Please explain to me the thought process that started with “I should apologize to anyone offended by the fact that I am talking about male victims of Intimate Partner Violence,” and ended by linking to a story about to lesbian parents abusing their child.
In all seriousness, I would like you to explain how that thought process worked. I’m really interested in understanding how you came to the conclusion that linking to a story about to lesbian parents abusing their child would result in a sincere apology to anyone offended by the fact that I am talking about male victims of Intimate Partner Violence.
Just go through the your thought process step-by-step, please. One logical conclusion to the next. Something like:
[ol]
[li]I decided that I should apologize for discussing male victims of intimate violence[/li][li]…[/li][li]And therefore of course I linked to a story about lesbian parents abusing their child.[/li][/ol]
It’s the “…” that I’m really interested in. Thanks.
Indeed we have, CCitizen. You’ve cited this before and I responded to this before. May I remind you that the study itself reports the following:
No-one is offended by your insistence that men are also victims of IPV. What’s offensive is that you chose an example of child abuse by some lesbians to illustrate your point. Nobody here is defending child abusers just because they happen to be women.
Men should be aware of hundreds of feminist ``scholarly" works which excuse and trivialize the abuse suffered by male victims of Intimate Partner Violence. Of course #NotAllFeminists excuse abuse of men, but men should know about these #NotAllFeminists.
I have read many studies on the subject, and have no time for that biased paper.
Bumping to provide an update to something that was discussed earlier on in the thread. Gregory Elliot was a Canadian man who was charged with criminal harrassment over a Twitter exchange with Stephanie Guthrie and Heather Reilly. Today, he was found not guilty. I donated to his legal fund, so it’s probably not a surprise that I fully support the judges ruling on this or that I think it was the right call.
It appeared to be a case of “lawfare.” Using the courts to harass your political opponents – a method which Scientology is also so fond of. I hate that kind of abusing of the court system; people who are found to be guilty of it should be harshly punished.
The verdict sounds correct. But the verdict is simply about the facts. He was accused of harassment to the point of the victims fearing for their safety. They said he kept track of their whereabouts - essentially stalking them. The court said it didn’t happen.
Around August 12, Ms Guthrie testified, things became serious regarding Mr. Elliott, and she began to be fearful of him. But between the July 28 celebration of her and August 3, he hadn’t done anything except tweet about the article and she was not afraid when July endedcourt doc
You just answered your own question, albeit with a side of no true [del]Scotsman[/del] Feminist. I am very glad to see no one supporting these women, or arguing against the verdict. It truly warms my cold, misanthropic heart.
Maybe I do misunderstand the idiom. Here’s where I’m coming from, from RationalWiki
These women, who self-identified as feminists, did something that showed their undesirable characteristics. Therefore, they are not true feminists and their actions do not reflect the feminist movement. It’s shit because whenever feminists volunteer to work with victim advocacy groups and do other awesome things, that always seems to reflect what feminism is. It’s only when feminists do bad things that their actions do not reflect the movement.
No, if A feminist drops her cup, than A feminist is a litterbug. If several feminists drop their cups, then several feminists are litterbugs. Please don’t paint me with your extremist brush. I don’t say “All X are Y,” because that’s stupid and almost always wrong.
If you feel that feminism exists exclusively outside the actions of all its self-proclaimed followers, then I don’t see any common ground for discussion. I obviously disagree.
I can’t disagree with that statement, no one ended up looked good in that case. I donated money mostly out of principle and because I despise lawfare (thanks Rune for that word, it fits perfectly), not because I entirely agree with Elliot’s politics.
Anyhow, I’m done here. It appears Linus has left the boards, Jack is banned, and I have no interest in playing devil’s advocate to argue with the majority of the board on this subject. The only reason I bother is that it just kills me that MRA types and feminists could be so much more effective at achieving their goals with the help of the other group, but the rampant misogyny/misandry in both groups ensures it will never happen. IME, there is no space at the discussion table for moderates, the extremists on both sides are shouting out everyone else.
