Social Science Unpopular Opinions you have (non-football) Part II

(Log in to remove this ad.)

theyellowsash

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Feb 9, 2009
Posts
7,241
Likes
8,004
Location
Footscray
AFL Club
Richmond
#2
Interesting conundrum, calling her a campaigner is misogynistic, but since she's racially insensitive it's accepted, what is correct?
Calling her a campaigner isn't misogynistic. It's not expressing hate for or a will to oppress the female sex, it is a derogatory term to mean she is a bad person. We don't say calling people dicks is misandry.

And unlike a lot of politicians you can't separate her personality from her policy, because her policies come from her personality. Her speeches demonstrate that she is not just hard-line, she is straight up a bad person.
 

the_interloper

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Posts
13,786
Likes
12,274
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
#3
Calling her a campaigner isn't misogynistic. It's not expressing hate for or a will to oppress the female sex, it is a derogatory term to mean she is a bad person. We don't say calling people dicks is misandry.

And unlike a lot of politicians you can't separate her personality from her policy, because her policies come from her personality. Her speeches demonstrate that she is not just hard-line, she is straight up a bad person.
"Misogynistic" is a catch all term these days anyway, its modern definition is very subjective.
 

TheWoodenSlug

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Posts
5,198
Likes
9,746
AFL Club
Geelong
#5
My biggest issue with the way that domestic abuse is framed in the media is that generally only one aspect is focussed on and discussed - male physical abuse towards women, and their children.

Firstly, if we are discussing abuse towards children, women are just as capable as men of abusing a child, physically or otherwise. Physical violence is generally only possible where the victim is physically weaker than the offender, and typically any adult - male or female - will be stronger than children. I don't know the stats as to which gender abuses their children more, but I don't think that matters - anyone, regardless of gender, has the potential to lose their cool at times; and in the case of ongoing abuse (i.e. where it's not a one off where the perpetrator loses their cool, but a pattern of abuse), again I think women are just as likely to be violent, neglectful, uncaring etc and/or suffering addiction (which is a common cause of the first three). So in this instance, resources and education should be provided to both genders.

On the other hand, we have emotional abuse - which quite often begets physical abuse. This is hardly ever spoken about by domestic violence campaigners (and I say campaigners literally - no swear filter involved there!), but it can be just as damaging as physical abuse. Again, I have no stats as to which sex inflicts more emotional abuse but, again, I don't think it should matter; the point is that both are just as capable and therefore both should be considered in discussions. In another thread we have both Mr_Smooth and royboy2 providing anecdotes of situations where women have used/are using lies, deceit and manipulation to attack them and drive a wedge between them and their children. This is blatant emotional abuse and can quite easily lead to violence, suicide etc. My wife's best friend has recently left her partner - he was never physically abusive toward her, but he was extremely controlling. He'd constantly check her phone and facebook messages, tell her who she could hang out with and when (by the end, pretty much no one and never), constantly make her feel like a piece of shit to the point that she attempted suicide a few months ago etc. Emotional abuse.

Now, if we are talking about physical violence toward partners - which is obviously an important facet of domestic abuse - I'd agree that men are worse than women. It stands to reason; the average male is bigger and stronger than the average female. That's not to say that this form of abuse is exclusive to men as the perpetrator, though - men can absolutely be physically abused at the hands of a woman partner. I've seen it. Same sex couples should also be considered, and don't fit within the paradigm of men being the abuser and women being the victim.

I'm not trying to downplay the prevalence of male violence toward women and children, and I don't think it's a subject that should be spoken about less. More, if anything. My opinion is that we also need to talk about the other forms of domestic abuse more; and not in place of the current disussions, but alongside them. I just don't think that focussing on one particular aspect of a highly complex problem is the best approach, especially when doing so has the potential to - and does - alienate a lot of people from the cause. A more holistic approach is required, I think.

Well, that was a good way to waste half an hour. I'm not going to be getting any work done today anyway, in anticipation of tonight's match!
 
Last edited:

MarcusP2

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Posts
7,968
Likes
5,207
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Zona Cardinals, Yankees
#10
I'm having a bit of trouble with this:

http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/s...g-bashed-in-south-africa-20160922-grly9s.html

It's really sad that this sort of thing has happened to a volunteer but the 'preaching in Africa' line sticks out for me. Is it a poor choice of wording from the journo or do the Salvos go to Africa to push Christianity onto the locals?
The Salvos are a missionary organisation. He would have been preaching. The family even says so ("Geoff loved Jesus and wanted the world to know him.")
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Posts
36,350
Likes
23,772
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Liverpool
#15
I think a lot of the traditions surrounding marriage very stupid.

I'm not anti marriage, but if my partner said she didn't want to get married then I could get on board with that.

However, I do enjoy the romanticism surrounding marriage and do envisage myself getting married.

I also find getting married within 5 years of a relationship quite silly and meaningless.

I think the tradition of parents paying for marriages stupid. Do a cheaper wedding if you can't afford it. Save up the money and get married later if you have to. Why must you involve your parents into it?

The female taking on the husbands last name is stupid as well. Stick with your own name, or at least do a merger.

If someone was invited to the ceremony but not the reception, not sure why that person would even go. What a slap in the face.
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2011
Posts
36,350
Likes
23,772
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Collingwood
Other Teams
Liverpool
#18
It's not about women's rights, it's about having some dignity.

I dunno, I mean it's your choice although I have no idea why you would.

If it was me, there is no way I'd be changing my last name.
 
Top Bottom