I've only just got to this article and I am somewhat perplexed by the strength of the attacks on it. Brian has most likely added his own color, some of it gained by talking to a close friend of one of the women he speaks of. He attributes views to an establishment that was from my reading on the matter often sexist and classist in terms which fit commonly held views of attitudes of the times.

I think that the idea that men are denigrated by the article is seriously overstated. The women are praised because they achieved things which were unusual for women of their time in a cultural setting which was probably quite unfriendly to it. Perhaps Brian could have looked into the pressure the women faced from other women to conform but I think his thoughts were elsewhere when he wrote the article.

Those who felt denigrated might take some encouragement from Brian's observation -
"before Greer was born there were women sharing wilderness adventures with men who were their admiring team mates."

eg not all men are bastards, not all men of the time saw women in negative terms or required that they be kept in their place.

R0bert

pynchme,

I can sort my own messes out. I picked a bad partner, and took too long to realise I couldn't fix her. My problem, and as I said I didn't want her arrested, I just didn't need to be stigmatised on top of the problems I was having.

If I had called the police, who do you think they'd arrest? The all powerful man, or the poor little abuse victim. That's what the adverts perpetuate.

If my view of the services available is distorted, I am probably not alone given my impression of the attitude towards domestic violence was coloured by the dominant propaganda of the time.

I have a science degree with a major in Statistics. I remember the social science students really struggling with the mathematics involved even in first year. I've seen the level most get to, and it gets about as far as understanding a normal curve and a p-value. Most don't even grasp the difference between correlation and causation. They do a few first year subjects and a marginal pass is all that is required for their degree.

If I had any confidence whatsoever in yours or antiseptics intellectual honesty I would bother reading some of the research. But my time is too valuable to me to bother searching through research only to find, surprise surprise, the conclusions you two make are bullsh1t.

Besides, survey stats will never peak my interest. It's all in the wording and sample group, and people lie. Like in polls, what people say and what they do are two different things.

If people had asked me at the time had I ever been a victim of domestic violence, I would have said no. My partner would probably have said yes. Shows the accuracy of these type of stats. Also shows the power of the propaganda.

'feminists have no trouble at all seeing violence from women '

Rubbish. Your Flood link reckons any claims of that nature are just a tactic from men's groups to minimise male violence.

Houellebecq:"If I had any confidence whatsoever in yours or antiseptics intellectual honesty"

Now that hurts. i do my best to provide current stats and current links to the most credible research I can find. Where possible I go to prime sources to check the data. I do understand the difference between correlation and causation and I do my best to understand the figures, both as presented and via my own interpretations. I have some confidence in my ability to do that thanks to my own studies and my work background

I don't go to the nearest "pro-feminist" website run by a self-serving opportunist to find stuff that I know will support my position because it's been carefully tailored to do just that in order to support his claim to a seat on the feminist gravy train.

The trouble with social "research" is that it has largely been the preserve of second-raters and the emotionally damaged. Smart people go into law or medicine or science or commerce. The rest do social studies. As you say, apart from the woeful capacity to grasp basic statistical methods, many of these people are conscientiously doing advocacy, not research or work that is justified by the demands of a clientele willing to pay for it.

R0bert

<<< Perhaps Brian could have looked into the pressure the women faced from other women to conform but I think his thoughts were elsewhere when he wrote the article. >>>

Good point, there has always been pressure from women for women to maintain the status quo, just as there are men who pressure other men to conform to a stereotype. I think this behaviour deserves its own topic thread as it is way beyond what I think was Brian's intent; to proffer praise to a couple of outstanding women.

Therefore, I accept Brian's article with the good intent with which it was offered. Keep up the great work.

r0bert,

I think stev nailed it...

'Of course, Brian has no actual evidence that these women felt controlled, alienated, or anything else. It is a possibility not an actuality (to use your language).

Instead, he chooses to rely on a commonly-used rhetorical or narrative device that is designed to inflame the faithful's indignities and thus heighten their appreciation for the heroic achievements of the central characters. My simple observation was that this male bashing was unnecessary and unhelpful. '

Except the last sentence. I think really, it's just the 'Journey' he needed to describe. It's necessary for our full appreciation of the journey he wanted to get across. It's even 'apposite'!

Houellebecq, nice use of the word 'apposite' (i.e. apt or pertinent).

I think it is valid to describe someone's journey by describing the hurdles involved *if the hurdles were actually there*.

It's like embellishing the story of Apollo 13 to make the return journey more dangerous so that the actual achievements appear more heroic. Like, "let's have the computer fail or oxygen leak out", when in reality it didn't happen that way.

Brian has no idea if these women felt controlled or alienated by flabby men. These details were added as props to raise the hurdles and inflame an emotional response. It wouldn't be acceptable in a non-fiction account of Apollo 13 and it's not acceptable here.

Of course, raising imaginary hurdles happens all the time in entertainment - film, TV, novels. We could classify Brian's work in the category of entertainment, bio-tainment if you will, instead of non-fiction. I can live with that.

But then is it still acceptable to create caricatures of men of that era based on some archetype of the "typical" 1920s male? I seem to recall that negative stereotypes of women in contemporary (fictional) media have been decried by feminists in the past. Do we extend the same courtesy to men?