Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:36 AM
> Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me "The
> Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of evidence
> about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist researchers
> and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it clear
> there are other informed points of view from feminists and others.
> Grant
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2008
>
rosalee, 21 Oct 2005 13:23:22
Hi Amelie,
Yes, FAC are working with Backlash and I will be posting some links to relevant articles over the weekend. In the meantime, another book worth looking at is 'Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes - Pornography and Censorship' by Avedon Carol.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: Amelie, 21 Oct 2005 13:23:22
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
the research is the same no matter in what context it is quoted, but I take
your point that the forum is unfortunate. Short of producing the original
research you will have the problem that where lists of literature are given,
what is quoted is almost always in support of the writer's own point of
view.
This book purports to put all aspects of feminist views on
pornography -http://www.oup.co.uk/isbn/0-19-878250-0 -Feminism and
Pornography, edited by Drusilla Cornell. Perhaps someone in the group has
access to a copy?
This page is also hard-hitting and funny
http://www.thefword.org.uk/features/2003/12/the_feminist_minefield
This site may be exactly what you
need -http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/data/feminists-against-cen (but I
thought they were working with us anyway?)
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Manniq, 21 Oct 2005 18:46:05
Whwen you say 'feminist evidence' I do have to stifle a giggle. I have been involved, over and over in 'debates' with sup[posedly academic feminists who have done research that would shame your average secondary school student - let alone someone supposedly working at PhD level or higher.
For instance, you may remember a much quoted Eduinburgh survey that states that about a third of young men believe it is OK to hit women.
Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'Are there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I believe such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
So from such rarefied stuff come appalling misrepresentations.
Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several years of critiquing academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research that can't be reduced to rubble in five minutes.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me "The
> Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of evidence
> about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist researchers
> and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it clear
> there are other informed points of view from feminists and others.
> Grant
clare, 21 Oct 2005 18:59:17
Maybe it would be better to stifle that giggle. As I understand it Grant's objective is to have feminist anti-censorship research
to balance against any pro-censorship feminist research that the government may come up with.
As everyone by now knows, I am against delving into the evidence on either side, but if it is going to be done, surely Grant's neutralising strategy is a worthwhile objective, regardeless of the academic merits of the research.
Is anyones' strategic interest served by reducing the research to rubble? Would anyone care?
Is it possible that your comment could be a tad offensive to the feminists amoung us? Or your confidence that you can reduce all feminist research to rubble single handed not just a little inflated? Feel free to offend, bien sur, .....
Author wrote:
> Whwen you say 'feminist evidence' I do have to stifle a giggle. I have been involved, over and over in 'debates' with sup[posedly academic feminists who have done research that would shame your average secondary school student - let alone someone supposedly working at PhD level or higher.
> For instance, you may remember a much quoted Eduinburgh survey that states that about a third of young men believe it is OK to hit women.
> Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'Are there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
> Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I believe such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
> So from such rarefied stuff come appalling misrepresentations.
> Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several years of critiquing academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research that can't be reduced to rubble in five minutes.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> > from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> > reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> > gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> > that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> > consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me "The
> > Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of evidence
> > about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist researchers
> > and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it clear
> > there are other informed points of view from feminists and others.
> > Grant
*** This message has been edited by clare on 21 Oct 2005 19:03:44 ***
Manniq, 21 Oct 2005 19:10:37
Hmmmm....and I was taking issue to some degree with Grant's suggestion.
And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better than yours'.
Being serious - and ceasing to giggle for a moment - I think there are two positions one can take: the one, that the vast majority of research done in this area is poorly done, skewed, selective and tendentious; and therefore that the research base is poor to non-existent. Or to pretend that there is much of a research base and start fighting fire with fire.
I am for the first approach - which also has the advantage of suggesting that there are many who are trying to 'prove' the Home Office case who are either intellectually not up to it, or actively dishonest. I don't think that the research v. research debate shifts public opinion much/at all. But possibly bringing issues of the honesty of the other side into the debate might - especially given how dishonesty is now an issue with parts of this government.
As for attacking feminist research....and alienating individuals on here. Yes: I suspect I may incense a few; although in that case I would ask that people take the matter off line or debate it in full on here. My personal view of feminism is that it is a political and philosophical position with some coherence and some weight.
But political positions are neither made nor unmade by research. If anything, they tend to be undermined by ditto. So my target, albeit clumsily expressed, is feminist research, as opposed to feminists.
As I say: happy to defend that if anyone wishes to take issue with me.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Maybe it would be better to stifle that giggle. As I understand it Grant's objective is to have feminist anti-censorship research
> to balance against any pro-censorship feminist research that the government may come up with.
> As everyone by now knows, I am against delving into the evidence on either side, but if it is going to be done, surely Grant's neutralising strategy is a worthwhile objective, regardeless of the academic merits of the research.
> Is anyones' strategic interest served by reducing the research to rubble? Would anyone care?
> Is it possible that your comment could be a tad offensive to the feminists amoung us? Feel free to offend, bien sur, .....
> Author wrote:
> > Whwen you say 'feminist evidence' I do have to stifle a giggle. I have been involved, over and over in 'debates' with sup[posedly academic feminists who have done research that would shame your average secondary school student - let alone someone supposedly working at PhD level or higher.
> > For instance, you may remember a much quoted Eduinburgh survey that states that about a third of young men believe it is OK to hit women.
> > Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'Are there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
> > Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I believe such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
> > So from such rarefied stuff come appalling misrepresentations.
> > Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several years of critiquing academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research that can't be reduced to rubble in five minutes.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> > > from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> > > reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> > > gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> > > that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> > > consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me "The
> > > Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of evidence
> > > about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist researchers
> > > and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it clear
> > > there are other informed points of view from feminists and others.
> > > Grant
clare, 21 Oct 2005 19:34:39
Manniq wrote:
"And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better than yours'."
I don't think either approach can lead to a useful conclusion, but if one approach has to be taken, then simply saying "yes, but other research is to the contrary" without a pointless examination of merits, is a cleaner and shorter approach. A submission that deconstructs academic research would be extremely boring and amount to just one further piece of academic research (or academic deconstruction) to add to the mouldering pile of material that the government already accepts is inconclusive.
I really can't see how demonstrating that academics (that government isn't relying on anyway)are "dishonest" rather than merely open to challenge is going to reflect on the honesty of the government in any meaningful way.
I realised your target was feminist research not feminists. Its a distinction without a difference and certainly not worth debating on these boards. There are quite a lot of other things to do.
Author wrote:
> Hmmmm....and I was taking issue to some degree with Grant's suggestion.
> And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better than yours'.
> Being serious - and ceasing to giggle for a moment - I think there are two positions one can take: the one, that the vast majority of research done in this area is poorly done, skewed, selective and tendentious; and therefore that the research base is poor to non-existent. Or to pretend that there is much of a research base and start fighting fire with fire.
> I am for the first approach - which also has the advantage of suggesting that there are many who are trying to 'prove' the Home Office case who are either intellectually not up to it, or actively dishonest. I don't think that the research v. research debate shifts public opinion much/at all. But possibly bringing issues of the honesty of the other side into the debate might - especially given how dishonesty is now an issue with parts of this government.
> As for attacking feminist research....and alienating individuals on here. Yes: I suspect I may incense a few; although in that case I would ask that people take the matter off line or debate it in full on here. My personal view of feminism is that it is a political and philosophical position with some coherence and some weight.
> But political positions are neither made nor unmade by research. If anything, they tend to be undermined by ditto. So my target, albeit clumsily expressed, is feminist research, as opposed to feminists.
> As I say: happy to defend that if anyone wishes to take issue with me.
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Maybe it would be better to stifle that giggle. As I understand it Grant's objective is to have feminist anti-censorship research
> > to balance against any pro-censorship feminist research that the government may come up with.
> > As everyone by now knows, I am against delving into the evidence on either side, but if it is going to be done, surely Grant's neutralising strategy is a worthwhile objective, regardeless of the academic merits of the research.
> > Is anyones' strategic interest served by reducing the research to rubble? Would anyone care?
> > Is it possible that your comment could be a tad offensive to the feminists amoung us? Feel free to offend, bien sur, .....
> > Author wrote:
> > > Whwen you say 'feminist evidence' I do have to stifle a giggle. I have been involved, over and over in 'debates' with sup[posedly academic feminists who have done research that would shame your average secondary school student - let alone someone supposedly working at PhD level or higher.
> > > For instance, you may remember a much quoted Eduinburgh survey that states that about a third of young men believe it is OK to hit women.
> > > Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'Are there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
> > > Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I believe such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
> > > So from such rarefied stuff come appalling misrepresentations.
> > > Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several years of critiquing academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research that can't be reduced to rubble in five minutes.
> > > Regards,
> > > M
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> > > > from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> > > > reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> > > > gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> > > > that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> > > > consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me "The
> > > > Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of evidence
> > > > about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist researchers
> > > > and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it clear
> > > > there are other informed points of view from feminists and others.
> > > > Grant
Paul Tavener, 21 Oct 2005 20:01:15
When we are talking about evidence (of whatever origin) it is not a good idea to let the Government get away with the idea that somehow they are being "generous" in saying there is insufficient evidence (when we all know (not) that it is just a matter of time before someone realy does prove the harm).
I think it might be worth arguing about the evidence to try to force a re-evaluation. We should not accept that the evidence is simply 'inconclusive'. Reading the reaserch there is not just doubt if violent porn is harmful or harmless, there is also doubt over positive effect. If you look at the research from Japan there was a marked decline in sex crime when porn became more widely available...
Manniq, 21 Oct 2005 20:05:35
This feels like a moving target, with arguments bouncing off the previous point.
In general,
- I agree with your contention that we are not best served by getting into debate aboutthe strengths of the pro and con research;
- I personally think there is far more bad research on both sides in this debate than anything especially worth making use of (by bad: loads of research where the main effect is as much dependent on issues of definition as of fundamental cause);
- so my preference would be a) to duck out (as it just wastes time) or b) to deconstruct research when it arrives;
- and I was being a tad careless about time-frame: there might be a point to hitting back within the consultation period; but very little point afterward, when the argument moves on to the next phase.
However, if grant is putting something together, then well and good. There is already a plethora of material about, and it does not hurt for us to add to it.
At one level: the more the merrier. At another, I doubt that the consultation process will make much difference. If a Bill is coming, it is coming and the best that our input is likely to do is to highlight some of the flaws in that Bill (and maybe help the other side put their house in order up front).
Odd. It feels like we are disagreeing, but I am not sure we are.
Must be Friday night!
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Manniq wrote:
> "And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better than yours'."
> I don't think either approach can lead to a useful conclusion, but if one approach has to be taken, then simply saying "yes, but other research is to the contrary" without a pointless examination of merits, is a cleaner and shorter approach. A submission that deconstructs academic research would be extremely boring and amount to just one further piece of academic research (or academic deconstruction) to add to the mouldering pile of material that the government already accepts is inconclusive.
> I really can't see how demonstrating that academics (that government isn't relying on anyway)are "dishonest" rather than merely open to challenge is going to reflect on the honesty of the government in any meaningful way.
> I realised your target was feminist research not feminists. Its a distinction without a difference and certainly not worth debating on these boards. There are quite a lot of other things to do.
> Author wrote:
> > Hmmmm....and I was taking issue to some degree with Grant's suggestion.
> > And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better than yours'.
> > Being serious - and ceasing to giggle for a moment - I think there are two positions one can take: the one, that the vast majority of research done in this area is poorly done, skewed, selective and tendentious; and therefore that the research base is poor to non-existent. Or to pretend that there is much of a research base and start fighting fire with fire.
> > I am for the first approach - which also has the advantage of suggesting that there are many who are trying to 'prove' the Home Office case who are either intellectually not up to it, or actively dishonest. I don't think that the research v. research debate shifts public opinion much/at all. But possibly bringing issues of the honesty of the other side into the debate might - especially given how dishonesty is now an issue with parts of this government.
> > As for attacking feminist research....and alienating individuals on here. Yes: I suspect I may incense a few; although in that case I would ask that people take the matter off line or debate it in full on here. My personal view of feminism is that it is a political and philosophical position with some coherence and some weight.
> > But political positions are neither made nor unmade by research. If anything, they tend to be undermined by ditto. So my target, albeit clumsily expressed, is feminist research, as opposed to feminists.
> > As I say: happy to defend that if anyone wishes to take issue with me.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Maybe it would be better to stifle that giggle. As I understand it Grant's objective is to have feminist anti-censorship research
> > > to balance against any pro-censorship feminist research that the government may come up with.
> > > As everyone by now knows, I am against delving into the evidence on either side, but if it is going to be done, surely Grant's neutralising strategy is a worthwhile objective, regardeless of the academic merits of the research.
> > > Is anyones' strategic interest served by reducing the research to rubble? Would anyone care?
> > > Is it possible that your comment could be a tad offensive to the feminists amoung us? Feel free to offend, bien sur, .....
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Whwen you say 'feminist evidence' I do have to stifle a giggle. I have been involved, over and over in 'debates' with sup[posedly academic feminists who have done research that would shame your average secondary school student - let alone someone supposedly working at PhD level or higher.
> > > > For instance, you may remember a much quoted Eduinburgh survey that states that about a third of young men believe it is OK to hit women.
> > > > Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'Are there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
> > > > Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I believe such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
> > > > So from such rarefied stuff come appalling misrepresentations.
> > > > Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several years of critiquing academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research that can't be reduced to rubble in five minutes.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > M
> > > > Author wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> > > > > from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> > > > > reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> > > > > gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> > > > > that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> > > > > consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me "The
> > > > > Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of evidence
> > > > > about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist researchers
> > > > > and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it clear
> > > > > there are other informed points of view from feminists and others.
> > > > > Grant
Manniq, 21 Oct 2005 20:12:04
Hmmm....this is one thing that I do wonder about.
Though it may open up too many big issues.
Basically, the other side rely on a very linear, simplistic argument. Porn (of whatever stripe) causes interest in the underlying actions...causes harm.
That argument falls apart at many levels. One level is the level at which it is argued that it leads people to copy the behaviour depicted when the behaviour in question is merely something that the anti-porn brigade consider morally reprehensible. Watching wank material causes more wanking. Er, yes. So what. No prob - unless you have a prob with wnaking.
But there are two counter arguments. First, a mix of anecdote from some sex offendrs - plus the Japanese material - suggests that there is some evidence that porn reduces acting out by giving people another avenue through which to vent their feelings. Porn actually reduces direct acting out. Probably will turn out to be evidence on both sides, with interaction and some people more likely to act out, some less.
But worth putting the question back: if you can't say with confidence that banning porn does not itself cause harm....what is the basis for so doing.
And secondly, there is the societal effect (much harder to measure)whereby fear of being seen as an offender (esp. when it comes to children) has resulted in society being much more fearful of interacting with children...resulting in more long-term harm to children.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> When we are talking about evidence (of whatever origin) it is not a good idea to let the Government get away with the idea that somehow they are being "generous" in saying there is insufficient evidence (when we all know (not) that it is just a matter of time before someone realy does prove the harm).
> I think it might be worth arguing about the evidence to try to force a re-evaluation. We should not accept that the evidence is simply 'inconclusive'. Reading the reaserch there is not just doubt if violent porn is harmful or harmless, there is also doubt over positive effect. If you look at the research from Japan there was a marked decline in sex crime when porn became more widely available...
Chris, 21 Oct 2005 20:24:54
My memory isn't what it used to be (or perhaps never was), but I think Grant
was asking for this in response to some people (I imagine feminists) he'd
spoken to who were broadly supportive of objecting to the consultation, but
were uncomfortable about it for the reasons cited by the Government - that
there's a causal link, even if there's no proof. Therefore, the research
was to bring more people on board as supporters and objectors.
I believe the request was for a succinct source that would point to a body
of research articles that made the point. I think it was perhaps wishful
thinking that any produced from a feminist standpoint (regardless of quality
in research terms) would be likely to support the assertion that there is no
link.
Perhaps it's best to ask Grant to re-specify his requirement as it looks
like it's been lost in the noise and discussion.
----Original Message Follows----
manniq@hotmail.com, 21 Oct 2005 20:24:54
This feels like a moving target, with arguments bouncing off the previous
point.
In general,
- I agree with your contention that we are not best served by getting into
debate aboutthe strengths of the pro and con research;
- I personally think there is far more bad research on both sides in this
debate than anything especially worth making use of (by bad: loads of
research where the main effect is as much dependent on issues of definition
as of fundamental cause);
- so my preference would be a) to duck out (as it just wastes time) or b) to
deconstruct research when it arrives;
- and I was being a tad careless about time-frame: there might be a point to
hitting back within the consultation period; but very little point
afterward, when the argument moves on to the next phase.
However, if grant is putting something together, then well and good. There
is already a plethora of material about, and it does not hurt for us to add
to it.
At one level: the more the merrier. At another, I doubt that the
consultation process will make much difference. If a Bill is coming, it is
coming and the best that our input is likely to do is to highlight some of
the flaws in that Bill (and maybe help the other side put their house in
order up front).
Odd. It feels like we are disagreeing, but I am not sure we are.
Must be Friday night!
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Manniq wrote:
> "And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the
research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better
than yours'."
> I don't think either approach can lead to a useful conclusion, but if one
approach has to be taken, then simply saying "yes, but other research is to
the contrary" without a pointless examination of merits, is a cleaner and
shorter approach. A submission that deconstructs academic research would be
extremely boring and amount to just one further piece of academic research
(or academic deconstruction) to add to the mouldering pile of material that
the government already accepts is inconclusive.
> I really can't see how demonstrating that academics (that government
isn't relying on anyway)are "dishonest" rather than merely open to challenge
is going to reflect on the honesty of the government in any meaningful way.
> I realised your target was feminist research not feminists. Its a
distinction without a difference and certainly not worth debating on these
boards. There are quite a lot of other things to do.
> Author wrote:
> > Hmmmm....and I was taking issue to some degree with Grant's suggestion.
> > And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the
research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better
than yours'.
> > Being serious - and ceasing to giggle for a moment - I think there are
two positions one can take: the one, that the vast majority of research done
in this area is poorly done, skewed, selective and tendentious; and
therefore that the research base is poor to non-existent. Or to pretend
that there is much of a research base and start fighting fire with fire.
> > I am for the first approach - which also has the advantage of
suggesting that there are many who are trying to 'prove' the Home Office
case who are either intellectually not up to it, or actively dishonest. I
don't think that the research v. research debate shifts public opinion
much/at all. But possibly bringing issues of the honesty of the other side
into the debate might - especially given how dishonesty is now an issue with
parts of this government.
> > As for attacking feminist research....and alienating individuals on
here. Yes: I suspect I may incense a few; although in that case I would ask
that people take the matter off line or debate it in full on here. My
personal view of feminism is that it is a political and philosophical
position with some coherence and some weight.
> > But political positions are neither made nor unmade by research. If
anything, they tend to be undermined by ditto. So my target, albeit
clumsily expressed, is feminist research, as opposed to feminists.
> > As I say: happy to defend that if anyone wishes to take issue with me.
> > Regards,
> > M
> > Author wrote:
> > > Maybe it would be better to stifle that giggle. As I understand it
Grant's objective is to have feminist anti-censorship research
> > > to balance against any pro-censorship feminist research that the
government may come up with.
> > > As everyone by now knows, I am against delving into the evidence on
either side, but if it is going to be done, surely Grant's neutralising
strategy is a worthwhile objective, regardeless of the academic merits of
the research.
> > > Is anyones' strategic interest served by reducing the research to
rubble? Would anyone care?
> > > Is it possible that your comment could be a tad offensive to the
feminists amoung us? Feel free to offend, bien sur, .....
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Whwen you say 'feminist evidence' I do have to stifle a giggle. I
have been involved, over and over in 'debates' with sup[posedly academic
feminists who have done research that would shame your average secondary
school student - let alone someone supposedly working at PhD level or
higher.
> > > > For instance, you may remember a much quoted Eduinburgh survey that
states that about a third of young men believe it is OK to hit women.
> > > > Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched.
Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along
the lines of 'Are there any circumstances in which you believe it could be
right to hit your partner'.
> > > > Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds
that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be
right, but....do I believe such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
> > > > So from such rarefied stuff come appalling misrepresentations.
> > > > Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several
years of critiquing academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that
there is scarcely a piece of feminist research that can't be reduced to
rubble in five minutes.
> > > > Regards,
> > > > M
> > > > Author wrote:
> > > > > Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> > > > > from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> > > > > reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> > > > > gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> > > > > that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> > > > > consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me
"The
> > > > > Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of
evidence
> > > > > about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist
researchers
> > > > > and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it
clear
> > > > > there are other informed points of view from feminists and
others.
> > > > > Grant
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2043
Manniq, 21 Oct 2005 20:32:18
I think I agree. I think I wasn't too clear what the question was in the first place - so maybe I responded to what he didn't mean (!).
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> My memory isn't what it used to be (or perhaps never was), but I think Grant
> was asking for this in response to some people (I imagine feminists) he'd
> spoken to who were broadly supportive of objecting to the consultation, but
> were uncomfortable about it for the reasons cited by the Government - that
> there's a causal link, even if there's no proof. Therefore, the research
> was to bring more people on board as supporters and objectors.
> I believe the request was for a succinct source that would point to a body
> of research articles that made the point. I think it was perhaps wishful
> thinking that any produced from a feminist standpoint (regardless of quality
> in research terms) would be likely to support the assertion that there is no
> link.
> Perhaps it's best to ask Grant to re-specify his requirement as it looks
> like it's been lost in the noise and discussion.
> ----Original Message Follows----
: manniq@hotmail.com, 21 Oct 2005 20:32:18
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> This feels like a moving target, with arguments bouncing off the previous
> point.
> In general,
> - I agree with your contention that we are not best served by getting into
> debate aboutthe strengths of the pro and con research;
> - I personally think there is far more bad research on both sides in this
> debate than anything especially worth making use of (by bad: loads of
> research where the main effect is as much dependent on issues of definition
> as of fundamental cause);
> - so my preference would be a) to duck out (as it just wastes time) or b) to
> deconstruct research when it arrives;
> - and I was being a tad careless about time-frame: there might be a point to
> hitting back within the consultation period; but very little point
> afterward, when the argument moves on to the next phase.
> However, if grant is putting something together, then well and good. There
> is already a plethora of material about, and it does not hurt for us to add
> to it.
> At one level: the more the merrier. At another, I doubt that the
> consultation process will make much difference. If a Bill is coming, it is
> coming and the best that our input is likely to do is to highlight some of
> the flaws in that Bill (and maybe help the other side put their house in
> order up front).
> Odd. It feels like we are disagreeing, but I am not sure we are.
> Must be Friday night!
> Regards,
> M
> Author wrote:
> > Manniq wrote:
> > "And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the
> research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better
> than yours'."
> > I don't think either approach can lead to a useful conclusion, but if one
> approach has to be taken, then simply saying "yes, but other research is to
> the contrary" without a pointless examination of merits, is a cleaner and
> shorter approach. A submission that deconstructs academic research would be
> extremely boring and amount to just one further piece of academic research
> (or academic deconstruction) to add to the mouldering pile of material that
> the government already accepts is inconclusive.
> > I really can't see how demonstrating that academics (that government
> isn't relying on anyway)are "dishonest" rather than merely open to challenge
> is going to reflect on the honesty of the government in any meaningful way.
> > I realised your target was feminist research not feminists. Its a
> distinction without a difference and certainly not worth debating on these
> boards. There are quite a lot of other things to do.
> > Author wrote:
> > > Hmmmm....and I was taking issue to some degree with Grant's suggestion.
> > > And also going back to where you started. I would rather put up the
> research and deconstruct it, than play the game of 'my research is better
> than yours'.
> > > Being serious - and ceasing to giggle for a moment - I think there are
> two positions one can take: the one, that the vast majority of research done
> in this area is poorly done, skewed, selective and tendentious; and
> therefore that the research base is poor to non-existent. Or to pretend
> that there is much of a research base and start fighting fire with fire.
> > > I am for the first approach - which also has the advantage of
> suggesting that there are many who are trying to 'prove' the Home Office
> case who are either intellectually not up to it, or actively dishonest. I
> don't think that the research v. research debate shifts public opinion
> much/at all. But possibly bringing issues of the honesty of the other side
> into the debate might - especially given how dishonesty is now an issue with
> parts of this government.
> > > As for attacking feminist research....and alienating individuals on
> here. Yes: I suspect I may incense a few; although in that case I would ask
> that people take the matter off line or debate it in full on here. My
> personal view of feminism is that it is a political and philosophical
> position with some coherence and some weight.
> > > But political positions are neither made nor unmade by research. If
> anything, they tend to be undermined by ditto. So my target, albeit
> clumsily expressed, is feminist research, as opposed to feminists.
> > > As I say: happy to defend that if anyone wishes to take issue with me.
> > > Regards,
> > > M
> > > Author wrote:
> > > > Maybe it would be better to stifle that giggle. As I understand it
> Grant's objective is to have feminist anti-censorship research
> > > > to balance against any pro-censorship feminist research that the
> government may come up with.
> > > > As everyone by now knows, I am against delving into the evidence on
> either side, but if it is going to be done, surely Grant's neutralising
> strategy is a worthwhile objective, regardeless of the academic merits of
> the research.
> > > > Is anyones' strategic interest served by reducing the research to
> rubble? Would anyone care?
> > > > Is it possible that your comment could be a tad offensive to the
> feminists amoung us? Feel free to offend, bien sur, .....
> > > > Author wrote:
> > > > > Whwen you say 'feminist evidence' I do have to stifle a giggle. I
> have been involved, over and over in 'debates' with sup[posedly academic
> feminists who have done research that would shame your average secondary
> school student - let alone someone supposedly working at PhD level or
> higher.
> > > > > For instance, you may remember a much quoted Eduinburgh survey that
> states that about a third of young men believe it is OK to hit women.
> > > > > Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched.
> Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along
> the lines of 'Are there any circumstances in which you believe it could be
> right to hit your partner'.
> > > > > Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds
> that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be
> right, but....do I believe such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
> > > > > So from such rarefied stuff come appalling misrepresentations.
> > > > > Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several
> years of critiquing academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that
> there is scarcely a piece of feminist research that can't be reduced to
> rubble in five minutes.
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > M
> > > > > Author wrote:
> > > > > > Thanks for suggestions so far but one is about a culture far away
> > > > > > from ours and the other is linked to child sex which I see no
> > > > > > reason to bring into the debate. Ideally I'd like a page which
> > > > > > gives an overview of some of the UK books, papers, studies etc.
> > > > > > that give a pro-feminist defense of pornography by and for
> > > > > > consenting adults. This will be going to people who tell me
> "The
> > > > > > Home Office may not have 'evidence' but there is a mass of
> evidence
> > > > > > about this issue that has been accumulated by feminist
> researchers
> > > > > > and activists over the past 25+ years" and I want to make it
> clear
> > > > > > there are other informed points of view from feminists and
> others.
> > > > > > Grant
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2043
rosalee, 21 Oct 2005 20:54:16
The book I mentioned earlier - 'Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship' was written by Avedon Carol, a founding member of Feminists Against Censorship and a feminist! It is anti-censorship and discusses the reasons why banning porn is likely to have an adverse rather than a positive effect on curbing real sexual violence.
For anyone interested in reading it, Amazon are selling it, although there is a wait. Here's a link.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1873797133/qid=1129924228/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/202-2706436-9355846
Or you could try ordering it from your local library.
Ginny (Another feminist)
----- Original Message -----
: chris m, 21 Oct 2005 20:54:16
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
My memory isn't what it used to be (or perhaps never was), but I think Grant
was asking for this in response to some people (I imagine feminists) he'd
spoken to who were broadly supportive of objecting to the consultation, but
were uncomfortable about it for the reasons cited by the Government - that
there's a causal link, even if there's no proof. Therefore, the research
was to bring more people on board as supporters and objectors.
I believe the request was for a succinct source that would point to a body
of research articles that made the point. I think it was perhaps wishful
thinking that any produced from a feminist standpoint (regardless of quality
in research terms) would be likely to support the assertion that there is no
link.
Perhaps it's best to ask Grant to re-specify his requirement as it looks
like it's been lost in the noise and discussion.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
John Thow, 21 Oct 2005 21:16:27
rosalee wrote:
> The book I mentioned earlier - 'Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography and Censorship' was written by Avedon Carol, a founding member of Feminists Against Censorship and a feminist! It is anti-censorship and discusses the reasons why banning porn is likely to have an adverse rather than a positive effect on curbing real sexual violence.
>
> For anyone interested in reading it, Amazon are selling it, although there is a wait. Here's a link.
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1873797133/qid=1129924228/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/202-2706436-9355846
>
> Or you could try ordering it from your local library.
>
> Ginny (Another feminist)
2 other excellent books:
Laura Kipnis:
"Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0822323435/qid=1129925147/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl/026-0230535-2063613
Here's a very recent example of her style:
"Ladies First
The utopian fantasy of Deep Throat.
By Laura Kipnis
Posted Friday, Feb. 11, 2005, at 1:16 PM PT "
http://slate.msn.com/id/2113399/
also
"Watching Sex: How Men Really Respond to Pornography
David Loftus"
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560253606/qid=1129925597/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_8_4/026-0230535-2063613
zak, 21 Oct 2005 21:44:48
Original Message:
-----------------
manniq@hotmail.com, 21 Oct 2005 21:44:48
Bring it on. I have some research in my bnackground - and several years of
critiquing
academic papers for a journal I edit. I reckon that there is scarcely a
piece of feminist
research that can't be reduced to rubble in five minutes.
WHile I agree with you about any and all research quoted by anti-porn
campaigners, don't
use "feminist" to mean bad research or anti-sex or anti-freedom stances.
There are just as
many testosterone-driven fuckwits who want to get rid of any kind of sexual
exploration
because it will 'give women ideas above their station'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 21 Oct 2005 21:53:20
Original Message:
-----------------
chris m relaxedlondon@hotmail.com, 21 Oct 2005 21:53:20
My memory isn't what it used to be (or perhaps never was), but I think Grant
was asking for this in response to some people (I imagine feminists) he'd
spoken to who were broadly supportive of objecting to the consultation, but
were uncomfortable about it for the reasons cited by the Government - that
there's a causal link, even if there's no proof. Therefore, the research
was to bring more people on board as supporters and objectors.
I believe the request was for a succinct source that would point to a body
of research articles that made the point. I think it was perhaps wishful
thinking that any produced from a feminist standpoint (regardless of quality
in research terms) would be likely to support the assertion that there is no
link.
Oh, for fuck's sake! Has the existence of an organization called FEMINISTS
AGAINST
CENSORSHIP, several members of which are actively involved in the Backlash
campaign,
totally passed you by? Or do you still believe that interacting with actual
women will
make your dick drop off?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Chris, 21 Oct 2005 23:49:04
Yes, I had heard of it. I've seen it mentioned many times in these threads.
The information was requested but so far no postings have been made
suggesting that Feminists Against Censorship have the information nor, so
far as I have seen, has anyone actually provided the information.
The discussion had gone off-topic and I was attempting to bring it back into
focus in the hope that someone would be able to provide the answer that
appears to be required.
Information request are not posted here so that somebody will pick them up
and take charge and go round asking everyone if they know the answer.
They're posted for anyone who knows the answer to get on and act.
If you're in touch with people in Feminists Against Censorship, and you
think they may have information that would reassure other feminists that
there is no causal link between violent porn and violent offences against
women (or, even, men), it would be helpful if you could be that link. If
it's someone else, it would be good if they would do likewise.
Perhaps you could try being a little less presumptious and offensive.
----Original Message Follows----
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk" , 21 Oct 2005 23:49:04
Oh, for fuck's sake! Has the existence of an organization called FEMINISTS
AGAINST
CENSORSHIP, several members of which are actively involved in the Backlash
campaign,
totally passed you by? Or do you still believe that interacting with actual
women will
make your dick drop off?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2056
rosalee, 22 Oct 2005 00:00:07
I posted you a response earlier this evening which it seems you've totally ignored..
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: chris m, 22 Oct 2005 00:00:07
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 11:48 PM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
Yes, I had heard of it. I've seen it mentioned many times in these threads.
The information was requested but so far no postings have been made
suggesting that Feminists Against Censorship have the information nor, so
far as I have seen, has anyone actually provided the information.
The discussion had gone off-topic and I was attempting to bring it back into
focus in the hope that someone would be able to provide the answer that
appears to be required.
Information request are not posted here so that somebody will pick them up
and take charge and go round asking everyone if they know the answer.
They're posted for anyone who knows the answer to get on and act.
If you're in touch with people in Feminists Against Censorship, and you
think they may have information that would reassure other feminists that
there is no causal link between violent porn and violent offences against
women (or, even, men), it would be helpful if you could be that link. If
it's someone else, it would be good if they would do likewise.
Perhaps you could try being a little less presumptious and offensive.
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
goodghirl, 22 Oct 2005 00:08:25
chris m wrote:Yes, I had heard of it. I've seen it mentioned many times in these threads.
The information was requested but so far no postings have been made
suggesting that Feminists Against Censorship have the information nor, so
far as I have seen, has anyone actually provided the information.
The discussion had gone off-topic and I was attempting to bring it back into
focus in the hope that someone would be able to provide the answer that
appears to be required.
Information request are not posted here so that somebody will pick them up
and take charge and go round asking everyone if they know the answer.
They're posted for anyone who knows the answer to get on and act.
If you're in touch with people in Feminists Against Censorship, and you
think they may have information that would reassure other feminists that
there is no causal link between violent porn and violent offences against
women (or, even, men), it would be helpful if you could be that link. If
it's someone else, it would be good if they would do likewise.
Perhaps you could try being a little less presumptious and offensive.
----Original Message Follows----
"zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk", 22 Oct 2005 00:08:25
Oh, for fuck's sake! Has the existence of an organization called FEMINISTS
AGAINST
CENSORSHIP, several members of which are actively involved in the Backlash
campaign,
totally passed you by? Or do you still believe that interacting with actual
women will
make your dick drop off?
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2056
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2059
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Chris, 22 Oct 2005 00:10:33
My apologies to you Ginny, I hadn't registered it as a response to the
question that had been raised (not least of all as I wasn't looking for the
answer, I was just trying to be helpful. I should have learned my lesson on
that a long time ago). My posting was borne of irritation at being accused
of being unwilling/unable to communicate with women.
I will crawl back under my rock.
----Original Message Follows----
"rosalee" , 22 Oct 2005 00:10:33
To:
I posted you a response earlier this evening which it seems you've totally
ignored..
Ginny
rosalee, 22 Oct 2005 00:23:37
I think it's more to do with the way FAC are being ignored. It seems at times, in this group, that feminists are an easy target. Oh, we'd all like a laugh, let's have a go at the funny feminists who all obviously hate anything to do with sex! The fact that FAC have been behind the Backlash campaign from the start obviously means nothing. This isn't just aimed at you btw. Let's just say I am feeling seriously pissed off at the moment and wondering whether I want to continue working with backlash at all. I care passionately about this campaign and this will probably keep me from dropping out but I am also feeling very unhappy at the moment.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: chris m, 22 Oct 2005 00:23:37
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:09 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
My apologies to you Ginny, I hadn't registered it as a response to the
question that had been raised (not least of all as I wasn't looking for the
answer, I was just trying to be helpful. I should have learned my lesson on
that a long time ago). My posting was borne of irritation at being accused
of being unwilling/unable to communicate with women.
I will crawl back under my rock.
----Original Message Follows----
: "rosalee" , 22 Oct 2005 00:23:37
To:
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
I posted you a response earlier this evening which it seems you've totally
ignored..
Ginny
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2070
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Paul Tavener, 22 Oct 2005 00:24:00
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: chris m relaxedlondon@hotmail.com, 22 Oct 2005 00:24:00
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> My memory isn't what it used to be (or perhaps never was), but I think Grant
> was asking for this in response to some people (I imagine feminists) he'd
> spoken to who were broadly supportive of objecting to the consultation, but
> were uncomfortable about it for the reasons cited by the Government - that
> there's a causal link, even if there's no proof. Therefore, the research
> was to bring more people on board as supporters and objectors.
> I believe the request was for a succinct source that would point to a body
> of research articles that made the point. I think it was perhaps wishful
> thinking that any produced from a feminist standpoint (regardless of quality
> in research terms) would be likely to support the assertion that there is no
> link.
> Oh, for fuck's sake! Has the existence of an organization called FEMINISTS
> AGAINST
> CENSORSHIP, several members of which are actively involved in the Backlash
> campaign,
> totally passed you by? Or do you still believe that interacting with actual
> women will
> make your dick drop off?
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Paul Tavener, 22 Oct 2005 00:25:11
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: chris m relaxedlondon@hotmail.com, 22 Oct 2005 00:25:11
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> My memory isn't what it used to be (or perhaps never was), but I think Grant
> was asking for this in response to some people (I imagine feminists) he'd
> spoken to who were broadly supportive of objecting to the consultation, but
> were uncomfortable about it for the reasons cited by the Government - that
> there's a causal link, even if there's no proof. Therefore, the research
> was to bring more people on board as supporters and objectors.
> I believe the request was for a succinct source that would point to a body
> of research articles that made the point. I think it was perhaps wishful
> thinking that any produced from a feminist standpoint (regardless of quality
> in research terms) would be likely to support the assertion that there is no
> link.
> Oh, for fuck's sake! Has the existence of an organization called FEMINISTS
> AGAINST
> CENSORSHIP, several members of which are actively involved in the Backlash
> campaign,
> totally passed you by? Or do you still believe that interacting with actual
> women will
> make your dick drop off?
We should not forget who the enemy is
rosalee, 22 Oct 2005 00:30:05
And, now I'm on a roll, it's not just members of FAC, it's anyone on here who considers themselves to be a feminist who is being insulted. It's SO rude! It's not funny or clever, please stop it.
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: rosalee, 22 Oct 2005 00:30:05
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:18 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
I think it's more to do with the way FAC are being ignored. It seems at times, in this group, that feminists are an easy target. Oh, we'd all like a laugh, let's have a go at the funny feminists who all obviously hate anything to do with sex! The fact that FAC have been behind the Backlash campaign from the start obviously means nothing. This isn't just aimed at you btw. Let's just say I am feeling seriously pissed off at the moment and wondering whether I want to continue working with backlash at all. I care passionately about this campaign and this will probably keep me from dropping out but I am also feeling very unhappy at the moment.
Ginny
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Chris, 22 Oct 2005 00:41:11
I empathise with you enormously - as someone who (often to the derision of
both men and women) has always considered myself a feminist (anyone reading
this who questions it, look it up in the OED), I also find the concept of
marginalising FAC - or any feminist group or individual - offensive. When a
group such as FAC could be an ace in this campaign - since the opposition is
bent on patronising and de-sexualising women - it just seems absurd and
counter productive.
I can join you in confessing that this evening was the second time in a
short campaign thus far that I have questioned whether it's worth it.
Impassioned and heated debate are one thing. Offensive remarks and senseless
point-scoring are another.
----Original Message Follows----
"rosalee" , 22 Oct 2005 00:41:11
To:
I think it's more to do with the way FAC are being ignored. It seems at
times, in this group, that feminists are an easy target. Oh, we'd all like
a laugh, let's have a go at the funny feminists who all obviously hate
anything to do with sex! The fact that FAC have been behind the Backlash
campaign from the start obviously means nothing. This isn't just aimed at
you btw. Let's just say I am feeling seriously pissed off at the moment and
wondering whether I want to continue working with backlash at all. I care
passionately about this campaign and this will probably keep me from
dropping out but I am also feeling very unhappy at the moment.
Ginny
zak, 22 Oct 2005 00:58:53
Original Message:
-----------------
chris m relaxedlondon@hotmail.com, 22 Oct 2005 00:58:53
If you're in touch with people in Feminists Against Censorship, and you
think they may have information that would reassure other feminists that
there is no causal link between violent porn and violent offences against
women (or, even, men), it would be helpful if you could be that link. If
it's someone else, it would be good if they would do likewise.
Actually, dipstick, I have already recommended two or three relevant books
and the
member(s) of FAC on this list have posted quotes, cites etc. Get over
yourself.
zj
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 22 Oct 2005 01:06:35
Original Message:
-----------------
rosalee rosalee1@btopenworld.com, 22 Oct 2005 01:06:35
And, now I'm on a roll, it's not just members of FAC, it's anyone on here
who considers
themselves to be a feminist who is being insulted. It's SO rude! It's not
funny or
clever, please stop it.
Ginny
As a feminist and FAC member, I support any old willy-waver's right to
belittle and
misrepresent feminists - I just equally support my right to insult them
right back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
rosalee, 22 Oct 2005 01:14:14
Yeah but you're a lot better at being rude back than I am!
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk, 22 Oct 2005 01:14:14
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
Original Message:
-----------------
: rosalee rosalee1@btopenworld.com, 22 Oct 2005 01:14:14
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
And, now I'm on a roll, it's not just members of FAC, it's anyone on here
who considers
themselves to be a feminist who is being insulted. It's SO rude! It's not
funny or
clever, please stop it.
Ginny
As a feminist and FAC member, I support any old willy-waver's right to
belittle and
misrepresent feminists - I just equally support my right to insult them
right back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2078
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
SnowdropExplodes, 22 Oct 2005 01:26:07
--- chris m wrote:
> I empathise with you enormously - as someone who
> (often to the derision of
> both men and women) has always considered myself a
> feminist (anyone reading
> this who questions it, look it up in the OED), I
> also find the concept of
> marginalising FAC - or any feminist group or
> individual - offensive. When a
> group such as FAC could be an ace in this campaign -
> since the opposition is
> bent on patronising and de-sexualising women - it
> just seems absurd and
> counter productive.
>
> I can join you in confessing that this evening was
> the second time in a
> short campaign thus far that I have questioned
> whether it's worth it.
>
> Impassioned and heated debate are one thing.
> Offensive remarks and senseless
> point-scoring are another.
>
> ----Original Message Follows----
: "rosalee" , 22 Oct 2005 01:26:07
> To:
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
>
> I think it's more to do with the way FAC are being
> ignored. It seems at
> times, in this group, that feminists are an easy
> target. Oh, we'd all like
> a laugh, let's have a go at the funny feminists who
> all obviously hate
> anything to do with sex! The fact that FAC have
> been behind the Backlash
> campaign from the start obviously means nothing.
> This isn't just aimed at
> you btw. Let's just say I am feeling seriously
> pissed off at the moment and
> wondering whether I want to continue working with
> backlash at all. I care
> passionately about this campaign and this will
> probably keep me from
> dropping out but I am also feeling very unhappy at
> the moment.
I honestly don't know where this has come from.
I don't think FAC have been any more or less noticable
than any of the other civil liberties groups who are
on board on average. The request for information was
a genuine one. It is worth noting that the very
first organisation listed on the Mission Statement is
FAC, so in terms of the campaign you are pride of
place.
In general a distinction was made between "feminists"
and "femi-nazis", the latter being the targets of
ridicule of the type detected by Ginny, the former
being the presumed source of useful material
supportive of our cause, although some people did not
actually use the term "femi-nazi" in their writing,
but used the commonly-applied term "feminist" for both
groups.
Very few people made any jokes, and the only ones I
saw did not target feminists but that baroness or
whoever it was.
I don't think anyone has been having cheap jokes at
the expense of FAC (or those with similar attitudes),
and I think any jokes there have been have made it
quite clear *which* brand of "feminism" they have
targeted.
Maybe this is just me with rose-tinted specs on while
reading emails, but I honestly didn't read anything
that made me feel that all feminists were being
targeted (otherwise, I too would have been upset since
I also identify myself as a feminist).
Maybe I just read the best in everyone's comments and
tend not to see them as slights unless they are pretty
obvious insults. So I may be wrong about how it was
all meant.
Ta,
SnowdropExplodes
___________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 01:46:05
Stuff.....
manniq@hotmail.com writes:
Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'A
re there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I b
elieve such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
yes, of course there are circumstances when it would be right to
hit your partner. If they are choking, for example. You whack
them on the back to dislodge whatever they're choking on. In a
world where everyone learned first aid, 100% of the population
ought to answer Yes to that question!
M again:
I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research
[about porn, I presume?] that can't be reduced to rubble in
five minutes.
Yeah, sure, but gentle. These are potential allies that Grant
is trying to bring round, no? - union colleagues who have
always been led to believe X, not opponents who are allegedly
specialised in the field. Reducing an old bit of world view to
rubble will rather alienate than recruit them.
--
Rosemary
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 01:46:05
Stuff.....
manniq@hotmail.com writes:
Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'A
re there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I b
elieve such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
yes, of course there are circumstances when it would be right to
hit your partner. If they are choking, for example. You whack
them on the back to dislodge whatever they're choking on. In a
world where everyone learned first aid, 100% of the population
ought to answer Yes to that question!
M again:
I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research
[about porn, I presume?] that can't be reduced to rubble in
five minutes.
Yeah, sure, but gentle. These are potential allies that Grant
is trying to bring round, no? - union colleagues who have
always been led to believe X, not opponents who are allegedly
specialised in the field. Reducing an old bit of world view to
rubble will rather alienate than recruit them.
--
Rosemary
Manniq, 22 Oct 2005 06:49:37
Perhaps I should define 'reduce to rubble'.
At a certain level this gets very silly and esoteric and starts to get into debates about the 'philosophy of science' and what questions can meaningfully be asked and answered within our current scientific paradigm.
That's a bit of a mouthful.
In plain English: there are just some questions where our chances of getting a sensible or meaningful answer are slight to vanishing; or where the answer we get is itself pretty unintelligible.
However, the pressures in some areas to produce research that looks scientific are pretty immense - with the result that a lot of research is being produced that is worth zero or less than zero, but which the newspapers love to lap up. Or distort.
A good many pub conversation which start with 'well, its a proven fact that....' can be traced to press distortions of research: some of the latter being pretty ropey in the first place.
A good example of the former is the recent furore over Penelope Leach's work about the role of an ongoing carer for children in their early years. Read what she wrote: she said, specifically, that she was not recommending, as a result of her research, that mums should necessarily stay at home. Now read the press coverage, which seemed to assume almost universally that that was what she said.
I don't wholly know the answer, Rosemary: I am sure that some people will react negatively if they see their cherished beliefs deconstructed. But if those beliefs are based on sand, what can they expect?
More pertinently, if they are on a public platform (and here I am looking beyond the consultation process) and stating that 'research shows x, y and z - I think it is stronger to state that research shows nothing of the sort....that the key study they are relying on is thoroguhly flawed, and that the people who put it together had an axe to grind. That, rather than say 'oh, yes, but here is some other research that shows the opposite'.
Yes: at times you will alienate. But maybe less than you think.
And in terms of the pub conversation, which perception is better to have 'out there': the idea that someone else has done some different research - or the ability for someone else to come back with 'nah: that's all a load of bollocks!'.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Stuff.....
> manniq@hotmail.com writes:
> Hmmm. Then go back and look at what they actually researched. Young men were defined as individuals aged 14 to 21. The question was along the lines of 'A
> re there any circumstances in which you believe it could be right to hit your partner'.
> Er, right. I would probably answer yes to that. On the grounds that I would never say never. I can't imagine circs where it would be right, but....do I b
> elieve such circs MIGHT exist? Quite possibly.
> yes, of course there are circumstances when it would be right to
> hit your partner. If they are choking, for example. You whack
> them on the back to dislodge whatever they're choking on. In a
> world where everyone learned first aid, 100% of the population
> ought to answer Yes to that question!
> M again:
> I reckon that there is scarcely a piece of feminist research
> [about porn, I presume?] that can't be reduced to rubble in
> five minutes.
> Yeah, sure, but gentle. These are potential allies that Grant
> is trying to bring round, no? - union colleagues who have
> always been led to believe X, not opponents who are allegedly
> specialised in the field. Reducing an old bit of world view to
> rubble will rather alienate than recruit them.
> --
> Rosemary
demolitionred, 22 Oct 2005 09:30:04
Great. thanks. destroy all the hard work female academics around the world have done in 30 years with one giggle.
Demolish one of the strongest arguments in our favour -- that women are in control of their own minds, their own sexuality and don't feel threatened by these images -- with a schoolboy snigger
that women aren't proper scientists.
Get off your high horse and get with the programme.
Manniq, 22 Oct 2005 09:35:55
Manniq wrote: Nor am I especially targeting female researchers. There is a pretty wide body of research by both genders that purports to be 'scientific' - without really meeting the criteria that one would expect of such research. There is also a good deal of research that is politically oriented from the outset. That is even further from being good science.
I think that is the key. While I may happily debate with you over the scientific nature of social science, the fact is that it is widely respected around the world and often used as evidence.
For this campaign I think it would be folly to dismiss the credibility of social science. Rather it would be good to have as much evidence that porn is positive, that women support it, that freedom is very valuable.
I think this may be a stronger campaign tactic -- though as a woman I may need a man to back up my argument :P -- than giggling childishly if anyone mentions feminist arguments against porn.
Anyway, I have to go catch a train.
*** This message has been edited by demolitionred on 22 Oct 2005 09:43:53 ***
Manniq, 22 Oct 2005 09:54:48
Er, that's a good trick! You seem to be posting as me... how did you manage that?
And where's my original post?
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Manniq wrote: Nor am I especially targeting female researchers. There is a pretty wide body of research by both genders that purports to be 'scientific' - without really meeting the criteria that one would expect of such research. There is also a good deal of research that is politically oriented from the outset. That is even further from being good science.
> I think that is the key. While I may happily debate with you over the scientific nature of social science, the fact is that it is widely respected around the world and often used as evidence.
> For this campaign I think it would be folly to dismiss the credibility of social science. Rather it would be good to have as much evidence that porn is positive, that women support it, that freedom is very valuable.
> I think this may be a stronger campaign tactic -- though as a woman I may need a man to back up my argument :P -- than giggling childishly if anyone mentions feminist arguments against porn.
> Anyway, I have to go catch a train.
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 10:43:18
objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It is a
male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a computer -
but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that way.
Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote, crosslinkages
and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain and
right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
----- Original Message -----
, 22 Oct 2005 10:43:18
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:35 AM
> Er: I am talking specifically about a lot of research. I am not
> questioning rights.
>
> Indeed, if something is campaigned for as a right, one would expect it not
> to need to be researched. Because the corrollary - which I assume you
> don't buy - would be that if the research was invalidated, there would be
> no case for women's rights. Which is not something I believe.
>
> Nor am I especially targeting female researchers. There is a pretty wide
> body of research by both genders that purports to be 'scientific' -
> without really meeting the criteria that one would expect of such
> research. There is also a good deal of research that is politically
> oriented from the outset. That is even further from being good science.
>
> However, we are talking abstractions. If someone would like to discuss
> specifics and cases, I am happy to.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
> Author wrote:
>> Great. thanks. destroy all the hard work female academics around the
>> world have done in 30 years with one giggle.
>> Demolish one of the strongest arguments in our favour -- that women are
>> in control of their own minds, their own sexuality and don't feel
>> threatened by these images -- with a schoolboy snigger
>> that women aren't proper scientists.
>> Get off your high horse and get with the programme.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2095
>
>
zak, 22 Oct 2005 10:48:02
A girl's gotta have a hobby :-)
zjk
Original Message:
-----------------
rosalee rosalee1@btopenworld.com, 22 Oct 2005 10:48:02
Yeah but you're a lot better at being rude back than I am!
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk, Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:09:35 +0100
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
Original Message:
-----------------
: rosalee rosalee1@btopenworld.com, Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:09:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
And, now I'm on a roll, it's not just members of FAC, it's anyone on here
who considers
themselves to be a feminist who is being insulted. It's SO rude! It's
not
funny or
clever, please stop it.
Ginny
As a feminist and FAC member, I support any old willy-waver's right to
belittle and
misrepresent feminists - I just equally support my right to insult them
right back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2078
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
zak, 22 Oct 2005 10:55:34
Original Message:
-----------------
manniq@hotmail.com, 22 Oct 2005 10:55:34
And in terms of the pub conversation, which perception is better to have
'out there': the
idea that someone else has done some different research - or the ability
for someone else
to come back with 'nah: that's all a load of bollocks!'.
Indeed. It *is* helpful to know a bit about such things, bearing in mind
the amount of
prejudiced misinformation that shows up in even good newspapers: as long as
you have done
your homework you can contradict idiots and give anyone else listening in
(who may not
know, not care or not have thought about the issue) information that might
change their
minds
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 11:02:15
I have cited a number of feminist sites and researchers, but do not consider
myself a feminist - just an ordinary, multi-faceted,
manipulative,cosmopolitan, neurotic human being like the rest of us. I
think what was being suggested was not just that references and quotes were
needed, but a flesh and blood spokesperson. I would be happy to be one and
possibly more diplomatic than some. I believe in co-operation rather than
confrontation, persuasion rather than aggression, and I have made a
successful practice of my beliefs. Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, 22 Oct 2005 11:02:15
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:05 AM
Original Message:
-----------------
rosalee rosalee1@btopenworld.com, 22 Oct 2005 11:02:15
And, now I'm on a roll, it's not just members of FAC, it's anyone on here
who considers
themselves to be a feminist who is being insulted. It's SO rude! It's not
funny or
clever, please stop it.
Ginny
As a feminist and FAC member, I support any old willy-waver's right to
belittle and
misrepresent feminists - I just equally support my right to insult them
right back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2078
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 11:04:21
LOL - Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, 22 Oct 2005 11:04:21
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:47 AM
A girl's gotta have a hobby :-)
zjk
Original Message:
-----------------
rosalee rosalee1@btopenworld.com, 22 Oct 2005 11:04:21
Yeah but you're a lot better at being rude back than I am!
Ginny
----- Original Message -----
: zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk, Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:09:35 +0100
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:05 AM
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
Original Message:
-----------------
: rosalee rosalee1@btopenworld.com, Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:09:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
And, now I'm on a roll, it's not just members of FAC, it's anyone on here
who considers
themselves to be a feminist who is being insulted. It's SO rude! It's
not
funny or
clever, please stop it.
Ginny
As a feminist and FAC member, I support any old willy-waver's right to
belittle and
misrepresent feminists - I just equally support my right to insult them
right back.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2078
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2101
zak, 22 Oct 2005 11:10:17
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 22 Oct 2005 11:10:17
objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It is a
male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a computer -
but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that way.
Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote, crosslinkages
and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain and
right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
Indeed. But farty little theories, anecdotes and "the fairies told me" are
the sort of
arguments used by the anti-porn camp and any old propaganda group who cling
to their
idiocy in the face of all logic: if a theory can be demolished by logic or
practical
demonstration, time and time again, then the theory is demonstrably a crock
of shit.
z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 11:24:59
thanks, I had seen the precis and was contemplating ordering it. Amelie
----- Original Message -----
"John Thow" , 22 Oct 2005 11:24:59
To:
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 9:15 PM
> rosalee wrote:
>> The book I mentioned earlier - 'Nudes, Prudes and Attitudes: Pornography
>> and Censorship' was written by Avedon Carol, a founding member of
>> Feminists Against Censorship and a feminist! It is anti-censorship and
>> discusses the reasons why banning porn is likely to have an adverse
>> rather than a positive effect on curbing real sexual violence.
>>
>> For anyone interested in reading it, Amazon are selling it, although
>> there is a wait. Here's a link.
>>
>> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1873797133/qid=1129924228/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_8_1/202-2706436-9355846
>>
>> Or you could try ordering it from your local library.
>>
>> Ginny (Another feminist)
>
> 2 other excellent books:
>
> Laura Kipnis:
> "Bound and Gagged: Pornography and the Politics of Fantasy
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0822323435/qid=1129925147/sr=8-5/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i5_xgl/026-0230535-2063613
>
> Here's a very recent example of her style:
>
> "Ladies First
> The utopian fantasy of Deep Throat.
> By Laura Kipnis
> Posted Friday, Feb. 11, 2005, at 1:16 PM PT "
> http://slate.msn.com/id/2113399/
>
> also
>
> "Watching Sex: How Men Really Respond to Pornography
> David Loftus"
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1560253606/qid=1129925597/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_8_4/026-0230535-2063613
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2052
>
>
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 11:43:00
I presume your doctorate was in philosophy or social science research?
Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, 22 Oct 2005 11:43:00
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:09 AM
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 22 Oct 2005 11:43:00
objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It is a
male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a computer -
but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that way.
Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote, crosslinkages
and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain and
right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
Indeed. But farty little theories, anecdotes and "the fairies told me" are
the sort of
arguments used by the anti-porn camp and any old propaganda group who cling
to their
idiocy in the face of all logic: if a theory can be demolished by logic or
practical
demonstration, time and time again, then the theory is demonstrably a crock
of shit.
z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2107
goodghirl, 22 Oct 2005 12:21:12
OK so are we actually going to pull together or keep fighting over stupid things like are women equal to men < we all know they're better JOKE!!>
If we spend all our time in debate and lashing out at each other then whats the point we can do that anywhere.
Carla xx
Attachment:.
message.html (text/html)
Manniq, 22 Oct 2005 20:25:58
I think the key point here is 'doing your homework'. I can spout til the cows come home in arguments about domestic violence - an area that has been colonised, of late, by one specific political perspective.
I can do two things: I know enough about the original research to point out where those quoting it are (usually) misquoting it. And I know enough counter-examples to suggest alternative scenarios.
In other words, I can do both: I can riposte 'its a load of bollocks' in reply to certain assertions; or I can say 'don't you know about this research?' if it is that sort of debate.
The key, really, is to be able to do both - and of course, if you are able to do one with confidence, you can probably also do the other.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: manniq@hotmail.com, 22 Oct 2005 20:25:58
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> And in terms of the pub conversation, which perception is better to have
> 'out there': the
> idea that someone else has done some different research - or the ability
> for someone else
> to come back with 'nah: that's all a load of bollocks!'.
> Indeed. It *is* helpful to know a bit about such things, bearing in mind
> the amount of
> prejudiced misinformation that shows up in even good newspapers: as long as
> you have done
> your homework you can contradict idiots and give anyone else listening in
> (who may not
> know, not care or not have thought about the issue) information that might
> change their
> minds
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
Manniq, 22 Oct 2005 20:30:43
Dunno about zak....I notice she can speak for herself ....but mine included a good dose of epistemology!
Perhaps that is why I occasionally fantasise about librarians.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> I presume your doctorate was in philosophy or social science research?
> Amelie
> ----- Original Message -----
: , 22 Oct 2005 20:30:43
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> Original Message:
> -----------------
: Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 22 Oct 2005 20:30:43
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It is a
> male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a computer -
> but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that way.
> Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote, crosslinkages
> and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain and
> right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
> Indeed. But farty little theories, anecdotes and "the fairies told me" are
> the sort of
> arguments used by the anti-porn camp and any old propaganda group who cling
> to their
> idiocy in the face of all logic: if a theory can be demolished by logic or
> practical
> demonstration, time and time again, then the theory is demonstrably a crock
> of shit.
> z
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2107
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 21:29:22
at porn reduces acting out by giving people another avenue through which to vent their feelings.
Porn actually reduces direct acting out. Probably will turn out to be evidence on both sides, with interaction and some people more likely to act out, some
less.
Plus the evidence from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in
the UK, that use of porn by gay men replaced one night stands and
reduced the rate of transmission of HIV. (Can anyone actually
trace chapter and verse on this? - I remember it well in the
press (I think) but no longer have all my paperwork.)
And secondly, there is the societal effect (much harder to measure)whereby fear of being seen as an offender (esp. when it comes to children) has resulted i
n society being much more fearful of interacting with children...resulting in more long-term harm
to children.
Yes.
--
Rosemary
«No Name Set», 22 Oct 2005 21:29:31
stuff for mailer to eat
manniq@hotmail.com writes:
Perhaps I should define 'reduce to rubble'.
At a certain level this gets very silly and esoteric and starts to get into debates about the 'philosophy of science' and what questions can meaningfully be
asked and answered within our current scientific paradigm.
...
However, the pressures in some areas to produce research that looks scientific are pretty immense - with the result that a lot of research is being produced
that is worth zero or less than zero, but which the newspapers love to lap up. Or distort.
Sure; not forgetting the (funding and other) pressures on
academics facing assessment criteria of numbers of papers
published, leading to the phenomenon of the least-publishable
unit, rushing them out with less preparation time than ideal,
etc. Been there, seen that.... and that's apart from the
cultural or methodological differences between different spheres.
But I don't think this is particularly on topic, so feel free to
mail me (suggest on my OU staff account as there seems to be
problems with mail getting through to demon) if you want to
pursue it.
Because...
what I was tyring to allude to was Grant's original reason for
the request - which someone - chris m? - has also brought us
back to.
Rosemary
Amelie, 22 Oct 2005 22:49:19
so we are trying to convert to true knowledge those who would be content
with merely inadequate? But, seriously, it is good to feel I am getting to
know you all as individuals, and I can learn a lot from each of you. A few
days ago, I also wondered what I was doing here. Then I realised that
something very interesting and worthwhile is happening here. Amelie.
----- Original Message -----
, 22 Oct 2005 22:49:19
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:30 PM
> Dunno about zak....I notice she can speak for herself ....but mine
> included a good dose of epistemology!
>
> Perhaps that is why I occasionally fantasise about librarians.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
> Author wrote:
>> I presume your doctorate was in philosophy or social science research?
>> Amelie
>> ----- Original Message -----
m: , 22 Oct 2005 22:49:19
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:09 AM
>> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
>> Original Message:
>> -----------------
m: Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 22 Oct 2005 22:49:19
>> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
>> objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It is
>> a
>> male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a computer -
>> but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that way.
>> Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote,
>> crosslinkages
>> and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain and
>> right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
>> Indeed. But farty little theories, anecdotes and "the fairies told me"
>> are
>> the sort of
>> arguments used by the anti-porn camp and any old propaganda group who
>> cling
>> to their
>> idiocy in the face of all logic: if a theory can be demolished by logic
>> or
>> practical
>> demonstration, time and time again, then the theory is demonstrably a
>> crock
>> of shit.
>> z
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>> http://mail2web.com/ .
>> --
>> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>> Report abuse
>> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2107
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2123
>
>
zak, 23 Oct 2005 09:58:30
Nope. It was going to be a synthesis of sadism, necrophilia and bestiality
until somebody
pointed out that I would just be flogging a dead horse.
zjk
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 23 Oct 2005 09:58:30
I presume your doctorate was in philosophy or social science research?
Amelie
----- Original Message -----
, Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:42:27 +0100
To:
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:09 AM
Original Message:
-----------------
Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:42:27 +0100
objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It is a
male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a computer -
but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that way.
Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote, crosslinkages
and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain and
right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
Indeed. But farty little theories, anecdotes and "the fairies told me" are
the sort of
arguments used by the anti-porn camp and any old propaganda group who cling
to their
idiocy in the face of all logic: if a theory can be demolished by logic or
practical
demonstration, time and time again, then the theory is demonstrably a crock
of shit.
z
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2107
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse
http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D210
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 10:31:20
Actually, I DO think that this is on topic - though not in the way the original poster intended.
Politics, once upon a time, tended to be about ideology: statements of what the protagonists believed to be 'right'; and the pursuit of the corresponding moral imperatives.
Of late, politics is becoming increasingly 'managerial' - with the chief difference between parties, apparently, being about who can 'manage' better. That involves taking initiatives all the time: and that, in turn, requires them to substantiate their initiatives. If they can't do so on ideological grounds, the dread consensus about 'common sense' and 'the right way' to do things comes into play.
Which is where I have enormous problems: because lurking below the surface of this consensus view is an unstated ideology with some remarkably nasty parallels in places like East Germany and Fascist Italy. We don't need to argue about things, because there is obviously a right way: and research will tell us what that right way is.
Whereupon debates about the role and propriety of research done become paramount. Well, not quite, since my response to a lot of these research-led initiatives is to say one SHOULD be ideological rather than research-led. But I guess you know what I mean.
Anyway, I guess what my argument boils down to is this: that across a whole range of issues, from education to porn to social reform, there is no research base sufficient to drive policy. So anyone trying to do so is actually using the research as a figleaf for their own prejudices. There IS no evidence of harm when it comes to porn. But Mr Goggins and co. don't like it.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> stuff for mailer to eat
> manniq@hotmail.com writes:
> Perhaps I should define 'reduce to rubble'.
> At a certain level this gets very silly and esoteric and starts to get into debates about the 'philosophy of science' and what questions can meaningfully be
> asked and answered within our current scientific paradigm.
> ...
> However, the pressures in some areas to produce research that looks scientific are pretty immense - with the result that a lot of research is being produced
> that is worth zero or less than zero, but which the newspapers love to lap up. Or distort.
> Sure; not forgetting the (funding and other) pressures on
> academics facing assessment criteria of numbers of papers
> published, leading to the phenomenon of the least-publishable
> unit, rushing them out with less preparation time than ideal,
> etc. Been there, seen that.... and that's apart from the
> cultural or methodological differences between different spheres.
> But I don't think this is particularly on topic, so feel free to
> mail me (suggest on my OU staff account as there seems to be
> problems with mail getting through to demon) if you want to
> pursue it.
> Because...
> what I was tyring to allude to was Grant's original reason for
> the request - which someone - chris m? - has also brought us
> back to.
> Rosemary
Manniq, 23 Oct 2005 10:44:51
OOoer, Missus! 'True' knowledge?
I was about to post a riposte to your go at male-brain thinking - not so much for the gentle dig, as for your apparent view of scientific knowledge.
My own view is that there are many types of 'knowledge'. Scientific knowledge - in the Popperian sense - is just one category of knowledge, whilst the other categories you quote are equally valid, according to circumstance.
Thus, I probably would rather my nuclear failsafe system was not designed by an intuitive artist: but there are many social systems where an attempt to be over-scientific is disastrous.
I like science. It provides a measure of rigour. But I am not someone who would try and place scientific knowledge at some sort of pinnacle and claim it as 'better' than other types. Rather, it is more appropriate for dealing with certain questions.
My jibe about (feminist) research - but you can also add religious research and any other form of partisan research to that, too - is a) that it is often poor research and b) that even were it decent research, it is just the wrong sort of knowledge to apply to the question being asked.
As for the male-brain thing.... one of my best friends is a woman. No, honestly! She is a chemist. Not the Boots variety. Her first degree was chemistry. Her second, law. (She is currently a very high-flying - in all senses of the word - patent lawyer in the world of pharmaceuticals).
And if you think _I_ can be scathing on the topic of social research, you should hear her!
Last of all: I would agree about the bonding going on here. This group is evolving and I have found at least two thinkers/debaters that I greatly appreciate on here - yourself and zak. So please don't go away.
It does strike me that in time the government may regret this proposal and attack on the bdsm community. We have had things too easy. Unlike homosexuals, we have never really had to fight for much of the internet freedom we have had: have never much mobilised as a group or had any sense of 'we're bdsm and proud of it' - SM Pride notwithstanding.
My sense is that, for the first time, the bdsm community is beginning to find its political feet - and if/when it does, Paul Goggins and co. will regret the day they awakened it.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> so we are trying to convert to true knowledge those who would be content
> with merely inadequate? But, seriously, it is good to feel I am getting to
> know you all as individuals, and I can learn a lot from each of you. A few
> days ago, I also wondered what I was doing here. Then I realised that
> something very interesting and worthwhile is happening here. Amelie.
> ----- Original Message -----
: , 23 Oct 2005 10:44:51
> To:
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> > Dunno about zak....I notice she can speak for herself ....but mine
> > included a good dose of epistemology!
> >
> > Perhaps that is why I occasionally fantasise about librarians.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > M
> >
> > Author wrote:
> >> I presume your doctorate was in philosophy or social science research?
> >> Amelie
> >> ----- Original Message -----
rom: , 23 Oct 2005 10:44:51
> >> To:
> >> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:09 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> >> Original Message:
> >> -----------------
rom: Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 23 Oct 2005 10:44:51
> >> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
> >> objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It is
> >> a
> >> male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a computer -
> >> but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that way.
> >> Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote,
> >> crosslinkages
> >> and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain and
> >> right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
> >> Indeed. But farty little theories, anecdotes and "the fairies told me"
> >> are
> >> the sort of
> >> arguments used by the anti-porn camp and any old propaganda group who
> >> cling
> >> to their
> >> idiocy in the face of all logic: if a theory can be demolished by logic
> >> or
> >> practical
> >> demonstration, time and time again, then the theory is demonstrably a
> >> crock
> >> of shit.
> >> z
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> >> http://mail2web.com/ .
> >> --
> >> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> >> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >> Report abuse
> >> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2107
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
> >
> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
> >
> > Report abuse
> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2123
> >
> >
Amelie, 23 Oct 2005 12:52:49
thank you, I reciprocate. And I have found many others stimulating too.
Perhaps there is a degree of misunderstanding here too as we have similar
opinions about the appropriateness of research to its topic. When citing
net sources, I have been referring to the work of generally respected, if
adventurous researchers such as Eysenk who have been quoted on the partisan
sources I have cited, where a lot of good work has been assembled to make
the case for the collectors. I do not suggest the site itself is the
resource, but point to it as containing some material we can use in the form
of research references. Like you, I have little time for manipulative
research parameters.
But I am also increasingly mistrustful of so-called scientific methods of
research especially applied to cyberspace and the human mind. Not least
because a common expression of professional approval was to be told, "You
think like a man!"
The "True knowledge" was an equally gentle dig at philosophical debate,
"true" (appropriate) knowledge versus "false"(inappropriate) knowledge which
is all I can remember about epistemology.
----- Original Message -----
, 23 Oct 2005 12:52:49
To:
Sent: Sunday, October 23, 2005 10:44 AM
> OOoer, Missus! 'True' knowledge?
>
> I was about to post a riposte to your go at male-brain thinking - not so
> much for the gentle dig, as for your apparent view of scientific
> knowledge.
>
> My own view is that there are many types of 'knowledge'. Scientific
> knowledge - in the Popperian sense - is just one category of knowledge,
> whilst the other categories you quote are equally valid, according to
> circumstance.
>
> Thus, I probably would rather my nuclear failsafe system was not designed
> by an intuitive artist: but there are many social systems where an attempt
> to be over-scientific is disastrous.
>
> I like science. It provides a measure of rigour. But I am not someone
> who would try and place scientific knowledge at some sort of pinnacle and
> claim it as 'better' than other types. Rather, it is more appropriate for
> dealing with certain questions.
>
> My jibe about (feminist) research - but you can also add religious
> research and any other form of partisan research to that, too - is a) that
> it is often poor research and b) that even were it decent research, it is
> just the wrong sort of knowledge to apply to the question being asked.
>
> As for the male-brain thing.... one of my best friends is a woman. No,
> honestly! She is a chemist. Not the Boots variety. Her first degree was
> chemistry. Her second, law. (She is currently a very high-flying - in
> all senses of the word - patent lawyer in the world of pharmaceuticals).
>
> And if you think _I_ can be scathing on the topic of social research, you
> should hear her!
>
> Last of all: I would agree about the bonding going on here. This group is
> evolving and I have found at least two thinkers/debaters that I greatly
> appreciate on here - yourself and zak. So please don't go away.
>
> It does strike me that in time the government may regret this proposal and
> attack on the bdsm community. We have had things too easy. Unlike
> homosexuals, we have never really had to fight for much of the internet
> freedom we have had: have never much mobilised as a group or had any sense
> of 'we're bdsm and proud of it' - SM Pride notwithstanding.
>
> My sense is that, for the first time, the bdsm community is beginning to
> find its political feet - and if/when it does, Paul Goggins and co. will
> regret the day they awakened it.
>
> Regards,
>
> M
>
> Author wrote:
>> so we are trying to convert to true knowledge those who would be content
>> with merely inadequate? But, seriously, it is good to feel I am getting
>> to
>> know you all as individuals, and I can learn a lot from each of you. A
>> few
>> days ago, I also wondered what I was doing here. Then I realised that
>> something very interesting and worthwhile is happening here. Amelie.
>> ----- Original Message -----
m: , 23 Oct 2005 12:52:49
>> To:
>> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 8:30 PM
>> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
>> > Dunno about zak....I notice she can speak for herself ....but mine
>> > included a good dose of epistemology!
>> >
>> > Perhaps that is why I occasionally fantasise about librarians.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > M
>> >
>> > Author wrote:
>> >> I presume your doctorate was in philosophy or social science research?
>> >> Amelie
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
From: , 23 Oct 2005 12:52:49
>> >> To:
>> >> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:09 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
>> >> Original Message:
>> >> -----------------
From: Amelie Amelie@psychosynthesis.fsnet.co.uk, 23 Oct 2005 12:52:49
>> >> Subject: Re: [backlash] lobbying unions
>> >> objective research is not the only way forward in social science. It
>> >> is
>> >> a
>> >> male-brain comfort - always follows established rules - like a
>> >> computer -
>> >> but is decreasingly useful as real live people do not function that
>> >> way.
>> >> Increasingly there is room for subjective analysis, anecdote,
>> >> crosslinkages
>> >> and inspiration - the difference between science and art, left brain
>> >> and
>> >> right - and we need both for understanding and creative solutions.
>> >> Indeed. But farty little theories, anecdotes and "the fairies told me"
>> >> are
>> >> the sort of
>> >> arguments used by the anti-porn camp and any old propaganda group who
>> >> cling
>> >> to their
>> >> idiocy in the face of all logic: if a theory can be demolished by
>> >> logic
>> >> or
>> >> practical
>> >> demonstration, time and time again, then the theory is demonstrably a
>> >> crock
>> >> of shit.
>> >> z
>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
>> >> http://mail2web.com/ .
>> >> --
>> >> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>> >> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>> >> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>> >> Report abuse
>> >> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2107
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
>> > visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>> >
>> > To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>> >
>> > Report abuse
>> > http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2123
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
> visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
>
> To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
>
> Report abuse
> http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2161
>
>
Graham Marsden, 23 Oct 2005 13:02:52
zak@missdemeanour.idps.co.uk wrote:
> Nope. It was going to be a synthesis of sadism, necrophilia and bestiality
> until somebody pointed out that I would just be flogging a dead horse.
Or an old joke... ;-)
Cheers,
Graham.
Thunder, 23 Oct 2005 14:12:52
In message <01f301c5d69c$e34bb900$9600a8c0@Laptop>, rosalee
writes
>Yeah but you're a lot better at being rude back than I am!
>
>Ginny
She's had a lot more practice
;)
>
OK - just to *really* make "Evil Zak" blush and swear, have a read of
this :)
http://www.informedconsent.co.uk/weblogs/Thunder_12/11792/
--
^Thunder^
«No Name Set», 24 Oct 2005 18:18:52
On topic? - if you say so; certainly a long way from (?)
graham's request for info for his union group.
I'd go a step further back than you, even beyond ideology, and
say what our modern politicians are lacking is Vision. Vision
of what a Better World would be, and toward which they are
heart-feltly striving. Vision from which arises the ideology as
the route to achieve that Better World.
I sometimes think our latter-day politicians have no more vision
of the world they want to live in than one which sees them keep
their nice jobs and salaries and offices inthe Corridors of Power.
At least, those round this part of the world..... because there
are exceptions. But maybe it is far easier to have a clear
vision of, and strive for, a better world when one is a
newly-elected President Mandela (or, for that matter, Mbeki)
than a twice reelected PM Blair.
Or maybe it is because too many of them lead sheltered lives in
their H of P offices, and behind all their screens and
bodyguards. maybe they'd have a better idea of the world
needing improving if they lived round here .... in a ward with
one of the highest deprivation rates in london, nearly the
highest rate of gun crime inthe country, and where neighbours
who bring the Home Office banging on one's door before Sunday
dawn are in fact a blessed relief from their Hellish
predecessors. And all this within nice short early-morning
warm-up jog distance from the proposed Olympic village, but I
digress.......
As for the quality of research, I'm sure the "least publishable
unit" syndrome is partly to blame, for what would once have been
only a small part of a full project, and would be able to be
assessed and maybe reconsidered within that whole project, is
now rushed out and faces the public as a complete published
report. And then can ony be "updated" later, and not quietly
thought better of as the bigger project unfolds.
Another factor, I'm sure, is the "upbringing", as it were. it
never ceases to amaze me the low quality of "research projects"
for which students seem to be forever trying to recruit guinea
pigs. [I happen to be a member of a group who are regularly
targetted for this, whenever some student wants to do something
to "help" us!] SOme of these "projects" do make me wonder, not
only how the students get away with such half-baked ideas, lack
of preparation, reading around or any clear thesis (in the sense
of proposition, rather than tome) on which they are working, but
how on earth their colleges get away with letting them do
something with not only so little benefit in terms of end results
to the community at large, but apparently so little pedagogical
benefit to themselves.
Actually, I can guess. There is pressure on the institutions to
make every course have a project, to relate it back to the real
world (ha!) and thus to the students' employability skills, so
they stick projects into everything to get the right ticks and
the right funding criteria. The students don't really want to
have to do these projects (and these days are trying to study
and do day jobs too), so take the path of least resistance and
minimal pain. The tutors know (or at least sense) it is all a
big of a game, don't really want the projects here, and also
take the path of least resistance. And the target guinea pig
get guinea pig fatigue and resort either to moaning about all
these ill-thought-out projects trying to exploit us, or to
bewailing the lack of pedagogical oversight leading to such
waste of talent and the de facto teaching of cush sloppiness.
[One of these, posted to a mailing list of blind IT folks, had a
list of statements with which one was asked to agree, disagree,
strongly ditto, and/or add comments. Someone wrote a response
which went something like this:
S: I really hate having to work with computers.
R: Absolutely! Who wants to work on a day like today? I'd far
rather bunk off down the pub.
S: Everything I have to do with a computer would be easier for
me to do with pen and paper.
R: You clearly have never seen my multi-currency financial
spreadsheets. Convert polish Zlotys to Swedish Krone via euro
traingulation rates with pen and paper, anyone?
S: Everything I have to do on a computer is very complicated and
intimidating.
R: Oh, you mean you *have* seen my multi-currency financial
spreaksheets?!]
As for science v. (or cf?) social science - just don't let me
get started on the problems that can cause! I'm a mathematician
- well. that's what I did for my MA - and I've recently been
working for a Business School. Most of our incoming students do
*not* need lessons in how to study, or lots of stuff about
thesis, antithesis, or th eidea of weighing evidence and
building their synthesis. They've already done that, are
probably pretty good at it (and if they've got this far and it's
bypassed them, we certainly won't change that); and there's
plenty of them with more letters after their names than in
them. They've got to the point in their lives where they need
management skills (probably fast) having come up through
different spheres. Spot potential for disaster? Well, the
trained intellect of a mathematician, faced with a hypothesis to
prove or disprove, casts around for counter-examples. A
physical scientist for that matter tests out hypotheses by
designing experiements to se eif they can be disproved. Chuck
them straight into a business school with its model building
approach, and what happens? They start going "But, But,
But...." and producing counter examples by the score. Tutor (a
social scientist, very likely) chides them for their negative
attitude and disruptiveness, they rapidly start to wonder why
they/their organisation is paying out so much money for
something with so little of (what they've always known as)
academic integrity. Remedy? - conversion course, please.
forget the guff about pedagogical meta-syllabus of learning how
to learn and try Academic method As She is Spoke Round Here. No
reason they shouldn't pick it up, of course - being pepole
who've got to where they need to be here, they're no doubt bright
enough to be pretty good at pattern recognition and ore-or-less
fuzzy analogies, but by the time they're on their feet, the
damage has been done. oh, and the same in reverse for the
tutors, please cos it works both ways.
Managerial: aargh! I hate the way that word (and "management")
get used as a term of abuse. Generally - and this isn't meant
as a dig at you - the people I hear using it are doing so when
they mean *bad* management. In particular, the people who
complain about "management" in the church - if they said
"mismanagement" I'd agree with them all the way. I gently
suggest what the church, and the government need is not less
management but *better* management.
By "East Germany" do you mean the current Lande with the
inhabitants who think Frau Merkel is deserting them, or the
former ComEcon member with all those scrummy, butch shot
putters?? (all right, I'm going to shut up and go get a cold
shower now.)
Rosemary
manniq@hotmail.com writes:
Actually, I DO think that this is on topic - though not in the way the original poster intended.
Politics, once upon a time, tended to be about ideology: statements of what the protagonists believed to be 'right'; and the pursuit of the corresponding mo
ral imperatives.
Of late, politics is becoming increasingly 'managerial' - with the chief difference between parties, apparently, being about who can 'manage' better. That
involves taking initiatives all the time: and that, in turn, requires them to substantiate their
initiatives. If they can't do so on ideological grounds, the dread consensus about 'common sense' and 'the right way' to do things comes into play.
Which is where I have enormous problems: because lurking below the surface of this consensus view is an unstated ideology with some remarkably nasty paralle
ls in places like East Germany and Fascist Italy. We don't need to argue about things, because t
here is obviously a right way: and research will tell us what that right way is.
Whereupon debates about the role and propriety of research done become paramount. Well, not quite, since my response to a lot of these research-led initiat
ives is to say one SHOULD be ideological rather than research-led. But I guess you know what I m
ean.
Anyway, I guess what my argument boils down to is this: that across a whole range of issues, from education to porn to social reform, there is no research b
ase sufficient to drive policy. So anyone trying to do so is actually using the research as a fi
gleaf for their own prejudices. There IS no evidence of harm when it comes to porn. But Mr Goggins and co. don't like it.
Regards,
M
Author wrote:
> stuff for mailer to eat
> manniq@hotmail.com writes:
> Perhaps I should define 'reduce to rubble'.
> At a certain level this gets very silly and esoteric and starts to get into debates about the 'philosophy of science' and what questions can meaningfull
y be
> asked and answered within our current scientific paradigm.
> ...
> However, the pressures in some areas to produce research that looks scientific are pretty immense - with the result that a lot of research is being prod
uced
> that is worth zero or less than zero, but which the newspapers love to lap up. Or distort.
> Sure; not forgetting the (funding and other) pressures on
> academics facing assessment criteria of numbers of papers
> published, leading to the phenomenon of the least-publishable
> unit, rushing them out with less preparation time than ideal,
> etc. Been there, seen that.... and that's apart from the
> cultural or methodological differences between different spheres.
> But I don't think this is particularly on topic, so feel free to
> mail me (suggest on my OU staff account as there seems to be
> problems with mail getting through to demon) if you want to
> pursue it.
> Because...
> what I was tyring to allude to was Grant's original reason for
> the request - which someone - chris m? - has also brought us
> back to.
> Rosemary
--
If you want to share pictures, use the calendar, or start a vote
visit http://www.smartgroups.com/groups/Backlash
To leave the Group, email: Backlash-unsubscribe@smartgroups.com
Report abuse http://www.smartgroups.com/text/abusereport.cfm?gid%3D3271426&mid%3D2158
--
Rosemary