Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 4 December 2006 5:47:41 PM
“Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem. Care to profile your group.”

Are you implying that women’s groups attracting ‘disgruntled divorcees looking for payback’ is not the real problem?

On one project I represented our small group of mostly men who occasionally pull some kind of project together which is philosophically gender neutral and in practice always concentrating on the kids. The real dysfunctional, vindictive men, of whom there are heaps (as there are dysfunctional, vindictive women) avoid us because we are not militant enough for them.

I was representing that group when I once raised the possibility of sexual discrimination being an issue over a Women-Only-Picnic (which actively discouraged attendance by men) as part of a Local Council “Peace Week” Festival.

The meeting of representatives and stakeholders at Council was comprised entirely of women except for me (so much for the Patriarchy). It was conceded that it was a fair question to raise however the committee unanimously didn’t see a problem with the picnic.

Two weeks later we had it confirmed from ‘the inside’ that a network of local women’s groups had formally boycotted any projects that were to be managed by us. Such an action makes any man in our group a pariah to any women exposed to that network even if only through the informal, if particularly effective, ‘word of mouth’.

Interestingly, despite the body language when I raised that question, which included almost every woman in the room violently launching themselves backwards in the directly-opposite direction to me, when I run across them in the street, none of them ever remembers meeting me…

Husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends, brothers and sisters are needed to counter any anti-female-anti-male movement that hampers the communication between the sexes. Also our laws need to be gender neutral. We need to punish the behavior we don't want expressed in our society and encourage that which we do want and do it equally across the board regardless of race, creed, culture, or sex. Any group that is motivated to force a wedge between any element of society ought to be punished by society as a whole, a single voice. I know it's simplistic but, the truth is we are all in this together and one can not be given status or authority over any other. We are supposed to be a nation of laws not a nation of bias seeking infuence or control. We are supposed to learn from history not use it as justification for like behavior.

I keep trying to convince myself to stop posting to this thread, but the comments get more and more outrageous. Aquarius has capped it all off with this:

"We need to punish the behavior we don't want expressed in our society and encourage that which we do want and do it equally across the board regardless of race, creed, culture, or sex."

What utterly authoritarian rubbish! There is room for lots of debate about what makes conduct criminal, but I'll guarantee that the threshold question is not "behaviour we don't want expressed in our society." There's plenty of behaviour "we" don't want expressed in society, yet don't criminalise. And who is "we" anyway? One person's undesirable behaviour is another person's good night out. Such sweeping authoritarian statements deserve no more than ridicule.

I mean Aquarius, have you really though this through? Really? Or did you just post from the hip. I hope you regret it.

BTW before anyone misinterprets, I am *not* arguing that domestic violence is "behaviour we don't like but shouldn't criminalise." I'm happy for all violence, domestic or otherwise, to be unlawful. I just think Aquarius is making idiotic sweeping statements that don't bear close examination.

Anthony

ronnie "Maybe that some men’s groups attract disgruntled divorcees looking for payback is the real problem."

Maybe but do you have the integrity to ask the same question of the womens groups?

I've spent some time involved in one of the groups so I've not got vast experience but some.

Yes there are some very bitter men there and if you bothered to listen to their stories you might understand why they are so bitter.

You might also be surprised at how many dispite the most crushing blows to their lives at the hands of ex's using kids, the family court and C$A for revenge and gain are just trying to find a way to get on with their lives and make things better for others. And yes I'm aware that there are women who have been really badly treated at the hands of nasty ex's and yes I have listened to some of their stories and do have compassion for them.

You might be surprised at how quickly those rare calls for a baised system are responded to with reasoned argument for an even playing field.

You might be surprised at how many women are involved in the mens groups as they see their partners and their childrens lives harmed by a biased system that can at times leave little or no hope of things getting better.

My view is that the mens groups offer little for the genuine abusers. Those guys are not the types to be in working for a fair go for others nor are they the ones who really care what is happening to their kids. They might come for a while but find that extremist agenda's are not supported nor are abusers.

From what I've seen the groups offer a lifeline to men who's lives are being torn to bits by a system that assumes in "no fault divorce" that it is the mans fault. They provide a connection to others who will listen and have some understanding of what you are going through.

R0bert

Anthony Marinac
Wow, way to misinterpret and freely include false statements then knocking me for advocating your poor and limited understanding of the totality of my intended picture. Punish as in not to reward. I never said nor implied criminality. That was your introduction. Please don't make me responsible for your limited perceptions. "Husbands and wives, girlfriends and boyfriends, brothers and sisters are needed to counter any anti-female-anti-male movement that hampers the communication between the sexes." Is hardly authoritarian. "Any group that is motivated to force a wedge between any element of society ought to be punished by society as a whole, a single voice." Hardly authoritarian. "I know it's simplistic but,the truth is we are all in this together and one can not be given status or authority over any other." Again, hardly authoritarian.
Anthony Marinac your a bit of a git and ought not to pounce from behind your mantle of self rightiousness. Ridicule is not intellectual arguement. I don't want to post on this site but, you make me. What tripe.

There's just not enough space really, but it really is time to swing a cluebat here:

Ronnie Peters:

Hypocrisy:

"Cornflower you are also wrong to chastise feminist for supposedly not caring about the issue of women being violent to men. I’d say that they have their hands full looking after abused women."
[ Sex substitution ] : So then feminists are fine if we don't care about the reverse because we have OUR hands full and shouldn't be chastising US, like the article does?

"If men and mens’ groups “acted upon this conviction” in the way the article suggested then they would have some credibilty."
[ sex substitution ] : If feminists and feminist groups would act upon this conviction in support of battered or emotionally abused men, then they would have some credibility.

"men’s groups aren’t helping with domestic violence, rather they are making things harder for women [ by refusing to accept 100% of the blame ]"
[ sex subsitution ] : Feminists won't support a 50/50 campaign that advocates equal responsibility, so by the same logic they are making it harder for actual [ male, child and even female ] victims FAR MORE.

Black and white thinking:

Me: If a man accepts 100% blame for something he is only 50% to blame for, or other matriarchal ideals, he is whipped.
RP: "The idea that a household has to be either a matriarchal or patriarchal and, if it isn’t patriarchal, then the man is “whipped”."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

1) Patriarchal ( +infinity)
2) Hello!!
3) Matriarchal (-infinity)

It's called thinking in more than one dimension. E.G.:

1) Blaming women completely
2) Equal responsibility <-- !! [ clue here ] !!
3) Blaming men completely

Just funny:

Me: Elvis Presley acted in a way you percieve violent on television and women were attracted to him.
RP: "So then you are blaming women for having no indication that men acting like Elvis [ on television no less ] would act in a way I percieve to be violent, but finding out they would later. HOW COULD THEY HAVE KNOWN?!?"

Clue in please.