|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by n.j. on 07:43 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
I wonder if it would be possible to present a different point of view in other newspapers that are available in the area? Or maybe even on TV.
Only writing letters to the editors doesn't look to me like it would change a lot.. compare that to the impression the articles themselves will leave on the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:28 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. The Washington Post has repeatedly demonstrated utter misandry. The Washington Post is psychopathically anti-male.
Tell the Washington Times about the Post again missing the real, untold story:
http://www.washtimes.com/contact-us/
You might also contact the City Paper. They do good investigative pieces. They might be able to figure out why the Post ignores men's issues and perpetuates vicious stereotypes of men. Unfortunatly, the only e-mail contact I can find is:
webmeister@washcp.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:26 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
We need to aggressively write letters to confront this bias by the Washington Post. As we are seeing with each campaign, we can make a difference. Let's get after them!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:41 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Set forth below is my response:
It is my understanding your paper is getting ready to run a series of editorials supporting the Violence Against Women Act. Many men’s groups anticipate your articles and fear they will perpetuate a dangerous myth. The myth is that women are the only victims of domestic violence. Much research suggests that domestic violence equally impacts men---men are, at a minimum, victims of domestic violence 40% of the time. See http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.
The “old media” continues to thwart efforts to get the “truth” out regarding domestic violence. The typical coverage which is invariably slanted to appease feminist is that the male is always the aggressor and the female is always the victim—distorted statistics are always provided to support this dangerous myth.
Many men suffer from domestic violence. Society and the media refuse to acknowledge their suffering. Please do not contribute to their plight. The VAWA needs to be renamed the Violence Against Persons Act. Men who are victims need the same resources made available to them that women now routinely enjoy.
Please help us get this message out. We have had to rely almost exclusively on the internet and the new media to be heard. Please, please do not ignore these men who suffer. They are real and they need your help!
Please do not let us down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 09:02 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Changing VAWA to "Intimate Partners Violence Act" would be a good idea. While someone mentioned that the assumption would be that people assume the victims are women, it may also be easier to make such a change than to have a separate "Violence Against Men Act."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 09:06 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Does anyone in the Washington metro area remember a particularly nasty woman who wrote misandric articles about men in the 1990s? I lived in the area from 1988 to 1995, and remember reading some hateful columns about men, but didn't take note of the author or save the articles for reference as it hadn't occurred to me at the time to do so.
I read somewhere how the NCFM in DC had protested this columnist and that she was eventually removed from the staff of the paper, or something like that.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:54 AM December 19th, 2004 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
I think you are referring to Judy Mann. I remember the subject was discussed on this board when she resigned.
/articles/01/12/30/0326 236.shtml
Skippy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:13 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Sunday, December 19: Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths"
A while back Scarborough Country did a piece on domestic violence against pregnant women. It was at the time of the Lori Hacking murder. I sent an email to Joe that I spent a lot of time researching to refute his misinformation. I've included quotes from the transcript of his show. Some of the links to his show may have timed out so I've not included them, but the DOJ and other links are hopefully okay.
Ray
================================================== ===========================
"...a much larger phenomenon supported by a frightening statistic--the leading cause of death for pregnant women is murder...by a spouse, partner, or ex."
Murder may or may not be the leading cause of death for pregnant women, and no one would deny that it is a highly charged and emotional topic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their is an epidemic of pregnant women being killed, or that elaborate measures need to be taken or that expensive new radical/gender feminist programs need to be funded. In fact anyone who knows anything about the history of these kinds of statistics should automatically see flags go up all over the place that there is another major fraud about to be perpetrated against the taxpayers with all men in the crosshairs as evil villains.
From the FBI web site:
FBI Tables on Homicide Tables 2:15 and 2:12 offer the most interesting statistics related to this discussion.
Murder by Victim Sex in 2002: Male 10,779 Female 3,251
(Most recent statistics available)
3,251 women were murdered in 2002. Precisely, 32.14395% of the 3,251 murdered females were murdered by an intimate. That works out to 1,045 females murdered by an intimate partner in 2002. The incredible shrinking statistic of female victimization by violence has just gotten smaller, but wait a minute, “Are we done yet?” “No,” because not all of those 1,045 murdered women were pregnant. Here’s were the math gets even fuzzier, and even I was having a hard time coming up with precise information.
In a report to the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, House of Representatives, Violence Against Women, Data on Pregnant Victims and Effectiveness of Prevention Strategies Are Limited, Date: May 2002 Pregnant Victims.
In the document we find this information:
“Available data on the number of pregnant women who are victims of violence, including violence that results in homicide, are incomplete and lack comparability. Our review found that there is no current national estimate of the prevalence of violence against pregnant women—that is, the proportion of pregnant women who experience violence. Estimates that are available cannot be generalized or projected to all pregnant women. For example, CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) produces estimates of the prevalence of violence, but only for women whose pregnancies resulted in live births and only for participating states. For 1998, PRAMS prevalence estimates for the 15 participating states ranged from 2.4 percent to 6.6 percent. Many studies focus on narrowly defined populations and use varying definitions of violence, producing prevalence estimates that are not comparable. Research findings on whether women are at increased risk for violence during pregnancy are inconclusive. CDC reported that, while additional research is needed in this area, current study findings suggest that for most abused women, the risk of physical violence does not seem to increase during pregnancy. Moreover, some women who previously experienced violence do not experience violence during their pregnancies. Factors that studies have found to be associated with violence during Results in Brief
Little information is available on the number of pregnant homicide victims. Federal homicide data collected by CDC and the FBI do not capture the pregnancy status of female victims.”
Homicide may be the #1 killer of pregnant women in America, but you sure couldn’t prove it by the information I was able to dig up. The FBI web site does talk briefly about pregnant female homicides, but adds little beyond what has already been discussed above, and indeed even tries to report what has been discounted above as fact.
Research,
INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE AND PREGNANCY
Considering the fact that domestic violence trainers of police, FBI, etc. are usually heavily indoctrinated in women’s studies, feminist ideology, the page read more to me like radical feminist propaganda, than anything else.
While the number of pregnant women who are victims of homicide remains a mystery, it goes without saying that even one is too many. However, what really troubles me in all this questionable media coverage of number crunching is the lack of attention given to the much higher number of male deaths by homicide. Let’s be honest and simply explain all the facts as clearly as possible with all the homicide numbers in 2002, but let’s also show just how easy it can be to manipulate statistics to one’s politics. Remember the old saying, “Statistics don’t lie, only statisticians”:
Here are all the “Total” homicides, and “intimate” homicides reported by the FBI in 2002:
Total Male 10,779
Total Female 3,251
601 wives
444 girlfriends
133 husbands
154 boyfriends
1045 women were murdered by an intimate in 2002 as well as 287 men so let’s just do a little manipulation with numbers to make it look as insignificant for men as possible.
Total wives & girlfriends murdered divided by Total women murdered equals 1045/3251 = 32% of all women murdered in 2002.
Total husbands & boyfriends murdered divided by Total men murdered equals 287/10,779 = 2% of all men murdered in 2002.
The high murder rate for men makes the percentage of men killed by intimate violence look very small.
However, looking at it another way,
The Total number of intimate partners murdered in 2002 is 1332.
Total husbands and boyfriends murdered divided by All intimate partners murdered equals 287/1,332 = 22%
Men are significantly victims of intimate partner violence when we do the math and see that 22% statistic. Men are 22% of all intimate partner homicides in 2002, according to the FBI, but the services men receive are virtually nonexistent for the violence they suffer, intimate or otherwise. Why the heck are we so concerned only with intimate partner violence programs for females costing billions, when men are being murdered overall in far greater numbers than females, with virtually nothing in the way of funding like that the Violence Against Women Act gets?
Men are 76% of murders, overall, yet there is no Violence Against Men Act to deal with all those murdered men, who may have found refuge, had their government at least thought as much of them as it does of women.
It is not easy being male and living in a sexist and hostile country like America, where so much of what is said about men comes through the filters of over 600 women’s studies programs on college campuses, and over 270 women’s commissions working in government, all painting a vilifying portrait of all men. Clearly the emphasis on safety and security in American law, politics and journalism is all about women. Starting some new radical/gender feminist myth about pregnant women being in danger from their husbands should be good for another billion or two before American taxpayer suckers catch on.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:37 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Editor:
I see that the Washington Post is planning on running a series of articles in support of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the biggest taxpayer funded fraud in America today. I noticed that this will begin Sunday, December 19, 2004, and that it is a three-part series on Maternal Homicide. I hope that this is not going to be just another man-hating (misandrist) domestic violence myth that will further destroy the lives of innocent men.
I am informed that on Sunday, December 19, "Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths" will begin the series.
You might want to consider the following in doing your research:
Murder may or may not be the leading cause of death for pregnant women, and no one would deny that it is a highly charged and emotional topic, but that doesn't necessarily mean that their is an epidemic of pregnant women being killed, or that elaborate measures need to be taken, or that expensive new radical/gender feminist programs need to be funded. In fact anyone who knows anything about the history of domestic violence law and statistics should automatically see flags go up all over the place that there is another major fraud about to be perpetrated against the taxpayers with all men in the cross hairs as evil villains.
From the FBI web site:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_02/html/web/offreporte d/02-nmurder03.html#t208 FBI Tables on Homicide Tables 2:15 and 2:12 offer the most interesting statistics related to this discussion.
Murder by Victim Sex in 2002: Male 10,779 Female 3,251
(Most recent statistics available)
3,251 women were murdered in 2002. Precisely, 32.14395% of the 3,251 murdered females were murdered by an intimate. That works out to 1,045 females murdered by an intimate partner in 2002. The incredible shrinking statistic of female victimization by violence has just gotten smaller, but wait a minute, “Are we done yet?” “No,” because not all of those 1,045 murdered women were pregnant. Here’s were the math gets even fuzzier, and even I was having a hard time coming up with precise information.
In a report to the Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, House of Representatives, Violence Against Women, Data on Pregnant Victims and Effectiveness of Prevention Strategies Are Limited, Date: May 2002 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d02530.pdf Pregnant Victims.
In the document we find this information:
“Available data on the number of pregnant women who are victims of violence, including violence that results in homicide, are incomplete and lack comparability. Our review found that there is no current national estimate of the prevalence of violence against pregnant women—that is, the proportion of pregnant women who experience violence. Estimates that are available cannot be generalized or projected to all pregnant women. For example, CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS) produces estimates of the prevalence of violence, but only for women whose pregnancies resulted in live births and only for participating states. For 1998, PRAMS prevalence estimates for the 15 participating states ranged from 2.4 percent to 6.6 percent. Many studies focus on narrowly defined populations and use varying definitions of violence, producing prevalence estimates that are not comparable. Research findings on whether women are at increased risk for violence during pregnancy are inconclusive. CDC reported that, while additional research is needed in this area, current study findings suggest that for most abused women, the risk of physical violence does not seem to increase during pregnancy. Moreover, some women who previously experienced violence do not experience violence during their pregnancies. Factors that studies have found to be associated with violence during Results in Brief
Little information is available on the number of pregnant homicide victims. Federal homicide data collected by CDC and the FBI do not capture the pregnancy status of female victims.”
Homicide may be the #1 killer of pregnant women in America, but you sure couldn’t prove it by the information I was able to dig up. The FBI web site does talk briefly about pregnant female homicides, but adds little beyond what has already been discussed above, and indeed even tries to report what has been discounted above as fact.
http://www.ojp.gov/ovc/assist/nvaa2002/chapter9sup .html Research,
INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE AND PREGNANCY
Considering the fact that domestic violence trainers of police, FBI, etc. are usually heavily indoctrinated in women’s studies, feminist ideology, the page read more to me like radical feminist propaganda, than anything else.
While the number of pregnant women who are victims of homicide remains a mystery, it goes without saying that even one is too many. However, what really troubles me in all this questionable media coverage of number crunching is the lack of attention given to the much higher number of male deaths by homicide. Let’s be honest and simply explain all the facts as clearly as possible with all the homicide numbers in 2002, but let’s also show just how easy it can be to manipulate statistics to one’s politics. Remember the old saying, “Statistics don’t lie, only statisticians”:
Here are all the “Total” homicides, and “intimate” homicides reported by the FBI in 2002:
Total Male 10,779
Total Female 3,251
601 wives
444 girlfriends
133 husbands
154 boyfriends
1045 women were murdered by an intimate in 2002 as well as 287 men so let’s just do a little manipulation with numbers to make it look as insignificant for men as possible.
Total wives & girlfriends murdered divided by Total women murdered equals 1045/3251 = 32% of all women murdered in 2002.
Total husbands & boyfriends murdered divided by Total men murdered equals 287/10,779 = 2% of all men murdered in 2002.
The high murder rate for men makes the percentage of men killed by intimate violence look very small.
However, looking at it another way,
The Total number of intimate partners murdered in 2002 is 1332.
Total husbands and boyfriends murdered divided by All intimate partners murdered equals 287/1,332 = 22%
Men are significantly victims of intimate partner violence when we do the math and see that 22% statistic. Men are 22% of all intimate partner homicides in 2002, according to the FBI, but the services men receive are virtually nonexistent for the violence they suffer, intimate or otherwise. Why the heck are we so concerned only with intimate partner violence programs for females costing billions, when men are being murdered overall in far greater numbers than females, with virtually nothing in the way of funding like that the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) gets?
Men are 76% of murders, overall, yet there is no Violence Against Men Act (VAMA) to deal with all those murdered men, who may have found refuge, had their government at least thought as much of them as it does of women.
It is not easy being male and living in a sexist and hostile country like America, where so much of what is said about men comes through the filters of over 700 women’s studies programs on college campuses, and over 270 women’s commissions working in government, all painting a vilifying portrait of all men. Clearly the emphasis on safety and security in American law, politics and journalism is all about women. Starting some new radical/gender feminist myth about pregnant women being in danger from their husbands should be good for another billion or two before American taxpayer suckers catch on.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:52 PM December 18th, 2004 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Also sent it to the email for ombudsman, but addressed it, "Dear "Ombudsperson."
...just trying not to give them something that might be used to say I'm insensitive to political correctness.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Rand T. on 02:50 AM December 19th, 2004 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732499/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:25 AM December 19th, 2004 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6732499/
Four times as many men are murdered in a year as are women (totals for all reasons), but forget caring about men in the official aid programs. Forget having men's Commissions to study the oppression that men face, or men's studies programs to teach the public, or enlist sympathetic recruits to help.
The totals for murdered men by the way do not even include the number of men who are killed in war(s).
It is clear from the link to the aritcle you mention (and others), that the feminists have their propaganda machine firmly in place to exploit any nuance of meaning that might be used to show any problem areas in a woman's existence, but men are left with only the burden of all the male bashing generated by all the man-hating propaganda.
To Everyone:
Don't let another day go by without telling another person some fact about the men's rights movement. Try to pick someone who has been personally affected by the misandrry, or just pick someone you know, then tell them where they can get involved: NCFM, HisSide, ACFC, and of course MensActivism (MANN).
Make it your New Years resolution, and let's make 2005 the year that men come back alive - - - after thirty years of our role as the living dead in the long night of the zombie feminists. Let's end the horror stories that have characterized the lives of far too many decent men.
Battered Men are the Covered Up Epidemic
Sincerely, Ray
Please do not scroll up the page of the linked item(s). All the info I'm trying to convey is as the page initially comes up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:25 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Make it your New Years resolution, and let's make 2005 the year that men come back alive - - - after thirty years of our role as the living dead in the long night of the zombie feminists. Let's end the horror stories that have characterized the lives of far too many decent men.
Well said. Let's make it happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 02:34 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
Just read the first installment in the WP.
It's interesting that the reporter concedes that there are no reliable statistics anywhere to be found on homicide of pregnant women, because they are not systematically collected.
She also notes that the few studies that exist use widely disparate measures and methods of analysis, and so cannot be compared reliably.
I think this accounts for why the reporter chose to use the "individual women's biography" angle for the piece. She recounts about a dozen specific homicides, basically a gallery of victims meant to disguise the fact that there are no reliable facts about maternal homicides.
The few statistics she quotes are confusing:
"But in their study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2001, they wrote that in Maryland, "a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause."
"It was a huge surprise," said Horon, who recalls paperwork covering the researchers' kitchen tables on weekends and evenings as they sought to understand the astonishing numbers. "We thought we had to have made a mistake. We kept checking and checking and rechecking."
Their findings, as it turned out, were no error. Homicide accounted for 50 of 247 maternal deaths in Maryland over a six-year period -- more than 20 percent. It had caused more deaths than cardiovascular disorders, embolisms or accidents."
So, I'm no math major, but how does 50 deaths out of 247 total (20%) = "a pregnant or recently pregnant woman is more likely to be a victim of homicide than to die of any other cause."
Last time I took a math class, 80% = more than 20%.
What did the 80% non-murdered pregnant females die from? The article conveniently omits this data.
Nice to see MSN.com is swinging into action as a parallel organ of feminist progaganda... we'll expect some insightful analysis there. NOT!
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:06 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Roy, it seems to me that none of the other causes can reach the 20% level, so while homicide is the *leading* cause of death, it isn't necessarily more probably than *all other causes put together*, which is what your post seems to imply.
Of course, the real problem is that women are murdered so rarely, and pregnant women are typically sheltered and kept safe as much as possible, so they have few opportunities to die any other way.
And I notice that no one addressed the potential of pregnant women murdered by intimate partners who were driven into a rage because she was pregnant with another man's child. Similar cases where the woman is the murderer result in endless sympathetic media stories.
Kyo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 05:36 PM December 19th, 2004 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
So, if all the "non-homicidal" causes of death, many multiple medical, accidental, and undisclosed causes -- none of which individually exceed 20%, result in pregnant females mortality...
then male's murder of their pregnant partners becomes "the main cause of maternal homicide."
Have I got this feminazi logic "correct?"
"It's a terrible thing ... living in fear."
- Roy: hunted replicant, Blade Runner
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
A reader in the DC area who is involved in men's rights work has sent me the following item. This is definitely an activism item for us MANN regulars and for anyone else interested in stopping legislated bigotry and institutionalized judicial inequality.