|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
after admitting to the egalitarian nature of domestic violence, he says "A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority,"
err... hopefully by priority he doesn't mean to the exclusion of other programs, as would seem to be the case now-a-days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
after admitting to the egalitarian nature of domestic violence, he says
"A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority,"
Yes. I saw that. The full quote reads, "A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority," he said. "In many societies women lack full economic, social, political and human rights. In such cultures, equality for women needs to be given a priority as an even more fundamental aspect of the prevention of intimate partner violence."
It is sad that Straus would advocate mandatory arrest laws that put innocent men in jail when women make false accusations and initiate violence. What Straus in effect says is that men should just stand there and take the assult. He is literally advocating the primary aggressor laws that take away a man's right to reasonable self-defense.
This single statement indicates that Strauss lacks perspective on how innocent men are being damaged by the trauma of an arrest and jail. Even Strauss indicates that he believes that men should just tough it out and take the abuse like a man.
Meanwhile, the innocent male victims of mandatory arrest laws continue to tally. The tragedy of mandatory arrest laws is that the man can be completely innocent and yet they get arrested because they have a penis and two balls. We no longer live in a culture where a man must do something wrong to be arrested.
The study is of value, however, Straus' bigoted conclusion is clearly anti-male.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find myself 100% in agreement with your insightful and perceptive commentary. Well said. Well written.
Regards, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I applaud Prof. Strauss for creating a study that questions the general public's current perception of domestic violence, but unfortunately, in the Foster's Daily DemocRAT article, he's resorting to the usual feminazi rhetoric that "women are victims" for some unknown reason. Maybe he's afraid that NOW is going to picket outside his office; I don't know and don't care. When an author creates a study that shows that women are equally, if not more, abusive in relationships, and in the next breath says "A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority", then that same author is blatantly ignoring the results of his own study. If anything, it's male students that we should be "protecting and assiting", according to Strauss' findings.
What's the use of exposing the results of this study when these same results are being ignored by the study's own author? Strauss is a hypocrite, plain and simple.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm really surprised by the reaction I'm seeing here. I've met with and spoken to Prof. Straus personally, and I can assure you that he's an objective researcher, and simply does not want to get involved in the political side of domestic violence, as it would undermine his academic credibilty.
Warble, you seem to be claiming that Straus advocates mandatory arrest laws. I was never aware of that. Could you point me to where he has said this?
Deacon, the way you wrote the above post makes it sound like any claim that women are victims is "feminazi rhetoric." Straus has shown that the victims of domestic violence are men *and* women. So what is it you are implying?
I think these claims of hypocracy and anti-male bigotry by Straus are extremely unfair. His research methods (particularly the Conflict Tactics Scale) are the only reason we have hard data on the frequency which men are assualted. The guy has been alienated by many collegues for his work and even received bomb threats at places he's gone to speak. Just because Straus thinks services for women should be a priority doesn't mean that he's happy with the lack of services for men. I know this from speaking with him personally. He's doing everything he can as an objective researcher to give activists like us the data that *we* must use to get these services created. So rather than attacking Straus for a couple of comments that don't meet our political agenda, let's take this up-to-date, irrefutible study and run with it!
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble, you seem to be claiming that Straus advocates mandatory arrest laws. I was never aware of that. Could you point me to where he has said this?
In my opinion, when Straus advocates special protections for women, he is taking the side of arresting innocent males under mandatory arrest & primary aggressor laws. I admit that I'm being harsh, but when he makes that kind of statement, it indicates that he clearly lacks perspective in how men are victimized by women in getting a special protected status while men are subjected to mandatory arrest laws as the mythical primary aggressor. Primary aggressor laws are simply arrest the innocent man and not the guilty woman laws.
If however, the article is quoting him incorrectly, then I may be mistaken. I recognize the value of Straus' research, and I deeply appreciate his taking a stand and speaking out. Nevertheless, (IMHO) calling for a special protected status for woman and by implication supporting bad laws like mandatory arrest laws is uncalled for. His study does not support that conclusion and it is outrageous and unethical for him choose a side and claim a need for a special protected status.
If I'm wrong, and that isn't what he intends, please correct me. I am open minded and will change my opinion should he demonstrate that he recognizes that 10's of thousands of innocent men are being arrested and criminalized under mandatory arrest laws that afford UNH women their special protected status.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Warble,
My understanding is that Straus believes public education about DV and having resources (including shelters for both men and women) is the key to reducing DV.
"In my opinion, when Straus advocates special protections for women, he is taking the side of arresting innocent males under mandatory arrest & primary aggressor laws."
I think giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when you don't know exactly what the person's specific views are on specific issues, is really important, and definitely applicable here.
Thanks,
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"In my opinion, when Straus advocates special protections for women, he is taking the side of arresting innocent males under mandatory arrest & primary aggressor laws."
I think giving people the benefit of the doubt, especially when you don't know exactly what the person's specific views are on specific issues, is really important, and definitely applicable here.
People are held responsible to know the laws under which they live. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. If somebody is going to side with providing special protections for women, they must be held accountable for the infrastructure that grants women special protections while criminalizing males. The two are mutually exclusive. It is irrational to say I support giving women special protections but oppose placing men at a disadvantage. By giving women are priority men are by definition placed at a disadvantage. So, in my opinion, Straus cannot advocate special protections for women without supporting the infrastructure that provides those protections. In this case, that infrastructure has the effect of criminalizing males en masse.
Warble.
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Checkmate. Well thought out. How can men be so far behind in this area when I find such sound reasoning on this subject being displayed here? I'm witnessing a great debate and getting a real education here tonight.
Regards, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I haven't read the article yet; I will tonite after work. But it occurs to me that Dr. Strauss is being politically expedient, knowing that the people who actually read the report will understand the full message while making some small compromises to the media in order to get news of his research published in the mainstream press.
He's playing a bit of a political game, and in my opinion, it's a necessary evil. The research speaks for itself (or seems to, anyway), so regardless of how he dresses it for public consumption, I find his work well worthwhile and quite satisfactory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @12:35PM EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
(("He's playing a bit of a political game"))
I think Frank could be right. Srauss may be trying to cover his "back-side", while indevouring to get the TRUTH out.
All though, I can see why Warble and others have red flags popping up. I too am wary.
It's like saying Bald eagles and mice are suffering from the heat wave and MICE need special protection..,
Again, though, Frank is probably right.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fosters reports that Straus states, "Women are more vulnerable physically, psychologically and economically," he said. But he said he’s trying to focus on a bigger picture that doesn’t let women off the hook for their own violent acts.
"We have to pay just as much attention to violence by women as by men, maybe even more. We need a campaign to tell girls it’s important not to hit boys," Straus said. "We need to get it across to women just as, thanks to the women’s movement, we’ve gotten it across to men."
I read the new article that Scott referenced from Fosters. This paints Straus in an entirely different light. In fact, in this quote he is saying exactly the opposite of the previous new report. I tend to believe this report is more accurate. It seems to be more in line with his findings and past comments.
So, now I'm revising my opinion. Now I believe that Straus was misquoted in the previous article to support the agenda of radical feminists.
Thanks for the additional insight Scott!
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm agreeing with Warble. This second article definitely paints Straus (correct spelling :) ) in a different light. I, therefore, also believe that the previous article was misleading and will disregard it. My apologies.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @02:57PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah..., I thought SOMETHING was weird.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @12:44PM EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
It is also possible that he is exactly what Scott said: an objective researcher. Just because someone doesn't tow your party line doesn't mean they are automatically against you.
Frankly, both men AND women can be victims of domestic violence, and advocating that services for women should not be curbed just because services for men do not yet exist does NOT mean that Straus is catering to the media or doesn't believe men can be victims. What it DOES mean is that he recognizes that both men and women are victims and he wants to assure women that he's not some reactionary men's activist (although he was accused of it in the second story) out to "keep men in control." (and, yes, you should notice that I used quote marks around that statement. don't be an idiot and accuse me of accusing you of that).
This place is getting really good at alienating its allies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"This place is getting really good at alienating its allies."
This is a point over which I am DEEPLY concerned. While I understand the anger exhibited here, we DO need to open the filter up a bit on who's with us and who's against us.
From my perspective, Strauss is WITH us.
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that, if Strauss believes protecting female victims of DV should be given priority over protecting male victims of DV, then he is seriously mistaken. Perhaps he is being political here, and perhaps we should cut him some slack, but we should staunchly oppose any proposal to protect women more than men, when they are equally at fault and equally at risk. (In fact, as we see from this and many other sources, women may be more at fault.)
As for alienating allies, if we disagree with our allies on matters of importance, we should say so, and I think that giving priority to women over men in this case is a very important matter. The men's movement is just going to have to deal with such forthrightness.
Having said that, I'll point out a statement by Strauss that is quoted in the second article. (Look under "Update" in the announcement for this thread). In that article, Strauss is quoted as saying, "We have to pay just as much attention to violence by women as by men, maybe even more." This seems to contradict the statement from the first article about giving women priority.
Perhaps one or both of the articles are just poorly written. That sure happens a lot. Personally, I'm cutting Strauss slack at the moment, but if he really believes female victims should be given priority over male victims, then he should hear from us in emphatic terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @02:11PM EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Goddammit, people, not ONCE... not even ONCE in either of those articles did Straus advocate protecting women OVER men. This is more reactionary bullshit.
Straus' statement in the second article doesn't "contradict" anything. What is happening here is that some of you people are READING TOO MUCH INTO WHAT HE SAID.
Jesus Christ! Not everybody is "out to get you."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As for alienating allies, if we disagree with our allies on matters of importance, we should say so, and I think that giving priority to women over men in this case is a very important matter. The men's movement is just going to have to deal with such forthrightness.
We have to be able to disagree with allies without alienating them. That is a basic principle of the men's movement. I'm glad that I can disagree with the members that I personally know and count on them to support me where we agree. Thankfully, they are not so fragile that they will walk away from a little heated debate. If somebody does walk away, I have to question that person’s commitment. Finally, if new evidence is presented I'm open minded enough to change my opinion and apologize.
My apologies in this case go to Professor Straus. Obviously, the press tried to spin their coverage to say something he didn't intend. So, I was misled.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Goddammit, people, not ONCE... not even ONCE in either of those articles did Straus advocate protecting women OVER men. This is more reactionary bullshit.
Before making my post, I looked up "priority" in the dictionary in order to better understand the quote from Strauss, "A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority."
The definition that I found in Webster's is:
1. a (1): The quality or state of being prior (2): precedence in date or position of publication -- used of taxa b (1) superiority in rank, position, or privilege (2) legal precedence in exercise of rights over the same subject matter
2: a preferential rating especially: one that allocates rights to goods or services usually in limited supply
3: something given or meriting attention before competing alternatives
Note the "superiority in rank, position, or privilege," "legal precedence in exercise of rights over the same subject matter," "a preferential rating especially: one that allocates rights to goods or services usually in limited supply," and "something given or meriting attention before competing alternatives."
If Strauss said, "A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority," then he clearly advocated protecting women over men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @02:31PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of "priority" in this case is IRRELEVEANT, jackass, because he didn't say A PRIORITY OVER WHAT. He just said "priority" not "priority over men." GODDAMMIT you people are paranoid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of "priority" in this case is IRRELEVEANT, jackass
DEEEEEP breath from the diaphragm. In slowly, out slowly, in slowly, out slowly...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the record and for emphasis, I will repeat several of my statements from my original post to this thread.
"if Strauss believes protecting female victims of DV should be given priority over protecting male victims of DV, then he is seriously mistaken." Note the "if."
"Personally, I'm cutting Strauss slack at the moment, but if he really believes female victims should be given priority over male victims, then he should hear from us in emphatic terms." Again, note the "if."
It's true that Strauss said, "a priority." If he means that concern for male victims of females should also be a priority, and an equal priority at that, then there's no problem here.
Again, however, "if we disagree with our allies on matters of importance, we should say so, and I think that giving priority to women over men in this case is a very important matter. The men's movement is just going to have to deal with such forthrightness."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @02:54PM EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, well, maybe next time you and your cronies should read and consider before you REACT. Straus is a well-documented researcher in this area of domestic violence, and because of one little quote in one little article, all of a sudden he's being called "hypocrite." That was just plain reactionary, no two ways about it.
If you want to know where Straus stands, why not ask him yourself rather than rely on a media YOU ALL SAY IS INACCURATE ANYWAY!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, well, maybe next time you and your cronies should read and consider before you REACT.
Try reading the thread. It was a discussion, and people changed their minds during the discussion. This is, BTW, a discussion group. We seek to learn from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @02:57PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion does not give you license to defame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion does not give you license to defame.
The wording used by some was strong. I doubt it hurt Strauss. Men have a right to be angry. Take a breath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:05PM EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
Danger, Danger, Will robinson. TROLL allert!
TROLL allert!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However unfortunate his previous use of the word "priority" may have been, we can look at that use in context, say we don't like it, and move on.
Exactly, and I think the people here, who took exception to the word "priority," have done that. That's why warble said, "So, now I'm revising my opinion," and Deacon said, "I, therefore, also believe that the previous article was misleading and will disregard it. My apologies," and I said, "It's true that Strauss said, 'a priority.' If he means that concern for male victims of females should also be a priority, and an equal priority at that, then there's no problem here."
And now I will say: Good for us for discussing this and moving on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:08PM EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
The right to be angry does not infer a right to defame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:09PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, this is flat out AMAZING. Every time someone disagrees with an opinion here, it's suddenly TROLL, TROLL, TROLL, Fembot! Troll! Fembazoid.
No wonder activity on this board is dead lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The right to be angry does not infer a right to defame.
If you're looking for an argument on that, you're wasting your time.
Again, I commend us all (well, most of us) for discussing this issue and learning from our discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:14PM EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
Trolllllll out the barral, let's have a barrel of fun.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:19PM EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
Calling someone a "hypocrite" is defamation, and is not "discussion."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, well, maybe next time you and your cronies should read and consider before you REACT.
Anon. Now who is overreacting? Chill.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:40PM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone here except Scott overreacted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We have to be able to disagree with allies without alienating them.
Very true, and very important. No doubt, we'll blow it from time to time. We just need to keep trying to do our best.
if new evidence is presented I'm open minded enough to change my opinion and apologize.
You certainly showed that in this discussion. My compliments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The gratuitous use of the epithet "jackass" does nothing to corect any impression that you are a put-down artist. Disagreements can be stated without hostility, but the troll's raison d'être is the put-down. This is his sole contribution to the world, and it cannot be over-emphasized.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:50PM EST (#66)
|
|
|
|
|
"The gratuitous use of the epithet "jackass" does nothing to corect any impression that you are a put-down artist. Disagreements can be stated without hostility, but the troll's raison d'être is the put-down. This is his sole contribution to the world, and it cannot be over-emphasized."
Do I *really* give a shit what you think of my gratuitous use of the word "jackass" or that you think I'm a "put-down" artist? Nope. I sees a jackass. I points out a jackass. That's the way it be.
"This is his sole contribution to the world, and it cannot be over-emphasized."
I think you're over-emphasizing your IQ.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of "priority" in this case is IRRELEVEANT, jackass, because he didn't say A PRIORITY OVER WHAT. He just said "priority" not "priority over men." GODDAMMIT you people are paranoid.
In this case, the hostile scumbag has a point, not that dictionary definitions are irrelevant--they are (the purpose of saying otherwise is to give the troll an excuse to vent his adolescent hostility); in Strauss' usage, the word "priority" is being used intransitively, as if Strauss were saying that his research should not be taken to mean that our concern with violence against women should be accordingly diminished. The troll, however, isn't articulate and considerate enough to make this point without alienating others; as I have mentioned elsewhere, any point the troll makes serves as a pretext for put-downs, since the put-down is his sole reason for living.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @09:09PM EST (#79)
|
|
|
|
|
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that someone isn't out to get you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @09:11PM EST (#80)
|
|
|
|
|
Just because you're paranoid doen't mean someone isn't out to get you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I absolutely agree. "As iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another." If anyone of us is above listening to sound criticism he is doing himself a disservice by cutting off avenues of insight and learning.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @09:19PM EST (#82)
|
|
|
|
|
Look in the mirror, anonie mouse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous:
It's criticism, not defamation. There's a big difference.
If an author publishes a work and he can't take the criticism of his work, he should avoid that displeasure by not publishing. Dr. Straus chose to publish, and so far no one has maligned him nearly as badly as you have maligned and defamed these good gentlemen and fine critics with your profanity. Lighten up, no one is harming Dr. Straus. He's going to be o.k., and hopefully a more enlightened researcher.
Best Reards and Peace, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually the activity here has increased, but it's always fun to take a time out from all that high powered intellectual bantering to play with a cute little troll. Is troll baiting illegal here?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Everyone here except Scott overreacted"
Not me I was only faking it.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:19PM EST (#90)
|
|
|
|
|
"In this case, the hostile scumbag has a point, not that dictionary definitions are irrelevant--they are (the purpose of saying otherwise is to give the troll an excuse to vent his adolescent hostility); in Strauss' usage, the word "priority" is being used intransitively, as if Strauss were saying that his research should not be taken to mean that our concern with violence against women should be accordingly diminished. The troll, however, isn't articulate and considerate enough to make this point without alienating others; as I have mentioned elsewhere, any point the troll makes serves as a pretext for put-downs, since the put-down is his sole reason for living."
Whaaaaaaa! I hurt Marsy Marsy banana-fo-fartsy's feewings!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:21PM EST (#92)
|
|
|
|
|
"Look in the mirror, anonie mouse."
Look in your asshole, stupid fuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:23PM EST (#93)
|
|
|
|
|
"If an author publishes a work and he can't take the criticism of his work, he should avoid that displeasure by not publishing. Dr. Straus chose to publish, and so far no one has maligned him nearly as badly as you have maligned and defamed these good gentlemen and fine critics with your profanity. Lighten up, no one is harming Dr. Straus. He's going to be o.k., and hopefully a more enlightened researcher."
These people were calling him a hypocrite and a misandrist, which is not true. Obviously YOU haven't read the entire thread, or you would know that the idiots who were wrong about him in the first place later ADMITTED they were wrong about him. They're stupid fucks who do not think before they speak and make unfounded accusations against innocent people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:24PM EST (#94)
|
|
|
|
|
"Actually the activity here has increased, but it's always fun to take a time out from all that high powered intellectual bantering to play with a cute little troll. Is troll baiting illegal here? "
Actually, you don't know squat. This board used to be a HELL of a lot busier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The eloquence with which you display your diatribe is beyond the bounds of all reasonable constraints and leaves one with a sense of awe and wonder at the inanity of your bellicosity.
The prediliction to pugnacity of this encounter propounds to my perception a portention of precipitous preposterousness, and possibly dellusional paranoia mask in pitiful profanity.
But hey, what do I know about it, "I'm just over-emphasizing my IQ."
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:41PM EST (#102)
|
|
|
|
|
"But hey, what do I know about it, "I'm just over-emphasizing my IQ." "
You MUST be over-emphasizing it to believe that post specifically directed to MARS was directed to you before you were even posting to this thread, not to mention you very strange taking up of the banner for Deacon's comments about Straus, which he later RETRACTED! You really *should* read a thread thoroughly prior to making yourself look like an ASS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The definition of "priority" in this case is IRRELEVEANT, jackass, because he didn't say A PRIORITY OVER WHAT. He just said "priority" not "priority over men." GODDAMMIT you people are paranoid. "
Believe it or not I agree with Anon. Just because it remains a priority doesnt mean that men can't also start to become a 'priority'. Unfortunately this isnt something we should even have to be fighting for well with that "equal protection under the law" thingy that dey talk about.
I agree with Scott and Frank, even if he is playing a political card Straus is putting forth evidence that he feels to be truthful. Secondly and this is ETREMELY IMPORTANT Straus can not be a men's advocate or a masculist or whatever. He has to remain an unbiased researcher at all costs. He may be the only one left trying to get the best view on the situation one that isn't biased or tainted. And if we want to approach the truth we will have to be brave and critical of not only others but ourselves.
Besides if Straus said what he said to get published past the feminist curtain we shouldn't be to worried about it. We should do as Scott has suggested and flourish the research as wide and far as possible, especially if its unreffutable. Common sence will have to sink in sooner or later that men are being victimized equally and that something has to be done. Straus's research has to find its way into "common law" arguements and into juries ears and judges. Think about it really logically and stratigically for a second, its those quant feminist quotes that get that shit published in Cosmo. But if the whole research body says men are being victimized just as much, than those cosmo girls are getting a step forward. Albeit baby steps, its a step forward. Now all we have to do is to reach our outlets and find ways to be constructive with the work and point out our quotes and the pertinents to the research . Basically tell everyone you can.
.
I am suggesting a "Not Every Man is Marc Lepine Day" December 5th.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"They're stupid fucks who do not think before they speak and make unfounded accusations against innocent people."
No, I read the thread, but I don't comment on everything I read. It's called Freedom of Speech. Isn't this a great country where great men like these and people who express themselves so eloquently like you can come together and have a warm and heart felt little chat devoid of ego and acrimony.
Peace and Agape' Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The definition of "priority" in this case is IRRELEVEANT, jackass, because he didn't say A
PRIORITY OVER WHAT. He just said "priority" not "priority over men." GODDAMMIT you people
are paranoid.
In that case the statement was virtually meaningless as it is consistent with attaching any priority to female students, whether the highest possible, the lowest or anything in between.
Based on the principle of interpretation that when people say something they generally mean something, it seems more plausible to me to exclude the meaningless interpretation and instead assume that the "priority" is over some other class, in this case male students.
For example, in the sentence "I believe, in view of their greater fuel efficiency, buses and taxis should be given priority at intersections." the interpretation that any reasonable person would attach is that buses and taxis should be given priority over other vehicles, not simply that they should have some (unspecified) level of priority.
Your argument smells like special pleading, an impression which isn't dispelled by your abusive tone.
[Note the link to the article on the original post didn't take me to any articles about Straus, so I have accepted quotes made in this forum as factual]
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:51PM EST (#107)
|
|
|
|
|
"No, I read the thread, but I don't comment on everything I read. It's called Freedom of Speech. Isn't this a great country where great men like these and people who express themselves so eloquently like you can come together and have a warm and heart felt little chat devoid of ego and acrimony.
Peace and Agape' Ray "
Again you come back with a completely nonsensical reply that has nothing to do with the portion of my post you quoted. Did you forget to take a pill today or something?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @11:59PM EST (#118)
|
|
|
|
|
(("look in your asshole, stupid fuck."))
Oh, That was SO CLEVER! I mean, your choice of words were so well thought out. 'look in your asshole, stupid fuck.' Such vocabulary. HOW do you think up such clever put-downs?!? No, No, really, I MEAN it. I am just in awe of your verbal prowess. "look in your asshole stupid fuck." such GENIUS! Do you practice or does such wry wit come naturally to you? Really, Because I have NEVER seen such a master of words. It is SUCH an honor to be in the digital presence of such a deep, disiplined master such as yourself.
I am just giddy with admiration. Can I use that oh, so origional line? I mean, with a line like; "look in your asshole, stupid fuck." I would be looked on with such admiration by my peers!!! I mean, I really wish I could be that spontaneous, witty and clever!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @12:12AM EST (#119)
|
|
|
|
|
(("did you forget to take a pill today or something?"))
YOU'RE a pill.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Calling someone a "hypocrite" is defamation, and is not "discussion."
Of course, this comes from someone who refers to others as "twathead, twitfuck, stupid fucks, asshole, jackass, paranoid, cronies, idiot, whiners, butthead, moron, reactionary, fartsy, and childish?" I'm still trying to figure out what "Marsy" means.
What can you expect from someone who is so open minded to write, "I blame you for all of it", and who demonstrates the maturity of a 10 year old by pointing out spelling mistakes and typo's (that's one of the first things they teach you in "internet school").
I realize it's not good to respond to a troll.
Straus is a honest and true researcher and a big benefit to the men's movement. Nonetheless, the quote attributed to him is not isolated. He frequently makes protectionist remarks regarding women. If his research indicated that men were twice as likely as women to initiate violence, does anyone really think he or anyone else would respond with "protecting males must remain a priority", or does anyone really think that the media would print such a statement (even if it was a misquote)?
Men are discriminated against in many aspects of life, DV issues among them. There is no need to downplay this with "women are victim's too" rhetoric. Everyone already accepts this. It's time men receive the attention they deserve.
While it's true that we do not need another group to claim victimhood status, it's also true that we should not ignore the serious problems that exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Straus is a honest and true researcher and a big benefit to the men's movement. Nonetheless, the quote attributed to him is not isolated. He frequently makes protectionist remarks regarding women. If his research indicated that men were twice as likely as women to initiate violence, does anyone really think he or anyone else would respond with "protecting males must remain a priority", or does anyone really think that the media would print such a statement (even if it was a misquote)?
Men are discriminated against in many aspects of life, DV issues among them. There is no need to downplay this with "women are victim's too" rhetoric. Everyone already accepts this. It's time men receive the attention they deserve.
I think there's a lot of truth in this. The people, who have questioned Strauss, have had reason for doing so. There's no doubt that he is doing a lot for the men's movement, but the man isn't an all-perfect god. To the extent that he favors any privileged treatment for women, he is wrong and should be opposed. I'm still inclined to cut him some slack, but I'm not about to ignore proposals to treat women better than men. God knows, that may be the single greatest hallmark of this society does today, and it is utterly corrupt.
This has been a good discussion, except for the distraction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @10:14AM EST (#127)
|
|
|
|
|
"......and who demonstrates the maturity of a 10 year old by pointing out spelling mistakes and typo's (that's one of the first things they teach you in "internet school")."
Yeah - I particularly liked the fact that he/she then committed the cardinal sin of not proofreading their own holier than thou missive for spelling resulting in this:
The definition of "priority" in this case is IRRELEVEANT, jackass
Hee hee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @10:52AM EST (#129)
|
|
|
|
|
To the extent that he favors any privileged treatment for women, he is wrong and should be opposed. I'm still inclined to cut him some slack, but I'm not about to ignore proposals to treat women better than men.
Straus made no such recommendation. This is a strawman of your own creation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I'm ignoring our overwrought child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @10:59AM EST (#131)
|
|
|
|
|
For the record, I'm ignoring our overwrought child.
Are you referring to the troll, or to me because I pointed out your strawman?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you referring to the troll, or to me because I pointed out your strawman?
Are you Anonymous or are you Anonymous?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @11:05AM EST (#133)
|
|
|
|
|
Are you Anonymous or are you Anonymous?
I am not the troll, if that is what you are thinking. And I do not defend the way in which the troll chose to produce his argument. I do agree with him, however, that some people here dramatically over-reacted to Straus' comments, putting words in his mouth, as it were.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want me to discuss this with you, then get a handle over which you have control. Otherwise, for all I know you're Anonymous pretending that you are not Anonymous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @11:20AM EST (#135)
|
|
|
|
|
If you want me to discuss this with you, then get a handle over which you have control. Otherwise, for all I know you're Anonymous pretending that you are not Anonymous.
I do not choose to provide information to this Web site. That is my right. Whether you want to discuss this with me is your right. I am not forcing you. Just because my name appears as "Anonymous User" (as does Thundercloud's, Frank H's, and others, by the way) does not negate my opinion.
It is my position that those who at first criticized Straus' comments did so with no genuine knowledge of the context of his comment, but were working from the strawman "if you support women you cannot possibly support men" argument. Likewise, Thundercloud has been arguing under an unfounded accusation that the troll is racist, although the troll made no comments that can be construed as racism above disagreeing (albeit in a nasty way) with Thundercloud.
I find it unfortunate that the threads here in recent days which get the most attention are threads inhabited by trolls and anti-trolls (or those suffering from group-think). Collectivism is nothing but bad for the men's movement because is discourages a free exchange of ideas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deacon's statement refering to Straus reads:
""When an author creates a study that shows that women are equally, if not more abusive in relationships, and in the next breath says "A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority," then that same author is blatantly ignoring the results of his own study. If anything, it's male students that we should be "protecting and assisting," according to Strauss' findings." What's the use of exposing the results of this study when these same results are being igonored by the study's own author? Strauss is a hypocrite, plain and simple.""
In Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary PRIORITY is defined: "(1) Superiority in rank, position, or privelege." Hypocrisy is defined: "(1) a feigning (pretension)... ...to believe what one does not." The 1st article was dated, July 30, 2002. The 2nd articles were dated August 5, 2002. Just because the 2nd article does not mention the "priority" quote doesn't thereby, invalidate it or indicate it is retracted. Therefore, it is still to be viewed according to the 1st article as a statement of fact. If the statement is inaccurate, which there is no evidence of in these articles, then your arguement would be with the reporter.
Therefore, Deacon was right the first time, but since he has recanted that statement, then by all means let me take up that banner and say Deacon was right the 1st time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @08:01PM EST (#137)
|
|
|
|
|
I do not know how familiar you are with the work of Murray Straus, but he has--time and again--proven himself to be an invaluable source of truth on the issue of men as victims of domestic violence.
If not for his studies, in fact, men who are victims of domestic violence would be more laughed at than they are. Because of him, the issue is in the public eye, and people are becoming more aware of it every day.
I do not think you have fully considered the facts here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"To the extent that he favors any privileged treatment for women, he is wrong and should be opposed. I'm still inclined to cut him some slack, but I'm not about to ignore proposals to treat women better than men." quote by Thomas
"Straus made no such recommendation. This is a strawman of your own creation." quote by Anonymous
Foster's Online Article dated July 30, 2002 states, ""Despite his findings, Straus cautioned against the idea that violence by women justifies or excuses violence by their partners. "A focus on protecting and assisting female sutdents must remain a PRIORITY," he said.""
Webster's 9th New Collegiate Distionary defines priority: "(1)Superiority in rank, position, or privelege."
I have not seen Straus' priority quote retracted of corrected in the 2nd articles (Foster's Online August 5, 2002 and Concord Online Monitor August 5, 2002). I must therefore, conclude it was reported accurately the 1st time, until so informed differently.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My tough position may stem from the standards I am evaluated by in my current field of employment. There, you are only as good as your last successfully completed assignment.
Dr Straus is an acadamician (a researcher) whose entire body of work reflects on his current credibility.
I am not allowed to rest on my accomplishments (laurels), and I do not believe he should be either, especially considering the potential impact of his research.
The time is long overdue for the fact to be recognized that men are being victimized by domestic violence and d.v. laws at an epidemic rate. To engage in ambiguity or vagueness about the facts pertaining to these matters contributes little to the much needed support the facts demand. I suggest Dr. Straus make a better effort next time. Again, from one instructor to another a generous C-.
If I judge Dr. Straus harshly, then let me soften my words by saying, "Try harder Dr. Straus you are a good and highly respected man still, and your excellent research is urgently, desperately needed daily by suffering and unjustly persecuted men."
Respectfully, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @09:47PM EST (#140)
|
|
|
|
|
Priorty does not mean "priority over men." It means "a" priorty. There is nothing to indicate that Straus does not believe that violence against men should not also be a priorty. Now you and Thomas *both* are arguing strawmen of your own creations.
Are you also stating that Straus is wrong about violence against women not being justified because they may commit it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now you and Thomas *both* are arguing strawmen of your own creations.
I will just say, for the record, that I think this Anonymous is addled in his interpretations of what I have said, and I have better things to do with my time than to argue with him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ray,
I will add my comments to what you have written. Straus is quoted, in the second article cited in the announcement to this thread, as saying, "Women are more vulnerable physically, psychologically and economically."
Nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous is addled in his interpretations of what I have said
Actually, I'd like to retract the above statement in order to soften it. I think you mean well, Anon, and our interests are the same, but I do disagree with you on some points. I just don't have the time right now to dispute them.
All the best.
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hogwash! You put words into the article that aren't there. Priority was never used in reference to men. It was only used in reference to women. Read the definition, or read it again, then you Dorthy, the tin man and the cowardly lion take a hike down the yellow brick road with your misused and worn out cliche'. Try coming up with a new term whose useage you are equally ignorant of. Your strawman arguement is a Freudian projection. You my friend get a big fat F.
Best Wishes, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Duh! Did I say that? No I didn't. Are there other voices inside your head when you are reading something? Are they saying other things and confusing you?
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Strawman: Arguing against a position by creating a different, weaker, or irrelevant position and refuting that new position instead of the original."
Arguing the main points of the stories in detail as each point is discussed at length in the string is the antithesis of a strawman arguement, but if you'd like to see the majority of the issues addressed in the original stories refuted point by point then go to REFUTATION (point by point) by Ray and have a field day. --(60 words/one sentence-now that's verbosity)
Surely an effort of that magnitude combined with the original statements in the news stories will give you unlimited leeway for misinterpretation and criticism. Good luck.
Best Wishes, Ray
P.S. If I seem a little harsh, a little overly serious, when I talk about d.v. it's because of all the men's lives who have been trashed by lies. Domestic Violence LAW IS hate CRIME!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @01:44AM EST (#148)
|
|
|
|
|
(("No wonder activity on this board is dead lately"))
...Your BRAIN is dead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @01:46AM EST (#149)
|
|
|
|
|
...Your BRAIN overreacted...,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @01:47AM EST (#150)
|
|
|
|
|
...Your BRAIN is a jackass...,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @01:49AM EST (#151)
|
|
|
|
|
...Your BRAIN is an ass...,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @02:13AM EST (#152)
|
|
|
|
|
Hold on, Hold on.
I was hopeing the Non-trolls could clearly see that I was Just MESSING with the Troll, on the "Racism" thing.
I figured give a troll enoughe rope...,
If you play upon an opponent's weakness, In the troll's case anger, they will expose themselves for what they are. thus, ruining ANY of the troll's credibility. (If he had any to begin with.)
Just for the record, I don't think the "troll" is PREJIDUCE.
He seems to hate EVERYONE.
And as I told Mars, I DO frankly feel bad for him.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not choose to provide information to this Web site. That is my right. Whether you want to discuss this with me is your right.
You can get a handle and still be anonymous. There is no risk in doing so. Use fictious information and set-up a free spam account with yahoo.com on their email link for the password from mensactivism.org.
That way you remain anon and have a handle so we can identify you.
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Just because my name appears as "Anonymous User" (as does Thundercloud's, Frank H's..."
Well, I dunno who you are, AU, (although I do have a guess) but you must visit here frequently because my posts haven't been showing up a "Anonymous User" for quite awhile, owing to a fix on my computer. Either way, I prefer for it not to become an issue, as when it does happen, it happens for technical reasons, not reasons of desired anonymity.
"Collectivism is nothing but bad for the men's movement..."
While I do applaud individuality, I also see the dire need for consensus in the men's movement, if for no other reason than getting the politicians and the marketeers to decide how to respond to us. There is no political value in anarchy. We musy be willing to unite on at least a subset of issues.
"the threads ... which get the most attention..."
While I enjoy troll-baiting as much as the next guy, I've found this particular episode to be without merit because it has descended to the level of name-calling with little real discussion of the issues. Can we just walk away from this one now? Please?
My own opinion on Strauss is two-fold: 1) He is primarily a scientist, and wishes to remain regarded in that manner to the best of his ability; 2) He tries very hard to see things in full illumination, unbiased, and in that light is not willing to give in to either side (any more than professional politics require) and thereby become an activist.
His studies say things that are of value to the men's movement: that women are as likely to spawn violence as men. Let's remember that what's said in the media is effected by both incompetence and overt bias. Therefore, we sould do our level best to ignore the trash printed in most papers and appreciate the peer-reviewed studies on thier own merits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Duh! Did I say that? No I didn't. Are there other voices inside your head when you are reading something? Are they saying other things and confusing you?”
Ray
“(("No wonder activity on this board is dead lately"))
...Your BRAIN is dead.”
Anonymous
Well at least we can agree on your later statement in this case. I missed my link, but more significantly I was very ungracious to you to say, “Duh!” I apologize and am sorry for that. I will try this again without the ungracious, “Duh!”
Ray
--------------------------------------------------
“Are you also stating that Straus is wrong about violence against women not being justified because they may commit it?”
Anonymous
"Did I say that? No I didn't. Are there other voices inside your head when you are reading something? Are they saying other things and confusing you?" Your cognitive processes do not follow what is clearly stated. Your answers appear muddled. When you combine weak accusations like strawman with other non sequitur implications like the one cited here, (are you also stating...) it is difficult if not impossible to cogently pursue a topic line with you to either a point of consensus or a point where we can agree to disagree. Forgive me for asking, but is that an intentional diversion on your part or is that just the way you are. If it is the later I will read your comments with more care, and try to speak more plainly, after all the brain that God gave me is nothing to go around braging about either.
Sincerely and humbly, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
While I do applaud individuality, I also see the dire need for consensus in the men's movement, if for no other reason than getting the politicians and the marketeers to decide how to respond to us.
Well said. Politicians tend to ignore the masses that individually represent themselves. They tend to only listen when men's groups appear before the lawmakers on a regular basis and in a respectable manner. I cannot begin to tell you the power of appearing as an organized group to support, oppose, or seek the introduction of new legislation.
Those that go before the legislature as radical individualists or anarchist are viewed as literal retards. They have no respect.
Warble
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now THIS is a reactionnary statement. Sounds like you need to beat someone down until you get your OWN point across. Sheeesh. Talk to the hand.
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank wrote:
From my perspective, Strauss is WITH us.
From my perspective, Strauss stands behind his research and we can count on him to do that. My understanding is that the degree of female violence revealed by the CTS surprised him (and everyone else in the field). His continuing effort has been to provide good, well-founded research.
Perhaps that is all we can expect from him, given the environment he is working in. Still, it is troubling to see him uncritically mouthing "patriarchal" dogma, such as:
"Women are more vulnerable physically, psychologically and economically,"
- all three points are arguable and I would think he might have questioned them in the couple of decades he's had to consider the rough parity in male and female agression.
If he's with us, he's with us reluctantly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Go....go....go...go!
Warb
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Frank:
You can't judge a book by the cover no matter how well you think you know what the author is up to. I think if you read this you may find a different conclusion, even if it's only that it's just poor journalism.
Regards, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deacon, the way you wrote the above post makes it sound like any claim that women are victims is "feminazi rhetoric." Straus has shown that the victims of domestic violence are men *and* women. So what is it you are implying?
I thought I made my implications pretty obvious in my post, but I'll be glad to elucidate further. Please don't get me wrong Scott, I'm grateful for the research Prof. Strauss has done, and I'm not calling him a hypocrite for no reason at all.
First thing that needs to be made clear is that not all of us have the luxury to hold a casual conversation with university professors, so any opinions made by me are based on the Foster's article, which is the only information outlet provided on the topic, as opposed to the kind professor's personal opinion.
That being said, my "hypocrite" comment came from Strauss' comment which was: "A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority." This came right after the article spoke about the study, which shows that women are just as abusive, if not more, than men in relationships. Granted, women victims of DV are entitled to an outlet for DV assistance (can't believe I actually have to state this outright on a men's rights website or it's assumed I think otherwise), but I think a men's outlet for DV is a much more pressing issue, seeing as how there is no readily available outlet for men. If we make at least one outlet for male victims of DV, I highly doubt it would hinder DV services for women; so why is Prof. Strauss making women the priority? Aren't men entitled to have somewhere to go to escape an abusive spouse?
This is, in essence, my gripe with the kind professor. I feel that after posting the results of his study he states that women should still be the priority doesn't make sense. If this study shows anything, it's that DV against men is a serious issue that has been ignored for far too long and it's time for serious action. The ariticle made Prof. Strauss' position sound like: "Yeah, men are getting smacked around too, but let's just focus on women."
Scott, if you took offense to my comments about Prof. Strauss, I sincerely apologize. I felt Prof. Strauss was being hypocritical with his comments in the Foster's article, and I stated so. Also, I don't believe that any claim that women are victims is feminazi rhetoric, so let's just get that out in the open so no one assumes I'm a sexist. A pro-man stance on an issue is not the same as an anti-woman stance.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, as a side note, I'm not calling Strauss a hypocrite because he doesn't "tow my party line", like Anon #11 said. This has nothing to do with politics, and there's no need to mention it.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @02:14PM EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"non #11 said. This has nothing to do with politics, and there's no need to mention it. "
Your "party line" is male politics. THAT is what I was getting at. Straus is not a men's activist. More advocacy science is definitely NOT what the world needs. Straus is an objective student of the numbers, and that is EXACTLY what he should remain, whether YOU tow your party line or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:19PM EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
A TROLL is a TROLL of course, of course and no one can talk to a TROLL of course....
C'mon, Everybody, sing along!
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:23PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah. A moron is a moron, too. Is everyone who disagrees with you a troll?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:38PM EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
A moron is a moron...?
Come on at least I'm trying to be a BIT creative.
By the way..., You aren't calling me a moron because Indians are suppose to be "stupid", are you...?
And no, alot of people here have disagreed with me on this website. so disagreeing with me alone is not a prerecuisit for trolldom.
But what do I know...? I'm just a dumb old Indian... Right?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:41PM EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"By the way..., You aren't calling me a moron because Indians are suppose to be "stupid", are you...? "
You're kidding, right? I have no idea what ethnicity you are, nor do I give a flying fuck. Like I said: a moron is a moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alot of people here have disagreed with me on this website. so disagreeing with me alone is not a prerecuisit for trolldom.
Thundercloud speaks the truth.
Let's consider a few statements from anonymous, "This is more reactionary bullshit," "GODDAMMIT you people are paranoid," "maybe next time you and your cronies should read and consider before you REACT," "A moron is a moron," "I have no idea what ethnicity you are, nor do I give a flying fuck."
"Troll" is not a term that I throw around loosely. In fact, I rarely use the word. It has become clear, however, from the relentless name calling, that this person is a troll. You make fine contributions to this site, Thundercloud. I doubt anyone here gives much credence to this individual. You might consider letting him or her get in the last scream. I sincerely believe that you have better things to do, and greater contributions to make, than to argue with this person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:55PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
If you did ANY real reading of this website you might know that. But, of course you haven't.
And thank you for ansewering my question, Even after "learning" my "ethnicity" you still called me a moron.
So we can honestly add; Mysandrist, AND racist to Troll.
and FYI, American Indians are a RACE. We are not an "ethnicity".
You might disscuss that with YOUR "cronies" at your next cross-burning.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @03:59PM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Ohhhh, I get it. Anyone here who uses STRONG LANGUAGE is a "troll." That' s just as ridiculous as calling anyone who disagrees with you a "troll."
By the way, your "commending" yourself on your "discussion" is nothing more than "commending" small-mindedness. You will notice that it is YOU people who started the name-calling (calling Straus a "hypocrite" and not me.) Physician, heal thyself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:01PM EST (#44)
|
|
|
|
|
That's moronic.
I said a "moron is a moron" not an "indian is a moron." Jesus! I happen to have descended from indians, you moron.
Btw, where in the FUCK did you get "misandrist" (you misspelled it, moron) from my posts? If anything I was sticking UP for men by not allowing you people to make victims of yourselves based on one idiot's reactionary judgment of Straus.
What a butthead!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:04PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, and guess what? Even the OWNER OF THIS SITE agreed that the reactions here to Straus' quotes were out-of-line and undeserved. Going to call him a misandrist and a racist, too, butthead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:06PM EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
You're right thomas. I DO have better things to do.
I thought sparring a bit with this individual might be fun. but after reading the posts he\she wrote to me, I figured that I can listen to people who hate Men, and hate Indians (and other races) at work.
So yeah, You're right. I DO have better things to do Than carry on a battle of wits with an un-armed person.
Go ahead "anon" get your last screech in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In case you missed it, Thundercloud, please read my post #41.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Thundercloud. We posted at the same time. Glad you agree. On to bigger and better things.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:11PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
It is the methodology of the pheminists to put themselves in "victim" mode whenever challenged by someone who disagrees with them. In the posts above, we have seen Thundercloud accuse someone of being "racist" (most definitely an actionable libelous accusation) who has demonstrated no racist remarks except through the Strawman of Thundercloud's own creation. We have also seen Thundercloud accuse this person of being a "misandrist," although the individual in question has demonstrated no hatred toward men. In fact, he was (much like Scott) defending a man who has in the past defended men as equal victims of domestic violence.
I find it fascinating that some of the loudest voices in this forum are also some of those who are so unwilling to break the victim mold and become real activists for equality rather than perpetual "oh woe is me" whiners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:17PM EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
FYI Being DECSENDED from Indians doesn't MAKE you Indian.
Even your blood quantum doesn't make you Indian.
If you were Indian you'd know what I'm saying. as for misspelling misandrist, I could say it was a typ-o, But being the "dumb Indian" that I am, Who'd believe it?
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:18PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
I never claimed to BE an indian, you idiot. I said that I am DESCENDED from indians. Why would I hate my own ancestors?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A put-down artist wrote: Yeah. A moron is a moron, too. Is everyone who disagrees with you a troll?
As I've mentioned in previous posts, the sole contribution of the put-down artist to the world is the put-down. A disagreement can be stated without put-downs, but a put-down artist will not disagree without injecting put-downs, as is completelyevident above. The thing to do is emphasize that the put-down artist serves no other function than to generate put-downs and that this knowledge cannot help him, since, for whatever reasons (not worth exploring) he cannot contribute to society in any other way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:30PM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
And another one raises his hand to be counted among the idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:32PM EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
"A disagreement can be stated without put-downs, but a put-down artist will not disagree without injecting put-downs, as is completelyevident above. "
You DO realize that you are also talking about Deacon when you say this. His entire disagreement with Straus was, as you say, a "put-down." Does that make him a put-down artist as well, or do you simply reserve that label for anyone who strongly disagrees with you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Troll" is not a term that I throw around loosely. In fact, I rarely use the word. It has become clear, however, from the relentless name calling, that this person is a troll.
Yes, precisely. The inability to contribute anything beyond putdowns is the mark of the put-down artist; only put-down artists deserve to be put-down. This is a troll; it's sole contribution to the world is the put down, and one should leave it at that. The troll is beyond rehabilitation; neither he nor we can help him. We can, however, expose him and protect ourselves, and derive some satisfaction from the knowledge that he cannot escape his private hell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:36PM EST (#57)
|
|
|
|
|
....You missed the point all together.
Why would you hate your own ancestors?
The point, is you DO.
'Tell you what. you go learn what it means to be Indian. Then come back sometime and tell me what you've learned. I guarantee you will more than likely come back a changed person. If your heart is TRULY willing to exept certain truths.
In fact I will apologize for calling you a "troll", right now in good faith.
When you do learn what it means to be Indian, then you'll really understand what I mean by; you "hate" your ancestors.
I will now back out of this discussion that has gone way off topic, partialy because of me.
PS. you may also learn why I and other Natives are lousy spellers.
Peace, out.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:39PM EST (#59)
|
|
|
|
|
"The point, is you DO. "
More libel from Thundercloud, the closet pheminist.
"'Tell you what. you go learn what it means to be Indian. Then come back sometime and tell me what you've learned. I guarantee you will more than likely come back a changed person. If your heart is TRULY willing to exept certain truths. "
I could care LESS what it means to be "indian." Being "indian" has nothing do with anything on this thread except was YOU, Thundercloud the closet pheminist, have made it out to be. I said nothing of indians. YOU brought it up in a lame effort to discredit my disagreement with you by painting yourself as a victim.
"I will now back out of this discussion that has gone way off topic, partialy because of me. PS. you may also learn why I and other Natives are lousy spellers. "
I was born in America. I believe that makes me "native." And I don't think the discussion going way off topic was "partially" your fault. I blame you for ALL of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poor pathetic put-down artist. You know very well that your sole contribution to the world is the put-down. That's you're thing. You have nothing more to offer the world, and you never will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:43PM EST (#63)
|
|
|
|
|
"Poor pathetic put-down artist. You know very well that your sole contribution to the world is the put-down. That's you're thing. You have nothing more to offer the world, and you never will."
Gee, that's funny. I haven't seen any offerings from YOU except put-downs of so-called "put-down artists." I think that makes you one. Takes one to know one, Marsy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the posts above, we have seen Thundercloud accuse someone of being "racist" (most definitely an actionable libelous accusation) who has demonstrated no racist remarks except through the Strawman of Thundercloud's own creation.
It is only actionable if we know the person's identity. In this case we have several Anon's posting. So, nobody knows who is being libeled.
Basically, the remark means nothing and has no potential to cause anybody harm.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No: only put-down artists deserve put-downs. You are a put-down artist, your sole contribution to the world is the put-down, and you deserve to be reminded of this at every opportunity (not that you aren't deeply aware of this).
As for Strauss, I agree with Scott, but anything I might add on this score goes beyond your deep-seated need to vilify others, on the pretext of some disagreement, of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @04:53PM EST (#68)
|
|
|
|
|
"No: only put-down artists deserve put-downs. You are a put-down artist, your sole contribution to the world is the put-down, and you deserve to be reminded of this at every opportunity (not that you aren't deeply aware of this). "
Heh. It bothers me not. Takes one to know one, Marsy Marsy banana-fo-fartsy.
"As for Strauss, I agree with Scott, but anything I might add on this score goes beyond your deep-seated need to vilify others, on the pretext of some disagreement, of course."
Oh PUH-LEEZE! I'M the one villifying others? Take a look at Thunderbutt's accusing me of racism, although there is no evidence to that end. Hoisted by your own petard, Marsy? Feeling the breeze up there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @05:47PM EST (#69)
|
|
|
|
|
Ahmen, Thomas, Ahmen.
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heh. It bothers me not.
If it doesn't eat away at you that you are nothing more than a put-down artist, with nothing more to contribute to the world than your negativity, then you wouldn't reply. Exposing your game is a service to others, who might otherwise choose to respond to you as if you were capable of substantive commentary. Simply because you cannot benefit from self-knowledge doesn't mean others can't spend their time more productively by avoiding you. Nothing can be done to alleviate your misery; on the other hand, there is good why others should actively avoid frightful miscreants such as yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Yeah. A moron is a moron, too. Is everyone who disagrees with you a troll?"
No, only people who are disagreeable and ill tempered.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"If anything I was sticking UP for men by not allowing you people to make victims of yourselves based on one idiot's reactionary judgment of Straus."
We don't need to make victims of ourselves. You're doing a far better job of that than any of us could.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:28PM EST (#95)
|
|
|
|
|
"If it doesn't eat away at you that you are nothing more than a put-down artist, with nothing more to contribute to the world than your negativity, then you wouldn't reply."
HA! THAT is the stupidest line EVER. If I were truly a "troll," as you say, then I would *feeeeeed* off your inane attempts to psycho-analyze me, twitfuck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:30PM EST (#96)
|
|
|
|
|
"No, only people who are disagreeable and ill tempered. "
Was I talking to you, twathead?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:32PM EST (#97)
|
|
|
|
|
"We don't need to make victims of ourselves. You're doing a far better job of that than any of us could."
THAT is a statement utterly devoid of any meaning or context. How did you learn to write without learning to read first?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am truly a "troll" and a "twitfuck", since I *feeeeeed* off your attempts to psycho-analyze me.
That's correct: you are a troll, and your sole contribution to the world is the putdown. That's all you have to offer; moreover, self-knowledge doesn't change your irrelevance one iota. Happy feeding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:43PM EST (#103)
|
|
|
|
|
"That's correct: you are a troll, and your sole contribution to the world is the putdown. That's all you have to offer; moreover, self-knowledge doesn't change your irrelevance one iota. Happy feeding! "
Ooooo, Marsy Marsy banana-fo-fartsy decides to take comments and twist them around to say things they didn't say. Looks like Thunderfuck isn't the ONLY closet feminist around here. You DO realize that's a common feminist tactic, don't you, Fartsy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You DO realize I'm a feminist, don't you?
Signed,
Fartsy
You're a put-down artist: you get the treatment you deserve.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:54PM EST (#109)
|
|
|
|
|
"You're a put-down artist: you get the treatment you deserve. "
Again with the nonsensical term "put-down artist." Hey, you unfairly criticize a good objective researcher because of one quote (probably a MISquote) in an article about him, you get what you deserve, and that is to be called the stupid fucks you are.
Not to mention childish.
And completely devoid of any real intellect beyond "oh, meeee, I'm a viiiictiiiim!"
So sad for you, Fartsy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With all due respect, shit for brains, I never criticized Straus.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The troll is beyond rehabilitation; neither he nor we can help him. We can, however, expose him and protect ourselves, and derive some satisfaction from the knowledge that he cannot escape his private hell."
Poor little troll. What pain there must be in he/she's tortured little mind. I guess I won't play with, or bait it anymore. By the way does anyone have 3 or 4 spare fingers I seem to have lost a few trying to pet the nasty little cuss. But, seriously, you're absolutely right, association with such overtly hard core animosity can only lead to harm for ones ownself. If that party is not open to mutual conciliation then that party should be treated as anathema, and that is truly sad to me.
Agape' and Peace, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Was I talking to you, twathead?"
Anonymous:
Yes, you were. Anyone who publishes on this site is open to, and invites, the comments of anyone in the world.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If that party is not open to mutual conciliation then that party should be treated as anathema, and that is truly sad to me.
Agape' and Peace, Ray
The poor locus of animosity can't even parse "put-down artist" as "a non-entity whose sole contribution to the world is the put-down." The troll is just spam--nothing more. We can let the troll fester in its own fetid lair until it rots from inanition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous:
"THAT is a statement utterly devoid of any meaning or context"
Ans. Only to you. This is a secret so don't tell anyone, but sometimes we write in a secret code when we encounter people like you who try to pull us away from relevant conversation.
"How did you learn to write without learning to read first?"
Ans. The same way you did and everyone else did. Go back with me now to the 1st grade. Remember they made you write the letters and learn the names of the letters in the alphabet, then when you could do that you would string the letters together into words, then the big step reading.
Agape' and Peace, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @12:17AM EST (#120)
|
|
|
|
|
How did you learn to be a troll?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @12:25AM EST (#121)
|
|
|
|
|
OR you could put the troll outside in the sun.
legend has it, that if you put them in sunlight they turn to stone.
Apearantly, THIS troll's HEAD was exposed to sun light, that's how come his\her brain is a block of rock.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @12:54AM EST (#122)
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, Mars.
I went around with this "person" earlier today
He\she SAYS He\she is not a Racist. but notice how He\She keeps attacking "the Indian". again and again.
He\she also claimed Indian ancestory to defend His\herself. this "person" also does not even understand what makeing such a claim MEANS.
(which proves to me and other Indian people that He\she is beyond a doubt a racist.)
If this "person" really IS of Indian decent, My guess is His\her ancestors have dis-owned Him\her.
As ALL other Indian decendants SHOULD. (I sure have.)
I find it ineresting, don't you, that This "person" believes claiming Indian ancestory absolves Him\her of racism. After all, It's a known fact that Hitler was of JEWISH decent.
Any way, As Thomas told me earlier, I should just let the baby have his bottle. (My paraphrase) and I bowed out. You might consider doing the same. We've wasted enoughe time with this "person"
. Frankly I feel bad for them. (I'm not being sarcastic.)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @01:00AM EST (#123)
|
|
|
|
|
(("With all due respect, shit for brains, I never criticized staus."))
Now Mars. You should apoligize for calling Anon "Shit for brains"
After all calling him that implies he HAS a brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @01:04AM EST (#124)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday August 06, @10:50AM EST (#128)
|
|
|
|
|
This is total rubbish. You are doing what is called "playing the race card." The troll didn't just attack you and made absolutely NO mention of your race (didn't even KNOW your race). YOU brought it up, not him. The troll, at least, appeared to attack everyone equally.
Accusing people of racism in order to censor them is wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now Mars. You should apoligize for calling Anon "Shit for brains" After all calling him that implies he HAS a brain.
Not at all: it means that the troll has fecal matter in lieu of brains. Thanks for your concern, however, I'll stand by my statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @02:28AM EST (#153)
|
|
|
|
|
I know, I know.
Read my previous post "Thundercloud just "baiting" troll"
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @02:32AM EST (#154)
|
|
|
|
|
And as to "censoring" this person...,
Believe me I don't think ANYONE should censor anyone.
...'couldn't censor THIS guy if I tried!(^-^)
Thundercloud.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Straus is an objective student of the numbers, and that is EXACTLY what he should remain, whether YOU tow your party line or not."
He doesn't appear to have been totally objective in some of his statements in these articles. As a researcher that is what he should be, i.e. "my numbers lead me to conclude" any opinions beyond that is editorializing, and he was quilty of that in these articles, it appears, if he was quoted correctly.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:34PM EST (#98)
|
|
|
|
|
"He doesn't appear to have been totally objective in some of his statements in these articles. As a researcher that is what he should be, i.e. "my numbers lead me to conclude" any opinions beyond that is editorializing, and he was quilty of that in these articles, it appears, if he was quoted correctly."
Why don't you try to be a little objective yourself instead of agreeing with everybody whose name you know? You do that A LOT, you know... just agree for the sake of agreeing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Why don't you try to be a little objective yourself instead of agreeing with everybody whose name you know? You do that A LOT, you know... just agree for the sake of agreeing"
Not really, I sometimes disagree a lot too. Whether I agree or disagree depends a lot on the accuracy and truthfulness of what is being stated.
I sincerely appreciate your request asking me to try to be a little more objective, it is only when we veiw the diamond from all its facets that we perceive the total beauty of the jewel. See I'm even agreeing with you, and I don't even know your name.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So rather than attacking Straus for a couple of comments that don't meet our political agenda, let's take this up-to-date, irrefutible study and run with it!
Scott
I'm in full agreement with Scott. I find the feminist reaction interesting; it appears that they want to find mitigating circumstances for any violent behavior exhibited by women. The patriarchy--the luminiferous ether of gender politics--has to be invoked somehow to show that female violence can be excused as a reaction to "male control." Such a double standard is not extended to males, of course; it is feminist dogma that all forms of violence are unjustified (unless committed by women against men); if statistical data finds males more violent than females, females have the moral high ground; Straus' study meets with feminist disbelief since it contradicts one of the hallowed shibboleths of feminism; Straus' data must not be used to cast doubt on the existence of the patriarchy, or to suggest that women can be "oppressors" too.
Straus is not being hypocritical for attempting to deflect some criticism for his sociological studies; the subject of female violence against males is so highly politicized that even Straus' agreement with reasonable parts of the feminist program doesn't satisfy feminists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deacon:
That was brilliant. It is exhilarating to see the smoke screen being blown away from this flawed piece of research, that seeks to hide its inaccuracies behind the prestigous cloak of academia.
Regards, Ray
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will simply add my regards here, Ray.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday August 05, @10:36PM EST (#100)
|
|
|
|
|
"That was brilliant. It is exhilarating to see the smoke screen being blown away from this flawed piece of research, that seeks to hide its inaccuracies behind the prestigous cloak of academia. "
Uhhh, you think Deacon's incorrect statements about Straus, which he later retracted, are "brilliant?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll read over the report again. I have been known to ere. If so, I stand corrected.
Regards, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has become clear that the majority of men are ignorant on how mandatory arrest laws work. So, I'm going to provide a brief explaination. I'll start with obvious examples and then relate them to DV situations.
Traditionally, when a person was invaded in their home and had a reasonable fear that their life is in danger, they had the right to use deadly force to protect themselves and others. When that happened, the police would respond, investigate, and if the matter were clearly self-defense and deadly force were justified, no action would be taken against the person who exercised deadly force.
Today, in many states, the radical feminist have taken the position that men are evil. In doing so they have determined that men must be criminalized. So, when a man defends his family and uses deadly force, he will be arrested. It won't matter if it is obvious to the police that the man acted in self-defense. He will be arrested under the new mandatory arrest laws. This is as the radical feminist intended.
Next, if the man has lots of money he may make bail and hire a lawyer. Then he is brought before a grand jury to prove his innocence. Because he is a man, the bias of the jury will be that he was trying to be macho and defend the family. By contrast, a woman in the same situation is favored as most likely acting in self-defense to protect her children.
Then the grand jury will determine if the man tried to perform a mandatory retreat. If the man failed to retreat, he will be charged with murder. If the woman is defending her family and failed to retreat, it will most likely be viewed in favor of the woman. So, she will not be prosecuted for murder.
Similarly, men are required to retreat in a DV situation. But even if they do retreat the woman may try to prevent the retreat. If she gets hurt in the process while the male is retreating and calls 911 for help, the police will arrest the male under the primary aggressor and mandatory arrest laws. It will not matter that the man is innocent. The law requires the arrest of the innocent man, and that is as radical feminist intend. It is part of the process of granting women special protection while criminalizing the evil male.
Every day thousands of new male victims are arrested under these laws. They all claim to have been attacked and to be trying to remove themselves or use minimal force in self-defense to protect themselves. But that has been made illegal.
So, you see when Straus asserts that woman should be given the priority, in my opinion he is in effect advocating the criminalization of innocent men due to the current mandatory arrest laws that are in place.
Warble
Disclaimer: My statements are intended to be personal opinion, belief, sarcasm, or allegation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have read the two articles by Dr. Straus and would like to enter this discussion. First let me say that I think a large part of the confusion stems from the way in which the journalists have constructed the stories. Dr. Strauses’ comments are interspersed in such a way with the opposing standard feminist rhetoric that one must read very carefully to see who is saying what.
If taken point by point I find some disagreement with what Dr. Straus is saying, but huge disagreement with what his critics are saying. In fact one of his critics refers to his report as “nonsense,” when in fact that definition could be far more accurately applied to what she is saying.
ARTICLE #1
1. In the first article I take exception to what Dr. Straus is quoted as saying, “A focus on protecting and assisting female students must remain a priority, In many societies women lack full economic, social, political and human rights. In such cultures, equality for women needs to be given a priority as an even more fundamental aspect of the prevention of intimate partner violence.”
Ans. I think with the neglect that has been given to male victims of domestic violence as a results of all the billions that have been spent to care for female victims (VAWA) as well as the skewing of the statistics against males through all the false police reports generated, it is unconscionable to not consider males first in any discussion of domestic violence today. Furthermore, considering the disproportionate rates with which men are dying in wars, on the job, through suicide, through homicide, etc. what gives Dr. Straus the unmitigated gall to “prioritize” the human rights of females above those of males. Ask me about my privileged time in Vietnam. Talk to me about that when I get my chest xray for the asbestos in my lungs I picked up in the workplace.
2. Here’s another quote from the first article by one of Dr. Straus’ critics: ““Said Beebe, “most (programs) are based on the assumption that the aggressor is a man. I disagree. Most programs include the whole dynamic. It’s important to show who is in control. A woman’s use of violence is usually different than that of a man.””
Ans. I disagree with her disagreement. I know one program that is based on the assumption that the man is the aggressor. It’s called the violence against women act, and under this national scam tens if not hundreds of thousands of men (maybe millions) have been arrested simply on the prejudiced viewpoint that man is the aggressor in all matters of domestic violence. When the Chief of Police of Los Angeles can be quoted as saying that 95% of domestic violence is committed by men I would have to say to Ms. Bebe, “DUH, I disagree! Get outta here with that old, tired radical feminist slop. Your statistical support for that one has as many holes in it as a termite infested 4 X 4.”
3. Beebe goes on to claim that, “A woman’s use of violence is usually different than that of a man.” She qualifies that by saying, “It is important to show who is responding and who is in control.” It appears she is implying that the woman only responds with violence to the man’s abusive controlling behavior (battered woman syndrome).
Ans. Yes a woman’s use of violence is different. They are more ferocious and use guns, knives, book stands, baseball bats, etc. to level that playing field. As far as her 2nd statement implying that anytime a woman uses violence it is because of (battered woman syndrome). I would merely reply, "That’s the most ridiculous, nonsensical indefensible insanity I have ever heard, and only a complete fool or a retard would even consider that statement to have any validity." It is nothing more than radical feminist rhetoric completely devoid of any basis in truth or reality.
4. To Dr. Straus’ unexplained comment that, “Women are more vulnerable... ... psychologically” I would merely ask:
Ans. Then why do men kill themselves (suicide) at a rate that is 4 times higher than that for women? Damn, Doc, was your brain engaged when you made this statement?
ARTICLE #2
1. “It’s nonsense, said Sarah Copps... We see women walk in here in such bad shape.”
Ans. To this I merely reply, since when have men ever been allowed access to a shelter? If they were allowed I'm sure you'd see them walking in in bad shape, providing they were they were still able to walk after their domestic violence battering/victimization at the hands of a violent, abusive female.
2. Straus writes: “as women become more equal in other spheres, they become more equal perpetrators of crime.”
Ans. To this I say, “pure hogwash, they’ve always been equal perpetrators of domestic violence.” Thank God people are now watching and researching more closely so that women are having a more difficult time lying and saying there not equal perpetrators.
3. This next comment is only vaguely identified as coming from Strauses’ critics. That’s really poor journalism. Who are they? Identify them. The quote reads, “But they reproach Straus’ survey method for not letting women tell their stories.”
Ans. I don’t see Straus letting men tell their story any more than women are being allowed to tell their stories so where’s the beef? If men aren’t being allowed to tell their story why should women be shown special consideration? This is very revealing for what it shows about the mind set of those biased bigots who expect special entitlement over other people, instead of equal standing along side them.
Unless I seem unfairly harsh to Dr. Straus let me say that I honestly think Dr. Straus was sincerely trying to make a decent effort at fair research. But alas, Dr. Straus my score on your research, without seeing further supporting documentation is C-, and I honestly feel that I’m being very overly generous to someone who has showed some kindness in the past to a lot of very desperate men in need of the truth about domestic violence. Unfortunately, Dr. Straus seems to have fallen sway to an unacceptable amount of unscientific, radical feminist propaganda to the extent that he has allowed it to become an adulterating effect in otherwise sound research.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. To Dr. Straus? unexplained comment that, ?Women are more vulnerable... ... psychologically?
I'm sure being an intelligent man Dr.Straus knows where the power lies both in the academy and the research funding bodies. Head-on confrontation with feminist consensus DV reality may not be an option for him. We should be glad he says anything.
cheers,
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You make a good point, and reveal another perspective of the total picture that we are trying to see. You would not expect a college to be tyranically run, but there are dmoinent political powers there that sometimes allow those of differing opinions only to exist, and not much more. There's often a lot politics in these places, to the degree that truth is not allowed to be openly objecitve, but must follow the politically correct line of the administration or suffer the wrath of the p.c. police. Considering the conclusions that he published, in the average college today he would be on the borderline of political correctness & in danger of going over the line.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday August 07, @09:56PM EST (#159)
|
|
|
|
|
I couple of weeks ago a say a girl, about 10 years
old, wearing a t-shirt that said on the front, "Jack and Jill went up the hill", and on the back it said, "and Jill kicked his ass."
Some comments:
1) Parents who would buy such a shirt for their daughter are totally benighted, or sick in the head.
2) Such messages encourage female violence against men.
3) Such messages defy the reality of differences between males and females. Males on average are bigger, stronger, and can run faster than females. Self-esteem building exercises can't change this fact. So instead, the cops 'cuff and jail males who defend themselves against females out to kick males' asses.
Meanwhile, our earnest activists in the DV industry are outraged, just outraged, that anyone would suggest that females are as violent as males.
Find your own way to protest this sort of injustice. But please, despite the gross provocations, show manly virtue and don't get violent.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
