Body of Alan Hawe to be exhumed

volchitsa

What beats me is how someone can take a case of a man murdering a woman and children and end up blaming female equality for it.

If women stayed at home and raised children, and presumably avoided giving any cheek or wanting too much of his money, men's violent instincts would have no reason to be unleashed against them, seems to be your basic premise here.

volchitsa

What beats me is how someone can take a case of a man murdering a woman and children and end up blaming female equality for it.

If women stayed at home and raised children, and presumably avoided giving any cheek or wanting too much of his money, men's violent instincts would have no reason to be unleashed against them, seems to be your basic premise here.

Intothesea

Hi Volchitsa,

If that's aimed at me, I have to admit, I'm pretty impressed by the pretzel logic you've applied to my statements.


But, carry on up the Kyber, is about all I can say.

volchitsa

Intothesea wrote: »

Hi Volchitsa,

If that's aimed at me, I have to admit, I'm pretty impressed by the pretzel logic you've applied to my statements.


But, carry on up the Kyber, is about all I can say.

By pretzel logic you presumably mean that I ignored the leaps of logic and speculation, several of which have been pointed out to you.

Absent those, what's left is a couple of fairly interesting points about narcissism and "I hate feminists".

I'm responding to the latter.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

Demfad,

Nobody conflated neoliberalism with liberalism, no one claimed narcissists or super aggressive men just 'snap'.

I did make the same points myself via the narcissist lens. I did make the case for continuous and escalating narcissistic abuse, culminating at the moment when the spouse wakes up, finds support, tries to leave, or, an event occurs that will shame the narcissist in the eyes of his family forever, requiring a permanent destructive answer.

Here's a thought for you: the men who are psycho-normal enough to not kill their entire families over a relatively trivial matter won't have their options changed by any manipulation of gender identities.

The relative tightening of masculinity concepts in the modern age relate mostly to what's happeneing on the floor of the society: the punishing, unfair, uncertain hand of neoliberal policy expressed in the modern age.

That's why my basic idea to you is to go after the cause as it appears: men are victims of this cause just as surely as women. Modify inhumane business-derived social policy in the work and governmental sphere and reduce some part of this call to psychopathic traits, aggression and anxiety.

I'd say it might have a better chance of effecting positive change than hooking feminist blame analysis onto negative phenomena involving men.

Why is it not an option for men who feel compelled to join the feminist angle? Where it can't be acknowledged as maybe having something to do with it?

This is where I have to start wondering. What is the general story with men in Irish feminism, who are not interested in defending basic tenets of what feminism is?

It beats me. Any ideas?

It is International research on family annihilation that shows that the problem is with 'masculinity' and that the annihilation is the terminal act in a pattern of domestic abuse. You are trying to project this conclusion onto 'irish feminism'.
Please stop.

Definitions of feminism:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/feminism
Definition of feminism
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/feminism
feminism:
The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes.

Intothesea

volchitsa wrote: »

Intothesea wrote: »

Hi Volchitsa,

If that's aimed at me, I have to admit, I'm pretty impressed by the pretzel logic you've applied to my statements.


But, carry on up the Kyber, is about all I can say.

By pretzel logic you presumably mean that I ignored the leaps of logic and speculation, several of which have been pointed out to you.

Absent those, what's left is a couple of fairly interesting points about narcissism and "I hate feminists".

I'm responding to the latter.

Ah, what deliberately conconcted nonsense.

It's pretty obvious that I'm a feminist taking issue with aspects of neofeminism.

Another I can add to the list now is the use of dirty shizzle-stirring tactics when anything logically unassailable gets in the way of several 'ride of the Valkyrie' neofeminists carrying out the sole script they have for interacting with the non-feminist world:

Hack hack hack, deliberately misinterpret, interpolate utter fiction for purposes of rebutting it to make it look like you're 'winning'.


The funny thing is, I came into this thread to make a point about FA and narcissism.

It's not possible to do this and leave because the neofeminists waiting to swoop in are not letting go until someone storms off in disgust or simply expires from exposure to petty politics from people whose entire world apparently comes to an end if neofeminism can't be verified and shown to be the only right interpretation.

Only the internet makes this possible, that's for sure.


If you have bones to pick with my interpretation and want to make honest input for debate, what is this nonsense? It certainly has the smack of sore infantile loser off it to me. Surely you can manifest something a bit more quality-bearing, given your not-unnoticeable logical thinking style?


As well, it doesn't pass me by that an effort to provoke massive negative response from me is another petty technique used when there's apparently nothing else to be said. Backbones: very useful in life.


Anyway, I'll be replying to Demfad later.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

If you have bones to pick with my interpretation and want to make honest input for debate, what is this nonsense? It certainly has the smack of sore infantile loser off it to me. Surely you can manifest something a bit more quality-bearing, given your not-unnoticeable logical thinking style?

Anyway, I'll be replying to Demfad later.

Please address the following points:

• Your assertion that (Irish?) feminism are behind the conclusions you dislike is unsubstantiated and false: International research into family annihilation points to 'family ownership' and 'masculinity' as traits in the perpetrator whose act is the terminal one in a pattern of domestic violence.
  
• Your assertion that Family annihilation is a product of neo-liberalism is unsubstantiated and false: femicide and domestic violence have been occurring indefinately. A large US study on Family annihilation has cases over 200 years.

(The Howard Journal Vol 53 No 2. May 2014 ISSN 0265-5527, pp. 117–140
137 © 2013 The Authors
The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice © 2013 The Howard League and JohnWiley & Sons Ltd)

Conclusions
Our research suggests that family annihilators should be seen as a distinct
category of murderer, of which there are specific subcategories. What
seems to link each of the subcategories that we have identified is masculinity
and the need to exert power and control in situations when the
annihilator feels that his masculinity has, in some way, been threatened.
For these men, the family role of the father was fundamental to their
masculine identities and, prior to the murders, the family had, to some
extent, ceased to perform its masculinity-affirming functions for them.

Murder, or more bluntly, family annihilation, thus emerges in this sense as
a resource to perform masculinity, when other resources have failed, are
seen as being inadequate, or do not deliver the desired outcomes. In this
way the annihilation makes public what had often been a private reality –
a reality masked to family, friends and neighbours who often thought that
this man had been a ‘doting’ and ‘loving’ father and ‘dutiful’ husband.
Sadly, we suggest that this is a trend which seems to be increasing.
However, our observations are a weak basis on which to consider what can
be done to reduce the incidence of family annihilation. After all, children
will be – and still should be – given access to estranged fathers, the vast
majority of whom would never dream of attacking or killing their children.
Marriages and relationships will continue to dissolve. What, therefore, can
be done? Clearly, this is a simple question to ask, but a much more difficult
one to answer. However, the beginnings of such an answer must relate to
gender and a recognition that it is, in the main, men who use violence and
will take the lives of their children in this way.

No point in going on. 4 people were murdered in Cavan. If you can't address the above honestly perhaps take the agenda elsewhere?

Intothesea

demfad wrote: »

Please address the following points:

• Your assertion that (Irish?) feminism are behind the conclusions you dislike is unsubstantiated and false: International research into family annihilation points to 'family ownership' and 'masculinity' as traits in the perpetrator whose act is the terminal one in a pattern of domestic violence.
  
• Your assertion that Family annihilation is a product of neo-liberalism is unsubstantiated and false: femicide and domestic violence have been occurring indefinately. A large US study on Family annihilation has cases over 200 years.

No point in going on. 4 people were murdered in Cavan. If you can't address the above honestly perhaps take the agenda elsewhere?

Demfad,

I intended to reply to you later and attempt to get into the topic of why any man can be found illogically and persistently trolling for neofeminism. I'm addressing it as 'Irish neofeminism' because you're in Ireland, presumably. Should I talk about American neofeminism instead?


As for the above quote, I hope you realize that the deliberate misrepresentation of what's been spelt out to you time and again (because you're pretending you don't (or just don't) register what you don't like to hear) is certainly damaging any positive thing you could do for your cause.


To address the above:

I never claimed I didn't like the conclusions of any studies, I claimed a lack of interest on the basis that my points are coming from a *totally* unrelated field. Also, there is not one iota of overlap between the interpretations.

It doesn't matter what international research says, it's all good, and all irrelevant to the psychological approach. Sorry, but there's no other way to slice that, no matter what moves you pull.


I never have and never will claim that FA is a product of neo-liberalism, and therefore the words 'unsubstantiated' and 'false' are figments of your... persistent misrepresentation?



Now, I might as well address what I was going to later:

I take it that your username is actually femdad. Do you have family members that are subject to the catcalling and such that you referenced in another post?

I'm taking it that you do, considering the total focus you're applying to derailing normal debate to fight the bent fight for neofeminism.


As well, the route to solving the type of hostility you're talking about is not as damaging and direct as taking up against men as a general agent of doom in the community.

If men in general have to listen to one iota of the petty nonsensical ways you've approached 'arguing' things -- I'm utterly shocked that they haven't armed themselves with AK-47s and shot up the entire neofeminist queendom, such is the negative effect of this type of dishonest political argument.


4 people got killed in Cavan. And you're still misrepresenting points you can't debate thanks to your need to blot out all but the neofeminist interpretation.


To yourself and Volchitsa, thank you so much for illustrating with aplomb the startlingly negative aspects of neofeminist thinking as it appears in Ireland. You've done a better job than I ever had an intention to do.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

If men in general have to listen to one iota of the petty nonsensical ways you've approached 'arguing' things -- I'm utterly shocked that they haven't armed themselves with AK-47s and shot up the entire neofeminist queendom, such is the negative effect of this type of dishonest political argument.

Indeed? Interesting...
Are both your below statements dishonest or just the one?

Intothesea wrote: »

Hi Juran,
Demfad, if you read anything I said you can deduce for yourself that nothing I'm saying opposes anything any researcher has noted or concluded.

Intothesea wrote: »

Demfad,
I never claimed I didn't like the conclusions of any studies, I claimed a lack of interest on the basis that my points are coming from a *totally* unrelated field. Also, there is not one iota of overlap between the interpretations.

Intothesea

Sorry Demfad,

If you apply a smidgen of logic to those statements you'll find they don't contradict each other.

Maybe you could use your internet connection to do something productive and useful instead?

I have to go now, feel free to show us all your superlative skills in plucking bits out of long exchanges (they certainly weren't debates, were they?!) to set them up as signs of broken logic.

After that, you'd better find a good way to ensure they actually break logic.


Anyway, here's my last statement to this thread:

According to the Internet appearance of Irish neofeminist thinking, the movement is bound to exacerbate the polarization of the sexes in Ireland until this very serious issue becomes unresolvable.

That is, these petty-minded, selfishly-inclined single-noted thinkers will create a future where virulent sexism will be bred into children from their earliest days.

Maybe they're just too selfish to think that far ahead, which is surprising, because they wouldn't appear to be technically short on brains.

Apparently the financial crash in Ireland was more than just money and security-related, it was a monumental ego crash as well.

The best of luck with it, folks. You're going to need it.

Dtp1979

Here we go again

pilly

Quickly unfollows thread.