Print

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

[palsch]

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.

There is a difference of context here.

If I were writing an article specifically about men's sports, would it be sexist to exclude women's sports teams?

Or to take a more illustrative example, let's convert this to a race based example.

Let's say I was reporting on an African American lead effort to reduce black-on-black gang violence. I include in my article several references to such violence, but fail to mention white-on-white or white-on-black violence. Is that racist?

Again, this is an article discussing a real attempt by both feminist and men's groups, in coalition, to reduce male violence by addressing (and trying to change) cultural views of masculinity. It discusses multiple forms that violence takes, including gendered violence, within that context.

Maybe she could have included a paragraph on female-on-male or other domestic violence and rape, in the same way that the author of the piece on black-on-black violence might include a reference to non-black violent crime. But those paragraphs would be superfluous to the article. They don't add to the central arguments or purpose of the article. Anyone who would avoid discussing the central point because it doesn't mention the cases not relevant to the discussion is unlikely to turn around and accept the article simply because it makes mention of what they view as the real problem.

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?

Do we have a standard for evidence here?

[Reelya]

It would be sexist if you invoked things about men's sports like "Men are great at sports. Many men play sports, it's in their nature.", this may be true, but it also implies it's something unique to a class of people you've labeled "men".

And the black-on-black violence one would be racist if you stated that "black men are capable of violence, many black men kill other black men and rape black women." The wording implies this is something special and unique to black people, reading between the lines.

[palsch]

It would be sexist if you invoked things about men's sports like "Men are great at sports. Many men play sports, it's in their nature.", this may be true, but it also implies it's something unique to a class of people you've labeled "men".

And the black-on-black violence one would be racist if you stated that "black men are capable of violence, many black men kill other black men and rape black women." The wording implies this is something special and unique to black people, reading between the lines.

None of which Chemaly did.

Again, you are conflating criticism of cultural models of masculinity (in the article) with criticism of something inherent to all men (not in the article).

And going back because you edited after my last post;

"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.

You are going to have to explain how that excluded female-on-male or other violence. Is listing near-exclusively male-on-female crimes enough to clearly restrict the entire list to male-on-female? Because that would make it very hard to discuss generalised gender violence without always, by definition, excluding either female-on-male cases or a whole subset of violence that only (or nearly only) happens against women.

[Reelya]

She did exactly that, but in a stronger sense than my examples: My examples merely suggested that only men were great at sports, or that only blacks could be violent. Her statement outright certified that her target group had a monopoly on the trait, so hers was actually a stronger version:

"For the world to be male-dominated, men must have a clear monopoly on violence " clearly precludes any significant violence by women of any type, if you also assume the world is male-dominated. You can leave out the gendered bit if you want, that statement by itself implies ALL the others, especially since the extent of the monopoly is doubly emphasized ("clear").

Again i'll point out that her wording implied domestic violence was always "gendered" in her approved way. She stated that men's monopoly on violence is vital to maintaining men's power. Monopoly has a very clear meaning that there cannot be any significant examples of the alternative.

You are going to have to explain how that excluded female-on-male or other violence

Men have a monopoly on violence, hence they have a monopoly on any subset of violence, hence gendered violence can only mean male-on-female because any other configuration is logical excluded. Assuming same-sex violence doesn't count as "gendered".

[palsch]

Again i'll point out that her wording implied domestic violence was always "gendered" in her approved way. She stated that men's monopoly on violence is vital to maintaining men's power. Monopoly has a very clear meaning that there cannot be any significant examples of the alternative.

Two problems with this.

Do you honestly believe that she is saying only men can or do ever commit violence? I mean, she is apparently capable of using the internet, so assuming such incredible ignorance seems unreasonable. You would have to be willing to assume the absolute worst about the author to take that idea away from the text.

As for what she is actually describing;
Monopoly on violence or force is a fairly common term and rarely implies that violence doesn't happen outside the monopoly. Any existent state is said to have a monopoly on force within it's borders. That doesn't mean that force isn't used by non-state actors, only that such use of force is seen as illegitimate and that legitimate, state force is used to stop or discourage those non-state applications. In the most extreme forms, patriarchal views of masculinity take a similar view, making certain subsets of male violence legitimate uses of force to maintain dominance and discourage those who would oppose the patriarchal order of things.

[Reelya]

I think you're pretty much grasping at straws here if you think she's defining "gendered violence" as anything but pure man-vs-woman. It's quite clear i would think from the ccntext, but also from other sources which use the term, that it has the very specific meaning:

‘Gender-based violence’ (GBV) is still an emerging and developing term. Originally it was used mostly to replace the term ‘(male) violence against women’, because the word woman refers to both individuals of the female sex and to feminine gender roles in society. Those developing the term wanted to emphasize that violence against women is a phenomenon that is related to the gender of both victim and perpetrator. Many definitions continue to focus solely on the fact that women are victims of violence: for example, the UNHCHR’s CEDAW (Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination Against Women) committee states that GBV is “…violence that is directed against a woman because she is a woman or that affects women disproportionately”.

I have the UNHCR as my source for that definition. So, whether or not you agree that she literally meant men have a monopoly on violence or just on "legitimate right to violence". Men's monopoly on gender-based violence is in the definition.

[GlyphGryph]

So, I've noticed the Falkland Islands thing seems to be a big hot button issue for progressives, but I just can't understand how Argentina possible has a claim on them. Does anyone here support then, and can you explain it to me?

[palsch]

I have the UNHCR as my source for that definition.

Except that the page you are quoting goes on to discuss how the term is being generalised and used to refer to all, well, gender based violence.

And again, you are not addressing what I actually say or what is said in the article.

So, I've noticed the Falkland Islands thing seems to be a big hot button issue for progressives, but I just can't understand how Argentina possible has a claim on them. Does anyone here support then, and can you explain it to me?

Any recent links you can give me? The last discussion of the Falklands in my feeds were a debate over the role of naval power in the modern world (Crooked Timber vs Lawyers, Guns and Money, both fairly progressive sites, in case anyone is interested). Most of the British sources mentioned it back during the flare up over the summer, but the general view was apathy.

This piece was vaguely interesting and reflects the level of seriousness given to the debate.

[Reelya]

No, i have specifically addressed things you've said. You're not happy that 'clear monopoly' means total control, i can't help that.

And you're not happy with the sources for "gender-based violence" which state pretty clearly that it IS a monopoly of male-on-female violence. So i have two independent lines of reasoning that she's referring to domestic violence as an exclusively male-on-female form of violence (plus the fact that it's included in a list of sex crimes often limited to female victims. hard to imagine a male "child bride").

Even the new expanded meaning seems to preclude a domineering female partner:

However, there is a development towards extending this definition to all forms of violence that are related to (a) social expectations and social positions based on gender and (b) not conforming to a socially accepted gender-role. In this way gender-based violence is increasingly a term that connects all acts of violence rooted in some form of ‘patriarchal ideology’ (see 1.4), and can thus be committed against both women and men by women and men with the purpose of maintaining social power for (heterosexual) men. This evolution of the definition can be observed in the following description:

the expanded meaning is ALWAYS about expanding male power. Thus precluding pretty much female's beating their husband to control them. If it expands influence for a woman or women in general, it's is by the "new" definition NOT GBV. and if you read further the only "anti-male" examples are of violence against LGBT. I wouldn't be surprised if those are the ONLY anti-male examples ever contemplated in the "improved version".

I'll restate that "gender-based violence" CANNOT mean a woman initiating violence to control a man, by ALL the definitions in use. Unless you accept that women being in control is a "socially accepted gender-role.". I'll assume she's using the accepted meaning.

I've gone over the contents many ways, and i only ever said there was that one weakness in how her argument was presented. I don't need to address every issue in her article, because I only made claims about a single issue she raised.

[Leafsnail]

So, I've noticed the Falkland Islands thing seems to be a big hot button issue for progressives, but I just can't understand how Argentina possible has a claim on them. Does anyone here support then, and can you explain it to me?

According to Wikipedia the UK might've expelled some Argentinian settlers in 1833.  Other than that... Argentina has never held the islands other than for a brief occupation period in 1982, and the islanders identify as British and want to remain British.  Unless that changes I don't think there's any real case at all.

[GlyphGryph]

Well since there seems to be general agreement on that issue, I'll move to the Republican Party in my close neighbour-state of Maine and their newest attempt to unseat a democratic opponent.

By saying we don't want someone who played WoW, because they are violent.

[Leafsnail]

If it weren't for the comments at the top and bottom I'd think it was a campaign to inspire young voters.

[RedKing]

That's pretty lame. I'd have marginally more respect if they said it was because she played Horde or always rolled on gear she couldn't use.

EDIT: Hell, I'd take that comment about upping her DPS as a positive, because it means she's looking at the underlying structure of the game and doing math.

"Colleen Lachowicz: If she can optimize her DPS, she can balance a budget."

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-says-completely-wrong-47-percent-comments-050305729--abc-news-politics.html

I think that's Romney admitting he was wrong? I didn't think that would happen.... Not sure if it could perhaps be because it's become so blatantly obvious of a mistake that he has no choice or what's going on but just wow. I mean, is this borderline Romney showing some semblance of respect for the rest of us who are not rich or what? Pure speculation.

I started quoting a USA today article, but they had some scary looking copyright language down there about not re-posting. I don't really get that, because you'd think linking to their site would give them web traffic/views. So I guess Yahoo.com's news people get the viewers who click on that link instead of USA today. I mean if USA today deosn't want something reposted, then that's cool.

[palsch]

She obviously meant the new, expanded meaning, and not the UNHCR meaning which just coincidentally matched her article's contents 100%

No. Just no.

For starters, you have massively misread what she wrote in the most hostile manner possible, then ignored any attempts to explain why your reading was wrong. You have flat out asserted that she said only men can be violent and then said that it doesn't matter if you were wrong about that because an unrelated definition she doesn't refer to of a term she doesn't precisely use (the one definition of 'gendered' violence as opposed to GBV is of the more general variety) proves that you are right.

You have refused to actually engage on points and have instead skipped away to other, unrelated points rather than actually discuss anything of importance or interest, or to try to actually understand what she is talking about. You haven't once actually discussed the questions of masculinity or male identity that are the point of the article, or maybe looked at the differences between male-on-female and female-on-male domestic violence that may illustrate why the article was written in the first place (that link you use for a definition might be a good starting point).

At this point, what exactly is your view of the article? Do you seriously believe she is calling all men uncontrolled violence beasts or something? Because I think I've lost track of your objections about eight back.

Well since there seems to be general agreement on that issue, I'll move to the Republican Party in my close neighbour-state of Maine and their newest attempt to unseat a democratic opponent.

By saying we don't want someone who played WoW, because they are violent.
[snip]

So long as it was her opponents who thought DPS means Deaths Per Second, I'd be happy to overlook her bad taste in games for her seeming support of trans* performances of the Vagina Monologues.

I think that's Romney admitting he was wrong? I didn't think that would happen.... Not sure if it could perhaps be because it's become so blatantly obvious of a mistake that he has no choice or what's going on but just wow. I mean, is this borderline Romney showing some semblance of respect for the rest of us who are not rich or what? Pure speculation.

I think it's that his debate 'victory' (whatever that actually means) was built on his constantly lying and being a bullying arrogant son-of-a-bitch. His walking back his most publicly well known lie about the 47% makes him look more willing to admit his mistakes/falsehoods, so deflects from everyone on the planet calling him a liar about every other word he said during the debate.

Whether or not it will work is another question.