Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby slomo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:01 pm

semper occultus » 10 Dec 2015 10:41 wrote:...Slomo ...what's your take on partner abuse & rape within male homosexual relations.. ...is it more or less prevalanet than M on F sexual violence, is it a subject that is more hidden or unspoken about in comparison to its occurrence.....?

I think Guruilla already cited this article (from 2006):
http://www.rohrbaughassociates.net/pdfs/same_sex.pdf

In particular, from the conclusion section:
It is startling to discover that incidents of violence occur as frequently in lesbian/gay couples as in heterosexual couples. This finding alone refutes the assumption that domestic violence is perpetrated only by heterosexual men on heterosexual women, and suggests that domestic violence is an abuse of power that can happen in any type of intimate relationship, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The types of domestic violence are similar in all couples, except that same-gender victims often suffer from the additional stress of severe isolation and the fear that the abuser will expose the victim’s sexual orientation in a hostile manner. The characteristics of abusers appear to be similar in all types of relationships: they often have a history of major mental illness and were abused as children. Abusers are also emotionally dependent, feel powerless, tend to blame others for their problems, and use violence as a means to achieve power, control, and dominance in their intimate relationships.


Another article from 2005, although I think it has some methodological problems (lumping together lesbian and gay male victims):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775776/

Here's a literature review from 2012:
http://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/file/9 ... owena1.pdf

Here's another article I found that focuses both on childhood and adult abuse/trauma (so not specifically about inter-partner violence):
http://rothblum.sdsu.edu/doc_pdf/sexual ... rticle.pdf

In short, it looks like another very murky topic.
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby semper occultus » Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:19 pm

oh missed that...thanks

:thumbsup
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby Project Willow » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:01 pm

This is for those who keep asking why we can't just try to understand one another. This provides an historical context and terminology to use when issuing critiques of various singular polarizing issues. I think Dine's review of the rise of neo-liberalism and its impact on how we perceive the world and speak to each other is something most of the men here could agree with, in fact, she gets very RI in places. Give it half an hour and let let me know what you think.

User avatar
Project Willow
 
Posts: 4798
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 9:37 pm
Location: Seattle
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby slomo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:54 pm

Project Willow » 10 Dec 2015 12:01 wrote:This is for those who keep asking why we can't just try to understand one another. This provides an historical context and terminology to use when issuing critiques of various singular polarizing issues. I think Dine's review of the rise of neo-liberalism and its impact on how we perceive the world and speak to each other is something most of the men here could agree with, in fact, she gets very RI in places. Give it half an hour and let let me know what you think.


So far, so good: I agree with about 95% of what she says in the first 20 minutes. I'll note that most of what she talk about is rich vs. poor (not male vs. female). I start to lose her a little bit when she talks about women as a class (but you would have predicted that about me). I like her pooping on postmodernism.

So I'll lay another card on the table, maybe it explains my position better, maybe it just makes me look worse, I don't know. Rising up and smashing capitalism (or the Patriarchy or whatever) is not a pragmatic solution, unless you can define the term "smashing", and articulate a means of accomplishing it. From where I sit, in light of the realities of advanced weaponry and sophisticated propaganda infrastructures, it seems like the only power a member of a non-elite class has is to de-monetize goods and services, remove them from the "official" economy where they can be monitored and taxed, thus chipping away at ones dependence on the monetary system. (This may or may not always be a good thing, for example zoning restrictions on types of construction and public health surveillance of, e.g., restaurants, are likely necessary means of ensuring public safety.) However, taking it as a given that some goods and services should exist outside the "official" economy, the family unit is probably the best way to achieve this. There is a biological reality that means childbearing-aged women are unable to do much physical labor for months at a time due to pregnancy, which makes them reliant on family members (usually/often the father of her child). Thus, pitting woman against man, man against woman is actually counterproductive to any movement that would give independence to less-powerful classes. African-American communities have been decimated by the utter dissolution of anything resembling a family structure (and that process has been well-documented in other RI threads).

There is a traditionalist branch of MRA, mostly Christian, and yes it's filled with racists, homophobes, and actual misogynists (let's just get that out of the way first lest you think I'm endorsing their entire worldview). However (as far as I am aware) they are one of the few voices in the current "war of the sexes" that promotes a view with which I am sympathetic: that society is stronger when it is composed of strong and functioning family units, and that communities are stronger when the family units are coordinating with each other. This phenomena explains why, e.g., LDS (in all its creepiness) is a powerful cultural force: it is able to coordinate families (rather coercively, I might add) under a common agenda.

Is it possible for the left to do this (I mean, without the creepy coercion)?
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby Joao » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:24 pm

Project Willow » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:01 pm wrote:This is for those who keep asking why we can't just try to understand one another.

Looks interesting and worthwhile. Thanks.

An audio-only version with silences removed, 10% speed increase (pitch corrected), hiss removed, and levels balanced is here: http://picosong.com/QynB/

It only shaves 10 minutes but the mp3 may be preferable for some. The file can be downloaded or streamed.
Joao
 
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 11:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby Sounder » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:37 pm

Who is AD? Just curious.

Well I don't know who AD is, but for me he is an unconscious postmodernist artist who illustrates the absurdities of modern propaganda by flooding RI with articles that profess great righteousness and concern for elevating principles, yet seem to be sourced from Soros funded NGO's.

He goes by American Dream here at RI.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby guruilla » Thu Dec 10, 2015 5:51 pm

@PW: Thanks for the Yorkshire lady video. Halfway through; I want to post some of this before finishing because the focus of this discussion is moving so fast it may not be so relevant an hour from now. One thing, to second the desire to increase understanding and reduce conflict: while it may seem that I am posting material to prove a position I am already decided on, and while there's some truth in that, the deeper context is that, because much of this subject matter is fairly new to me, I am sharing material even as I discover it, not to persuade anyone that it's 100% valid or conclusive, but to see how others perceive it.

Having thus qualified myself ~ re: Assange: His primary accuser, Anna Ardin is a radical feminist who translated and promoted "'Seven Steps to Legal Revenge' which details how to inflict pain on enemies by getting people to stalk them and by using other nefarious tricks."
http://rixstep.com/1/20100823,00.shtml

In the UK High Court judgment refusing Assange's appeal against Ny's warrant, the judges go to inordinate lengths [paragraphs 79 to 96, as discussed in this article] to look at Allegation 2 in the context of previous UK rape trials involving an element of 'rape by deception' to see whether Marianne Ny's Allegation 2 could meet the dual-criminality criteria for extradition (ie that the alleged offence would also constitute a crime in British law).

They decide that it does, but then go and spoil all the hard sleuthing through UK case law they've just done to justify Allegation 2 as an extraditable offence by mentioning in paragraph 94 that the forensic report suggests the rip in the condom which Anna Ardin presented as evidence is the result of wear and tear.

As a creative addition to sex crimes legislation, 'wear and tear' equalling 'rape by deception' is unlikely to make the grade. [Why did the UK High Court undercut its own argument by inserting this remark - the only reference to the Swedish investigation's underlying physical evidence in the entire judgment - in paragraph 94? It's deliberate, of course, because 'The conclusion of the expert was that there was nothing to indicate that a tool had been used, but that the damage to the condom was created by the wear and tear of the condom' is a lie. Take another look at that forensic results report. It clearly states that the tear edges on BOTH condoms (that 'both' is important, but I'll come back to that) match a 'control' rip in the back of Anna Ardin's condom that the laboratory technicians manually made themselves. No one has yet figured out what the purpose of the judges' obfuscation might be; however, we do know that UK High Court judges do not spend three months deliberating on a high profile, highly politicised case such as Assange's only to make an elementary 'mistake' like this.]
http://rixstep.com/2/20140204,00.shtml


Regarding the problem of due process on US campus:

Pro Due Process Does Not Equate to Pro Rape
...
If you feel like you’ve been reading more about campus rape of late, that’s because you have—most recently in a New York magazine cover story in September. The trend has been gathering steam since the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to colleges nationwide on April 4, 2011, mandating policy changes in the way schools handle sexual assault complaints, including a lowering of the burden of proof from “clear and convincing” evidence to a “preponderance” of evidence. Not surprisingly, there has been a marked increase in women coming forward with such complaints.

That doesn’t bother Mr. Miltenberg at all. The man is not pro-rape, for God’s sake. What does bother him is the way that many schools have handled the complaints.

Every single one of the men he’s representing, Mr. Miltenberg argues, has suffered egregious due process violations in closed-door college hearings. (He also believes that his clients are innocent of the charges against them.) And that is how he has found himself in the decidedly impolitic position of not only defending those accused of rape, but also suing on their behalf.

Impolitic, perhaps, but he’s also in good company. Twenty-eight current and retired Harvard Law School professors recently sent a letter to the university asking it to abandon its new sexual misconduct policy, arguing, as Mr. Miltenberg has more generally, that the new rules violate the due process rights of the accused.

http://observer.com/2014/10/pro-due-pro ... -pro-rape/


The authors of Legalizing Misandry (book I cited at the gender thread) rely on Daphne Patai's research and statements a lot and she seems worth a look:

Daphne Patai (born 1943) is a scholar and author.

She is a professor in the Department of Languages, Literatures, and Cultures at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her PhD is in Brazilian literature, but her early work also focused on utopian and dystopian fiction. She is a leading critic of the politicization of education, in particular of the decline of free speech on college campuses as programs conform to pressures from feminists and other identity groups. She is the daughter of the anthropologist Raphael Patai.

Critique of feminist politics

After spending ten years with a joint appointment in women's studies and in Portuguese, Patai became highly critical of what she saw as the imposition of a political agenda on educational programs. In Patai's view, this politicization not only debases education, but also threatens the integrity of education generally. Having done, earlier in her career, a good deal of research using personal interview techniques, she drew on these techniques in her book Professing Feminism (1994, written with philosophy of science professor and novelist Noretta Koertge). Their research included personal interviews with feminist professors who had become disillusioned with feminist initiatives in education. Drawing on these interviews and on materials defining and defending women's studies programs, the book analyzed practices within women's studies that the authors felt were incompatible with serious education and scholarship — above all, the explicit subservience of educational to political aims.

A recent enlarged edition of this book provided extensive documentation from current feminist writings of the continuation, and indeed exacerbation, of these practices. Routinely challenged by feminists who declare that "all education is political," Patai has responded with the claim that this view is simplistic. She argues that a significant difference exists between the reality that education may have political implications and the intentional use of education to indoctrinate. The latter, she argues, is no more acceptable when done by feminists than when done by fundamentalists.

Patai's thesis is that a failure to defend the integrity of education and a habit of dismissing data and research on political grounds, not only seriously hurt students but also leave feminists helpless in trying to defend education against other ideological incursions (such as intelligent design). Only positive knowledge, respect for logic, evidence, and scrupulous scholarship not held to political standards, Patai contends, can lead to a better future. Twentieth-century examples of contrary educational practices have a sordid history, one that has hardly promoted women's rights (or any other human rights).

Among Patai's concerns are what she sees as draconian sexual harassment regulations as implemented in the academic world. She argues that contemporary feminism is poisoned by a strong element of hostility to sexual interaction between men and women and an effort to suppress it through micromanagement of everyday relations. This idea is developed in her 1998 book Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Patai has also written about the negative impact of Critical Theory on the study of literature. [For those who want to follow this thread to the deep background, I posted about the New Criticism at one of AD's threads, in relation to Fabianism and memetic engineering, here.] Together with Will H. Corral she edited Theory's Empire: An Anthology of Dissent (Columbia University Press), a collection of essays by fifty scholars taking issue with Theory orthodoxies of the past few decades.

Although criticized by some feminists, Patai insists that to criticize feminism and women's studies is not to seek to turn the clock back. From her perspective, she is addressing her critiques to other educators (including feminist educators), in the hope that they will see the importance of defending education from those who want to force it into a particular political mould, regardless of the popularity of particular views at any given moment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daphne_Patai

A couple of relevant quotes from Misandry:
misandry-quotes.jpg
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby slomo » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:15 pm

^^^^ I've combed much of the same literature over the years, and found it more-or-less convincing (obviously). I part ways with the most vocal MRAs where they begin to whine and/or rail against women in particular (rather than systems that favor women, or systems that can be hijacked for sinister purposes by appealing to the rights of women). Some of the advantages women have are just based on human nature and probably biology, so there's no point getting upset about them. (My stats thread, in spite of what Jack thinks, is not a temper tantrum about the ways in which women have it better, it exists merely to point out that women do have it better in some important ways.)

The real pragmatic issue for me (or one of the major ones anyway) is the real risk that women's rights is a convenient cover for chipping away at due process and free speech. (The other pragmatic issue is that the formulations of some feminisms sow relationship discord and interfere with compassion/empathy/intimacy.)
User avatar
slomo
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:42 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby guruilla » Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:55 pm

lunarmoth » Thu Dec 10, 2015 12:58 am wrote:I joined what they told me was the "women's movement" in 1970. Word got around that McGill had hired a high-profile radical American Marxist-feminist prof to teach sociology and the history of women -- totally unheard of and exciting to us in the boondocks. . . .

Failing at that colossal task, after a year we gravitated to "consciousness-raising groups" where we could just sit and talk and share feelings.

This was what struck me for the parallels with the Erin Pizzey interview (thanks semper!), the triad of feminism, Marxism, and consciousness-raising:

From what I saw when I was in these great big collectives was really Marxism. We were all organized into groups in our own homes and told that we must have consciousness-raising sessions. And I remember the woman who came to our consciousness-raising and when she finished, I said this has nothing to do with women, this is actually Marxist. I said so we’re supposed to go to work full-time and put our children into care provided by the state—like the Communist government—and why are we calling this liberation? And so very quickly I was booted out and went off to open a community center for mothers and children. And then I knew, once the donations came in, once the press picked it up—because the local paper—because my refuge by that point was full—I knew very well the sound of the feminist boots coming down to actually hijack the entire domestic violence industry and turn it into a billion dollar industry. Which they’ve done.

. . . .

Yes, but most of them don’t even know anything about the beginning of this movement. And the thing I have to point out, very simply, the beginnings of the women’s movement happened way back when a lot of women were fighting for the rights of people, of Americans, to end the apartheid that was going on at that time. When they had finished marching for the civil rights movement—There’s a whole storied history that you can read it. They came back and decided that the leftist women wanted their own movement. So instead of it being Capitalism, which everyone was against in the left-wing movements, they simply changed the goal posts and said it was Patriarchy. Everything was because of men, because of the power that men have over women. And then the second part of their argument was that all women are victims of men’s violence because it’s The Patriarchy. And that is such a lot of rubbish. Because, we know, and everybody in the business knows, that both men and women in interpersonal relationships can be violent. And that’s in every single study all across the Western world. . . .

To be clear, much of this (particularly that last point) is as surprising to me as it will be to others, and I know at least one person here has already rejected it as dangerous fantasy (Pizzey addresses that in the interview). The notion that women are equally as violent as men is also there in the Dutton material I quoted, which was also completely new to me. No one has commented (constructively) on it yet besides slomo, who was already familiar with it, and I think the reason is that it's simply unthinkable to most of us, a real thought-stopper. I also think this itself bears thinking about.

And my whole concern is, it is generational violence, and if we don’t save this generation of children we simply have more and more violent people. Because, until we understand we cannot blame men for everything. Women have to look at themselves and be honest about their own violence. And also, to understand what you do to a child’s brain when you actually fight each other, scream, yell and hit children, it causes brain damage. And we know that now from MRI scans. They can see what it does, particularly to the frontal lobe, the right frontal lobe, which is the seat of all our emotions.

. . . of the first hundred women who came into my refuge, 60 percent were as violent as the men they left. Or, they were violent and the men weren’t.

. . . Dean: But, people become either frightened or enraged or laugh when you suggest that there are violent women. Where do you think that comes from?

Erin: Most people who are violent don’t think they’re violent because it’s been their reality from a very early age.

...

I was also at the American Embassy when Betty Friedan recanted what she’d said and she said, “I apologize. We, as women have gone to the male, for the throat over economics and that isn’t what we should have done. We should have built the relationship between men and women.”

Dean: Betty Friedan said that?

Erin: Yes, she did, in the American Embassy about 1980, ’81. And I just remember looking at her and thinking, “Look at the damage you’ve done with what you’ve said over the years!” It’s all very well everybody recanting, but the damage is done.
...
Dean: Susan Brownmiller published a simply horrible screed about rape and how …

Erin: No she has since then written a book … we’re friends, I know her … she’s since then wrote a book and just said, “I was wrong.”
...
Dean: That’s actually good for me to hear because her original writings on rape about it being this … I don’t know … men have been raping women for millions of years and … very upsetting stuff! It’s good to hear that you’re friends and that she’s recanted her views on that. I’d probably like to talk to her some time. But it seems to me as if people either want to see women as exclusively victims or as somehow angelic figures.

Erin: That’s mostly men. Women know. We know each other. And privately, they’ll say what they really believe. But an awful lot of men will not hear a word about violent women. They like women on pedestals. It makes them feel safe.
....
Dean: Harriet Harman [PIE-affiliated], she’s a Member of Parliament there in Britain, yes? From what I’ve read about her, she seems very hateful. She is a feminist, yes?

Erin: Well, I tried to reason with her once. We were both at the conference and I just said to her, “Look, Harriet, you’ve simply got to accept the figures about violent women.” She just swung around on me and her face changed. She said, “The amount of men who are beaten up is miniscule.” And I just looked at her, and I thought, “There’s nothing I can do with you because your mind is closed.”

Dean: Well, the government’s own figures don’t even show that to be true, do they?

Erin: Yes, the British Home crime figures show virtually equal between men and women, domestic violence.

Dean: Wow.

Erin: It doesn’t matter how often you say this, or you point it out. You tell a lie long enough, Goebbels said, you can brainwash the entire community. And that’s what’s happened here.

Dean: Now there are those who be accusing you of being a conspiracy theorist or some sort of crazy person to suggest the domestic violence industry is a billion dollar industry.

Erin: That’s not too difficult. Just look at the figures, if you can get your hands on them....


Of special interest to Canadians, Erin claims that "the most frightening country in the entire world is Canada":

I did a six-week tour, with Senator Anne Cools, all across Canada. And there were some wonderful (there was one in Windsor was wonderful) uh, men’s groups, just struggling to keep going. And as we traveled and talked to men’s groups, we realized how terribly dangerous it is because it’s almost as though the entire government and the judiciary—the same people—had been infiltrated by very radical feminists out to get men. And I talked to people all the way across Canada. You know my mother was Canadian, and I’m half Canadian, and it hurt actually. See I was a child in Toronto, and my feeling as we went through is real fear. I remember I was working with Anne in the Senate and I walked in to the lift, and this man who was in the lift with me was cowering over in the corner. And I came out and I said to Anne, “What on earth was that about?” And she said, “Men are frightened. They just don’t know when they’re going to be told they’re sexually harassing somebody.”


On men's movements that seem to be considered fair game for scorn, and worse, at RI:

Dean: That’s an interesting thing, because I noticed on Facebook, you said something, I don’t have an exact quote, but you were despairing that men’s groups never seem to go anywhere or get any traction. Are you still finding that to be true?

Erin: Yes, I do find that to be true. I really do. And it’s a great sadness because the only way we’re going to heal what’s happened between the anti-male, misandry, and ordinary normal people in loving relationships, is for men to take their lead in what’s happening and make their opinions known and stand up as otherwise there’s this deepening divide in relationships between men and women.

Example of a consequence of the rule against men being allowed into refuges:

Erin: Well there was a case the other day—I was talking to the mother. She was completely bloody after she’d been beaten up. She got to the police station with her children. Her boy was 16 and … when women’s aid came to collect her, they said, “You can’t take your 16-year-old son.” She said, “What can I do then?” “Well you’ll have to make accommodations.” She said, “I left my son in the police station for the Social Services to collect him because I knew I couldn’t cope after finding my own accommodation and I wouldn’t be protected.” I said, “You’re quite right. How would that poor child … he’s only 16 and seeing his mother beaten up, how many times he couldn’t count—left.” That’s as far as I am concerned, cruel.

Dean: It seems to be and also may be teaching him a message to internalize his father’s anger and his father’s violence and think, “Well this is just what men are.” Right?

Erin: Yes.

Dean: On the other hand, I have a good friend, obviously I won’t name him … he was in a relationship where his wife was very violent with him and very violent with his children and he stayed in that relationship even though it was going on for years because he feared to call the police for help. He was certain he would be arrested.

Erin: He’s right.

Dean: He was right, wasn’t he? Almost any man would be.

Erin: Listen to this: Who trains the police? Women’s Aid.

Erin: Yeah. All across for 40 years, they have been doing educational packages which they then sell to, whether it’s to the police or social services, and the message is always there: it’s all men, it’s all men, it’s all men.

Dean: And it’s a lie, isn’t it?

Erin: It’s a massive lie. Yes. And it’s a very, very, very—a lie worth telling because you get billions out of this. This is more about money than it is about caring for anybody.
...

Erin: Well, look at it this way: Baby P was a big, big case here just recently, a child, a beautiful little boy … was hideously battered by a violent mother and her boyfriend. He was taken into hospital and he died. Everybody across the country was weeping over Baby P, because it made the newspapers. And I said then, “Right, when this man grows up, this child, had he been able to grow up, he probably would have been a monster and then you would hate him.”

Sorry: I kept thinking I have got to enough quotes & then I kept finding more stuff that just blew me away.

Dean: Well and one of the patterns I’ve seen and read about is that you’ll get these women in violent relationships and they’ll be the ones who actually start the hitting.

Erin: Yes, they do, because the majority of violent women bank on the fact that most men don’t hit women. And they don’t.

Dean: And most men don’t hit women.

Erin: Yeah then …

Dean: And so then a woman will hit, and hit and hit … and then finally he loses his mind turns and punches her, and now she gets to be a victim right?

Erin: Yeah. Sometimes she doesn’t even have to wait to provoke him to where he loses it. She bangs her head on a wall and calls the police.

Dean: Now that’s going to make some people angry. You just suggested women will intentionally injure themselves.

Erin: And some men. I mean, it’s not just women or just men; it’s what you learned in childhood. A lot of these women I deal with have severe personality disorders. As do the men. And whoever gets involved with them, even by accident mostly, is going to get … it’s a train crash. Because it takes time for the loving partner to realize what they’ve taken on. And an interesting thing about men, when they see what they think is a very, very—what would the word be? A very fragile woman. And this is a classic. A narcissistic exhibitionist—there’s the woman, the whole crowd at the party are looking at her. She’s usually very well turned out because she’s narcissistic. She looks good and she’s incredibly warm. It isn’t until he gets deeper into the relationship that he realizes that there’s nothing inside that woman. What he saw was… the harmed child in the woman and he wants to make it better. He wants to defend her and take care of her, and then suddenly he realizes that the mask of sanity … he sees through it and it’s too late.

Dean: Because everybody else sees her as …

Erin: Wonderful! Life of the party! And he’s drawn in by that! Men love to have the woman on their arm that everybody else would love to own.

Dean: Vivacious, pretty, etc. …

Erin: Like my mother, narcissistic exhibitionist, and they’re very, very dangerous and there’s no treatment.


I think in about 20 years perhaps—I don’t know if I’ll still be alive—that we will look at these last 40, 50 years as the dark ages for human relationships.
...
Dean: You use the phrase “equity feminism.” Are you using that to describe women who think of themselves as feminists, but really only want fairness and equality?

Erin: Yes, absolutely.

Dean: Perhaps even the word “feminism” isn’t right at this point for them. They’re really more humanists and don’t realize it?

Erin: Yeah. I think that’s right. But then you see we’ve had nearly 50 years now of brainwashing, and this lie has been standing out there.
....
Dean: But, it’s almost like this radical feminism is underground, people don’t know that it’s there. And you try to tell them and [they say you think] it’s a conspiracy. But it’s not a conspiracy, is it? It’s just reality of what’s in the university and a lot of these government departments, right?

Erin: That’s where it came from. That’s where it all started. And it’s interesting though because many of those Women’s Studies are being shut down.
. . .

Dean: I seem to recall you mentioning something about how perhaps 40, 50 years ago in the 70s there were violent women protesting you and the police told you they were afraid of them?

Erin: That’s absolutely right. I was at a luncheon for Women of the Year at the Savoy, and there was all this shouting. I had to get through the pickets. And the funniest one was “Pizzey is the pits!” But they also had the ones, “All men are rapists” “All men are bastards” and I went down to the police and said, “Look, if this was men, you’d arrest them all.” And there’s a great big copper and I said, “Why aren’t you arresting them?” He said, “Well it’s women,” and there’s a terrified look on his face. And I had to have a police escort all around England.

Dean: And you had to have a police escort because why?

Erin: Death threats. Listen, police don’t give you an escort, because it costs a lot of money, unless they’re worried about it.
...
Dean: And they hate you for saying that women can be violent or that domestic violence is often or usually mutual?

Erin: Yeah. And also that I say that it’s a fact that it’s a multimillion-, billion-dollar industry. That’s one that absolutely outrages them, because they don’t want anyone to know how much money they’re getting.

Dean: It’s funny, and I happen to know that even in the States there is no accounting for where that money goes. I guess it’s marked as going to women’s shelters and that’s it—it’s like a black box.
...

Dean: I think men are, contrary to the stereotype, actually, generally fairly gentle creatures.

Erin: I think that’s true as well, and much, much simpler than women. It’s much easier to talk to men, because men … men explode with rage, right? I can deal with that. Well some men. It’s women implode. And women will actually, ’tis true, they will sit quietly and they will plot for what they want. And that’s very female because you implode with rage. Different chemicals.
...
Dean: So … interesting, interesting. So we’ve evolved to be different, and perhaps we’ve evolved to want to protect women.

Erin: Of course, that’s what you’ve done since the beginning of time. The woman has actually evolved to nurture the children and to nurture a family setup. That’s why she collects the food, on the ground food, but not plowing … men go out, from early days, and bring home the bacon, whether it’s a piece of bear or whatever. What isn’t healthy though, is, it takes … you know in an ideal world the mothering and the fathering under one roof with the children is the best way a child can grow up—being nurtured by each parent. Yes, other people can nurture a child but that biological bond between the mother and the father is the best that you can offer your child.

Dean: I think the nurturing impulse in men is underrated. I think men have a very strong nurturing impulse too.

Erin: They do.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby semper occultus » Thu Dec 10, 2015 9:13 pm

Harriet Harman - name-checked above - is ofcourse the quintessential aristo-elitist Fabian...


Image


...and niece of Lord Longford...( Frank Pakenham )
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby Luther Blissett » Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:09 am

I hope you're not implying it was me who called the notion of an abusive woman fantasy. I was once in an abusive relationship for two years, with a 6' tall feminist. She even had the cops called on her by the neighbors twice.

Still not nearly enough to turn me against equal rights for women. It did make me acutely sensitive towards bipolar disorder and gave me a hope for a stronger mental health care system, which had so failed her.
The Rich and the Corporate remain in their hundred-year fever visions of Bolsheviks taking their stuff - JackRiddler
User avatar
Luther Blissett
 
Posts: 4991
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:31 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby tapitsbo » Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:20 am

That's an interesting point about mental health Luther. I take it you're sensitive the extremely suspect nature of much of extant mental health services and would favour a different approach.

Of course many violent/abusive people are suffering in this sense, but the Pandora's box of deciding what's treatment and what's coercion is full of questions that are astoundingly difficult to resolve. Certainly we're given a distorted picture about the effects of psychiatric medication.

I realize a lot of strong opinions have been expressed about the relationship between mental illness and the illnesses of society, but these issues aren't going to be resolved overnight.

The feminist line that women who step out of line are considered mentally ill is probably true in some cases, too. Any kind of dissident has the potential to be considered mentally ill - I suspect cost efficiency is the only thing stopping more widespread abuse of political psychiatry.
tapitsbo
 
Posts: 1824
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2013 6:58 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby Elvis » Fri Dec 11, 2015 1:06 am

Project Willow » Thu Dec 10, 2015 1:01 pm wrote:This is for those who keep asking why we can't just try to understand one another. This provides an historical context and terminology to use when issuing critiques of various singular polarizing issues. I think Dine's review of the rise of neo-liberalism and its impact on how we perceive the world and speak to each other is something most of the men here could agree with, in fact, she gets very RI in places. Give it half an hour and let let me know what you think.



Guilty as charged, and Dine's talk is brilliant—thank you! I re-watched about half, in parts, it's so good. I even took some notes because she kind of crystallizes the swirl of different attitudes into a sensible progression.

The way feminism was insidiously subvened and subsumed by neoliberal ideology is especially clear. And I think 'neoliberal' is a good term for what she means.

I love her comparison with the labor movement, when she quotes a recent magazine writer saying, "The labor movement is something unique to each individual." — !!! — The utter absurdity of that statement really shows how far this brainwashing has gone.

Also hilarious is when the 20-year-old "I'm a Slut" marcher told Dine, "If you don't like it, start your own movement!" :lol: :roll:

I can connect such cultural assimilation to hippies and Native Americans—everything about them that held promise atomized, bleached, boiled, repackaged and merchandized as fun Halloween party costumes (made in China). I was in costume retail awhile and I never saw a Feminist costume, but we had 'lady business executive' type costumes; the jacket part would invariably peel back to reveal a sexy bustier and lace garters, etc. Most of the big costume distributors offer "Sexy" versions of characters and themes; Dine might call it the "slut version": a woman's "Firefighter" costume becomes a "Firefighter Slut" costume and so on. These are the best sellers, of course.

(I get the "I'm a slut" movement, and some female friends had a great time marching (they marched past my building, making a huge racket), but I wonder if 'slut' is the best word to "take back.")

Anyway, thanks, Willow, that was indeed helpful.
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7563
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby guruilla » Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:12 am

Luther Blissett wrote:I hope you're not implying it was me who called the notion of an abusive woman fantasy.

JackRiddler » Wed Dec 09, 2015 10:44 pm wrote: (Meanwhile, there are posts above claiming that domestic violence is a myth, that women are initiating half or more of it!)
.
It is a lot easier to fool people than show them how they have been fooled.
User avatar
guruilla
 
Posts: 1470
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:13 am
Location: Canada
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Study: Everyone loves feminists and environmentalists!

Postby lunarmoth » Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:36 am

Who is being abused here? Please come out and admit you are attached to this topic for personal reasons: because you have experienced or are currently experiencing pain in relationships and are seeking answers through debating the "issues" that plague North America thanks to the Cointelpro program called Feminism.

There seems to be no honest escape from these theoretical prisons. Therefore, I personalize. Along with the ideological assault on our already polarized consciousness, there are all kinds of electronic, chemical and electromagnetic influences that are causing our physical and energetic bodies to decay. With decay, however, comes Liberation if you can allow yourselves to see past the forms.

By the way I used to really like Selma James and Maria Rosa Dallacosta ... they had energy and humour. ANd there was another woman, Margo St James, who was organizing prostitutes in San Francisco. I tried to interview her in Toronto in 1977. She had come up to give a talk at the University. I forget her talk but I do remember sitting with her in a cafe and she became psychotic and paranoid. She thought I was a cop and then she thought everyone else in the place was monitoring her speech and yes, even her thoughts. It was all she could talk about. I tried to comfort her. I told her what Leonard Cohen had said to me when I told him I was going to Toronto to interview the woman who wanted to organize prostitutes and basically make all men pay for sex. He said, "Tell her I have paid very dearly for my miserable orgasms. My frequent, miserable orgasms."

So i tried that quote on her and she laughed. And afterwards she relaxed and started acting human.

Whenever you're at a conversational impasse, invoke a pop star. However, I think Wilhelm Reich was more our man.
"We come from France"
User avatar
lunarmoth
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2015 6:17 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 95 guests