| |
|
Thanks G, for kicking this off and everyone for their contributions.
Tempting as it might be, I don't think attempts at (psycho)analysing SS's life story for clues to his behaviour are germane, likely to be accurate or useful.
We don't have anything like sufficient information and expertise, and we're not conducting a trial of a person here.
We're assessing whether the posts and behaviours associated with the SS suit are ones that we wish to see on Barbelith.
I have, as mentioned, been collating and sitting on a post for a while, a fair bit of which G's already cited.
One of the reaons I haven't yet posted is because I don't take the idea of banning someone lightly and have wanted to get my posts 'right'.
Okay, enough of me for a moment.
Back to the FFJ thread, though I have little desire to revisit it.
Around p7, alas enters the conversation.
She constructs over the course of these two posts 16:31 / 05.02.06 and 19:56 / 06.02.06 a reasoned, empathetic and careful analysis of the issue, providing links, and a gallon of references for her numbers/positions.
While it's true that Alas's more reasoned, less angry approach provokes a change in SS's tone, and perhaps teaches us a useful lesson in how to handle these situations, she doesn't recieve any response to her entirely reasonable call to SS:
To me, those lapses deserve some acknowledgment on your part. That's partly what got under people's skin, and, unless I missed something, you have never admitted with any kind of sincerity that your approach may have been in any way flawed. (from 19:56 / 06.02.06 )
Shadowsax consistently fails to 'admit with any kind of sincerity' that he can be wrong instead we get:
Why wouldnt feminist groups want the fathers more involved in the nurturing? Is it because of domestic violence? Because stats would indicate that women initiate domestic violence nearly as much as men, so I would say that that answer doesnt work. (17:00 / 06.02.06)
There's no backup to these claims, references to studies of domestic violence proving that the exact opposite is generally the case is ignored.
Again, an assumption that domestic violence is an evenly weighted problem in terms of aggressor/gender, when in fact most sources suggest otherwise, and a refusal to engage with the possibility that he might be wrong. A vague feeling, presented as fact, that the problem is much more about the women than we think.
Alas attempts to tie the vexed issue of child maintenance into broader social context: the traditionally accepted nuclear family model, the socio-economic situation, concluding with
women remain in the vast minority of lawyers, judges, politicians at every level--federal, state, local. To ignore those facts, and create a kind of feminist cabal somehow controlling these officials from behind the scenes is, quite simply, to engage in sexist scapegoating.(16:31 / 05.02.06)
SS ignores this point and instead we get:
And, I'm not convinced that we arent already in a largely feminist-controlled society. The pro-choice movement succeeded (at least for a long time, at least up until now, giving us the system we had). If anything, the shift we're seeing towards right-wing causes is going away from an exisiting feminist-controlled society. Many post-feminists, in fact, are bemoaning the current situation as one where the nurturing abilities of women have been underplayed by feminists. This is because feminist politics have in large part succeeded. And the flaw of your argument, pointing out still a minority of women in office, still doesnt work. Whether it's men or women in office, feminist politics have had a great deal of successful influence. (17:00 / 06.02.06)
Again, no proof that US politics is 'feminist-controlled', no references for these 'many post-feminists', no demonstration as to how, beyond a vague reference to pro choice 'feminist politics have had a great deal of influence. Just a feeling. That some shadowy band of 'feminists' are controlling US society.
It'd be laughable if alas hadn't put a great deal of work into contructing posts that deserve far more than that.
I bring this up not because it's so offensive in itself, but to demonstrate the breadth of responses to SS, and his absolute refusal to stop throwing the word 'feminist' as a straw man and provide some back up to his points.
I'm not, as per the first post in this topic, asking for SS to be banned on the basis of one thread.
I'm asking for him to be banned based on what's been described elsewhere as the 'drip drip' effect of his longstanding refusal to engage with criticisms of a position that, whenever gender relations are part of the discussion, result in him making deeply offensive statements, behaving in a way that minimises the importance of women at all times, and makes light of violence and aggression against them.
His recent comments in the 'Duke lacrosse incident' thread recieved the response that they did from angry people because this is only that latest in a long list of incidents. |
|
|
