Men’s Human Rights Ireland

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

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


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.

So again, you dodged a really simple yes/no question - one which, by not answering, shows you don't seem to have backing for your generalizations - and now you're diving into rhetoric.

So - seeing as you're defending generalizations that have zero backing; I'm moving to the conclusion, that you don't have honest intentions in debate here - and this is something that is backed by the content of your posts:
The deflections, avoiding of really simple yes/no questions, the attempts you have made to pretend you have evidence to back your generalizations - evidence which is uncited btw, you do need to make your own arguments here - and now your move towards rhetoric to further avoid backing up your generalizations (of which patriarchy is only one among many).

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

So again, you dodged a really simple yes/no question - one which, by not answering, shows you don't seem to have backing for your generalizations - and now you're diving into rhetoric.

So - seeing as you're defending generalizations that have zero backing; I'm moving to the conclusion, that you don't have honest intentions in debate here - and this is something that is backed by the content of your posts:
The deflections, avoiding of really simple yes/no questions, the attempts you have made to pretend you have evidence to back your generalizations - evidence which is uncited btw, you do need to make your own arguments here - and now your move towards rhetoric to further avoid backing up your generalizations (of which patriarchy is only one among many).

O_o

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

*rubs forehead*

Are you allergic to websites? Go read the stats.

You don't have stats to back your generalizations - you are studiously avoiding answering a simple yes/no question:
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?

Agent Green

So who else has had a read of the site? It's a great site. Who's excited about some grass roots activism in Ireland? :-)

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

You don't have stats to back your generalizations - you are studiously avoiding answering a simple yes/no question:
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?

I'm afraid you can't change the tune halfway through the dance. Either you're refusing to look at the evidence for these many "generalisations" or you're refusing to provide the name of one single feminist group that denies patriarchy theory. Either way I would guess it doesn't look good to the many people viewing this discussion, so thanks I suppose.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

I'm afraid you can't change the tune halfway through the dance. Either you're refusing to look at the evidence for these many "generalisations" or you're refusing to provide the name of one single feminist group that denies patriarchy theory. Either way I would guess it doesn't look good to the many people viewing this discussion, so thanks I suppose.

You have just proved you are deliberately ignoring my question, and are trying to use patriarchy theory to 'shift the goalposts' - because my question explictly states (compare bolded part above, to my question):
"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?"

You don't have any stats to back your generalizations - you are trying to:
1: Shift-goalposts away from proving your generalizations, to try and limit it only to claims about feminists and patriarchy,
2: To act befuddled when your dishonest methods of argument keep being pointed out to you, in order to avoid backing up your generalizations,
3: To try and shift the burden of proof onto me, when you are the one making the claims, with the burden of proof lying in your hands.

Your entire argument now rests on "look at (undisclosed) peer reviewed studies on my site" - trying to send me off on a wild goose chase, when your avoidance of answering the simple yes/no question in my previous post, shows your site doesn't contain the stats your send me off to look for - and then, acting befuddled when I don't waste my time looking for stats that don't exist on your website, so that you can try to cast doubt on my argument.


I'm going to make you keep on deflecting/avoiding this simple question, because each time you avoid it, you prove your dishonest intent:
Do any of the peer reviewed studies on your site, show a majority of feminists, holding the views (particularly the non-patriarchy ones), that you are generalizing about?

talkativeone

Agent Green wrote: »

So who else has had a read of the site? It's a great site. Who's excited about some grass roots activism in Ireland? :-)

I'm very excited about it. Time for a change!

Agent Green

Yeah - I was looking over some of the stats related to marriage and divorce; they're pretty crazy. I don't know how anybody could have a problem with a group trying to get something done about that. It doesn't make any sense to me.

iptba

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.

tGC has facilitated some interesting discussions over the years.

iptba

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.

I don't think I'm going to get to finish this thread before I go to bed so I thought I'd ask while I remember: what statistics exist about the percentage of feminists who hold certain views?

talkativeone

iptba wrote: »

I don't think I'm going to get to finish this thread before I go to bed so I thought I'd ask while I remember: what statistics exist about the percentage of feminists who hold certain views?

It's a bit like asking what percentage of Christians believe in Christ.

tsiehta

talkativeone wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure how I conflated them.

Anyway, encouraging boys to experiment with what they wear and to not limit what they wear based on social expectations due to their gender does not seem harmful to me.

In a similar manner, educating children that nurturing and child rearing is not "feminine" would be positive, and would contribute to greater acceptance of stay at home dads. In the long term, this would also be beneficial for fathers' rights, as it helps eliminate notions like women being the primary carer for her children.

Breaking down all such arbitrary social expectations of gender is important in order for both genders to gain complete freedom over their lives and acceptance of their life choices, and a big part of accomplishing this begins with the education of children.

talkativeone wrote: »

True. But patriarchy theory is.

Right, but patriarchy theory is not the viciously anti-male ideology that you make it out to be. In basic terms, it simply describes the fact that men are disproportionately represented in leadership positions within society, and that the assumed default for positions of leadership and power is male. It's a fairly indisputable reality at the present time - we're only at the beginning of seeing any sort of shift away from this.

EDIT: Re: the discussion you're having with KyussBishop, I don't think there exist many feminists who do not agree with patriarchy theory. You do make claims about feminists with little to support them, and which do not have anything to do with patriarchy theory, however, which I believe is what Kyuss is asking about.

KyussBishop

iptba wrote: »

I don't think I'm going to get to finish this thread before I go to bed so I thought I'd ask while I remember: what statistics exist about the percentage of feminists who hold certain views?

I don't know - that's what I've been asking from those generalizing about feminists views.

In the absence of those statistics (and note, how talkativeone pretends this is limited to feminists views on patriarchy, even though he has made many generalizations, unrelated to that: I'm going to here-on, specifically exclude asking for proof of patriarchal views, so he can't try to shift the goalposts) - in the absence of those stats, the generalizations are pretty much 100% unbacked and unjustified.

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

Anyway, encouraging boys to experiment with what they wear and to not limit what they wear based on social expectations due to their gender does not seem harmful to me.

It starts to get harmful really quickly when you attempt to superimpose the social expectations placed upon a different gender, for murky ideological reasons, on boys. A point previously made that you completely ignored.

tsiehta wrote: »

In a similar manner, educating children that nurturing and child rearing is not "feminine" would be positive, and would contribute to greater acceptance of stay at home dads. In the long term, this would also be beneficial for fathers' rights, as it helps eliminate notions like women being the primary carer for her children.

Is this why feminists hate stay at home moms or do I have to bust out some actual leading feminist taught-in-gender-studies quotes here.

tsiehta wrote: »

Right, but patriarchy theory is not the viciously anti-male ideology that you make it out to be.

Yes, it really is.

tsiehta wrote: »

In basic terms, it simply describes the fact that men are disproportionately represented in leadership positions within society, and that the assumed default for positions of leadership and power is male. It's a fairly indisputable reality at the present time - we're only at the beginning of seeing any sort of shift away from this.

Ah the glass ceiling, another feminist canard. How come we never hear anything about the glass floor? I'm missing the push for equality in terms of street sweepers and sewerage workers.

When your ideology is spoken of in the future, it will be mentioned in hushed breaths along with nazism and communism.

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

EDIT: Re: the discussion you're having with KyussBishop, I don't think there exist many feminists who do not agree with patriarchy theory. You do make claims about feminists with little to support them, and which do not have anything to do with patriarchy theory, however, which I believe is what Kyuss is asking about.

We're not having a discussion, he or she is attempting to apply the sorry dregs of their memories of the equally sorry critical theory concept to the discussion, also known as the gish gallop.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

It's a bit like asking what percentage of Christians believe in Christ.

Except, for many pages now, I've been explicitly excluding patriarchy from the list of generalizations - yet you are using this as a basis for justifying your generalizations about feminists, that are unrelated to patriarchal views.

Seems you forgot to answer my simple yes/no question again as well:
Do any of the peer reviewed studies on your site, show a majority of feminists, holding the views (particularly the non-patriarchy ones), that you are generalizing about?

KyussBishop

tsiehta wrote: »

Re: the discussion you're having with KyussBishop, I don't think there exist many feminists who do not agree with patriarchy theory. You do make claims about feminists with little to support them, and which do not have anything to do with patriarchy theory, however, which I believe is what Kyuss is asking about.

Indeed - I've explicitly pointed this out many times, yet he keeps going back to patriarchy theory, to try and (in my view) shift the goalposts.

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

Right, but patriarchy theory is not the viciously anti-male ideology that you make it out to be. In basic terms, it simply describes the fact that men are disproportionately represented in leadership positions within society, and that the assumed default for positions of leadership and power is male. It's a fairly indisputable reality at the present time - we're only at the beginning of seeing any sort of shift away from this.

I would dispute that. Just because men are nominally in positions of power doesn't mean that they use their power to help men in general. Take Irish male politicians for example: which male politicians over the last two decades (say), the period I'm most familiar with, have regularly highlighted and stood up for men's rights issues or regularly looked at policies, procedures or laws in terms of how they males? There are plenty of issues that could be raised that affect males but Irish male politicians don't seem to champion them.

Power has many forms. The Catholic hierarchy never held any* positions in the Oireachtas yet most people would accept they had a lot of power.

*that I know of; certainly not many

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

We're not having a discussion, he or she is attempting to apply the sorry dregs of their memories of the equally sorry critical theory concept to the discussion, also known as the gish gallop.

Heh - with this 'gish gallop' nonsense, you're basically implying I'm barraging you with too many arguments at once, yet the whole debate can be settled with one simple yes/no question:
"Do any of the peer reviewed studies on your site, show a majority of feminists, holding the views (particularly the non-patriarchy ones), that you are generalizing about?"

talkativeone

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh - with this 'gish gallop' nonsense, you're basically implying I'm barraging you with too many arguments at once, yet the whole debate can be settled with one simple yes/no question:
"Do any of the peer reviewed studies on your site, show a majority of feminists, holding the views (particularly the non-patriarchy ones), that you are generalizing about?"

It's the gish gallop in slow motion.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

Is this why feminists hate stay at home moms or do I have to bust out some actual leading feminist taught-in-gender-studies quotes here.

Busting out some stats, showing a majority of feminists hate stay at home moms, would be preferable - ta - otherwise it's just one among a long line of other unbacked/unjustified generalizations, with zero proof.

Anecdotal evidence from individual feminists/groups, would not suffice as proof either.

KyussBishop

talkativeone wrote: »

It's the gish gallop in slow motion.

I think for anyone watching the debate, it will look more like you going through various flip-flopping debating gymnastics, to avoid answering a simple question - and to avoid backing up your non-patriarchy-based generalizations, with some actual proof.

The more you avoid it, the more definitively it shows that you have dishonest intent in the argument here, since you are continuing to make even more generalizations that are wholly unbacked/unproven.

So, again:
"Do any of the peer reviewed studies on your site, show a majority of feminists, holding the views (particularly the non-patriarchy-based ones), that you are generalizing about?"

talkativeone

We'll be coming to a streetcorner near you soon, looking forward to meeting everyone! Together we can make a difference.

tsiehta

talkativeone wrote: »

It starts to get harmful really quickly when you attempt to superimpose the social expectations placed upon a different gender, for murky ideological reasons, on boys. A point previously made that you completely ignored.

I don't understand why wanting boys to have the freedom to dress how they like is a murky ideological reason.

talkativeone wrote: »

IIs this why feminists hate stay at home moms or do I have to bust out some actual leading feminist taught-in-gender-studies quotes here.

Feminists don't hate stay a home moms... Quoting some incidences of feminists criticizing stay at home moms doesn't change this.

talkativeone wrote: »

Ah the glass ceiling, another feminist canard. How come we never hear anything about the glass floor? I'm missing the push for equality in terms of street sweepers and sewerage workers.

Not quite the same thing. Patriarchy more describes the current societal state - disproportionate representation of women in leadership/power positions, whereas the glass ceiling would describe the barriers which are in place which prevent or delay the rectification of the situation.

I don't really understand how the existence of the glass floor would disprove the existence of the glass ceiling. Class barriers and lack of social mobility exist at every level.

iptba

A long way back I mentioned about maternal grandparents investing more in their children than paternal grandparents.

I Googled:
grandparents maternal paternal investment grandchildren

Here are the first two results

Full text:

Grandparental Child Care in Europe: Evidence for Preferential Investment in More Certain Kin
Evolutionary Psychology
www.epjournal.net – 2011. 9(1): 3-24
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Mirkka Danielsbacka, Department of Philosophy, History, Culture and Art Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland. Email: mirkka.danielsbacka@helsinki.fi (Corresponding author).
Antti O. Tanskanen, Department of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Markus Jokela, Department of Psychology, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Anna Rotkirch, Population Research Institute, Väestöliitto – Finnish Family Federation, Helsinki, Finland.

Abstract: Theories of kin selection and parental investment predict stronger investment in children and grandchildren by women and maternal kin. Due to paternity uncertainty, parental and grandparental investments along paternal lineages are based on less certain genetic relatedness with the children and grandchildren. Additionally, the hypothesis of preferential investment (Laham, Gonsalkorale, and von Hippel, 2005) predicts investment to vary according to available investment options. Two previous studies have tested this hypothesis with small samples and conflicting results. Using the second wave of the large and multinational Survey of Health, Ageing and Retirement in Europe (SHARE), collected in 2006–07, we study the preferential investment hypothesis in contemporary Europe based on self-reported grandparental provision of child care. We predict that 1) maternal grandmothers provide most care for their grandchildren, followed by maternal grandfathers, paternal grandmothers and last by paternal grandfathers; 2) maternal grandfathers and paternal grandmothers provide equal amounts of care when the latter do not have grandchildren via a daughter; 3) women who have grandchildren via both a daughter and a son will look after the children of the daughter more; and 4) men who have grandchildren via both a daughter and a son will look after the children of the daughter more. Results support all four hypotheses and provide evidence for the continuing effects of paternity uncertainty in contemporary kin behavior.

Full text: http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/daniel.nettle/jbs.pdf

LINEAGE BASED DIFFERENCES IN GRANDPARENTAL INVESTMENT: EVIDENCE FROM A LARGE BRITISH COHORT STUDY

J.biosoc.Sci, page 1 of 25, 2008 Cambridge University Press
doi:10.1017/S0021932009003307

THOMAS V. POLLET*, MARK NELISSEN†  DANIEL NETTLE*
*Centre for Behaviour and Evolution, Newcastle University, UK and
†Behavioural Biology, University of Antwerp, Belgium

Summary. Evolutionary theory suggests that maternal grandparents will
invest more in their grandchildren than paternal grandparents, due to the
difference between the certainty of maternity and the uncertainty of paternity.
Most tests of this prediction have tended to use retrospective ratings by
grandchildren rather than examining grandparental behaviour. Using a
large-scale data set from the UK (n>7000), significant differences are shown
between maternal and paternal grandparents in terms of frequencies of
contact with their newborn grandchildren, while controlling for a wide range
of other variables. Maternal grandparents also provided a significantly wider
range of financial benefits than paternal grandparents. Maternal grandparents
were also more likely to provide essentials and gifts and extras for the baby.
Multiple correspondence analysis showed that contact frequencies systematically
related to other measures of grandparental investment, indicating that
contact frequencies are a useful proxy measure to examine overall investment.
Findings are discussed with reference to the paternity uncertainty hypothesis.

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

I don't understand why wanting boys to have the freedom to dress how they like is a murky ideological reason.

Forcing children to dress like a different gender is not only murky it's positivley evil.

tsiehta wrote: »

Feminists don't hate stay a home moms... Quoting some incidences of feminists criticizing stay at home moms doesn't change this.

Yes it does. You don't get to disown some parts of your demented ideology when it suits you.

tsiehta wrote: »

I don't really understand how the existence of the glass floor would disprove the existence of the glass ceiling. Class barriers and lack of social mobility exist at every level.

So what you're saying is that feminism is indistinguishable from Marxism?

tsiehta

talkativeone wrote: »

Forcing children to dress like a different gender is not only murky it's positivley evil.

Who decided that a particular style of dress was inherently associated with a particular gender?

It comes from the same place that dictates that women are the primary carers of children, which is what results in bias in family courts.

talkativeone wrote: »

So what you're saying is that feminism is indistinguishable from Marxism?

Aspects of it are certainly related. There's no one, absolute form of Marxism, however. Most feminists would likely also hold socialist views.

talkativeone

tsiehta wrote: »

Who decided that a particular style of dress was inherently associated with a particular gender?

Who cares? Replacing one set of biases with another is never going to end well.

tsiehta wrote: »

Aspects of it are certainly related. There's no one, absolute form of Marxism, however. Most feminists would likely also hold socialist views.

Marxist views. I'm quite aware of this, but it's a topic for another thread.

tsiehta

iptba wrote: »

I would dispute that. Just because men are nominally in positions of power doesn't mean that they use their power to help men in general.

I never claimed patriarchy meant men being in positions of power using that power to help other men, just that men are disproportionately in positions of power, and that men are seen as the default gender to hold positions of power.

As I said earlier, patriarchy hurts men too. The obvious example being the bias against men in family courts due to women being seen as the primary carers for children.

iptba wrote: »

Power has many forms. The Catholic hierarchy never held any* positions in the Oireachtas yet most people would accept they had a lot of power.

Yep, this is where intersectionality, and the more general concept of Kyriarchy comes in. Gender isn't the only axis on which there exists unequal power structures. Religion was, and still is, a big one in Ireland. Class is one in virtually every society. Tying in with what I said above, the male TD who has been elected mostly by virtue of who his father, and his father's father is likely isn't doing much to help the average working class man, but men holding most positions of power is still a fact, even if class is generally an overriding factor.

tsiehta

talkativeone wrote: »

Who cares? Replacing one set of biases with another is never going to end well.

In this case, biases would be eliminated, not replaced. People in general could wear whatever they wanted and express themselves however they pleased. No biases there.