Monday, January 3, 2011

Excellent rebuttal of some standard MRA arguments

ECHIDNE of the Snakes has written an excellent post titled "Eight Anti-Woman Principles of The Most Extreme Types of MRAs." 

It goes through a number of standard MRA arguments and offers pretty persuasive rebuttals of most of them. Among the topics covered: life expectancies of men and women and why this actually isn't a feminist plot; higher rate of on-the-job accidents for men and why this isn't a feminist plot; the higher rate of male death in wars and why this too is not a feminist plot; male prisoners; homelessness; and stay-at-home dads. The post also comments on child custody and domestic violence, but without providing real rebuttals on those two issues.

I'm adding this link to my "further reading" post on general critiques of the MRM.

181 comments:

  1. Hmm, I think one of my comments may have been caught by your spam filter.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Actually, the rebuttal is not very persuasive. I won't go into detail, cause frankly I don't think this is the right place for an honest debate.

    Anyway, reasonable MRAs don't blame feminism for the lower life expectancy of men and all the other points addressed (a classical straw man btw). They critique feminists, cause they pretend to care about gender equality, but only see the problems of women. As long as the prevailing gender roles negatively affect women, feminists will address the issue. If they don't affect women or even favor women feminists will stay silent. Of course there are some rare exceptions, but these people often wonder if they can still call themselves feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1. Men's health/mortality
    a. There is no commission on the status of men, but there is a commission on the status of women
    b. Women get more health-related government assistance compared to men
    c. The author did not cite any evidence at all that men's earlier mortality rates are due to biological factors, although he speculated as such
    d. The author blames masculinity, rather than the absence of it, for men engaging in riskier behaviors earlier in life. He then taunts MRAs -- not men in general, and clearly excluding himself -- by calling on them to mentor kids rather than ensuring that intact 2-parent biological families provide the biological fatherly influence for which there is zero substitute. Feminism claims that fathers are not necessary, and the resulting feminist-inspired family law policies reflect that harmful belief. Attributing violent and negative aspects to masculinity is bigoted, because masculinity is the distinctive quality of being male. To lampoon masculinity as the problem is to attack males as the problem; the feminist's solution is for men to cast of their sexual distinctiveness and become more like women (which is not a viable or male-desirable solution at all).

    ReplyDelete
  4. 2. Gender gap
    The feminist claims that men who occupy more dangerous positions don't earn more than women because of the danger, and speculatively asserts without citing evidence that if women did that same work, there would still be a pay gap:
    "If we reallocated men and women across industries so as to get a gender-neutral division in the most dangerous occupations, women would still earn roughly as much less than is the case today."

    Again, feminists try to suppress biological distinctiveness even as they claim gender distinctiveness in oppression against women; the result of this thinking is to privilege women.

    Notice also the inclination toward manipulative social engineering, which is typical of feminist policy proscriptions.

    Finally, the feminist at that link associates nurturing qualities by women with domestic violence related death, implying (again, without evidence) that women who care for their families are more likely to die by intimate partner homicide than women who aren't. But in fact, married women are less likely than single women to become victims of domestic violence.

    Again, later in his article the author states:

    "I didn't know that there are laws banning men from combining family and career or laws that state that men must work until they drop."

    It's not always about laws. Gender roles benefit and privilege women. The very fact that women are empowered by men with a choice between working a paid job vs. staying at home as a nurturer (which is paid through male-provided financial security and justified financially by the woman's privileged choice) indicates greater privilege for women than men in this area. Far fewer women than men opt to empower their spouses with such a choice; hence women are not only privileged to occupy the nurturing role (since it's a choice), but are more safe for having done so.

    "It sounds as if the MRAs don't like the traditional male gender role. Feminists tend to agree. But while feminists would like to make gender roles less rigid, many MRAs want to see women put back into an equally rigid female gender role."

    Here's where the role of the law DOES manifest itself. No feminist, nor government policy, is forcing women to be providers for men. Rather, feminists only see work in a paid job as liberating, and therefore they're making a headlong attack on the traditional family. They're removing women's privileges by making it more risky for men to provide them if the men so wished (risky because of laws like spousal and child support, loss of custody, juryless restraining orders; women file 2/3 of divorces, setting all of these male obligations into action).

    ReplyDelete
  5. 3. Male-on-male violence
    The author states that MRAs "don't address" male-on-male violence "as far as [he] can tell." But MRAs legitimize and prioritize intact nuclear families whereas feminists consider this to be merely one option among a buffet of equally valid others. However, male-on-male violence is highest in fatherless communities, and anecdotal evidence from violent males attributes their disposition specifically to fatherlessness. Single motherhood is a choice, and it is legitimized by feminist ideology -- to the detriment of male victims of male-perpetrated violence. There is a dire need for positive masculine influence in fatherless communities, and MRAs assert that such influence should come principally from the biological father, and from his father, and on up the line. Single motherhood breaks this delicate line of generational fatherly influence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4. Male war deaths
    The feminist, typical of feminists, paints female privilege as a burden. What he considers a "ban" on women entering combat roles, I call an "exemption." Women aren't exactly banging down the doors to obligate themselves to become hamburger on a battlefield, are they? But then, feminists always portray female privilege as a burden. Always.

    ReplyDelete
  7. 5. Male homelessness

    The author states:
    "The male-homelessness argument is used [my MRAs] to defend the idea that the men at the top of the society are balanced by the men at the bottom of the society, and that therefore the overall patriarchal society is a fair one."

    No evidence is cited; again it's just speculation. But show me the tribal culture that equals our rate of homelessness, if you can. Intact families -- especially intact extended families -- are patriarchal. Now I will speculate: if we had more intact families, we would probably have less homelessness than we do now.

    Furthermore, the author compares greater female "poverty" with male "homelessness." This is a terrible comparison. If I were a homeless man, I would trade places with a sheltered-but-poor woman any day. But that's me.

    ReplyDelete
  8. 6. Domestic violence

    The author links a father's loss of his parenting rights with domestic violence, presumably implying that the father who loses his child must have been an abuser. But more than 30 years of compelling, published evidence reveals that women attack their partners just as often as men do, women unilaterally attack their partners far more than men do, and only in the realm of incurring injuries are female victims primarily more vulnerable than male victims. I'll go toe-to-toe with any feminist who wants to argue the evidence on domestic violence; where are these studies that the author says that MRAs are "ignoring?" Furthermore, it is the scientific method confers legitimacy to a study, not the quantity of studies. We should evaluate studies on domestic violence based on their scientific merits, examining whether they reliably collect their data and whether they validly explain the phenomena under measurement. That said, the studies that reveal gender parity in female perpetration dwarf those that would suggest the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  9. John, it's a losing battle here. They will say that since women only slap their boyfriends/husbands around a bit it's not near the problem of the small minority of women who are hospitalized from domestic violence.

    May I direct you to this comment:
    http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-have-come-to-view-women-as-elegant.html?showComment=1294058091812#c1030217327534056216

    "The breathtaking stupidity of not seeing the difference between a woman slapping her boyfriend round the face and her boyfriend retaliating by putting her in intensive care for a month with four broken ribs and a shattered jaw."

    So they believe it's OK for women to slap men around. I guess it's OK for men to slap women around so long as they use the LOVE side of their hand?

    "The extraordinary, mind-blowing insistence that male domestic violence and female domestic violence are equally dangerous and commonplace. I feel there may be a few hundred shelters for abuse victims that would beg to differ. "

    And then have the audacity to offer up the fact that there is more funding/support for female victims (with little to no support for male victims) as proof that male on female domestic violence is worse.

    Ironically, the more support women get and the less support men get has a snowball effect as they can then be used to garner more and less support for each gender respectively.

    Homeless man eating from garbage (useless male). Welfare mom popping out babies from different dads (poor little thing!)

    ReplyDelete
  10. They will just keep dehumanizing males to make things look harder on women. Our suffering invokes not one iota of sympathy so long as there is one woman anywhere in the world with a black eye or a hang nail to compare against. You cannot even use their own approach of supporting equal rights because to them it is like comparing the suffering of a human (female) to that of a sub-human (male).

    If they can look inside themselves and say that 93% of the homeless as males is outweighed by welfare moms, then there is seriously something all fucked up about the situation.

    Feminizing poverty just means more taxes to support baby mama while baby daddy is eating out of the trash.

    ReplyDelete
  11. @witman:

    "So they [feminist ideologues] believe it's OK for women to slap men around. I guess it's OK for men to slap women around so long as they use the LOVE side of their hand?"

    Women initiate violence more often than men in mutually-violent couples. If a man's size and strength advantages are not legally considered a valid means to deter such female-initiated violence, then all he has is the justice system. Of course, he is less likely to be granted any request for a restraining order against her than she is against him -- because he's a man. Yes, that's right: because he is a man. Since restraining orders do not legally require substantiation or proof -- but only the assertion of the victim's fear -- it is implausible to many judges that a man might be afraid of a woman's existing violence, or a woman's violent potential. Not only is a male victim of female-perpetrated violence less likely than a woman to obtain a restraining order, but he is less likely to effect her arrest if he calls 911. That's because of "primary aggressor" laws. Suppose he calls the police to report that his wife has been slapping and kicking him. All she has to do is say that he too, was slapping her -- even if this is a complete lie. From the officer's perspective, this is now converted from a case of unilateral female-perpetrated violence, and has now magically become a case of mutually perpetrated violence. The only question now, in the officer's mind, is which "aggressor" is more dangerous: the male, or the female? Obviously the male can impose more damage. So the officer arrests the male "perpetrator," who in fact is a victim of female-perpetrated unilateral violence. Unilateral violence is the distinguishing characteristic of battering. Hence, the male victim is more likely to be arrested simply for reaching out for help -- and like you said, witman, the resulting arrest data will then be used as evidence of a supposedly higher rate of male perpetration!

    The issue comes down to authority, i.e. that of the State vs. that of the head of the family. It pains me that the only non-feminist people who have really explored the topic of authority are the crazy Manhood101 people. We need a serious discussion (for once) about the reason why females perpetrate partner violence. It's because there is an astonishing lack of authority that can be brought to bear against female perpetrators. They are ridiculously considered to be victims (by the feminist-inspired Duluth Model of batterer intervention programs, as well as feminist ideology itself) if their violence is challenged by their husbands, who will then be required to take such brainwashing programs as punishment for their supposed patterns of patriarchal terrorism and dominance. And as far as female perpetrators being adequately challenged by law enforcement, see the paragraph above. There is too little authority in our culture that will effectively challenge a female perpetrator.

    ReplyDelete
  12. John said:

    "and like you said, witman, the resulting arrest data will then be used as evidence of a supposedly higher rate of male perpetration!"

    This type of truth makes feminists teeth grind as it ruins their part of the demonization of men and threatens their precious victim status.

    Even if women attack in self defence by doing more damage to the man than the man did to the woman, she is likely to be cheered with the "you go girl" type of response. She is likely to get let off free or lightly by the courts. If the tables are turned, it's totally evil.

    I can remember reading an article years ago...it would have been back in the 90s. Anyway, it was about this woman who cut off her husband’s penis. Her excuse in the courts for this was because her husband raped her. (even that there was no proof).

    In this situation, this woman could have just simply left her husband. Instead, she drugged him and then cut off his penis.

    When the courts granted her no punishment for her crime, all these people cheered.

    Now let's say if the tables were turned here. If a woman raped her husband in any way including forced sodomy; then later down the track he drugged her and mutilated her vagina or breast. Would people cheer and look at it in the same way? Or would it be deemed as totally evil?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thomas Said:

    "Anyway, reasonable MRAs don't blame feminism for the lower life expectancy of men and all the other points addressed (a classical straw man btw). They critique feminists, cause they pretend to care about gender equality, but only see the problems of women. As long as the prevailing gender roles negatively affect women, feminists will address the issue. If they don't affect women or even favor women feminists will stay silent. Of course there are some rare exceptions, but these people often wonder if they can still call themselves feminists."

    I too wonder where feminists get the idea from that men are blaming feminism for such things expressed in the original post.

    What Thomas says pretty much explains it all. Feminists go in the guise of gender equality but their actions tell a different story. I am yet to find a feminist who can honestly care about male issues as much as female issues.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I've dealt with some of these topics in greater detail, linking to numerous sources, in my "further reading" posts, listed in the sidebar.

    ReplyDelete
  15. @David Futrelle:

    "I've dealt with some of these topics in greater detail..."

    Translation: Ampersand has opined upon these topics and usually you just link to his material.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Uh, he's dealt with a lot of them I haven't, so, yes, I link to him often. What on earth is wrong with linking to other people? I'm not a one-man refute-everything-every-MRA-ever-says machine.

    ReplyDelete
  17. You know? I've never met a feminist that hasn't been concerned with Men's rights as well. In fact I am a feminist and I am highly concerned with the rights of men. I have two sons..I want them to live in a world where they can be whomever they want without the man box rules. I don't think it's alright for -anyone- to slap -anyone- an d I am a feminist.

    So how do you reconcile me and the number of women like me that I know with your view of the man hating feminist?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Her argument comes down to this: If women are get the short end of the stick, it's men's fault. If men get screwed, it's their own fault. As I've written before about the situation in schools. When women were doing less well, we blamed the system and passed Title IX. When boys are doing less well, we blame them and do nothing (http://www.fauxwhore.com/2008/05/boy-crisis.html). Same shit.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @Magnolia:

    "I don't think it's alright for anyone to slap anyone and I am a feminist. So how do you reconcile me and the number of women like me that I know with your view of the man hating feminist?"

    The test is whether you support the repeal of laws that give female perpetrators a free pass.

    ReplyDelete
  20. @John Dias,

    "The test is whether you support the repeal of laws that give female perpetrators a free pass."

    Which laws, specifically, actually give female perpetrators a free pass?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "You know? I've never met a feminist that hasn't been concerned with Men's rights as well. In fact I am a feminist and I am highly concerned with the rights of men. I have two sons..I want them to live in a world where they can be whomever they want without the man box rules. I don't think it's alright for -anyone- to slap -anyone- an d I am a feminist."

    That's strange because I never see these feminists. And if some feminists do have at least some concern about some male issues, they certainly don't have EQUAL concern towards these issues as they do towards female issues.

    That's what's so laughable about feminism, feminists claim that they are all about gender equality and yet, I have never ever seen a feminist show as much passion and aggression towards male issues than they do towards female issues. That's not equality now, isn't it? In fact, a common response from feminists is the tired of sarcastic phrase, "what about teh menz"

    Feminism is really a "woman first" movement rather than a movement that's truly about equality. But they keep telling us it's about gender equality to make themselves sound valid under a false impression.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yohan, the fact that Amptoon happens to buy its web hosting services from a company that also sells web hosting services to porn sites does not in any way mean that he has sold his web site to pornographers. I have taken down your slanderous comment.

    You, for example, have a blog up on blogger, right? Well, guess what, some people put up adult content on blogger. That doesn't make you a pornographer does it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Christine WE:

    "Which laws, specifically, actually give female perpetrators a free pass?"

    1. Primary aggressor laws. These laws require or coerce police to overlook the violence of one party in an allegedly mutually violent couple, and instead arrest the most dangerous, a.k.a. the primary aggressor. The criteria set forth for police to identify the so-called "primary" aggressor includes such factors as which party has the larger physical stature, which is code for "arrest the man." Female perpetrators thus avoid arrest this way.

    2. The Duluth Model of Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs). In my state, California, BIPs are required to implement protocols that are modeled after the Duluth Model. The Duluth Model attempts to legitimize and justify female perpetration rather than holding female abusers accountable. It portrays female perpetration as a reaction to male-imposed dominance, i.e. self defense, legitimizing it. States that require BIPs to model programs after the Duluth Model reflect this bigotry against men, and they effectively perpetuate female-perpetrated partner violence. Violent women who are mandated to a BIP that imitates the Duluth Model get coddled as victims rather than perpetrators.

    ReplyDelete
  24. To make sure I understand what Witman is saying:

    A woman who slaps a man's face is exactly equivalent to a man breaking a woman's jaw?

    There is no difference whatsoever? Do I have that clear?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jeezus H. Cornflower. This thread has really attracted ALL the mansplainers and MRA apologists, and concentrated them in one place. It's a munificent collection of nutjobs, a la Alan Colmes' radio show.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @David-- I'm curious about Redtube, which actually is a pron version of YouTube... apparently it must be within the law, or it wouldn't exist. But how exactly does it stay within the law? (other than obvious stuff like, ahem, no minors and the like)

    ReplyDelete
  27. This is just as typical as the "what about teh menz" phrase. Calling people "mansplainers" simply because they disagree with the almighty feminist stance. Can the bigotry get any more extreme?

    ReplyDelete
  28. @John Dias,

    Plain and simple, police are not taught to "arrest the man" regarding primary aggressor laws. They don't make their decisions based on which person is larger. There are many things they take into consideration. Most of the people arrested for dv are not falsely accused. Sit in a dv court sometime and see what really goes on. And the Duluth model has an appropriate place in DV work as many, if not most, dv cases have the elements of control and domination in them that the Duluth model covers. It, however, should not be the only tool used as not all dv cases contain those elements, but are caused by other factors. Some women assigned to those BIP's are victims, some are not. If the instructor of the BIP can see from the woman's history or behavior or from the evidence that she is violent, I assure you, she is not coddled as a victim. The instructors are not stupid.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Mr. Dias, I am actually on the California Penal Code's website and the law does not reflect what you claim:

    Peace officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor in any incident. The dominant aggressor is the person
    determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, the threats creating fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and whether either person acted in self-defense.
    ....

    To take the apparently equivalent of a slap to a jaw being broken...in the legal scenario here, the policy is to determine the dominant aggressor not the primary.

    So the couple were fighting and she lost her temper slapping him (causing a bright red mark.) He retaliates by punching her in the face breaking her jaw. Call goes in and the officer shows up seeing this situation-why is it somehow showing favoritism to a woman to arrest the man?

    ReplyDelete
  30. One thing to add, John Dias, is that in my state and many others most judges refer to anger management rather than BIP's because it is shorter and cheaper, even when a BIP is the more appropriate remedy. Believing one is entitled to rule over their partner is not an anger issue and those who operate that way - anger management is a waste of time. So are BIP's in a lot of cases. I feel sure that most of the male supremacists in the MRM wouldn't change their supremacist views just because they had to spend a few months attending a weekly class listening to someone try to convince them that relationships should be more equitable and that it's wrong to pop your wife around to get her to submit to them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. One of the most disturbing things about the DV industry these days; a woman can claim rape or any sort of harm to justify serious injury or death against a man. Even without any evidence what so ever.

    But if a man seriously injured or killed a woman, he can try to claim what ever he wants. He can claim she drugged him and forced a cucumber up his ass. That won't likely stand for a lighter sentence of be set off free.

    Oh, I am forgetting, males a privileged

    ReplyDelete
  32. Nick, do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to back that up?

    Because most women accused of serious aggravated assault/battery and/or murder have an attorney and those attorneys will have to argue that before a jury or judge and I have yet to see some kind of systematic defense argument.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Or let's say a woman is a big woman, like a bbw who has lots of strength compared to a skinny male. If the male finds some way to win the DV dispute and does more damage, is her injuries more important than the males?

    ReplyDelete
  34. @John: which states have laws in which police are compelled to consider the size of a person when deciding whom to arrest? I know some do, but generally that is one of a number of factors to consider. And many don't include size at all.

    New York's primary aggressor laws, for example, don't mention size:

    When an officer has reasonable cause to believe that more than one family or household member has committed an act of domestic violence, the officer is not required to arrest each person. In these circumstances, the officer must try to identify and arrest the primary physical aggressor after considering: (1) the comparative extent of any injuries inflicted by and between the parties, (2) whether any person is threatening or has threatened future harm against another party or another family or household member, (3) whether any person has a prior history of domestic violence that the officer can reasonably ascertain, and (4) whether any person acted defensively to protect himself or herself from injury. The officer must evaluate each complaint separately to determine who is the primary physical aggressor.

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0460.htm

    In any case, the fact is that police DON'T "automatically" arrest the men. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of those arrested for DV are women, according to the studies I've seen.

    The most recent number from this study is 27%

    http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/proceed/papers/HOVMA376.pdf

    And I've seen higher: in this county, it's 36%

    http://www.criminallawyerwa.com/2010/09/report-of-increase-in-women-arrested-for-domestic-violence.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Christine WE:

    "They don't make their decisions based on which person is larger. There are many things they take into consideration."

    In states where primary aggressor doctrines are in effect, I know that many factors are weighed, but they do include a person's physical size. There are other factors which essentially guide officers to arrest men rather than women, even if both were mutually violent. These include advantages in size, strength, lower likelihood of being afraid, and access to or control over family resources (i.e. making more money than the other partner). Police are trained to essentially deprioritize such things as who initiated the violence, or who caused injury to whom, and instead adopt these criteria. It all amounts to code for "arrest the man."

    As far as your claim that I should spend time in a DV court in order to understand that perpetrators are not falsely accused, did you know that many people don't even make it into DV court because they plead out their bogus charges in order to get a reduced sentence? And if primary aggressor laws cause female perpetrators to avoid being arrested in the first place, then of course they never would wind up in DV court in the first place, would they?

    In terms of the culture surrounding Duluth-inspired BIPs, I had a friend who was an instructor in one such batterer intervention program in northern California. In his facility there were multiple classes in different rooms. He once told me that one day he heard some shouting coming from one of the other classrooms. He thought that it was one of the perpetrators who was shouting, but when he investigated, it turned out to be the female instructor of the class. One of the men in her all-male class of perpetrators alluded to the physical abuse that he had endured at the hands of his female partner. This instructor icily told him that this class was not to discuss one's victimization, and any such talk was off the table. But the man calmly asserted that the woman's physical abuse was part of their relationship dynamic; this only enraged the instructor, who kept repeating that he stop denying his responsibility for her abuse. Eventually the instructor stood hovering over the seated male, screaming at him and demanding that he stop blaming the victim, i.e. the female perpetrator. This is how that class was run. Are you really telling me, Christine, that you can confidently say that in every jurisdiction around the United States, that BIPs are run in a balanced way that acknowledges mutual perpetration and that both partners are held accountable for their violence -- as perpetrators rather than victims? If the cause of the problem is considered to be patriarchy, then honestly which partner -- the man or the woman -- is going to be singled out as the cause for the violence (even the other person's violence)? Men are blamed.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Elizabeth

    There is definitely evidence out there from numerous stories to point this very thing out. This will take some time to point this out. When I have more energy to google it all, I definitely will. It won't just be one or a few cases

    ReplyDelete
  37. There were a couple of comments that got caught in the spamfilter; I've unblocked them. If you're following the discussion you should scroll up to see if you've missed something.

    ReplyDelete
  38. It better not just be stories-like "wow, there is this one article in a newspaper and that means 987,972,387,429,387,412,987,423 women use that defense."

    Hard stats both percentage and actual numbers please.

    ReplyDelete
  39. @David Futrelle:

    In my state, as of 2004, twenty percent of arrestees for domestic violence are women. In 1980 it was around 1 percent.

    http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/arrestpolicy/ca/California DV Arrest Data.xls

    http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/arrestpolicy/ca/California DV Arrest Data Report.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  40. So Mr. Dias-it appears that the complaints that you have are being addressed so why are you complaining still?

    ReplyDelete
  41. @Elizabeth:

    "it appears that the complaints that you have are being addressed so why are you complaining still?"

    Can you be more specific?

    ReplyDelete
  42. You were complaining that women are rarely, if ever, arrested or held accountable for their violence but by your own stats-the number is rising.

    In fact, these stats do not reflect the cite and release numbers-which means that women who are not actually arrested but are cited are not being counted in the DV stats. Just because someone is not arrested does not mean that they are not being held accountable for their actions.

    ReplyDelete
  43. As I have to study that you want adressed which will be time consuming.

    What's your answer to this

    "Peace officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor in any incident. The dominant aggressor is the person
    determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, the threats creating fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and whether either person acted in self-defense."

    Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to back that up?

    ReplyDelete
  44. Elizabeth, the reason why the stats changed was due to warrantless arrest in 1986 and then mandatory arrest in the mid-nineties, which removed a lot of discretion from police to decide on who to arrest. In my state, California, feminists objected to the mandatory arrest provisions that were then in place because this resulted in a higher proportion of women being arrested, and the feminists thought of them as victims (despite the presence of mutual violence). Then in 1997 the state amended its laws to be "pro" arrest rather than "must" arrest, and also implemented criteria to govern the "pro" part. This was the primary aggressor law. Since that time the rate of male arrestees has hovered in the high teens to low twenties. Nothing has been changing. In mutual abuse cases, women more often attack men first, and women attack men more often than men attack women. In unilateral abuse cases (i.e. battering), women attack men 70% of the time compared to 30% of unilateral attacks coming from men. Even so, in my state 80 percent of arrestees are still males despite the higher rates of female perpetration.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @nick -- She's quoting from the California Penal Code. That IS the evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  46. FYI, here's the source for my above claims that:

    [1] In mutual abuse cases, women attack men more often than men attack women
    [2] In unilateral abuse cases, women attack men 70% of the time

    http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/Reciprocal violence AJPH.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  47. "In unilateral abuse cases (i.e. battering), women attack men 70% of the time compared to 30% of unilateral attacks coming from men."

    Battering generally refers to severe, continued abuse. The studies I've seen that find that women abuse equally or more than men invariably include less severe forms of violence in their surveys, as well as single incidents of violence; to call that "battering" simply because it it unilateral is very misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Um Mr. Dias-the law itself says "dominate" not primary. I went and looked up the law as Mr. Futrelle pointed out.

    Also, again, the statistics do not indicate the number of citations the officers are handing out. A man who gets slapped and then punches the woman in retaliation may go to jail that night but the officer writes them both citations. The woman is held accountable by the officer for slapping the guy but since the guy did more damage, he is taken into custody. She winds up paying a fine and he gets CFTS.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ... and your source, John, shows how misleading it is to suggests that women are doing the majority of "battering." From the results:

    Regarding
    injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3;
    95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated with
    greater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of the
    gender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).

    ReplyDelete
  50. @David Futrelle:

    It's not just my opinion that unilateral violence is a distinguishing aspect of battering. Dr. Donald Dutton, a noted researcher on domestic violence, made that argument in the January 2010 issue of the academic journal Partner Abuse.

    ReplyDelete
  51. If I see one more "Uh" or "Um" before someone's snarky remark, I'm going to check out of this thread. It's that irritating (not to mention juvenile).

    ReplyDelete
  52. Battery itself is just when someone is actually hit. Assault can be as well but usually means that someone is about to be hit or thinks they are.

    Which makes for some interesting trials.

    ReplyDelete
  53. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  54. @David Futrelle:

    If women are inflicting violence at gender parity but are not getting sufficiently challenged by law enforcement (since 80% of arrestees are men), then how can this be ANYTHING BUT an injustice where female perpetrators have effective license to use any level of violence up to (and possibly including) causing injury?

    ReplyDelete
  55. Mr. Dias-it was not a snarky comment. That is in fact what the law states and not what you assume it states.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Also, AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME, a woman who is NOT arrested is not being let off the hook if she receives a citation for assault or battery but NONE of your stats show the level of actual citations.

    ReplyDelete
  57. John, obviously unilateral violence is a distinguishing aspect of battering. But so is severe, repeated abuse and controlling behavior. Unilateral doesn't = battering. The study you cited did not find that women were more likely to be batterers, as the term in generally defined. If unilateral violence was all it took to define a batterer then a woman who slapped her partner once would be a batterer, and that's ridiculous.

    Also, the "uh" thing. I responded with an "uh" earlier because I thought your comment was petty and dismissive and sort of juvenile. Interesting that this bothers you so much but you don't say anything when witman calls someone "princess."

    ReplyDelete
  58. Elizabeth:

    You produce the citations. How about that? Prove me wrong. It should be easy for you. I've made the claim. Now you simply disprove it by gathering all the stats that you expect me to have. Disproving a positive claim is much easier than proving one, so have at it. The scholarship should do you some good. Show me documented proof that women are cited at parity with men who are cited. I'm waiting.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Witman didn't call me anything, and so I didn't take offense. And enough with your passive-aggressive way of calling something "interesting." Just say what you think.

    "Uh" and "Um" are in my view completely idiotic statements that are best left to high schoolers. I want to have an intelligent conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  60. John: If someone (male or female) is slapped by a partner and there are no visible injuries and no witnesses, there is no evidence that this slap ever occurred, and the police have no justification for arresting anyone. If someone causes visible injuries (that aren't the sort of injuries caused by people defending themselves) then there is evidence to arrest that person.

    If men are injuring women in much higher numbers than women are injuring men in DV, and numerous studies suggest that this is the case, it makes sense to me that they are being arrested in much higher numbers.

    There is "gender parity" in DV only if you conflate minor slaps with severe, injury-causing violence.

    ReplyDelete
  61. David,

    If minor violence was challenged from its inception, don't you think that people would have much more healthy relationships (including a far lower likelihood of incurring or inflicting injury)?

    ReplyDelete
  62. I usually expect someone making a claim to have the evidence to back the claim up not be ordered to go look up the evidence for the claimant.

    So how about you go find the evidence that women are rarely cited for assault and/or battery since you claim they are.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Elizabeth:

    I claim what the evidence shows, nothing less. Arrest data is the data that I have.

    ReplyDelete
  64. David

    @nick -- She's quoting from the California Penal Code. That IS the evidence.

    You are missing the whole point here. In ALL these cases from the California Penal Code, please point out the evidence of both sides?

    If I am expected to do home work, so does the feminist side, right?

    This is the core of my debate, what substantial evidence comes in the female side in the system?

    ReplyDelete
  65. John, it depends what you mean by "challenged." Yes, it should be made clear it is unacceptable. But responding to violence with violence -- as Paul Elam, for example, suggests -- tends to escalate the situation and make things worse. Indeed, the study you cited found that violence in relationships where violence is reciprocal caused more injuries than violence in unilateral relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  66. A woman can claim just about anything and be justified with violence against men. But a man is likely to have a harder time justifying his violence against a woman.

    Around of applause for female privilege

    ReplyDelete
  67. nick -- what are you talking about? What on earth do you mean by the "female side in the system?" What system? What evidence do you want?

    ReplyDelete
  68. Yes, David, and that's my point! You associate battering with severe injuries, but also point out that it is sustained over time. Imagine what a man must feel like if his physically little wife slaps him around with impunity. He feels defeated, ashamed, completely debased. Why is this less serious in your mind than a physical injury? Emotional victimization hurts more than physical victimization, and the damage is usually more long-lasting compared to injurious physical abuse. If you're a man, you simply won't be injured as often as a woman will. But you can be injured inside -- both by a series of kicks and slaps as well as an ongoing campaign of emotional abusiveness. If a husband is stripped legally of his authority as head of his household, but held to a standard of nominal authority by an abusive wife whose mission is to point out how (due to her abuse) he doesn't measure up, what kind of state does this leave him in? And who can he turn to for help?

    ReplyDelete
  69. David, as I said before...not sure why you can't comprehend this... the California Penal Code, where are the details to each case? Where is the evidence to each case to this statistic?

    It's he said, she said. But guessing in each case, “she said” comes first with little or no evidence. That's the problem I have. If a male tries to justify violence against a woman with little to no evidence, I know what will happen in most cases. So now here is the feminist homework as I have to do mine. Point a handful of cases where a male gets away with violence with no evidence to his excuse?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Nick -- what "statistic?" She was quoting a law.

    John -- Emotional abuse is hard to measure. Why do you assume women are doing most of it?

    Also, physical abuse has emotional consequences, and more severe abuse has more severe emotional consequences. I don't think either partner should be slapping the other one, and I would suggest anyone in a relationship where they are the victim of abuse (even if it doesn't cause serious injuries) should get out of it, but if the abusive partner is smaller and her or his abuse causes minimal physical damage, the victim is far less likely to be afraid of the abuser than someone who. say, has had his or her arm broken by an abuser. If one partner is doing severe physical damage to the other on a regular basis, the victim is going to live in a constant state of terror.

    Also, why should a husband have authority in a marriage?

    ReplyDelete
  71. Nick, what exactly do you think the California Penal Code is?

    ReplyDelete
  72. I can't believe I just had to ask that.

    ReplyDelete
  73. @David Futrelle:

    The study that I quoted showed that 70% of non-reciprocal violence was suffered by male victims from female perpetrators. The men weren't fighting back, and the female perpetration was unilateral. This was measured by the survey results. By your own statement, sustained unilateral violence can have a devastating emotional impact. That's what battering is. Battering doesn't depend on several severe injuries. It merely depends on sustained abuse in order to ultimately break the spirit of the victim. And yes, men do get injured too -- approximately 1/3 of all DV-related injuries are incurred by them.

    Why should a husband have authority in a marriage? Because his wife is comparatively physically incapable of being his protector. The one whose life is on the line is the one who should have the authority. But all of this is moot to you anyway, isn't it, since in America male authority has been systematically derided by feminists as unnecessary at best and dangerous at worst.

    But imagine being the male protector, and at the same time being slapped around by a mere woman -- who points this fact out to you -- and you know you could floor her at any time but you restrain yourself. Can any woman know the hell of that experience? To be expected to be the protector, but to be prohibited from protecting even yourself?

    ReplyDelete
  74. I'm for reducing violence between partners of all genders and don't need regressive ideas about one person's superiority over another to advocate that. The kinds of relationships you idealize sound like hell for *both* parties, Mr. Dias.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Sorry for my ignorance David. I don't have a clue what the California Penal Code is as I live in Australia. You just simply mentioned it and told me it was evidence. I have no idea how on earth a law can be stated as evidence. That’s why I automatically assumed it was some statistic. It's like murder is against the law, but some people still get away with it around the court systems.

    Anyway, the way you expressed it, it definitely seemed like that you were saying it was some sort of statistic as it was some type of proof.

    My whole point is, in what ever statistic or cases you have in mind about violence against women, can you provide the actual details of the cases?

    ReplyDelete
  76. The words "penal code" probably should have tipped you off to the fact that people were talking about and quoting law, genius.

    ReplyDelete
  77. @M:

    "I'm for reducing violence between partners of all genders and don't need regressive ideas about one person's superiority over another to advocate that. The kinds of relationships you idealize sound like hell for *both* parties, Mr. Dias."

    Superiority, eh? So men should be cannon fodder on the battlefield, or stand in the way of danger to protect their families from violent threats, and the greater danger that they face in doing this is somehow in your view... inconsequential? Nothing?

    Walk a mile in a protector's shoes, M; are you equally obligated to protect a man as he is to protect you?

    ReplyDelete
  78. And you think I'm in favor of male-only selective service or male-only combat...why? Feminists have argued for the abolition of these things for a long time. Also, I have a happy and equal partnership that is not premised on notions like yours, and yes, I have an equal responsibility to protect him as he does me.

    You are welcome to live according to very conservative ideas if you choose, but it is a *choice*. I have chosen a different philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  80. M

    "The words "penal code" probably should have tipped you off to the fact that people were talking about and quoting law, genius."

    Not at all. It’s a law. What evidence is that? This is laughable. That’s why I thought such people like David could have done better than this but I was wrong.

    It's like saying music piracy is against the law, but people still find loop holes around it. Such as DV, women have loop holes that don't work for men. That’s my whole point in my last 5 or so post in this thread.

    ReplyDelete
  81. @M:

    You aren't suitable for combat roles compared to a man, and your legal exemption from that responsibility makes your being "in favor of" completely irrelevant because it's not going to change the law, and more importantly, your combat role involvement will not make men any safer.

    You also probably aren't as capable of fending off violent threats against your male partner as he is of protecting you from those same threats. The issue is your competence, and you are less physically competent than he is in being a protector. This is because you are a woman, and that's the way your body is made. It's nothing to be ashamed of; women can have extremely precious qualities that are worthy of protecting and are unique to women. You should be proud to be a woman, but don't presume to be the physical equal of men especially in the protective role. Your intentions are admirable, though.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Okay Nick, so words like "penal code" or "criminal code" don't tip you off to the fact that the subject in question is a law? May I suggest that the reason you feel so terribly, terribly oppressed in this world is that you are perhaps not too bright? Meritocracy in all its forms will not smile on you, buddy.

    That entire discussion was about what is actually in the law, and Elizabeth even prefaced it with this helpful guide to understanding what was being discussed:

    "Mr. Dias, I am actually on the California Penal Code's website and the law does not reflect what you claim"

    I have been reading this site for a short time and have already seen you misunderstand the subject at hand a good dozen times. It's pretty perplexing. People were discussing the *contents of the law*, therefore the *contents of the law* are pretty relevant.

    John, considering that feminist organizations have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court supporting the abolition of the male-only draft, their and my being "in favor of" that abolition means more than just posturing. Major feminist organizations actually have sought to *change the law*, and the Supreme Court is a good place to do that.

    As far as the rest of that, what that has to do with it being necessary to have patriarchal family structures in the West in 2011, or to consider one's wife a "mere woman", well, you are welcome to your beliefs but they are simply your opinion of how a family should be structured. You are welcome to continue this conversation by explaining all the ways that, in your opinion, such a structure is necessary, but they will remain opinions--as my opinions are simply opinions--so it probably isn't worth either of our time.

    ReplyDelete
  83. John, earlier you were complaining that it was an injustice that police would take into account the larger size of men (on average) when deciding whom to arrest in DV cases. Now you're saying that the larger size of men (on average) means that men should have authority in marriage.

    ReplyDelete
  84. That is a n excellent point, David.

    ReplyDelete
  85. @M:

    Competence is the issue, and a woman's competence in protecting men pales in comparison to a man's competence in protecting men and woman. You can see this illustrated in data on domestic violence victims; women are twice as likely as men to be injured. That's because they're more delicate, not because the injury-causing attack was any more forceful than it would have been by a male perpetrator on a male victim. Authority is justified by competence, your Supreme Court amicus briefs notwithstanding.

    Suffice it to say, I'll agree to disagree with you on this since as you say it's just a difference in personal values.

    ReplyDelete
  86. @David Futrelle:

    "John, earlier you were complaining that it was an injustice that police would take into account the larger size of men (on average) when deciding whom to arrest in DV cases. Now you're saying that the larger size of men (on average) means that men should have authority in marriage."

    Before I expound on this, can you tell me what your point is? Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?

    ReplyDelete
  87. "You can see this illustrated in data on domestic violence victims; women are twice as likely as men to be injured. That's because they're more delicate, not because the injury-causing attack was any more forceful than it would have been by a male perpetrator on a male victim."

    Is this delicacy argument borne out by studies of partner violence among male homosexual couples? I would think the more obvious reason for the injury is not delicacy but the difference in body mass and upper body strength.

    ReplyDelete
  88. "Before I expound on this, can you tell me what your point is? Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?"

    How is it not obvious from context what he is saying? There's a reason people keep responding to you guys with "Um."

    ReplyDelete
  89. @M:

    Someone with the aggressive and abusive disposition that you have would certainly not be my ideal choice for a mate. I feel for your male partner. As far as "Um," consider yourself ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  90. M

    I am not a mind reader, it seems that you are just taking a cheap shot to intimidate my intelligence while you know my true stance.

    I still haven’t got an answer as what David said really wasn't clear.

    I am aware what Penal means. However, I thought people like David were better than just saying some random law is supposed to be some proof. That's how I jumped to the conclusion that I thought this so called Penal code was some sort of statistic and not just some law indicating it's proof.

    So talk about not being bright, I think to indicate a law as proof is exactly not being bright. As it is to say that it's against the law to pay women less in doing the same jobs as men but feminists still think it magically happens

    ReplyDelete
  91. Hahaha John I knew I was going to get that hackneyed line from one of you guys eventually. Considering that it never crossed my mind to wonder whether I could ever be your "mate," I would suggest it's actually not helpful and is, wait, what were you saying about "um"--juvenile?--to resort to such truly devastating cliche.

    Nick: Intimidate your intelligence, eh? That's quite a nonsense construction.

    Look, you don't have to be a mindreader to understand a discussion you are participating in, and to understand its context. No one is saying a random law is proof of anything save *what is in the law*, which is why someone posted it. You are just making yourself look less and less bright with these arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  92. The bottom line is that males get seriously hurt too in DV. But to justify equal treatment for male victims who get fucked up, feminists seem to disagree as such shelters owned by VAWA that are ran by feminists don't want anything to do with male victims. Even that the feminist movement claims to be about gender equality.

    ReplyDelete
  93. "No one is saying a random law is proof of anything save *what is in the law*, which is why someone posted it. You are just making yourself look less and less bright with these arguments."

    Haha, I am sure that's the case as you can't come up with a clear explanation on how bringing up the Penal Code defeats my earlier stance.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Shelters are owned by federal laws now?

    Seriously for the good of your *own* movement you should step out of it.

    And I will repeat once again: it does you no favors to declare repeatedly what feminists want and what they believe and don't believe when you have no demonstrable knowledge of feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  95. "Haha, I am sure that's the case as you can't come up with a clear explanation on how bringing up the Penal Code defeats my earlier stance."

    WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH

    ReplyDelete
  96. nick -- We were discussing what the DV laws were in various states. Elisabeth went and looked up the relevant part of the penal code of California. Since we were talking about the content of the laws, this was evidence. You quoted the law she quoted, and asked for evidence. Huh? I have no idea what you think we're talking about.

    john: "Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?"

    No, of course not, but I suspect you know that. I was asking why relative male-female size should matter in one case and not matter in the other, in your view.

    Also: if a woman is bigger than her husband, by your logic, shouldn't she be the "protector," the one with authority in the family, etc?

    I think that refusing to discuss something with someone because they use "um" is a bit childish. Especially if you've just called them "abusive" for being mildly sarcastic.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Shelters are owned by federal laws now?

    Not saying you are wrong, but can you provide the facts?

    Secondly why doesn't VAWA support male DV victims? Why even call them selves VAWA when such a feminist organisation which is simply feminist should be about gender equality?

    "WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH"

    Wow that's a good argument

    ReplyDelete
  98. Nick, I am not making any arguments, good or bad, because I do not argue about American laws with people who think a piece of legislation is an organization. It is patently clear that you have just swallowed a bunch of dogma and have not interrogated any of these issues or you would know the difference between legislation and people.

    Why do you feel so justified in denouncing all the things that feminism represents when you clearly know so little about it or even about your own cause? I do not debate with people who don't know anything about the subject. That means you actually learn what feminism fights for and not what others *say* it is (because feminism actually concerns men's rights and gender roles too); it also means you understand what your own damn movement means when it talks about VAWA.

    ReplyDelete
  99. "Since we were talking about the content of the laws, this was evidence."

    How is it evidence? It's against the law to pirate music. It’s a law right? But there is still loop holes.

    ReplyDelete
  100. My god, how are you not getting this? Seriously, how?

    a. The discussion was about the content of the law
    b. Someone posted the content of the law as evidence of what the law contained.

    ReplyDelete
  101. M

    I am not a MRA, I am simply anti feminist. I know very well that feminism puts men in second place in the guise of gender equality. I am not going to be a broken record to explain my reasons. Even just what I have said in the last 24 hours would give you an idea why.

    ReplyDelete
  102. You don't actually know what feminism is if you think it puts men in second place, and this comments section has clearly shown that you don't seem to understand much at all about *anything*. It's really quite frustrating.

    ReplyDelete
  103. M

    It's against the law to discriminate women in the work force. Yet feminists still claim it happens.

    Not that I am using "law" as my stance in that matter. But why is the above statement I made an invalid argument to say that women are not discriminated against in that matter but it's valid to say that just because "law" says this or that for DV, it's valid to say that men are not discriminated against in DV?

    ReplyDelete
  104. I am invariably amused by this MRA argument that men should be entitled to do whatever they want to their wives and daughters because they "protect them". That's what "authority in marriage" really means, isn't it? The right of a male to have "his" females at his mercy, and the females having no legal recourse and no right to leave -- correct? Okay.

    Two things. First of all, inasmuch as MRA's claim that men's violence is a myth, and that men are all benevolent protectors of females -- what exactly are men protecting women from? It can't be other men, because we've postulated that men, being benevolent protectors of women, aren't a threat, or at least not a significant threat to women's safety. What then? Wild bears? Natural disasters?

    Okay, assuming that men deserve to have the power of life and death over their wives because they protect them from rabid yaks and tzunamis, do patriarchal men do that while they are out in the city, slaying dragons in the office, or during their "male bonding" nights out, or during their "mistress bonding" evenings? Or do they do the protecting on those three to four nights a week when they deign to come home to have a meal and change their clothes? From what I've seen of patriarchal marriages, the wife is almost always alone with the kids and expected -- nay, admonished -- to take care of things herself, because her husband is stressed enough as it is having, you know, a "real" job at an office. Almost always in a patriarchal marriage, the "patriarch" isn't around to protect any members of his family, and if anyone's protecting them, it's certainly not him; most of the time, they protect themselves as best they can.

    Or are we to subscribe to the fiction that anyone with male genitalia should have the power of life and death over his wives, daughters and mothers because he "protects" them from warfare? There hasn't been a full-scale invasion of the United States since 1812, and the overwhelming majority of men do not serve in the armed forces, aren't qualified, and never will. I don't see how the extremely remote possibility that a given man will physically protect his wife in a defensive war (as opposed to a war of nation-building, undertaken to promote the geopolitical and economic interests of other men) furnishes any basis for depriving women of civil rights and agency, and reducing them to the status of chattel.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Or are we to subscribe to the fiction that anyone who has the male genitalia should have the power of life and death over his wives, daughters and mothers because he "protects" them from warfare? There hasn't been a full-scale invasion of the United States since 1812, and the overwhelming majority of men do not serve in the armed forces, aren't qualified, and never will. I don't see how the extremely remote possibility that a given man will physically protect his wife in a defensive war (as opposed to a war of nation-building, undertaken to promote the geopolitical and economic interests of other men) furnishes any basis for depriving women of civil rights and agency, and reducing them to the status of chattel.

    ReplyDelete
  106. "Not that I am using "law" as my stance in that matter. But why is the above statement I made an invalid argument to say that women are not discriminated against in that matter but it's valid to say that just because "law" says this or that for DV, it's valid to say that men are not discriminated against in DV?"

    Arguing with a feminist is like playing chess with an 8 year old boy who changes the rules when he sees that he's loosing.

    "-men are all benevolent protectors of females-"

    Me? Protect females? lol


    "I don't see how the extremely remote possibility that a given man will physically protect his wife in a defensive war (as opposed to a war of nation-building, undertaken to promote the geopolitical and economic interests of other men) furnishes any basis for depriving women of civil rights and agency, and reducing them to the status of chattel."

    I agree. I can think of much better reasons for doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  107. @John Dias,

    "If a husband is stripped legally of his authority as head of his household, but held to a standard of nominal authority by an abusive wife whose mission is to point out how (due to her abuse) he doesn't measure up, what kind of state does this leave him in? And who can he turn to for help?"

    "Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?"

    It is a fact that those of us who work in the field of domestic violence constantly see male supremacists, such as yourself, claiming to be the victims when what is really going on is that they have been bullying their partners into submitting to them for a length of time, sometimes years, and the woman has reached her breaking point. In these kinds of cases, you do sometimes see women slapping or hitting a man who has been going at her in that way or even violent towards her numerous times in the past, and of course, that supremacist will give it to her worse than he got or he will often begin screaming abuse. No matter what the evidence of a supremacist's long term violence towards a partner, whether his partner has hit him or not, he calls himself a victim because his sense of what he is entitled to from that person is so high that he feels wronged that he is not getting what he considers his due - dominance, authority, submission, whatever you want to call it. Most of these MRA's on the MRM sites who are sitting around whining that the women who were in their lives didn't submit to their "authority" and at some point had them arrested for nothing are not really victims. Men who murder their girlfriends or wives generally see themselves as the victims. Many of those who sit around in BIP's whining that they are victims have lots of evidence against them that shows they are not. Instructors expect even persons with the most violent histories to claim they are victims - because that is exactly what they do. The violent usually feel profoundly justified in their actions and claim to have been victimized in some way by their victims. The supremacists in the MRM sit around and whine "I am a victim, she is abusive, I am mistreated, disrespected, women are worthless, there are no good wives anymore". Patriarchal values very often lead to violence in relationships.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Christine WE said...
    @John Dias,

    Which laws, specifically, actually give female perpetrators a free pass?


    In Europe (I do not know about US, California, related to the comments of John Dias) there are guideline for judges to do this or that, and NOT laws.

    It's about law execution, not about laws themselves.

    Laws are gender-neutral, but law execution due to guidelines for judges is often very biased.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.html

    Judges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I don't think it can be stressed enough how wrong those DV studies are that these misogynists rely on to further abuse women under the guise that they are victims. If there is no conflict index, the study is toilet paper. Example, a woman throws a tissue box across the room at a man who controls all the finances, is on drugs, has just been gone for two days and has just called her names. That is counted as one act of violence. Man goes over to her and punches her in the fucking face. also counted as one act of violence. Those stats are bullshit. Yes, there are violent and abusive women, but those stats MRAs tout to make things look "equal" are completely false. I'm sure even police laugh at them, and I'm no fan of the cops when it comes to DV. I haven't seen them to be anything but mostly hostile to domestic calls in a general sense. I'm no fan of dysfunctional women, because so many times there is a kid that shouldn't be anywhere near these men. But personal weaknesses and financial circumstances, having nowhere to go and the huge crime of hoping in the "l" word blindsides these people.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Amused: men are all benevolent protectors of females -- what exactly are men protecting women from? It can't be other men, because we've postulated that men, being benevolent protectors of women, aren't a significant threat to women's safety. What then? Wild bears? Natural disasters?

    A man is protecting his modern strong independent wife or ex-wife against financial problems.

    His obligation to do so is often over decades after divorce, even when the woman was cheating on him.

    If he gives her not enough alimony, she has the right to cry raped. -

    - Financially raped. -

    ReplyDelete
  111. correction, that's the "L" word. And another thing, we focus on how much women should scramble and react perfectly to protect kids without realizing we're having an "oh of course the man is a bastard" attitude. Why is that an "of course" that the rest of us need to scramble around? Why can't these men take responsibility for the hell they subject everyone to in their personal lives? These truths are what provoke tissue box tantrums and screaming matches, broken dishes and self defense classes.

    And not only are the injuries more severe, but these MRAs know good and well the legal system is responding to the many DEATHS of women in these cases. They can barely be assed to care even in the face of all these dead bodies, so what are these MRAs talking about? Do you know how hard it is to get funding for those battered women's shelters? If men need shelters they can acquire theirs just like women had to.

    And here's another thing to debunk. Yes, there is violence against men, which I have NO problems admitting to it's just used inappropriately in arguments by these "nice guy" scoundrels. And I have no problem suggesting that violence toward males will be under reported for a number of reasons, including overwhelming cultural pressures of what it means to be "manly", which feminists have always been against... coupled with the belief that pain hurts them less. But here's the thing with DV people, and it's a no-brainer, so it pisses me off...

    The reason this issue was uncovered at all is not because of women calling police and reporting things, no WAY, it was because of dead bodies and hospital visits and professionals knowing good and well what was going on. Society finally moved toward solutions, NOT based on REPORTS, based on EVIDENCE. Women show up to work with bruises, why? Women were hurt so badly that reported OR NOT it seeped over into society unquestionably.

    Bottom line is the "secret" abuse of males that is not being reported only goes so far when severe abuse is going to be noticeable and documented either by hospital visits, time lost at work, or dead bodies. Men have a long way to go and a lot more to prove if they want to achieve that status of vicitm-hood that women have honestly achieved in this dynamic. Oh yeah, and fuck you.

    ReplyDelete
  112. @booboonation,

    You are right about those studies. Further, male supremacists, such as John Dias, who believe that "authority" is their natural right, are often bullies in their relationships, many using threats and violence to gain that "authority" they feel they are entitled to, yet they are the absolute first to claim they are victims when they are not. Many are so entitled that they feel "wronged" and "abused" when their dinner is not ready on time or a woman is not bowing to them on everything.

    ReplyDelete
  113. John,

    I told you they'd do that. Men just have to stop injuring women. According to the posters here, slapping is fine. Throwing things at them is fine. Just remember to use the LOVE side of your hand.

    ReplyDelete
  114. New Brunswick resident Crystal Dawn Mckenzie walked free on Monday after her acquittal for the knife-killing of her common law husband, whose name doesn't matter, because he's male, and dead.

    McKenzie's Lawyer, David Kelly pointed out that “Of course she had other options,” but that she was drunk at the time, and also female, so a violent history between the acquitted killer and her murdered husband was used to excuse making a choice to stab the man to death.

    http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html

    ReplyDelete
  115. Secret abuse (secret?) is an issue, but outright slapping about the face woman -> man is no issue at all. They will always have a double standard John.

    ReplyDelete
  116. @Nick

    It's against the law to discriminate women in the work force. Yet feminists still claim it happens.

    It keeps happening because the perpetrators of discrimination have become savvy enough to wrap themselves in the cloak of plausible deniability whenever possible. If you can convincingly frame your discriminatory decision as a matter of better qualifications, or (as job seekers so often hear today) as a matter of "better fit", then voilà, legality achieved. Also, unprovability achieved: the burden of proof of discrimination is still on the discriminat-ee.

    In fact, I think it's fair to say that more often than not, those engaging in discrimination don't even realize they're doing it. Because discriminatory decision making-- hell, decision making in general-- has been proven to be a lot more subconscious and less rational than we thought before.

    If your leader is a wealthy, Christian white male, guess what kind of person he's going to feel most comfortable with? Guess what kind of person he can best relate to-- and who he feels is, in turn, most skilled at relating to others? Who is he likely to over-estimate the qualifications of? Who is he likely to simply like and trust more? Yep-- the one who most reminds him of himself.

    And that is why we need regulation and laws: because sometimes we literally do not know we're discriminating. As far as our emotional selves are concerned, we're only making the decision that makes us happiest and most comfortable.

    We need regulation and laws-- and smart enforcement of them-- to ensure that "likeable", "trustworthy" and "most qualified" do NOT become or remain the same as "reminds me of me".

    ReplyDelete
  117. Secret abuse ... Until your brother shows up at your door with a big old black eye needing a place to stay. He never laid a hand on her in retaliation.

    Isn't Booboonation a charming person?

    ReplyDelete
  118. And Booboonation,

    Why is the best Feminism has to offer is the same as the worse the Patriarchy offered. No middle ground?

    I like how you just take the stance that none of us have taken in your PROVE IT statement. Let's just sweep female violence under the rung until it spills into mainstream society and you can't hide it anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  119. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  120. @David Futrelle:

    [Quoting me]: "Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?"

    [David's reply]: "No, of course not, but I suspect you know that. I was asking why relative male-female size should matter in one case and not matter in the other, in your view."

    Having the capacity to protect someone because of your size and strength, and then actually protecting them, is what justifies your authority. If, however, someone claims the mantle of authority without taking the attendant obligations, that is where injustice occurs. Authority without responsibility leads to injustice. There are conditions that govern authority figures; this should go without saying.

    As far as why someone should actually get arrested merely for being male -- which is essentially what primary aggressor laws do in cases where mutual violence has been alleged -- that is an injustice. The evidence should define probable cause to make an arrest, and ideally a warrant should be issued only on just cause. But instead, we not only have warrantless arrest but also in primary aggressor laws we make maleness itself a form of evidence to justify arresting the male.

    [David]: "Also: if a woman is bigger than her husband, by your logic, shouldn't she be the 'protector,' the one with authority in the family, etc?"

    People can embrace whatever authority arrangements that they like within a relationship. It's none of anyone else's business in my view. But understand that in patriarchal belief systems, oftentimes the authority of God is what defines the obligations and responsibilities of the husband and wife, and it is the embrace of this faith that brings patriarchal authority into a relationship. If the man is commanded by God, according to his faith, to be the authority figure, then it is his obligation and role to occupy that position as the husband, out of obedience to God. You can question the validity or justification of his faith all you like, but so long as he's not physically abusing anyone, it's really none of your business in my view.

    "I think that refusing to discuss something with someone because they use 'um' is a bit childish. Especially if you've just called them 'abusive' for being mildly sarcastic."

    I called someone abusive for actually being abusive -- not just to me but to another commenter -- and I walked away accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I pointed out the difference overall between male and female violence. All you peeps can say is "let's sweep it under the rug", no, quote me where I even come close to saying that. Stop imagining things when you read, you can analyze information better than that. The point I made was, let's not LIE about the difference between male and female domestic violence. I've buried you with solid arguments and have exposed your lies, and you're scrambling around, calling me "charming". You're not charming with your domestic violence lies. And then one dude here asks what feminism offers, like it's a hotel/maid service.

    What does it "offer"? What does it teach me? It has taught me to notice the cultural system that I live in, that strict gender expectations hurt both men and women and it's taught me that there are some twisted losers out there that will do anything to blame women for everything and disguise this as critique of feminism, while they clearly have no grip on what feminism is. Disguised like an elephant behind a twig. I noticed not one of you toiling and spinning here could take one point I made to task.

    God, I love this manboobz blog, catharsis...and
    ... Theresa out...

    ReplyDelete
  122. @Booboonation:

    First you end your post with an F-U insult, and then you attempt to shame people as somehow inadequate for not acknowledging your "arguments." Rather than winning an argument, you're actually just being ignored.

    ReplyDelete
  123. "Secret abuse (secret?) is an issue, but outright slapping about the face woman -> man is no issue at all. They will always have a double standard John."

    Where I live, and I know quite a lot about the police and courts, this sort of infraction receives a warning or a citation both in domestic and non-domestic incidents. It has nothing to do with the gender of the perpetrator or the context of the assault or battery; it has to do with the severity of the attack. A slap, a slight shove, a grabbed arm, are all seen as relatively minor whether a man or a woman does it because of the harm it causes compared to a punch, a kick, etc.

    People are cited and not arrested for DV incidents all the time, same as they are cited but not arrested for non-partner incidents of the same type. They are crimes in both contexts. They are just relatively low on the misdemeanor scale.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Also, to Nick:

    "It's against the law to discriminate women in the work force. Yet feminists still claim it happens.

    Not that I am using 'law' as my stance in that matter. But why is the above statement I made an invalid argument to say that women are not discriminated against in that matter but it's valid to say that just because 'law' says this or that for DV, it's valid to say that men are not discriminated against in DV?"

    If people are debating what is actually *in* the law then discussing the actual contents of the law is a relevant dialogue. No one is saying that that law or any law is implemented perfectly by every officer in every police department in California--there was actually a disagreement about the law's very contents.

    Obviously no one is going to argue that the existence of a law means that it can't or won't be defied.

    ReplyDelete
  125. @witman,

    Patrick Andrew Thomas did have a long-term history of vicious violence against the woman who killed him, which makes that case much more complicated than a matter of her being acquitted just because she was female and he was male.

    ReplyDelete
  126. @David Futrelle:

    I left a comment around 11:40 AM, just following a version of that same comment that I deleted in order to make a revision. I think it freaked out your spam filter, and is now in Filter Land.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @David: My comment, too, got caught in the sand trap.

    What exactly triggers the spam filter? Length, keywords, or just the filter being temperamental?

    ReplyDelete
  128. Nice try Jon, and those were pretty long posts to focus your radar on my punctuation at the end directed at those who try to muddy this issue. I was not ignored, my arguments were ignored, nice try again. And by your logic, all you do is feminist "shaming" ...come off it with that weak nonsense. I "shamed" you? You people are on this blog daily bitching on and on about this stuff and right in this comment section using PHONY DV STATS. I put that to rest and you can't resurrect it. Do you feel ashamed? Good because it's sick to do that with violence against women.

    And my argument for secret abuse was just in case MRAs are suggesting that so many men suffer in silence I made that abundantly clear why that could be true, but also pointed out that DV was not a discovered issue because of reported abuse, it's because the violence, when it's REAL and when it's SERIOUS seeps out into society without the reports. You should be absolutely unabashedly ashamed of spreading this misinformation and bile around about violence against women. Only abusers complain about an "Unfair" system, because they think it's "unfair" that the system is on to them now. DV stats are not feminist lies, but MRA stats ARE.

    ReplyDelete
  129. booboonation said:

    "Those stats are bullshit. Yes, there are violent and abusive women, but those stats MRAs tout to make things look "equal" are completely false."

    Says the raven misandrist bigot.

    You automatically assume men are more likely to commit violence more so than women simply because they are men.

    How dare men believe that any human being regardless of gender can be as violent as the next person of whatever gender. In a skewed feminist perspective, this means you are sexist. However it's not sexist to automatically believe men are a 10000 times more evil than women.

    Oh well, you gotta laugh at these feminazitards

    ReplyDelete
  130. I am not sure if this article is posted here yet. I am too lazy to look. This was created a few weeks ago.

    It's funny how there is more than one voice expressing the anti-male bigotry in DV. NOT JUST MRA's.

    Is this just a coincidence? Are all these people misogynists even that they are not MRA's? I wouldn't be surprised if the raven bigoted feminists truly believe that they are.

    Anyway, this is a good piece of writing


    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html

    ReplyDelete
  131. M

    David was expressing earlier in this thread that the law was evidence.

    Oh well

    ReplyDelete
  132. 'Feminazitards'. LOL! Ooh, you sure told us! So CLEVER! /s

    What are you, 14? Jackass.

    ReplyDelete
  133. There were a bunch of long substantive comments (well, in some cases just long) that got caught in the spam filter, some since early this morning; I've just unblocked them. If you've been following this debate you should scroll up to see what you missed.

    Again, sorry about the spam filter; I can't turn it off.

    ReplyDelete
  134. I saw the accusation of "male supremacy" mentioned before. I think it's easy to define it as "female supremacy" if you actually believe women are better, more innocent, less evil, human beings than men. That's pretty much the whole feminist perspective

    ReplyDelete
  135. "Only abusers complain about an "Unfair" system, because they think it's "unfair" that the system is on to them now"

    Wow just wow. Unbelievable. This is sickening anti-male bigotry

    On the contrary, I can say that you're an abuser if you attempt to shame and silence the need for help of victims that simply don't get any help.

    I think that shoe fits a lot better than the feminazi shoe

    ReplyDelete
  136. Oh, and to answer a couple questions about the spam filter: I honestly don't know what criteria it's using to declare something spam. Really offensive language will set it off, but that's not what set it off today. Possibly a bunch of comments in a short period of time will do it, but most of the time that doesn't. Sometimes a bunch of links will set it off, but not always. Long posts seem slightly more likely than short posts to set it off, but then again if you break a long post into short posts, posting a bunch of these in short succession may set it off as well. It's kind of a crapshoot.

    Basically, the spam filter sucks, and I can't turn it off. There are a lot of things I like about BLogger, but the spam filter is so irritating it may drive me to move the blog elsewhere.

    Still, I can generally unblock spam filtered comments fairly quickly. But I was offline for a long stretch today and didn't see the latest batch until just a little while ago.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Nick, for the love of GOD. Here is what happened:

    Elizabeth posted the actual language of the penal code to show what the law actually says in California. This was *evidence* of the law as written.

    You quoted it back to her and asked if she had any evidence to back it up.

    David responded that it *was* the evidence--it was evidence of what the law actually said.

    You didn't understand what penal codes are and kept insisting on evidence when the evidence of *what is in the law* is actually the *contents of the law*.

    Now, wondering whether or not the law is actually applied fairly is perfectly reasonable, but don't accuse David of doing something he wasn't, or others of misrepresenting things when what's happening is a misunderstanding or comprehension issue *on your end*.

    Also "raven misandrist" is the funniest thing I've read in a while.

    ReplyDelete
  138. "I saw the accusation of 'male supremacy' mentioned before. I think it's easy to define it as "female supremacy" if you actually believe women are better, more innocent, less evil, human beings than men. That's pretty much the whole feminist perspective"

    Except that it is *not* the feminist perspective. I know not one single feminist, not one, who believes women are better more innocent, less evil human beings than men. Not one. And I know a lot of feminists.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Thanks for clearing that up, M. But still, what was the whole point in showing the Penal Code to begin with in an argument?

    ReplyDelete
  140. "what was the whole point in showing the Penal Code to begin with in an argument? "

    Because a claim was made bu John Dias that primary aggressor laws "require or coerce police to overlook the violence of one party in an allegedly mutually violent couple, and instead arrest the most dangerous, a.k.a. the primary aggressor. The criteria set forth for police to identify the so-called "primary" aggressor includes such factors as which party has the larger physical stature, which is code for "arrest the man." Female perpetrators thus avoid arrest this way."

    The quoted law (Dias was characterizing laws, remember, not the implementation of the law) doesn't fit this description.

    ReplyDelete
  141. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  142. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  143. Here's a detailed summary of primary aggressor laws broken down by state:

    Predominant Aggressor Policies: Leaving the Abuser Unaccountable?
    Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
    August 2010
    http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Predominant-Aggressor-Policies

    ReplyDelete
  144. @John Dias,

    "People can embrace whatever authority arrangements that they like within a relationship. It's none of anyone else's business in my view."

    As long as the "authority" arrangement within a relationship is a mutual agreement by both parties, there's no problem. However, in many cases, it is not by mutual agreement. It is a man believing he is superior and entitled to bully, threaten and assault his partner into submission to him. Anything that affects her is her business as well, not just his.

    Save Services puts out a lot of skewed information and is not a reliable source for facts on domestic violence.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Woman gets 26 to life for killing drunk boyfriend
    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F01%2F04%2FBATF1H42V1.DTL

    Women don't get away with murder just because they're women.

    ReplyDelete
  146. @Christine WE:

    Regarding Save Services, I cited this because they document the jurisdictions where primary aggressor laws are in place and cite the applicable statutory laws so that you can read them for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  147. @Christine WE:

    "Women don't get away with murder just because they're women."

    On average, women who are convicted get lighter sentences than male convicts for committing the exact same crimes. When it comes to domestic violence, women are more likely than men to get away with committing murder on the pretext that they were abused and were therefore somehow entitled to commit murder. It may even get them invited onto Oprah, as a few high profile cases indicate. Lastly, primary aggressor laws let female perpetrators not only initiate, and not only cause injury, but also avoid arrest so long as the male victim can be portrayed as the greater threat between the two individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  148. @John Dias,

    "When it comes to domestic violence, women are more likely than men to get away with committing murder on the pretext that they were abused and were therefore somehow entitled to commit murder."

    No, John, it is not about women being somehow entitled to commit murder. No one is entitled to commit murder. In cases where a woman kills a man in his sleep, for example, she will end up convicted and in prison. In cases where an active altercation was taking place, she may not be charged at all or may be acquitted if there is evidence of SELF-DEFENSE. As far as domestic violence arrests, most of the time, the right person is arrested. There aren't nearly as many false arrests as you believe there are.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Here's another woman who just got life in prison yesterday. If it's not in self-defense, women won't be getting away with murder.

    http://www.beta.cjonline.com/news/state/2011-01-03/eberhardt_pleads_guilty_to_murder

    Also, those sentencing disparities you're talking about. Are those ALL crimes or are they domestic violence crimes only? Where is the break down on that?

    ReplyDelete
  150. John, the seeming statistical disparities between male and female sentences may be misleading; the research of Kathleen Daly suggests that a straight statistical comparison of men and women "sentenced for the same crime" isn't a clean comparison; when she looked at the details of a representative sample of such cases she found that the men getting longer sentences had, for example, longer criminal records, were the instigators of the crimes in question rather than "followers", and so on, things that would naturally cause a judge to give them longer sentences.

    http://yalepress.yale.edu/Yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300068665

    Much of the book is available on google books as well:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=c_gPDQOBZjAC&pg=PP1&dq=Gender,+Crime,+and+Punishment+++Kathleen+Daly&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  151. I love it when people are like "Men can only choose to work while women can do whatever they want!"

    My boyfriend is British. He's planning on moving out here to be with me (and the warmer weather). He knows he can't work until he gets his paperwork and just last night, offered to be a house husband until he got his paperwork (even though he'd much rather have a 9 to 5). I thought it was wonderful that he decided on that, and that he had the ovaries to offer doing the house work and grocery shopping- it's a hard job.

    ReplyDelete
  152. In general, women are getting away with more lenient sentences than men.

    See link below...

    We find that women receive prison sentences that average a little over 2 years less than those awarded to men. Even after controlling for circumstances such as the severity of the offense and past criminal history, women receive more lenient sentences. Approximately 9.5 months of the female advantage cannot be explained by gender differences in individual circumstances.

    Do You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence because You Are a Woman?
    An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing Guidelines

    Free download site, no restrictions,

    http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp2870.html

    ReplyDelete
  153. LexieDi said...
    I love it when people are like "Men can only choose to work while women can do whatever they want!"

    Only if the woman agrees, (like in your case) the man has a choice.

    For divorced men for sure they have no other choice but to work. Either he works and pays, or he might even end up in jail or as a homeless under a bridge.

    For divorced women however, who got the house and car, and got the children, it is possible to make a nice living out of alimony and child-support as they do not have any financial obligation.

    ReplyDelete
  154. Yohan: Hey, a real honest-to-goodness academic paper!

    Looking at the longer summary you've got posted on your blog, it looks like the 2 year figure is before controlling for things like criminal history; the 9.5 month figure looks like it is based on a cleaner comparison. But they give several other numbers, and there are several other complications to figure out. I'll read the paper and see if I can figure out how they got their numbers.

    From this paper at least, it appears that some of the statistical difference between male and female sentences is genuinely due to bias and not to factors like criminal record. But it's a far cry from the "pussy pass"/"women get away with murder" claims regularly posted on MRA sites.

    ReplyDelete
  155. @yohan,

    Most divorced women HAVE to work as well.

    ReplyDelete
  156. "he might even end up in jail or as a homeless under a bridge."

    I know an enormous number of homeless people through my work and not a single homeless man I have ever met has ever been "under a bridge" because of something like that. I know you are just trying to make a point, but it is not fair to make points based on the situations of other people when there is no correlation between your ideology and their situations.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Believing one is entitled to rule over their partner is not an anger issue and those who operate that way - anger management is a waste of time.
    Yes, anger management is spinning its wheels trying to overcome what hundreds of years (and still ongoing) of institutionalized religious indoctrination into the righteousness of male supremacy has instilled.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Please, Bberet Dean, captivate us with your relevant arguments, or are standard MRA-style shaming tactics the extent of your repertoire.

    ReplyDelete
  159. I am getting disconnected, so I try to comment now again in several small parts.

    -----

    David: From this paper at least, it appears that some of the statistical difference between male and female sentences is genuinely due to bias and not to factors like criminal record. But it's a far cry from the "pussy pass"/"women get away with murder" claims regularly posted on MRA sites.


    It might be interesting for you, that Ampersands made a report about a different study, not related to the study I mentioned.

    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/12/prison-sentencing-study-whites-women-non-poor-and-us-citizens-are-given-lighter-sentences/#comments


    from the report
    (copy/paste from Ampersands blog)
    The female-male difference is statistically significant for all six categories, the largest of which is for bank robbery, where females receive 21.6 months less than males.

    Remark by Ampersands:
    Although the bank robbery differential was largest, women received a break on sentencing compared to men across the board.


    Of course Ampersands conclusions are totally different from MRAs, but I found one observation interesting from him, he mentioned that female criminals get shorter sentences from male judges, while getting about the same as men when facing a female judge.

    At least this is how I understand his comments.

    ReplyDelete
  160. About murder cases, just my personal impression, I noticed these comments "pussy pass"/"women get away with murder" NOT so frequently from our MRA-members from USA.

    Strongly complaining are Australians, Canadians and British MRAs.

    http://www.australian-news.com.au/feminists_judiciary.htm

    http://www.australian-news.com.au/Daniela_Dawes.htm

    http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=624561

    http://www.australian-news.com.au/Claire_MacDonald.htm

    And how gender-neutral are such laws? May men claiming the same after killing their wife?

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Why+killing+a+husband+in+cold+blood+may+not+be+murder.-a0120326075

    Mrs Thornton, 35, plunged a kitchen knife into her 44-year-old husband Malcolm as he slept at their Warwickshire home in 1989. She claimed she had been provoked by violence on the part of her husband, a former policeman who she said was an alcoholic.

    The case became a rallying point for feminists who said Mrs Thornton was a victim who should never have been tried for murder.

    The family of her husband, however, insisted he had been neither violent nor drunk and said he was the victim of a cold-blooded, premeditated killing.


    Not every feminist however agrees with such laws, because if used gender-neutral, what might happen?

    Sociologist Patricia Morgan said, however: 'There is no reason to bring in new provocation rules - a woman who kills is already able to put arguments in mitigation.

    'We have no need of laws that appear to say a crime is less serious if it is committed by a woman.'

    Some politicians - notably Harriet Harman - have been pushing for the defence of provocation to be removed from murder law entirely. They believe it can be too easily used by men to justify killing women.


    So, what is your opinion, David?

    Men to jail, and women go free, I guess, or am I wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  161. I am shocked to read that in Russia, it's estimated that 14,000 women are murdered by their husbands or male partners each year. 14,000 each year! Terrible!

    A quote from the first link:

    "Marine Pislakova says domestic abuse is common in patriarchal societies such as Russia's, where violence is often justified as a way of controlling women and where an old saying advises if he beats you, he loves you."

    Domestic violence is apparently not even seen as a crime there. No wonder so many women want to escape that barbarian patriarchal society via bridal services. And a shame that even escaping that way doesn't guarantee that they still won't end up with a patriarchal brute.

    http://boycottsochi.eu/other-reasons/475-russia-butchers-its-women

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92621334

    ReplyDelete
  162. I wrote this:

    "The issue comes down to authority, i.e. that of the State vs. that of the head of the family. It pains me that the only non-feminist people who have really explored the topic of authority are the crazy Manhood101 people. We need a serious discussion (for once) about the reason why females perpetrate partner violence. It's because there is an astonishing lack of authority that can be brought to bear against female perpetrators."

    And lo and behold, the crazy Manhood101 people came out of the woodwork:

    "@John Dias please go fetch your balls out of your wife's purse. You're an embarrassing, emasculated mangina DESPERATELY trying to sound relevant. LOL :D"

    This is typical debating tactics of the M101 people. Invalidate to dominate, diagnose to invalidate, and self-diagnose to self-validate. It doesn't prevent them from embarrassing themselves, nor does it make them in the slightest bit compelling, but it does fill them with delusions of grandeur.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Yohan: "For divorced men for sure they have no other choice but to work. Either he works and pays, or he might even end up in jail or as a homeless under a bridge.

    For divorced women however, who got the house and car, and got the children, it is possible to make a nice living out of alimony and child-support as they do not have any financial obligation. "

    If you can support yourself and one or more children on $24,300 per year, and call it a "nice living," my hat is off to you.

    How did I get this number? Well, for child support, Findlaw says
    http://family.findlaw.com/child-support/support-basics/support-stats.html
    "In 2001, the average annual amount of child support received (for custodial parents receiving at least some support) was $4,300, and did not differ between mothers and fathers (as support recipients)."

    So child support isn't a motherlode of any kind.

    What about alimony? The statistics vary a lot more, because state laws are less uniform.

    To get a rough estimate of those receiving alimony:
    http://www.freelegaladvicehelp.com/family-law/alimony/Average-Alimony-Statistic.html says"
    "roughly 450,000 people get payments in the form of alimony in the US"

    http://www.articleclick.com/Article/Understanding-Alimony-Facts-and-Statistics/1504913 says:
    "Over $9 billion was paid in alimony in 2007 according to the IRS"

    $9,000,000,000/450,000 averages out to the fine sum of $20,000 per year.

    ReplyDelete
  164. "In 2001, the average annual amount of child support received (for custodial parents receiving at least some support) was $4,300, and did not differ between mothers and fathers (as support recipients)."

    Heh...$358 a month on average for both men and women. Yohan constantly repeats himself that all divorced women get rich this way. He's been disproven before on this blog, but he doesn't care.

    ReplyDelete
  165. OS, Booboonation,

    You are saying that in cases where abuse is prevalent, the women is justified in killing her husband in self defense.

    So you must support that in cases where abuse is prevalent, the man is justified in breaking her jaw?

    Or are you saying that if abuse is present and the accused is a woman, her actions are justified because you are a Chauvinist Pig but if she abuses him in any way, he has to take it because you are a Chauvinist Pig?

    I guess this place isn't as bad as Jezebel, but you'll pull any trick to justify bad things happening to women as male privilege and pad things happening to men as male privilege.

    ReplyDelete
  166. John, I deleted that m*nh**d one oh one guy's comment. It was obnoxious, and they've spammed the comments here with vile crap in the past, so they're not welcome here.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Interesting case from my work this week-a man came in asking for an order of protection. During the hearing the judge asked about any prior violence-the man said "oh well she had before but you know, you do not do anything about it because it makes you look weak." In light of this discussion about violence against women, I thought it was interesting.

    The man also complained about how she never worked, would not pay her bills and was mooching off of him for a place to stay. I really wanted to ask "well how come you did not evict her? The legal method of doing so is listed online and there are free legal clinics." Honestly, the second a person starts acting violent in a relationship or refuses to pay their share, out they go.

    ReplyDelete
  168. Elizabeth,

    Is this your advice to women? "Why do you need a court order? Just kick his ass out. The legal method of doing so is listed online and there are free legal clinics."

    I'm not sure what your first paragraph does except highlight the fact that if the man was a woman, the judge would not question her concern for her safety.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Wow. Just wow.

    Are you assuming the judge was asking about prior incidents because you assumed the judge thought the guy was wrong for coming into ask for the order or had no concern for the safety of the male?

    AND you think that I am wrong for pointing out that if someone refuses to pay and is violent (in this case the man's girlfriend), that s/he should have sought to have him or her evicted from the place of residence? Both are court orders you know-just different laws governing them.

    ------------
    By the way, this judge also denied a woman who came in demanding an order of protection because her husband entered the home late at night and she was "scared." The judge told her "it is his house as well-absent any agreement that states the house is to be your sole possession, he has the perfect right to come home any time he wishes. Even at two in the morning while drunk."

    ReplyDelete
  170. If two people share a financial obligation (say, in a mortgage or a jointly owned commercial property), and yet one of them refuses to live up to their responsibilities, then I could see the merit in the responsible one using some form of contract law or tort to remove the irresponsible one.

    But when it comes to domestic violence, most of the time I can't see the protective value to the potential victim of obtaining a restraining order. The fact that such orders are called "protective" orders is a farce. What about these orders would make a person any safer from a violent attack? The perpetrator knows where you live, they know your patterns of coming and going, they have a perfect opportunity to monitor you when you're at your most vulnerable because they know exactly where you will be. So if you're genuinely in danger, get *yourself* out of the house and into a safe shelter, rather than forcing the other person out with a restraining order. I think that restraining orders are for the most part only valuable to give one person a form of dominance over the other, and enforce that dominance with the threat of ostensibly legitimized violence (via police enforcement).

    If you are genuinely in fear for your safety, then YOU move out.

    ReplyDelete
  171. John Dias: "What about these orders would make a person any safer from a violent attack? The perpetrator knows where you live, they know your patterns of coming and going, they have a perfect opportunity to monitor you when you're at your most vulnerable because they know exactly where you will be. So if you're genuinely in danger, get *yourself* out of the house and into a safe shelter, rather than forcing the other person out with a restraining order. I think that restraining orders are for the most part only valuable to give one person a form of dominance over the other, and enforce that dominance with the threat of ostensibly legitimized violence (via police enforcement)."

    So they are worthless, and yet they can be used to dominate someone else?

    I don't understand. Either they have power or they don't.

    ReplyDelete
  172. John,

    If the person were truly in fear, they would move out. We're now talking about cases where the person is just done with the other. The other does not need to be violent, just value their freedom so they don't violate a restraining order.

    Restraining orders work on non-violent individuals.

    ReplyDelete
  173. A violent person is likely to find you and shove the restraining order up your ass.

    ReplyDelete
  174. My post disappeared! To paraphrase it-

    This male owns the home. She does not. She also does not contribute to the household income and she is acting violent. Why should he move out?

    ReplyDelete
  175. A restraining order means that if the violent person continues to be violent, s/he can be charged with the violence, *plus* violating the restraining order. More likely to be held in jail, more likely to get time, etcetera.

    It makes their intrusive and violent actions more costly in money, time and freedom.

    ReplyDelete
  176. HAHAHA! Restraining order is not a body guard. A violent person does not care about laws or mores. That piece of paper (and that's all it is) will get shoved up the person's ass sooo hard.

    You must be talking about taking a restraining order out on the type of "violence" that most of you hear seem to agree is OK. Just slap them in the face. If you don't put them in intensive care, it's OK.

    ReplyDelete
  177. Again, witman, if a person is violent, the person will be violent. The order won't stop the violence.

    But it will put the violent person on the path of greater consequences for a violent act. They will see more jail time. Be less likely to be let out on recognizance. Pay higher fines.

    We want more violent people to face greater consequences, don't we?

    ReplyDelete
  178. Generally violating an order of protection is a misdemeanor-one that can carry up to a year in jail.

    Most people who violate it can do so without committing a single act of violence. A violent act can cause it to be created but the violation could be a merely calling someone.

    ReplyDelete
  179. ---
    "1. Primary aggressor laws. These laws require or coerce police to overlook the violence of one party in an allegedly mutually violent couple, and instead arrest the most dangerous, a.k.a. the primary aggressor. The criteria set forth for police to identify the so-called "primary" aggressor includes such factors as which party has the larger physical stature, which is code for "arrest the man." Female perpetrators thus avoid arrest this way.
    ---

    I know I'm late to the party on this, but I had to comment:

    As a fight fan, I love the idea of women gaining an advantage over men by consistently being smaller and weaker than the men they get into fights with.

    Savvy!

    ReplyDelete

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

Sociable

ShareThis