>
EDIT: My first response is up, here.
As I’ve mentioned a couple of times, MRA Paul Elam and I are debating Domestic Violence on his web site A Voice for Men. Elam’s first post has just gone up, a wrongheaded and rather underwhelming start to the debate; my response will appear in a day or two. (I will post a pointer here when it does.)
Instead of allowing open debate on his website, Elam generally segregates those he classifies as, er, “feminists and manginas” on a separate page. (I know, right?) But he says he’s suspended that rule for this debate, so I urge anyone here in that particular demographic to go over there and start picking apart his errors. (Paul and I have agreed to keep out of the comments section for the debate.)
.
>Well, IIRC he set the time limit for your reply at 48 hours, so a day *or two* will be cutting it close.That said, I look forward to your response; as someone who's poked you about making more substantial responses to MRAs I'm glad you seem to be taking up the challenge. Not quite sure about commenting much over there, though…while as I've mentioned, I've already left a few comments over at A Voice for Men, if the host has said he'll be staying out of the comments section I'm not sure it'd be proper for guests to pop in either. Could be wrong, though…
>Elam has specifically stated that discussion there would be open, with the one restraint being that neither I nor Paul would participate in the comments. People coming from this website, whatever their politics, are perfectly entitled to take part in the discussion.
>Good luck to the both of you. May the best MRA win. š
>". I am opposed to the retrograde, self-described "Men's Rights Movement," which I think is a bad thing for men and women both."I think you are wrong. Actually feminism is what is very harmful to men and women both. And your site looks very feminist.
>Oh noes, an MRA site restricts "feminsts and manginas" to commenting on a separate page. Meanwhile most of the sites in your friends list simply delete and ban MRAs, which is the online equivalent of putting one's fingers in one's ears and shouting "La la la, I can't hear you!"
>#David: "go over there and start picking apart his errors"I'm curious as to what his errors would be, considering that most of what he says are quotes from scientific research. The only way to "debate" that is to question the credibility of those studies, which I reckon will be quite difficult since those are unquestionably a lot more objective and dispassionate than feminist-inspired and/or feminist-funded research.#Coldfire: "most of the sites in your friends list simply delete and ban MRAs"Something like that happened to me just yesterday at a feminist site in my native language. I was quite polite and factual there, debating about DV until my comments were all purged with a rude remark that I should debate about DV when I have experienced it. Very telling it is, that they thought that since I'm a guy I hadn't (couldn't) experience domestic violence – but the fact is I did. With more than one partner I have to add. (I was never a sole perpetrator of DV in a relationship, but had a few with reciprocal DV.) In my younger days I was once choked by my then GF and I literally *had to* hit her because she wouldn't let go of my neck. It was quite a shocking experience to say the least."Of course" I didn't consider myself a victim of anything and I never went to a doctor or to the police and so my cases never made the statistics.But I'm still baffled by the arrogance and the ignorance of those feminists. A Voice for Men is a feminist nirvana compared to how the average feminist crowd reacts to MRAs.
>I can't believe you're even getting the time of day.
>I'm curious as to what his errors would be, considering that most of what he says are quotes from scientific research. The only way to "debate" that is to question the credibility of those studiesUh, yeah. That's how science works. People critique the research that is out there and propose better alternatives. I think you will find my response to Elam quite illuminating.
>The men in the MRM are all close-minded idiots and I love what you're doing here, David.
>Well, there's an interesting link up at AVfM, pointing to a jezebel post where the feminists are talking about their own domestic violence. I'd be interested in how you'd tell them that domestic violence is perpetrated by men when these women are talking about beating up their partners…http://jezebel.com/gossip/domestic-disturbances/have-you-ever-beat-up-a-boyfriend-cause-uh-we-have-294383.phpI think when even feminists start to link to material like this: "Men Shouldn't Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence" then it's time to admit that yes, women ARE half the problem. I'd say it would be… elegant to simply admit that we are all human beings and women are not better then men, not even when the topic is domestic violence.David, don't you feel kind of betrayed when you try to protect feminists and suddenly they admit the wrongdoing you're trying to clear them of? That Jezebel article is basically a confession that women are just as violent as men, and that, my friend, means that all their propaganda and all their denial up to this point was nothing but lies.About how science works… Fiebert's summation of 275 independent studies with an aggregate sample size that exceeds 365,000 beats ANY feminist attempts hands down.http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
>"Uh, yeah. That's how science works. People critique the research that is out there and propose better alternatives."Ya that is how science worked in the past but that is not how YOU work. You typically make fun of people and engage in ad hominem attacks. Just like your leftist and feminist counterparts. So I am not holding my breath. My view is that you will probably just accuse Paul Elam of being a misogynist.
>Elam has specifically stated that discussion there would be open, with the one restraint being that neither I nor Paul would participate in the comments. People coming from this website, whatever their politics, are perfectly entitled to take part in the discussion. Hmm, maybe. Well, in any case, I don't wanna start a flame war or anything over there that would inconvenience either of you, so I suppose I won't be heading over anyways. Waitin' for your response seems more prudent.About that, though, I believe he mentioned you emailing it to him? Will you be posting it on your blog as well? Couldn't hurt to have it posted here too, in case your email service eats it up or something (I have a yahoo email account, and it's been giving me some trouble lately š )
>Paul and I agreed that the debate would take place on his web site, so that all the comments about it would be in one place. Once the debate is over, I will probably post my responses here as well, in some form.
>Understood. That sounds reasonable, I suppose. You mentioned once the debate is over…how long will that be? 5 responses/rejoinders?
>David, you seem to have missed Deansdale's question.
>Actually, Paul seems to have unilaterally changed the terms of the debate, so I will have to talk to him about that.
>I don't deny that women can be violent, so my answer to Deansdale's question is no, I don't feel betrayed. In my response to Elam I talk in detail about the methodology of the studies that find gender symmetry in DV, like those on Fiebert's bibliography. I'm planning a followup post here specifically dealing with his oft-cited-by-MRAs bibliography.
>What were the changes, if I may ask?
>@Wanderer"What were the changes, if I may ask?"David thought that Elam would give him one Pussy Pass ™, per response.
>@wanderer: He and I agreed in our exchange in the comment section of this blog, that we would post a total of 4 posts, 2 apiece:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/10/quoteotd-david-futrelle-is-dancing.html?showComment=1287080827393#c7700063106546579878For some reason he's changed that to 5 apiece. Doesn't matter to me. I'll do it either way. Presumably he'll post my first post soon.
>Fair enough, that doesn't sound so bad.That said, though, you'll be keeping copies of your responses, right? They sound like they'll be interesting (at least I hope) and regardless of the debate itself seems like they'd have a good deal of nice info by themselves. If you put a lot of work into them it'd be a pity to lose them, whether via eaten up by email like I said, or some other glitch or something like that.
>My post is now up there; I'll paste the new url above. And, yeah, I'll post versions of my contributions to the debate here after it's over.