cont'd ...

Dear Suse,

I agree with you. As I've stated so many times
on the Forum - true liberation from the
restrictions of gender would mean that all possible
options would be open and equally acceptable for
both sexes. Then a person's individual human
qualities, rather than his or her biological sex,
would be the primary measure of that person's
worth and achievement

Suzi "Surely trying to understand where both women and men are coming from, will ensure a much more harmonious world?

Except thats quite clearly what the author of that article is rejecting. Study of men and or masculinity that does not have a marxist and pro-feminist perspective is explicitly rejected. Study of men or masculinity with any kind of positivist approach is seemingly rejected. The idea of mens studies (or some other term to discuss the concept) which gives a voice to men about their perspectives or experience is rejected.

There is no interest in trying to understand where men are coming from, if there is to be any study of men it has to be via a marxist, feminist perspective.

Lexi I agree that some of the issues are not the same as counting straight numbers. However gender studies groups seem to come at the issues with some massive bais's, they present material which has been massively filtered and re-intepreted as though it was representative of the numbers rather than a rehash of beliefs.

That present massive problems when policy makers start basing laws and funding on the "research"findings of those groups.

The DV issue is a classic case, the feminist researchers would have us believe that DV at all levels is massively gendered because their beliefs tell them men control women. When you look at the raw numbers for physical violence (I've not seen much on other forms of abuse) it's clear that women initiate violence family slightly more often than men. It's the experience of many men that women control their homes and most of the key decisions if the man wants any kind of a peaceful life.

Women get hurt more from direct violence when the situation gets extreme, physical strength is not entirely irrelevant. However men suicide in far greater numbers, we don't live as long, we are more likely to be homeless and are behind women in a wide range of factors typically denoting disadvantage rather than power and privilege.

R0bert

Lexi, "true liberation from the
restrictions of gender would mean that all possible
options would be open and equally acceptable for
both sexes. Then a person's individual human
qualities, rather than his or her biological sex,
would be the primary measure"

But biology is relevant and important. View the video dispassionately, without pre-judgement. It is true is it not that decades after positive affirmative action in education, in public media and in work, women and men still show their preferences for different roles by using their feet.

But feminists already accept that as proved by demands for higher pay for 'traditional' women's occupations.

Dear RObert,

We've covered this ground many times in the
past. Tension over gender roles is only
one aspect of conflict in the family.

Sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence -
between spouses, between parents and offspring, and
among the offspring themselves.

The police detest "disturbance calls" - usually
family fights - because of the vicious and
dangerous nature of so many of these conflicts;
indeed, more police are injured or killed
intervening in these disputes than in almost any
other type of situation they face.

Surveys suggest that each year many couples go through
a violent episode in which one spouse tries to cause
the other serious pain or injury.

Wives assault their husbands as often as husbands assault
their wives, and spouses are equally likely to kill
each other. Although wives are rarely a match for their
husbands in a fistfight, they are more likely to use
lethal weapons (notably kitchen knives).

I agree with you that there should be an emphasis
on family violence by both spouses. Not just
an emphasis on one gender. Perhaps this
is due to the fact that this takes place in a general social
context that has traditionally emphasized male dominance
and female subservience.

In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose
members are supposed to love and care for one another
is not easily explained, and suggests that the modern
family may sometimes be under greater pressure than it
can easily bear.

See you on another thread.

Dear onthebeach,

Like the feminine role, the masculine role
is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more
subject to interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of
the challenge of social and cultural change.
Under the old system, everyone knew what their
roles were, and most people unquestioningly
behaved as they were supposed to. The system
constrained people, but it freed them from the
need to make choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but the
individual now has the liberty - or the burden -
to choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

Our modern society is individualistic and highly
open to change and experimentation, a society in
which men and women can explore a wide variety of
possible roles.

Of course we have to realise that each society
views its own patterns of marriage, family,
and kinship as self-evidently right and proper,
and usually as God-given as well. Much of the current
concern about the fate of the modern family stems
from this kind of ethnocentrism. If we assume
that there is only one "right" family form, gender
role,
than naturally any change will be interpreted as
heralding the doom of the whole institution.

It is important to recognise, therefore, that there
is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns, that each of these patterns may be,
at least in its own context, perfectly viable, and
above all, that the family, like any other social
institution must inevitably change through time.
The same goes for feminine and masculine roles.

See you on another thread.

<Surveys suggest that each year many couples go through
a violent episode in which one spouse tries to cause
the other serious pain or injury>

I wonder about the definitions used and the survey methodology. Does the definition of violence include verbal insult, restriction of budget and so on? Likewise does pain and injury include mental anguish, emotional upset and whatever? Whispered threats to chop the chocolate supply perhaps?

The reason I ask is because we can sit on our balcony above a valley of dozens of houses and not hear a peep. We don't even hear the dogs and cats any more. Dogs are practically banned by noise complaints and cats are locked indoors by green authoritarianism.

We don't see the yellowing bruises down at the shops or in the doctor's surgery either. However there is the stream of the usual suspects at the hospital emergency after hours. Bloodied, stinking of booze and lacking self pride.

Maybe real violence occasioning bodily harm isn't as prevalent among the general population as surmised and the few are responsible for many reports. Or alternatively someone is fudging numbers to support a career.

The problem I have is that one definition is used to get the numbers to bolster a feminist ideological take on gender, while the argument for support and funds is based on the shock and awe pictures of actual harm from physical violence.

Attention needs to be paid to definitions. Otherwise the money intended to help victims is diverted into the pockets of quick-witted professional who make careers out of misfortune.