The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'... but that's true for both sides. He's posting only out of personal experience (which is likely to be badly biased, granted, judging from some of his other material, although presumably female Lorie Byrd shares his experience - http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6528 ), but he might very well be right. What I found most compelling was that Ilkya Damen, writing in opposition at http://ilyka.mu.nu/archives/025496.html was actually unable to come up with 35 right-wing blogs written by women that were regularly updated (I cannot comment on the quality of writing).
John Hawkins seems to be unduly concerned with a minimum of daily postings (I'd rather see a quality piece once per week than seven pages of useless trash, and for all her popularity and prolific writing, I can't stand Wonkette, for instance), but padding the numbers with blogs that hadn't updated for a couple months is pushing things a bit.
There may be discussion to be had about whether the *total* number of female bloggers writing daily is high, but merely slanted to the left (this would be demonstrating better intelligence and taste in women, in my opinion, but that's revealing my own bias), and there's certainly a lot of value in discussion about how much sexism discourages women from writing about politics, but John Hawkins actually has support for a claim that the numbers just aren't there — at least on the right, and judging from complaints I hear elsewhere, it's not all that different on the left. It's not just linking bias at work, here.
This isn't to say that linking bias doesn't exist (and John Hawkin's silence on the matter of whether or not at least *fifteen* of those thirty-five examples would have been good enough to knock men's blogs off of his top 40 list speaks towards his own linking bias), nor that John Hawkins isn't deserving of mockery for other things he's said, but this one isn't one of them, in my opinion.
these people are ridiculous. even if, through socialization and various institutional barriers, fewer women than men are interested in "politics," (which of course we know doesn't include issues like abortion or violence against women) can that explain the HUGE disparity that is prevalent in the "top blogs"? i don't think so.
Does this issue possibly feed into the larger issue of female participation in the political sphere? Women who do venture into politics are vilified and portrayed as a traitor to the "feminine" roots of their gender--need I mention all of the we-hate-that-dyke-Hillary news out there? Women are so often pushed to the side as "special interests" if they dare raise issues of gender inequality; to gain public support they need to fit their priorities into the larger mainstream agenda, which is pushed by a very male-dominated legislature/court system/administration.
And girls/young women are just not groomed to be states(wo)men in any significant way--there is no Skull & Bones for the ladies, no access to Augusta's club house and the money of its members, no grand family traditions of generations of women entering politics a la the Kennedys or (god help us) the Bushes.
C, if those women you're speaking about are really concerned about gender inequality, then why don't I see them pushing these issues:
The fact that women get lighter sentences when convincted in comparison to men.
The factor that half of the perpetrators of child abuse are women.
The fact that fathers are consistently denied of their right to see their children. Don't children also have a right to see their father? If so, then why are single mother's children being denied that?
The fact that there are women's sheltered for abused women, but no men's shelters (men experience just as much abuse as women do. if you don't believe me then look up scientificly sound studies proving just that)
The fact that 80% of suicide victims are male.
If those are the gender issues you speak of that they are trying to push, then you are completely correct. Those issues are ignored and often fall onto deaf ears.
Obviously there is only one explanation as to why more women don't take-up blogging-- oppression! I mean, could there ever be any other cause? Of course not. If a woman isn't intersted in a subject, it's because this woman-hating society discouraged her from being interested.
And in other news, there was an earthquake in Iran earlier today... As you might expect, women were hit the hardest.
And SupaSpy- the reasons are very simple: if a woman gets victimized, it's a tragedy which is worthy of enormous sorrow and sympathy. If a man gets victimized, the stinky bastard deserved it and the news distracts us from the obviously more important matter of women's downtrodden status.
You need to understand that delicate, saintly flower-petals who are constantly smashed under the boots of patriarchy are simply more worthy of concern than those wearing the boots. Showing any concern for the well-being of non-females is like expecting us to show concern for the well-being of the KKK.
Leena: perhaps it would help to consider the statement as saying not that women aren't interested in the outcomes of political maneuverings (which most women almost indisputibly are), but that they aren't interested in talking about politics; that's what that context is for that statement.
C: I think both parts of what you're saying are largely correct, though in the first case it's partly a matter of the compromises in politics leaving a politician with no choice but to disappoint people somewhere. There's also the problem that women are widely perceived by men to be easier targets, so a lot more of the hate comes out of the woodwork (and I see the resident trolls have already put in their appearance).
I have a lasting allergy to the "aww, you don't want to do that, it's hard" (or unpleasant) form of discouragement that makes me tend to focus on that as a priority, however. Ideally, I'd like to see it swing the other direction (for both genders, even). I'm not really sure how to go about encouraging people to endure the inevitable slings and arrows for the dubious return of knowing that they put out one more voice that might be heard and listened to if they aren't already driven to do it. I suspect that sort of drive, a need to write or take a stand, can only be instilled when you're young, and parents often take very poorly to strangers suggesting how to raise their children.
Ms. Jared: I apologize if I have greatly disturbed you with what I wrote, but I don't believe women's causes are best served by chasing down symptoms rather than causes, or by ignoring evidence presented.
If you'd like to rebut this position and demonstrate that the problem really is in the linking and not in the lack of writing, the easiest way to do so is to succeed where Ilkya Damen failed: come up with a list of 35 high quality, high volume conservative female bloggers, and make the compelling argument that the bulk of your choices were better than the lower end of John Hawkin's.
(I grant that I'd be horribly conflicted trying to do this myself; since I find the majority of conservative blogs to be out in their own little world with deadly results to others, regardless of volume or writing ability I'd be hard pressed to bring myself to promote them.)
Feministing is doing this partly on for the liberal blogs already, though it's not necessarily visible. Jessica: what do you think about the idea of putting a light blue background shading behind the links on the blogroll that are run by women, just to make the count visible, and let people know what in particular to pass on if the issue comes up?
SupaSpy: I agree with you that these are very valid points. So, why aren't there more movement to do something about it? Oh hey, maybe men aren't interested in those kinds of politics? 'Cause, I don't know, these are all men related gender issues?
See where we end up with that kind of logic? Just because there isn't much visible change in these directions, doesn't mean there aren't people interested in them. Are _you_ doing anything to change the current status quo on the custody issues? Or is it easier to just troll around feminist sites?
Regarding the actual post - maybe my view will be biased and everything, since I am a family girl, and most of the posters here (I assume, and I apologize if I assume wrong) are women who are relatively free as far as family commitements go.
I have a first-grader son and a husband. All the child-related stuff takes a lot of time and effort, and somehow my husband is the one with more free time to spend. I do not begrudge him that, and he does help out as much as he can, but in certain circumstances it's just less damage control I have to do if I do it myself (let's just say, homework and impatient fathers don't mix well). I know that most of the working women with kids that I know of are in similar situations.
I'd LOVE to be more politically active, but my primary concern is to raise this kid as best I can. (not to say that it is the ONLY goal I have, but that's a lengthy discussion for another time and place). I'd LOVE to have a political blog, but hey, I don't even have time to maintain a personal one, and if I started something public, I'd feel like I have to update it regularly. As of now, I'm amazed at feministing people (and others) who have all this time to read news and find great articles so those of us who are busy can still have access to pertinent news.
On the other hand, my husband has time (and energy) to spend online and offline (washing dishes takes a whole less time than making up sentences wit hspelling words). So, my point is - and again, I do realize that my situation is not universal - maybe women in general just have less time to spend on politics or anything else, especially those who work and take care of children.
Oh, and Vox, it's really easy to sit and whine about how bitchy women have it so easy yet they complain how oppressed they are, and it's funny how you fail to see the irony of your statements.
Assuming that men do suffer 50% of domestic abuse, I'm still skeptical of the need for shelters:
Do men have insufficient financial resources when leaving abusive situations?
Do they take dependent children with them?
Do their abusers seek them out after they have left?
These are just three questions that immediately occur to me. If the answers are no, no and no, then it may be that there are few men who need a shelter.
Besides, in the 1970s, when shelters for battered women first appeared, they had no public support. Women pulled together capital and volunteered and made it happen.
But maybe I'm missing something and men in your community have trouble finding a place to go when fleeing domestic violence. If you care about men fleeing domestic violence in your community, get together with some other men and start an organization to help them.
I'll go you one better. I'll pledge $100 to any 501(c)(3) you create to assist men who are victims of domestic violence. It's a worthy cause. Identiy the problem, plan a solution. I'll help.
Politics (personal definition): the manipulation (or techniques for manipulation) of public opinion, finances, lawmakers, or other forms of power related to the governing or dominance of a people.
Politics (variation of an old joke): derived from "poly", meaning many, and "tics", which are involuntary muscle convulsions. Politics is thus the result of the wild thrashing of an intellectually epileptic people.
Looking back at those answers, I'm no longer sure which one is more cynical, but I'll at least stand by my first answer.
Understand that I'm simply trying to put this in a different perspective. To answer your questions, if that male is a little child and the mother is abusing him, then YES. I think it is a serious issue to for feminists to concern themselves with.
Don't they want to be good people by educating their fellow sisters on how real women don't commit abuse? Much in the same way that you praise men who take on 'real men don't commit violence' campaigns?
A male shelter would be great for fathers to take their children that are being abused by the single mothers.
Or better yet, a gender neutral shelter where everyone affected by abuse can support one another.
The reason for me giving the male perspective on these issues is because I am very concerned about what the world is going to bring to my children, especially if I have a son. A lot of feminists are also mothers, so they SHOULD be concerned with these male issues.
Don't they want to see their husbands, fathers and brothers be treated with the kindness and fairness that they deserve?
Here is another reason why feminists should be concerned about men's issues:
Having no fathers in the home has a serious and detrimental effect on their children (which includes the little girls, so yes, the fatherhood crisis can be considered a woman's issue since little girls are forced to grow up without their fathers).
Here are some statistics proving just how disturbing the effects of a lack of father figure are:
Children from fatherless homes account for:
63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).
71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).
If you perpetuate a divide in the sexes by never listening to the other side, then you're going against you're doctrine of equality aren't you?
If you do that, how can you ever find solutions to the problems you're concerned about? The truth of the matter is that it would be more feasible to come up with mutually exclusive solutions.
That is how everyone can be better off.
I'm sorry that you have to describe what I'm doing as trolling. My intentions are to help your cause by bringing a different and valid view point into it.
I am female.
I am a college student in Canada.
I've lived in third world countries and have survived a civil war in one of those countries.
I am concerned about the direction this battle of the sexes is heading.
I am concerned about how my future sons and daughters will be affected by the issues I have talked about.
My father, a man who I love dearly, was disciminated against in a system that didn't want to listen to his side of the story. He was married to a woman who abused me.
I shudder to think about what would've happened if he had been taken away from me. She tried desperately to falsely accuse him of child abuse so that she could win a divorce case.
If my father had been taken away from me, Lord knows what would've happened to my brother and I. We would've become another statistic.
I am not an isolated case. Lots of little girls and boys are suffering more than what I had to go through.
There already are men's groups concerning themselves with these sort of things, but there are alot of legal hurdles that are standing in their way.
I am a proud part of their group because they want to do what's best for their families and the name of justice. They are open minded and welcome dialogue and challenging discussion.
They examine issues from both sides of the story.
They aren't afraid to pose logical,challenging and difficult questions.
They try to answer those questions intelligently and are more equal than any feminists I have ever met.
Reason being is that they hold my beliefs on how EVERYONE, women included, should have equal accountability.
I once considered myself a feminist, until I saw the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness of the movement.
I thought it was ridiculous that I had people telling me what a victim I was when in in reality, I have never once in my life felt discriminated or held back because of my sex. And if anyone ever did try doing that, then it never bothered me because I was secure enough to know that if I was an accomplished person, then nothing they said would matter.
I didn't want to be part of a movement that held a lot of double standards.
This site has reminded me why I left the feminist movement.
Zed Pobre: Seems like abortion, violence against women, LGBT marriage, rape as a weapon of war, family law/child custody, and pornography could all fall within your definition of politics. Women probably discuss those issues even more often than men do.
I will clarify once again by amending the statement to read that they aren't as interested in talking about politics _in a public forum_, then.
All of the things you mention certainly can fall under the umbrella of politics, though they certainly don't have to, but the evidence appears to indicate that although all of these topics are certainly of strong interest to many women, few seem to be willing to endure the various challenges involved in making oneself heard... and by doing so making oneself a target.
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong on this (and I hope I will be, eventually). Feministing has made a good start by making this a less formidable place for a woman new to writing to make her voice heard, and I have seen and visited the new entries on the blogroll.
Until it reaches the point where when a challenge such as the one John Hawkins made can be easily met, however, I will hold the opinion that this aspect, of encouraging more women to write, is more important than spending much effort investigating link bias (though I certainly am not discouraging attempts to correct it when the opportunity presents itself, as it did with Peek).
Your writings have been so off topic and so hostile that I have been disinclined to believe you were actually a woman. Since the trauma of your personal experiences is also a plausible explanation, I'm willing to change my mind and address what you're writing.
First and foremost, it's important to realize that there are many ills in the world, many problems, facing men and women, white and black, American and European and Asian, rich (as odd as it may sound, there are some millionaires with whom I would *not* want to change places) and poor, first world and third world. I'm a man, living in the United States at the moment, moderately successful financially now. My grandparents still live in the Philippines, however, in a house with almost no water pressure to speak of. When I visit, I shower with a bucket. I've fought a rapist, and was once falsely accused of rape myself, leading a friend of the girl to go off half-cocked and try to kill me, leaving me with two scars on my face I'll carry forever and broken ribs, despite the fact that the claims were so ludicrous that the police never even bothered to question me on them (I was an exceedingly shy 14 or 15 year old pacifist. The woman was 18. The rest of the circumstances I won't go into.) I have male friends who are frustratingly sexist (sometimes extremely so) while absolutely certain that they're not, but are otherwise decent people. I've met women who are staunch defenders of women's rights, but were otherwise morally bankrupt. I've met a lot clearer examples of good people and bad people along the way, of course.
Life is complex. I'll claim a little exposure to variety along the way.
There is no person so skilled, with so much power, or with so much time, that he or she can address them all. Societies, like walls, are built and repaired one brick at a time, and then best you can do is to stay out of the way of someone fixing the part next to you while you work with others to fix what's in reach.
These women are fixing the part of the wall that they see most directly affecting their lives. The hole is large enough that there is significant weight to the argument that it should be receiving more attention than it is.
Nobody here has claimed that there are no other holes to fix. I have seen nobody attempt to prevent those holes from being fixed. It's not hypocrisy to work first on that which is in reach.
I'm sorry you feel that an injustice has been done to you by the admins of this site or its visitors, but although I have not seen any of them attempting to tear down your part of the wall or preventing you from working on it, I cannot say the same for you. Help them, or get out of their way. Screaming at them for not fixing your part of the wall first hurts everyone. It hurts them, it hurts the people they protect, and since it costs you allies down the road, by alienating people who might otherwise be interested in helping you once their own problems are lessened somewhat, it hurts you too.
If you are who you say you are, I'm actually sorry you're leaving. I think staying here and reading more might be good for you. You seem to be fighting dragons entirely of your own making, attributing to the writers at Feministing negative traits based not on their actions, but on the projections of the nightmares you remember. It's become trite to suggest having an open mind, but I'm not really sure how else to express that concept. Listen to what they say, not what you're expecting them to say.
If you're convinced that what they are doing is actually harming your interests, rather than simply failing to aid them, explain politely how, and suggest ways in which both of your goals can be achieved. I suspect you'd get a reasonable response if you did so. At worst, you'll come across the occasional situation where your goals are mutually exclusive, and people will have to make their own decisions about which goal they consider more important. Even if they decide against you, it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't think you have a legitimate cause, but only that it wasn't strong enough for them to drop their own.
That's looking far ahead, however, as no such situation has as yet come up. Don't borrow trouble; there's enough to go around.
The feedback button on my website (linked from my name) will send me e-mail if you want to continue the conversation in a forum other than Feministing.
Weekly Feministing Newsletter
Feministing RSS Feed
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'... but that's true for both sides. He's posting only out of personal experience (which is likely to be badly biased, granted, judging from some of his other material, although presumably female Lorie Byrd shares his experience - http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=6528 ), but he might very well be right. What I found most compelling was that Ilkya Damen, writing in opposition at http://ilyka.mu.nu/archives/025496.html was actually unable to come up with 35 right-wing blogs written by women that were regularly updated (I cannot comment on the quality of writing).
John Hawkins seems to be unduly concerned with a minimum of daily postings (I'd rather see a quality piece once per week than seven pages of useless trash, and for all her popularity and prolific writing, I can't stand Wonkette, for instance), but padding the numbers with blogs that hadn't updated for a couple months is pushing things a bit.
There may be discussion to be had about whether the *total* number of female bloggers writing daily is high, but merely slanted to the left (this would be demonstrating better intelligence and taste in women, in my opinion, but that's revealing my own bias), and there's certainly a lot of value in discussion about how much sexism discourages women from writing about politics, but John Hawkins actually has support for a claim that the numbers just aren't there — at least on the right, and judging from complaints I hear elsewhere, it's not all that different on the left. It's not just linking bias at work, here.
This isn't to say that linking bias doesn't exist (and John Hawkin's silence on the matter of whether or not at least *fifteen* of those thirty-five examples would have been good enough to knock men's blogs off of his top 40 list speaks towards his own linking bias), nor that John Hawkins isn't deserving of mockery for other things he's said, but this one isn't one of them, in my opinion.
i just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
xoxo, jared
"Well uh, personally, in my experience, um, like, women just aren't interested in politics. Yeah. Uh, yeah." How creative.
these people are ridiculous. even if, through socialization and various institutional barriers, fewer women than men are interested in "politics," (which of course we know doesn't include issues like abortion or violence against women) can that explain the HUGE disparity that is prevalent in the "top blogs"? i don't think so.
Does this issue possibly feed into the larger issue of female participation in the political sphere? Women who do venture into politics are vilified and portrayed as a traitor to the "feminine" roots of their gender--need I mention all of the we-hate-that-dyke-Hillary news out there? Women are so often pushed to the side as "special interests" if they dare raise issues of gender inequality; to gain public support they need to fit their priorities into the larger mainstream agenda, which is pushed by a very male-dominated legislature/court system/administration.
And girls/young women are just not groomed to be states(wo)men in any significant way--there is no Skull & Bones for the ladies, no access to Augusta's club house and the money of its members, no grand family traditions of generations of women entering politics a la the Kennedys or (god help us) the Bushes.
C, if those women you're speaking about are really concerned about gender inequality, then why don't I see them pushing these issues:
The fact that women get lighter sentences when convincted in comparison to men.
The factor that half of the perpetrators of child abuse are women.
The fact that fathers are consistently denied of their right to see their children. Don't children also have a right to see their father? If so, then why are single mother's children being denied that?
The fact that there are women's sheltered for abused women, but no men's shelters (men experience just as much abuse as women do. if you don't believe me then look up scientificly sound studies proving just that)
The fact that 80% of suicide victims are male.
If those are the gender issues you speak of that they are trying to push, then you are completely correct. Those issues are ignored and often fall onto deaf ears.
Obviously there is only one explanation as to why more women don't take-up blogging-- oppression! I mean, could there ever be any other cause? Of course not. If a woman isn't intersted in a subject, it's because this woman-hating society discouraged her from being interested.
And in other news, there was an earthquake in Iran earlier today... As you might expect, women were hit the hardest.
And SupaSpy- the reasons are very simple: if a woman gets victimized, it's a tragedy which is worthy of enormous sorrow and sympathy. If a man gets victimized, the stinky bastard deserved it and the news distracts us from the obviously more important matter of women's downtrodden status.
You need to understand that delicate, saintly flower-petals who are constantly smashed under the boots of patriarchy are simply more worthy of concern than those wearing the boots. Showing any concern for the well-being of non-females is like expecting us to show concern for the well-being of the KKK.
Leena: perhaps it would help to consider the statement as saying not that women aren't interested in the outcomes of political maneuverings (which most women almost indisputibly are), but that they aren't interested in talking about politics; that's what that context is for that statement.
C: I think both parts of what you're saying are largely correct, though in the first case it's partly a matter of the compromises in politics leaving a politician with no choice but to disappoint people somewhere. There's also the problem that women are widely perceived by men to be easier targets, so a lot more of the hate comes out of the woodwork (and I see the resident trolls have already put in their appearance).
I have a lasting allergy to the "aww, you don't want to do that, it's hard" (or unpleasant) form of discouragement that makes me tend to focus on that as a priority, however. Ideally, I'd like to see it swing the other direction (for both genders, even). I'm not really sure how to go about encouraging people to endure the inevitable slings and arrows for the dubious return of knowing that they put out one more voice that might be heard and listened to if they aren't already driven to do it. I suspect that sort of drive, a need to write or take a stand, can only be instilled when you're young, and parents often take very poorly to strangers suggesting how to raise their children.
Ms. Jared: I apologize if I have greatly disturbed you with what I wrote, but I don't believe women's causes are best served by chasing down symptoms rather than causes, or by ignoring evidence presented.
If you'd like to rebut this position and demonstrate that the problem really is in the linking and not in the lack of writing, the easiest way to do so is to succeed where Ilkya Damen failed: come up with a list of 35 high quality, high volume conservative female bloggers, and make the compelling argument that the bulk of your choices were better than the lower end of John Hawkin's.
(I grant that I'd be horribly conflicted trying to do this myself; since I find the majority of conservative blogs to be out in their own little world with deadly results to others, regardless of volume or writing ability I'd be hard pressed to bring myself to promote them.)
Feministing is doing this partly on for the liberal blogs already, though it's not necessarily visible. Jessica: what do you think about the idea of putting a light blue background shading behind the links on the blogroll that are run by women, just to make the count visible, and let people know what in particular to pass on if the issue comes up?
"And in other news, there was an earthquake in Iran earlier today... As you might expect, women were hit the hardest."
This is hilarious! Vox, you used to just piss me off, but you've reached a level of lunacy which is starting to be quite amusing!!
Right Wing News? Geez, what a surprise. :/
Women don't like heated political discussions either - oops, the commenters at Washington Monthly just disproved that idea with a vengeance.
SupaSpy: I agree with you that these are very valid points. So, why aren't there more movement to do something about it? Oh hey, maybe men aren't interested in those kinds of politics? 'Cause, I don't know, these are all men related gender issues?
See where we end up with that kind of logic? Just because there isn't much visible change in these directions, doesn't mean there aren't people interested in them. Are _you_ doing anything to change the current status quo on the custody issues? Or is it easier to just troll around feminist sites?
Regarding the actual post - maybe my view will be biased and everything, since I am a family girl, and most of the posters here (I assume, and I apologize if I assume wrong) are women who are relatively free as far as family commitements go.
I have a first-grader son and a husband. All the child-related stuff takes a lot of time and effort, and somehow my husband is the one with more free time to spend. I do not begrudge him that, and he does help out as much as he can, but in certain circumstances it's just less damage control I have to do if I do it myself (let's just say, homework and impatient fathers don't mix well). I know that most of the working women with kids that I know of are in similar situations.
I'd LOVE to be more politically active, but my primary concern is to raise this kid as best I can. (not to say that it is the ONLY goal I have, but that's a lengthy discussion for another time and place). I'd LOVE to have a political blog, but hey, I don't even have time to maintain a personal one, and if I started something public, I'd feel like I have to update it regularly. As of now, I'm amazed at feministing people (and others) who have all this time to read news and find great articles so those of us who are busy can still have access to pertinent news.
On the other hand, my husband has time (and energy) to spend online and offline (washing dishes takes a whole less time than making up sentences wit hspelling words). So, my point is - and again, I do realize that my situation is not universal - maybe women in general just have less time to spend on politics or anything else, especially those who work and take care of children.
Oh, and Vox, it's really easy to sit and whine about how bitchy women have it so easy yet they complain how oppressed they are, and it's funny how you fail to see the irony of your statements.
SupaSpy:
Assuming that men do suffer 50% of domestic abuse, I'm still skeptical of the need for shelters:
Do men have insufficient financial resources when leaving abusive situations?
Do they take dependent children with them?
Do their abusers seek them out after they have left?
These are just three questions that immediately occur to me. If the answers are no, no and no, then it may be that there are few men who need a shelter.
Besides, in the 1970s, when shelters for battered women first appeared, they had no public support. Women pulled together capital and volunteered and made it happen.
But maybe I'm missing something and men in your community have trouble finding a place to go when fleeing domestic violence. If you care about men fleeing domestic violence in your community, get together with some other men and start an organization to help them.
I'll go you one better. I'll pledge $100 to any 501(c)(3) you create to assist men who are victims of domestic violence. It's a worthy cause. Identiy the problem, plan a solution. I'll help.
Zed Pobre: please define "politics."
Leena:
Politics (personal definition): the manipulation (or techniques for manipulation) of public opinion, finances, lawmakers, or other forms of power related to the governing or dominance of a people.
Politics (variation of an old joke): derived from "poly", meaning many, and "tics", which are involuntary muscle convulsions. Politics is thus the result of the wild thrashing of an intellectually epileptic people.
Looking back at those answers, I'm no longer sure which one is more cynical, but I'll at least stand by my first answer.
Voxper,
Your sarcasm and wit never fail. Don't let all the oppressed feminists around here get you down.
Understand that I'm simply trying to put this in a different perspective. To answer your questions, if that male is a little child and the mother is abusing him, then YES. I think it is a serious issue to for feminists to concern themselves with.
Don't they want to be good people by educating their fellow sisters on how real women don't commit abuse? Much in the same way that you praise men who take on 'real men don't commit violence' campaigns?
A male shelter would be great for fathers to take their children that are being abused by the single mothers.
Or better yet, a gender neutral shelter where everyone affected by abuse can support one another.
The reason for me giving the male perspective on these issues is because I am very concerned about what the world is going to bring to my children, especially if I have a son. A lot of feminists are also mothers, so they SHOULD be concerned with these male issues.
Don't they want to see their husbands, fathers and brothers be treated with the kindness and fairness that they deserve?
Here is another reason why feminists should be concerned about men's issues:
Having no fathers in the home has a serious and detrimental effect on their children (which includes the little girls, so yes, the fatherhood crisis can be considered a woman's issue since little girls are forced to grow up without their fathers).
Here are some statistics proving just how disturbing the effects of a lack of father figure are:
Children from fatherless homes account for:
63% of youth suicides. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services, Bureau of the Census).
71% of pregnant teenagers. (Source: US Dept. of Health & Human Services)
90% of all homeless and runaway children.
70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988)
85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders. (Source: Center for Disease Control).
80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger. (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol. 14, p. 403-26, 1978).
71% of all high school dropouts. (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools).
75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers. (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children).
85% of all youths sitting in prisons. (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992).
Here is the link:
http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm
If you perpetuate a divide in the sexes by never listening to the other side, then you're going against you're doctrine of equality aren't you?
If you do that, how can you ever find solutions to the problems you're concerned about? The truth of the matter is that it would be more feasible to come up with mutually exclusive solutions.
That is how everyone can be better off.
I'm sorry that you have to describe what I'm doing as trolling. My intentions are to help your cause by bringing a different and valid view point into it.
I am female.
I am a college student in Canada.
I've lived in third world countries and have survived a civil war in one of those countries.
I am concerned about the direction this battle of the sexes is heading.
I am concerned about how my future sons and daughters will be affected by the issues I have talked about.
My father, a man who I love dearly, was disciminated against in a system that didn't want to listen to his side of the story. He was married to a woman who abused me.
I shudder to think about what would've happened if he had been taken away from me. She tried desperately to falsely accuse him of child abuse so that she could win a divorce case.
If my father had been taken away from me, Lord knows what would've happened to my brother and I. We would've become another statistic.
I am not an isolated case. Lots of little girls and boys are suffering more than what I had to go through.
There already are men's groups concerning themselves with these sort of things, but there are alot of legal hurdles that are standing in their way.
I am a proud part of their group because they want to do what's best for their families and the name of justice. They are open minded and welcome dialogue and challenging discussion.
They examine issues from both sides of the story.
They aren't afraid to pose logical,challenging and difficult questions.
They try to answer those questions intelligently and are more equal than any feminists I have ever met.
Reason being is that they hold my beliefs on how EVERYONE, women included, should have equal accountability.
I once considered myself a feminist, until I saw the hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness of the movement.
I thought it was ridiculous that I had people telling me what a victim I was when in in reality, I have never once in my life felt discriminated or held back because of my sex. And if anyone ever did try doing that, then it never bothered me because I was secure enough to know that if I was an accomplished person, then nothing they said would matter.
I didn't want to be part of a movement that held a lot of double standards.
This site has reminded me why I left the feminist movement.
This will be my last email to the site.
Zed Pobre: Seems like abortion, violence against women, LGBT marriage, rape as a weapon of war, family law/child custody, and pornography could all fall within your definition of politics. Women probably discuss those issues even more often than men do.
Leena:
I will clarify once again by amending the statement to read that they aren't as interested in talking about politics _in a public forum_, then.
All of the things you mention certainly can fall under the umbrella of politics, though they certainly don't have to, but the evidence appears to indicate that although all of these topics are certainly of strong interest to many women, few seem to be willing to endure the various challenges involved in making oneself heard... and by doing so making oneself a target.
I'm perfectly willing to be proven wrong on this (and I hope I will be, eventually). Feministing has made a good start by making this a less formidable place for a woman new to writing to make her voice heard, and I have seen and visited the new entries on the blogroll.
Until it reaches the point where when a challenge such as the one John Hawkins made can be easily met, however, I will hold the opinion that this aspect, of encouraging more women to write, is more important than spending much effort investigating link bias (though I certainly am not discouraging attempts to correct it when the opportunity presents itself, as it did with Peek).
First the voices, then the megaphone.
Supaspy:
Your writings have been so off topic and so hostile that I have been disinclined to believe you were actually a woman. Since the trauma of your personal experiences is also a plausible explanation, I'm willing to change my mind and address what you're writing.
First and foremost, it's important to realize that there are many ills in the world, many problems, facing men and women, white and black, American and European and Asian, rich (as odd as it may sound, there are some millionaires with whom I would *not* want to change places) and poor, first world and third world. I'm a man, living in the United States at the moment, moderately successful financially now. My grandparents still live in the Philippines, however, in a house with almost no water pressure to speak of. When I visit, I shower with a bucket. I've fought a rapist, and was once falsely accused of rape myself, leading a friend of the girl to go off half-cocked and try to kill me, leaving me with two scars on my face I'll carry forever and broken ribs, despite the fact that the claims were so ludicrous that the police never even bothered to question me on them (I was an exceedingly shy 14 or 15 year old pacifist. The woman was 18. The rest of the circumstances I won't go into.) I have male friends who are frustratingly sexist (sometimes extremely so) while absolutely certain that they're not, but are otherwise decent people. I've met women who are staunch defenders of women's rights, but were otherwise morally bankrupt. I've met a lot clearer examples of good people and bad people along the way, of course.
Life is complex. I'll claim a little exposure to variety along the way.
There is no person so skilled, with so much power, or with so much time, that he or she can address them all. Societies, like walls, are built and repaired one brick at a time, and then best you can do is to stay out of the way of someone fixing the part next to you while you work with others to fix what's in reach.
These women are fixing the part of the wall that they see most directly affecting their lives. The hole is large enough that there is significant weight to the argument that it should be receiving more attention than it is.
Nobody here has claimed that there are no other holes to fix. I have seen nobody attempt to prevent those holes from being fixed. It's not hypocrisy to work first on that which is in reach.
I'm sorry you feel that an injustice has been done to you by the admins of this site or its visitors, but although I have not seen any of them attempting to tear down your part of the wall or preventing you from working on it, I cannot say the same for you. Help them, or get out of their way. Screaming at them for not fixing your part of the wall first hurts everyone. It hurts them, it hurts the people they protect, and since it costs you allies down the road, by alienating people who might otherwise be interested in helping you once their own problems are lessened somewhat, it hurts you too.
If you are who you say you are, I'm actually sorry you're leaving. I think staying here and reading more might be good for you. You seem to be fighting dragons entirely of your own making, attributing to the writers at Feministing negative traits based not on their actions, but on the projections of the nightmares you remember. It's become trite to suggest having an open mind, but I'm not really sure how else to express that concept. Listen to what they say, not what you're expecting them to say.
If you're convinced that what they are doing is actually harming your interests, rather than simply failing to aid them, explain politely how, and suggest ways in which both of your goals can be achieved. I suspect you'd get a reasonable response if you did so. At worst, you'll come across the occasional situation where your goals are mutually exclusive, and people will have to make their own decisions about which goal they consider more important. Even if they decide against you, it doesn't necessarily mean that they don't think you have a legitimate cause, but only that it wasn't strong enough for them to drop their own.
That's looking far ahead, however, as no such situation has as yet come up. Don't borrow trouble; there's enough to go around.
The feedback button on my website (linked from my name) will send me e-mail if you want to continue the conversation in a forum other than Feministing.