Body of Alan Hawe to be exhumed

Juran

The daily mail has reported tonight 3rd Dec on Alan Hawes 'downfall'. No irish media reporting it?
I didnt want to share the link as it may not be appropriate or may not conform with boards rules.

Intothesea

Hi Juran,

Thanks for the heads-up. Should be interesting reading.


Demfad, if you read anything I said you can deduce for yourself that nothing I'm saying opposes anything any researcher has noted or concluded. I could argue in detail but ultimately my big point here is that the act itself can likely be understood in terms of rampant/clinical narcissism. Source: psychology/psychotherapy/common-sense models, and all easily researched online.

What interests me more in the whole sequence is why what I said created (unexpected, multi-directional and unremittingly negative) waves. For one, I wasn't aware that Ireland is awash with a new feminism (which defies one of the key tenets of feminism as I understand it: protecting women's' right to be valued for their domestic/child-rearing dedication), and neo-liberal-financial-system-derived forces (that is: strict meritocratic evaluation of individuals giving rise to all manner of negative effects in the culture).

On this basis, I can understand the issues driving feminists to try to shoehorn any possible occurrence into a feminist narrative of blame. I suppose it's about the one format of protest and mobilization left available when bankrupt meritocracy is the order of the day. So, yourself and IoDD, please accept my appropriately-aware apology. To the men I coincidentally angled something extremely negative at via my input, I apologize also. Any apparent criticism is informed by my intimate awareness of where a well-matured neo-liberal zone goes in a cultural sense (living in the States for enough years to miss key details in Irish culture).

demfad

QUOTE=Intothesea;105715319



Demfad, if you read anything I said you can deduce for yourself that nothing I'm saying opposes anything any researcher has noted or concluded. I could argue in detail but ultimately my big point here is that the act itself can likely be understood in terms of rampant/clinical narcissism. Source: psychology/psychotherapy/common-sense models, and all easily researched online.

Can you address the conclusions that family annihilators do not disregard the rights of everyone else: rather they disregard the rights of their family due to a sense of family ownership. The researchers conclude that the act itself is a terminal act in a pattern of domestic violence. This is at odds with your claims of rampant narcism.

For one, I wasn't aware that Ireland is awash with a new feminism (which defies one of the key tenets of feminism as I understand it: protecting women's' right to be valued for their domestic/child-rearing dedication), and neo-liberal-financial-system-derived forces (that is: strict meritocratic evaluation of individuals giving rise to all manner of negative effects in the culture).

This is your interpretation of selective posts which you have tried to build into a version of Irish feminism that does not exist in order to knock it down.

On this basis, I can understand the issues driving feminists to try to shoehorn any possible occurrence into a feminist narrative of blame. I suppose it's about the one format of protest and mobilization left available when bankrupt meritocracy is the order of the day. So, yourself and IoDD, please accept my appropriately-aware apology. To the men I coincidentally angled something extremely negative at via my input, I apologize also. Any apparent criticism is informed by my intimate awareness of where a well-matured neo-liberal zone goes in a cultural sense (living in the States for enough years to miss key details in Irish culture).

Again, research in the US and the UK shows a sense of family ownership and domestic violence as present in a big majority of cases of family annihilation.
This has nothing to do with Irish (or International) feminists shoehorning anything.

BTW I am male, you seem to have assumed otherwise. It's only right and fair that people are treated equally. Your assumption that feminists must be female shows a lack of understanding of this perhaps.

Paully D

A few places reporting today that he was caught “pleasuring himself” while watching porn at the school:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5228959/Teacher-caught-watching-porn-killing-family.html

shampoosuicide

Paully D wrote: »

A few places reporting today that he was caught “pleasuring himself” while watching porn at the school:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5228959/Teacher-caught-watching-porn-killing-family.html

still no credible source i can see anywhere; bit depressing to see generally sensible people on twitter linking to the Sun

Intothesea

Can you address the conclusions that family annihilators do not disregard the rights of everyone else: rather they disregard the rights of their family due to a sense of family ownership. The researchers conclude that the act itself is a terminal act in a pattern of domestic violence. This is at odds with your claims of rampant narcism.

The only people close enough to the narcissist to permanently and terminally damage his perfect self-concept are his family. The closest people of all. If you move to understand how this totally bizarrely-arranged personality disorder functions you can deduce this, I have no doubts about it.

And absolutely it will fit with a general tale of abuse in the family, that's what narcissistic abusers do by default. In this sense, the research you're referring to doesn't differ with the general conclusions of psychological research. When it comes to understanding how to influence cultural thinking about these issues, I believe the psychological edition offers less blame that doesn't relate to men en masse, and more an idea of what can specifically drive it. In total, it may be possible to make this conform to gender ideas, but it misses the target for 'what to do' by a long shot, which is why I argued consistently against yourself and I0DD.

As well, it wouldn't be an idea of mine to knock down Irish feminism, but I might want to criticize some of its more questionable outputs, like this one, and the pointless unsolvable complaints of not feeling safe to walk down a road because crime stats say men commit more of these types of crimes. When haven't they, and what can we do except try to improve overall relations between the sexes in the general community. Can rising stats not be attributable to increased levels of societal anxiety, fear, and untold suffering of many kinds?

As in, at any point in time, any percentage of men may act out in relation to any number of pressures. Increasing negative pressures and highly unusual negative forces in a culture can increase the likelihood that more men will act out, and so will women, but likely in a different format, considering our innate and constructed identities, and the specific details of recent history, which has been fair and kind to basically no one.


Again, research in the US and the UK shows a sense of family ownership and domestic violence as present in a big majority of cases of family annihilation.
This has nothing to do with Irish (or International) feminists shoehorning anything.

BTW I am male, you seem to have assumed otherwise. It's only right and fair that people are treated equally. Your assumption that feminists must be female shows a lack of understanding of this perhaps.



And why wouldn't that be the case? A narcissist believes that and treats his family as useful possessions, it's one unmissable red flag for this disorder. Again, there's nothing in the research that opposes anything in a psychological model. How does feminist analysis explain the vanishingly small sample set available across these countries c.f. the number of men with families and in social or financial trouble of serious kinds. In my estimation, the feminist angle on this doesn't have much of a legitimate leg to stand on.

However, I will confess that I see the rise of new feminism in Ireland (and all neo-liberal zones post crash) as more a symptom of the strict-meritocratic re-organisation of society.

In this model, people in lower-paid jobs, single parents, and anyone doing totally insecure work-types are affected the most by the 4th round of austerity measures in Ireland. In the boom, people who could only work part-time (mostly women and some men) had to take to feminism, because an emergent property of neo-liberal reorganization is massive stratification, with the people who can work the most hours at the top, which in the main, is men.

On this basis, I see the need for new feminism to be related to the unfair effects of neo-liberal thinking. In total, the house market boom and subsequent crash is the work of liberally-applied neo-liberal policy, the way austerity was carried out also a diktat from the same.

As I understand it, the government moved to cut childcare at the point when people (men and women) were struggling to stay employed in lower-waged or part-time jobs, creating a meritocratic nightmare for these people, and forcing them back onto the dole, where they quickly became the butt of the entire culture's frustration.

Anyway, I'm still working to understand the whole picture. But on the basis of what I do understand, I can say that the stratification produced by neo-liberal forces in and out of the boom would appear to be increased by the actions of some neo-feminists I've happened across online. I don't know how prevalent this is in real life, but suffice it to say that the attitude and statements to men tends to actual emotional abuse.

I believe this would be a predictable side effect of the feelings involved, and a general thrust forward to identify men who are 'entitled' and 'uninformed' as creating 'the problem', which is so huge and boundless it's apparently everywhere.

My contention would be that men appear to have congealed as a group of winners, but it is due to the effects of neo-liberal manipulation of the society, and relative. In this zone, men are still under significant negative force of anxiety about work and pay, and likely see the new feminist stance as creating a large part of the problem (along the lines of 'poor people and women, entitled and greedy, etc. etc.').

Anyway, as I identify inhumane neo-liberal policy (and an equally marvelous government) as being the creator of these glorious effects, my question is why there's no dialogue about it. Trump, Brexit, and far-right Europe are all extreme expressions of discontent with this way of doing business. While these countries set their eyes on targets of blame that are merely symptoms of neo-liberal policy, is Ireland doing the usual and imploding with self-blame?

Alright, some thoughts. And I had no conception of what sex you are. At the point that I thought feminism was still about specifically female issues I might have

demfad

QUOTE=Intothesea;105726224
The only people close enough to the narcissist to permanently and terminally damage his perfect self-concept are his family. The closest people of all. If you move to understand how this totally bizarrely-arranged personality disorder functions you can deduce this, I have no doubts about it.

"Deduce this?" With respect you made this up. There is no research to back your assertion that narcissists only kill their families. The horrific spectre of narcissistic indiscriminate mass shootings in the US of non-family members proves this. A family annihilator may show a narcisstic tendency to protect his identity at all costs but his identity is almost always associated with his concept of masculinity: The identity of the strong husband, doting father, patriarcal community man.
Also note, one US study on family annihilation goes back 200 years. Neo-liberalism has little to do with it. You are trying to hammer a square into a circle.


And absolutely it will fit with a general tale of abuse in the family, that's what narcissistic abusers do by default. In this sense, the research you're referring to doesn't differ with the general conclusions of psychological research. When it comes to understanding how to influence cultural thinking about these issues, I believe the psychological edition offers less blame that doesn't relate to men en masse, and more an idea of what can specifically drive it. In total, it may be possible to make this conform to gender ideas, but it misses the target for 'what to do' by a long shot, which is why I argued consistently against yourself and I0DD.

All research shows that the perpetrators had a common view of masculinity and family ownership. Highlighting issues with how 'masculinity' is culturally conceived is not an attack on 'men en masse'. You are conflating 'masculinity' with 'men'.

As well, it wouldn't be an idea of mine to knock down Irish feminism, but I might want to criticize some of its more questionable outputs, like this one, and the pointless unsolvable complaints of not feeling safe to walk down a road because crime stats say men commit more of these types of crimes. When haven't they, and what can we do except try to improve overall relations between the sexes in the general community. Can rising stats not be attributable to increased levels of societal anxiety, fear, and untold suffering of many kinds?

Again the conclusions from the research into family annihilation are not Irish or feminist. Because you cant argue with the research you are creating and defining an 'Irish feminist' angle just in order to knock it down.

As in, at any point in time, any percentage of men may act out in relation to any number of pressures. Increasing negative pressures and highly unusual negative forces in a culture can increase the likelihood that more men will act out, and so will women, but likely in a different format, considering our innate and constructed identities, and the specific details of recent history, which has been fair and kind to basically no one

Are you really blaming hostility, cat calling, intimidation, attack (rape? murder?) on the effects of neo-liberalism?


How does feminist analysis explain the vanishingly small sample set available across these countries c.f. the number of men with families and in social or financial trouble of serious kinds. In my estimation, the feminist angle on this doesn't have much of a legitimate leg to stand on.

I dont know what point you are trying to make here. Looks like 'whataboutery'.


In the boom, people who could only work part-time (mostly women and some men) had to take to feminism, because an emergent property of neo-liberal reorganization is massive stratification, with the people who can work the most hours at the top, which in the main, is men.On this basis, I see the need for new feminism to be related to the unfair effects of neo-liberal thinking. In total, the house market boom and subsequent crash is the work of liberally-applied neo-liberal policy, the way austerity was carried out also a diktat from the same....My contention would be that men appear to have congealed as a group of winners, but it is due to the effects of neo-liberal manipulation of the society

Women were not allowed to work in the Civil/Public Service after marriage until well into the 70's. Men have historically dominated the top jobs in Ireland. EG vast majority of school teachers are female: vast majority of school principles are male. i.e Men in better jobs is not a new phenomenom with the boom.


In this zone, men are still under significant negative force of anxiety about work and pay, and likely see the new feminist stance as creating a large part of the problem (along the lines of 'poor people and women, entitled and greedy, etc. etc.').

Work and pay affect everyone. You should be aware that women tend to be less paid and poorer than men and the parent in single parent families (a vulnerable group) is predominantly female. But asking for equality is causing the inequality?

Intothesea

"Deduce this?" With respect you made this up. There is no research to back your assertion that narcissists only kill their families. The horrific spectre of narcissistic indiscriminate mass shootings in thee US of non-family members proves this. A family annihilator may show a narcisstic tendency to protect his identity at all costs but his identity is almost always associated with his concept of masculinity: The identity of the strong husband, doting father, patriarcal community man.
Also note, one US study on family annihilation goes back 200 years. Neo-liberalism has little to do with it. You are trying to hammer a square into a circle.


Where the case to be considered is Family Annihilation, there's a large probability that the perpetrator is some type of clinical or near narcissist. How does this imply that narcissist types don't murder anyone else?

And again, narcissistic manifestations of masculinity are not genuine representations of masculinity. They are simply another mask worn to 'fit in' and 'look great'. If important social aspects of being a man involved riding a unicycle while toting a family of raccoons across your shoulders, you can be absolutely sure a narcissist would own a raccoon farm and sleep with a bike in his bed. Stretching the point, but it is that superficial a relationship for a narcissist. I've talked about such already in this thread.



All research shows that the perpetrators had a common view of masculinity and family ownership. Highlighting issues with how 'masculinity' is culturally conceived is not an attack on 'men en masse'. You are conflating 'masculinity' with 'men'.

I'm conflating masculinity with men? Is that now a crime? Has a woman assumed a male social identity and committed Family Annihilation? I'd love to hear about it if so. And again, narcissists by definition see their families as something they own and have total right to control **regardless** of what constructed narratives say about the matter. This is why narcissist women kill their children without giving a royal hoot about what identity constructs say. What do you think? And don't come back with the 'you're saying all women who kill their children are narcissists!'. Not so. Certain types of cases of women murdering their children are likely to be precipitated by the presence of narcissism.

That's an angle that might bear a legitimate feminist analysis.


Again the conclusions from the research into family annihilation are not Irish or feminist. Because you cant argue with the research you are creating and defining an 'Irish feminist' angle just in order to knock it down.

The conclusions you're talking about don't oppose any part of a psychological approach to understanding the FA issue. I don't need to argue with it, I think it's as irrelevant to the problem as using feminist theory to understand serial killers. i.e. Zero relevance.


Are you really blaming hostility, cat calling, intimidation, attack (rape? murder?) on the effects of neo-liberalism?

Are you really saying that you don't believe the rise of any type of violent occurrence in a culture that's been absolutely battered by unusual social forces and mass reception of negativity created by insecurity of all types (and which went through a program of materialistic brainwashing in the boom) *isn't* related to such?!

Constructions, there isn't only one for any blame situation.


I dont know what point you are trying to make here. Looks like 'whataboutery'.


Okay, I take it it looks like whataboutery because you don't understand the point I'm talking aboutery. Basic maths, statistics, and a scientific clue should help you there.



Women were not allowed to work in the Civil/Public Service after marriage until well into the 70's. Men have historically dominated the top jobs in Ireland. EG vast majority of school teachers are female: vast majority of school principles are male. i.e Men in better jobs is not a new phenomenom with the boom.


And this has precisely what to do with new problems of inequality that are created by the re-ordering of society according to a strict-meritocratic criteria?

Mostly women were schoolteachers? Who'd have guessed it, women more interested in dealing with children and men more interested in overseeing structures of different kinds. Color me indignant



Work and pay affect everyone. You should be aware that women tend to be less paid and poorer than men and the parent in single parent families (a vulnerable group) is predominantly female. But asking for equality is causing the inequality?


Work and pay affect everyone? Where did I argue that it didn't? There's a pay gap? Could that be related to the expectation that women likely won't dedicate as much of their lives to working, due to raising kids?

Can women totally give up their natural desire and interest in raising their kids, so that they can trip the light fantastic in the working world as well as men? I'm betting pay will be equalized when women give up having families altogether.

Radical acceptance, at some point it's worth drawing a line under it, and particularly in the case that negativistic and constant complaint to 50% of the participants in the culture can cause more trouble than it solves.


I'll put it this way: feminism that has men involved in its ranks has a raison d'etre that I don't identify as feminism (which by definition, includes defending the value of women and their dedication to family and children). I think it would be fairer to term the movement, in its modern reactionary format as:

'Judiciously disgruntled women and some men who coincidentally ended up together on the wrong side of strict-meritocratic reorganization of society who colluded to use the currency of newly-renewed gender re-polarization after a neo-liberal bust situation to fight for their newly and apparently extinguished rights to be constructed to be as valuable to the society as highly educated high potential money-making men.'

It's a bit of a mouthful, so maybe you could go with "normal people for equality in an inherently newly-defined unequal society".


I take it that the connections I'm making between new-wave feminism (I wonder why it's a new wave?) and the long-term social effects of neoliberalism are not to your liking. The sexist problems of the past are gone with this new model, that stuff was lame and inaccurate. Today's apparent sexism is coming from a strict meritocracy. He who makes the most cash on the most consistent and long-term basis is now the winner. What to do?

To my mind, not disturbing an already stratified, anxiety-swept society by blaming half of its members for all manner of happenstance would be a good start. After that, seeking to change minds about the overall direction of the society mightn't be a bad idea. Instead of punishing men for being the coincidental relative winners in this totally bankrupt social setup, work to gain their support on rearranging things a bit to edit out the serious side-effect of total apparent unfairness.

Just a thought, and the last one I'm leaving here.

demfad

QUOTE=Intothesea;105728126 Work and pay affect everyone? Where did I argue that it didn't? There's a pay gap? Could that be related to the expectation that women likely won't dedicate as much of their lives to working, due to raising kids?
Can women totally give up their natural desire and interest in raising their kids, so that they can trip the light fantastic in the working world as well as men? I'm betting pay will be equalized when women give up having families altogether.

So a woman doing the exact same work in a given year as a man should be paid less because at some point in the future she may or may not have a family. And this situation will only be resolved when women give up having families?
By this logic should not fathers who also want to rear children be also discriminated against thus? Should people sign a document on entering employment with a clause stating their desire to have a family and have their salary adjusted accordingly?

I'm conflating masculinity with men? Is that now a crime? Has a woman assumed a male social identity and committed Family Annihilation?

You don't understand: People of either sexes can share this particular view of masculinity. Those who assume it are almost always men. It depends on the society as to what proportion of men assume it. Clear?

Radical acceptance, at some point it's worth drawing a line under it, and particularly in the case that negativistic and constant complaint to 50% of the participants in the culture can cause more trouble than it solves.

Again if a person is being treated unequally it should be called out. If a person is being treated unfairly because of their gender this should be called out also. The solution is probably to start treating the person fairly rather than trying to deny and undermine the persons right to bring the issue up.


Instead of punishing men for being the coincidental relative winners in this totally bankrupt social setup, work to gain their support on rearranging things a bit to edit out the serious side-effect of total apparent unfairness.
Just a thought, and the last one I'm leaving here.

Women do try and gain men's support and understanding for issues of inequality in society usually by referring to reasonable sources to persuade.
With regards to this thread that would be by pointing people in the direction of studies in the are of family annihilation. These studies point to family annihilation being the terminal act in a pattern of domestic violence in a majority of cases. The murder has a traditional view of masculinity in this case.

Raising awareness of what domestic violence is, how a view of masculinity with women subordinate to men is damaging and encouraging support for women in dangerous situations would be useful. Education and support.

tayto lover

God the posts are getting extremely long in this thread.
Could we have a TLDR at the bottom please. Some of us have work to do.

Asus X540L

Yeah and the blue font is really annoying me.

Into the Sea any chance you'd shorten your feminazi posts no-one is going to read them.

And they're hurting my eyes.

Intothesea

So much for remotely reasoned debate, ladies.

As well, pointing out that feminism is by definition concerned with a woman's right to be valued specifically for things women can do isn't feminazism.

Seeking to use the feminist angle to shout down (using every repetitively point-missing technique in the Internet discussion forum handbook) or to invalidate at least fairly debatable statements to further a questionable political agenda is feminazism, or whatever the disingenuous version might be called.

Carry on up the Khyber, folks. I just hope the apparent total incapacity to face any measure of the truth about social affairs in Ireland today isn't replicated across the culture.

If it is, well, when truth goes missing from a conception of reality, so tends to disappear any value associated with arguing for the side.

professore

This reminds me of the mental gymnastics the nun that was teaching me religion in primary school went through to explain that the star that guided the 3 wise men to Jesus's stable was actually a comet and fitted perfectly with science ... her point of course being that the bible was right all along and science happened to agree with it in this case. If we assume what she said is true, there have still been thousands of comets before and since that never guided anyone to a religious leader - and in fact a more reasonable explanation would be that comets have NOTHING to do with religion whatsoever and the whole thing was made up.

Trying to shoehorn in feminist patriarchy theory into this is a similar exercise. If it is shown with data that men who do this have a controlling and dominating character, and are involved in previous domestic abuse, which seems a very reasonable point of view, it still doesn't prove that patriarchy theory is valid - in fact because these events are so very rare, it rather disproves it. There are plenty of controlling and dominating wives too but for some reason they don't kill their whole family ... they tend to kill their spouse instead and try to get away with it.

Why that might be is anyone's guess. Wildly speculating here but there might be a link with why men commit suicide in a 5 or 6 to 1 ratio to women.

demfad

professore wrote: »

Trying to shoehorn in feminist patriarchy theory into this is a similar exercise. If it is shown with data that men who do this have a controlling and dominating character, and are involved in previous domestic abuse, which seems a very reasonable point of view, it still doesn't prove that patriarchy theory is valid - in fact because these events are so very rare, it rather disproves it. There are plenty of controlling and dominating wives too but for some reason they don't kill their whole family ... they tend to kill their spouse instead and try to get away with it.

Why that might be is anyone's guess. Wildly speculating here but there might be a link with why men commit suicide in a 5 or 6 to 1 ratio to women.

Like the other poster it is you who are trying to showhorn a makey up feminism which you have defined into this.

It is the actual International research on family annihilation that points to a family ownership view of masculinity (patriarchy) as the common factor. Like the other poster you can't attack the actual research but you are on more comfortable ground attacking feminism. Put simply, if less men view women and children as something less than them, then less women and children will be hurt and killed by them.

The proportion of women who kill their spouse compared to men is relatively tiny.

The suicide rate of men may be indeed related to how they view what 'being a man' should be. Thus, changing traditional views of masculinity (and femininity) may also help this problem in the longer term. If men were not conditioned to believe a 'pie in the sky' masculine success is, then they might not despair when they fail to meet these expectations.
If the their view involves being patriarch of the perfect family they may also not hurt that family when this illusion is threatening to shatter.

Intothesea

Hi Demfad,

In case it hasnt been noticeable, neoliberal concepts of 'winning' follow lines that can be defined loosely as psychopathic.

Most men, younger, older, not aggressive enough, not political enough, not manipulative enough, will eventually relatively lose out in the job market compared to actual or 'psychopathic style' personalities.

It's known via psychological studies already that the modern world enables neoliberal ideas to affect peoples' values for the worse, and seems to naturally select for the super aggressive traits mentioned above.

Mix this effect with the insecure, highly stressful positions occupied by most men in this milieu and voila, a recipe for greater aggression specifically in men that is allied with deep fear and anxiety is made.

Could neoliberal ideas in business and governmental culture be raising the aggression stakes for men? Something to ponder, maybe.

Electric Sheep

Intothesea wrote: »

Hi Demfad,

In case it hasnt been noticeable, neoliberal concepts of 'winning' follow lines that can be defined loosely as psychopathic.

Most men, younger, older, not aggressive enough, not political enough, not manipulative enough, will eventually relatively lose out in the job market compared to actual or 'psychopathic style' personalities.

It's known via psychological studies already that the modern world enables neoliberal ideas to affect peoples' values for the worse, and seems to naturally select for the super aggressive traits mentioned above.

Mix this effect with the insecure, highly stressful positions occupied by most men in this milieu and voila, a recipe for greater aggression specifically in men that is allied with deep fear and anxiety is made.

Could neoliberal ideas in business and governmental culture be raising the aggression stakes for men? Something to ponder, maybe.

Alan and Clodagh were both teachers - so in the same job market. However, Clodagh did not murder Alan and her children. Do you think this is because she was a woman, or because she was simply better at handling job related stress? Women compete in the same job market as men.

Intothesea

Hi ES,

I think the difference that matters is that Alan was likely a narcissist, and Clodagh wasn't. If the point of the distinction is to extrapolate it into a 'war of the sexes' court, it's the only point that can reasonably be made.

Outside of this, it is conceivable that if both were narcissists facing egotistical destruction, Alan would take one type of route out, and Clodagh another. This is the region were feminist analysis may yield interesting, but ultimately useless results.

If the answer via feminism is to change gender identity models, the effect on people as twisted as narcissists would be negligible, given the type of their disorder.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

Hi Demfad,

In case it hasnt been noticeable, neoliberal concepts of 'winning' follow lines that can be defined loosely as psychopathic.

Most men, younger, older, not aggressive enough, not political enough, not manipulative enough, will eventually relatively lose out in the job market compared to actual or 'psychopathic style' personalities.

It's known via psychological studies already that the modern world enables neoliberal ideas to affect peoples' values for the worse, and seems to naturally select for the super aggressive traits mentioned above.

Mix this effect with the insecure, highly stressful positions occupied by most men in this milieu and voila, a recipe for greater aggression specifically in men that is allied with deep fear and anxiety is made.

Could neoliberal ideas in business and governmental culture be raising the aggression stakes for men? Something to ponder, maybe.

Neoliberalism brings the free market/heightened consumerism.
(It should not be conflated with liberalism.)

Domestic violence is not a sudden snap of a man who can't deal with modern day pressures: it is a cycle of control of one person over another/others using manipulation and/or violence and or/other tools.

The studies have concluded that family annihilation is the terminal act in this cycle of control. If you believe that control does not occur in these relationships (domestic violence) please explain why. If you believe that it does occur but is not related to domestic violence then explain the thousands of calls to the helplines annually, hospitalisations and many murders. They can't all be explained solely by narcissism.

If the cultural view of masculinity and femininity was broader, less defined more reasonable then men would not see women as things to be dominated and controlled. And some men might not grow into the type of person who annihilates them when they no longer perform their function of fulfilling his masculinity. (By a breakup, for example). Just a thought.

Intothesea

Demfad,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It beats me. Any ideas?

up for anything

That man had an unbounded ego. Hopefully he rots in a hell where he suffers over and over again what he put his wife and children through in their lives and in their deaths.

volchitsa

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

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

volchitsa

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

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

Intothesea

Hi Volchitsa,

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


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

volchitsa

Intothesea wrote: »

Hi Volchitsa,

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


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

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

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

I'm responding to the latter.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

Demfad,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It beats me. Any ideas?

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

Definitions of feminism:

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

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

Intothesea

volchitsa wrote: »

Intothesea wrote: »

Hi Volchitsa,

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


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

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

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

I'm responding to the latter.

Ah, what deliberately conconcted nonsense.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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


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


Anyway, I'll be replying to Demfad later.

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

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

Anyway, I'll be replying to Demfad later.

Please address the following points:

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

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

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

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

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

Intothesea

demfad wrote: »

Please address the following points:

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

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

Demfad,

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


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


To address the above:

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

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


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



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

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

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


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

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


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


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

demfad

Intothesea wrote: »

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

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

Intothesea wrote: »

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

Intothesea wrote: »

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

Intothesea

Sorry Demfad,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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