NationStates

The Lone Alliance wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:The Istanbul Treaty should be rewritten to combat all forms of abuse, instead of deliberately ignoring certain types and unintentionally(?) allowing them to continue and/or worsen to focus on others.

However, Poland's reasons for withdrawing are because they are getting, eh, extreme, which I'm not altogether okay with. I'd rather have an improved, more inclusive treaty than one which falls to pieces entirely as countries pull out of it.

This really, if Poland had withdrawn under the statements that "They will return when 'the treaty is more inclusive" then that arguably would be a good thing, sadly however they aren't.

Yeah.

Stellar Colonies wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So the convention is bad because it lets women control their own bodies? Am I reading that "baby killing" comment correctly?

It's 'bad' because it deliberately ignores certain forms of abuse. It should be more inclusive.

Women having reproductive rights apparently counts as abuse from his writing.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Arcturus Novus wrote:Just because it's illegal doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. Something like 40% of American police commit domestic violence against their own families, but it's still very, very illegal. Poland's withdrawal from this treaty is a red flag regardless of the official legality of wife-beating.

Where did you get that statistic? From Kapernick?

The study itself is admittedly dated - 1992 IIRC - but this study's conclusion states,
"By self-report, approximately 40% of the officers surveyed report at least one episode of physical aggression during a marital conflict in the previous year with 8% of the male officers reporting Severe Violence. The overall rates of violence are considerably higher than those reported for a random sample of civilians and somewhat higher than military samples. The rates reported by a sample of the officers' wives were quite consistent with the officers' self-reports."

No, Poland's withdrawal from the treaty is an assertion of national sovereignty and a refusal to submit to the socially libertine agenda of the EU[...]

Ah yes, the radical notions that immigrants, queer people, and women deserve human rights. How extreme, how incompatible with a Trve Evropean Society.

Furthermore, if we prescribed actual punishments to domestic violence, we MIGHT see it go down[...]

Did you ever think that, perhaps, the "liberal propaganda" you're so afraid of has suggested solutions to domestic violence outside of "let's just jail and kill the abusers"?

The Christian religion

Thing is, not everyone is Christian, Turtleshroom. Even in a majority-Catholic nation like Poland. The laws of the Earth needn't reflect the laws of your Heaven.

We have this epidemic for the same reason we have child porn and pedophilia everywhere: we have the audacity to release them from prison.

I mean, there's a few reasons for it, a lot of them having to do with the patriarchal sexualization of girls at younger and younger ages, but that's a debate for another thread.

Galloism wrote:I mean it is an explicitly sexist treaty, that downplays half (more or less) of the domestic violence victims on the basis of gender.

Maybe replace it with a non sexist one?

See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections for LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies for the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

Liriena wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean it is an explicitly sexist treaty, that downplays half (more or less) of the domestic violence victims on the basis of gender.

Maybe replace it with a non sexist one?

See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections to LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms one of my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies to the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

The problem is that the LGBT community facing oppression means that Men might not be the most oppressed group, and the MRAs don't like that.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:No, Poland's withdrawal from the treaty is an assertion of national sovereignty and a refusal to submit to the socially libertine agenda of the EU. Like all treaties from modern international organizations, it has an underlying agenda to impose a certain series of socially liberal doctrines (including, particularly under WHO, baby killing as a "human right") and ideological propaganda. There are provisions under the treaty not related to domestic abuse.

Furthermore, if we prescribed actual punishments to domestic violence, we MIGHT see it go down. I believe that beating your wife and/or kids should be punishable, at maximum, by death. The Christian religion explicitly stood up and directly commanded all domestic abuse to cease ("love your wife as your own body"). We do not take it as seriously as we should. We have this epidemic for the same reason we have child porn and pedophilia everywhere: we have the audacity to release them from prison.

I'm going to get alcohol poisoning from this, aren't I?

Vassenor wrote:

Liriena wrote:See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections to LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms one of my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies to the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

The problem is that the LGBT community facing oppression means that Men might not be the most oppressed group, and the MRAs don't like that.

Like gay men don't count as men somehow.

Liriena wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean it is an explicitly sexist treaty, that downplays half (more or less) of the domestic violence victims on the basis of gender.

Maybe replace it with a non sexist one?

See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections for LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies for the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

I acknowledged that their reasons for the move might not be good, even if the move itself isn't bad.

Gormwood wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
The problem is that the LGBT community facing oppression means that Men might not be the most oppressed group, and the MRAs don't like that.

Like gay men don't count as men somehow.

Well, I've seen people try and exclude gay men from GLBT.

Liriena wrote:

Galloism wrote:I mean it is an explicitly sexist treaty, that downplays half (more or less) of the domestic violence victims on the basis of gender.

Maybe replace it with a non sexist one?

See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections for LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies for the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

Actually, LGBT is largely advanced by efforts to get equality for men - Marc Angelucci’s case against California not only guaranteed services for straight men, but also gay men and transwomen - who were previously denied due to born sex. You’re reading a lot more into my statements that is necessary.

Poland’s reasons are certainly shit, but it’s two bigoted shitty groups of people tearing each other down. That’s not a bad thing.

But I do get your meaning - the really weird alliance between feminism and really conservative Islam/Christianity in the prostitution/pornography arena also makes me go “what?” That’s an alliance certain to go south.

That being said, in this case, two groups of bigots tearing each other down should give us opportunity to raise up non bigots. I think.

Proctopeo wrote:

Liriena wrote:See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections for LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies for the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

I acknowledged that their reasons for the move might not be good, even if the move itself isn't bad.

Gormwood wrote:Like gay men don't count as men somehow.

Well, I've seen people try and exclude gay men from GLBT.

Yeah, that sort of "let's exclude x group from the community" thing happens sporadically. Sometimes it's gay men, sometimes it's trans people, sometimes it's enbies or asexuals, and I'm pretty sure someone might have tried to do it with intersex people. I don't recall that every happening with bi people, at least not explicitly. But biphobic nonsense is a thing.

Gormwood wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:It's 'bad' because it deliberately ignores certain forms of abuse. It should be more inclusive.

Women having reproductive rights apparently counts as abuse from his writing.

By 'his', you mean within this post, yes?

I mean, I generally disagree with his post, the only thing we'd probably agree with is that the Istanbul Treaty as of now is not ideal - although he wants to junk it entirely and I'd like to improve it.

Vassenor wrote:

Liriena wrote:See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections to LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms one of my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies to the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

The problem is that the LGBT community facing oppression means that Men might not be the most oppressed group, and the MRAs don't like that.

I dunno about everyone else, but I recognize a lot of the hatred transwomen receive is to being perceived as a man, and getting treated like a transgressing man. There’s a reason trans women seem to receive a lot more violence than trans men - because the former is perceived as a transgressing man, while the latter a transgressing woman.

And transgressing men receive more violence than transgressing women. Same reason why through most of history, being a gay man was punishable by law - being a gay woman wasn’t.

Ending sexist treatment of men is one of (but not the only) the key planks in ending the horrible treatment of lgbt.

Galloism wrote:

Vassenor wrote:
So it's sexist to say that domestic violence should have consequences now. Huh.

Vassenor now endorses the gender equivalent of “white lives matter”.

Well, that's Vass being Vass.

Galloism wrote:

Liriena wrote:See, this is my problem with how a lot of MRAs react to this sort of thing: you see a reactionary government attack progressive activism and policy, and you interpret it as an opportunity to advance your own goals. It's like it never crosses your minds that these reactionary assholes don't give a single fuck about human rights in general, let alone men's human rights. They're reactionaries, and their goals will never align with yours. Their ideological framework doesn't align with yours. Their policies will hurt you just as much as they'll hurt women.

Also, as an LGBT person, it doesn't make for very good optics when MRAs react to the LGBTphobia of reactionary governments with "well, those protections for LGBT people included some feminism so maybe this is a good thing". It kinda confirms my years-old concern that MRAs make for terrible allies for the LGBT community. The only good thing you have going over TERFs who also align themselves with reactionaries on LGBT issues is that you don't have the institutional power TERFs have.

Actually, LGBT is largely advanced by efforts to get equality for men - Marc Angelucci’s case against California not only guaranteed services for straight men, but also gay men and transwomen - who were previously denied due to born sex. You’re reading a lot more into my statements that is necessary.

Poland’s reasons are certainly shit, but it’s two bigoted shitty groups of people tearing each other down. That’s not a bad thing.

But I do get your meaning - the really weird alliance between feminism and really conservative Islam/Christianity in the prostitution/pornography arena also makes me go “what?” That’s an alliance certain to go south.

That being said, in this case, two groups of bigots tearing each other down should give us opportunity to raise up non bigots. I think.

How? How do you think you're going to advance an MRA-inclusive progressivism in Poland while also passively enabling a Polish government that's cementing its increasingly hegemonic power on anti-progressive policy that just so happens to also undermine feminism?

I'm sorry, but it kinda sounds like the gender politics version of leftist accelerationists who unironically think that socdems losing elections to fascists is a good thing for the left in the long run.

Vassenor wrote:Riders such as what?

The vague definitions allow a wide-reaching and bizarre interpretation of the treaty.

For example:

Constantinople Treaty wrote:“domestic violence” shall mean all acts of physical, sexual, psychological or economic violence that occur within the family or domestic unit or between former or current spouses or partners, whether or not the perpetrator shares or has shared the same residence with the victim;

c“gender” shall mean the socially constructed roles, behaviours, activities and attributes that a given society considers appropriate for women and men;

unwanted verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature with the purpose or effect of violating the dignity of a person, in particular when creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment, is subject to criminal or other legal sanction.

The second clause is the sinister one. At no point does the treaty ever define a woman by the actual definition of a woman, which is biological sex. Gender is a social construct in the sense that society, religion, and culture set gender roles. The treaty's definition of gender is correct, and that is the danger. Every reference to the definition of woman uses "gender".

There is no such thing as "economic violence". I would bet the farm that "psychological violence" doesn't just mean gaslighting. With a particularly activist mindset, there is no limit to what this could do (e.g. using "stress" or "fear of not having enough money to feed the kid" as a grounds to murder the fetus, which is already done).

Furthermore, the treaty orders sweeping, vague, and undefined mandates on its signatories to preserve, among other things, "refugee status" and "gender identity". Prohibiting discrimination against those suffering from Gender Identity Disorder requires the indulgence of their dysphoria and resulting costumes, which means nothing can be segregated by sex. To accomodate GID, all sex-based segregation must fall and men must be allowed into women's bathrooms, and to cheat in women's sports, and vice-versa.

In today's world, we don't talk about real refugees or potential refugees like the Vietnamese after the war, or the Christians in China, or every person living in Hong Kong, the Rohingas, the Uyghurs, or the Yazidis, or any minority religion whatsoever in any Muslim country practicing Shariah Hell. The economic migrants invading Europe refuse to become European, they impose their beliefs, which are seen by civilized men as backwards and savage, on others, and they have contributed to a surge of violence, particularly against women. These people should not receive special status.

Then comes the prohibition on things "offensive to a person", the undefined definition of "dignity" and "humiliation", and more. In America, this was the Trojan horse used to fabricate homosexual marriage in breach of states' rights. Based entirely on emotion and feelings, Kennedy decided that same-sex unions must be forced because denying them such "offends their D I G N I T Y and D E G R A D E S T H E M". That is not what law is built on. No one has a right to be protected from offense. You should not criminalize simply saying mean things.

When Bill O'Reily loudly and repeatedly called that woman "hot chocolate", he was NOT committing sexual. All he was doing was being a rude, insensitive jerk, but he was lynched for it. Being too cowardly to fight, he resigned. Under this treaty, a man could be arrested for catcalling, as the treaty empowers its signatories to prosecute everything in that definition.

In short, it is a blank check for social liberalism. THAT is why Poland withdrew.

The Lone Alliance wrote:

Stellar Colonies wrote:The Istanbul Treaty should be rewritten to combat all forms of abuse, instead of deliberately ignoring certain types and unintentionally(?) allowing them to continue and/or worsen to focus on others.

However, Poland's reasons for withdrawing are because they are getting, eh, extreme, which I'm not altogether okay with. I'd rather have an improved, more inclusive treaty than one which falls to pieces entirely as countries pull out of it.

This really, if Poland had withdrawn under the statements that "They will return when 'the treaty is more inclusive" then that arguably would be a good thing, sadly however they aren't.

Agreed. It would have been better if it was “this treaty is bigoted in a, b, and c ways, we’re leaving til you stop being shit”.

Instead it’s a group of bigots rejecting another group of bigots for reasons wholly unrelated to their bigotry.

Liriena wrote:

Proctopeo wrote:I acknowledged that their reasons for the move might not be good, even if the move itself isn't bad.


Well, I've seen people try and exclude gay men from GLBT.

Yeah, that sort of "let's exclude x group from the community" thing happens sporadically. Sometimes it's gay men, sometimes it's trans people, sometimes it's enbies or asexuals, and I'm pretty sure someone might have tried to do it with intersex people. I don't recall that every happening with bi people, at least not explicitly. But biphobic nonsense is a thing.

Indeed it is; "pick a side" or "you should be pan instead" are rather prevalent attitudes in GLBT communities. Part of why I stay away from them tbh, but really that's just one aspect of toxicity in general.

Amusingly, when it comes to trying to exclude gay men, a common argument I've seen is "they're the white people of the community" or something to that effect; basically "you're not oppressed enough".

Galloism wrote:I dunno about everyone else, but I recognize a lot of the hatred trans-women receive is to being perceived as a man, and getting treated like a transgressing man. There’s a reason trans women seem to receive a lot more violence than trans men - because the former is perceived as a transgressing man, while the latter a transgressing woman.

That is because they ARE transgressing men. They are men. The same goes in reverse. It's almost like biological sex is immutable. Who would have thought?

Proctopeo wrote:

Liriena wrote:Yeah, that sort of "let's exclude x group from the community" thing happens sporadically. Sometimes it's gay men, sometimes it's trans people, sometimes it's enbies or asexuals, and I'm pretty sure someone might have tried to do it with intersex people. I don't recall that every happening with bi people, at least not explicitly. But biphobic nonsense is a thing.

Indeed it is; "pick a side" or "you should be pan instead" are rather prevalent attitudes in GLBT communities. Part of why I stay away from them tbh, but really that's just one aspect of toxicity in general.

Amusingly, when it comes to trying to exclude gay men, a common argument I've seen is "they're the white people of the community" or something to that effect; basically "you're not oppressed enough".

Yeah, that's been a thing. Which just reeks of white upper class liberalism, tbh. There are, like, a dozen layers of reasons why it's a stupid attitude to take.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:-snip-

I think I've now become officially drunk.

When are Poles going to stop beating their wives again?

What specifically in the treaty did Poland find detestable? I'm generally supportive of the PiS government, but this one confuses me, as at least on the outside, it doesn't seem like the Istanbul Treaty is a morally degenerate thing.

Liriena wrote:

Galloism wrote:Actually, LGBT is largely advanced by efforts to get equality for men - Marc Angelucci’s case against California not only guaranteed services for straight men, but also gay men and transwomen - who were previously denied due to born sex. You’re reading a lot more into my statements that is necessary.

Poland’s reasons are certainly shit, but it’s two bigoted shitty groups of people tearing each other down. That’s not a bad thing.

But I do get your meaning - the really weird alliance between feminism and really conservative Islam/Christianity in the prostitution/pornography arena also makes me go “what?” That’s an alliance certain to go south.

That being said, in this case, two groups of bigots tearing each other down should give us opportunity to raise up non bigots. I think.

How? How do you think you're going to advance an MRA-inclusive progressivism in Poland while also passively enabling a Polish government that's cementing its increasingly hegemonic power on anti-progressive policy that just so happens to also undermine feminism?

I'm sorry, but it kinda sounds like the gender politics version of leftist accelerationists who unironically think that socdems losing elections to fascists is a good thing for the left in the long run.

There are groups in Poland seeking equality in custody and domestic violence treatment that are gaining, for lack of a better term, market share.

They haven’t been able to get much headway before, but the equality language is gaining ground with the waning power of the anti equality left.

Granted, my contacts in Poland are slim (I know two people working on this), but with the waning progressive power in Poland they have been threatened with violence and loss of work less for spreading their message of custodial equality (which is their focus).

The far right isn’t good, but they are permitting more open dialogue there than their predecessors, and there’s an opportunity there to break out something better than either of the two that came before.

TURTLESHROOM II wrote:

Galloism wrote:I dunno about everyone else, but I recognize a lot of the hatred trans-women receive is to being perceived as a man, and getting treated like a transgressing man. There’s a reason trans women seem to receive a lot more violence than trans men - because the former is perceived as a transgressing man, while the latter a transgressing woman.

That is because they ARE transgressing men. They are men. The same goes in reverse. It's almost like biological sex is immutable. Who would have thought?

Yeah, whether you think they’re a transgressing man/woman or not (a point I’d argue but it’s largely beyond the scope of this thread), beating people for dressing ways you don’t like and doing things to their own bodies you don’t like is unacceptable.