RADAR ALERT: A Weird Story Gets Weirder -- Ever-Expanding Definitions Of Abuse

Started by RADAR, Apr 20, 2010, 07:14 PM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

RADAR



RADAR ALERT: A Weird Story Gets Weirder -- Ever-Expanding Definitions Of Abuse


Last month England's Daily Mail reported that New Jersey resident Donna Simpson was determined to become the world's fattest woman (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1257850/Super-sized-mother-determined-worlds-fattest-woman-years.html).

Already 600 lbs at the age of 42, the stay-at-home mom of a three year old girl wants gain 400 lbs in the next two years, reaching her goal weight of 1000 lbs and thereby breaking the Guinness World Record for female fatness.  He husband, a 150lb "belly man," is completely supportive of her pursuit.

On March 20, 2010, an outraged Renee Martin blogged that Simpson's husband isn't just a chubby chaser, he's an abuser.  "Abuse can take many forms and it often goes unremarked upon, or else wrongly labelled. The nature of the power dynamic between the feeder/feedee removes agency and therefore eliminates culpability. Just as it is highly unreasonable to blame the victim of domestic violence for their bruises, so too is it unconscionable to blame the feedee for over eating."

Ms. Martin's take on the story is wrong for three reasons.  First, and most importantly, by stretching the definition of domestic violence to include the encouragement of overeating, she diminishes the suffering of real victims of domestic violence.  Secondly, she infantilizes Donna Simpson, that is, she treats her as an unconscious automaton who has no role to play in her efforts to gain weight.  Lastly, she places Simpson's husband in a no-win position.  What if he chastised her for wanting to gain more weight, or was simply indifferent?  Wouldn't that make him an unsupportive bastard?  Isn't that abuse under an expansive definition of domestic violence?

The story of one woman's quest to become the fattest woman in the world and the accompanying question of whether her husband is an abuser for encouraging her to reach her goal is perfect for talk radio, both on the left and the right of the political spectrum.  Please contact your favorite radio talk show and tell them about the controversy.  If you can, please send them a copy of our report, Expanding Definitions of Domestic Violence, Vanishing Rule of Law (http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/RADARreport-Vanishing-Rule-of-Law.pdf).

Thanks for your help.




Date of RADAR Release: April 20, 2010

R.A.D.A.R. -- Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting -- is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to improve the effectiveness of our nation's approach to solving domestic violence.  http://mediaradar.org
           



Copyright (c) 2005-2010. RADAR -- Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting, Inc., All Rights Reserved.

Men's Rights Activist

#1
Apr 20, 2010, 10:10 PM Last Edit: Apr 20, 2010, 10:13 PM by Men's Rights Activist
Quote

On March 20, 2010, an outraged Renee Martin blogged that Simpson's husband isn't just a chubby chaser, he's an abuser.


Who's Renee Martin?  A blogger, that's it?  Why should we be concerned about what this person says?

Quote
Lastly, she places Simpson's husband in a no-win position.  What if he chastised her for wanting to gain more weight, or was simply indifferent?  Wouldn't that make him an unsupportive bastard?  Isn't that abuse under an expansive definition of domestic violence?


Another case resolved in the blogoshpere court of gender justice, where another man is found guilty by reason of being born male.

Life, Liberty, & Pursuit of Happiness are fundamental rights for all (including males), & not contingent on gender feminist approval or denial. Consider my "Independence" from all tyrannical gender feminist ideology "Declared" - Here & Now!

SIAM

So an alcoholic husband is actually abused by his wife who does nothing to stop his alcoholism.  And so on.

Captain Courageous

Renee Martin is using fallacious reasoning, as part of sophomoric sophistry. I learned from the asshats on Rh Reality Check, they can't handle being told this. They consider it "name-calling", "denigrating" and being "bullied".

"Abuse takes many forms" yeah, like constantly accusing men of being abusers. Bah-Fondue!

Mr. X

I think this is based on the false premise that We are our brother's keeper. We are not. This is a clear case of "My body, My choice". If a woman can have an abortion she can go to 1000lbs. Oh and we pay for abortions as well as health issues for obesity so that excuse to intervene is out the window.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

SIAM

#5
Apr 21, 2010, 07:52 PM Last Edit: Apr 21, 2010, 07:56 PM by SIAM
Quote
This is a clear case of "My body, My choice".


Personal responsibility is a good thing, but feminists and "do-gooders" forget this or don't want to know about it because it interferes with their big government programs where we need to be controlled 100% of the time.  

Funny how leftists are into big government, yet claim to be liberal.....

Liberation is all about small government and personal responsibility.  Standing on your own two feet.  That's freedom.  

The kid who climbs trees and runs around is free.  He might have bruises and scrapes from playing, but he's happy.

The kid who's not allowed out and is under the intensive care of both parents is a miserable sod.  

Mr. X

Its also amusing how the left does not know what Left means.

Left and Right were seating arrangements at the French National Assembly. Essentially like minded people sat close to each other. As you looked right down the hall the people were more statist to the point they believed God appointed the Kind and the state and it was undeniable.

As you looked left the people were more anarchist to the point of thinking one didn't even own their own body.

Going down on the rows saw more irrational forms like gov based on personality or based on God. Up was based on organization or rationality like social planning.

So leftists today are more right than righties. They would be seated more right and up from conservatives who would be more middle and down (christian nation for example). Libertarian and classic liberals would be left of the center line. The center line denoted the concept that gov was necessary vs gov was not necessary.

So anyone saying they are Left of Left are either extreme anarchists OR they are incorrect and are severe righties. BTW this seating arrangement is also the basis for the Purnelle (sp?) chart. The left is this country is really more right and statist than the current right. Statism and liberty cannot co-exist since statism demands that one standard be applied to all for gov to manage society.
Feminists - "Verbally beating men like dumb animals or ignoring them is all we know and its not working."

gwallan

In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

The Biscuit Queen

I don't think those charts were accurate. Ralph Nadar was not liberarian at all, he wanted full government control for the environment's sake. The more liberal someone is the more big government they want, so that would make them furthur up the authoritarian scale, even if they talk a big talk on freedom.
he Biscuit Queen
www.thebiscuitqueen.blogspot.com

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

gwallan


I don't think those charts were accurate. Ralph Nadar was not liberarian at all, he wanted full government control for the environment's sake. The more liberal someone is the more big government they want, so that would make them furthur up the authoritarian scale, even if they talk a big talk on freedom.


Cartainly the individual ratings they apply are open to interpretation but I like the approach of rating folk on something other than economic ideology alone.

In 95% of things 100% of people are alike. It's the other 5%, the bits that are different, that make us interesting. It's also the key to our existence, and future, as a species.

Go Up