Unhelpful 'gendering' of social issues

Sauve

Mod

Agent Green, firstly welcome to boards.
I would ask that you have a read of the charter at the top of this forum before you post again.
A big rule here is "attack the post, not the poster", a line which you're coming close to crossing.

Agent Green

B0jangles wrote: »

You're kind of proving my point about the groups being linked - you yourself are a link.

My being a member of both groups only establishes links from me, to other groups. It does not establish a direct link between the two.

That's obvious.

And guess what? I'd LIKE for these orgs to be officially linked but it won't happen. They have very, very different approaches that right now aren't compatible. Just look at the different content.

But here's the thing - I don't care if you think this - I'm only countering your baseless assertion to make a point. Your belief is absolutely baseless. You have no facts. You have no logic. You have nothing.

B0jangles

A member of AVfM thinks poorly of me; I feel oddly... happy?

iptba

B0jangles wrote: »

A member of AVfM thinks poorly of me; I feel oddly... happy?

Fascinating. Not.

Agent Green

B0jangles wrote: »

A member of AVfM thinks poorly of me; I feel oddly... happy?

I don't know you. I don't think anything of you - positive or negative; for all I know you could be a great guy.

You are, though, clearly misinformed. All I'm saying to you is that you can still disagree with what I stand for and argue using facts and logic.

I lose respect for your position when you make assertions based upon hearsay.

Sauve

Mod
This is the last warning before infractions are given. The sniping and personal abuse stops now.

Colonel Panic

The worst thing about these articles isn't that they're poorly researched, biased and badly written, but the the personal abuse that the author gets as a result. It just, in her mind, validates what she's saying and lets her play victim.

I'm listening to the Newstalk recording now and it just confirms my opinion of her abilities. She cannot make a point and states things based on personal experience and follows it up by saying "fact". Game over, Una.

Femme_Fatale

Agent Green wrote: »

I am a member of both organizations and spoke with Paul Elam

This frightening guy?

I completely condemn the Una Mullally article and totally think she has a hostile attitude to men, but the proponents of the above type point of view go too far in the other direction. Listen to some of the stuff the guy in the video he links to says (and I'm not saying all of it is unreasonable).

Frightening.

I don't always agree rape is about power and not about sex either, nor do I see anything wrong with women being advised to stay safe.

Agent Green wrote: »

Diana Davison, a woman, wrote the article.

Ah... a "Women are this, that and the other - except me" kinda woman.

Agent Green

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

This frightening guy?

I completely condemn the Una Mullally article and totally think she has a hostile attitude to men, but the proponents of the above type point of view go too far in the other direction. Listen to some of the stuff the guy in the video he links to says (and I'm not saying all of it is unreasonable).

Frightening.

I don't always agree rape is about power and not about sex either, nor do I see anything wrong with women being advised to stay safe.

Ah... a "Women are this, that and the other - except me" kinda woman.

I'm glad to see that you condemn the Mullally article and I agree with your assessment of her. I think it's accurate.

I don't agree with you about Paul Elam. I will say he is frightening - but that's only because he's a pretty thick 6'9. The article you linked to was deliberately ott to make a point - a point that is, somewhat ironically, too subtle. I agree with the central contention of the article. Women must bear personal responsibility for their own safety.

I'm not sure what you mean about Diana - I only mentioned that she was a woman because someone else erroneously referred to her as a man. I wasn't making any statement or implying any statement beyond that - why you took issue with that I don't know.

B0jangles

Agent Green wrote: »

I don't agree with you about Paul Elam. I will say he is frightening - but that's only because he's a pretty thick 6'9.

That's just mean; I and many others disagree with him on a variety of fronts but implying that he is just plain stupid is unhelpful.

Agent Green

B0jangles wrote: »

That's just mean; I and many others disagree with him on a variety of fronts but implying that he is just plain stupid is unhelpful.

I don't have time for this. You're on my ignore list now.

donfers

"I know that I'm right - FACT!" - her argumentative strategies are most commonly used by 5 year-olds

and this woman is going off to lecture dcu journalism students

and una, listen, in your deluded mind, all this criticism is being directed your way because you're a woman, it's not, it's because you talk absolute and total bigoted bollox and it would truly be a sick world if nobody batted an eyelid at that kind of stuff, the fact that it got published in the IT and the spineless populists are still figuring out what side of the fence they should sit on to get their cool points says it all, it shows how much these people can get away with, that much of popular commentary is still trying to justify her position

but even with misandry, there is a line, a blurred line far away in the distance and she bounded way past it

that radio clip is a joke and newstalk are more spineless media cretins afraid to challenge the bigots, the piece played like a satire of an extreme women's lib meeting making everyone who took part utterly foolish and damaging their own movement more than any of us could ever endeavour to do

just let these people speak for themselves and they'll be exposed, already,compared with a few years ago I am noticing more and more people get fed up of this stuff, get into gender politics and see the raw deal that men are getting and the more that people like her speak the more that this awareness grows so please, Una, keep on spouting your bigoted nonsense

LOTD

WOW, I taught Una was just a bad music journalist, but this is something new altogether. She has a total lack of understanding of the subject she is criticising men, her article is poorly worded and full of sweeping generalisations.

She makes men out to be opportunistic predators who are waiting around every corner, absolute gutter journalism. There is nasty people out there unfortunately, male and female, no campaign however well meaning it is, is not going to stop crime. On her twitter she talks about embracing criticism, how about engage with rational criticism rather then trying to stir the pot.

Any right minded person deplores violent crime be it against women, men or children.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I completely condemn the Una Mullally article and totally think she has a hostile attitude to men, but the proponents of the above type point of view go too far in the other direction. Listen to some of the stuff the guy in the video he links to says (and I'm not saying all of it is unreasonable).

Frightening.

I would tend to agree with you on all of the above points. Elam, whatever his intention, is not doing masculism any favours. Remember, there is a large swathe of the population that either has no opinion on gender politics, or at best has limited and benign views, and so the purpose of such articles should be to reasonably and rationally invoke questions in those people, to introduce them to a viewpoint they may not have had previously, and so over-the-top rants will inevitably only serve to lose, not win, hearts and minds. As a result, people like Elam ironically end up becoming assets for the opposing view, not for the view that he may believe he is representing.

Mullally is not dissimilar to him. So over-the-top and offensive are her views that she will have single handedly convinced many previously neutral readers that there may well be a problem with feminism. Like Elam, she may not be representative of her side of the argument, but the she'll still ultimately harm it - she'll be quoted by masculists in the future a lot more than she will be by feminists.

The only observation, however, I'll make of the two is this; the closest I've seen of a defence of Elam, here on Boards, is that he's a well-meaning buffoon. Chillingly, on the other hand, I've seen numerous posters openly supporting Mullally's views. To me, this difference would indicate that extreme views are more common in mainstream feminism than they are in masculism.

That's just a personal observation, but an observation nonetheless.

I don't always agree rape is about power and not about sex either, nor do I see anything wrong with women being advised to stay safe.

Problem is that any such suggestion is fast becoming taboo and labelled as 'victim blaming'. It's a worrying tactic as it seeks not to argue the point, but simply to censor it.

Setun

Colonel Panic wrote: »

The worst thing about these articles isn't that they're poorly researched, biased and badly written, but the the personal abuse that the author gets as a result. It just, in her mind, validates what she's saying and lets her play victim.

I'm listening to the Newstalk recording now and it just confirms my opinion of her abilities. She cannot make a point and states things based on personal experience and follows it up by saying "fact". Game over, Una.

Exactly - the worst thing about these articles is that they also bring out the extremists in the comment section. I facepalm every time I read another bloke bemoaning the article by calling the female author a 'whore', or whatever other creatively disgraceful term. Yup, way to help your case buddy - any ambition for a rational debate is firmly out the window.

newport2

Setun wrote: »

Exactly - the worst thing about these articles is that they also bring out the extremists in the comment section. I facepalm every time I read another bloke bemoaning the article by calling the female author a 'whore', or whatever other creatively disgraceful term. Yup, way to help your case buddy - any ambition for a rational debate is firmly out the window.

+1

A lot of the comments were reasonable and merely stating why they disagreed with what was being said, but it just takes a handful of muppets making insulting personal comments repeatedly to drag the whole lot down. Totally weakens the argument against what she was saying, almost anyone defending Una's article and saying she was right has used the abusive comments below to further emphasise the victim card.

Interesting that a lot of abusive comments were left there, when they would normally be deleted by a moderator. A tactic by the IT perhaps?

The Corinthian

newport2 wrote: »

Interesting that a lot of abusive comments were left there, when they would normally be deleted by a moderator. A tactic by the IT perhaps?

I would think it quite possible. The practice, for example, of publishing well-reasoned letters on one side and only letters from crazies on the other side has long been practised in the IT.

Femme_Fatale

Agent Green wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean about Diana - I only mentioned that she was a woman because someone else erroneously referred to her as a man. I wasn't making any statement or implying any statement beyond that - why you took issue with that I don't know.

I didn't take issue with you; just with her - a woman saying pretty awful things about women, despite being one.

Setun

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

This frightening guy?

Holy crap, I actually recoiled in horror at that article. Shocking rhetoric, and incredibly embarrassing to read that as a man.

The Corinthian

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I didn't take issue with you; just with her - a woman saying pretty awful things about women, despite being one.

I've read one or two of her articles, so I can't say if she's written anything that is particularly objectionable with any authority, but overall are not many of the "pretty awful things about women" she comes out with simply fair criticism? Or what makes it inherently unfair criticism? Are not members of both genders sometimes guilty of "pretty awful things"?

coffee_cake

Setun wrote: »

Holy crap, I actually recoiled in horror at that article. Shocking rhetoric, and incredibly embarrassing to read that as a man.

In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.

They are freaking begging for it.

Damn near demanding it.

Jesus fcuking christ

god, it is so disturbing to think there are people out there who think like that

GalwayGuy2

Problem is that any such suggestion is fast becoming taboo and labelled as 'victim blaming'. It's a worrying tactic as it seeks not to argue the point, but simply to censor it.

Hmmm, we have plenty of theories about what causes rape but we don't actually know what causes it. It is about power, but what does that have to do with it? Is it entitlement, or a feeling of inferiority?

Anyway, taking that above, which would help save women in the short term, or even the long term.

Telling women to be careful as there is a predator about.

Or saying men should be thought not to rape?

coffee_cake

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, we have plenty of theories about what causes rape but we don't actually know what causes it. It is about power, but what does that have to do with it? Is it entitlement, or a feeling of inferiority?

Anyway, taking that above, which would help save women in the short term, or even the long term.

Telling women to be careful as there is a predator about.

Or saying men should be thought not to rape?

Both
Might help other men too

GalwayGuy2

Both
Might help other men too

I guess it depends on how it's thought. If it's self inferiority, then constantly comparing male sexuality to rape could actually make a minority of men rape.

And if it's infantilisation, then the chivalric undertones in the arguments on how to stop rape, eg: The male feminist video, could actually even out to no difference.

I have absolutely no idea what to do about it tbh.

The Corinthian

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, we have plenty of theories about what causes rape but we don't actually know what causes it. It is about power, but what does that have to do with it? Is it entitlement, or a feeling of inferiority?

I thought someone posted a link to a Wiki article that covered the causes earlier in the thread?

From what I can see the causes of rape are much the same as the causes for murder. Numerous.

py2006

I used to always consider rape as a violent act where the victim is literally beaten and forced into a dreadful act.

Its only relatively recently that I have become aware of other scenarios that can fall under the umbrella term of rape.

Agent Green

The Corinthian wrote: »

I thought someone posted a link to a Wiki article that covered the causes earlier in the thread?

From what I can see the causes of rape are much the same as the causes for murder. Numerous.

I agree but you need to substitute the word 'cause' for 'motivation.' A cause can invite many other factors that don't actually apply to the mental state of the rapist.


The theory about rape as power suffers from a major problem - and it's one that feminists don't like to discuss. It's actually pretty simple. If rape was about power, as they contend, there are many other ways for rapists to exert power that don't require rape. A rapist could start kicking the crap out of kids - or mugging old people - that's exerting power. Hell, a rapist could do the dishes - that's power too, in a way.

The feminist argument is poor because it seeks to erase basic human biology from the equation; they want to make it psychological - and feminists have a lot to gain by doing this.

I don't think it's necessary for me to delve too deeply into the biological necessities of sexual intercourse here. But what I will say, just so everyone understands my position is that sexual impulse is driven, in both sexes, by a biological imperative - procreation. We find each other attractive for a reason and want to have sex for a reason. That, so far, has nothing to do with power (at least not in terms of one person exerting power over the other.)

It might be feasible that some rapists, due to a lack of control in their own lives or due to some short circuit in the brain, use rape as a means of exerting power - either on their own lives or the lives of others. But this only makes sense in a very, very limited way. The first category, those who are trying to exert power over their OWN lives, would be far better served to take positive steps in their own lives - aimed squarely at the situation that creates powerlessness for them. So, they might not have a very good job, or they might live in a lousy basement, or whatever. Rape won't solve those problems. If the problem is a lack of sex then rape is an answer insofar as the need is met. But... the problem then is that the specific need was sex - not power. So, back to square one.

In the latter case, where a person might have a psychological imbalance, or a mental illness - then it is arguable that yes, sex is about power - but... again there is a massive problem, not so much in the statement itself - but in how feminists apply it to society generally. If all rape is about power, and that all who rape for power do so because of either a mental illness or a psychological problem, then prison is clearly not the answer. Not only that - but education is also not the answer. Perhaps counselling or psychoactive drugs would be the better option - but that's only if you believe that rape is about power.

But rape is not about power, it's not. It's about sex. It's about sexual gratification.

So - the question then becomes - what do feminists have to gain by claiming sex is about power? The answer to this ties in with rape culture which also ties into - you guessed it - patriarchy. We live in a society that is created by men, for the benefit of men, to the detriment of women. Today's male society is now one that is characterized by a rape culture. Rape is normalized as sex, and rape is broadly trivialized, according to feminists. Why? Because of patriarchy - it's just another example of how men hold women down, LITERALLY, to exert power over them.

And it's nonsense.

Utter nonsense.

Setun

GalwayGuy2 wrote: »

Hmmm, we have plenty of theories about what causes rape but we don't actually know what causes it. It is about power, but what does that have to do with it? Is it entitlement, or a feeling of inferiority?

I'd say the answers to that question are complex and numerous. Sexual assault can arise in a myriad of different forms and environments - from a boss' behaviour towards a worker, to a drunk teenager at a houseparty not understanding the word 'no', to an extreme case of unprovoked sexual/violent attack. Some are about power, some are about uncontrolled lust, some are pure fantasy, and there are more reasons still. I think what we can all agree on is that by splitting it down the binary lines of gender will do no good when it comes to deciding how the issue should be appropriately dealt with. I personally would advocate teaching young teenagers in school what 'consent' actually means, as part of their sex ed class. When I was in secondary school (from 2000-2006 so not that long ago!), there was pretty much zero sex education - and what little there was contained no discussion beyond the ultimate basics. Something as important as consent should most definitely be the central point of teenage sex education, especially when considering that at that age they are living in an intensely competitive/peer pressure atmosphere where "going along with it" can be socially advantageous.

Femme_Fatale

Rape CAN be about sex, it can also be about power. It's probably mostly a mixture of both. When it's used as a weapon of war, a form of torture, a form of violence in prisons and (hopefully) in the past, institutions for children, it's not unreasonable to conclude this.

And no matter what that individual wearing the "Question diversity" t-shirt says, sometimes women who aren't hot, who are old, who are very overweight, get raped... he's actually saying it's not something that will affect unattractive women.

The Corinthian wrote: »

overall are not many of the "pretty awful things about women" she comes out with simply fair criticism?

Yes, some is.

Or what makes it inherently unfair criticism?

Seriously. Read again some of what she says.

My main issue though is a woman saying such things about other women. Just as you'd be disgusted by a man saying awful things about other men (and you'd be right).

Setun wrote: »

Holy crap, I actually recoiled in horror at that article. Shocking rhetoric, and incredibly embarrassing to read that as a man.

Nah, obviously views like that are only held by a minority - but it's scary to think of how many could fall under that spell. Even a woman has. It, and its militant feminist/misandrist equivalent, just helps engulfen the divide and feed the hate.

GalwayGuy2

My main issue though is a woman saying such things about other women. Just as you'd be disgusted by a man saying awful things about other men (and you'd be right).

Nah, obviously views like that are only held by a minority - but it's scary to think of how many could fall under that spell. Even a woman has.

Actually no that is not right. It really goes to show how we think about Gender in very gender segregated terms.