Trade 215

I hope it's not too late for you to read this, but I found your two posts of Friday, 5 December, absolutely amazing! I often wonder why I bother with OLO, but well thought-out, well written posts like these remind me of the reason.

I’ve never been quite sure where you are coming from, as I’ve often found your posts a little dense at times and perceived some hostility to feminism in your posting history. Perhaps I’ve misunderstood.

However (and if I have read your posts right), I wholeheartedly agree that all forms of violence in society follow a top-down power distribution, with the real issue being social control – of men by men, of women by men, of children by adults, of out-groups by in-groups, of nature by humans … and on it goes.

phanto

'There is not something innately violent about men – just an innate physical advantage.'

Agreed. I've often argued this on OLO - or at least used a similar slant. In a culture that depends so much on violence to get what it wants, the gender with the greater physical advantage is the more valuable commodity. That is why attempts to 'shame' men into rejecting violence can only go so far, as they are being asked to reject the very thing that makes them valuable.

Similarly, women use emotional aggression, not because it is innate, but because it's the only 'acceptable' violence society allows them.

I've been away from OLO for a while ... so pardon another long post to catch up...

Pynchme

Some interesting links there.

Unfortunately, however, for every piece of solid evidence that Australian rates of violence against women are rising in direct proportion to the death by thousand funding cuts to DV/GV and general women's advocacy resources over at least the last 10 years, there is a mountain of well-funded Menz Rights Movement ‘research’ (such as the prolific but discredited Conflict Tactics Scale) to ‘prove’ that there is a hidden violence epidemic against men.

Ultimately, WATM (What About the Menz) arguments seek to dismantle the few paltry gains women have made in having DV/GV taken seriously as a social issue. While professing to be about ‘balance’, the real WATM agenda is distraction.

JamesH

‘Sarcasm, SJF’

Moi. But of course! Plus a few dollops of Swiftian malevolence and just a touch of condescension.

Antiseptic

‘[SJF] Much easier to stand on the sidelines trying to be a smartarse than to actually try to keep up with the players, isn't it?’

Yep! Too right! You’re just way too smart for me … and for everyone else in the world too. (See also my response to James above.)

R0bert

Re Sex in the City movie … No, I haven’t seen it. However, having seen one episode of the pitiful TV series, I don’t doubt that the movie would contain some horrific scenes of women slapping men’s faces, which must be truly terrifying to watch.

And, while we’re at it, I wonder if you’ve seen the 10,000 or so films and TV series made about serial killers who abduct, rape, torture, mutilate and finally kill a succession of women – holding them hostage for several hours, days, weeks, months or sometimes years, while some intrepid (usually male) detective has to decipher all the cleverly diabolical clues left by the evil mastermind before he (the mastermind) is brought to justice and the women of the world can feel warm, fuzzy and protected again

My description of the violence in the film
"The physical violence which was depicted was low level, the victims were not at any real risk of physical harm, they did not appear to be concerned for their own physical safety but the use of physical violence against a partner seemed to go unchallenged in the film. The violence depicted were the result of angry outbursts rather than any long term attempt to control the other party by the use of violence. Never the less what was depicted was still physical violence against a partner."

SJF's attempts to divert the reader and misrepresent what was said, "I don’t doubt that the movie would contain some horrific scenes of women slapping men’s faces, which must be truly terrifying to watch."

So typical of the way discussion of gender violence is played by those who want to play sexist games rather than work towards solutions. SJF if you really care about stopping violence then at least try to be honest. Have a think about what I've said. Have a think about how many of the films you describe portray the person initiating the violence in a sympatetic compassionate light, how many of them portray the violence as something that just happens, undeserving of rebuke, undeserving of comment and possibly justified.

R0bert

http://www.law.fsu.edu/Journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

Disabusing the definition of domestic violence and the role of the feminist state.

Domestic Violence Policies Where did we go wrong?
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/13076/20021019/www.nuancejournal.com.au/documents/three/saran2.pdf

Now SJF writes about the discredit conflict tactic scale, which by the way was used by feminist researchers, that is until other researchers used it to support their research which conflicted with feminist advocacy. Only when other researchers investigating female perpetrated violence did the conflict tactic scale get discredited by feminist researchers.

(In)valid feminist research consists of only asking questions that support their gender bias.

Feminist researchers (almost) never ask women if they have initiated violence, the usual excuse is when women commit violence it is allegedly in self defense.

<Ultimately, WATM (What About the Menz) arguments seek to dismantle the few paltry gains women have made in having DV/GV taken seriously as a social issue. While professing to be about ‘balance’, the real WATM agenda is distraction.>

I wonder if these claims made by SJF are spurious?

SJF writes that DV is a serious social issue, then how come she is so resistant to examining all aspects of DV?

would it not be better to prevent Dv from occuring, and to do this would mean examining all the factors involved, not just the factors deemed to be politically correct by individuals who strong gender bias.

SJF must have an investment of some type in the feminist industry. There is no other plausible explanation for denying some basic facts and reasoning contained in each of the posts criticising this writer.

Well, that's cleared that up: the pro-feminists on this site are obviously in favour of violence against men, as several days have elapsed and there has not been a squeak from any of the hypocrites about the fact that 1 in 3 girls regard violence against boys as acceptable. Hardly surprising for hypocritical lightweights.

SJF:"You’re just way too smart for me"

I can see how you'd come to that conclusion, but our relative intelligence is not at issue - the facts are clear and you're simply too stupid or dishonest to grasp the nettle and admit you are wrong. You and the egregious Flood are much better at "telling lies for women" than exercising integrity.