[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

But as an aside to speaking about men's involvement with feminism, or even with things pertaining to women, I would say that the world is still so men focused that it can't happen to any great extent, yet.

For example, a scientific report was released this week on a study done on diverticulitis. The study was conducted on 40,000 men, covering a 18 year period. However, the report had to say that as only men were studied, they do not know if their finding would hold true for women.

So, in a study with the significant size of 40k, they could not even make half, or a quarter, of them, women. Moreover, it was started in the early 90's, long after the heath care oriented scientific community knew that there were significant differences between the genders, and that scientific studies on just men, could not be applied to women, to any great extent.

[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Oh, I would love to hear it, but can't, as 45 mins, would take me 3 days straight, and doing nothing else on the comp, to download in order to hear it.

---

[ 27 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Arrgghh, have you tried "streaming" instead of downloading? I am hopeless about things technical but maybe that can help.

---

In a general sense, all internet activity involves downloading including viewing this page. But in this context there are differences. When you stream an audio or video file, you need to have enough bandwidth so that the file plays properly, i.e. so that the data comes in quickly enough to simulate "real-time". Try looking at a YouTube video on a dial-up connection to see what I mean. If it plays at all, it isn't worth watching. But if you want to download that zip file, your download speed doesn't matter as long you're prepared to allow the download to complete. (So let it download overnight?)

Of course another difference is that if you download the file and then play it from your local hard drive, you can play it repeatedly without going back to the source.

Ouch. Is that because of the phone line where you are, or the modem, or what?

By the way, martin is quite hard to hear compared to the interviewer - less than half the volume I'd say - so I'll try later on too when I can crank it up.

Meanwhile, maybe I'll just crank martin up...

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
24kbps???

Ouch. Is that because of the phone line where you are, or the modem, or what?

---

Ironically, the interview was an example of one of the points that Martin made about men dominating conversations among feminist women. Not that Martin intended that to happen; it's just that he was the interview subject, had a lot to say, and expressed himself well, while the women listened to him and (almost audibly) nodded their heads in agreement.

Is this necessarily a bad thing?

It could conceivably have been a very different kind of conversation had the women chosen to make it so. They could have brought more of their own thoughts and observations to the table, and maybe even challenged or probed Martin and each other a little more. In this case, they seemed to do the stereotypical feminine thing and deflect differences and avoid confronting them.

If it were a conversation in somebody's living room instead of a long-distance telephone interview, would Martin have been better advised to shut up and listen to the women?

I ask this because it is often stated as Rule No. 1 that men have nothing to teach women about feminism and they should shut up and listen and never disagree. I think it would be a shame if Martin followed that rule consistently.

I think women have some responsibility in this regard. If they don't want others - be they men or women - to take over the conversation then they had better come prepared to articulate their own well-considered positions and to challenge the positions articulated by those others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Well, that was interesting. I found Martin, not surprisingly, quite articulate and well-prepared for the interview, whereas the women involved seemed surprisingly inarticulate, unprepared, and downright giggly. The questions were sloppy and not well thought out, but Martin handled them very well, even if I disagree with much of what he said, and even if the conversation strayed from the topic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
It's only a 29 MB zipped file. I estimate 3-5 hours with a clean dial-up connection

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
It is the antique phone lines and system here. Everybody in the community has dial up, and the businesses use the same dial up connection for their debit machines. In peak hours of business operations the connection actually gets slower.

---

You can bypass dial-up lines by using a satellite internet service (there are several choices to select from here in the USA—so I’m assuming that satellite internet service is also available in Canada). All you need is electricity—so it’s perfect for non-urban areas.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Did anyone else find this to be the case?

---

While they may have been giggly at times, just at the beginning, the questions and intros to them were quite helpful. I think much of the laughter was due to Martin's sharp wit.

I will have to listen to it again as it was very hard to keep up because they tackled a number of subjects with respect to men.

I had some quibbles but they're very trivial to Martin's message, considering the excellent learning experience. Recommended listening for men that would like to talk to feminists.

Skip to 10 minutes in if you want to get right to Martin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I ask this because it is often stated as Rule No. 1 that men have nothing to teach women about feminism and they should shut up and listen and never disagree. I think it would be a shame if Martin followed that rule consistently.

I think women have some responsibility in this regard. If they don't want others - be they men or women - to take over the conversation then they had better come prepared to articulate their own well-considered positions and to challenge the positions articulated by those others

---

As for the unprofessionalism, or whatever, of the radio hosts, they sounded typical of college or community radio shows which don't have the same bravado-tinged confidence (not always a bad thing) of experienced public or corporate radio presenters. Martin came across as an experienced activist who knows his political philosophy and is used to explaining it to people. Hence the disparity.

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: Catchfire ]

I also have never listened to this show before, and I haven't heard how the hosts interact with other guests. And the point I made earlier, that there's such great happiness that men are on board the project that there's a giddiness perhaps.

Plus the community radio aspect, which makes me more forgiving towards the hosts. I have some very brief experiences being both interviewer and interviewee, over the phone, live to radio, and it's given me greater respect for both positions in the "thinking on your feet" way and also "being articulate and to the point".

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

What's the difference between the 29, the 30 and the 57 MB file?

There's fast internet here so I'm just downloading the 57, is that everything?

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
It seems to me we should acknowledge - as women do - that men, as a class, DO disagree with feminist analysis and say/do as much as they can to sidetrack it.

---

One can speak of a(n)…

Ambush (of presidents)
Army (of Ones)
Bale (of the full)
Band (of four skins)
Barren (but warrin')
Bed (of claimants)
Bevy (of heavies)
Bloat (of boasters)
Brood (of brooders)
Business (of owners)
Cast(e)(aways)
Catch (whatever)
Charm (of oblivion)
Clamour (of clams)
Cloud of (clout)
Clutch (of gropers)
Clutter (of cleanliness-challenged)
Colony (of colonizers)
Company (of keepers)
Covey (of coveters)
Cowardice (of cowhands)
Crash (of the rash)
Cry (of the self-absorbed)
Culture (as of bacteriae)
Dazzle (of light-weights)
Descent (of flashers)
Down (of downers)
Drift (of paddle-deprived)
Drove (of road-ragers)
Dule (of dudes)
Family (of Man)
Flight (of male plight)
Float (but barely)
Flock (of pluck)
Gaggle (of guys)
Gam (of gamers)
Gang (of bangers)
Gulp (of admission)
Harras (of stalkers)
Herd (of the heard)
Hive (of hims)
Horde (of hors-d'oeuvre)
Hover (of tops)
Huddle (of hoods)
Husk (of hunks)
Implausibility (of import)
Kettle (of humdrum)
Knot (of dont’s)
Labour (of misconceptions)
Leap (of social lepers)
Leash (of lechery)
Litter (of homeowners)
Mischief (of leaders)
Mob (of family linchpins)
Murder (of Honour)
Muster (of passers)
Mustering (of bluster)
Mute (of the moot)
Nest (of exactors)
Nye (of nay-sayers)
Obstinacy (of obdurates)
Pace (of pacers)
Pack (of Six)
Parliament (of course)
Peep (of peers)
Pitying (of SNAGs)
Plague (of low-costs)
Pod (of putzes)
Pride (of self-lionizers)
Quiver (of indignation)
Rafter (of drifters)
Rag (of the rich)
Richness (of pretense)
Romp (of roomers)
Run (of shits)
School (of underachievers)
Shrewdness (of primates)
Skein (of the skittish)
Skulk (too easy)
Smack (of harassers)
Sord (of every sort)
Sounder (of warnings)
Stud (of wannabes)
Swarm (of swarth)
Swift (of kickers-when-she’s-down)
Team (of terminators)
Tiding (of stuff ahead)
Tower (of strength – and I’d walk out the door)
Troop (of trophy hunters)
Troubling (of water)
Unkindness (of the craven)
Weyr (of weirdos)
Zeal (of male fundamentalists)

Human beings are complex, making blanket statements about entire groups of them is never wise.

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

They don't have to lead to cookie-cutter monolithic pictures of people; they rather help us understand critical differences of position, standpoint, tactics between men and women, culturally constructed as we are.

---

But that's what a generalization is. Whenever we generalize,(at least in terms of sociological analysis)
we make blanket statements about groups of people,
and whenever we make a blanket statement
about a group,
we most often wind up stereotyping , which is very bad. We should stop making sociological generalizations,
although I'm not sure if it's possible to do that.

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

You bet I do. Indeed, this gives us entitlement and motivation to speak out about this male culture which, despite its variations among various sub-groups of men, retains general characteristics that spell male entitlement, including that not to be pejoratively generalized about...

---

Okay Martin, you freely admit that male feninists can be flawed, but to the best of knowledge you have NEVER admitted to being flawed or subconciously patrarchal.
Instead you set up a huge false dicotomy in which you are a man of honor in a den of theives(much like Al Pachino in Surpaco) and judge all the other men in Canada as bastards, while you strut and preen like like some latently Jansenist peekock, blissfully unaware of your own shortcomings.
[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

quote:

---

Sadly, you have clearly abandoned your own thread as a vehicle for serious discussion.

---

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

... and that there are multiple ways to avoid having them devolve to mere caricatures.

---

How?

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

I don't agree that Martin spoke too much or dominated a feminist conversation. He was the interview subject. I dislike when the interviewer(s) dominates the conversation and we don't get to hear what the interviewee has to say. The topic of the interview was men's involvement with feminism from a pro-feminist man's perspective. That's what we got. As well, while there was some laughing, it was appropriate to the quality of community radio/cable shows and it was appropriate to the conversation. I think the use of the word 'giggling' as a descriptor has provided an incorrect framing of this issue. As for the issues, there were many discussed and I would like the time to listen to the rest of the interview before commenting.

quote:

---

Extracts: The aim of the paper is to encourage participants in such programs to critically reflect upon their policies, conceptual frameworks and practices in light of the issues raised. I am hesitant about raising some of these questions because I know that men’s involvement in this work is still relatively rare. However, I think that naming the dangers and potential misappropriations of this work is part of the process of improving and strengthening such projects.

Thus, while I support the involvement of men in violence prevention, I believe that particular conditions need to be met and that specific principles need to be adopted to address the potential problems associated with such involvement. Furthermore, I believe that the theoretical premises underpinning men’s violence prevention need to be based upon both feminist theory and the critical scholarship on men and masculinities. I further emphasise that we should be careful not to promise too much from men’s involvement and should be alert to the pressures for cooption that such involvement can elicit.
(...)The White Ribbon Campaign was established by a group of men in Canada in 1991, on the second anniversary of a massacre of fourteen women in Montreal by a lone gunman. The White Ribbon Campaign encourages non-violent men to wear white ribbons as an expression of their public opposition to men’s violence. In 2003, the Australian office of the United Nations Development Fund for Women, UNIFEM, partnered with men and men's organisations to make this a national campaign in Australia. It is a good example of a community-based intervention by men, which is now supported by federal government funding and involves full-time salaried program managers and coordinators. With the shift to government funding, however, there appears to be a diminishing focus on men’s responsibility both in the organising of the campaign and in the wearing of the ribbons. Women are often the key organisers and the focus has now shifted to encouraging ‘everyone’ to wear ribbons. While this could be seen as an appropriate alliance between feminist women and profeminist men, it can also undercut the message of men’s responsibility for violence. In Canada, the White Ribbon Campaign has been criticised for colonising and appropriating women’s experiences (Spark 1994; Goldrick-Jones 2004), and some feminists have raised concerns about re-centring men in such anti-violence work (Marchese 2008).(...)

---

The paper runs thirty pages but is really worth the read to get beyond the too-common cooptation of honest efforts by a patriarchal establishment.

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Refugee Settlement, Safety & Wellbeing: exploring domestic & family violence in refugee communities, by Susan Rees & Bob Pease (2006) for Immigrant Women's Domestic Violence Service, 292 Wellington Street, Collingwood 3066, Victoria, AUSTRALIA, [email protected], www.dvirc.org.au

A study that examines cultural, psychosocial and economic factors in the safety & wellbeing of refugee families experiencing domestic & family violence. This study identifies the vulnerabilities specific to immigrant & refugee women.

Consultations with different communities resulted in a recommendation for using a multi-level framework to illustrate violence prevention strategies in partnership with refugee communities.

---