6 ms·

That's a lot of loaded political claims without supporting evidence. > NOW opposing default shared custody Are you implying that, absent default shared custod

by jarrett 13y ago

That's a lot of loaded political claims without supporting evidence. > NOW opposing default shared custody Are you implying that, absent default shared custody, family law is discriminatory towards men? If so, what evidence do you have of that claim? > pushing the lie that domestic violence is overwhelmingly men hitting women Who's saying that? Further, how do you know it's not the case? Domestic violence is notoriously hard to measure. You sound much more confident in your conclusion that scientific community is in their tentative findings about domestic violence rates. > denying men support and services That's awfully vague. Can you point to a pattern of anti-male gender discrimination by a particular organization, company, or government agency? > promoting the moral panic of "rape culture" at colleges Rapes are definitely committed at colleges. We can't know the exact rates for sure, because we don't know what percentage of rapes are ever reported. What evidence do you have that claims about college rape are overblown? > giving mothers choice while denying fathers any say (under the guise of "the child's interests") What choices are you referring to? Are you suggesting that a father should be able to either veto or impose an abortion? > why they have no agency, cannot be held responsible for their actions and need hand outs. Who's saying that? Based on my experience with feminist writings, I think you're attacking a straw man. > "1 in 4 women is raped" was a fabrication by Mary Koss. "Only 2% of all rape accusations are false" was an anecdote from a Susan Brownmiller book. We don't know those claims to be false. Still, one can fairly criticize a commentator for putting forth a claim without adequate data to support it, even if the underlying claim may be true. I won't purport to know whether Mary Koss or Susan Brownmiller had adequate data, nor have I looked up whether they made those claims at all. But even if one or two commentators made an unproven claim, that fact cannot be the basis for an attack on a much larger movement.

johnbm 13y ago
It absolutely can be an attack on a much larger movement because those statistics are cited over and over and over again in said movement. Similarly, the Duluth model has directly shaped domestic violence policy and support despite being contradicted by any study that asked the same questions of women and men. When said movement further has an absolute monopoly on the gender discussion and has been known to politically pressure the media to suppress dissent (see: Warren Farrell), I'm pretty happy in just stating the actual facts and letting someone else do the googling for a change.
- jarrett 13y ago
  > It absolutely can be an attack on a much larger movement because those statistics are cited over and over and over again in said movement. That's still not a logically valid reason to indict a movement. You can reject specific claims a movement makes, if those claims are based on premises you believe to be false. Yet surely you realize that feminism, like most major movements, is concerned with a myriad of issues, most of which are not closely related to the rate of sexual assault. Even if you can prove that feminists cite incorrect statistics in discussions about rape, that says nothing about, for example, workplace gender discrimination. > When said movement further has an absolute monopoly on the gender discussion An absolute monopoly? You've disproven that simply by commenting. Do you feel feminists are violating your right to free speech? If so, what are they doing to silence you? > see: Warren Farrell He has published books, run for office, given speeches, and published online. What evidence do you have that his speech has been suppressed? (I Googled for an answer to that very question, but found nothing.) > just stating the actual facts and letting someone else do the googling for a change Those are your opinions, not factual claims. For example, your comment about "promoting the moral panic of 'rape culture' at colleges" is not a factual claim, because there are no objective criteria by which it could be proven true or false. Rather, it is an opinion about how concerned the public should be about rape at colleges. You're taking a fact--that feminists advocate about rape at colleges--and offering the opinion that their concerns are overblown.

by jarrett 13y ago

johnbm 13y ago

It absolutely can be an attack on a much larger movement because those statistics are cited over and over and over again in said movement. Similarly, the Duluth model has directly shaped domestic violence policy and support despite being contradicted by any study that asked the same questions of women and men. When said movement further has an absolute monopoly on the gender discussion and has been known to politically pressure the media to suppress dissent (see: Warren Farrell), I'm pretty happy in just stating the actual facts and letting someone else do the googling for a change.

jarrett 13y ago
> It absolutely can be an attack on a much larger movement because those statistics are cited over and over and over again in said movement. That's still not a logically valid reason to indict a movement. You can reject specific claims a movement makes, if those claims are based on premises you believe to be false. Yet surely you realize that feminism, like most major movements, is concerned with a myriad of issues, most of which are not closely related to the rate of sexual assault. Even if you can prove that feminists cite incorrect statistics in discussions about rape, that says nothing about, for example, workplace gender discrimination. > When said movement further has an absolute monopoly on the gender discussion An absolute monopoly? You've disproven that simply by commenting. Do you feel feminists are violating your right to free speech? If so, what are they doing to silence you? > see: Warren Farrell He has published books, run for office, given speeches, and published online. What evidence do you have that his speech has been suppressed? (I Googled for an answer to that very question, but found nothing.) > just stating the actual facts and letting someone else do the googling for a change Those are your opinions, not factual claims. For example, your comment about "promoting the moral panic of 'rape culture' at colleges" is not a factual claim, because there are no objective criteria by which it could be proven true or false. Rather, it is an opinion about how concerned the public should be about rape at colleges. You're taking a fact--that feminists advocate about rape at colleges--and offering the opinion that their concerns are overblown.