The Big Debate – p3 – Let the mudslinging begin

I’ll analyze David Futrelle’s second answer in this post.

“So, Paul, instead of actually responding to anything substantive, you”

Well, David, in your first response you were talking about Paul’s sources, stating they are not credible. He did the same now, so how can you accuse him of “not responding to anything substantive”?

“I guess your modus operandi is simple: when you have no ammunition, you start flinging bullshit.”

This is absurd. Paul certainly did have ammunition and his post was quite calm and dispassionate. This is an empty accusation.

“You claimed that with regard to Domestic Violence “women are half the problem.” I showed you, clearly and simply and logically, why this is not so.”

What you have proven is women are visiting police and doctors more often. In my book this does not equate with women not being a part of the problem. Nobody ever really refuted the widely-known fact that women are initiating DV at the same rates as men. Even the sources Futrelle quoted to show that DV against women is “more serious” supported gender symmetry.

“I offered evidence, from government surveys and peer-reviewed academic journals, backing this up.”

Well, waddayaknow, Elam did just the same in his first post. He quoted government surveys and peer-reviewed studies. And you, David, never really refuted them since your argument about the methodological flaws of the CTS was rather weak. For example you’ve neglected to mention that some of your sources (eg. the NIJ CDC “findings” based on NVAWS) also used the CTS questionnaire.

“Not only this, but I offered evidence of this from THE VERY PEOPLE YOU CITE to support your argument. They, too, say that male violence towards women is a bigger problem than women’s violence.”

I’ll let Feckless answer that: “Dave is mispresenting the positions of Straus and Gelles and misrepresentating what the MRM wants.” He quotes lengthily from the researchers in question, refuting Futrelle’s points, well worth reading.

“Fact is, there is NO credible researcher in the field who thinks “women are half the problem.””

This is just rhetorics. You argue that saying “women initiate half of DV” is not the same as saying “women are half the problem”, but your niggling is not convincing.

“Let’s try a quick quiz: Who said the following?”

This is just a stuck-up game. All “problems” with these quotes are dealt with by Feckless’ comment linked above.

“You reject the work of Michael Kimmel, because (…) he said in an email that Men’s Studies as a discipline has existed for several decades? Guess what! It HAS existed as a discipline for several decades.”

The problem is not that Men’s Studies have existed for decades. The problem is that it’s based on feminist theory and thus have nothing of substance to offer for non-mangina men. On a side note, it’s interesting how feminist women go berserk when a man tries to say anything about the experiences or the life of women, but they are perfectly fine with the idea that they (feminist women) are the utmost experts on masculinity and the life of men. Thanks, but no thanks. It is not a coincidence that MRAs came up with Male Studies.
Kimmel is part of the pro-feminist, anti-male men’s studies and he actively tries to sabotage any other attempts at organizing male-oriented studies.

“I’m not sure how any of this (…) might somehow invalidate the findings of the article of his I cite.”

As I have already stated, if there’s a difference between the results of feminist and independent studies, it’s only natural that outsiders recognize that the political and personal prejudices of feminists against men have a radical effect on their findings. Feminists have a vested interest in skewing the results while independent researchers don’t. The independents are saying we are all equal human beings but women’s advocates say women are better than men – I think it’s easy to see who’s the more honest.

“(…) they are indeed … feminists. So that’s all it takes for you to reject their work without even looking at it? Work that has been published in actual peer-reviewed journals?”

Studies proving gender symmetry also have been published in actual peer-reviewed journals, so, what is your point exactly?

“If you really think what they’re putting out is feminist propaganda”

I have no choice but to wonder what you’re thinking about researchers advocating gender symmetry. Are they aligning with some kind of propaganda? What propaganda? Why? What’s your proof that their urge to align with propaganda is stronger than that of feminists’? To put it bluntly: are you saying that all gender symmetry proponents are mysogyinsts but proponents of antimale notions are not misandrists?

“I don’t know if you know this, but not all feminists are like Andrea Dworkin. They don’t all think the same things. They don’t all hate men.”

I’ve been thinking about this for quite some time now and I’ve noticed something interesting – bizarre, even. NAFALT is a common defense of feminists, but let’s examine one thing: who did feminists cast out of their movement. Was it Andrea Dvorkin because she was apparently a radical manhating retard? No. It was Christina Hoff Sommers because she was a moderate feminist advocating working together with men. An other example is Erin Pizzey, who was persecuted by feminists, again because her stance was pro-women, just not anti-men enough. NAFALT seems a rather weak argument since radicals were never expelled, but moderates often were. The feminists who really are “not like that” are expelled from the movement – how’s that for irony?

“Murray Straus, the guy who invented the CTS, and who is responsible more than any person for the notion of “gender symmetry” in DV … is also a feminist.”

Oh well, what can you say against his research then? He provided black-and-white proof that women initiate DV as often as men do, and he (allegedly) is a feminist. How can you argue against gender symmetry when even feminists advocate it?

No matter how much time we waste on debating statistics though, the bottom line still remains that even if 99% of the victims of DV were women, the laws still could be gender-neutral and could be fair towards all victims and all men(!). Instead we have VAWA.

This entry was posted in Feminism, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to The Big Debate – p3 – Let the mudslinging begin

  1. Paul Elam says:

    BTW, there is absolutely no reason I can think of that you should not post this to the comments at the debate.



  2. Gunn says:

    Futrelle is not going to concede this point, or any others. It was fairly clear from his initial response that he’s changing the argument (to the outcome of dv rather than who initiates it), and he seems completely unwilling to even think about Paul’s point about a priori bias in many feminist studies (i.e. starting with the idea that the patriarchy is the major driver behind womens’ disempowerment).

    Maybe its because he’s not a very bright guy, maybe its because he’s determined to win the argument for its own sake rather than actually think about and reflect on the points discussed.

    Whats kind of amusing is that he probably believes he’s attacking Paul with all sorts of insightful comments, when in reality its all the same old crap hardly even repackaged.

  3. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Halloween Edition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s