I think it is human nature to assume, by default, that other people are similar to you. That they feel how you feel, think how you think, would react how you react and that their experiences are similar to yours. I suppose that many times those assumptions would be correct. But, sometimes they are not.
I read the blogs of some men's rights activists. I have learned a lot from them. I have also encountered a lot of hyperbole. Lots of "all women are.." or "all Western women are..." or "99% of women are" or "95% of women are" (you get the picture) types of statements. I have made no secret of the fact that I am no fan of hyperbole, because it makes it harder for others to hear the truth in what you are saying because they get stuck in the hyperbole. After all, probably the only "all women are..." statement that would be factually true would be "all women are female". When people engage in hyperbole their point gets lost because others will point out the factual inaccuracy rather than engaging the substance of the point. Of course it is possible that my nerdiness is what makes me impatient with hyperbole (no blanket assumptions allowed in my nerd-land). But, I think it is more about the fact that there is no need for hyperbole to demonstrate that feminism sucks. Further, the use of hyperbole actually detracts from the case.
Recently Coffee Catholic wrote a blog post addressing the "American women are skanks" bit of hyperbole. I am not comfortable with all the accusations of "whining" that CC makes. And, while I have felt pressured for sex and have been ridiculed by men for not acquiescing, I have found the vast majority of men to be respectful about my boundaries, even if those boundaries ended their interest in me. So, I have not shared CC's experience of feeling hounded or having my mental health affected. But, I do agree that it is disingenuous for a man to complain that women are skanks if he has participated in the "skankification" of women. I agree with her on that point, just like I would agree with a man who said it was disingenuous for a woman to complain about men being "sexually obsessed" when she dresses and behaves provocatively.
Over at MarkyMark's , CC also commented on a post about a related subject which seems to have started quite the discussion. One commenter, a Ruddyturnstone, asserts that CC believes that because she was looking for a long-term commitment when she was young, there must have been lots of other women out there doing the same thing.
RTS goes on to say It's the same old, same old with the women posters here. A man claims that Western women, in general, do X. The women jump on and say, "But I'm not like that" (or, sometimes, they say "But all women aren't like that" or "The women in my little circle of family and friends aren't like that"). Even if it's true, who gives a shit? Who was talking about you, or your sister or niece or even "all" women? It's a GENERALIZATION.
I have certainly made similar comments in response to a comment that was not expressed as a generalization (such as my exchange here with MS). These sorts of statements may have no indicators (meaning that they use words or phrases like: "women in general" or "most women" or "many women" rather than "women") that they are a generalization. Sometimes they have indicators that they are not generalizations ("all women", "each women" etc.).
RTS continues, Most Western women are, in fact, "like that." And what you are doing is derailing the conversation and delegitimizing a valid and generally true critique, and the experiences and observations of the man who made it.....Jeff is to be considered a "whiner" because every single woman he has ever dealt with cheated on him.That's what I meant when I talked about delegitimizing the male perspective. Jeff's experience is set at nought, because it does not jibe with what CC claims is her experience....No, it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time, just as in Jeff's portrayal of them. Very few Western women were virgins looking for marriage throughout their 20's but couldn't find anything but players, as in CC's tale....there really just aren't that many nice girls out there. And there certainly aren't many looking to get married in their 20's.Of course, CC says that SHE was a virgin and all ready, willing and able to marry at age 20, but no men were around who wanted to. And that is where I see the problem. That may very well have been CC's experience, but it is no way typical. And, it in no way nullifies or contradicts what Jeff, or you or I are saying. CC, like some of the other women who post here, is using her experience as way of "trumping" the experiences of men. What we say, even here, even on a blog that is supposed to be about Men Going There Own Way, is subject to being overruled by the experiences of women. (Edited by me, Learner, at the ellipses for length)
This discussion is very curious to me. While I understand the idea that what CC said delegitimized Jeff's experience and agree that is not just or helpful, I confess that it seems to me that both CC and RTS are assuming that their experience and the experiences of people they know is the norm. Quite frankly, I have no idea what the norm is anymore, but I would guess that while feminism has wreaked havoc on western culture, that the norm is not quite as cut and dried as "it doesn't go "both ways." Jeff's tale is pretty much the same as the one almost any Western man could tell you. CC's is an outlier, at best. Western women lie and cheat all the time".
Not everyone has the same experience. CC having a different experience doesn't nullify or trump the experience of men who have experiences similar to Jeff's. But Jeff's experience doesn't nullify CC's experience or the experience of other "outliers" either. Both are valid experiences and are not mutually exclusive. One experience does not have to be false for the other to be true. The problem comes when we assume that everyone's experience is like ours, or like the experience of the people we know. It seems to me that what derails the conversation is the hyperbole.
The problem with both hyperbole about men and women is that both of these issues blame a group of diverse people (men or women in general) instead of the specific persons engaging in the objectionable behaviors and the ideology, feminism, that resulted in the behaviors. When men say all women or all American women are skanks, it makes women the "enemy", just like when women say most men are to blame if women are slutty it makes men the "enemy" (or like when women say that an abused woman shouldn't have to even be in a room with a man because it isn't "safe" it makes all men the "enemy") Both reactions fail to focus on the real problem, which is feminism.
Maybe I am too optimistic (since I am an "idealist"), but I believe that if the hyperbole could be kept to a minimum that there is more of a chance that the truth that feminism is a scourge that is destroying society and the church can be exposed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
i agree with you. it is not that your truth isn't your truth ... it is whether or not i am ... wise enough, mature enough, whatever enough ... to see it and say, "this is your truth, and i believe you. it is not my truth, but it is yours. it does not have to be my truth to be real or true to you."
this is something i've fought against in one form or another most of my life in the church ... from women's minsitries assuming all women have wonderful relationsips with their mothers ... to them assuming all women who are married should have children ... to them assuming all whomen can have children ... to them assuming that b/c i am divorced, i am a woman on the prowl.
i agree with you that there is a bigger issue that is clouding many people's ability to see the truth, regardless of whether or not it is their truth.
*perhaps i should say here that i believe in absolute truth ... that is, that God is God, the only true God, and that His Word never changes and should be our life-blood. i am not referring to relative truth where one might say, for example, that it is wrong to lie ... except if i might get caught or get someone else caught.*
All youse wimmin is like that! :P
*nyah* *nyah* *nyah*
Now that I have the button-pressing out of my system....
Since you invoked a previous thread where I took you to task on the (auto)biographical calendar, I'll roll my comment into this thread.
I said: So, why should I not approach life as if every woman under 50 that I meet is an Entitlement Princess until definitively proven otherwise?
You said: I'm not saying you shouldn't, that is your choice. However, what would be the harm in treating women like individuals and not assuming anything about them at all, either good or bad?
I reply: The harm is that only fools never learn from experience of others, and utter fools never learn even from their own experience.
The collective and shared experience of men in the Western world, and particularly in the United States, is driving men to the conclusion that the number of agreeable, marriageable women is nearly zero.
Using your argument, I should pick up every rock I see and examine it for gold, since I might find some in one of those rocks. If I go outside my door, and say "There are no rocks with gold in this neighborhood", I might be wrong, but the collective experience of those living here indicates that all that is outside are clays, carbonates, and feldspars. No one is staking claims in my neighborhood or panning nearby streams.
So, if I wandered into a room with a random assortment of single women and thought, "None of them are marriageable," I might be wrong. But I'd bet I'd be right more often than not.
"or like when feminists say that an abused woman shouldn't have to even be in a room with a man because it isn't "safe"
Is this really what the "feminists" said? That link about DV services seems to pertain more to wait rooms for abused women going through an acute crisis. Sounds like you're using a bit of hyperbole yourself here, or at least enabling those who use the hyperbole that those who provide those services are "haters".
I must admit that I probably engage myself in a bit of said hyperbole...I suppose it depends on the subject.
And yeah, hyperbole doesn't do much to advance the discourse. But it sure does help some folks vent frustration, that's for sure. Personally, I try to avoid falling into that trap but I'm human and flawed and get ticked off as much as the next guy about the injustice that I see.
Sometimes Learner has called me on it, so I know that I am a hyperbole offender from time to time too.
"So, if I wandered into a room with a random assortment of single women and thought, "None of them are marriageable," I might be wrong. But I'd bet I'd be right more often than not."
Samizdat, the problem with this generalization is that it isn't necessarily true. Now most of those women in the room aren't marriage material, but it's a leap to go from non-specific language like that to 'none are marriage material'.
I suspect that when you say, maybe with a touch of frustration, that 'none of those women are marriageable', you really mean that 'the odds are against me finding a marriage-worthy gal in this pool'. Or something like that.
The trouble I have with generalizations, even though I do it too from time to time, is that they erode credibility. Want a rant blog? Fine. But if one is trying to educate, to convince fence sitters, then credibility becomes important IMHO.
"That link about DV services seems to pertain more to wait rooms for abused women going through an acute crisis. "
No, it's actually about a DV shelter that closed it's doors rather than serve men. The bit about the male-free wait room was just one piece of evidence among several that suggested the DV shelter operators possessed a poor attitude wrt men. I called it a hateful attitude because there is no rational basis to have that opinion, in the presence of facts to the contrary, outside of bigotry.
"it's actually about a DV shelter that closed it's doors rather than serve men."
No, it's about a courthouse program, not a DV shelter. And why are you so quick to think that those involved have a "poor attitude towards men"? It sounds more like they (1) would rather offer services without govt funding than be pushed around by govt bureaucracy (wouldn't that ordinarily make them your personal heroes? (2) and have no objection to services being provided for men, since they seem quite glad to refer them to supports that are more fitting.
I agree that over the years there have been feminist organizations and services that are resolutely negative towards men, but due to more recent regulation and funding requirements, DV services nowadays tend to be quality resources. Consider the fact that most of the women receiving services are straight "man lovers" themselves, a pervailing "man hating" attitude would be counterproductive to the goals of the organization.
For the sake of best practices in working with this kind of trauma, it makes sense for DV services be gender specific at least until the acute phase of the crisis is passed, and that means no surprises -- and for a lot of those women who genuinely have been subjected to hetero domestic violence, arriving to find men there would probably be a surprise (and I imagine the same for male survivors, although I can't speak for men -- and I would imagine that the women in the article were also coming from a place of respectfully not step into the realm of "appropriation").
Yes, there are still some wiggy outposts of feminism out there, but I doubt very much that this is one of them.
Ame,
You mean you are not a woman on the prowl? ;) Seriously though, I agree that sometimes our experiences color our perceptions.
I think that there is a lot of hurt and pain and confusion tied up in these issues for both men and women.
MS,
I hope the opportunity for button pushing made you feel better ;) "Youse"? Are you from NY/NJ? Where I grew up we would say "yinz", but, I digress......
I'm glad you rolled your comment into this post because I thought I may have annoyed you into not responding and that was not my intent.
I would not presume to tell you or any man that you should find a specific woman, or even women in general to be marriagable. I think that is your choice. So, I am not suggesting you "check under every rock" to find a marriageble woman. I'm not suggesting you look anywhere at all.
My concern about all of the "all women are skanks, entitlement princesses, etc, etc" hyperbole isn't because I fear it will cause men to think there are no good women to marry. It is because it impugns the character of good women. When we first became acquainted when I commented on your post over at MarkyMark's I was not objecting to your finding any certain set of women unmarraigeble, I was objecting to the idea that all unmarried women over a certain age are sluts or entitlement proncesses (or whatever else it was....I can't recall). I objected to the characterization, not to the notion of marriagability.
So, when I suggest that you should judge women on an individual basis, I am not referring to how you judge them as potential wives, I am referring to how you judge them as people.
EW,
You are actually pretty good with limiting the hyperbole. I hope I don't annoy you when I "call" you on stuff, it's just that I want people, men and women, to "get it" because I haven't given up hope that things could change. I do understand that it may feel good to rant sometimes. Sometimes people (me included) overstate things in their passion about a subject, and that can alienate some who might otherwise hear and "get it".
Catwoman,
Sounds like you're using a bit of hyperbole yourself here, or at least enabling those who use the hyperbole that those who provide those services are "haters".
To quote one of my all-time favorite movie characters, Inigo Montoya: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Even though it appears self evident to me that the attitudes of the women running that DV program are feminist, women first, attitudes, I changed the word to "women" in the post for you.
(2) and have no objection to services being provided for men, since they seem quite glad to refer them to supports that are more fitting.
Actually they do object to providing services to men, they opted to close rather than do so.
I agree that over the years there have been feminist organizations and services that are resolutely negative towards men, but due to more recent regulation and funding requirements, DV services nowadays tend to be quality resources.
Or not. When was the last time you saw or heard a DV PSA that was about anything other than male on female violence where the woman is the innocent victim?
Consider the fact that most of the women receiving services are straight "man lovers" themselves, a pervailing "man hating" attitude would be counterproductive to the goals of the organization.
What do you think the goals of the organization are? If they are such men lovers where is the concern for male victims? Instead what male victims get it told that they don't get the same services as women victims do, because it might traumatize the women to even be in their presence. That concept is inherently man hating.
Keep in mind that the reason most of the people receiving DV services are hetero women is because DV services are often geared toward (even restricted to)hetero women even though DV committed by women against both men and women is a significant issue.
The idea that it would be traumatic for a woman who was abused by a man to even be in the same room as another man because it wouldn't be safe encourages the idea that men in general are not safe to be around. This is prejudice, pure and simple. How do we know a woman would not have been comforted to know there was a man in the room?
"Even though it appears self evident to me that the attitudes of the women running that DV program are feminist, women first, attitudes, I changed the word to "women" in the post for you."
Although I would reckon that many or most of those volunteers would call themselves feminists, I don't think that necessarily means that their attitudes are "women first".
"Actually they do object to providing services to men, they opted to close rather than do so."
They just don't want to be the ones providing that service, referring men to services that could meet their needs. Not all social services need to be gender specific, but rape crisis and DV services happen to be area where it makes sense. Believing this to be the case does not make one a feminist or a "women firster".
"When was the last time you saw or heard a DV PSA that was about anything other than male on female violence where the woman is the innocent victim?"
Women who are innocent victims should use those services, that should be their target market (in other words, female batterers and mutual batterers would best self-select themselves away from DV services and get some other kind of help). Men's groups who provide similar supports are welcome to seek the airtime for their services.
"What do you think the goals of the organization are? If they are such men lovers where is the concern for male victims? Instead what male victims get it told that they don't get the same services as women victims do, because it might traumatize the women to even be in their presence. That concept is inherently man hating."
All social service organizations have limits to their mandates, because not all problems across all populations are the same -- I work in a social service resource that services adults only, and that does **not** make us child hating, any more that DV services are "man hating". Some services are best provided gender specifically -- example, in addictions treatment some groups sessions are co-ed and some are gender specific (particularly those that have to do with sexual abuse, whether the clients are male or female). It's also obvious that availability of services is based on client demand (and where demand is lacking, there's usually some other way of servicing the victims of crime).
"Keep in mind that the reason most of the people receiving DV services are hetero women is because DV services are often geared toward (even restricted to)hetero women even though DV committed by women against both men and women is a significant issue."
No. Women are more likely to voluntarily seek social support services of almost every kind, even on issues that are more like to affect men, such as addiction (men usually seek addiction services at a later age, and after struggling for longer with the problem).
"The idea that it would be traumatic for a woman who was abused by a man to even be in the same room as another man because it wouldn't be safe encourages the idea that men in general are not safe to be around."
Some women might find it comforting, some might not. The further along in her recovery, the less of an issue it's likely to be, I would think. But as I was saying about initial trauma support of any kind, it's all about keeping surprises to a minimum. And I think these policies probably come more from professional experience and client feedback than ideology. What's more, if safety's the consideration here, it might be in the best interests of a man who is a survivor of his wife's domestic violence of him not to be surrounded by a group of women who may be unpredictably angry, scared, confused?
I think it is human nature to assume, by default, that other people are similar to you. That they feel how you feel, think how you think, would react how you react and that their experiences are similar to yours.
Hey, I think you just summed up the cause of a lot of the dysfunction we see in gender relationships in two sentences.
I do agree that it is disingenuous for a man to complain that women are skanks if he has participated in the "skankification" of women.
Absolutely true. (I actually attempted to make a similar point over there at MarkyMark's but I don't think it hit home.) Unfortunately, it seems that that is lost oftentimes in the MRA world. I enjoy reading some of the stuff but I can't say there aren't men out there imposing double standards in that regard--which is ungood given they know first-hand how damaging such double standards are. Every (wrong) action has a reaction, and if they only serve to perpetuate each other then it seems they are both contributors to the problem.
(Edited by me, Learner, at the ellipses for length)
Wow. I've never seen an explanation that in-depth for editorial omissions. I can't even remember seeing an explanation for "..." omissions in a quote. Just thought I'd point that out.
When men say all women or all American women are skanks, it makes women the "enemy"...Both reactions fail to focus on the real problem, which is feminism.
I'm not convinced the intent of men saying that about women or AW is intended to focus on the problem, but rather the solution, if you will. If most AW will burn you if you get too intimate with them and you can't tell which ones won't, then your best--only?--defense is to assume they're all "the enemy" unless you have beyond-absolute proof to the contrary. Is this wise advice to give to a young man who hasn't yet had a chance to gather enough data to evaluate that? Well, no, but it is helpful to read and learn as a defense mechanism anyway. So I don't see that as an argument as much as an example or, at most, a suggestion.
I believe that if the hyperbole could be kept to a minimum that there is more of a chance that the truth that feminism is a scourge that is destroying society and the church can be exposed.
It's not a matter of getting truth out there, it's a matter of people accepting it. I think most people can see what's happening, but they're too protective of their own self-interests, too proud to admit being wrong, or whatever to accept what they can see is true. The evidence that feminism has been a raw deal for society is simply that overwhelming, but there are a lot of people who would have to back down and change too much for that truth to ever gain wide acceptance in this society. Maybe in the society that follows after us, but not in ours.
Catwoman,
I don't want this thread to get derailed into a discussion about DV, so Im not going there any further. I suggest you take your comments on the subject over to EW's blog post on the subject that I linked to.
I'll pass.
I just wanted to make my point about your hyperbole.
Jesse,
Wow. I've never seen an explanation that in-depth for editorial omissions.
Um....more evidence I am a nerd.
I saw your comment over at MarkyMark's and saw the reaction. I think that sort of thing is hard for unbelieving men to accept.
It's not a matter of getting truth out there, it's a matter of people accepting it. I think most people can see what's happening, but they're too protective of their own self-interests, too proud to admit being wrong, or whatever to accept what they can see is true.
I was not clear when I used the word "hear". I meant to get across not actually "hearing" but being able to see the truth in it. I think you are giving most people more credit for grasping the truth about feminism than I would. I talk to women all the time who have never considered an alternative point of view. Certainly most popular media don't tell the truth about feminism.
I guess I don't understand how impugning the character of every American woman is a solution to the problem. Perhaps you can answer this question for me: If the intent is a defense mechanism, why say "all american women are skanks (or will burn you)" instead of "it's too hard to tell who is a skank (really?) or will burn you (I understand better how this may be hard to tell) to risk having a relationship with an american woman". The first statement makes all women the problem and thus the "enemy", the second does not, but still makes the "defense point."
Um, catwoman, like I said before, I does not seem that you are grasping the meaning of the word "hyperbole". Inconceivable! LOL
Oops, I meant "it does not seem", not "I does not seem".
Just a thought, here...
I appreciate your overall message in this post, that both men and women who would otherwise engage in conversation to learn about each other's gender can end up running aground on the rocks of hyperbole, when personal nerves get hit. But I don't think the problem is solved by deflecting the hyperbole off women and onto feminism either. Don't get me wrong, I do think there's plenty of sacred feminist cows to slaughter (and re-slaughter), but too often, it just provides another big excuse to blame women, when there may be other (personal) issues at play -- I'm think of Anakin's post about menleavechurch.com and how nearly everyone on that thread figured that this was a guy with other issues at hand. Hyperbole directed towards feminism only seems to encourage (and not in a good way) those particular guys. I can see you've gotten a bit of it on this thread too.
Well, Catwoman, I have got to get to bed (because I get to spend the day with my niece tomorrow....woo hoo!!!!... and she is going to run me ragged, so I need my sleep). But, let me just say this: things that are factually accurate are not hyperbole. I don't see anything in the post or comments here (even before my women for feminist edit) that is factually not accurate about feminism.
I think that you'd be hard pressed to prove everything you said as fact. Let's just say you're entitled to your opinion and call it a night.
There's a part of me that's disappointed that catwoman has declined to engage further on this issue of DV.
I disagree with her rosy opinion of DV shelters and what I see as their unsavory associations with men-r-beasts feminist groups who influence their funding streams.
But as you say, that discussion is a bit off the topic of this thread and may be better suited over at my joint.
Jesse: I too liked your post over at Marky's. I find that the uzem and luzem strategy of some guys, in reaction to the perceived low quality of women in the dating world, does both men and women a disservice. Thanks for pointing out to those involved in that discussion that just because some women like to wallow in muck doesn't mean that we men need to follow their lead.
I think that sort of thing is hard for unbelieving men to accept.
Guess so. I tried to stay away from dropping "God," "Christian," or any other loaded words, but it didn't work. In fairness, though, they did make some very good points that blew holes in some of my arguments.
I talk to women all the time who have never considered an alternative point of view.
After thinking about it I guess I don't find that surprising; it's not like I often have conversations with women about such subjects (or, well, any subject really) anyway, so I wouldn't know. I do think it's much different for men though, at least younger men who haven't exactly been raised to view marriage and "the boring life" as a wonderful thing. I thought for the longest time that I was a bit of a loner among men for despising feminism and feminists so much, but in recent years I've realized that when the topic comes up most (secular) single men my age are in agreement, not only on feminism but on the dangers of marriage, and as a consequence are in no hurry at all to actually get serious about women or marriage. I don't talk to Christian men as much about it, but I don't know that there are enough churchgoing single men my age to make a dent in the overall trend anyway. This doesn't seem to bode well for our society.
why say "all american women are skanks (or will burn you)" instead of "it's too hard to tell who is a skank (really?) or will burn you (I understand better how this may be hard to tell) to risk having a relationship with an american woman"
I would sure think there's hyperbole there for the vast majority of men, and yes, they would do their cause and women a favor by throwing in a qualifier or two. I'm simply pointing out that men who say that sort of stuff aren't necessarily trying to put forth an argument as much as an observation. But again, I think that's the intent of men who say that, even if they use hyperbole in their words. It's as Marky himself has pointed out before: when the odds of exceptions are statistically insignificant to the naked eye, then you just assume everyone you meet is the same and don't think much of it (a dangerous place to be wrt any issue). And I guess the choices of words reflect that. Though I'm sure bitterness and angst has a lot to do with me and others overstating positions from time to time.
@Learner:
You say: When men say all women or all American women are skanks, it makes women the "enemy"....Both reactions fail to focus on the real problem, which is feminism.
No, no, no. That is exactly wrong.
The problem is not feminism. It is feminists.
An idea or principle is inert if no one is carrying it through. Feminism, however, is carried just about every American woman I have met (I can name exactly 2 who didn't have the feminist virus). I'd say it's a good bet that my experience is typical unless you're Amish or a Hasidic Jew (in which case your community disapproves of you reading blogs). You don't believe feminism is ubiquitous? Just observe at all the skanks that feed on every word that comes from the mouth of Oprah Windbag.
You want me not to impugn the character of good women? I maintain that any woman who subscribes to feminism is not a good woman, and moreover, silence implies consent. If you're not opposing feminism in word and deed, as far as I'm concerned, you advocate it.
EW,
There's a part of me that's disappointed that catwoman has declined to engage further on this issue of DV.
Yeah, I debated if I should continue here about DV because Catwoman is quite misinformed, but based on my past interactions with her I didn't want to get dragged into a tangential subject in this post. I wasn't really disappointed she didn't take her argument to your thread because I was fairly certain she would not. It's typically not her MO to be open to the actual facts about an issue (and if she disagrees with me on that point, again I welcome her to prove me wrong on EW's thread on the subject).
Jesse,
I haven't got much time now, but I'll come back to your comment later...I need to think about it.
MS,
I'm not sure how you could have feminists without the feminist ideology, but it is also true that you can't have feminism without feminists. Okay, then for the sake of the discussion let's change feminism to feminist in my point (it doesn't really change my point).
You say feminism is ubiquitous. I agree. However that still does not make all women feminists any more than the rapid decline in sexual morals makes all women whores and all men whore mongers.
So, I am still left with the question...why does it have to be all women are X?
Oops, MS I should have said that you say feminists are ubiquitous.
Sorry Learner, I missed this:
"I hope I don't annoy you when I "call" you on stuff, it's just that I want people, men and women, to "get it" because I haven't given up hope that things could change."
No you don't annoy me, because if you call me on something and your point is valid, then I am duty bound to change my behavior.
If I conclude your point wasn't valid, then I address it just like any other disagreement and attempt to bridge the gap with more facts or simply rebut the assertion.
Constructive criticism just strengthens my arguments--or demonstrates where they are weak and either need to be repudiated or recast with more/different evidence.
By far the biggest thing you've called me on was that post a few months back where I wandered into the dark side of the force and all but endorsed non-believing men using women as sex objects, just as those heathen women are using men as success objects.
That was a watershed moment for me that illustrated how easy it is to fall prey to vice while one is busy fighting it.
I still owe you a debt of gratitude for that.
MS,
In my haste I forgot this question. I accept that your definition of a good woman does not include feminists, or women who are not actively anti-feminist (if I am understanding you). Not all feminists are skanks though....is it acceptable to call a women who is a feminist a skank when she isn't one?
EW,
You're welcome, your gracious response at the time humbled me bro.
Jesse,
God sets the standard for human behavior, not society. And yes they are impossible to meet in our fallen nature. That is why Jesus died for us. Of course even though God holds all of us to the same standard we are not in a position to force others to accept that standard as their own. So I wouldn't presume to tell those guys how they should live their lives. However, there are consequences for not following God's ways. But, as we both said before, it is shady to complain that women sleep around if you sleep around yourself.
I think a lot of women tacitly accept feminism because they have been fed a lot of lies and have not heard the other side of the story. If there is any hope that things will change (and I believe there is because I know that God can change people's hearts) women need to hear the truth.
I think perhaps too that some men do not think things can or will change so they don't care about making the truth unnecessarily difficult for women ot hear.
EW said "There's a part of me that's disappointed that catwoman has declined to engage further on this issue of DV. I disagree with her rosy opinion of DV shelters and what I see as their unsavory associations with men-r-beasts feminist groups who influence their funding streams."
Excuse me? Did I present a "rosy opinion" of DV shelters? More exaggeration and hyperbole here. I said that nowadays, they **tend** to be quality resources, due to licencing and funding requirements. Are there exceptions? Of course, just as there are poor quality autobody shops with outmoded technology. There's a trend towards DV shelters becoming just shelters, for example, a woman two months off crack can go there with her children if her partner is still using and making life difficult for them (not nec. violence). I agree that men should also be provided with similar supports (and are -- ever heard of the Salvation Army?), but few people in the social welfare field would recommend that both genders in a relationship crisis should be housed together.
Learner (pompously) said: "I debated if I should continue here about DV because Catwoman is quite misinformed, but based on my past interactions with her I didn't want to get dragged into a tangential subject in this post....It's typically not her MO to be open to the actual facts about an issue (and if she disagrees with me on that point, again I welcome her to prove me wrong on EW's thread on the subject)."
Where here have you actually provided any facts for me to open to? Again, what you've you've offered here are **opinions** --which any of us are more than welcome to do.
With a lack of reading comprehension and a case of the crankypants, Catwoman said: Where here have you actually provided any facts for me to open to? Again, what you've you've offered here are **opinions** --which any of us are more than welcome to do.
In response to what I said which was: I debated if I should continue here about DV because Catwoman is quite misinformed, but based on my past interactions with her I didn't want to get dragged into a tangential subject in this post....It's typically not her MO to be open to the actual facts about an issue (and if she disagrees with me on that point, again I welcome her to prove me wrong on EW's thread on the subject)
I said based on my past interactions. I was referring to typical past interactions with you. If you want an example, you and I recently had an exchange about certain facts over at Anakin's.
EW, if you saw Catwoman's most recent comment here and want to respond here it is fine with me, because it seems she does not want to address the issue at your blog.
I'm sorry but "crankypants" is you having nothing to say but based-on-past-interactions-she's-quite-misinformed, as if that really means anything.
I'm sorry but "crankypants" is you having nothing to say but based-on-past-interactions-she's-quite-misinformed, as if that really means anything.
Again with the lack of reading comprehension. I didn't say "based-on-past-interactions-she's-quite-misinformed". I said "Yeah, I debated if I should continue here about DV because Catwoman is quite misinformed, but based on my past interactions with her I didn't want to get dragged into a tangential subject in this post. I wasn't really disappointed she didn't take her argument to your thread because I was fairly certain she would not. It's typically not her MO to be open to the actual facts about an issue (and if she disagrees with me on that point, again I welcome her to prove me wrong on EW's thread on the subject)."
So, I opted to not derail the discussion and suggested an alternate venue for you to have that discussion (EW's post). I said that I was not surprised that you did not avail yourself of that suggestion based on my past interactions with you (and it appears that I was correct). Also I did not say you were misinformed in general, I said you were misinformed about DV.
"I did not say you were misinformed in general, I said you were misinformed about DV."
Excuse me? What right do you have to say that I'm "misinformed about DV", based on anything from this blog or any other??
Catwoman,
Well, I suppose it's the same right you have to say all the things you do.
Did I say that pompously? Or perhaps pedantically?
Perhaps I am wrong about you being misinformed about DV. Your responses led me to believe that you think DV is a women's issue. And that, would be a misinformed position.
"Your responses led me to believe that you think DV is a women's issue."
If you think that anything I've written here would lead anyone to believe that I think DV is exclusively a women's issue, then perhaps you'd do well to look at yourself and your own **biases**.
I didn't say exclusively, Catwoman.
You said : "It's quite troubling when some people have taken the rhetoric so far that to discuss any issue relating to women (ie. that DV shelters for women might still be necessary and have largely improved) is to risk being branded as a feminist or siding with feminists."
So if I refer to DV as an "issue relating to women", but that doesn't mean "exclusively a women's issue", then what's your problem?
Catwoman,
I'm not sure what you want here.
You asked:"Excuse me? What right do you have to say that I'm "misinformed about DV", based on anything from this blog or any other??"
I answered: "Your responses led me to believe that you think DV is a women's issue. And that, would be a misinformed position."
You answered "If you think that anything I've written here would lead anyone to believe that I think DV is exclusively a women's issue, then perhaps you'd do well to look at yourself and your own **biases**."
I responded that "I didn't say exclusively," I said this because I didn't say exclusively. You don't have to think that DV is exclusively a woman's issue to be misinformed about DV. Most people believe that even though some men are victims of DV, that DV is an issue that primarily effects women. That is a misinformed position.
More back pedalling.
"You don't have to think that DV is exclusively a woman's issue to be misinformed about DV."
LOL- From the looks of the Gender Gap Revisited thread, I'd say you're proof of that!
Catwoman,
I could ask you how I am backpedaling or how I am misinformed, but since you find my questions so trying I won't.
In order to remove any risk of me asking you any more questions I am asking you to not post any more comments to this blog for at least the next 30 days. If you choose to not honor my request I will delete any and all comments you post on this blog for at least the next 30 days regardless of the content.
That means I will delete any comments coming from your IP address, your employer's IP address, as well as any that originate from your city and province.
After 30 days, if either my ability to tolerate your commenting style increases, or your ability to turn the snark and sarcasm down increases, you are welcome to comment here again. If you choose not to, that is your option as well.
Post a Comment