Print

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

[Reelya]

This is why we need to self-police. Because otherwise, we will become a totally dogmatic tribe, and then women will suffer.

I can cite research suggesting the dogmatic male/perp <> female/victim dichotomy in fact creates more female victims.

For example, read up the wiki page for the Duluth Model of treating domestic violence, it's based on the "patriarchy made them do it" model so they focus entirely on "deprogramming / re-education" of the male's patriarchal attitudes. And proponents of the model are actively hostile to things such as teaching anger management, conflict resolution skills, and other psychological bases for why people are aggressive or violent. Because to admit that other factors exist would be to admit that the "patriarchy made them do it" argument isn't 100% the truth. e.g. if you admitted that anger management could reduce wife battering, then you're admitting that there's some actual trigger that caused the man to get angry, not just "wanting to control his woman", which the Duluth people are all about.

Even one of the main creators of the program now calls the entire thing out as bullshit. She says now that almost zero % of men were professing attitudes that they were "supposed" to, but the proponents of the model only saw what they wanted and decided that 100% of the men were lying or in denial, and were really getting violent in an attempt to control the women, and not the actually multitude of reasons the men said were the cause. But "the program" cannot be questioned, and that founders's doubts are now taboo, they only selectively quote her when promoting "the program".

The Duluth model has one of those trick self-selection issues when they report the "success" of the program. People who attended every meeting were less likely to re-offend than people who didn't. But the problem is that when you conduct a controlled trial, participants in the Duluth Model are no less likely to re-offend than those who never participated in any program. People who are less likely to re-offend just attend more sessions on average. They have the causation backwards. So in fact it's a convoluted pile of bullshit which has come to completely dominate how people try and deal with domestic batterers that has an overall zero % success rate, and is actually hostile to proven clinical approaches that actually work.

[TheBiggerFish]

This is why we need to self-police. Because otherwise, we will become a totally dogmatic tribe, and then women will suffer.

I can cite research suggesting the dogmatic male/perp <> female/victim dichotomy in fact creates more female victims.

For example, read up the wiki page for the Duluth Model of treating domestic violence, it's based on the "patriarchy made them do it" model so they focus entirely on "deprogramming / re-education" of the male's patriarchal attitudes. And proponents of the model are actively hostile to things such as teaching anger management, conflict resolution skills, and other psychological bases for why people are aggressive or violent. Because to admit that other factors exist would be to admit that the "patriarchy made them do it" argument isn't 100% the truth. e.g. if you admitted that anger management could reduce wife battering, then you're admitting that there's some actual trigger that caused the man to get angry, not just "wanting to control his woman", which the Duluth people are all about.

Even one of the main creators of the program now calls the entire thing out as bullshit. She says now that almost zero % of men were professing attitudes that they were "supposed" to, but the proponents of the model only saw what they wanted and decided that 100% of the men were lying or in denial, and were really getting violent in an attempt to control the women, and not the actually multitude of reasons the men said were the cause. But "the program" cannot be questioned, and that founders's doubts are now taboo, they only selectively quote her when promoting "the program".

The Duluth model has one of those trick self-selection issues when they report the "success" of the program. People who attended every meeting were less likely to re-offend than people who didn't. But the problem is that when you conduct a controlled trial, participants in the Duluth Model are no less likely to re-offend than those who never participated in any program. People who are less likely to re-offend just attend more sessions on average. They have the causation backwards. So in fact it's a convoluted pile of bullshit which has come to completely dominate how people try and deal with domestic batterers that has an overall zero % success rate, and is actually hostile to proven clinical approaches that actually work.

Same way as AA does it...

[Reelya]

Yeah, that did come to mind when I read the stuff, it's the same phenomena that AA uses exactly to report the "good news". AA reports that 80% of it's members have been sober for over 1 year. Big Success! But only 5% of people who walk through the door last 1 year. Not sounding like such a great statistic now, especially considering that AA themselves claim that if you stop going to AA you'll end up dead, in an asylum or in prison. So by their own logic, they fail to help 95% of people who go to them. And if you think it's an exaggeration that they claim you'll die if you leave, it's even mentioned in this pro-AA piece:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/anna-david/aa-saved-my-life-and-i-get-why-you-hate-it_b_7978690.html

I fully understand why people would hate the meetings, detest the steps, balk at the idea that they’ll end up in an institution or dead if they don’t follow the program, flinch at the pressure they may feel to identify themselves as alcoholic before they’ve even had time to process what’s going on and rail against the idea that God is mentioned.

But that's enough on that other than to point out that it's weirdly similar to how the "anti-patriarchy" batterers treatment programs justify themselves. The other similar thing is that AA isn't quite a religion, but it might as well be, and the Duluth Model proponents are also equally as dogmatic as a religion. Both deny the attendees own words and experience and try and pigeonhole them into a "model" of how things supposedly work: "born alcoholics" on one side and "patriarchy-trained abusers" on the other side. Both expect the attendees to give up whatever opinions they have on the matter and simply repeat the mantras they're told to repeat, and mirror the beliefs of those running the program. They say AA forces you to reshape how you view your history to fit "the model" and Duluth sounds similar.

[misko27]

Dozebom, why do you keep using the phrase "dogmatic tribe"? Both of those are words that make sense on their own, but it's a strange combination. An entire tribe of dogmatists? Why a tribe, in particular? Why not just a dogma? Dogma is a word that stands on its own, you know.

Spoiler: Addressed to Dozebom (click to show/hide)

Yet another rant.

I think that ranting is counter-productive to discussion because it generally means that you just want to be understood.

But then I immediately felt a strong sense of shame, and a compulsion to add - "Not As Bad. My problems are Not As Bad as those girls."
...
And anyway, why does it matter? It's not like I'm going around and saying "I survived a thought experiment in which I was asked out, therefore sexism isn't really a problem." Why would I feel the need to say that?

Have you noticed that you are discussing your own reactions? I mean that's fine and all, but I'm a little skeptical of points that seem to say "I feel X, therefore Y is true because Y -> X", because it doesn't actually show that Y is true, that Y->X is true, or hell even that X is true. Maybe you're just a guilty personality?

After a few moments of pondering, the answer seemed obvious - because of my peers.

I'm noticing a lot of "seems" and "feels" and "appears" in your rant. Why is it because of your peers? Why not your parents, or TV, or the internet, or that upperclassmen that picked on you in third grade?

There is not a significant difference between "make a speech in your head" and "talk online to people."

Citation needed?

There's no such thing as interruption, so the minor difference between "headspeech" and "RLspeech" is gone.

Citation most certainly needed.

So it is quite plausible that the same policing tendencies might be present in both.

Again with the "plausible". Not to accuse you of anything, but you realize that those are weasel words, right? You are just worming your way out of making a definite statement.

Why couldn't I say "this is similar to what girls experience" on Reddit without the qualifier of NAB?

I don't know, why can't you? Have you tried it out?

I can't really imagine how somebody could misinterpret it, but I'd bet a grand someone would. (If I had a grand, which I don't.)

So you haven't tried it out, is what you are saying. Perhaps you might want to actually make such an experiment, and then ask the people who misinterpret you what they thought you meant?

But why is that necessary?

Nothing is necessary in a vacuum. Necessary is useful when given qualifiers, i.e. "Necessary to get 100 coins to unlock the bonus level".

If I have slipped on the ice and fallen on my posterior and hurt myself, I will say "ouch." I will say "we should clear this ice." I will get the salt. I will not say "but of course, this isn't as bad as poor John who sprained his ankle on the ice."

Can we imagine situations where that isn't true? Perhaps John needs medical attention and you don't, and you want people to help John instead of worrying about you.

Well, it's necessary because some people seem to enjoy interpreting men in the worst light that they possibly can.

Necessary for what? Who is "some people"? Where did they come in? Are they on reddit, or elsewhere? Are they just imagined representations of someone? Why do you know what they enjoy doing? And why do you care?

Yes, this isn't just about social justice. This is a general problem for all groups.

But what is a problem for all groups? The fact that some people hate men? The fact that you are scared of posting on reddit? I don't get it.

Since just because you have a point, it doesn't mean you are right.

What?? I kind of get the rest of your post, and I agree; also keep in mind that I was not responding directly to you. You probably inspired me, that's all.

A point is not the end-point of an argument, but a single part of it. In regards to this rant though, I'd argue you have a point, but no argument to support it.

Social justice in general has some bigger flaws than "some feminists are corrupt". Take, for instance, how any CEO/manager/whatsit who criticizes gay marriage gets pressure to resign. Take the mayor who accidentally seemed slightly racist, and subsequently resigned. Take the motte-and-baileys. We have some big problems, and they won't get fixed if criticism is suppressed.

I would imagine that people who resign probably would also resign if they said anything politically unpopular. That's just the nature of being the public face of a company. You don't get to say whatever you want. I don't see why it is necessarily true that because a CEO cannot criticize whatever he wants, that criticism is necessarily being supressed. You'd have to make the argument that no one else is criticizing them, or that CEO's are the people who are supposed to criticize and thus their supression is an attack on that.

A vote in favor of not-suppressing-criticism, and instead suppressing prejudice!

How is anyone supposed to know what is criticism and what is predjudice if the difference apparently depends on how you, personally, feel about it?

It's not actually off-topic so much as really long because of the quoting, because Dozebom didn't write in paragraphs and thus my response is also broken up into a million comments. But the short version is that my problem with you, Doze, is that you made a thought experiment, decided it fit reality, and then took an ever more expansive view of what it was supposed to mean while still avoiding actually explaining your assumptions. You ask "Why do I feel this way?" and my response is "I don't know, ask a psychologist." I don't know how and why you feel certain things you know, but there is a world of difference between explaining why you feel something in response to certain stimuli, and explaining the world in terms of your emotional response to certain stimuli. If you had done something the rest of us could have shared, such as given me an example of this actually happening (perhaps online?), I could have done something. But you imagined one thing, and just assumed the rest followed.

I'm annoyed because you do have a point you are trying to express (as opposed to just killing time), but you've taken away my ability to discuss it because there's no complete argument connecting it, only "seems" and "should"s and "plausible"s and "obviously"s. Even your thought experiment is entirely about your own theoretical mental/emotional reaction to a certain situation, which none of us can share if we don't have that same reaction in a thought experiment; nor have you proved that if we do have the same reaction, it's for the same reason. Personally if someone did ask me out, I would be quite pleased and say yes! (unless it's a man; in which case I'd be flattered, but would politely decline). But if I wanted to argue that my reaction says anything about anyone else or about the world in general, I'd have to explain why I thought so. So why does your reaction explain anything?

Put another way, I'm not arguing that your point is wrong, but that whatever your point is, you haven't actually argued it yet.

[Neonivek]

Ok here is something that is just WEEEEIRD when you think about it.

Both Men AND Women have an idea of their own personal ideal sexuality.

Or let me say that in a way that is hopefully clearer.

The male ideal of male sexuality... Is different and often contrary to the female ideal of male sexuality.

The same likewise applies to women. Their idea of ideal female sexuality... is different and often contrary to the male ideal of female sexuality.

---

I find it perplexing on some level that as a species that we aren't a bit more compatible

Actually... Why is it that we aren't more compatible? Is there a reason why this is beneficial?

[Edmus]

The media's oddly specific forms of sexualisation(that aren't overly desirable to many people) are pretty silly, I agree.
People tend to be more flexible when you get to know them though.

[Solifuge]

Ok here is something that is just WEEEEIRD when you think about it.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. You're saying that Men collectively have commonalities in their sexualities (as do Women), which are somehow opposite when divided along biosex / gender lines or something? Can you explain what these ideals are in your mind? Or I guess, provide examples of what they might be if you meant this as an individual thing with common themes based on someone's sex? Also, are you talking about what kind of people are attractive to them, or the ways in which they want to have sex, or what?

I think I disagree with part of the argument, but I want to be sure I understand the point you're making first.

[Reelya]

From a biologic point of view, it makes sense that both gender's "ideals" for the other one are unrealistic. It's what drives us to select the "best" mate. If our expectations were only average, it wouldn't be optimal from a genetic point of view.

Sure, it might suck for us if our expectations are always unrealistic, and we're "settling" for the "best that actually exists" but that drive is a good thing from the genes' point of view. Genes don't care about us being happy with what already exists.

[Tiruin]

Ok here is something that is just WEEEEIRD when you think about it.

Both Men AND Women have an idea of their own personal ideal sexuality.

Or let me say that in a way that is hopefully clearer.

The male ideal of male sexuality... Is different and often contrary to the female ideal of male sexuality.

The same likewise applies to women. Their idea of ideal female sexuality... is different and often contrary to the male ideal of female sexuality.

---

I find it perplexing on some level that as a species that we aren't a bit more compatible

Actually... Why is it that we aren't more compatible? Is there a reason why this is beneficial?

Beep boop Cultural context I believe is western? It all feels very applicably generalizing if seen overall but there's a lot of differences that don't make it as it seemed when first said in cultural contexts.

Seems like you're going about with a cognitive structure/construct there. :O Deconstruct and specify further; you can't apply something too general as it'll only seem applicable in impressions.

[Helgoland]

PTW. If this thread has made it so far, there's bound to be some interesting stuff coming up.

[TempAcc]

Ye, its actualy pretty normal for unrealistic gender standards to exist. They have existed since pre-history, and while it has certainly changed since then (and varied a lot between cultures), it has never ceased to exist and likely never will. In fact, every attempt I see of "lol u guys everyone is pretty, standards are evil nazi things" just ends up upholding a standard in the end, albeit a different one from the norm.

[Neonivek]

Ok here is something that is just WEEEEIRD when you think about it.

I'm not sure I follow what you mean. You're saying that Men collectively have commonalities in their sexualities (as do Women), which are somehow opposite when divided along biosex / gender lines or something? Can you explain what these ideals are in your mind? Or I guess, provide examples of what they might be if you meant this as an individual thing with common themes based on someone's sex? Also, are you talking about what kind of people are attractive to them, or the ways in which they want to have sex, or what?

I think I disagree with part of the argument, but I want to be sure I understand the point you're making first.

Goodness judging by your and everyone elses posts I did not make myself clear at all.

What I mean is that if you take what men consider to be "Super Sexy" in terms of men (What men are the sexiest and what are the sexiest men)...

It will not be the same traits women would consider to be super sexy male traits...

In fact... What men to find super sexy in other men... are often turn offs in women.

---

In fact... Why even have this as a trait?

Why have men find certain male traits attractive and desirable... If women find them abhorrent?

And likewise why have women find certain female traits attractive and desirable... If men find them abhorrent?

Yeah men and women have commonalities... But why is there such a difference between the two?

---

The one thing I can guess... judging by these traits is...

Competition within the genders (Not for mates).

And finding traits that would be considered "sexy" or "attractive" in yourself means you will actively seek it out in order to one up your peers who would typically be gender segregated anyhow in nature.

And the fact that these traits aren't shared could be a way to limit it in some way.

[Tiruin]

Context.
It's what is broadcasted that seems or is figured to be 'appealing', rather than what is being told to you is what is.

You've to be a lot more specific there because from my viewpoint, while I can assume what you're talking about given my access to media from other places, it can be REALLY off the mark!

[misko27]

If you could provide a specific example, Neo, it would help a lot. Like... beards or something.

[ECrownofFire]

Obviously this is all solved by simply being attracted to the same gender!