abuse from men complaining about being "friend-zoned" as though being friends (or doing anything other than having a sexual relationship) with a woman is a worthless enterprise?

These are things that men do not have to face, and it really shouldn't have to be framed in our favour to make us see that these things should change.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The reason I think it is not productive is because men shouldn't have to see things in terms of how it affects them to support it.

How about the fact that women are paid substantially less than men? How about the fact that women are not fairly represented in politics or as CEOs etc? How about the fact that women suffer harassment in the street from entitled men who think they have the right to make lewd remarks at strangers because they find them attractive? Or face abuse from men complaining about being "friend-zoned" as though being friends (or doing anything other than having a sexual relationship) with a woman is a worthless enterprise?

These are things that men do not have to face, and it really shouldn't have to be framed in our favour to make us see that these things should change.

You are right. In addition, I would like to get back to those issues (throw in easy access to contraception/abortions) and you have what I feel should be the focus for any feminists/egalitarianists movement in the west. Fighting over minor differences like this gets us nowhere. You do not like the label feminist or egalitarianist? I do not care, because it is the actions one takes that should define us, not the labels one wears.

 

[nemesiss]

This seems to be a fairly comprehensive rebuttal of his arguments. Or if you prefer a source without feminism in the title Wikipedia has a nice summary of the problems with the CTS

Actually, i already stated that the criticism mentioned on the wiki page are valid points to be critical of the CTS.
Given that the Conflict Tactics Scale methodology can be a discussion on it's own, i think is deserves it's own thread, so that this discussion can remain on-topic.
The reason we are having the discussion anyway, was because SpecialFrog made the following statement:

...Even the creators of the CTS methodology dispute its interpretation by MRAs.

When looking for more information about it, i could not find anything of such, except the opposite.

As for you argument of "never heard a feminist denying that men are sometimes the victims of domestic abuse", i'm glad that you are around feminists that do not trivialise the issue, I really am.
Unfortunately, they are not the problem. the problem lies with the feminist theory. (note: feminist theory is not the only problem for domestic abuse)
Feminist theory relies on the existence of patriarchy, a social system where males hold the power.
If patriarchy can't be the (sole) reason that causes these issues (can't be a victim if you have the power), this means they have to either admit this... or do "something else"... see the methods mentioned.

I can't quite tell whether you are denying that the patriarchy exists. Men do undoubtedly hold much of the positions of power in the world. If you look at the government in England for example, 191 out of 650 MPs are female, which is nowhere near representative of 50% of the population. I won't go too far down that rabbit hole though.

I haven't seen anything to convince me that men suffer equally at the hands of women, other than the guy you mention, who relies on questionable methods.

Every death, and every victim at the hands of domestic violence matters. But given that women appear more likely to suffer from it, and far more likely to be murdered because of it, I'd say it is something that women should justifiably speak against.

the only thing is deny about patriarchy, it that it exists as "a global institution hell-bend on making women suffer and taking away their rights or keeps women having rights".
the biggest problem i have with the term patriarchy, is how is being used, not with the dictionary definition.
But given who people use it, i have to deal with it in such terms.
why the meaning of the word "patriarchy" has become so different, that is an interesting question... but i wonder how relevant it is for this discussion....

SpecialFrog[/url]"]That's not the point. Do you agree that feminism seeks to combat rigid ideas of gender roles? If so, do you agree that this also benefits men?

To state this slightly differently: In a custody dispute for children, courts side with the mother because it is believed mothers are more caring. Does questioning that assumption (i.e. rigid idea of gender) help men?

actually, that is quite different, going from statement to an example.
a small adjustment to that example to make it more in line:

To state this slightly differently: In a custody dispute for children, courts side, by default, with the mother because it is believed mothers are more caring. Does questioning combatting that assumption (i.e. rigid idea of gender) help men?

Whenever i hear the term "Combat", i think of fighting and the next thing i think is "who or what are you fighting?", "what are you fighting for, what is you goal?". These questions, in my opinion, are not answered.

But anyway, Given your example, here are some possible solutions for "helping" men:
A - Women/mothers should have exclusive rights on the children.
B - the rights as they are should remain unchanged
C - men/fathers and women/fathers should have equal rights
D - men/fathers should (by default) have more rights then women/mothers on the children
E - men/fathers should have exclusive rights on the children

additionally, you can question which of these options help men and also how you define this as "helping/benefits" and "hurting/detriments".
For all these options, there are arguments that can be made that they are helping and/or hurting men, at the same time.

So, again, i am not able to agree on such an heavily overly simplified statement.
Additionally to that, i also can not disagree with it either.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

To state this slightly differently: In a custody dispute for children, courts side with the mother because it is believed mothers are more caring. Does questioning that assumption (i.e. rigid idea of gender) help men?

actually, that is quite different, going from statement to an example.
a small adjustment to that example to make it more in line:

To state this slightly differently: In a custody dispute for children, courts side, by default, with the mother because it is believed mothers are more caring. Does questioning combatting that assumption (i.e. rigid idea of gender) help men?

I agree with how you restated my question.

Whenever i hear the term "Combat", i think of fighting and the next thing i think is "who or what are you fighting?", "what are you fighting for, what is you goal?". These questions, in my opinion, are not answered.

In this case we are combating the implicit bias of the courts to default to the mother because of the underlying assumption that women are more caring. The reason courts default to the mother is because of this assumption based on gender. If that assumption were removed, courts would not be able to default to women. Seems obvious to me.

But anyway, Given your example, here are some possible solutions for "helping" men:
A - Women/mothers should have exclusive rights on the children.
B - the rights as they are should remain unchanged
C - men/fathers and women/fathers should have equal rights
D - men/fathers should (by default) have more rights then women/mothers on the children
E - men/fathers should have exclusive rights on the children

additionally, you can question which of these options help men and also how you define this as "helping/benefits" and "hurting/detriments".
For all these options, there are arguments that can be made that they are helping and/or hurting men, at the same time.

I reject all those and instead assert that custody should be awarded to the parent who has been the primary caregiver to that point. That means social workers would have to step in and interview the children, extended family, and neighbors/teachers to find this out. However, honestly I believe the parent should always try to share custody before other steps are taken.

You see how rejecting gender roles in custody cases can benefit the parent that is the primary caregiver without favoring one gender over the other?

So, again, i am not able to agree on such an heavily overly simplified statement.
Additionally to that, i also can not disagree with it either.

Agnostic is an adjective, not a noun.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

I came across this today...

#BBCtrending: Meet the 'Women Against Feminism'

Their complaint being that feminism has become "toxic" due to extremism .

Kindest regards,

James

 

[nemesiss]

So, again, i am not able to agree on such an heavily overly simplified statement.
Additionally to that, i also can not disagree with it either.

Agnostic is an adjective, not a noun.

But undecided is a noun.

Whenever i hear the term "Combat", i think of fighting and the next thing i think is "who or what are you fighting?", "what are you fighting for, what is you goal?". These questions, in my opinion, are not answered.

In this case we are combating the implicit bias of the courts to default to the mother because of the underlying assumption that women are more caring. The reason courts default to the mother is because of this assumption based on gender. If that assumption were removed, courts would not be able to default to women. Seems obvious to me.

Thank you for the clarification.
And i actually agree with the solution your gave, which is most in line with option C.
but i understand your rejection.

I am in agreement that rejecting gender roles, with the example giving, is indeed a good thing.
However, not everyone would agree with you.
You can find feminists who would agree with you, partially or in total disagreement.
this is probably also true for those who called themselves MRA's, and those who reject both labels.


https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/20980-as-it-was-and-ever-shall-be-now-opposes-equal-rights-for-fathers

http://thoughtcatalog.com/janet-bloomfield/2015/03/if-feminism-is-about-equality-why-do-feminists-oppose-equality/

Feminism doesn’t care about men, children, or even women. They care about their jobs. Being a feminist is profitable. Which is why NOW came out against mediated custody settlements, too.

And this is where we can cross-over to the comment of Dragon glas with the following:

Greetings,

I came across this today...

#BBCtrending: Meet the 'Women Against Feminism'

Their complaint being that feminism has become "toxic" due to extremism .

Kindest regards,

James

this is why i look at how people use words, not just to the dictionary definition.
For the simple reason that the meaning of words can change over time.

i think this quite a large list of points about why people think feminism isn't about equality, might help.
http://anti-feminism-pro-equality.tumblr.com/badwomen

perhaps it's time to segregate the factions of feminism, to cleanse it of it's undesirables...?

 

[nemesiss]

Additionally, im quite curious about this the red pill documentary after watching this talk...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lDy14Lq2kM

http://www.theredpillmovie.com/