|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday June 09, @03:49AM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
If you click on the link to the article above, about two thirds of the way down the page is a link called "Post/Read Msgs". Click on this and you can participate in an online discussion of the story (free registration required).
I make it a habit to find discussion forums associated with news stories, and put my own point of view forward. If enough people do this, the message will spread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I put a post up - I am iamafsh. ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday June 09, @09:14AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I am screaming_introvert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
iamafsh,
Help me out pls. Was your post saying that the 130 studies are not valid?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is not that they are 'not valid' only that they are being misrepresented. Women do hit men as often as men hit women. But women are injured at rate of 7:1 and murdered at a rate of 2:1.
Of the 130 studies 60 of them mention that they use the CTS as the basis for their statistics in the blurb on the page you suppled. 11 of the studies are by Straus, 5 by Gelles (3 in conjunction with Straus) - I checked out a further ten that did not mention there methods and found that they either used the CTS or they did not mention how they collected and analysed their data.
The studies also mention things like it is still considered acceptable for a woman to slap a man's face in the stereotypical way that society has portrayed 'female violence' in the past.
The fact still remains that men are still a considerable statistic in DV - 15% is not a small amount. Men should be included both in reviews of domestic violence victims and support programs.
As for claiming that men just don't report - here are the Reporting Crime Stats from the National Crime Victimisation Survey (NCVS - Department of Justice) from a sample of 50,000 households and 100,000 people each year. 1994.
Robbery, Assault (aggravated/simple)
Females 45.5 Males 40.5
Assault Simple
Females 39.7 Males 34.2
Assault Aggravated
Females 55.7 Males 49.6
Men do report less often just not enough to account for the difference in injuries.
Also all those CTS studies seem to suggest that men don't mind reporting they have been aggressed against.
It is also relevant that overall men are nine times more likely to commit murder than women are.
Men actually are killing a lot more men than they are spouses while women rarely kill women. Men are also far more often the victim of assault than women are - just it is men that are assaulting men.
So help for victims of violence as opposed to Domestic Violence should be primarily aimed at men.
Here are the stats for homicide(DOJ):
Male offender/male victim 65.1%
Male offender/female victim 22.4%
Female offender/male victim 10.1%
Female offender/female victim 2.4%
Personally I know men who have been seriously assaulted by women and quite a few. But nowhere near the amount of women I know who have been assaulted by a man. So my own anecdotal experience is in line with the stats too.
The point is that DV victims are equally worthy of support if they are male or female and that it needs to be recognised that women can be the perpetrators. The point may be lost if the focus is on drawing shonky conclusions from misrepresented statistics - it discredits the claimant.
Here is another quote from the Department of Justice:
"The offending rates for females have declined since the early 1980's while those for males peaked in the early 1990's and have fallen considerably since then"
Thought that was interesting because I would have thought it was the other way round.
These are all US stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
None of those reporting stats were DV related. Many of us still think there is a stigma. That 15% is low, that women use weapons to harm, etc....
I think it odd to not believe that women are near equal in all areas.
Women do murder as much as men if not more, in these areas of DV.
That stats are very skewd and opon closer look, you will see that the murder ratio 2:1 is inaccurate. And there are many factors for this.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dan where is the proof?
I will be pleased to see it.
Here are some links that discuss further the problems with the CTS.
There are further quotes from both Gelles and Straus about the misuse of the scale that they developed.
http://www.anu.edu.au/~a112465/XY/husbandbattering .htm
by Michael Flood and scroll down halfway to the title 'Claims about 'husband battering'
http://www.zip.com.au/~korman/dv/controversy/
by Katie Orman
This is a really well researched with links to the sites where data and research was collected.
I know that it must be disappointing to find out that the research that you have relied on is incorrect but you only discredit yourself if you cannot back up your claims.
As I have said - I think this should in no way distract from the plight of those men who are victims of DV nor should it be used to show that 'all' men are perpetrators of DV. But you can't go on deluding yourselves against all the research. How can anyone take you seriously if you cannot back up your statements?
Now I had never heard of this issue of women bashing men more than the other way around until I joined this group recently. If it is this easy for me to discredit it - how easy would it be for anyone else? Men have plenty of issues where they are the true victims - why focus on this completely untenable position? And thereby bring discredit on the men's movement?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Dan where is the proof? "
Notice I use your own choice scholars
"Assaultive Girlfriends"
The following excerpt is from an article in the September 1995 issue of the APA Monitor, the monthly publication of the American Psychological Association.
Girlfriends Are Fighting Back
While the stereotype has it that men inflict the bruises on women, new research shows that boys are not the only aggressors. Not only do some girls hit back; girls are the sole perpetrators in some cases.
Two psychologists, Kathryn Ellis, PhD, and Irene Frieze, PhD, have found that college women kick, push, bite and slap their male partners more often than vice versa. There have also been reports of some college women brandishing knives and guns.
In a study of more than 300 University of Pittsburgh college women in the early 1990s, Frieze found that women reported being significantly more violent towards their male partners than men reported being towards their female partners. Most women cited romantic jealousy as the reason for assaulting their boyfriends. In the same study, Frieze found that women did just as much damage as men during fits of anger.
Frieze speculates that women have become more aggressive because they think they can get away with it more easily than men.
'Men tend not to take [such physical violence] very seriously and women see it as an expression of independence,' said Frieze, a professor of psychology and women's studies at the University of Pittsburgh.
Contrary to many psychologists' belief that strong identification with the male role promotes violence, Frieze found that 'traditional men,' who hold conservative beliefs that men are providers and women are caretakers, were less likely to be violent and more likely to be benevolent and protective of women. Surprisingly, Frieze found that less traditional men, with more progressive views of women being leaders and having successful careers, were more likely to be violent with their more traditional counterparts, who see men as more capable and able-bodied than women.
School violence study on high school students.
The ratio at which girls and boys hit each other in adolescence is 20:1, with girls hitting boys twenty times more often [1].
Based on a three-year observation (1989-92) of high school students by Elizabeth Brookins, chair of the Department of Mathematics, El Camino High School, Oceanside, California.
__________________________________________________ ________
Family Homicides
- rates by gender - DoJ, 94
In July 1994 the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice released a Special Report detailing the results of a survey of family homicides in 33 urban U.S. counties. The report covered ONLY convictions, which should respond to any contention that female-on-male family violence is almost always reactive. The report said:
"A third of family murders involved a female as the killer. In sibling murders, females were 15 percent of killers, and in murders of parents, 18 percent. But in spouse murders, women represented 41 percent of killers. In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55 percent of killers.
"Among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to kill their husbands as husbands were to kill their wives: 47 percent of the victims of a spouse were husbands and 53 percent were wives."
- from Murder in Families Special Report, July 1994 Bureau of Justice Statistics U.S. Department of Justice
Much of the discussion on this list of the issue of female-on-male domestic violence has centered on a denial by some members that such family violence exists, contentions by others that acknowledging the prevalence of female-on-male violence somehow constitutes a denial that the reverse occurs (though not one person who has spoken to the issue has denied the reality or even the severity of male violence), and attempts by some members to get the list to deal realistically with family violence in ALL its dimensions.
Female-on-male domestic violence is a reality. It is a reality established over and over by non-advocacy research. Murray Straus notes that there has never been a random sampling study (as opposed to clinical populations or self-selected respondents) that has failed to establish virtual parity in the initiation of physical violence between intimate partners -- and he cites about 30 such studies.
That aside, though, it is difficult to explain away a stone-cold body on a kitchen floor, and the BJS survey found a startling number of them to be male. Unless we are going to redefine domestic violence to excise homicide from the definition, then a reexamination of our perceptions of who is perpetrator and who is victim seems to be order.
The questions we should be addressing are:
How much would the 7 to 10 differential (as cited by Dr. Gelles) in injury rates for women vs men be reduced if we got the message to women that when they convert a previously non-violent family confrontation into a physically violent one by slapping, hitting, scratching, biting, kicking, throwing objects, etc., it is very likely they.
Do law enforcement, medical personnel, courts, counselors, and even the allegedly abused male himself apply a different level of identification and acknowledgement of injury for men than for women?
There are some 1,500 shelters for abused women in this country. There is not one single publicly funded safe house for males where a father can take his children to remove them and himself from a dangerous or potentially lethal family situation. Whatever the level of female-perpetrated domestic violence, it is patently NOT zero, yet in the allocation of public resources and in the formulation of public policy, that is the way we treat it.
Is it not time we began approaching family violence as a family problem, rather than as one more method of cannonading the opposite sex in the ongoing gender wars?
Hugh Nations, esq
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Because of the above I think it is crucial that this site should rewrite the section outlined in the "Our Philosophy" section of this site that reads:
Women's Violence and the Portrayal of Women
We believe that one of the misperceptions that is currently harming equality and men's rights is the myth that women are less violent than men.
As it is proved that it is not a myth but that it is true I suggest that the section be rewritten to say:
We believe that it is important to highlight the problem of Domestic Violence perpetrated against males and the need for these men to be represented in reviews and in the development of support services for DV.
I believe this is absolutely necessary if this site is to avoid being labelled (quite truthfully) misogynist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @03:43PM EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
I know that it must be disappointing to find out that the research that you have relied on is incorrect but you only discredit yourself if you cannot back up your claims.
Gees. Take some time to take a course on stats, and then reexamine those falsified studies. You will find that there are very few actual statistical studies. All the rest (the vast majority ~98%) are a study of a study where the numbers are inflated using lies.
The deception by feminism is so wide spread and deep that it is almost impossible to tell what are the actual numbers. We do know those feminists are inflating the numbers by classifying a simple shout by a male as battering. The feminist funded studies also falsely categorize rape numbers in their studies by classifying inappropriate touching by a male as rape. This is well proven in the men's movement. If you don't want to have a sufficiently open mind to learn of this, go back to the feminist movement and be an Ostrich.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found this article written by Richard Gelles discussing DV and homicide:
http://www.serve.com/zone/everyone/gelles.html
Here is a quote from it:
The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.
Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women “battered?” No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.
My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women - but hardly trivial.
Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers. The media, policy makers, and the public cannot simply ignore - or reduce to a parenthetical status the outcomes of violence, which leave more than 1,400 women dead each year and millions physically and/or psychologically scarred for life.
Now this is from the man who DEVELOPED the methodology that is used for all those studies persons on this site so love to quote. OPEN YOUR EYES.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I have with this discussion of who is more violent is that it is irrelevant for the topic of DV. The major consern with DV is psychological damage that occurs in these situations. Regardless if men are PHYSICALLY hurt less than women the psychological harm is the same (Or worse IMO since men often lack an emotional outlet for psychological pain).
This is the problem I have with the entire conversation of DV as it is currently structured; who has physical damage done to them. Since men are physically stronger and larger in most physical confrontations between a man and woman the woman will have more visible damage done to her than a man will but,.. what about the mental damage?
Under the current DV laws and policy if a man is defending himself from an attack and the woman is physically hurt he is arrested.
The entire DV issue for men is a hidden problem that most people can not fit into their cognitive structure of masculinity.
As a closing note anytime talking about the topic of male DV I suggest avoiding the "physical" damage area and concentrate on the idea of mental damage. (note: the current mental health tests are also strongely biased in favor of women since most of them rely on verbalization and expression.)
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I question your Department of Justice statistics the only place I could find the quote of 41% of murders by women was on this site: http://www.vix.com/men/battery/stats/doj-deaths.ht ml
which incidentally is NOT the DOJ - on the contrary it is a male rights website.
Christine you must go to the DOJ site for the DOJ statistics (make sense?).
Here is the link for the DOJ stats 1973-2000 that are not selective to just one year (1994) but in 1994 the amount of men killing women was close to 3:1.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm
And what is the point of being so selective using statements from Straus when I have given full articles by Gelles and statements from Straus that cannot be misconstrued to mean anything other than their research and their CTS is being abused by 'mysogynists' - to use their own words.
"Is it not time we began approaching family violence as a family problem, rather than as one more method of cannonading the opposite sex in the ongoing gender wars?"
But this is PRECISELY my point. If you don't think that so misrepresenting the statistics is not "cannonading the opposite sex in the ongoing gender wars" then I don't know what is. Men have to have sympathy for all DV victims.
I suggest you read my other posts again - I ALWAYS say that the men who suffer from DV should be acknowledged and represented and that not all men perpetrate DV and that this is really important to get across - but you shouldn't have to lie about it.
As for your other experts. I looked into 80 of those 130 studies that were either BOGUS or severely misreported - how many do I have to look at when I have the DOJ and the developers of the CTS to quote?
What are their qualifications that make them more qualified than my sources?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACTUALLY there are several problems with your evidence that male DV is not an important issue.
#1 In your quote:"Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men."
I agree with this statement but I would also draw attention to the very next sentance which states, "A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her."
This vary statement highlights the problem of DV amoung men. Men are never given the benefit of doubt when it comes to violence against women. if a woman is struck it is DV regardless if she "psychologically provoked" him or not.
I would also strongly suggest that you look into the CURRENT research done by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) under the VAWA (violence against women act) that showed the extent of the problem of DV against women AND men. The numbers they found were ~1.2 millon women and ~850,000 men are victims of DV each year.
I will mention in closing that any under reporting of the crime that occurs for women is doubled for men. ("taking it like a man")
I would also ask for you to compare the resources for women and men when it comes to DV. Were are the homes for men and their children? where are the toll-free hotlines? the billboards? TV commericals?
The problem to me is not if women are equally violent or less violent than men the problem to me is that male victims of DV are ignored! They suffer silently and die away with a gun to their head or run away and called deat-beats. Until I see men talked about as victims on the same level as women I will continue to speak out for men's rights.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem I have with this discussion of who is more violent is that it is irrelevant for the topic of DV
This is what I have always said - please read back over all my posts on DV and you will find that is my ongoing theme.
The major consern with DV is psychological damage that occurs in these situations. Regardless if men are PHYSICALLY hurt less than women the psychological harm is the same
So is this a victory or what! So you agree that women are more physically harmed - hey we have progress here. YIPEE - how about a little - you are right derry?
Besides this - has anyone on this list worked in a DV shelter, or in a hospital or in some other way seen some of the absolutely more horrific cases of DV and also seen how numerous they are? Seen the ongoing cases? Anyone seen the long term psychological effects on these victims? Or is this list just ignorant?
Has this list any sympathy for the female sufferers or did they all deserve it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of a battered spouse stands the same for a male or a female. It is talking about unprovoked violence either way. So there is no misandry here.
And please this is not my quote - it is Richard Gelles.
And can you give me a link to the section of the CDC site you refer to?
And don't just say 'Doubled' for the men without quoting the study/stats.
Were are the homes for men and their children? where are the toll-free hotlines? the billboards? TV commericals? The problem to me is not if women are equally violent or less violent than men the problem to me is that male victims of DV are ignored
Hasn't that been what I have been saying all along?
Until I see men talked about as victims on the same level as women I will continue to speak out for men's rights
Who said anything about not talking about men's rights - where does this kind of talk come from? If people are going to believe that the only way to put men on the same level as victim as women is by falsifying the truth then that is just so dangerous and will deeply discredit the men's movement provided people realise how bogus the research is - and if not it will damage women.
But when men's rights are violated - we should all stand up and shout.
There is nothing that is higher than the truth - because if it is not true - it is not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derry, I have several points I would like to address to you.
1) “As it is proved that it is not a myth but that it is true …”
Actually Derry it is not proved.
Firstly, the statement:
We believe that one of the misperceptions that is currently harming equality and men's rights is the myth that women are less violent than men
is in the context of transgender violence (women-men, men –women) otherwise it would not be a gender issue.
The fact that women initiate violence against men as frequently is accepted by you.
“Women do kill men as often…”
So, are we to consider that women are less violent by the measure of their lack of success?
Do the DV laws which oppress and discriminate against men state that domestic violence is only such when the victims experience an arbitrary amount of damage?
I think not, and more to the point neither do the legislators. Domestic violence is the perpetration of violent acts in the home regardless of the magnitude of the damage; well at least with regard to female victims.
Women perpetrate the acts as frequently as men so women are just as violent; the statement stands.
2) “As for claiming that men just don't report…”
What follows in you monologue is clearly divisive. You suggest through statistics, that are not specific to Domestic Violence, that men report violent crime just as often and so imply that they report domestic violence as often. (when it occurs)
There really is little reason for misunderstanding this. It is claimed that men do not report domestic violence because they are ashamed that they are being beaten by their partners. They are not ashamed that they are being mugged or robbed on the street, they are ashamed that they are being beaten by an intimate partner. They are not reporting DOMESTIC violence.
Has anyone at any point suggested that they are not reporting any crime?
Is there any latitude for failing to misunderstand this?
So, why attempt to show that men report DV crime as often as women (when it happens) by showing stats for other violent crimes? I think you should look at your own value system when making the decision to run this argument.
The best way to determine a lack of reporting, in view of women clearly committing DV acts against men in equal number to men against women, would be to look at the reported stats of domestic violence. You can see them a little way down your own monologue. Women report 2:1.
I would have any further doubters in our readership ask themselves some questions:
What do you think the point of pubic information broadcasts and ad campaigns telling women how to get help in DV scenarios actually is?
Do you think it is important?
Do you think it helps?
Would you be surprised to hear that there is a spike of reports after such a campaign?
I’d have thought the reason for these campaigns is clear. They bring the message that there is a way out to the victims of DV who might not know. They are specifically aimed at those individuals who haven’t spoken out; whose statistic hasn’t been included. The reason these campaigns exist is to deliver information to silent victims. No one doubts these people exist when they are women.
There has never been a campaign for male victims of DV. The centres advertised for women wont take men. The councillors, “available on our lines now” wont speak to you if you are a man. Countless thousands stay silent and people like Derry will tell us they don’t exist in significant numbers. Should I conclude that DV support awareness campaigns for women were a waste of time then; that those silent women never existed either?
3) “Men have to have sympathy for all DV victims.” (from another part of the thread)
People wonder how this can come about. How apparently caring people can ignore the suffering of another group in precisely the same way. Derry’s statement (3) sums it up. The implication that the concern for male victims of DV is an attack on female victims of DV.
When, Derry, has anyone on this site stated that women should not be supported when the victims of DV?
What we demand is that the protection of law is extended to the whole of humanity and not just women. When people in the DV industry start realising this, countless suffering silent men and their children will finally get the help they need.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I question your Department of Justice statistics the only place I could find the quote of 41% of murders by women was on this site: http://www.vix.com/men/battery/stats/doj-deaths.ht ml
which incidentally is NOT the DOJ - on the contrary it is a male rights website.
Here's a link to the DOJ study you weren't able to find (except at a male right's website), followed by a link to the executive summary:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spousmur.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spmurex.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forgot to mention, the numbers come from the number of defendants not convictions, so if your searching strictly for crime stats this study isn't going to show up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many men do you know who would even ADMIT to being beat up by their wives, let alone report it to the police?
The points you bring here have been offered here before and, I think, quite successfully dismissed. You're not bringing anything new to the debate. If you're here looking to be educated, if you have an open mind, then welcome. If you're here to try to reverse our position, just let me say that many of us, if not most of us, have come from the position you are in now and have moved to this one after examining the studies and separating the spin from the facts.
I don't really want to enter this debate becuase there are others far more qualified than I to refute your position, derry, and because I really don't have the time right now to go off and engage in a reasearch project, let me just offer this:
Even if what you suggest to be the case is true, that women are abused at a far higher rate than men, even after we consider under-reporting and biased enforcement, there is STILL a dire need for DV help for men who are victims AND a reversal of the discriminatory tactics of police and enforcement agencies.
Why are you not supporting this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And let me follow up by saying that if the feminists keep getting studies designed to identify ONLY female victims, then damn few male victims will ever be identified. That's what we're seeing here: just one more study that's designed to identify only female victims. And they STILL can't avoid finding male victims!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are plenty of websites and government organizations who get paid a lot of money to have sympathy for women. It's not like we don't have compassion here (we do), but it is our focus here to advocate and educate the need for compassion for men who receive none.
They women are doing a pretty good job of taking care of themselves in this realm, thank you very much.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @03:12PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I believe this is absolutely necessary if this site is to avoid being labelled (quite truthfully) misogynist.
Ah yes. There is that male hate stuff coming out from yet another hateful feminist. Funny how feminists cannot stand to have their faulty views challenged. If we listen to feminist, we must conclude that all males are evil and in need of reeducation and criminalization. They have been so successful at this practice in America, that we now have the highest criminalization rate of men in the civilized world. That is no accident. It was planned by the feminist who support and lead N.O.W..
Their current number one priority is to destroy the family because of their open hatred of the supposed evil male patriarchy, then they want to dispose of all males via criminalization at a woman’s word with no supporting evidence. They have even been successful in passing laws to allow this widespread activity internationally.
It has gotten so bad, that in Canada and Australia, there are now shout at your spouse loose your house laws. They actually believe that if a man raises his voice in an argument, that the man is evil and deserving of jail, a loss of home and family, loss of carrier, and permanent destruction in any way possible. However, if the woman shouts then it is just self-defense against an evil male.
That is how they get their inflated DV scores. They use trickery like equivocation of terms to turn a male that raises his voice into a batterer. No reasonable and sane person would accept such logic. But then we are dealing with a group that has a pathology; they cannot tell fact from fiction. In their minds, there is no such thing as “the truth.” They believe all reality is absolutely relative, but even that is a contradiction because in a system of relativism there can be no absolutes otherwise something would be absolutely true.
Thus we find that the real violence is the violence that is committed against families, children, and men in the name of a “holy” task leading to the destruction of the supposed evil patriarchy (that isn’t even real).
Then these feminists sit back and lament of how evil men are when we learn of how our children are damaged in the absence of a father. They seek to destroy the evil patriarchal male and call men evil when the plan backfired because children need a father. Yet it is the feminists that have openly declared and waged an open war on fatherhood and men. A war they continue despite the mounting evidence of children being the true victims of their war.
Feminists are so demented that they actually believe that if a little boy touches a girl inappropriately, that the boy raped the girl. Then they are so dishonest and deceptive, that they record the event as a rape in their statistics so they can make males look more evil. Those are the stats they use to spread their male hate agenda, and those are the stats they are trying to use to discredit the men’s movement. This practice will not stand.
How sad this pathetic feminist movement is. It is literally responsible for the majority of social ills that we experience today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @03:32PM EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
And don't just say 'Doubled' for the men without quoting the study/stats.
Women are known to be nine times more likely to report DV then men any day. That is common knowledge. We know this is a part of the culture. Get a little unbigoted and look for the information. It is out there. And no I'm not going to list sources. You are too bigoted to examine them objectively.
GEES! What is your problem? Some feminist just cannot stand to learn that there are significant numbers of male victims. They cannot stand the idea that men deserve equal rights at the same level that women enjoy them. So they will spout want ever party line they must to continue the delusion.
They want men to continue being the disposable sex in wars and the other death based occupations like mining, firefighting, farming, tree trimming, and etc while they intentionally choose to avoid those dangerous occupations. Then they want the men to continue turning over their money to women based government programs in the name of equality, the best interest of the children, the supposed female moral superiority.
These feminists need to get a job in the death occupations if they want equal pay. But instead they resort to lies and deception of how women are mistreated and devalued so they can get more government money for their social programs that benefit only women. Of course we know they won't get a job in the death occupations (except a very few) because they want their continued special status and treatment as the more valued sex. All this, as they condemn continue to publicly condemn men as the disposable sex.
These feminists are so stupid that they actually call these men in the death occupations evil and oppressive for the good they do when the women fail to take these occupations. They have no appreciation for how men serve the needs of women. This feminist also intentionally ignores how the stats cited are inflated through false categorizations of facts. Why am I not surprised?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a link to the DOJ study you weren't able to find (except at a male right's website), followed by a link to the executive summary:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spousmur.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spmurex.pdf
A.J.: Thanks for those links.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And they STILL can't avoid finding male victims!!"
I have more arguements, Warren Farrell lists many of them in the back of his book.
But think about it, if women stopped hitting men, this will reduce the DV by 50% Im sure.
I dont buy the women's only defences, a woman doesnt have to kill a guy when he's asleep, how many men have been poisoned??
Patritia Pearson has an interesting book on the subject. Flip through it when you can. Im sure we will get back to this subject soon to more articulate the arguements.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I always found it amazing that women get so defensive when someone mentions a man as a victim in DV.
My feeling is that the whole thing is a 'power card'. Play the victim well enough and yu will get whatever you want. Am I surprized at the rise of this, especially just pryor to the breakdown of relationships. Many of them are such bullshit we dont even know where to start.
And No I am thinking that none of us have been allowed anywhere near a DV shelter, as it is the custom of the DV shelter to perpetuate the hatred of men, by stating that men can not help in these areas (total and absolute bullshit by the way), Funny how the unacknowledgement of Lesbians is interesting, where do these women go when it was a woman that battered or beat them? (Oh and thank god the guy was murdered before he was eligiable to become "battered"). Should those Lesbians go to men councilors?? Those DV shelters perpetuate hatred against men in perticular, and they are the one's calling the rules of who is and isnt a victim funny how men end up on the bottom of the list, its amazing that they even allow for 5% of men are hurt in DV, but then again they are not powerful enough to to supress everything are they. Tell me are those Lesbians any less hurt??? Let alone its all over the news that men do not go to the doctor, Im sure a man will sufer with bruises, cuts, and many other ailments long before he has to go. I forget the study now, but it quoted the same ratio of the same intence injury between the sexes. Im going to try and get a hold Of Warren and see if he will post these studies on his web sites so that we argue with them.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
its all over the news that men do not go to the doctor
This is one of the greatest points, Dan. Men go to doctors far less often than women, and there is very little embarrassment for going to a doctor for a fever compared to going to a doctor for being "beaten up by a girl." It's a very safe bet that men report victimization by women far, far, far less often than women report victimization by men. When a woman reports victimization, she receives a tremendous amount of support. When a man reports victimization by a woman, he is seen as a worthless weakling.
And so...
Men don't report.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @07:42PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
You're quite right Derry. It's good to see a man with some common sense on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You're quite right Derry. It's good to see a man with some common sense on this site.
What makes you think derry is a man?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"When a woman reports victimization, she receives a tremendous amount of support. When a man reports victimization by a woman, he is seen as a worthless weakling"
They recieve about 6 or 7 billion dollars in support, the giant pork barrel troff creats victims out of necessity, so they can bloat stats and of course get more money.
I doubt that these people would honestly say the "fight is over" it would be like resigning from your "job".
Politicians are either extremely stupid, or heres a longshot only interested in votes, not in success of their programs.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @07:58PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know women receive a "tremendous amount of support"? Some women have been ignored by the police when they've reported abuse and there are a lot of women who don't report abuse too. Some battered women are not able to report their abuse because their partner prevents them from using the phone or leaving the house.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Check out the willful blindness here, folks.
How do you know women receive a "tremendous amount of support"?
What a lovely question. For starters, consider VAWA. There ain't no VAMA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why are you not supporting this?
That's the weird part. She does support it. She's just decided to get in a pissing match about whether or not men are more violent than women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do you know women receive a "tremendous amount of support"?
Here's an article that mentions funding for VAWA. Again, there is no Violence Against Men Act. In the article, note the statement, "DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have awarded over $1.6 billion in Federal grants..."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You suggest through statistics, that are not specific to Domestic Violence, that men report violent crime just as often and so imply that they report domestic violence as often. (when it occurs)
Now this is sensible and a very good point. I concede that I had not been careful enough with thinking this one through and apologise.
There really is little reason for misunderstanding this. It is claimed that men do not report domestic violence because they are ashamed that they are being beaten by their partners. They are not ashamed that they are being mugged or robbed on the street, they are ashamed that they are being beaten by an intimate partner. They are not reporting DOMESTIC violence.
Has anyone at any point suggested that they are not reporting any crime?
Is there any latitude for failing to misunderstand this?
Don't just say it - point to the studies that prove it and a URL to it if possible please.
The fact that women initiate violence against men as frequently is accepted by you.
“Women do kill men as often…”
Ah, that is not my statement. Be careful when you quote people.
So, are we to consider that women are less violent by the measure of their lack of success?
Do the DV laws which oppress and discriminate against men state that domestic violence is only such when the victims experience an arbitrary amount of damage?
I think not, and more to the point neither do the legislators. Domestic violence is the perpetration of violent acts in the home regardless of the magnitude of the damage; well at least with regard to female victims.
I really don't understand what you are saying here - could you reword this?
people like Derry will tell us they don’t exist in significant numbers
I have said repeatedly that they do exist in significant numbers *sigh*
The implication that the concern for male victims of DV is an attack on female victims of DV
You may imply what you want, I don't believe that - I just want the facts. *double sigh*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant - thank you A J.
This is what this site needs more of - may I suggest that anyone who makes a statement backs them up with a study or statistics and who quotes statistics that they then back them up with an appropriate link?
I don't think it is right to ask anyone to just take anyone's word for it - especially when there is so much contradictory information/opinions out there.
Your explanation of why I could not find the document is correct.
Here are is one more link that I think is interesting:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/spousfac.pr
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How many men do you know who would even ADMIT to being beat up by their wives, let alone report it to the police?
Plenty who would admit to it - you mean you don't? Few that felt threatened enough to report it to the police.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yes. There is that male hate stuff coming out
no male hate is misandry - I said mysogyny
in Canada and Australia, there are now shout at your spouse loose your house laws
Source and link please.
And there is the big evil and undefined 'they' again. *sigh*
specifics and focus - try it it's good for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Plenty who would admit to it - you mean you don't? Few that felt threatened enough to report it to the police."
Interesting. Aren't you supposed to be supporting this with statistics? Isn't that what you have been claiming that we haven't been doing.
Are we supposed to believe this?
The hypocrisy of your hate is quite spectacular.
I use the word hate with measure. For your statement that "few that felt threatened enough to report it to the police" is quite certainly the most blatant piece of misinformation I have read in some time.
You are actually stating, without any kind of substantiation that there are few silent male victims of Domestic Violence.
We have campaign after campaign for female DV victims. The entire point of these is so that the message that there is a way out might be communicated to them. We have non for men and all but the most bigoted of individuals would conclude that there will be many men who will remain invisible if they are offered no way out.
That is the reasoning behind any campaign.
But not for you derry. You will happily say that such campaigns although essential for women are waste of time for men because there are, "Few that felt threatened..." [derry 2002].
There you go derry a reference. You can now quote yourself as a source of information. That's how most feminist hate campaigns work.
So come on derry, defend yourself. How will you justify your statement?
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One paragraph which peaked my interest in your link was this:
"In many instances in which wives were charged with
killing their husbands, the husband had assaulted
the wife, and the wife then killed in
self-defence," noted one of the report's authors,
Patrick A. Langan, Senior Statistician at BJS.
"That might explain why wives had a lower
conviction rate than did husbands."
Does anyone see anything interesting here? Every single statement in the entire piece of any significance is justified with a statistic. No mention of methods of gathering of course.
Except peculiarly enough with this paragraph.
Self-defence is a very particular legal point. It isn't a vague description. If an act was in self-defence then for this statistician to quote such a thing the value should be very easily demonstrated along the lines of x% of female killers of men were judged to have acted in self-defence.
I wonder why we didn't get it on this single and very important point?
I mean the title for the US DoJ release is:
"HUSBANDS CONVICTED MORE OFTEN THAN WIFES FOR SPOUSE MURDER"
If these acts were judged to be in self-defence then hurrah we have a solution. (Of course we would have another question of how frequently self-defence is determined across gender.)
This is the pivotal point of the whole statement and the only one without statistical support.
Hmmm. What do you make of this derry? Anyone else?
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know what you're after here, derry. You seem at some times to be a feminist stopping by here to straighten us out. Then at other times you seem to count yourself among our numbers. You go off and find some statistics that support the feminist viewpoint and you bring them here for us; yet most of us have seem those numbers, considered them at length, and found that we find other numbers, numbers that we believe to be less biased, to be more credible. Are you doing this to educate us? Or to educate yourself?
You've stumbled into a place where, while we certainly do have compassion for individual women who have been abused and would not deny them support, we believe that men are being hurt by discriminatory policies implemented by government and championed by feminists.
If you are here to educate yourself by testing our presumptions against what you've found elsewhere, then that's a good thing because when you finally come around you will be as firm and confident in your position as we are. If you are here to educate us, then I think you're finding that (whether or not you agree with us) our arguments are well-considered and quite supportable.
As I said in another post, the women are taking good care of themselves in this regard. It's time for men to stand up and demand justice and equal treatment under the law. This is one of the places where we do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
in Canada and Australia, there are now shout at your spouse loose your house laws
Source and link please.
There is no point in giving derry a link to this. She will just dismiss it, just as she dismissed the more than 100 studies with an aggregate sample of more than 77,000, which show that women commit domestic violence against men at least as much as men commit domestic violence against women.
Don't waste your time, men. This feminist's mind is made up. Get angry and fight the evil. Do it everywhere that you can, in any way that you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 11, @07:44AM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
derry wrote...
"And there is the big evil and undefined 'they' again. *sigh*
specifics and focus - try it it's good for you."
Derry's constant fallback is a condescending attitude that is a factor in the worsening of the gender war, and another reason we should not accept female "allies" in this cause. While pretending to help us on one hand, they will work to further destroy us on the other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't you just love this.
He asks me for my anecdotal experience, I tell him and then he attacks me for offering anecdotal experience as a statistic!
What can I say - but you asked. Were you trying to set me up?
I am not claiming any assumptions from my anecdotal experience I am just offering it to you at your request. It is simply my experience and not part of any study or statistical assessment nor a representative example of US, Australian or World statistics.
I am talking about my friends and acquantances. If they cared to share their experiences with me and how they felt about it then I report them truly. I make no conclusiions of a general nature from them. I supplied the information at your request.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get angry and fight the evil. Do it everywhere that you can, in any way that you can.
Don't break the law, of course :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You missed this bit:
In 44% of wife defendant cases, there was evidence
the husband had assaulted the wife at the time of
the killing. In 10% of husband defendant cases,
evidence was present that the wife had assaulted
the husband prior to the killing. Assaulted wives
were convicted (by either guilty plea or trial
verdict) 56% of the time. The comparable
conviction rate for unprovoked wives was 86%; for
unprovoked husbands, 88%.
It was in the paragraph above the one you quoted in spousefac. ;)
Check it out.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spousfac.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spmurex.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/spousmur.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1) “Don't just say it - point to the studies that prove it and a URL to it if possible please”
I recommend you take a look here: http://www.dvmen.org/dv-87.htm
(All the arguments and data are referenced where required and collected for ease of viewing.)
2) “I really don't understand what you are saying here - could you reword this?”
Certainly. You were attempting to claim that, although frequencies of the two flavours of DV may be similar, women were harmed so much more that it was inappropriate to say women were AS violent as men within a DV context.
I pointed out that the law applied no arbitrary measure of amount of damage done when charging someone with DV only the perpetration of a violent act. So, violence is violence whether I punch someone on the nose and break it or I punch someone on the nose and it swells unpleasantly. In short the measure of a persons violent nature is a measure of their propensity for violence. (I suggest you look at the link I provided above which discussed an index of injury)
3) “I have said repeatedly that they do exist in significant numbers *sigh*”
Actually you spent a considerable amount of time (now discredited by your agreement) trying to prove using inappropriate statistics that men report as often as women. That there weren’t a significantly greater percentage of men who don’t report. So while you’re on the subject of apologising you can apologise for that too. Unless you stand by your now unsupported claim that men report DV as often as women when it occurs.
Oh, sorry I forgot you have now changed to the new approach of saying, that you personally know
“Few (men) that felt threatened enough to report it…” (it being domestic violence)
So, may I take it that you have already given up on claiming any significant disparity between the two flavours of DV and are now concentrating on the men can take it theme?
Also: Putting little expressions at the end of your statement is no substitute for a well constructed argument. *Sigh*
4) You may imply what you want, I don't believe that - I just want the facts. *double sigh*
Actually I was INFERRING that which you had IMPLIED with this statement:
“Men have to have sympathy for all DV victims.”
Namely that you believe we were in some way unsympathetic to DV against women. I asked you a question which you ignored. I asked:
“When, Derry, has anyone on this site stated that women should not be supported when the victims of DV?”
Why else tell us to be sympathetic? I INFERRED that you had IMPLIED we were being unsympathetic purely because we were asking for equal treatment. (The usual feminist argument that asking for men’s rights is an attack on women’s)
So, I ask you once more to show us where we stated that female DV victims should not be supported?
Re: * double sigh* (see previous)
[PLEASE NOTE THE NUMBERS ARE NOT RELATED TO ANY PREVIOUS NUMBERS BUT ARE SIMPLY USED TO DELINEATE THE POINTS FOR ADDED CLARITY.]
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually I thought he was being rhetorical? Particularly in view of the lack of value of asking a women about how men think.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: “You missed a bit”
Sorry, but no I didn't.
There is a claim that there was evidence.
This is not demonstration of self-defence.
If the defendant had acted in self-defence there would have been no issue with assigning an explanation. The whole article would be a non-issue.
Thus these women were not deemed to be acting in self-defence. (I use the legal meaning of self-defence not the feminist one.)
Yet, the statistician is quoted as telling us it could be the explanation. It was either self defence or it wasn't. If it was we should have the statistic not of evidence (including the assailants testimony presumably) but of a jury's finding that the woman acted in self-defence.
We don’t have it so we are forced to ask ourselves why did the US DoJ release a statement which either:
a) had a simple explanation; that the women were JUDGED to be acting in self-defence
OR
b) had a statistician quoted as judging an assailant to have acted in self-defence when a court hadn’t
(perhaps this is to cut court costs, stats guys say what the probability of a defendant being guilty is and we skip all that expensive trial nonsense.)
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
you go off and find some statistics that support the feminist viewpoint and you bring them here for us; yet most of us have seem those numbers, considered them at length, and found that we find other numbers, numbers that we believe to be less biased, to be more credible
Then supply them for me to look at - it is so frustrating to be told how hateful and spiteful I am simply because I am trying to find out and bring other stats to be looked at as part of that process. I don't think this list has nearly enough information and too much spewing about 'hatred', 'evil' and a whole range of abuses which the prize has to go the the subscriber who posted 'femicunts'
I can't take people who just jump up and down and hurl abuse seriously and if I bring evidence to you that contradicts what you say then I bring it to you perfectly happy for you to refute (if you can) but I get so sick of the extreme emotionality of this list.
I want facts.
And I am not supporting the 'feminist' viewpoint - anyone on this list who brings up any viewpoint contrary to this lists 'women are violent and all feminist are demonic' is branded one (demon/evil/hatefilled/feminazi, etc).
In fact there are many more members on this list among you with more feminist ideals than I have.
Feminism supports the idea that women are the same as men and should have social, political and economic equality.
I have never met a bunch of men who so want to be woman and so want women to be men - who so want complete 'unisex'. Which is the absolute ideal of the so-called feminist movement.
Besides the most vicious attack I have posted on this list towards the idea that women are as violent as men came from Straus and Gelles.
First of all they are men.
Second of all, posts on this site quote their studies to prove women are more violent - when they couldn't be more appalled by the misuse of their studies and of the Conflict Tactics Scale which is the scale which is used in all of the 130 studies that I checked out (79 out of 80 used the CTS and one did not quote methods of collecting data - before I gave up) offered in earlier posts to prove women were more violent.
So where is the feminist?
The most incredible thing is noone on this list that I have read to date has even tried to discuss the finding I have made on Straus and Gelles - when I thought it was rather central to so many of the studies you use to defend the women are more to equally violent. Why?
And if this list wants me to come round to their point of view they are going to have to stop all the emotive pilloring and start quoting all that information that you are hinting at.
But if I continually get called 'hatefilled' and 'femicunt' and 'evil' I am leaving and noone will have an opportunity to inform me because I believe that is not the way to treat other people - in fact I would call that verbal violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
derry, I must apologise for my previous mail implying that you were a woman. I have just seen a post where you took issue with that: "She?"
(I think that was you)
Anyway, it was a largely unjustified assumption based on the post asking if any of us had been in a DV refuge.
(like there's a chance of us having a DV refuge, us being men an' all, but I digress)
Somehow I got the impression that you were implying knowledge of one of these refuges; which would imply you were female.
My mistake.
I did have one further point if I may hold your attention a little longer:
Re: "He asks me..."
*I* didn't ask you.
I'm assuming
"Don't you just love this."
and
"Were you trying to set me up?"
are rhetorical.
Are you going to attempt to counter my statement:
"You are actually stating, without any kind of substantiation that there are few silent male victims of Domestic Violence."
Or is the "I make no conclusions of a general nature..." statement to mean that your imaginary friends are all the evidence you need in this matter?
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Femicunt sounds a bit strong. Who's pushing the line?
Surely no one is actually saying YOU are evil only your belief system which you are bound to get if you ignore argument points. If you can't counter them just conceed them rather than ignoring them and I'm sure no one will consider you malicious.
I missed which Strauss and Gelles stats you mean; sorry I'm trying to do this between work. Could you refresh the issue.
Hang about, didn't I point you at a link with Straiss and Gelles stats myself?
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. I will look at it, thank you - not tonight it is late in Australia and I need to go to work tomorrow.
2. Well that sounds very strange to me but I will read the link as you suggest and get back to you. But I would certainly feel more favourably inclined towards someone who slapped me than someone who hospitalised me with multiple fractures - if that is what you meant. No doubt you didn't.
3. In my way of thinking 15% IS a significant number - I am not agreeing with your stats until I have more evidence.
And I have made no conclusions about how often men report because I have been offered no research in the area.
Apologising for using the incorrect stats was no agreement with your claim that men seriously underreport - that you haven't backed up with any statistics.
And I feel quite comfortable with saying this BEFORE I read your website because you are attacking my statement made BEFORE you gave it to me.
You assumed.
4. That was not a new approach - that was an answer to a request about my personal experience and was not supposed to prove anything. Go look at my reply to that post. I believe that people should be able to speak of their personal experiences especially if asked as long as they do not claim that there personal experience is part of a scientific study or statistical survey - which I never claimed.
But I think I will not answer any posts about my personal experience if this is the way the information is misconstrued.
You assume too much.
With regard to the *sigh* - I am misrepresented, misquoted, abused and insulted by this list and you, and the sigh is just the difficulty of having to once again explain how I have been misinterpreted.
With the statement “Men have to have sympathy for all DV victims.” - You mean you disagree? I really think this is just such nitpicking. I did not intend to imply anything. I made a statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate that you may be too busy to follow the whole thread but I think if you just pick up further down the thread you are in danger of misunderstanding and this thread is growing out in all directions and is becoming incredibly hard to follow anyway.
If you read through all posts you will find that I have already conceded on two major points, apologised and complimented those posts that are informative. I can promise you that noone on this list has offered me that courtesy. On the contrary much of what I put forward is just ignored or emotively attacked - I get a little squeeze of information and an intelligent post here and there - it is so rare and so limited. I am disappointed with the information that I posted that has been so ignored. I am disappointed that if I post something and say hey what about these stats that I am personally attacked and called the greatest insult this list has to offer - a 'feminist'.
Perhaps steve you are comfortable with the heavily emotive tone of many posts on this list using excessively extreme insults. I am not.
Personally there are far too many people on this list who make huge assumptions on what my belief structure is and what I actually mean by my statements.
Personally I am starting to think I come from another planet - one where people LIKE having their belief structures challenged as long as it is done intelligently, is open-minded enough to listen and really consider the reply and doesn't use emotional abuse.
That is not the planet that many of the members of this list is on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
she?
You're not? I'm surprised. I had always assumed so and figured you didn't mention it so it wouldn't be an issue and get in the way of discussion. If you're not and the notion offends you, I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't apologize. I'd bet very good money that derry is a woman.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
christine I hope you are reading this one.
not accept female allies - got it.
in the war - got it.
what is the next step.
Kill them all.
Of course the fact I am a man is just beside the point isn't?
Not that I am trying to be on your "side" in the war.
I am not fighting a war. Against all those evil women.
Can't anyone on this list see how insane this is?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
read it again. 44% of female defendents that there was evidence that they had been assaulted were not convicted. While only 14% of women who made unprovoked attacks were not convicted.
This evidence is clearly given to explain why the women were not convicted.
Please go back a post and read it again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. Well it's the end of the day here in England so I'll have to continue with this tomorrow also.
2. I'm sure you know enought about DV legislation to know better than to suggest ABILITY to inflict harm determines a persons propensitry to be violent in terms of legislature.
3. Read the site. I'll dig up some more very recent stuff for tomorrow, if our American contributers don't beat me to it.
(50 is a great deal more)
You had access to such information. Who needs an education when you have Google.
4) Rule1: Never dump personal experience into a debate; you'll get burned.
4.1) Re: "You mean you disagree?"
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Missed the last line:
You start teaching your mother to suck eggs she's gonna assume you aren't taken with her existing egg sucking skills.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologise - it was frank that made the comment. It is really really late here and I am getting extremely tired - I am only going to make mistakes if I keep posting and I am so ripped to shreds on this list I don't want to stay any longer.
The statement I was replying to was at the top of my post - you should have seen what I was answering.
"You are actually stating, without any kind of substantiation that there are few silent male victims of Domestic Violence."
I am not. Don't put words in my mouth just so you can attack me for them. I never said it. I have no idea about them. I have not stats, reasearch or any suspicions from anything I have seen or heard. But I am not making any conclusions on the subject until I have something to base it on.
Or is the "I make no conclusions of a general nature..." statement to mean that your imaginary friends are all the evidence you need in this matter?
Oh steve you must know I meant the opposite. And my imaginary friends? I am becoming so disillusioned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have I quoted feminist studies - or more to the point are all the stats and research I have put on this list funded by feminist? The DOJ, Straus and Gelles?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are not my mother - if you were you would have taken the time to teach me how to suck eggs instead of continually attack me.
Decent mothers don't do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get burned. this list is just all out war. their is nothing human on it.
Don't bother to talk to me tomorrow Steve.
I would have preferred some education not the constant castigation of this list.
I am leaving it.
You win. Only men who scream loudly "Feminazi, Feminazi" and are completely disinterested in educating the ignorant or educating themselves will succeed on this list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AU, "...in Canada and Australia, there are now shout at your spouse loose your house laws..."
Derry responds, "Source and link please."
Well there you have it. We have another noob feminist troll that is calling us a bunch of women haters without knowing the facts. My Derry was quick to judge and condemn us.
It is common knowledge that these oppressive laws exist. It is common knowledge that feminist sponsored those laws. This noob has no idea what feminism has done. Nor is this noob aware of the radical feminist agenda to destroy all men via systematic a criminalization of men and the destruction of the family.
Derry actually believes that N.O.W. is about gender equality. NOT! This noob needs to spend some time doing research before spouting feminist lies.
It's called doing your own homework. Some people never learn.... They always want others to do their research and homework.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, derry wasn't sincerely interested in getting educated. This list covers a huge body of evidence that show convincingly that women commit domestic violence against men at least as much as men commit domestic violence against women at every level of severity.
Cavalierly dismissing this great body of research and declaring that men suffer about 15% of domestic violence while women suffer 85% amounts to discounting the victimization and suffering of an enormous number of men. It also helps to ensure the continued suffering and victimization of an enormous number of men.
What we have witnessed is a feminist tactic that is currently gaining popularity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ACTUALLY there are several problems with your evidence that male DV is not an important issue.
I have always said that male DV is an important issue.
#1 In your quote
I didn't say it, it wasn't my quote - Richard Gelles said it. And you have completely misrepresented it. Battered wives or husbands are both defined as being victims of unprovoked attacks.
a woman is struck it is DV regardless if she "psychologically provoked" him or not
this does not conflict with what RG was talking about because he was talking about men who:
Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men
please note the beat bit
You gave no link to the CDC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Then supply them for me to look at..."
Many have been presented here and yet you refuse to buy the point. You bring us statistics produced by the guvvamint to support the feminist view and you bring us ridicule of Strauss and Gelles as if they were the only ones who ever studied DV from the men's perspective. Never mind CTS. Go to the Fiebert bibliography and look at the hospital statistics and the questionaires sent out to college students and the body count and ... The position you appear to have, that violence perpetrated by men against women is SO overwhelming that its opposite counterpart is not worth considering, is just not supportable. Why do you contiinue to sustain this argument? Just to be the last to be heard? Not on THIS site.
"I want facts."
So do I. One thing I will concede is that ALL of these studies are so full assumptions that it is genuinely difficult to get to an understanding of what the real facts are. But the answer to that is to look carefully at as many studies as possible, and so far, I find enough fault in the studies generated by the feminists, and the guvvamint under the Hillary Clinton administration, that I automatically conclude that they are faulty. I found one report based on the 1998 DoJ/CDC study that CLEARLY compared apples and oranges on the same graph: it compared the number of dead men to injured women. Now how do you think THAT graph looked?
"And I am not supporting the 'feminist' viewpoint..."
You're doin' a damn good job of fooling us!
"anyone on this list who brings up any viewpoint contrary..."
There are those of us who have been pushed to the limit by the feminists and the system and have no patience with the counter-arguments that seem to repeat themselves. They make no apologies.
"Feminism supports the idea that women are the same as men ..."
I don't purport to know exactly what it is that the feminists support today, but the notion that men and women are the same is utterly ridiculous. Further, reardles of what they SAY, the feminists do NOT support this viewpoint in practice. If they truly believed that men and women are the same then they would be IN SUPPORT OF things like presumed joint physical custody and proper enforcement of custody/visitation agreements. They would also have a very different view of rape and sexual harassment.
"I have never met a bunch of men who so want to be woman and so want women to be men ..."
Speaking only for myself (though I've read posts from men who I believe agree with me) I have NO desire to ba a woman.
"First of all they are men. "
And your point would be? As men, do you believe they are less capable of analysis of DV?
"...no one on this list that I have read to date has even tried to discuss the finding I have made on Straus and Gelles..."
You know, we can argue 'til we're blue in the face about the accuracy of the CTS method, and ultimately we might conclude that using a different method would have altered the results, but by how much? Do you assert that abandoning CTS would amplify DV against women and nullify all DV against men? All scientific methods come into question at one time or another. But the clear message from Strauss and Gelles remains true: DV against men is far higher than anyone expected, and though we can split hairs on exactly how large the numbers are, the research still has value. Shoud we use CTS in the future? Probably not. But you need to recognize one thing: the faults in CTS are understood in scientific terms, which is more than can be said of many claims made by feminists.
"And if this list wants me to come round to their point of view..."
Quite frankly, and speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if you as an individual come around to our point of view. I might care more if I knew you represented a Congressman who might be one of the authors of VAWA III, but you didn't identify yourself as such. It's a free country; you are free to believe what you like. But if you really support the improvement of treatment of men in the realm of DV, then your arguments here are nothing more than an academic exercise. You're splitting hairs on a point you already said you support. All of us have varying degrees to which we buy or reject the research that's been published. If you really do support what it sounded to me like you said, then put down the argument and get in line with us. If you don't, then I'm sure you'd be welcome at the Ms. board.
"...in fact I would call that verbal violence."
In fact, I would, too. In fact, I believe that verbal violence is a genuine cause of domestic violence and that women are genetically better at this than men. Unfortunately, the courts seem to have determined that men are the only ones capable of domestic violence.
So, again, even if the CTS method is flawed, it's no more flawed than than many other studies from either side on this topic. Further, its flaws are understood and it is still valuable in describing domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why else tell us to be sympathetic? I INFERRED that you had IMPLIED we were being unsympathetic purely because we were asking for equal treatment. (The usual feminist argument that asking for men’s rights is an attack on women’s)
Nice catch. She has already, after just reading only a couple of posts, called us nothing more than a bunch of misogynist. Derry has specifically stated this and we have seen NOW resort to just dirty tricks before.
Now, after being judged and condemned to hell by this feminist, we are supposed to come around to her way of thinking and learn to hate men because she claims we hate women that are victims of DV.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I found one report based on the 1998 DoJ/CDC study that CLEARLY compared apples and oranges on the same graph: it compared the number of dead men to injured women.
That is priceless. Do you have a citation or link?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I can't take people who just jump up and down and hurl abuse seriously...
Now derry is painting herself to be a victim of abuse on this site. Next Derry is going to claim psychological damage and call the police or get a court order to try and shut down the site.
Scott, you may want to consider banning this feminist. We don't want a bunch of false allegations getting this site shut down.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derry, I have read it . The paragraph is immediately before the one I quoted.
It was the phrasing of this paragraph which first aroused my suspicion.
Self-defence is a legal plea it is not a turn of phrase.
Are you suggesting that the 19% who were not convicted were not convicted because it was self defence?
If 19% of female defendants were judged to have acted in self-defence it could have stated such.
Why did it not?
Do you think we are being asked to make a few assumptions and then do the maths ourselves just to keep our hand in?
Why have the figures for men not been shown for comparison also?
Why did the US DoJ release this under the headline “HUSBANDS CONVICTED MORE OFTEN THAN WIFES FOR SPOUSE MURDER” condemning their system of justice if there was a perfectly plausible explanation? (not that it makes up the whole percentage of course)
Can you really not read the tone of this release derry?
What the US DoJ has done is issue statistics showing an amount to gender bias and then have someone make a personal addendum without statistical support so that the reader may assume what percentage of female spouse murderers acted in self defence. 50%, 80% sounds about right?!?!
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Second of all, posts on this site quote their studies to prove women are more violent...
Gees. Nobody is trying to claim that women are more violent then men. The point is that they initiate DV events at about the same rate as men. Another, distortion by derry.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Further, reardles of what they SAY
Don't take offense, I know it was a typo. But "reardles" is a great, new word, and I collect new words. Mind if I use it? I'll have to come up with a definition, of course, unless you'd rather do that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
.... stop all the emotive pilloring and start quoting all that information that you are hinting at.
This tactic of playing the victim is a well-known one that is often used by feminist. Nobody is abusing derry. Yet derry, in order to win sympathy and try to persuade others, is playing the role of a victim that is being brutalized by the supposed misogynist on this site.
There is nothing sincere in derry's request. Derry's mind is made up. If derry were sincere derry would take the initiative to look up alternative competing studies. It isn't like they are secret documents or anything. What derry is doing is just playing the innocent victim that is being attacked by a group of evil men .
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have NO desire to ba a woman.
Neither do I, bro. Especially, if feminism comes back to haunt them, something it may well do. Actually, it already has. Many a woman would like to have a fine, long-term relationship with a man. A growing number of men, however, are realizing that such a relationship, especially marriage, may well lead to financial ruin. Also, many a woman would like to have children with a father in their (the woman's and children's) lives. But a rapidly growing percentage of men know that, if the marriage breaks down, the women with the collusion of the government may well kidnap their children. Note the population collapse. It is, in part, a result of this awakening on the part of men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course the fact I am a man is just beside the point isn't?
We get brainwashed feminist-males around here all the time. That is nothing new. They are one of the worst enemies in the war against men.
It is surprising that you actually believe you are abused on this site. It implies that you are quite fragile.
When I learned you are from Australia that explained a great deal. Australia is much further along in the war against men. In that country, men have been loosing the war in droves.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now derry is painting herself to be a victim of abuse on this site.
That is exactly the tactic. Another victim.
I was recently falsely accused by a feminist of promoting violence, something that, I believe, is illegal in some jurisdictions. (I had stated that I do not support violence, but sometimes people get what they want by using violence.) When I got in her face about the false accusation, she started whining that I wasn't being civil. By making that false accusation against me, she forfeited any rights to civil treatment by me. She went toddling off, whining about uncivil treatment.
Another victim.
Are the feminists getting so desperate that they're now resorting to this pathetic whining? One can hope.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Use away, just give me a by-line somewhere :-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It'll take me a little while to find it. I'll check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now derry is painting herself to be a victim of abuse on this site.
Pretend to be a supporter of men's rights. Proceed to declare all the tired, old, long-since-debunked lies. Then act like a victim and claim that men are being vicious and unreasonable women-haters, when men refuse to submit to the lies.
Boooooring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't apologize. I'd bet very good money that derry is a woman.
Not a bad bet. We've seen posers here also.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should read Gelles' article at
http://tsw.odyssey.on.ca/~balancebeam/DomesticViol ence/gelles.htm.
He emphatically states that women INITIATE domestic violence at least as often as men. The initiation of DV makes the target a 'victim,' whether they are technically "battered" (by the narrower definition) or not. Most of the literature distorts the facts about the numbers of "victims." And in the Psychological Bulletin, 9/00, Dr. John Archer's meta-analysis found that men make 38% of HARMED victims. So it may not be equal, and women are harmed more ON AVERAGE, but men are harmed in HIGH frequencies by women and men are victimized AS OFTEN or MORE OFTEN than women.
Gelles also says,
"The ”horror” of intimate violence toward men is somewhat different. There are, of course, hundreds of men killed each year by their partners. At a minimum, one-fourth of the men killed have not used violence towards their homicidal partners. Men have been shot, stabbed, beaten with objects, and been subjected to verbal assaults and humiliations. Nonetheless, I do not believe these are the ”horrors” of violence toward men. The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the ”missing persons” of the domestic violence problem."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the post, Marc. I always value your contributions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That is not the planet that many of the members of this list is on."
Jeez! There she goes again!
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"That is not the planet that many of the members of this list is on."
Jeez! There she goes again!
With a name like "starzabuv," I'd think you'd appreciate the different planet stuff :)
Seriously, gentlemen, I think we just performed a momentous act. Without compromising ourselves, we stuck together. We didn't fall into bickering against each other, and we built a wall that the hate couldn't overcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derry aired:
The definition of a battered spouse stands the same for a male or a female. It is talking about
unprovoked violence either way. So there is no misandry here.
The Gelles' quote you posted earlier specifically
stated that a *man* who had been attacked after
psychologically provoking his partner was not a
victim of battery. It made no such excuse for
female assailants.
That doesn't sound gender-neutral to me.
Are you claiming that, according to Gelles,
a man who strikes his partner after she has
called him "lazy" or "stupid" (1) is not
guilty of DV? I would find that remarkable.
cheers,
sd
(1) Belittling a partner's actions, abilities or
appearance is frequently mentioned as a form of
psychological (or emotional) abuse by officially
sanctioned definitions of DV. For example
Psychological Abuse
This is when your partner keeps telling you, for example, that you are ugly; fat; hopless; stupid; boring; mad; a bad
mother; a rotten cook; a lousy lover; etc. It can also be if your partner emotionally blackmails you, for example, by
saying "If you really love me, you would....."
(Tasmanian Women's Health Service)
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't apologize. I'd bet very good money that derry is a woman.
I may not have reached your level of disillusionment yet, but give me credit for the "if." :)
For Derry's sake, I hope she's a she. I would be filled with horrified pity for the gender confusion of a man who could write:
And what about poor women's massive insecurity complex they have about men? (tongue in cheek) I mean is there nothing to be proud about being a man? What about all the statesmen, scientists, explorers, inventors, sportsmen, religious leaders etc etc. Who makes up the bulk of the statistics? - men. Poor women have to put up with that ;) And no amount of rewriting history can wipe that out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 11, @08:09PM EST (#138)
|
|
|
|
|
Warble writes:
"Scott, you may want to consider banning this feminist..."
Of course, I'm not Scott, but I'm going to butt in anyway :)
Warble, I respectfully disagree with this statement. I don't think we should necessarily censor those who dissent to the popular opinions held on this site. In fact, I think many of these people (Lorainne, derry, ect.) offer arguments that, if nothing else, enable us to look at our own arguments critically and objectively.
I am certainly not saying that I agree with them.
I am simply saying that dissenting arguments can often prove invaluable in the construction of one's own argument. What better way to know if your own argument is faulty? What better way to know if your argument is flawless?
Trolls are one thing, and I don't believe they are conducive to much of anything. But people who offer thoughtful arguements, even if they are fallible or unpopular, are not necessarily trolls or gender feminists hell-bent on ruining the men's movement. If some people want to pick our brains a little, and force us to substantiate our claims, I don't see any problem with this - as long as the discussion is productive, or at least thought-provoking. I see it simply as a means of strengthing my own arguement. And if someone can prove my logic to be incorrect, I welcome the criticism.
I frequent this site in search of that ambiguous, elusive thing we call "truth", as it relates to gender issues. Quieting those opinions that differ from our own is not necessarily the best way, IMHO, to seek truth. In fact, I see it as somewhat self-defeating, because you'll never know if you've found it.
-hobbes
---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't apologize. I'd bet very good money that derry is a woman.
I may not have reached your level of disillusionment yet, but give me credit for the "if." :)
I'm not sure how much you're joking, Larry, but know that I give you a lot of credit.
As for disillusionment, believe it or not, I'm really not disillusioned. Societies have collapsed in the past, and overall I think we progress. Feminists have poisoned society, and it may be fatally wounded. We will suffer, as a result, but we will rise from the ashes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derry aired
I was wondering how to play that. Nicely done. Parlez-vous whatever?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"all out war"
It heartens me to think so after the decades of complacency.
I think many on this list have repeatedly tried to educate derry. Thought it's rather difficult when derry denies the validity of a large chunk of data which demonstrates DV against men and then fails to actually argue why the data is invalid.
This is why derry took so much heat. If the data was not valid then all it would have taken is a supported statement why. Such information has been presented here before with success.
Instead derry simply stated that all this data was invalid. If there is anyone who can invalidate any data I WANT to know. Of course I want a logically constructed argument about why specific data is invalid. (note I say DATA not conclusions, I'll draw my own conclusions)
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 12, @07:22PM EST (#159)
|
|
|
|
|
I canot be bothered to log in or to read the rest of this thread, I will simply point out that Gelles himself admits that he was forced to toe the line in domestic violence maters and to defend the feminist line. More recently he has spoken out and told the truth, he has also given me permission to reproduce a hard hitting article on the IMN site
www.mens-network.org/gelles.html
The very fact it is hard to find representative facts but very easy to find stats that appear to pain men as abusers is part of what we're campaigning about!
Please read that article, it puts a whole new perspective on the supposed concern of Gelles that the men's movement is misrepresenting his studies - he admits we have damn good reason to mention his stuff because it's NOT misrepresentin the issue at all.
Alan Carr
IMN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More recently he has spoken out and told the truth, he has also given me permission to reproduce a hard hitting article on the IMN site
www.mens-network.org/gelles.html
An excellent article, Alan. Thanks for the URL.
This article debunks the shallow, off the cuff reason derry gave for dismissing a huge body of research. She insinuated that the CTS, Conflict Tactic Scales, methodology is faulty. Based on this, she rejected not only all research that uses CTS but also all other research that uses different methodology but comes to the same conclusions.
As Gelles points out, he long ago modified the methodology to take the objections into account. He also points out that researchers using other methods arrive at the same statistics.
If you've got the time, are interested in this subject, and would like some ammo to debunk the distortions and lies of feminism regarding research into DV, take the time to read this article. (Note that this is the same article, albeit with a different URL, that Marc Angelucci pointed us to a few posts back.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you, Thomas. The feeling's mutual. (and it was all joke. No worries.)
As for disillusionment, believe it or not, I'm really not disillusioned. Societies have collapsed in the past, and overall I think we progress. Feminists have poisoned society, and it may be fatally wounded. We will suffer, as a result, but we will rise from the ashes.
I've discovered that my worldview has a lot in common with Taoism, which would say that a) disillusionment is a good thing, and b) Everything goes in cycles and it's foolish to prefer one part of a cycle over another.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
disillusionment is a good thing
"Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a nation."
—Oscar Wilde (1854-1900).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's unlikely anyone is going to read this, buried in the midst of all of these other posts, but here goes anyway.
Derry,
You are absolutely correct. DV is a family problem. DV is a people problem. It shouldn't a "women's issue" or a "men's issue". In the end, I keep hoping that that's where we'll end up. The voice of reason says to me that DV is not gender-blind (men and women may have different tactics, triggers, and outcomes) but it is gender-neutral. Neither sex has a hammerlock on victimhood, so why treat it as a gender issue?
That said, the fact is that DV is currently treated as a gender issue. Turn on the TV. My local government is running get-thee-to-a-women's-shelter ads. All of the ads feature sad, beaten women facing their angry, brutish husbands. All of the ads feature men abusing children. Check out pamphlets from your local rape relief or women's centre. They all subscribe to the Duluth model. Take a look at Statistics Canada: they did a DV study two years ago... focusing exclusively on female victims and male aggressors... that was the government! Regardless of what the voice of reason says, the reality is that the media are saturated with the "truth" that men beat up women. Period. Talk to people on the street, your friends who aren't deep into these kinds of issues. They will all laugh at the idea that men could be battered, or admit that they can be, but think that it's funny. I went to a Marriage Encounter weekend last year, designed to help spouses understand each other. There was a "serious talk" at the end about DV, urging women who were being beaten to seek help. If I hadn't brought up female-on-male DV, it would never have been mentioned.
All of the "misogynistic" crowing about female-on-male DV, all of the (arguably mis-)quoting of Straus and Gelles as well as the other studies is to be expected. It's the best thing to do right now. The current public perception is that female-on-male DV doesn't exist, or is as rare as spotted owls. In that context, the message that DV is gender-neutral would be incomprehensible. Is it the desirable final message? Yes. Could you sell it to the public in this climate? Not a chance in hell.
The correct message for this time, for this climate, is that female-on-male DV exists with a sufficient frequency that it is just as important as male-on-female DV. Note that I didn't say, "just as frequent," but rather "just as important." Does this mean presenting a balanced view? No, it means screaming at the top of our bloody lungs that the thing exists and that it's a problem, until people start to sit up and take notice. At the moment, we don't need to tell the other side of the story because it's already been told a thousand times.
Some time later, probably after we're all dead, the whole thing will settle out, proper studies will be done and accepted, and DV will be treated the way it should be: as a problem of family dynamics, and a problem much more complex than "men vs women" or "women vs men". However, the only road to that world that I can see is to hammer through the message that wives do beat up their husbands and that those husbands merit our help, and that they merit more gender-neutral studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 13, @12:42PM EST (#171)
|
|
|
|
|
BusterB,
I think that was probably one of the more rational posts on this thread so far. I haven't had the chance to read all of them, but I think you articulated my own opinion very well. Thanks.
-hobbes
---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks Marc,
This is exactly the kind of information I am looking for.
This leaves a conflict between the two articles - the one you supplied and the one I did.
I would like to take this one step further and get an explanation of the conflicts so this can be resolved.
I know in the article you supplied that Gelles regrets his first study 'The Violent Home' done prior to the development of the CTS but in the article I supplied he is actually criticising the misuse of the CTS to support the premise that women are as violent as men. So the criticism cannot be explained away as belonging to the period prior to developing CTS.
And yet the statement 'Not only did men experience the same rate of domestic violence as did women, but men reported the same rate of injury as did women.' by Gelles in the article you supplied is the complete opposite of the link I supplied
If anyone knows of any information that can explain the contradiction I would appreciate it.
Some suggestions for the questions to look for answers for are:
Are both articles genuine or one a fraud?
Is the one he wrote stating that men are more violent on the extreme end of the scale written before new evidence came to light to change his mind?
Or do both articles somehow still stand and if so how are the contradictions explained?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
oh and I know people on this list think I am a rampant feminist and Christine Stolba is convinced that she sees me on all the feminist forums - but the truth is that I barely know what N.O.W. is and haven't been on any feminist forums.
I think I should have a few links to these sites so I can work out what you are all so aggressively reacting against, if anyone would care to give them to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey rampant feminist. Be thankful you don't know NOW. They are a significant influence on the government of this country and especially in recent years have been responsible for very anti-male laws here. This obviously has created an imbalance in the courts and has removed men from their families and their children's lives. This is the worst pain imaginable and leads to much of the righteous anger you see. It has also led to U.S. Army and other studies of issues from only one perspective. I believe their influence has spread even to Australia and they even try to force their agenda on the world through the U.N. An article I believe that provides a realistic look at where men are in the U.S. today is seen at:
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/rowles/20 020610.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An article I believe that provides a realistic look at where men are in the U.S. today is seen at...
Could you repost that, ABlevr? I'd like to read the article, but the URL doesn't work.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/rowles/20 020610.htm
You may have to cut and paste since I don't know how put a live link in here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, my copying seems to have put a space in the address which is messing things up. It should be a continuous string with no spaces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks, ABlevr. For some reason, the first time I tried that, it didn't work. If anyone else would like to read the article (a damn good one) just click here.
I especially liked his comment, "Ozzie Nelson and his cohort had not an inkling of what would be involved in becoming a father in the ensuing 50 years. In retrospect, it is incredible that any contemporary man is willing to risk letting his semen get within a hundred yards of an ovum.
In that microscopic moment of conception, a father, whether married or cohabiting or participating in consensual whoopee, implicitly agrees to forego a passel of his constitutional rights. Additionally, he implicitly concedes that his public character will drop about 18 notches (out of a possible 20) the minute the child is known to be his. And further, in that microscopic moment, he has just involuntarily committed himself to the potential for a lifetime of endless legal assaults, possible incarceration, and a financial burden, which could most likely impoverish him for most of his productive years and preclude any thought of a retirement nest egg."
Years ago, I made the decision to do my best, short of abstinence, never to have a child. Happily, I have, to the best of my knowledge, succeeded. Unhappily, I would have loved to have children, absent the evil matriarchy.
And now politicians are trying to get men to marry and have children by guilt tripping them. What a farce!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Right Thomas. Good article. Thanks for the link. Here he summarizes the stripping of rights from men:
• 2nd Amendment – the right to keep and bear arms: men accused, without proof, of domestic violence are prohibited this right.
• 4th Amendment – the right to be secure in their person, against unreasonable seizure, and the protection of "probable cause": men and fathers who are alleged, without grounds, to have created even the perception of fear in their female partner may be evicted from their homes and prevented access to their children.
• 5th Amendment – protection against being deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law: a wife may unilaterally file suit for divorce and deprive her husband of his property and parenthood without even an allegation of wrongdoing on his part. And if he is a father, he may end up losing his license to practice his profession, his driver's license, and even the choice of what profession to pursue if it does not match up to the court's view of his imputed earning ability.
• 6th Amendment – the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation, (and) to be confronted with the witnesses against him: it is now an everyday occurrence that a domestic law judge may, ex-parte, issue a restraining order against a boyfriend or husband simply on the basis of the complaint or allegation of an irate or vengeful girlfriend or wife.
• 8th Amendment – protection against excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments: One might list a number of abuses, but at the top of that list has to be denying a father equal or full access to his children, and placing them in the sole control of a custodian who may alienate them and sabotage his relationship with them.
• 10th Amendment – The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, are reserved to the states respectively: and yet divorced fathers are now held hostage by federally mandated child support guidelines and collection control. The federally mandated Violence Against Women Act is strictly prohibited here as well, but that has not inhibited its enforcement by the states.
• 13th Amendment – Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States: every day, fathers who have fallen behind on unrealistic, constitutionally indefensible, usurious, pseudo-alimony, child support awards are being arrested and imprisoned for imputed wrongdoing in a civil, not criminal, action. Were it truly a criminal action involving, say, fraud, full due process would be implemented. But domestic law courts are not about due process, they are about paternal control through the tyranny of punitive measures and intimidation. And in every case, the presumption of guilt is imputed by dint of status as unmarried or divorced males. Nevermind that there is an 8 in 10 chance that the dad played no role (is the involuntary participant) in initiating the divorce, or that mother may have withheld from him information as to the existence of his child. See the 5th Amendment for additional violations – such as imputed earning ability, hence imputed child support awards ... and other incantations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot the Fourtheenth Amendment, that is , that all persons shall be treated equally under the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The all-male draft has always made a mockery of the 14th amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<oh and I know people on this list think I am a rampant feminist and Christine Stolba is convinced that she sees me on all the feminist forums - but the truth is that I barely know what N.O.W. is and haven't been on any feminist forums. >>
Sure.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @07:21PM EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
It's very convenient that those studies don't include rapes, stalking and threats made to women, their children, other family members or pets as domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's very convenient that those studies don't include rapes, stalking and threats made to women, their children, other family members or pets as domestic violence.
Thank you for showing us the biased nature of the evil known as feminism. Do these studies show the incidence of any of these things against men, their children, other family members or pets as domestic violence?
Get angry, men. Get very, very angry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @10:40PM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
"Get anry men..."
Hell, I've been angry for quite some time now. :) It goes to show how blinded with hate these people (feminists or otherwise) are when they make statements like anon #34.
Don't let the feminists use the "women and children" phrase anymore!!! They are our children too, goddamnit, and we want them in our lives!!!
It is hateful bigots like you, anon #34, who hypocritically equate women with children, implying that women are not grown capable adults like men. The phrase "women and children" is as demeaning to women as it is devasting to fathers. You use it to gain sympathy, to promote your mythical victim status, and to seperate yourselves and children from men.
I got news for you, anon #34. Women abuse children more than men. Biological fathers are the least likely people to abuse children.
Stop using children like this!!! GRow up!!! Take responsibility for yourself as an adult. Stop pretending that man and parent are mutually exclusive. It is a lie. Men want to be with their children, and children want to be with their fathers. It is the mothers who, in their own stupid selfish spite, keep them apart.
Damn these fems that cannot bring themselves to admit what they know is true: women are violent too. Women abuse children. Women are not, by virtue of their sex alone, inherently innocent!!!!
WOW, I know that's a big fucking newsflash, anon #34, and no matter how much you try and delude yourself into believing that women are sweet, wonderful angels, the fact is they are humans, just like men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get angry, men. Get very, very angry
What for? Ulcers, heart disease and stroke?
You get angry - I would rather get informed and then do something about it.
Or perhaps retire to a cave somewhere and become a hermit - not sure which one.
And Evil is such a paranoid word
The biased thing was good though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And Evil is such a paranoid word
Ah, yes. The psychobabble labeling. Jews, who recognized Nazism as evil, were not paranoid. They were correct. Blacks, who recognize Aryan supremacy as evil, are not paranoid, they are correct. Men, who recognize the endless distortions, hatred and lies of feminism as evil, are not paranoid, they are correct.
As for anger, unfortunately a great deal of it will be required to drive men to overthrow the evil known as feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derry - Excuse me for coming in late. If this has already been discussed my apologies. I looked through most of the thread and didn't see it...
Derry said: "But women are injured at rate of 7:1 and murdered at a rate of 2:1."
The 7:1 ratio is a thing of the past. The latest research, a meta-analysis by John Archer published in the respected journal Psyc Bulletin (2000) states that the rates for injuries from DV are 62% female and 38% male. It also affirms that women instigate over half of the DV incidents. This is a landmark study that draws on all previous research. Being a meta-analysis gives it much more importance and weight. 7:1 is BS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The latest research, a meta-analysis by John Archer published in the respected journal Psyc Bulletin (2000) states that the rates for injuries from DV are 62% female and 38% male.
This is one of the publications that derry cavalierly dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL Thomas! How could this one be dismissed? It's a solid study from a solid journal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How could this one be dismissed? It's a solid study from a solid journal.
Good question. She dismissed a large body of research and analyses, much of which has been published in respected journals. It's a bit harsh to say, but I'm sure of her reason for dismissing all the evidence.
It didn't suit her agenda.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:It is not that they are 'not valid' only that they are being misrepresented.
True, but the misrepresentation is done by battered women's advocates
who also misrepresent the National Crime Victimization Survey.
:Women
:do hit men as often as men hit women. But women are injured at rate of 7:1 and
:murdered at a rate of 2:1.
Women are murdered at a ratio of 2:1 but they are injured at a ratio of 1.5:1.
The 1.5:1 figure is based on a meta-analysis of well over a hundred studies
of domestic violence. It was published in Psychological Bulletin, the flagship
journal of the APA.("Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual
Partners:A Meta-Analytic Review", John Archer.) A similar ratio has been
found in the methodologically rigorous British Crime Survey. The claim that
the CTS studies found that women are 7 times more likely to be injured is a
distortion of the facts. The earlier CTS studies did not specificially ask about
injuries but rather asked people what they did after being assaulted. A much
higher percentage of women (around 3% vs. 0.5%) reported that they went
to see a doctor. It was assumed that this is a valid way to measure injuries.
However, as the authors later admitted, this is not so. Men are less likely
to visit doctors, especially for minor injuries. Moreover, as later studies
demonstrated by asking victims *why* they went to see a doctor, about half
of all women were not actually injured, but they visited a doctor for emotional
support. Men's visits to the doctor, by contrast, involved an injury in the vast
majority of the cases.
:Of the 130 studies 60 of them mention that they use the CTS as the basis for their
:statistics in the blurb on the page you suppled. 11 of the studies are by Straus, 5 by
:Gelles (3 in conjunction with Straus) - I checked out a further ten that did not
:mention there methods and found that they either used the CTS or they did not
:mention how they collected and analysed their data.
The CTS (Conflict Tactic Scale) is the most scientifically validated tool for
measuring domestic violence. It is for this very reason that it is extremely popular
in the scientific community. All domestic violence studies by the US Department
of Justice have used it, and feminists have used it as well, like Lenore Walker.
The notion the that CTS is flawed is an urban legend from the feminist establishment, much like the notion that the studies showing smoking is linked with cancer are somehow flawed is an urban legend from the Tobacco lobby.
:The fact still remains that men are still a considerable statistic in DV - 15% is not a
:small amount. Men should be included both in reviews of domestic violence
:victims and support programs.
I agree, but this estimation is from the NCVS which is hardly a reliable source on domestic violence. The NCVS is not a study of domestic violence, or even violence. It's a general study of crimes and it has only one specific question about domestic violence, in which people were asked if they've ever been attacked or had something stolen by friends, acquaintances or family members. While the survey also included a number of specific questions about assaults, they were not asked in the context of domestic violence and they were limited to punching, choking, grabbing, weapon assaults and sexual assaults. No questions about kicking, biting, throwing sharp objects, assaults commonly used by women. The NCVS definition of a domestic violence victim is simply someone who experienced something that matched the legal definition of assault by an intimate. Unlike the CTS, it does not distinguish between escalating severities of assaults. A domestic assault in the NCVS can be anything from a grab to a stab. So it equates women who have been grabbed in the arm or touched in the breast with men who have been stabbed or shot. The NCVS does, however, offer a breakdown between simple assaults and aggravated assaults. For aggravated assaults, men comprise 25% of the victims. It is intellectually dishonest of feminists to (falsely) criticize the CTS for overestimating the number of male victims by including minor assaults when they themselves overestimate the number of female victims by using a study which lumps women being grabbed with men being stabbed.
:As for claiming that men just don't report - here are the Reporting Crime Stats
:from the National Crime Victimisation Survey (NCVS - Department of Justice) from
:a sample of 50,000 households and 100,000 people each year. 1994.
:
:Robbery, Assault (aggravated/simple)
:Females 45.5 Males 40.5
:Assault Simple
:Females 39.7 Males 34.2
:Assault Aggravated
:Females 55.7 Males 49.6
:
:Men do report less often just not enough to account for the difference in injuries.
This argument is a strawman: the claim is that men are far less likely to report domestic assaults to the police. The above figures do not refer to domestic assaults, and they are debatable anyway, since the NCVS records assaults only if it's successful in eliciting reports from respondents by asking very general question about crimes. The CTS, as well as the British Crime Survey instead ask specifically questions about a wide variety of assaults, so far less are missed. Indeed, while the NCVS found a total of 800,000 domestic assaults against women (both severe and minor), the CTS found 1.8 million severe assaults against women (not including minor.)
:Also all those CTS studies seem to suggest that men don't mind reporting they have
:been aggressed against.
They suggest the exact opposite: the CTS found that 9% of women reported the assault to the police, vs. 1% of men. Similar figures are found in the British Crime Survey.
:It is also relevant that overall men are nine times more likely to commit murder
:than women are.
Depends when. According to a recent study about infanticide by the Center for Disease Control, the time a person is most likely to be murdered is in his or her day of birth, at a rate which is 10 times higher than the highest rate during adulthood. 90% of these homicides are committed by women. In other words, the likelihood of women to commit infanticide is 10 time higher than the
likelihood of men to commit homicide. These facts falsify the theory that more men commit homicide simply because they are more violent. If they were, it would be true in every case.
:Men actually are killing a lot more men than they are spouses while women rarely
:kill women. Men are also far more often the victim of assault than women are -
:just it is men that are assaulting men.
Actually, the NCVS itself reports that most domestic violence against women is committed by women. The Justice Department study "Murder in Families" also shows that women commit 35% of all intrafamily homicides, a ratio of 2:1. Given the physical differences between men and women (and hence men's deadlier strength) it is remarkable the the ratio is so low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rand T.
Thanks for writing this. It was a pleasure to read such a well written debunking of feminist distortions and lies. It's good that you pointed out the use of the strawman. That tactic is used as a matter of course by feminists.
Thanks again for the info and analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why kill your husband when you can get the courts to do it for you for free, you dont have to hire a hit man or plan a homicide, just dial 911, let the judicial process do the rest.
Isnt it true that more studies years ago showed that women were on par with men in murdering their spouse??
The justice system fucks a man's life up so bad he just ends up killing himself.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is good to get under the covers of these studies that produce the stats that fly around. I confess that my judgment is colored by my experience and I see the whole issue of DV as a radical feminist victory. I personally did not and, in today's environment, would not report DV unless the situation was obviously life-threatening. All a woman needs to do is to make an allegation or to say her actions were in self-defense and the man is removed from the home, possibly jailed with a likely police record of the event to haunt him through family court or worse. It is referred to as the trump card in the game of divorce. It is not a game and the claim of DV is being mis-used.
How do we make things better? I do not believe that continuing to focus on only women as victims will do that. It didn't make me feel any better to know that I was one of small minority or large minority or whatever. I was in a situation with no hope. There is still no hope for men, no shelters, almost guaranteed loss of children and property and a great potential that a male victim will also lose reputation or worse. I do not believe that dishonesty in reporting stats or threatening legislators with loss of votes by a gender is right. It continues to be done but men don't have to resort to those tactics. How do we fix this situation for men Derry?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After reading a bit about the statistics here, it occurs to me that "the system" is creating its own bias. Consider this:
The most current statistics (I can't site the resource at this moment) indicate that DV perpetrated by women has declined over the last decade or so and that DV perpetrated by men increased and is now falling as well.
The question I pose is this:
VAWA has provided explicitly for women counseling, shelter, and enforcement that may have had the effect of making it difficult for men to report DV perpetrated against them because "must arrest" policies inevitibly lead to the male being arrested even when he is clearly the victim. If this is true, and I believe it to be perfectly plausible, then the reality is not that men are being abused less, but that they are now even more hesitant to report DV.
We need to get past the statistics compiled by law enforcement because law enforcement, especially since VAWA, is biased against men whether it chooses to be or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When they first had the "arrest policy" the coppers were arresting 35% ratio of women.
The femicunts did not like this, such as the initiator policy came into effect, "certainly it couldnt be women initiating the violence". The stats still havent changed.
But like all tainted juries this is public wide, and selective. It is biased and encrouching agenda.
To say that men aren't mentally abused or blackmailed is poppycock.
Its like saying women arent capable of doing anything. If so then maybe they shuldnt be in leadership roles. But I dissagree.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @07:27PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
.....then the reality is not that men are being abused less, but that they are now even more hesitant to report DV.
Exactly. The statistics cannot reflect the horrible reality of DV that millions men face. Why? When a man reports DV they almost always get arrested thanks to our male hating feminist wakos that have brainwashed the police force with public funds. We all know that women are able to commit murder while men get all the blame for their killing. It is just another facet of the victocracy that feminism has created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How do we fix this situation for men Derry?
Very slowly, very painfully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen it both ways men and women who report anything from exaggerated to fabricated violence to the police and men and women who don't report really extreme violence. Although most of the victims of extreme violence I know of are women.
I am completely against the focus of women as victims at the exclusion of men nor think it either healthy or desirable.
It is quite right to campaign against it or rather to campaign for male victims of DV to be included in research and in support services.
But the statistics and studies used have to be impeccable and on hand to be served up as soon as anyone asks - before in fact.
Anything that is rationally discredited should not be touched with a ten-foot pole no matter how good it looks for men. The statistics for women should be put under a microscope.
The highly charged emotive stuff has just got to go. I am wondering if this is just a cultural difference but I have never come across so much emotion that so destroys rational discussion and their are people on this list that look just so bad because they cannot stop swearing and using really irrational and emotive arguments and abusing people.
Stop the mass generalisations of evil women and feminists and talk specifics. Stop the mass generalisations of poor men and talk specifics. For crying out loud at least say 'some men' or 'me' or '24% of men' or something when talking about what happens to men.
Even if you take Gelles study on the more violent men as true statistics they still only make up 2% of men. Get the whole thing in perspective - why do they take it personally unless they have perpetrated DV - when the stat is so low when compared to the general population of men?
Just because someone claims that the percentage of men that are violent is more than the percentage of women still leaves a huge proportion of the male population outside that. I cannot understand how anyone could take that so personally - so emotively.
If it is wrong - then fix it but if it is right don't sweat it - it is such a small stat.
And what about poor women's massive insecurity complex they have about men? (tongue in cheek) I mean is there nothing to be proud about being a man? What about all the statesmen, scientists, explorers, inventors, sportsmen, religious leaders etc etc. Who makes up the bulk of the statistics? - men. Poor women have to put up with that ;) And no amount of rewriting history can wipe that out.
Do people on this forum think women have anything going for them at all? Is there any area where women can outshine men (as a generalisation). Or should they be wiped out and artificial wombs be put in their place?
And what about the women who were and are anti the Women's Liberation Movement and the movements it spawned. Whose support do they have? It seems to me that you applaud any woman who will claim your cause strongly and work hard towards it - but what are you doing for her? Is it a one way street?
Where is there any ground for reconciliation?
There is not even any anecdotal stuff on this forum - not one person has responded with their story. And most people do not back up there quotes on research studies and statistics.
There are a few level headed replies and a little good research available - if I rattle people enough ;) but I shouldn't have to. I am sure there is more gems that people are holding onto.
How about putting a section on this site recommending some really good books - please ones that don't use emotionally violent rhetoric. A list of research with links to sites and then just point any newbies to it instead of letting them die in the swamps of past posts searching for the small nuggets of gold in among all the muck and mire and expletives.
Suggest they read through it before they join in the discussions so they are up to scratch, in the section on how to use the site.
And don't quote Straus and Gelles studies or any studies using their methods when they have made it absolutely clear that if anyone uses their research to prove that women are more violent than men then they are mysogynist!
How many women would have the stamina to put up with the abuse on this site and the gross generalisation that they are evil? and for crying out loud 'femicunts'?
And the enmity and hatred that I have been so accused of feeling towards people on this list is fabricated. There is much stronger emotion coming the other way. And so many assumptions about who I am and what I believe. WOW!!
But we should question each other - we should rattle all statistics and all studies, we should look really hard at everything we should be prepared to make concessions and apologies when appropriate, when faced with fresh evidence that requires review and reassessment. Newbies need education not emotive crap.
And if you want to get good at it you better get used to looking at the 'other side's' stats too. In fact it would be good if there was no 'other side' - just incorrect stats, wrong research, misdirected funding, etc. etc.
And talking in a more reconciliatory manner - in fact in a less out and out warlike manner.
Well there is my two cents about what the people on this forum should strive for - hey I wonder if I am going to provoke another 34 responses (approx - I can't be bothered count) for this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And don't quote Straus and Gelles studies or any studies using their methods when they have made it absolutely clear that if anyone uses their research to prove that women are more violent than men then they are mysogynist!
This "reasoning" is so faulty that I got quite a laugh out of it. There is a difference between methods and research. Those who use the methods of Straus and Gelles will not necessarily come to the same conclusions. Even if one rejects Straus and Gelles statements that they have shown women commit domestic violence against men less often than men commit domestic violence against women, it doesn't require that one reject their research methods. It doesn't require that one reject all research that uses the same methods as Straus and Gelles.
Derry's statements, no doubt developed over time by a number of feminists working together, are nothing more than an attempt to reject, with a simple sweep of the hand, dozens of studies and research projects involving many thousands of subjects.
Reject Straus and Gelles if you want, it doesn't mean you can cavalierly reject the conclusions of everyone who uses their methods.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is there anything logically wrong with their research methods or is this superimposed misandry the only issue we have with them?
If they are claiming that using their methods to demonstrate misandry is misogyny then they can still be considered a hostile witness to the men's movement.
So long as their bits of misandry can be countered and the rest supported who cares.
I have to ask derry, who is to reconcile?
It's not men and women. They on the whole get on.
It's hardly likely to be liberals like ourselves who want both men and women to have equal representation in the law and the fascist-feminists (there y' go derry a subset of feminsism not all of them) who want rights for themselves at the expense of men. There is no compromise here; they are mutually exclusive.
Perhaps we are talking about a reconciliation of those fractions of the gender equality movement who still want equality?
“What about all the statesmen, scientists, explorers, inventors, sportsmen, religious leaders etc “
Hmm. Equality is about equal chances now! Not some quota based on what has passed. This is the difference between us and many of the feminist groups. We want gender transparency.
“Is there any area where women can outshine men (as a generalisation). Or should they be wiped out and artificial wombs be put in their place? “
Hmm, again. I repeat we want gender transparency. That’s what this site is about, I think. Perhaps others can confirm.
Also, newbies need emotive education. If there is one thing that we have found it’s that men tend to be too individualistic to herd without some kind of emotive reason.
"it is easier to support a popular cause than a just one"~
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, newbies need emotive education. If there is one thing that we have found it’s that men tend to be too individualistic to herd without some kind of emotive reason.
Looks like derry got an emotive education on this site and failed the course. :) We should always be so lucky.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The comments that have been directed at Derry and the defensive posture she has taken has spurred me to write something about how women involved in men's issues.
The first thing that you should be aware of when coming to a men's site is that there will be men who are angry at women. [Men do not have the corner on the hate market. I can go to almost any popular feminist web and find hatred directed at men. this does not invalidate their feelings either.] I will remind women who do come here to take a bit of the advice that feminism preaches and look past the angry words and see the pain. Sit back and open your heart and minds to the idea that the men in your life have suffered enourmous pain.
Much like the listening that men had to do in the 70's and 80's about the issues that feminism raised it is time for women to listen to the issues men are raising in books and sites like this. Not listen with a biased ear but an open heart that feels the pain in the words people write here. Before you accuse men of not listening remember that this is a site about men's issues. This is a forum for discussion, rants, raves and banter about men. Some of it might not be pretty, some might not be kind, some might not be very academic but it is all about how men feel. To deny any of the words here is to deny the emotions of men, something we already to far to often in our society.
Finally I do thank any woman that takes a serious interest in men's issues.
some closing advice.
Ask politely worded questions instead of challenging comments and assertions of men here.
This does not mean you have to agree but to jump in where you are an unknown and challenge a group of people is a dangerous policy in any situation.
Read posts for a few weeks and get a feel for the people here.
Make male positive comments for your first few posts.
Finally don't run off! Hang in there and you might be surpised.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said. Might this be the basis for an entry in the site's F.A.Q. or a similarly prominent space? Something to give women an idea of what they're wandering into.
I say basis because I (and many others) like to think that it's more than just a forum for discussion. I envision a day when one of us can walk into a store with a male-bashing ad in the window, ask that it be taken down and add the warning, "I can have 1000 men here in an hour." and mean it. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please replace any references to 'you' to just a general reference to the list please ABlevr - none of this is personally directed to anything you have said.
I apologise if it has appeared that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the currently popular ploys of feminists is to pose as a supporter of men's rights and then start spewing all the old discredited lies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"One of the currently popular ploys of feminists is to pose as a supporter of men's rights"
Hey thats what I do on the Ms.ery boards. Down with the patriarchy! yeah!!
I think I won the "newest member of the month award" , a free knitting needle and a two for one special at big and fats clothing boutique.
btw couldnt we start to catorgorize abortion as domestic violence??
I have a feeling that would change the stats majorly.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
btw couldnt we start to catorgorize abortion as domestic violence??
I have a feeling that would change the stats majorly.
The smallest amount of honesty would change these stats to an extreme extent. I've seen many, many cases of violent child abuse and 100% of it was committed by women against boys. Yet society ignored it, as though the brutal abuse of defenseless little boys by women were discipline rather than the crime that it really is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rest assured. The liars will not prevail. The truth is coming out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday June 10, @10:43PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
"Rest assured. The liars will not prevail. The truth is coming out."
Preach on, brother! Damn, I love this site...
-hobbes
---
If you're not angry, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rest assured. The liars will not prevail. The truth is coming out.
Yea bro! And we will all be saved! Preach on bro!
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And we will all be saved!
Actually, I'm not so sanguine. This is tooting my horn a bit, but about 25 years ago (there's a letter to the editor in the Eugene, Oregon, Register Guard to back me up on this), I started to speak out against feminism. I saw the extent to which it was driven by hate, the extent to which it depended on lies. People thought I was Chicken Little runnin' around screamin' that the sky was fallin'. Well, I was screamin' that the sky was fallin', even if I wasn't Chicken Little.
About ten years ago I started saying that, in large part because of feminism, we would soon start to see a catastrophic rate of population collapse. (I know several people who remember my saying this.) Again, Chicken Little.
Well, here's my current Chicken Little thought and though I wish it weren't true, I think that it is. Despite the fact that society, as we know it, is still breathing, it may already have been mortally wounded by feminism.
Governments are waking up to the fact that population collapse is an impending disaster. They're now employing such lame tactics as trying to guilt trip men into marriage. For better or worse, men are waking up to what marriage is for a man. There is a high probability of financial ruin. There is a high probability of having one's children, whom one loves beyond love, taken away. There is a high probability of prison as a result of false accusations.
Men aren't ignorant enough to fall for such silly ploys by government. Population collapse may well result in total social chaos, and it will be due, in large part, to the hatred and lies of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Population collapse may well result in total social chaos
Ah, yes, I will add...
The population collapse of wealthy races and societies is not being matched by the populations of the relatively poor and uneducated, particularly immigrants. I've seen predictions of between about 25 and 45 years for France to become a Muslim country, because the European-French are reproducing at well below the replacement rate, while immigration and an above replacement rate of reproduction among Islamic-African-French continues unabated. (NB: I've got NOTHING against Islamic people. Two of the finest people I've ever met have been Islamic men, one from Tunisia, the other from Libya. Like any society/religion, Islam has its strengths and weaknesses. That's not my point here.) We are already seeing the cultural upheaval that this will bring. Rightly or wrongly, France has a lukewarm support for the US in the war against terrorism. More importantly, however, note the rise of the likes of le Pen in France and Fortuyn in the Netherlands.
A rise in European fascism will probably be one of the symptoms of social collapse that we will see over the next decade or so, as European-Europeans (Native-Europeans?) try to maintain their culture in the face of the rise, by force of sheer numbers, of other cultures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 11, @07:42PM EST (#135)
|
|
|
|
|
About ten years ago I started saying that, in large part because of feminism, we would soon start to see a catastrophic rate of population collapse. (I know several people who remember my saying this.)
I made that same prediction in a political science class back in 1992 in from of a radical liberal professor. The class was shocked to say the least, but to my shock he actually agreed. I also predicted that the government would be forced to permit massive immigration to obtain the funds for supporting our current social programs. In the absence of such a massive immigration it was obvious that there would be a massive economic collapse. Like you, all my predictions came true. We think very much alike on these matters Thomas.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made that same prediction in a political science class back in 1992
I believe it, Warble. And we do think very much alike on these matters.
Kinda fun, ain't it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A rise in European fascism will probably be one of the symptoms of social collapse that we will see over the next decade or so, as European-Europeans (Native-Europeans?) try to maintain their culture in the face of the rise, by force of sheer numbers, of other cultures.
Okay, I'll coin the expression: "Indigenous Europeans." (Words are very important to me.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Native Europeans?
We'll see how it plays out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I vote for "Indigenous Europeans." It has that extra level of irony. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I vote for "Indigenous Europeans." It has that extra level of irony.
Thanks, Larry. That one (won?) gets my vote too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What about "aboriginal Europeans?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
Don't fall for the old media line of "fascism" here, as wanting to preserve your race and culture is called survival, not fascism as knee jerk PC librals (lie-brals?) would have you believe. I know you don't mean any harm, but you would be better off not trusting the media in this instance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would refer those, who seek more evidence, to Marc Angelucci's post (#50) on this page.
Note especially his reference to this list of well over 100 studies showing that female violence against males is at least as frequent and serious as male violence against females in intimate relationships. This is an enormous number of studies, performed by an even larger number of researchers and having an aggregate sample size in excess of 77,000.
Also, I wouldn't worry too much about those who dismiss all of this evidence. Their dismissals cause men more pain and will lead to greater anger on the part of men. And, unfortunately, things will not turn around until far more men become far more angry and force a turn around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a good, recent article discussing these matters. The fact is, women by nature are at least as violent as men. Deal with it.
Don't worry, men. Despite the endless stream of hateful distortions and lies, the truth is coming out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If we are to take "her word" for it, why can't we take the man's word for it??
How many men have said they have been wrongfully accused of domestic violence??
If we take this into consideration I bet that would blow the lid off of any issue that women were worse off in dv cases.
Men are the largest victim of all forms of violence in every area of life.
Yes Thomas, the truth is coming out!!!!!
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen, you are wasting your time with the feminist, derry. She has in no way succeeded in debunking the 130 studies with a sample of more than 77,000 subjects. These studies conclusively show that women commit domestic violence against men as much or more than men commit domestic violence against women.
She sites statistics by the government that enforces, through affirmative action, endless special privileges and preferential treatment for women, while maintaining all-male draft registration, in other words, by an utterly corrupt, brutally anti-male government.
Again, her cavalier statements in no way debunk the more than 130 studies with an aggregate sampling of more than 77,000 subjects. Her declarations to the contrary, the enormous body of academic research stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those who haven't looked at the list of studies that derry declares are invalid, here are a few quotes (each for a different study):
Archer, J., & Ray, N. (1989). Dating violence in the United Kingdom: a preliminary study. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 337-343. (Twenty three dating couples completed the Conflict Tactics scale. Results indicate that women were significantly more likely than their male partners to express physical violence. Authors also report that, "measures of partner agreement were high" and that the correlation between past and present violence was low.)
Arias, I., Samios, M., & O'Leary, K. D. (1987). Prevalence and correlates of physical aggression during courtship. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 2, 82-90. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 270 undergraduates and found 30% of men and 49% of women reported using some form of aggression in their dating histories with a greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression.) Note the "greater percentage of women engaging in severe physical aggression."
Billingham, R. E., & Sack, A. R. (1986). Courtship violence and the interactive status of the relationship. Journal of Adolescent Research, 1, 315-325. (Using CTS with 526 university students found Similar rates of mutual violence but with women reporting higher rates of violence initiation when partner had not--9% vs 3%.)
Bohannon, J. R., Dosser Jr., D. A., & Lindley, S. E. (1995). Using couple data to determine domestic violence rates: An attempt to replicate previous work. Violence and Victims, 10, 133-41. (Authors report that in a sample of 94 military couples 11% of wives and 7% of husbands were physically aggressive, as reported by the wives.)
Again, despite derry's rejection of these studies, the studies stand. She has in no way debunked this enormous body of research. Women subject men to domestic violence at least as often as men subject women to domestic violence at every level of severity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the heck, I'll add a few more gems from the list of research:
Gelles, R. J. (1994). Research and advocacy: Can one wear two hats? Family Process, 33, 93-95. (Laments the absence of objectivity on the part of "feminist" critics of research demonstrating female perpetrated domestic violence.)
How 'bout them apples. Gelles laments "the absence of objectivity on the part of 'feminist' critics of research demonstrating female perpetrated domestic violence." Where have we seen evidence of that on this thread?
Headey, B., Scott, D., & de Vaus, D. (1999). Domestic violence in Australia: Are women and men equally violent? Data from the International Social Science Survey/ Australia 1996/97 was examined. A sample of 1643 subjects (804 men, 839 women) responded to questions about their experience with domestic violence in the past 12 months. Results reveal that 5.7% of men and 3.7% of women reported being victims of domestic assaults. With regard to injuries results reveal that women inflict serious injuries at least as frequently as men. For example 1.8% of men and 1.2% of women reported that their injuries required first aid, while 1.5% of men and 1.1% of women reported that their injuries needed treatment by a doctor or nurse.
Hmmm... "women inflict serious injuries at least as frequently as men." I'm beginning to see why feminists feel the need to cavalierly reject this tremendous body of research.
Hoff, B. H. (1999). The risk of serious physical injury from assault by a woman intimate. A re-examination of National Violence against women survey data on type of assault by an intimate. WWW.vix.com/menmag/nvawrisk.htm. (A re-examination of the data from the most recent National violence against women survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998) shows that "assaulted men are more likely than assaulted women to experience serious attacks by being hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a knife or being knifed.")
Well, gosh and golly gee, Batman, "assaulted men are more likely than assaulted women to experience serious attacks by being hit with an object, beat up, threatened with a knife or being knifed."
Yup. Feminists sure can't allow this body of research to stand. Gotta just declare that it's invalid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quite frankly, I think we handled that beautifully. Now if we men can start performing like that on a society-wide scale, there may be cause for great optimism. Perhaps we can save this mess of a society before it collapses completely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im still laughing.
My brain is not functioning right lately, Im glad you guys got into it.
I still like this though, I think if nothing else it educates us, I have learned a great deal. Much of it I had known, but a lot I have not. This type of stuff sharpens our skills and makes us stronger.
But there is so much money involved in finding violence against women only, it will be tuff to bring our plight to light.
Staticians and doctors are ignoring men not always because they want to, but because they know where their "grant hangs". This is very sad.
The government doesnt seem to care since people keep voting for them. I'd watch out for Hilery Clinton, Im very sure she and her buddies from n-o-w, (kkk which ever you prefer) are planning her presidancy right now. And guess what, there plan will be to further oppress men, oh they will call it enhancing women, but we know the truth. Do not take for granted that that women has good intentions, its no surprise she ended up in New York, the capital city of n-o-w,. Think about it what the fuk is she doing there anyways?? New York is the heart of Misandry and Hilery Clinton has been its advocate since the beginning of her first ladyship.
If you let her gain office you may as well go out and shoot yourself now!!!!
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, there have been a ton of posts on this topic that popped up all of a sudden, and I haven't yet read them all. But I will say this about changing the Philosophy page on MANN:
I'm not going to do it. I don't see how it could be misogynistic to say that women are no less violent than men. I do see it as misandrist to claim that men are more violent that women, though. To make a claim like that ignores not only much of the research which has been beaten to death on this forum, but also the fact that women's and men's violence are not always the same. Sometimes women's violence is more emotionally based, and sometimes it manipulates other men into performing the violence on other men. In any case, violence has many forms, and when it comes down to it, I don't think anyone can say with any authority that one sex is more violent than another. It's just impossible to measure all the forms of violence.
And with regard to some of the scholarly debates that have been here, I should add that I know Prof. Murray Straus personally and his view of this is exactly as I mentioned above. No one can say that men are more violent than women or vice versa and leave it at that. With regard to domestic violence, the reality is surprisingly egalitarian, with perhaps slightly fewer injuries being inflicted on men than women. But in many, many cases, regardless of who's perpetrating the violence, the consequences include severe injury or death. We shouldn't be arguing about who's more violent, we should be getting the truth out and working to help prevent violence, no matter who is the victim. There is an enormous imbalance of resources and sympathy for men who are abused.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, there have been a ton of posts on this topic that popped up all of a sudden, and I haven't yet read them all.
Much of what was written wasn't what I've found to be your style, Scott (and I respect your style). Nevertheless, I think this may be the finest example that I've seen of men standing up together (without falling into brainless lockstep), forthrightly insisting on truth, and not starting to fall all over each other to coddle a woman (I think a woman), when she started to whine. Men have cowered from and pandered to women for far too long. It doesn't work.
We acted as individuals, but we worked together. It was great. (Though, like I say, perhaps not your style.)
As for not changing the Philosophy page on MANN: I'm glad to hear it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 11, @07:57PM EST (#137)
|
|
|
|
|
I think this may be the finest example that I've seen of men standing up together (without falling into brainless lockstep), forthrightly insisting on truth, and not starting to fall all over each other to coddle a woman (I think a woman), when she started to whine.
I believe it was a woman. She just tried to claim she was a man (poser) in an attempt to get us to sympathize with her point of view. It’s a typical feminist trick. Little did she know that because we believe in equality that we treat a male-feminist the same as a female-feminist. She just couldn’t handle us treating her as an equal.
So, she started whining and saying whaaaaa....I'm a man!!! Be nice! She actually believed that we would tone it down because she thought we are misogynist. She reasoned that if we thought she were a man, then the so-called misogynist on this site might back off so she could spread her lies.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Wow, there have been a ton of posts on this topic that popped up all of a sudden, and I haven't yet read them all. But I will say this about changing the Philosophy page on MANN: "
The Philosophy page was well thought up, Im not really sure who could really complain. I can't.
I do believe that dissent does not equal trolling, I didnt see anywhere that MAN was against that. I have seen Derry on 'shethinks' spreading her agenda, she came here purposely to cause shit, I think she does work in a shelter of some type.
It still amazes me that they get offended that men are victims as well, Im not sure of the psychology behind it. The indoctrination of it is very rampant in the world. And when feminists lose the arguement about it in the US Canada Australia, they go on about the Taliban or China or wherever.
Thats why Im led to believe that it has become a power card among them. I insist that this indoctrination takes place at these shelters, we should consider calling the "hate camps". Im really sorry women are hurt and abused, but these facilities are for counciling victims not indoctrinating anti-male terrorists.
The effect these "videos, films, pamplets, seminars and stats" handed out at these places should be considered staggering. Along with the women's studies it is an onslaught men in general are completely un-prepared for.
I was hoping morality would see through this cloud of deciet.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have seen Derry on 'shethinks' spreading her agenda, she came here purposely to cause shit
I'm curious. Do you have any URLs? Has she identified herself as a woman there?
I think she does work in a shelter of some type.
I'm wouldn't be the least bit surprised. From what I can gather, those shelters have a lot of man-haters. (I know that to be the case in Boulder -- think The Saga of el Dildo Bandito.)
Along with the women's studies it is an onslaught men in general are completely un-prepared for.
As we've all seen on this thread, we're circlin' the wagons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'm curious. Do you have any URLs? Has she identified herself as a woman there? "
Yes Im sure she's a women, or rather, which I have seen a lot of is a man turned woman.
This little auzzi was bannering all kinds of sites to DV cases etc.......
We got into it, I will try to dig it up.
I forget her alias, but the m.o. is identical, Im sure its her. Doesnt matter, I think Marc has said it best, "the voiceless victims" or "missing victims", either way.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In addition to your sound rationale for keeping the philosophy page exactly as it is Scott, I was troubled anyway by Derry's narrow interpretation of the phrase "....the myth that women are less violent than men.". Derry wanted that rewritten to refer specifically to DV against men.
I have never understood our references to the myth of violent women as being solely concerned with DV. Neither have the books that have been written on the subject.
Rather, we are referring to the overall perceptions that women only murder in self defence, don't mug, rob or attack people (irrespective of gender), and that the predominance of females in child abuse and murder cases is not explained away simply by depression or mental health issues (a la Andrea Yates).
In that respect, I understand that we are challenging these myths because the direct consequences of these attitudes and stereotypes are reflected in the sentencing inequalities that have been well documented here, the massive imbalance in support structures for male victims of any type of violence (i.e. not just DV) and the ethical consequences of these attitudes that lead to male-only DNA testing or castration for male specific violent crimes.
So while Derry can spend his/her life attacking the DV argument, I'm afraid he/she will also have to address and conclusively prove that in every other conceivable type and definition of violence, the studies are also flawed or misrepresented. In the absence of this proof, the philisophical integrity of this site is intact and the orginal statement absolutely stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the philisophical integrity of this site is intact and the orginal statement absolutely stands.
Yes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday June 11, @07:48PM EST (#136)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not going to do it. I don't see how it could be misogynistic to say that women are no less violent than men.
Oh. Good morning there Scott. Guess you must of just woke up....LOL!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most frustrating things for me in the discussion of men's issues is trying to focus on problems that men have and not problems that women have. Feminism has its place in society in attempting to highlight issues that women have. I have no problem with this. The problem I have is that the ONLY gender issues that are brought on the table for discussion in academia are those from the feminist camp. The result is that the issues raised by feminism are only as they relate to women. There is an obvious need is for balance in the discussion of gender issues in public and academic settings.
The problem I have with DV as it is currently discussed is that it is ALWAYS in relation to female victims. Even conservative estimates (See the VAWA survey in 2001, I won't bother to list a website since if anyone is interested you can do a web search and find it easy enough, that lists 1.2 million women AND 850,000 men as victims of DV)
The real problem is that men as victims are invisible in any setting. Women a have "Take Back the Night" marches even though men are 3x more likely than women to be assaulted. [I can strongly refute the feminist critique that women are "more fearful" than men are resulting in more psychological damage if need be.]
Male issues quickly fall off the radar screen when it comes to violence (or any other issue)due to the wide spread cultural acceptance of feminist theory that asserts society is entirely patriarchal. It is almost impossible to see men as victims(unless they are a member of a minority group such as hispanic or black) due to the BELIEF that men hold all the power in society.
My belief is that the most real issue that needs to be dealt with by society is violence against men and the ease at which we accept it. I would challenge anyone that doubts this to watch popular media for a day and count the number of times men are slapped by a woman for a perceived insult. Count the number of times men being kicked in the groin is seen as comedy (note the laugh track in the background).
Some people would say that we are attempting to deal with the violence that men commit in legistation such as VAWA. I would assert that this is not getting at the root of the problem. Men are overwhelming the international and national victims of violence. Rarely do we ask why this is the case. Are we afraid that if we start to look at the problem we will see that men AND women are at fault for the situation we are in? If women are an equal part of society do they not also hold an equal responsiblity for the current situation?
In closing I would reiterate that until we see violence against men as a social problem and not a masculinity problem the relatively minor issue of DV against women will continue.
(I would also like to address that rape is VASTLY over stated in the majority of statistics, the VAWA survery in 2001 found that only 8% of women are raped in their lifetime. Which is 8% to many but I am curious why noone mentions the rape of 1 millon men a year in prison? A problem that could be easily addressed due if we cared enough.)
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is according to a Nov. 2000 Department of Justice report on the National Violence Against Women Survey.
1,510,455 women and 834,732 men victims of domestic violence1.5% vs. 0.8% in one year, 22.1% vs. 7.4% lifetime—why the discrepancy?
Annual physical assault rate—44.2/1000 women, 31.5/1000 women
Average 3.5 victimizations per male victim, 3.4 per female victim
1.1% of married/co-habiting women and 0.6% of men assaulted annually
About twice as many male victims has a knife used on them (10.8% to 4.1%), were threatened with a knife (21.6% to 12.7%), or were hit with an object likely to cause harm (43.2% to 22.6%.
Exhibit 11 shows percentage of subjects surveyed, not percentage of subjects assaulted. See below. For example, "threw something" is 8% of the 8,000 women surveyed, not 8% of the 1,768 surveyed women who were assaulted. 36.7% of the assaulted women surveyed had something thrown at them, and 59.5% of the assaulted men. 96.8% of women and 90.5% of men assaulted experienced one of the more serious forms of assault.
Well over half the men, but only 40% of the women, were physically assaulted by an adult caretaker as a child.
As children: mother (alone or with other) the physical abuser in 43% of cases, responsible for 48% of fatalities.
Father (alone or with other) physical abuser in 28% of cases, responsible for 12%. U.S. DHHS Children's Bureau, Child Maltreatment 1999
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 12, @08:55AM EST (#149)
|
|
|
|
|
The percentages for child abuse perpetrated by the father (alone or with other) seem incredibly high.
How could they be responsible for 28% of child abuse cases and 12% of child fatalities when they only gain custody of their children in a minority of cases?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would suggest that the 8% of women being raped, is also misleading, as many of the women that are raped are repeatly raped. That the broadened definition of rape furthermore is also bolstering the stats.
That in actuality the women who need counciling and services the most are the one's not getting it. The one's who are getting it are the ones less likely to need these services.
The actual number would be less then 1% if we look at these numbers. closer to .01% or even less. Of course these stats would only count if the other party didnt have drinks before engaging is sexual contact as well as a few other considerations.
VAPA
Violence
Against
People
Act
If the act is simply changed to this name, an entire outfit of things will happen that will benifit the entire country, as well as other countries around the world.
Change the name and the rest will take care of its self.
V.A.P.A.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
." Men use violence for a variety of reasons, money, sex, power over people, to prove their sports team should have won the match. Lying to yourself is not going to get you far."
You should take your own advice anon, the stats for rape are bullshit, regardless with the same broad terms that are used, women are equal in that area of "sexual assault" too.
Men are easily the largest quota of violence perpetuated against them, agreed mostly by other men, but the numbers of violence and sexual assaults against men by women are the same. Despite your blind eye to these molestations and violent acts perpatrated by women. Every time I see a teacher slap her student Im going to count it, because I know you won't.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every time I see a teacher slap her student Im going to count it, because I know you won't.
This may be the most essential point, Dan. We have to stop violence at its source -- physical abuse of children. And most physical abuse of children is perpetrated by women.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"You're going to need it. Actually I have no problem believing the rape statistics at all, in fact, I used to think the numbers were too conservative because half the girls I knew when I was in my teens had been raped. "
Really! Greate story, here's mine sounds like yours. All my buddies out there fondled and touched by aunts, mothers, sisters , babysitters, and girls in school they didnt like who pressured them into dates and sexual relationships. So your shit theory is going to have to take some work to , funny how its always looked on that men always want it, while women never do. Btw the definition of rape is so broad now Im not sure where it begins and where it ends. A woman can inititiate the sexual encounter then change her mind and lay charges. Whats even funnier is how often the charges come out after the boyfriend finds out about her affair. Typical, dont have the dignity to stand and face the music, no not when a crises center is willing to help coach your testimoney and deny a man any fair trial whatsever and help you win your "boyfriend" back and save your prescious "reputation" of not being a slut/whore/cunt/wench/ditchpig take your pick. Your right Im also surprised the stats are so low along with how low women's morals are today.
Check out Kate Fillion's book, there is a study in there that shows how men are at equal rates of sexual assault under those same classifications.
There is no doubt in my mind that men are raped more than women on a daily basis.
Stick to your Ms.ery boards girl and keep your pow wows of bullshit to yourself until you've got a real answer.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya know, after reading all the posts about statistics and who's the true victim here, the real issue needs to be addressed. That is the responsibility of battered women's shelters.
Even if a billion women are battered and only one man is (which obviously isn't the case), that's one man who deserves the same level of compassion, respect, and care that the billion women would get. He doesn't deserve to be ignored. Yet that's what the majority of shelters do: ignore male victims.
If a battered women's shelter wishes to ignore men, then let it give up its public funding. Stop taking men's taxdollars.
For any "battered women's advocate" who may be reading this: If you take a man's taxmoney as support for a shelter and then ignore him if he is the one battered, then his blood is on your hands.
And truly this is the bottom line: $
Money.
Start offering equal services for men, or give up your public funding.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Napnip is correct. One man turned away is far too many. Hell, the fems are up in arms about how much softball money the girls get! I agree with you. We need to demand these publicly funded shelters open their doors to men or cut off the $$$.
One of the reasons this shift will be hard on these centers is because they are theorhetically based on the "Duluth Model" which of course, holds men accountable and women not. This gender polarizing scheme basically professes that violence itself is masculine and that men in general are privileged and are oppressive to women. Men are expected to admit this prior to treatment! However, when women are violent they are not treated with the same shaming and blaming mentality. Are you ready for this? When the woman is violent she is asked if she has ever been a prior victim of DV! This of course is the reason she has done this! She was mistreated before. This model is a flaming double standard. If you have the guts you can read more about it here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just as a matter of fairness, I have spoken with the Executive Director of Womanspace, a shelter near Trenton, NJ and she has told me that they DO help men (or have in the past) though they don't get many requests (I'm not really suprised to hear that for some reason).
I don't know much about their "methods" or philosophy, but there you have it.
I have one serious criticism of Womanspace though: While they say they help men they avoid publicizing that like the plague. I guess it would hurt their grant status.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank - Ask her if they use the Duluth ideas. It is almost certain that they do. Read this link and see how profoundly sexist this stuff is before you call her.
She can't admit that they don't help men. If she does she knows she is liable. It's like running a steak house and telling potential customers vegetarians are welcome! Oh please. Ask her about male privilege and how that is involved with violence...especially a woman's violence! Ask her about alcohol and whether she thinks it is involved. Professionals estimate that 80% of DV is alcohol related but the Duluth model refuses to see alcohol as a factor! NO! Just sociopolitical crap....translated means it's the man's fault! She will get more and more evasive. She knows her days are numbered. Professionals also see borderline personality disorder as being involved in more than half the cases. The Duluth model refuses to acknowledge this and won't seek psychiatric help. Hell, they won't even allow couples counseling! It is too dangerous to allow the man to blame someone other than himself! I kid you not. As Dave Barry says "I am not making this up!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with women's shelters stating they accept male victims of DV is ignoring the problem. While men as a minimum account for 36% of DV victims the funding for male vicitms is nonexistant. Male victims are made light my the vast majority of women's shelters and very little effort is made to help men who suffer from DV.
I am also irritated by the way these campaigns and shelters are advertized. Almost all of them are oriented toward women. The simple fact is menare unlikely to ask for help from a program called "Women's space" [I find it incredibly annoying that feminism has made an enourmous effort to point out how language has created barriers for women but then they proceed to do the exact samething they accuse men doing for so long. Feminists often argue that since women make up the vast majority of vicitms they use the term women in the discussion of DV to make the converstation flow easier. To counter this ask them if its is ok if we use the term fireMAN and policeMAN since men make up the vast majority of those professions.]
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a pretty good critique of the Duluth Model here and suggested revised model here , in case an alternative is needed. I don't especially like the model, myself, (drastically simplifies complex issues, IMO) but it is popular, and if you agree it is sexist, it needs to be countered effectively.
HTH
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Excellent resource tparker, thanks. Measured, calm and reasoned approach. Unlike my own angry disbelief and shock!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My pleasure, Tom. We won't defeat misandry by being upset and scattered - we need to be focused, visible, reasonable, and have the facts and alternatives on hand. Not that an occassional rant isn't theraputic - just don't let the misandrists push you to it. Or catch you at it. Why loan a knife to the people who want to castrate you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom,
I agree with everything you say except for your predictions for the future.
You are right that men are unlikely to ask for help at a shelter called "Womenspace", just as men are unlikely to ask for help at shelters variously named, "Rape Relief Centre", Women's-this or Women's-that. If we renamed all of the employment centres, "Men's Work Centre," we all know that the feminists would be screaming. The Duluth model is also, as you pointed out, institutionalized sexism. It recognizes one form of violence and one form of victim, and everything is approached from the assumption that society trains men to be violent oppressors and women to be trembling victims.
Where I disagree with you is that these viragos' "days are numbered." You underestimate their ability to reinvent themselves and their causes as needed. Already "mainstream" women are eschewing the label "feminist." They wrinkle their noses at the term, and laugh about chunky, humourless women with butch haircuts. Of course, they still tell "stupid men" jokes. Their sexism has casual and dismissive; the fiery vitriol is gone. If you were to point out that they are sexist, they would deny it, or tell you to lighten up, that you sound like those ol' butch feminists.
The shelters will reinvent themselves, too. They'll do as little as is necessary to stay out of trouble. Maybe change their names from "Womenspace" to "Peoplespace" without changing their policies. Perhaps change their policies without changing their practices. Perhaps adopting one set of practices when men show up at the door while reserving the old message for the women. The shelters and the people who staff them will simply stay one step ahead of public opinion.
The only thing that may come back to bite them in the end are the growing legions of divorced men falsely accused of DV and child abuse through the gleeful support and even urging of women's shelter staff. If those men ever get it in their heads to organize and bring forward lawsuits and create a big stink, the shelters may be in deep trouble, no matter how they have managed to make themselves over.
Here's hoping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sadly BusterB you are right. They will slither and slide and molt a few skins before things can actually change. This is even more reason for us to be vigilant and vocal about the hatred they are spreading. I have been in touch with both my Senators today and plan on keeping some heat on them about this incredible injustice and misuse of tax money. I plan on demanding that:
1) These services be available to both men and women and if they are not that federal $ needs to be withheld.
2) Peer review by non-feminist therapists and professionals be mandatory. These snakes have hidden their shame and blame game far too long. We need to shine a light on it.
It's also time for the media to get involved. I think that one way may be to argue that the Duluth model is actually a hate group in theorhetical clothing. Their treatment of men is not unlike the KKK's treatment of blacks....except that they are federally funded. Duh.
Any feedback on other possible paths for some activism?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the Duluth model is actually a hate group
While there is no doubt that money is a powerful driving force, it is important to remember that hatred is as well. Many a feminist is deranged with hatred of men -- misandry.
One of the things that could help a lot is the Equal Rights Amendment, provided it isn't modified to provide greater equal rights for women than for men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<While there is no doubt that money is a powerful driving force, it is important to remember that hatred is as well. Many a feminist is deranged with hatred of men -- misandry. >>
Thomas, I would start demanding a revue of the lit, and coaching that goes into the shelters.
Like I said the very films they show in canada (produced by the government) is the appidomy of misandry its indoctrination and its hate imbibing. Accuse them of spreading hate and createing a problem, with the results, go to the man radio and broadcast the findings.
Its complete hate propaganda at its finest.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only thing that may come back to bite them in the end are the growing legions of divorced men falsely accused of DV and child abuse through the gleeful support and even urging of women's shelter staff. If those men ever get it in their heads to organize and bring forward lawsuits and create a big stink, the shelters may be in deep trouble, no matter how they have managed to make themselves over.
If ever? Guess what. You can count on it happening right now. We are organizing and we are getting well funded. We have a source of funds and we are filing suits. Expect this to be announced in the media in the next month. When we get the message out with the funds that we expect to come in, we expect to have thousands of members by the end of next year.
NCFM.com man. That is where the action is at!
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One thing we can't overlook when it comes to battered women's shelters, and this is the point I was actually trying to make, is the Almighty Dollar. How many shelter administrators out there are actually concerned with helping victims of domestic violence, as opposed to those who are simply in it for the money? I suspect the latter far outweighs the former.
It kinda reminds me of this or that organization claiming to be "non-profit". There is no such thing as a non-profit organization. Each and every organization out there must have financial resources to continue operating, and of course a certain amount of those "administrative costs" will involve being the chief administrator's salary. In short, any group out there must make a profit in order to keep functioning.
The difference is whether or not said group makes its profit from the market (as in a private group), or through public funds. If it makes its profit from the market, then it must offer a service that the consumer wants at a price they're willing to pay. However, the situation for a "non-profit" group like a battered women's shelter is a bit different: they don't rely on the market for their funding, they rely on taxdollars. It's a profit nonetheless, but one disguised in a "non-profit" organization.
If I don't like the practices of a "profit" group, I can simply not buy their product. However, I have no choice regarding battered women's shelters. A portion of my taxes goes to fund them, whether I like their services or not.
I've heard it claimed that if battered men start demanding attention, it might drain some of the resources away from battered women's shelters and other services. However, methinks the real fear is that those shelter administrator's salaries might be cut a wee little bit.
"Force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins." -John Galt
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<I've heard it claimed that if battered men start demanding attention, it might drain some of the resources away from battered women's shelters and other services. However, methinks the real fear is that those shelter administrator's salaries might be cut a wee little bit.>>
I agree with about everything you said. I have been on to the "Sexual Assault Centre" around here and the place is barely used for any real purpose. Girls are going through "treatement" for a 'kiss' . I kid you not, they are turning these girls into "victims" because a guy kissed them on the lips. I say that these places are oppressing women more than any partriarchy ever. They are such bullshit they have to convince girls they are victims of a kiss. To imprison guys for 18 months for a kiss is immoral, while only giving women 24 months for murdering her child. Ya I would say its about money. If its not their priorities are screwed up big time.
VAPA violence against people act, I still think that by changing the name is a major step.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday June 13, @08:56PM EST (#179)
|
|
|
|
|
Since sexual assault cases are treated with strict confidentiality I find it very hard to believe that you would know what the females are going through treatment for.
I also do not believe that a male with your attitude would be allowed anywhere near a Sexual Assault Center. If by chance the staff are allowing men like you near the victims of sexual assault then I think these women should consider whether it's wise to have treatment at such a place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting how people feel they know what kind of person you are by a few comments about a particular topic. The fact is that it is not against privacy laws to know why people are admitted into a particular shelter or counseling job as long as they cannot be identified. So it would be very easy to know why women are admitted into DV counseling as long as there is no chance for the reason to be connected to a particular person. This is the case with AA and NA meetings where it is more or less known why people go to these meetings but they are prohibited from giving out names of clients.
This anon user's comments are typical of most feminists. One of the problems with women's studies and the vast majority of feminists is that any critique of anything they say or do is considered misogyny when this is simply not the case.
finally I will comment that people who run DV chelters are into it for the money is probably not the case. As someone who is knows about public service groups and the counseling profession they do not make a great deal of money. Infact often times they could get better pay by doing private counseling.
Tony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Friday June 14, @12:04AM EST (#181)
|
|
|
|
|
I almost replied to the troll (#179), but I, unlike those women who "defend themselves" by killing their sleeping husband by stabbing him 56 times in the carotid artery, exercised restraint despite provocation. HAHA.
-hobbes
---
If you're not mad, you're not paying attention
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.iwf.org/news/morrisonbrief.htm
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE[1]
The Independent Women’s Forum ("IWF") is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded by women to foster public education about legal, social and economic policies, particularly those affecting women and families. IWF supports policies that promote individual responsibility, limited government, and economic opportunity.
IWF has sponsored public debate, provided legislative analysis, and offered congressional testimony criticizing the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13931, et seq., (“VAWA”), and its civil remedy provision, 42 U.S.C. § 13981. IWF believes the provisions of VAWA are largely, and expensively, ineffective at preventing and punishing violent crime. Fundamental principles of federalism require that States retain their right and obligation to regulate local and purely private activities. U.S. Const. amend. X. The Constitution forbids the federal government from encroaching on State powers precisely so that citizens may demand from local governments a level of service and protection that suits their own needs. IWF believes that the personal safety of women and other citizens will be best secured by encouraging local enforcement and prosecution of violent crimes.
introduction and summary of argument
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly concluded on rehearing en banc that 42 U.S.C. § 13981 unlawfully extends Congressional power into areas traditionally reserved to the States in violation of well-settled principles of federalism and this Court’s analysis in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). It correctly discerned that reliance on the Commerce Clause to support VAWA lacks any logical limits and would justify almost any exercise of Congressional authority over any activity that could be found to have some remote economic effect.
Plaintiffs and their amici here argue for the same expansive definition of the commerce power rejected in Lopez. Under their proposed definition, wherever economic effects (however attentuated) could be discerned, Congress would have authority to regulate and potentially to occupy the field, even if that field were the civil and criminal justice systems of all states. The Lopez court confirmed prior jurisprudence rejecting any general police power vested in the federal government by the Constitution. Yet, Congress relied explicitly on what can only be reasonably characterized as an assertion of police power in enacting VAWA. Plaintiffs’ belated attempt to justify VAWA's civil remedy under the Necessary and Proper Clause, an argument not raised before the Fourth Circuit, cannot save VAWA from judicial scrutiny because if the outer limits of the Commerce Clause have been exceeded, VAWA is not “necessary and proper” to the exercise of power under the Commerce Clause.
The Fourth Circuit also correctly rejected the argument advanced by Plaintiffs that Congress could enact the VAWA under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the state action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment is ever discarded, this Court will have untethered its jurisprudence both from the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment and will have created an unauthorized general federal police power.
ARGUMENT
1. Congress Lacks The Authority Under The Commerce Clause To Enact The Violence Against Women Act.
The Court in Lopez recognized that without an enforceable requirement that the subject matter regulated either be truly economic in nature or directly affect economics, the Commerce Clause would be without any coherent limitation that could be squared with settled conceptions of federalism.
We pause to consider the implications of the Government’s arguments. The Government admits, under its ‘costs of crime’ reasoning, that Congress could regulate not only all violent crime, but all activities that might lead to violent crime, regardless of how tenuously they relate to interstate commerce. Similarly, under the Government's ‘national productivity’ reasoning, Congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. Under the theories that the Government presents in support of [18 U.S.C.] § 922(q), it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where States have historically been sovereign. Thus, if we were to accept the Government’s arguments, we are hard-pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.
514 U.S. at 564. Here, Plaintiffs and their amici offer the same or indistinguishably similar arguments about economic effects that this court found insufficient in Lopez. See, e.g., Brzonkala Brief at 28-29; United States Brief at 6-8. See also Lopez, 514 U.S. at 563-64.
In Lopez, the Court identified four considerations to be examined when inquiring whether the regulated activity “substantially affects” interstate commerce: (1) whether the regulation of the activity is an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme would be undercut unless the intrastate activity were regulated; (2) whether the statute under which Congress regulates contains a jurisdictional element of interstate commerce; (3) Congress’ formal legislative findings; and (4) the impact of the regulation on areas in which the States have traditionally been sovereign. 514 U.S. at 559-64. It is axiomatic that the “regulation of noneconomic conduct remote from interstate commerce,” Brzonkala v. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ, 169 F.3d 820, 840 (4th Cir. 1999), fails the Lopez analysis because “[t]he power to ‘legislate generally upon’ life, liberty, and property . . . [is] ‘repugnant’ to the Constitution." City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 525 (1997) (citation omitted). The Fourth Circuit properly weighed these factors in finding that VAWA was not economic regulation. VAWA is not a part of any larger scheme of economic regulation and it manifestly lacks any jurisdictional requirements linked to interstate commerce. Its intrusion into areas of traditional state concern easily outweighs Congress' findings of commercial impact, findings which are in any event predicated on the same limitless definition of what commerce means rejected in Lopez.
(a) The Areas In Which The States Have Traditionally Been Paramount Should Be Protected Against A Federal Claim To Regulate Anything That Remotely Affects Commerce.
The ultimate justification for keeping areas of domestic relations, criminal law, and education in local hands rests both on principle and prudence. Lopez's conclusion that federalism must be maintained is sound in principle because that is what the Constitution says and is what the Founders intended. That conclusion is also reinforced by prudential concerns of particular interest to the IWF. The IWF submits that the presence of significant institutional capacities at the state level for dealing with family policies, and a minimal level of federal competence and experience in this area, makes sporadic federal intrusions in service of symbolism and "feel good" politics an undesirable policy.
In Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703-04 (1992), this Court noted that the domestic relations exception to federal court jurisdiction rests not only on respect for long-held understandings but also on sound policy considerations. State courts already have the close association with state and local organizations that handle the issues that arise from conflicts over divorce, alimony, and child custody and support decrees. Moreover, state courts have a special proficiency developed over the past century and a half in handling these issues.
Moreover, allowing comprehensive federal regulation in such an area under the guise of the commerce power would offend the constitutional scheme in the additional sense that the function of the states as laboratories of public policy, particularly in areas where they have special expertise, would be negated by uniform, "top-down" solutions. See Lopez, 514 U.S. at 581 (Kennedy, J., concurring). While no reasonable person supports violence against women any more than threats of firearms in schools, there can be considerable differences of opinion about how to address the problem. “In this circumstance, the theory and utility of our federalism are revealed, for the States may perform their role as laboratories for experimentation to devise various solutions where the best solution is far from clear.” Id.
(b) Congress Has Improperly Asserted A Claim To A General Police Power In The Act And Plaintiffs Are Proposing That Congress Be Permitted To Determine The Scope of Its Own Commerce Power Contrary To The Fundamental Principle Of Judicial Review.
When VAWA was passed, Congress explicitly invoked promotion of public safety and health as one justification for the Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 13981(a). While as a matter of strict legal analysis this Court may regard the Congressional claim of a power to legislate on grounds of health and safety as surplusage if actual sources of Congressional authority are sufficient, the claim to an exercise of police power invites and requires careful scrutiny, for an important precedent is being set. Furthermore, given the anti-Federalist bias reflected in VAWA, this Court should not be surprised to find that 42 U.S.C. § 13981 contains no limiting jurisdictional requirement, Brzonkala, 169 F.3d at 869-70, one of the obligatory factors to be considered under Lopez. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 564-66. See also United States Brief at 32 n.15.
Congress did, of course, state in 42 U.S.C. § 13981 its secondary reliance on the Commerce Clause and the House of Representatives did declare that “crimes of violence motivated by gender have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 103-711, at 385 (1994), reprinted in 1994 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1839, 1853. And certainly such recitations and findings should be considered under Lopez. But, as this Court has observed, simply because Congress concludes that a particular activity substantially affects interstate commerce does not make it so. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557 n.2. Permitting Congress to set the scope of its own power violates the principle of judicial review set out in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). United States v. Wilson, 73 F.3d 675, 679 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 806 (1996). Whether particular activities affect interstate commerce sufficiently to come within the power of Congress to regulate them pursuant to the Commerce Clause is a judicial, not a legislative, question. Lopez, 514 U.S. at 557 n.2. Congress may not use a relatively trivial impact on commerce as an excuse for broad general regulation of state or private activities. Id. at 558. In this case, this Court should continue to heed the Framers by treating Congressional claims of omnicompetence with skepticism.
It will not be denied, that power is of an encroaching nature, and that it ought to be effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it.
The founders of our republics . . . seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations; which by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations . . . . [It] is against the enterprising ambition of this department, that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions. ‘The legislative department derives a superiority in our governments from other circumstances. Its constitutional powers being at once more extensive and less susceptible of precise limits, it can with the greater facility, mask under complicated and indirect measures, the encroachments which it makes on the coordinate departments. It is not unfrequently a question of real-nicety in legislative bodies, whether the operation of a particular measure, will, or will not extend beyond the legislative sphere.’
Metropolitan Wash. Airports Auth. v. Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc., 501 U.S. 253, 273-74 (1991) (quoting The Federalist No. 48 332-34 (J. Cooke ed. 1961)).
(c) The Alleged Approval Of The Act By Certain State Officials Is Constitutionally Irrelevant.
This Court has observed that “‘the States occupy a special and specific position in our constitutional system . . . .’ The ‘constitutionally mandated balance of power’ between the States and the Federal Government was adopted by the Framers to ensure the protection of ‘our fundamental liberties.’” Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 242 (1985) (citations omitted). The invitation of certain state Attorneys General, holding their places for the moment, to uphold federal regulation in this area, Brzonkala Brief at 17; United States Brief at 12 n.5; State Attorneys General Brief at 1, and the similar appeals of state gender task forces, United States Brief at 9-11, 47-48; Brief Amici Curiae of the States of Arizona, et al., at 19-20; Brief Amici Curiae of Law Professors at 22 n. 28, are simply irrelevant to constitutional analysis. As this Court held in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181-82 (1992), the consent of state officials cannot revive a constitutionally infirm Congressional enactment. Separation of powers is a principle of constitutional hygiene which no official of the day can give away.
The Constitution does not protect the sovereignty of States for the benefit of the States or state governments as abstract political entities, or even for the benefit of public officials governing the States. To the contrary, the Constitution divides authority between federal and state governments for the protection of individuals . . . . The constitutional authority of Congress cannot be expanded by the ‘consent’ of the governmental unit whose domain is thereby narrowed, whether that unit is the Executive Branch or the States . . . . State officials thus cannot consent to the enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.
New York, 505 U.S. at 181-82. The Constitution withholds power from the officials at all levels of government to alter the constitutional scheme on the well-founded suspicion that temporary political expediency will sometimes triumph over enduring principles. See id. at 182-83.
(d) Plaintiffs And Their Amici Misuse “Legislative History.”
Plaintiffs and their amici argue at length that evidence heard by Congress should be deemed highly persuasive on the wisdom of VAWA's intrusion into the powers of the several States. See, e.g., Brzonkala Brief at 10-17; United States Brief at 28-32. This is a clear misuse of “legislative history.”
This Court has stated that in using legislative history it is the Committee Reports on the bill that represent the considered and collective understanding of the members involved. Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 76 (1984). The Court has eschewed reliance on the comments of a single member. Compare Garcia, 469 U.S. at 76, with Brief Amicus Curiae of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., at 12 n.14. Certainly, it cannot be presumed that committee reports issuing from only one house of Congress years before the statute in question was actually passed somehow establish the “intent” of a later Congress. See Shannon v. United States, 512 U.S. 573, 583 (1994) (observing that members of this Court have differing views on the role of legislative history even when it is comprehensive and accurate); Brief Amicus Curiae of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., at 1-2 (noting that three different Congresses were involved in VAWA). Hence, a recitation of what members of Congress merely heard, see, e.g., United States Brief at 7-8 & n.3-4 (hearings); Brzonkala Brief at 11-12 (statements of non-members), is not authority for what Congress found. See Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 263 n.15 (1994) (partisan statements carry little weight). Here, one house made no finding at all of any substantial effect on interstate commerce. See Brzonkala, 169 F.3d at 850.
Nor is the matter much advanced by citing “legislative history” to support Plaintiffs’ pseudo legal reasoning and terminology. They use the terms “systemic” bias, United States Brief at 50 n.23, and “systemic” discrimination, Brzonkala Brief at 14-15, 43, which are vague terms borrowed from employment law. See, e.g., Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins, 490 U.S. 228, 245 (1989) (Title VII); E.E.O.C. v. Shell Oil Co., 466 U.S. 54, 58 (1984) (employment); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 706 (1979) (Title IX). These terms lack any evident connection to the constitutional issues at hand, beyond seeking to establish a pejorative tone. Moreover, even in discrimination cases, this Court has consistently rejected the argument that societal discrimination alone warrants inattention to constitutional requirements. See United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 547 (1996).
The Commerce Clause imposes its own requirement of a reasonable relationship between the end and the means. The discretion accorded Congress under the Commerce Clause "is subject to only one caveat - that the means chosen by it must be reasonably adapted to the end permitted by the Constitution.” Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 262 (1964).
If mere congressional findings alleging disparities in treatment in tortfeasors and criminals by the legal systems of the various States were sufficient to invoke plenary federal power to legislate in the field, there would be no limit on federal authority. Such a sweeping claim is no more plausible than, to use the example employed by the Fourth Circuit, to establish a national regulatory authority over commercial effects of insomnia. See Brzonkala, 169 F.3d at 839.
Interestingly, if a remote effect on economics is all that matters under the Commerce Clause, then Congress could just as easily have adopted a bill intended to particularly protect men instead of adopting the VAWA. Men are 77.1% of murder victims. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: 1993 Uniform Crime Reports at 16. Even apart from murder, men are much more likely to be victims of violent crime. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization in the United States 1993 (May 1996) (NCJ-151657) at 10 Table 2 (violent crime rate is 60.9 per thousand for males and 42.3 per thousand for females). Except for rape/sexual assault, the victimization rate for every category of violent crime was higher for males than females. National Crime Victimization Survey: Criminal Victimization 1994 (Apr. 1996) (NCJ-158022) at 5.
Furthermore, men are punished more severely than women. Women generally receive substantially shorter average sentences than do men for the same crimes. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics 1993 (1994) at 615. Approximately 95.5% of state prison inmates are men. Id. at 611. Among federal prisoners, 92.3% are men. Id. at 628. And men killing their wives receive substantially longer sentences (excluding life sentences and the death penalty) than do women who kill their husbands, with sentences for unprovoked spousal killings averaging seventeen years for men compared to seven for women. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Spouse Murder Defendants in Large Urban Counties (Sept. 1995) (NCJ-156831) at 3.
Besides relying on advocacy research, Plaintiffs and their amici, like the groups that originally supported VAWA before Congress, have omitted some key facts. Most violent crime is committed by men, against men. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that over 67% of homicides are male-on-male. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Homicide Trends in the U.S.: Gender (last modified Jan. 4, 1999) (http: //www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ bjs/homicide/gender.htm.) For every violent crime except rape, males are victimized at higher rates than females. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Victim Characteristics (last modified Jan. 2, 1999) (http://www/oip.usdoj.gov/ bjs/cvict_v.htm.) Looking at activities that might arguably involve "interstate commerce," males are more likely than females to be victims of workplace violence, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Workplace Violence: 1992-1996, (July 1998) (NCJ 168634) at 2, 6, and violence while traveling. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sex Differences in Violent Victimization (Sept. 1997) (NCJ-164508) at 8. ("Females were more likely to be victimized in a private home … than any other place.") Over 90% of workplace fatalities are males. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Fatal Occupational Injuries by Selected Worker Characteristics and Event or Exposure (1994) at 1. (last modified July 29, 1996) (http://www.bis.gov./cfoi/cftb0028.txt). The reports of disparity in workplace murder rates result from the fact that men are killed by many other causes (e.g., accidents), which affect women less. See Kingsley R. Browne, Sex and Temperament in Modern Society, 37 Ariz. L. Rev. 971, 979 (1995). Given the large disparity in victimization rates, it seems most unlikely that the costs of violent crime against women exceed, or are even disproportionate to, the costs of violence against men.
The only violent crimes that disproportionately victimize women, rape and sexual assault, have declined steadily since 1980. This remains true even though "rape" was recently redefined to include attempts, verbal threats, and "psychological coercion" in the National Crime Victimization Survey. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Rape Trends (last modified Jan. 14, 1999) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bis/glance/rape.htm.) Reported rapes on campuses are a minute percentage of total enrollments (e.g., less than 500 of 5,000,000 total enrollment). Even assuming that only a small percentage of rapes are reported, the campus rate is well below one percent. Neil Gilbert et al., Was It Rape? An Examination of Sexual Assault Statistics 11 (1995); Federal Bureau of Investigation, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 158-67 (1994).
VAWA provides grant incentives for states to adopt mandatory arrest policies, 42 U.S.C. § 3796hh, which require police to make an arrest of the partner they judge to be at fault (or even both partners) when called to a domestic assault scene. These policies have produced an unexpected result: substantial increases in arrests of women. Advocates and social scientists suggest various explanations, but "virtually no one claims to fully understand the phenomenon, which mystifies because it so diverged from the widely accepted estimate that 95% of batterers are men." Even Bonnie J. Campbell, Director of the Department of Justice's Violence Against Women Office, admits, "We are seeing numbers that suggest that young women are getting more aggressive." Carey Goldberg, Spouse Abuse Crackdown, Surprisingly, Nets Many Women, N.Y Times, Nov. 23, 1999, at A1, A14. (http://www.nytimes.com/yr/ mo/day/news/national/ domestic-abuse.html).
Statistics from the Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention show that between 1981 and 1997, violent crime by girls increased 107%, compared to a 27% increase for boys. Terry Carter, Equality With a Vengeance, ABA Journal, Nov. 1999, at 22. Gang activity by girls also has become a notable problem. See Chicago Crime Commission, The Girls Behind the Boys: Girls in Gangs (1999). These facts belie the underlying premise of VAWA, that women as a group are subject to oppression by men as a group. The truth is far more complex.
Although violence against women has declined since 1976, "female-to-male violence showed no decline and was actually higher and about as severe as male-to-female violence." Richard J. Gelles, The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Battered Men, The Women's Quarterly, Autumn 1999, at 18, 20.
Professor Gelles emphasizes therein that women, usually smaller and weaker than men, are more likely to be injured as a result of partner violence, but that rates of assault are about equal for men and women.
Statistics are a particularly treacherous basis for constitutional reasoning particularly when the need for federal action is premised on a failure to act in accordance with the policy preferences of a certain intellectual faction of the population. A rule permitting Congress to “regulate commerce” by taking over traditional state functions based on transient views of the meaning of sociological data would simply not be principled Commerce Clause jurisprudence nor would it comport with Lopez. Furthermore, much of what Plaintiffs present as factual legislative history is demonstratively specious.
The four Senate Judiciary Committee hearings in 1990 and 1991 presented only witnesses who supported the bill. Cathy Young, The Sexist Violence Against Women Act, Wall St. J., Mar. 23, 1994, at A15. Ms. Young reported that when a men's rights proponent asked to testify about gender bias in the bill (it originally literally granted rights only to women and not men), he was told to submit a statement for the written record. "He did so; when the record appeared, his statement was not included." Id.
Those who testified in favor of VAWA generally represented the very groups and interests that stood to gain from the five-year, $1.6 billion federal spending authorization under VAWA. Many such organizations and agencies, including the States, have filed briefs amici curiae in support of Plaintiffs.
Most of the "evidence" in the legislative history supporting VAWA is not factual data, but advocacy research consisting of the selective use of anecdotes and rhetoric to support a predetermined political result. Philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers devoted two chapters of her 1994 book Who Stole Feminism? to an exposé of the "noble lies" told by gender feminists to support their claims that the "patriarchy" uses systematic violence to oppress women as a class. Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism? 188-226 (1994).
Professor Sommers also dissected a media hoax that took the country by storm at the start of the 103d Congress (which eventually passed the then-pending VAWA bill). Days before Super Bowl Sunday in 1993, a coalition of women's groups called a press conference at which they claimed that a study by Old Dominion University had found a 40% increase in police reports of beatings and hospital admissions in Northern Virginia after football games won by the Washington Redskins during the 1988-89 season. Id. at 189. Journalists and commentators all over the country spread the alarm, including interviews of domestic violence specialists who surmised, for example, that "provocatively dressed cheerleaders at the game may reinforce abusers' perceptions that women are intended to serve men." Id. at 190. Washington Post reporter Ken Ringle checked the sources, however, and found that the researchers whose work was cited denied having made any such findings or statements. Professor Sommers summarized the incident this way, id. at 15:
No study shows that Super Bowl Sunday is in any way different from other days in the amount of domestic violence. Though Ringle exposed the rumor, it had done its work: millions of American women who heard about it are completely unaware that it is not true. Id. at 15.
Most of the supposed "facts" relied on by Congress in enacting VAWA and reiterated in briefs by Plaintiffs and their amici are, like the Super Bowl hoax, not true. Richard J. Gelles, Ph.D., a professor in the Child Welfare and Family Violence Department of the University of Pennsylvania School of Social Work, is one of the nation's foremost experts on this subject. He is the author or co-author of scores of publications, including (with Murray A. Straus) Intimate Violence (1988) and Physical Violence in American Families: Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families (1995).
Professor Gelles has analyzed the content and sources of several common statements about domestic violence and found them to be unsupported, misleading or outright false.[2] Many of the same distortions appeared in the legislative history of VAWA and now reappear in the briefs of Plaintiffs and their amici, as though continued reliance on false statistics and nonexistent studies could somehow gives VAWA constitutional credibility, e.g., United States Brief at 23-30; Brief Amici Curiae of National Network to End Domestic Violence, et al., at 4-8, 16-22; Brief Amici Curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al., 6-13; Brief Amicus Curiae of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., passim.
Plaintiffs and their amici also cite congressional findings based on various state "Gender Bias Task Forces" dating from the mid-1980s to the early 1990s. The brief amici curiae of 35 state Attorneys General and Puerto Rico details the results of these state task forces, which generally found state efforts "inadequate." Brief Amici Curiae of the States of Arizona, et al., 15-20. In fact, however, it has to be admitted that the states have not been inactive in this field. "States' longstanding efforts to address pervasive gender-based violence . . . have included significant legislative changes in domestic violence and sexual assault statutes." Id. at 20. Thus, when they conclude that those efforts "have thus far fallen far short of eliminating a widespread problem," they are making an assumption that more of the same at the federal level is needed. Id. No support is offered for the implicit assumption that federal efforts would be more effective.
Ideological distortions have produced a law that is not only unconstitutional, but harmful to the victims it purports to help. As Prof. Sommers notes, "Battered women don't need untruths to make their case before a fair-minded public that hates and despises bullies; there is enough tragic truth to go around." Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, at 17.
Unfortunately, VAWA was based on advocates' rhetoric, rather than honest scientific research. As a result, many VAWA programs are counterproductive (such as the mandatory arrest policies discussed above)[3] and even dangerous. VAWA uses the promise of federal grants to encourage treatment of offenders, but standardized programs are unsuitable for effectively treating the myriad of individual problems that are associated with intimate violence. Thus, according to some experts, "the man comes out of a useless mandated treatment program no less violent than when he went in, but with a clean bill of health." Sally L. Satel, M.D., It's Always His Fault, The Women's Quarterly, Summer 1997, at 4, 7 (quoting Prof. Richard M. McFall, Indiana University).
Dr. Satel, a practicing psychiatrist, reviewed numerous VAWA programs and concluded:
[T]he battered women's movement has outlived its useful beginnings, which [were] to help women leave violent relationships and persuade the legal system to take domestic abuse seriously. Now they have brought us to a point at which a single complaint touches off an irreversible cascade of useless and often destructive legal and therapeutic events. This could well have a chilling effect upon victims of real violence, who may be reluctant to file police reports or to seek help if it subjects them to further battery from the authorities.
Id. at 10.
Of course, there already exist federal causes of action that protect citizens against deprivation of federal civil rights, including the Equal Protection Clause’s guarantee against governmental discrimination based on sex. If there really were demonstrable state bias in state criminal justice systems in the sense of intentional discrimination, an equal protection remedy would already exist. There is no need to dishevel the Constitution to provide that protection. Besides, the civil remedy provision of VAWA has a peculiar disconnect with the claimed “legislative history” of state bias and failure - its rule barring removal to federal court, 28 U.S.C. § 1445(d). It is odd, in light of the purported justification for the Act, that Congress would confine these cases to the same state court systems whose "invidious discrimination" against women supposedly justified enactment of VAWA in the first place. See 42 U.S.C. § 13981(e)(3).
Brzonkala’s contention that 42 U.S.C. § 13981 is constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause, not argued below, adds nothing of substance to the debate. If VAWA falls beyond the outer limit of the Commerce Clause, then passage of VAWA was not a “necessary or proper” exercise of commerce power. Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 923-24 (1997).
The theory that any perceived evil, no matter how much a traditional concern of state or local government, demands sweeping federal intervention and regulation displays a lack of patience with democratic processes. States in the exercise of their own public policy may wish to address the problems with distinct solutions tailored to local or statewide concerns. That such responses may vary is not evidence of the failure of our system of government but of its success, proving that the grand constitutional structure protecting our liberties is working.
The choices we discern as having been made in the Constitutional Convention impose burdens on governmental processes that often seem clumsy, inefficient, even unworkable, but those hard choices were consciously made by men who had lived under a form of government that permitted arbitrary governmental acts to go unchecked. There is no support in the Constitution or decisions of this Court for the proposition that the cumbersomeness and delays often encountered in complying with explicit constitutional standards may be avoided . . . by the Congress . . . . With all of the obvious flaws of delay, untidiness, and potential for abuse, we have not yet found a better way to preserve freedom than by making the exercise of power subject to the carefully crafted constraints spelled out in the Constitution.
I.N.S. v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 959 (1983) (citations omitted).
2. Congress Has No Power Under the Fourteenth Amendment To Regulate Purely Private Action.
Plaintiffs and their amici ask this Court to adopt an extreme anti-federalistic rule that § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment grants Congress broad power to regulate purely private conduct upon a congressional finding that State inaction has resulted in statistical inequality. This plea for a sweeping federal power is foreclosed by history and precedent. More than a century ago, Congress passed a statute that by its terms sought to provide a remedy against private persons for deprivations of federal civil rights, now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3). This Court’s treatment of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) in Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993), and United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825, 828-29 (1983), is as instructive on the question of Congressional authority as it is destructive to Plaintiffs’ case. The relevance of that statute is also heightened because Congress cited it as a precedent for VAWA. S. Rep. No. 103-138, at 64 (1993).
Despite Congress’ assertion to the contrary, § 1985(3), as interpreted by this Court, does not support sweeping assumptions of omnicompetence that underlie VAWA. Section 1985(3) was originally enacted as § 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871. In United States v. Harris, 106 U.S. 629, 637-40 (1883), the criminal provision of the Act was held unconstitutional as exceeding the boundaries of Congress’ power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Brzonkala, 169 F.3d at 865. For many years, the analogous civil provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3), was construed as reaching only conspiracies under color of state law. Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 (1951). Then in Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88, 95-96 (1971), this Court held that, at least as to certain limited facts, the statute could reach private action violating the guarantees of the Thirteenth Amendment, an amendment not requiring state action. It was this distinctly limited right of action against purely private deprivations of federal rights that this Court explained in Bray.
Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic involved a § 1985(3) claim against antiabortion groups allegedly obstructing and interfering with women seeking abortions. Section 1985(3) requires the plaintiff to allege and prove four elements: (1) a conspiracy (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges or immunities under the laws, and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States. United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 463 U.S. at 828-29. The district court granted an injunction against the challenged activity and the Fourth Circuit affirmed. National Org. for Women v. Operation Rescue, 914 F.2d 582 (4th Cir. 1990), rev'd in part, vacated in part sub nom. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993). This Court reversed, holding that plaintiff showed neither the required animus nor any interference with federal rights protected against encroachment by private persons. Bray, 506 U.S. at 268.
This Court held that to reach private actors, the right infringed must be one protected not only against governmental, but also against private, interference. Bray, 506 U.S. at 275. The range of such rights is exceedingly narrow. Id. at 278. This Court has recognized two – the Thirteenth Amendment right to be free from involuntary servitude, United States v. Kozminski, 487 U.S. 931 (1988), and, in the same Thirteenth Amendment context, the right to interstate travel, United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 759 n.17 (1966). Id. It has rejected a claim that an alleged private conspiracy to infringe First Amendment rights violated § 1985(3), holding that the statute cannot not apply to a right protected only against state interference, but only to one also protected against private interference. Id. (citing United Brotherhood of Carpenters). As the Bray Court said:
There are few such rights. The right to abortion is not among them. It would be most peculiar to accord it that preferred position, since it is much less explicitly protected by the Constitution, than, for example, the right of free speech rejected for such status in Carpenters. Moreover, the right to abortion has been described in our opinions as one element of a more general right of privacy, or of Fourteenth Amendment liberty, and the other elements of those more general rights are obviously not protected against private infringement. (A burglar does not violate the Fourth Amendment, for example, nor does a mugger violate the Fourteenth).
Id.
Thus, Bray makes it clear that Congress’ power to reach and regulate private tortious action is extremely narrow, and in doing so, Bray built on a consistent line of cases limiting the federal power to regulate private conduct. As this Court stated in United Brotherhood of Carpenters:
Had § 1985(3) in so many words prohibited conspiracies to deprive any person of the Equal Protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment or of Freedom of Speech guaranteed by the First Amendment, it would be untenable to contend that either of those provisions could be violated by a conspiracy that did not somehow involve or affect a state. ‘It is commonplace that rights under the Equal Protection Clause itself arise only where there has been involvement of the State or of one acting under color of authority. The Equal Protection Clause “does not . . . add any thing to the rights which one citizen has under the Constitution against another.” As Mr. Justice Douglas more recently put it, “The Fourteenth Amendment protects the individual against state action, not against wrongs done by individuals.” This has been the view of the Court from the beginning. It remains the Court’s view today.’ United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 755 (1966).
463 U.S. at 831-32 (citations partially omitted).
This Court’s construction of United States v. Guest in both Bray and United Brotherhood of Carpenters refutes various attempts to bootstrap concurrences in Guest into a contrary principle. See United States Brief at 47 n.28. One federal court has already explicitly stated that the argument that the concurrences in Guest stand for a Congressional power under the Fourteenth Amendment to enact laws punishing conspiracies regardless of state action is unsound, observing that “[w]hile what could loosely be termed a ‘majority’ expressed such a view, the matter is only one of academic interest since the opinion of the Court stated the exact opposite.” United States v. Wilson, 880 F. Supp. 621, 635 (E.D. Wis.), rev’d on other grounds, 73 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 1995). The United Brotherhood of Carpenters Court explicitly held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide authority to proscribe exclusively private conspiracies generally. 463 U.S. at 862-63.
Moreover, Griffin does not create a broad federal right to regulate private conduct. See Brzonkala Brief at 46; Brief Amicus Curiae of Senator Joseph R. Biden, Jr., at 17. In Griffin, this Court limited its holding by observing that it need not find the language of the governing statute constitutional in all its possible applications in order to uphold its facial constitutionality as applied to the particular complaint. Griffin, 403 U.S. at 104. That decision also relied on Congressional power under the Thirteenth Amendment and the constitutionally protected right to travel, which do not rest on Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Id. at 104-06. Moreover, the Griffin Court held that an attempt to construe the statute as a general federal tort law would be unconstitutional. Id. at 101-02. In United Brotherhood of Carpenters, the Court stated that Griffin did not hold that when the alleged conspiracy is aimed at a right protected only against state interference (such as the equal protection violations alleged here), a § 1985(3) plaintiff need not prove state involvement. 463 U.S. at 862.
Bray also is fatal to attempts by Plaintiffs to string together general statements or dicta to argue that Congress’ enforcement power “may at times also include the power to define situations which Congress determines threaten the principles of equality and to adopt prophylactic rules to deal with those situations.” United States Brief at 37 (citing City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 469, 490 (1989) (O’Connor, J., concurring)). As Justice O’Connor stated in Bray, the Fourteenth Amendment “erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.” Bray, 506 U.S. at 354 (O’Connor, J., dissenting).
Brzonkala attempts to avoid the obvious result dictated by this jurisprudence by concluding that VAWA grants a substantive right “premised on substantive findings of equal protection violations by state actors” to be free of violent crime motivated by gender-based animus. Brzonkala Brief at 48. But this argument begs the question of the source of Congressional power to create a general right to freedom from tortious acts of private individuals. See Brzonkala, 169 F.3d at 852. Just as the Court rejected the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a valid source of power to regulate private conduct in United Brotherhood of Carpenters, so too has it rejected any right to be free of violent crimes stemming from the Amendment’s Due Process Clause:
Nothing in the language of the Due Process Clause itself requires the State to protect the life, liberty and property of its citizens against invasion by private actors. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State’s power to act, not as a guarantee of minimal level of safety and security . . . . [I]ts language cannot fairly be extended to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means . . . . Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other.
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Soc. Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195-96 (1989). Thus, there is no Fourteenth Amendment right to protection against the tortious conduct of others.
If Congress actually enjoyed the expansive power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment that Plaintiffs and their amici claim, it would be difficult to account for an entire body of Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence from this Court determining when private conduct becomes sufficiently involved with governmental action to invoke the Amendment. Nor can a case frequently cited by Plaintiffs and their amici, Heart of Atlanta Motel, be reconciled with their theory, since the Court there used the Commerce Clause to uphold the constitutionality of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, rejecting, at least by implication, Justice Douglas’ opinion that Congress’ § 5 power was sufficient. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U.S. at 281.
Clearly, Plaintiffs' theory defies any historical understanding of state action analysis. See Brzonkala, 169 F.3d at 885. It also ignores the second part of the test set forth in Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982), that the challenged action be undertaken by one who may be fairly said to be a state actor – a state official or one who obtained significant aid from the State or whose acts are otherwise chargeable to the State. The police, prosecutors, judges and court personnel of this nation would no doubt be surprised to learn that their efforts, unappreciated as though they might be, are not deterring but instead causing a class of criminals to deprive victims of crimes of violence of their civil rights. Such arguments, however earnestly made, are constitutionally fanciful and provide no justification for Plaintiffs' flawed public policy goals of overturning federalism and creating the “potential for Orwellian mischief.” Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 25 (1995) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).
CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs and their amici argue for upholding the constitutionality of the civil remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act, 42 U.S.C. § 13981, on grounds that threaten the constitutional rights of all citizens. If Congress had the authority to regulate all activities that have a discernable effect on commerce, however remote or indirect it might be, then there would be no area of life exempt from federal regulation. The well-established state action requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment exists to limit government encroachments. Those urging the constitutionality of VAWA are slighting longstanding and well-settled conceptions of the value of federalism to the preservation of our liberty. As amicus curiae, the Independent Women’s Forum respectfully asks this Court to affirm the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Respectfully Submitted,
INDEPENDENT WOMEN’S FORUM
E. Duncan Getchell, Jr.*
J. William Boland
Robert L. Hodges
William H. Baxter II
McGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE & BOOTHE LLP
One James Center
901 E. Cary Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219-4030
(804) 775-1000
Of counsel:
Anita K. Blair
WELTY & BLAIR, P.C.
2111 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 550
Arlington, Virginia 22201-3057
(703) 276-0114
*Lead Counsel
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES....................................... ............ iii
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE.......... 1
introduction and summary of argument....... 2
ARGUMENT.......................................... ................................ 3
1. Congress Lacks The Authority Under The Commerce Clause To Enact The Violence Against Women
Act............................................... ................................ 3
(a) The Areas In Which The States Have Traditionally Been Paramount Should Be Protected Against A Federal Claim To Regulate Anything That Remotely Affects
Commerce.......................................... ................. 5
(b) Congress Has Improperly Asserted A Claim To A General Police Power In The Act And Plaintiffs Are Propsoing That Congress Be Permitted To Determine The Scope of Its Own Commerce Power Contrary To The Fundamental Principle Of Judicial Review. 6
(c) The Alleged Approval Of The Act By Certain State Officials Is Constitutionally Irrelevant. 8
(d) Plaintiffs And Their Amici Misuse “Legislative History.” 10
2. Congress Has No Power Under the Fourteenth
Amendment To Regulate Purely Private
Action............................................ ........................ 21
CONCLUSION........................................ ............................ 28
APPENDIX.......................................... .............................. A-1
-------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------
[1] In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 37.6, amicus curiae represents that no counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no person or entity, other than amicus, has made any monetary contribution to the preparation or submission of this brief. All parties to these consolidated cases have consented to the filing of this brief urging affirmance, and the letters of consent have been filed with the Clerk of the Court pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 37.3.
[2] Professor Gelles has given permission to the Independent Women's Forum, among others, to reprint his memorandum, "Domestic Violence Factoids," which is reproduced in Appendix A.
[3] See supra p.14.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did it ever occur to you that I was a 'sex assualt victim'?
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did it ever occur to you that I was a 'sex assualt victim'?
[dark sarcasm mode on - please forgive me I cannot resist :) ]
Oh Dan. Dan....Dan....Dan....
Don't you know that you are a man? As such that makes you the disposable sex. You must take all such assaults like a man while women are afforded special treatment and privilege.
[sarcasm mode off]
Gees Dan. They just don't get it. I understand how you must feel because I have a son that was sexually assaulted by an adult female babysitter. For years he heard this same line and the state kept him from me in those horrid conditions. But now he is dealing with it, and he never calls his mother anymore because of how she betrayed him.
Isn’t feminist just great? Due to their enlightened perspective we know that only men commit sexual assaults. NOT!
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Im sorry about your son.
In fact I had a female babysitter do the same thing to me.
I remember her as very pretty and that I really liked her.
But if we were to apply the same formula that we do to men, she might still be in jail today.
When I tell people this the usual response is "ya you wish" same goes for when I tell them about my grade 10 teacher.
I do not feel tramatized by the events because I never told anyone when it happened. But I remember being in highschool when I was sleeping with my grade 10 teacher, and I saw all the other girls going after their choice male teacher. They would have thrown themselves at them, they stalked them and found ways to get close to them.
So anyways, what I see now is, men are responsible for sex with minors and adults wether they are minors or adults themselves. Women are not, period.
I think perhaps its our views that tramatize them the most.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So anyways, what I see now is, men are responsible for sex with minors and adults wether they are minors or adults themselves. Women are not, period.
Women and infants are not responsible for their actions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since sexual assault cases are treated with strict confidentiality I find it very hard to believe that you would know what the females are going through treatment for.
People we have a troll!
Of course we know how these centers are being used. People talk. They may not be disclosing the details of a persons case but they most certainly talk about an their experiences. Looks like the feminist troll actually believes we are dumb enough to fall for this line.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, too, was a sexual assault victim more than once, when I was a kid. I can tell you, the brutal beatings by the nuns were far, far worse for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I, too, was a sexual assault victim more than once, when I was a kid. I can tell you, the brutal beatings by the nuns were far, far worse for me.
Dang. I'm really sorry to hear that.
[sarcasm mode on]
The Nuns abused you? Dang that is news! Quick call nbc, cbs, abc, and cnn. Get the word out!
Wait a minute. I forgot. You are a man. That means its your fault that they misbehaved. Men and boys are responsible while woman and girls are not. Thems be the rules.
[sarcasm mode off]
Funny how the news media suppressed how Nuns damaged so many boys while destroying the male priest. Nuns are innocent women and men are evil. In fact the priest made them do it. So, they should be prosecuted for Nuns abusing the boys.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Funny how the news media suppressed how Nuns damaged so many boys while destroying the male priest. Nuns are innocent women and men are evil. In fact the priest made them do it. So, they should be prosecuted for Nuns abusing the boys.
We will succeed. Truth has great power.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<<women and infants are not responsible for their actions>>
The one sidedness is what throws the system into dispute.
This is one of the first rules to balancing the law.
I wonder if men start really speaking out, if they will bring the army and other agencies in, create new laws to oppress us our voice??
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So whither hath been the Gonzmeister? Oh, wandering hither and yon upon the face of the earth.
I've been to pheminist boards where they offer each other "dirty tricks" to use.
Been to sites where they openly give advice on how to provoke a man into raising his voice so "violence" can be claimed.
Seen lawyer sites where tactics on how to take, take, take, take are presented.
All, of course, for women only.
By all means, though, let's keep taking this mythical "high road." Chivalry, fight fair, and all that rot.
This US Army thing - WAKE UP!
The deck is stacked.
You can't win.
You can't break even.
And you can't get out of the game.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been to pheminist boards where they offer each other "dirty tricks" to use.
I believe it, Gonzo. There is no doubt that it's true. Someone here was telling of how feminists and their dupes on juries seek advice on how to proceed and argue with other jury members to obtain convictions of males.
Want to share a few of their dirty tricks with us?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Want to share a few of their dirty tricks with us?
Ya. I second the request. I'm up for reading a few quotes. There is nothing like getting ideas from hate filled feminist on how to create a battle strategy against them.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday June 16, @08:12PM EST (#211)
|
|
|
|
|
Good to hear from you again, TGK. Believe it or not, just a few days ago I was thinking "where the hell did Gonzo Kid go?" It's good to hear your (somewhat extremist) opinions on the board. I sometimes feel that it helps rationalize my own anger.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
