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.

"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..."

Translation: Facts are a pest. Bring in the dogma!

Yes we all love censorship don't we.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hahahaha,oh no! How will we ever survive without knowing your thoughts? My world will be so empty and meaningless.

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?

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.

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.

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.

As demonstrated so starkly by your complete disregard of this blog.

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.

Knock yourself out, female. Won't faze me a bit.

"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.

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?

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.

...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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.