So how long will Ben last this time?

[Kidlicious]

If the pieces don't fit then there's probably something wrong with your logic. God is a man, the bible is clear on that. Jesus was a man, the bible is clear on that Ephesians 5 is clear, that men have the responsibility of headship within their families.

Does this mean that men and women are not equal in value? No. What it means is that equality of function is not equality of value. We are not equal because we can do the same things, we are equal because we are persons in the eyes of God.

You're going on and on with your straw man, because you are double-talking. No one thinks men are superior to women. No one thinks women don't have special gifts.

[Proteus_MST]

... God is a man, the bible is clear on that. ...

Why would god have a gender, if he is a supreme being and isn´t part of a Pantheon together wirh other gods (with some of them having another gender)?
(putting aside the fact that the israelites, before becoming monotheists, believed that YHWH was a weather god in a pantheon full of gods and even had a wife ... as this is something that usually is ovelooked and is neither part of contemporary jewish belief, nor part of the christian belief)

[Kidlicious]

A Flood of DV insanity and doublespeak

December 4, 2014 By Tom Golden —53 Comments

Gentlemen, the goalposts have been moved. Buckle your seatbelts.

I read Michael Flood’s article that he offered in a comment on AVfM as defense for his assumption that women are 95% of the victims of domestic violence. I was not prepared for what I found. Guess what? He and other DV potentates are reframing domestic violence, and his claims of 95% female victims only refers to what he calls “intimate terrorism” (also called “coercive controlling violence”).

The name may be new, but the idea of intimate terrorism has been around for some time. My memory tells me that even the early DV activists used a similar descriptor of the problem. In fact, the implication then, and even now, was that all of domestic violence was intimate terrorism. You know, that big-burly-smelly-angry guy™ who controls the whimpering wifey with an iron hand, yells for his sammich, and beats her to a pulp for not adding enough mayo. That guy. In the early days, this was the poster child for DV: the out-of-control man beating the defenseless woman and controlling her every move.

Everyone in the gynocentric press jumped on the bandwagon like it was the only train out of hell. Donations flooded in (pun intended) by the millions. Laws were written at warp 7 (in Star Trek vernacular), and in a wisp of time the domestic violence industry became a billion-plus-dollar-a-year venture solely by alleging to protect women from these evil, mostly imaginary patriarchs. They made a stunning success of framing all men as potential intimate terrorists and all women as potential victims. Domestic violence was falsely framed as pervasive, and the DV propaganda machine sold the myth that acts of a tiny, pathological minority were representative of all men. They also succeeded at taking a complex, multifaceted social malady and reducing it to a “one size fits all” sound bite fit for low-end public consumption. Of course, a significant part of that reduction was to cut male victims and female perpetrators from the picture.

There was just one problem: that pesky research. Study after study kept showing that women admitted to being violent in relationships as often as men, pointing to symmetry in
the victims of domestic violence. In fact, women admitted more often than men that they were violent in relationship.

The DV industry researchers reacted to that by focusing on how men lie and minimize their abusiveness; that women are afraid to report their abusers; that real perpetrators won’t admit as much on a questionnaire—and on and on. But guess what? None of those excuses could negate the fact that women admitted to committing violence against their intimate partners. Period. The only way around it was to call the women liars and that wasn’t going to happen. Even the self-defense mantra didn’t work outside their own insulated ideology.

So, what to do? How can gender symmetry in DV be explained in ways that still demonize men and make them ripe for fundraising? This is where the fun, a flood of it, starts.

It starts by moving the goalposts. They saw the writing on the wall that their worldview of all DV being men beating women was crumbling and something needed to be done to explain why those women would admit to being violent. What did they do? They invented a new term: situational couple’s violence (SCV). Wow! Here’s what Flood says about this:
“

Here, the violence is relatively minor, both partners practise it, it is expressive (emotional) in meaning, it tends not to escalate over time, and injuries are rare. Situational couple violence does not involve a general pattern of coercive control.

Hold the press, folks. Can you imagine a man explaining to a batterer’s intervention leader (or to a judge, for that matter) that his violence was emotionally expressive in meaning and not part of a serious pattern of coercive control?

He would be instant toast.

Flood makes a case for men being only 5% to 10% of domestic violence victims by
differentiating what he calls SCV, where male victims are common, from what he calls “intimate terrorism,” which he concludes is nearly all female victims. He portrays intimate terrorism as mostly a lethal, controlling man dominating a helpless woman. This is Flood’s 95% female victims. This is different, he tells us, from the situational couple’s violence that is commonplace in everyday relationships when people get upset and might push or shove in a spontaneous manner. This, Flood argues, may be violent but lacks the injurious, dominating, and coercive aspects of intimate terrorist violence (shall we go ahead and coin ITV for you, Michael?).

He tells us that situational couple’s violence, unlike ITV, includes both male and female victims. He also tells us that situational couple’s violence is much more prevalent than intimate terrorism—probably by at least a factor of 3 to 1.

This gambit superficially appears to get Flood and the DV industry out of some hot water since for decades they have portrayed women as the only victims of domestic violence—while the research clearly demonstrates gender symmetry.

How to explain those gosh darn violent women in a system without male victims? Just create a new category! Situational couple’s violence—the violence that does not matter. If he can show that the violence that women are involved with is just, you know, situational violence, then the fact that women are violent in relationships can easily be explained and ignored. And so can their male victims.

Okay, but wait. If you make that jump and believe that the real domestic violence is ITV, with men beating women, then what do you do with SCV? Looks like out of the frying pan and into the fire.

You see, Flood never tells us whether SCV is something that needs treatment from domestic violence services or if it is something that can be ignored and allowed to exist without intervention. Either way, I think they are screwed. What should they be doing with those male and female victims of SCV?

Is it something that needs to be treated by domestic violence services? If it is something that needs to be treated, what services are available for this large group of male and female victims? The research seems clear to say that this type of violence is more likely to need counseling or educational assistance. Is that offered by domestic violence services for this type of violent couple? Are they catering to this large majority with appropriate counseling services? I sure haven’t seen it or even heard of it.

Is SCV even something that needs intervention? One might assume that, since Flood completely ignored it in his assessment of victims. If we don’t need to change situational couple’s violence, then the White Ribbon folks of Australia are right to ignore it. However, if it is something that does need treatment and services, then why would White Ribbon only enlist men to change domestic violence? If SCV has both male and female victims, should they be enlisting both sexes? Flood is an ambassador for the White Ribbon Australia group. I wonder why he hasn’t urged them in this direction?
...

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism...d-doublespeak/

Feminists like to move the goal posts too. You are one.

[Kidlicious]

Other than not being an Evangelical, and other than having a completely different theology you've got it spot on, mate. Good job.

And you believe Protestants represent the Patriarchy?

[Kidlicious]

[Kidlicious]

[NICE MOBIUS]

So do I. That has been my experience over the years.

But not to the exclusion of her career or independence, as you imply.

Mhmm, this cold-hearted capitalist has done his share of child-minding.

Clearly when you have chosen to do so, minding other people's kids and not when it is your own and you are obligated to.

I have no problem with capitalist childcare options. It's a free country.

No, it's not a free country, that's my point.

I have a problem with state-sponsored ones. If a woman wants to work and put her children in daycare, she should be free to do so, if she's willing to pay the person to watch her children.

Hence the convenient trap that keeps many women stuck in the home when they might otherwise want to be working.

It should not be my responsibility to pay for her child care.

Whilst the selfish 'every person for their own' nasty anti-society part of me might agree with you, I understand that in a truly civilised society people realise that buying into things like that mean that they also take advantage of certain services others might not use also.

I assume civilisation and society - the sum of the parts being greater than the individual are lost on you.

Yes, I would be very happy with that life, which is why I look for women that want this life.

And that is why you're still single and a virgin and ultimately destined for a life of unhappiness and loneliness...

I find it ironic that you cite this at me of all people.

I don't

I find your post very amusing.

And I find yours very sad.

[Kidlicious]

[NICE MOBIUS]

Don't worry Ben, Kid is definitely more of a loser than you

[Ben Kenobi]

And you believe Protestants represent the Patriarchy?

No, I think we are.

[Kidlicious]

No, I think we are.

Seriously, you doublespeak. You need to get your **** straight.

[Ben Kenobi]

But not to the exclusion of her career or independence, as you imply.

It's a free country. If a woman wants to work, she should be able to do so.

Clearly when you have chosen to do so, minding other people's kids and not when it is your own and you are obligated to.

And?

No, it's not a free country, that's my point.

And my point is that it is. People should have childcare options, and they should be able to pay whatever people are willing to receive. The State has no business intervening.

Hence the convenient trap that keeps many women stuck in the home when they might otherwise want to be working.

It's simple economics. Should we be paying mothers to stay at home? If they aren't making enough at their job to cover childcare, then they should stay at home, because the value of their labor in the home is greater than that of them working. Paying people to work is bad economics.

Whilst the selfish 'every person for their own' nasty anti-society part of me might agree with you, I understand that in a truly civilised society people realise that buying into things like that mean that they also take advantage of certain services others might not use also.

I have no more right to rob others to fund the things I want. If I want it I can pay for it. If they want it they should be able to pay for it too.

I assume civilisation and society - the sum of the parts being greater than the individual are lost on you.

Civilization rolled on quite well without state-funded childcare.

And that is why you're still single and a virgin and ultimately destined for a life of unhappiness and loneliness

No, actually, life is much more complicated than that. I have met some amazing ladies over my life. I wish I had figured out what I know now 15 years ago. My life would have been happier then.

[Ben Kenobi]

Seriously, you doublespeak. You need to get your **** straight.

LOL I think everyone else here understood my point perfectly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why would god have a gender

And that, my friend is a tremendous part of what Christianity is about, part of what Kidicious doesn't understand either.

Christians believe that we are made in the image of God, in our bodies, not just in our spirit. That we are made in imitation of Him. He is a real person, much more real than we are, not a disembodied spirit or whatnot. Like the drawings of the artists, we are representations of Him.

This is why Christians are supposed to honor him not just in what we say, but in what we do, and why Paul talks about how our bodies are 'temples of the Holy Spirit'. This is very different from many, many other religions.

[Kidlicious]

LOL I think everyone else here understood my point perfectly.

No one understands doublespeak. It's incomprehensible you idiot.