|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by AFG
(afg2112@yahoo.ca)
on 07:22 AM June 15th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Here are the links:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesidea s/story.html?id=0756868b-8666-41b4-9fe8-f1ecfb859b 0d
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesidea s/story.html?id=2e012098-a2f8-44a6-ad48-90756f74f6 4a
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerostress on 09:29 AM June 15th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AFG
(afg2112@yahoo.ca)
on 09:46 AM June 15th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
thanks zerostress, I didn't even notice the spaces were there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerostress on 09:48 AM June 15th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Oops !
Sorry Ragtime ! Did not notice that you posted a working link.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zerostress on 10:03 AM June 15th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is a link to the matriarchy story. It is on a French-Canadian web site, just scroll down the page a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Ragtime on 08:44 AM June 15th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
The "Matriarchy" story requires a subscription, but the DV one (Domestic violence isn't one-sided) does not -- and it's pure dynamite!
It unbelievably good news to see this article in a major, mainstream paper. It pulls no punches detailing things we've been saying for years.
The article starts off with a classic gender-reversal. There's an appalling, heart-wrenching story of abuse and discrimination against a woman -- then the author mentions that he's reversed the genders, and in the actual story the victim was a man.
Also, "[DV] occurs more frequently in lesbian than in heterosexual relationships...
He finishes up with, "[DV] is a serious issue in our society. Responding to it through the default demonization of one sex and victimization of the other is an insult to scientific integrity, a stumbling block to rehabilitation, a strong contributing factor in many arbitrarily ruined lives, and a shameful blot on our human rights record."
There's way more. You've gotta read the whole thing. It's here.
Ragtime
The Uppity Wallet
The opinions expressed above are my own,
but you're welcome to adopt them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AFG
(afg2112@yahoo.ca)
on 12:02 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Here come the responses:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorials letters/story.html?id=18ad99e7-21a0-4717-a70b-71d2 fdf71686
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorials letters/story.html?id=8232a149-2cff-470c-8000-da96 ae9c1cb4
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/editorials letters/story.html?id=d37cb20d-5436-4ea3-9073-45d7 1bf85982
The second should be of particular interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AFG
(afg2112@yahoo.ca)
on 12:50 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Here is my letter to letters@nationalpost.com
Instead of worrying about feminism coming under attack after thirty years of helping to undermine the very fabric of our society, perhaps Mr. McAdam should try to celebrate the fact that male victims of domestic violence are just starting to get some attention. Academic studies have for a long time shown that family violence is initiated by both sexes at an almost equal rate, so it is he who is propping up myths that need to be demolished.
Nevertheless, considering the fact that he is an MA student in political science, it should come as no surprise that Mr. McAdam would write a letter in defense of radical feminism and the myths propagated by those who define themselves as followers of such a worldview. As Ms.Kay pointed out, radical feminism is just one more form of Marxism, and anyone who has attended or attends an institute of higher education will be quick to point out that leftist politics dominate such places -- especially in the field of political science.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 01:47 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Your letter is excellent, AFG, and I'm in total agreement with your assessment of the academic propagandist who commented in favour of the status quo. Remember that grades are assigned to research and other graduate students based on the opinions of their supervisor, so in order to get A's, it's necessary to swallow the establishment's existing academic bias hook, line and sinker. It ensures conservatism in academia, even when it's being used to maintain a leftist myth! It's also a great way of ensuring that nobody ever does anything original or questions the prevailing Marxist, misandric zeitgeist and its dogma.
However, your letter might not get printed. I'm assuming that you're American, so the reasons might seem a bit counterintuitive. Canada is much less hung up on the largely American obsession with left-right extremes in politics, and there is an undercurrent of anti-American sentiment in this country (actually, it's mostly anti-Republican/anti-Bush), so making accusations of "left wing bias" or "right wing bias" isn't taken very seriously in our media, and the public typically laughs it off as an Americanism.
That's to be expected from people in a "first past the post", multi-party, parliamentary democracy which is actually a matriarchal monarchy, if you can believe that anachronism (don't think for a moment that I'm being condescending or calling our way "better", I'm not, and it isn't). People who think that way don't see the political spectrum as a choice of two extremes, and your letter might be interpreted as reflecting such a political worldview. As a result, it might not sell ad space, so the editors of the Post might not print it. I guess we'll see if they can maintain objectivity on this for any length of time.
Again, this doesn't in any way make what you said incorrect, nor do I disagree with you in the slightest. Marxism and socialism are the mainstays of political science programs in academia these days. Just as women's studies types claim that everything else is "men's studies" and use that pathetic excuse to teach misandry for degree credit, political science fanatics claim that everything else is fascism or right-wing studies, so they feel the unabridged right to promulgate socialism, as if it's "oppressed" somehow.
That sort of bullshit, self-serving contrarianism and the inbreeding caused by the grading system in the research establishment are the real problems with academia and the Marxist-feminist "liberal arts" in my opinion. If we were living under communism, all the political studies professors would be spouting fascism! They really do crave the attention and the ability to constantly claim victim status. After all, if they weren't saying something contrary, nobody would pay any attention to their self-obsessed meanderings.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AFG
(afg2112@yahoo.ca)
on 02:22 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the kind words RandomMan. Actually, I'm Canadian and I'm assuming you are too. I think with the Conservatives governing, the issue of gay marriage still hot, and other things brewing, the whole left-right dichotomy has reached a new prominance. Every time you hear about such things, you a reminded of the so called "far-right" in Canada, and how the left supposedly represents the natural viewpoint of Canadians.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:19 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I think with the Conservatives governing, the issue of gay marriage still hot, and other things brewing, the whole left-right dichotomy has reached a new prominance.
Too true, AFG, and yes, I'm a Canadian too. With Harper in office, we may be discussing everything in terms of left and right before the decade is out. I hope not. As we've seen over the past half century, the left insists that men are abusive, violent morons whose existence should be criminalized, and that women are victims and fallen angels. The right panders to women's groups who hold those Marxist views in order to get votes. I don't like our chances as long as our societies continue to condition everyone to hate men from birth and academics are allowed to go on publishing "research" that only examines half of a phenomenon. The appearance of male-positive or anti-feminist columns in a major Canadian daily is quite a pleasant surprise, but we've got a long way to go.
As for the bigot with the MA bashing men, look at the way he turns rape (a crime that fools like him define as something a man does to a woman) into "men are violent and women are oppressed":
It is dangerous and outright false to suggest that we live in a matriarchal society when more than half of the women in Canada have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence and 86% of the reported sexual assaults in Canada have targeted women.
One sided statistics are ever so helpful to ideologues when they lie, so naturally, they're the only sort that most academics gather. What, you expected objectivity from a women's studies major? They define their entire universe by looking at half of an issue!
Let's deconstruct this intellectually stunted bigot's argument by examining both sides of the statistics for a change, using his own logic and data.
What percentage of men have suffered at least one incident of sexual or physical violence? Given that approximately 90% of victims of all violence are men, using his own "more than half" figure for women who experience violence, that means that an astounding 500%+ of men have experienced at least one incident of sexual or physical violence. More realistically, normalizing this outcome to 100% of the population, on average all men have experienced at least five incidents of physical or sexual violence. Yet there are a total of 5 shelters for abused men in Canada, and several of them only serve specific ethnicities or memberships. There are countless shelters for women, and our laws are concentrated almost entirely on criminalizing male behaviour. Any attempt to criminalize female behaviour is "sexist".
(I've covered this in alot more detail while responding to the misuse of rape statistics to bash men here.)
Does this mean that all women are violent thugs who are oppressing men or that no matter how much control and power men have over society, that it will never be a patriarchy? I'm just using the sexist's own misandric "logic" and methods here.
The use of half-statistics and the obligatory attempt to misuse rape statistics are common methods employed by misandrists to demonize men. More rapes are committed by men, because rape is defined in most jurisdictions, either by code or by practice, as a crime by a man against a woman. One-sided statistics are ever so helpful when one doesn't have a case.
Consider that this fool is admitting that some fraction of sexual assaults are committed by women who lack the ability to do so according to his definitions of rape and sexual assault. He's just proven something he believes is impossible, all in the space of a few sentences!
In this man-hating bigot's mind, the victims of the 14% of sexual assaults committed against men are not entitled to complain, much less seek treatment, because only women can be victims.
What nonsense. Could the misandry and lies be any clearer?
On the bright side, by falsely claiming that there is no matriarchy because men hold all the "power and control" in society, we can use his own feminist method to demonstrate that society is a matriarchy when women hold all the "power and control". As a result, it is simple for us to demonstrate that this is the case (life expectancy gap, unequal treatment under the law, less access to health care and education, etc.). In short, this misandrist bigot has just enabled proof of the existence of a matriarchy.
This kind of false, nonsensical, one-sided and deliberate attempt to smear men is just laughable, and it is the basis of social policy in most western countries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 06:39 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Canada is much less hung up on the largely American obsession with left-right extremes in politics, and there is an undercurrent of anti-American sentiment in this country (actually, it's mostly anti-Republican/anti-Bush), so making accusations of "left wing bias" or "right wing bias" isn't taken very seriously in our media, and the public typically laughs it off as an Americanism.
Same here in Europe, and deservedly so. I have never ever heard feminism being linked to Marxism before I read about this on North American web pages. It might have been true at some point in history when feminism was still a revolutionary idea, but now?
There's no doubt that the Left chums up to feminism more than other parts of the political spectrum, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 07:53 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe you, but I'm surprised to hear you say that n.j. If you look at the underpinnings of Marxism (as someone like Orwell did when he wrote Animal Farm), you realize that all 20th century feminists did was change the ruling and oppressed classes to be men and women, respectively, instead of economic classes. The remainder of radical feminism follows Marxist revolutionary and entitlement rhetoric very closely. I think where we in North America get things mixed up is calling capitalist democrats and members of so-called "progressive" political parties "leftists". In my mind, a leftist is a communist revolutionary, i.e. the opposite end of the spectrum from a fascist dictator. The terms "right" and "left" are badly misused on this side of the Atlantic, at least in political debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by quetzal on 03:54 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Am I wrong, or didn't Mr. McAdam sort of change the subject? He points out that "86% of sexual assaults target women". If true, that figure obviously includes ALL sexual assaults, not just those committed in DV scenario.
--quetzal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AFG
(afg2112@yahoo.ca)
on 05:08 PM June 15th, 2006 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
He changed the subject because he couldn't counter the truth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Uberganger on 07:36 AM June 19th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
He changed the subject because he couldn't counter the truth.
That's the best line I've ever read on this site. Amen!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
