beans:
The babble policy is [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/policy.html]here[/url]. The thread where Dan swaggered in and started insulting and baiting feminists is [url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=24&t=000333]h....
You'll note that not only have you not been banned, but since you started offering facts and cites insteading of making claims like Feminism = Stalinism, there's actually a conversation going on here.
[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]
quote:
Imagine a system of 2000 hospitals for heart disease that would only take men. 5 billion dollars has been spent on these facilities. Women are instead sent to motel! Wouldn't that get you upset? Duh.
INteresting that you should chose that topic as a comparison when up till very recently research on stroke and heart disease has been pretty much soley on men.
Hundreds of women die every year because they don't fit the male pattern and are turned away from hospitals as being hysterical or suggesting they are having panic attacks.
After care is deplorable for women also as again the needs of women who have had heart attacks differs greatly from that of men.
Perhaps you would like to try a different tact.
Oh I've got it, what about the thousands of dollars spent on obstetrical and gyno care, damn if that doesn't discriminate against all the poor men out there.
Debra - It's a far different injustice to make a misdiagnosis due to lack of information versus completely denying someone treatment due to gender. The two are in completely different categories.
Is this sort of information difficult for you to hear? That men are victims of DV and have been excluded?
Thank you Slim.
I read quickly through that thread Slim and I must be missing what Dan did to qualify him for being banned. Can you tell me what it was?
From my reading it seems the posters here were passive aggressively making fun of him and doing a little "mobbing" if you know that term. Mobbing is when a group of people gang up on someone often with the intent of humiliating them. Mobbing is often a tactic used by middle school girls (we are now calling them "Queen Bees") and is usually related to some form of verbal aggression. The last century we started on a path to work with physical aggression. We have a long way to go but we are barely beginning with verbal aggression which is more often the domain of girls and women.
quote:
Originally posted by beansnrice:
[b]I read quickly through that thread Slim and I must be missing what Dan did to qualify him for being banned. Can you tell me what it was?
[/b]
No. It was the moderator's call. You'll find we have a lot of respect for audra and the way she does her job. Are you here to draw attention to a serious problem and work towards a constructive solution? Or are you here to challenge the way this board operates? The latter isn't your call unless you're paying for the server and bandwidth.
Actually, I think that given how you framed the issue, Debra's comparison is quite valid.
quote:
Is this sort of information difficult for you to hear? That men are victims of DV and have been excluded?
That is provocative, uncalled for baiting, and leaning toward the obnoxious.
quote:
Men have no one who wants to insure their safety or provide for them. Chivalry is the main reason that feminism has been able to make the legislative gains that they have. Men have responded to women's cries for help.
I know of a large group of very vulnerable men whose vulnerability is a direct cause of the even greater vulnerability of the women who care for them.
I started to write out a riposte to that quote above, but I just don't have the stomach or the heart to do it properly. We have had serious discussions on babble before about women who become caregivers, and we will have them again. This is not the place to waste the energy or the tears.
This thread both sickens me and, in places, frightens me. The quotation about Lepine as hero deserves criminal investigation.
So the name calling begins.
I think I will bow out at this point and leave you all to your thoughts. My motivation was to get some sense of the degree of understanding and compassion that feminists might have towards men who were victims of domestic violence and you have given me a great deal of data. The responses of "Build your own" are quite telling and the lack of any response from the regular posters on this board is obviously a tacit approval.
There were one or two of you who showed some compassion for men. Good for you! You give us all hope. In the next century we must have people in leadership postitions that have love in their hearts for all people. The rest of you may have some work to do though I am sure that you don't see it.
Blessings to you all.
Peace.
quote:
Originally posted by beansnrice:
So the name calling begins.
Where?
quote:
I think I will bow out at this point and leave you all to your thoughts. My motivation was to get some sense of the degree of understanding and compassion that feminists might have towards men who were victims of domestic violence and you have given me a great deal of data. The responses of "Build your own" are quite telling and the lack of any response from the regular posters on this board is obviously a tacit approval.
Define "regular poster"? I've posted more on the Feminism forum in the last two days than I had in the previous year and a half that I've been here.
quote:
There were one or two of you who showed some compassion for men. Good for you! You give us all hope. In the next century we must have people in leadership postitions that have love in their hearts for all people. The rest of you may have some work to do though I am sure that you don't see it.Blessings to you all.
Peace.
Considering the way you framed the discussion, forcing us to pry information out of you, suggests that this exercise was about being provocative rather than informative. So your concern about compassion for male victims rings a little hollow.
quote:
So the name calling begins.
Name calling???
The weaknesses of your arguments are being exposed. You are being called on the manner in which you frame your arguments. I see no name calling.
Regular posters here have gone out of their way to treat you as being seperate from the recent infestation of trolls we've had from a pathological group of social misfits from whatever that site is.
Oh well, they come, they go, life goes on.
[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: oldgoat ]
Methinks beans was looking to come away with an answer no matter what was said.
If you're suggesting, pax, that he decided in advance on the reaction he would get and then framed the discussion in a manner designed to provoke exactly that reaction, I agree. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy and proves nothing.
Nice to have one of these that goes away of his own accord, though.
I was going to respond to his post, but since he's scurried off I guess there's no point. I doubt that anyone else here is so ignorant of sexual politics that they need to hear it.
I don't understand what the "problem" is with women-only shelters.
If abused men need shelters, fine, I agree, men who are being abused by their partners -gay or straight- should have a place to go to, so, start a grassroots movement, like the women did, and do some fundraising, buy property -or have it donated- and start a shelter for men who need it.
Start support groups for men who need someone to talk to, get a hotline established, get charity status from the federal government.
I do have sympathy for men who find themselves in physically abusive relationships, and there should be services for them.
I just don't see what the problem is with women-only shelters that were fought for by women, for women, who are being beaten, raped and abused by men, who need a place to get AWAY to.
[url=http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/html/femlesbi_e.html]Abuse in lesbian relationships[/url]
On the topic of abusive relationships, this is something that tends to get overlooked. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Since the thread is about men, what services are there available for gay men? Does anyone know?
[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]
The problem is that there are some men who believe women shouldn't be expending time and energy and money helping other women. All those resources SHOULD be spent on helping men, but of course, the men themselves don't lift a finger to help themselves.
Sorry to be blunt, but another poster put it really succintly here. If men want a shelter, what's stopping them from building it themselves?
Yeah, to steal someone else's metaphor, it's like getting mad at the Canadian Cancer Society for not helping out people who have Cystic Fibrosis.
quote:
Originally posted by audra estrones:
[b]Yeah, to steal someone else's metaphor, it's like getting mad at the Canadian Cancer Society for not helping out people who have Cystic Fibrosis.[/b]
On the other hand...
I remember (a couple of years ago) numerous politicians and such complaining about research dollars focussing on male centered diseases and that women's disease research was being shortchanged. I guess the answer based on the above opinions for these women would be to get off their ass and form a society to raise money. That seems callous and wrong.
I personally don't know of any man who is physically abused. Likely there are some in my circle of aquantances, I just don't know them, they hide it well. It would take incredible courage for someone to come forward. To get the critical mass to form a group is asking the impossible.
Still don't see it as something that a women's centre would deal with. If anything I would look at family support agencies.
quote:
Originally posted by googlymoogly:
[b][url=http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/html/femlesbi_e.html]Abuse in lesbian relationships[/url]On the topic of abusive relationships, this is something that tends to get overlooked. [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
Since the thread is about men, what services are there available for gay men? Does anyone know?
[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ][/b]
For gays and lesbians living in larger urban centers such as Toronto, there is a pretty good range of relationship counselling services including resources which deal specifically with abuse issues. Probably not as much will be publicly funded, but some is.
Away from larger urban centres, I imagine there's diddly squat. I would be happy to be shown that my info is out of date in that regard.
I'd just like to say, as a survivor of domestic violence, thank you to all the men in this forum, and the women, who have spoken out, with sincerity and great eloquence, in support of the work that has been done to end domestic violence and abuse.
There were very few services available when I left my spouse, and I believe that open and honest dialogue and support have played key roles in changing that.
Frankly, this issue of domestic violence is serious and sadly at times even fatal. Yes, the odd time men are victims but this is the exception to the rule and often a red-herring brought up by men in order to diminish a woman's reality.
Let's be straight this is a woman's issue there is simply no real need for a "mens" shelter in real and honest numbers. If there was I have no doubt men would build one.
I know women involved in running women shelters would assist men trying to set them up for men. I know some gay men who would as well. But straight men who want shelters have to create them. Much as women did for themselves. Remember when domestic violence against women was an accepted, even appropriate way to "handle" one's wife? Remember how it wasn't even talked about, how rarely it was even mentioned outside the domicile? Women changed that. Now, they're expected to do all the work for men?
Another problem I see with straight men advocating for domestic violence shelters is that for them, it's more about blaming all domestic violence against men on women, ignoring that gay men do it to gay men, rendering that group of victims and perpetrators invisible(but then men's rights= straight men's rights usually) Not to mention that men create most of the reasons why male victims of domestic violence don't come forward, by equating them with men who aren't really men because they can't control their women, and other assorted verbal garbage.
The problem is that men have grown conditioned to women doing ALL the work, from boyhood on forward. IMO, that's to their detriment because many men then have to learn how to take care of themselves. That's why if I ever have a son, or a daughter, they both are going to wash dishes, vaccuum, help in the kitchen, take out the garbage(the one male chore) etc.
[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]
I wonder why don't they too, and why when male domestic violence IS discussed by many men's domestic violence activists, there is never any mention of male on male domestic violence. Gay men had to deal with it themselves set up their own shelters. But aren't they men? Aren't they victims of domestic violence? In fact, most men's rights activists on web sites dealing with their issues seem downright homophobic, among other things.
Also, there seems to be little attempt to deal with class issues which allow some perpetrators of domestic violence to pay their way out of trouble while others have to be jailed b/c they can't pay restitution to shelters or organizations.
Also, male activists loathe it when women play the victim yet they play that card as well. If women including feminists have an issue, they tell us to quick whining and go do something about it. That advice works both ways.
[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]
I was just wondering why the issue of financial independence and shelters has not been raised. My understanding of one of the incentives for creating shelters for women was the lack of resources possessed by women and their dependent children when fleeing a violent situation. There would be no corresponding need for shelters for men since they generally could leave the home and apply their financial resources to finding other accommodation and still take advantage of community services for counselling or other support. Many women who needed to leave abusive relationships had also been subjected to control over their freedom and their finances. In addition, a shelter provides a safe space with security in place to prevent hostile pursuit by a partner.
quote:
Originally posted by googlymoogly:
[b]
Since the thread is about men, what services are there available for gay men? Does anyone know?
[/b]
What area? These things are heavily area-dependent, and I only know about a couple of US cities. Beyond that, I'd recommend a Google search, such as
[url=http://tinyurl.com/qoq7]this one[/url].
Both male victims and gay/lesbian/bi/tg victims may be able to find resources at [url=http://www.safe4all.org/]Stop Abuse For Everyone[/url].
[ 12 October 2003: Message edited by: April Follies ]
Once again, I have missed the real time conversation. Sorry to be late to the topic, but felt I needed to make a few comments.
I found beansnrice's question to be intriguing, but I believe as a few of you commented that he is a troll and was definately baiting the feminists.
I too am a feminist, and have used shelters to escaped from violent domestic situations. Unfortunately, when I first needed them, they weren't available, but my sister and I helped to establish one in our mostly rural area. I am very grateful to all the people who helped and contributed, not just here, but around the world. It's wonderful to have a safe place to run to. It is also important for women who are traumatized to be able to have a women only environment.
I am concerned about the few people who made comments to the effect that there is no need for mens' shelters, or that if they are needed that men should build them. That seems callous and professes an ignorance to the needs of men.
I personally know a number of men who have been abused by their female partners. This is hard for some people to understand as most men are bigger and stronger than most women. One I know of is 6'1", 220lb and he was not only struck, but sent to the hospital a number of times and carries visible scars from his abuser who was only 5'8" and 110lbs.
This man had been taught to never hit a woman. He couldn't restrain her without harming her, and so he was beaten. He finally left the relationship only to be involved in another abusive one. When he left in crisis, he was virtually on the street for a time until family became aware of the situation and helped.
Most men that are abused feel embarrassed, humiliated and terrified. Could you imagine admitting to the above situation in his place. Who't going to believe him? Well I've seen it happen and I do believe.
We as concerned people offer help to all kinds of causes. Why should men have to do this alone? The people that need help are often not in the position to help themselves and others until further down the road.
Feminism is about equality of the sexes right? So why not offer men in similar situations a similar service?
quote:
I found beansnrice's question to be intriguing, but I believe as a few of you commented that he is a troll and was definately baiting the feminists.
Actually windymustang, I have a few thoughts on the subject that would proceed well from what you've posted. The above thread went the way it did in the context of a nasty troll infestation from another site, and I didn't think that a really productive handling of the topic was possible under the circumstances. I was planning on giving it a few weeks and maybe posting something on the Body and Soul thread, 'cause I don't think that given the unique mandate of the Femminism thread it really belongs here.
Trolls may still be lurking under the bridge!
When there are about 15 topics on a discussion board, many of which are oriented towards men or both men and women's interests, I always find it curious when someone posts a man's issue solely under the feminism topic. It seems like anytime women and interested men get together to discuss women-centered topics, there are always men coming saying, well what about men? Some men just don't like it when women don't spend 24/7 thinking and discussing men-centered topics. They usually wind up on feminism boards.
Slim points out politely, this is a feminism forum. BeansnRice says he was interested in what feminists had to say though he's not one himself.(!). Another red flag.
Slim makes excellent point about getting a more broad perspective at other forums at this sight. Doesn't it make sense that if you want to discuss male victims of domestic violence, that you would go where other men are?
(also notice how initially beansnrice is vague about the source of the article)
Beansnrice doesn't like the response. He doesn't like his stats being challenged by better stats. He starts to get defensive, then he pulls the real zinger out of the bag, the one he had when he first got here, the one that's supposed to hit all women including feminists where it hurts:
"
quote:
This is a surprising response. It seems to attempt to divert attention away from the topic by casting blame. In some ways it reminds me of some whites in the south in the 50's and 60's who told the blacks that if they wanted water fountains they could build their own! This is precisely the sort of response I was hoping not to hear. It simply validates the stereotype of feminists not having compassion for men. "
[img]eek.gif" border="0[/img] we're supposed to go, I guess.
Trinnity makes an excellent point, why is Erin Prizzey brought up twice in two days? My guess and this is not seeing the other reference that the other reference was made by Dan Lynch?
Nah, they both came from the same place.
That's why some of us feminists are a bit sensitive, it's not our hormones at work, it's just something we learned after this discourse repeats itself over and over and over again.
The sure sign of an antifeminist is how quickly they compare feminists to one or more of the following:
a) Nazis
b) the KKK or Jim Crow segregationalists
c) any entity that ever committed genocide
d) any combination of the above
How long did it take beansnrice? About three posts.
I'm not saying this issue isn't important. It is. I just wonder why it's so rarely discussed on other forums besides feminism or women-centered topic forums.
quote:
In some ways it reminds me of some whites in the south in the 50's and 60's who told the blacks that if they wanted water fountains they could build their own!
I visited the MensNewsDaily forum (for a laugh [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] ) and both Dan Lynch and SorryImaMan or whatever his name was are sending people over here to try and get us (or at least the men) to join their forum [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] Good luck to them, I guess [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img] .
(not that that wasn't obvious already) [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
so they all are different people; Dan just thinks he has a chance at getting others to join them by sending his minions here [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 13 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]
LOL.
I'm not saying it's not an important issue but if these men put their energy into dealing with these issues rather than simply using them to flog women with, they probably could help some men in need. Why don't they? Too much work involved and it is work creating shelters.
Or some men might say we'll we got you the vote and this and that(conveniently forgetting women's roles in these things or belittling them), now it's payback time!
Believe you me, Mr. Lynch is a moderate compared to most of the guys who post there regularly [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]
No mention that I could see about improving services for abused men on their forum, just a lot of ranting about how western women can "burn in hell" (direct quote) because they complain too much, and how they want to go to other countries to find wives who don't complain about serving their men (no exaggeration) [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img]
There's some pretty intense irony here...the gender structures that oppress women are the same ones that make it very difficult for a man who is being abused by his female partner to bring it to the attention of the authorities. [Sound of laughing cops here]. At the same time, the abuse of men (which no doubt does occur) is being used by whiny male anti-feminists as an example of why gender isn't really a problem, and why feminists should just pipe down.
One thing's for freakin' sure: if I only had a dollar to give to a shelter, and I had to choose one which would help my son or one which would help my daughter, there really isn't a question of who is likely to need it most.
If it wasn't all so stupid, I'd laugh. As someone wise (Rebecca West?) said in the closed thread..."Waaah...feminists stole my privilege".
Mush, excellently put, particularly that it's men's attitudes towards female on male domestic violence that also must be dealt with.
Mush, I am agreeing with almost everything the feminists are saying on this thread, but I find it disturbing what you said about if you had a dollar...I know who I'd give it to...
How can we be asked to choose between our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers? There is no choice here for me. I agree with you that the problem of women suffering from domestic violence is more prevalant than men suffering from domestic violence, but I cannot choose one over the other.
We can not compaire one person's pain over another's. Who are we to say that one suffers more than another? Unless we are in their shoes we can not know. [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
Jeez, Louise....
Well yes, if we were only speaking of genderless people who get abused, sure...but domestic abuse is not separable from gender relations in general. This means that a) my daughter is far more likely (regardless of picking nits about the numbers) to be abused at home. b) The consequences of violence are far more likely to be death for her than they are for my son, so this concerns me somewhat more. c) If she leaves, she will more than likely be responsible for the children, (which most women wouldn't want to leave with the abusive partner, anyway). d) this means that she will be a sole-support mother in a labour market that pays women less on average and doesn't provide child care. If my son left with the kids, he is likely to earn more money. Besides, he hs less likley to have had extended absences from the labour market to raise said kids, which whould lower his earning potential e) my son is also more likely to find a partner who then will relieve him of the child care duties, while my daughter will take longer and is less likely to re-marry, find someone else, etc.
Now, of course Dan L will say that these are averages, and that we should treat people on the basis of their "individual" situations...well, gender isn't an individual attribute..it's a social relation in which women get the shit end of the stick in general for the reasons above... notwithstanding the odd guy abused by his wife, the wife who makes six figures and has a stay-at-home husband, etc.
sorry...pent up frustration with Troll Nation over here.
[Edited to take out something not nice that I wouldn't have written if not for the tequila]
[ 13 October 2003: Message edited by: Mush ]
Mush, I think we generally agree on principle.
The thing I was objecting to was "choosing". Yes, women suffer in greater numbers from domestic violence, they have fewer options and less pay for employment, they usually have the care of the children etc.etc.etc.
Louise [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by Trinitty:
[b]Don't you all find it interesting that Erin Pizzey has been brought up twice now, in two days, by two TOTALLY different people?The coincidence is astounding.[/b]
It isn't astounding at all. Anyone with any knowledge of this issue knows Erin Pizzey. Feminists know her very well too, usually.
Has anyone bothered to consider that the reason these activists (and yes, most of them ARE fighting in the political arena AND the public opinion arena to get their goals met) confront feminists is because that is who OPPOSES them politically? They are curious why, if these shelters are such a good thing for victims, some victims are excluded from help wholesale based on something as ridiculous as their gender.
However, I know enough about why they're really excluded to not ascribe such pure motivations to it. It isn't the bogus "Oh they're afraid of big bad ol' men right now and just need to be away from them" (the answer to that kind of xenophobia is exposure to male victims and good men as well as women, not coddling it), the real reason has a lot more to do with the secrecy with which most of these shelters are run. And the reasons for that secrecy of course.
FWIW I'd bet Beans isn't a newcomer (or someone who just happened to read a newspaper article [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img] ) at all; but is obviously educated in this subject. It isn't Dan, but seems to me to be one of two others I know. For what else it's worth, I'm not "with" them, as despite the fact that they're right in some aspects they're also misogynist assholes in many other ways [ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]
quote:
Originally posted by googlymoogly:
[b]Believe you me, Mr. Lynch is a moderate compared to most of the guys who post there regularly [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]No mention that I could see about improving services for abused men on their forum, just a lot of ranting about how western women can "burn in hell" (direct quote) because they complain too much, and how they want to go to other countries to find wives who don't complain about serving their men (no exaggeration) [img]redface.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
And a backlash against the insanity of radical feminism is what, a surprise? Backlash was being bitched about long before any men got off their butts to start realizing that they really WERE being f-ed over royally by the law and the courts. There was no real backlash then, but yeah there probably is now. Feminists only have themselves to blame for that fact. They've hurt women tremendously too, not that you find many women willing to express that fact. (Yes, they're afraid - yes, of feminists.) And with intense systematic bigotry have brought about a real (finally) backlash which also harms the nonfeminist women who had no part in bringing it about.
So women like me are left with a choice between misandry and misogyny. Great freedom of choice I have there [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]
quote:
Originally posted by windymustang:
[b]Mush, I think we generally agree on principle.The thing I was objecting to was "choosing". Yes, women suffer in greater numbers from domestic violence, they have fewer options and less pay for employment, they usually have the care of the children etc.etc.etc.
Louise [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img] [/b]
Greater numbers? Well the day men actually report it or get any justice for their victimization by DV let's do another comparison and we'll see if the numbers are greater. Indications are...not. Less pay for employment? Who told you that? When essential factors are taken into account (not the least of which is actual hours worked, years experience, SAME work performed) the wage gap disappears. Comparing like with LIKE you won't find a gap. See the longitudinal survey of youth and find that childless single people of both sexes earn the same for the same work. Women who willingly sacrifice position or who choose flexibility over position/pay in order to spend more time at home can't properly be compared with people who devote themselves fully to their careers. Any statistician knows you have to compare like with like, unless you're deliberately skewing statistics (as is done to make this mythical wage gap appear out of thin air.) As to usually having care of their children; so? Most people take care of their children because A) they wanted to have them and B) they want to take care of them. Which isn't an unreasonable thing to do, take care of them, considering you had them, right? If you could demonstrate that women are being forced to bear and raise children against their will when what they really want to do is devote themselves to a career, you might have a point. Otherwise you're talking about people's choices, not something that has anything to do with law or discrimination.
Anniee, [Sorry- Mis-spelled]
The problem with statistically controlling for education, work experience, etc, in a straightforward cross-sectional regression type of analysis that it negates the way in which gender operates through these labour market differential to produce different outcomes. Ceterus just ain't paribis. This mistake is often made with respect to studies of racial differences, too. Control for education and work experience, then take the remaining differences in income as a measure of "discrimination", and if the residial is not significantly different from 0, then there is no evidince of labour market discrimination.
The problem is then of course you are comparing invented people. An Aboriginal woman with a Ph.D. earns the same as a white guy. Perhaps, but who has more obstacles to getting there? Ceterus just ain't paribis, and to make it look like it is is the real statistical hocus-pocus.
As for "choice", well, choices don't come out of the air. Do women choose to be single mothers? Well, let's say a woman chooses to have children in the context of a partnership or marriage. Perhaps then she chooses to get divorced. Given that she's now a sole support parent, for her given education level, she might "choose" a job (of the many offered, I'm sure) that lets her care for her child as well as work. Do all of these add up to choosing to work part time and take care of a child? I doubt it. And if so, why excatly is it that men rarely "choose" the same thing? Chromosomes? Penises? (Hint: think social structures).
BTW, if it is the Canadian NLSCY to which you refer, I would suggest you try to perform the same analysis on the SLID, which has much better information on labour market characteristics and outcomes.
[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Mush ]
[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Mush ]
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
Plonk
Plonk, does that mean "boy she got you and you have no reply"? Because I promise that isn't it. I can't see beating my head against the wall for long over this, and I think it's obvious why that would not be profitable for me to do. With people who are intellectually honest that may sometimes be useful but even then it is hardly worth it most of the time. It is not worth it at all with people who have their minds made up despite anything they see to the contrary, or how unreasonable their position is.
I'll answer that one though.
#1 It's not Aimee; and no I'm not Canadian.
#2 The attempt to talk over my head is duly noted but that will prove inordinately difficult
#3 Translation of above appears to be, "I will make the stats say what I want them to regardless of the mathematical gymnastics required to do so."
#4 The comparison to race was called ridiculous towards the beginning of the thread - good to know it's acceptable when you think it is.
#5 Quite obviously controlling for RELEVANT factors IS essential. The "wage gap" myth is based on an highly irresponsible comparison - simply taking all that men earn across the board and seeing if it's more than what women across the board earn. Calling it unfair (in whatever way you choose) to control for any other factors is sheer madness and, as I mention, highly irresponsible. It doesn't even take a statistician to know *that*.
#6 Choices are choices. We don't and can't legislate those.
#7 Your question "Why don't men choose" A or B is not well stated. You're bringing in a not-average situation (single motherhood) to the entire issue of the disputed wage gap and then asking why "men don't". You would better ask whether SINGLE MALE PARENTS do or don't. That is the only relevant question. For all we know, single male parents DO do the same thing; you haven't even addressed whether or not they do.
However it does then appear that you're saying it is single motherhood that is responsible for the entire wage gap, and that this is because single mothers work part time jobs? In that case we need to control for single parenthood and compare single parents of both sexes to see where we are on that. In families where both parents work it has often been the mother who takes time off to go through pregnancy, childbearing, spending the first months or year with each baby, etc. She does indeed lose work time, experience, and sacrifices potential position to do so. If she doesn't want to do this perhaps she should reconsider having children or adopt, or have children with a man who wishes to make all those sacrifices himself. Though she might be surprised at how she feels and how her desires change upon actually going through pregnancy and childbirth - at this point in time we are unable to hand that part of the job over to men, correct?
Which, by the way, is exactly the reason fewer fathers of families choose to do that exact thing. Yes, it's in large part nature. If I had a dime for every woman who was positive she was going to continue pursuing her career equally doggedly after she gave birth who then changed her mind when she met her baby and decided to stay home, or work part time instead, my husband could retire and finally we'd both be able to stay home.
Not to mention you ARE ignoring the growing number of men who most certainly DO choose to stay home more. As women leave the home unattended more and more, many men ARE stepping in to fill the void and finding that they like it too. Many more men are sacrificing position and wages and advancement for the sake of being available much more to their families; I meet them constantly and read of them constantly, see them on TV more and more. Yes, they're finding they like it as much as women always have. So it shouldn't be very hard to find a husband/father who will happily let you pursue your careers to your heart's content and throw his hand in at home. Many women don't care for that as much as they thought they would, though; they end up being pissed that they're carrying the bulk of the financial burden then...well you can't have it both ways.
Hmmm...I wonder why so few men have complained that their wives (who are shortchanged by this discriminatory wage gap - I mean it's misogyny that causes them to earn less, not the fact that they do less WORK or anything) weren't carrying their fair share of the financial burden. Were they so understanding due to chromosomes? Penises? There's some food for thought. [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]
As to "all other things being equal" and your assertion that they are not; that was what the statistics were SUPPOSED to determine. There is absolutely no merit to using numbers (such as a wage gap) in the first place otherwise. You are putting the cart before the horse, putting the conclusion (that other things are NOT equal) before the question OR the data. Highly irregular and makes all study of any numbers entirely useless. In that case, we might as well all just admit it's based solely on our own experiences and opinions and preface by saying that that is ALL we have to go on.
fair dinkum I'd say, in reference to plonk which is collequial? [img]smile.gif" border="0[/img]
In Toronto, we have a court for domestic assault, called "K" Court. 96.4% of the complainants are women, as per last statistics I know of (from about two years ago).
I believe women are somewhat more likely to report a domestic assault than men are; but police do often take photos, and I can assure Babblers that I have seen nine injured women for every injured male.
So, basically, I believe the "assaulted male" is a small minority. That doesn't mean he should be completely ignored, but it hardly justifies an attack on the system overall.
I think some posters are just very angry people.
Jeff there's no point in men reporting it. For the very obvious reason that they are not taken seriously AND can not get help; and are often mocked by the very system that's supposed to help. Pair that with must-arrest laws that will generally arrest the man no matter WHO was injured or who did the attacking and you have a recipe for you seeing only the injured women and never the injured men. It's not surprising at all that court cases involve almost only the women; they are the only ones who can count on getting any justice. The men certainly can't. By the way I know people (women actually, I tend not to make those distinctions but I suppose it's relevant here) in law enforcement who tell the opposite story; but then they're in the front lines, not in a courtroom. Those on the scene tell it a bit differently.
If you meant me by the "some" people are just "angry" then you're barking up the wrong tree as well as being needlessly dismissive and rude. Anger has nothing to do with this...at least on my end. Some men are angry, but no one with a shred of honesty (who has access to the facts) can blame them for that. Being screwed over with regard to your legal rights to your children in divorce or your rights in DV cases tends to make people angry. Go figure.
[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]
You are aware of VAWA right, Jeff? I realize it's a US thing, but regardless. Billions of confiscatory tax dollars to "aid" victims of violence...so long as they are the right sex. Guess which is right?
