International men's day event

[Milander]

I live in this area and can think if 4 women who have been killed in the last 3/4 years by partners in my neighbourhood so I'm a bit concerned at the rhetoric that this needs to be balanced.

"Last year’s event focused on violence against women but it is important to recognise that men can be victims too.

"One in six men will suffer from domestic abuse at some point in their life, with men twice as like to not report the abuse to anyone."

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14907724.Kellie_Maloney__this_journey_is_terrifying_and_frightening_but_we_don__39_t_choose_it/

Sylvia Walby isn't about female dominance . And what is wrong with pro-globalisation?

You really don't like women working for women do you? Or structural inequality being pointed out?

I actually quite like her, but she has a tendancy to be radical on issues, and that bias leaks into her opinion, as opposed to solely scientific. Her view on the ONS stats is hypocritical and a manipulation, accepting some stats that fit her view, and rejecteing related stats.

When you push your agenda that heavily the observer expectation effect is dangerous (not that I am accusing her, we all have it).

And what is wrong with pro-globalisation?

That statement doesn't terrify me, your questioning of that does!

Riiiight
So essentially information is only valid if you personally deem it to be so?
I can't be doing with discussing important societal issues with someone with that view point. Its a pointless waste of time. Enjoy spouting your great "intellect" uninformed nonsense to yourself.

I will respond to other posters but not discussing with you any more.

Really? Nice avoidance there. However, I'm not that interested in a reply on this thread as that would be yet another derail.

And 'soley scientic' is a subjective statement in itself. Vast areas of science can be interpreted and theorised in a number of ways. Also, there is nothing wrong with non-scientifically gathered data and information. However, Buffy is far far better on research data gathering than most.

I also wasn't aware that Sylvia Walby was a scientist. However her fields of expertise are DV, globalisation, gender relations. Of course she is going to push those . Just like Brian Cox's area of expertise is particle physics. He doesn't tend to stray into medieval history for example.

What about the agenda you're pushing pizan?

Devi

thats my point, stats are only relevent to what you take from them, Walby takes what she wants from this particular report.

She does make some great points in this speech though, despite her inaccuracies of the one statistic:

Venus

My agenda is pro woman, and anti cat calling here... Are you not in the same mindset?

Oops wrong thread, anti domestic violence, not anti cat calling, thats the other thread lol

Yet all your posts belie that, Pizan. Making excuses for men's behaviour. Denigrating women who are working for women. Denying structural inequality.

Scallop

Then you havn't been listening, I havn't excused men who do bad things, I've defended 3 billion people who are being labelled by you! I havn't denigrated anyone! And I have not denied a broken system, I work to fix a broken system.

What are you actually talking about?

So, back to the OP.
Is the event outlined in the article appropriate for IMD? I don't believe it is because I don't think DV is a huge issue affecting men compared with mental health issues and absent fatherhood. But I'm not a man.
I also think Kellie Maloney is an incredibly bad choice as a kind of keynote speaker.
Is IMD itself a bad thing? Not at all. I would love to hear more about mens issues, mens charities and how men can organise activity to reduce these issues. Charities like Mankind are doing a great job.
Focusing on DA feels a bit pointed to me OP given it is an issue that's far more damaging to women. So I agree with you.

I'll leave others to make up their own minds on your posts Pizan and back out of this little derail.

IMD is emphatically not a bad thing. A day for activists to be able to bring issues that affect men in the majority to the fore are great. Suicide, mental health, violence alcohol and drug abuse should absolutely be spoken about and methods for tackling them in the male population strategised, IMD seems an ideal time to do that, which is why it's jarring to have this speaker on this subject.

Kellie Maloney speaking out about domestic violence at a men's conference? I've heard it all now. I suppose Kellie speaks from a position of experience, as a perpetrator...also agree with strangulation being an immediate red flag.

I'm really tickled at Kellie keeping a foot in both camps - that an (unrepentant by all accounts) perpetrator can presume to speak for victims of domestic violence, while being a born male who presumes to speak for women - come on, it's too obvious, Kel! You're speaking at a men's conference because deep down, you know.

I agree, xeno about IMD being a good idea, for all the reasons that you mentioned. They're not feminist topics, so it's not for us to actively fight for them, but I doubt you'd find any feminist who opposed work in this area.

I kind of agree with that Xeno. But men (and by that I mean the class of men) have the majority of platforms 365 days of the year and could focus on any of those topics at any time, if they wanted to. Having said that it is good to have days focused on a particular topic.

But anecdotally (and from the OP) I've found, IMD tends to have an awful lot of focus around taking a typical women's issue and making it all about the men. As if it were a race to the bottom of the pile.

Completely agree about the inappropriateness of a man who has a proven track record of violence against women (or violence in general - given that he was a boxing promoter it was his job to promote violence)talking about DV.

It's a bit confusing TBH - I don't think Maloney spoke about DA. They were headline speaker at the IMD conference wh8ch featured gender issues as a topic alongside DA and other stuff

www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14907724.Kellie_Maloney__this_journey_is_terrifying_and_frightening_but_we_don__39_t_choose_it/

I agree to an extent scallops about 364 days a year being for men and that some of them seem to spend the whole of the 1 day to women which about how there isn't a man's day, I also agree that IMD seems to have been hijacked by the kind of man who thinks that men's issues will be solved by shouting that women are shit.

However, there are issues that men face disproportionately and men do need space to look at them if they won't do it every day if that makes sense.

In what way did they feature gender issues? Did they talk about accepting transmen?

Yes I can see both sides, Xeno. It could/can certainly be a useful day for men.

From that article it does appear that Maloney was only talking about transgender issues. But he was given a platform alongside people talking about DV, as violent abuser himself. How did they feel about that?

Details here venus

www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/safer-poole-international-mens-day-conference-tickets-27673907402#

Thank you. I'd be interested to know what the international men's day event participants think about accepting biological women as men.

"Prof Walby is a radical, she is pro globalisation, female dominance, and knowing her she is very clever about what she says in public. She has a vested interest in promoting victimisation in women, and the opinion you linked I have read and studied. It is a manipulation on raw data to produce women as victims, I think the Telegraph printed it too."

I think this is called personal opinion, rather than actual evidence. It also implies that her research is questionable.

Since you like proper facts so much, perhaps you would care to peruse the actual research, such as:

bjc.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/6/1203.full.pdf+html

British Journal of Criminology, internationally renowned, peer-reviewed and all that. As opposed to a certain persons personal opinion of the first author, and that some persons opinion as to what constitutes statistical validity...............

The other authors seem suitable qualified:
www.research.lancs.ac.uk/portal/en/people/brian-francis(5897c02c-ea53-45d0-b03c-d80521cf156b).html

Actually, in my opinion it is quite rare to have TWO professors and a Dr as three authors on a paper. That's quite a bit of academic weight there!

Or perhaps instead someone could enlighten us as to how the British Journal of Criminology could tighten-up their reviewing procedure...............Or why their personal opinion of someone's character or politics is of any relevance at all when it comes to evaluating the validity of their research?