Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KaelGotDwarves]

This also deserves it's own reply:

Singapore was ranked 6th in the World Health Organization's ranking of the world's health systems in the year 2000.[1]
Singapore has a non-modified universal healthcare system where the government ensures affordability of healthcare within the public health system, largely through a system of compulsory savings, subsidies and price controls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Singapore
EDIT- part of this posted earlier ^^^

They force you to set aside a large portion of your wages for retirement and future healthcare needs.

One of the most socalised and regulated countries in the world, ranked 6th in healthcare by WHO.

So let's look at the other winners...

1: France = extremely socialist (one of universal health care largely financed by government national health insurance. In its 2000 assessment of world health care systems, the World Health Organization found that France provided the "close to best overall health care" in the world.[1])

2: Italy = 75% socalised Healthcare is provided to all citizens and residents by a mixed public-private system.

3: San Marino = highly socalist San Marino has a high standard of compulsory, state-funded healthcare and medical staff are highly qualified

4: Andorra = extremely socialist Healthcare in Andorra is provided to all employed persons and their families by the government-run social security system, CASS (Caixa Andorrana de Seguretat Social), which is funded by employer and employee contributions in respect of salaries.[47] The cost of healthcare is covered by CASS at rates of 75% for out-patient expenses such as medicines and hospital visits, 90% for hospitalisation, and 100% for work-related accidents. The remainder of the costs may be covered by private health insurance. Other residents and tourists require full private health insurance

5: Malta = Free healthcare socialism Malta has a long history of providing publicly funded health care. The first hospital recorded in the country was already functioning by 1372.[119] Today, Malta has both a public healthcare system, known as the government healthcare service, where healthcare is free at the point of delivery, and a private healthcare system.

Are you starting to notice a pattern about how successful socalised healthcare is?

Source: http://www.who.int/whr/2000/en/whr00_en.pdf
The World Health Organisation: The World Health Report (last ranked year 2000)

[Reelya]

@thx Kael, i did post some of that quote a few pages back i think.

@glowcat: I don't think trying to assess potential risk factors is sexist in any way. Is saying clothes might be a factor "blame the victim" whilst saying "don't walk alone at night" isn't "blame the victim"? Both are equally decisions made by the victim. But clothing is tied into a lot of other issues about sexism, whilst "walking alone at night" isn't so much.

Looking at the research online just now, yes, it does look like clothing isn't much of an issue, but there's VERY little research. I think most people making recommendations about dressing "sensibly" actually do mean well, but might be misguided, and most of those who object to that advice do so on ideological grounds unrelated to rape at all. (female rights vs patriarchy).

As for the "what about the men?" complaint. What i pointed out was omission of an alternate viewpoint. By labeling domestic violence as gendered violence, and explicitly stating that as man=abuser, woman=victim, you say that this in no way dismisses that female=abuser, male=victim abuse occurs. I'm saying it actually does dismiss that.

I find this a difficult objection to swallow because feminist literature very often uses the same logic of patriarchal language containing sexism due to omission of the female viewpoint. You're saying that can't happen both ways?

One thing i totally disagree with the article on is this paragraph:

First, consider, this example of the language we use to describe violence: "Women get raped and beaten up by men they know every day. Millions of them." OR, "Millions of men rape and beat women up every day. Millions of them." Here's another: "She went to a party. Drank too much. Passed out and was sexually assaulted." VERSUS "During the party, two boys inserted their fingers into her vagina and took pictures while she was unconscious." "She was a victim of domestic abuse," doesn't give the same impression as, "He broke his wife's nose five times and knocked out two of her teeth during a two-year period."

I think the passive verb form which is stated to be the common usage, with the woman as the object, asks you to empathize with the woman as the victim in these cases: "The woman was raped by the man", makes me think about what the woman is experiencing. Whereas the active verb form "The man raped the woman", put the image of "the man" in my head at the start, and "the woman" is tacked on almost like an afterthought, like they're not the important part of the whole thing. I think if normal language use was reversed in this case, they'd be complaining that it should be the other way.

[Glowcat]

The problem with talking about risk factors is that they inevitably reach the conclusion that the woman should've done those things to prevent any ill-occurrence. The better question to ask is whether your concern is reasonable. The world is full of dangers as it is. Is it a reasonable precaution to never drive just to avoid getting hit by a drunk driver? Is it reasonable to never eat seafood because you might get food poisoning? No? Then why the hell is it suddenly a major point that a woman dresses how she wants or goes out at night?

As for the "what about the men?" complaint. What i pointed out was omission of an alternate viewpoint. By labeling domestic violence as gendered violence, and explicitly stating that as man=abuser, woman=victim, you say that this in no way dismisses that female=abuser, male=victim abuse occurs. I'm saying it actually does dismiss that.

You're doing jack to prove it. And no, you can't just refer to some vague uncited monolith of feminist literature to back up your view. Talking about an issue as it relates to women does not require the author to go out of her way in addressing different topics just to sate your unreasonable demands.

[Kedly]

I was just pointing out the article was super aggressive to the point I had a hard time viewing its message because I became defensive early on. The points it raised were valid, I was just upset with HOW they were raised.

[Reelya]

"unreasonable demands"? i'm talking about addressing the full scope of the same topic. The root of all violence (being male), and terms like "domestic violence" are claimed to be fully defined by the article. If a large class of domestic violence cases are excluded by that definition and are never mentioned, then that's highly relevant.

The same way that a movie with no female roles is said to be sexist against women. "women weren't relevant to this story" would NOT be accepted as a defense of having no speaking roles for women.

But you're saying a non-fictional article discussing domestic violence in such a way as to exclude 40% of victims without even a hand-wave isn't sexist against those excluded people. I'm sure if i wrote an article SOLELY discussing male victims of domestic violence without even hinting that more females are victims than males, that wouldn't be seen as acceptable.

http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/style-and-usage/sexist-language.html

Sexist language is language that excludes either men or women when discussing a topic that is applicable to both sexes.

You're going to tell me this definition isn't applicable?

[Glowcat]

"unreasonable demands"? i'm talking about addressing the full scope of the same topic. the term "domestic violence" is claimed to be fully defined by the article. If a large class of domestic violence cases are excluded by that definition and are never mentioned, then that's highly relevant.

*looks through the article again*

I see a mention of the gendered aspect in much male-on-female domestic abuse... but not that. Try again?

The same way that a movie with no female roles is said to be sexist against women. "women weren't relevant to this story" would NOT be accepted as a defense of having no speaking roles for women.

*facepalm*

So non-male non-white character representation in entertainment media can somehow be tied to including additional topics in an article that wasn't primarily about domestic abuse anyway. Got it.

... I think I'm done with this line of conversation.

[Reelya]

I don't think you're materially addressed any point i raised except to throw about a general air of ridicule. Well let me extract quotes from the article:

masculinity is inextricably bound to violence. And that violence is inextricably bound to female vulnerability.

For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence

fundamental to how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape,

C'mon, that's not even "coded": "masculinity is inextricably bound to violence [...] men must have a clear monopoly on violence [...] how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse"

It states that men have a monopoly on violence which is inextricably bound to masculinity, and that domestic violence is a subset of gendered violence with a male abuser / female victim. It's pretty well spelt out, and it clearly rules out any "other" view of domestic violence.

But i guess that's not "really" sexist because there were non-sexist comments as well? So i can load a passage with sexism as long as it's not "mainly about that"? From what I recall it only takes 1 sexist statement in a speech to be classed sexist and a male professor to lose his job. (the dean of Harvard), and all he did was state a factual comment about statistics.

A single word "he" in a text example can and has been jumped on as sexist. And that doesn't even necessarily "rule out" that "she" examples can exist, unlike the text we're discussing.

[palsch]

@glowcat: I don't think trying to assess potential risk factors is sexist in any way. Is saying clothes might be a factor "blame the victim" whilst saying "don't walk alone at night" isn't "blame the victim"? Both are equally decisions made by the victim. But clothing is tied into a lot of other issues about sexism, whilst "walking alone at night" isn't so much.

Looking at the research online just now, yes, it does look like clothing isn't much of an issue, but there's VERY little research. I think most people making recommendations about dressing "sensibly" actually do mean well, but might be misguided, and most of those who object to that advice do so on ideological grounds unrelated to rape at all. (female rights vs patriarchy).

People making such recommendations are not just misguided, they are actually harmful. Being well intentioned doesn't matter. This isn't ideological, it's how humans think.

In her example, Ana creates a list of ways people 'could' avoid getting wet in the rain. Then she says this;

But the problem with the scenario we've created with this Rainy Tips list is that we've posited a universe where rain is an uncontrollable but to-be-avoided occurrence and then we laid out Easy! Simple! Guaranteed! tips for avoiding the rain.

Imagine that someone read my Rainy Day Tips here and then saw someone wringing out their wet hair after being drenched in rain. Imagine that instead of immediately feeling sympathy, now thanks to my tips they are puzzled. Why is the wet person wet? Are they ignorant and failed to read the Rainy Day Tips? Are they stupid and failed to work out how to properly implement the Rainy Day Tips? Are they lazy and didn't properly attain the right umbrella, car, house, and workplace as the Rainy Day Tips suggested? Are they greedy and refused to follow the Rainy Day Tips because they wanted to squander their money on non-umbrellas, non-cars, and non-houses with attached garages?

You didn't say that. Nowhere in your advice did you say or even suggest that failure to follow your advice would indicate that a victim deserved their victimization. In fact, you may have even stated explicitly that the advice would be difficult for some to follow and that it wasn't their fault if they didn't or couldn't follow your advice. So it's not your fault if someone takes your coulds and turns them into shoulds to use against the victim, right?

Wrong.

Whether you mean for them to or not, your coulds are going to be taken as shoulds. Humans want and need to believe that the world we live in is one of predictable causes and effects, where doing the 'right' things will result in precisely the right outcomes and the wrong outcomes can be avoided.

By providing "Rape Prevention Tips" or "Advice For Poor Black Children", you are effectively saying that you have a list of 'right' things to do that could, no, should result in the right outcome and prevent the wrong one. The should is implied because the tips aren't random, right? They should work... if you do them right. And since everyone wants the right outcome and wants to avoid the wrong outcome, your system of could-should tips adds to the overall belief that the world we live in can be controlled through the actions of a single individual. And that, in turn, leads to the confirmation that those single individuals who got the wrong outcome in life didn't follow the could-should rules to the last letter. And that is victim blaming in its purest form.

That piece is one of Mardoll's best, IMO, and well worth reading in it's entirety.

And by the way, that vague, undefined reference to feminist literature? This is what it actually looks like.

[Gantolandon]

In short: the article doesn't attack men, but a common cultural theme that basically says they are rabid beasts unable to control themselves. I'll try to explain it more thoroughly later, as typing it on phone will be a nightmare.

[Reelya]

@Gantolandon: the main gist of my argument was that it excludes male victims of domestic abuse, by setting up a logical train of thought where violence and maleness were "inextricably" linked in a monopoly, then referring to the importance of understanding violence, specifically gendered violence, of which the very first concrete example was "domestic violence". I really didn't actually call it on "attacking men" at all, but on excluding a large number of people who were victims themselves, and pretty much implying it was impossible for their abusers to exist.

@palsch: Doh, i've read quite a bit of feminist literature thanks, no need to be rude. What i did say was about feminists critiques of coded language. That's not some abstract concept, it's a common theme.

In the very article you've quoted it talks about how "could" advice turns into "you SHOULD have followed it". Which is exactly "coded language" in action. That article states that saying "don't let someone spike your drink" is really saying "i already warned you, so if your drink get's spiked that's YOUR FAULT". So "helpful tips" to protect the victim are actually victim-bashing and fatalism.

thanks for your example of a feminist critique of coded language in action I don't think you can really say "you're reading too much into that domestic violence = male violence" thing, while also holding that "well-intentioned helpful(or not) tips" = a blatant attack on victims.

[palsch]

I don't think you're materially addressed any point i raised except to throw about a general air of ridicule. Well let me extract quotes from the article:

masculinity is inextricably bound to violence. And that violence is inextricably bound to female vulnerability.

For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence

fundamental to how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape,

C'mon, that's not even "coded": "masculinity is inextricably bound to violence [...] men must have a clear monopoly on violence [...] how we understand and deal with violence, especially with gendered violence: domestic abuse"

Those are all points that the author is criticising. Seriously, read the article. She is talking about views of masculinity are harmful to both men and women by encouraging male violence. It's a case where the gender stereotypes that feminists attack are damaging to men as much as women, and why the major groups and projects she focuses on later are mainly male-focused and dominated.

She states that, "masculinity is inextricably bound to violence," as a harmful thing that should be changed. She states, "men must have a clear monopoly on violence," as a simple description of an idea of masculinity born of a patriarchal society, where men must be dominant to be Real True Men. When she talks about, "gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape," she is talking about, well, actually gendered violence, not necessarily just male-on-female.

Because on that last point female-on-male (or frankly any-on-male) gendered violence tends to be covered by those same patriarchal norms that male-on-female is 'encouraged' (in a sense). Men are not taken seriously as men if they are abused because of the same concepts of masculinity that encourage them to do violence to others. The underlying problems with dealing with abuse against men are the same as those that Chemaly is trying to address in the article.

Essentially you are trying to make this out to be sexist by entirely reversing her position, with a few cherry picked quotes.

In the very article you've quoted it talks about how "could" advice turns into "you SHOULD have followed it". Which is exactly "coded language" in action. That article states that saying "don't let someone spike your drink" is really saying "i already warned you, so if your drink get's spiked that's YOUR FAULT". So "helpful tips" to protect the victim are actually victim-bashing and fatalism.

That's not coded language. Read the article again. It's talking about the way people react to such advice and why that advice is more harmful than helpful, not anything about the advice itself being coded. There is a major difference between the two, mostly dealing with intent.

Also maybe try discussing the message of the article? I was posting it because I thought you were falling into the trap that she describes, of ignoring the actual results of such well-intended advice. Do you flat reject that or not? Do you have a reason?

EDIT:

I don't think you can really say "you're reading too much into that domestic violence = male violence" thing, while also holding that "well-intentioned helpful(or not) tips" = a blatant attack on victims.

If you read the article, she isn't saying they are blatant attacks, but she is saying they are inadvertent ones, creating an atmosphere that is harmful to victims. Offering safety advice isn't an open attack, but that doesn't mean it can't cause harm in an indirect manner. Again, it's worth addressing the point of the article.

[Reelya]

Well of course she's arguing against these things, in the future, but she clearly believes they are all true statements, right now.

masculinity is inextricably bound to violence <= current state in most of the world, she says..
For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence <= world is currently male-dominated, making this statement true. She's definitely not arguing that the "clear monopoly" doesn't exist.
domestic abuse is stated as a subset of gendered violence. She just states that this is the case, and gendered clearly means "male aggressor" => "female victim" in the context of the article.

All those are the existing state, that's her argument. Of course she's arguing for change, but she wouldn't discuss them unless she thought they were all true.

===

Coded language doesn't have to be MALICIOUS or conscious. That's also not something i claimed. There are plenty of articles about how language itself is sexist and perpetuates sexism by it's very constructs.

"well intentioned" MEANS inadvertent. I already addressed that. She made it clear in her article that giving such advice wasn't "maybe" victim-blaming they were 100% certifiable victim-blaming. That's why I said "blatant".

And ok, it's inadvertent, but so was my criticism of the earlier article's tautology that pretty much all victims = female, all aggressors = male. I never once claimed she did that on purpose. But, just like Ann Mardoll states, it doesn't have to be on purpose.

[Kedly]

Yeah, I didnt get the feeling the article was disproving those statements. Those are pretty much the statements that made me upset with the article. I guess I'll give it a second read through.

[palsch]

masculinity is inextricably bound to violence <= current state in most of the world, she says..

Yes, and as a guy, I agree.

Pretty much every traditional view of masculinity is bound up in using force to maintain your position and dominance. It's hard to pretend otherwise.

But there is a clear difference between these views of masculinity and being male. Masculinity is the cultural view of maleness, but not an inherent property of being a male. The 'bound to violence' part belongs squarely on the cultural side of things.

The problem here is that, culturally, men are encouraged towards these standards of masculinity that are 'bound to violence', making such violence more normalised. The entire article is about changing these standards of masculinity away from such harmful models. It's worth noting again that the groups she mentions and promotes are largely male-lead.

domestic abuse is stated as a subset of gendered violence. She just states that this is the case, and gendered clearly means male aggressor => female victim in the context of the article.

To the first part, well, domestic abuse is gendered violence. I disagree that she clearly restricts gendered violence to male-on-female, but don't think it matters either way within the context of the article. I don't see her erasing female-on-male violence simply by not offering explicit discussion of it in an article discussing male violence and ways to reduce it. It would be off-topic for her actual point.

And again, the actual violence that happens is best addressed by focusing on the same gender perceptions that she is discussing. So even if she was to insert a paragraph about female-on-male violence it wouldn't change any of the rest of the article. It was just be a way to head off what-about-the-menz comments, and look like such to anyone reading.

Dude "well intentioned" MEANS inadvertent. I already addressed that.

And ok, it's inadvertent, but so was my criticism of her article's tautology that pretty much all victims = female, all aggressors = male. I never once claimed she did that on purpose. But, just like Ann Mardoll states, it doesn't have to be on purpose.

I... I'm not even sure of your meaning here. The phrasing here doesn't make sense to me at all.

Well intentioned =/= inadvertent. Unless you are explicitly talking about the harm that results from such actions there is a disconnect there. And at no point did you actually discuss the harm, only the intent behind those offering the advice. The whole point of my talking about inadvertent harm was to point out that there is actual harm, regardless of intent.

I'm assuming you meant that her describing all abusers as male, etc, was inadvertent, not your criticism. And here, sure, she inadvertently did not address female-on-male violence. But again, the article is discussing male violence and male gender roles that encourage such violence. What benefit would there be to talk about something outside the scope of the article in the article?

EDIT: Urg, edits didn't show on the preview.

She made it clear in her article that giving such advice wasn't "maybe" victim-blaming they were 100% certifiable victim-blaming. That's why I said "blatant".

OK. I read the word "blatant" as "obvious", but guess this could just a usage difference and it sort of fits. Again, I think this is rolled into inadvertent nicely. Inadvertent has the lack of intent combined with unavoidable end result, at least in the contexts I usually see it used in. But semantics blah blah.

[Reelya]

Well i'll restate "not mentioning" the other way (pro-male bias) is routinely seen as denying or downplaying the existence of the female examples of something, e.g. if you only used examples of a male firefighter in a school textbook there would be outcries to include a female example.

===

"I disagree that she clearly restricts gendered violence to male-on-female" <= i have to disagree with that statement more than most others, she clearly uses gendered in a VERY strict male-on-female sense:

gendered violence: domestic abuse, rape, acid throwing, sex trafficking, child brides, and more.

As for "well intentioned": "well intentioned" is almost always invoked in situations where there was some negative outcome that was unexpected - "inadvertent harm" (at least by the person with the intentions). If the advice wasn't harmful, we just call it "good advice".

Blatant does mean obvious, but statements may be obvious to some people, but not others. The harmfulness of the statements we were discussing were certainly obvious to Ann Mardoll, and inadvertent to the "well intentioned" person she invokes.
 
===

Well, Ann Mardoll's article talked about how 1 set of language was inadvertently sexist victim-blaming. My example was that through the earlier article's setting up of definitions, she inadvertently ruled out the very existence of ~40% of domestic abuse victims. Both are sexist, just like it would be sexist to inadvertently only use male pronouns in examples.

Can you 100% show that downplaying the existence of victims of both genders hasn't caused harm? Whereas "don't leave your drink unattended" HAS caused harm?