Ched Evans situation

[Otta]

Stayed with her though because I was young and in love, and if I'm honest I probably thought I was punching above my weight.

I look back all these years later and can't believe I didn't walk away, but when you're in the moment you don't always think rationally.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I'm sure that's not unusual, Otta. I once shared a house with a couple where the woman would periodically go for the man, first verbally and then physically, including once or twice apparently picking up a knife. She seemed to be trying to provoke him into some kind of a reaction, perhaps because she came from a more fiery culture whereas he was undemonstrative. A few times he did push her away, which was her trigger to call the police, who assumed he was in the wrong. Once they took him away for the night, but that was actually because he was drunk and said something arrogant to the police. Can't say I felt that sympathetic to him as he was a devious sod and I certainly felt the impulse to thump him myself on occasion, but I could see how helpless he felt once she started, and how the threat of it over time made him back off saying or doing anything she didn't like. (Obviously I'm not implying this is true of you, Otta!)

[Jeremy]

Sounds like a very nasty situation, Otta. But I'm assuming you didn't subsequently cower in terror whenever she raised her voice at you. I really think that despite the distress the abused husband/boyfriend obviously feels, it's not quite in the same league as the other way round.

[Otta]

Probably not quite in the same league, but this was not an isolated incident (it was the only one where the police were involved), and to be honest I would cower a bit when I saw that look.

One time she headbutted the floor so as to make it look like I'd hit her.

She was a bit special.

Fit though.

[Robert Poste's Child]

So was the girl I was talking about. Probably why he put up with it for so long as he liked his trophies.

[legalbeagle]

Jeremy take a look at the stories men tell in my two earlier links. Although it is very much more rare, men can feel just as afraid.

But that said it's not a competition and yes men are generally stronger and quicker to violence than women. I'm sure we all agree the real point is that no one should live in fear of their personal safety.

Horrible experience Otta. I'm sorry you had to go through it.

[StraferJack]

You want a political party for that?

http://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/an-anti-feminist-party-is-standing-in-the-general-election

[DaveR]

The problem with 'genderising' both sexual violence and domestic abuse is that, even though statistically men are more likely to be perps and women victims, the time when either male or female behaviour in those specific contexts could be considered representative of wider attitudes and behaviour in each gender group is now pretty long gone. For example, until 1991 it was thought that UK law did not recognise that a man could be guilty of raping his wife, and this reflected a time when, surprising as it may seem, that would have been thought to be right by very substantial numbers of both men and women. Can you imagine anyone but a lunatic fringe thinking that now? Many men, myself included, are pretty unhappy about the instinctive link drawn by (female) campaigners between male perpetrators of violent and sexual offences and 'men', a group that disproportionately consists of people who find those offences every bit as horrifying and deplorable as 'women' do ['women' being a group that also includes perpetrators of sexual and domestic violence, albeit a tiny minority).

Back on point - Ched Evans unfortunately does appear to be representative of a very particular group i.e. successful professional footballers who are disproportionately likely to get mixed up in particular kinds of sexual offences, and the sooner clubs, sponsors, the PFA and others recognise that and take steps, the better. The criminal trial may be finished but that doesn't mean Ched has a right to insist that there are no further consequences.

[Loz]

Ugh, SJ. It's always the extremists and the MRAs that wade in and wreck things.

As LB said, it's not a competition. It's about trying to make sure that everyone gets the help and support they need, whatever gender.

[legalbeagle]

To your point DaveR, yes times are changing. Most of the men I know now identify themselves as feminists on the basis that the dictionary definition is "an advocate of women's rights based on equality of the sexes". Rather than a man hater.

[Otta]

Latest on Polanski

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-30810028

[Loz]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> To your point DaveR, yes times are changing. Most of the men I know now identify themselves as

> feminists on the basis that the dictionary definition is "an advocate of women's rights based

> on equality of the sexes". Rather than a man hater.

What I want is a name for someone who is "an advocate of human rights based on equality of the sexes" or even just "an advocate of equality of the sexes". Equalitist? Egalitarian? Humanist?

[david_carnell]

Yes, that would be "feminist".

What's your objection to that term? Or its ethos?

[Loz]

No, it wouldn't. I refer you to legalbeagle's definition.

[david_carnell]

Last time I checked no one was oppressing men.

It's like objecting to black rights groups and suggesting they should campaign for equality amongst all races - it rather misses the bleeding obvious.

I'm not honestly sure why this continues to obsess you so?

[legalbeagle]

Loz has sort of stumbled over a valid point though he hasn't made it quite in the way I would.

I would give you my response but actually Joss Whedon says it so much better than I ever could. I know it's a little long, but please do listen to it:

http://jezebel.com/watch-joss-whedon-make-the-perfect-speech-about-the-wor-1460080685

[Loz]

I suppose the difference is that feminism is such a broad church. Like it or not, radical feminism, separatist feminism and other strands are not interested in equality. It is about separating out that part that is truly equalitist/egalitarian. The bit that looks to true equality.

If you like, an equalitist/egalitarian can be a feminist (in fact, almost certainly is), but a feminist is not necessarily an equalitist/egalitarian.

[legalbeagle]

If you can't be bothered to listen to it, then the salient point is this: [on why he hates the word feminist]

"You can't be born an "ist". It's not natural. You can't be born a baptist; you have to be baptized. You can't be born an atheist or a communist or a horticulturalist. You have to have these things brought to you. So "feminist" includes the idea that believing men and women to be equal, believing all people to be people, is not a natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that everybody in the human race is a human, that the idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's an agenda."

He believes equality should be a natural state, and yet it does not exist. He goes on to explain how he wishes we could move past the need for the word feminist, and find a word that labels those who don't believe in equality, rather than those who do (he explains why sexist and misogynist don't work for him).

[legalbeagle]

I disagree Loz. I think groups who do not believe in equality have hijacked a word that labels those who fight for equality.

[Loz]

Sorry, LB, we cross-posted (I took a stupidly long time typing that last post, believe it or not). I have read the text of your video now.

He goes on to explain how he wishes we could move past the need for the word feminist, and find a word that labels those who don't believe in equality, rather than those who do (he explains why sexist and misogynist don't work for him).

OK, I get that. Maybe that is what I am searching for.

[legalbeagle]

Loz - watch the Joss Whedon speech. It's really good (it's only 14 mins).

[Loz]

Can't I just read the text?? I hate watching videos of speeches...!

[legalbeagle]

You can do what you like! (It's very funny too tho.....)

[Otta]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> If you can't be bothered to listen to it, then the

> salient point is this:

>

> "You can't be born an "ist". It's not natural. You

> can't be born a baptist; you have to be baptized.

> You can't be born an atheist or a communist or a

> horticulturalist. You have to have these things

> brought to you. So "feminist" includes the idea

> that believing men and women to be equal,

> believing all people to be people, is not a

> natural state. That we don't emerge assuming that

> everybody in the human race is a human, that the

> idea of equality is just an idea that's imposed on

> us. That we are indoctrinated with it, that it's

> an agenda."

>

> He believes equality should be a natural state,

> and yet it does not exist. He goes on to explain

> how he wishes we could move past the need for the

> word feminist, and find a word that labels those

> who don't believe in equality, rather than those

> who do (he explains why sexist and misogynist

> don't work for him).

I like this. The word feminist bugs me BECAUSE there are so many splinter cells, it doesn't define anything anymore.

[legalbeagle]

He suggests "genderist" - so when someone advocates something that is not equal, for either sex, they are a generist - as someone who persecutes on the basis of race would be labelled a racist.

Then you won't hear people saying: "I'm not a feminist....but I believe in equality" because it is equality that is the acceptable way of thinking, and not the assumption that one must still fight for it, and be labelled as such.

That is not the word we currently use in public discourse. We still use (and until this changes, we still need) feminist.