Jackson Katz-anti-sexist male activist

Started by outdoors, Mar 15, 2008, 07:15 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

bachelor tom


And where is the program seeking women's help in stopping their violence against men? 

Oh, there isn't one?  I wonder why?  Read the peer reviewed research and what you find is very simple.  DV is 25% men beating women, 25% women abusing men, and 50% brawl.  Pointing an accusing finger at only men is bigotry in a big way.



When any class of person is considered incapable of evil, we give them a license to be bad
political correctness = patriarchal chivalry + matriarchal victimology

Mr. Bad

I don't think that Katz does what he does because he's overtly sexist (although he may indeed be), IMHO he simply is playing along with the sexist system we have at the moment.  I see this throughout the public sector, academia, etc.  There's no money in addressing women's violence against men so people like Katz don't bother - they're careerists through and through.  I'll bet you Katz get paid a bundle for his work from both public and private sources. 

When in doubt, follow the money. 
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

Mr. Bad



Perhaps Mr Katz would be interested in debating only one representative of this board in the ring?  That way no other posters could intrude on the process either pro or con.  note to JK -  It would be a great way to get your message out to lots of people who might not ordinarily be willing to listen.  And then again it might be a way for you to learn something.  If you are interested email me at [email protected] and we can set things up.


Dr. Evil, I don't mind debating Mr. Katz, if you'd like.

I'm sure he can't possibly find little ol' me threatening. :) I'm just a girl after all.


That's a debate I'd love to see.
"Men in teams... got the human species from caves to palaces. When we watch men's teams at work, we pay homage to 10,000 years of male achievements; a record of vision, ingenuity and Herculean labor that feminism has been too mean-spirited to acknowledge."  Camille Paglia

outdoors

#48
Mar 18, 2008, 01:48 PM Last Edit: Mar 18, 2008, 01:54 PM by outdoors
obviously mr.Katz is not up to debate!

dr e


obviously mr.Katz is not up to debate!


thanks outdoors

Maybe if we give him some time.....
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

foldedintobeauty



that's not how you INVITE someone to participate in an educated discourse DER. you don't insult them to get them to come.


fuck-off!
i didn't insult him-i called him on his ideological bull-shit-that only men commit abuse,it was a challenge not an insult- why are u still here?

o.k. dr.e give me a warning but i will not apologize to this person


pfft i don't care. this is the internet. you wouldn't have the guts to say it to my face. i think it's fucking stupid to have warnings on a forum. you can still come back under another name, anyway. and yea, you did insult him and were very passive aggressive. i'm here because i want to be so quit asking like it's any of your concern.
when would jesus floss?

Galt


you wouldn't have the guts to say it to my face.


Oh, come on, FoldedIntoBeauty, there are enough embarrassing male Internet Warriors who are always going to kick butt, we don't need an inrush of female ones now. I suppose you are a martial arts and sharpshooter expert too, along with Mafia connections. Plus you can kick butt like Xenia Princess Warrior.


Galt

By the way, for all I know, you could well be male. The Internet is funny that way.

The Gonzman




that's not how you INVITE someone to participate in an educated discourse DER. you don't insult them to get them to come.


fuck-off!
i didn't insult him-i called him on his ideological bull-shit-that only men commit abuse,it was a challenge not an insult- why are u still here?

o.k. dr.e give me a warning but i will not apologize to this person


pfft i don't care. this is the internet. you wouldn't have the guts to say it to my face. i think it's fucking stupid to have warnings on a forum. you can still come back under another name, anyway. and yea, you did insult him and were very passive aggressive. i'm here because i want to be so quit asking like it's any of your concern.


It's called an IP address.  Look into the bottom left of your post.  You will see your own IP address.

Sure, it can be spoofed if you know what you are doing, or even proxied if you have one which can do SSL/HTTPS translations, but most people can't.

Somehow I seriously doubt you can.

Being familiar with this software, you can be blocked by IP, have your email addy blocked, and so on.  And your IP can provide information as to who your service provider is; from that all they have to do is check their logs, ID you, and kiss your service goodbye for violating your ISP's TOS - they'll be on solid legal ground to still bill you for any remainder of your contract, because they terminated with just cause. 

I'd check your contract.  They'll do it in a heartbeat to shield themselves from a possible lawsuit.

Not to mention possible legal sanctions, both criminal or civil for you.  I'd check your state laws, plus DR. E's state.  Full faith and credit, and all that.

You also have a distinctive writing style.  Drive you nuts to disguise it.

Heh.  I'd have your name, address, and phone number within 48 hours.  As Margaret Temple.  I emailed her office number, and the office number of her two superiors to her, plus her address and phone number because she thought I was full of shit.

Play again?
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the Shadow of death, I shall fear no evil, for I am the MEANEST son-of-a-bitch in the valley.

The Biscuit Queen

I emailed him a very polite letter and he responded with a well thought out, fairly detailed email. He made a point to say the only reason he responded is because I was polite, did not use profanity, and did not insult him. I think that is a pretty important message alone, that honey gets you more flies than vinegar, as the saying goes.

He made a very good point that the majority of violence is by men, no women. Even when men are the victims the perps are usually men. By addressing men and their violence, he feels he is responding to violence against men. I am not sure how to respond to this.

While he is right in a way, I feel that these are weasel words. By framing everything as "violence against women", even if his intent was to help men that is lost in the assumption men are the problem. Ignoring women's violencel, their greater impact on the development of boys through motherhood and teaching and ignoring women's complicity in male violence (by depending on the violence for support and rewarding violent men with approval via relationships and sex)  we miss half the picture.

I need to really think this through before responding. I appreciate him taking the time to speak with me, and I think we all need to remember that these "enemies" most likely are folks just like us who feel they are doing the right thing. We need to remain professional if we wish to make more of an impression than a bunch of wingnuts. We have the truth on our side. It is our job to present it well enough to make others think twice about their beliefs.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

There are always two extremes....the truth lies in the middle.

dr e

Quote
He made a very good point that the majority of violence is by men, no women.


No, not really.  If you look at the numbers of murders by intimate partners per year you find that lately there are about 1200 female murder victims and 400 male victims.  There are surely more women murdered but 25% of the victims is a sizable portion that can't be labelled as "no women."  Saying that "violence is by men, no women" is simply untrue.

The most interesting thing to note is the way that the murders of women have changed over the time that the domestic violence industry has been growing.  In 1976 the intimate partner murder rate was almost equal with about 1600 women murder victims and about 1400 male murder victims.  Since then the male number has shrunk down to about 400 per year while the female total hasn't diminished nearly as much with about 1200 female murder victims per year.  Now why is that?  Why wouldn't the female murder victims decrease significantly?  You would think that with all of the billions we have spent on DV that female murder victims would have gone down and male victims would have stayed the same but the opposite it true.  What I think may be going on here is that the DV industry has given females a "safe place" when there are DV problems at home and by doing this they have basically protected the men by removing the potential violent female murderers from the home and decreased the opportunity for them to murder their male partners.  If this is correct then if they really want to help women they should open the shelters to men, giving them a safe place and by doing so create safety for the women by removing the violent males from the homes and decreasing the potentially  violent males  opportunity to murder the women.  Of course this is the very thing that the DV industry fights against.  Irony?
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

typhonblue


While he is right in a way, I feel that these are weasel words. By framing everything as "violence against women", even if his intent was to help men that is lost in the assumption men are the problem. Ignoring women's violencel, their greater impact on the development of boys through motherhood and teaching and ignoring women's complicity in male violence (by depending on the violence for support and rewarding violent men with approval via relationships and sex)  we miss half the picture.


Did he include the violence perpetrated by women on children, the elderly and the physically disabled?

Female bullies, just like male bullies, like to pick on people who are smaller and weaker then they are. Unlike male bullies, however, there is a definate social bias towards denying, minimizing and ignoring the violence of female bullies. That has to be taken into account when judging the statistics. Often they don't reflect reality, they just reflect an artificial reality created by the interesection between the researcher's bias, social mores and actual data.

For example, I reviewed Canada's 'Violence against Women' study. The study itself did not address violence against women perpetrated _by other women_. So even the name was misleading, it should have been labled 'violence against women perpetrated by men'.

The fact that many people put their blinkers on and assume that's the only type of violence in any situation _ever_ is why the violence of female bullies is almost entirely invisible.

outdoors




that's not how you INVITE someone to participate in an educated discourse DER. you don't insult them to get them to come.


fuck-off!
i didn't insult him-i called him on his ideological bull-shit-that only men commit abuse,it was a challenge not an insult- why are u still here?

o.k. dr.e give me a warning but i will not apologize to this person


pfft i don't care. this is the internet. you wouldn't have the guts to say it to my face. i think it's fucking stupid to have warnings on a forum. you can still come back under another name, anyway. and yea, you did insult him and were very passive aggressive. i'm here because i want to be so quit asking like it's any of your concern.



answer to first question=Yes i would!!!
and yes,maybe i did insult him,but it was truly intentional
as far as u being here and giving me(and probably all of us) possibly a phsycho analyzes for some women's studies project-bothers me a great deal
and your right-u are not my concern(thank-god)you ain't even close to bein' worth it

Galt

This person sounds like he has a Duluth-model picture in his head. Men are evil perpetrators and women are innocent angels. Always. And he, as the chivalrous hero on his white steed, is going to save the innocent women.

If instances come up in which women are perps, he will block it out - probably not even consciously.

Galt

My question is always: Why not just be against violence against PEOPLE.

That approach may actually help things in society. I think a lot of domestic violence is more of a mutual dance rather than a solo performance.

Go Up