21 December, 2006

An Ironic Derailment

Posted in Alas a Blog, Feminist Issues, Richard Jeffrey Newman, Survivors and Survival, toysoldier at 3:32 pm by Daran

Toysoldier:

One cannot escape the irony considering that it was implied no feminist would ever derail a thread about male rape. However, rather than focus on this interesting contradiction, it is important to examine what was stated.

It is indeed, however as toysoldier has already done an admirable job “examin[ing] what was stated”, it’s worth spending a little time to “focus on this interesting contradiction”, starting with the link he identified:

Quoting (italics) and replying to toysoldier, Jake Squid said:

….the gesture seems more like an attempt to prove no feminists would ever attack male victims or derail a thread about male victims rather than a genuine desire to discuss male victimization.

Yet, no woman has derailed this thread (and here we are at comment 23 ) and there has been no suggestion that your interpretation has any validity. But, somehow, this thread was derailed from its stated intention by (mostly) anti-feminist men at comments 7, 10, 14, 18 and 22 talking negatively about feminists. In a space specifically designated as being for male survivors I find this notable.

Toysoldier said “feminists”, not “women”. Jake Squid appears to be a feminist, at the very least, he is a pro-feminist. He was one of those involved in the feminist pile-on that had just forced me out of another thread, and here he is, explicitly (by reference to comment numbers) “attack[ing] male victims” who, contrary to Jake Squid’s interpretation, were not derailing the thread, but rather were cautiously and with various degrees of suspicion sounding out the safety of the forum. I politely suggested that he back off, and got slapped down hard by both Amp and Richard. (The public rebukes were mild in comparison to the email Amp sent me.)

However it is not just the first half of toysoldier’s prediction that Jake Squid fulfilled. His comment, coupled with the immediate and unequivocal support from Amp and Richard, derailed, indeed terminated the thread. There has been minimal participation by non-feminist male survivors since then, in either that thread, or the “restart“.

* * *

Consider also these comments (except as noted, bold added by me) by ms_xeno:

Oh, and Daran, way to go. Complaining about my comments (from this thread) in a thread where you can play “gotcha !” should I dare to post my opinions on your attitude there. Sooooo very clever of you.

and Radfem:

Strangely, I have no interest in jumping into Richard’s thread and derailing it by saying, “What about the women?”…

And Radfem, to her credit, hasn’t. The same cannot be said for ms_xeno:

Also, that any help that comes to men should be taken directly from women. Somehow, looking at why the pie gets split up the way it does in terms of social funding never happens in these discussions. It all becomes about the male power to grab an already small slice of dollars (pounds, yen, marks) away from women. The rest of the pie, which is already male-owned, is not disturbed and the men in charge of it are not confronted about the way they treat other men. >:

(Richard’s bold this time.) I agreed with her when she said she wouldn’t dare. I was wrong.

Richard replies:

I have put in boldface the part of your comment that I think goes right to the heart of things in this post.

It does indeed. The men who are not being confronted (enough) about the way they treat other men are Jake Squid, Richard, and Amp. Meanwhile, ms_xeno and other feminists get to lord(!) it up in a thread supposedly “for” male survivors, while those very survivors are exiled to “their own sites … like the glory days of SYG“.

Of greater irony it would be hard to conceive.

Advertisements

38 Comments »

  1. toysoldier said,

    It should be noted, which I failed to do on my post, that while the thread has been derailed, it lacks the overt hostility normally found on such threads.

  2. Daran said,

    What I said here:

    In general M/F and F/M hostility played out very differently. Women were far less likely than men to come barrelling in all guns blazing. (Though it did happen.) But women could be hostile in other ways, for example by suggesting that male posters were abusers/rapists, etc. We see this kind of thing on Alas too.

  3. NYMOM said,

    “In general M/F and F/M hostility played out very differently. Women were far less likely than men to come barrelling in all guns blazing.”

    Maybe you just ‘ironically’ identified the larger problem that you face…

    That in a world where the male is generally the larger, stronger and more aggressive of every species, including the human one, you are just going to have a heck of a time convincing people that you are the ‘victims’ of smaller, weaker, less aggressive females…

    So your problem is bigger then feminists or pro-feminists, whatever you call those men who support them…

    Actually I believe you would have just as big a problem in a society where feminism doesn’t even exist…

    Sorry but that’s just the facts as I see them.

  4. Aegis said,

    NYMOM said:

    That in a world where the male is generally the larger, stronger and more aggressive of every species, including the human one, you are just going to have a heck of a time convincing people that you are the ‘victims’ of smaller, weaker, less aggressive females…

    First, Daran is talking about an internet discussion. Are you arguing that physical strength is somehow important in internet discussions? Actually, the ability to use one’s words to wound is not necessarily related to physical strength.

    Second, while men are stronger and more aggressive than women on average, this doesn’t mean that any individual man is stronger or more aggressive than any individual woman. There is considerable overlap between the statistical distributions. I, for example, am not very aggressive, and I encounter many women who are more aggressive than I am. Hence, it is quite possible for men to be victimized by women both verbally and physically.

  5. Daran said,

    First, Daran is talking about an internet discussion.

    I was, but it is still interesting, isn’t it, that men and women follow stereotypical patterns of male/female behaviour even in cyberspace. I’ve even seen men threaten each other (and me) physically, on the net, and get very frustrated when, rather than cowering, my response was, “Yeah, like, how? We’re not even on the same continent.”

    So I think these are socialised patterns of behaviour based on physical differences, but which are carried into a domain where physique is meaningless.

    I also agree with what NYMOM said, though perhaps not with what she meant:

    Maybe you just ‘ironically’ identified the larger problem that you face…

    I agree that these men are a big problem for us, and also for themselves. Their behaviour is most counterproductive.

    That in a world where the male is generally the larger, stronger and more aggressive of every species, including the human one, you are just going to have a heck of a time convincing people that you are the ‘victims’ of smaller, weaker, less aggressive females…

    Indeed we do have “a heck of a time convincing people”. Nevertheless, it is true that some men are victimised by women, and I was one of them. The beatings were (thankfully) rare, and not really damaging physically to me. (Not for want of trying on her part.) Emotionally they were devastating to me.

    It is true that the size and strength difference was such that I could have swatted her aside like a fly. I had only to raise my hand. But I never did raise my hand. My role within the relationship was to stand there and take the beatings without flinching, and that is what I tried to do. That I did flinch was, in her eyes, yet another check on the accounts sheet in the ever lengthening column headed “failure”.

    So your problem is bigger then feminists or pro-feminists, whatever you call those men who support them…

    Whatever you choose to call them. I really don’t care. But I agree that our problem is bigger than feminists. Feminists, however, exacerbate the problem through their victim-blaming rhetoric.

    Actually I believe you would have just as big a problem in a society where feminism doesn’t even exist…

    Perhaps you are mistaken about me and about this site. I am not an antifeminist, and this is not an antifeminist site. I am a feminist critic. It is not my view that there is noting good in feminism. Nor do I want to see it abolished. Take a look at my sidebar – lots of links to feminist blogs, and none at all to antifeminist sites such as Stand Your Ground, etc, which I regard as a big problem too.

    Notice also that I had less patience with Quentin, who I think came here via a link from SYG, than I have shown to you and other feminists. Still I would have more time for Quentin than I do for many antifeminists. Quentin at least was literate, articulate, and responded to what was said, instead of merely duckspeaking. (He did duckspeak too.) I think he is capable of raising his game. It is sad that he probably never will.

  6. Daran said,

    I probably need to blog about duckspeak to explain what it is.

  7. Daran said,

    Second, while men are stronger and more aggressive than women on average, this doesn’t mean that any individual man is stronger or more aggressive than any individual woman.

    It is also worth pointing out that many men (though not all, of course) have been socialised into being non-violent toward women. Women are not usually so inhibitted.

  8. Tom Nolan said,

    If I remember “1984” correctly, the point about duckspeak (ideologicallly unexceptionable blether, completely without intellectual content) was that the word had a positive and a negative acceptation. Party enemies were derided for duckspeak, party adherents were congratulated for it.

    People can detect duckspeak for the fraud it is *only* when it comes from an ideologically hostile position.

  9. Daran said,

    Hmmm, I thought the point of 1984 was that you could detect it from your side, but it was regarded as good.

    I think I recognise antifeminist duckspeak better than I do feminist, because I have spent much longer battling the antis than I have the fems. This does not contradict what you said, though: I am ideologically closer to moderate and marginal feminists than I am to the antifems. For example, though I have some criticisms of Koss, I consider it be to be a seminal piece of research, and still broadly sound even today (though rape rates have fallen since then.) In this respect, I completely disagree with the antifems.

  10. NYMOM said,

    “First, Daran is talking about an internet discussion. Are you arguing that physical strength is somehow important in internet discussions? Actually, the ability to use one’s words to wound is not necessarily related to physical strength.”

    Well aggression is not just a physical trait but a mindset as well.

    So even during the constant physical ‘sparring’ that takes place on the internet I see men as generally being more aggresssive, as in quicker to threaten you, both on the internet and off…

    I understand that words can wound and women are perhaps better equipped to engage in that type of verbal warfare…but I still find that most of the threats of physical violence made on the internet are made by men.

    I think people being honest would have to admit that.

  11. Daran said,

    You are probably right, although strictly speaking there’s no way to detemine the sex of a poster without meeting them, (and that would be stupid in the case of someone threatening you with violence).

    There is also a tendency to perceive aggressive posters as male, even when they do not identify so.

    That said, I’ve seen maybe a dozen or so threats in several years on usenet. Mostly it just looks pathetic. Much more common is the kind of vilification that I don’t need to describe to you, because you are subject to it. (Yes, I have googled you.)

    It’s still crap. 😦

  12. NYMOM said,

    “Second, while men are stronger and more aggressive than women on average, this doesn’t mean that any individual man is stronger or more aggressive than any individual woman. There is considerable overlap between the statistical distributions.”

    Yes, there is some. I wouldn’t say considerable.

    That was the whole reason women were banned from the front lines and all special forces after the first Gulf War. Because they found that even the ‘best’ women with special forces training could not beat the ‘average’ soldier with no special training whatsoever. Actually she couldn’t even beat the ‘below average’ soldier which is generally the men the army is trying to screen out of the armed forces. The most these best women could do was ‘hold their own’ and not sustain critical or disabling injury for some limited period of time.

    So it’s pretty clear that the average woman is not going to be able to outfight the average man. The best women (which by definition have to be few in number) with special combat training, can hold their own for some limited period. So unless we wish to give special forces training to every young woman about to engage in a relationship, we are going to have to accept the commonsense premise that MOST men are stronger and can overcome MOST women.

    “It is true that the size and strength difference was such that I could have swatted her aside like a fly. I had only to raise my hand.”

    Well then that’s my essential point.

    Generally women don’t have that luxury.

    It’s interesting to me how you even used a phrase “I had only to raise my hand” which I have generally only heard used in reference to God or King like power to illustrate how you could have struck back but chose not to…

    “It is also worth pointing out that many men (though not all, of course) have been socialised into being non-violent toward women. Women are not usually so inhibitted.”

    It’s not just ‘being non-violent toward women’ that men are generally socialized into, but being non-violent in general. Society doesn’t want men taking it upon themselves to react with violence towards anyone, because when they do, others generally get seriously injured.

    Society wants everyone to accept that their lawfully designated representatives are the only ones empowered to react violently. Thus we have police dept. and armies to deal with ‘punishment’ on the local and the international level.

    Actually its frequently the same men who wind up in both groups.

    “I am a feminist critic. It is not my view that there is noting good in feminism. Nor do I want to see it abolished.”

    Well that’s my problem I guess.

    I see many men today who don’t wish to see feminism abolished but just wish to cherry pick all the good out of it.

    Which btw, is why I don’t consider myself to be a feminist. As I am not supportive of this whole gender neutral turnoff they have taken over the last decade or so. I feel it benefits men not women.

    These sorts of discussions are an example of what I’m talking about as I can easily see gender-neutral feminists supporting your premises about violence between the sexes and I just don’t think it’s realistic. Anyone who was being honest about men and women could see this. Not that women are never violent, but just the sheer weight of numbers and the damage that men do greatly outweights the gender neutral premise of yours. That men and women are equal in this, as we are not.

  13. NYMOM said,

    “Yes, I have googled you.”

    Then you kind of, sort of, know already that I’m an authority on this business of being threatened on the internet.

    Okay, nuff said.

  14. Tom Nolan said,

    NYMOM:Yes, there is some (overlap in strenght between the sexes). I wouldn’t say considerable.

    No, there is considerable overlap, but one can lose sight of the fact because sexual preferences amongst both men and women mean that in any particular heterosexual couple the man is likely to be bigger and stronger. I have often wanted to point out that the best way for women to avoid physical domination by men would be to partner small, weak men, but given that I am a small, weak man myself it would have sounded like special pleading.

    DARAN: It is true that the size and strength difference was such that I could have swatted her aside like a fly. I had only to raise my hand.
    NYMOM: Well then that’s my essential point.

    But that’s no point at all. It would be like saying that a lady’s pearl-handled revolver is no match for Dirty Harry’s Magnum: if the pearl-handled revolver is loaded and the Magnum isn’t then, all appearances to the contrary, the smaller weapon is the deadlier. A man can have all the strength in the world, but if he is incapable of using it to defend himself, then he most definitely can be abused by a smaller and weaker partner. Do you really think that physical abuse is worse when it is facilitated by bodily superiority, and better when it is facilitated by psychological superiority? Why?

    NYMOM: I see many men today who don’t wish to see feminism abolished but just wish to cherry pick all the good out of it.

    Yes, there are many such men. And they’re quite right. What is wrong with agreeing with what one agrees with, regardless of context? I find the excesses of the French Revolution absolutely appalling, but I am not thereby obliged to reject Liberty, Fraternity and Equality.

    The feminist tenet that I, for one, most wholeheartedly agree with, is that we should not be blinded by generalizations about the sexes, no matter how valid they are as generalizations, from seeing and appreciating the particular case before our eyes. If a woman army recruit can show that she is as handy in a fight as the male candidates she is competing with, then she should be allowed to participate in front line operations; the fact that the majority of women cannot show themselves to be so capable is an irrelevance. And for a particular man to be physically abused by a female partner is an evil, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the victims of domestic violence between the sexes are women.

  15. NYMOM said,

    “The feminist tenet that I, for one, most wholeheartedly agree with, is that we should not be blinded by generalizations about the sexes, no matter how valid they are as generalizations, from seeing and appreciating the particular case before our eyes.”

    Then we must accept rule by the so-called experts, as no general norms can be accepted and every case must be treated as an exemption to the rule. This is another tyranny of sorts that I have heard many men complain about. So most men don’t agree with you…

    “If a woman army recruit can show that she is as handy in a fight as the male candidates she is competing with, then she should be allowed to participate in front line operations; the fact that the majority of women cannot show themselves to be so capable is an irrelevance.”

    It’s very relevance as armies’ primary mission is to fight wars. Wars are fought to be won…they are not like a football game or a soccer match where everyone shakes hands at the end and goes home to meet again next year.

    At the end of the day losing a war because one is trying to be politically correct leads to death and destruction of whole peoples or countries and we’re not going to do that just so you or feminism can prove a point.

    As it is we are spending billions each week in Iraq. If we had to now recruit the best women and give them all special forces training just to make them somewhat equivalent with the average soldier, it would cost us billions more…

    The bottom line is most men are not small and weak, so most armies will be composed of men…

    Sorry…

    “And for a particular man to be physically abused by a female partner is an evil, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the victims of domestic violence between the sexes are women.”

    It’s an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.

    Again sorry.

  16. HughRistik said,

    Tom Nolan said:

    And for a particular man to be physically abused by a female partner is an evil, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the victims of domestic violence between the sexes are women.

    NYMOM replied:

    It’s an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.

    No, but as you show, we can trivialize them.

  17. NYMOM said,

    “No, but as you show, we can trivialize them.”

    AND as you show we can take a comment out of context and try to twist it’s meaning…

    I’m glad there weren’t a lot of comments on this thread so people can go back and see what I said originally in order not to be tricked like this. However on another post with a lot more commenters pulling this one sentence out of everything I wrote would have been an attempt to distort what I said and meant…since it would have been too much trouble for most people to have reviewed the history here…

    Clearly it’s an evil for a SMALL group of men, as Tom Nolan himself noted, since most men are not smaller and weaker then most women…and the solution to the ‘sickness’ might wind up being worse then the disease which is to force a change in how the system currently addresses domestic violence and make it more gender neutral…

    The numbers of abused women far outnumbers abused men…not to mention that attempting to address this in a gender neutral fashion also overlooks the unique socialization and psychological aspects of people staying in abusive relationships, which are generally applicable only to women. As in spite of everything you say far more women are seriously injured and killed by husbands and b/f then men are seriously injured or killed by wives and g/f…

    We don’t need to have the authorities trying to investigate every single family argument and arrest more women in order to make the statistics reflect a 50/50 balance between the sexes…as this would be a politically correct distortion of the reality of most people’s lives.

  18. Daran said,

    Tom Nolan:

    And for a particular man to be physically abused by a female partner is an evil, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the victims of domestic violence between the sexes are women.

    NYMOM:

    It’s an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.

    Just because we cannot correct every evil doesn’t mean that we cannot correct this one, nor does our inability to correct a problem mean that we cannot alleviate it.

    Hughristik:

    No, but as you show, we can trivialize them.

    NYMOM:

    AND as you show we can take a comment out of context and try to twist it’s meaning…

    I’m glad there weren’t a lot of comments on this thread so people can go back and see what I said originally in order not to be tricked like this. However on another post with a lot more commenters pulling this one sentence out of everything I wrote would have been an attempt to distort what I said and meant…since it would have been too much trouble for most people to have reviewed the history here…

    I’m sure we have all experienced this, and probably most of us done this. I know I have, as have you, as I will show below. Still, it’s very much what I am trying to get away from here, which is one of the reasons I have asked you all to moderate each other as well as moderating me, when necessary.

    However, in this case, I think HughRistik’s point is fair. As I understand the word, To “trivialise”, is to claim or suggest that something is not significant on an individual or personal level. This you have done by “pulling this one sentence [“I had only raise my hand”] out of everything I wrote [in] an attempt to distort what I said”. I did not stand there and let her beat me without striking back as an act of God-like or King-like grace. There was nothing whatsoever God-like or King-like about my role in that relationship. It was more like a slave to a Queen.

    I did not strike back because it simply never occured to me to do so, (nor did it occur to me that I could just leave). Also, given the situation I was in, it would have made things worse for me.

  19. NYMOM said,

    “This you have done by “pulling this one sentence [”I had only raise my hand”] out of everything I wrote [in] an attempt to distort what I said”.

    So instead of addressing this at the time I wrote it you waited for an opportune moment to bring it up and claim I took it out of context to try to distort everything else you said.

    To address that issue: I’ll say I don’t feel I did it for that reason, as the comment was so strange and unusual (and like I said I never heard it used before except in the context of a God or another authority-like figure referencing how they could have destroyed a lesser being, but chose not to) so that’s why I mentioned it…it was an odd turn of phrase to use in the situation you were describing and I had hoped to get some feedback from you on what you meant by it…

    I had assumed (wrongly I take it) that you were physically disabled. You had mentioned some sort of disability in an earlier post (that I had just skimmed through) so I thought that maybe you were physically handicapped in some way and couldn’t defend yourself…that’s why I questioned the comment…

    What Hugh Restik did was a little different.

    As he attempted to retroactively erase the whole conversation I had with Tom Nolan and yourself and act like the conversation never happened. That we had never discussed how generally most men are stronger then most women and that’s why domestic violence laws do (and, in my opinion, should continue to) focus on women as victims and men as aggressors. AND why changing this formula will ultimately wind up with our statistics being politically correct (like we try to make our army units) but with more women being seriously injured and killed via domestic violence as they are and always have been (and will probably continue to be) its chief victims, for all the reasons we had discussed earlier…

    He tried to act like none of that conversation ever happened and that my only response to domestic violence against men was “It’s an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.”

    That was the wrap up of my response to a number of comments on the issue of men as victims of domestic violence…the ending, not the only comment I made about it. I didn’t trivialize it but put it in context of being a lesser problem for men then it is for women, who are the chief victims of it. After all sometimes trying to correct one evil, we wind up creating a far greater one. In my opinion, continuing to try and paint domestic violence as gender neutral would be doing just that.

  20. Daran said,

    Clearly it’s an evil for a SMALL group of men, as Tom Nolan himself noted, since most men are not smaller and weaker then most women…and the solution to the ’sickness’ might wind up being worse then the disease which is to force a change in how the system currently addresses domestic violence and make it more gender neutral…

    The numbers of abused women far outnumbers abused men…

    I do not believe that the “group” of men so afflicted is small, nor that the number of abused women far outnumbers abused men. You already cast me in the role of God and King, when I was just getting beaten. Suppose I had tried to defend myself, with the result that she was injured. And suppose all you can see are the injuries, hers and mine. Would you be then saying “oh, he was just defending himself”. Of course you wouldn’t. You would be calling me the abuser.

    Probably the number of violently abusive men exceeds the number of similarly violent women, but I’m not even sure of that. Strauss, who you “don’t believe” apparently because the result is not to your liking, found that women report committing more DV than men. The NVAW survey found that women report suffering more DV than men. Feminists object to the former survey on the grounds that the CTS system doesn’t contextualise the violence, therefore doesn’t distinguish between offensive and responsive violence, but the same objection could be leveled at NVAW, which uses a similar methodology.

    But it looks to me as though, contextualised or not, women report more violence, both comitting it and suffering it.

    …not to mention that attempting to address this in a gender neutral fashion also overlooks the unique socialization and psychological aspects of people staying in abusive relationships, which are generally applicable only to women.

    Really? How do you know this? Why do you think I stayed in that relationship?

    As in spite of everything you say far more women are seriously injured and killed by husbands and b/f then men are seriously injured or killed by wives and g/f…

    This is true, but why is this a reason for excluding men from services and from the discourse? More men are killed or seriously injured from all assaults than women, but we don’t have “No women allowed” notices over our casualty units.

    We don’t need to have the authorities trying to investigate every single family argument and arrest more women in order to make the statistics reflect a 50/50 balance between the sexes…as this would be a politically correct distortion of the reality of most people’s lives.

    Nobody here has suggested this, so it is a strawman.

  21. NYMOM said,

    “I do not believe that the “group” of men so afflicted is small, nor that the number of abused women far outnumbers abused men.”

    Well logic tells me you’re wrong, as do statistics such as men in jail which outnumber women in our society by 10 to 1 in other societies by 20 to 1. So men, in general, are more likely to respond to a problem with violence. So why should I think that what men do privately is going to be any different then what they do publicly????

    Again logic.

    AND before you say it, I got the men incarcerated numbers from Steven E. Rhoads book “Taking Sex Differences Seriously”…it was an eye opener. You should try reading it sometime.

    “You already cast me in the role of God and King, when I was just getting beaten. Suppose I had tried to defend myself, with the result that she was injured. And suppose all you can see are the injuries, hers and mine. Would you be then saying “oh, he was just defending himself”. Of course you wouldn’t. You would be calling me the abuser.”

    Again logic tells me this is not the response of a person in a situation that is afraid of serious injury or death, which is what domestic abuse is for many of its female victims…

    “Probably the number of violently abusive men exceeds the number of similarly violent women, but I’m not even sure of that. Strauss, who you “don’t believe” apparently because the result is not to your liking, found that women report committing more DV than men.”

    Again, I’ve have to throw out everything I know about history (and I’m a graduate with a history major by the way from a school that specializes in history) biology and again just plain common sense to believe Strauss or anyone like him.

    Not to mention that I’d have to overlook that every aggressive and anti-social act from drug running to terrorism is overwhelming committed by men in every society including our own, with the one rare exception of domestic violence here in the west, is that what you are expecting me to believe????

    Sorry I just don’t buy it…it’s goes against logic…

    “But it looks to me as though, contextualised or not, women report more violence, both comitting it and suffering it.”

    I could accept that as the ONLY reason if that were the most reported violent crime in every society…unfortunately men commit many violent crimes, not just against women but against each other as well. Like I said men commit most crime, violent and otherwise.

    For pete’s sake in every society worldwide men outnumber women in prison by a factor of 20 to 1. Here it’s 10 to 1, so you can’t even blame it on chivalrious Judges not sentencing women to jail…otherwise the numbers would be reversed. Unless you are telling me that societies like Iran are more chivalrious to women then any society in the west is…and I know you could not be trying to tell me that…

    “Really? How do you know this?”

    Because the socialization of men and women is different. Women are trained even when young to be less aggressive, to be quiet, sit still in class, listen to authority, etc., or don’t you even believe that?

    “Why do you think I stayed in that relationship?”

    I have no idea. Originally to be honest I thought you were handicapped and couldn’t get away so easily. Now, I have no idea of your reasoning.

    “This is true, but why is this a reason for excluding men from services and from the discourse? More men are killed or seriously injured from all assaults than women, but we don’t have “No women allowed” notices over our casualty units.”

    I never said to exclude men. I said we cannot change the manner we address the domestic violence issue to be gender-neutral however, that’s a little different from totally exclude men. The same way that trauma units in the field do and should focus on men since that is most of the victims in war…

    “Nobody here has suggested this, so it is a strawman.”

    It’s not a strawman because in order to achieve the 50/50 numbers that men like Strauss are claiming, you’d have to arrest a lot more women…it’s the same thing with gender-neutral custody. Millions of fit, loving mothers have lost their children in order for courts to try to achieve a 50/50 balance sheet…

    So no, it’s not a straw man at all to see into the future that many women could be arrested for minor family arguments in an attempt to keep the numbers balanced if we went along with the domestic violence gender neutral proposition of this Strauss…

  22. NYMOM said,

    I want to add one additional and related comment about this so-called strawman issue you mentioned.

    I noticed one of your links was to Cathy Young’s blog.

    I don’t know if you are aware of this but a few years ago she posted an article in our national media to discuss why more women weren’t being executed.

    I had a huge argument online with her about this article, even trying to point out to her that it would ultimately mean a large increase in the numbers of black women executed. But she was so fixated on the gender neutral aspects of executing women that she couldn’t understand why this result in itself would be wrong.

    Quite frankly, I think we, as a society have to be very careful about feminists now, especially the ones who support the social engineering that goes on now under the label of ‘gender-neutral’…which is why I am very wary of any studies or programs instituted by them now or any of their affiliates.

    Thus, any tampering with the domestic violence laws or statutes need to be carefully monitored by the public…

  23. Daran said,

    “This you have done by “pulling this one sentence [”I had only raise my hand”] out of everything I wrote [in] an attempt to distort what I said”.

    So instead of addressing this at the time I wrote it you waited for an opportune moment to bring it up and claim I took it out of context to try to distort everything else you said.

    I didn’t wait for an opportunity. I haven’t replied to it before, because I’ve been busy. There is tons of stuff here and on other blogs that I’d like to blog about and comment on. Most of them I never will because I don’t have the time.

    In this case, I took your complaint about HughRistik “twisting” what you had said seriously, and I did go back and look at what you said, and I found what I think he might have been talking about, (though it would have been bettter if he’d pointed to it directly).

    To address that issue: I’ll say I don’t feel I did it for that reason, as the comment was so strange and unusual (and like I said I never heard it used before except in the context of a God or another authority-like figure referencing how they could have destroyed a lesser being, but chose not to) so that’s why I mentioned it…it was an odd turn of phrase to use in the situation you were describing and I had hoped to get some feedback from you on what you meant by it…

    OK, so that’s what you meant. My point in reflecting your words back at you was to try to show you that your behaviour appeared to us to be similar to the behaviour you were complaining about, so that you might realise that, just as it was not your intent to distort, so it probably wasn’t HughRistik’s either.

    I had assumed (wrongly I take it) that you were physically disabled. You had mentioned some sort of disability in an earlier post (that I had just skimmed through) so I thought that maybe you were physically handicapped in some way and couldn’t defend yourself…that’s why I questioned the comment…

    You are probably thinking of Asperger’s Syndrome, which is not a physical disability, rather it is a condition related to Autism. However neither of us knew that at the time. I was not and am not physically disabled. In fact, my partner had some physical disabilities of her own.

    My intent in writing what I wrote was to make it clear that I am not suggesting that she did or could have physically overwhelmed me. Like Tom, I was small and weak in comparison to most men, but she was even smaller and even weaker, so the physical difference was probably greater than the average between a man and a woman.

    So if I had been psychologically capable of defending myself, there would have been no physical problem for me to do so. But I was not so capable. It never occured to me to defend myself. The only thing in my mind at the time was that I had to take it and not flinch, and also that she was hurting herself physically by hitting me, and there was nothing I could do to stop her without hurting her even more.

    As for it being somewhat biblical sounding, I agree. I often make biblical references, so yeah, it was probably a subconscious choice of words to show that the physical difference between us was so great. But not that had any kind of choice to use it, other than to try to stand there and not flinch.

    What Hugh Restik did was a little different.

    As he attempted to retroactively erase the whole conversation I had with Tom Nolan and yourself and act like the conversation never happened. That we had never discussed how generally most men are stronger then most women and that’s why domestic violence laws do (and, in my opinion, should continue to) focus on women as victims and men as aggressors. AND why changing this formula will ultimately wind up with our statistics being politically correct (like we try to make our army units) but with more women being seriously injured and killed via domestic violence as they are and always have been (and will probably continue to be) its chief victims, for all the reasons we had discussed earlier…

    Like I said, I don’t believe that this was his motive.

    With regard to laws, in some jurisdictions, had any of those incidents come to the attention of the police, they would by law, have arrested me, for being beaten. That is just wrong.

    The goal here is not to achieve some faux statistical balance, but to assert that abused men have the right to be heard, and to be acknowledged, and not to be denied and blamed just because our existence is inconvenient to those who want to protect women.

    He tried to act like none of that conversation ever happened and that my only response to domestic violence against men was “It’s an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.”

    I still don’t think that was his motive. Given that you have indictated that your motive was misread by us, will you not consider that maybe our motives have been misread by you?

    That was the wrap up of my response to a number of comments on the issue of men as victims of domestic violence…the ending, not the only comment I made about it. I didn’t trivialize it but put it in context of being a lesser problem for men then it is for women, who are the chief victims of it. After all sometimes trying to correct one evil, we wind up creating a far greater one. In my opinion, continuing to try and paint domestic violence as gender neutral would be doing just that.

    I don’t believe anyone here has tried to portray it as gender neutral. If you think they have, please point to where they did this. For my own part, I listed DV as an example of “gender-based abuse or maltreatment“, since it plays out very differently between the sexes. It is certainly not the intention of anyone here to create a “far greater” evil, and that is something that must be considered when evaluating any proposed measures to help male victims. I also think measures to help women should also be judged against that standard, and that is not happening, largely as a result of the exclusion of those suffering that evil from the discourse.

    Obviously we much “end” and “wrap up” at some point, but it seems that you haven’t addressed at all the issue of some men’s inability or unwillingness to respond physically to violence from women, which renders any apparent physical advantage moot. (If you have addressed this, then I apologise. Please point to where you did this.)

  24. HughRistik said,

    My point was pretty simple.

    Tom Nolan said:

    And for a particular man to be physically abused by a female partner is an evil, notwithstanding the fact that the majority of the victims of domestic violence between the sexes are women.

    NYMOM replied:

    It’s an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.

    I replied:

    No, but as you show, we can trivialize them.

    Tom Nolan granted NYMOM’s point that the majority of DV victims are female. He, like Daran and I, simply want to make sure that the minority of male victims don’t get ignored.

    If NYMOM wants to say that fighting domestic violence should focus on female victims (in the sense that it should involve devoting a greater proportion of resources to female victims), that is reasonable. What is not OK is to trivialize male victims. NYMOM says “It’s an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.” I can’t envision NYMOM giving a similar response to an example of the victimization of women (but even if she would, it would still be inappropriate and unempathetic).

    NYMOM responds:

    I didn’t trivialize it but put it in context of being a lesser problem for men then it is for women, who are the chief victims of it.

    If you had “put it in context of being a lesser problem for men then it is for women,” I might not have agreed with your framing of the issue, but I would not have objected so sarcastically either. Yet this is not what you said. You said that domestic violence against men is “an evil, yes, like many other things. Unfortunately we can’t correct every evil in the world.” Maybe I’m taking this comment out of context, but there isn’t any context that would make it acceptable and non-trivializing towards male victims of DV.

    NYMOM sort of explains the comment:

    After all sometimes trying to correct one evil, we wind up creating a far greater one. In my opinion, continuing to try and paint domestic violence as gender neutral would be doing just that.

    Again, this is not what you actually said. You are asking for mind-reading, here. You didn’t say “trying to correct the evil of DV against men can create problems for female victims.” If you had, then I would have evaluated that claim on its own merits. I don’t know who you are arguing against, but it doesn’t seem to be anyone here, because nobody here has advocated a “gender neutral” approach to domestic violence (Tom Nolan explicitly stipulated that most of the victims are probably women in part of his post you quoted).

    If you say that by the “It’s an evil, yes, like many other things” comment you actually meant something different, a combination of the claims I quoted you on above, then I believe you and I will consider you to have retracted that comment. You don’t have to agree with my interpretation of it, but realize that I am responding literally to what you wrote.

  25. Daran said,

    For ease of reading, I have italicised my words in the blockquotes

    I do not believe that the “group” of men so afflicted is small, nor that the number of abused women far outnumbers abused men.

    Well logic tells me you’re wrong, as do statistics such as men in jail which outnumber women in our society by 10 to 1 in other societies by 20 to 1. So men, in general, are more likely to respond to a problem with violence. So why should I think that what men do privately is going to be any different then what they do publicly????

    Again logic.

    The logic of your argument fails immediately. Even if the ratio of M/F to F/M DV is 10:1 or 20:1 that still amounts to many tens or hundreds of thousands of battered men – not a “small group”.

    I’m well aware that the male prison population is much greater than the female. Many of them are there for non-violent crimes such as drug possession, so we see the male population, and in particular the black male population being criminalised en mass.

    Additionally, the criminal justice system discriminates against men in that they are more likely to be sentenced to prison, and if so, imprisoned for longer than women. Even the feminists admit that this is so.

    Finally, as I pointed out in my other comment, if the laws are altered so that male victims of DV are criminalised, it become circular to use their imprisonment to support the claim that they are violent.

    (Note that I am not disputing that men are generally much more violent than women. I am saying only that prison figures are not a good indicator of this.)

    AND before you say it, I got the men incarcerated numbers from Steven E. Rhoads book “Taking Sex Differences Seriously”…it was an eye opener. You should try reading it sometime.

    You would do better to get such statistics directly from the government. For a start, books rapidly become outdated, and it’s possible for the author to choose the year which best suits their agenda.

    You already cast me in the role of God and King, when I was just getting beaten. Suppose I had tried to defend myself, with the result that she was injured. And suppose all you can see are the injuries, hers and mine. Would you be then saying “oh, he was just defending himself”. Of course you wouldn’t. You would be calling me the abuser.

    Again logic tells me this is not the response of a person in a situation that is afraid of serious injury or death, which is what domestic abuse is for many of its female victims…

    And not for others, just as it is life-and-limb threatening to some men and not others. My life was never threatened (though she did brandish a knife at one point). It was, however damaging to me.

    In response the kind of injuries I would have inflicted upon her had I acted to stop her attacking me, do you dispute that you would have branded me the abuser?

    Probably the number of violently abusive men exceeds the number of similarly violent women, but I’m not even sure of that…

    Within a domestic violence context – it is undisputed that men are more violent to each other than women are.

    Strauss, who you “don’t believe” apparently because the result is not to your liking, found that women report committing more DV than men.

    Again, I’ve have to throw out everything I know about history (and I’m a graduate with a history major by the way from a school that specializes in history)

    Then you will be aware that, for example, Japanese history classes do not teach about Japanese atrocities committed during WWII and that it is illegal in Turkey to teach about the Armenian genocides.

    Sometimes what you are taught in history classes just isn’t so.

    biology and again just plain common sense to believe Strauss or anyone like him.

    Your biases tell you this.

    Not to mention that I’d have to overlook that every aggressive and anti-social act from drug running to terrorism is overwhelming committed by men in every society including our own, with the one rare exception of domestic violence here in the west, is that what you are expecting me to believe????

    You don’t have to ignore it. What you have to do is take into account that many violent men have a “don’t hit women” ethic. So much higher rates of male on male violence do not necessarily translate into higher rates of male on female violence.

    Sorry I just don’t buy it…it’s goes against logic…

    No it doesn’t. It goes against your biases. There’s no logical reason why there couldn’t be vast numbers of physically weaker women hitting men who are not psychologically capable of defending themselves. It’s not a question logic can answer. That’s why we perform empirical investigations.

    But it looks to me as though, contextualised or not, women report more violence, both comitting it and suffering it.

    I could accept that as the ONLY reason…

    I didn’t say it was the only reason.

    …if that were the most reported violent crime in every society…unfortunately men commit many violent crimes, not just against women but against each other as well. Like I said men commit most crime, violent and otherwise.

    Men suffer more violence overall than women. Every study shows that. Even feminist studies like NVAW show that. Only domestic and sexual violence is reported more by women than men.

    So what I’m suggesting is that that the amounts of DV committed by both sexes against each other may be closer than you think, because men’s greater tendency towards violence is cancelled out to a degree by the “don’t hit women” ethic. However, men’s violence is typically more physically damaging to women, because of the size and strength difference, which in turn leads women to relatively overreport the violence they both suffer and commit (since they judge both by what would harm them) while men underreport for similar reasons.

    We have a theory which explains all the data. It explains both Strauss’s results (he asked about violence committed) and NVAW (they asked about violence suffered) and it also explains why women are much more likely to be injured.

    So we don’t need to disbelieve anyone’s data.

    For pete’s sake in every society worldwide men outnumber women in prison by a factor of 20 to 1. Here it’s 10 to 1, so you can’t even blame it on chivalrious Judges not sentencing women to jail…otherwise the numbers would be reversed. Unless you are telling me that societies like Iran are more chivalrious to women then any society in the west is…and I know you could not be trying to tell me that…

    I’ll bet that they are harder on men than on women except for ‘offences’ against morality.

    Because the socialization of men and women is different. Women are trained even when young to be less aggressive, to be quiet, sit still in class, listen to authority, etc., or don’t you even believe that?

    And men are trained not to hit women.

    Why do you think I stayed in that relationship?

    I have no idea. Originally to be honest I thought you were handicapped and couldn’t get away so easily. Now, I have no idea of your reasoning.

    Because I was completely emotionally dependant upon her; because she was the love of my life and I couldn’t imagine existing without her. 😦

    I never said to exclude men. I said we cannot change the manner we address the domestic violence issue to be gender-neutral however, that’s a little different from totally exclude men. The same way that trauma units in the field do and should focus on men since that is most of the victims in war…

    But they don’t deliberately exclude women, or treat them differently, which is what happens to male victims of DV.

    It’s not a strawman because in order to achieve the 50/50 numbers that men like Strauss are claiming, you’d have to arrest a lot more women…it’s the same thing with gender-neutral custody. Millions of fit, loving mothers have lost their children in order for courts to try to achieve a 50/50 balance sheet…

    Nobody here has suggested that anyone be arested, so this is a strawman.

    Nor do I believe that the courts operate a quota system.

    So no, it’s not a straw man at all to see into the future that many women could be arrested for minor family arguments in an attempt to keep the numbers balanced if we went along with the domestic violence gender neutral proposition of this Strauss…

    What I said, nobody here is suggesting that anyone be arrested.

    I want to add one additional and related comment about this so-called strawman issue you mentioned.

    I noticed one of your links was to Cathy Young’s blog.

    I don’t know if you are aware of this but a few years ago she posted an article in our national media to discuss why more women weren’t being executed.

    Can you cite?

    I had a huge argument online with her about this article, even trying to point out to her that it would ultimately mean a large increase in the numbers of black women executed. But she was so fixated on the gender neutral aspects of executing women that she couldn’t understand why this result in itself would be wrong.

    I am opposed to the death penalty. There is a huge imbalance in the number of men vs. women being executed, but the solution is not to execute more women, but to execute fewer of everbody, preferably none at all.

    Quite frankly, I think we, as a society have to be very careful about feminists now, especially the ones who support the social engineering that goes on now under the label of ‘gender-neutral’…which is why I am very wary of any studies or programs instituted by them now or any of their affiliates.

    In my experience, feminists are gender-neutral only when it suits them.

  26. Daran said,

    …relatively overreport…

    Just to clarify, I’m not saying that women overreport. I think it more likely that both sexes underreport, men moreso than women, hence it is a relative overreport only.

  27. NYMOM said,

    “Obviously we much “end” and “wrap up” at some point, but it seems that you haven’t addressed at all the issue of some men’s inability or unwillingness to respond physically to violence from women, which renders any apparent physical advantage moot. (If you have addressed this, then I apologise. Please point to where you did this.)”

    Because you never mentioned this as a position before, that’s why I didn’t respond to it.

    The only reference made to men being socialized to not hit women back I addressed by saying that men were socialized to not use violence against anybody, not just women. AND I don’t think I was responding to you at the time. Again, you never specifically brought up the socialization of men to not hit women back as a possibility for women to be empowered to commit domestic violence. If you had I would have responded to it.

    “I can’t envision NYMOM giving a similar response to an example of the victimization of women (but even if she would, it would still be inappropriate and unempathetic).”

    Well this is a definite misunderstand about my views on things.

    For instance, I have many times advocated for presumptive Joint Custody for parents in divorces. As I have stated many times (on other sites) it is the lesser of many many evils that can happen to women and children if we don’t support it.

    The counter point to that is always: what about abusive families and I have always responded that we can’t make every single public policy reflective of the worse elements in our society. We must assume most people will follow the rules, most people are decent, most people are good parents, etc., unless proven otherwise…

    Unfortunately, we simply can’t be everything to everybody.

    I believe my response to Tom Nolan was of a similar nature.

    But it seemed to me that you left out how I arrived at that response by claiming the final answer was frivialous. The two line answer you highlighted was the end of the debate not the beginning or even the middle. We had a whole previous discussion before the admission came that most men are physically larger, stronger and more aggressive then most women.

    Additionally the possibility of trying to remake every domestic violence law and public policy so as to be gender neutral is real, so it must be discussed. Feminism has frequently jettisoned the interests of ordinary women in order to achieve the goals of their elite. There has even been evidence of studies which demonstate that more female judges being appointed in some districts has resulted in women being more harshly sentenced in those districts…

    So, it’s not a strawman to be concerned about feminism negotiating away certain principles or the rights for one group of women to help another more favored one.

    “You don’t have to agree with my interpretation of it, but realize that I am responding literally to what you wrote.”

    Yes, but only the last two lines of what I wrote leaving out the bulk of everything that was said previously.

  28. NYMOM said,

    “I’m well aware that the male prison population is much greater than the female. Many of them are there for non-violent crimes such as drug possession, so we see the male population, and in particular the black male population being criminalised en mass.”

    The numbers are reflective of the situation worldwide…so the US history of racial injustice really has little or nothing to do with them.

    Men commit more crimes and anti-social acts in every society, everywhere, not just here.

    “Finally, as I pointed out in my other comment, if the laws are altered so that male victims of DV are criminalised, it become circular to use their imprisonment to support the claim that they are violent.”

    Again, would make some sense if most men were imprisoned for domestic violence. Most aren’t, as you yourself noted. Most are in prison for what could be termed anti-social behavior and I might add it’s generally after a long list of offenses that they are finally sentenced to prison. Few offenders in prison are put there after their first crime is committed…most have a lengthy history of committing crimes (such as beating up classmates, fighting with family members, small larcencies, assaults, etc., and other anti-social acts) before finally committing the crime that results in them being put in jail.

    “In response the kind of injuries I would have inflicted upon her had I acted to stop her attacking me, do you dispute that you would have branded me the abuser?”

    Well I guess I’m disputing the either or nature of the range of responses you had available to you…as in either I restrain her and get arrested or she hits me…

    I don’t want to appear nosy but you have to give me a little more to go on then this…

    “Sometimes what you are taught in history classes just isn’t so.”

    Sometimes…like many other situations you have to go to a wide variety of differing sources to get your information and then apply common sense and logic to the final product.

    Generally I find a good understanding of history and some common sense can go a long way to explaining the world we live in.

    “What you have to do is take into account that many violent men have a “don’t hit women” ethic. So much higher rates of male on male violence do not necessarily translate into higher rates of male on female violence.”

    Can I tell you something. This is folklore. I come from a long line of people who works in the police and corrections fields and guess what: that’s generally baloney that many violent men only hit other men and don’t hit women…Violent people will hit anyone who stands in their way. That’s how they react to the world, how they live…they’ll hit their wife, kids, the dog, even their own mother if she’s in the way…

    The real reason many of them don’t wind up hitting the people in their lives is because the people intimately connected with them have learned how to stay out of their way, to become like a picture on the wall so as not to be noticed. The classic line of “to be seen and not heard” which many used to apply to children has become second nature for many of the intimates in violent people’s lives.

    “There’s no logical reason why there couldn’t be vast numbers of physically weaker women hitting men who are not psychologically capable of defending themselves. It’s not a question logic can answer.”

    But is that really the definition of domestic violence????

    “Men suffer more violence overall than women.”

    Men commit more of it, you are more involved in it in your everyday lives…so to just say men ‘suffer’ more violence is somewhat of a distortion of what’s really going on isn’t it?

    “So what I’m suggesting is that that the amounts of DV committed by both sexes against each other may be closer than you think, because men’s greater tendency towards violence is cancelled out to a degree by the “don’t hit women” ethic.”

    The ‘ethic’ is not just don’t hit women…it’s more extensive then that. YET that doesn’t stop men from committing far more anti-social and violent acts then women do.

    You are falsing limiting the socialization process that young boys go through in order to act like it’s only about not hitting women. It’s about not hitting anyone weaker then yourselves. Yet bigger countries invade weaker countries everyday of the year, larger men beat up smaller men and women as well. They kick dogs and hurt children and old people. I wish it weren’t true, but it is. The socialization process doesn’t always work.

    “However, men’s violence is typically more physically damaging to women, because of the size and strength difference, which in turn leads women to relatively overreport the violence they both suffer and commit (since they judge both by what would harm them) while men underreport for similar reasons”

    Men’s violence is typically more physically damaging to everyone, everywhere…including the property damage that takes place during the typical soccer riot.

    So, of course, society is going to take mens’ violence more seriously…they have to, so it has little to do with women’s reporting tendencies.

    “I’ll bet that they are harder on men than on women except for ‘offences’ against morality.”

    Oh I see…it’s not because more men are committing more crimes everywhere in the world, it’s because courts are harder on men then women…everywhere.

    Well that’s a pretty convenient explanation and negates anything that would show more men simply committing more crimes and anti-social behavior everywhere…

    “…men are trained not to hit women…”

    They are trained to not be violent against anyone weaker then themselves…it hasn’t worked to date with many of you, however, so why would you continue assuming it just works with violence against women????

    “Can you cite?”

    I’ll have to look for the article. Probably I won’t get to it today as I’m going to get off the internet soon and do some baking for tomorrow.

    “Just to clarify, I’m not saying that women overreport. I think it more likely that both sexes underreport, men moreso than women, hence it is a relative overreport only.”

    I understood that already…most of these things are relative.

  29. NYMOM said,

    Here is the article I referenced.

    I didn’t even realize it at the time I read it but it was posted in Salon under the heading: Mothers Who Think…this woman Cathy Young is not even a mother, btw. Although she claims to care so much about men, more then ordinary women, so how come she never went and had any kids with one…she’s not married either. Interestingly enough, like many of these female champions of mens rights, Wendy McElroy, Ann Coulter, etc., they have no kids, many aren’t even married.

    Anyway, that hasn’t stopped Young from shooting off her mouth every chance she gets trying to tell women who really are mothers how we should be living our lives.

    Additionally she wrongly claimed that ‘paternalism’ is what keeps women out of combat. Which as anyone with common sense can say women are kept out of combat because societies with armies composed primarily of women would have probably been overrun long ago by their enemies who quite sensibly used men for their armies…as in spite of much historic propaganda about women in combat there have been no societies that used women in their armies. Even the Spartans, who would have been the most likely to do so if anyone did, did not…they considered women undertaking childbirth to be the equivalent of male military service to their societies.

    Women fought historically if their cities or towns were overrun, but there is not historic record of a successful military offensive unit composed of any women…again for obvious reasons…

    I mean somethings are so commonsensical that they don’t really need elaborate explanations…

    This is one of them…

    http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/05/04/death/index.html

    (Text of article deleted. I’m not a copyright fascist, but where, as here, there’s no real reason to quote it all, and the author is someone I’m likely to interact with, then I’d prefer it if you didn’t. By all means quote sections in order to reply or criticise, etc. — Daran)

  30. Daran said,

    Even the Spartans, who would have been the most likely to [have warrior women] if anyone did, did not…they considered women undertaking childbirth to be the equivalent of male military service to their societies.

    Which would make compulsary military service for men equivalent to rape, wouldn’t it?

    I think the sexism comes into it in so far as it’s considered generally acceptable to risk men’s lives, and not acceptible to risk women’s lives. Female civilians, for example, are prioritised over male civilians in wartime evacuations even where the latter are at greater risk.

    http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2000/05/04/death/index.html

    Quoting from your earlier post:

    I had a huge argument online with her about this article, even trying to point out to her that it would ultimately mean a large increase in the numbers of black women executed. But she was so fixated on the gender neutral aspects of executing women that she couldn’t understand why this result in itself would be wrong.

    Now Cathy:

    Whether one sees the death penalty as justice or barbarism (and, for the record, I have no moral objection to imposing it for premeditated murder, though the risk of the state taking an innocent life is troubling enough to warrant opposition to the practice), surely the perpretrator’s gender should be irrelevant.

    I do have a moral objection to the DP, but I’m not above using the risk (and actuality) of false convictions as an argument against the DP directed at those who don’t object on moral grounds. It’s certainly not clear from this that Cathy would support moves to equalise the DP by increasing the number of women excecuted.

    Meanwhile it seems strange to me that you should complain about the hypothetical possibility of an increase in the number of (black) women executed while remaining silent on the actuality of large numbers of (black) men executed.

  31. NYMOM said,

    (Text of article deleted. I’m not a copyright fascist, but where, as here, there’s no real reason to quote it all, and the author is someone I’m likely to interact with, then I’d prefer it if you didn’t. By all means quote sections in order to reply or criticise, etc. — Daran)

    Sorry…

    The reason I put the article in was because sometimes links don’t work and I wanted to be sure you and other commenters were able to read it and see what I was talking about.

    Additionally as I understood it, as long as you attribute the source of the article aren’t you allowed to copy it????

    I didn’t realize it was a copyright violation as long as you attributed your source.

    Isn’t it handled the same way as when you quote in a paper????

    “Which would make compulsary military service for men equivalent to rape, wouldn’t it?”

    Well maybe if you looked at the world through the eyes of a radical gender neutralized feminist it would…in the real world no.

    As the Spartans properly saw service to your country as being composed of various types of duties…

    Men cannot bear children, just as most women being generally weaker then most men cannot fight off invasions…

    Thus women bearing children (and not just due to the pain/suffering involved) was considered the ‘duty’ they performed for their society…just as the ‘duty’ men performed was helping with the societey’s defense. Each was considered comparable.

    Most gender neutral feminists today don’t want to compare the two ‘duties’ however. My own theory on this is that since many of them don’t have children or join the military, the comparison paints the so-called ‘childfree’ women in a negative light. Unless they join the military I guess. Some could make the case that women joining the military doesn’t even meet the criteria today as they don’t face the same risk of death as the men do, yet still command the same level of pay and benefits…

    Overall however, I would say that more women continue performing their ‘duty’ to their society then men do. Since our military is now 100% voluntary and most men never serve, yet most women still bear children with the possible exception of the child-free gender neutral feminist.

    So they collective take from our society and never give any return.

    At least according to the Spartan ethic.

    “I think the sexism comes into it in so far as it’s considered generally acceptable to risk men’s lives, and not acceptible to risk women’s lives. Female civilians, for example, are prioritised over male civilians in wartime evacuations even where the latter are at greater risk.”

    I think you are misunderstanding ‘risk’ here…evacuating civilians or people who are totally useless in a war is not prioritizing them. After all male soldiers (and oftimes male civilians in the case of homeland invasions) are the ones doing the fighting, so how the heck can they be evacuated???? It’s like I heard Dick Cheney say: Winning a war is not being willing to give your life for your country, it’s being willing to make your opponent give his…

    Frequently during wars, leaders eject people from the cities who are considered useless to fight anyway as they don’t want to have to waste any resources on them. During the early medieval period a very chivalrious prince killed off thousands of women, children and old people who were tossed out of a walled city he was approached to lay seige to it…he was considered very chivalrious none the less, as he treated captured prisoners well, according to the codes of chivalry which were just being created at that time.

    Chivalry, itself, is totally misunderstood today as it was really the early equivalent of the Geneva Convention, not really the way it’s portrayed now at all…

    I’m not sure if it was ever about treating weaker people then yourself well, such as women, children and old people. Or if historians just added that in later.

    “…surely the perpretrator’s gender should be irrelevant…”

    Yes and no.

    The more important point, which she mentioned in the article is that the crimes of the differing sexes (and btw I rarely use the word gender anymore except to refer to gender neutral feminists, as I feel it feeds into a warped mindset) are directed at differing groups and thus less or more dangerous to the public at large.

    For instance as horrible as the crimes of Susan Smith and Andrea Yates were, basically these two presented no threat to the public, ie., you or me Ms. Random Stranger walking down the street about my ordinary business.

    Whereas the average rapist breaking into a home or a carjacker in the mall parking lot does. Same with the guy who kills a police officer. This group of criminals is considered more dangerous to society overall then someone killing their own kids or even a husband or b/f…

    That’s my theory. It’s also the reason why more Afr. Americans are on death row as many of the crimes that got them there are just the sorts of crimes I’ve highlighted. Actually a number of studies have highlighted how much more likely it is for an Afr. Amer. to be given the death penalty if their victim is white. I don’t think this is for reason of racism however, but for the reasons I’ve outlined above. Random stranger killed for money, rape or during commissions of other sorts of crimes like carjacking. These crimes are more terrifying to the average person because it could be them who is impacted. Crimes that women commit are rarely committed against random strangers. There is just a certain level of aggression that you have to have in order to approach a random stranger and attack them that I don’t see most women having…

    Actually I even read how most female police officers even have a hard time looking directly into the eyes of their arrestees, which is an aggression technique police officers are taught at the academy…I know even with animals if you look directly at them sometimes they consider it a signal that you are going to attack and could attack you first.

    To make a long story shorter, Cathy Young appears to not understand some very simple and basic things about human nature and mislaid a label of chivalry over them.

    “Meanwhile it seems strange to me that you should complain about the hypothetical possibility of an increase in the number of (black) women executed while remaining silent on the actuality of large numbers of (black) men executed.”

    I’m against the death penalty and that’s one of the reasons.

    You actually weren’t party to the emails back and forth we had about this issue, but in one of them she sent me a number of examples of women who had committed crimes that she considered worthy of the death penalty (one, was a woman who had killed a senior citizen she was working as a home attendant for and another was a women in Tx who shot her b/f and kids for insurance money, she was just excuted recently for this crime) but the primary thing that stuck out at me was that everyone of them was a black woman…

    Clearly when I said black woman I wasn’t signaling out that ONLY black women would be impacted negatively, but the black community in general.

    Of course that’s a major concern of most opponents of the death penalty…the racial disparity is obvious to anyone reading the statistics and cause for it to be ended…Our discussion was about the disparity in death penalty sentences being handed out to women however…so I pointed that out to her after reading her list of women she felt deserving of it…

  32. Daran said,

    NYMOM (quoting me):

    I’m well aware that the male prison population is much greater than the female. Many of them are there for non-violent crimes such as drug possession, so we see the male population, and in particular the black male population being criminalised en mass.

    The numbers are reflective of the situation worldwide…so the US history of racial injustice really has little or nothing to do with them.

    The US incarcerates a much larger proportion of its population than just about any other democratic country in the world. Black men live at a dangerous intersect, IIRC something like one in three of them are in prison for some part of their lives.

    Again, would make some sense if most men were imprisoned for domestic violence. Most aren’t, as you yourself noted. Most are in prison for what could be termed anti-social behavior

    I don’t consider mere possession of a drug like Marajuana to be antisocial. Grabbing such a person and throwing them into a cell is antisocial.

    Steven Donaldson, founder of Stop Prison Rape was in jail for trespass (he had been taking part in a political protest) when he was violently gang-raped.

    and I might add it’s generally after a long list of offenses that they are finally sentenced to prison. Few offenders in prison are put there after their first crime is committed…most have a lengthy history of committing crimes (such as beating up classmates, fighting with family members, small larcencies, assaults, etc., and other anti-social acts) before finally committing the crime that results in them being put in jail.

    Men are more likely to be sentenced to prison for a first offence than women.

    As I said before, it’s not disputed that more crime is committed by men than by women. but prison rates are not a good measure of this because of the biases in the system.

    In response the kind of injuries I would have inflicted upon her had I acted to stop her attacking me, do you dispute that you would have branded me the abuser?

    Well I guess I’m disputing the either or nature of the range of responses you had available to you…as in either I restrain her and get arrested or she hits me…

    I could have left. She wasn’t stopping me physically. Course, then she might have self-harmed…

    I don’t want to appear nosy but you have to give me a little more to go on then this…

    What else do you need to know? She was punching me, and I was just standing there being punched.

    Sometimes what you are taught in history classes just isn’t so.

    Sometimes…like many other situations you have to go to a wide variety of differing sources to get your information and then apply common sense and logic to the final product.

    So-called “common sense” and “logic” are often very poor guides, since so often it’s just another way of saying what you already think. Common sense and logic told ancient peoples that the earth was flat, and the the sun went around it.

    Generally I find a good understanding of history and some common sense can go a long way to explaining the world we live in.

    That sounds like a very comfortable point of view.

    What you have to do is take into account that many violent men have a “don’t hit women” ethic. So much higher rates of male on male violence do not necessarily translate into higher rates of male on female violence.

    Can I tell you something. This is folklore. I come from a long line of people who works in the police and corrections fields and guess what: that’s generally baloney that many violent men only hit other men and don’t hit women…Violent people will hit anyone who stands in their way. That’s how they react to the world, how they live…they’ll hit their wife, kids, the dog, even their own mother if she’s in the way…

    here, men are about twice as likely to be attacked by strangers and more than seven times as likely to be murdered by strangers than women.

    I’m not contradicting your family experience. Obviously most of those attacking women will be men, who are clearly not adhering to the “don’t hit women” ethic, but those that do are less likely to come to your family’s attention, so they won’t necessarily get the whole picture.

    The real reason many of them don’t wind up hitting the people in their lives is because the people intimately connected with them have learned how to stay out of their way, to become like a picture on the wall so as not to be noticed. The classic line of “to be seen and not heard” which many used to apply to children has become second nature for many of the intimates in violent people’s lives.

    I’m sure that this is true, but again, not the whole picture. There’s rarely a single “real reason” for anything.

    There’s no logical reason why there couldn’t be vast numbers of physically weaker women hitting men who are not psychologically capable of defending themselves. It’s not a question logic can answer.

    But is that really the definition of domestic violence????

    She’s hitting and not in self-defence. What other definition do you have in mind?

    Men suffer more violence overall than women.

    Men commit more of it, you are more involved in it in your everyday lives…so to just say men ’suffer’ more violence is somewhat of a distortion of what’s really going on isn’t it?

    Excuse me, I am not involved in violence in my everyday life. The only times in my life when I was involved in violence in my everyday life was when I was victimised on a daily basis by the fear, and occasional realisation of violence.

    You would not say to the battered Mrs. Smith and her daughter, that, as members of the notoriously violent Smith family they “were involved in it in their daily lives”. You would be able to distinguish between victim and victimiser in that case, wouldn’t you. You wouldn’t say to them “It’s you Smiths, you’re so violent.”

    So what I’m suggesting is that that the amounts of DV committed by both sexes against each other may be closer than you think, because men’s greater tendency towards violence is cancelled out to a degree by the “don’t hit women” ethic.”

    The ‘ethic’ is not just don’t hit women…it’s more extensive then that.

    I agree it is more extensive. Within the context of DV, the phrase is a convenient shorthand.

    YET that doesn’t stop men from committing far more anti-social and violent acts then women do.

    That doesn’t contradict what I just said. Men who are victimised and men who victimise are not the same people.

    You are falsing limiting the socialization process that young boys go through in order to act like it’s only about not hitting women. It’s about not hitting anyone weaker then yourselves.

    I never noticed that, when I was a kid getting bullied by bigger boys, (and in some cases same-sized or even smaller boys who were more aggressive). Come to think of it, girls weren’t discernably smaller then either.

    Yet bigger countries invade weaker countries everyday of the year, larger men beat up smaller men and women as well. They kick dogs and hurt children and old people. I wish it weren’t true, but it is. The socialization process doesn’t always work.

    I realise that. I’m just suggesting that the ratio of M/F to F/M DV may be less than you think because it sometimes works.

    However, men’s violence is typically more physically damaging to women, because of the size and strength difference, which in turn leads women to relatively overreport the violence they both suffer and commit (since they judge both by what would harm them) while men underreport for similar reasons

    Men’s violence is typically more physically damaging to everyone, everywhere…including the property damage that takes place during the typical soccer riot.

    You don’t have much soccer in the US, do you? While violence has been a problem in the past, and still occasionally is, it’s pretty rare. When I was a child befriender, I used to take the boy I befriended to watch his local team. I’d never have done that if I thought there was any risk of trouble, and we never saw any.

    So, of course, society is going to take mens’ violence more seriously…they have to, so it has little to do with women’s reporting tendencies.

    Your argument is circular, you are assuming that men commit DV against women at about the rate they commit stranger violence against men, then concluding that the reporting tendencies compared to men’s reflect the real picture. Essentially you are assuming your conclusion.

    I’ll bet that they are harder on men than on women except for ‘offences’ against morality.

    Oh I see…it’s not because more men are committing more crimes everywhere in the world, it’s because courts are harder on men then women…everywhere.

    Both. Like I said, there’s seldom a single “real reason”. Under Saddam Husein, for example, male deserters from his army had their ears cut off. – Punishment for a ‘crime’ not even applicable to women.

    Well that’s a pretty convenient explanation and negates anything that would show more men simply committing more crimes and anti-social behavior everywhere…

    I’ve not been disputing that men commit more crime. As I’ve said all along, prison rates aren’t a good measure of this, but I’m not disputing the basic proposition.

    …men are trained not to hit women…

    They are trained to not be violent against anyone weaker then themselves…it hasn’t worked to date with many of you, however, so why would you continue assuming it just works with violence against women????

    Well I didn’t assume that. But whether they do or they don’t, the figures for violent victimisation of men are going to be the same. Men suffer more violence than women, so it you are going to use external violence rates as a proxy for DV against women rates, you are inflating the figure if you include external violence against men.

  33. NYMOM said,

    Someone has posted a porn link on your site.

    That’s one of the reasons (although I hated doing it) but I changed my blog to pre-approve all comments before allowing them to post.

    Many spammers use blogs as a primary source for posting their crap and it’s a real time-consuming pain to have to check every post every so often and erase their stuff…I used to spend hours doing it before, now I don’t have to…

  34. Daran said,

    Someone has posted a porn link on your site.

    Two of them. They’re both already gone.

    WordPress actually has very good spam filtering – there have been over a thousand spams posted over Christmas, and not more than a handful got through.

    It’s a pain in the ass, still, because I still have to wade through the garbage to check for false blocks.

    Seeing the crap you have to put up with from some MRAs, I expect there’s another advantage for you in pre-approving comments.

  35. NYMOM said,

    “The US incarcerates a much larger proportion of its population than just about any other democratic country in the world. Black men live at a dangerous intersect, IIRC something like one in three of them are in prison for some part of their lives.”

    Yes I know. So in the US this could be explained by looking at our historic record BUT how does that explain that the numbers I used for men outnumbering women in prisons exist everywhere, worldwide????

    Since if what you are implying is correct, then the numbers would just be reflective of the US. Instead in every country in the world men outnumber women with arrests for law breaking and other anti-social behavior. Even within the Afr. American community here in the US, men far outnumber women in arrests.

    So this holds true across the board everywhere.

    In every anti-social behavior from drug running to terrorism, men outnumber women…so clearly crime/anti-social behavior is linked to levels of aggression which is higher in men then women.

    There is no way to get around that basic fact.

    “I don’t consider mere possession of a drug like Marajuana to be antisocial. Grabbing such a person and throwing them into a cell is antisocial.”

    I don’t consider a mother to be guilty of ‘child abduction’ if she takes her own child anywhere w/o getting a proper court order YET we live in a society that has decided this is a crime.

    So we are not discussing whether something should or should not be a crime, but that the particular society you live in has labeled it as such…so you are transgressing against that society when you defy them.

    Now just as more men have been dictators and tyrants, so too more men have been the heroes who have stood up to them in defense of freedom, liberty, lower taxes, democracy, whatever…

    So for good or ill I define that as men being more aggressive then women.

    “Men are more likely to be sentenced to prison for a first offence than women.”

    That’s rare for anyone, however, as few get caught on their first offense. Generally they have committed their crime numerous times before finally getting arrrested. It’s the rare burglary, drug dealer or prostitute who walks out and commits these crime ONCE and immediately gets arrested and then sentenced to jail. It can happen I’m sure but not too often.

    Although I wouldn’t be surprised if men were more likely to be sentenced to jail on their first arrest (which is not a good indicator on how many crimes they’ve committed remember, just how many times they got caught) but that could also have something to do with what their first arrest is for: were they a carjacker, an armed robber or purse snatcher???? I want men like that (and women too although more men commit these sorts of aggressive crimes against the public) locked up on after their first arrest…

    “As I said before, it’s not disputed that more crime is committed by men than by women. but prison rates are not a good measure of this because of the biases in the system.”

    But then what else can we use? We can’t use ancedote, we can’t use common sense, now we can’t use prison stats.

    I mean you are limiting everyway that we can measure these things. What’s left?

    “I could have left. She wasn’t stopping me physically. Course, then she might have self-harmed…”

    Okay so that explained it. It was emotional blackmail…I didn’t get that before from anything you said, so I was confused about your motives for staying with someone who would treat you this way.

    “So-called “common sense” and “logic” are often very poor guides, since so often it’s just another way of saying what you already think. Common sense and logic told ancient peoples that the earth was flat, and the the sun went around it.”

    Yet we can’t ignore it. We have to use both common sense and knowledge to come to an understanding of things. Eventually after it was explained to most people about why the world appeared flat, for instance, limited range of human vision, etc., earth turning on its axis, most people accepted the premise…

    I actually find that most people who discount common sense today are really discounting the average man/woman’s ability to discern what is going on around them. They are usually attempting to elevate experts (frequently from their own class or group) as being above question. It’s a form of subtle elitism from the educated classes.

    “That sounds like a very comfortable point of view.”

    I discern snobbery in your response. It’s one of the reasons I’m actually glad I graduated college so late in life. It gave me a chance to form a world view before being immersed in an elite ivy league environment…

    I think every graduating high school senior should not be allowed into college for a few years, maybe not until 25 or so…that way they would have to live in the real world for a while before going on to higher education.

    “…men are about twice as likely to be attacked by strangers and more than seven times as likely to be murdered by strangers than women…”

    Nothing I said would contradict that.

    “I’m not contradicting your family experience. Obviously most of those attacking women will be men, who are clearly not adhering to the “don’t hit women” ethic, but those that do are less likely to come to your family’s attention, so they won’t necessarily get the whole picture.”

    My family’s job was arresting and then keeping under lock and key the men who attacked other men as strangers…so I think they knew this class of men you are referring to pretty well.

    You are wrong to assume that men who are bank robbers, carjackers, armed robbers, drug dealers, etc., will attack other men mostly and not women. They are men who, for a living, attack and rob others…that’s their job…so yes, they are violent and will attack other men they know: friends, relatives, etc., as well as women.

    You appear very invested in making it seem like these sorts of men don’t attack women???? I’m curious as to why you think this????

    “But is that really the definition of domestic violence????”

    I feel the definition of what constitutes domestic violence has become so broad that just about anything can now be fitted into it.

    I simply don’t feel that being hit by your spouse, if there is no real capacity for serious injury being done to you, should fall under the definition of domestic violence.

    I guess my point was that I’m not altogether sure that someone who voluntarily stays in a relationship due to emotional blackmail is really suffering what I would term domestic violence.

    I mean you chose to stay, you yourself admitted she has no capacity to hurt you, you could have done serious damage to her actually

    We cannot allow every single complex human relationship to be defined by whether or not we can call the police/courts to intervene and if we ‘technically/legally’ could have, then we are in a domestic violent relationship

    It’s almost like one of these reality shows and somewhat staged really.

    I’m not sure if my point is coming across clearly here…

    But I feel the police should be the last line of defense called when you have exhausted other remedies and feel your life is in some danger. I guess this comes from my formative years of hanging around with too many law enforcement types. It’s ruined my perceptions.

    But if you are not facing some form of serious injury or death I don’t feel your situation can be called ‘domestic violence’ and should involve the police or our court system.

    Sorry.

    “You would not say to the battered Mrs. Smith and her daughter, that, as members of the notoriously violent Smith family they “were involved in it in their daily lives”. You would be able to distinguish between victim and victimiser in that case, wouldn’t you. You wouldn’t say to them “It’s you Smiths, you’re so violent.”

    I’m not sure I would really. I’ve discussed this with many domestic violence advocates in the past and they’ve been very annoyed with me as well…

    I mean people live their lives as they see fit…and you can’t chose to make your life with drug dealers, armed robbers and others who use violence for a living and expect to never have to deal with it yourself.

    This includes, by the way, many corrections and police officers as well. Many of them unfortunately, have a tendency to bring their way of relating with people home (and I understand on certain studies they had surprisingly similar responses to incarcerated men in many life situations, ie., how would you react if you looked out the window and saw someone breaking into your car, what would you do if you found out your best friend and wife were cheating on you, etc.,)…

    I know many people get angry with me when I point this out, but so be it…

    I still respect police officers and corrections officers more in spite of this…

    “Men who are victimised and men who victimise are not the same people.”

    No…but we were discussing men versus women as acting out aggressively, not men as victims versus men as victimizers.

    “I’m just suggesting that the ratio of M/F to F/M DV may be less than you think because it sometimes works.”

    I don’t understand what you mean here?

    Do you mean that your ex versus OJ Simpson or Darren Mack, then yes, you’re correct.

    “You don’t have much soccer in the US, do you? While violence has been a problem in the past, and still occasionally is, it’s pretty rare.”

    What I’m pointing out is that men can do more damage in general when they are violent. It’s why even though miniature dogs might be more vicious and overall bite more people, they are probably rarely reported or put to death because of it. Why? Because a german shepherd or a pit bull is a larger and can do more damage…

    I mean it seems to be you are continuing to deliberately mislead why society is more concerned when men commit violence either with each other or with women versus when women commit violence.

    I’m concerned as a society when two men get in a fight because they could wind up killing each other or seriously injuring others in one of the now infamous drive by shooting that go on fairly regularly…

    Two women could hurt each other, yes, but generally we’re dealing with a hair-pulling contest versus a serious injury or death of a bystander when two men go at it…

    You keep trying to paint society’s reaction to men as an overeaction based upon chivalry and I’m trying to point out to you that there are other reasons here based upon history, biology and yes, again sorry, common sense for society to react like this…

    Men congregating together has often lead to revolutions, overthrow of government, drunken brawls or other mischief…women congregating has lead to gossip…Yes not good, but nowhere on the level of the mayhem committed by men…

    Actually many third world countries to this day have laws against more then so many people congregating on street corners and even the police watch out for this in certain neighborhoods here. When they see a group of men on the corner they investigate. Nine out of ten times, they head off a problem before it happens by being pro-active like this.

    “Your argument is circular, you are assuming that men commit DV against women at about the rate they commit stranger violence against men, then concluding that the reporting tendencies compared to men’s reflect the real picture. Essentially you are assuming your conclusion.”

    No…I’m not assuming that men commit the same amount of DV as they commit other forms of violence. I’m saying the pool of men doing it could be the same however…

    You appear to be trying to exempt this pool claiming they only commit their violence against other men…

    I mean I’m thinking you feel you have to defend men who commit violence of any kind because if you don’t, you are somehow sacrificing a point here in the domestic violence numbers game…

    Actually, domestic violence is a periherial issue, comparatively speaking, when you are discussing the violence committed by men…it includes wars, street crime, terrorism (state sponsored and otherwise) civil violence (as in riots) and numerous other anti-social acts. To be honest, you could probably throw illegal immigration in there as well since most of it is generally committed by men (or used to be, that number could be changing now as many housekeepers and nannies are illegals now)…

    So you appear to be missing the point I was making about aggression by men as evidenced by the levels of violence they commit, not just domestic violence…

    Even these ‘rape’ stories the media has been using lately to demonstate that women rape as much as men.

    Hello…a teacher having sex with a 16 or 17 year old is an idiot, not a dangerous menace to society…

    John Couey and Joseph Green, who kidnapped raped and murdered 11 or 12 year olds…these are dangerous predators…not some bleached blond school teacher having sex with a teenage boy…

    You, like Cathy Young, appear to be missing the larger picture here.

    “Men suffer more violence than women, so it you are going to use external violence rates as a proxy for DV against women rates, you are inflating the figure if you include external violence against men.”

    I guess I wondered off topic here then…

    As my point was that, yes, men probably commit more domestic violence, as they commit more violence in general and do more personal injury and other sorts of damage (property, psychological) when they do commit any form of violence.

    That’s all.

    Thus, it’s not chivalry for most other men and women to admit this and deal with male domestic violence MORE harshly…

    I’m not trying to inflate any figures. I told you before I don’t pay much attention to stats numbers (for all the reasons I stated previously) just use them to measure general trendlines…you misunderstood why I mentioned the trends…it was to discuss a book I think “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” and the author mentioned many other things as well…

  36. NYMOM said,

    “Seeing the crap you have to put up with from some MRAs, I expect there’s another advantage for you in pre-approving comments.”

    You know it’s interesting you said that because many of the attacks I get are from women. I just started erasing their comments w/o posting many of them finally…

    I guess my feeling was that the MRAs truly believed they were being discriminated against, so I am more open to give them the benefit of the doubt and post their comments.

    A lot of the comments I got from the women, however, were from their wives and g/f; and I just felt they weren’t serious about the issues, just doing it to please their husband and/or boyfriends…

    Someone then turned around and accused me of not posting women’s comments because it destroyed the illusion that I spoke for women…if so many of them were arguing with me.

    But as I often say, I speak for myself only, my own opinions, no one else.

    I don’t claim to be a representative for others…

    I thought that was what blogging was about, your own personal web journal/dairy whatever…

  37. Daran said,

    NYMOM:

    You know it’s interesting you said that because many of the attacks I get are from women. I just started erasing their comments w/o posting many of them finally…

    Um, isn’t that what you complained about when toysoldier did it to you?

    A lot of the comments I got from the women, however, were from their wives and g/f; and I just felt they weren’t serious about the issues, just doing it to please their husband and/or boyfriends…

    Did they tell you this? Because otherwise it seems a rather disparaging view to have about women.

  38. NYMOM said,

    “Um, isn’t that what you complained about when toysoldier did it to you?”

    Not exactly.

    He did it in the middle of a ‘conversation’ already started. I never let the conversation begin…as I ‘m not going to allow someone to send their wife or even their mother over to my blog to fight their battles…

    “Did they tell you this?”

    Yes…a good number of them I was already acquainted with from other sites…they are the wives and mothers of fathers rights/MRAs…many of them have started organizations that are the women auxillary equivalent on MRA issues.

    It’s not such a large universe of people involved with the same issues I’m concerned with…

    “Because otherwise it seems a rather disparaging view to have about women.”

    Well unfortunately very few women involve themselves with the Fathers Rights Movement or the Mens Rights Movement UNLESS their husband/boyfriend or son has some issue connected to it. Which is why I don’t feel the movement is legitimate. You don’t decide to start a movement just because you want some advantage for yourself or your boyfriend.

    Most movements have a larger purpose then that…

    Or should.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: