Men’s Human Rights Ireland

talkativeone

iptba wrote: »

I've never heard that definition of masculists before. My impression was masculism and men's rights was one and the same.

No, masculinists are way out there. They have their own language where they replace the feminine "f" in words with "ph", so a word like "follow" would become "phollow" and so on. Anyway they get ejected rapidly from MRA groups, along with anyone espousing actual misogyny or advocating for violence.

iptba

GardenMadness wrote: »

I just think that you're not victims in this. You don't have to have anything to do with women at all, much less are you compelled to marry. You're not bound to do this by forces outside your control.

Many men would like to marry. But they'd prefer if the contract isn't exactly as it currently is.

tsiehta

@talkativeone

I think you misunderstand Patriarchy/Kyriarchy theory. It's not about all men oppressing all women, or all men being to blame for everything, it's to do with institutional, societal power structures, which have traditionally been more favourable to men. Kyriarchy is the intersectional extension of this, which includes race, sexuality, class etc.

From my experience, feminists readily accept that Patriarchy harms men too. It contributes to harmful expectations for men, like not being emotional, not being seen as weak, always being the providers rather than nurturers, and generally having to adhere rigidly to the traditional male gender role. I've been involved in a number of very reasonable online discussions about it. Some feminists do argue that these issues will solve themselves if we continue to focus on dismantling the idea that behaviours and expectations traditionally defined as "feminine" are lesser than those viewed as "masculine". Personally, I disagree, and feel that there does need to be male-focused activism to solve these issues.

I'm not sure that what I said about the "Everyday Sexism" piece can be construed as shaming tactics. Do you really think it's acceptable to tell men to "grow a pair"? That itself is shaming, drawing on toxic attitudes relating to societal expectations for men. We're not allowed to be empathetic, emotional, or caring, we have to be thick skinned, strong, Real Men.

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

@talkativeone

I think you misunderstand Patriarchy/Kyriarchy theory. It's not about all men oppressing all women, or all men being to blame for everything, it's to do with institutional, societal power structures, which have traditionally been more favourable to men.

To maintain that position, one needs to say things are worse for women, or else we don't live in a patriarchy. It's easy to see how this could lead to downplaying of issues affecting men.

Patriarchy is a bit like a conspiracy theory to me. I am not convinced that there are that many men that actually work to deliberately help men as a group, or if there are, that such individuals are that influential.

I think it would be much better to discuss issues without bringing the conspiracy theory, patriarchy, into the discussion.

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

@talkativeone

I think you misunderstand Patriarchy/Kyriarchy theory.

Once again, just like feminism doesn't equal women and certainly doesn't equal equality, it's not about what you say it is, it's about how it is actually used by feminists.

For example, Erin Pizzey, the founder of WOmens domestic abuse shelters noticed rather quickly that many of the women in her shelters were as violent or more violent than their male partners. When she tried to point this out she unwittingly ran straight into patriarchy theory which flatly denied such a possibility, and as a result she had to have a police escort when she went outside. Her mail had to be routed through the police to check for bombs sent by feminists. Her dog was shot. Ultimately she had to flee the UK.

Erin's an MRA now, she liked our page on facebook.

tsiehta wrote: »

it's to do with institutional, societal power structures, which have traditionally been more favourable to men

Typically in the past when cultures have been horrible to women they've been equally horrible to men. A few wealthy powerful men and women at the top benefitted, but the majority of men did not.

Traditional ways of providing for and protecting women that were necessary in the pre industrial past, were reinterpreted by feminism as male oppressors keeping women down all through history, for men's benefit. Domestic violence - a social problem that has ALWAYS been gender-symmetrical - became synonymous with violence against women.

A husband's historical right to conjugal relations was redefined as marital rape, while a wife's *identical right* - one that for centuries if denied was legal grounds for divorce and could even get a man excommunicated from his church - that part of history was essentially erased from modern scholarship, even as it is upheld and reinforced by feminist activism.

In fact, according to current feminist theories on domestic violence, a man withholding sex or affection from his female partner, whatever the reason, is a form of domestic abuse, and a man in France was recently required by a judge to pay his ex-wife over €10,000 in punitive damages because he didn't give her enough sex during the marriage.

The traditional obligation of a woman to defer to her husband's authority was defined as "oppression", but her husband's obligation to die in a trench to protect his country and family... that became "male privilege" and when enough people protested the hubris of that assertion, it became "Patriarchy hurts men too."

Under The Patriarchy, all men are privileged by their maleness, and all women oppressed by their femaleness. And if men are, as a class, the privileged Bourgeoisie, if men hold collective power over society, then all men are culpable for the oppression and exploitation of all members of the female Proletariat, and any discrimination a man might face in society is just his own privilege backfiring on him.

According to feminists, the drastic technological and economic changes that occurred during the last century - medical advances that virtually eliminated deaths in childbirth and drastically decreased infant and child mortality rates, changes that rendered the workplace as comfortable and safe as your living room, safe and reliable birth control, industrialization, automation, prosperity, plenty and an unprecedented level of individual security - none of this has anything to do with anything.

Even prior to those changes, during a history in which a woman might spend half her adult life pregnant or nursing children, where most labour was gruelling, dangerous and simply beyond the physical capabilities of women, where life was often brutal and brief, and where men bore a legally enforceable obligation to provide for the material needs of all family members, the fact that men bore the economic authority as well as all the economic burdens of a family was a system specifically designed to disempower women.

According to feminists, your grandfathers and great grandfathers were rapists and slavemasters who exploited, subjugated and violated the women who were nearest and dearest to them - their own mothers, sisters, wives and daughters.

According to feminists, every atrocity ever committed throughout all of history can be laid at the door of normative masculinity, but every male generated advance - calculus, alternating current, the telegraph, the transistor, radio, penicillin, the number system, hydroelectricity, microwaves, fiberglass, the theory of relativity, the periodic table, trigonometry, insulin, canned foods, vaccines, fire retardant, teflon, wireless communications, the microchip, the birth control pill and even tampons - is a result of men intentionally holding women back, keeping women down, refusing to allow women to achieve, and hogging all the power and glory.

You see how this all works? All the evils of history, admittedly committed mostly by men are evidence of men's oppressive natures. And all the advances of civilization, because they were generated almost exclusively by men, are equally evidence of men's oppressive natures. Even the exceptional and wonderful things men achieved that have benefitted all of us, are not evidence that men embody anything good. In fact, they demonstrate the opposite. They are evidence that the "old boys' club" modern feminists complain about today dates all the way back to the pleistocene, when women would have eagerly hunted mastodon with babies strapped to their breasts, and carved back a jungle filled with leopards and bears, if only men had not enslaved them and thereby deprived them of the opportunity to do so.

This is what feminism IS. It describes women's experience through all of history as identical to the experience of blacks under slavery. You know, actual oppression, subordination and exploitation without any compensatory benefit.

Does anyone here think women, who were a tiny minority, tenths of a percent, among the 10 million military personnel who died during WWI, derived no benefit from the traditional system? In fact, one of the few ways a man could duck conscription was to be married - a man could literally avoid mandatory military service if his wife would be inconvenienced by it. And yet this system existed to benefit men at the expense of women?

If you perceive the history of gender relations as being remotely similar to the history of slavery in the US, it's no shock to hear feminist Robin Morgan, editor of Ms. Magazine, claim, "Man-hating is an honorable and viable political act. The oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."

tsiehta wrote: »

Some feminists do argue that these issues will solve themselves if we continue to focus on dismantling the idea that behaviours and expectations traditionally defined as "feminine" are lesser than those viewed as "masculine". Personally, I disagree, and feel that there does need to be male-focused activism to solve these issues.

Oh right, like in Sweden where they force little boys to wear dresses in school? Another feminist brainwave!

tsiehta wrote: »

I'm not sure that what I said about the "Everyday Sexism" piece can be construed as shaming tactics. Do you really think it's acceptable to tell men to "grow a pair"? That itself is shaming, drawing on toxic attitudes relating to societal expectations for men. We're not allowed to be empathetic, emotional, or caring, we have to be thick skinned, strong, Real Men.

So, about that man up campaign...

tsiehta

You say "According to feminists", but none of what you're claiming feminists believe is in fact believed by any modern branch of mainstream feminism. There are likely some fringe, extremist, radical feminist groups you could attribute these scathing, absolute anti-male views to, but claiming that is representative of feminism would be like me claiming Manhood Academy or The Red Pill are representative of MRA views.

Class has certainly been by far the overriding factor in terms of oppression historically, and even now, but that doesn't discount the fact that women, and people of colour, and homosexual people, and transgender people, and people with disabilities have been oppressed on other axes. This is what the concept of intersectionality is about.

On gender symmetry in domestic violence, this is an interesting study exploring the differences between male on female and female on male domestic violence: http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Kimmel,%20Gender%20symmetry%20in%20dom.pdf. In short, some studies have shown gender symmetry, but when dissected, they do not take into account the types of violence, and the motivations and general differences by gender.

What's wrong with boys wearing dresses? I've always been confused as to why the right of men to wear traditionally "feminine" clothes without ridicule is not an issue MRA groups address. The lack of restrictions on what women are "allowed" to wear compared to men is one of the most blatantly obvious forms of social discrimination which men experience. I wasn't aware of what's going on in Sweden. If the idea is to get boys to wear dresses sometimes in order to get them comfortable with wearing what they like, and combat the idea that men can only wear a limited set of clothing, then I'm all for it.

As for the Man Up campaign, it's not an explicitly feminist campaign, and I do not personally support their slogan, nor do many feminists I know. In any case, can you really complain about that campaign while approving of "grow a pair"?

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

Woman does not equal feminist, nor does feminist equal woman. One is a gender, the other is a particularly toxic collection of ideologies which is harmful to both men and women.

Given that feminism and feminist groups are actively opposed to mens rights it does fall within our brief. You can find more information on feminism in Ireland within the article "An open secret, a closed door" and in an address by Karen Straughan under the research tab entitled "feminism".

Just switch the words 'male' and 'female', along with 'feminist' and 'mens rights' here, and see your own double standards - there are extremist factions among mens rights groups, just as there are among feminist groups; doesn't justify wholesale demonization of either.

Nobody who makes blanket claims about an entire group of activists on this topic (or who - wholesale - puts words in their collective mouths, generalizing from part to the whole, as post #66 does), none ever seem to actually cite statistics to back up their claims about the 'other' movements overall views (emphasized, so it's not ignored) - so making such blanket generalizations shows a completely unjustified bias (literally - there is nothing solid enough to back it up).


If you haven't got statistics, showing that a high proportion of feminists hold certain views (preferably showing at least a significant majority - which is the weakest requirement for justifying a generalization), then you need to acknowledge that your generalizations are 100% unbacked.

If, after this has now been made clear, you continue to make the same generalizations and demonizations of an entire movement, people will be justified in becoming cynical towards your motives - because you will be displaying that you want to encourage an "Us vs Them" dichotomy, to demonize an entire movement, generalizing about it and putting words in their collective mouths, with zero adequate backing for even the weakest form of generalization.

So - back that up with statistics; not case-by-case anecdote, but statistics of feminists overall, justifying those claims.

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

This is what the concept of intersectionality is about.

Intersectionality is about feminists realising that "what if you wanted to attack half the human race and nobody showed up" wasn't rhetorical. Sadly I can't imagine this tactic will be successful given the racist origins of feminism and the fact that people who are actually discriminated against haven't got much time for the problems of middle class white women.

tsiehta wrote: »

What's wrong with boys wearing dresses? I've always been confused as to why the right of men to wear traditionally "feminine" clothes without ridicule is not an issue MRA groups address.

Masculinity is not toxic. It doesn't need to be "cured", and all that the increasingly Mengele-esque social engineering experiments are achieving is to leave a trail of shattered lives behind them. But this is feminism, what else is new. Social expectations based on preconceived ideas of masculinity are quite toxic, but only to men, and hence are of little interest to feminism except in terms of their utility. Men are neither your toys nor your tools.

tsiehta wrote: »

As for the Man Up campaign, it's not an explicitly feminist campaign

Really?

You've been given a couple of argument ending pieces of information here, the first being Erin Pizzey, the second being RAINN's disavowal of feminism's fundamental theory. There's a lot more than those two, but the fact that neither of these data points are giving you pause tells me that I'm not dealing with someone interested in logical discourse or changing their minds.

Still I have to say it's rather novel being able to actually argue with a feminist, they mostly keep to their own zones and immediately ban anyone who expresses an idea not in lockstep with the party line. Not even kidding about that.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Just switch the words 'male' and 'female', along with 'feminist' and 'mens rights' here, and see your own double standards

Except I'm not claiming to speak for all men. The MHRM is an advocacy movement, not a political party.

KyussBishop wrote: »

- there are extremist factions among mens rights groups, just as there are among feminist groups; doesn't justify wholesale demonization of either.

The problem with your analysis is that MRAs actively police their groups and kick out the crazies, as opposed to feminism, where Dworkin's ravings actually became vital planks for the platform.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Nobody who makes blanket claims about an entire group of activists on this topic (or who - wholesale - puts words in their collective mouths, generalizing from part to the whole, as post #66 does), none ever seem to actually cite statistics to back up their claims about the 'other' movements overall views (emphasized, so it's not ignored) - so making such blanket generalizations shows a completely unjustified bias (literally - there is nothing solid enough to back it up).

By all means show me a feminist group that doesn't embrace patriarchy theory.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you haven't got statistics, showing that a high proportion of feminists hold certain views (preferably showing at least a significant majority - which is the weakest requirement for justifying a generalization), then you need to acknowledge that your generalizations are 100% unbacked.

Hmm. This will no doubt be new information, but almost all of the leading MHRM figures started out as feminists. Erin Pizzey, Paul Elam, Warren Farrell, all of them were feminists but bailed after they saw not only the nonsense that feminism involved but the damage it was doing. Murray Straus for some reason still identifies as a feminist but I doubt he has many fellow travellers.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

The problem with your analysis is that MRAs actively police their groups and kick out the crazies, as opposed to feminism, where Dworkin's ravings actually became vital planks for the platform.

Provide statistics to show this is generally true of a majority of feminist activist groups - that's needed to justify even the weakest form of generalization.

talkativeone wrote: »

By all means show me a feminist group that doesn't embrace patriarchy theory.

You are making the generalizations, the burden of proof is on you.

talkativeone wrote: »

Hmm. This will no doubt be new information, but almost all of the leading MHRM figures started out as feminists. Erin Pizzey, Paul Elam, Warren Farrell, all of them were feminists but bailed after they saw not only the nonsense that feminism involved but the damage it was doing. Murray Straus for some reason still identifies as a feminist but I doubt he has many fellow travellers.

This doesn't provide what is needed to back your claims.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Provide statistics to show this is generally true of a majority of feminist activist groups - that's needed to justify even the weakest form of generalization.

You are making the generalizations, the burden of proof is on you.

This doesn't provide what is needed to back your claims.

So you've never encountered a feminist organisation that refuses to endorse patriarchy theory?

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

So you've never encountered a feminist organisation that refuses to endorse patriarchy theory?

Your claims about feminists are not limited to patriarchy, you have made a wide range of unbacked claims, so that is attempting to move the goalposts here - you need to back all of your generalized claims individually.

What I've experienced or not experienced is irrelevant - it's up to you to back your claim, not me to rebut an unbacked claim; burden of proof.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your claims about feminists are not limited to patriarchy, you have made a wide range of unbacked claims, so that is attempting to move the goalposts here - you need to back all of your generalized claims individually.

What I've experienced or not experienced is irrelevant - it's up to you to back your claim, not me to rebut an unbacked claim; burden of proof.

That would be a no then. However it has been very helpful, as you've implicitly accepted that "patriarchy theory" is a pejorative and hence undesireable. Appreciated.

If you take a look through the site you'll find a surplus of peer reviewed and quite damning research, at least as far as feminism is concerned. By all means get back to me after you've had a look through it. i'm unable to post links yet, not having enough posts.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

That would be a no then. However it has been very helpful, as you've implicitly accepted that "patriarchy theory" is a pejorative and hence undesireable. Appreciated.

If you take a look through the site you'll find a surplus of peer reviewed and quite damning research, at least as far as feminism is concerned. By all means get back to me after you've had a look through it. i'm unable to post links yet, not having enough posts.

Not really, I haven't implied that - and to dispell any implications: I explicitly don't say that - I don't have enough knowledge of feminist views on patriarchy, to have an opinion one way or the other on that.

Do your peer reviewed studies, show a majority of the feminist movement, holding the views you are generalizing about? (views not just limited to patriarchy - you've generalized about a number of things)

If not, your generalizations are unbacked - and continuing to make them (which you haven't yet) would display an unjustified bias, which would justify people becoming cynical of your motives.

It's also up to you to make your arguments, not to point people to a site/link/book/whatever, and say 'read and get back to me when you educate yourself' - which is a common tactic used online, where someone pretends they have a valid response, and sends the person off on a wild goose chase looking for an answer that doesn't exist.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Not really, I haven't implied that - and to dispell any implications: I explicitly don't say that

Hold on a minute, you were hell bent for leather trying to get me to prove that feminist organisations didn't embrace patriarchy theory a minute ago, why would you be doing that unless you thought it was a bad thing?

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's also up to you to make your arguments, not to point people to a site/link/book/whatever, and say 'read and get back to me when you educate yourself' - which is a common tactic used online, where someone pretends they have a valid response, and sends the person off on a wild goose chase looking for an answer that doesn't exist.

So you demand details, then when provided with them declaim that you don't need no stinkin' details - which are right there by the way, no paywall involved...

I reckon you'd be better advised to write this one off tbh. I know I know, wrong on the internet etc, sometimes it's you.

tsiehta

talkativeone wrote: »

Masculinity is not toxic. It doesn't need to be "cured", and all that the increasingly Mengele-esque social engineering experiments are achieving is to leave a trail of shattered lives behind them. But this is feminism, what else is new. Social expectations based on preconceived ideas of masculinity are quite toxic, but only to men, and hence are of little interest to feminism except in terms of their utility. Men are neither your toys nor your tools.

Forget feminism for a second. Is the social expectation that men cannot wear certain types of clothing without mass ridicule not toxic? Is encouraging boys to experiment with clothing other than what is proscribed in this ridiculous social standard not a good thing?

talkativeone wrote: »

You've been given a couple of argument ending pieces of information here, the first being Erin Pizzey, the second being RAINN's disavowal of feminism's fundamental theory. There's a lot more than those two, but the fact that neither of these data points are giving you pause tells me that I'm not dealing with someone interested in logical discourse or changing their minds.

Why would the views of one woman, who has never identified as a feminist,

Also, rape culture is not feminism's fundamental theory. It is a concept within feminism to describe the fact that certain facets of society normalize and trivialize rape. What it does not mean is that we live in a culture where all men go around raping women. The Steubenville case, and the case where members of a parish shook hands with a convicted rapist in Kerry would be two examples.

It's important to note that RAINN did not dismiss the concept of rape culture (in the quote you posted, they called it "helpful"), they merely suggested that more emphasis be put on perpetrators' choices and ultimately actions. It's a perfectly fair comment.

talkativeone wrote: »

Still I have to say it's rather novel being able to actually argue with a feminist, they mostly keep to their own zones and immediately ban anyone who expresses an idea not in lockstep with the party line. Not even kidding about that.

Not really. There do exist online spaces which exist for the discussion of feminism by feminists, rather than debating fundamental feminist principles with those who disagree, and which are heavily moderated due to the magnitude of the influx of anti-feminist posters. It's no different to a political party having a private meeting to discuss policy not letting members of opposing parties come in and disagree fundamentally with the principles of that party. There are also spaces online which do allow debate and discussion at a 101 level.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

Hold on a minute, you were hell bent for leather trying to get me to prove that feminist organisations didn't embrace patriarchy theory a minute ago, why would you be doing that unless you thought it was a bad thing?

I want you to prove your generalizations - you brought up patriarchy, and while that may be one of your generalizations, you have made many.

talkativeone wrote: »

So you demand details, then when provided with them declaim that you don't need no stinkin' details - which are right there by the way, no paywall involved...

I reckon you'd be better advised to write this one off tbh. I know I know, wrong on the internet etc, sometimes it's you.

It's up to you to provide an argument, not to point people to sites/links on a wild goose chase: Do your peer reviewed studies, show a majority of the feminist movement, holding the views you generalize about - or not?

That's a simple yes/no question, so if you can't even answer that and just deflect instead, then it's fair for people to assume the answer is 'no', and that your generalizations are unbacked.


You can try and deflect all you want, but I'm going to hold you to it: If generalizations come up again in debate (whether that be from feminists or MRA's), I'm going to keep asking for proof - and will keep on panning arguments lacking that proof.

Of course, the simple alternative is to just not generalize when making your points - makes the arguments a lot more persuasive, because when they're not coupled with an unbacked generalization, they're a lot easier to agree with.

KyussBishop

tsiehta wrote: »

Not really. There do exist online spaces which exist for the discussion of feminism by feminists, rather than debating fundamental feminist principles with those who disagree, and which are heavily moderated due to the magnitude of the influx of anti-feminist posters. It's no different to a political party having a private meeting to discuss policy not letting members of opposing parties come in and disagree fundamentally with the principles of that party. There are also spaces online which do allow debate and discussion at a 101 level.

In fairness, while I do only have limited experience with these online spaces, the few I've encountered that are 'feminism for feminists', do tend to censor/ban when there is any divergence from accepted views - even when you don't necessarily disagree with them, but are just wanting to learn more.

Not representative of the whole, sure, but it happens.

What good online spaces are there for discussion/debates of it, out of curiosity?

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

Forget feminism for a second. Is the social expectation that men cannot wear certain types of clothing without mass ridicule not toxic? Is encouraging boys to experiment with clothing other than what is proscribed in this ridiculous social standard not a good thing?

Again you conflate masculinity with the social expectations imposed upon masculinity. Trying to impose the social expectations placed upon a different gender on men to what, change their perspective? Is really not helpful.

tsiehta wrote: »

Why would the views of one woman, who has never identified as a feminist,

What? Feminists shot her dog for pointing out that women can be violent!

tsiehta wrote: »

Also, rape culture is not feminism's fundamental theory.

True. But patriarchy theory is.

tsiehta wrote: »

It's important to note that RAINN did not dismiss the concept of rape culture (in the quote you posted, they called it "helpful"), they merely suggested that more emphasis be put on perpetrators' choices and ultimately actions. It's a perfectly fair comment.

Okay so Valenti's public breakdown and the ensuing tidal wave of apologism from feminists were just figments of our collective imaginations.

tsiehta wrote: »

Not really. There do exist online spaces which exist for the discussion of feminism by feminists, rather than debating fundamental feminist principles with those who disagree, and which are heavily moderated due to the magnitude of the influx of anti-feminist posters.

Such as say youtube? Hahaha seriously, comments/voting disabled on pro feminist videos is the rule rather than the exception. The actually got poor Victor Zen's parody video pulled for a few weeks because angry woman a while back.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

I want you to prove your generalizations - you brought up patriarchy, and while that may be one of your generalizations, you have made many.


It's up to you to provide an argument, not to point people to sites/links on a wild goose chase: Do your peer reviewed studies, show a majority of the feminist movement, holding the views you generalize about - or not?

That's a simple yes/no question, so if you can't even answer that and just deflect instead, then it's fair for people to assume the answer is 'no', and that your generalizations are unbacked.


You can try and deflect all you want, but I'm going to hold you to it: If generalizations come up again in debate (whether that be from feminists or MRA's), I'm going to keep asking for proof - and will keep on panning arguments lacking that proof.

Of course, the simple alternative is to just not generalize when making your points - makes the arguments a lot more persuasive, because when they're not coupled with an unbacked generalization, they're a lot easier to agree with.

You ask for backing, I provide you with peer reviewed scientific research. I'm not sure what else you were hoping for. It's not a wild goose chase, these papers and this research is unstintingly evidence based and harsh in its criticism of feminism. Reality has an MHRM bias apparently.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

You ask for backing, I provide you with peer reviewed scientific research. I'm not sure what else you were hoping for. It's not a wild goose chase, these papers and this research is unstintingly evidence based and harsh in its criticism of feminism. Reality has an MHRM bias apparently.

So you're avoiding the yes/no question, and are deflecting again, so we can safely assume you do not have any peer review studies showing a majority of the feminist movement, holding the views you generalize about, thus making your generalizations unbacked.

Ok then.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you're avoiding the yes/no question, and are deflecting again, so we can safely assume you do not have any peer review studies showing a majority of the feminist movement, holding the views you generalize about, thus making your generalizations unbacked.

Ok then.

Show me one single feminist movement that doesn't embrace patriarchy theory. One.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

Show me one single feminist movement that doesn't embrace patriarchy theory. One.

You're trying to shift goalposts again: Your generalizations are not limited to patriarchy, you need to individually provide evidence for all of your generalizations.

The burden of proof is also on you, not me.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Your generalizations are not limited to patriarchy

You are quite correct, they are not. However as I have already said many times, you can find reams of peer reviewed research on the site which cover a multitude.

Round about now is where you explain why you find reading these discourses objectionable.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

You are quite correct, they are not. However as I have already said many times, you can find reams of peer reviewed research on the site which cover a multitude.

Round about now is where you explain why you find reading these discourses objectionable.

Except you are not claiming those peer reviewed studies show a majority of feminists holding those other non-patriarchal views, so unless you claim that, those peer reviewed studies don't back/justify your generalizations - they are just a distraction you are using, to pretend you have backing, when you don't - peer reviewed studies do nothing to back your claim, when the questions they provide answers to, are not the question/issue at hand.

Yes/No: Do any of the peer reviewed studies, show a majority of feminists, holding the views (particularly the non-patriarchy ones), that you are generalizing about?

If you keep dodging this simple question, you show that you want to make generalizations without any backing, which shows you have a desire to promote an "Us vs Them" divide in this debate - which puts your motives into question.

Agent Green

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're trying to shift goalposts again: Your generalizations are not limited to patriarchy, you need to individually provide evidence for all of your generalizations.

The burden of proof is also on you, not me.

Knock it off - he's making an empirical observation about feminism that any reasonable person would concede. You're not actually demonstrating why it is you find what he's saying objectionable - all you're doing is calling for stats. Why do you need stats on how many feminists believe in Patriarchy theory?

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Except you are not claiming those peer reviewed studies show a majority of feminists holding those other non-patriarchal views, so unless you claim that, those peer reviewed studies don't back/justify your generalizations.

So my generalisations are many and varied, but when support is provided for those generalisations it's all about patriachy theory.

KyussBishop wrote: »

If you keep dodging this simple question, you show that you want to make generalizations without any backing, which shows you have a desire to promote an "Us vs Them" divide in this debate - which puts your motives into question.

Take a good look at this person. Men are killing themselves at FIVE TIMES the rate of women. Men are the overwhelming majority of homeless, workplace deaths, are far less likely to have a third level qualificaton, lose their homes 99% of the time during divorces and this individual is still banging on about patriarchy, admittedly and confusedly as a pejorative.

I'm not one for name calling but jesus H christ.

KyussBishop

Agent Green wrote: »

Knock it off - he's making an empirical observation about feminism that any reasonable person would concede. You're not actually demonstrating why it is you find what he's saying objectionable - all you're doing is calling for stats. Why do you need stats on how many feminists believe in Patriarchy theory?

He hasn't made any empirical observations to justify his generalizations about feminism - and I'm not asking for stats on patriarchy theory, I'm asking for stats on all of his generalizations.

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

He hasn't made any empirical observations to justify his generalizations about feminism - and I'm not asking for stats on patriarchy theory, I'm asking for stats on all of his generalizations.

*rubs forehead*

Are you allergic to websites? Go read the stats.

Agent Green

KyussBishop wrote: »

He hasn't made any empirical observations to justify his generalizations about feminism - and I'm not asking for stats on patriarchy theory, I'm asking for stats on all of his generalizations.

He's already directed you to stats. What gives?