"Man Up" campaign by SafeIreland

T runner

Lemming wrote: »

"Patriarcal terrorism"?

Right. I don't need to even read that article.

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

constance tench wrote: »

What disparity?

( Read the link. Or is it convenient for you to ignore it also?)

(From page 285) US crime statistics 97% of assaults on adults in the family were assaults on wives. In Canada 17-1. These patterns similar in GB etc.

Can you explain these disaragies?

T runner

constance tench wrote: »

...Outdated, unbalanced article (Pennsylvania State University circa 1995)

Unbalanced? Please elaborate.....or haven't you even read it?

Lemming

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

Any article with something of substance does not need to resort to shock-jock titles.

The title is extremely telling in using extremely emotive and loaded words that are highly subjective and wildly open to interpretation. So, either the author(s) are prejudiced in their analysis, or deeply cynical and know they've got something that isn't worth much so have used such a title to draw readers in.

T runner

Seriously? wrote: »

This disparity between men and females who commit domestic violence, it wouldn't by chance be how society condemns the former and largely ignores the later ?

I've argued the reason for the disparity with substantiation. If you believe this not to be the case then please substantiate your position.

IMO Society rarely questions or seeks an explanation for this disparagy: any coverage on the media seems to be addended with "lets not forget men can be the victims of domestic violence too you know".

Also it's hard to take any position seriously which references the mythical 'Patriarchy'.

The reason my position can be taken seriously is that it is substantiated. The reason yours cant, is because its not. Please substantiate your hypotheses that "patriarchy" is mysthical, or withdraw it.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?

If it contains terms such as "patriarchal tyranny" then the chances are it's crap.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?



( Read the link. Or is it convenient for you to ignore it also?)

(From page 285) US crime statistics 97% of assaults on adults in the family were assaults on wives. In Canada 17-1. These patterns similar in GB etc.

Can you explain these disaragies?

...can't get to page 285...you think I'm going to pay or register to read it?

Your views(and that of the author) on domestic violence are wholly outdated and sexist.

I suggest you read some up to date gender neutral studies on domestic violence (of which there are many)

Can you explain to me what 'disparagies/disparagy' means?

jackofalltrades

T runner wrote: »

Unbalanced? Please elaborate.....or haven't you even read it?

Why would I go through the hassle of registering on a website just to read one article with "Patriarchal Terrorism" in the title.
It's obviously biased. The keywords, tone and content of the first page show this.

constance tench

T runner wrote: »

Unbalanced? Please elaborate.....or haven't you even read it?

See post 181

T runner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

If it contains terms such as "patriarchal tyranny" then the chances are it's crap.

Unfortunately too many Irishmen make up their mind on these important issues with lazy non-thinking like this. How can you stand over the integrity of your position if it is based on rubbish logic as contained in your comment?

To paraphrase: I don't like what that article says, so Ill pick out a phrase from it and say im not reading it because I don't like that phrase.
Are you an adult or a child? Seriously have some self respect.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Unfortunately too many Irishmen make up their mind on these important issues with lazy non-thinking like this. How can you stand over the integrity of your position if it is based on rubbish logic as contained in your comment?

To paraphrase: I don't like what that article says, so Ill pick out a phrase from it and say im not reading it because I don't like that phrase.
Are you an adult or a child? Seriously have some self respect.

Quite easily as it happens. Chances are if someone uses such base, insulting terminology like this in a study which is meant to be objective, then it illustrates bias. I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word "n***er" to be able to reliably conduct studies relating to different ethnic and racial populations.
"Too many Irishmen"? Now who's making lazy generalisations?

Lemming

T runner wrote: »

Unfortunately too many Irishmen make up their mind on these important issues with lazy non-thinking like this. How can you stand over the integrity of your position if it is based on rubbish logic as contained in your comment?

To paraphrase: I don't like what that article says, so Ill pick out a phrase from it and say im not reading it because I don't like that phrase.
Are you an adult or a child? Seriously have some self respect.

Sorry, what was that about making sweeping generalisations?

Seriously?

T runner wrote: »

Please substantiate your hypotheses that "patriarchy" is mysthical, or withdraw it.

It’s for the same reason unicorns and fairies don't exist, it doesn't stand up to any sort of impartial scrutiny when applied to a modern western society.

T runner

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Why would I go through the hassle of registering on a website just to read one article with "Patriarchal Terrorism" in the title.
It's obviously biased. The keywords, tone and content of the first page show this.

Please elaborate with substantiation on how the tone content etc of the first page is "obviously" biased.

Because you cant substantiate your position, your revealing that it must be based on prejudice and not evidence.

T runner

Seriously? wrote: »

It’s for the same reason unicorns and fairies don't exist, it doesn't stand up to any sort of impartial scrutiny when applied to a modern western society.

Then no doubt you'll have access to "impartial" studies that demonstrate and substantiate your assertion that patriarchy does not exist in modern western societies. If you don't then your view remains just an unsubstantiated opinion, and with a lack of evidence to support it: probably based on some underlying prejudice of yours.

flyingsnail

T runner wrote: »

But how can you refute it if you don't even read it?



( Read the link. Or is it convenient for you to ignore it also?)

(From page 285) US crime statistics 97% of assaults on adults in the family were assaults on wives. In Canada 17-1. These patterns similar in GB etc.

Can you explain these disaragies?

Well how about some statistics from Ireland in 2005, from the nation crime council

The survey suggests that in the region of 213,000 women and 88,000 men in Ireland have been severely abused by a partner at some point in their lives.

Thats a ratio of 2.42 to 1, hardly even close to 97% or 17-1
http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/downloads/Abuse_Report_NCC.pdf

T runner

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Quite easily as it happens. Chances are if someone uses such base, insulting terminology like this in a study which is meant to be objective, then it illustrates bias. I wouldn't expect someone who uses the word "n***er" to be able to reliably conduct studies relating to different ethnic and racial populations.
"Too many Irishmen"? Now who's making lazy generalisations?

Lemming wrote: »

Sorry, what was that about making sweeping generalisations?

Yes that was a generalization. But you hardly expected me to refute "its probably crap" with a scholarly article? I had assumed that many Irish males were like you and based their positions on prejudice and not any evidence.

If you had rejected the content of the article by substantiating your position, I would have followed suit. Up to you.

Seriously?

T runner wrote: »

Then no doubt you'll have access to "impartial" studies that demonstrate and substantiate your assertion that patriarchy does not exist in modern western societies.

But the burden of proof doesn't belong to me to disprove your story, but rather to you to prove it.

If I state there are fairies in my garden, its for me to prove they exist and not for others to disprove it.

Perhaps some examples of it in modern ireland.

constance tench

So you agree (T runner) the article you posted is outdated and the 'key words' display bias...well that's a start.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Yes that was a generalization. But you hardly expected me to refute "its probably crap" with a scholarly article? I had assumed that many Irish males were like you and based their positions on prejudice and not any evidence.

If you had rejected the content of the article by substantiating your position, I would have followed suit. Up to you.

I'm a full time researcher and I work based on evidence. However, my time is limited so when I see such drivel as I highlighted above then I can rationally choose to dismiss the article based on the fact that it's presumably biased.

jackofalltrades

T runner wrote: »

Please elaborate with substantiation on how the tone content etc of the first page is "obviously" biased.

Because you cant substantiate your position, your revealing that it must be based on prejudice and not evidence.

Keywords: domestic violence, feminism, gender, violence, wife beating

We are all too familiar with stories of women who are finally murdered by their husbands who have terrorized them for years

...while a significant number of families are terrorized by systematic male violence enacted in the service of patriarchal control.

The narrative on just the first page is men being violent and women being beaten/murdered.

T runner wrote:

Women even get blamed for violence against women as exemplified by this thread.

You still haven't pointed out the incidents of this in this thread.

T runner

Seriously? wrote: »

But the burden of proof doesn't belong to me to disprove your story, but rather to you to prove it.

If I state there are fairies in my garden, its for me to prove they exist and not for others to disprove it.

Perhaps some examples of it in modern ireland.

My story? what story? I supplied a scholarly article to substantiate my claim that most male domestic violence against women is motivated by a patriarchal upbringing. If you have an issue with any of this, then refute it with substantiation. Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

Seriously?

T runner wrote: »

Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

The proof is the lack of evidence.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

My story? what story? I supplied a scholarly article to substantiate my claim that most male domestic violence against women is motivated by a patriarchal upbringing. If you have an issue with any of this, then refute it with substantiation. Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

You provided a biased article which doesn't prove that the "patriarchy" is responsible for spousal abuse. I could assert with equal legitimacy that the popularity of the domestic cat as a pet is responsible for the increased usage of the internet. Correlation does not equal causation.

SaturnV

T runner wrote: »

My story? what story? I supplied a scholarly article to substantiate my claim that most male domestic violence against women is motivated by a patriarchal upbringing. If you have an issue with any of this, then refute it with substantiation. Particularly if you believe that patriarchy is a myth as mentioned in the article, then prove it.

Right, I tend to lurk around these discussions, but I have to jump in here. Have you read the article? Because, if you have, you will find that there is no analysis or documentation of the motivation for the abuse. You can't discover why A abused B by asking B about it. Language in important. Using the term "patriarchal terrorism" implies a knowledge of the motivation. This has no evidential support (as presented). Personally, I would be very wary of a "scholarly" article using loaded terms such as this, which are intended to communicate something beyond the evidence - it is intellectually dishonest.

Also, the article notes that there are two traditions in the study of abuse and violence in relationships. One is based on quantitative analysis and random sampling surveys, and finds little gender difference in violence and abuse (in general). The other is research from a feminist standpoint, which uses a fundamentally different strategy in collecting data, typically interviews with women self reporting abuse. Whatever about the relative merits of these approaches, if you ask a lot of female victims of abuse about their situations, you may draw many useful conclusions from these observations. However, you cannot go on to conclude that men are violent to women; this is a tautology.


In short, that article, whatever its merits, does not support the position you think it does. It substantiates precisely nothing you think it does.

T runner

Seriously? wrote: »

The proof is the lack of evidence.

Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything which is why all your arguments are groundless. If you want to state that "patriarchy" (or "sexism" or "racism" or "tyranny") is a myth. It is up to you to substantiate that strange opinion.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You provided a biased article which doesn't prove that the "patriarchy" is responsible for spousal abuse.

Pleased demonstrate why you think the article is biased. Do you have an issue with any of its referees? Which ones?

I could assert with equal legitimacy that the popularity of the domestic cat as a pet is responsible for the increased usage of the internet. Correlation does not equal causation.

Not without substantiation you couldn't. The article has referenced all its sources. If you have a problem with any of these, name it and state why prefereably with substantiation.

No you couldn't because you cant substantiate that.

ancapailldorcha

T runner wrote: »

Pleased demonstrate why you think the article is biased. Do you have an issue with any of its referees? Which ones?

I already have in my post above. Why do you consider it to be evidence? It's not even a study. At best, it's a biased opinion based on selected studies.

Seriously?

T runner wrote: »

Lack of evidence doesn't prove anything which is why all your arguments are groundless.

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise we had to accept this purely based on faith. Clearly I take it all back, if you believe really really hard enough it must be true.


Or to quote James Randi, "you can't prove a negative"

ancapailldorcha

Seriously? wrote: »

Sorry my mistake, I didn't realise we had to accept this purely based on faith. Clearly I take it all back, if you believe really really hard enough it must be true.


Or to quote James Randi, "you can't prove a negative"

To be honest, I would have thought that if someone was going to perpetrate an act of domestic abuse, then they'd carry it out on anyone in the home, ie the wife, younger sibling, child, whomever. Whoever wrote that stinker linked above's just used it as an excuse to attack the "patriarchy".

py2006

T runner wrote: »

It seems to me that the campaign described in this thread is an attempt to tell the guys who commit patriarchal terrorism against their families that men don't do such a thing. This is flawed. These sheep clearly believe that men are supposed to wear the trousers and that men DO in fact control their wives.

Am I reading this correctly?

Seriously?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

To be honest, I would have thought that if someone was going to perpetrate an act of domestic abuse, then they'd carry it out on anyone in the home, ie the wife, younger sibling, child, whomever. Whoever wrote that stinker linked above's just used it as an excuse to attack the "patriarchy".

I'm not stating anything about domestic abuse, what I'm stating is that the idea of a "patriarchy" in a modern western society doesn't stand-up to scrutiny.

If it really is as endemic in Irish society as suggested, then why has the poster not provided some examples which illustrate it?

I’d suggest the reason is because society (here) doesn’t discriminate against women to advantage men.