Violence in Relationships Towards Women Needs To Stop

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There is a reason, especially if the group runs shelters. Men and women are different, physically and psychologically. Different issues affect them differently. Womens Aid run women only shelters because female victims of domestic abuse can be nervous around males and feel more comfortable in a female environment. For the same reason the Rape Crisis Center only allow women to work in their helpline. The people who work in the likes of Womens Aid have experience in helping women and the same methods they use would not be as effective with men.

Is there any proof (non-anecdotal; a proper study) showing women in shelters feel that way?

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Is there any proof (non-anecdotal; a proper study) showing women in shelters feel that way?

Probably.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Is there any proof (non-anecdotal; a proper study) showing women in shelters feel that way?

If you're calling for gender neutral shelters -

Isn't the onus on you to provide evidence that they are more beneficial to victims of domestic violence, than the current practice of providing support to men and women separately?

If you have any evidence to present as fact that would support your opinion, I'm all ears.

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Probably.

Well, since you haven't backed this up, I've gone out searching for reports/studies done on domestic violence, and have not found anything to back a gender-specific fear - so I think it's safe to discard that as a reason for segregation/discrimination in domestic abuse shelters.

Since you made the claim, it's up to you to prove it if you want to stand by it - not very convincing when there doesn't appear to be any evidence backing it.

Any remaining (preferably well-backed) reasons for discriminating based on gender, for domestic violence support groups?

V.W.L 11

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes I have, but I don't think my experience will do anything to help you understand my opinion.

Well by saying nothing I definitely won't understand

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

If you're calling for gender neutral shelters -

Isn't the onus on you to provide evidence that they are more beneficial to victims of domestic violence, than the current practice of providing support to men and women separately?

If you have any evidence to present as fact that would support your opinion, I'm all ears.

Since you openly admit you are sexist on this thread, and since you don't seem to understand what 'burden of proof' is, there's zero need for me to address any of your arguments.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Since you openly admit you are sexist on this thread, and since you don't seem to understand what 'burden of proof' is, there's zero need for me to address any of your arguments.

Is that because you can't provide any evidence that housing victims of domestic violence in the same space, regardless of their gender, would be beneficial for them?

How do you feel about housing victims of domestic violence in the same space, regardless of their gender, their sexual orientation, their ethnicity?

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Well, since you haven't backed this up, I've gone out searching for reports/studies done on domestic violence, and have not found anything to back a gender-specific fear - so I think it's safe to discard that as a reason for segregation/discrimination in domestic abuse shelters.

Since you made the claim, it's up to you to prove it if you want to stand by it - not very convincing when there doesn't appear to be any evidence backing it.

Any remaining (preferably well-backed) reasons for discriminating based on gender, for domestic violence support groups?

Forgive me if I'm not inclined to scour the web for psychology texts at this time. If you choose to discard what I said then that's up to you. It doesn't change the fact it's true. Anyone who has dealt with the victims of domestic abuse will tell you so. Anyone with a shred of common sense would probably do the same.

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Forgive me if I'm not inclined to scour the web for psychology texts at this time. If you choose to discard what I said then that's up to you. It doesn't change the fact it's true. Anyone who has dealt with the victims of domestic abuse will tell you so. Anyone with a shred of common sense would probably do the same.

Appeals to anecdotal evidence (which you don't even provide, just make claims of), and 'common sense' i.e. just a baseless assertion, won't cut it.

If you can't back it up with (non-anecdotal) evidence, it's safe to discard; if it's so obvious, you wouldn't have a hard time looking up evidence to support it, would you?

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Like I said, indicating that it is a more prevalent issue for women is not downplaying the issue for men. It's highlighting the issue for women. You are looking at the two aspects as if they are on the same scale and people have a finite amount of concern to divide between the two. Both issues can be acknowledged separately and more emphasis placed on one without diminishing the acknowledgement of the other.



Yet the vast majority of statistics indicate it is an issue experienced much more by women than men. And the one study that has been produced to show the opposite relies on abusers self identifying.

Actually historically there was very little research that looked at male victims. The research focused exclusively on female victims and, I recall anecdotally hearing, in many cases politically charged decisions were made to specifically exclude males. Once the research started to focus on both genders the somewhat revelatory result was found that both genders made up victims and perpetrators in remarkably similar degrees. Once this happened there was a fairly brutal counter push by certain academic groups to attempt to discredit these findings- a quick google will show you some of the (fairly simplistic in many cases) arguments made by these groups.

A similar google, or indeed a flick through similar AH threads will give you a wealth of research showing that men are victims in a large percentage of all DV, with the usual figures lying in the 30-50% range.

Hugely different from 'vast majority' or small percentage or other such dishonest nonsense! I actually agree with your last point in the first paragraph though: Both issues can indeed be acknowledged separately and more emphasis placed on one without diminishing the acknowledgement of the other. Maybe you'd like to make that point to women's aids PR and media people who appear unable to grasp this subtlety!

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

Erm, isn't your whole argument tritium based on your objection to hard won statistical evidence?

No my arguement is based on my objection to misrepresentation and downright lying based on a snake oil misuse of hard won statistical evidence.

tritium

mariaalice wrote: »

But does that mean that every advocacy group that has accesses to the media be required not to be advocates for their issue, instead they should be required to present a neutral balanced and gender free view of the issue?

But there's a world of a difference between advocating in a way that highlights and focus on tour own group or downright lying about the experiences of another group

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

No my arguement is based on my objection to misrepresentation and downright lying based on a snake oil misuse of hard won statistical evidence.

Well that's one way of putting it.

Another way of putting it is that they didn't misrepresent the impact of domestic violence on women, they simply chose not to represent the impact of domestic violence on men.

If you really wanted to, you could present statistics that represent the impact of domestic violence on men, but instead you choose to take issue with statistics that represent the impact of domestic violence on women.

I know you at least acknowledge that we differ in our approaches to advocating for support for male victims of domestic violence, but to my mind at least, it just looks like you're making things twice as hard on yourself -

Challenge women's support groups to represent what you feel is an acceptable representation of the impact of domestic violence on women (never going to happen), then try and advocate for support for male victims of domestic violence...

OR -

Advocate for male victims of domestic violence as a separate issue from the issue of female victims of domestic violence.

You at least have some hope of getting somewhere with the second option, and you don't look bad for attacking women's support groups. You're your own worst enemy by setting the two issues head to head, because you'll continue to lack any real support.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Appeals to anecdotal evidence (which you don't even provide, just make claims of), and 'common sense' i.e. just a baseless assertion, won't cut it.

If you can't back it up with (non-anecdotal) evidence, it's safe to discard; if it's so obvious, you wouldn't have a hard time looking up evidence to support it, would you?

Just to clarify, you are the one making a claim contrary to popular opinion with no evidence or first hand knowledge but it is me who must find evidence to support the status quo and exclude my personal experience.

tritium wrote: »

Actually historically there was very little research that looked at male victims. The research focused exclusively on female victims and, I recall anecdotally hearing, in many cases politically charged decisions were made to specifically exclude males. Once the research started to focus on both genders the somewhat revelatory result was found that both genders made up victims and perpetrators in remarkably similar degrees. Once this happened there was a fairly brutal counter push by certain academic groups to attempt to discredit these findings- a quick google will show you some of the (fairly simplistic in many cases) arguments made by these groups.

A similar google, or indeed a flick through similar AH threads will give you a wealth of research showing that men are victims in a large percentage of all DV, with the usual figures lying in the 30-50% range.

Hugely different from 'vast majority' or small percentage or other such dishonest nonsense! I actually agree with your last point in the first paragraph though: Both issues can indeed be acknowledged separately and more emphasis placed on one without diminishing the acknowledgement of the other. Maybe you'd like to make that point to women's aids PR and media people who appear unable to grasp this subtlety!

On that I disagree.

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Just to clarify, you are the one making a claim contrary to popular opinion with no evidence or first hand knowledge but it is me who must find evidence to support the status quo and exclude my personal experience.

I haven't made a claim either way. You have claimed that women in domestic abuse shelters are uncomfortable around men.

You are now claiming this is 'popular perception' as well - evidence?

What you're trying to pull here, is a shifting of the burden of proof - you made the claims, not me (I didn't make any claims to the contrary), so it is up to you to back them.

I find it doubtful either that such a popular perception exists, or that the claim itself is true - if it was as 'obvious' as you make it out to be, there would be prominent evidence in support of it.


This leaves you with no credible reason, that domestic abuse shelters, should discriminate based on gender. It makes no logical sense at all, given current evidence.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well that's one way of putting it.

Another way of putting it is that they didn't misrepresent the impact of domestic violence on women, they simply chose not to represent the impact of domestic violence on men.

If you really wanted to, you could present statistics that represent the impact of domestic violence on men, but instead you choose to take issue with statistics that represent the impact of domestic violence on women.

I know you at least acknowledge that we differ in our approaches to advocating for support for male victims of domestic violence, but to my mind at least, it just looks like you're making things twice as hard on yourself -

Challenge women's support groups to represent what you feel is an acceptable representation of the impact of domestic violence on women (never going to happen), then try and advocate for support for male victims of domestic violence...

OR -

Advocate for male victims of domestic violence as a separate issue from the issue of female victims of domestic violence.

You at least have some hope of getting somewhere with the second option, and you don't look bad for attacking women's support groups. You're your own worst enemy by setting the two issues head to head, because you'll continue to lack any real support.

C, you've completely missed the key point here. They didn't just as you say " simply chose not to represent the impact of domestic violence on men.". They actively downplayed and dismissed it. In short they didnt just not mention a bit, they fcukin lied. And that lie makes it harder for male victims to both get the supports they need and the courage to access those supports.

That assessment of the consequenves is not my view, that's the view of professional researchers who looked at this extensively for the dept of health back in 2002.(cf Men and domestic violence what research tells us, Mckeown 2002 page 83). Shamefully over a decade later very little has changed

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I haven't made a claim either way. You have claimed that women in domestic abuse shelters are uncomfortable around men.

You are now claiming this is 'popular perception' as well - evidence?

What you're trying to pull here, is a shifting of the burden of proof - you made the claims, not me (I didn't make any claims to the contrary), so it is up to you to back them.

I find it doubtful either that such a popular perception exists, or that the claim itself is true - if it was as 'obvious' as you make it out to be, there would be prominent evidence in support of it.

This leaves you with no credible reason, that domestic abuse shelters, should discriminate based on gender. It makes no logical sense at all, given current evidence.

Like I said, if you want to ignore it then that's up to you. You asked and I answered. It's perfectly logical and the main reason behind segregated shelters. There are other reasons such as security and facility provision too. I owe you no proof. You have provided none for anything you've said so far.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I haven't made a claim either way. You have claimed that women in domestic abuse shelters are uncomfortable around men.

You are now claiming this is 'popular perception' as well - evidence?

What you're trying to pull here, is a shifting of the burden of proof - you made the claims, not me (I didn't make any claims to the contrary), so it is up to you to back them.

I find it doubtful either that such a popular perception exists, or that the claim itself is true - if it was as 'obvious' as you make it out to be, there would be prominent evidence in support of it.


This leaves you with no credible reason, that domestic abuse shelters, should discriminate based on gender. It makes no logical sense at all, given current evidence.

Could you present current evidence that claims it is more beneficial for victims of domestic violence that they not be segregated, because you have made the claim that they shouldn't be sheltered separately based on their gender long before Little Cuchullain ever suggested that women would be uncomfortable around men.

Do you think male victims of domestic violence should be housed in shelters with female victims of domestic violence?

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Like I said, if you want to ignore it then that's up to you. You asked and I answered. It's perfectly logical and the main reason behind segregated shelters. There are other reasons such as security and facility provision too. I owe you no proof. You have provided none for anything you've said so far.

I haven't made any claims, you have made claims - learn a bit about 'burden of proof' - you need to back claims up. If you want to discriminate against people based on gender, there has to be a very good reason, with solid evidence, to back it up.

Given your claims have no evidence to back them, and that a cursory look at domestic abuse reports shows nothing to back the idea that women in shelters fear men in general, that entire idea can be safely discarded.

What has a persons gender got to do with 'security'? What has 'facility provision' got to do with it? (I'm sure it would not be hard to have separate bathrooms in a shelter, if that's what you're getting at...)

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

C, you've completely missed the key point here. They didn't just as you say " simply chose not to represent the impact of domestic violence on men.". They actively downplayed and dismissed it. In short they didnt just not mention a bit, they fcukin lied. And that lie makes it harder for male victims to both get the supports they need and the courage to access those supports.

That assessment of the consequenves is not my view, that's the view of professional researchers who looked at this extensively for the dept of health back in 2002.(cf Men and domestic violence what research tells us, Mckeown 2002 page 83). Shamefully over a decade later very little has changed

Very little has changed, and very little will change, while there are still people more concerned with criticising the work done by women's support groups, rather than promoting the work of groups like AMEN.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I haven't made any claims, you have made claims - learn a bit about 'burden of proof' - you need to back claims up. If you want to discriminate against people based on gender, there has to be a very good reason, with solid evidence, to back it up.

Given your claims have no evidence to back them, and that a cursory look at domestic abuse reports shows nothing to back the idea that women in shelters fear men in general, that entire idea can be safely discarded.

What has a persons gender got to do with 'security'? What has 'facility provision' got to do with it? (I'm sure it would not be hard to have separate bathrooms in a shelter, if that's what you're getting at...)

I know about burden of proof. I just don't feel I owe you one. I've explained to you the reasons why they don't facilitate both men and women in shelters and you've chosen to disregard them. I'm not going to argue them with you. If you feel they are wrong then set up your own multigender shelter and see how it goes. I suggest you try and get some experience dealing with victims of abuse first though as you know sweet F.A. about them. If you put the slightest bit of unbiased logical thinking into what you are asking it would be obvious to you that what I have told you is correct.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I haven't made any claims, you have made claims - learn a bit about 'burden of proof' - you need to back claims up. If you want to discriminate against people based on gender, there has to be a very good reason, with solid evidence, to back it up.

Given your claims have no evidence to back them, and that a cursory look at domestic abuse reports shows nothing to back the idea that women in shelters fear men in general, that entire idea can be safely discarded.

What has a persons gender got to do with 'security'? What has 'facility provision' got to do with it? (I'm sure it would not be hard to have separate bathrooms in a shelter, if that's what you're getting at...)

Feigning ignorance and using condescension isn't a very effective way of making your point KB.

It's as bad as me saying "well a cursory glance at domestic violence reports shows that male victims of domestic violence don't exist". I can dismiss every single anecdote in this thread then, and I can also dismiss my own personal experience as merely anecdotal.

You won't find my experience reported in any statistics either, so that means since I can present no evidence that you would find acceptable, it didn't happen.

tritium

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

On that I disagree.

Really, which bits since you're feeling conversational

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

Very little has changed, and very little will change, while there are still people more concerned with criticising the work done by women's support groups, rather than promoting the work of groups like AMEN.

You should probably read the report I cited before taking that position too steadfastly. One of the key limiters to helping male victims that they cite is the need to change the perception of who actually commits DV. Which is exactly what the case I sited reinforces

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I know about burden of proof. I just don't feel I owe you one. I've explained to you the reasons why they don't facilitate both men and women in shelters and you've chosen to disregard them. I'm not going to argue them with you. If you feel they are wrong then set up your own multigender shelter and see how it goes. I suggest you try and get some experience dealing with victims of abuse first though as you know sweet F.A. about them. If you put the slightest bit of unbiased logical thinking into what you are asking it would be obvious to you that what I have told you is correct.

Your claims reduce to just stating "well it's obvious!" - that's not really going to convince anybody.

Fact is, the readily available reports of domestic violence and womens shelters, don't provide any evidence to back that claim that women in those shelters have a general fear of men.

You speak also, as if it is 'obvious' how a unisex shelter would go: Have you any experience of a unisex shelter? Tell us exactly what bad thing you think would happen?

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

Feigning ignorance and using condescension isn't a very effective way of making your point KB.

It's as bad as me saying "well a cursory glance at domestic violence reports shows that male victims of domestic violence don't exist". I can dismiss every single anecdote in this thread then, and I can also dismiss my own personal experience as merely anecdotal.

You won't find my experience reported in any statistics either, so that means since I can present no evidence that you would find acceptable, it didn't happen.

Except nobody can even provide anecdotal evidence of the claim either.

People would not need to address any of your claims on such a matter, because you have already admitted on this thread that you are sexist (directly admitted that), which removes the need for anyone to take your arguments seriously.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Except nobody can even provide anecdotal evidence of the claim either.

People would not need to address any of your claims on such a matter, because you have already admitted on this thread that you are sexist (directly admitted that), which removes the need for anyone to take your arguments seriously.

Now you mention it, that's also one of the key issues facing male victims of domestic violence. Do you need evidence for that too? It's in the report that tritium cited.

And by 'people', well, you can only speak for yourself, thankfully.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm wrote: »

Well that's one way of putting it.

Another way of putting it is that they didn't misrepresent the impact of domestic violence on women, they simply chose not to represent the impact of domestic violence on men.

They took a non-gendered issue (violence, or specifically relationship violence) and turned it into a gendered issue.

I ask again, would you find it acceptable for someone to use a term like "violence against white people" and only advocate for those people's wellbeing as opposed to condemning violence in general? Because I'd find that highly racist.

krudler

What the hell is this argument even about anymore? It's actually baffling

Czarcasm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They took a non-gendered issue (violence, or specifically relationship violence) and turned it into a gendered issue.

They didn't "take" any issue. They saw the issue of domestic violence against women perpetrated by men as an issue and decided that something needed to be done to protect women and support them.

Now a small minority of people are taking issue with the fact that these people don't also support men who are victims of domestic violence, when that was never their original aim in the first place.

If you're able to say "specifically" relationship violence, then why can you not understand that these people only deal "specifically" with female victims of domestic violence?

I ask again, would you find it acceptable for someone to use a term like "violence against white people" and only advocate for those people's wellbeing as opposed to condemning violence in general? Because I'd find that highly racist.

It's not a question of whether I'd find it acceptable or not. People are entitled to advocate for whoever and whatever they like. I wouldn't object to anyone doing so.

I also wouldn't find it highly racist, as that would be like saying because you're not attracted to men you must be homophobic. It's daft.

There are plenty of organizations that advocate on behalf of black people that don't advocate on behalf of white people on numerous issues, are you going to call them highly racist against white people?

LGBT organisations advocate for LGBT people and don't advocate for heterosexual people, they're highly heterophobic too?

MRAs don't advocate for women, are they highly sexist?

I'd love to see you take any of the above organisations to task for their discrimination against people they don't advocate for.

mrkiscool2

Czarcasm wrote: »

Now a small minority of people are taking issue with the fact that these people don't also support men who are victims of domestic violence, when that was never their original aim in the first place.

No, we are not saying that. There may be one or 2 posters, but that's it. What we are saying is that a. Women's organisations and support groups that help female victims of domestic abuse should keep getting the funding they are receiving 2.Organisations like Women's Aid and other groups vying for funding should not cherry-pick facts, fudge numbers and make female on male domestic violence cases and instances a triviality or report they are in a vast minority of cases. 3 There should be more funding given, and more supports made available, to groups who deal with male domestic violence victims. Not that hard really. I don't know why you are arguing these points, they seem pretty standard and decent to me

Czarcasm wrote: »

I also wouldn't find it highly racist, as that would be like saying because you're not attracted to men you must be homophobic. It's daft.

WHAT? Where do you come up with these absolutely ridiculous statements? Those two things have no logical correlation! How you can even think that is ludicrous.

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Your claims reduce to just stating "well it's obvious!" - that's not really going to convince anybody.

Fact is, the readily available reports of domestic violence and womens shelters, don't provide any evidence to back that claim that women in those shelters have a general fear of men.

You speak also, as if it is 'obvious' how a unisex shelter would go: Have you any experience of a unisex shelter? Tell us exactly what bad thing you think would happen?

They don't provide evidence of them because they don't address them. Similarly, they don't provide evidence against them in the same way.

Czarcasm

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, we are not saying that. There may be one or 2 posters, but that's it. What we are saying is that a. Women's organisations and support groups that help female victims of domestic abuse should keep getting the funding they are receiving 2.Organisations like Women's Aid and other groups vying for funding should not cherry-pick facts, fudge numbers and make female on male domestic violence cases and instances a triviality or report they are in a vast minority of cases. 3 There should be more funding given, and more supports made available, to groups who deal with male domestic violence victims. Not that hard really. I don't know why you are arguing these points, they seem pretty standard and decent to me

I'd agree with all of the above actually, only that number 2 above is completely unrealistic and quite frankly never going to happen. I'd like nothing more than for that to happen and we could all be honest and get a far more accurate picture of the scale of domestic violence in this country, but that's pie in the sky idealism, much like me stating that I wish there was never a need for ANY of these organisations.

WHAT? Where do you come up with these absolutely ridiculous statements? Those two things have no logical correlation! How you can even think that is ludicrous.

Ah don't get so hung up on that one, that was merely to point out to Patrick the silliness of claiming that groups that advocate for support for white victims of domestic violence are highly racist because they don't also advocate for black victims of domestic violence.

uch

Anything to be said for a bit of Cake ?

KomradeBishop

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

They don't provide evidence of them because they don't address them. Similarly, they don't provide evidence against them in the same way.

Meaning you don't even have anecdotal evidence to back what you say.

You've got exactly nothing to back the idea that unisex shelters would not work.

KomradeBishop

Fair enough - the main reason I would see it as beneficial, is less duplication of efforts, and reduces the barrier to getting help for men as well - already have many of the organizations/infrastructure there already, for helping with domestic abuse, which - with some policy changes - can help everyone.

Some organizations which are gender specific are fine - don't see why they all should be.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd agree with all of the above actually, only that number 2 above is completely unrealistic and quite frankly never going to happen. I'd like nothing more than for that to happen and we could all be honest and get a far more accurate picture of the scale of domestic violence in this country, but that's pie in the sky idealism, much like me stating that I wish there was never a need for ANY of these organisations.

I'm getting confused here C. On the one hand a women's support organisation attacks male victims of DV (and it is an attack) and you say it's the way of the world, never change, just inaccuracy what harm yada yada.

On the other hand anyone critiques the above and they're (somehow) attacking the women's organisation, doing themselves no favours yada yada.

Essentially you're allowing the wrongdoer to frame the debate as a personal attack rather than valid (and demonstratably justifiable) criticism. All the while brushing off the attack on another segment by that group!

So basically women's group attacks someone = fine! Anyone criticise the women's group for it =bad! Wee bit hypocritical no?

Czarcasm

tritium wrote: »

So basically women's group attacks someone = fine! Anyone criticise the women's group for it =bad! Wee bit hypocritical no?

Well tritium you too could frame it whatever way you like, as you have done, and I don't have to entertain your argument because I don't agree with the way you've framed it.

Which is your bigger priority - criticising women's groups, or helping male victims of domestic violence?

Little CuChulainn

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Meaning you don't even have anecdotal evidence to back what you say.

You've got exactly nothing to back the idea that unisex shelters would not work.

I've already told you it's based on my experience in dealing with victims. If i read it in a book I'd gladly quote you.

KomradeBishop

tritium wrote: »

I'm getting confused here C. On the one hand a women's support organisation attacks male victims of DV (and it is an attack) and you say it's the way of the world, never change, just inaccuracy what harm yada yada.

On the other hand anyone critiques the above and they're (somehow) attacking the women's organisation, doing themselves no favours yada yada.

Essentially you're allowing the wrongdoer to frame the debate as a personal attack rather than valid (and demonstratably justifiable) criticism. All the while brushing off the attack on another segment by that group!

So basically women's group attacks someone = fine! Anyone criticise the women's group for it =bad! Wee bit hypocritical no?

Ya keep in mind that he explicitly claims in the thread that he himself is sexist, so his spinning of the argument is not that surprising - the likely reason he is defending stats that downplay domestic violence against men, and is trying to deliberately smear/lie about other posters who criticize that, is his self-admitted sexism.

It's probably the whole reason he tries to disrupt all threads like this, that touch on gender issues.

tritium

Czarcasm wrote: »

Here's your basic flaw in your argument - You think I need to defend anything. I don't. You have to make a compelling argument that will convince me to support you in wanting to attack women's support groups. The onus is on you to make a compelling argument to change the way the system is set up.

If you can't even convince me, you won't have much luck in gaining any support in wider society, where people are even less likely to give you a hearing. I can bow out now and you'll continue to stew and fester and get nowhere.

I'm not sure why we keep coming back to this. Just to be explicitly clear;

I'm not attacking the need for women's groups
I'm not attacking the work they do
I'm not attacking the statistics on prevalence of female DV
I'm not looking in anyway to reduce funding for these groups

What am I highlighting?
The diminishing of the experience of male DV victims
The misuse of statistics to deny the existence of the issue and/ or victim blame
Outright lying based on a misreading of stats or use of largely discredited stats
(And you of all people C should be aware that I'm pretty consistent in this across threads)
The need to consider this as a problem on par withe female DV and allocate resources accordingly (how that government balances the books is not my concern here)

To be clear I don't care who misrepresents the data, and I've already called out in this thread that official views also do this. I care that we're being meekly sold a pup, and that the consequence is male victims are suffering.

To pretend that highlighting the flaw in established dogma wrt male DV victims doesn't do anything for male DV victims is frankly daft. If no one attacks those pseudo statistics then the accepted view remains that its not a major issue. The data would disagree with that view. There is value in highlighting when anyone says that only a small percentage of men suffer DV that actually, across all forms of DV about a quarter of men suffer, and that the percentages are remarkably similar to those for women. There is value when someone claims that 90% of DV is initiated by males to highlight that actually research generally indicates a much more even split of initiators of abuse.

Frankly, trying to spin this as an attack on women's groups is defensive sh1te intended to prevent any discussion of the actual issue here. The 'poor us we suffer therefore no one may criticise us' arguement that so many lobby groups employ. If you're going to push statistics in any field then you expect to have the veracity of those figures scrutinised. The fact that you represent a demographic deserving of our sympathy and help doesn't get you a free pass there.

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ya keep in mind that he explicitly claims in the thread that he himself is sexist

You complain about the quality of the discussion KB, claiming that I'm ruining it with my fallacious arguments, yet you continue unabated with the ad hominem fallacy. For what it's worth though, I typed "sexism" into Google, and this is the first definition -

prejudice, stereotyping, or discrimination, typically against women, on the basis of sex.

Nothing to do with my opinion on this thread, so you're just throwing it in as a red herring fallacy.

so his spinning of the argument is not that surprising - the likely reason he is defending stats that downplay domestic violence against men, and is trying to deliberately smear/lie about other posters who criticize that, is his self-admitted sexism.

I haven't once defended the stats put forward by women's groups, and numerous posters will attest to the fact that I have admitted that I don't agree with them.

Continue with your smearing nonsense anyway, it'll get you nowhere.

It's probably the whole reason he tries to disrupt all threads like this, that touch on gender issues.

A thread about male victims of domestic violence, and you're not disrupting it by continuing to wedge in your objections to women's support groups?

It's an interesting twist on your usual take where if the victim in the opening post is a woman, you'll disrupt the thread with your gender whataboutery and want to spin it round to "what about if it was a man?".

Then you'll claim you're not saying this but if, you're not saying that but if, all the time implying nonsense while expecting that the burden of proof is on everyone else to argue against what you haven't said.

How you think that style of argument could ever work with anyone but a small minority who already agree with you is beyond me tbh.

Czarcasm

tritium I understand where you're coming from, but I've also been consistent in my view that you're taking the wrong approach if you ever wish to actually help male victims of domestic violence.

You're basically attempting to bail out the sea with a teaspoon. By all means question the statistics, but the majority of people in society will simply see this as you being spiteful and bitter and won't want anything to do with it. You're talking about changing established policy in the whole of the developed world.

You're in a minority position and you're hoping to change societies attitudes with statistics. That strategy is just never going to gain any traction, and I consider it a waste of time and what little resources we do have. I would consider it a far more worthwhile use of resources to actually highlight the issue to the public, and encourage ordinary people to put pressure on Government to change public policy.

You're going at it from the top down, rather than the bottom up.

KomradeBishop

Ad-hominem is valid when it affects someones credibility - as it does here, when your self-admitted sexism affects your credibility in discussing gender-based topics:

...Ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, for example, when it relates to the credibility of statements of fact or when used in certain kinds of moral and practical reasoning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Czarcasm wrote: »

It's an interesting twist on your usual take where if the victim in the opening post is a woman, you'll disrupt the thread with your gender whataboutery and want to spin it round to "what about if it was a man?".

You are directly lying again - quote me ever having done this.

You have no qualms about directly lying about what other posters have previously said, to slur them - another thing which directly affects your credibility.

hatrickpatrick

krudler wrote: »

What the hell is this argument even about anymore? It's actually baffling

Welcome to After Hours, you must be new around here

Czarcasm

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Ad-hominem is valid when it affects someones credibility - as it does here, when your self-admitted sexism affects your credibility in discussing gender-based topics:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Just so I can understand, why do you think my sexism has any bearing on anything? I don't have any time for feminism either, that affects my credibility too?

I'm just not sure what you hope to gain by continuing to point out that I'm sexist? The fact that you're labouring on the point just shows that you're reaching for something that isn't there.

You are directly lying again - quote me ever having done this.

You have no qualms about directly lying about what other posters have previously said, to slur them - another thing which directly affects your credibility.

I just checked it there now and you had said it on a previous account. I wouldn't stoop so low to shatter your credibility as to quote the post in this thread just to prove I'm not lying.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm wrote: »

They didn't "take" any issue. They saw the issue of domestic violence against women perpetrated by men as an issue and decided that something needed to be done to protect women and support them.

Again, making violence a gendered issue where it actually isn't.

Now a small minority of people are taking issue with the fact that these people don't also support men who are victims of domestic violence, when that was never their original aim in the first place.

Domestic violence is not a gendered issue.

If you're able to say "specifically" relationship violence, then why can you not understand that these people only deal "specifically" with female victims of domestic violence?

Because it's discriminatory.

It's not a question of whether I'd find it acceptable or not. People are entitled to advocate for whoever and whatever they like. I wouldn't object to anyone doing so.

So you wouldn't find it racist? Just wondering so we can establish some fundamental positions before continuing this debate.

I also wouldn't find it highly racist, as that would be like saying because you're not attracted to men you must be homophobic. It's daft.

That is literally the most peculiar analogy I've ever seen on AH - take a minute to appreciate the awesome epithet you've just earned for yourself

There are plenty of organizations that advocate on behalf of black people that don't advocate on behalf of white people on numerous issues, are you going to call them highly racist against white people?

Depends on what issues they're advocating for. Are they advocating for issues which only affect black people in the first place? I have no problem with that. Domestic violence affects everyone.

LGBT organisations advocate for LGBT people and don't advocate for heterosexual people, they're highly heterophobic too?

The issues which face LGBT people generally don't apply to heterosexual people, which is exactly why I find the term "violence against women" so offensive, as it implies that violence is in a different category if it's perpetrated against a woman, that it's more serious or more shocking, or more necessary to do something about.

MRAs don't advocate for women, are they highly sexist?

MRAs are reactionary to a movement which advocates only for women (or to be specific, only advocates for men in the context of how that might benefit women). I would much prefer if the MRM didn't exist and we had a unified movement for a gender blind society which doesn't differentiate or discriminate under any circumstances. So yes, the MRM is as sexist as feminism currently is and an ideal solution would be to merge the movements together and not differentiate issues by gender which affect both genders.

I'd love to see you take any of the above organisations to task for their discrimination against people they don't advocate for.

You've actually proven my argument with this remark, which I'm delighted with LGBT orgs don't advocate for non LGBT people because most of the issues they advocate for aren't relevant to non-LGBT people. If you want to analogize that to "violence against women", you're essentially agreeing that the term implies that relationship abuse isn't as important when it happens to men.

hatrickpatrick

Czarcasm is a little like Eric Cartman. He drives everyone crazy but you can't help loving him to bits

Czarcasm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You've actually proven my argument with this remark, which I'm delighted with LGBT orgs don't advocate for non LGBT people because most of the issues they advocate for aren't relevant to non-LGBT people. If you want to analogize that to "violence against women", you're essentially agreeing that the term implies that relationship abuse isn't as important when it happens to men.

Patrick you went to a lot of trouble just to ask me do I care about some issues more than others. I could simply have told you that I do.

If you'd said to me what do I think of the phrase "violence against men", you would've got the same response as "violence against women". You think violence should be tackled as a genderless issue, but how does your philosophy work for treating a man who is the victim of rape, versus a woman who is the victim of rape?

Can you honestly tell me they should be treated the same way regardless of their gender? Your philosophy falls down on so many levels that while it is commendable from an idealist perspective, it serves no practical purpose.

KomradeBishop

Czarcasm wrote: »

Just so I can understand, why do you think my sexism has any bearing on anything? I don't have any time for feminism either, that affects my credibility too?

I'm just not sure what you hope to gain by continuing to point out that I'm sexist? The fact that you're labouring on the point just shows that you're reaching for something that isn't there.

It seems to have a clear bearing on the slant you are putting in this thread - labeling anyone who criticizes potentially ethically fraudulent stats, which diminish male victims of domestic violence, as 'attacking womens organizations' - rather than pointing out the issue with stats.

Earlier on in the thread you also explicitly supported skewing stats in such a manner - which is itself sexist, since the level of ethically fraudulent stats involves diminishing male victims.

You also go out of your way in every single thread like this, to use extremely broken logic and fallacies, to make a white-knight defense of the 'female' side of gender issues (noticeably sucking up to female posters while doing it), while often using smears, misrepresentations and lies to lambast/diminish the 'male' side whenever the argument might imply even minor criticism of female movements/organizations (such misrepresentations will likely be in display in reply to this as well...) - typically destroying any possibility of a worthwhile discussion in the process.

It's a lot like what some of the more extreme mens rights posters do, except with reversed genders (there are no female posters who disrupt discussion in the way you do though - you are unique in the disruption you use to defend the 'female' side of every argument) - it allows for barely any nuanced discussion, and you drag/force threads into 'Us vs Them' trenches with that nonsense.

Czarcasm wrote: »

I just checked it there now and you had said it on a previous account. I wouldn't stoop so low to shatter your credibility as to quote the post in this thread just to prove I'm not lying.

No you'll just assert it without proof instead, that's not 'low' at all is it...go on, if you have proof, back it up with the post.