Author Topic: Poor Folks are Victims  (Read 99402 times)

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #300 on: January 12, 2015, 05:16:56 PM »
Choosing to go through life being a doormat has consequences - namely, that people will treat you like one. Fortunately, you can also choose not to.

Or alternatively, choose not to be in relationships with people who expect you to clean up after them to begin with. Choose relationships based on compatibility and shared values.

Nope, not as simple as that. You aren't going to choose someone with whom you're 100% compatible; it's not possible. If household and family work is an area where you're not compatible, and if that doesn't become evident until after the kids come, you're not "a doormat" if you choose to stay in the relationship - you're simply doing a cost-benefit analysis. It's a choice, but it's a constrained one; it's not what you would do in an ideal world.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2015, 05:27:34 PM by Cressida »

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3314
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #301 on: January 12, 2015, 05:56:46 PM »
Choosing to go through life being a doormat has consequences - namely, that people will treat you like one. Fortunately, you can also choose not to.

Or alternatively, choose not to be in relationships with people who expect you to clean up after them to begin with. Choose relationships based on compatibility and shared values.

Nope, not as simple as that. You aren't going to choose someone with whom you're 100% compatible; it's not possible. If household and family work is an area where you're not compatible, and if that doesn't become evident until after the kids come, you're not "a doormat" if you choose to stay in the relationship - you're simply doing a cost-benefit analysis. It's a choice, but it's a constrained one; it's not what you would do in an ideal world.

Being incapable of negotiating tasks within a relationship certainly counts as "doormat". It's not that hard to figure out if you're compatible with someone before having kids - live with them for some time and you should know very quickly how your household expectations match up.

Metta

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 662
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #302 on: January 12, 2015, 06:04:40 PM »
It's not that hard to figure out if you're compatible with someone before having kids - live with them for some time and you should know very quickly how your household expectations match up.

The current divorce rate is 17%, so obviously some people cannot predict long-term compatibility.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Australia
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #303 on: January 12, 2015, 08:09:18 PM »
Choosing to go through life being a doormat has consequences - namely, that people will treat you like one. Fortunately, you can also choose not to.

Or alternatively, choose not to be in relationships with people who expect you to clean up after them to begin with. Choose relationships based on compatibility and shared values.

Nope, not as simple as that. You aren't going to choose someone with whom you're 100% compatible; it's not possible. If household and family work is an area where you're not compatible, and if that doesn't become evident until after the kids come, you're not "a doormat" if you choose to stay in the relationship - you're simply doing a cost-benefit analysis. It's a choice, but it's a constrained one; it's not what you would do in an ideal world.

Being incapable of negotiating tasks within a relationship certainly counts as "doormat". It's not that hard to figure out if you're compatible with someone before having kids - live with them for some time and you should know very quickly how your household expectations match up.

There are a hell of a lot of ways of exerting control over someone short of holding a gun to their head. The classic is to use charm to win someone over, then gradually changing one's own behaviour over a long period of time, sometimes even years. The "doormat" often doesn't even realise that's happening, friends don't call attention to it (if they are even aware of it - often the abuser is charming in public) because they believe that the relationship is mutually beneficial.

My ex honestly had me believing I had some sort of untreatable psychiatric illness. No point going to the doctor, they won't be able to help. My kids would be taken away from me if I was officially diagnosed and left him. That sort of thing. And I'm a tertiary educated nurse, for fuck's sake!

It's a real thing. He left me and I thought it was the end of the world. Then I realised it was actually the beginning.

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #304 on: January 12, 2015, 08:42:17 PM »
People who identify as feminist generally tend to believe that people - especially women - are incapable of making their own free choices, are heavily coerced by societal pressures, and that many/most observable facts about women (e.g. women work less hours than men on average) are primarily due to external forces (discrimination) rather than internal desires and actions.

People who oppose feminism generally tend to believe that people have the agency to make their own free choices, are not unreasonably coerced by societal pressures, and that most observable facts are due to personal agency.

So I am not surprised that about 80% of Americans do not identify as feminist.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #305 on: January 12, 2015, 09:02:16 PM »
People who identify as feminist generally tend to believe that people - especially women - are incapable of making their own free choices, are heavily coerced by societal pressures, and that many/most observable facts about women (e.g. women work less hours than men on average) are primarily due to external forces (discrimination) rather than internal desires and actions.

No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #306 on: January 12, 2015, 09:30:11 PM »
Quote
No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

That is strange, considering that people in this very thread have put forth that exact position.

I also find it strange that you have abandoned your nonsensical statement that feminism is solely about men and women being treated equally, therefore one must be a feminist if they believe that men and women should be treated equally.

Quote
I have only my data point, no actual statistics, but I disagree with your first statement.  I identify as a feminist, and I don't think people "are incapable of making their own choices."

I didn't say that all feminists believe that. I said that feminists generally tend to believe...

You cannot deny that it is a mainstream feminist position to claim that the primary reason why few women are in STEM fields etc. is because of discrimination rather than internal choices and actions.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #307 on: January 12, 2015, 09:53:47 PM »
Quote
No, that's just what ignorant people want to think feminists believe. I'm pretty sure we've been over this.

That is strange, considering that people in this very thread have put forth that exact position.

Given that I'm the only feminist in this thread, and given that I'm pretty sure I said nothing of the kind, you are wrong.

I also find it strange that you have abandoned your nonsensical statement that feminism is solely about men and women being treated equally, therefore one must be a feminist if they believe that men and women should be treated equally.

Your statement is a non sequitur. I said that ignorant people mistakenly believe that feminists think women have no agency blah blah. That hardly contradicts anything I've said so far.

At least 50 posts ago, I suggested that if people want to convince anyone that feminists treat women like incompetent children, they should come up with actual examples of actual feminists saying that. So far no one has been able to.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #308 on: January 12, 2015, 11:52:40 PM »
Quote
First of all, the claim that men and women commit domestic violence equally is nonsense, and you know it's nonsense (so who's the troll here? hmmmm).

Are you reading what I am saying? I already linked to this in my first post: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

SUMMARY:  This bibliography examines 286 scholarly investigations: 221 empirical studies and 65 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.  The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 371,600.

And I'm saying that's garbage, prima facie.

Quote
As I said, I'm not saying that this explanation for domestic violence is accurate. What I'm saying is that Celda's citation is just another example of the fact that the underlying ideology of feminism is that men and women should be treated equally. Period. That's it. If you're going to argue against the fundamental ideology of feminism, that is what you're arguing against.

You are not making any sense.

LOL yeah, not to you.

Quote
I provided some concrete examples of feminist positions and claims. Which are quite different than "men and women should be treated equally". And needless to say, many of these feminist positions and claims are a lot less popular than the position that men and women should be treated equally.

And I showed that you were wrong, and that one of the positions you cited does indeed reduce to "men and women should be treated equally." I didn't bother fisking all of them, but I could, if you're interested.

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #309 on: January 13, 2015, 12:00:47 AM »
Quote
And I'm saying that's garbage, prima facie.

This is another reason why people do not support or identify with feminism. When faced with evidence that contradicts their belief, they simply ignore it or lie and say it's false.

Quote
And I showed that you were wrong, and that one of the positions you cited does indeed reduce to "men and women should be treated equally." I didn't bother fisking all of them, but I could, if you're interested.

No, you did not. You simply made the nonsensical claim that a tangible feminist position about domestic violence being a gendered phenomenon (men = perpetrators, women = victims) is equivalent to the position that "men and women should be treated equally".

This is ridiculous on the face of it.

Quote
However, for anybody like Celda who is interested in learning about what feminism is actually about, my favourite Feminism 101 series is the following: http://www.shakesville.com/2010/01/feminism-101.html

Cathy, I am quite familiar with feminist positions and actions. And that is why I oppose it. Many people who oppose feminism are knowledgeable about it, and in many cases were previously self-identified feminists.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #310 on: January 13, 2015, 12:41:44 AM »
Quote
And I'm saying that's garbage, prima facie.

This is another reason why people do not support or identify with feminism. When faced with evidence that contradicts their belief, they simply ignore it or lie and say it's false.

Quote
And I showed that you were wrong, and that one of the positions you cited does indeed reduce to "men and women should be treated equally." I didn't bother fisking all of them, but I could, if you're interested.

No, you did not. You simply made the nonsensical claim that a tangible feminist position about domestic violence being a gendered phenomenon (men = perpetrators, women = victims) is equivalent to the position that "men and women should be treated equally".

This is ridiculous on the face of it.

I'm going to let the record speak for itself here. Just read what I wrote. Not you, Celda; you can jump off a cliff for all I care.

But I will reiterate that "women commit more domestic violence than men" is a garbage assertion. That the opposite is true doesn't reflect badly on "men" (since that seems to be super important), it reflects badly on "men who abuse." But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context, no matter what some dude with an axe to grind wrote a "paper" about one time.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #311 on: January 13, 2015, 01:36:07 AM »
Wow. It turns out the bibliographer isn't just drawing distorted conclusions. He often outrights misrepresents what the paper says.

I just looked up the actual "Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988)" paper referenced above. The study found that
- women report being abused in relationships more often than men reported it,
- 7% of men compared to 1% of women believe that violence is a legitimate tool in a relationship,
- more women reported being sexually abused as children than men,
- women were more likely than men to have been subjected to corporal punishment by parents when they were children

Basically, the study suggests that women have been the victims of violence more often than men. While it is true that that doesn't mean that men committed it more (since the perpetrators could have also been female), it's certainly a more likely conclusion that men perpetuated it more than that women did. The bibliography that Celda linked to basically completely misrepresented what the paper actually said. That's just one in the list, but it's sufficient to conclude that the bibliographer is dishonest.

MRAs being dishonest! I am SHOCKED. I will never think of MRAs the same way again.

p.s. seriously, thanks Cathy.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #312 on: January 13, 2015, 04:11:31 AM »
I think it would be nice if we could go away from the feminism-foam of the last page to the topic of the thread.


Poor folks are victims because they dont have the money to charter oil tanker to make a guaranteed profit in one year (info: 1-year oil future is 60$, oil price is under 50$, difference - charter cost = profit)
How many barrels of oil are in a big tanker anyway?

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #313 on: January 13, 2015, 01:40:05 PM »
Quote
But I will reiterate that "women commit more domestic violence than men" is a garbage assertion. That the opposite is true doesn't reflect badly on "men" (since that seems to be super important), it reflects badly on "men who abuse." But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context, no matter what some dude with an axe to grind wrote a "paper" about one time.

Cressida, the propensity for stating that something is true and does not require proof (even in the face of contradictory evidence) is another reason why feminism is not popular. Which brings me back to my original point, that there is quite a difference between feminist ideology and believing that men and women should be treated equally. And that is why there is such a large gap between the amount of people who identify as feminist and who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Sorry Cathy, dismissing literally hundreds of studies because you don't like them is not a valid response. It may be common among feminists, but that does not make it acceptable.

As for your claim that the Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988) study was inaccurately described, there is no reason to believe you without proof. Go ahead and link to the study, showing that it was inaccurately described.

I'll go ahead and show an example of accurate presentation:

Quote
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007).  Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence.  American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947.  (A sample of 11,370 young adults <46% male, 54% female; 70% white, 15% black, 10.7% Hispanic, 4.3 % other> aged 18-28, who were drawn from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, responded to a modified version of the CTS.  Results indicate that almost 24% of all relationships had some physical violence and that half the violence was reciprocal.  In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators 70% of the time.

Is this an accurate description of the study? Let's look at the abstract of the study itself.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Quote
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

What do you know...it is an accurate representation.

But even if God came down and asserted that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men, that still wouldn't change the fact that, despite what people are saying here, believing that men and women should be treated equally does not mean that one is (or should be) a feminist.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #314 on: January 13, 2015, 04:50:57 PM »
Quote
But I will reiterate that "women commit more domestic violence than men" is a garbage assertion. That the opposite is true doesn't reflect badly on "men" (since that seems to be super important), it reflects badly on "men who abuse." But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context, no matter what some dude with an axe to grind wrote a "paper" about one time.

Cressida, the propensity for stating that something is true and does not require proof (even in the face of contradictory evidence) is another reason why feminism is not popular. Which brings me back to my original point, that there is quite a difference between feminist ideology and believing that men and women should be treated equally. And that is why there is such a large gap between the amount of people who identify as feminist and who believe men and women should be treated equally.

Sorry Cathy, dismissing literally hundreds of studies because you don't like them is not a valid response. It may be common among feminists, but that does not make it acceptable.

As for your claim that the Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988) study was inaccurately described, there is no reason to believe you without proof. Go ahead and link to the study, showing that it was inaccurately described.

I'll go ahead and show an example of accurate presentation:

Quote
Whitaker, D. J., Haileyesus, T., Swahn, M., & Saltzman, L. S. (2007).  Differences in frequency of violence and reported injury between relationships with reciprocal and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence.  American Journal of Public Health, 97, 941-947.  (A sample of 11,370 young adults <46% male, 54% female; 70% white, 15% black, 10.7% Hispanic, 4.3 % other> aged 18-28, who were drawn from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, responded to a modified version of the CTS.  Results indicate that almost 24% of all relationships had some physical violence and that half the violence was reciprocal.  In non-reciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators 70% of the time.

Is this an accurate description of the study? Let's look at the abstract of the study itself.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Quote
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

What do you know...it is an accurate representation.

But even if God came down and asserted that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men, that still wouldn't change the fact that, despite what people are saying here, believing that men and women should be treated equally does not mean that one is (or should be) a feminist.

Dude, you're just repeating yourself. If you have any new arguments, I'll respond to them (maybe). I've addressed everything you have to say.

Primm

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1327
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Australia
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #315 on: January 13, 2015, 07:14:30 PM »
Is this an accurate description of the study? Let's look at the abstract of the study itself.

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

Quote
Results. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases.

What do you know...it is an accurate representation.

But even if God came down and asserted that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men, that still wouldn't change the fact that, despite what people are saying here, believing that men and women should be treated equally does not mean that one is (or should be) a feminist.

My DV relationship was "reciprocally violent". He abused me for many years, and at the end I snapped and smacked him across the face one time and left prawn heads in his car air vents (funny now, I was really angry at the time).

So my marriage fell into the, what was it?, 49.7% of "reciprocally violent" relationships. I'm sure even you can see that years of bruises, being locked in my room and having money taken away from me isn't even close to being evened up by a smack to the face.

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

Zikoris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3314
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Vancouver, BC
  • Vancouverstachian
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #316 on: January 13, 2015, 07:39:50 PM »
My DV relationship was "reciprocally violent". He abused me for many years, and at the end I snapped and smacked him across the face one time and left prawn heads in his car air vents (funny now, I was really angry at the time).

So my marriage fell into the, what was it?, 49.7% of "reciprocally violent" relationships. I'm sure even you can see that years of bruises, being locked in my room and having money taken away from me isn't even close to being evened up by a smack to the face.

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

The exact same thing happens to men, except they're much more likely than women to be arrested and thrown in jail if they ever fight back against their abusers.

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #317 on: January 13, 2015, 09:42:58 PM »
Quote
I have access to most popular journals, but I am not permitted to redistribute that content. You are free to purchase the paper from the publisher. I actually really dislike the whole academic publishing system, because it hides knowledge behind really high prices (typically over $30 for a single paper), but it is what it is.

So you claim that the bibliography inaccurately describes the study, but won't provide proof. There is no reason to believe you.

Quote
As you note, there are hundreds of documents mentioned in the bibliography. (Not all of them are papers or studies.)

I never said or implied that anyone should investigate every source listed in the bibliography. What I said was that, if you are claiming it is inaccurately describing studies, then you are obligated to provide some proof.

And it is hardly the only evidence for the claim of approximate gender parity when it comes to domestic violence.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

Quote
Data from Home Office statistical bulletins and the British Crime Survey show that men made up about 40% of domestic violence victims each year between 2004-05 and 2008-09, the last year for which figures are available. In 2006-07 men made up 43.4% of all those who had suffered partner abuse in the previous year, which rose to 45.5% in 2007-08 but fell to 37.7% in 2008-09.

Similar or slightly larger numbers of men were subjected to severe force in an incident with their partner, according to the same documents. The figure stood at 48.6% in 2006-07, 48.3% the next year and 37.5% in 2008-09, Home Office statistics show.


http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

Quote
Overall, a similar proportion of males and females reported having experienced spousal violence in the previous 5 years (Table 1.2). When asked about their experiences within the preceding 12 months, the proportion of Canadians who reported spousal violence dropped to 2% (Table 1.3). Again, the finding was similar for males and females.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #318 on: January 14, 2015, 12:37:18 AM »
Hey Celda:

According to the National Coalition against Domestic Violence, 85% of domestic violence victims are women. Their source is the following:

Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003.

Please analyze the above document and prove that it is incorrect. Otherwise "there is no reason to believe you."

http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet(National).pdf
« Last Edit: January 14, 2015, 12:40:41 AM by Cressida »

DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #319 on: January 14, 2015, 01:20:26 PM »
Please reconcile this dilemma for me:

(1) Assume we accept that men do, in fact, commit more violent acts than women (including domestic violence). Just accept it as a premise for the purposes of this argument, even if you want to argue about the legitimacy of statistics above. I for one would agree that it is likely and intuitively true, as our typical observation tends to back it up (I observe many more physical conflicts involving men than women, men overwhelmingly represent violent crime offenders, etc.)

(2) If the above is true, then men behave differently than women for some reason (biology, culture, rearing ...)

(3) Men and women are "equal," or should be treated "equal"

How can (2) and (3) be reconciled if men and women are different at such a primitive level?

Corollary: If (2) and (3) can be reconciled, than how do we justify or differentiate not treating equally any other two things that behave differently (e.g., chimpanzees and humans)?

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #320 on: January 14, 2015, 01:39:49 PM »
Quote
Please analyze the above document and prove that it is incorrect. Otherwise "there is no reason to believe you."

You don't get it. I never made any claim about that document (never even heard of it), therefore I have no obligation to do anything about it. I am only obligated to prove the things I say myself, not things I didn't say.

In contrast, Cathy claimed that the bibliography linked earlier is dishonest. Therefore, she is obligated to prove that claim.

This is basic logical reasoning, and the fact that you do not seem to understand that is quite telling.

I did claim that there is approximate gender parity in domestic violence - so I am obligated to provide some proof for that claim. And in fact, I did provide several sources of statistics.

Quote
(2) If the above is true, then men behave differently than women for some reason (biology, culture, rearing ...)

(3) Men and women are "equal," or should be treated "equal"

How can (2) and (3) be reconciled if men and women are different at such a primitive level?

Quite simply.

Even if God came down and stated for a fact that men and women were fundamentally different in certain ways, that would be irrelevant.

All we would have to do is treat men and women who act the same, equally.

E.g. let's assume that men are fundamentally more violent than women, or let's assume that women are fundamentally lazier than men.

Even if this difference was an undeniable fact, that would not matter at all. Violent men would just need to be treated the same as violent women, and hardworking men would need to be treated the same as hardworking women.

Even if the percentage of women who were lazy was higher than the percentage of men who are lazy, that would be irrelevant to equal treatment.


DoubleDown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1989
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #321 on: January 14, 2015, 02:14:35 PM »
But, if I'm understanding correctly, the premise is not "treat people equally who act the same" -- instead, it's "treat people equally even if they don't act the same." So I agree with what you have stated above, but it doesn't seem consistent with the feminist ideology (as put forth by Cressida) to treat everyone equal regardless of any differences.

To put it in real terms using your example, I'd have to hire a violent man just as much as I'd hire a violent woman, or hire a lazy woman just as much as I'd hire a hardworking man. Do I have this right? If so, do you see the logical dilemma I'm reaching in regards to feminism?

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #322 on: January 14, 2015, 03:19:14 PM »
Please reconcile this dilemma for me:

(1) Assume we accept that men do, in fact, commit more violent acts than women (including domestic violence). Just accept it as a premise for the purposes of this argument, even if you want to argue about the legitimacy of statistics above. I for one would agree that it is likely and intuitively true, as our typical observation tends to back it up (I observe many more physical conflicts involving men than women, men overwhelmingly represent violent crime offenders, etc.)

(2) If the above is true, then men behave differently than women for some reason (biology, culture, rearing ...)

(3) Men and women are "equal," or should be treated "equal"

How can (2) and (3) be reconciled if men and women are different at such a primitive level?

Corollary: If (2) and (3) can be reconciled, than how do we justify or differentiate not treating equally any other two things that behave differently (e.g., chimpanzees and humans)?

The idea is that they will begin to behave the same when we begin treating them the same. As things are now, we treat boys and girls differently from the womb onwards; it's no wonder people tend to believe they're different species.

It doesn't work so well retrospectively. If a man is influenced to act on his violent tendencies by a society that more or less expects him to be violent, then he still has to go to jail.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #323 on: January 14, 2015, 03:26:17 PM »
Quote
Please analyze the above document and prove that it is incorrect. Otherwise "there is no reason to believe you."
You don't get it. I never made any claim about that document (never even heard of it), therefore I have no obligation to do anything about it. I am only obligated to prove the things I say myself, not things I didn't say.

In contrast, Cathy claimed that the bibliography linked earlier is dishonest. Therefore, she is obligated to prove that claim.

This is basic logical reasoning, and the fact that you do not seem to understand that is quite telling.

I did claim that there is approximate gender parity in domestic violence - so I am obligated to provide some proof for that claim. And in fact, I did provide several sources of statistics.

As usual, you're the one who doesn't get it. My post was intended to demonstrate, by analogy, the ridiculousness of your position. You came to this thread, referenced a paper by some dude that purports to show that women and men commit domestic violence equally, and suggested that the rest of us had to either accept that conclusion or else spend the time to debunk your random citation. Despite the rhetorical appearance of my comment, its intended audience was the thread at large, not you (you're beyond reason).

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #324 on: January 14, 2015, 06:40:35 PM »
Quote
But, if I'm understanding correctly, the premise is not "treat people equally who act the same" -- instead, it's "treat people equally even if they don't act the same.

No one has said this. Not even feminist ideology says this.

I don't see feminists or anyone else saying that a violent man and a non-violent man deserves jail.

I do see people saying that assumptions should not be made (e.g. a woman who you know nothing about should be treated the same as a man you know nothing about), rather than assuming that the woman will do X simply because she's a woman.

And it seems reasonable to say you should not judge someone solely due to their gender.

Of course, feminists also say that any statistical difference between men and women are due entirely to social norms and biology is has zero effect, which is a lot less defensible.

Quote
You came to this thread, referenced a paper by some dude that purports to show that women and men commit domestic violence equally, and suggested that the rest of us had to either accept that conclusion or else spend the time to debunk your random citation.

What you mean is, I came to this thread, made some claims, and supported those claims by providing proof.

It is not a difficult concept - those who make claims have a burden of proof. As opposed to simply saying "But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context".

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #325 on: January 14, 2015, 09:49:19 PM »
It is not a difficult concept - those who make claims have a burden of proof. As opposed to simply saying "But it's a well-known fact and one that just flat does not require independent support in the present context".

You're the one who made the initial claims about domestic violence. I only objected to your claims. So you have the burden of proof, by your own admission.

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #326 on: January 14, 2015, 09:52:23 PM »
Quote
You're the one who made the initial claims about domestic violence. I only objected to your claims. So you have the burden of proof, by your own admission.

Yes, that is right. Which is why I provided several sources to show what I meant.

If I had simply asserted that I was correct but did not support it, then I would be in the wrong.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #327 on: January 14, 2015, 11:06:43 PM »
Quote
You're the one who made the initial claims about domestic violence. I only objected to your claims. So you have the burden of proof, by your own admission.

Yes, that is right. Which is why I provided several sources to show what I meant.

If I had simply asserted that I was correct but did not support it, then I would be in the wrong.

You cited exactly one "source" - one that wasn't even a primary source - that purported to show that women commit more domestic violence than men. (You cited a couple of others that claimed that the numbers were equal or that men committed more domestic violence than women. Those do not support your position.) Is this the hill you want to die on? Fine.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e (abstract)
The lifetime and 12-month prevalences of rape by an intimate partner for women were an estimated 8.8% and 0.8%, respectively; an estimated 0.5% of men experienced rape by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, although the case count for men reporting rape by an intimate partner in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 15.8% of women and 9.5% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence by an intimate partner during their lifetimes, whereas an estimated 2.1% of both men and women experienced these forms of sexual violence by a partner in the 12 months before taking the survey. Severe physical violence by an intimate partner (including acts such as being hit with something hard, being kicked or beaten, or being burned on purpose) was experienced by an estimated 22.3% of women and 14.0% of men during their lifetimes and by an estimated 2.3% of women and 2.1% of men in the 12 months before taking the survey. Finally, the lifetime and 12-month prevalence of stalking by an intimate partner for women was an estimated 9.2% and 2.4%, respectively, while the lifetime and 12-month prevalence for men was an estimated 2.5% and 0.8%, respectively.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/ipv-factsheet.pdf (p. 2)
Nearly 3 in 10 women and 1 in 10 men in the US have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by a partner and report a related impact on their functioning.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/jr000250e.pdf (p. 18)
In 70-80% of intimate partner homicides, no matter which partner was killed, the man physically abused the woman before the murder.

http://www.nij.gov/publications/pages/publication-detail.aspx?ncjnumber=181867 (abstract)
Among the survey findings are that intimate partner violence is pervasive in U.S. society, with nearly 25 percent of surveyed women and 7.6 percent of surveyed men reporting that they were raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime; 1.5 percent of surveyed women and 0.9 percent of surveyed men said the were raped and/or physically assaulted by a partner in the previous 12 months.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ndv0312.pdf (p.1)
The majority of domestic violence was committed against females (76%) compared to males (24%).


Now go find at least four more on your side. Real links, not MRA hatchet job summaries. Otherwise I've brought better evidence than you have.

I would also note that this is not even particularly important. For purposes of this discussion, I don't really care who commits more domestic violence; that's a side issue. But I'm not going to stand by while some douche spews bullshit about how women abuse men and therefore feminism is wrong.

p.s. If "douche" gets the thread locked, I would not be heartbroken. I'm not too hopeful, though.

MOD NOTE: Don't undermine your own points and look silly with the personal attacks.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2015, 10:06:32 AM by arebelspy »

Celda

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #328 on: January 15, 2015, 12:27:27 AM »
Quote
You cited exactly one "source" - one that wasn't even a primary source - that purported to show that women commit more domestic violence than men.

I never said that women commit more domestic violence than men. You have lied about this multiple times despite my correcting you each time. I said that domestic violence is not a gendered phenomenon and there is approximate gender parity (i.e. it is close to 50/50 male/female perpetrators).

I also did not cite "only one source that was not a primary source", which is another lie on your part. I cited a collection of 200+ studies: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

As well as Statistics Canada figures (which is a primary source):
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-x/85-224-x2010000-eng.pdf

A specific study with an 11,000 sample size (which is a primary source): http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2005.079020

And a newspaper article that discusses British government statistics (those statistics are also a primary source):
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence

You have continued to lie and argue in bad faith and claim that these are "MRA hatchet jobs" - which is incredibly dishonest of you.

Quote
But I'm not going to stand by while some douche spews bullshit about how women abuse men and therefore feminism is wrong.

You have lied multiple times, made logically invalid arguments, and repeatedly make personal attacks. I have criticized the merit (namely, the lack thereof) of your arguments, as who you are is completely irrelevant in an online discussion. Only what you say is relevant.

Even here, you continue to lie about my arguments. I am not saying that "women commit domestic violence almost as much as men do, therefore feminism is wrong."

I am simply saying, which was my original point from the start and still is, that there are many feminist positions and claims that are not equivalent to "women and men should be treated equally" - one of which is the claim that domestic violence is gendered (men = abusers, women = victims). Which is why it is false for you to say that "if someone believes men and women should be treated equally, they are a feminist".

That is what I have been saying all along, and it would remain true even if it was proven beyond doubt that domestic violence was overwhelmingly committed by men.

Cressida

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #329 on: January 15, 2015, 01:12:08 AM »
I provided more primary sources than you did. I have not lied repeatedly. I have not made multiple personal attacks. Just because you say it, doesn't make it true.

I'm ending this conversation. I stopped trying to educate you long ago, but I continued to respond for the record. But as important as I think that is, even I have my limits. Given your relationship with reality, undoubtedly you'll conclude you scored a victory, to which I say, knock yourself out. You say that I am a hateful liar, but I think we both know the truth.

Please continue to enjoy your MRA ideology. I'm certain it provides you great joy.

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #330 on: January 15, 2015, 02:21:18 AM »
pleasae continue the foam per PM, you are only making a personal conversation in/of this post.

Thank you.

2lazy2retire

  • Guest
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #331 on: January 22, 2015, 08:33:42 AM »
So the originator of this thread is race-baiting, and you are assuming things about someone you do not know.

And your plan to change my mind on this issue is to refer to a mostly-FICTION writer from 19th century Britain?  Seriously?

Here in 21st century america, there ARE NO STARVING PEOPLE.  When was the last time you heard on the news of someone starving to death?  The poor today eat like kings of old, thanks to food stamps, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO WORK OR NOT.

As for me, I grew up relatively poor, by american standards.  I wore hand-me down clothes all the way up until the time I started to make my own money.  We didn't have the latest Nintendo, or the latest anything, and I brown-bagged bologna sandwiches all the way thru school.  I wasn't the coolest kid, or the most popular, but I worked my ass off ( while my peers were doing drugs and going to parties), got nearly all A's, and graduated 4th in my class.  I love to learn, and still do.  I will do whatever it takes to be successful.  I chose to get a degree in chemical engineering PURPOSEFULLY b\c it had the highest starting salary.  It was no accident, and  making it thru a ChE program was pretty damn hard--you try it sometime!  I ate ramen noodles all thru college.  Hell, I was too poor to even afford MacDonald's.

Yeah, it sucked at the time, but I now realize that growing up so "poor" was actually the best thing for me.  Being poor can actually be a very good motivator to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART.  Not many people are.  Most poor kids would rather beat the shit out the kids who try hard in school, than try to work hard themselves.  Sad fact in america.  That's why we have to import high-tech workers from other countries, who have experienced REAL poverty (not the fake kind we have in america), and will put in any amount of work to become successful.  So no, I do not feel sorry for the poor.  Anyone can become rich in america, if they have the right work ethic.  Not many do.  So much to say about this issue but I will end it here for now.

Have you ever taken the time to look at this from another perspective. I mean should you not thank evolution/luck/god or whatever you believe in for giving you the ability to make good choices and stop bashing those less fortunate.
What makes one poor person sit and watch TV all day and another person get up and go to work, I suspect we do not yet have an answer for this, yes I agree there is a choice to be made right there  but do we know why different choices are made. In my opinion its simply a product of wiring and to a lesser extent environment. You made the point in your post "to work hard and be successful in life--IF YOU'RE SMART" - so can you tell me what made you SMART, if you cannot then I suggest you not be so quick to judge.
 I suspect history will not look kindly on our treatment of those less fortunate, any less kindly than we currently judge those in our past who mistreated persons of different races/religions/sex/sexual orientation etc. Its just part of evolution as we become more enlightened we will cringe at our treatment of others.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 08:36:38 AM by 2lazy2retire »

Gwyddyon

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #332 on: January 22, 2015, 12:22:49 PM »
Until they figure out how men can have the babies, the domestic sphere will remain "coded" as female.  It is changing and I would love to be a stay at home dad (and will when I retire) but this is just pure silliness.

As a stay-at-home dad, I agree - your statement there is pure silliness. My wife carried a fetus, delivered it, and nursed it (because we chose to). There is absolutely no other portion of her duties or mine in the home that has a biological necessity or advantage attached to it. As a man who stays at home with his children, does the laundry and cooking and sweeping and all the rest, and changes the overwhelming majority of diapers, it is very clear to me that the domestic sphere is coded female purely as a result of societal pressures and archaic sexism. What you are quite clearly implying, since it is a logical and necessary extension of your arguments here as far as I can see, is that my wife would be a better housekeeper and stay at home parent than me purely because she happened to give birth to our children. That's an offensive load of crap, besides being a hilarious misunderstanding of biology and a blatant appeal to science when it doesn't actually back you up.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2015, 12:25:49 PM by Gwyddyon »

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #333 on: January 22, 2015, 02:08:46 PM »
Until they figure out how men can have the babies, the domestic sphere will remain "coded" as female.  It is changing and I would love to be a stay at home dad (and will when I retire) but this is just pure silliness.

As a stay-at-home dad, I agree - your statement there is pure silliness. My wife carried a fetus, delivered it, and nursed it (because we chose to). There is absolutely no other portion of her duties or mine in the home that has a biological necessity or advantage attached to it. As a man who stays at home with his children, does the laundry and cooking and sweeping and all the rest, and changes the overwhelming majority of diapers, it is very clear to me that the domestic sphere is coded female purely as a result of societal pressures and archaic sexism. What you are quite clearly implying, since it is a logical and necessary extension of your arguments here as far as I can see, is that my wife would be a better housekeeper and stay at home parent than me purely because she happened to give birth to our children. That's an offensive load of crap, besides being a hilarious misunderstanding of biology and a blatant appeal to science when it doesn't actually back you up.
Given the fact you think your wife delivered and nursed a fetus, you my friend are the one with a hilarious misunderstanding of biology.  Quick tip: at some point before or certainly by the moment of birth, the fetus magically becomes a baby. 

I said the sphere is coded female in part due to biology.  You disagree and say that it is 100% due to societal pressures and archaic sexism.  I believe many women make the decision to stay home with their children for other reasons.  They must not be smart enough to realize that the joy they feel is false and just caused by "The Man" keeping them down.

To be clear, I think you are doing a great thing and I'd like to see more stay at home dads.  I just think there are other reasons for moms to choose to stay home than the "patriarchy" that come into play.

Gwyddyon

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #334 on: January 23, 2015, 06:51:13 AM »
She carried a fetus. I'm sorry it was unclear that I know a baby, once delivered, is not a fetus.


In any case, no, I'm not saying women only stay home because of sexism. I'm saying biological necessity or adaptation has precisely NOTHING to do with it after the first few weeks and that your claims to the contrary are flat-out wrong and insulting. Go ahead and continue to conflate rejection of bad science with denial of female agency, but that's really just low-grade trolling.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #335 on: January 23, 2015, 06:55:52 AM »
She carried a fetus. I'm sorry it was unclear that I know a baby, once delivered, is not a fetus.


In any case, no, I'm not saying women only stay home because of sexism. I'm saying biological necessity or adaptation has precisely NOTHING to do with it after the first few weeks and that your claims to the contrary are flat-out wrong and insulting. Go ahead and continue to conflate rejection of bad science with denial of female agency, but that's really just low-grade trolling.
Except I never made those claims. I made the claim that maternal instincts are a real thing and play a large role in a woman's decision whether to stay home with their children or not.  You seem to want to dismiss them in favor of the old saw that both sexes are the same when they are clearly different. 

Gwyddyon

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #336 on: January 23, 2015, 06:58:20 AM »
No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.

davisgang90

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1214
  • Location: Roanoke, VA
    • Photography by Rich Davis
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #337 on: January 23, 2015, 09:40:01 AM »
No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.
It relies on the fact that women carry the child for 9 months and have certain instincts to nurture and care for their offspring.  If you think those instincts are junk science let me know why.

Emilyngh

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 892
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #338 on: January 23, 2015, 05:20:56 PM »
No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.
It relies on the fact that women carry the child for 9 months and have certain instincts to nurture and care for their offspring.  If you think those instincts are junk science let me know why.

"Cultures around the world have long assumed that women are hardwired to be mothers. But a new study suggests that caring for children awakens a parenting network in the brain—even turning on some of the same circuits in men as it does in women. The research implies that the neural underpinnings of the so-called maternal instinct aren't unique to women, or activated solely by hormones, but can be developed by anyone who chooses to be a parent."

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/05/parenting-rewires-male-brain

As a woman who has carried a child for 9 months and have a spouse who is a very good parent, I can also add the anecdotal evidence that, nope, I had no more child-caring "instincts" than he.   I also had and have *no* desire to be a SAHP, whereas he loves it.

RetiredAt63

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10169
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #339 on: January 25, 2015, 10:08:24 AM »
Wow this topic got OT.

"Hard-wired to be mothers" - the  "Any other Child-free by Choice People like me?" thread (here on Off-topic) is full of women who seem to not have that "hard-wired" maternal instinct.  It is always possible that if they had had a baby it would have turned on, but it certainly was not pushing them to have a baby.  Historically many/most upper-class women (and lots of middle-class ones as well) left the child care to nurses and governesses.  Again, it does not seem to have been that hard-wired in them.  And historically "revolving hatches" for illegitimate babies were common, where mothers could leave unwanted babies - so much for their maternal urges, other factors in their lives were more pressing.  If it were that hard-wired, nothing would overcome that urge.

Anecdotally, until recently women did child and house care because it was expected, and was their main option in life.  A woman could be a nun, she could be a pitied spinster (who was usually treated as free labour by her family), or she could be married.  And without birth control, she would then be a mother.  And since almost everyone was farming, being a housewife meant a lot more than it does now in terms of what she was responsible for, and the husband would still be at "home", just out in the fields or the barns.  The big change was the industrial revolution, when work moved from the home to the factory.  And everyone worked - children as well as women and men.  It was a sign of affluence for a family that the wife didn't have to work, since her husband made enough for the family.

This forum has a lot of middle/upper class earners, but I have friends who were blue-collar (and not the high-paying blue collar jobs) all their lives - hard physical work, and then coming home to house work, and husbands who didn't help - the two-job situation was there for them.  And a lot of husbands talked the talk (and walked the walk) but once their wives were home on maternity leave, they figured she could do everything, they were off the hook - and once she went back to work, they stayed off the hook.  And not just blue-collar, I have seen it happen in the marriages of most of my friends, and they were definitely white-collar.

I have no idea of the ages of the previous posters, except Cressida, but they sound young to me.  Life in your 30's and 40's (and 50's and 60's) is a lot different from life in your 20's.  And I feel for the girlfriends/wives of some of the guys posting here, if their posts here are a reflection of their behaviour in real life.

No, you claimed the domestic sphere's coding as female relies fundamentally on who gives birth.
It relies on the fact that women carry the child for 9 months and have certain instincts to nurture and care for their offspring.  If you think those instincts are junk science let me know why.

"Cultures around the world have long assumed that women are hardwired to be mothers. But a new study suggests that caring for children awakens a parenting network in the brain—even turning on some of the same circuits in men as it does in women. The research implies that the neural underpinnings of the so-called maternal instinct aren't unique to women, or activated solely by hormones, but can be developed by anyone who chooses to be a parent."

http://news.sciencemag.org/brain-behavior/2014/05/parenting-rewires-male-brain

As a woman who has carried a child for 9 months and have a spouse who is a very good parent, I can also add the anecdotal evidence that, nope, I had no more child-caring "instincts" than he.   I also had and have *no* desire to be a SAHP, whereas he loves it.

Cassie

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5091
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #340 on: January 27, 2015, 01:50:13 PM »
Too funny spartana!!

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 620
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #341 on: January 27, 2015, 03:58:37 PM »
Since I started working from home I've gone from doing about 2/3 the housework to 9/10 the housework.

My wife has become quite content with this.

Robert Platt Bell

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #342 on: March 19, 2015, 11:39:47 AM »
15% of Americans live below the government defined poverty line.

Which is a lot different than "15% of Americans are actually living in Poverty".  The poverty line is an artificial number, and if you add in all the free stuff you qualify for, from Uncle Sam, you can actually live pretty well.

[MOD NOTE: Personal blog links removed.  Please see forum rules on spamming/promotion.]

The average "poor" person in America has a refrigerator, microwave, air conditioner, television set, automobile, and a place to live. 

The largest single health problem among the "poor" in America is obesity and as a result life expectancy can be 10 years shorter than average (68 instead of 78)

In Africa, the average "poor" person has a life expectancy of 35, owns nothing, and hasn't eaten in three days.   We need to put our "poverty" in perspective.  Hard to feel sorry for poor people who eat (and smoke) themselves to death, while others literally starve.

How you define poverty determines how many people are "poor" just as how you define homelessness determines how many people are "homeless".

Some States define "homeless" as people who lives with friends, family, in a trailer park, a motel, or a hotel.   Seems like an odd definition of "homeless" to me.  My sister lived in a trailer park, and I don't think she considered herself homeless.

[MOD NOTE: Personal blog links removed.  Please see forum rules on spamming/promotion.]

Don't get me wrong, I feel bad that the poor get ripped off in this country.  Whether we can fix this, or should, is another question.

[MOD NOTE: Personal blog links removed.  Please see forum rules on spamming/promotion.]
« Last Edit: March 20, 2015, 09:47:41 AM by arebelspy »

MoneyCat

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1754
  • Location: New Jersey
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #343 on: March 19, 2015, 02:42:31 PM »
Typical conservative talking points:  "If you aren't currently and immediately dying like the poor wretches in sub-Saharan Africa, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a refrigerator -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1918 and is available for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "If you have a cell phone -- a common piece of technology that costs a few dollars at Walmart and is necessary to be able to get work -- then you aren't poor."  "If you subsist on dollar store snack foods devoid of nutrition because you are addicted to fats, sugar, and salt that make you obese even though you are malnourished, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a television set -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1923 and can easily be obtained for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "Poor people have it easy with food stamps and housing assistance that are really difficult to obtain (especially in Red States) and lead to constant public humiliation."  Etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but it has all gotten really old.  We get that you think you are pretty fucking awesome, but there are a lot of people who don't live an easy life like you.

SwordGuy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4908
  • Location: Fayetteville, NC
    • Flipping Fayetteville
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #344 on: March 19, 2015, 06:12:55 PM »
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?

Robert Platt Bell

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #345 on: March 19, 2015, 08:18:41 PM »
Typical conservative talking points:  "If you aren't currently and immediately dying like the poor wretches in sub-Saharan Africa, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a refrigerator -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1918 and is available for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "If you have a cell phone -- a common piece of technology that costs a few dollars at Walmart and is necessary to be able to get work -- then you aren't poor."  "If you subsist on dollar store snack foods devoid of nutrition because you are addicted to fats, sugar, and salt that make you obese even though you are malnourished, then you aren't poor."  "If you have a television set -- a common piece of technology that has existed since 1923 and can easily be obtained for free on Craigslist -- then you aren't poor."  "Poor people have it easy with food stamps and housing assistance that are really difficult to obtain (especially in Red States) and lead to constant public humiliation."  Etc., etc., etc.

Sorry, but it has all gotten really old.  We get that you think you are pretty fucking awesome, but there are a lot of people who don't live an easy life like you.

Really?  And the poor in America have it so hard because they can't have a new Rolls Royce or what?

Oh, I see, you are buying into that "relative poverty" argument.  Someone with a nice house, car, appliances, cell phone, and 40 pounds of excess body fat is "poor and disadvantaged" because they FEEL BAD because their neighbor has a nicer house, car, appliances, etc.

And by the way, what relevance is it what year the refrigerator or telephone was invented?  These are appliances that the REAL POOR in the world don't own.   Your thinking is clouded if you think that sort of data is relevant in determining what poverty is or isn't. 

Please, be real.  No one is starving in America.  Our poor are some of the richest poor in the world.  If you are living on welfare in America or earning the minimum wage, you are in the top 90% of income for the planet.

If your NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM is being GROSSLY OVERWEIGHT you cannot be "poor" by any sane definition.

If your standard of living is in the top 90% for the Planet, you cannot be poor by definition.

Sorry, but no sale.   I was "poor" once.  I don't "have it easy" because someone gave me a bunch of money.  I worked those shitty minimum-wage jobs.   You really have no idea about what I went through and are in no position to make such idiotic blanket statements about my life.  I presume you worked your way through 14 years of college too?  Or did Mommy and Daddy pay for it all?  Who had the "easy life" here?

It took a lot of hard work, years of savings, and yes, realizing that a lot of my financial habits were "poor" - in every sense of the world, to get ahead.   What makes the "poor" really "poor" is POOR CHOICES - in nearly everything.

And that is why these payday loan places, title pawn loan places and other rip-off deals are always in poor neighborhoods.

Stop feeling sorry for others, particularly when they don't need feeling sorry for.

Think about your own poor choices.  The middle class plays this "victim" game too - saying they are living "paycheck to paycheck" when they are racking up credit card debt to get "miles" and making other dumb financial moves like serial refinancing.

The "Poverty Line" is a number created by the GOVERNMENT that represent an artificial cutoff arbitrarily set, that does not reflect real poverty (indeed, it is not even indexed for local cost of living!).

Just as the government now counts children living in trailer parks as "homeless"....


« Last Edit: March 19, 2015, 08:33:21 PM by Robert Platt Bell »

Robert Platt Bell

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #346 on: March 19, 2015, 08:29:50 PM »
Let's take for example a client I've worked with.  She's a 25 y/o mother of four, ages two to seven.  She grew up in foster care, so is without the support of family.  She is not currently in a relationship with any of the fathers of her children, and receives no financial or practical support from any of them.  She has a Section 8 voucher, however she must pay the part of her rent that the voucher doesn't cover, approximately $500/month.  She needs to pay for heat and electricity, about $100/month.  She receives about $600/month in food stamps, which covers the majority of her food costs.  She has state-funded day care.  In an effort to improve her situation, she has been attending a secondary education program and was able to get a job as a home health aide.  To do this job, she must have a car so that she can travel from client to client.  She pays $200/month for her car, $200/month for insurance, $200/month for gas.  She earns $12/hr and works 30 hours a week while continuing to attend school.  Her net pay is about $300/week, not enough to cover her monthly expenses.  What should she do?

Why don't we start with people who haven't made the litany of bad choices this person has made:

1) How many of these children were conceived after this person got poor?  How about the 2nd (and 3rd and 4th???) conceptions?   At least after the first pregnancy she should know where babies come from and how not to get pregnant.

2) She hooked up with 2 (or 3 or 4) worthless fathers that cannot and/or will not help provide for their children.  At least after the first one she should have figured out that men who cannot or will not take care of their children should not be on her dating fornication list.

3) If she had chosen to learn more in k-12 school grades, would she have been able to get a better paying job sooner?

How about we actually tell people that these are BAD CHOICES and that they should not make BAD CHOICES like this?   How about we educate people not to do this?   Wouldn't that help by teaching people what not to do?   (And, of course, also teach them what to do to succeed?

Wouldn't that be more helpful for those who haven't YET made these mistakes than pretending that all choices are valid and good?

You make a good point.  In in a normal family, the father would step up to the plate and contribute to the raising of he kids.  And in fact, she can sue for child support from these Dads, and I am sure there is a social services lawyer who will do just that.

Having four children without any means of supporting them?  I can see the first, but then why would you have #2, #3, and #4?

And why is she not collecting ADC?  Free Obamaphone?  Oh, and her medical care is free as well (Medicare).

But I love these scenarios with the made-up numbers. 

LennStar

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1242
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #347 on: March 20, 2015, 02:35:29 AM »
If your NUMBER ONE HEALTH PROBLEM is being GROSSLY OVERWEIGHT you cannot be "poor" by any sane definition.
I suggest you inform yourself on health a bit more.

fields

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 83
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #348 on: March 20, 2015, 05:48:23 AM »
Robert Bell et al,

The answers to your questions are, in my experience, love and abuse.  Recall that the client grew up in foster care.  A child who grows up in care (who is not adopted) typically experiences multiple placements and disruptions, as many as ten or twelve in their eighteen years. They enter adulthood desperate for love, connection, family, yet without any of the skills that make it possible for them to create those things in positive, sustainable ways.  So, the client meets a man who says he loves her, and gives her all the things she's longed for all her life--attention, affection, a sense of belonging. Of course she has a baby with him!  She's trying to create the family she's always wanted!  At some point, usually before the baby is born, he becomes abusive and the client gets out of the relationship.  She has the baby and avoids any contact with father, including child support (BTW, there are no "social services lawyers" available to women in these situations, at least in my state), because she doesn't want more trouble and because he has no money anyway.

And then she tries again to get the love and family she needs, with another man. 

WranglerBowman

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 196
  • Location: DMV
Re: Poor Folks are Victims
« Reply #349 on: March 20, 2015, 10:36:26 AM »

Do you want to ban MacDonalds?  In poor neighborhoods? 

StashDaddy, I agree with just about everything you've posted so far, and believe that anyone can be successful in America IF you're willing to work for it...but please for Christ precious love it's McDonalds...Mc...Donalds...Mc Mc Mc...NOT "Mac".  A weird statistic through personal experiences, 100% of the people who say "Mac"Donalds are African American, can anyone explain how "Mc" became "Mac"!?  This drives me total insane!