Monday, October 25, 2010

The Not-So-Great Debate Goes into Overdrive

My debate with Paul Elam on Domestic Violence continues on his web site, A Voice For Men. (EDIT: See here for all my posts in the debate.)

Unfortunately, my opponent seems to have gone entirely off the rails. I will continue to reply to him, and continue to try to get the debate back on track, but I am not hopeful about that.

As the debate, such as it is, continues, I have my hands full with Paul and his derailing tactics. Once the debate is over I will discuss some of the substantive issues that have been raised by various commenters on his site and here.

At the moment, though, I am watching David Attenborough talk about trilobites. On TV. I don't have him in my living room.

56 comments:

  1. I dunno. I found both of you more articulate than I expected. I am geniunely surprised by Paul Elam's presentation. Plus, I stole the globe counter he has on his website for my own bog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Damn, I thought you go by Dave (not David). *sigh*

    (Really looking forward to the next parts of the debate)

    ReplyDelete
  3. In my view, PE and the MRM are debunking old fashioned gender stereotypes that feminism is both profiting from and trying to keep alive through peusedo science, and I see that (the debunking)as progress and the resistance as regressive. When this progress evolves and becomes part of mainstream thought men will be allowed to be victims and female perps will no longer be protected by outdated taboos, stereotypes and politically correct constructs.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am happy to see Paul Elam attack the underlying assumptions and tactics of the domestic violence status quo. He rightly points out that it has been built upon telling only a fraction of the story. While this fraction may indeed be true, it is also only a piece of the story and this results in disparity and completely flies in the face of the important feminist principle of inclusiveness. This sort of "half-story" may have been needed in the early years but the continuance has evolved into a groupthink attitude that disallows information that varies from the beliefs of the status quo. This of course propagates pain and suffering by anyone not in the chosen group. His quoting from the Straus article that indicted feminist research as being unethical and intentionally deceptive was very telling and points to the rigidity of thinking that has become the standard. I call on all feminists to evaluate the present domestic violence status quo based on feminist principles and see what you find.

    ReplyDelete
  5. My reaction to David Futrelle's 2nd contribution to the debate:
    http://deansdale.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/the-big-debate-p3-let-the-mudslinging-begin/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Paul's not off track. He is on track.

    What on earth makes you claim he is off-track?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't believe it's possible to get Elam back on track. He isn't interested in anything other than his own personal agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  8. @ScareCrow

    I think he means that Paul Elam is off of the rails that David wanted, which involve taking the claims of provably biased academics as articles of faith.

    It's actually quite common for debates to end up spending more time focusing on the acceptability of certain evidence than on the actual issue. The only real way to mitigate that is to agree to clearly defined standards of acceptability for evidence before starting the debate. To call the all-too-common clash over acceptability of certain evidence "derailment" is just pathetic. Really David, you should have seen that clash coming when you chose to include such clearly biased sources in your evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  9. @Coldfire

    David presented evidence from the same academic PE was quoting to justify his 50% of DV victims are male that debunked PE's points. Clearly then there is something seriously suspicious about PE's beliefs when they're founded on select information from a source.

    I'm just wondering why, if 50% of men are victims, then why are there no testimonials et al. of these men? Where are they? I'm thinking using the term "mangina" probably would put them off of PE's site given de-masculating male victims is exactly why abuse against men is so under reported (not just DV, but rape and CSA). But still, 50%? Why then isn't DV a more prominent issue? Why are there not more support for victims (both genders) in the system then? PE has based his entire thesis on selective evidence (as Dave points out) and there are a complete dirth of male victims - all indicating perhaps that PE is just plain wrong.

    I couldn't read anymore after PE's rebuttal when he was attacking the sources vs. the issues. It's a common troll tactic: I have no (nil) evidence to back up my assertions but I'm going to attack your several sources despite their breadth and multitude as wrong because they don't fit with my world-view and therefore are completely falsified and bias evidence, thereby detracting from the fact my sources and beliefs are built on a shakey foundation. Ugh! Handwringing...

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just to clarify, I think DV against men is a serious issue, as is rape and CSA, and by no means wish to demean the experiences of male victims. But, with the exception of CSA, it doesn't happen to men, and no under reporting in the world is going to make up a 50% stat.

    ReplyDelete
  11. *I meant it doesn't nearly as often, not "it doesn't happen to men".

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fact of the matter is en and women are not held to the same standard of what constitutes "abusive behavior." Women are able to get away with a lot more, and are punished far less severely (when they are punished that is)

    ReplyDelete
  13. @ Anonymous - and your proof of that statement would be? That's my point though - where are these men who are getting abused? If it's so severe, why the silence?

    ReplyDelete
  14. PE's commenters aren't helping him much. Seems all they want to do is speculate that you're secretly a woman or group of women.

    Which, of course, would make your whole viewpoint not worth listening to. But, they'll probably claim that's not sexism because... Ah, hell, I don't get the mindset at all.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Feminists bad!" is not an argument." This should be your motto. Shoot, set up a comments policy and make it that phrase, the commentors here could really use it.

    I couldn't stomach the comments (over at Elam's blog), there was too much horrible trans bashing from the get go.

    ReplyDelete
  16. @cat
    2x - I have made some posts with regards to just simply working on ending DV period vs. focusing on men vs. women. No effect. It's all - all women are evil batterers! The system is fixed against us men!

    Still I want to know - where are these men then? Not a one has come forward with hey I'm a man who's been severely abused by a women. It does happen, but if it were that prevalent, there'd be lots of guys anonymously talking about it on the internet...

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Tec:

    I do not think that Paul Elam claimed that 50% of victims were men.

    I think the point was that in 70% of non-reciprocally violent relationships, the instigator is the woman (i.e. the woman initiates the violence).

    Also, I am hearing a lot about injuries.

    Of course women sustain more injuries. If you take an average man, and an average woman, and have them physically fight - the man will win.

    testoserone build upper body strength.

    Does this mean that men are the ones being "more violent"?

    No.

    Honestly, I am a bit disappointed with all of this.

    Side A is stating their facts.
    Side B is stating their facts.

    The facts are all correct, but it seems like side B is reading in its own "message" into them.

    If a small nerdy kid is always STARTING fights with much bigger kids - and as a result is always getting beat up - does that mean we should always arrest the bigger kid when a fight occurs?

    This seems to be key in feminist thinking.

    If women are STARTING the domestic violence - which is what Paul's studies show - shouldn't we be taking care of the REAL problem - the person who starts the fight - and not the person who wins the fight?

    ReplyDelete
  18. @Scarecrow

    Yes, I got that Paul was saying women instigate more than men and that 50% percent of domestic violence crimes are perpetrated by women. My question still remains - if its so prevalent among DV cases, where are these men?

    Love the whole victim-blaming though. The women deserve being beaten of course!

    In your nerd example, what exactly did the nerd do to pick a fight? Did they call the big kids names - or simply exist? That's the problem with victim blaming. The big kids need to address their anger issues so that they don't need to resort to violence.

    In fact, addressing domestic violence from the perspective of increasing mental service programs and supports for both genders and both victims and abusers is what I advocated.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Tec said: "Love the whole victim-blaming though. The women deserve being beaten of course!

    In your nerd example, what exactly did the nerd do to pick a fight? Did they call the big kids names - or simply exist? That's the problem with victim blaming. The big kids need to address their anger issues so that they don't need to resort to violence."

    And yet the person who picks a fight doesn't need to resolve their anger issues so they don't initiate violence? Are you fucking kidding me?

    This is the problem with people like you. You believe that men have no right to defend themselves. When someone picks a fight with a stronger person in a relationship (usually the man) the man just has to take it. And the instigator, that original assualter, the person who pushes the issue is "the victim." Victim my ass.

    Who cares why the other person decided to pick a fight? Why does being weak give you carte blanche to assualt someone? What kind of logic is that?

    What you want is a system where anytime a woman decides to pick a fight, decides to assualt or harm a man, for whatever fucking reason, that men have to take this abuse because the man is stronger, and that is typical feminist bullshit.
    Otherwise he has assualted a poor little victim.

    Comedian Bill Burr once stated something to the effect of: Can you imagine what kind of asshole I'd be if it were socially unacceptable to hit me?

    That's what you feminists and your manginas want, female impunity from the consequences of your evil actions. All while you mouth empty catch phrases about equality. Liars and trash all of you.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  20. Tec said, "I'm just wondering why, if 50% of men are victims, then why are there no testimonials et al. of these men? Where are they?"

    Yes, and that is worth wondering about. Why would 30 years of research not focus on male victims? Look like a bias to you? Thank goodness we now have a study on male victims

    Hines, Denise A., & Douglas, Emily M. (2010) A closer look at men who sustain intimate terrorism by women. Partner Abuse, 1(3), 286-313.

    http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/Hines%20&%20Douglas%20Dec_7_2009_closer_look_at_abused_men.pdf

    ABSTRACT

    Over thirty years of research has established that both men and women are capable of sustaining intimate
    partner violence (IPV) by their opposite-sex partners, yet little research has examined men’s experiences in such relationships. Some experts in the field have forwarded assumptions about men who sustain IPV – for example, that the abuse they experience is trivial or humorous and of no consequence, and that if their abuse was severe enough they have the financial and psychological resources to easily leave the relationship – but these assumptions are not based on any empirical studies. The present study is an in depth, descriptive examination of 302 men who sustained severe IPV from their female partners within the previous year and sought help. We present information on their demographics, overall mental health, andthetypesandfrequencyofvariousformsofphysicalandpsychologicalIPVtheysustained. Wealso provide both quantitative and qualitative information about their last physical argument and their reasons for staying in the relationship. It is concluded that, contrary to many assumptions about these men, the IPV they sustain is quite severe and both mentally and physically damaging; their most frequent response to their partner’s IPV is to get away from her; and they are often blocked in their efforts to leave, sometimes physically, but more often because of strong psychological and emotional ties to their partners and especially their children. These results are discussed in terms of their implications for policy and practice.

    ReplyDelete
  21. evilwhitemalempireOctober 26, 2010 at 1:19 AM

    "What you want is a system where anytime a woman decides to pick a fight, decides to assualt or harm a man, for whatever fucking reason, that men have to take this abuse because the man is stronger, and that is typical feminist bullshit."

    NOT just feminist bullshit my anonymous friend.
    But female bullshit in general.
    You can think of chivalry as old fashioned feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Let's see who is off track here, shall we?
    Take a few excerpts (pointed out by Frank on Elam's site):
    Quote -
    rehash a tiff you had
    you’ve somehow decided are evil ideologues
    you start flinging bullshit
    As for the rest of your nonsense
    - Unquote
    I never knew personal attacks and appeals to emotion ("men sometimes punch harder which hurts the ladies so that somehow has to do with who initiates violence more") were fair game, but pointing out the clear bias of his sources (which he accepts as scripture no less) and exposing their deceptive methods were not.
    *To the impartial observers*
    Love the comments, I never knew this much support for true equality was out there. The people have spoken!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "where are these men who are getting abused?"
    Go and find Matthew Winkler's grave and ask this question standing over it.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tec, what you say implies that all violence by men result in severe injuries while no violence by women results in severe injury, both of which assertions are false. Most of this hysteria about Dv is just that: hysteria. 99% of DV does not lead to any injuries not healed in 3 days and 90% of it does not result in any real injury whatsoever. Picturing blackeyed women everywhere is silly. The main difference between the sexes is that if a man is slapped in the face he is silent about it, while a women slapped in the face might go to the police or to the doctor. That is why you see less male "victims".
    Also, you can see tons of male victims on TV if you're not blind. One recent example is the teen mother from MTV abusing his partner heavily which was caught on tape.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Evilwhitemalempire said: "You can think of chivalry as old fashioned feminism."

    This^^^^^^^quote worthy.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  26. Okay, MRAs, learn the damned legal definition of self defense. The response has to be REASONABLE force that appears reasonably necessary to prevent an impending attack. Legally, you are only entitled to use the minimum force necessary to prevent your injury and it has to be proportional to the threat (no shooting someone for throwing an eraser at you). So, if a man is slapped (or about to be slapped), he may use only force proportional to that slap insofar as it PREVENTS an injury to him. Nothing in the doctrine of self defense gives you the right to break someone's ribs for slapping you, nor does it give you the right to retaliate (except as minimally necessary to prevent further injury). http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Self-Defense

    So, even if it were the case that women initiated the majority of instances, self defense doctrine would only cover proportionate responses reasonably necessary to stop injury, not beating the hell out of someone and not retaliation. The is no 'the victim was asking for it' defense for assault. And that's what domestic violence is: assault, sexual assault, and rape.

    @10:07 anonymous, every single subject in the study you cite was a victim of severe DV, so of course they reported severe DV, however, this is not a representitive sample of the population as a whole.

    @Tec, I do believe that men who have been the victims of severe DV exist, they are just a small minority of severe DV cases. What I don't believe is that most MRAs actually give a crap about these issues that they claim are important to them as anything other than a pretext to bash feminists. As someone who has spent a lot of time dealing with trans and queer victim (trans people have rates of victimization higher than cis women, but virtually no access to support) access to legal systems and support, the comments from Elam's crowd which demonstrate zero understanding of abusive relationship dynamics do not indicate someone who truly cares about support for DV victims of any gender. For people claiming these are their big issues, they sure don't know much about them or do much about them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @Deansdale

    No that's not what I implied. And my comments with regards to where the male victims are - where are they, in person? I mean, I can find several victims of DV, both male and female, cos I've known people who've gone through it. The point is, there voice is completely absent in Paul's site.

    I never said men weren't abused, they are. But trivializing women's abuse and victim blaming - which you are all doing - isn't going to help men. How, about, I don't know, doing something to actual help said victims?

    Women's shelters, laws, etc. exist because women and men fought for them. In fact the concept of a shelter grew out of safe houses, usually run by former victims of DV.

    Also, I gave a concrete example on PE's site where a woman (my Mom) was taken away by police for assaulting a man (my Dad).

    "The main difference between the sexes is that if a man is slapped in the face he is silent about it, while a women slapped in the face might go to the police or to the doctor"

    Then encourage said men to speak out. The only way - and I mean the only way, not this Paul Elam's anti-women proganda BS - is to help actual men who are abused.

    Get that, I'll say it again. Begin helping those men who are abused.

    Wait, not simple enough for you? Abuse man help good.

    But instead you denounce said men as manginas and otherwise demasculate them. Real helpful. Good one!

    ReplyDelete
  28. TEC

    Womens shelters were started by Erin Prizy who quickly realised that women were often violent and that men needed the shelters too. She was pushed out of her movement,threatened and her dog was killed by ideological feminists like yourself for simply pointing out the truth about domestic violence.

    And your double think Tec. Debunking feminist victim /perp by gender stereotypes and campaigning against the legal discrimination of VAWA and shelters that refuse to help men is getting men help. Eventually there will be no discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Eoghan

    She was attacked by militant feminists. Guess what? Feminism is a huge movement with several voices and beliefs. It's like saying the Black Panthers did X so therefore all black people or all people who are against racism are somehow violent. Try learning about feminism and it's several movements. Quiz, what is 3rd wave feminism?

    And I've never said women don't abuse. Maybe you should I don't know, try reading my comments before posting your replies? The truth is DV is complicated and cyclical. And often involve other violences such as child abuse (by both parents).

    Criminalizing feminism doesn't help those real victims. It just perpetuates your own sick anti-women agenda. In fact, you're really hurting men because how could anyone take you seriously if on one hand your saying your for the rights of a certain group of people and against the rights of others at the same time?

    Which goes to my point about Elam. Elam hasn't helped any actual men in his tirade, all he is doing is perpetuating the victim-blaming crap that abuse is okay. Go to his site. He has pictures of women with caps "Maybe she was asking for it" Does that sound like someone who is opposed to DV to you? No seriously, I want an answer to that. Can someone who supports violence against one group really be against violence towards another group? In other words, can we take Paul Elam and his anti-women agenda as truly being for men?

    Also, where are any actual victims of DV who support his view? Ehhh cos there aren't any. (DV vics who support him, not DV vics in general).

    And who knows, maybe there are a few DV male vics who are with him, but I doubt it. And you can't have a movement that doesn't involve the actual victims.

    Also love how you just assume I'm a feminist (and consequently can be ignored under a tired stereotype that feminism is somehow vs. men)...

    ReplyDelete
  30. @Tec
    "The point is, there voice is completely absent in Paul's site."
    I reckon there are a lot of "abused" men there, it's just men don't talk about these things. I myself have admitted being in mutually violent relationships before, so if you want those voices, here's one for you. But even I don't feel it's necessary to talk about these things, because this debate is not about me, or my experiences; it's about principles, scientifical research and solutions. In this context my experiences doesn't matter at all.

    "But trivializing women's abuse and victim blaming - which you are all doing"
    What the frekk are you talking about? Nobody is trivializing women's abuse or whatnot. We're just saying 3 things, namely:
    1. there are two groups of researchers, one of those groups being more honest than the other
    2. the honest statistics show that women initiate DV just as often as men do
    3. the laws are seriously f*cked up; they protect guilty women and punish innocent men

    "I gave a concrete example where a woman (my Mom) was taken away by police for assaulting a man (my Dad)"
    But if I remember correctly the officers wanted to arrest your Dad first, right? That's the problem with the law and law enforcement that we're talking about.

    "Then encourage said men to speak out."
    Ain't gonna happen, because men are mighty fine just the way they are and they don't need to become women. They have been feminized way too much already. If men don't want to speak, don't force them. Just make sure the laws are fair.

    "Paul Elam's anti-women proganda BS"
    There's nothing anti-women about Paul Elam. He never said a word against women, or women victims of DV. What he said is that feminist research is biased, and stating an obvious truth is not "anti-women" in any way.

    "instead you denounce said men as manginas"
    You got this wrong too. When I admitted being in violent relationships nobody accused me with anything, ever. Nobody called me names. It's usually the feminists who talk ill about men.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes thats right tec, militant feminists usurped the shelters movement, which was poised to cater to all victims and their children and turned it into the discriminatory, multi billion dollar industry that misinforms us about the nature of DV.

    You dont have a point about Elam, all you are doing is claiming that pro male = anti female and that advocating for men = advocating against women which is just a rhetorical tactic that is used often by ideological feminists to muddy debates and projection of the characteristics of feminism, given that and the fact that you are depicting abuse as something that is mainly gendered despite the evidence otherwise and the very obvious trouncing of feminist research and positions here, its safe enough to assume that you are feminist or at the very least someone that has absorbed a lot of the ideologys rhetoric.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "Feminism is a huge movement with several voices and beliefs."
    Yeah, I've had a thought about NAFALT just the other day, it goes along the lines of: radicals were never cast out of the feminist movement, but moderates were, so in essence the feminist movement IS the radical part of feminism. See Andrea Dvorkin vs. Christina Hoff Sommers.

    "Criminalizing feminism doesn't help those real victims."
    We're not there yet :) For now we would be satisfied with maleness being decriminalized. If I call the police when my GF throws a plate at me they will arrest me; how's that for justice?

    "It just perpetuates your own sick anti-women agenda."
    LOL You make the most common mistake ever, mistaking feminism for women. Anti-feminism is by no means anti-women.

    "against the rights of others at the same time"
    No MRA ever said he would be against the rights of women. This is the basic problem with you people, you accuse us with bullsh*t. Paul Elam, or any other men for that matter, never said that he's against the rights of women. Get your facts straight.

    "Elam (...) is perpetuating the victim-blaming crap that abuse is okay"
    He never said that either. Get your facts straight, take 2.

    "He has pictures of women with caps "Maybe she was asking for it""
    Maybe you should read the text for pete's sake.

    "someone who supports violence against one group"
    He doesn't support any violence. Get your facts straight, take 3.

    "Also, where are any actual victims of DV who support his view?"
    I hope I'm not invisible.

    "And you can't have a movement that doesn't involve the actual victims."
    That's a rather strange statement. You know, the sexes are different. No offence, but I understand if feninists are all about victimhood, but the MRAs aren't, so your statement doesn't hold.

    "you just assume I'm a feminist"
    Considering you were defending them it's not so surprising.

    "tired stereotype that feminism is somehow vs. men"
    Feminists made VAWA which is clearly and decidedly against men. It's not a stereotype, you know, it's what we live in. Get your facts straight, take 4.
    And how about the f*cked-up stereotype that MRAs are somehow vs. women?

    ReplyDelete
  33. You still haven't answered my question how someone who posts pics of abused women with caps "Maybe she was asking for it" can in any way be against DV. Seriously, explain please. No really, explain. I'm waiting...

    And no, the police were not going to arrest my Dad. They usually respond to DV calls and guess what? Surprise surprise, the DV calls they respond to are usually of women calling against men. And it goes to prove that police do not automatically arrest the man because he's a man. Real life example. Which goes to my point about DV does involve violence against men. And may I note my Dad has never hurt my Mom. Never. (And anyone who wants to call him a mangina can stuff it since you'd be way to much of a tiny prick baby to say so to his face: the 6'6 man instead of hiding behind the internet.)

    Yes, violence happens against men. Hating on women is not going to change that.

    As for Deansdale, you admit that you yourself are violent against women, so really you're both an abuser and a victim. Which just goes to my previous point that DV is extremely complicated cycle of violence. In such situations, both parties need help. Duh. That's what I said before about mental health services.

    And I have no idea how a debate on violence against men doesn't involve those same men. The issues should be about them and their experiences, within the system and in the world. Not just scientific research (that is always biased), especially considering you reject most scientific research that DV is more prevalently directed against women (which if I remember, is David's point) simply because it's carried on by women or "manginas".

    My other point is that often such men are ridiculed by other men. How convenient that you cloak yourself in the "I hate women" motto to avoid it. See David's post regarding "man up" vs. mangina for more info on why you weren't ridiculed. If you had expressed any feminist sentiments and been a victim, you would be trolled out very quickly.

    But I guess if you live in a world where feminism, a movement towards creating equality between genders, and highly linked to anti-racism and LGBTQ issues is equated with fascism and Nazis, well you're already so far out in left field, there's not much help for you.

    (And David, seriously, how do you deal with such people? You're a strong human being to take such garbage.)

    ReplyDelete
  34. David Futrelle has an awesome blog here and I look forward to seeing more. It's only about a month old but already very informative. I'm a fan!

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Deansdale, you admit that you yourself are violent against women"
    LOL
    It takes a feminist to twist my words so it looks like I'm an evil bastard. It's obvious you're not an honest person.

    "How convenient that you cloak yourself in the "I hate women" motto to avoid it."
    WTF are you talking about?! Futrelle at least didn't fall to these dark depths of retardedness in the debate, and I respected him for it.

    "If you had expressed any feminist sentiments and been a victim, you would be trolled out very quickly."
    If I'd expressed any feminist sentiments that would have meant I'm an idiot and I would have been rightfully kicked out really fast. It has nothing to do with "being a victim". You know I never considered myself a "victim". It was just life for me, something I had to deal with - and I did deal with it. I'm not interested in anyone's sympathy.
    The problem with feminist sentiments is that they are based on lies, like in the case of DV. Feminists say everything is the fault of evil men and I know it's BS. After being attacked by my then GF, how on earth could I express feminist sentiments? What for? Should I have thought that her attack on me was my fault?

    "you live in a world where feminism, a movement towards creating equality"
    That's what they say in the brochures but have you ever read the text in more depth? This notion of "feminists creating equality" is laughable for everyone else but feminists. Let's just take one example, just one: VAWA is a feminist law. Is it creating equality? The fuck it does. It creates more INEQUALITY than there ever was. If you want to debate me I'm up for it but stop with the personal attacks already and start delivering facts. Just try to prove that VAWA is tailored towards equality.

    "highly linked to anti-racism"
    This is just empty rhetorics.

    "LGBTQ issues"
    These are sooooooo overrated I couldn't give any less fuck about them. The media is full of sh*t about these issues which in reality are just a storm in a bucket.

    ReplyDelete
  36. ...and since you mentioned LGBT issues, do you know that lesbians have MORE DV than any other group, including but not limited to straight men, gay men or trans men?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Ah yes, delete my comments, it's easier than debating them. It's the ultimate disrespect from you towards those who are having a conversation with me.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I ask you again to provide a source Deansville. Oh, or do you not bother reading?

    You do also realize that homosexuality comprises like 10% of the population, so even if say 50% of lesbians were abusers, they would only constitute 5% of the abusers. Duh, that's math.

    And can't help but notice you don't respond to the rest of my post. Maybe, because, you know I'm right? Nah, you would need to imagine women are people for that...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Deansdale, your comments were caught in the spam filter. They should be up now.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Deansdale - You still haven't given me your source for the lesbian DV.

    It's obvious you've dealt with your problems well. Why, in fact, I think that's actual one of the self-esteem and therapy classes run by the hospital near me - yes, now I remember "Women Hater's Club" aka "Denial 101" Oh wait, they don't have a class like that, that's why MRA sites exist. Why hospitals, they have classes like anger management that actually help men (and women) get over their shit instead of blaming the world for making them angry .... but I digress.

    I think it's hilarious you think I'm the one twisting things around. Right. Cos you don't do that at all. *sarcasm*

    BTW, what you're refering to in the VAWA:
    (1)doesn't apply to me since I'm Canadian (you mean there are people other than Americans?! Yup, that's another conversation though) and
    (2) also, as a general note, I will say though that what is often referred to as inequality is usually the result of your own male priviledge.

    This is where what you consider "normal" is really an example of inequity in your favour. It's like when white people say "reverse racism" with affirmative action.

    "[T]rue gender equality is actually perceived as inequality. A group that is made up of 50% women is perceived as being mostly women. A situation that is perfectly equal between men and women is perceived as being biased in favor of women.

    And if you don’t believe me, you’ve never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my “sexism.” My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because “everyone would know who ruled that relationship.” Perfect equality – my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part. "

    Notice that the actual equal situation, of each person keeping his/her last name, is seen as an example of "feminist propaganda", booga booga.

    See also, 'why people like me don't take you and your MRA's "down with feminism because it's unfair" seriously.'

    Anyways, I'll try to play "nice" since it's obvy your fragile ego can't handle it.

    Le Sigh

    ReplyDelete
  41. Good lord.

    David "Defeated and Cowering" Futrelle said:

    "(2) also, as a general note, I will say though that what is often referred to as inequality is usually the result of your own male priviledge."

    Prove this. Please for the love of fucking God, prove this now.


    David also said: " And if you don’t believe me, you’ve never been a married woman who kept her family name. I have had students hold that up as proof of my “sexism.” My own brother told me that he could never marry a woman who kept her name because “everyone would know who ruled that relationship.” Perfect equality – my husband keeps his name and I keep mine – is held as a statement of superiority on my part. "

    Notice that the actual equal situation, of each person keeping his/her last name, is seen as an example of "feminist propaganda", booga booga."

    She's not keeping her name you half wits. She's keeping her father's name. All she's done is keep one male name instead of getting another. In other words the last name given to her by her father is the one she keeps not her husband's. Jesus! There is one good thing about a women keeping her last name. That is when super girl power woman divorces the mangina she doesn't have to change her checks.

    David said: "Anyways, I'll try to play "nice" since it's obvy your fragile ego can't handle it."

    God, you post exactly like a woman. Fragile ego, christ.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  42. Uh, Random Brother, I actually didn't post any of that.

    ReplyDelete
  43. My bad. I was posting at a couple of different sites and got confused. Aplogies to you David.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sources on lesbian DV for Tec.

    "Nor is the incidence of DV among lesbian cohorts minimal. In fact, abuse among lesbians occurs with far greater frequency than among heterosexuals (given as 24% by the study above), and far more frequently than male-on-female abuse. Estimates of abuse have ranged between 47% and 73% (Coleman, 1990; Bologna, Waterman, Dawson, 1987; Lie. et al. 1991) among lesbian subjects who responded to questionnaires assessing prevalence of some form of physical, sexual, or emotional-psychological abuse in at least one relationship. Estimates of verbal abuse in lesbian relationships have been as high as 95% (Kelly & Warshafsky, 1987). About half of lesbian subjects who participated in research surveys indicated they had experienced 10 or more abusive incidents during their relationships, and about three-quarters had experienced 6 or more (Renzetti 1992). "

    http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1546465

    ReplyDelete
  45. Just to add, gay and lesbian people recently won the right to protection under VAWA, previously because vawa is scripted around patriarchal abuse theory, gay and lesbian domestic violence wasnt acknowledged by the ideological polemic.

    ReplyDelete
  46. @Eoghan, now you suddenly give a shit about queer people? Because I don't see you rushing to defend us from shit like this ""LGBTQ issues"
    These are sooooooo overrated I couldn't give any less fuck about them. The media is full of sh*t about these issues which in reality are just a storm in a bucket. " said in this very comment thread. Do us a fucking favour and don't concern troll about us when you don't give a damn about us or know shit about us. You could be looking at the strange methodolgy of counting abuse of bisexuals that skews the numbers, the problematic counting of previous heterosexual relationships, or discussion about perpetuation of heteronormitive patterns withing queer relationships, but, wait, I forgot that MRAs don't actually give a flying fuck about any of the issues they talk about except as a way to try and sling bullshit at feminism.

    "patriarchal abuse theory" You clearly have no basic understanding of this theory. Abusive relationships are controlling, the abuser sees the victim as property and as rightfully under their control. Patriarchy treats women as the property of men and states that men should control women. This makes patriarichal cultures especially abusive and drives the discrepancies in rates of violence. Theories of patriarichal abuse do not say that there would be no intimate partner violence absent the patriarchy, what they say is that the way that abuse happens within a patriarchy is distinct in form and is exhaggerated in severity because of the fact that an ideal relationship under patriarichal views is one that very closely mirrors abusive relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  47. @Tec
    "Deansdale - You still haven't given me your source for the lesbian DV."
    http://deansdale.wordpress.com/2010/10/23/the-big-debate/
    In the comments section you will find more then enough sources.

    "Women Hater's Club"
    Oh, dear God... Would you please just STFU? Your empty accusations will get you nowhere and fool noone any more. You should take David's example and forget about these foul remarks.

    "VAWA doesn't apply to me since I'm Canadian"
    LOL It's a feminist law nevertheless. I've never been to the USA but it doesn't stop me from recognizing VAWA for the menhating mess it is.

    "inequality is usually the result of your own male priviledge."
    I don't know if I should cry or laugh, or do both at the same time. Mandatory arrest of men in DV situations is quite a privilege I admit, but I won't be reluctant to hand it over to women because I'm chivalrious :P

    "Anyways, I'll try to play "nice" since it's obvy your fragile ego can't handle it."
    ROTFL
    I grew immune to shaming language a number of years ago, so don't moderate yourself, do your best :))))
    My small penis lives in my parent's basement and all that, yeah yeah, I've heard this all a gazillion times before :)

    ReplyDelete
  48. "You do also realize that homosexuality comprises like 10% of the population, so even if say 50% of lesbians were abusers, they would only constitute 5% of the abusers. Duh, that's math."
    I actually DID laugh out loud when I've read this. It's hilarious.
    Rates, Tec, rates! Do you understand the concept? A higher PERCENTAGE of lesbians are violent against their partners than any type of men. This proves that women are at least as violent as men, thus making the whole feminist excercise of demonizing men as brutal perps and painting women as innocent victims meaningless (and that was a polite way of saying it).

    I don't answer to much of your silly menhating tirade because it's just that.

    ReplyDelete
  49. "Deansdale, your comments were caught in the spam filter. They should be up now."
    Ok, no problem then. And I respect you for being more "permissive" than other feminist sites.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @cat
    "I don't see you rushing to defend us from shit like this "LGBTQ issues are sooooooo overrated""
    Do you need protection from someone stating LGBT issues are overrated? What, are you made of sugar or what? I'm not "protected" from people saying men's issues are bullshit and should be repressed but you need protection from my simple non-agressive opinion? You demonstrate the problem with "LGBT issues" perfectly. Despite your assumption that LGBT people need protection from other's opinions you yourself are higly combative and astoundingly arrogant. You don't need any protection, especially not from hetero people because you seem to be quite fond of attacking us. Please let me have the privilege of not protecting people who are attacking me from myself.

    ReplyDelete
  51. @Deansdale

    When did I say that women weren't violent? Please point me to my post that said so. I'd love to see it. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. I've never said women weren't violent because, maybe, shocker, I don't believe that.

    My point with the rates were that since homosexuality only comprises 10% of the population that they would also only be a small percentage of the abusers in general thus not in any way proving your whole crap about how men are being demonized because shelters only allow in women.

    Besides, given how you advocate violence against women, I'm not even going to bother with the whole DV argument again. You can't simultaneously advocate pro-DV when it's against women and vs. DV when it's against men. It's hypocritical and really fucked up in general. So you're entire rants are moot.

    ReplyDelete
  52. @Tec
    "When did I say that women weren't violent?"
    When did I say that you've said women weren't violent? What are you talking about? I said lesbians have the most DV ever, you asked for data and I gave it to you. What's the big idea with the strawman?

    "My point with the rates were that since homosexuality only comprises 10% of the population that they would also only be a small percentage of the abusers in general thus not in any way proving your whole crap about how men are being demonized because shelters only allow in women."
    You're mixing up a lot of things here, either because you can't think straight, or you do it intentionally because you're a dishonest person.
    Lesbian DV was never directly linked with demonising men or whatever.
    That men are being demonized is evident if you just look out the window or turn on the TV. PSAs, billboards and whatnot all tell you that men are violent perps and women are innocent victims. But all these are lies, underlined by the fact that lesbians have the highest rates of DV, thus proving that women are *not* always the innocent victims, in fact, they can be - and are - violent perps a lot of times. I don't know if you can follow these simple logical steps, if you can't, just tell me and I'll gladly break it down for you even more.

    "you advocate violence against women"
    I'm not giving you the personal insults for which you work so hard. In fact I pity you. You either believe what you're saying and that's a rather sad indicator of your intellect, or you understand completely that your words are lies in which case you're a person of no integrity whatsoever.

    ReplyDelete
  53. TEC: ... did I say that women weren't violent?

    @TEC

    The question is how to deal with violent women and this is the point where you remain silent.

    MRAs think, they should be punished exactly in the same form as men. But so far this is not the case and women are getting away with ridiculous sentences even in case of very serious wrongdoings.

    Feminists in UK are even demanding to close down ALL prisons for females, with the argument 'women are different'...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/aug/02/closedownwomensprisons

    Follow-up comments are also interesting to read, of course in your feminist mindset, it's all about MRAs, misogynists etc.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @Deansdale, I accused Eoghan of concern trolling, that is pretending to care about a group solely as a pretext to bash another group. I never accused you of being a concern troll, you are just an outright vocal bigot. Your hatred of queer people is blatantly obvious, as compared to Eoghan's simple lack of concern except as an excuse (based solely from what I have seen of Eoghan here, he loves to concern troll, but I do not recall him engaging in any direct queerphobia).


    (I debunked the absurd 'lesbians are escpecially violent' theory already in this comment thread on this blog http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2010/09/no-sperm-no-peace-crazy-mra-quote-of.html#comments with citations to sources, so anyone who wants to can go read it there, because I am not going to rehash it here)

    ReplyDelete
  55. "Your hatred of queer people is blatantly obvious"
    Because I said that LGBT issues are overrated?
    LOL! Get real.
    Or because I've said that lesbian DV is high? I have my own sources too, you know.

    Let's see about your "debunking"
    Nice start, genius:
    "same sex domestic violence happens at comparable rates as opposite sex domestic violence"
    Only if you average gay and lesbian violence, and that is because gay violence is rarer while lesbian violence is more frequent, as evidenced by tons of research, for example:
    “Preliminary studies show that 22% to 46% of all lesbians have been in a physically violent same-sex relationship. Coleman (1990) found that of the 90 lesbian couple surveyed, 46% experienced repeated acts of violence in their relationships. (…) of the 1,000 gay men surveyed, 17% reported having been in a physically violent gay relationship.” excerpted from "Violence in gay and lesbian domestic partnerships" ( http://tinyurl.com/34x7t59 )
    Now I admit that 90 couples is not a huge sample size but other studies have found similar results, such as:
    "abuse (…) in a same sex relationship (…) 40.1% of the female" in Comparing domestic abuse in same sex & heterosexual relationships ( http://www.broken-rainbow.org.uk/cohsar_report.pdf ) and
    "Female previous relationships / Hit, kicked, pushed or thrown things at you: 36.5%" in Fair’s Fair ( http://www.broken-rainbow.org.uk/research/SSDV_A4report.pdf )

    "the risk of one [lesbian] partner being battered is comparable to that of a hetero woman being battered"
    Well, no.

    "MRAs hate lesbians"
    What MRAs hate is retarded baseless accusations backed up by nothing else than feminazi bigotry, but hey.

    Also, I couldn't help noticing that the sources you cite to back you up are not independent studies but feminist ones. Sorry, but until you accept my challenge ( http://tinyurl.com/38ygcef ) and win I don't give a damn about feminist research because it is tainted by political agendas. Prove me wrong and then we'll talk.
    A lesbian feminist activist saying that lesbians have less violence than stated by independent research proves exactly nothing besides the dishonesty of said lesbian feminist.

    "there are many, many studies on queer people and domestic abuse in the US, which consistently find comparable rates of abuse, and only one from China which finds discrepant ones."
    And this is proven to be a big fat lie by the links I provided.
    Not that we honest people didn't already know that you are prepared to lie all the way because of your ideological commitment.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Deansdale, spam filter again. Unspammed.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis