Yes, I was willing to listen to HRS until he point blank refused to accept that unfortunately, men do, on average, commit more domestic violence than women (and I'm talking about physical violence here, as shown in the police statistics for assault from men against women).

Then when he refused to believe that any feminist could possibly be right about any matter relating to gender relations it entered the realm of caricature.

I was and still am particularly interested in the many fallacies he employs to maintain his ignorance and reject evidence that doesn't jibe.
There's quite an array of farcical tactics he uses, but I think I've seen them all now so he's not as entertaining.

Though I'll take this opportunity to warn you that he'll probably attempt to get you to go and find evidence to refute him (while refusing to collect anything to back up his weird views) then when you do, he'll find a way to reject the information by narrowing the field of what he'll accept.

There's a number of ways to do this 1) he can find source material adjacent to what you present and criticise that instead (i.e. instead of reading the article you show him, find another article on the site and criticise that).
2) Ignore it altogether and insist that unless you find an incredibly specific piece of data, he must be right, even if what you show proves he isn't.
3) Give some anecdote with no backing and claim it's a valid counterpoint to stats or referenced incidences.

There's plenty more but I'm running out of room. HRS does make a fascinating case study for those interested in critical reasoning and commonly employed fallacies though.

For a long time I didn't want to tar him as a misogynist, but when he refuses to accept any feminist could have anything worthwhile to say, he's not just criticising feminism, he's criticising the concept of women wanting to be equal or have rights, and that most certainly is misogyny.

Thanks for the introduction CJ Morgan.

I don't know the ins and outs of OLO but am learning :).

I think I will go with the ignore option now that I am wiser. OLO is about opinions and people will sometimes disagree, but if there is no reasoning or logic in debate probably not much point in flogging a dead horse.

However, it is always sad to see people so affected by the things that happen in their lives sometimes you have to forgive and move on for your own peace of mind and quality of life.

TLTR, there is at present a Dissident DV conference in the US.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1829
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1822

It has researchers such as Donald Dutton and others I do not know of. Erin Pizzey is also presenting.

"From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence"

Turnrightthenleft,
So how many VFL players rape women.

Is it 100%, 10%, 1%, 0.01%, 0.001%, or less than 0.001%?

@TurnRightThenLeft

You refer to police statistics as evidence of rates of abuse. Where do you stand with regard to rape/sexual abuse advocacy that consistantly draws attention to high rates of non-reporting?

When you refer to "domestic violence" are you including children or are you refering only to abuse between adults?

Melinda

I love your articles. They are always refreshing and challenging.

You are right of course: rape is always rape and no amount of our former local mullah's protest and defence about 'meat and bait' in any guise is justifiable.

I'm older and although no angel in my youth I always recognised and adopted a gentlemanly manner towards the women I encountered regardless of their demeanour or state. I found that totally rewarding and satisfying.

I still do.

I think perhaps lessons in manners and charm, given their effectiveness, would work better than threats and warnings.

Yep I'm smilling.

regards.

ps Melinda, does Paekakariki mean anything to you?