Misantric article attacks "Men and Women Against Domestic Violence"; needs responses

Dear Editor,

The article by Laurie Thompsen of the West Virginia Coalition Against Domestic Violence misleadingly cites crime data to prove that domestic violence is "predominantly a gender-based crime against women." ("Overstating blame in domestic violence does not prevent deaths," 1/28.) Thompsen should know that crime data is unreliable because men are far less likely than women to report the violence or to see it as a crime when taking a crime survey.

Sociological research, on the other hand, consistently shows that women are just as violent as men in relationships and that men sustain one-third of the injuries. California State University Professor Martin Fiebert summarizes over 200 of these studies in his online bibliography at www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Harvard Medical School just announced a nationwide survey that found half of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships is reciprocal and that women initiate most of the reciprocal and 71% of the non-reciprocal violence, while both sexes suffered significant injuries. http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d

The University of New Hampshire recently performed 32-nation study that found women are as violent and controlling as men in dating relationships worldwide. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male

When Thompsen downplays male victims, she also downplays their children, who are damaged just by witnessing the violence regardless of the level of injuries. We cannot stop the violence by ignoring half of it.

When will feminists drop their misandry and start addressing domestic violence honestly?

My subject line is completely factual, but apparently many are still in complete denial about it.

"A U.S. Department of Justice Study found that while women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner."

This is clearly incorrect. It's about 50/50 when it comes to the likelihood of being a victim of intimate partner violence. Gender does not play a role. However, the postulate that men are likelier to be the victims of violent crime overall is definitely true. After all, 75% of murder victims are male. It just goes to show that MRAs have real problems to address, feminists have fabricated or "skewed based on bias" ones.

BTW, nice letter Marc. You backed her right into a corner with it.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

It's quite a feminist racket they have there..

Condition police organizations to be anti-male biased and to arrest mostly males..

Then use them arrest statistics to churn more anti-male hysteria, to inevitably get more funding!!!

We need to condition men, and say...

Real men call the police if their wife/girlfriend hits them!!

The problem with this is men are not as inherently callous towards those they love, and don't want to get these women in trouble with the law..
women do not share these moral qualms, and will hurt others in any fashion there barbaric, myopic little brains can come up with!!
But this leviathan they are building can and will be turned on them!!

Thankfully, feminazis lack logic. That's their true downfall. Someone who lacks logic cannot win at a game of chess. Emotional manipulation ultimately does not win any battle, and the means through which it is propagated can and will be turned on the propagator. Logic always prevails.

I think those ads are a good idea. I think they should also make an ad with a man beating his wife, then a caption at the end which says "If this ain't cool, why would it be if the woman was hitting the man?" or "You wouldn't laugh at this, so why is it funny when it happens to a man?" Men should call the police on abusive partners, they obviously can't fight back and defend themselves. I'm obviously not implying that men are weaker than women in saying that, but that if a man were to defend himself against an abusive woman, she would say he hit her first, and she tried to defend herself instead. Who's word will the cops believe? However, if there's evidence of battery on only the man, the woman will be proven to be abusive. That's how ridiculous the law is. We can't even defend ourselves against women because we'll be ostricized for life!

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

"Women killing their male partners are especially rare. The U.S. Department of Justice cites that only 3 percent of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner."

This statistic leaves out the fact that married men die on average 7 years sooner than their spouses.

Who says they weren't "killed?"

Slowly, indirectly, and with all the plausible deniability that the fairer sex typically employs...

First she killed his dreams, then she killed his libido, then she killed his financial independence, etc. etc.

Of course, all this is merely a polite metaphor for the "true love" of modern coupledom.

The actual violence is far more graphic. (Read the divorce notices in your local paper...)

Gawd I am a cynical bastard.... or, maybe just an observant realist?

That sign needs to be taken down and put up the data on children murdered in the home by women. I think that is far, far more telling of who women REALLY are in society.

A big old pie-chart showing just how bad really are, provided to you by your US government resource.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure3_5.htm

Don't put up with the crap anymore. Call your senators, send emails and fax'em. Women should not get the benefit of doubt any longer. The free ride is over.

oregon dad

Wow! There's a 40.4% chance than any victim of violence or murder was attacked by their own mother! I expected a high percentage, but not that high. Holy crap!

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Or here is slightly more "on point" data.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm04/figure4_2.htm

Put this graphic up and just leave it up for 30 seconds.

Then state clearly, that

MURDERING CHILDREN IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

Fade to black.

Back to football. People looking bewildered at each other, saying "did you SEE THAT?! WOW!!".

Message clearly delivered. If all of the MRA sites pooled their money...hell - I'd pay $50 bucks to get that on the superbowl....you'd make a splash heard round the world.

It's gonna take something like this to wake the people up.

oregon dad

"The U.S. Department of Justice cites that only 3 percent of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner.."

That's because when a woman kills her husband, she often gets someone else to do it; so in the books it gets recorded as a "multiple-offender killing" instead of "spousal murder". (I'm not even sure if Murray Strauss knows about that, because he always refers to the fact that men kill their spouses much more often than vice versa).

Someone needs to look in the distant archives..I think I saw a reference to that issue, with a link, on this board about 2-3 years ago.

-ax

Violence by proxy is still spousal abuse! It's funny how they forget that.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!

Lets do some math. According to the Collaboration Wiki, in 2002 men were 77% of all homicide victims - 13,640. Women were 23% of all homicide victims - 3,998. 3% of all male victims would be about 409 victims. So - in 2002, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 339 male victims of intimate partner homicide, and 1182 female victims of intimate partner homicide. Based on those numbers, about 2.5% of all male victims of homicide were victims of intimate partner homicide. 29.5% of all female victims of homicide were victims of intimate partner homicide. Based on that, you could argue that more than 10 times as many women as men were being victimized by intimate homicide! If you assumed (wrongly) that the homicide rates for men and women were about the same.

The actual proportions are easy enough to calculate. About 22.3% of all intimate homicide victims were male in 2002. About 77.7% of all intimate homicide victims were female in 2002. The odds are worse for women than men to be killed by an intimate partner (how many murders of women were other women, I wonder?). Based on the data referenced above, it looks as if the proportions have been about the same since then. A far cry from "Only 3% of of male murder victims were killed by an intimate partner" (in how many cases would that be a male intimate partner, BTW?) A pretty substantial fraction of intimate partner homicide victims are women, but then again, a pretty substantial fraction of ALL homicide victims are men - so the disparity is not as great as that 3% number suggests.

Look at that graph at BoJ again. Notice that the proportion of men to women victims is pretty even in 1976, and the number of male victims falls after that? Consider this - what if one of the reasons there are fewer male victims of intimate homicide is because the women have a place to go - DV shelters, many of which have been established since 1976? Instead of feeling like she has no choice but to kill her husband/man friend, the poor woman can go to a DV shelter and get help eviscerating him legally. And better still, she doesn't run as much risk he will hit back - a sweet deal.

If Feminists really want to save the lives of women, they will work hard to get DV shelters set up for men. It's worth it to save the life of just one woman! And besides - why should men benefit from reduced homicide rates - that's sexist! Anyone who has the best interest of women at heart should get busy setting up DV shelters for men - and if we have to de-fund some women's DV shelters, that will just increase the number of men victims - no great loss. It's For The Children!(tm)

When Feminists (or anyone, for that matter) start slinging percentages around, it's often interesting to see what the raw data tells us. In this case, it seems that male intimate partner homicide victims are a small part of all male homicide victims, and female intimate partner homicide victims are a substantial portion of all female homicide victims. However, given the discrepancy between the number of male and female homicide victims, it turns out that the difference isn't nearly as great as some Feminists would have us believe.

I'd like to see homicide numbers reduced drastically for both men and women. But if about 20% of all female victims are in the intimate homicide category, but about 20% of all homicide victims are female, I have to ask - why are we paying so much attention to this when more that 3/4 of homicide victims are men? Is this where our priorities are? That tells me all I need to know about the people who consider this a women's Holocaust and all those dead men a mere statistic.

Remember - in 2002, 13,640 men were murdered. In the same year, 3,998 women were murdered. I'm willing to bet that 2003 thru 2007 are not much different. Where's your atrocity now, ladies?

women do not share these moral qualms, and will hurt others in any fashion there barbaric, myopic little brains can come up with!!
But this leviathan they are building can and will be turned on them!!

Man you're too much!

*Holding side with laughter*

----------
The domain of Mr. Reality: New Topic - When oral Sex results in a pregnancy

The Women are at Fault by Matthias Matussek

TomP. -- "... why are we paying so much attention to this when more that 3/4 of homicide victims are men?"

Ummm, because men are evil and bad and violent and women are good and pure and sweet?

i.e. - Chivalry.

BTW, excellent stats analysis.

Your idea that if men had a place to go to "chill out" - a men's refuge - then many more females would not be killed is far too intelligent to get Joe Biden's attention.

See, this goes against feminist logic.

Men are born to control and oppress women because of the Evil Patriarchy, which must be continued.

Haven't you heard, the threat of rape is how men keep all women in their place?

If you passed a men's VAWA-like bill that provided angry (even abused) men a place of safety - and god forbid men used these services - what would feminists do?

It would clearly destroy the core premise of Patriarchal Oppression if men were to choose a non-violent alternative to DV conflict.

Hence, that choice must never become available.

I keep waiting for my membership card and secret decoder ring - I wanna be a member of Evil Patriarchy, Inc. too, darn it!

Re the "...if men had a place to go to "chill out" - a men's refuge - then many more females would not be killed..." item, I would be interested to see what results would be obtained if the idea were presented to average people - not Feminists, not politicians, and for Gods' sake, not lawyers or judges! It might get traction as an adjunct to the DV stats that are becoming available, indicating that men are victims of DV too. Seems it's pretty hard to get DV funding when it is for a shelter for men and their children, but maybe if you are using the men's DV shelter to get those savage males away from their female victims (and incidently, allowing the female victims to retain control of the house.....). Phrase it as a win for feminists and you might get some help. Maybe phrase it as - if you create DV shelters for men, you put the potential abusers/rapists in one place, where they can be watched and monitored. Sort of a concentration camp lite. Women are not only protected, but protected in their own home! What's not to like, for a Feminist? Ideological judo, so to speak.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent MRAs from doing as women have done, and use the men's shelters for providing actual helpful information and contacts to men driven from their homes by violent women, provide contacts with lawyers who will actually help, hook men up into action groups that can work more effectively for rights for themselves and their children,etc. That part, we should maybe not mention to the feminists and politicians. Don't want them stubbing their collective toe on reality until we are ready for the fallout.

It's always easier to sell the other side when they think you are giving them a win.

Well, it's an idea, anyway.

BTW, the idea is not original with me - I came across it on a link from Per's Manifesto back in 1997 (sorry, no cite). The evidence has been laying around that long at least. I can't take credit, I'm just passing it along.

I think the whole secret to expanding the DV Industry to include men is to convince lawyers that they will make more profits.

It really does not matter who's the "victim" or who's the "perp," if billable hours can be invoiced.

The law profession is overlooking how much more exploitation it could achieve if men were able to claim DV "victim" status.

You can get a law degree on-line now....

Get in on the graft before it becomes commonplace!

It's called prison, where the guys go and learn to beat up on other guys, instead of on women. The mentality must be that either,

a)The guys will never be released - i.e. effectively, life sentences for DV; or,

b)The guys will be let out on the assumption, that they will keep beating up only on other men (not women). And since men are disposable, that's not a problem.

Amazing how it all fits together, isn't it?

-ax

That story about the man who killed his wife because she beat him up would be good evidence that a DV safehouse needs to be set up for men too. TomP is right. This would be beneficial to women as well. If the man who shot Nikki Henderson to death had a place to turn for help instead of being turned away because of his gender, the couple would have probably never gotten into that ultimately fatal altercation.

Evan AKA X-TRNL
Real Men Don't Take Abuse!