Oh dear. I see that you have now resorted to freshly minting quotes for me, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles rather silly view that "women are little and weak, while men are big and strong" should never be an excuse for them to expect to be able to act out that violence.<<

Here is what I actually said about relative physical strengths - specifically, I might add, in the context of the Waterstreet story:

"If she were an Amazon, and he a nine-stone weakling, I might have more sympathy with your judgement."

When you continued to chirp about the unfairness of it all, I was forced to point out that:

"Women, as has been observed over the centuries, have been physically less strong than men. That's across the board, not picking out individual women body-builders or seven-stone-weakling men who get sand kicked in their face."

...which I expanded on as follows:

"...it means that even today, men are expected to exercise greater restraint when they feel the urge to hit a women, than women are when they are driven by emotional hurt to take a swipe at their man."

You continued to misconstrue, in order presumably to boost your own agenda...

>>Pericles, I must say I thought you had more substance... The idea of the “frail little woman” is so Victorian as to be laughable.<<

At which point I was forced to object to your tactics of putting words into my mouth:

"I agree, totally laughable. It is, however, your interpretation, not mine. Read again what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you think I wrote, and tell me which part you disagree with."

An observation that still stands.

What, exactly, is your problem?

Pericles:"I see that you have now resorted to freshly minting quotes for me, Antiseptic."

Not at all, I was simply paraphrasing your view as I couldn't be bothered trawling through your posts to quote you. I think I got the flavour right, despite your protestations. Your own quotes back my opinion in that matter.

You might note that I apologised some days back for denigrating your opinion that men are under an obligation not to hit women. That doesn't mean I think it's OK for them to hit men, using the same logical process and regardless of their size. a small woman hitting a big man because she knows he can't hit back is just as gutless as a big man hitting a small woman.

What's your problem with that?

Back online for a little bit.

Lexi some input the the comments you made recently about researcher objectivity. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4912#131505

I came across a bit on the topic when I was trying vanna's challenge about feminist academics and positive comments about men some time back.

Not sure how much that you've looked into the topic before but it is interesting to read what's been written by some feminists about feminist research. I've not seen much that refutes what's expressed in the following links, they do appear to be legitimate discussions on the topic by feminists.

A good article at http://www.unb.ca/par-l/win/feminmethod.htm

"Feminist research must not be abstract and removed from the subject of investigation but instead must have a commitment to working towards societal change."

"Feminist research is, by definition, research that utilizes feminist concerns and beliefs to ground the research process. Feminism takes women as its starting point, seeking to explore and uncover patriarchal social dynamics and relationships from the perspective of women."

Also http://www.aare.edu.au/99pap/gar99199.htm "Traditional interviewing practices create problems for feminist researchers whose primary aim is towards the validation of women's subjective experiences as women and as people."

A search on women's subjective experiences and feminist research can also be interesting.

I don't think that the expectation that feminist researchers are trying to return objective results holds. It does not appear to be part of the paradigm. Something that those looking at the output of feminist research might not get if they've not looked at it.

The search to validate women's subjective experience seems to be quite happy to invalidate men's objective and subjective as men.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

As I've stated in the past - inevitably, researchers,
like anyone else, (male or female)
will be guilty of some measure of bias -
the tendency, often unconscious, to interpret facts
according to one's own values. Nobody is denying that.
This problem occurs in all sciences, but it becomes
particularly acute in the social sciences, whose
subject matter often involves issues of deep human and
moral concern.

How can this problem be resolved? I've covered that in
my earlier post - regarding objectivity.

However, total objectivity is probably impossible to
achieve in any science, since some bias is always
unconscious. But a self-conscious effort to be as
objective as possible will produce vastly less biased
results than not making this attempt.

And if objectivity is defined as thought sufficienetly
disciplined to minimise the distortions caused by
personal bias, then it is certainly possible.

The pursuit of objectivity does not necessarily mean
that researchers should not express personal opinions,
or value judgements. However, they are required by
their departments that these judgements should be
clearly labeled as such and that they should not
intrude into the actual process of research and
interpretation.

It would be perfectly legitimate, therefore, for a
researcher to give as objective an account as possible
of a social problem, and then to add a subjective
judgement - provided that the judgement was presented
as a matter of personal opinion.

How many women are feminists.
Is it half, no more, most like life as it is.
And most have the ability to make it as they want.
Anti you and I are in trouble, our detractors think putting thoughts and words in our mouth we do not hold, is ok.
And seemingly no woman EVER hit ANY man.
And if she did he had it coming.

Then you should not have used quotation marks, Antiseptic.

>>I was simply paraphrasing your view as I couldn't be bothered trawling through your posts<<

"Paraphrasing", especially in such a casual and inaccurate manner, is simply the way you use to slant my views so that you can address them. Which you would not have been able to do, had you used my actual words.

It's a matter of courtesy, apart from anything else.

And credibility, of course.

>>a small woman hitting a big man because she knows he can't hit back is just as gutless as a big man hitting a small woman.<<

You have made your view perfectly clear. However, it is not one I can remotely agree with, having seen the substantial physical damage a big man can cause to a small woman, and the trivial, temporary hurt a small woman can cause to a big man.

As I said at the outset, it is a matter of context.