Daily Review 12/05/2016

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, May 12th, 2016 - 117 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Judith collins 10 Downing Street

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

117 comments on “Daily Review 12/05/2016 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Pasupial 1
    12 May 2016 at 6:33 pm

    “Who said; cuts to company tax will benefit workers?” (Dawe is unable to even say the phrase with a straight face).

  2. tc 2
    12 May 2016 at 6:45 pm

    Our Jude would make a great maggie t.

  3. fender 3
    12 May 2016 at 6:47 pm

    Minister For Corruption & Oravida scores a 10

  4. gsays 4
    12 May 2016 at 7:08 pm

    I have been following the discussion following on from redlogix post on DV. The broken post and men dominate discussion post.

    I thought RL post brave and honest and an invitation to explore a dark underside to our beautiful country.
    This opportunity was lost when it turned into a bun fight.

    Offence can only be offered.

    I value most contributors here, either being informed or forgiving as they know not what they do.

    As with all communities you are gonna get folk that are harder to like and that is one of the strengths of this site.

    • weka 4.1
      12 May 2016 at 8:04 pm

      Hi gsays,

      I actually like Red for the most part so honestly for me it’s the politics not a personality thing.

      If any man wants to write about domestic violence issues from a male perspective I will welcome that if they can do so without running MRA-like lines or trying to undermine women or feminism. If they want to run those lines then they need to be prepared for a fight, because women are having to deal with that stuff at the cutting edge in ways that many people here are unaware of, and there are real world consequences for women from what Red was saying. Until that awareness changes it will always be a conflict.

      btw, I didn’t see it as a bun fight and I’ve been in quite a few gender convos on ts in the past. I saw a whole lot of people step up in Red’s thread and disagree clearly and with good political argument. Haven’t read much of Tracey’s thread yet though.

      • gsays 4.1.1
        12 May 2016 at 9:59 pm

        hi weka, normally i get acronyms, but i havent worked out what mra is, could you please enlighten me?

        • weka 4.1.1.1
          12 May 2016 at 10:28 pm

          Men’s Rights Activists. A political movement which focuses on some issues that affect men but does so in the context of attacking and undermining feminism and women. It tends to reject political analysis of systemic oppression and instead tries to make out that men aren’t affored privilege and power by the patriarchal systems that we live in.

          For example, the idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue. It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women, and the reasons underlying that that are societal and structural. It sets up strawmen such as the idea that domestic violence is gendered comes from feminists thinking all men are violent or somehow bad, when in fact feminism doesn’t say that. It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.

          • gsays 4.1.1.1.1
            12 May 2016 at 10:41 pm

            thanks, plenty to mull over there.

          • marty mars 4.1.1.1.2
            13 May 2016 at 11:36 am

            Great explanation weka – thanks

          • RedLogix 4.1.1.1.3
            13 May 2016 at 2:31 pm

            that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue.

            Logically that does not follow. Or do feminists not consider men to be human?

            It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women

            Not a strong statement given the many, many studies that confirm women perpetrate all manner of abuse and violence, and it is probably more due to a weakness of limb than purity of heart that holds them back from achieving equally bad statistics with men.

            But I can see why this framing is important to you and I’m not going to disrespect that.

            and the reasons underlying that that are societal and structural.

            Not much quibble on that in general. Agreed.

            It sets up strawmen such as the idea that domestic violence is gendered comes from feminists thinking all men are violent or somehow bad

            OK so not all men are abusers.

            It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.

            But now we all are and you’re going to punish us all for it.

            At least that is how I read it; maybe you’d care to clarify?

            • marty mars 4.1.1.1.3.1
              13 May 2016 at 2:50 pm

              imo red this

              “Not a strong statement given the many, many studies that confirm women perpetrate all manner of abuse and violence, and it is probably more due to a weakness of limb than purity of heart that holds them back from achieving equally bad statistics with men.”

              is where your problem lies.

              Or perhaps this particular bit “and it is probably more”

              and remember the above was in response to

              “It ignores the reasons why by far the most domestic violence is done by men against women”

              You cannot see the “by far” qualifier – you are blinded to it – perhaps by the abuse you suffered or maybe some other reason but the qualifier is there imo so that debate CAN occur not as a poke to get you to retaliate – which is how I interpret your response to weka’s sentence.

              Can you understand what I am saying?
              Can you see that I am NOT attacking you?
              Can you see that your response was disproportionate to the sentence that you responded to?
              Can you see how that could escalate the intensity or heat of the discussion?

              That is just one example – I ask you to seriously consider your emotions around this, your judgments about yourself and others, and what you want to achieve from this.

              • Xanthe …
                13 May 2016 at 2:57 pm

                marty….. This is in its own little way an example of violence, and so the circle remains unbroken

                • marty mars …
                  13 May 2016 at 3:13 pm

                  Can you elaborate on what you mean please Xanthe – I cannot see how what I wrote is an example of violence

                  • Xanthe …
                    13 May 2016 at 3:21 pm

                    Read it again.
                    Is it dialogue?

                    • marty mars …
                      13 May 2016 at 3:56 pm

                      I wrote it Xanthe so believe me I don’t need to read it again. Sure it may not be dialogue (I could argue that but I’ll accept it), but it came from a place of compassion and genuine desire on my part to add something positive to the situation. Is that violence to you?

                    • Xanthe …
                      13 May 2016 at 4:05 pm

                      Read it again

                    • marty mars …
                      13 May 2016 at 4:14 pm

                      I did ask for further explanation and you don’t want to do that – that’s cool, I love self selection.

                    • Xanthe …
                      13 May 2016 at 5:03 pm

                      Marty ” Can you see that your response was disproportionate to the sentence that you responded to?
                      Can you see how that could escalate the intensity or heat of the discussion?”

                      Because you find the reasonable suggestion that we look for the underlieing drivers of domestic violence rather than treating it as a male problem ….. uncomfortable and challenging

                      you attack and place the blame for that attack on the way he presented the suggestion.

                      That is both disingenuous and a form of violence

                      As you well know!
                      I have considerable experience of bullying. I know it when it happens

                  • Jenny Kirk …
                    13 May 2016 at 4:16 pm

                    No – it wasn’t a form of violence, marty mars. Anything but. It was a reasoned response to a somewhat convoluted statement by Red L.

              • weka …
                13 May 2016 at 3:04 pm

                Spot on marty, the quailifier is the thing that makes the position inclusive.

                Red, in the past week I’ve made a few comments as to why I won’t engage on the content of your post or comments. I’ll add another one. Every step of the way I have seen you misuse and IMO willfully misinterpret other people’s arguments. Here is a classic example that is very easy to see. You just selectively misquoted me. That alone will stop me from talking to you on the content.

                • Xanthe …
                  13 May 2016 at 3:10 pm

                  weka…. And this

                  • weka …
                    13 May 2016 at 3:30 pm

                    You still seem to be having trouble explaining what you mean.

                    • Xanthe …
                      13 May 2016 at 3:37 pm

                      I say exactly what i mean . And you know quite well what i am saying.
                      I do not enter into what i consider disingenuous dialogue,
                      own it .

                    • weka …
                      13 May 2016 at 3:45 pm

                      Good, that will save me some bother.

                • RedLogix …
                  13 May 2016 at 3:41 pm

                  Unlike most responses I get, I went to the trouble of carefully requoting your comment, pretty much sentence by sentence so as it was clear what I was talking about and the dialog might flow better.

                  Then I made a response to pretty much ALL of what you said. I was lot less selective about it than most people are. The bit I mostly left out was your first para because I didn’t have any issue with it. Ironically enough it wasn’t until you used the MRA acronym in a comment to me a while back did I even know what it was either.

                  So I went and took a look and while there are some interesting ideas there, there’s also a lot that isn’t attractive at all. Unlike what you seem to think I’m no fan of the MRA scene because they seem locked into a confrontational mode of action that’s a complete dead end.

                  But now you are unhappy because you feel I willfully misquoted you. Geeze how do you think I feel after the shitstorm of misrepresentation and unmitigated personal abuse I’ve been on the wrong end the past few days? Really … I don’t ask that question rhetorically.

                  I repeat; “At least that is how I read it; maybe you’d care to clarify?”

                  • weka …
                    13 May 2016 at 3:49 pm

                    Red, you selectively quoted me. I’ve then told you that you’ve mis quoted me. Are you trying to tell me that I don’t know what my own comment meant and intended?

                    • Xanthe …
                      13 May 2016 at 3:53 pm

                      Seems a reasonable assumption

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 May 2016 at 5:23 pm

                      I quoted you quite extensively and only left out the bit I largely agreed with.

                      Are you trying to tell me that I don’t know what my own comment meant and intended?

                      In the past whenever I’ve tried saying something like that it’s been comprehensively scorned and shat all over. Intentions being apparently worthless.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                13 May 2016 at 3:18 pm

                You cannot see the “by far” qualifier – you are blinded to it

                Actually, it seems to be you who is blinded by it. Studies show that women and men commit similar amounts of violence and abuse. The violence by men causes far more physical damage than that done by women and so we hear more of it but that doesn’t mean that violence by women doesn’t happen at close to the same rate.

                • weka …
                  13 May 2016 at 3:26 pm

                  My response to that is for men to start being active around solving the issues of violence against them without trying to undo the work that women have done. It’s actually not that hard an approach. The problem comes when men want to deny the structural issues that exist because of the patriarchal system (or whatever we want to call it) and how that system privileges people differently. I get that men don’t want to be blamed, but that’s a different thing than saying that each gender is just as violent as the other. The dynamics are different and I think the one thing we can assume here is that women see violence as a different thing than what you are suggesting, so there is a power struggle right there. Because women have been working on violence within a system that automaticaly affords them less power, they’re not going to respond well to yet another attempt to disempower them.

                • Xanthe …
                  13 May 2016 at 3:32 pm

                  It may just be better(more) communication but it seems that violence (from all sources) is increasing.
                  It is tempting to draw a correlation with the increasing economic inequality that is occuring
                  Ie is the underlieing driver of all violence is economic violence
                  (Not saying it is or isnt , just seeing if this model gives useful insight that could help prevent or forwarn of instances of violence)

                • mauī …
                  13 May 2016 at 3:33 pm

                  Draco, there are only a few hundred female prisoners in NZ, at a reasonable guess there are in the region of 20 times as many men in jail. That doesn’t marry up with your similar levels of violence thing.

                  • weka …
                    13 May 2016 at 3:43 pm

                    Then there is this,

                    ‘Women are as likely to perpetrate domestic violence as men’. This one came up in the recent BBC documentary about ‘The Rise of Female Violence’, though to its marginal credit, the beeb only claimed this for ‘low level domestic violence’. First of all, we shouldn’t assume that if women perpetrate domestic violence, it’s always against men — some women have relationships with people of other genders too (and we don’t celebrate violence in those relationships either, especially as there is a real dearth of specialist service provision for survivors of domestic violence who are LGBTQ— which are also in fact the services that men experiencing domestic violence are most likely to need [1]). Furthermore, when women do commit ‘low level domestic violence’, it’s usually either self-defence or ‘co-violence’ — women are sole perpetrators in less than 4% of reported incidents [2]. This leads on to the next myth that needs to be debunked.

                    http://www.sistersuncut.org/2015/11/17/domestic-violence-and-gender-or-what-about-the-men-5-myths-debunked/

                    I find it interesting that men want to argue that women are as violent as men just in a less violent way. Which just comes across as self-serving mansplaining. I’m open the conversation happening in a different way, but given the whole point about power and how it gets given and used I’m not settling for a conversation where men come in and say Labour does it too.

                    The authors of the American CTS studies stress that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men [Orman, 1998]. Husbands have higher rates of the most dangerous and injurious forms of violence, their violent acts are repeated more often, they are less likely to fear for their own safety, and women are financially and socially locked into marriage to a much greater extent than men. In fact, Straus expresses his concern that “the statistics are likely to be misused by misogynists and apologists for male violence” [cited in Orman, 1998].

                    http://www.xyonline.net/content/claims-about-husband-battering

                    Etc etc etc.

                    I’m far less interested in exhanging internet links than I am in having a real conversation about violence. I don’t see this happening and that’s because of how Red framed it at the start.

                  • Xanthe …
                    13 May 2016 at 3:51 pm

                    Are you suggesting that rates of incarceration give meaningful data on offending?

                    I am dubious

                    • mauī …
                      13 May 2016 at 5:04 pm

                      Yes, which people are convicted does give an insight into who commits violence in this land. We do not have a dirty secret of abuse equivalent to the scale of the Catholic Church but committed by mothers, aunties and sisters in this country. Unless you can show me that we do?

                  • Anne …
                    13 May 2016 at 4:10 pm

                    @ maui
                    The fact there are far more male prisoners than female prisoners is irrelevant. Men tend to commit more physical and sex-related violence and it is reflected in the prison rate. Women on the other hand tend to use other means of violence and intimidation that are harder to prove because they are often carried out in a clandestine manner. And even when some form of direct physical violence is present, it is often the male victim who ends up being treated like the suspect. As a result there is far less reporting of violent acts by women against men.

                    • mauī …
                      13 May 2016 at 5:19 pm

                      Anne, that sounds like a story to me. Equally I can tell you a story that women don’t go to the police to report the abuse they and their kids suffer. Now which story sounds more like real life to you? And which is more relevant to exposing domestic violence in NZ. Where are the reformed female abusers who are sharing their story to the public because it needs some sunlight?

                    • Anne …
                      13 May 2016 at 6:18 pm

                      Thank-you for insulting me maui. I don’t make up stories. I suggest you read Draco below who has linked to what I am sure is peer removed research.

                      You have attempted to conflate one issue with another in order to prove a point – whatever precisely it may be. We are talking in general terms about the level of violence perpetrated by men and woman alike. If you are not prepared to accept that men can be equally victims of violence too then that is an indictment on your closed mind. The terrible abuse some women and children have been forced to suffer – often over long periods of time – is not being refuted by anyone here. All some of us are trying to point out is that women can also inflict serious damage to their partners. Indeed they can inflict serious damage on other individuals too which is something I can testify to.

                      For your information it took me 10 years to recover from what was done to me. I had to start from scratch… rebuild my life… my confidence and self esteem… and the hardest lesson of all was learning to trust people again.

                    • Anne …
                      13 May 2016 at 9:59 pm

                      Just returned. Dammit, ‘removed’ in first paragraph is meant to be ‘approved’.

                      Lesson: don’t comment unless you have time.

                    • Xanthe …
                      13 May 2016 at 10:32 pm

                      Thanks to all of you who stand up for reason and honesty.
                      It will prevail eventually

                      Those locked into their self serving prejudice ….. i hope you can find grace somewhere, in the meanwhile i really hope no one lets you anywhere near any potential domestic conflict. You potentially can cause real harm.

                  • RedLogix …
                    13 May 2016 at 4:11 pm

                    I should let DtB answer for himself, but the answer to your question seems to be embedded in his comment already:

                    he violence by men causes far more physical damage than that done by women and so we hear more of it

                    Also even when women do cause serious harm, it’s rarely reported. Many men on the wrong end of it don’t even begin to frame it as abuse. And when we do, it’s often not taken seriously, we run a high risk of being falsely accused as perpetrators and get no serious support.

                    To repeat, yes men are stronger and cause more damage. Everyone fully expects that at least 70% of the serious damage and harm will be done by men. But I maintain that discrepancy more a consequence of biology than sociology. (Maybe there lies the crux of our disagreement.)

                    The term ‘patriarchy’ while useful at one time has become another barrier. As many people have already said, in the bigger picture patriarchy harms men almost as much as it does women. It’s more about social hierarchy, gross inequality and unjust exploitation than it is about gender. It forms the basis of the greed based, unconstrained capitalism that oppresses virtually all of humanity in pretty much equal measure.

                    Again feminism has a LOT of interesting and vital things to say about patriarchy, but decoupling the concept from gender might well lower the barrier to more people accepting it. Maybe we need a new word for it.

                    • mauī …
                      13 May 2016 at 6:30 pm

                      Not sure if you can watch this 10 min video from where you are, but this is real life. http://www.tv3.co.nz/THE-HUI-The-Hui-Ep3-Part-2/tabid/3692/articleID/126275/Default.aspx

                      Quick synopsis of the clip: Turangi midwife sees 50% of client mothers in domestic violence situations. So taking this into account, from your world view this would mean pregnant women instigating attacks from their partners. Or solely pregnant women being the ones inflicting damage on their male partners. I can’t reconcile that I’m sorry, and I can’t think of anyone I know in real life who would make those assumptions either.

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 May 2016 at 6:58 pm

                      I can’t do the video, but your synopsis doesn’t surprise me. Pregnancy is a time of heightened emotions for both partners, that often catalyses both the best and worst for each of them.

                      In my experience (and it’s only from a sample of one) pregnancy stimulates some very deep and primitive instincts in the mother. Unless you are prepared for them, or at least are confident enough as a man to deal with them, they can be very confronting. Cause can never stand in for excuse, but it’s exactly the kind of thing I have in mind when I’m taking about the need to understand root causes better.

                      Men too react in many subtle and unconscious ways to their partner being pregnant; and most of us are completely unprepared for these intense feelings. So it does not surprise me at all that pregnancy is a time of increased risk of violence. Personally I can think of few things sadder than a young pregnant mother beaten and hurt by her partner … and mostly for reasons that are probably quite avoidable.

                      But of course most women are not pregnant all their lives; which in real life is time enough.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 May 2016 at 7:04 pm

                      What that video says is that there is something going on in very economically depressed Turangi which the health and law enforcement authorities need to get to the bottom of.

                    • mauī …
                      13 May 2016 at 7:45 pm

                      The health authorities are very much aware of the issue, have people who know about the issues on the ground (like midwives) and reformed male abusers and they do campaigns on addressing the issue. A pity there’s a sub section of society who have alternate theories on what the health issue is, a bit like the beliefs of climate deniers I might add.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    13 May 2016 at 4:23 pm

                    The Surprising Truth About Women and Violence

                    Research showing that women are often aggressors in domestic violence has been causing controversy for almost 40 years, ever since the 1975 National Family Violence Survey by sociologists Murray Straus and Richard Gelles of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire found that women were just as likely as men to report hitting a spouse and men were just as likely as women to report getting hit. The researchers initially assumed that, at least in cases of mutual violence, the women were defending themselves or retaliating. But when subsequent surveys asked who struck first, it turned out that women were as likely as men to initiate violence—a finding confirmed by more than 200 studies of intimate violence. In a 2010 review essay in the journal Partner Abuse, Straus concludes that women’s motives for domestic violence are often similar to men’s, ranging from anger to coercive control.

                    I should have been more clear and said similar amounts of domestic violence.

                    And then there’s this bit:

                    For the most part, feminists’ reactions to reports of female violence toward men have ranged from dismissal to outright hostility. Straus chronicles a troubling history of attempts to suppress research on the subject, including intimidation of heretical scholars of both sexes and tendentious interpretation of the data to portray women’s violence as defensive. In the early 1990s, when laws mandating arrest in domestic violence resulted in a spike of dual arrests and arrests of women, battered women’s advocates complained that the laws were “backfiring on victims,” claiming that women were being punished for lashing back at their abusers. Several years ago in Maryland, the director and several staffers of a local domestic violence crisis center walked out of a meeting in protest of the showing of a news segment about male victims of family violence. Women who have written about female violence, such as Patricia Pearson, author of the 1997 book When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, have often been accused of colluding with an anti-female backlash.

                • marty mars …
                  13 May 2016 at 3:58 pm

                  it seems but it isn’t – thank you for your concern draco

          • Bill 4.1.1.1.4
            13 May 2016 at 3:03 pm

            Can I ask for clarification weka? Specifically on this bit “…the idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, that men get beaten too, therefore domestic violence is a human violence issue, not a male violence issue”

            Are you claiming that if one was to say that domestic violence is a human violence issue, that just by saying that, political analysis of systemic oppression is ‘rubbished’? Or are you meaning to say that it can and sometimes is used in that way?

            • weka 4.1.1.1.4.1
              13 May 2016 at 3:18 pm

              I think that MRA-like arguments I have read say that it’s not a gender issue/ it’s a human issue as part and parcel of trying to negate the idea that the patriarchal system is a real thing that affects men and women differently (they also seem to be doing the same kind of strawman thing there by saying that feminism claims that the analyses of the patriarchy mean that women think men are all to blame, at which point its very hard not to start rolling ones eyes).

              So yes, if someone wants to discuss domestic violence within the context of how humans are violent in general, that’s not a problem. But if they want to mistate feminist theory and then try and use that to support their position and undermine feminism, I say fuck off. Or if they want to misuse research, statistics and analyses of social dymanics, same thing.

      • Jenny Kirk 4.1.2
        12 May 2016 at 10:03 pm

        gsays and weka – I’ve been enjoying (not sure that’s the right word – stimulated maybe – perhaps “reminded” and “activated” might be more correct ) by the Broken and Men Dominate discussions ), and I appreciated Red Logix’s comments – even if they were being offered in a context which might not have been appropriate.

        We all have our different life experiences – some are more painful than others – and what I have learned thru those, is that you can never tell what someone else has been through, even if they’re looking and sounding okay. So – along with an understanding that not everyone can express themselves as well as they’d like, then maybe a degree of tolerance is required.

        This sounds ideal, but is very difficult to put into practice. And somehow its easier to be dismissive of people on The Standard and other blogs, and on Facebook, rather than face-to-face in real life. I’m not very good at it, either.

        Shit – I hope this doesn’t sound patronising . From an older age point-of-view. Not meant to be.

        Just saying – these have been stimulating discussions, and they’ve brought up a lot of memories – good and bad.

        And I wanted to comment on the anonymity thing as well – I started out on The Standard being anonymous. But – I’m now old enough (getting towards ancient), not sure if I’m tough enough – but decided it didn’t matter any more – so became the real me.
        But I’m sure the real me is a lot nicer in writing, than the REAL me is !

        • gsays 4.1.2.1
          12 May 2016 at 10:28 pm

          hi jenny, i have been extremely fortunate not to have been a victim of violence.
          i also have been close to some folk who have been in extremely unhealthy relationships, ranging from the psychological ‘water on a rock’ type abuse through to the serious hospitalizing because of assault.

          it is hard to act, to act appropriately and effectively without isolating the victim further from support.
          especially with the smaller incidents, the precurser events.

          re pseudonyms, i picked this tag when i started commenting as, to my eyes, back then most folk on ts had them.
          i find if someone is a dick or trolling, i just ignore them.

          also want to add, i like the more vigorous moderating. stopping distracters and trolls.
          i like dissenting opinions as it makes me look closer at what i believe, but some of these folks are more diversionary.

        • weka 4.1.2.2
          12 May 2016 at 10:43 pm

          Hi Jenny, I also found the discussions stimulating and I’m heartened by the fact that they were more civil than usual.

          I suppose I’m still wondering if some people don’t fully get what the objection to Red’s post was. Yes it was the context. But it’s also the politics. It’s brave of him to tell his personal story. I have no problem with anyone doing that and I know that most feminists not only support survivors of all genders using their experiences to talk about their politics, but that most feminists have men in their lives and so value men as a class.

          What I have a problem with is Red’s politics around gender and violence, and his subsequent arguments that are essentially anti-feminist and underming of the politics of oppression that explains so much of women’s experiences. I have had quite a few conversations with him now over the years about this and I no longer have any tolerance for what he does. He is able to explain himself reasonably well so I don’t think this is an issue of him not being understood. I think it’s an issue of many people rejecting his basic premises (eg the biology arguments, tha idea that domestic violence isn’t gendered, his very poor understanding of what feminism is and does). Those basic premises get criticised and then he tries to defend them, and in amongst all that his story gets mixed up. But the story of what happened to him isn’t the problem, it’s how he is using that to inform his politics that is.

          I will always support people to be able to talk about their experiences. But you are right, I have zero tolerance for people then using those to underpin some pretty abhorrent politics esp where those politics actively harm others. I’m not dismissive of Red (him and I have talked all sort of politics over the years), but I am now pretty dismissive of his gender politics. Much of that is due to the fact that it is such a waste of time and a huge distraction to have to argue about things that are fundamentall agin to progressive politics. We have urgent gender issues to work on, many of us have been working on them for a very long time, and the kinds of ideas that Red is pushing are part of a bigger agenda to undermine women and many of the gains made in recent decades.

          • Jenny Kirk 4.1.2.2.1
            13 May 2016 at 9:17 am

            ” But the story of what happened to him isn’t the problem, it’s how he is using that to inform his politics that is.”

            Thanks Weka for the clarification re Red L and his gender politics – I hadn’t registered his previous comments on those issues – maybe I just misssed them because of other interesting discussions going on elsewhere.

            • weka 4.1.2.2.1.1
              13 May 2016 at 10:05 am

              I don’t think we’ve had any of those big gender discussions for a quite a while. In the past they’ve been ugly, so it was good to see this one relatively straight forward.

          • Xanthe 4.1.2.2.2
            13 May 2016 at 10:56 am

            ” Much of that is due to the fact that it is such a waste of time and a huge distraction to have to argue about things that are fundamentall agin to progressive politics. ”
            This neatly sums up why “progressive politics” is stalled, meanwhile we all career to distruction.
            The inevitable outcome of the use of factionalisation as a campaigning tool is that you create a pool of voters that vote against you.
            When you entwine that with environmental and fairness issues you do real harm.
            Its sad

            • weka 4.1.2.2.2.1
              13 May 2016 at 10:58 am

              Who uses factionalism as a campaigning tool?

              • Xanthe …
                13 May 2016 at 11:36 am

                Are you being disingenuous or niave ?

                Anyway there is a higher proportion of female sociopaths in positions of power then 20 years ago so it was worth the harm done

                Personally i strive for less sociopathic bullys overall

                • weka …
                  13 May 2016 at 12:17 pm

                  “Are you being disingenuous or niave ?”

                  Neither. I’m asking you to explain a political point you just made so that I don’t have to waste time trying to second guess. Are you going to?

                  • Xanthe …
                    13 May 2016 at 12:36 pm

                    Ok i am settling on naive
                    If you are unaware of the factionalisation of the “progressive parties” and the inevitable result large scale voter turn off then i dont see how i am going to convince you.
                    really? .. you really dont get this?
                    Positive discrimination is an oxymoron, discrimination is wrong whatever the cause
                    I know it, you know it, and a majority of voters know it

                    So i guess you will tell me it isn’t happening? But if it looks like a duck , quacks like a duck, and craps everywhere , most people will see a duck.

                    That is not in any way to detract from the realities of the many and increasing inequalities we live with. just to make the point that a just cause dosn’t make wrong right and you do more harm than good if you act like it does!

                    • weka …
                      13 May 2016 at 1:22 pm

                      “If you are unaware of the factionalisation of the “progressive parties” and the inevitable result large scale voter turn off then i dont see how i am going to convince you.”

                      I’m simply asking you to explain what YOU mean by those things, so there can be clear communication. I could guess what you mean, but honestly, if you can’t be bothered with communicating well I don’t see why I should either.

                    • Jenny Kirk …
                      13 May 2016 at 4:20 pm

                      I don’t understand your comments either, Xanthe, re factionalisation of left parties. Can you clarify what you mean by this word – factionalisation please, and how does it occur ?
                      Perhaps an example would help.

                    • Xanthe …
                      13 May 2016 at 5:27 pm

                      Hi jenny
                      the purpose of governance is to find the best solutions for all, the purpose of elections or appointments either in government or within political parties is to appoint those who will best serve all.

                      Factionalisation occurs when candidates present as representing the interest of some demographic (gender, race, age, religion, idiology, whatever) and those demographs vote for the candidate that will best further the interest of that demograph.

                      It seems harmless enought but it is actually an unethical abuse of the democratic process, a bit around the edges does little harm, when it becomes the dominant feature of party or government the purpose of government and democracy is lost

                      that is quite significantly were the “progressive parties” are at

                      Obviously thats Just the short version

          • RedLogix 4.1.2.2.3
            13 May 2016 at 12:18 pm

            anti-feminist and underming of the politics of oppression that explains so much of women’s experiences.

            I agree that my view does not line up with the usual feminist conventions. Although to be quite plain, feminism itself seems to have so many interpretations it’s not simple to conform to one linear narrative anymore.

            Having said that, I’ll paraphrase what I’ve said before, that feminism has played a vital role in identifying and making visible the issue of dv. In that sense I’m hardly ‘anti-feminist’ … or whatever that is supposed to mean.

            Really my view boils down to this. By placing most of it’s focus on the visible story of male violence on women and children the standard feminist narrative has become a hindrance to progress. I point to the flat-lining statistics that seem to be as bad as ever they were. We aren’t making progress and I think we need to look closer at the reasons why.

            It is plain as day that the so called ‘gender wars’ have factionalised men and women against each other. That isn’t my doing, it’s just obvious after a few passes around the net. I think that is a hindrance. We will only solve this problem if men and women trust each other and help each other through this.

            My approach is to treat the underlying root causes of intimate partner violence as a gender neutral, human problem that is aimed at understanding the drivers of behaviour and avoids blame.

            And I think I can mostly say I’ve never been openly dismissive of your views weka. Not like you are now.

            • weka 4.1.2.2.3.1
              13 May 2016 at 1:21 pm

              “In that sense I’m hardly ‘anti-feminist’ … or whatever that is supposed to mean.”

              That’s right, you don’t know what I, as a feminist, mean. And until you are willing to take the time to learn that, I’m not longer willing to debate content with you on this topic.

              “And I think I can mostly say I’ve never been openly dismissive of your views weka. Not like you are now.”

              Maybe, but my memory over multiple conversations is that you routinely avoided dealing directly with the arguments pointing out the problems in what you are presenting. So it’s not as overt, but your dismissal is still there. And it’s horrible to debate with. I’ve reach my limit, so I’m making my dismissal overt.

              As I’ve said, I have very good reasons for not engaging in debating the content of your post or comments. I’m not the only one that feels like it’s a waste of time and/or a big distraction.

          • Bob 4.1.2.2.4
            13 May 2016 at 12:48 pm

            Weka, I agree that RL did politicise his post and use some unfortunate stereotypes, but the thing that did strike me about the whole thread was the fact that males in abusive relationships are just told to get out of the relationship, that is your only option. Imagine if that is the only advice we gave females in abusive relationships, it’s simply not that easy.

            There is no refuge available for men, retaliation is not and should never be an option and to my knowledge there are no support groups available to abused men. In fact, NZ’s Domestic Violence support groups openly exclude and even blame men:
            “Every year, Shine directly helps thousands of adult and child victims of domestic abuse to be safer, and we motivate hundreds of men that hurt their families to change their behaviour”
            http://www.2shine.org.nz/how-shine-helps/shine-services
            “Women’s Refuge is a key national organisation working to end domestic violence towards women and children”
            https://womensrefuge.org.nz/

            Ad offered a useful statistic in the first comment of RL’s post:
            “In the four years from 2009 to 2012, 76% of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men, 24% were perpetrated by women:
            http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/”
            Without trying to politicise the issue further, how do you see a way forward if we are not willing to look at the issue in a gender neutral way? Do we just accept that a quarter of intimate partner violence-related deaths are caused by men not getting out of the relationship in time?

            This has ended up being a lot more confrontational than I originally set out to be. Please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, or as trying to diminish the work that AreYouOk and Womens Refuge do. I am simply trying to point out that while RL may have made some unfortunate statements in his post, his story equally needed to be told and the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed.

            • RedLogix 4.1.2.2.4.1
              13 May 2016 at 1:05 pm

              Just to clarify a little further Bob. When I mention the topic of female on male abuse (which only some of which is physical) … I’m absolutely not trying to make any kind of Labour did it too argument. One form of abuse in no sense diminishes any other.

              And it was my experience that the underlying causes of dv are shared by both genders, and this shapes my approach to the topic.

            • weka 4.1.2.2.4.2
              13 May 2016 at 1:41 pm

              “Weka, I agree that RL did politicise his post and use some unfortunate stereotypes, but the thing that did strike me about the whole thread was the fact that males in abusive relationships are just told to get out of the relationship, that is your only option. Imagine if that is the only advice we gave females in abusive relationships, it’s simply not that easy.”

              Women do still get told that. In the past they got told that a lot. The reason they have more options today is because they organised.

              There is no refuge available for men, retaliation is not and should never be an option and to my knowledge there are no support groups available to abused men.

              The reason why women have services is because they organised. We didn’t get them handed to us on a plate. We got together under pretty difficult circumstances and created those services ourselves until others like the govt were willing to step in and help too. We are still hugely underfunded relative to many other aspects of NZ society, including ones that men not only benefit from but control the funding for.

              In fact, NZ’s Domestic Violence support groups openly exclude and even blame men:
              “Every year, Shine directly helps thousands of adult and child victims of domestic abuse to be safer, and we motivate hundreds of men that hurt their families to change their behaviour”

              Yes, men need to be held accountable for when they hurt other people. What does that have to do with men who are victims?

              Ad offered a useful statistic in the first comment of RL’s post:
              “In the four years from 2009 to 2012, 76% of intimate partner violence-related deaths were perpetrated by men, 24% were perpetrated by women:
              http://areyouok.org.nz/family-violence/statistics/”

              I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.

              Without trying to politicise the issue further, how do you see a way forward if we are not willing to look at the issue in a gender neutral way?

              We’re already making progress. This is one of Red’s basic premises that I reject (that we haven’t achieved anything useful).

              Do we just accept that a quarter of intimate partner violence-related deaths are caused by men not getting out of the relationship in time?

              ok, now I’m confused. Are you talking about men who abuse, or men who are being abused, or men who are both? Or what? It would help if you were clearer. I get that the situations are complex, and we need to take time to communicate clearly what we mean.

              This has ended up being a lot more confrontational than I originally set out to be. Please don’t take any of this as an attack on you, or as trying to diminish the work that AreYouOk and Womens Refuge do. I am simply trying to point out that while RL may have made some unfortunate statements in his post, his story equally needed to be told and the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed.

              I actually don’t care what Red wrote in his post, because I’ve seen it all before. It’s not just that he makes unfortunately statements, it’s that his politics are based on premises that many progressive people reject, and he is aligning himself with groups that are actively harming feminism, women and society.

              And let’s be clear here. He also is promoting a false dichotomy between the existing situation as he perceives it ie that seeing domestic violence as gendered is harming men and inhibiting change, and the idea that we can only do wright by men by abandoning that. It comes across as feminism is wrong about this and we need to look at men’s needs by underming what they are doing. It’s just bullshit. And it’s a serious problem here on the left because I don’t see any feminists supporting what he says (so if you want to ask where we would go, trying figuring out how to move somewhere after you have just said that feminism is wrong).

              Here’s what I would respect,

              Domestic violence overwhemingly affects women and is perpetrated by men, so we need to look at how women can be protected and men can be expected to change.

              In addition to that, there are men who are being harmed by women, and we need to look at why that is happening, and protect them and get those women to change too.

              In addition to that, humans don’t fit neatly into binary gender or heterosexuality, so we need to pay attention to those cultures and what their needs are around violence.

              All of the above is an inclusive model. Feminism will support men organising to address violence against them. They won’t support that if it’s being done by underming feminism.

              (aside, because this apparently needs spelling out, “Feminism will…” is me shorthanding and generalising as a way of not writing a novel. Like every other progressive movement, there are many expressions of feminism and many ways that feminists are active and see themselves. That’s not a problem).

              Edit, I’ll also say that there is no taboo from me on talking about domestic violence against men, nor from most feminists I know. There is appropriate time and place, but in general, most feminism wants men to be well too. I would welcome posts and discussion about this topic on ts. I won’t tolerate that being done in a regressive and repressive MRA-like way. There are other, constructive ways to approach this. Red isn’t the one to do it.

              • Xanthe …
                13 May 2016 at 1:54 pm

                How sad,

                Just for the record I strongly endorse redlogix’s approach and am shocked by weka’s refusal to consider it.

                Disappointed

              • Jcm …
                13 May 2016 at 2:57 pm

                It’s important to look further behind the statistics quoted above (e.g. 24% of intimate partner violence-related (IPV) deaths were perpetrated by women against men), which tend to underestimate the magnitude and effect of domestic violence perpetrated against women.

                From the report provided on the areyouok website, when examining the deaths according to domestic violence history within the relationship, 93% of all the IPV deaths involved female primary victims, and 96% involved male predominant aggressors (page 41 of the report).

                Of the deaths perpetrated by women, 83% were classified “Female primary victim/suspected primary victim kills male predominant aggressor”, and 17% as “Female predominant aggressor kills male/female primary victim”.

                So, in most cases women perpetrating IPV deaths were primary victims themselves.

                Also, just want to say thank you to Weka for your insightful and considerate comments regarding IPV and all gender-related subjects! This is a hard area to read as a lurker, let alone comment on, but so important, so I really appreciate that you continue to fight the fight.

                • weka …
                  13 May 2016 at 4:51 pm

                  I’m hugely appreciative of what you’ve just posted re the report.

                  And thanks for the thanks and the reminder of what this is like to be reading. This is why I don’t want to respond to Reds content, it just keeps a politically damaging conversation going. Walking away now.

                • Karen …
                  13 May 2016 at 5:26 pm

                  +1 Jcm.

                  I also appreciate the effort Weka has put into her comments, patiently trying to educate and explain in the face of some incredible levels of ignorance and misogyny.

                  I expect it from the right but find it very hard to accept it from the left. Unfortunately my idea of left seemingly does not match many of those commenting on the Standard who claim to be left but still have racist and sexist attitudes that they are not willing to confront.

                  • RedLogix …
                    13 May 2016 at 6:11 pm

                    All the personal abuse on this thread has come from who?

                    Not my idea of the left either.

                    • Karen …
                      13 May 2016 at 7:22 pm

                      Certainly not from Weka.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      13 May 2016 at 7:30 pm

                      That’s the weka who says that RL’s judgement on this issue is untrustworthy and that the facts that RL provides aren’t worth following up because they’re probably dodgy?

                      I suppose RL could be a greater man and not take that shit personally. But it sounds pretty damn personal.

                    • weka …
                      13 May 2016 at 8:00 pm

                      That’s not quite what I said though CV, so there is another example of misrepresenting my position. Here’s what I actually said,

                      I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.

                      I have given analysis over time of why I won’t engage with Red’s content on this topic. That included me saying that I don’t trust his sources because of my experience of arguing with him about this in the past. Other’s a free to follow up his links and make their own decisions.

                      You don’t like my critique of his politics, fair enough. But I haven’t been abusive. In fact I would day that this whole round of gender politics on ts has been remarkably free from abuse.

                      There is nothing wrong with me or anyone critiquing Red’s position. We do that on ts every day, why not in this situation?

                • RedLogix …
                  13 May 2016 at 6:09 pm

                  @jcm

                  Every study done in this area has been controversial. And when you drill into the details what you find is that there are essentially three kinds of interaction:

                  1. One partner inflicts one way abuse on the other

                  2. One partner initiates, the other responds in self-defence

                  3. Both parties pretty much go at it hammer and tongs equally

                  This complicates how we view the situation a lot. When you add in verbal abuse and humiliation it gets even more complex.

                  which tend to underestimate the magnitude and effect of domestic violence perpetrated against women.

                  Again no-one wants to minimise the fact that male violence causes more harm. I’ll keep saying this over and over because pixels are free and I can type fast. Your point is redundant, I’ve already emphatically stated it many, many times and yet no-one seems capable of noticing this.

                  So, in most cases women perpetrating IPV deaths were primary victims themselves.

                  Yet interestingly when men perpetrate IPV deaths absolutely no defense of provocation or any justification is ever permitted.

                  But certainly where deaths are concerned, men are the by far the dominant perpetrators, no argument … yet crucially it is not 100%. Women too murder their partners. Same-sex partner violence is also thought to be rising.

                  This is proof that violence is not totally determined by the fact of gender alone. Abuse occurs on a spectrum, and while males unquestionably dominate the worst end of it, there is no evidence to suggest that women are exempt from their share of it either.

                  Therefore there must be an underlying root cause that is common to all human experience.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  13 May 2016 at 7:44 pm

                  And that just proves – nothing. In fact, it’s moving the goal post from domestic violence to deaths caused by domestic violence. Different category, different measure.

                  • jcm …
                    13 May 2016 at 10:21 pm

                    Ummmm, if someone moved the goal posts ’twasnt me – I used the same evidence from the report quoted by Bob, so not sure where this critique comes from.

                    What I think it illustrates is that you need to have a more indepth knowledge of the figure you are quoting, otherwise you can do more harm than good.

              • Colonial Viper …
                13 May 2016 at 6:27 pm

                I won’t look at links or stats that Red provides without a very good reason, because I reject his basic premise. All other times I have looked at arguments that say lots of women abuse men, it’s led to some pretty dodgy, already refuted research. I’m not going to waste my time because I don’t trust Red’s judgement on this. If someone whose gender politics I respect posts somethign I will look at it.

                You’ve got a smart guy, RL, who has personal experience with DV as a victim, and who is willing to engage with you and with other commentators on TS in an articulate way.

                But you know what, fuck that, he’s clearly not trustworthy on this issue because he says things which confront the mental model you’ve built up around DV, and because you believe that your own basic premise is solid enough that you can dismiss him as you already have the answers that you want.

                So his entire input and life experience gets *POOOF* invalidated in a single moment – and my input too even though I personally know how violent Kiwi women can be.

                Instead, you’ll just create your own definition and own paradigm of what DV affecting males is all about, and the rest of us simply get to buy into it or not.

                Well, good luck with that, because both RL and I know that while you, and some of the other women who are commenting on this issue have some of the most important answers and insights, you still only own a fraction of what is required.

                All of the above is an inclusive model. Feminism will support men organising to address violence against them. They won’t support that if it’s being done by underming feminism…There is appropriate time and place, but in general, most feminism wants men to be well too. I would welcome posts and discussion about this topic on ts.

                The concept that men need or want the support of feminists or feminism in order to change themselves for the better, or that feminists or feminism has any validity in determining or defining what is good for men, or that feminists or feminism can describe what men are lacking and then act to help change the well being of men, is utterly unacceptable.

                It is as ridiculous and outrageous as suggesting that women need the support, approval and contribution of men in order to change and improve who they are.

                • Bill …
                  13 May 2016 at 7:05 pm

                  The concept that men need or want the support of feminists or feminism in order to change themselves for the better, or that feminists or feminism has any validity in determining or defining what is good for men, or that feminists or feminism can describe what men are lacking and then act to help change the well being of men, is utterly unacceptable.

                  Poppycock. This the third time of writing? How can you be a man in this world and not be a feminist?

                  Also. No-one has berated or challenged reds account of his experience of DV. What is challenged is the deficiency of understanding he exhibits with reference to the underlying drivers of DV. I mean, fuck, he takes the most valuable frame of reference – patriarchy – and just flat out dismisses it. Having dismissed that whole analytical framework out of hand, he then turns to studies and figures, a lot of which are twisted (and discredited) stats produced by overtly misogynistic fucktards to back his assertion that females and males are on some kind of level playing field when it comes to violence. We ain’t!

                  And that, just in case your entertaining the idea, isn’t me hating on men or projecting any type of self loathing. But I do despise that set of social norms that have grown up and that can be said to reside with the concept of patriarchy. And I despise the way that culture impacts on men and women both directly and indirectly or via intermediaries.

                  I don’t pretend to know the numbers on this. But I’d be curious to know how many women who abuse their partners were themselves previously subjected to abuse. Because misdirected revenge that springs from events in previous relationships or situations is cause for using the framework of patriarchy to understand why some women are abusing their partners…it’s not a reason to throw the framework away on the grounds that it doesn’t seem to apply to the here and now of a given abusive situation.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    13 May 2016 at 7:14 pm

                    mean, fuck, he takes the most valuable frame of reference – patriarchy – and just flat out dismisses it. Having dismissed that whole analytical framework out of hand,

                    Really?

                    Well if its such a valuable and powerful frame of reference, then let’s see the highly insightful and effective paths forward that this awesome analytical framework gives our towns and neighbourhoods about DV.

                    At least with a Marxian analytical framework, the workers are shown real ways out that they can do for themselves.

                  • RedLogix …
                    13 May 2016 at 7:48 pm

                    Its a long thread Bill you may have missed when I said this above at 4:11pm

                    The term ‘patriarchy’ while useful at one time has become another barrier. As many people have already said, in the bigger picture patriarchy harms men almost as much as it does women. It’s more about social hierarchy, gross inequality and unjust exploitation than it is about gender. It forms the basis of the greed based, unconstrained capitalism that oppresses virtually all of humanity in pretty much equal measure.

                    Again as I said, feminism has had a LOT of vital and interesting things to say about patriarchy. Really.

                    But when you read someone like Jared Diamond who neatly traces the origin of it back to the invention of agriculture, the need to defend territory, the need for disposable males as soldiers, the need to control female breeding to have plenty of replacements, the resulting intensification of hierarchy and inequality, economic models based on slavery and exploitation … it all looks more and more like class war than gender war.

                    Now of course historically feminism has a proud heritage of righting legal and structural inequality that was an inherent part of the slave/serf economies. But in a society where all women can vote, go to work in any job of their choosing, enter any relationship they want, and leave it at their choosing, enter into any legal contract, start any business they want, travel and live pretty much as they wish …. the idea this is a brutal repressive and literal patriarchy doesn’t quite live up to the label any more.

                    What instead feminism now confronts is male behaviour. And is now unhappy that men have all gotten with the program. What many men feel, but struggle to articulate is a sense that “what you are calling ‘patriarchy’ smells pretty much like the shit I have to put up with everyday myself”. As I said before; patriarchy harms most men almost as much as most women.

                    Now crucially this does NOT dismiss the experience of patriarchy as women experience it. But it does suggest a better way to reframe it so as both genders get it.

                    • Bill …
                      13 May 2016 at 8:00 pm

                      Jared Diamond – I’ve read some of his stuff – is in the same boat as any other person looking to the past and trying to figure it out. They are stuck within current frameworks of reference and so, in the end, can only tell stories. Now, some of those stories might seem more plausible than others, but all of them are chock full of projections from the here and now into an unknown and largely unknowable past.

                      Red, if you’re looking to pit an economic understanding against a gender understanding, then seriously, go and read this excellent post from a wee while back by ‘stargazer’.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/intersections/

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    13 May 2016 at 7:53 pm

                    he then turns to studies and figures, a lot of which are twisted (and discredited) stats produced by overtly misogynistic fucktards to back his assertion that females and males are on some kind of level playing field when it comes to violence.

                    What a load of fucken bollocks.

                    When study after study shows the same thing then you pretty have to take it as a given. And, no, those studies have not been discredited.

                    • Bill …
                      13 May 2016 at 8:11 pm

                      You’re right Draco. I should, of course, have written “stats and figures”, not studies and figures.

                  • Jenny Kirk …
                    13 May 2016 at 9:18 pm

                    Hi Bill – your comments above make a lot of sense. Pity the guys who are reading them cannot take them on board.
                    Patriachy does seem to me to be a valid framework to use in this discussion.

                • RedLogix …
                  13 May 2016 at 7:18 pm

                  It is as ridiculous and outrageous as suggesting that women need the support, approval and contribution of men in order to change and improve who they are.

                  Yes. When the feminists demanded the right to define what was important to them, to frame gender issues entirely on their terms, they forgot that men might equally demand the same right as well.

                  Of course their response was ‘well you are all the bad guys so you don’t get that right’. And we said ‘well actually we AREN’T all the bad guys’

                  And the women reply “we never said that, we just want to hold all men accountable as a class for the actions of a few’. And so it goes.

                  Then the MRA types said ‘fuck you, we’re going to determine our own narrative anyway’. The women screamed ‘misogynists!’ and on it goes.

                  Oh well … I’ll finish here by repeating something I said above; that in the end the path through this shitstorm will only be found when both genders start trusting each other again. And then helping each other to be be the best we can.

                  I’ll put it this way. We all know that men cause more harm. It’s largely a fact of our greater strength and crap socialisation in an intrinsically violent society.

                  But tell a man that his greater strength is a gift, tell him it is his duty to use if safely, tell him it makes him a better man to be responsible for using this gift wisely … then you have a framework most men will respond to.

                  And then ask yourself, who is that most men will listen to most, that they will do almost anything to please, if not the women in their lives they mostly want nothing more than to love and cherish?

                  • Bill …
                    13 May 2016 at 7:47 pm

                    Yes. When the feminists demanded the right to define what was important to them, to frame gender issues entirely on their terms, they forgot that men might equally demand the same right as well.

                    Red. What’s with this ‘the feminists’? Do you really think that feminist thought and understanding is the exclusive preserve of women? I mean, my experience of patriarchy is substantially different to that of women, but it’s not separate.

                    Of course their response was ‘well you are all the bad guys so you don’t get that right’. And we said ‘well actually we AREN’T all the bad guys’

                    I only ever met one woman who called herself for being a feminist who hated men…I was the only man in a room of about a dozen feminists at the time. And you know what? The feminists in the room didn’t want a bar of it. (That was in a house the evening before a day of feminist workshops many years back in England…mostly anarcho feminists from memory, pretty light on the liberal feminist front and I only wound up being in that house by accident).

                    And the women reply “we never said that, we just want to hold all men accountable as a class for the actions of a few’. And so it goes.

                    I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others (with the one isolated exception I’ve mentioned above)

                    Then the MRA types said ‘fuck you, we’re going to determine our own narrative anyway’. The women screamed ‘misogynists!’ and on it goes.

                    So the MRA types basically justify their shit off the back of their pre-existing prejudice.

                    Oh well … I’ll finish here by repeating something I said above; that in the end the path through this shitstorm will only be found when both genders start trusting each other again. And then helping each other to be be the best we can.

                    Again. I’ve never (with that one exception) found distrust – in relation to what we’re discussing – to be any kind of an issue.

                    I’ll put it this way. We all know that men cause more harm. It’s largely a fact of our greater strength and crap socialisation in an intrinsically violent society.

                    If society is intrinsically violent then it follows that no configuration of humanity can be anything but violent – and that’s simply not true. there are reasons why this society is violent. But you’re apparently loathe to analyse it.

                    But tell a man that his greater strength is a gift, tell him it is his duty to use if safely, tell him it makes him a better man to be responsible for using this gift wisely … then you have a framework most men will respond to.

                    Hail the almighty? Really??

                    And then ask yourself, who is that most men will listen to most, that they will do almost anything to please, if not the women in their lives they mostly want nothing more than to love and cherish?

                    And they all lived happily ever after in a patriarchal wonderland. Fan-fucking-tastic.

                    • RedLogix …
                      13 May 2016 at 8:03 pm

                      Do you really think that feminist thought and understanding is the exclusive preserve of women?

                      It is according to many of the comments I’ve read here. But that isn’t an answer to what you quoted anyhow.

                      I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others

                      Try reading weka up above.

                      http://thestandard.org.nz/daily-review-12052016/#comment-1173238

                      Last sentence. Maybe I misread it.

                      But you’re apparently loathe to analyse it.

                      See above @7:48pm. Acknowledge it’s only a very scratchy attempt, but loath? No.

                      Hail the almighty? Really??

                      And they all lived happily ever after in a patriarchal wonderland. Fantastic.

                      Again the overt sneering and personal abuse is coming from who?

                      Frankly what are you expecting from me when you behave like this?

                    • Bill …
                      13 May 2016 at 8:24 pm

                      I already read Weka’s comment earlier. You might have noted I asked her to clarify one small part – which she did. She was giving a rundown of MRA stuff….not a run down of men’s attitudes. Is that where you went off track?

                      Well, what kind of response do you expect to an appeal for supposed superiority be acknowledged, accepted as truth and encouraged/rewarded? I wasn’t sneering at you. I was being contemptuous of the idea you were peddling. Look. If you happen to have a partner who is consensually submissive in aspects of your relationship, then all power to you both. But you can’t put that expectation or that template ‘out there’ as though it should be a norm and not expect some ‘less than enthusiastic’ responses.

                    • weka …
                      13 May 2016 at 8:31 pm

                      “I’ve never had a feminist attempt to hold me accountable for the actions of others”

                      Try reading weka up above.

                      here’s what I said,

                      It then uses those strawmen to push theories that don’t hold men accountable as a class.

                      That means that men as a class are accountable for the privilges that their class is afforded. In the context of this conversation it also means that men as a class need to step up and change male violence, not because all individual men are responsible for the actions of other individual men, but because men are the ones that can change their own culture as a whole.

                      Nothing, I repeat nothing, in what I have said suggests that Bill is responsible for another general man’s violence. IMO he does have a responsibility to take action against male violence in general, and I see him doing that in this thread.

                      Likewise I will hold Pākehā as a class accountable for racism in NZ. Or the non-disabled accountable for the shit that disabled people have to go through just to live their lives. Not because non-disabled people are bad, but because they have power that disabled people don’t.

                      So, yet another example of your failure to even understand the basic arguments made by feminism, and to misrepresent my views. On and on it goes. Your views on feminism are so twisted from what feminists believe and you continue to assert that your views of feminism are more valid than those of feminists. It makes sense then that you insist that I don’t know what I mean elsewhere in the thread. There’s no way past that.

                    • RedLogix …
                      14 May 2016 at 12:06 pm

                      @weka

                      IMO he does have a responsibility to take action against male violence in general, and I see him doing that in this thread.

                      I’ve absolutely zero problem or argument when you frame it like that.

                      But still nothing said about women taking responsibility against female violence in general. Yes it’s less physically damaging and way less visible, but it emotionally it’s every bit as harmful.

                      Feminists have spent a lot of energy and got a LOT of oxygen demanding men take responsibility to change; yet the slightest hint from men that maybe women might want to examine their own camp too, gets viciously shouted down.

                      As for the rest of your comment, it’s patronising and condescending. All you do is tell me how ignorant and twisted I am, making the issue personal rather than adding to the conversation. You barely manage to omit the word misogynist. It’s typical of the bile feminist direct towards men and it’s taking you nowhere.

                      @Bill

                      Look. If you happen to have a partner who is consensually submissive in aspects of your relationship, then all power to you both.

                      Again the grotesque misrepresentation. It’s truly amazing what people will project. Actually my partner is a successful and capable business person in her own right and is naturally assertive and bossy when it suits her. She’s much better at organising people than I am, and has fine strong opinions of her own. It is why I love her.

                      But while you sneer, the fact remains, regardless of any imaginary templates you want to make up, almost no-one enters into an intimate relationship with a picture in their mind of hitting, kicking, beating or killing this person they love. No-one (apart from maybe the psychopaths) walk down the traditional marriage aisle in the hope that one day they can get to kick the shit out the person they are about to be joined with.

                      So when it does all end up in hospital, refuge or court surely it is worth asking ‘what went so badly wrong?’

                      In all this debate it is so easy to lose sight of this truth, that most people, most of the time are fundamentally good. And when they are not … it is more often the stuff of tragedy than malice.

                      That’s it from me. I’m sick of seeing my name on the sidebar for the time being and I’ve other things to get on with.

            • Jenny Kirk 4.1.2.2.4.3
              13 May 2016 at 4:27 pm

              “the taboo of female-against-male domestic violence does need to be addressed”.
              Yes – I would agree Bill, but isn’t it time that men took up that issue for themselves – just as women in the past have taken up the issue of domestic violence and worked to bring it out into the open, and to provide safe shelters for those women and children it affects.

              Edit – I see that Weka above answers this in more detail.

              • Bill …
                13 May 2016 at 5:39 pm

                I didn’t write that quote you’re attributing to me. Anyway…

                okay. scanned back through the comments. Bob wrote that.

              • Xanthe …
                13 May 2016 at 5:45 pm

                jenny explainations of factionalism above, we ran out of levels for reply

                • gsays …
                  14 May 2016 at 10:18 am

                  Hi all, I would like to suggest that part of the tension in this discussion is that we have a head and a heart debating and in that, it can be hard to see common ground

                  • Xanthe …
                    14 May 2016 at 12:54 pm

                    I applaud your approach gsays and several decades ago i would have said the same.
                    In my experience those who set themselves up as saviours of the victim’s often gain a sense of personal entltlement and feel justified in using unethical means to get what they are convinced is owing to them, This manefests in dishonest and manipulative communication as was the case here. It is a form of violence and does create tension. In a domestic setting it is domestic violence. They themselves are convinced that because they are doing it for the victims is must be OK
                    Quite frankly I dont know how to get through to them. The only times i have observed a meaningful change from this behaviour is if they are by circumstance required to accept responsibility for some harm they have caused, but generally it can be blamed on the oppressors so it dosnt happen often. Thus are despots made from the best of intentions.

  5. ianmac 5
    12 May 2016 at 7:45 pm

    That bag being flaunted by Judith was on Sale at the Warehouse I think. $20.50

  6. Gangnam Style 6
    12 May 2016 at 11:31 pm

    Oh wow so good, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=11637631 Raybon Kan “Meanwhile, in another romantic comedy, Fairfax and NZME seem to be dating. So one media firm was eyeing up another, yet the media were caught by surprise. What do we expect? The media were in a lock-up watching The Bachelor.”

  7. greywarshark 7
    13 May 2016 at 9:33 pm

    Well I can skip most of this stuff. Same old, same old. The difference between the sexes and violence and bad behaviour etc. 105 comments!

    Did anyone write about anything else on here? I haven’t time to look and see if there is any original thought or amusing satire.

    • Incognito 7.1
      13 May 2016 at 11:58 pm

      It therefore seems important to renew the discussion of what we want: to think through not just what we are against, but what we are fighting for (and hence who ‘we’ are), and to consider what might be plausibly achieved in present circumstances.

      I just read your recently suggested link about “commonism”. A very good read but I terribly missed one hugely important aspect or dimension, which seems to be left out of most socio-political discourse. Possibly the very last sentence hides a suggestion of a hint …

      • greywarshark 7.1.1
        14 May 2016 at 11:45 am

        Incognito
        Right I will have another look at that commonism piece and see what the dots you leave behind you refer to.

        As to the quote above, yes to thinking about what we are fighting for (and it is a fight, not a skirmish against the powerful-money-materialism-crazed and their naive bunnies in the headlights, and is likely to be a fight to the death – of people elsewhere, or closer – our vulnerable towns and supply systems, our extended families, us, our known planet – which will become the place of the ants which I think have the life systems to survive in places).

        But thinking who ‘we’ are. There isn’t time to think, argue and analyse that in depth. The ‘we’ have to be the people who will step forward and do something of value in building capacity, sustainable, friendly community and retaining as much kindness as possible, despite ever harsher conditions. Those who self-select to act, must seek out other people who can combine thinking, reflecting, comradeship and action and together work for worthy practical positive outcomes. The others are just, literally, time-wasters. In The Day of the Triffids, those who wake in the morning after the night-sky show, are blind and shocked and feel their way along the walls to the downstairs lobby hoping for help and guidance, and mill round in circles there.

        That is what is happening here in the world right now, we can see but we can’t process intellectually what we see and so won’t take any steps to defray the disaster to come. What a future. Dire. And we are aboard the Titanic. Some survived from that – and one of them was in the company that built it. But it wasn’t his fault was it? The problem was over-confidence, hubris on everyones part, especially captain and crew. A very human failing. Perhaps that is why the human race is failing.

        • Incognito 7.1.1.1
          14 May 2016 at 11:41 pm

          Thanks greywarshark.

          I will certainly have to re-read it again as it was rather long & dense at such a late time at night.

          I think you’re probably right about everything you wrote although I personally dislike using ‘military’ terminology. I prefer to see it as (part of) “the human struggle” (Darwinian) to figure out who we are, what is the purpose (meaning) of life, and all those other pesky little questions that won’t go away 😉

          The only thing I’d argue about is the tension between acting (now) and thinking (later). IMO we’re destined to do (repeat) the same things (mistakes, or, in your words “mill round in circles”) if we rely on short-term or so-called fast thinking (à la Kahneman). The human condition requires holistic approaches, which also means that actingthinking have to be(come) complementary rather than separate steps in the process.

          Popper made a similar argument, I believe, when he discussed (piecemeal) social engineering and planning & politics: small steps with feedback loops along the way and continuous adjustment. That said, I’m not sure that his methodology/philosophy is applicable to major social crises. He contrasted this with Utopian engineering, which he was less keen on, to say the least … Perhaps that’s more like the urgent action that you’re referring to?

          Do we need good or better leaders, self-selecting activists and/or thinkers, or do we try something completely different and new?

  8. ScottN 8
    15 May 2016 at 5:36 am

    From a liberal framework it dangerous to say that because men commit more severe family violence that we should have rules or campaigns that single them out. Because if you can do that how do you deal with the significant differences in statistics between cultural groups and socioeconomic levels?

    And from a pragmatic framework we currently have a situation where male – female violence is basically unacceptable (most people will actively intervene, which is good) and female to male violence is largely acceptable (at least slaps and some punches – almost no one would intervene). This means a little effort to discourage F-M assaults could have a large effect while M-F assaults are the sort of thing that considerable social pressure has not been able to weed out.

    And of course those that see violence are likely to be more violent so reducing this has other benefits.