"Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Random832 » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:42 pm UTC

Belial wrote:Right, except that they did it by saying that women-only domestic abuse shelters couldn't exist.


So basically you read the claim in the original article at face value, and didn't even acknowledge the possibility that it might be a distortion despite A) the counter-article specifically saying this and B) court rulings being, in principle, a matter of public record.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby cephalopod9 » Fri Nov 27, 2009 10:49 pm UTC

Y'know, you can trim quotes down to the relevant points instead of mass quoting. Observe:
Philwelch wrote:So...let's spend all our money developing new ways for affluent white Westerners to live with the disease for longer? Whatever. Compare the money and public attention for prostate cancer to the money and public attention for breast cancer. You're quibbling with inessential details.
What point are you trying to make? Breast cancer research is arguably a very marketable cause, and focuses on one small issue in particular. However, arguing over which cancer gets more research funds is essentially an argument about the cost of inaction which will likely never be resolved.
A. Akbar wrote:Can everybody please read this-http://www.nzherald.co.nz/otago-university/news/article.cfm?o_id=351&objectid=10396934 (I seem to have forgotten how to neatify links)

It shows the degree to which public perceptions of abuse are wrong.
There's zero raw data in that article, and I can see a lot of potential problems with their undefined methods. How is "violence" defined? Does that include verbal abuse, unwanted sexual advances, or economic or power imbalance (one partner having the only income, or making all the decisions)? Who did they ask? Is the severity, frequency, or consequences of said violence addressed? Someone who was at one point moved to give you a bruise, is a very different situation than someone who makes you feel unsafe in your home or regularly causes you significant injury.
The point that women's violence is seen as inconsequential is an important one, but the idea that women are trivialized, or that gender trumps action are also points feminism seeks to address. Feminism as a movement, or as a dialog may not have the resources or interest in defending the male half of the equation as often, but to present the two as contradictory is at best misguided and at worst malicious.
The Great Hippo wrote:Brief aside: This bothered me in another thread and I think there's a connection--when it comes to providing exclusive resources (say, to abused women), we often find it morally authentic only so long as the exclusion moves down the hierarchy of power--it's okay to provide resources to just women, it's okay to provide resources to just minority women, it's okay to provide resources to just homosexual minority women--but we seem to find something deplorable when you move up the scale of power--it's not okay to provide resources to just homosexual men (you must provide resources to all homosexuals or all homosexual women). Am I wrong to think this? I'm trying to think of counter-examples--the only that spring to mind are religious ones, and religion seems to be kind of a special case.

I'm seeing a lot of confusion between micro and macro level issues in this thread. The definition of privilege, and who has it, is tied to how society functions at large, and as a whole. Likewise, policy making is a process which necessarily takes place large scale and relates to over arching ideas. Conversely, individual's interactions with policies, or privilege is very much small scale. One persons micro level experiences can easily be out of sync with, or even contradictory to the large scale state of things. That is to say, excluding people who, on a macro level scale, are less vulnerable makes sense, where as excluding people who are more vulnerable would likely be seen as counter productive or just mean. The individual cases which are governed by such decisions don't always mesh with such paradigms.
Image

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Philwelch » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:17 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:
Philwelch wrote:So...let's spend all our money developing new ways for affluent white Westerners to live with the disease for longer? Whatever. Compare the money and public attention for prostate cancer to the money and public attention for breast cancer. You're quibbling with inessential details.
What point are you trying to make?


Social movements tend to perpetuate their own existence. For instance, the breast cancer movement, which was created to redress an imbalance of awareness and research funding, has created an imbalance of awareness and research funding in the other direction. But instead of redirecting their efforts, they keep going.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

EmptySet
Posts: 1196
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 6:33 am UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby EmptySet » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:36 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
EmptySet wrote:Therefore it would seem logical to me that providing support services for men who have been abused would help end the cycle of abuse and improve the situation for both men and women.
Oh, yes--in the same sense that providing support for women who have been abused does much the same.

The person who wrote this article seems to be implying that feminism is enough to handle the concerns of abused men. I'm worried that there's a patronizing attitude being expressed there--one where a feminist might assume that the indirect aid they give to abused men by addressing abused women should be satisfactory, and that abused men who need more will be addressed once we get this whole abusive culture thing fixed--and organizations that seek to help men who are abused are interfering with the dismantling of abusive culture, and therefore must be resisted at all costs.


Right. My point is that the suggestion that giving shelter to male victims of abuse somehow perpetuates or encourages an abusive culture is absurd, because in fact it "dismantles the abusive culture" in almost exactly the same way as helping women does. In fact I would argue that providing shelters for only one gender is less efficient, if anything. For example, it is my understanding that almost half of domestic violence incidents are reciprocal. In such instances, surely it is more likely that someone will leave, and the abusive relationship therefore come to an end, if both partners have the option of going to a shelter?

It doesn't help that message behind assertions like "Oh, we'll worry about that later" and "helping male victims of abuse interferes with the real issues" seems to be that men aren't real victims and should stop their petty whining until we help the people who actually matter. It would be like breast cancer research charities demanding that all funding for prostate cancer research immediately be stopped because it distracts people from the real issue, which is breast cancer, and then going on to accuse everyone who supports prostate cancer research of perpetuating a sexist culture by not focusing on breast cancer exclusively. I mean, really. If you want to focus on womens' issues that's fine and dandy, and we certainly need groups that do that, but I think the point where you decide to actively oppose helping people escape abuse because it might distract people from your pet issue is the point where you start to look like a bit of a jerk.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:55 am UTC

The shelter issue has never been "can we please make it so that all shelters for abused people exclude men"; it is "can we please build some shelters that exclude men", which is a damn good idea.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Random832 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:12 am UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:The shelter issue has never been "can we please make it so that all shelters for abused people exclude men"; it is "can we please build some shelters that exclude men", which is a damn good idea.

You are, once again, taking a claim from the original article which has been disputed at face value. Because the first thing is exactly what it is - the article is complaining about a ruling which, in actual fact, simply says that the state can't make it so that all state-funded shelters for abused people exclude men.

counter-article wrote:Against the backdrop of this enforced party line, Joyce is alarmed by the smallest signs that men's rights groups may be gaining even a modest voice in framing domestic violence policy. She points out that in a few states, men's rights activists have succeeded in "criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases" (this is apparently meant to be a bad thing) and "winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory" (in fact, the California Court of Appeals ruled last year that state-funded domestic violence programs that refuse to provide service to abused men violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but also emphasized that the services need not be identical and coed shelters are not required).


So, yes, in arguing against that ruling,they ARE saying they want it to be so that all shelters exclude men.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sat Nov 28, 2009 11:22 am UTC

The ruling, as described there, says that out of all the state-funded domestic abuse programs, not one of them can be exclusive to women. To disagree with that is to argue that at least one of them should be able to be exclusive to women.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Outchanter » Sat Nov 28, 2009 1:14 pm UTC

Why not read the actual ruling?

In reforming the statutes that provide funding for domestic
violence programs to be gender-neutral, we do not require that
such programs offer identical services to men and women. Given
the noted disparity in the number of women needing services and
the greater severity of their injuries, it may be appropriate to
provide more and different services to battered women and their
children. For example, a program might offer shelter for women,
but only hotel vouchers for a smaller number of men.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed. We direct judgment be entered
for the issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate commanding
(1) the Department of Public Health to provide any grants under
33
Health and Safety Code section 124250 to those organizations
that provide services to victims of domestic violence,
regardless of gender; and (2) the OES to provide grants under
Penal Code section 13823.15 to those organizations that provide
services to victims of domestic violence, regardless of gender.
Plaintiffs shall recover costs on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court,
rule 8.278(a)(3).)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:19 pm UTC

cephalopod9 wrote:I'm seeing a lot of confusion between micro and macro level issues in this thread. The definition of privilege, and who has it, is tied to how society functions at large, and as a whole. Likewise, policy making is a process which necessarily takes place large scale and relates to over arching ideas. Conversely, individual's interactions with policies, or privilege is very much small scale. One persons micro level experiences can easily be out of sync with, or even contradictory to the large scale state of things. That is to say, excluding people who, on a macro level scale, are less vulnerable makes sense, where as excluding people who are more vulnerable would likely be seen as counter productive or just mean. The individual cases which are governed by such decisions don't always mesh with such paradigms.
I don't think I'm confusing micro versus macro goals, but rather expressing discontent that our macro goals can and would be considered of greater importance than our micro goals. The micro goal is to protect people from abuse--the macro goal is to dismantle abusive culture. But like I mentioned before, when a house is on fire, your first priority is to save the occupants, not the house.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Random832 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 2:29 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:The ruling, as described there, says that out of all the state-funded domestic abuse programs, not one of them can be exclusive to women. To disagree with that is to argue that at least one of them should be able to be exclusive to women.


Which is still not the same thing as requiring them to shelter them in the same building, and without that it's not clear anymore what exactly is being forbidden that you are saying "is a damn good idea" - particularly as the ruling doesn't even require the same quality of services.

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:03 pm UTC

Sorry, I misinterpreted something here. I guess it would be "allowing people who want to provide services to women, and have the skills mostly to provide services for women rather than men, to receive state grants to do so without saddling them with an obligation to help men in a way that doesn't fit neatly with their overall program."

My main point is that I don't see anyone arguing against providing services for men, in general. I see "These MRAs are bad because they're doing a lot of bad things other than providing services", but no "These MRAs are bad because they're providing services" anywhere.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Random832 » Sat Nov 28, 2009 3:41 pm UTC

Elvish Pillager wrote:Sorry, I misinterpreted something here. I guess it would be "allowing people who want to provide services to women, and have the skills mostly to provide services for women rather than men, to receive state grants to do so without saddling them with an obligation to help men in a way that doesn't fit neatly with their overall program."


If the people working in some organization mostly have skills for providing services for women, and those skills are so different that they can't manage an organization that provides services to men as well, then shouldn't the solution be for them to hire more people with different skills? And anyway, they're not being "saddled with" anything - if they don't want the money that's their problem. The state, in the other hand, is supposed to be providing equal protection to everyone, and giving money to organizations to only help women doesn't fit neatly with that "overall program".

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:01 pm UTC

Random832 wrote:
Elvish Pillager wrote:Sorry, I misinterpreted something here. I guess it would be "allowing people who want to provide services to women, and have the skills mostly to provide services for women rather than men, to receive state grants to do so without saddling them with an obligation to help men in a way that doesn't fit neatly with their overall program."


If the people working in some organization mostly have skills for providing services for women, and those skills are so different that they can't manage an organization that provides services to men as well, then shouldn't the solution be for them to hire more people with different skills? And anyway, they're not being "saddled with" anything - if they don't want the money that's their problem. The state, in the other hand, is supposed to be providing equal protection to everyone, and giving money to organizations to only help women doesn't fit neatly with that "overall program".
And, seriously now, does it require a whole paradigm shift of your support structure to supply hotel vouchers to men who have been abused (as was suggested in the ruling that Outchanter postered--thanks, by the way)? Does it require extra training for me to sign slips of paper?

I understand that these support structures are already financially strapped, but what I find troubling is that our justification for excluding victims of abuse from support might be "We don't have the money, so we decided to only support the ones we care most about, and we only care most about abused women".

User avatar
Elvish Pillager
Posts: 1009
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2008 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere you think, nowhere you can possibly imagine.
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Elvish Pillager » Sun Nov 29, 2009 12:34 am UTC

What, "It hardly has any effect, so why not?"? Or "The state has to guarantee equal protection, so it's okay if it mandates that its organizations are at least 0.1% equal"?

I'm not trying to justify why someone would run a women-only program; I'm merely arguing that the state shouldn't treat that distinction as a reason to refuse funding. As far as I understand it, the issues surrounding domestic abuse of women are sufficiently different from those surrounding domestic abuse of men that they shouldn't be held up as gender-flipped versions of each other in an "equal rights" context.
Also known as Eli Dupree. Check out elidupree.com for my comics, games, and other work.

GENERATION A(g64, g64): Social experiment. Take the busy beaver function of the generation number and add it to your signature.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Vaniver » Sun Nov 29, 2009 9:39 pm UTC

Even though I sympathize with EP here, I think I'm going to come down on the side of "if you're getting state funds, you need to help people with certain kinds of problems, not certain kinds of people with problems." If you want to run a shelter for, say, homeless homosexual kids, if you want state funding you should either also provide shelter to non-homosexual homeless people or be able to point them to someplace they can get help. It's not clear that the ruling would be happy with the latter solution, but it seems unreasonable that they wouldn't. I mean, charities can be more effective when they specialize (the young homeless have different needs from the old homeless, abused women have different needs from alcoholic women, etc.), but it is important to not let the discrimination inherent in specialization become a problem (sorry, the local detox clinic only accepts men, because more men are alcoholic. Try the one two cities down the highway?). The California ruling explicitly is not getting rid of discrimination that directly helps the goal- women that are abused by men tend to recover better in the company of women.

In general, though, I agree that the hostility towards men's rights groups is mostly misplaced.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
tzvibish
Posts: 1031
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 3:16 pm UTC
Location: In ur officez, supportin ur desktopz
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby tzvibish » Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:32 pm UTC

The whole abuse discussion is pointless before you decide what gender is, and why relationships between those genders can turn violent, and why those acts violence are any more meaningful than other acts of violence.

After taking a Sociology in Gender course, I can safely say that there is no right way to view gender as it relates to anything. My professor was a black women who wanted to pin all the gender issues we have on white men (yes, she turned it into a race thing. It was pretty horrific), and had a fixation on declaring hermaphrodite and androgynous their own genders (Because apparently, some Indians used to do that). Once I realized that every single class concluded in noisy bickering over "boys rule, girl drool" rigmarole, and that every issue we tried to tackle was bogged down so deep in personal bias that that any logical conclusions were hopeless, I came to my own conclusion that "gender" is a byproduct of which set of reproductive organs you sport. Gender as applied to who you are has nothing to do with the topology of your chest area. That's determined on an individual basis.

The whole notion that domestic violence is a "man" thing may be true. However, is it because they are men or is it because society has deemed the man to be the more aggressive archetype in a relationship? If that's the case, if it has to do with aggression instead of testosterone, then portraying the plight of domestic abuse victims as a feminist movement is simply entrenching the stereotype further. Once we realize that aggressive behavior is the catalyst for violence, not gender, then we might be able to get to the bottom of it.

Now, I understand that we're dealing with a situation where the victims are already women, and the facts are the facts. However, I do think that giving male victims the social flexibility to help themselves will go a long way towards achieving some real insight into the nature of gender in general.
Image
-Featuring the Comic Strip XKCD!

TiPerihelion
Posts: 106
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 5:29 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TiPerihelion » Tue Dec 01, 2009 1:20 am UTC

I was browsing this thread a few days ago, and had to laugh when I saw this. Don't yell at me.

Image

User avatar
Delalyra
Posts: 1812
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 12:39 am UTC
Location: Western Mass
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Delalyra » Tue Dec 01, 2009 2:05 am UTC

tzvibish wrote: I came to my own conclusion that "gender" is a byproduct of which set of reproductive organs you sport. Gender as applied to who you are has nothing to do with the topology of your chest area. That's determined on an individual basis.
I think the first gender you're referring to there is also known as one's sex. Sex is body parts, gender is brains, to oversimplify.
you may remember me from 2008 or 2009. I left for a while. I'm now sporadically back. I tumble here.

User avatar
Freakish
Posts: 909
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2007 1:47 am UTC
Location: Northern Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Freakish » Tue Dec 01, 2009 3:50 pm UTC

The Men Rights movement will keep going and pick up more speed simply because there are men out there that are afraid that they could be accused of rape or abuse and there are men that have been abused, and raped. Since feminism seems to only be about women, something had to be created for male causes.
Freakish Inc. We completely understand the public’s concern about futuristic robots feeding on the human population

MBR
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby MBR » Sat Dec 05, 2009 9:37 pm UTC

la fée verte wrote:
BlackSails wrote:Now custody in divorce cases on the other hand, those are almost always decided in favor of the woman.


Do you have a citation for that, BlackSails? Cos according to the a study of the court system in Massachusetts (first jurisdiction I found stats for):
New England Law Review, in 1990 wrote:We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the primary [*748] caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. Reports indicate, however, that in some cases perceptions of gender bias may discourage fathers from seeking custody and stereotypes about fathers may sometimes affect case outcomes. In general, our evidence suggests that the courts hold higher standards for mothers than fathers in custody determinations.


Emphasis mine.

The whole thing is here: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm. I haven't read it all yet cos I'm in the middle of dying my hair, but it looks well worth a read.


Interesting that this so-called "study" from the Mass. SJC is now available online, a full two decades after it was first issued. When it was brand new in 1989, Tim Berners-Lee was just dreaming up the proposal that would eventually become the World Wide Web. Since the web didn't exist back then, it was much easier for politically-motivated government functionaries to do a "study" and then protect it from anyone who might want to critique it by making copies unavailable. The 1989 report on gender bias by the Mass. SJC's Gender Bias Commission was actually farmed out by the SJC to the Wellesley Centers for Women -- not an organization that would be likely to bring an impartial eye to the task of looking for gender bias. Then the SJC just put their name on the final version. Through persistence, I was eventually able to extract a copy of the report from the SJC, four years after the report was issued! But by making it unavailable, the SJC had guaranteed that it could not be critiqued in a timely manner.

When I was finally able to get a copy, I telephoned Dr. Amy Koel, the researcher whose work was cited by the SJC study in support of the claim that fathers get custody in 70% fo cases. She told me her research showed no such result because her research wasn't designed to answer that question.

I wrote an analysis of how this falsehood was fabricated entitled "Misrepresentation of Gender Bias in the 1989 Report of the Gender Bias Committee of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court". You can read it at http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_by_mbr.pdf.

It's horrifying how long a falsehood will persist once it gets out there. The truth never seems able to catch up. To quote Mark Twain (who was probably quoting somebody else), "A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on." Anyway, here's a brief summary of how I came to write the analysis I mentioned.

On June 23, 1989, an article on the front-page of the Boston Globe announced that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had just released their report on a study they had commissioned on gender bias in the court system. In that same day's edition, columnist Bella English wrote, "In fact, the study found that when fathers seek custody, they obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70 percent of the time." The obvious implication here is that if fathers seldom get custody, it's their own fault for not caring enough about their kids to fight for them.

The day after I read that the report had been released, I called the SJC's offices to request a copy of the report. Oddly, they told me that all copies of this brand new report had already been distributed, and it was no longer available. I called back every six months or so, hoping it had been reprinted. Four years later they finally told me it had been reprinted, and mailed me a copy. I've since heard speculation that someone else may have pried it loose under threat of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.

With the report finally in hand, I quickly located the section where the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court's Gender Bias Committee wrote, "Refuting complaints that the bias in favor of mothers was pervasive, we found that fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time." And I was finally able to start tracking the basis on which they made that claim.

It took a number of phone calls for me to locate the researcher whose study the SJC cited in support of their 70% claim. But I was eventually able to speak with her, and she told me that her data do not demonstrate court bias, and her research was never even designed to address the question. She also was kind enough to mail me a copy of her own published article on her study.

Based on that, I did my own analysis and found that the very same data cited by the SJC as evidence of court bias against mothers also shows that when mothers sought sole custody, the court granted the request at a rate 65% higher than it did when fathers made the same request. Go to http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_intro.php#mbr_analysis to read my detailed analysis or go to http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_GBC_analysis_by_mbr.pdf to download a printer-friendly copy.

The SJC's claim regarding court bias in custody cases appears less like objective research than like an exercise in manipulating numbers to sound like they prove anti-woman bias. But it has been effective nonetheless. For the last two decades, it has been repeated in newspapers all across the U.S. and Canada, cited in Ann Landers' column, stated as fact in the National Center on Poverty Law's manual for lawyers. And it gets trotted out whenever anyone proposes that any state adopt a presumption in favor of joint custody.

--Mark Rosenthal

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Cynical Idealist » Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:18 pm UTC

That's some very interesting information you dug up, MBR.

Spoiler:
In case the mods feel that the links don't warrant an exemption to the five-post rule, here they are:
Web version of analysis: http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_G ... r_analysis
Printer-friendly PDF: http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_G ... by_mbr.pdf
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

MBR
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby MBR » Sun Dec 06, 2009 12:28 am UTC

Cynical Idealist wrote:That's some very interesting information you dug up, MBR.

Spoiler:
In case the mods feel that the links don't warrant an exemption to the five-post rule, here they are:
Web version of analysis: http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_G ... r_analysis
Printer-friendly PDF: http://www.breakingthescience.org/SJC_G ... by_mbr.pdf


Thanks. It was a huge amount of work. Unfortunately, the superficial nature of mainstream media reporting makes it easy for people with an agenda to push unsupported claims out into public discourse much, much faster than anyone who cares about the facts can possibly debunk the nonsense. That's exactly what Kathryn Joyce did in her Double X piece "'Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective" -- the article that started this whole thread.

BTW, I was unaware of the "five-post rule" until I saw your posting. Now that I know, I apologize for breaking that rule, but I don't see how I could have presented my case otherwise. The research I did is way too long to post it in this forum in its entirety, yet I feel it's important that people be able to read my analysis and judge for themselves whether my logic holds water. I do hope the moderator(s) will agree that the links I posted were on-topic and are essential to my presentation of my argument.

-- Mark Rosenthal

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby fjafjan » Tue Dec 08, 2009 8:24 pm UTC

That is interesting. However I, much like you, would like to see both of these reports before I can be sure if you're full of crap or not. But yeah, I am inclined to believe that you are not.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

MBR
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby MBR » Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:19 am UTC

fjafjan wrote:That is interesting. However I, much like you, would like to see both of these reports before I can be sure if you're full of crap or not. But yeah, I am inclined to believe that you are not.


Unfortunately, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage due to the five post rule. I didn't know about it until after I wrote my first post, but I don't want to abuse it by posting another URL before I've made the required five substantive posts. However, if you look at my first posting and follow either of the links in that, you can read my entire analysis. The report that my analysis is critiquing is also online. It's the Mass. SJC's Gender Bias Commission report, and its URL is included in the quoted material at the top of my first post in this thread.

The other document of interest is the study cited by the SJC's Gender Bias Commission report. The author of that study told me her study could not be used to support the claims made in the SJC-GBC report. Unfortunately that was published in 1988, before the web existed. So the only way I know of to get hold of that is to ask your local library if they can find a copy for you. The citation is: Koel, et al, Middlesex Divorce Research Group (Amy Koel, Susan C. Clark, W.P.C. Phear, and Barbara B. Hauser), "Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-parenting On Children," Chapter 4, "A Comparison of Joint and Sole Legal Custody Arrangements," (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1988, Hetherington & Arasteh, editors).

You'll only need to track down a copy of "Impact of Divorce, Single Parenting, and Step-parenting On Children" if you doubt that the tables I copied from that were copied accurately. If you're willing to grant that, then my analysis is pretty much self-contained.

User avatar
fjafjan
THE fjafjan
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:22 pm UTC
Location: Down south up north in the west of eastern west.
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby fjafjan » Wed Dec 09, 2009 1:05 pm UTC

The five post rule is not that hard to circumvent, Post something introduction thread, post a fleeting thought or a good thing or post in the forum of some interest of yours. Really getting five posts is not hard work. We just don't want people to show up just to advertise something they made.
//Yepp, THE fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
Liza wrote:Fjafjan, your hair is so lovely that I want to go to Sweden, collect the bit you cut off in your latest haircut and keep it in my room, and smell it. And eventually use it to complete my shrine dedicated to you.

User avatar
Cathy
Posts: 850
Joined: Sun Dec 27, 2009 5:31 am UTC
Location: TX, USA

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Cathy » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:03 am UTC

Aetius wrote:(Counter Article)

One case Joyce uses to illustrate her thesis is that of Genia Shockome, who claimed to have been severely battered by her ex-husband Tim and lost custody of her two children after being accused of intentionally alienating them from their father. Yet Joyce never mentions that Shockome's claims of violent abuse were unsupported by any evidence, that she herself did not mention any abuse in her initial divorce complaint, or that three custody evaluators—including a feminist psychologist who had worked with the Battered Women's Justice Center at Pace University—sided with the father.


As a female whose father hit her as a kid, that is absolutely the worst thing I have EVER heard.

Feminism is going a little too far nowadays. I have no problem with turning in assholes (of the female OR male variety) who beat/abuse their partner/children, and avoiding said assholes altogether. I do, however, have a problem with typecasting every person of that sex as "just as bad" as -insert asshole story here-.

For example- my father was a raging abusive asshole, however, my friend's fathers are friendly, and my boyfriend is wonderful. Something my father did give me was a tendancy to avoid other assholes of similar temperment.
Amie wrote:Cathy, I now declare you to be an awesome person, by the powers vested in me by nobody, really.
yurell wrote:We need fewer homoeopaths, that way they'll be more potent!

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:09 am UTC

Cathy wrote:I do, however, have a problem with typecasting every person of that sex as "just as bad" as -insert asshole story here-.

And what the fuck does that have to do with modern feminism?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
TaintedDeity
Posts: 4003
Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 7:22 pm UTC
Location: England;

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TaintedDeity » Mon Dec 28, 2009 5:58 am UTC

To put that in a slightly frieldier way; modern Feminism isn't about that.
Sure, some people who hate all men will call themselves feminists and that is the common stereotype of a feminist and it really sucks.
Feminism is about equality, not about one group winning.
Ⓞⓞ◯

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:10 am UTC

Hey, are you calling me unfriendly? Why, you're nothing but a base, proud, shallow, beggarly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave! I will kill thee a hundred and fifty ways. Therefore tremble and depart!

Insults shamelessly ripped off of Will Shakespeare
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

MBR
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby MBR » Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:01 pm UTC

Cathy wrote:
Aetius wrote:(Counter Article)

One case Joyce uses to illustrate her thesis is that of Genia Shockome, who claimed to have been severely battered by her ex-husband Tim and lost custody of her two children after being accused of intentionally alienating them from their father. Yet Joyce never mentions that Shockome's claims of violent abuse were unsupported by any evidence, that she herself did not mention any abuse in her initial divorce complaint, or that three custody evaluators—including a feminist psychologist who had worked with the Battered Women's Justice Center at Pace University—sided with the father.


As a female whose father hit her as a kid, that is absolutely the worst thing I have EVER heard.

Feminism is going a little too far nowadays. I have no problem with turning in assholes (of the female OR male variety) who beat/abuse their partner/children, and avoiding said assholes altogether. I do, however, have a problem with typecasting every person of that sex as "just as bad" as -insert asshole story here-.

For example- my father was a raging abusive asshole, however, my friend's fathers are friendly, and my boyfriend is wonderful. Something my father did give me was a tendancy to avoid other assholes of similar temperment.


Cathy,

I am a male whose mother hit and terrorized him and his sister when we were kids, not to mention her regularly kicking our father even though she was only half his size. Thus I have great sympathy for what you endured in your own childhood.

The lifelong aftereffects for my family have been devastating and irreparable. Although it took me decades, I did eventually win my struggle with suicidal ideation, however my sister did not. http://breakingthescience.org/GrowingUp.php, http://breakingthescience.org/GloriaAndMe.php

Some people who call themselves feminists claim to believe in equal treatment, but in actuality all they believe in is an Orwellian definition of equality (all sexes are equal, but women are more equal than others), whereas others who call themselves feminists truly do believe in equal treatment for all. So I'd argue that it's best to avoid labels. Regardless of what Kathryn Joyce - the author of the article in question - calls herself, the dishonesty she displayed in cherrypicking what she chose to include in her article and what she chose to suppress clearly demonstrates that she was running an agenda that had nothing to do with honest, objective reporting, nor does Joyce's definition of "feminism" have anything to do with equal treatment for all.

-- Mark Rosenthal

stevey_frac
Posts: 947
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 10:27 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby stevey_frac » Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:55 pm UTC

I find it amusing in a sick twisted way that the originally posted letter, and the following discussion more or less argues that men are clearly tougher then women, and therefore don't require support .(not by everyone, but that thread did makes it's way through the discussion)

As further food for thought, consider this.

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.


Interesting, no?

Now, it should be noted that women we more likely to be injured then men overall, something that I attribute (though not provably) to under reporting by men, and the fact that men posses more physical strength on average.
__Kit wrote:
Also, who the fuck wants to be normal? You got one lifetime, why be like everyone else?

MBR
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:52 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby MBR » Tue Dec 29, 2009 12:31 am UTC

stevey_frac wrote:I find it amusing in a sick twisted way that the originally posted letter, and the following discussion more or less argues that men are clearly tougher then women, and therefore don't require support .(not by everyone, but that thread did makes it's way through the discussion)

As further food for thought, consider this.

Regarding perpetration of violence, more women than men (25 percent versus 11 percent) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women. This finding surprised Whitaker and his colleagues, they admitted in their study report.


Interesting, no?

Now, it should be noted that women we more likely to be injured then men overall, something that I attribute (though not provably) to under reporting by men, and the fact that men posses more physical strength on average.


Take a look at http://breakingthescience.org/SimplifiedDataFromCDC.php. I used the numbers reported by Whitaker and his CDC colleagues and compared injury rates. It looks like women's greater tendency to be violent against passive men pretty much counterbalances men's size and physical strength advantage. In cases of non-reciprocal partner violence, 51% of injuries were suffered by women at the hands of men and 49% of injuries were suffered by men at the hands of women. Even in cases of reciprocal partner violence, the difference was only 56% of injuries were suffered by women and 44% of injuries were suffered by men.

That's really different from the impression you get from The Burning Bed and other Hollywood portrayals of the issue.

If you're interested in a good explanation of why public perception of the issue is so distorted, take a look at Prof. Murray Straus' article published in the peer-reviewed journal European Journal of Criminal Policy Research entitled "Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence".

Among the methods he's seen researchers use to distort the research over the course of his nearly 40 year career studying this issue are:

  • Suppress Evidence
  • Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
  • Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
  • Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
  • Create "Evidence" by Citation
  • Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of Partner Violence
  • Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs

And to this list, British researcher Nicola Graham-Kevan has added:

  • Playing with numbers.

Straus' article with Graham-Kevan's addendum is available on his website at http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf.

-- Mark Rosenthal

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Dec 29, 2009 1:27 am UTC

MBR wrote:
Spoiler:
Among the methods he's seen researchers use to distort the research over the course of his nearly 40 year career studying this issue are:

  • Suppress Evidence
  • Avoid Obtaining Data Inconsistent with the Patriarchal Dominance Theory
  • Cite Only Studies That Show Male Perpetration
  • Conclude That Results Support Feminist Beliefs When They Do Not
  • Create "Evidence" by Citation
  • Obstruct Publication of Articles and Obstruct Funding Research That Might Contradict the Idea that Male Dominance Is the Cause of Partner Violence
  • Harass, Threaten, and Penalize Researchers Who Produce Evidence That Contradicts Feminist Beliefs

And to this list, British researcher Nicola Graham-Kevan has added:

  • Playing with numbers.


Bloody hell that makes all but the worst reasearch misdemenors of the pharmacutical industry seem quite forgivable.

Can I ask a question of the thread in general?
    Would you be opposed to any and all "Men's Rights" movements, or is it only when these movements happen to be trying to undo the positive gains made by the women's rights movement; because as a male I do have it pretty good in a large number of areas. But equally there are quite serious issues* I would like addressed that will almost certainly never be addressed by feminism as long as there remains even a slight hint of Male priveledge.
*
Spoiler:
the one which bothers me specifically is the widespread assumption, in the media, the public at large and the judicial system; that by being male I'm somehow instantly predatory.

I was briefed on a child protection course thusly
    "As men you must not have any physical contact with children unless it is neccessary (such as first aid), if a child needs help adjusting a buoyancy aid, tying shoelaces after their session get another child or a female collegue to do it; The risks of misinterpretation of even the most innocent of behaviour are dire, so protect yourself first."
When a child protection trainer from a well known childrens charity informs me that because of my gender I'm significantly more at risk of being falsely accused of being an abuser; I'm quite scared, not to mention somewhat detered from working with children.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:31 am UTC

MBR wrote:If you're interested in a good explanation of why public perception of the issue is so distorted, take a look at Prof. Murray Straus' article published in the peer-reviewed journal European Journal of Criminal Policy Research entitled "Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence".

I can't help but notice that you're trying to explain distortions of the incidence of injuries in partner violence by citing a study which says on its very first page that women suffer injuries from partner violence at a (one assumes significantly) greater rate than men.

Anyway, I don't think that the tactics in that article adequately explains public perceptions of partner violence, since the vast majority of the public are not social scientists with access to or interest in such allegedly distorted statistics. It's incredible to me that Straus acknowledges two other contributing factors and then immediately, without explanation, asserts that the real culprit is "the efforts of feminists to conceal, deny, and distort the evidence." What is his evidence for this claim? Since unsubstantiated speculation on motivation seems to be the order of the day, I suggest that Straus may be succumbing to a common perception that feminists — in general, not just in his examples — value ideology over scholarship.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Philwelch
Posts: 2904
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:33 am UTC
Location: RIGHT BEHIND YOU

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Philwelch » Tue Dec 29, 2009 4:38 am UTC

TheKrikkitWars wrote:But equally there are quite serious issues* I would like addressed that will almost certainly never be addressed by feminism as long as there remains even a slight hint of Male priveledge.


In other words--that will almost certainly never be addressed by feminism *at all*, since feminists will find hints of male privilege even in an equal and just society.

Spoiler:
When a child protection trainer from a well known childrens charity informs me that because of my gender I'm significantly more at risk of being falsely accused of being an abuser; I'm quite scared, not to mention somewhat detered from working with children.


I can actually see some intellectually honest feminists agreeing with you on that, since that's part of the perception that working with children is "women's work". That said, I can't see feminists actually caring too much about how that affects children and men--feminism is explicitly a movement by, of, and for women.
Fascism: If you're not with us you're against us.
Leftism: If you're not part of the solution you're part of the problem.

Perfection is an unattainable goal.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Random832 » Tue Dec 29, 2009 5:59 am UTC

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:I can't help but notice that you're trying to explain distortions of the incidence of injuries in partner violence by citing a study which says on its very first page that women suffer injuries from partner violence at a (one assumes significantly) greater rate than men.


I read his claim as being that women suffer injuries at a greater rate per violent incident, but that men suffer a larger total amount of violence (with a greater proportion not resulting in injury), with the result happening to end up being that they suffer injuries at nearly the same rate in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Tue Dec 29, 2009 6:12 am UTC

That does seem reasonable as far as interpreting what he means by "the greater rate of injury suffered by female victims," but he still contradicts the claim that the total number of injuries works out 50:50. If the greater injury rate "brings female victimization to public attention much more often," then it can not do so simply by being higher than P(injury|male). Straus is clearly claiming that P(injury ∩ female) > P(injury ∩ male).
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
TheKrikkitWars
Posts: 2205
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Bangor, Gwynedd, Gogledd Cymru
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby TheKrikkitWars » Tue Dec 29, 2009 10:45 am UTC

Philwelch wrote:
TheKrikkitWars wrote:But equally there are quite serious issues* I would like addressed that will almost certainly never be addressed by feminism as long as there remains even a slight hint of Male priveledge.


In other words--that will almost certainly never be addressed by feminism *at all*, since feminists will find hints of male privilege even in an equal and just society.

Spoiler:
When a child protection trainer from a well known childrens charity informs me that because of my gender I'm significantly more at risk of being falsely accused of being an abuser; I'm quite scared, not to mention somewhat detered from working with children.


I can actually see some intellectually honest feminists agreeing with you on that, since that's part of the perception that working with children is "women's work". That said, I can't see feminists actually caring too much about how that affects children and men--feminism is explicitly a movement by, of, and for women.


Exactly, an equilibrium of power will only look balanced if it proceeds at a significant rate, otherwise it looks more like a seesaw; and politics will never proceed at a significant rate.

There clearly are Men's Rights issues that should be addressed; how to properly define them, how to avoid undermining women's rights in the process of addressing them and how to prevent a group seeking to address them being undermined by getting lumped in with groups who aren't seeking balance as much as to tip the scales back in their own favour. - Interesting questions.
Great things are done when Men & Mountains meet,
This is not Done by Jostling in the Street.

User avatar
cephalopod9
Posts: 2030
Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2006 7:23 am UTC

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby cephalopod9 » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:22 am UTC

Statistical analysis is difficult with issues like this, because incidents, as a whole and individually, are complicated and often hard if not impossible to define in a quantitative sense.
While I really don't like thinking about statistics, and I haven't read the entire article yet, the Whitaker article cited by the breaking science piece has this in the first paragraph.
approximately 1.5 million women and 835 000 men are physically assaulted or raped by intimate partners in the United States annually.
both are hugely problematic numbers, and one is 1.8 times bigger than the other.
For as far as I can force myself to read (I could be looking up Carl Sagan on youtube) It's looking to be all about frequency, without a lot of discussion on severity or consequences. Things like hitting and kicking are worrisome to any degree. Self reported definitions can vary pretty widely, and there's even a section commenting on the differences in perception.
Spoiler:
Philwelch wrote:
When a child protection trainer from a well known childrens charity informs me that because of my gender I'm significantly more at risk of being falsely accused of being an abuser; I'm quite scared, not to mention somewhat detered from working with children.


I can actually see some intellectually honest feminists agreeing with you on that, since that's part of the perception that working with children is "women's work". That said, I can't see feminists actually caring too much about how that affects children and men--feminism is explicitly a movement by, of, and for women.
More than that, I'm sure almost all feminists would be for dealing with the issues that lead to a fear of male abusers. The perception of men as predatory isn't created in that particular interaction alone, these are parts and products of bigger problems.
It would be much harder for you to be seen as dangerous in a world without dangerous men. It's wrong, and beyond unfair, but it's not a counterpoint to feminist thought.
I'll say it again (perhaps more concisely and sensical this time.) a genuine interest in fair treatment for men* shouldn't in any way be contradictory to feminism.
Feminism as a movement likely isn't the best place to garner support for problems specific to men, but ultimately working towards the same goals.


*fair treatment, not just better, or
Image

User avatar
Pez Dispens3r
is not a stick figure.
Posts: 2079
Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 3:08 am UTC
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: "Men's Rights" Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective

Postby Pez Dispens3r » Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:33 am UTC

Philwelch in spoiler wrote:I can actually see some intellectually honest feminists agreeing with you on that, since that's part of the perception that working with children is "women's work". That said, I can't see feminists actually caring too much about how that affects children and men--feminism is explicitly a movement by, of, and for women.

It is explicitly no such thing.

Admittedly, most of my experience of academic feminists is with those of a historical bent, rather than those purely in sociology, but from my reading I think you're wrong. Susan J. Douglas, for example, is somewhat popular for her work Where the Girls Are: Growing Up Female with the Mass Media which is about representations of women in twentieth-century mass media. However, she also authored Listening in: Radio and American Imagination which is largely about masculinity in twentieth-century America. Somehow, she was able to pull herself away from her feminist bias to consider masculinity as a legitimate subject for academic research. Imagine the cheek. Likewise Judith Walkowitz considers how gender, including masculinity, was shaped and forged in Victorian England in her City of Dreadful Delight: Narratives of Sexual Danger in Late-Victorian London.

My point is that although there are rather inflammatory feminists on the tubes and in the media, they're not representative of the body of feminist work, much of which recognises that attending to gender disparities is an important part of moving towards equality because this isn't a seesaw. It's more like a tangled ball of string, where pulling on a thread to loosen one knot will just make another one tighter. We can make progress towards fixing this mess but it requires a holistic approach and a great many feminists have figured this one out and are trying to attend to "men's rights" issues as part of this struggle.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:I feel like you're probably an ocelot, and I feel like I want to eat you. Feeling is fun!
this isn't my cow


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Armanant, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 15 guests