ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 14th April 2019, 09:10 AM   #481
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,958
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I'd love to engage with this more deeply, but first, I think we have to confirm we're talking about the same book. The invisible knapsack I read was written by Peggy McIntosh. Who is Peggy White?

EDIT: If you are mistaken about something as simple as the name of the author, are you open to the possibility that you have made some mistakes in your interpretation of the text as well?
Oops,. it was McIntosh. I just googled "invisible knapsack". Dunno for sure where I got White from, but I can make a guess.
Stout is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 09:42 AM   #482
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Now, joint custody is becoming more common, so things may have changed since 1992. But there was (and possibly still is) a stigma on non-custodial mothers than non-custodial fathers like myself never encountered.
You don't call it being accepted as the norm that fathers will be automatically less fit to look after their children than mothers a stigma? You don't call it being assumed that a father doesn't care as much about the child as the mother a stigma?

And if you want to use the frequency with which mothers are awarded custody over fathers as evidence of the truth of that second statement then that is the very definition of a self fulfilling prophecy.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy

Last edited by Georgio; 14th April 2019 at 09:45 AM.
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 10:23 AM   #483
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
No. No one ever asked why I didn’t have custody of my daughter. It’s the norm for the father to not have custody. No one bats an eye when you bow out activities for your weekend. (I’m talking custody, not visitation).

It is not the norm for the mother to not have custody. When it happens the first thing that pops into a lot of peoples heads is: “must be s bad mother.”

Now, joint custody is becoming more common, so things may have changed since 1992. But there was (and possibly still is) a stigma on non-custodial mothers than non-custodial fathers like myself never encountered.
On the other hand the cause of this is that fathers are assumed to be worse parents than mothers by default.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 10:28 AM   #484
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,958
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
This is a much better article on all that: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/expla...rson_b_5269255
I don't know, I like mine better.

What exactly are we supposed to do with this concept of privilege then ? Why is it important ?

Even children know how much life for someone in a wheelchair can suck.
Stout is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 10:47 AM   #485
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
I don't know, I like mine better.

What exactly are we supposed to do with this concept of privilege then ? Why is it important ?

Even children know how much life for someone in a wheelchair can suck.
It just keeps you in touch with reality, is all.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 10:52 AM   #486
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
On the other hand the cause of this is that fathers are assumed to be worse parents than mothers by default.
Well, I'd say that it's more that typically, the child has a stronger attachment to the mother.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 10:53 AM   #487
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,958
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
It just keeps you in touch with reality, is all.
OK, I'll buy that.
Stout is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 12:35 PM   #488
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,392
Originally Posted by dann View Post
In the case of the USA, I assume that you both mean post slavery, right?!
No. There were not many rich slaves and most people couldn't afford to "keep" a slave.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 12:40 PM   #489
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,392
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
I don't think it ignores the benefits of wealth. Discussion of other kinds of privilege in the way the term is used lately in social analysis happened because the advantages of sex and race tended to be comparatively invisible.



In fact, the term "White Privilege" was pretty much introduced to the public in Peggy McIntosh's "The invisible Knapsack".



Talking about "privilege" was introduced as a way of talking about those differences and benefits that were not so obvious as wealth, social class and overt racism. The concept was designed to point to those widespread differences of experience which people in the "privileged" group were often unaware of.



Personally, responding to talk about privilege with "what about wealth, that's a much bigger deal!" strikes me as a bit in the same vane as getting offened by the phrase "Black Lives Matter".



Saying Black Lives Matter does not mean that white lives matter less. And point out male or white privilege does not mean that economic issues aren't incredibly important.
But if we want to understand society we can't ignore wealth, it either indirectly or directly influences nearly all social dynamics. Therefore to ignore it means any theory we put forward, any model we create to help us understand other issues of privlage will be flawed from the start.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 12:53 PM   #490
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,792
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But if we want to understand society we can't ignore wealth, it either indirectly or directly influences nearly all social dynamics. Therefore to ignore it means any theory we put forward, any model we create to help us understand other issues of privlage will be flawed from the start.
Who is suggesting we ignore wealth?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:01 PM   #491
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,392
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
I’m not talking about political power. I’m talking about every day authority. Who is the head of the household? Who has the career/breadwinner role? Who has the supportive role?



Things like that. If you are talking about political power you completely miss the point.
Problem is that it is not the case that we can simply say that in the past that "men were the head of the household", in some families especially the wealthier families this would be very true but in many if not most working class families it would have been anything but. The women often made all the decisions in regards to the family everything from the finances to where to holiday (working class not the bereft poor), who their children would associate with, the small and the large decisions of day to day life were their responsibility.

Now of course this doesn't mean that women weren't (especially in regards to the law) seen as subservient to men and subsequently discriminated against. But this is why we have to look at all factors in a society, if we only consider society in regards to patriarchal v matriarchal we can't actually explain what we used to see, in other words the theories don't match the evidence. There is simply no way we can extract wealth from these theories and models and then use them to explain how society functioned.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:08 PM   #492
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,392
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Well, I'd say that it's more that typically, the child has a stronger attachment to the mother.
I have to ask for your evidence of this, sounds like something Freud would have made up.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:10 PM   #493
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,392
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Who is suggesting we ignore wealth?
I thought you were, mainly because of this "... Personally, responding to talk about privilege with "what about wealth, that's a much bigger deal!".... "
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:18 PM   #494
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,125
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
This is a much better article on all that: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/expla...rson_b_5269255

Yes, it's great.
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:19 PM   #495
kellyb
Penultimate Amazing
 
kellyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,631
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I have to ask for your evidence of this, sounds like something Freud would have made up.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile...7f783016b2.pdf
Quote:
Mothers typically fulfill the role of primary attachment figure during childhood, but what about during adolescence?
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c4b...c07e21b98d.pdf
Quote:
A third problem is that the list of attachment behaviors is limited to those
that occur with the primary attachment figure, typically the mother.
__________________
"We are enjoined, no matter how uncomfortable it might be, to consider ourselves and our cultural institutions scientifically — not to accept uncritically whatever we’re told; to surmount as best we can our hopes, conceits, and unexamined beliefs; to view ourselves as we really are." - Carl Sagan

Last edited by kellyb; 14th April 2019 at 01:28 PM.
kellyb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:51 PM   #496
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 15,734
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
Black lives matter, white lives matter, but male privilege is bollocks unless we conveniently define 'men' to mean 'the richest, most powerful men'. It's called the Apex Fallacy.
Speaking of defining " men " ...

When the founding fathers ( USA ) penned the Declaration of Independence, and declared that " ... all men are created equal " you can rest assured that " men " in that context didn't mean what it does today.

It pretty much meant " white, male landowners " ...
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 01:57 PM   #497
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
This is a much better article on all that: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/expla...rson_b_5269255
"If you were born male, you can assume that you can walk through a parking garage without worrying that you’ll be raped and then have to deal with a defense attorney blaming it on what you were wearing"

No, you just know that if you're raped by a woman then it isn't rape, and if it's an attractive woman that forces herself on you you will be told, even by most of your friends, that you were lucky that it happened. You can also know that you can be falsely accused of rape at any moment and the wider world you live in is being told to 'listen to and believe women'.

You can also know that if you are physically assaulted by a woman and defend yourself, you will be the one who is ostracised because 'You never hit a lady'.

And men are more likely than women to be attacked on the street.

But yeah, male privilege...
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 02:35 PM   #498
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
On the other hand the cause of this is that fathers are assumed to be worse parents than mothers by default.
True. Which is why a woman who doesn't gain custody after the divorce must be a terrible mother and, by extension, woman, right?

I'm not saying that the family courts/divorce doesn't suck for men. I'm saying that it also sucks for women.

Basically, divorce sucks. Family court sucks. They just suck in different ways for each gender. Very few people are having a good time here. And neither gender has a monopoly on screwing over their ex.

The problem is that it's been made into a battle of sides. Women have legitimate issues which feminist activists have historically advocated for. Men have legitimate issues that men's groups have started advocating for.

I think one of the problems with the MRA movement is that they are perceived as a reaction or a counter/pushback to feminism. I'm not sure if this is because people within the movement presented themselves this way or if its because some feminists perceived attention to men's issues as taking attention and resources from women's issues.

They are fighting at different areas of the same battlefield and don't trust each other. Sometimes their causes are at odds. But not always. And neither side should define the other as always the enemy. And it's ridiculous to expect each group to advocate the other's causes. Men's issues are outside the scope of feminism and women's issues are outside the scope of men's rights groups.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 02:48 PM   #499
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,792
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I thought you were, mainly because of this "... Personally, responding to talk about privilege with "what about wealth, that's a much bigger deal!".... "
The snarky part of me might point out that the sentence fragment you're quoting does not mean what you seem to think it means.

That out of the way, let me rephrase so I'm clear.

Wealth matters a lot. Other things matter too. We can talk about those other things on their own. Not ignoring wealth. it just doesn't always need to be the focus.

Poverty is also a central factor in bad health outcomes, but we can have a lot of conversations about medical intervention and resources that aren't about wealth. Again, not ignoring wealth. If someone says "Hey childhood cancer is a big problem" or starts a conversation or a study about childhood cancer, noone stops them and says "Yeah, but lack of wealth is the real killer". We understand that the world has space to explore multiple problems.

In the case of privilege, we can establish gendered privilege, and we can explore the way that intersects with wealth and class. We can also pull it apart and focus on particular facets.

I can't say for certain, but your posts as well as a few other posters in this thread seem to be based on a particular misinterpretation of the idea of "male privilege" that colors a lot of the assumptions and readings in these discussions. "Male privilege" does not entail that men are the most privileged or that gender is the most important kind of privilege. Some people think so, but it's not inherent in the general concept, no one in this thread thinks so, and neither did the people who coined the phrase.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 02:52 PM   #500
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,792
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
On the other hand the cause of this is that fathers are assumed to be worse parents than mothers by default.
The causes of a lot of gendered issues can be spun at least two ways.

You can say it's assumed that men are worse at parenting. You can also say that it's assumed that childcare is the woman's responsibility.

I'd prefer to highlight that old gender roles lock everyone into expectations that may not reflect their strengths, preferences and values.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 02:57 PM   #501
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Men's issues are outside the scope of feminism and women's issues are outside the scope of men's rights groups.
But what about something like domestic violence 'treatment'? The very reason why it is so disgracefully one-sided is precisely because of feminist lobbying and feminist ideology (The Duluth Model). The problem here is directly caused by feminism. How can you address the problem if you can't address its cause?

And I don't accept that men's rights groups are in any way comparable to feminist groups in the way they attempt to shut down anyone discussing issues from any other frame of reference than theirs. I can give you literally dozens of examples of feminists blocking and violently protesting men's rights groups from even meeting - the last International Conference on Men's Issues had to keep its location a secret until the last minute because of planned 'protests' by feminists. I challenge anyone to find me a single, solitary example of a men's rights group shutting down discussion of women's issues or feminism. It's another reason why saying things like 'I would support the men's rights movement but it's so anti-feminist' is absurd because it is feminists who are actively trying to stop us from being able to discuss these issues. It's like saying, 'I'm happy to help you put out the fire, but I'm not prepared to turn off the flame-thrower'

It's all circular. The only way to break the circle is to try and get people to stop equating feminism with egalitarianism; that's why that is a focus of so many MRAs, including myself. After you've done that, the one and only objection a lot of people have to the men's rights movement (that it's anti-feminist) ceases to be an objection because they realise that anti-feminist does not mean anti-equality; quite the opposite.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 03:19 PM   #502
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
"If you were born male, you can assume that you can walk through a parking garage without worrying that you’ll be raped and then have to deal with a defense attorney blaming it on what you were wearing"
Well...I've never walked through a prking garage and been worried about being raped. So that's true. I HAVE been worried about safety from violence, but that's not a male exclusive thing. So yeah, women might have something more to worry about there. And when my friend was mugged after a party in college, no one commented on what he was wearing when it happened. (The perps were rich frat guys who just did it to see what it was like to rob someone.)
Quote:
No, you just know that if you're raped by a woman then it isn't rape, and if it's an attractive woman that forces herself on you you will be told, even by most of your friends, that you were lucky that it happened.
Yes, men being raped by women needs to be taken more seriously. But it seems like it's mostly men who make those comments. Right or wrong, men seem to perceive the idea of being forced or coerced to penetrate as being less traumatic than women perceive being forcibly or coercively penetrated. But being forcibly penetrated by another guy seems to be considered more traumatic. (See Ode to Billy Joe.)
Quote:
You can also know that you can be falsely accused of rape at any moment and the wider world you live in is being told to 'listen to and believe women'.
Here I agree. It should not be "listen and believe." It should be listen, take seriously, and do not dismiss without investigating. Which is what had been happening. (See Weinstein, Harvey.)
Quote:
You can also know that if you are physically assaulted by a woman and defend yourself, you will be the one who is ostracised because 'You never hit a lady'.
Again, valid point. And part of our humor has been men beaten on by women. (See Snuffy Smiff cartoons.)

However, I know women who have come to work with black eyes. I know a woman who drove her husband to the hospital because he broke his hand trying to hit her. (Missed and hit the wall behind her instead.)

In domestic disputes, there are often conflicting stories and no witnesses. People make judgments on who they find the most credible given what they know of the couple and physical differences. Not too much you can legislate away, there.
Quote:

And men are more likely than women to be attacked on the street.
...by men, usually.
Quote:
But yeah, male privilege...
The fact that men are disadvantaged in some areas does not mean they are not privileged in others. Same with women. But in the past a MGTOW would be described as a "Confirmed Bachelor." A WGTOW would be an "old maid." So men could always set their own course while a woman was expected to hitch her wagon to the fortunes of a husband.

Couple gets married, at Thanksgiving the man is asked how his job is going. The woman is asked when they plan to start having children. (Not in every family, obviously, but you get the idea.) It's gender roles really. Women want some of the roles that have previously been reserved for men. Men seem less interested in moving into some of the roles reserved for women.
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 03:46 PM   #503
TomB
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 651
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
But what about something like domestic violence 'treatment'? The very reason why it is so disgracefully one-sided is precisely because of feminist lobbying and feminist ideology (The Duluth Model). The problem here is directly caused by feminism. How can you address the problem if you can't address its cause?

And I don't accept that men's rights groups are in any way comparable to feminist groups in the way they attempt to shut down anyone discussing issues from any other frame of reference than theirs. I can give you literally dozens of examples of feminists blocking and violently protesting men's rights groups from even meeting - the last International Conference on Men's Issues had to keep its location a secret until the last minute because of planned 'protests' by feminists. I challenge anyone to find me a single, solitary example of a men's rights group shutting down discussion of women's issues or feminism. It's another reason why saying things like 'I would support the men's rights movement but it's so anti-feminist' is absurd because it is feminists who are actively trying to stop us from being able to discuss these issues. It's like saying, 'I'm happy to help you put out the fire, but I'm not prepared to turn off the flame-thrower'

It's all circular. The only way to break the circle is to try and get people to stop equating feminism with egalitarianism; that's why that is a focus of so many MRAs, including myself. After you've done that, the one and only objection a lot of people have to the men's rights movement (that it's anti-feminist) ceases to be an objection because they realise that anti-feminist does not mean anti-equality; quite the opposite.
OK, domestic violence....

My personal belief (no statistics to back this up) is that men and women are equally likely to be violent to their partners. However, because of the differences in average physical capabilities (strength, weight, reach) and other factors (experience fighting, knowing how to effectively throw a punch) male violence is likely to be more effective. To be clear, violence from either partner is equally wrong. But male violence is more likely to cause serious damage.

The Duluth model, as I understand it, assumes rests on the belief that violence is a tool men use to control their wives and children. It's kind of the "Because I say so!" response. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think both genders are likely to lash out physically. It is possible that men are more likely to do so in order to take out their stresses from work etc., but again, I don't know this.

What I do know is that if my wife slaps me full force, it will sting. If I slap her full force, she will lose teeth. Domestic violence has been seen as more of a problem for women because of this difference in effect. thus, it's been addressed from that side.

Women have also been, at least until recently, less able to remove themselves from a bad marriage because of their financial dependence on their husbands. If he makes the money and controls the bank accounts, she will have difficulty finding the means just to leave, let alone support herself (and children) at anything like the standard of living she currently has. That's the other reason it has been primarily addressed by feminists. Women are/were more likely to be trapped.

So you disagree with the Duluth model. Fine. I don't really know enough about it to say one way or the other. Do you have an alternative method of intervention that accounts for both the male concerns and the female concerns? How would you address domestic violence?
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 04:53 PM   #504
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Do you have an alternative method of intervention that accounts for both the male concerns and the female concerns? How would you address domestic violence?
I don't know. But I think we can all agree that any model should be based on the consilience of data. With that in mind, we need to stop pretending that it's a gendered issue when it is, in fact, a pattern of learned behaviour in childhood. To stop pretending, in spite of the overwhelming scientific consensus, that domestic violence is something to do with being a man (and a heterosexual man, at that - the Duluth Model doesn't just ignore female perpetrators and male victims, it ignores homosexual perpetrators and victims of both sexes) and that it is always about a man trying to control a woman because patriarchy.

The violence in relationships is most often reciprocal. There needs to be, as Erin Pizzey puts it, a therapeutic approach to both sides. I will admit that I don't have the specific answers for how to treat the problem, but I know that what we're doing now is not based on the scientific consensus; it is based on feminist ideology - that is simply a fact that cannot be avoided.

I suppose the first thing I would want to do is make shelters open to anyone. There is absolutely no reason not to do this, unless one accepts the feminist dogma about men being a threat because they're men.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 05:44 PM   #505
pharphis
Master Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 2,036
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
Well...I've never walked through a prking garage and been worried about being raped. So that's true. I HAVE been worried about safety from violence, but that's not a male exclusive thing. So yeah, women might have something more to worry about there. And when my friend was mugged after a party in college, no one commented on what he was wearing when it happened. (The perps were rich frat guys who just did it to see what it was like to rob someone.)
That doesn't mean that women have something more to worry about. That means that women are more worried about something that they are less likely to be victims of. You can chalk that up to men being reckless/brave/whatever or to women being paranoid/uninformed/whatever.

Are rapes in parking lots anywhere near 1/100th as common as a male being physically attacked? I'm going to guess no.

Quote:

...by men, usually.
There seems to be a habit of dismissing men's problems because some of these are due primarily to a subset of other men's behavior. (in this case stranger violence being mostly male on male). What you've pointed out is in no way a rebuttal to the problem existing. It is instead a common framing technique to somehow blame men (in general) for a problem caused by a tiny subset of men (which make up the majority of violent attackers).

If you don't understand why this framing is problematic or insensitive, consider revisiting the sentence "most black victims are victims of OTHER blacks" which is commonly a derail tactic from addressing some race issues.
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 06:37 PM   #506
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,958
Interesting, it looks like we have NO shelters for men fleeing domestic violence anywhere in Canada. We've got a few counseling centers which feminists appear to hate.
Stout is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 08:18 PM   #507
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
There seems to be a habit of dismissing men's problems because some of these are due primarily to a subset of other men's behavior. (in this case stranger violence being mostly male on male). What you've pointed out is in no way a rebuttal to the problem existing. It is instead a common framing technique to somehow blame men (in general) for a problem caused by a tiny subset of men (which make up the majority of violent attackers).

If you don't understand why this framing is problematic or insensitive, consider revisiting the sentence "most black victims are victims of OTHER blacks" which is commonly a derail tactic from addressing some race issues.
+1000

That is such a common tactic, be it conscious or subconscious; if a men's issue is primarily caused by other men it sort of cancels out to equal no issue at all, and the blameless men have to almost accept the guilt of the guilty men.

The truly hilarious thing, and where we get into real Catch-22 style stuff, is that feminists will tell men the following:

- Stop trying to make women's issues about men. This is all caused by men anyway. Start your own movement to address men's issues

- [Men's Rights Movement started]

- MRA No Way! MRA No Way! You should come to feminism to address your issues. Feminism is about equality for everyone.

- You've created an impossible situation where you have made it impossible for men to discuss their issues. Because I want to discuss men's issues, I now oppose feminism because of this impossible situation you have created.

- You oppose feminism? That means you oppose equality! I told you they were all misogynists! MRA No Way! MRA No Way!
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 08:32 PM   #508
Georgio
Muse
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 634
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Interesting, it looks like we have NO shelters for men fleeing domestic violence anywhere in Canada. We've got a few counseling centers which feminists appear to hate.
A man called Earl Silverman spent years trying to get funding for a men's domestic violence shelter and was frustrated and protested constantly by feminist groups. He ended up killing himself.

I was told in the other thread that he, quote, '...deserved to feel bad because he was bad' because he opposed feminism. I was told this by someone parroting the 'feminism is about equality' stuff.

That last link you gave is the perfect example of what a youtuber called bane666au calls 'Feminism Uber Alles'; meaning that, as I was saying before, feminists will tolerate anything unless it opposes feminism. If it opposes feminism or feminist ideology, it is wrong. Even if it takes its data from the overwhelming scientific consensus on domestic violence, it is still wrong because it opposes feminism.

Look at the language in that last link - they seem to be a good organisation but they don't have a good track record; a lot of what they say is anti-feminist.

'Feminist' is not just used as a synonym for 'egalitarian'; it's used as a synonym for 'objectively true'. It's like a cult - it's really scary.

I don't say that what this or that MRA says is true because it's said by this or that MRA; I supply data collected by non-biased statistical aggregators. Feminists do not do this; they simply say things then refer back to another feminist saying it as proof that it's true.

Someone mentioned Freud earlier and he is a good example of this kind of academic cult thinking; ask anyone who is a believer in Freud's nonsense why any of it is true and they may quote a paper which will then quote another paper which will then go back to something Freud wrote and no further than that. Ever. The final arbitrator of truth will be whether Freud said it; and the final arbiter of truth with feminists is whether a feminist said it, not whether it is backed up by research.
__________________
Violence is a weakness, not a strength. - Sylvester McCoy
Georgio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 11:27 PM   #509
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,392
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
The snarky part of me might point out that the sentence fragment you're quoting does not mean what you seem to think it means.



That out of the way, let me rephrase so I'm clear.



Wealth matters a lot. Other things matter too. We can talk about those other things on their own. Not ignoring wealth. it just doesn't always need to be the focus.



Poverty is also a central factor in bad health outcomes, but we can have a lot of conversations about medical intervention and resources that aren't about wealth. Again, not ignoring wealth. If someone says "Hey childhood cancer is a big problem" or starts a conversation or a study about childhood cancer, noone stops them and says "Yeah, but lack of wealth is the real killer". We understand that the world has space to explore multiple problems.



In the case of privilege, we can establish gendered privilege, and we can explore the way that intersects with wealth and class. We can also pull it apart and focus on particular facets.



I can't say for certain, but your posts as well as a few other posters in this thread seem to be based on a particular misinterpretation of the idea of "male privilege" that colors a lot of the assumptions and readings in these discussions. "Male privilege" does not entail that men are the most privileged or that gender is the most important kind of privilege. Some people think so, but it's not inherent in the general concept, no one in this thread thinks so, and neither did the people who coined the phrase.
Ah, thanks for the clarification, think we both grabbed the wrong end of the stick of each other's posts. I wasn't saying that we can't discuss "white male privilege" as it exists within society unless we deal with "wealth privilege" or because wealth privilege is such a powerful influencer it means no other privilege can be examined. I was saying we can't create accurate models and theories of how society works without including "wealth privilege".
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 11:28 PM   #510
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,392
Originally Posted by kellyb View Post
Thanks, I'll have make time to read and understand your evidence.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th April 2019, 11:52 PM   #511
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,125
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
A man called Earl Silverman spent years trying to get funding for a men's domestic violence shelter and was frustrated and protested constantly by feminist groups. He ended up killing himself.

Thus becoming a martyr to the cause of MRA lies.

Quote:
Surely, this was a man going through financial hardship, who struggled to keep his passion project afloat, who took his own life. But nobody has to believe that feminism can kill, or facts that aren't true.
Men's Rights Advocate Earl Silverman Leaves a Legacy of Feminist-Bashing (The Wire/The Atlantic, April 29, 2013)
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 02:33 AM   #512
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
True. Which is why a woman who doesn't gain custody after the divorce must be a terrible mother and, by extension, woman, right?
Yeah but that stems from a negative stereotype of men, so I'm not going to shed a tear for that. Correct the male stereotype, and the female one will go away, imo.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 02:34 AM   #513
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 86,882
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
The causes of a lot of gendered issues can be spun at least two ways.

You can say it's assumed that men are worse at parenting. You can also say that it's assumed that childcare is the woman's responsibility.
Except that who thinks the latter in this day and age? We're not in the 1940s anymore.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 03:53 AM   #514
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,400
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Except that who thinks the latter in this day and age? We're not in the 1940s anymore.
Custody courts for a start.
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 04:47 AM   #515
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,153
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Except that who thinks the latter in this day and age? We're not in the 1940s anymore.
Practically everybody from what I can see. I only recall having ever met one man who was single and had custody of any children (and his ex-wife was such a psycho her own family is on his side; for example, she went to jail for filing false police reports against him), and I can't think of the last time I met a woman older than her lower/mid 20s who was single and didn't have custody of children. Women around here seem to just think of it as a natural obvious automatic part of the American human life cycle to make babies and leave the father (or make babies with a father who'll leave them), with no sign of having ever thought of doing otherwise. Equivalently, the fathers, although they're likely to end up on the hook for a bunch of money for those kids, seldom even imagine bothering to try to get custody. (Note that this includes no sign of whether it's because they don't want it or think it's a lost cause.)

That reminds me of a response I didn't originally write for this older post but I will now:
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
here are two hypothetical situations that would both qualify the person as a MGTOW:

1. My own situation: A combination of my own, somewhat 'loner' personality and, having read a lot of MRA material on how biased family courts are, how easy it is for women to make false accusations of domestic violence or sexual assault etc. and assessing the risk vs reward of getting sexually and romantically involved and coming to the conclusion that, for me personally, the risks outweigh the rewards.

2. Someone who believes all women are soulless vampires who are only interested in bleeding a man of all his assets before moving on to the next one for the sheer pleasure of destroying him and so tries to warn all men never to get involved with women under any circumstances.
A third type either overlaps with, or forms a spectrum with, incels: those who would date under the right conditions, but don't because those conditions don't seem to exist. For example, if you don't want to end up with some other dude's kids, you're restricted to women who don't already have any, and there don't seem to be any of those around, so you don't have that choice. Does that count more as voluntary or involuntary?
Delvo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 05:01 AM   #516
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,283
Originally Posted by TomB View Post
The problem is that it's been made into a battle of sides. Women have legitimate issues which feminist activists have historically advocated for. Men have legitimate issues that men's groups have started advocating for.

I think one of the problems with the MRA movement is that they are perceived as a reaction or a counter/pushback to feminism. I'm not sure if this is because people within the movement presented themselves this way or if its because some feminists perceived attention to men's issues as taking attention and resources from women's issues.
That's basically my read of the greater MRA movement as well, largely a reactionary rather than progressive movement. They seem more interested in clawing back the imperfect solutions achieved by feminists rather than building onto them into something greater.

Sure, the Duluth model makes some seriously misguided assumptions. It's absolutely a product of its time where women are seen as the default victim and the men the default aggressor. Prior to such assumptions, often domestic violence was treated as a private matter in all but the most severe cases (say, murder or severe injury). The Duluth model, for its many faults, is a massive leap forward in this regard, because it treats domestic violence as a real crime.

A progressive goal might be to update this model to include a wider understanding of how domestic violence occurs, including that both men and women are capable of being victims or perpetrators. Clawing back this advance with no substitute or acknowledgement of the underlying problem is nothing short of regressive.

MRA's never pass by an opportunity to engage in a little reactionary backbiting. Such an attitude is poison.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 05:20 AM   #517
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,958
Originally Posted by Georgio View Post
A man called Earl Silverman spent years trying to get funding for a men's domestic violence shelter and was frustrated and protested constantly by feminist groups. He ended up killing himself.

I was told in the other thread that he, quote, '...deserved to feel bad because he was bad' because he opposed feminism. I was told this by someone parroting the 'feminism is about equality' stuff.

That last link you gave is the perfect example of what a youtuber called bane666au calls 'Feminism Uber Alles'; meaning that, as I was saying before, feminists will tolerate anything unless it opposes feminism. If it opposes feminism or feminist ideology, it is wrong. Even if it takes its data from the overwhelming scientific consensus on domestic violence, it is still wrong because it opposes feminism.

Look at the language in that last link - they seem to be a good organisation but they don't have a good track record; a lot of what they say is anti-feminist.

'Feminist' is not just used as a synonym for 'egalitarian'; it's used as a synonym for 'objectively true'. It's like a cult - it's really scary.

I don't say that what this or that MRA says is true because it's said by this or that MRA; I supply data collected by non-biased statistical aggregators. Feminists do not do this; they simply say things then refer back to another feminist saying it as proof that it's true.

Someone mentioned Freud earlier and he is a good example of this kind of academic cult thinking; ask anyone who is a believer in Freud's nonsense why any of it is true and they may quote a paper which will then quote another paper which will then go back to something Freud wrote and no further than that. Ever. The final arbitrator of truth will be whether Freud said it; and the final arbiter of truth with feminists is whether a feminist said it, not whether it is backed up by research.
The last time I posted Silverman, I also got something stupid. Something along the lines that government funding for men's shelters takes away funding for women's shelters. Like there was only a (theoretical) amount of shelter funding and funding for women's shelters was, obviously, much more important.

I'm well aware of the cult thinking around feminism, it's like religion, masquerading as "science"
Stout is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 05:21 AM   #518
Stout
Illuminator
 
Stout's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,958
Originally Posted by dann View Post
Thus becoming a martyr to the cause of MRA lies.
Oooooo...the dude failed to kowtow to the feminist masters.

He's dead, be happy.
Stout is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 05:25 AM   #519
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 17,400
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
That's basically my read of the greater MRA movement as well, largely a reactionary rather than progressive movement. They seem more interested in clawing back the imperfect solutions achieved by feminists rather than building onto them into something greater.

Sure, the Duluth model makes some seriously misguided assumptions. It's absolutely a product of its time where women are seen as the default victim and the men the default aggressor. Prior to such assumptions, often domestic violence was treated as a private matter in all but the most severe cases (say, murder or severe injury). The Duluth model, for its many faults, is a massive leap forward in this regard, because it treats domestic violence as a real crime.

A progressive goal might be to update this model to include a wider understanding of how domestic violence occurs, including that both men and women are capable of being victims or perpetrators. Clawing back this advance with no substitute or acknowledgement of the underlying problem is nothing short of regressive.

MRA's never pass by an opportunity to engage in a little reactionary backbiting. Such an attitude is poison.
Seems an odd position to take

Personally want women to succeed and men.

The men side points out somethings they are currently ugly for men,

suicide, assault, child custody etc.

Feminists seem to be offended.

Just find it odd.

Supporting peoples rights aren't mutually exclusive via biological sex
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th April 2019, 05:35 AM   #520
dann
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 9,125
Originally Posted by Stout View Post
Oooooo...the dude failed to kowtow to the feminist masters.

He's dead, be happy.

Reading comprehension skills: zero!
__________________
/dann
"Stupidity renders itself invisible by assuming very large proportions. Completely unreasonable claims are irrefutable. Ni-en-leh pointed out that a philosopher might get into trouble by claiming that two times two makes five, but he does not risk much by claiming that two times two makes shoe polish." B. Brecht
"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is required for their real happiness. The demand to give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition which needs illusions." K. Marx
dann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:04 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.