Kevin Myers Article In the Indo -does he have a point?

Macha

,8,1 - I'm not debating with you on this thread anymore. I only debated this long because I was concerned someone reading this might think you were right.

But you've just shown a complete inability to back up your arguments, revealed a total ignorance of sociological research methodology (never mind the primacy of the Constitution) and displayed a real knack for squeezing your mind into some (clearly pre-defined) boxes.

So I'm not that concerned anymore.

Blackhorse Slim

The feminist sirens remained quiet. For the victim is a man

Next week;

Giles and Dunphy remain silent on Ronnie O'Sullivan.

:rolleyes:

brianthebard

,8,1 wrote: »

And as you know I reject that feminism is an "equality movement" - it is the women's movement. And so, it is inherently exclusionist and particularist.

"Equality" is a propagandistic wrapper, nothing more. The truth about feminism and what it stands for is best found in the word itself.

Wow ,8,1, you've shown me the errors of my ways! No longer will I believe that feminism is about gaining equality, that is parity, for one gender with another. Feminists like James Connolly and Francis Sheehy-Skeffington were clearly evil women looking to subjugate men....wait there's something wrong there?

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

Wow ,8,1, you've shown me the errors of my ways! No longer will I believe that feminism is about gaining equality, that is parity, for one gender with another. Feminists like James Connolly and Francis Sheehy-Skeffington were clearly evil women looking to subjugate men....wait there's something wrong there?

You are right there but the franchise benefited both men and women -especially in Ireland before independence.

I have no disagreement on how the unions drove forward workplace equality especially in areas like teaching where employment and training contracts were little short of bonded slavery. A various times woman had to resign and repay the "cost" of her education if she married and pay for a sub if on maternity leave.Thats not the case now for teaching.

So its not inconsistant or wrong to look at equality there and there is much we probably agree on..

But in the context of this discussion its not the vote or workplace inequality thats under discussion.

brianthebard

CDfm wrote: »

You are right there but the franchise benefited both men and women -especially in Ireland before independence.

I have no disagreement on how the unions drove forward workplace equality especially in areas like teaching where employment and training contracts were little short of bonded slavery. A various times woman had to resign and repay the "cost" of her education if she married and pay for a sub if on maternity leave.Thats not the case now for teaching.

So its not inconsistant or wrong to look at equality there and there is much we probably agree on..

But in the context of this discussion its not the vote or workplace inequality thats under discussion.

I dunno what you're on about but women didn't get the vote until after independence. In the context of this discussion, I was pointing out that men are also feminists, and that feminism is about equality, not preferential treatment of women.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

I dunno what you're on about but women didn't get the vote until after independence. In the context of this discussion, I was pointing out that men are also feminists, and that feminism is about equality, not preferential treatment of women.

I thought it was a valid point on the suffrage issue -you just had universal male suffrage ( and women over 30) a short time earlier - and that you did have structural or institutional inequality a lot later and that some of these issues were only addressed fairly recently.

So you wont get "perfect" systems as in an economic model.I just dont think its a gender based competition thats all.

Edit : i looked up voting in the UK and up from the 1880s until 1918 there were only 40% of men allowed vote as it was based on who was a householder. Before that it was property based and very few men had the vote and it was 1 in 7 in the UK .I am not an expert but in 1918 the franchise was extended to all men over 21 and women over 30. In the UK in 1928 the voting age was standardised at 21 in the UK. In Ireland therefore there was male suffrage in 1918 and universal suffrage in 1921 on independence.The property owning laws were fairly brutal for women.

CDfm

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

The feminist sirens remained quiet. For the victim is a man

Next week;

Giles and Dunphy remain silent on Ronnie O'Sullivan.

:rolleyes:

Nice one.

Hey - Im not a fan of the article and do think it was a tad unfair.

But its one of those cross over issues and a grey area.

metrovelvet

I object to the term feminist sirens, for feminism has a dominant puritanical streak which I don't like, and there is nothing they share with sirens.

I think we need to ressucitate the notions of hell, and thou shall not bear false witness against they neighbor. I don't see this as much of a gender/feminist issue. I think he did the whole issue a disservice by bringing up the feminists.

CDfm

Thats Kevin Myers -its his job is to sell newspapers - I really started the thread to discuss the issue and not the politics.

Lux23

I think he is talking crap really, I don't really think its the RCC's place to come out here and say anything about this case. I don't see how it has anything to do with them.

Anyway just as an aside I read somewhere (can't think where) that Ireland has the highest rate of false rape allegations, wonder what they says about us?

PeakOutput

Lux23 wrote: »

wonder what they says about us?

you dont really want an answer to that on a womans forum do you?

the rape crisis center should comment if for no other reason then to distance themselves from any accusations of not condemning false accusations.

CDfm

PeakOutput wrote: »

you dont really want an answer to that on a womans forum do you?

the rape crisis center should comment if for no other reason then to distance themselves from any accusations of not condemning false accusations.

It depends how it defines it I suppose -for example here it was false, you may also get malacious and then you have the whole consensual or drunken sex debate.

I can see how the whole issue is difficult and the dilemma could be it discourages victims coming forward. It is also difficult to gauge whether RCC may also be duped into assisting someone pursuing a malicious prosecution and whether the have a duty to advise the authorities if a case might be malicious.

Is there enough info known on their (RCC) policies on this issue.The RCC do great work in helping victims of rape.Mens groups on DV say its difficult for guys to come forward - no doubt.

dreamlogic

CDfm wrote: »

I can see how the whole issue is difficult and the dilemma could be it discourages victims coming forward.

I see what you're saying about it being sometimes difficult to determine what is a genuine case etc but I disagree with the implication that people who are found to have lied about rape should be let off lightly because of not wanting to discourage future victims from reporting. Imo this would have the opposite effect; if people are let off lightly for lying and there's a certain acceptance of this then imo that reason would more likely discourage a genuine victim from coming forward - the fear of not being taken seriously.

CDfm

dreamlogic wrote: »

I see what you're saying about it being sometimes difficult to determine what is a genuine case etc but I disagree with the implication that people who are found to have lied about rape should be let off lightly because of not wanting to discourage future victims from reporting. Imo this would have the opposite effect; if people are let off lightly for lying and there's a certain acceptance of this then imo that reason would more likely discourage a genuine victim from coming forward - the fear of not being taken seriously.

Does anyone know the actual figures for false allegations and prosecutions????

The_Conductor

Does he (Kevin Myers) have a point. Unfortunately for once, the despicable excuse of a journalist, does have a point- and that point is the inherent double standards that are applied in the modern world. Is he right that feminists should have been outraged? Only if you believe that the fundamental bedrock on which feminism is based- is equality. Its not. Feminism is the belief that men and women are treated differently by society and women should have a bigger role in 'society'. It does believe that society has belittled women in general- but it doesn't subscribe to role men play as being the 'norm'.

So- should Mr. Myers be morally outraged that feminists have not stood up and lambasted the sexist judicial decisions? No- certainly not. Its self serving of Mr. Myers to prescribe what he believes feminism to be, and why his model of feminism should express moral outrage- when the common definition of feminism has very little in common with Mr. Myers blinkered definition.

Does he have a point- certainly he has. However- by building his article on such an unsound argument about what feminism entails- it brings an otherwise strong argument into disrepute.

I hate Kevin Myers.

,8,1

Its self serving of Mr. Myers to prescribe what he believes feminism to be, and why his model of feminism should express moral outrage- when the common definition of feminism has very little in common with Mr. Myers blinkered definition.

Myers himself? Feminists, the media and the broader Establishment do not accept any other definition than the one he provided.

Saying that feminism is about anything other than "equality" is verboten in this culture.

Now if Myers just picked the definition out of the air for argumentation purposes, fine. But the reality is "feminism = equality" is what you might call a forced definition.

Feminism is the belief that men and women are treated differently by society and women should have a bigger role in 'society'.

The great thing about this, for feminists, is that they get to decide what treatment differences matter. They also get to decide the level of re-calibration necessary regarding women's role in society. E.g. how far do the familial, legal and political spheres need to be re-calibrated in women's favour.

Inevitably feminists and their agents decide upon not an egalitarian re-arrangement but a gynocentric re-arrangement.

This is where the "equality" mantra comes in. Feminists basically offer a gynocentric, women-first ideology but they wish to implement it with minimum resistance and maximum speed. You don't do that by laying out the ideology as is, you do that by employing feelgood, inclusive terminology that minimises opposition.

I think Myers was using the ubiquitous definition somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Our conclusion here that feminism is not about equality being precisely his point.

CDfm

smccarrick wrote: »

Does he (Kevin Myers) have a point. Unfortunately for once, the despicable excuse of a journalist, does have a point- and that point is the inherent double standards that are applied in the modern world.

Does he have a point- certainly he has. However- by building his article on such an unsound argument about what feminism entails- it brings an otherwise strong argument into disrepute.

I hate Kevin Myers.

I have to agree with you.

I googled Womens Aid Ireland and Duluth Model.This is the controvercial US approach in some states where in a Domestic Dispute police have presumtive powers of arrest- no matter who is at fault the man gets arrested.

This was the first result I got for my search.

http://www.womensaid.ie/pages/WHAT/RESEARCH/docs/vac.pdf

Interestingly in the introduction it describes itself as a "political" organisation.So describing itself as a political organisation maybe its approach to questioning is political in the way Sinn Fein was/is when questioned on paramiltary crime.It simply wouldnt acknowledge it but relied on phrases like the "struggle" etc.

We are sceptical about our policticians and justifiably so.

Part of its political policy is presumptive arrest and no where does it acknowledge that the role of women as perpetrators of Domestic Violence against men in almost equal numbers.So this policy is definately anti-man.

More significant are women as the predominant perpetratators of violence against children- which is similarily unacknowledged.( Now Im not saying all women flog children etc as that would be silly). But media campaigns by Womens Aid would make you doubt what you see and there are child victims of female violence.

Nothing is spent to educate women that this behavior is wrong.

I dont believe any other political organisation other then Womens Aid lecture the Gardai in Templemore on its policies and ideology.

Some critics of Womens Aid say that around 50% of the occupancy of Womens Aid Hostels are Travellers and maybe some others on top with other social or addiction problems.Now the criticism is that these client groups have other problems but what about the real Battered Women - where do they go????

A criticism of Womens Aid is that it recieves 99% of all grant aid allocated to organisations for victims of domestic violence and this is allocation is for women only. They are not a child advocacy group.

So how reliable are their studies if their predominant client group are travellers as thats hardly representative of society.Other organisations get questioned on their sources of funding and does it get spent in accordance with its grant aid applications.

Those of use who agree with feminism as a social movement find ourselves confused by this. I did. So yes as a political organisation its policies should be questioned a lot more closely then has been happening.

,8,1

I googled Womens Aid Ireland and Duluth Model.This is the controvercial US approach in some states where in a Domestic Dispute police have presumtive powers of arrest- no matter who is at fault the man gets arrested.

That's actually the way the federal Violence Against Women Act is framed. Presumed guilt, automatic arrest.

It's kind of funny the Violence Against Women Act should be called such. You know as feminists are supposed to see "gender as a social construct".

I guess it's one of the many cases where they are willing to let that go and see men as men; women as women.

The reality is feminists will employ any argument as long as it is convenient, and they will dispose of it as it ceases to be convenient.

brianthebard

*sigh*
While its undoubtedly true that some post structuralist gender theorists have viewed gender as a social construct, such as Judith Butler, that doesn't mean that the acknowledgement of a construct ends that construct.

CDfm

brianthebard wrote: »

*sigh*
While its undoubtedly true that some post structuralist gender theorists have viewed gender as a social construct, such as Judith Butler, that doesn't mean that the acknowledgement of a construct ends that construct.

A "social construct" never won a Senior All Ireland Hurling Medal for Cork. If I have a niezsche I scratch it.

Can you explain in plain English what this stuff means as its obscure to the unitiated and me.

994

That paper also says

We provide direct support services
to women experiencing male violence and abuse.

Which implies that they don't bother with lesbian domestic violence.

Also contains some rather random stuff:

Over 50% of downloads from 62 commercial
websites in the United States over a 4 month
period were of images of child pornography

It's not very clear what that has to do with domestic violence, or indeed why they seem to think all paedophiles are men (some say they could be 25%+ female)

It's really quite an odd document, every incidence of wife-beating is a political act whereby men cooperate to keep women down. A fantasyland of male power that certainly doesn't exist any more. Reminds me of the joke

Ikey is reading a newspaper on a park bench. His friend Mo sees him and says:

"Ikey, why are you reading that anti-Semitic newspaper?"

"Mo, I like to read good things about the Jews."

"Good things?"

"Certainly. It says right here that we Jews control the banks, Jews control the newspapers, Jews control the government and all Jews are rich. So what could be bad?"

Also repeats the old canard

“Battering by a male
intimate partner is the single
major cause of injury to
women in the U.S.A.
It is the single biggest
reason women are admitted
to casualty units” 39

when actually only about 0.5% of women are in A&E after domestic violence.

Women’s Aid are aware that in a minority of cases,
domestic violence does not reflect the conventional power
structures i.e. is perpetrated by a woman against a male
or same sex partner. A woman may be violent as a response
to the man’s violence and abuse e.g. self-defence, fighting
back, pre-empting violence by hitting out first. In this case
the power dynamics remain the same and the man still
exerts power and control over the woman. We do not
define the woman’s use of violence as domestic violence in
this case. When a woman systematically uses violence and
abuse with the intention to gain and maintain power and
control over her male/female partner, she is then a
perpetrator of domestic violence. However, it is important
to recognise that male domestic violence and a woman’s
use of violence against an intimate partner may differ in
one or more of the following ways.
• They are not equally supported by conventional
power structures.

CDfm

,8,1 wrote: »

That's actually the way the federal Violence Against Women Act is framed. Presumed guilt, automatic arrest.


The reality is feminists will employ any argument as long as it is convenient, and they will dispose of it as it ceases to be convenient.

We shouldnt copy stuff from other countries because they do it. Americans have guns and we dont so thats a major difference between us and them.

brianthebard wrote: »

*sigh*
While its undoubtedly true that some post structuralist gender theorists have viewed gender as a social construct, such as Judith Butler, that doesn't mean that the acknowledgement of a construct ends that construct.

Taking a theory - a theory is a proposition which by definition is unproven and hasnt been put to the test.

Can you get where people are coming from that the theories are not based on fact. Like alchemy -you cant make gold out of base metals.

994 wrote: »

That paper also says

Which implies that they don't bother with lesbian domestic violence.

that is rather a good point and I must look it up.

EDIT http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianhealth/a/DVFactsMyths.htm

30% of LGBT couples experience domestic violence ...# One of the big barriers for lesbians seeking services for domestic violence is that is may be hard for police or service agencies to determine which partner is the victim. Sometimes the abusive partner will call the police or seek services at a domestic violence shelter as a way to further control her victim.
# Some domestic violence shelters or police may not understand that same-sex couples can be in domestic violence situations.

Thats interesting and is similar to what male victims say.

Also contains some rather random stuff:

It's not very clear what that has to do with domestic violence, or indeed why they seem to think all paedophiles are men (some say they could be 25%+ female)

its often repeated that Womens Aid resourses are spent exclusively on women and that its not a child advocacy group. Its inclusion is gratuitous and has nothhing to do with Ireland.

It's really quite an odd document, every incidence of wife-beating is a political act whereby men cooperate to keep women down. A fantasyland of male power that certainly doesn't exist any more. Reminds me of the joke

Also repeats the old canard

when actually only about 0.5% of women are in A&E after domestic violence.

Why is this not backed by empirical evidence or findings in Ireland. |The empirical evidence that is there suggests lots of the conclusions cant be correct and the methodology doesnt stack up.

Now thats not being anti-feminist to say that - I know and recognise that domestic violence exists and that it is a huge problem. Am I anti feminist if I question policies or a model where the evidence suggests otherwise.

Whats happening to all the money that is being given for real battered women. Where is it being spent.

enry

CDfm wrote: »

A female friend send me this link yesterday to Myers as usual controversial article.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/the-feminist-sirens-remained-quiet-for-the-victim-is-a-man-1728418.html
My question is does he have a point?.

Let me start by saying that I feel the woman who came forward is IMHO extremely brave and that what she did as a 10 year old should not be judged by adult standards. I have a teenage daughter who IMO is just a kid and a 10 year old has just recently made the leap to not believing in Santa.

The temptation is to look at it in terms of a gender debate or even a political debate-and I have had to step back from that myself.

What I would like to know is how women feel about this.


I will totally accept if the mods feel it nesscessary to move or even close the thread.

Sorry for jumping in on your tread but when I saw the name Kevin Myers I stopped to have a look.

Its not the child in this case who made the allegation against this innocent man but the system that convicted him that needs to be reviewed. in this case a man was convicted on the evidence of a ten year old child with no other evidence to support her allegations.

Think about it, if this child had stated she had been sexually assaulted by a women would there have been a conviction, I doubt it as the matter would have been investigated in more detail.

Think about that women in roscommon and what she did to her son. If that was the case of a father and his daughter every right minded person in the country would have looked for a longer custodial sentence.

Now lets look at the rights of the child and difference regarding gender. I'm working from memory here so if some of my facts are wrong I'm open to correction. There was a male child in Waterford circumcised his parents I think were Nigerian and due to the reckless manner of the non-professional person who carried out the operation the child died. This "witch doctor" was given no real penalty and allowed to leave the country. Let me emphasis the fact that the child died I'm not trying to start a conversation on the wrongs of female circumcision that obvious.
However its my opinion that if a similar operation was carried out on a baby girl and she died we would have had every womens group in the county calling for this guys head and there is no way he would have been supplied with a plane ticket by the Irish government.

I'm not writhing here to defend mens rights but women are aways looking for equality. My question her is what kind of equality is it there looking for.
Is it the right to be treated in the same way as their male counterparts in relation to work or politics if so great and it is obvious that there has been great inroads made in this regard and admittedly more required. however there is a disparity between man and women when it come to convictions for criminal offences on similar facts and I don't here women shouting for equality in these cases.

In conclusion this is a gender debate and a political one and has nothing what so ever to do with a 10 year old child. Myers is right

He seems to think that there is a concerted e-mail campaign against him on this issue.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aum/message/25476

> Kevin Meyers writes"
>
> 2009/5/7 Kevin Myers riga.kevin@... writes:
>
> Sorry to add to your burdens, and I am extremely grateful for your support,
but I have just learnt that a major e-mail campaign against me is being
organised on this issue
>
> If you wish, I would be grateful if you would contact your like-minded friends
� and their like-minded friends, and theirs also, and so on - and ask them to
publicly agree with me at letters@...
>
> Your choice, naturally
>
>

Now, I'm a bloke, so I can't say that I'm not against unequal-ness and the idea of a false claim being made scares the sh*te out of me, as it would any of the brethren, but I don't like how Kevin seems to think that Ms. Hardester should be vilified in the US Male Rights movement.

Never liked Myers. Now I don't like him even more......

Macha

enry wrote: »

I'm not writhing here to defend mens rights but women are aways looking for equality. My question her is what kind of equality is it there looking for.
Is it the right to be treated in the same way as their male counterparts in relation to work or politics if so great and it is obvious that there has been great inroads made in this regard and admittedly more required. however there is a disparity between man and women when it come to convictions for criminal offences on similar facts and I don't here women shouting for equality in these cases.

This issue has been addressed earlier in the thread. This sort of logic demands that any group or organisation looking for equality must respond in a similar fashion to any perceived inequality. The restrictions of time and money dictate that for most of these organisations, this is an impossibility. There are also issues surrounding the remit or mandate of these organisations. Why isn't Myers equally angry at other organisations looking for equality for not having spoken out on this? According to his logic, they are equally as guilty.

But Myers doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about them, just feminists.
Ergo: crap, flappy, illogical article.

I'd just like to point out that all child circumcision is banned in Denmark at the behest of the National Council for Children, the chairperson of which is..*gasp* a woman. And the most outspoken person against the ban. No prizes, yes you guessed it - a man (rabbi, to be exact).

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

This issue has been addressed earlier in the thread. This sort of logic demands that any group or organisation looking for equality must respond in a similar fashion to any perceived inequality. The restrictions of time and money dictate that for most of these organisations, this is an impossibility. There are also issues surrounding the remit or mandate of these organisations.

I agree with you that the issue was addressed but I think the point is that it wasnt answered.It was really not answered at all.

But Myers doesn't have a chip on his shoulder about them, just feminists.
Ergo: crap, flappy, illogical article.

You might dismiss Kevin Myers but for once he has a point that womens groups avoid difficult questions with stock rhetoric or silence.

Maybe he just doesnt understand Women - Kev if you are out there this link if for you Lost in Translation and its from the Sunday Times Style Mag

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article6280101.ece

Well Kev - when a Woman is silent she means well - uhm -ahhh ~ thingy. YOU ARE JUST SUPPOSED TO KNOW _ALRIGHT>

Really Taconnal -it looks like the organisations are avoiding the topic in the hope it will disappear.

I'd just like to point out that all child circumcision is banned in Denmark at the behest of the National Council for Children, the chairperson of which is..*gasp* a woman. And the most outspoken person against the ban. No prizes, yes you guessed it - a man (rabbi, to be exact).

She is there in her capacity as a person -she is not there in her capacity as a woman and probably because she is the best person for the job.

Anyway this thread is about Womens Groups and not Child Advocate Groups.

Mary Cleary who heads up Amen for Male Victims of Domestic Violence is female. When will we get a guy heading Womens Aid? Now theres a thought;)

Macha

CDfm wrote: »

I agree with you that the issue was addressed but I think the point is that it wasnt answered.It was really not answered at all.

How was it not answered? Please refute the argument with facts.

CDfm wrote: »

You might dismiss Kevin Myers but for once he has a point that womens groups avoid difficult questions with stock rhetoric or silence.

How? Please give examples.

CDfm wrote: »

Well Kev - when a Woman is silent she means well - uhm -ahhh ~ thingy. YOU ARE JUST SUPPOSED TO KNOW _ALRIGHT>

Thanks for the cliche :rolleyes:

CDfm wrote: »

Really Taconnal -it looks like the organisations are avoiding the topic in the hope it will disappear.

Proof? You haven't actually addressed the explanation put forward, just rejected it with no evidence.

CDfm wrote: »

She is there in her capacity as a person -she is not there in her capacity as a woman and probably because she is the best person for the job.

Anyway this thread is about Womens Groups and not Child Advocate Groups.

I didn't say the thread was about child advocate groups. I was merely stating the point that women do care about male circumcision, contrary to the insinuations of a previous poster. What do you mean by "she is not there in her capactiy as a woman"? I really don't understand what that means or how it's relevant to the point I was making..

CDfm wrote: »

Mary Cleary who heads up Amen for Male Victims of Domestic Violence is female. When will we get a guy heading Womens Aid? Now theres a thought;)

Are any men interested in the job? Did any put themselves forward for the position?

CDfm

taconnol wrote: »

How was it not answered? Please refute the argument with facts.


How? Please give examples.

The most well know womens group Womens Aid describes itself as a political organisation and one of its objectives is presumtive arrest with the Duluth Model even when the woman initiates violence. This is against all logic and cant be faior or right.

http://www.womensaid.ie/pages/WHAT/R...H/docs/vac.pdf

It portrays domestic violence as an area where females are the only victims despite lots of evidence suggesting that is untrue

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15270.htm

You yourself said there is no movement but the National Womens Council that claims it represents 300,000 women.

http://www.nwci.ie/about_us


99% of the a grant aid spent on victims of domestic violene is spent on women. Whereas studies show that a minimum of 40% of the victims are male.

http://www.amen.ie/Papers/15346.htm

I have read statistics showing that where children are the victims of Domestic Violence the abusers are predominantly female.

It ignores same sex studies or studies that dont agree with the male as perpetrator model.

What I find hard to reconcile is that each Christmas you will have a state funded TV Campaign by Womens Aid portraying women and children as the victims.

I am naturally a supporter of feminism and equality as a social movement but I find it hard to reconcile this. This stuff is politics.It portrays men as bad even when evidence points to high levels of abuse in single parent families with the woman as perpetrator.

http://www.a-team.org/child_abuse_statistics.html

Can you see where I am coming from that faced with this what can only be described as a spin by representative organisations Women should feel a bit conned.

The model also means that instances of female violence to family members goes univestigated,

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3912/is_200206/ai_n9105012/

I mean - you have women who as children were victims of DV - women whose brothers ,sons, fathers etc are victims or potential victims of these policies and proposals. You would expect more questions to be asked.

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

There are also questions about how money raised is spent as Womens Shelters seem to be occupied by people with other social problems than DV.

http://wadvpress.org/?p=80

As a posted the silence is comparable to that of Sinn Fein on paramilitary crime and is met with rhetoric and stock answers. We expect this of politicians but not here.

Thanks for the cliche :rolleyes:

I couldnt resist and thought you would enjoy.

Proof? You haven't actually addressed the explanation put forward, just rejected it with no evidence.

If you accept and the evidence points to a significant amount of domestic violence initiated by women then women should want it addressed.

Its the cornerstone of many high profile media campaigns and why if its a spin??

I didn't say the thread was about child advocate groups. I was merely stating the point that women do care about male circumcision, contrary to the insinuations of a previous poster. What do you mean by "she is not there in her capactiy as a woman"? I really don't understand what that means or how it's relevant to the point I was making..

I know that you do care but many women wouldnt say it . I cant understant how anyone can dismiss female genital mutilation either.

Women do care and I know lots of women who do not look at issues using "theories" or politics. Are they unrepresented or are they unenlightened or what?

Are any men interested in the job? Did any put themselves forward for the position?

Me -when is it vacant.

I am just picking on one area here and abhor domestic violence and support equality.

What Im saying is and others say to is that the high profile Womens Campaigns would seem to be a bit of a spin and as such do women a diservice. People may dismiss Kevin Myers as an extremist but he has a major point.

We all deserve better.

Well Taconnal - I have given you a whole bunch of stuff to go and refute - Ive kept away from anything extremist but thats a whole lot of stuff. What critics of feminism say is that they dont even bother to acknowledge these issues. It would be great if the debate on boards confounds them and proves them wrong.

CDfm

Here is a very interstinging letter from Todays Time from 2 Barristers who defend men accussed of rape-complaining about the small but significant proportion of false and malacious allegations.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article6328803.ece

Sir, We are both practising barristers with extensive experience of defending in rape cases. Those who serve on juries in rape cases will be aware from what they read in the press that rape complainants are not always genuine victims. For while it is probably right that the majority who report rape ordeals to the police have, in fact, been victimised, there is a small but significant proportion who undoubtedly complain falsely and maliciously, occasionally going to cynical lengths to bolster their accounts by, for example, attributing self-inflicted injuries to their alleged attacker. This is reflected in not infrequent reports of prosecutions of false rape complainants for offences of wasting police time and perverting the course of justice when their lies are — often fortuitously — uncovered.
Potential jurors are, thus, apt to be reactive to statements from people in authority — such as the Attorney-General (letter, May 19) — implying that complainants are necessarily “victims”, and to give vent to their scepticism in acquittals that may or may not be merited.

So there you have it people and potential jurors are influenced by what they see in the media and place a lot of credibility by experts. Even if the expert is biased.

How was it not answered? Please refute the argument with facts.

How? Please give examples.

Taconnal - I did come back and refute the argument at your request . Its unlike you to be quiet.

994

CDfm wrote: »

Mary Cleary who heads up Amen for Male Victims of Domestic Violence is female. When will we get a guy heading Womens Aid? Now theres a thought;)

Do you mean, will a man care enough to do so, or will Women's Aid consider hiring a male leader? Do they still ban men from working in women's shelters?