Why Do So Many Men Die As A Result of Domestic Violence?
Last year, 53 people in the state of Maryland died as a result of domestic violence. According to the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence, which crunches the numbers for that sad statistic, the domestic violence-related deaths for the fiscal year 2009 (July 2008—June 2009) fell surprisingly evenly along gender lines:
- 32 of the dead are female.
- 21 of the dead are male.
Last year, in other words, 40 percent of people who died in Maryland as a result of domestic violence were male. Right about now, men's rights activists are surely waiting in the wings, ready to pounce on this statistic as irrefutable evidence that men are victimized by domestic violence at nearly the same rate as women. The truth is much more complicated.
Let's look at the numbers on the female side first (courtesy of the MNADV's extensive research).
Of the 32 females who died as a result of domestic violence last year:
- 3 were children.
- 29 were adult women.
Of the 29 adult women:
- 28 were victims of domestic violence.
- The one remaining woman was a domestic violence aggressor who committed suicide. She is the sole occupier of the category of "females who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder/attempting to commit murder."
Of the 28 adult female victims:
- 10 were wives or ex-wives of the offender.
- 17 were girlfriends or ex-girlfriends of the offender.
- One was a domestic violence victim who committed suicide.
And on the male side of things:
Of the 21 males who died as a result of domestic violence last year:
- 2 were children.
- 19 were adult men.
Of the 19 adult men:
- 9 were victims.
- 10 were domestic violence aggressors who died as a result of their own domestic violence—"males who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder/attempting to commit murder."
Of the nine male victims:
- 2 were husbands or ex-husbands of the offender.
- 3 were boyfriends or ex-boyfriends of the offender.
- 3 were killed by their current partner's ex.
- 1 was killed by his ex's current partner.
Of the ten men who killed themselves or were killed after committing murder or attempting to commit murder:
- 1 man was killed by the police.
- 3 were killed by their partners in self-defense.
- 6 committed suicide.
Of the 53 total dead:
- 27 were killed by gun or rifle.
- 12 were killed by knife.
- 5 were killed by strangulation.
- 4 were killed by vehicle.
- 2 were killed by "physical force/hands."
- 2 were killed by burning
- 1 cause of death was unknown.
Domestic violence kills in many ways. When it comes to male deaths by domestic violence, men are more likely to be killed as a result of attempting to murder their own partners than as a result of their partner's aggression. Men who are victims of domestic violence are almost as likely to be killed by a partner's ex than by their partners themselves. "Domestic violence is not as simple and straightforward as people think," says Michele Cohen, MNADV's Executive Director. "The work that we do attempts to capture the full picture of all the individuals who die as a result of domestic violence—both victims and offenders."
Tonight, the MNADV will hold its 22nd Annual Memorial Service for all the "women, men, and children" who died over the past year from domestic violence. Find more information about the Annapolis, Md. service here [PDF].
3:05 pm
surely there's something wrong here; where's john dias and his man-spin?
3:10 pm
Surely there should be some male comments here...wait for it...wait for it...wait for it...
3:50 pm
The feminist need to minimize male victimization is a curious thing. On one hand feminists claim to want to prevent all violence, but on the other they make concerted efforts to deny boys and men are victims female-perpetuated violence. It seems counter-intuitive to constantly paint physical and sexual violence against boys and men as somehow warranted or deserved. It does no one any harm to acknowledge men are victims of domestic violence and deserve the same treatment and respect extended to female victims, but judging by feminists responses one would gets a much different impression.
As for evidence regarding the rate of domestic against men, there is irrefutable evidence that men are likely victims of domestic violence at the same rate as women. There is fairly good evidence to show that minimum males make up one third of the victims of domestic violence and that number is likely a low estimate. The wealth of information about this subject that is available at this point is far too overwhelming to simply fall back on old feminist claims about the non-existence of male victims.
More so, the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence statistics are not representative because of how few people were being counted. One must conduct a larger study in order to demonstrate that women never abuse or kill men. Of course, the problem is that very few male victims come forward and it is unfortunately possible, thanks to feminist efforts, for abusive women to claim to be victims and side-step any criminal prosecution. Again, one would think it would make more sense to actually extend support to male victims to find out how the actual rate of violence, but again feminists paint this as unnecessary and misogynistic.
The impression one leaves that one does not really want to address domestic violence against men.
4:03 pm
Minimizing, or reporting the facts?
4:13 pm
I too, am suspicious and weary. I feel like they're all hiding or something.
Anyway, what'syourname, no one would even claim that the men who died weren't victims of tragedy. The claim was that the men in the data were very unlikely to be killed by their wife/girlfriend, as in a cut-and-dry domestic violence case. The men's cases were not that simple, and usually perpetrated by themselves or a rival man, and thus to say "OMG 40% of domestic violence victims are men!" would be deception and a twisting of the data.
Doesn't mean nobody would do it that way. But it's good to know the facts, yes?
4:20 pm
Good article.
4:24 pm
I find it really interesting that so many committed suicide. The only thing I can think of is guilt, but that's probably my bias?
4:29 pm
I figure the suicides after murder are part of those "husband kills entire family then self" sort of things. I remember reading about at least two cases in MD last year. Those kind of killings tend to increase when economic times are bad, often some time after the husband has lost his job. Some of the analysis I've read postulate that the need to eliminate the entire family stems from a feeling of having failed as a provider.
I don't know... it seems unbelievably selfish to want to "take someone with you." I suppose it would make more sense to me if I had any faith in an afterlife at all.
4:32 pm
They always kill themselves after slaughtering their whole family. Why don't they just kill themselves first and get it over with?
4:34 pm
ACtheCool,
I've always wondered that...
4:45 pm
Amanda, I challenge you to cite the source of the statistics that you quoted. I can almost guarantee that they're either derived from crime and arrest reports, or they are manufactured. If derived from crime reports, then you're making an unscientific assertion that the percentages of victims vs. perpetrators derived from such reports can be extrapolated to the larger population.
Scientific, nationally-representative samples of domestic violence perpetrators vs. victims does exist in the form of survey data that is subject to peer review and has been published in respected scholarly journals. This data has accumulated into a mountain of evidence over 30 years, and at this point in 2010 there are now at least 215 such studies. These studies are more reliable than crime reports, where perverse incentives exist to obscure or exaggerate information because an arrest and restraining order dovetail on how one responds to an officer's questions; such consequences absolutely influence the outcome of crime reports. But privately administered surveys merely ask questions of respondents asking them how often they have perpetrated -- and been victimized by -- intimate partner violence.
The results of scientifically reliable surveys are illuminating, and the conclusions drawn from them are valid. They indicate that there is gender parity in domestic violence perpetration, although a 2-1 gender disparity in domestic violence injury rates. Not only is there gender parity in how often DV is perpetrated, but there is solid evidence indicating that women initiate at least half of all attacks, which nullifies the idea that female-perpetrated violence is predominantly defensive in nature; in fact, more often than not it is aggressive in nature. There was even one paper published in the American Journal of Public Health in 2007 by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control which indicated that non-reciprocal violence (i.e. battering) was perpetrated by women over 70 percent of the time, while reciprocal violence was perpetrated by women more often than men -- and this data was provided by the admission of the female perpetrators themselves. So if women are committing half of all domestic violence, the questions that I consider worth asking are:
1. Does female-perpetrated violence cause pain to the male victim?
2. Does female-perpetrated violence lead to retaliatory violence that results in injury to the female perpetrator?
I think that the evidence indicates that the answer to the above two questions is emphatically YES.
5:36 pm
"Amanda, I challenge you to cite the source of the statistics that you quoted."
She did cite it. It is link on the second line. The statistics are based on crime reports, which does limit the scope of their accuracy in judging the frequency of overall victimization. However, the statistics are likely accurate in terms of how many deaths are reported as resulting from domestic violence. Of course, there is some difficulty in gauging whether the statistics are accurate in terms of the overall rate of death resulting from domestic violence because women who kill often use methods like poisoning or hiring someone else to kill for them or citing self-defense.
5:44 pm
Citing the source of a claim is not the same thing as citing the source of the actual data.
5:45 pm
John Dias, she's talking about murder. Murders tend to get reported.
5:46 pm
Let's see the actual report...
5:57 pm
Oh John, I know clicking thru two links is hard, but if you really want to be spoon-fed the numbers, here they are: http://www.mnadv.org/DV_Stats/dv_stats.html
6:10 pm
Quick statistics question.
"Of the nine male victims:
2 were husbands or ex-husbands of the offender.
3 were boyfriends or ex-boyfriends of the offender."
Wouldn't that mean that 5 of 9 were victims of their partner? If that's the case, it largely negates the heavily italicized paragraph near the end.
6:15 pm
No, Dave, the nine male victims SPECIFICALLY REFERS to those who were victims. That doesn't count the TEN who were actively involved in trying to kill their partner. So, 5 out of 19 (26.3%) died as a result of their partners' aggression, and 10/19 (52.6%) were killed in attempting to murder their partner. 10/19 is more likely than 5/19.
6:46 pm
"On one hand feminists claim to want to prevent all violence, but on the other they make concerted efforts to deny boys and men are victims female-perpetuated violence."
This is absolutely false. On the other hand, I have not seen one MRA group talk about doing anything to stop men's INTERNATIONAL violence against women. They only want to beef up claims that men are victims, too.
7:49 pm
Alison, in California (for example), there was a portion of the state's health and safety code that specifically excluded male victims of domestic violence from being able to receive public funds for DV victims. This policy was defended openly by feminist groups -- in their lobbying efforts, in their press releases, in feminist blogs -- and MRAs successfully challenged that law in the courts. Since feminists weren't concerned about making the laws serve victims equally, MRAs filled in the gap.
Today, solely due to MRAs and because of no other sector or group, male victims of domestic violence in California may no longer be excluded entirely from services. Since men comprise half of all DV victims in terms of the frequency of the perpetrator's aggression, there should never have been such discrimination against males in the first place. Feminists did nothing to eliminate that discrimination; rather, they defended it and attempted to perpetuate it. I'm glad that an appellate court disagreed with their one-sided bias toward helping women solely.
7:53 pm
While we're on the subject of the international victimization of women by men, let me make one additional point: comparatively pampered Western feminists use the pretext of ending the genuine suffering of non-western women to agitate for even more pampering for Western women.
You're projecting the hypocricy of your own movement -- which has been wildly successful -- onto the movement of MRAs, which has not experienced anywhere near the same level of cultural or political successes as feminism. If you want to do something about the plight of foreign women, then send your resources abroad.
8:08 pm
Could you please provide some evidence for feminists attempting to perpetuate the discrimination?
9:06 pm
Also - as a man. I take some offense to being lumped together with John Dias. I'm probably going to get ripped to shreds for this... but... the feminist movement has tended to be a bit Western woman-focused (I mean Western as in culturally). But having said that, there is definitely more of a problem of men perpetuating domestic violence and harassment against women (married or otherwise).
Also in regards to earlier higher suicides, I hadn't thought of the multiple murder-suicide aspect. I'm assuming they account for that... As an aside, I think there's a bit of media bias too, when a woman murders her family that's lots of press coverage for it, but I (think) that there's somewhat less when a man does it. Of course, I can't prove this...
As a final note, replace all man/woman references with biologically male/female...
9:48 pm
@RobShaw, don't worry, we're certainly not lumping you with the John Diases of this world...unless you say you're an MRA, of course!!
In my experience, the vast majority of men I deal with are respectful, thoughtful people who treat me as an equal and I genuinely enjoy their company (now, granted, I'm in a major clinical and research institution so I'm getting a very skewed sample). It's educational for me, though, to see what's out there, and what kind of anger, hostility, and disrespect (not to mention really creepy pick up lines!!) lurk under the surface of vaguely condescending and chauvinistic men!
I think the focus issue has a lot to do with people getting involved in causes that they see firsthand. That's not a man or a woman thing, just human nature...Plus, you can't wait to tackle a problem that's affecting you or your friends until all other serious problems are fixed; it's just not how the world works!! But, there are plenty of organizations with a worldwide focus, it's just a matter of choosing the ones that suit your passions.
10:51 pm
Alison, Hess could have used the post as an opportunity to reach out to male victims or she could have done some research and presented more representative data. Instead, Hess used unrepresentative numbers from a small state in order to attack political group she disagrees, and as a result grossly misrepresented the known rate of domestic violence against males. That constitutes a denial and assault against male victimization, and it is something many feminists do on a regular basis, so the comment is not false. There is simply no reason not to accurately report what several non-partisan studies have found.
LeftSidePositive, the organization The One in Three Campaign lists some of the misinformation presented concerning domestic violence. The majority of the incorrect information comes from women's groups. The website also lists recent statistics from Australia demonstrating a high rate of male victimization.
11:17 pm
How can the FRs say the men are victimized as much as the women? No one denies there are a few women say something like 1 out of 10 or 1 out of 100 domestic homicides are committed by women. If the victimization were equal than there would be a big body count. But the facts are that women are usually killed by men. See the Violence Policy Center Reports.
11:33 pm
the One In Three Campaign in Australia is more lies from another MRA Greg Andreson. The latest reports out refute that completely and as usual the MRA's cherry pick which statistics fit them. The Chisolm Report released last week commissioned bythe government specifically notes that the majority of DV victims in Australia are women and the perpetrators being their intimate partners. Furthe Australian statistics just released prove that over 85% of child sex abuse is carried out by fathers. Not just men but fathers!!
11:48 pm
The comments from the FRaliban are as usual disgusting. You just cannot stand when the FACTS stare you right in the face....LMAO!
1:00 am
How can you use *death* statistics to "refute" the statement that "men are victimized by domestic violence at nearly the same rate as women"? Deaths are only a fraction of DV victimization. How can those figures saying anything about equal victimization rates?
Randomized sociological surveys (as opposed to unreliable crime data) repatedly shows women initiate DV as often as men. A recent 32-nation study by the University of New Hampshire, which included Australia, found women are as violent and controlling as men in relationships worldwide. http://www.unh.edu/news/cj_nr/2006/may/em_060519male.cfm?type=n
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
In fact over 200 studies and growing confirm that "women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners," as Cal State University Professor Martin Fiebert shows in his online bibliography at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
In the U.S., a major study funded by the Centers for Disease Control examined heterosexual relationships throughout the U.S. and found: "Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent. In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941
"More women than men (25% versus 11%) were responsible. In fact, 71 percent of the instigators in nonreciprocal partner violence were women" and "while injury was more likely when violence was perpetrated by men, in relationships with reciprocal violence it was the men who were injured more often (25% of the time) than were women (20% of the time)." http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/42/15/31-a
1:03 am
It's also amazing that anyone would focus on deaths when the most common damage caused by DV is to children who witness the violence. They're damaged regardless of the level of injuries. That has been proven over and over. So even minor DV is very damaging and is part of the cycle of DV. Somehow that escapes those people who use "deaths" as a spin tactic to downplay female-on-male DV.
1:04 am
LeftSidePositive write (#22):
Prior to the Woods v. Shewry decision striking down discrimination against male victims, which I described above (later renamed Woods v. Horton), existing policy was gender-specific, defining domestic violence specifically as a crime against women. Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn introduced a bill, AB 2051, which sought to extend protection from just women and children to DV victims in the LGBT community. This would only be necessary if the current policy wasn’t discriminatory in the first place. AB 2051 was passed by the legislature, retaining its gender-specific discriminatory language, and was later signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. It was after this event that MRAs challenged existing policy in court, and had it overturned by the 3rd district appellate court.
What is revealing about the influence of feminists in retaining the discriminatory language is this… The author of AB 2051 originally introduced AB 2051 as gender neutral, which is exactly what feminists purportedly stand for. Then after a few weeks, the gender-neutral language was struck out, and the discriminatory language restored. I kid you not… You can actually compare the “before” version with the “after” version that later passed, and see the gender-neutral language struck out with a line through it, and replaced with the word “woman.” It doesn’t get any more black-and-white than that. As I said, it was this gender-specific version that went on to be signed into law, over the objections of men’s groups who weighed in against the bill.
You might think that Assemblywoman Cohn would stand up for equality in protecting all victims, especially since her bill originally was introduced as gender-neutral. But, beholden to the groups which restored the gender-specific language (and they weren’t MRAs, I assure you!), she is quoted in the bill’s Legislative Analysis that despite “possible shortcomings or inconsistencies in the current law” her bill was really intended to extend DV services to both women and LGBT, and was confined to that purpose. That left out male victims and their children. That is flat-out discrimination, no matter how you slice it.
(Video) California Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn falsely claims that her bill, AB 2051, is gender-neutral, on the legislature floor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXc9xlQUqCM
Legislative analysis of AB 2051:
The author acknowledges “possible shortcomings or inconsistencies in the current law” in response to criticism of the bill by men’s groups who point out its gender-bias, limiting services to women (and, now, members of the LGBT community).
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_cfa_20060414_123930_asm_comm.html
BEFORE: Gender-neutral language:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_bill_20060215_introduced.html
AFTER: Gender-specific language (see phrases striked out, such as SEC. 4):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_bill_20060419_amended_asm.html
The “after” version, which was amended to strike the gender neutral language, was the one which passed and was signed into law.
Later, the Woods case overturns existing gender-specific statute which discriminates against male victims:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C056072.PDF
Finally, the legislature modifies existing statute to become gender neutral:
info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_273_cfa_20090629_110044_asm_comm.html
1:10 am
LeftSidePositive write (#22):
“Could you please provide some evidence for feminists attempting to perpetuate the discrimination?”
Prior to the Woods v. Shewry decision striking down discrimination against male victims, which I described above (later renamed Woods v. Horton), existing policy was gender-specific, defining domestic violence specifically as a crime against women. Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn introduced a bill, AB 2051, which sought to extend protection from just women and children to DV victims in the LGBT community. This would only be necessary if the current policy wasn’t discriminatory in the first place. AB 2051 was passed by the legislature, retaining its gender-specific discriminatory language, and was later signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger. It was after this event that MRAs challenged existing policy in court, and had it overturned by the 3rd district appellate court.
What is revealing about the influence of feminists in retaining the discriminatory language is this… The author of AB 2051 originally introduced AB 2051 as gender neutral, which is exactly what feminists purportedly stand for. Then after a few weeks, the gender-neutral language was struck out, and the discriminatory language restored. I kid you not… You can actually compare the “before” version with the “after” version that later passed, and see the gender-neutral language struck out with a line through it, and replaced with the word “woman.” It doesn’t get any more black-and-white than that. As I said, it was this gender-specific version that went on to be signed into law, over the objections of men’s groups who weighed in against the bill.
You might think that Assemblywoman Cohn would stand up for equality in protecting all victims, especially since her bill originally was introduced as gender-neutral. But, beholden to the groups which restored the gender-specific language (and they weren’t MRAs, I assure you!), she is quoted in the bill’s Legislative Analysis that despite “possible shortcomings or inconsistencies in the current law” her bill was really intended to extend DV services to both women and LGBT, and was confined to that purpose. That left out male victims and their children. That is flat-out discrimination, no matter how you slice it.
(Video) California Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn falsely claims that her bill, AB 2051, is gender-neutral, on the legislature floor:
youtube.com/watch?v=UXc9xlQUqCM
Legislative analysis of AB 2051:
The author acknowledges “possible shortcomings or inconsistencies in the current law” in response to criticism of the bill by men’s groups who point out its gender-bias, limiting services to women (and, now, members of the LGBT community).
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_cfa_20060414_123930_asm_comm.html
BEFORE: Gender-neutral language:
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_bill_20060215_introduced.html
AFTER: Gender-specific language (see phrases striked out, such as SEC. 4):
leginfo.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2051-2100/ab_2051_bill_20060419_amended_asm.html
The “after” version, which was amended to strike the gender neutral language, was the one which passed and was signed into law.
Later, the Woods case overturns existing gender-specific statute which discriminates against male victims:
courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/C056072.PDF
Finally, the legislature modifies existing statute to become gender neutral:
info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/sen/sb_0251-0300/sb_273_cfa_20090629_110044_asm_comm.html
1:13 am
"Could you please provide some evidence for feminists attempting to perpetuate the discrimination?"
Feminists constantly support the discrimination and they have since the early 1970s. Just read the story of Erin Pizzey in England, the woman who founded the world's first modern battered women shelter. When she spoke out about female-on-male DV they picketed her house and politically ostracized her. Patrica Overberg of Los Angeles was treated the same way by other DV shelter directors for helping battered men.
Many government-funded domestic violence programs still explicitly discriminate against male victims, and feminists support it. In Australia and the UK, the government had to revoke funding from domestic violence shelters for refusing to help male victims. http://express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/support-team-pulls-plug/#
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/05/domestic-violence-charity-funding
But in many countries, battered men’s shelters remain without any public funds.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1146783/First-refuges-battered-husbands-offer-support-male-victims.html
In October 2008, the National Coalition For Men won a landmark appellate case in California that held it is unconstitutional to exclude male victims of domestic violence from the statutory funding provisions or from state-funded services. Woods v. Horton (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 658.
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/wood101508.htm
Already a feminist group has published a law review article arguing that the law should have remained gender-explicit.
Prior to that, a gay rights group called Equality California tried to make the same law gender-neutral, but feminists groups insisted they put it back to being gender neutral. It's in the legislative history of Assembly Bill 2051.
The federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) explicitly excludes American Indian men from its provisions on Native American. It is also implemented in a discriminatory manner nationwide and funds educational programs that spread one-sided misinformation about domestic violence. See Dr. Richard Gelles, "Male Victims: The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence." http://www.ncfm.org/chapters/la/gelles.html
The very title of VAWA discriminates and stigmatizes male victims by leaving them invisible and downplaying the seriousness of male victimization, making them an afterthought at very best. We don’t have a “Men’s Occupational Safety and Health Act” just because 92% of occupational deaths happen to men.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.t04.htm
Professor Linda Kelly wrote an outstanding law review article that documents the feminist-backed discrimination. It's online. Search "Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse; How Women Batter Men and the Law of the Feminist State."
1:17 am
Astonishing to see people making personal attacks on John Dias and MRAs. That's exactly what people do when they have nothing substantive. Personal attacks. Sad.
2:08 am
Who said "wait for it - -wait for it - -!" LOL
Some of these- - um- men- should be hired -to put a spin on- let me see- an equal number of white cats kill
mice as do black cats. Or -vice versa -anything ! There must be texts already to go- and as soon as some of these - -men- see anything they interpret as- somehow against them- they push a button- and reprint the stuff. Surely no-one has the time to so obsessively write such volumes of the same stuff-over and over- -. Can anyone spell : paranoia ?
Excelleny article. Couldn't resist writing a comment. May you find peace on earth- John and some others.
2:18 am
John Dias, where are the statements and platforms by these feminists of whom you speak? You haven't quoted a single one.
Since the bill was started as an issue focusing on the LGBT community, please clearly establish that the gender-neutral language was not struck out because of homophobia, rather than anti-male discrimination.
2:55 am
Lol at Cold North Wind's comment. What happens is one MRA responds and then they post it on one of their forums and the rest follow like flies on a piece of manure.
4:07 am
Marc A., I looked up your first link. Harvard's Patient Educator's review of it mentions the following:
"The survey did not cover the use of knives, guns, choking, or burning, and it was not concerned with the kind of situation that can drive a woman to seek shelter outside the home. The view of the authors is that most intimate partner violence should not be equated with severe battering. Domestic disputes that turn physical because of retaliation and escalation do not have the same causes or the same consequences as male battering."
http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/HealthETopic.aspx?cid=M0907d
So, this study design simply TAKES OUT severe abuse at the start?!?! So, we're reduced to evaluating the levels of non-battery? I'm sorry, what conclusions are you trying to draw? If men are beating women to the point that they need to seek alternate shelter, they are specifically excluded from this study. What, then, does that tell you about relative rates of violence in total?! So you're saying women commit 70% of what?! Violence that's not bad enough to do very much?? While men are sending their partners to hospitals, battered women's shelters, and killing them, it's just not counted in your statistics. So, this study design basically guarantees that women will be over-represented as offenders, because the most-offending males have been removed from the study!
Nice try, but no...
4:13 am
LSP, you're an ignoramus. Read the study itself, for crying out loud. Learn something in life. Discard your preconceived ideas and look beyond your ideology. Human beings are the issue here... Where there is injustice and violence, it needs to be addressed and stopped. You are an enabler of both female and male abusers.
4:33 am
I did. I read the questions, and they only asked about types of physical aggression that are not likely to cause serious injury. Are you trying to claim that Harvard, the top-ranked medical institution in this country, mischaracterized the findings of a study that they published on their patient information page? And that this author has had his findings mischaracterized by the leading medical institution for OVER TWO YEARS and not corrected them? Prove it.
I also looked up Dr. Daniel Whitaker, the principal investigator on the study. In another of his papers for the CDC he reports that nearly twice the number of women are assaulted or raped by their partners as men are.
It just so happens that one of Dr. Whitaker's areas of concentration is in models of counseling and behavioral therapy that may be effective in dysfunctional couples, so some of his research specifically looks only at minimal to moderate violence, particularly when both parties wish to maintain the relationship and seek counseling.
So, really, you look profoundly stupid right now having told me to "Learn something in life."
Really...I do my research.
7:57 am
((((I’m probably going to get ripped to shreds for this… but… the feminist movement has tended to be a bit Western woman-focused (I mean Western as in culturally))))
I think you're right, but I don't see it as a big deal. Most Western social movements are going to be primarily focused on Westerners.
10:53 am
The MRAs write the same BS over and over. Note first and foremost that they are defensive and not willing to work with DV agencies (of course they will say they are unwanted). They have YET to do any constructive to help male victims - yet feminists/women are working in DV, rape & stalking centers HELPING MEN as we speak.
CA - first state to win their lawsuit. Others failed. Why? They couldn't prove men were equally victimized - b/c some courts REALIZE self-report studies that don't inlcude severe violence, homicide, self defense, etc. are SIMPLY CHERRY PICKED. 200 self reports CANNOT COMPARE to 1000s of studies.
Incorrect data? What a joke. They hold up self-report studies to research, crime data, shelter use, police reports, etc. and BELIEVE they have more/better evidence. Funny. And, while on this subject, check out their much-touted Media Radar - ALL female-initiated data, hate against credible orgs like UN, Amnesty, etc. because they haven't bought their bogus argument, quotes OUT OF CONTEXT of Parmley and NOW - HIGHLY UNETHICAL!!!
Spin tactics? YEah, theyre masters of it.
If they truly wanted to help male victims, they'd have gone about it in a constructive manner. Sueing shelters, hating on feminists, trying to LIMIT RESTAINING ORDERS (helloooo, how does that help male victims?), calling women liars (false allegations), denying male violence, not recognizing that MEN pose more of a threat to men than women ---- yeah, you would have the MRAs- angry men that do more to set women back than push men forward.
They give men a bad name.
11:57 am
It's great to see such a lively dialogue going on here!
I just want to add a bit about how the stats are collected. First, most state coalitions take responsibility for collecting the domestic violence-related deaths in their state. We collect information from numerous sources, including local, county, and state law enforcement agencies, stories in the news, and information obtained from our community partners.
We count the deaths between current and former spouses or dating partners as well as others who were killed as a result of the marriage or dating relationship (that includes children, a victim's new partner, other family members, police killed in the line of duty, etc.). We count all spouse and dating partner deaths regardless of whether of not there was a history of domestic violence in the record, although there is often a history of protective orders and/or domestic-related police calls to the home. As we see it, one spouse or dating partner killing another is the ultimate form of power and control (which we see as the root of domestic violence).
As you can imagine, it is difficult to know if we have captured ALL of the domestic violence-related deaths in Maryland, but that is our goal and we explore every avenue possible to collect and report this information accurately.
When I researched the news stories related to each of the deaths, I was saddened that there were so many stories in the media about some of the women and entire families that were killed, but there were so few stories about African-American males--particularly in Baltimore City--who were killed. It also saddens me when murders are presented as a "love triangle" or "crime of passion," because I think that blames the victim and excuses the actions of the abuser. But I think Amanda Hess did a great job understanding and presenting the stats, better than some other media sources.
Lastly, all 24 of the domestic violence programs that we work with in Maryland must serve ALL victims, regardless of gender. Some females are court-ordered to attend abuser intervention programs (although men are the vast majority of participants) and some men do seek victim services, including emergency shelter, counseling, calling the hotline, and legal advocacy. We do not ignore the fact that male victimization occurs, but the truth is that the vast majority of victims seeking services are women.
12:01 pm
@MNADV,
Thanks for your commentary.
12:02 pm
"More so, the Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence statistics are not representative because of how few people were being counted. One must conduct a larger study in order to demonstrate that women never abuse or kill men."
Since Amanda wasn't claiming that women never abuse or kill men and in fact highlighted where men were murdered by partners and ex-partners, this statement is completely without substance and makes a false allegation. Neither she nor the MNADV were trying to demonstrate that women never abuse or kill men. They both acknowledged where men who died were victims of domestic violence.
When people conflate a domestic violence related death with someone being a victim of domestic violence and use the first statistic as if were the second that is a problem.
It is important to look at all DV related deaths including the deaths of domestic murderers and abusers, but it is just as important to look at these deaths with maximum accuracy.
12:15 pm
They have YET to do any constructive to help male victims – yet feminists/women are working in DV, rape & stalking centers HELPING MEN as we speak.
It is easy to say that feminists are working to help men, but so far no one has presented a single example of feminists actually reaching out to male victims. For example, no feminists supported David Woods in his lawsuit against, a suit supported by men's groups and argued by a men's rights advocate on behalf of male victims being denied access to publicly-funded domestic violence shelters. David Woods was specifically denied support several times from WEAVE. The only feminist response was negative and against extending services to male victims.
The court ruling itself debunked a host of misinformation that feminists typically present from the false assertion that domestic violence shelters do reach out to male victims to the false claims that most female-on-male violence is committed in self-defense and the false claim that violence against women is inherently worse and more damaging to women.
That is just one example of many in which feminists actively oppose efforts to support male victims. It is difficult to argue that feminists help male victims considering this post specifically states male victims are virtually non-existent. How does that help to male victims? Drop the politics for a moment and honestly ask that question. How does it help a man or boy who has been physically or sexually abused by a woman to read a post and comments in which every feminist (and every woman) does not exist that man or boy does not exist and refers to advocates for male victims as "the FRaliban?" Speaking as a man who experienced physical and sexual violence perpetuated by women as a child, how do any of the comments here help me, my siblings or any of the abused boys and men I know?
12:15 pm
"Of course, there is some difficulty in gauging whether the statistics are accurate in terms of the overall rate of death resulting from domestic violence because women who kill often use methods like poisoning or hiring someone else to kill for them or citing self-defense."
This incorrectly assumes that men don't kill using these methods and men never claim to have killed in self-defense. If you are going to speculate about unmeasured DV murders then you need to do so for all unmeasured DV murders not just those committed by women. This means also considering men who murder their women and dispose of their bodies. All missing wives, ex-wives, girlfriends and ex-girlfriends would need to be viewed as possible DV murder victims.
12:22 pm
LeftSide said: "So, this study design simply TAKES OUT severe abuse at the start?!?! So, we’re reduced to evaluating the levels of non-battery? I’m sorry, what conclusions are you trying to draw?"
LeftSide, that *particular* study removed certain types like use of knives and weapons (and women are more likely than men to use weapons as other studies show), but I also cited over 200 other studies that confirm the same results even when they look at all forms of violence. You only mention this one study. What about the 32-nation study? What about the 200 others worldwide? The most severe forms of DV, or what some call "domestic terrorism"), are a tiny fraction of DV, just as deaths are. You can't assume what the study would have shown if it included knives, etc. because other studies that include that type of DV still show equal perpetration in the big picture. The only thing they find different is the level of injury. Women suffer more injury than men, but men suffer 1/3 of injuries, and the biggest injury is to children who witness it, regardless of injury levels, so that argument just doesn't work.
Here is the full version of the 32-nation study too.
http : //pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/ID41E2.pdf
This report by the Canadian government recognize the data as well.
http : //www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/familyviolence/pdfs/Intimate_Partner.pdf
The University of Florida recently found women are more likely than men to “stalk, attack and abuse” their partners.
http : //news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/
The University of Washington recently found similar results. http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625111433.htm
University of Pennsylvania Professor Richard Gelles states: 'Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men,' in his article reprinted at http : //www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
Professor Don Dutton of the University of British Columbia has done extensive work on the topic and he totally refutes the myths that women are victimized more than men in DV. He was a prosecutorial witness in the OJ case and has done tons of work on battered women. But he has been speaking out for male victims as well. You should read: Dutton, D., & Corvo, K., 'Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice,' (11) 2006, 457-483, http : //www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf
12:25 pm
"but the truth is that the vast majority of victims seeking services are women."
That's true. Women seek services more than men, for many reasons. That's why male victimization is far more hidden. For decades the problem was framed in a way that neglected and ignored male victims and their children, leaving them with no outreach, few services, and a whole lot of stigmas, which remains very true today.
12:26 pm
Marc A, as Jo pointed out, if all of these studies have similar methodological biases, you can have 200 or 300 of them, and they're still flawed.
12:36 pm
Jo says: MRAs are "not willing to work with DV agencies.
Jo you're extremely ignorant about MRAs. Your whole commentary shows you don't know a thing about them. We work with DV agencies all the time, the ones that are open to change. In L.A. for years we've worked with the Antelope Valley DV Council, which shelters both male and female victims (and which was mistreated by other shelters for doing so). After our successful lawsuit (I was the attorney who filed it) we have been working with the L.A. DV Commission, holding meetins with them and working in committees (before that they were very unwilling to listen at all IMO). We have transported battered men to Valley Oasis and donated money to them. In San Diego we have set up a network to help battered men and are working with shelters who are open to change. This kind of thing is happening all over behind the scenes but of course people like you who don't work with MRA, apparently, have no clue about it. We even set up a national hotline for both male and female victims. Do your research before you say things you know nothing about.
You said: "CA – first state to win their lawsuit. Others failed. Why? They couldn’t prove men were equally victimized – b/c some courts REALIZE self-report studies that don’t inlcude severe violence, homicide, self defense, etc. are SIMPLY CHERRY PICKED. 200 self reports CANNOT COMPARE to 1000s of studies."
Wrong, Jo. Other lawsuits failed solely on the ground of lack of standing, meaning we had used civil rights testers or other types of plaintiffs rather than plaintiffs who needed services at the time they called. That's because it's hard to find male victims who are willing to go public about their denial of services. But when we finally had them, we sued again and we won. It had nothing at all to do with statistics. The courts avoid statistics because they don't know how to interpret them, so in our successful suit they just said our research showed men and women both suffer from DV at significant levels, and they overturned the biased law that excluded men from services. That's all we wanted.
Interesting BTW that feminist groups allowed that law to be there for decades and never did a thing about it.
You said: "They hold up self-report studies to research, crime data, shelter use, police reports, etc. and BELIEVE they have more/better evidence."
Jo, please do your research. Feminists cite the SAME self-report data all the time, from the Department of Justice. The DoJ does a "Crime Victimization Survey" that is totally based on self-reports. And feminists have cited that data for 40 years. They prefer that data to the non-crime data because when the DoJ used crime-based language it lowers the number male responses significantly because society still doesn't see it as a crime. In fact feminists have also cited the sociological data for decades (that's where we get things like, "every 15 seconds a woman is batterd), but they only cited the female victims. As soon as we point out the male victims, THEN feminists suddenly have a problem with the source and start citing phony argument like the CTS objection.
The fact is that the randomized sociological survey data is far more reliable than crime data or shelter data because it captures the hidden violence that isn't reported or isn't deemed a crime.
Seriously Jo, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
12:38 pm
LeftSide says: "Marc A, as Jo pointed out, if all of these studies have similar methodological biases, you can have 200 or 300 of them, and they’re still flawed."
Wrong, LeftSide. They have very different methodologies and they represent the vast majority of existing research out there. Some don't even use the CTS at all. Most do, and it's the same method used by the DoJ that feminists cite all the time.
12:43 pm
Yeah, read Donald Dutton - why don't you read the allegations of sexual harassment by him from a student?
Read Gelles - and Strauss for that matter - both are staunch supporters of the "dv is mutual" propaganda yet BOTH will readily admit women suffer more/more severe. Strauss is so out of touch he told me DV was mutual in GUATEMALA. Yeah, right - a country where women ask men permission to walk out the door. Uh-huh. Idealogue.
These studies find women initiate and use violence as often as men. These studies have picked up COMMON COUPLE VIOLENCE - not battering. HUGE DIFFERENCE, folks.
STory about WEAVE - give specifics so we can research it ourselves. With all the lies, misuse of quotes, cherry pikcing, etc going on I would NEVER believe any claim a MRA makes without researching it myself - which I have done. I contacted Parmley whose quote on Media Radia is out of context --- so unethical it makes me cringe groups like this exist.
Women use DV in self-defense. Mountains of research on that one. Saying it isn't so - doesn't make it go away. Amanda proved it and many others have as well.
200 studies? You got to be kiddin. We've got thousands, buddy. Just how stupid do you think we are? Savor your 200 cherry pioked data and cling to your ideology.
No woman or feminist has ever denied men aren't victims. Au contraire.
We will defend reliable statistics, truth, our limited resources, and integrity ANY DAY. You may get your little gains here and there but you WILL NOT set back gains made for women in reducing violence - anyone that researches your agenda will find out for themselves your true motives ---
MRAs sued 9/10 DV shelters - they got referrals but not beds (even women and children are turned away from shelters) - they lost
MRAS sued several states for discrimination agst men in state statues. They lost, all but CA, b/c they couldn't prove men needed shelters or that statues were discriminatory.
MRAs prevented money from going to pro-bono legal help - the biggest need of battered women. They're just rotten.
MRAs seek to limit restraining orders --- despite the fact that men would need them.
MRAs lobby against VAWA. VAWA gives $5.8 B to DV, rape and stalking - all resources men could access. (To compare, prisons get $60 B in 5 years).
They do more to set back gains for women than they do to help men. Many of them are abusive themselves (Boyle - Fathers4Justice - arrested for child sex abuse; Don
Dutton - charged with sexual harassment; see more at Liz Library).
DONT TRUST THESE GUYS. Reach out to men who work with women as allies - Men Can STop Rape group, etc.
12:52 pm
Marc A. I know who you are. You're Marc Angelucci. I know all about the MRAs, their lawsuits, your cherry picked data with study limitations, your angry men that lose the case more than the studies themselves. I know who you are. And I have done my research.
Your letter to the editor got published in the Post. And you know what, my letter refuting these false claims got printed too - right above yours.
I know who you are.
I know your hell bent journey to smash cherry picked data down our throats and demand us to see men as the "real victims."
I work with men. They don't agree with you either. They get angry that FRs and MRAs try to say they speak for "all men." They get angry MRAs deny men's violence towards women.
YOu don't represent men. Nor children who witness violence.
You represent angry men that want to see women's gains rolled back.
I know who you are and what your real agenda is - and it's frightening.
12:53 pm
Abyss2hope,
There is no incorrect assumption as it was never stated that men do not use such methods. It was stated that women often use such methods to kill. I agree that all unmeasured domestic violence murders should be looked at, including whether women have murdered men and disposed of their bodies or the number of male suicides. The issue is whether people are willing to consider acts committed by women as domestic violence, particularly in light of the attitudes people, researchers and police have regarding female-perpetrated violence.
Jo,
You can read the amicus brief from the Woods v Shewry case online. By the way, you stated that no woman or feminist has ever denied men are not victims after you stated "Women use DV in self-defense." Unless you add a caveat to that, you just stated that men cannot be victims of domestic violence. That may have been unintentional, but it is what you stated.
12:55 pm
Things obviously have gotten more complicated since the Dixie Chicks wrote "Goodbye Earl."
1:02 pm
Jo: "Donald Dutton – why don’t you read the allegations of sexual harassment by him from a student?"
Oh there was an allegation and that means all his extenstive work is wrong? I guess even his work on battered women was wrong too, right? Amazing, Jo.
Jo: "Read Gelles – and Strauss for that matter – both are staunch supporters of the “dv is mutual” propaganda yet BOTH will readily admit women suffer more/more severe.
We all agree women suffer more injury, Jo. That's because, unlike you feminists, we're honest and we care about truth rather than ideology and spin. But we point out that men are injured in high numbers too and that the biggest damage is to children regardless of injuries. Do you deny that?
"Strauss is so out of touch he told me DV was mutual in GUATEMALA. Yeah, right – a country where women ask men permission to walk out the door. Uh-huh. Idealogue."
The research shows men and women initiate DV in all 32 countries studied whether rich or poor. It shatters the myth that men are more violent in relationships. They aren't, even in so called "patriarchical" societies. The research shows women even in those societies are just as controlling as men are in relationships. And you haven't shown anything to the contrary.
"These studies find women initiate and use violence as often as men. These studies have picked up COMMON COUPLE VIOLENCE – not battering. HUGE DIFFERENCE, folks."
Not true. They include all different types of DV. Straus et al and many others found 1/4 of the violence in hetero relationships is female-only, 1/4 male only, and half mutual, and within the mutual group, even by women's own admissions, women were as likely to initiate DV as men were. Read the Gelles article. He explains it in detail. That's over 10 years of federally funded research. Feminists cited that research alot, but they only cited the female victims. As soon as we cite the male victims, suddenly you have a problem with the reserach. Truly amazing.
Jo said: "STory about WEAVE – give specifics so we can research it ourselves. With all the lies, misuse of quotes, cherry pikcing, etc going on I would NEVER believe any claim a MRA makes without researching it myself – which I have done. I contacted Parmley whose quote on Media Radia is out of context — so unethical it makes me cringe groups like this exist."
I'm the attorney who sued WEAVE. They denied David and his daughter services because he's a male. Later on they changed policy. After our lawsuit they invited our expert, John Hamel, to train them on gender inclusive treatment and on the accurate DV statistics. They changed their name (but kept the acronym) so that "women" was left out and men were included. They even created a page on male victims and they created a 1st-time group session for male victims. In a recent issue of Partner Abuse their spokesperson admitted it had been a problem for a long time.
"Women use DV in self-defense. Mountains of research on that one."
Absolutely false. Even by women's admissions they were as likely to initiate DV as men were. And studies that looked into self defense, like the big Carado study in England and others, totally disprove that argument.
"Contrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we reexamined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men."
"The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999, The Women's Quarterly, re-printed with the author's permission at http: // http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
Professor John Archer further explains:
“It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating the attack. (Bland & Orn. 1986; DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird. 1989. cited in Straus. 1997) or that the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both women and men report using physical aggression when the partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988). This evidence does not support the view that the CTS is only measuring women’s self-defense."
"Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin," Sept. 2000. v. 126, n. 5, p. 651, 664.
Subsequent research asked about motives and self-defense and found self-defense is only a small percentage of the violence by either sex. For example, one of the largest studies ever done in England found not only equal perpetration by gender but that men and women assaulted their partners for the same reasons, most often “to get through to them,” while self-defense was one of the least common motives for both sexes and men were hitting in self-defense slightly more often than women were. Carrado, “Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships: A Descriptive Analysis, Aggressive Behavior,” 1996, 22: 401-415.
California State University surveyed 1,000 college women: 30% admitted they assaulted a male partner. Their most common reasons: (1) my partner wasn’t listening to me; (2) my partner wasn’t being sensitive to my needs; and (3) I wished to gain my partner's attention. Martin Fiebert, Ph.D., Denise Gonzalez, Ph.D., “Why Women Assault; College Women Who Initiate Assaults on their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior,” 1997, Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590, http : //www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm.
Professor Don Dutton further refutes the self-defense myth. See Dutton, D., & Corvo, K., "Transforming a flawed policy: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice," (11) 2006, 457-483 http : //www.nfvlrc.org/docs/DuttonCorvo.policypaper.pdf
Joe: "200 studies? You got to be kiddin. We’ve got thousands, buddy."
Oh I've heard that before. Not true. Show me proof of that, "buddy." That always comes from people who have no clue what they're talking about. Those 200 (now almost 300) studies are the bulk of existing independent research. What you have is crime data and shelter data, neither of which are reliable at all.
"Just how stupid do you think we are? Savor your 200 cherry pioked data and cling to your ideology."
Not stupid, but extremely igrnorant. It is you who cherry picks the data. You feminists cite the same data we cite UNTIL we pointed out the same studies show the same number of male victims, THEN you change to crime data. It is YOU who cherry pick. Do your research.
Jo said: "No woman or feminist has ever denied men aren’t victims. Au contraire."
And we don't claim you do. You're putting words in our mouths.
Joe: "MRAs sued 9/10 DV shelters – they got referrals but not beds (even women and children are turned away from shelters) – they lost:"
That's right we lost *that* one ONLY on jurisdictional "standing" grounds, NOT on the merits and later when we refiled we won. Also women are not turned away due to GENDER. Men are turned away due to GENDER even if they otherwise qualify.
"MRAS sued several states for discrimination agst men in state statues. They lost, all but CA, b/c they couldn’t prove men needed shelters or that statues were discriminatory."
Wrong again, Jo. MRAs just recently won in West Virginia. Do your research. You don't know what you're talking about.
"MRAs prevented money from going to pro-bono legal help – the biggest need of battered women. They’re just rotten."
I never heard anything about that. Did you get that from your feminist friends too?
Joe: "MRAs seek to limit restraining orders — despite the fact that men would need them."
We seek to create a higher standard for denying people's access to their kids, yes, because both men and women are abusing restraining orders alot to block access to kids.
Joe: "MRAs lobby against VAWA. VAWA gives $5.8 B to DV, rape and stalking – all resources men could access. (To compare, prisons get $60 B in 5 years)."
MRAS lobby for VAWA *REROFM*. We had to fight like crazy just to get a gender neutrality clause in there, and feminist groups opposed it. Amazing. Did you know the Native American part of VAWA totally excludes Indian men?
"They do more to set back gains for women than they do to help men. Many of them are abusive themselves (Boyle – Fathers4Justice – arrested for child sex abuse; Don
Dutton – charged with sexual harassment; see more at Liz Library)."
That's just another personal attack, non-substantive, which is just typical. We don't "roll back" gains, we advocate for EQUAL TREATMENT, truth, and fairness, as oppoed to sexism, ideology and discrimination like you do.
1:08 pm
Joe: "Marc A. I know who you are. You’re Marc Angelucci.":
Wow Jo you got something correct!
Joe: "I know all about the MRAs, their lawsuits, your cherry picked data with study limitations, your angry men that lose the case more than the studies themselves. I know who you are. And I have done my research."
No your obviously haven't. You say things that show 100% reactive ignorance.
"Your letter to the editor got published in the Post. And you know what, my letter refuting these false claims got printed too – right above yours."
I've published tons of LTEs so I don't know which one you mean, but I'd love to see yours because I'd refute it right back.
"I know who you are."
Good.
Joe: "I know your hell bent journey to smash cherry picked data down our throats and demand us to see men as the “real victims.”"
Yes, we're hell bent on getting the truth out and advocating for equal treatment of male victims and their kids.
Jo: "I work with men. They don’t agree with you either."
Well I work with me, and yes they do. I'm not surprised if the ones *you* talk to don't, since they would only hear your one-sided biased versions of reality.
Joe: "They get angry that FRs and MRAs try to say they speak for “all men.”" They get angry MRAs deny men’s violence towards women."
I know plenty of women who get angry when feminists claim they speak for all women. The truth is neither side claims to speak for "all" men or "all" women. We advocate for male victims and their kids, and for men's equal rights. And we have lots of women on our side, just as you have alot of men on your side.
"YOu don’t represent men. Nor children who witness violence."
Uh, yes I do. I have represented a number of them.
"You represent angry men that want to see women’s gains rolled back.
Wrong again. {sigh]
"I know who you are and what your real agenda is – and it’s frightening."
If equal rights is frightening to you, then it's YOUR agenda that's frightening.
1:22 pm
You never change. How a lawyer can spend so much time refuting every single minute detail on a comment board (and just about every comment board there is on
DV) and blaming all problems on the "evil feminists" is beyond me. It's very, very sad. Out of touch with reality? I'd challenge anybody that agrees with you to volunteer at a DV agency and see for themselves what it's really about. Come out of your idealogical bunkers.
1:25 pm
Why don't you try working at the Men's Legal Center or the battered men's shelter in Yreka, CA and open your own ideological eyes. I guess equal rights is "ideologicalal" to you.
1:37 pm
Toysoldier responded to my comment with: "There is no incorrect assumption as it was never stated that men do not use such methods. It was stated that women often use such methods to kill."
This does actively promote an incorrect assumption. Women's actions were cited as the reason for not having accurate DV murder statistics and that is wrong by the ommission of men who take similar actions. If what you are after is accuracy then you wouldn't have focused only on women who murder their partners or ex-partners and get away with that murder.
2:42 pm
Oh for crying out loud, the author of this article and the feminists who respond to it IMO are reprehensible.
Using your logic, since women are only 5% of workplace deaths we should just ignore death of women in the workplace. Or at the very least, minimize their deaths and focus almost exclusively on men.
Etc.
Look people, who cares whether women are victims or perps of DV more than men, or the same for men. This whole p-ssing match misses the point: What we should be doing is trying to prevent DV from occurring in the first place. Once DV occurs, it's too late.
The only way to meaningfully address DV is to address who the perps are, and since the valid peer-reviewed research shows unequivocally that both women and men are aggressors, we need to suck it up and admit to ourselves that 1) women can and to perp DV; 2) we need to stop excusing women's DV and aggression and stop scapegoating men, 3) start treating men with the same sensitivity and compassion as we do women now, and 4) start dealing with female perps as harshly as we currently do men.
In other words, we need to treat men and women the same. What's so hard about that to understand? I thought that's what feminists were all about? I know that's what MRAs are all about; I've been one for decades.
3:01 pm
The ONLY way to become an MRA or FRA is to either:
1. Be forced by the court to pay child support.
2. Be accused of child sexual abuse
3. She got "YOUR" house in the divorce settlement.
4. You got caught for perpetrating violence against her and the kids.
3:11 pm
Mary Lou,
For me you're incorrect on all counts.
If you're a typical example of a feminist, then it's no wonder that feminism has earned the classification as either a secular religion or a hate movement. That's the only way to view your extreme knee-jerk response.
People like you are the problem.
3:17 pm
My own ideaological eyes? Funny, because all the lectures, conferences, volunteer work, etc. that I go to mention that men can be victims. It is, however, incredibly difficult to find info on female victims on any of the MRA, FR, Media Radar sites.
There are these common threads that you find:
All the news articles and discussion focus on female-on-male violence
Nobody discusses male violence
Nobody mentions men pose the greatest threat to men
They oppose groups like the UN, Amnesty, the ABA etc. because they don't agree with their ideaology
They are Angry at women and feminists in particular
Feminists are the cause of all social ills
Only feminists work in domestic violence - not men, not people that don't label themselves as a feminist
Like Marc A, they call those that disagree "ignorant" and not doing any "research" - arrogant, patronizing remarks that come from a guy that spends WAY too much time on comment boards
They ram info down our throat and dont stop until the board is saturated with their propaganda
They cite highly selective data
They claim we point out limitations of self-report surveys when we see fit - in reality, all scholars and researchers admit to limitations - even when it doesn't agree with their ideology. Nothing wrong with self-report - in & of itself- problem is when all your evidence is stacked with it. Anyone with an elementary education would know SELF REPORT will have limitations. And for a more detailed understanding, they can go to Dr. Michael Flood's XY ONline site - there is a whole list of limitations with this data. And notice how they slam police reports, shelter use, etc. ONLY THEY _ THE GREAT AND ALMIGHTY MRAs HAVE THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE. I think they've seen too many sci-fi movies.
3:49 pm
Mr. Bad,
Sorry, but I'm just not buying it. MRAs make a point of cherry-picking data to try to deny that abuse against women is a problem. On this very blog, when women try to discuss what has happened to them or what it's like to be an actual or potential victim, we get a whole crop of MRAs saying:
"It wasn't REAL rape."
"You people who weren't FORCIBLY raped aren't being fair to REAL rape victims."
"You people could find rape in a bowl of alphabet soup."
"You're just crying RAAAAYYYYYYYYYYYYYPE"
"There are so many false rape accusations!"
"It's not rape if he thought she wanted it."
"Real victims stay silent, so you can't possibly be a real victim."
And on and on and on.
Why is it that the MRAs never say anything like, "I'm so sorry for what you're going through...something like that happened to my brother and I know how hard it was for him."
Nope. Just doesn't happen. We just get told that our experiences don't matter.
On this site, when a woman tells of being raped, MRAs pop up and say, "you probably enjoyed it," "that's just gray rape," "how do we know what you were drinking or doing," etc., etc.
However, this blog and many others (and commenters therein) have a lot of positive things to say for support when men talk about their experiences and why they need help (as opposed to people who say things along the lines of, "happens to everybody...shut up!")
Observe the behavior of the feminists on this site (on a post about Lil Wayne's rape as a child) when men talk about their experiences:
http://www.feministing.com/archives/014813.html
"Thank you for sharing this."
"That is terrible - I am so sorry to hear it. It always makes me so sad when I see that men who suffer from sexual assault are not treated with respect."
"It is very much rape, no doubt.
It's sickening that people think that males CANNOT be raped by females, because of course, guys MUST love it! People won't take male rape seriously-- unless he was raped by a dude."
"A guy friend of mine said that women can't rape men because a man has to become hard for any sex to occur. I told him this wasn't the case, because someone can get aroused without wanting to."
3:49 pm
Looks like Mary Lou has been visiting the MRA/FRs forums. You must have a strong stomach, Mary Lou! I visit and get sick to my stomach at their hate and misguided anger. How about when they rationalize murder - oh, she deserved it - the family court lead him to murder the kids - etc. It's not for the timid.
3:50 pm
Wrong, Mary Lou. I've been an MRA for over 10 years and I've never had any of those things happen to me. I saw my friend denied services when he was assaulted for years by his drunk wife. I happen to believe in fairness. And there are many others.
When people have nothing left of substance to say, they resort to personal attacks and ad homs. That's exactly what you're doing.
3:52 pm
"How about when they rationalize murder – oh, she deserved it – the family court lead him to murder the kids – etc."
Oh and feminists don't rationalize murder? Try reading the latest issue of Psychology Today in which a feminist justifies Clara Harris' murder of her husband because he was cheating, like they would ever support men killing their wives for cheating.
3:55 pm
"MRAs make a point of cherry-picking data to try to deny that abuse against women is a problem.J"
You keep turning reality right on its head. Very few MRAs deny that abuse against women is a problem. But lots of feminist deny that abuse against men is a significant problem.
"Why is it that the MRAs never say anything like, “I’m so sorry for what you’re going through…something like that happened to my brother and I know how hard it was for him.”"
I have seen MRAs say that alot. And how about feminists? When do they say that? About as often as MRAs say it.
4:03 pm
"all the lectures, conferences, volunteer work, etc. that I go to mention that men can be victims. It is, however, incredibly difficult to find info on female victims on any of the MRA, FR, Media Radar sites."
Not true. What we do is we cite the data for both male and female victims. It's all over the NCFM site, for instance. What we don't do is intentionally choose crime data just to lower the figures for male victims, like you do.
"Like Marc A, they call those that disagree “ignorant” and not doing any “research”"
No, I call "ignorant" people who display ignorance in their comments, like your comments about how MRAs don't work with services (wrong), or your very ignorant comments about the data. And you don't make personal attacks, Jo? About half of your comments are personal attacks. Then you accuse of of that. Amazing, Jo.
"arrogant, patronizing remarks that come from a guy that spends WAY too much time on comment boards"
Another personal, non-substantive attack that isn't even true. I haven't even been on one for a while before this one. As though it were relevant anyway. Amazing!
"They ram info down our throat and dont stop until the board is saturated with their propaganda.
"They cite highly selective data""
Yeah, research by the University of Florida, Washington, New Hampshire and others, and by CDC researchers, is "propaganda" and highly selective. Amazing, Jo!!
"Dr. Michael Flood’s XY ONline site – there is a whole list of limitations with this data."
Oh, and *we're* the ones selecting data when we cite major university research and you cite feminists like Michael Flood who have been thoroughly refuted by many experts like Don Dutton of University of British Columbia? *We're* the ones "selecting data"? Amazing!
"And notice how they slam police reports, shelter use, etc. ONLY THEY _ THE GREAT AND ALMIGHTY MRAs HAVE THE TRUE KNOWLEDGE. I think they’ve seen too many sci-fi movies."
No, we show the totally unreliability of them because they only capture a fraction of DV, that which is reported, as opposed to much more reliable randomized sociological data.
4:18 pm
Marc, I'm already bored with your comments, so I'm not reading them. Do you really have so much time to spend on comment boards? I know you're going to power-drive your message in. I always get suspicious when somebody chooses to HAMMER a message home.
---
This is not an argument about whether or not DV is mutual. Highly credible organizations like the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and such state DV is 85- 15. If you think MRAS can power-drive their message into our "ignorant" minds - well, you keep butting your stubborn heads. I prefer my data from credible organizaitons, not angry men.
As far as the problem goes with saying, "Okay, just for kicks, let's say DV is mutual" - well, first off you have to believe that's what MRAs want - check out this analysis - http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/info/custody-abuse/fathers-rights/fathers-rights-and-violence-against-women
See, because, our 1st problem is that now cops are arresting victims when men claim DV is mutual. Not saying there are no female perps, but there is data on victim arrest or dual arrest. Arresting women is what they want. See, men innocent, women evil.
Second is they want to take resources away from women. WE only get $5.8 B over 5 years for DV, rape & stalking. Men can get these services too - call any of these local community centers in your area.
Third is that they refute the claim that gender has anything to do with DV. They deny patriarchy, control, etc. No doubt things like mental illness, drinking, etc. play a role. No doubt patriarchy and control do too.
Fourth and most important is that their REAL AGENDA is to roll back gains for women. You have to research this to understand it b/c they'll deny it - see Dr. Michael Flood - XY Online, Stop Family Violence, etc. These groups are also referred to as the "abusers lobby" - that's b/c many of them have charges, convictions against them (see: Liz Library). Not all - but many. You'll see if you research them how much they hate women. Visit their forums. But I"ll warn you- it's not for the faint-hearted.
4:46 pm
Jo: "Marc, I’m already bored with your comments, so I’m not reading them."
Oh I'm so sorry you're "bored" by facts and refutation of your comments. I guess personal attacks are more fun for people like you.
Joe: "Do you really have so much time to spend on comment boards?
Joe, I'm spending about as much time on this board as you are. I could ask the same of your.
Joe: "I know you’re going to power-drive your message in. I always get suspicious when somebody chooses to HAMMER a message home."
Oh, "power drive." When I respond with facts you call it "power drive." Wow that's a great argument, Jo.
Jo: "This is not an argument about whether or not DV is mutual.
Yes it is, in part.
Joe: "Highly credible organizations like the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and such state DV is 85- 15."
And those organizations are citing crime-based data in order to get those numbers. They ignore that federally-funded National Family Violence Survey and all the other sociological data that the Canadian government and objective researchers recognize.
Jo: "If you think MRAS can power-drive their message into our “ignorant” minds – well, you keep butting your stubborn heads."
Of course you're not interested in objective data. You're interested in your gender-drive ideology. So of course you won't care. But more and more researchers are speaking out, and little by little, yes, Jo, it's getting known within the scientific community. Go to the National Domestic Violence Legislative Resource Center and see for yourself. Little by little objectivity will prevail over ideology.
Jo: "I prefer my data from credible organizaitons, not angry men."
Right, your prefer not to pay attention to major universities, the Canadian government, CDC researchers, the American Psychiatric Association, and "angry" sources like that.
Jo: "See, because, our 1st problem is that now cops are arresting victims when men claim DV is mutual."
No, your problem is that cops are arresting women...period. You're the ones who wanted mandatory arrest, and that increased female arrests by more than 300%. And now you don't like that. So you're doing all you can to change it and pretending you're not gender biased.
Jo: "Not saying there are no female perps, but there is data on victim arrest or dual arrest. Arresting women is what they want. See, men innocent, women evil."
No, exactly the opposite. You feminists have for 40 years pushed a man-bad/woman-good mentality.
Jo: "Second is they want to take resources away from women."
False. We want equal treatment, that's all. How does that "take away" from women? Would you support having a "Men's Occupational Safety and Health Act" and even excluding women from job safety laws because 92% of job deaths happen to men? Somehow I doubt it.
Jo: "Third is that they refute the claim that gender has anything to do with DV. They deny patriarchy, control, etc. No doubt things like mental illness, drinking, etc. play a role. No doubt patriarchy and control do too."
No. We agree that women are physically injured more. But we don't agree that that justifies ignoring and downplaying female-on-male DV, especially since men are injured too and children are hurt just by seeing it. And yes, we do deny that most DV is based on patriarchy, because that's exactly what objective research shows.
Jo: "Fourth and most important is that their REAL AGENDA is to roll back gains for women."
False. That's just another persoal attack by you. Our agenda is equal rights.
4:50 pm
you are too much
4:55 pm
BTW current Centers For Disease Control data is not 85/15. The Violence Against Women Survey, co-sponsored by the CDC, found at least 36% of heterosecual DV is against men. More specifically, they found 1.5M women and over 800,000 men are victims of DV in heterosexual relationships nationwide every year.
We cite that all the time even though it's partly crime-based and thus too low especially for men. We cite it though because it still shows female-on-male is very significant and needs to be addressed.
The CDC's own data (apart from the VAWA report) found:
Each year, women experience about 4.8 million intimate partner related physical assaults and rapes. Men are the victims of about 2.9 million intimate partner related physical assaults. IPV resulted in 1,510 deaths in 2005. Of these deaths, 78% were females and 22% were males."
http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/IPV_factsheet-a.pdf
Those figures appear to include same-sex violence, but since lesbian DV is at least as common as male-on-male DV, removing same-sex DV cannot lower the percentage for male victims.
5:08 pm
See, some media is slowing starting to get it. These are just a few examples.
BBC, “Male Abuse is Being Ignored,” http : //news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/health/newsid_7878000/7878698.stm
Science Daily, “Male And Female Adolescents Equally Victims Of Physical Dating Violence, Study Shows,” http : //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071109210657.htm
Finance Daily, “A Hidden Crime: Domestic Violence Against Men is a Growing Problem,” (excellent article, cites the 50/50 data)
http : //www.dailyfinance.com/story/a-hidden-crime-domestic-violence-against-men-is-a-growing-probl/19297449/
In Michigan, police say 30% of DV arrests are now women,” http : //hometownlife.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071025/NEWS11/710250724/1028
Scotland, “110 increase in domestic abuse against men,”
http : //www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2466661
5:27 pm
Jo,
All of those things that you mention that MRAs ignore are covered extensively by society at large, so what would be the point of MRAs doing so as well? MRAs are interested in issues that get coverage nowhere else. If we didn't address our issues, nobody would.
LSP,
This is my first time here so I don't have any experience with your crop of MRAs, but I'll take your words at face value. However, where I come from none of us dismiss rape, violence, etc., as legitimate issues, let alone say things like "you must have liked it," etc. In fact, on one BB that I moderate, making blanket statements about women is grounds for banning, and while criticizing feminism and feminists is A-OK, we require substantiation and don't tolerate unsubstantiated criticism. We call-out everybody, feminists and other MRAs on that sort of thing.
I'm in my 50s and have known one woman who was raped (30 years ago), so I know what a terrible thing it is. She was a good friend of mine and I spent a long time with her trying to help her get through it, so I've seen the pain firsthand. However, I also know that false rape allegations are much higher than most people realize and very much higher than what feminists admit to, so when an allegation is a "he said/she said" event (i.e., he denies a rape occurred) with no corroborating witnesses I approach them with the skepticism required by the tenet "innocent until proven guilty." If that makes me a 'rape denier' than so be it, but IMO it's not a fair characterization.
What I have found to be the case is feminists coming onto our BB and pretending to be MRAs, making all kinds of remarks as you describe, and eventually getting themselves banned just to make MRAs look bad. Perhaps that's what you have going on here?
As for offering up Feministing as a rational, reasonable web site: You've got to be kidding me.
I don't care to argue about these things. As I said before, this p-ssing match misses the point entirely. We should care about all victims of DV equally, as well as address female perps, no matter how small a proportion of the total they comprise. To do otherwise is to ignore the minority, something I thought that feminists et al. were against.
5:41 pm
YAWN@ this thread of women bashing misogynists...you are a disgrace to REAL men everywhere!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
5:47 pm
No, asking for equal rights is not a disgrace to anyone. Your personal attacks are just like Jo's, typical of something with little of substance to say.
The MR movement is growing nationwide and in every continent, because men are human too and deserve equal rights too. And there are many women joining us too, women who care about the men in their lives.
INDIA
http : //timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/chandigarh/Harassed-men-kin-to-hit-streets/articleshow/5079028.cms
http : //www.telegraphindia.com/1090817/jsp/nation/story_11368453.jsp
http : //www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/harassed-husbands-plan- struggle-against-biased-laws_100232981.html
http : //timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/4859757.cms
http : //www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20071203&fname=Husband+(F)&sid=1
http : //timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Chennai/Mens_groups_rise_against_DVA_misuse/articleshow/3391362.cms http : //www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1190494
http : //in.news.yahoo.com/43/20080625/812/tnl-as-renuka-fights-for-women-men-alleg.html
MEXICO (men’s rights march in Mexico City)
http : //www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZcIL93nTOY
KENYA
"Battered Men Emerge From Cacoons of Silence," http : //ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=20858
"1.4M Men Suffer Domestic Abuse" http : //www.africanews.com/site/Kenya_15m_men_suffer_domestic_abuse/list_messages/25041
"1.5M Men Battered by Wives"
http : //www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/602726/-/item/0/-/6313roz/-/index.html
ENGLAND
http : //www.iht.com/articles/2005/09/14/opinion/edtaylor.php
IRELAND
Irish Times, "Marchers draw attention to plight of fathers denied access to their children"
http : //www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1222/1229728440856.html
JAPAN
http : //www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,562400,00.html?test=latestnews
UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
http : //www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-u-of-c-mens-groupmay19,0,4707353.story
AUSTRALIA
"Discrimination commissioner to champion men's rights" http : //www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,24289828-953,00.html
NORWAY
"Men to Discuss Men's Rights" http : //www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1924493.ece
MOROCCO
http : //en.afrik.com/article16241.html
Malta
http : //ec.europa.eu/justice_home/news/consulting_public/fundamental_rights_agency/doc/contribution_ass_mens_rights_en.pdf
ALPHA PHI ALPHA (Black fraternity wants White House Council on Men and Boys)
http : //apa1906.net/PressNewsDetails.php?newsID=90&newsCat=Press%20Release
5:52 pm
Mr. Bad, that was exactly my point--Feministing is one of the most opinionated & outspoken websites I know of, and EVEN THERE the women were very kind and respectful of men who had bad experiences.
6:41 pm
Good grief.... why on earth is there so much argy-bargy about the numbers of male and female victims? It's because the MRA's and FR's movements have a vested interest in downplaying the role that men play in murdering their wives and children which includes ex-wives and ex-girlfriends.
For those of us who don't have a hidden agenda to juggle with, it's quite simple, there are many more men who commit the crimes then kill themselves than women do.
Forget who initiated behaviour that could be categorised as conflictual. Even if ALL the women slapped, kicked, thumped their partners, and threw cups, saucers, frying pans at them - it does not, I repeat, it does not, justify any woman and child being murdered.
Face it guys. You commit murder against women and against other men far more often than women do - far more often. Those are the statistical facts.
And if MRA's and FR's were really interested in seeking equality and human rights for both sexes, they'd be working towards measures to tackle the insiduous problem of male on female and child violence. But they don't, do they?
6:45 pm
Abyss2hope,
It would be wrong by omission if I stated or implied that men could not or did not commit such acts. What I stated was that those particular methods of killing someone are methods women often use. All I am suggesting is that we look at the methods we know women statistically use to kill others and then examine whether or not those murders resulted from those women's violence against their male partners. Of course, even if we were to find that a larger percentage of female-perpetrated murders resulted from domestic violence, that would in no way demonstrate the overall rate of domestic violence against men. The two are unrelated, so arguing otherwise is little more than trying to change subject.
LeftSidePositive,
Observe the behavior of the feminists on this site when they discuss the media coverage of sexual violence against boys. The point is not that there are not feminists who claim they are concerned for male victims or those who clearly do not care at all. The point is that one rarely sees any feminist supporting actual organizations that provide services or promote awareness for male victims. That is the issue. What would be great to see from feminists is for them to link to organizations that provide services specifically for male victims like 1in6, The Men's Project and MaleSurvivor. That would go a long way in demonstrating that feminists are simply opposed to a different political group rather than opposing helping male victims, which is the situation as it stands now.
6:58 pm
Shivers, according to the FBI crime reports women (specifically mothers) are responsible the majority of child abuse and child murder. Curiously, one rarely sees feminists addressing female-on-male and female-on-child violence at all.
Considering that preventing any abuse is an admirable thing, what difference should it make who pushes for advocacy? I may not personally agree with feminism and may not choose to associate with feminists, but I do not degrade and demonize helping women just to criticize biased feminist activism. I find helping female victims incredibly important and I do not care who agrees with me on that. I do not want anyone to experience what I went through for any reason. My focus is on male victims simply because so little is done for them and I know far more abused males than females.
It is a shame that feminists seem to value their beliefs more than they do other human beings (who apparently have the misfortune of possessing the wrong genitals).
7:18 pm
Toysoldier wrote: "It is a shame that feminists seem to value their beliefs more than they do other human beings (who apparently have the misfortune of possessing the wrong genitals)."
Yet this failure to value other human beings based on which genitals they have applies to many MRAs and their positions related to SV and DV. An example comes from Mr. Bad's statement (#77):
"I also know that false rape allegations are much higher than most people realize and very much higher than what feminists admit to, so when an allegation is a “he said/she said” event (i.e., he denies a rape occurred) with no corroborating witnesses I approach them with the skepticism required by the tenet “innocent until proven guilty.”"
This skepticism is not required by any constitutional right. Mr. Bad believes -- not knows -- that false rape allegations are very much higher and then uses that bias without apology. Since he doesn't deny "he said/she said" rapes he knows his approach allows many rapists to get away with rape and is fine with this outcome.
7:32 pm
Abyss2Hope wrote (#84):
85 percent of rape allegations in the United States are dismissed by prosecutors and juries, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Are they protecting a defendant's freedom from unjust incarceration, or is it all just one conspiracy of bias?
7:46 pm
Women appear to abuse children more than men because of the simple fact that they have, and continue to be the main primary caregivers.
But in fact, that data is not correct, it is men, and in particular, the fathers (not mom's boyfriend like it is so popular to believe) of these children that cause the most injury and fatality. This is alarming and noted by researchers due to the low numbers of men taking care of children.
7:50 pm
John Dias, when you conflate not having evidence to prove someone guilty with proving that the original report is false then everything you write about the criminal justice system becomes non-credible.
A side effect of our legal system of innocent until proven guilty is that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove guilt and not on the defense attorney to prove innocence. I shouldn't need to tell you that this means that an unknown number of guilty people go free.
I suspect you are also throwing in rape cases where the suspect cannot be identified or found.
If you believe in the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty then the only number which you can reliably count toward the rate of fraudulent reports is the number of convictions against those who reported rape.
7:51 pm
If MRAs, or any group rather, can show that men and women are equal perpetrators of domestic violence then the next step is to say that women are causing men to kill them...then again, they already do that. Does or will proving d.v. parity stop the mass killings of women and children? If so, then fine, FINE.
8:48 pm
Toysoldier said, "according to the FBI crime reports women (specifically mothers) are responsible the majority of child abuse and child murder."
This is cherry picking extraordinaire. You forgot to add that biological mothers who kill their children are represented slightly higher than their fathers IN THE AGE GROUP OF 12 MONTHS OR UNDER ONLY. At any other age group, it is fathers and live-in boyfriends that commit the crimes at higher levels than mothers.
And before FBI reports should be quoted, child abuse and murder need to be separated.
Also, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to work out that in proportion to levels of care (eg: contact time) mothers and fathers are almost polarised. It is almost incomparable to rate the levels of abuse and murder perpetrated by fathers as opposed by their mothers when levels of care are taken into consideration. The results are extremely polarised.
8:58 pm
John Dias, said, "85 percent of rape allegations in the United States are dismissed by prosecutors and juries, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics."
This figure is more about interpretations of the definition of rape by men, women, the law and the judicial system overall than it is about men actually being innocent of the crime. 2003 figures in my state saw +$3,000 rapes reported, 786 went to court, 100 were found "guilty as charged". It is well known throughout the judicial system that the first interview with police can cause a rape charge to be dropped. Doesn't mean he didn;t do it as it's researched that police inform the woman that her burden of proof is shaky and is unlikely to win a long, painful court process. That is entirely different to him being innocent of the crime.
But here, last year, rape laws changed. The burden of proof is now on the perpetrator to prove that he had unquestionable consent. This is in response to perpetrators who claim the victim to have been asleep, drunk, or others incoherent. In other words, to stop them using the "she didn't say no" defence. The message is: Men, you just cannot assume to take what you want, when you want it." If she can't or won't say yes, walk away.
9:09 pm
Toysoldier--the women on that post were upset because the quote said that rape was *especially* damaging for a male. I read the first thirty or so posts, and I didn't see anything where anyone discounted a man's experience or belittled the idea of men being raped. They objected to the fact that the quote seemed to say that women's trauma in rape is less severe.
11:29 pm
"Face it guys. You commit murder against women and against other men far more often than women do – far more often. Those are the statistical facts."
But murder is a tiny fraction of DV, and women commit as much DV as men do, and the biggest damage is to children who witness it. You narrow it down to murders just because you're so bent on genderizing the issue. That's how feminists are. It needs to be a man-bad/woman-good thing or they'll have no part in it. Then they blame MRAS for pointing out that women are as violent as men in relationships, and they get irate when we dare to cite the overwhelming research that proves this.
"And if MRA’s and FR’s were really interested in seeking equality and human rights for both sexes, they’d be working towards measures to tackle the insiduous problem of male on female and child violence. But they don’t, do they?"
We work toward measures that are gender-inclusive, and we oppose measures that are gender-exclusive and discriminatory. We oppose sex discrimination. Period. And we support fair and equitable policies that include everyone and that don't downplay victims based on their sex. You, on the other hand, support the opposite. That's why MRAS are growing all over the world, as I showed above. And that's why you're so upset about it. Your gender-driven ideology is being threatened.
12:48 am
Marc A., it couldn't possibly have anything to do with the fact that murder results in people being dead, now could it?
It's totally out of the realm of possibility that a group of people would observe that people are dying and conclude that this might be a big deal?
Really...as violent?! Don't you think violence exists in some pretty wide degrees? That is, a child seeing his mother slap his father might not be as traumatized as he would be seeing his mother be choked, sent to the hospital, and forced to leave home...
Do you think that a drunk guy in a barfight is as violent as an axe murderer?
Trying to sweep away women's experiences being injured and murdered by their intimate partner by giving a lot of stats that amount to "Well sometimes women throw things!!" isn't really convincing...
1:01 am
MRA's aren't growing in numbers, they're just like pedophiles and linking up by the internet.
It's the same old guys that have been around for years and years drumming up anger, bitterness and violence.
It must be extremely frustrating for you losing control all over again.
1:07 am
LMAO at Marc A for posting a list of news articles he says is indicative of the growing force of MRA's and most articles are several years old!!
Sure Marc everyone is listening the angry men who don't want to pay child support and want the right to bear arms and bash their wives. You really have a lot of credibility...NOT!!!
Still laughing.
1:14 am
"Marc A., it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the fact that murder results in people being dead, now could it?"
No that's certainly not your actual motive, because even minor DV by either sex can lead to a killing, and non-fatal DV is what is perpetuating the cycle of DV because children are witnessing it. It's all tied together. But of course you need to genderize it so, when it comes to gender, you focus on killings. Of course you'd never downplay any violence when it's male-on-female, only when it's female-on-male can it be downplayed simply because there wasn't a death.
"Really…as violent?! Don’t you think violence exists in some pretty wide degrees? That is, a child seeing his mother slap his father might not be as traumatized as he would be seeing his mother be choked, sent to the hospital, and forced to leave home…"
Again, suddenly some violence is ok to downplay to you, as long as it's committed by women. If a man slaps hiis wife in front of his kids, you wouldn't dowplay that for a second. And since one-third of physical injuries happen to men I don't see how you can downplay it based on injuries to begin with.
1:18 am
"MRA’s aren’t growing in numbers, they’re just like pedophiles and linking up by the internet."
Oh that's a good one. More personal attacks with no basis. Well, sorry, but yes, they're growing in numbers, and also organizing better over time. Call them whatever names you want.
"It’s the same old guys that have been around for years and years drumming up anger, bitterness and violence."
Nope. It's a growing number of people who are tired of seeing double standards, hypocrisy, male disposability and discrimination against men. And that includes a growing number of women. Take a look at how many women have joined NCFM on Facebook. And it grows every day.
"It must be extremely frustrating for you losing control all over again."
It must be extremely frustrating for you to have your gender biased policies and bigotry challenged and all you can come up with is personal attacks.
1:21 am
"LMAO at Marc A for posting a list of news articles he says is indicative of the growing force of MRA’s and most articles are several years old!!"
Oh Mary Lous please don't fake laugh. It's not very believable. The growing MR movement is a reality and in fact feminists have recently published alarmist articles saying the MR movement is "gaining traction" and is becoming "frighteningly effective." I guess those feminists are more honest than you. They're not fake laughing.
Men's groups are forming at universities. Black fraternity are asking for councils on men and boys. Men's issues curriculums are forming on campuses. We're getting accurate training of judges and mediators in California finally. Yeah, I'd say we're growing pretty well.
But you can keep fake laughing if you want.
1:24 am
I talk about pedophiles and you talk about personal attacks? Hmmmm
1:38 am
Oh I missed that part, Mary Lou, where you say those articles are "several years old." Some are a few years old, yes. But some are very recent. And I don't keep track of all of them of course, these are just a few samples. Alot of the ones in India are very new. So are ones on the University of Chicago, the Black fraternity, and alot of the others.
Even a pro-male men's studies program forming at Wagner CCollege on Staten Island, while other colleges are holding "Men's Days."
http : //www.send2press.com/newswire/2009-12-1207-005.shtml
International Men's Day is gaining throughout the world too. http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Men%27s_Day
Would you say these are a few years old?
Harassed Indian Husbands Rally for Their Rights," 8/13/09
http : //www.monstersandcritics.com/news/southasia/features/article_1495380.php/Harassed-Indian-husbands-rally-for-their-rights-Feature
"Divorce Rights Unite Husbands," 8/16/09,
http : //www.telegraphindia.com/1090817/jsp/nation/story_11368453.jsp
"Husbands in India to Protest Unjust Laws They Say are Skewed Toward Women," 8/13/09,
http : //www.wowowow.com/relationships/india-independence-day-harassed-men-protest-unjust-laws-dowry-deaths-domestic-violence-womens-rights-358117
"Harassed Husbands Plan Struggle Against Biased Laws, 8/16/09,
http : //www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/harassed-husbands-plan-struggle-against-biased-laws_100232981.html
"Harassed Husbands Vow to Fight for Their Rights," 8/16/09,
http : //www.ptinews.com/news/232339_-Harassed--husbands-vow-to-fight-for-their-rights
How about these men in Kenya. June 2009.
http : //www.capitalfm.co.ke/news/Local/Kenya-men-cry-foul-over-Budget-4728.html
And then there are the men's groups forming at Oxford, University of Manchester and others are recent too.
http : //www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/24/mens-groups-students-gender
Yeah I'd say we're growing, worldwide.
I'd fake laugh but I'm a little tired right now.
1:40 am
"I talk about pedophiles and you talk about personal attacks? Hmmmm"
That's right. Comparing MRAs to pedophiles is a common ad hom used by feminists who feel threatened by a movement that wants equal rights and challenges gender-driven ideology. It's a personal attack on members of the movement. Again, made by those who don't have much substantive to say at all.
1:48 am
Marc Marc Marc, not everything is about you. I know that is hard to accept but really you need to step away from the computer for a while and take a break.
1:52 am
Mary? When did I say everything was about me? That's an interesting one. I said your personal attack was on members of the movement, not on me. And trust me, I take breaks. Plenty. Thanks though.
1:55 am
Um, Marc..."And since one-third of physical injuries happen to men I don’t see how you can downplay it based on injuries to begin with."
You do realize that this means that men are injuring their partners at TWICE the rate of women?? Obviously not one of those cases (male or female) is acceptable, but it seems like you're the one "downplaying" to say that the two genders are "as violent" when one is injuring the other TWICE as much...
And, as for minor DV "can lead" to a killing...who's the one being killed?! That would be...let's think about this...oh, yeah! The WOMAN. There are three times as many women shot & killed by their partners as are killed by all other single assailants combined. Furthermore, in 2001 1,247 women were killed by their intimate partners; only 440 men were.
http://www.elearnonline.net/coursedesc.aspx?classid=377&s=46
That's not to negate the fact that every one of those male deaths is unacceptable, but don't say that the two genders are "as violent" when we're getting killed almost THREE TIMES as often.
1:56 am
There I just took a tea break. But I missed the entertainment of watching people get so frustrated they have to use personal insults and fake laughs.
1:59 am
"You do realize that this means that men are injuring their partners at TWICE the rate of women??"
That's right. And therefor what, LeftSide? There's it's ok to discriminate against male victims and their chidren? Therefore it's ok to deny them equal outreach and services? Therefore it's ok to call the laws "Violence Against Women Act" and stigmatize male victims and their kids? Again, only 8% of job deaths happen to men. Should we have a "Men's Occupational Safety and Health Act" because of that? Should we exclude women from job safety laws?
And as I have repeated, the injury to children is emotional when they see their parents assault each other - period. Why, then, do you downplay any of the violence at all?
2:00 am
Oops I meant "only 8% of job deaths happen to WOmen." Typo.
2:04 am
I'd love to see your hard drive Marc.
2:06 am
"but don’t say that the two genders are “as violent” when we’re getting killed almost THREE TIMES as often."
Yes I'll still say that, because the reason for the greater injury level is that men are stronger, and again, the deaths are a FRACTION of DV. It's astonishing to see you focus on that tiny fraction just to be able to get a gendered response. You would never downplay male-on-female violence of any form, even a slap, but somehow female-on-male DV is ok to downplay.
Your approach sounds alot like the way people stereotype minorities or others by citing statistics that they commit more crime, more violence, or whatever else. Somehow that is supposed to justify discrimination and bias. Well, it doesn't.
2:07 am
"I’d love to see your hard drive Marc."
Yeah I'm a busy guy, but my hard drive is just fine. Thanks though.
2:19 am
"And, as for minor DV “can lead” to a killing…who’s the one being killed?! That would be…let’s think about this…oh, yeah! The WOMAN."
That's exactly why you should be concerned even about the minor violence, isn't it? The "minor" violence (as you seem to want to call it) is part of the cycle that contributes to women being killed (and men too). When boys and girls see their parents hit each other, that becomes a model for them to follow, and that's the cycle within which the killings are occuring. So shouldn't you be concerned about stopping ALL of the violence, period? Shouldn't you be concerned about breaking the cycle before anyone gets killed, rather than being so focused on genderizing and stereotyping? Shouldn't you be concerned about making sure no victims are downplayed, and that male victims and their kids come forward, and that programs give outreach and services to everyone, etc. etc.?
Or maybe genderizing and gender-driven policies are more important than breaking the cycle.
2:50 am
No, Marc--it just happens to be difficult to house men and women together in such a sensitive situation. These shelters are supposed to be a safe place for women who have just gotten out of violent relationships with men, and are supposed to be a safe-haven. How would the shelter know that every man admitted is safe? Even if they are, is it fair to the women who are trying to recover to have to deal with mixed facilities, when this is a very sensitive issue?
By all means, set up outreach programs that cater to the needs of men, but don't do it by trying to take resources away from women's shelters. This is why we think you're disingenuous about addressing these issues of violence--when you send out a "tester" who hasn't been victimized to pose as a victim to call women's shelters, instead of focusing on the needs of real victims, it's not credible.
In intimate partner situations, there are some very specific needs and services that differ by gender--this is a situation where biology can get important. Women are likely to need gynecologic care, access to birth control or emergency contraception in the case of rape, considerations for children she may be nursing, and ongoing medical attention if she is pregnant. There are also issues as to what kind of group therapy the shelter is able to provide--many battered women would naturally prefer to have an all-female support group as a safe-space. There would also be demographic considerations (education, work experience, technical skills, physical capabilities) that would make it very difficult as a practical matter to provide job-training services for different populations.
Of course, it is necessary and valuable to provide analogous services to men, too. But, a small shelter isn't going to be equipped to handle these different populations. It would be much better to put your effort toward creating safe havens for men (and providing the specialized support they would likely need), rather than trying to intrude on safe spaces for women at this difficult time in their lives.
2:58 am
"No, Marc–it just happens to be difficult to house men and women together in such a sensitive situation."
But the ones that are too small to do that can still give a motel voucher, can't they? Many of the ones in CA won't even do that, or even give legal services or counseling.
Also the ones that are big enough to have several locations can definitely create space for men. Valley Oasis in Lancaster set aside one of its houses for male victims, and when there's overflow they ask the women if they mind having a male victim. They've never had a problem with that at all. They screen the same way they screen in cases of same-sex violence. There are battered lesbians in there too who need to be protected from their female partners. The screening protects them. Valley Oasis has set aside space for male victims and their kids for about 20 years now with no problems. They've become a model for other fair-minded shelters throughout the world to follow.
"This is why we think you’re disingenuous about addressing these issues of violence–when you send out a “tester” who hasn’t been victimized to pose as a victim to call women’s shelters, instead of focusing on the needs of real victims, it’s not credible."
Think what you want, but "testers" are used by the civil rights movement to ferret out discrimination in housing and employment and other areas all the time. Not all states allow testers to have standing to sue. The federal courts allow it, but not all states do. It was never addressed in CA. So we tried it, and the courts decided testers didn't have standing to sue. So we used real victims afterwards when we found some who were willing to sue and go public.
"In intimate partner situations, there are some very specific needs and services that differ by gender–this is a situation where biology can get important."
I don't disagree with that. But it doesn't justify excluding male victims and their children from services.
3:21 am
Here is a story on Valley Oasis.
Antelope Valley Press, "Shelter an oasis for both sexes," http : //www.avpress.com/n/22/0122_s1.hts
I just looked up WEAVE's site. I sued them after David W. and his daughter were denied services. While Valley Oasis is probably the best model, WEAVE has now become a good model of fairness. After we settled with them, they made their website gender-inclusive, removed the bogus crime stats and gender-biased language, created group counseling for male victims, had John Hamel do a training to their staff on gender-inclusive treatment and on statistics, and more. Here is their site http : //www.weaveinc.org/
And they do give hotel vouchers to male victims and their kids.
There is no reason why other government-funded shelters can't do the same. I'm not talking about shelters that don't get public funds. But for those that do, men pay at least half of the taxes that fund the services, and they along with their children should be given services too. It certainly can be done.
Holland and Switzerland have set aside public funds specifically for battered men’s shelters.
http : //www.amsterdamnews.net/story/464390
http : //www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48608
http : //www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/12/11/Switzerland-opening-battered-men-shelters/UPI-81331260552897/
Battered men's shelters are forming in Wales too.
Wales, "Group to open second men's refuge," http : //news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/mid_/7136235.stm
Wales, "Safe house to open for men," http : //www.shropshirestar.com/show_article.php?aID=43442
But in many countries, battered men’s shelters remain without any public funds.
http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1146783/First-refuges-battered-husbands-offer-support-male-victims.html
In England they're finally creating task forces to address the problem. http : //www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2009/01/11/boost-for-male-victims-of-abuse-79310-22665630/
In Australia and the UK, and even in the U.S., the government had to revoke funding from shelters for refusing to help male victims.
http : //express-advocate-wyong.whereilive.com.au/news/story/support-team-pulls-plug/#
http : //www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/apr/05/domestic-violence-charity-funding
Copenhagan, "Battered men jostle for space in crowded Danish shelters," http : //afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5igteOZgLxUonr2XDC0JLWQqb0YTg
3:24 am
Oh my, how could I forget to mention the men's rights group in Morocco fighting for battered men?
"Battered men in Morocco shy away from shame"
http://en.afrik.com/article16241.html
I'm sorry Morroco! Don't be mad at me! It's late over here!
3:35 am
Marc I googled your name and see that you are a long time MRA, been around for years. I just bet if I looked up a few court dockets, I'd see your name and not as a representative but as a party.
I also saw where you are a long time friend of our famous child genital caresser Warren Farrell.
No wonder you hate women.
4:10 am
Oh Mary Lou. Just can't stop with the personal insults can you? And yet *we're* the "arrogent" ones. U-hem.
Go ahead and search for dockets where I'm a party. Go right ahead. And if you find any, other than me suing businesses that charge men more than women, please let me know because I'd sure like to be aware.
Yes I'm a good friend of Warren Farrell. He's not a "genital caresser at all. He's a remarkable man who has overcome the hatred of people like you by focusing on men's issues and not paying attention to the haters. He now does joint lectures with author John Gray, has been doing successful couple communication classes for many years, has published many books, and has a wonderful wife and family.
Oh doesn't that just piss you off?
No, Mary Lou, I don't hate women at all. Supporting equal rights has nothing to do with hate. But I think opposing equal rights definitely does.
But I won't stoop to your level with insults.
5:14 am
Well Warren Farrell might not be caressing your genitals but he certainly supported that action for children. If I were you I would distance myself from that sort of behaviour. That is if you thought it was repugnant.
Warren Farrell has never fathered a child and uses his step daughters like he used his position in NOW and his degree in political science. It's all smoke and mirrors and he really should fess up before fleecing innocent people of their hard eraned dollars.
8:05 am
What a pack of lies, rationalizing violence against men. Almost all of the murdered men were victims, not bad guys who deserved what they got. OF COURSE the women who committed these murders are going to claim self-defense, and of course feminist morons like you are going to enable them. How disgusting!
8:07 am
And speaking of lying morons, I see that we have one here, named Mary Lou.
Go flush yourself down the toilet, feminist nimrod.
11:25 am
Marc A wrote: "Think what you want, but “testers” are used by the civil rights movement to ferret out discrimination in housing and employment and other areas all the time. Not all states allow testers to have standing to sue. The federal courts allow it, but not all states do. It was never addressed in CA. So we tried it, and the courts decided testers didn’t have standing to sue. So we used real victims afterwards when we found some who were willing to sue and go public."
Housing and employment are not equivalent to DV services.
The problem with testers in DV is two-fold. 1) You are sending out people to lie about being crime victims and when those liars are not treated the way women who are true crime victims are treated you claim it must be because they are male when the reality is that the biggest difference may be that the false allegation was detected. 2) When you use testers or encourage men to make fraudulent calls to DV/SV hotlines to test how they respond to men those men's lies make those who listen to men's reports more suspicious about whether a genuine call from a male victim is yet another fake "test" call. So men who are DV "tester" harm men who are actual victims of DV.
Many MRAs want all fraudulent claims of victimhood to be a felony and then turn around and support men making fraudulent claims of victimhood.
11:42 am
abyss2hope: "This skepticism is not required by any constitutional right. Mr. Bad believes — not knows — that false rape allegations are very much higher and then uses that bias without apology. Since he doesn’t deny “he said/she said” rapes he knows his approach allows many rapists to get away with rape and is fine with this outcome."
I've read the peer-reviewed research re. false rape allegations (which BTW is sparse) and it puts the rate somewhere between 40 and 60 percent. Are you telling me that feminists agree with this range? If not, the the true rate as measured by peer-reviewed research is much higher and my statement is fact, not belief or opinion. And no, I don't deny "he said/she said" rapes, I just realize that women can and do lie about rape, and do so far more often than many believe. So, in a "he said/she said" situation, I feel that there's about an even chance that the man is telling the truth, something that feminists have worked very hard to have the public deny. From their words and actions, feminists seem to think that "women never lie about rape" in those situations, mandating the corollary that men always lie in those situations. That clearly is false.
11:48 am
Mr. Bad--that's false. Those studies that claim such high rates of false rape use lie detector tests in their methodology. Lie detector tests are not scientifically valid--they measure signs of activation of the sympathetic nervous system--sweating, heart rate, skin conductivity, etc.
All these tests do is test how nervous or scared the person is. So, a person reporting a horrifying assault, facing hostile investigators about a very personal and humiliating event, is EXTREMELY likely to be nervous. Then, simply because they're nervous, this pseudoscience erroneously claims that their allegations are false.
11:54 am
"Housing and employment are not equivalent to DV services."
Of course not, but for purposes of detecting and proving discrimination, yes they are. One of the reasons behind the use of testers is that it's not always easy to prove discrimination is occuring in a certain location, due to various factors. They can always argue that the qualifications were different in the applications, or, in cases of DV, that there were certain factors other than gender that came into play. And there are also lots of barriers for people to sue when they're discriminated against. DV victims, for example, are too caught up with escaping the violence and getting their lives in order to be paying attorneys to sue places that didn't help them, and that's true of both male and female victims. And neither men nor women want their names in public that they were DV victims. So testers serve specific purposes. They contact the entity and give a story just like housing testers falsify their applications, or job testers falsify their resumes. It's done specifically to detect and prove discrimination.
In the Blumhorst case that we filed, the CA court of appeal decided testers don't have standing to sue in CA under the statutes that prevent discrimination in state-funded programs. That's all it decided. So, since that's how they decided it, we then used actual victims who were willing to come forward.
I'm willing to bet that you would have no problem with using female testers to prove discrimination against female victims if the situation were reversed and state-funded programs were denying services to women. I'm sure your position would be a total 180 degree turn and you'd say exactly what I say above, that testing was necessary to prove and combat the discrimination. And I would agree with you.
Comparing testers to "fraudulent claims of victimhood" is nonsense, because testers specifically admit in court that they were testers. They don't lie in court like fraudulent claimants do. Just like in other areas, they falsify a story only to the target entity, not to the courts, solely for the purpose of testing the entity. Federal courts have repeatedly held that this is a necessary thing to do in order to ferret out discrimination.
12:03 pm
"Mr. Bad–that’s false. Those studies that claim such high rates of false rape use lie detector tests in their methodology."
That's not true. The Air Force study used a lie detector test first, but only considered it a false claim if the accuser admitted the claim was a lie, and it was anonymous so they weren't under pressure. About 20% admitted the claim was a lie just before taking the test or after failing it, and then the 3 most common reasons they gave for making the false claims were:
(1) spite or revenge; (2) feelings of guilt or shame; or, (3) to cover up an affair. Mental illness also played a role. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
A study in India found 18% of rape accusations are false and are often “coached.”
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Delhi/18_rape_cases_false_Study/articleshow/3910217.cms
Other studies, like the Kanin study, were based on recants who admitted the claim was false. Obviously, not all recants were actually false. But not all those who don't recant were telling the truth.
False rape accusations are extremely difficult to measure and that's why there is such wide variation in the percentages, depending largely on the methodology. But overall they tell us that false rape claims are not rare at all and are far more common than we're told.
The Scottsborough trials were just one example of false rape claims. Here are a few sample stories about false accusations that got publicized:
Four young men traumatized by false rape accusations.
http : //www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/18/hofstra.case/index.html
Man released on rape charge after 22 years in prison.
http : //www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/10/22/planes.collide.in.midair.news12longisland
Six falsely accused young men rescued by video of orgy directed by accuser.
http : //www.ocweekly.com/features/sex-issue/great-dick,-babe_2006-02-09.html
Female rapists sentenced for rape and false accusation.
http : //seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Rape_Lie.html
Women falsely claims rape to justify lover's attack on ex boyfriend.
http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?
in_article_id=454224&in_page_id=1770&ICO=NEWS&ICL=TOPART
17 year old boy released after false rape accusation.
http : //www.cathnews.com/news/704/6.php
Innocent man falsely accused of rape to win back lover.
http : //www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444298&in_page_id=1770
U.K. judge jails "skillful actress" who falsely accused man of rape.
http : //www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,1939368,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=11
12:05 pm
@Marc A. and what are the legal repercussions for those who falsely claim rape?
12:11 pm
Thanks Marc, you beat me to it.
Banyan, as far as I know false rape allegations are almost never prosecuted, and when they are they usually result in a conviction (because only the strongest and most heinous cases are prosecuted) with a sentence that is best characterized by "a slap on the wrist."
We need to change this.
12:12 pm
Banyan, legally they can be prosecuted, but they rarely are. Prosecutors are under pressure from feminist groups not to prosecute because they claim it will hinder real victims from coming forward. Of course, the "real victim" is the falsely accused person, but that's rarely acknowledged. There are some cases in which they have been prosecuted and other cases in which they were successfully sued. Some of the articles I gave above may include those. I believe in time, as more false accusations get publicized, and as men's groups continue to organize, this will slowly change. But these changes only come slowly, just like the plight of male DV victims or all other men's issues.
12:16 pm
In the case of the famous 30 second rapist the sentence was seven month in jail. For some people that's a slap on the wrist, for me that's a severe punishment I would never risk receiving just for getting revenge on someone or covering up an affair.
1:37 pm
Dorothy, I agree that 7 months in jail is severe punishment in that case.
As far as I'm concerned, the punishment for a false rape allegation should be based on the punishment a man would have received if he had been convicted. Further, the false accuser should have to pay damages to the man for lost income, damage to reputation, etc. Also, in addition to obvious issues related to libel and slander, if the man was falsely imprisoned I think that is arguably seen as a type of kidnapping and should be dealt with as such.
One of the main reasons women make so many false rape allegations is because they can do so with impunity in almost all cases, and when they are held responsible the punishment is usually very light. Change this and watch these cases drop dramatically.
1:47 pm
Oops - I misspoke: Dorothy, I thought that the 7 months were served by Ibbs, not Watson and Carter (I'm not up on my Australian news). However, I reviewed the infamous "30 second rapist" case and have a correction.
IMO both Carter and Watson each should have served 4 years in prison, the sentence handed down to Ibbs. Plus, they should have been prosecuted and convicted of kidnapping (Ibbs spent time in jail directly due to their actions), slander and libel, and been sued in civil court by Ibbs and required to pay him monetary and punitive damages.
4:07 pm
Mr. Bad, if you are honestly interested in the best research on actual false rape allegations then relying on how police classify a case is not the way to go. This measures belief and in some studies it measures only how successful investigators are at coercing confessions from those who reported rape.
The Air Force study you cite reflects the hostile environment which military rape victims faced at the time of that study and which too many of them face to this day.
Eugene Kanin's work which is cited most often by MRAs is an example of measuring how successful police are at getting women to recant using the polygraph as a lever. This is not the same as measuring false allegations. If the technique these investigators used on women who reported being raped were used on men who were named as rapists, you not only wouldn't accept all their confessions as proof of their guilt, you would be protesting the violation of their constitutional rights.
The paper, False Reports: Moving beyond the issue to successfully investigate and prosecute non-stranger sexual assault http://www.ndaa.org/publications/newsletters/the_voice_vol_3_no_1_2009.pdf has a good analysis of Kanin's work along with other numbers frequently quoted to make claims that the rate of false reports are 40% - 60%.
4:29 pm
Marc A wrote: "Comparing testers to “fraudulent claims of victimhood” is nonsense, because testers specifically admit in court that they were testers. They don’t lie in court like fraudulent claimants do. Just like in other areas, they falsify a story only to the target entity, not to the courts, solely for the purpose of testing the entity. Federal courts have repeatedly held that this is a necessary thing to do in order to ferret out discrimination."
It is not nonsense because the tester's call itself involves fraudulent claims by your own admission. This doesn't change because your testers admit in court that they falsified their story when seeking emergency services. The initial falsification taints the test into meaninglessness.
5:26 pm
"It is not nonsense because the tester’s call itself involves fraudulent claims by your own admission. This doesn’t change because your testers admit in court that they falsified their story when seeking emergency services. The initial falsification taints the test into meaninglessness."
No, because the whole purpose of testing is to prove discrimination occured. Where discrimination is a problem and is hidden and difficult to prove, civil rights testing is a critial key for detecting and proving it. Testers gain nothing from their false statements other than to prove whether discrimination occured, which is a worthy cause. That's exactly how the Fair Housing Commission tests for discrimination. Employment testers agree in advance not to take the job if they're offered it (because their applications were falsified). Housing testers agree in advance not to take an apartment if offered it (because their statements are falsified). Same for any other testers - DV testers will not take the shelter if offered, just like other testers. They will decline. They are only testing to see if there is discrimination. There is absolutely nothing "fraudulent" about it because they gain nothing from it except fighting discrimination.
5:31 pm
abyss2hope,
I've read the original work by McDowell and Kanin (vs. reviews and/or critiques) and I saw nothing in there to suggest coercion. Somehow you seem to suggest that the women actually were raped but were coerced into changing their story. I don't believe it - I think there's very little chance a woman in our society would change her story if she was truly raped, polygraph or not. Why would she do that? So her attacker could go free? It makes no sense. What you call "recant[ing]" I call it confessing to a false allegation.
I know that feminists absolutely hate that research, but it's the best out there. And noteworthy, Kanin's been doing that kind of work for decades and was highly-regarded by all until he published his unexpected results in the '90s. After that, he was toast. It's a similar situation to Warren Farrell, who was a darling of NOW and other feminists until he found his conscience and broke ranks.
As for the analysis you cite, it's a non peer-reviewed paper written by a couple of employees of an advocacy organization - hardly what I'd call objective, and in no way does it approach the level of scientific rigor and sophistication of McDowell, Kanin, et al. I don't but it, but thanks just the same.
5:40 pm
Marc A, it doesn't matter if your testers won't take the DV services. The taint from the falsified story remains in the original test.
6:17 pm
Yes it does matter. "Fraud" involves lying for personal gain. A tester doesn't get anything by the false statement other than to test. It's like a county monitor making fake purchases to see whether cashiers are pocketing the money, or federal marshals testing airport security by acting as passengers.
The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has announced that “The civil rights movement has a long history of using testers to uncover and illustrate discrimination.” Here is their statement on testers in the context of employment discrimination.
http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/testers.html
Federal courts found testers play a “deterrent role” and “advance the same public interest goals” as the statutes they sue to enforce, and that: “It is frequently difficult to develop proof in discrimination cases and the evidence provided by testers is frequently valuable, if not indispensable.”
6:27 pm
Marc A, you may not believe women who report rape can be coerced into falsely confessing, but the data and other credible research disproves your belief.
If you want to gain a better understanding of this subject then read the book Cry Rape by Bill Lueders about a woman who was raped by a stranger, later coerced into a false confession and then wrongfully charged. Her case was strong enough thanks to forensic evidence so that her rapist was eventually IDed and convicted at trial.
In the Kanin study, nothing was verified in the cases which were included in that study so what was proven about false allegations in that study was a big fat nothing. Your assessment of the recantations in that study and in others is based on your belief that police cannot get innocent women to recant. Yet what you believe is provably false.
Tools like the polygraph which were a key part of all the rape investigations in the main Kanin study have been shown in research on false confessions to be helpful in getting people to falsely confess. Coincidence? I don't think so.
6:39 pm
Marc A, the fakes and lies you are using for comparison are not equivalent to people lying when they claim to be victims. DV advocates who recognize lies aren't going to know those who are lying are "testers" who allegedly have the right to lie and not people who are making fraudulent claims.
I don't believe you are so dense that you don't see the taint to this test which you could use to your gain in a subsequent lawsuit claiming discrimination.
6:40 pm
"Marc A, you may not believe women who report rape can be coerced into falsely confessing, but the data and other credible research disproves your belief."
First, I think you're confusing Mr. Bad's comments for mine. Anyway when did I ever say that? I specifically said not all recants were false. But I also said not all those who don't recant are telling the truth, and that needs to be factored as well. There is no way to really measure false accusations very effectively.
"If you want to gain a better understanding of this subject then read the book Cry Rape by Bill Lueders about a woman who was raped by a stranger, later coerced into a false confession and then wrongfully charged."
Of course that happens. And some people are coerced into falsely *admitting* they committed rape, just as with the Central Park jogger case where a group of young men "confessed" to committing the rape out of coercion and threats by the prosecution, and it later turned out they were all innocent and someone else committed it.
6:44 pm
"DV advocates who recognize lies aren’t going to know those who are lying are “testers” who allegedly have the right to lie and not people who are making fraudulent claims."
That's exactly the point. Just like the employers and housing landlords don't know the difference either. If they did know it was a tester, then the testing wouldn't work. The idea is to find out if the entity is discriminating. You can't do that if the target knows you're just a tester. Do you understand that yet?
6:46 pm
"I don’t believe you are so dense that you don’t see the taint to this test which you could use to your gain in a subsequent lawsuit claiming discrimination."
The lawsuit wouldn't be for money. None of them were for money. They were to stop the discrimination. That's how tester standing works. They sue for an injunction. Federal courts have said it's critical and they have standing. State courts vary from state to state.
7:51 pm
Marc A, you are the one who intentionally misses the point of how lying to get DV services taints assessing what services are offered or not offered in response to those lies.
You seem to be making the claim that "test" lies about DV victimization can never be detected as lies. This is a faulty assumption. You also ignore how lies from men claiming to be victims can harm men who really are victims and who are reaching out for help.
7:53 pm
Marc A "They were to stop the discrimination."
Actually they would be to stop what you allege to be discrimination. As you know just because someone makes an allegation doesn't mean that allegation has merit.
8:14 pm
abyss2hope,
This method has actually been used by feminists trying to determine whether there is bias in hiring practices, education opportunities and customer treatment. For example, there are women who have pretended to be men (i.e. lied) in order to see if there was a difference in how male and female applicants are treated. This is the same thing.
As for male victims being negatively affected, the providers' jobs are to believe victims until they have a valid reason not to, so there should never be a situation in which male victims are automatically viewed with suspicion if those providers are actually assisting male victims.
8:51 pm
"You seem to be making the claim that “test” lies about DV victimization can never be detected as lies. This is a faulty assumption. You also ignore how lies from men claiming to be victims can harm men who really are victims and who are reaching out for help."
No, you relentlessly miss the point. Of course sometimes people will figure out that the person is a tester. That's also true in housing and employment. But the goal of testing is to make it so you aren't detected as a tester, so that way you can determine whether the place is discriminating. That really isn't very complicated.
And no it doesn't harm other men because testing is rarely ever done at all. We did it one time to demonstrate that discrimination was occuring, and it turned out all ten state-funded shelters said they do not help male victims. They turned him down for that reason alone and they said so.
One could make the same argument that a housing or employment tester "hurts" real minority applicants by making the employers and landlords suspicious next time they get a minority applicant. Any "harm" that this does is far outweighted by the benefit of monitoring and deterring discrimination. That's exactly why the feds allow it. The exact same is true for DV.
8:59 pm
"Actually they would be to stop what you allege to be discrimination. As you know just because someone makes an allegation doesn’t mean that allegation has merit."
Of course. And that's true of all other types of discrimination as well, or any allegations at all? Even rape, right? Or is that somehow different? Funny you insist on saying "alleged" for DV discrimination but not for rape or discrimination against women.
Incidentally I have tape recordings of the state-funded shelters saying on the phone that they won't provide any services to male victims and their kids, even counseling or legal services or hotel vouchers, and they instead send male victims and their kids way out into the desert in Lancaster to Valley Oasis.
There is lots of other evidence of the disrimination. Last year the courts in West Virginia ruled the disrimination was illegal. The court found "male victims are being turned away from shelters "even when those shelters are otherwise unoccupied."
http://www.sfexaminer.com/local/ap/judge-wva-shelter-rules-biased-against-men-63771622.html#ixzz0eWoalZFV
And as I showed earlier, government-funded DV programs in England, Australia and the US have had their funding taken away because they refuse to help men and their kids.
9:54 pm
marc, when do you find the time to sue bars with ladies nigth? You got to dominate, force-feed, ram down our throats, target feminists, and pick out every minutae of detail until you power-drive your message home. How many activists can say they power-drive messages home? Most of them sell their ideas on merit alone - leave the power drills at home. Go sue a bar already. We can find plenty of credible info from good organizations like WHO, CDC, etc. - no need for your force feeding. We aint buying it.
10:36 pm
Yeah I'm a busy guy and I enjoy my life too. Sue me.
So "power driving" and "force feeding" is what you call it when I document and back up what I say? Yeah maybe I should stick with personal insults like you. That's much better than objectivity and documentation, right?
No, I definitely don't expect a feminist to belive objective research from major universities, the Canadian government and almost 300 peer-reveiwed journals when it's something they don't want to believe. I learned that over 10 years ago. That's why we focus on training of judges and mediators, and we're doing a good job at that. But I do put the data here to watch you turn to personal attacks when you can't response with any substance. And it works like a charm on you.
4:23 am
"Dorothy, I agree that 7 months in jail is severe punishment in that case."
"Oops – I misspoke: Dorothy, I thought that the 7 months were served by Ibbs, not Watson and Carter (I’m not up on my Australian news). However, I reviewed the infamous “30 second rapist” case and have a correction.
IMO both Carter and Watson each should have served 4 years in prison, the sentence handed down to Ibbs. Plus, they should have been prosecuted and convicted of kidnapping (Ibbs spent time in jail directly due to their actions), slander and libel, and been sued in civil court by Ibbs and required to pay him monetary and punitive damages."
I find it revealing that you think seven month a severe punishment for raping someone, while it's not nearly enough for accusing someone of rape.
Don't insult our intelligence any further with claiming you want "equal" rights.
10:31 am
To Toysoldier and Marc A, if you don't understand how lies in claiming to be a victim are different from tests in hiring practices, education opportunities and customer treatment then nothing you say on this subject is credible. I don't believe your claims that you don't understand how false claims of victimhood hurt real victims since this is a theme repeated by MRAs whenever they talk about false claims made by girls and women.
Marc A, Telling me that men who test are very good liars who can fool all advocates doesn't inspire confidence since that makes me wonder about every claim you and those around you make or support.
Marc A wrote: "Funny you insist on saying “alleged” for DV discrimination but not for rape or discrimination against women."
Not funny at all since you are referring to a specific allegation you are making. You are seeking more than safe housing for men who claim to be victims of DV, you are seeking to have men who you admit are lying about being victims allowed in with women whose lives may be in danger.
Rape happens and even you don't dispute that -- or do you? Do you also dispute that discrimination against women happens even though it has been proven in court numerous times?
11:57 am
There has been/is a double standard when it comes to domestic violence when it's a women on man. Last summer I was listening to NPR, and a Psychiatrists was on. He spoke about the research he did, which showed that about half of the victims of domestic violence were males. Domestic violence is widely accepted in our society when it's a woman abusing a male. All you have to do is turn on Cheaters and count how many women hit the male who cheated on them. He also reported that most domestic violence is retalotry, meaning that the woman attacks him physically, verbally, or emotionally, and the man retaliates. Now some people will say sticks and stones may never break my bones, and I'm not absolving the man for hitting the woman, but a lot of feminists seem to only focus on the man that does the hitting, and not on any cupability the woman may have.
12:01 pm
To Toysoldier and Marc A, if you don’t understand how lies in claiming to be a victim are different from tests in hiring practices, education opportunities and customer treatment then nothing you say on this subject is credible.
There is no difference as both are used to determine whether any discrimination occurs. Over the years I have spoken with several men who survived physical and sexual abuse who sought services only to be hung up on, told no or accused of being pedophiles or batterers. There is no reason for male victim to be treated that way, so if using a tester could prevent that, I am all for it. At this point is fairly easy to demonstrate that service providers already do not help male victims. All using a tester does is show how prevalent that is.
You are seeking more than safe housing for men who claim to be victims of DV, you are seeking to have men who you admit are lying about being victims allowed in with women whose lives may be in danger.
That is an unfounded extrapolation. No testers actually use the services. They call to see whether service would be provided, which is what all initial calls to those places are. I think you, like many feminists, make extraordinary leaps in logic when anyone discusses male victims. As I stated before, on one hand feminists claim to want to prevent all violence, but on the other they make concerted efforts to deny male victimization at the hands of women. It does no one any harm to acknowledge men are victims of domestic violence and deserve the same treatment and respect extended to female victims, but judging by feminists responses one would gets a much different impression.
All the comments by feminists on this thread and in the initial post show is that feminists do not appear to actually want to help male victims. They do not want male victimization rates studied, they do not want to hear about the treatment male victims receive from the domestic violence community and they do not want male victims to have equal access to existing support services. It leaves the impression that feminists are at best invested in sweeping male victimization under the rug.
I fail to understand the logic behind this or how it in any way prevents future violence.
2:11 pm
Dorothy said: "I find it revealing that you think seven month a severe punishment for raping someone, while it’s not nearly enough for accusing someone of rape."
You did get the part where I said I didn't remember the case correctly at first so I had to go back and review it, right?
You make the mistake of thinking that I ever agreed that the "30 second rapist" raped someone: I never believed it, and apparently once the court figured out what was going on they didn't either. From the beginning I strongly suspect that case was not rape, it was a setup, plain and simple. Had the Ibbs actually raped someone, then sure, 7 months would have been a light sentence, but that fact is those women were the real criminals and they got a slap on the wrist.
As for the role of coercion vis-a-vis false allegations vs. convictions of innocent men for rape, Marc makes a good point - both occur far too often. And I would go further and posit that IMO the number of coerced false confessions for rape far outnumber coerced recantations of rape allegations. As Marc says, it's hard to know, but my gut tells me the former occurs on the level of orders of magnitude more often than the latter, very likely due to pressure from feminist groups to increase the rates of convictions in rape cases.
Which raises an interesting reality: It is a statistical truth that when one works to reduce the number of Type II errors (e.g., in this context, finding a person "not guilty" when in fact they are guilty), they automatically and unequivocably increase the number of Type I errors (e.g., finding a person "guilty" when they are in fact innocent). The table below presents the statistical situation:
Actual condition
Guilty Not guilty
--------------------------------------------------------
Verdict of "guilty" True Positive False Positive
(i.e. guilt
reported unfairly)
Type I error
--------------------------------------------------------
Verdict "not guilty" False Negative True Negative
(guilt not detected)
Type II error
--------------------------------------------------------
So, what we don't hear discussed in the context of feminists' relentless work to increase convictions in rape cases is the statistical inevitability that more innocent men will be convicted of rape than is already currently the case.
I don't remember the exact words, or who said it, but the saying "it's better that 100 guilty men go free than even one innocent man be punished for a crime he did not commit" is IMO absolutely true. And unless and until feminists start to care about the innocent men that their efforts will inevitably send to jail, I really won't be able to care one wit about increasing rape convictions. Period.
2:43 pm
That's because women only care about the consequences of their actions on men unless they are intimately involved with them.
In their minds they see these men as criminals and thus deserving of what happens to them.
Take a simple test.
Just how much jail time do you think that rape deserves, and why?
Ask any woman to explain her opinion.
It will never make sense.
Ask any guy to explain their opinion.
They can only base it on historical punishment for rape.
But if you look at the variation in sentencing time for any *other* crime (including murder) there can easily be a wide range of sentences from life or capital punishment down to...yes...7 months. Even a suspended sentence with release for time served. Because it all depends on context.
The concept of rape dismisses all context. Therefore all men who commit rape should be held to the same punishment. And the bottom line is that that is simply a standard number based on jurisdiction. with some additional time added on based on the violence of the rape. But I'd guess that just about anyone reading this would start with a number around 20 years and head north, truth in sentencing would require the convict to serve at least 80% of that sentence, but again, time can be knocked off for a number of factors.
That guy who kidnapped, raped and murdered that 11 year old girl on the Maryland eastern shore, and they found her body out there around Christmas? He had served time for TWO rapes in less than 10 years (once for child-rape) and was out again. Regularly these guys are out on parole or awaiting trial for one crime and commit another crime. You can always make the argument that no length of time is sufficient punishment for a rape in the context of the threat that they pose to society as "a known rapist". And indeed that argument is going before the Supreme Court as I write this.
But I really don't see how anyone can equate a prison sentence to a violent sexual assault. Kidnapping and repeated rape is one thing, but how much jail time is one rape worth? How can you possibly equate the two things? They're two entirely different concepts.
2:49 pm
...especially when, honestly, no one in their right mind would want to spend even one day in jail.
Not any jail that is more than just you, a bunk, a toilet and a set of bars.
Who in their right mind would really want to be incarcerated for *any* stretch of time?
So the whole premise that laws against rape are effective deterrents fails on the sheer fact that rapists are not men in their right minds. They might get caught, they might not, they might get convicted, they might not, sure, but none of these things are real deterrents for them. They rape anyway. They may get caught. Certainly they then face the possibility of either getting raped in prison...or of raping *men* in prison. In that sense it's a positive reward for them, especially if they are closeted homosexuals. Or bisexuals. Or whatever, just guys hungry for a power-trip.
But still at its worst, how can one equate a single act of sexual assault to years of incarceration and only *possibly* the humiliation and pain of being a sexual-assualt victim themselves? Isn't it somewhat obvious that for a man to survive extended incarceration, he has to at some level at least be ok with it? Do you really think that they can make it through more than a few days in jail otherwise?
2:58 pm
...so anyway yes, at some level the CJS fails on its face, because it creates an entire subpopulation of men who really don't care if they get caught and convicted for crime, or if they do care, they will do almost anything to not get caught and convicted again.
All while as someone said earlier, arresting and convicting people who aren't guilty of anything. Or certainly convicting them of something when they aren't guilty of what they were convicted of. Sure some guys plea down to avoid a length jail term, but what about all the ones that plea down just because they are afraid of getting railroaded in court even if they are innocent? How can you differentiate between those two groups? You can't. Once they plea they lose the right to appeal their case. They have to make an appeal just to reverse their plea. Men who assist women in the prosecution and conviction of sexual-assault cases invariably are helping them to wrongfully-prosecute and convict some men in the process. But in any case none of these men are really getting what they deserve. They're just having to accept what is done to them. But it's being done to them for YEARS, while their crimes, even if they are guilty, lasted what? A half-hour, maybe even a minute? Unless they restrained and tormented their victims? Even then what could it possibly mean for someone who was tied-up and raped at knifepoint, say, to want to see their tormentor incarcerated for 20 years to life?
It means that it will take 20 years in prison or more for that victim to think that their rapist is actually getting what they deserve? And THAT is healthy for the victim?!? Or ok they should be executed?
None of this really sounds to me to be "healthy" for a "victim". It sounds like extended revenge, if anything it's just legal abuse, torture. Doled out in return with the aid of the state. It certainly isn't going to stop a serious rapist and it's not going to stop people from becoming rape victims.
Clearly it won't even stop gropers and date-rapists.
3:03 pm
...the big thing is that the moment that a criminal is sentenced he has to make some sort of mental adjustment to his next 20 years in prison. That adjustment may happen sooner, it may happen later, but it has to happen or they won't survive the experience. In which case subjecting them to incarceration is a death-sentence. In which case certainly they won't get the 20+ years that the victim thinks that they should get.
The main thing is that the rapists now gets to play *another* game of "torment the victim". They can wait out the sentence and strike again. They might even get released early. They might even escape. The victim will never know. Not to mention that the victim could get raped again by someone else while her first rapist is in prison.
It seems to me that all of this is actually more of a torture than a salve for the victim not to mention for women at large. Placing false hope in a system that simply does not perform the intended function is usually like that.
3:10 pm
jfc1:
You have just posted four comments, in a row, in response to the same post. This is trolling behavior. In the future, please confine your thoughts to a single comment. You could stand to do some editing for length, as well. From here on out, if you exhibit any more behavior that I deem to be trolling again, you will be immediately banned. To preempt any requests for clarification: I decide what constitutes trolling, so best to err on the side of caution.
Thanks!
Amanda
3:17 pm
...the bottom line is that the concept of incarceration seems to be an effective deterrent only for those who are effectively deterred by it. Clearly that does not include the criminal. I think that it is somewhat obvious that the criminal mind is actually attracted to the concept of long-term incarceration, not inherently opposed to it. And that by pinning such hope on incarceration, the society at large actually sets itself up to be victimized on a regular basis by those who either don't give a shit about whether they are in jail or not, or those who would do anything to stay out of jail and who would never actually submit to capture and incarceration. This leaves two additional groups, the men who are wrongfully imprisoned and those who are guilty but who are overwhelmed upon capture, or those who submit to arrest and imprisonment but who cannot handle (cannot successfully adapt to) imprisonment. Taking any sort of pleasure in the first case is simply inhumane, and devalues the society at large in and of itself. The 2nd case could either break under the stress of incarceration, overcome the incarceration or fail to survive it, and they will find out along the way. The third case is the case of the walking dead. These are likely to either die in prison or escape (or die trying to escape). In any case we're talking about people who are eventually going to get out of jail if they survive. It just seems like in the long run we are breeding more problems than we solve, by attempting to ferret out and incarcerate sexual offenders. For one thing we have to allow the police to arrest and imprison (and the courts to convict) on mere suspicion or wait until after a sexual assault has actually occurred. And then there's always the chance of a false claim or a wrongful conviction. And if 90% of the claims are true and the subsequent arrests and convictions are true, that still leaves 10% of them that are wrong and a whole lot of men sitting in jail trying to survive, for years and years, who have no business being there. While a lot of men rape and assault and still go free. Indeed are never even suspected.
...and since rape is primarily a female concern, that means that there is no gender balance here to balance out these claims. Men and women both get robbed, kidnapped and murdered. I'd guess that 99% of rape victims are women. That's not even true for child sexual assault or even for "statutory rape". So if there is one "golden opportunity" for women to victimize men without balance, it's in a rape charge.
Aside of course from alimony and child-support :)
Not something to be taken lightly. At all.
3:20 pm
"You have just posted four comments, in a row, in response to the same post. This is trolling behavior."
Arbitrary definition noted :)
I'm sorry that you feel that way but I have to disagree. You want people to post their honest opinions here? You have to take their postings with a grain of salt.
Unless you want to write them to suit you.
And if you can't handle that? Feel free to harass me any further and I'll be happy to spend my time more productively than giving you an honest male opinion with explanation. You can sit there and think whatever you like with your fingers jammed in your ears. Just don't complain when you don't understand why men think the way that we do, about women and what women do and what happens to women. We try to tell you, you refuse to listen.
3:22 pm
"From here on out, if you exhibit any more behavior that I deem to be trolling again, you will be immediately banned. To preempt any requests for clarification: I decide what constitutes trolling, so best to err on the side of caution."
Um, Amanda, that totally depends on whether I give a fuck about your opinion.
You can ban me. Feel free. Won't change a thing about what I think...you just won't know what it is. Kapiche?
3:23 pm
Okay, two answers in one:
"You make the mistake of thinking that I ever agreed that the “30 second rapist” raped someone: I never believed it, and apparently once the court figured out what was going on they didn’t either."
When you don't find someone guilty, you don't convict him. It's as simple as that.
As for jfc1's claim:
"But if you look at the variation in sentencing time for any *other* crime (including murder) there can easily be a wide range of sentences from life or capital punishment down to…yes…7 months."
That is wrong.
3:24 pm
...not like your whole fucking blog isn't "trolling", though. Is it. Just pro-woman, anti-male trolling...obviously that's ok with you LOL
Knock yourself out, female. Won't faze me a bit.
3:30 pm
As for jfc1’s claim:
“But if you look at the variation in sentencing time for any *other* crime (including murder) there can easily be a wide range of sentences from life or capital punishment down to…yes…7 months.”
That is wrong.
......................
just a quick example:
http://australiancrime.blogspot.com/2010/01/long-road-to-justice.html
Since it can take so long for a murder trial to reach the sentencing stage, given various motions and appeals, it's easy for the prosecution to win a conviction and then lose any extended prison-sentence AFTER the sentencing hearing. In fact the longer the defendant is held in jail before sentencing the more likely this is to happen. He could be held for 3 years in jail awaiting a conviction, the sentencing could be held soon after and then the sentence reduced to slightly more than time served. It's quite possible.
3:32 pm
"Won’t faze me a bit."
As demonstrated so starkly by your complete disregard of this blog.
3:37 pm
"Since it can take so long for a murder trial to reach the sentencing stage, given various motions and appeals, it’s easy for the prosecution to win a conviction and then lose any extended prison-sentence AFTER the sentencing hearing."
A man being in jail 4 years prior to being sentenced to 5 years in jail has to stay another year in prison making a full total of 5 years in prison which, lo and behold, the sentence was.
I'm not teaching law 101 here, so let's stop with this.
3:38 pm
...not to mention that it's not up to a judge to decide the sentence in all cases.
Take someone who is technically guilty of murder (indeed of any crime, including rape). A jury could decide that this may be true but the crime wasn't worth an extended sentence. They take a number of factors into account, not just whether a crime was technically committed. So you can have a conviction but then a low sentenced is handed down, couple that with a lengthy pre-sentencing incarceration and time-off for good behavior and possibly cooperation in other cases, and the convicted person could be out of jail in short order. Certainly assigned to a halfway-house for the latter part of their sentence if they are deemed to be a low-risk nonviolent offender.
You simply can't rely on someone going to the Big House and staying there for 20 years.
3:41 pm
You're wrong.
3:45 pm
"A man being in jail 4 years prior to being sentenced to 5 years in jail has to stay another year in prison making a full total of 5 years in prison which, lo and behold, the sentence was."
Yes, indeed, their sentence was technically 5 years LOL
But in practice they did not serve 5 years after being sentenced. The 4 years was only part of their "arrest" before and during trial. It is converted into post-sentencing time and counted against their sentence.
It seems that we agree on the effect, just not what to call it LOL personally I call it a good way for someone who is sure that they are guilty of a crime to stretch the case out as long as possible, knowing that all the time they are in jail before sentencing will count against their final sentence and make that sentencing that less effective. And this is all yet another reason for men to plea down to lesser charges, even if they are innocent.
3:47 pm
" Dorothy February 4th, 2010
3:41 pm
#169
You’re wrong."
Well, it's entirely possible that I'm wrong.
But not likely, and even if so, not to any real effect. It seems that I've spent my whole adult life worrying about this very issue. How about you?
3:49 pm
"You can ban me. Feel free. Won’t change a thing about what I think…you just won’t know what it is. Kapiche?"
Hahahaha,oh no! How will we ever survive without knowing your thoughts? My world will be so empty and meaningless.
3:59 pm
"…not like your whole fucking blog isn’t “trolling”, though. Is it. Just pro-woman, anti-male trolling…obviously that’s ok with you LOL
Knock yourself out, female. Won’t faze me a bit."
Come on jfc1, knock it off. It's their blog, their rules.
If you did this at my blog you'd have one more warning left and you'd be out of here. I think Amanda's showing considerable restraint, and for that I applaud her.
4:12 pm
Is there any long term way to get rid of jfc1?
4:39 pm
Lol, probably not as long as he keeps posting under different e-mail addresses.
4:44 pm
Honestly, I think it's best to just ignore him, no matter how much he baits.
5:02 pm
Dorothy said: "A man being in jail 4 years prior to being sentenced to 5 years in jail has to stay another year in prison making a full total of 5 years in prison which, lo and behold, the sentence was."
Hmm, I think I get what you mean here but I don't want to assume: are you really saying that it can take 4 years between conviction and sentencing? That seems an awfully long time. Do you really mean 4 years from arraignment until sentencing?
In any event, what if he is found to be innocent: how does he get those 4 years back? What system is in place to address that injustice? Or let's say the court system really is completely screwed-up and he has to wait 4 years between conviction and sentencing, and then he draws 2 years. How does he get the extra 2 years back?
This may all seem rhetorical and/or academic to you, but I'll bet dollars to dimes that it isn't for the man who's sitting in jail waiting for the system to get it together.
5:09 pm
That was a response to comment #165 where jf1 said: "He could be held for 3 years in jail awaiting a conviction, the sentencing could be held soon after and then the sentence reduced to slightly more than time served. It’s quite possible."
4:50 pm
Want to know what effect the MRAs and FR guys are having?
Read this story -
http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/order-17122-bid-rejected.html
http://www.hidesertstar.com/articles/2010/02/03/news/doc4b69381ed5e05699313614.txt
A BABY IS DEAD
Limit restraining orders? Read this story to find out the repurcussions of the MRA policies.
False allegations - ie women using domestic violence to manipulate court -Read this story to find out what their baseless misogynist propaganda is doing.
NINE MONTH OLD BABY DEAD -- THANKS TO MRAs AND FRs
It's no wonder they're called the Abusers Lobby. This is NOT an isolated case. Visit any Mothers Rights site to see the long list of custody catastrophes these abusers are causing.
MRAs and FRs - angry, abusive men that target feminists with their anger and work on rolling back gains made by women. Educate yourselves on them - and counter them - so we can stop these senseless deaths.
7:41 pm
I'm curious how many DV victims are in same-sex relationships. It's a rather important distinction, IMO, how many male victims of DV are victimized by male partners. Because MRAs and DV deniers like to pretend all male DV victims are victimized by women. Um, they're not.
Also, this bit confuses me:
"Men who are victims of domestic violence are almost as likely to be killed by a partner’s ex than by their partners themselves."
So are they DV victims at the hands of their partners or their partners' exes? If the ex-wife of a man who's never committed violence against any woman kills that man's new girlfriend, is the new girlfriend considered a victim of DV?
This stuff is complicated.
10:01 pm
@ snobographer,
It is important to note that Maryland may be one of the states in which if it can be established that the spouse was knowingly conspiring with an ex to kill their partner then the death will be classified as a domestic violence death; as it should be. Not all states do this, there are a lot of differences state by state in regards to domestic violence reporting and this is and important one. Furthermore, when talking about spousal murder which, interestingly, is reported separately from domestic violence in many cases. Whenever you hear about the difference in the amount of males murdered by their spouse opposed to the amount of females murdered by their spouse the number almost never included those murders that took place through proxy (Hit man, ex boyfriend, current lover etc.). Those are listed as multiple offender homicides. Yet another way that female killers escape the statistics.
Yes this is complicated stuff indeed.
11:07 pm
@snobographer:
In my interviews with the researchers, I learned that one scenario that is considered a "domestic violence-related death" is when a man attempts to murder his ex-girlfriend, and ends up (whether premeditated or not) killing her current partner, as well. In this case, you have a classic domestic violence scenario (violence from a partner or ex-partner) that leads to another (related) person's death. I'm not sure that these three cases (above) of men murdered by a partner's ex fall into that category, but it's one possibility.
11:27 pm
This is another complicated thing that even I can't figure out:
"Of the 28 adult female victims:
* 10 were wives or ex-wives of the offender.
* 17 were girlfriends or ex-girlfriends of the offender.
* One was a domestic violence victim who committed suicide."
Is someone takes a lethal dose of something or puts a gun to their head it is pretty much their doing right?
I suppose that you could use the argument that the male partner was physically and psychologically abusive but do they take into account the number of male suicides that might be a result of an abusive partner? I doubt it seriously. Also keep in mind that 80% of all suicides are committed by males which makes you wonder just how many such male DV Murder Victims are out there that may fall into this classification yet are not considered as such.
This seems like another way that numbers and facts are sometimes either inadvertently or deliberately misrepresented, come from bad or inconsistent data collection methods, or are skewed to tell a story that isn't at odds with what readers and viewers want to hear.
Again, more female perpetrators escaping the statistics.
11:33 am
So childish. Trying to minimize male deaths by claiming "he started it".
Would that have been a valid excuse if it was the male perpetrator of DV who said "she started it"? No it wouldn't. So how come it's a valid excuse for female perpetrators of DV?
Double standards. In Family Law it has always been about double standards hasn't it?
2:04 pm
Amanda, I love this blog and I appreciate your writing and moderation but you really need to moderate these comments. There is way too much MRA anti-feminist trolling and personal attacks.
3:51 pm
@ Dawn,
Yes we all love censorship don't we.
4:21 pm
Dawn wrote (#185):
Translation: Facts are a pest. Bring in the dogma!
10:02 am
Dear Mary Lou,
On February 1st you wrote,
"the One In Three Campaign in Australia is more lies from another MRA Greg Andreson. The latest reports out refute that completely and as usual the MRA’s cherry pick which statistics fit them. The Chisolm Report released last week commissioned by the government specifically notes that the majority of DV victims in Australia are women and the perpetrators being their intimate partners. Further Australian statistics just released prove that over 85% of child sex abuse is carried out by fathers. Not just men but fathers!!"
As the senior researcher for the One in Three campaign, I would be very interested to hear which statistics on our website you think are "lies" - if they are found to be false, of course we will take them down straight away and issue an apology.
Also, is there any chance that you could cite the new report you referred to about fathers being mainly responsible for child sex abuse?
By the way, the Chisholm report noted that,
"The literature reveals remarkably different findings about the extent to which family violence involves violence by men against women. Although the ABS figures, above, and the AIFS literature review suggests that most family violence is committed by men against women, some studies suggest that women engage as often as men in at least some forms of violence. Opinions differ greatly about these matters, and about whether violence by women against men tends to be qualitatively different to violence by men against women."
"The family law system needs to respond appropriately to each particular case, and deal fairly with the allegations and evidence. It would be wrong for the system as a whole, or for individuals working in the system, to approach the problem with preconceptions about the matter. Even if family violence, and especially the more serious forms of family violence, involves men being violent to women more than women being violent to men, it would be a mistake to assume that women’s violence against men does not exist, or cannot be a serious matter. Any individual who makes allegations, and any individual who defends them, requires a fair hearing and fair treatment, regardless of gender. And it is important that all litigants understand that the system makes no pre-judgment about whether violence has or has not happened in a particular case, or how serious it might be."
Sounds very reasonable to me.
8:05 pm
My friend Tommy was shot by his girlfriend's ex. He died trying to protect her and her kids. Doesn't really relate to all this arguing in the posts. But that's all I wanted to say - just that a lot of people in St. Mary's County miss him.