>Excellent rebuttal of some standard MRA arguments
>
ECHIDNE of the Snakes has written an excellent post titled “Eight Anti-Woman Principles of The Most Extreme Types of MRAs.”
It goes through a number of standard MRA arguments and offers pretty persuasive rebuttals of most of them. Among the topics covered: life expectancies of men and women and why this actually isn’t a feminist plot; higher rate of on-the-job accidents for men and why this isn’t a feminist plot; the higher rate of male death in wars and why this too is not a feminist plot; male prisoners; homelessness; and stay-at-home dads. The post also comments on child custody and domestic violence, but without providing real rebuttals on those two issues.
I’m adding this link to my “further reading” post on general critiques of the MRM.
Posted on January 3, 2011, in antifeminism, feminism, misogyny, MRA, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 176 Comments.
>Fair and balanced opposing view points: The Misandry Bubble Sexual Utopia In Power Researching The Rape Culture of America What's Happening to Women's Happiness Article Review: The Fate of Empires Is There Anything Good About Men? No Country for Burly Men The Campus Rape Myth Persistent Myths in Feminist Scholarship
>Hmm, I think one of my comments may have been caught by your spam filter.
>Actually, the rebuttal is not very persuasive. I won't go into detail, cause frankly I don't think this is the right place for an honest debate. Anyway, reasonable MRAs don't blame feminism for the lower life expectancy of men and all the other points addressed (a classical straw man btw). They critique feminists, cause they pretend to care about gender equality, but only see the problems of women. As long as the prevailing gender roles negatively affect women, feminists will address the issue. If they don't affect women or even favor women feminists will stay silent. Of course there are some rare exceptions, but these people often wonder if they can still call themselves feminists.
>1. Men's health/mortalitya. There is no commission on the status of men, but there is a commission on the status of womenb. Women get more health-related government assistance compared to menc. The author did not cite any evidence at all that men's earlier mortality rates are due to biological factors, although he speculated as suchd. The author blames masculinity, rather than the absence of it, for men engaging in riskier behaviors earlier in life. He then taunts MRAs — not men in general, and clearly excluding himself — by calling on them to mentor kids rather than ensuring that intact 2-parent biological families provide the biological fatherly influence for which there is zero substitute. Feminism claims that fathers are not necessary, and the resulting feminist-inspired family law policies reflect that harmful belief. Attributing violent and negative aspects to masculinity is bigoted, because masculinity is the distinctive quality of being male. To lampoon masculinity as the problem is to attack males as the problem; the feminist's solution is for men to cast of their sexual distinctiveness and become more like women (which is not a viable or male-desirable solution at all).
>2. Gender gapThe feminist claims that men who occupy more dangerous positions don't earn more than women because of the danger, and speculatively asserts without citing evidence that if women did that same work, there would still be a pay gap: "If we reallocated men and women across industries so as to get a gender-neutral division in the most dangerous occupations, women would still earn roughly as much less than is the case today."Again, feminists try to suppress biological distinctiveness even as they claim gender distinctiveness in oppression against women; the result of this thinking is to privilege women.Notice also the inclination toward manipulative social engineering, which is typical of feminist policy proscriptions.Finally, the feminist at that link associates nurturing qualities by women with domestic violence related death, implying (again, without evidence) that women who care for their families are more likely to die by intimate partner homicide than women who aren't. But in fact, married women are less likely than single women to become victims of domestic violence.Again, later in his article the author states:"I didn't know that there are laws banning men from combining family and career or laws that state that men must work until they drop."It's not always about laws. Gender roles benefit and privilege women. The very fact that women are empowered by men with a choice between working a paid job vs. staying at home as a nurturer (which is paid through male-provided financial security and justified financially by the woman's privileged choice) indicates greater privilege for women than men in this area. Far fewer women than men opt to empower their spouses with such a choice; hence women are not only privileged to occupy the nurturing role (since it's a choice), but are more safe for having done so."It sounds as if the MRAs don't like the traditional male gender role. Feminists tend to agree. But while feminists would like to make gender roles less rigid, many MRAs want to see women put back into an equally rigid female gender role."Here's where the role of the law DOES manifest itself. No feminist, nor government policy, is forcing women to be providers for men. Rather, feminists only see work in a paid job as liberating, and therefore they're making a headlong attack on the traditional family. They're removing women's privileges by making it more risky for men to provide them if the men so wished (risky because of laws like spousal and child support, loss of custody, juryless restraining orders; women file 2/3 of divorces, setting all of these male obligations into action).
>3. Male-on-male violenceThe author states that MRAs "don't address" male-on-male violence "as far as [he] can tell." But MRAs legitimize and prioritize intact nuclear families whereas feminists consider this to be merely one option among a buffet of equally valid others. However, male-on-male violence is highest in fatherless communities, and anecdotal evidence from violent males attributes their disposition specifically to fatherlessness. Single motherhood is a choice, and it is legitimized by feminist ideology — to the detriment of male victims of male-perpetrated violence. There is a dire need for positive masculine influence in fatherless communities, and MRAs assert that such influence should come principally from the biological father, and from his father, and on up the line. Single motherhood breaks this delicate line of generational fatherly influence.
>4. Male war deathsThe feminist, typical of feminists, paints female privilege as a burden. What he considers a "ban" on women entering combat roles, I call an "exemption." Women aren't exactly banging down the doors to obligate themselves to become hamburger on a battlefield, are they? But then, feminists always portray female privilege as a burden. Always.
>5. Male homelessnessThe author states:"The male-homelessness argument is used [my MRAs] to defend the idea that the men at the top of the society are balanced by the men at the bottom of the society, and that therefore the overall patriarchal society is a fair one."No evidence is cited; again it's just speculation. But show me the tribal culture that equals our rate of homelessness, if you can. Intact families — especially intact extended families — are patriarchal. Now I will speculate: if we had more intact families, we would probably have less homelessness than we do now.Furthermore, the author compares greater female "poverty" with male "homelessness." This is a terrible comparison. If I were a homeless man, I would trade places with a sheltered-but-poor woman any day. But that's me.
>6. Domestic violenceThe author links a father's loss of his parenting rights with domestic violence, presumably implying that the father who loses his child must have been an abuser. But more than 30 years of compelling, published evidence reveals that women attack their partners just as often as men do, women unilaterally attack their partners far more than men do, and only in the realm of incurring injuries are female victims primarily more vulnerable than male victims. I'll go toe-to-toe with any feminist who wants to argue the evidence on domestic violence; where are these studies that the author says that MRAs are "ignoring?" Furthermore, it is the scientific method confers legitimacy to a study, not the quantity of studies. We should evaluate studies on domestic violence based on their scientific merits, examining whether they reliably collect their data and whether they validly explain the phenomena under measurement. That said, the studies that reveal gender parity in female perpetration dwarf those that would suggest the opposite.
>John, it's a losing battle here. They will say that since women only slap their boyfriends/husbands around a bit it's not near the problem of the small minority of women who are hospitalized from domestic violence.May I direct you to this comment:http://manboobz.blogspot.com/2011/01/i-have-come-to-view-women-as-elegant.html?showComment=1294058091812#c1030217327534056216"The breathtaking stupidity of not seeing the difference between a woman slapping her boyfriend round the face and her boyfriend retaliating by putting her in intensive care for a month with four broken ribs and a shattered jaw." So they believe it's OK for women to slap men around. I guess it's OK for men to slap women around so long as they use the LOVE side of their hand?"The extraordinary, mind-blowing insistence that male domestic violence and female domestic violence are equally dangerous and commonplace. I feel there may be a few hundred shelters for abuse victims that would beg to differ. "And then have the audacity to offer up the fact that there is more funding/support for female victims (with little to no support for male victims) as proof that male on female domestic violence is worse.Ironically, the more support women get and the less support men get has a snowball effect as they can then be used to garner more and less support for each gender respectively.Homeless man eating from garbage (useless male). Welfare mom popping out babies from different dads (poor little thing!)
>They will just keep dehumanizing males to make things look harder on women. Our suffering invokes not one iota of sympathy so long as there is one woman anywhere in the world with a black eye or a hang nail to compare against. You cannot even use their own approach of supporting equal rights because to them it is like comparing the suffering of a human (female) to that of a sub-human (male).If they can look inside themselves and say that 93% of the homeless as males is outweighed by welfare moms, then there is seriously something all fucked up about the situation.Feminizing poverty just means more taxes to support baby mama while baby daddy is eating out of the trash.
>@witman:"So they [feminist ideologues] believe it's OK for women to slap men around. I guess it's OK for men to slap women around so long as they use the LOVE side of their hand?"Women initiate violence more often than men in mutually-violent couples. If a man's size and strength advantages are not legally considered a valid means to deter such female-initiated violence, then all he has is the justice system. Of course, he is less likely to be granted any request for a restraining order against her than she is against him — because he's a man. Yes, that's right: because he is a man. Since restraining orders do not legally require substantiation or proof — but only the assertion of the victim's fear — it is implausible to many judges that a man might be afraid of a woman's existing violence, or a woman's violent potential. Not only is a male victim of female-perpetrated violence less likely than a woman to obtain a restraining order, but he is less likely to effect her arrest if he calls 911. That's because of "primary aggressor" laws. Suppose he calls the police to report that his wife has been slapping and kicking him. All she has to do is say that he too, was slapping her — even if this is a complete lie. From the officer's perspective, this is now converted from a case of unilateral female-perpetrated violence, and has now magically become a case of mutually perpetrated violence. The only question now, in the officer's mind, is which "aggressor" is more dangerous: the male, or the female? Obviously the male can impose more damage. So the officer arrests the male "perpetrator," who in fact is a victim of female-perpetrated unilateral violence. Unilateral violence is the distinguishing characteristic of battering. Hence, the male victim is more likely to be arrested simply for reaching out for help — and like you said, witman, the resulting arrest data will then be used as evidence of a supposedly higher rate of male perpetration!The issue comes down to authority, i.e. that of the State vs. that of the head of the family. It pains me that the only non-feminist people who have really explored the topic of authority are the crazy Manhood101 people. We need a serious discussion (for once) about the reason why females perpetrate partner violence. It's because there is an astonishing lack of authority that can be brought to bear against female perpetrators. They are ridiculously considered to be victims (by the feminist-inspired Duluth Model of batterer intervention programs, as well as feminist ideology itself) if their violence is challenged by their husbands, who will then be required to take such brainwashing programs as punishment for their supposed patterns of patriarchal terrorism and dominance. And as far as female perpetrators being adequately challenged by law enforcement, see the paragraph above. There is too little authority in our culture that will effectively challenge a female perpetrator.
>John said:"and like you said, witman, the resulting arrest data will then be used as evidence of a supposedly higher rate of male perpetration!"This type of truth makes feminists teeth grind as it ruins their part of the demonization of men and threatens their precious victim status.Even if women attack in self defence by doing more damage to the man than the man did to the woman, she is likely to be cheered with the "you go girl" type of response. She is likely to get let off free or lightly by the courts. If the tables are turned, it's totally evil.I can remember reading an article years ago…it would have been back in the 90s. Anyway, it was about this woman who cut off her husband’s penis. Her excuse in the courts for this was because her husband raped her. (even that there was no proof). In this situation, this woman could have just simply left her husband. Instead, she drugged him and then cut off his penis.When the courts granted her no punishment for her crime, all these people cheered.Now let's say if the tables were turned here. If a woman raped her husband in any way including forced sodomy; then later down the track he drugged her and mutilated her vagina or breast. Would people cheer and look at it in the same way? Or would it be deemed as totally evil?
>Thomas Said:"Anyway, reasonable MRAs don't blame feminism for the lower life expectancy of men and all the other points addressed (a classical straw man btw). They critique feminists, cause they pretend to care about gender equality, but only see the problems of women. As long as the prevailing gender roles negatively affect women, feminists will address the issue. If they don't affect women or even favor women feminists will stay silent. Of course there are some rare exceptions, but these people often wonder if they can still call themselves feminists."I too wonder where feminists get the idea from that men are blaming feminism for such things expressed in the original post.What Thomas says pretty much explains it all. Feminists go in the guise of gender equality but their actions tell a different story. I am yet to find a feminist who can honestly care about male issues as much as female issues.
>I've dealt with some of these topics in greater detail, linking to numerous sources, in my "further reading" posts, listed in the sidebar.
>@David Futrelle:"I've dealt with some of these topics in greater detail…"Translation: Ampersand has opined upon these topics and usually you just link to his material.
>Uh, he's dealt with a lot of them I haven't, so, yes, I link to him often. What on earth is wrong with linking to other people? I'm not a one-man refute-everything-every-MRA-ever-says machine.
>You know? I've never met a feminist that hasn't been concerned with Men's rights as well. In fact I am a feminist and I am highly concerned with the rights of men. I have two sons..I want them to live in a world where they can be whomever they want without the man box rules. I don't think it's alright for -anyone- to slap -anyone- an d I am a feminist.So how do you reconcile me and the number of women like me that I know with your view of the man hating feminist?
>Her argument comes down to this: If women are get the short end of the stick, it's men's fault. If men get screwed, it's their own fault. As I've written before about the situation in schools. When women were doing less well, we blamed the system and passed Title IX. When boys are doing less well, we blame them and do nothing (http://www.fauxwhore.com/2008/05/boy-crisis.html). Same shit.
>@Magnolia:"I don't think it's alright for anyone to slap anyone and I am a feminist. So how do you reconcile me and the number of women like me that I know with your view of the man hating feminist?"The test is whether you support the repeal of laws that give female perpetrators a free pass.
>@John Dias,"The test is whether you support the repeal of laws that give female perpetrators a free pass."Which laws, specifically, actually give female perpetrators a free pass?
>"You know? I've never met a feminist that hasn't been concerned with Men's rights as well. In fact I am a feminist and I am highly concerned with the rights of men. I have two sons..I want them to live in a world where they can be whomever they want without the man box rules. I don't think it's alright for -anyone- to slap -anyone- an d I am a feminist."That's strange because I never see these feminists. And if some feminists do have at least some concern about some male issues, they certainly don't have EQUAL concern towards these issues as they do towards female issues.That's what's so laughable about feminism, feminists claim that they are all about gender equality and yet, I have never ever seen a feminist show as much passion and aggression towards male issues than they do towards female issues. That's not equality now, isn't it? In fact, a common response from feminists is the tired of sarcastic phrase, "what about teh menz"Feminism is really a "woman first" movement rather than a movement that's truly about equality. But they keep telling us it's about gender equality to make themselves sound valid under a false impression.
>Yohan, the fact that Amptoon happens to buy its web hosting services from a company that also sells web hosting services to porn sites does not in any way mean that he has sold his web site to pornographers. I have taken down your slanderous comment.You, for example, have a blog up on blogger, right? Well, guess what, some people put up adult content on blogger. That doesn't make you a pornographer does it?
>@Christine WE:"Which laws, specifically, actually give female perpetrators a free pass?"1. Primary aggressor laws. These laws require or coerce police to overlook the violence of one party in an allegedly mutually violent couple, and instead arrest the most dangerous, a.k.a. the primary aggressor. The criteria set forth for police to identify the so-called "primary" aggressor includes such factors as which party has the larger physical stature, which is code for "arrest the man." Female perpetrators thus avoid arrest this way.2. The Duluth Model of Batterer Intervention Programs (BIPs). In my state, California, BIPs are required to implement protocols that are modeled after the Duluth Model. The Duluth Model attempts to legitimize and justify female perpetration rather than holding female abusers accountable. It portrays female perpetration as a reaction to male-imposed dominance, i.e. self defense, legitimizing it. States that require BIPs to model programs after the Duluth Model reflect this bigotry against men, and they effectively perpetuate female-perpetrated partner violence. Violent women who are mandated to a BIP that imitates the Duluth Model get coddled as victims rather than perpetrators.
>To make sure I understand what Witman is saying:A woman who slaps a man's face is exactly equivalent to a man breaking a woman's jaw? There is no difference whatsoever? Do I have that clear?
>Jeezus H. Cornflower. This thread has really attracted ALL the mansplainers and MRA apologists, and concentrated them in one place. It's a munificent collection of nutjobs, a la Alan Colmes' radio show.
>@David– I'm curious about Redtube, which actually is a pron version of YouTube… apparently it must be within the law, or it wouldn't exist. But how exactly does it stay within the law? (other than obvious stuff like, ahem, no minors and the like)
>This is just as typical as the "what about teh menz" phrase. Calling people "mansplainers" simply because they disagree with the almighty feminist stance. Can the bigotry get any more extreme?
>@John Dias,Plain and simple, police are not taught to "arrest the man" regarding primary aggressor laws. They don't make their decisions based on which person is larger. There are many things they take into consideration. Most of the people arrested for dv are not falsely accused. Sit in a dv court sometime and see what really goes on. And the Duluth model has an appropriate place in DV work as many, if not most, dv cases have the elements of control and domination in them that the Duluth model covers. It, however, should not be the only tool used as not all dv cases contain those elements, but are caused by other factors. Some women assigned to those BIP's are victims, some are not. If the instructor of the BIP can see from the woman's history or behavior or from the evidence that she is violent, I assure you, she is not coddled as a victim. The instructors are not stupid.
>Mr. Dias, I am actually on the California Penal Code's website and the law does not reflect what you claim: Peace officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor in any incident. The dominant aggressor is the persondetermined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, the threats creating fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and whether either person acted in self-defense…..To take the apparently equivalent of a slap to a jaw being broken…in the legal scenario here, the policy is to determine the dominant aggressor not the primary.So the couple were fighting and she lost her temper slapping him (causing a bright red mark.) He retaliates by punching her in the face breaking her jaw. Call goes in and the officer shows up seeing this situation-why is it somehow showing favoritism to a woman to arrest the man?
>One thing to add, John Dias, is that in my state and many others most judges refer to anger management rather than BIP's because it is shorter and cheaper, even when a BIP is the more appropriate remedy. Believing one is entitled to rule over their partner is not an anger issue and those who operate that way – anger management is a waste of time. So are BIP's in a lot of cases. I feel sure that most of the male supremacists in the MRM wouldn't change their supremacist views just because they had to spend a few months attending a weekly class listening to someone try to convince them that relationships should be more equitable and that it's wrong to pop your wife around to get her to submit to them.
>One of the most disturbing things about the DV industry these days; a woman can claim rape or any sort of harm to justify serious injury or death against a man. Even without any evidence what so ever.But if a man seriously injured or killed a woman, he can try to claim what ever he wants. He can claim she drugged him and forced a cucumber up his ass. That won't likely stand for a lighter sentence of be set off free.Oh, I am forgetting, males a privileged
>Nick, do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to back that up?Because most women accused of serious aggravated assault/battery and/or murder have an attorney and those attorneys will have to argue that before a jury or judge and I have yet to see some kind of systematic defense argument.
>Or let's say a woman is a big woman, like a bbw who has lots of strength compared to a skinny male. If the male finds some way to win the DV dispute and does more damage, is her injuries more important than the males?
>@John: which states have laws in which police are compelled to consider the size of a person when deciding whom to arrest? I know some do, but generally that is one of a number of factors to consider. And many don't include size at all. New York's primary aggressor laws, for example, don't mention size: When an officer has reasonable cause to believe that more than one family or household member has committed an act of domestic violence, the officer is not required to arrest each person. In these circumstances, the officer must try to identify and arrest the primary physical aggressor after considering: (1) the comparative extent of any injuries inflicted by and between the parties, (2) whether any person is threatening or has threatened future harm against another party or another family or household member, (3) whether any person has a prior history of domestic violence that the officer can reasonably ascertain, and (4) whether any person acted defensively to protect himself or herself from injury. The officer must evaluate each complaint separately to determine who is the primary physical aggressor. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/rpt/2009-R-0460.htmIn any case, the fact is that police DON'T "automatically" arrest the men. Somewhere between a quarter and a third of those arrested for DV are women, according to the studies I've seen. The most recent number from this study is 27%http://www.systemdynamics.org/conferences/2007/proceed/papers/HOVMA376.pdfAnd I've seen higher: in this county, it's 36%http://www.criminallawyerwa.com/2010/09/report-of-increase-in-women-arrested-for-domestic-violence.shtml
>@Christine WE:"They don't make their decisions based on which person is larger. There are many things they take into consideration."In states where primary aggressor doctrines are in effect, I know that many factors are weighed, but they do include a person's physical size. There are other factors which essentially guide officers to arrest men rather than women, even if both were mutually violent. These include advantages in size, strength, lower likelihood of being afraid, and access to or control over family resources (i.e. making more money than the other partner). Police are trained to essentially deprioritize such things as who initiated the violence, or who caused injury to whom, and instead adopt these criteria. It all amounts to code for "arrest the man."As far as your claim that I should spend time in a DV court in order to understand that perpetrators are not falsely accused, did you know that many people don't even make it into DV court because they plead out their bogus charges in order to get a reduced sentence? And if primary aggressor laws cause female perpetrators to avoid being arrested in the first place, then of course they never would wind up in DV court in the first place, would they?In terms of the culture surrounding Duluth-inspired BIPs, I had a friend who was an instructor in one such batterer intervention program in northern California. In his facility there were multiple classes in different rooms. He once told me that one day he heard some shouting coming from one of the other classrooms. He thought that it was one of the perpetrators who was shouting, but when he investigated, it turned out to be the female instructor of the class. One of the men in her all-male class of perpetrators alluded to the physical abuse that he had endured at the hands of his female partner. This instructor icily told him that this class was not to discuss one's victimization, and any such talk was off the table. But the man calmly asserted that the woman's physical abuse was part of their relationship dynamic; this only enraged the instructor, who kept repeating that he stop denying his responsibility for her abuse. Eventually the instructor stood hovering over the seated male, screaming at him and demanding that he stop blaming the victim, i.e. the female perpetrator. This is how that class was run. Are you really telling me, Christine, that you can confidently say that in every jurisdiction around the United States, that BIPs are run in a balanced way that acknowledges mutual perpetration and that both partners are held accountable for their violence — as perpetrators rather than victims? If the cause of the problem is considered to be patriarchy, then honestly which partner — the man or the woman — is going to be singled out as the cause for the violence (even the other person's violence)? Men are blamed.
>Elizabeth There is definitely evidence out there from numerous stories to point this very thing out. This will take some time to point this out. When I have more energy to google it all, I definitely will. It won't just be one or a few cases
>There were a couple of comments that got caught in the spamfilter; I've unblocked them. If you're following the discussion you should scroll up to see if you've missed something.
>It better not just be stories-like "wow, there is this one article in a newspaper and that means 987,972,387,429,387,412,987,423 women use that defense."Hard stats both percentage and actual numbers please.
>@David Futrelle:In my state, as of 2004, twenty percent of arrestees for domestic violence are women. In 1980 it was around 1 percent.http://www.dvstats.org/pdf/arrestpolicy/ca/California DV Arrest Data.xlshttp://www.dvstats.org/pdf/arrestpolicy/ca/California DV Arrest Data Report.pdf
>So Mr. Dias-it appears that the complaints that you have are being addressed so why are you complaining still?
>@Elizabeth:"it appears that the complaints that you have are being addressed so why are you complaining still?"Can you be more specific?
>You were complaining that women are rarely, if ever, arrested or held accountable for their violence but by your own stats-the number is rising.In fact, these stats do not reflect the cite and release numbers-which means that women who are not actually arrested but are cited are not being counted in the DV stats. Just because someone is not arrested does not mean that they are not being held accountable for their actions.
>As I have to study that you want adressed which will be time consuming.What's your answer to this"Peace officers shall make reasonable efforts to identify the dominant aggressor in any incident. The dominant aggressor is the persondetermined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the dominant aggressor, an officer shall consider the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, the threats creating fear of physical injury, the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and whether either person acted in self-defense."Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever to back that up?
>Elizabeth, the reason why the stats changed was due to warrantless arrest in 1986 and then mandatory arrest in the mid-nineties, which removed a lot of discretion from police to decide on who to arrest. In my state, California, feminists objected to the mandatory arrest provisions that were then in place because this resulted in a higher proportion of women being arrested, and the feminists thought of them as victims (despite the presence of mutual violence). Then in 1997 the state amended its laws to be "pro" arrest rather than "must" arrest, and also implemented criteria to govern the "pro" part. This was the primary aggressor law. Since that time the rate of male arrestees has hovered in the high teens to low twenties. Nothing has been changing. In mutual abuse cases, women more often attack men first, and women attack men more often than men attack women. In unilateral abuse cases (i.e. battering), women attack men 70% of the time compared to 30% of unilateral attacks coming from men. Even so, in my state 80 percent of arrestees are still males despite the higher rates of female perpetration.
>@nick — She's quoting from the California Penal Code. That IS the evidence.
>FYI, here's the source for my above claims that:[1] In mutual abuse cases, women attack men more often than men attack women[2] In unilateral abuse cases, women attack men 70% of the timehttp://www.dvstats.org/pdf/Reciprocal violence AJPH.pdf
>"In unilateral abuse cases (i.e. battering), women attack men 70% of the time compared to 30% of unilateral attacks coming from men."Battering generally refers to severe, continued abuse. The studies I've seen that find that women abuse equally or more than men invariably include less severe forms of violence in their surveys, as well as single incidents of violence; to call that "battering" simply because it it unilateral is very misleading.
>Um Mr. Dias-the law itself says "dominate" not primary. I went and looked up the law as Mr. Futrelle pointed out.Also, again, the statistics do not indicate the number of citations the officers are handing out. A man who gets slapped and then punches the woman in retaliation may go to jail that night but the officer writes them both citations. The woman is held accountable by the officer for slapping the guy but since the guy did more damage, he is taken into custody. She winds up paying a fine and he gets CFTS.
>… and your source, John, shows how misleading it is to suggests that women are doing the majority of "battering." From the results:Regardinginjury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women (AOR=1.3;95% CI=1.1, 1.5), and reciprocal intimate partner violence was associated withgreater injury than was nonreciprocal intimate partner violence regardless of thegender of the perpetrator (AOR=4.4; 95% CI=3.6, 5.5).
>@David Futrelle:It's not just my opinion that unilateral violence is a distinguishing aspect of battering. Dr. Donald Dutton, a noted researcher on domestic violence, made that argument in the January 2010 issue of the academic journal Partner Abuse.
>If I see one more "Uh" or "Um" before someone's snarky remark, I'm going to check out of this thread. It's that irritating (not to mention juvenile).
>Battery itself is just when someone is actually hit. Assault can be as well but usually means that someone is about to be hit or thinks they are.Which makes for some interesting trials.
>@David Futrelle:If women are inflicting violence at gender parity but are not getting sufficiently challenged by law enforcement (since 80% of arrestees are men), then how can this be ANYTHING BUT an injustice where female perpetrators have effective license to use any level of violence up to (and possibly including) causing injury?
>Mr. Dias-it was not a snarky comment. That is in fact what the law states and not what you assume it states.
>Also, AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME, a woman who is NOT arrested is not being let off the hook if she receives a citation for assault or battery but NONE of your stats show the level of actual citations.
>John, obviously unilateral violence is a distinguishing aspect of battering. But so is severe, repeated abuse and controlling behavior. Unilateral doesn't = battering. The study you cited did not find that women were more likely to be batterers, as the term in generally defined. If unilateral violence was all it took to define a batterer then a woman who slapped her partner once would be a batterer, and that's ridiculous. Also, the "uh" thing. I responded with an "uh" earlier because I thought your comment was petty and dismissive and sort of juvenile. Interesting that this bothers you so much but you don't say anything when witman calls someone "princess."
>Elizabeth:You produce the citations. How about that? Prove me wrong. It should be easy for you. I've made the claim. Now you simply disprove it by gathering all the stats that you expect me to have. Disproving a positive claim is much easier than proving one, so have at it. The scholarship should do you some good. Show me documented proof that women are cited at parity with men who are cited. I'm waiting.
>Witman didn't call me anything, and so I didn't take offense. And enough with your passive-aggressive way of calling something "interesting." Just say what you think."Uh" and "Um" are in my view completely idiotic statements that are best left to high schoolers. I want to have an intelligent conversation.
>John: If someone (male or female) is slapped by a partner and there are no visible injuries and no witnesses, there is no evidence that this slap ever occurred, and the police have no justification for arresting anyone. If someone causes visible injuries (that aren't the sort of injuries caused by people defending themselves) then there is evidence to arrest that person. If men are injuring women in much higher numbers than women are injuring men in DV, and numerous studies suggest that this is the case, it makes sense to me that they are being arrested in much higher numbers. There is "gender parity" in DV only if you conflate minor slaps with severe, injury-causing violence.
>David,If minor violence was challenged from its inception, don't you think that people would have much more healthy relationships (including a far lower likelihood of incurring or inflicting injury)?
>I usually expect someone making a claim to have the evidence to back the claim up not be ordered to go look up the evidence for the claimant.So how about you go find the evidence that women are rarely cited for assault and/or battery since you claim they are.
>Elizabeth:I claim what the evidence shows, nothing less. Arrest data is the data that I have.
>David@nick — She's quoting from the California Penal Code. That IS the evidence.You are missing the whole point here. In ALL these cases from the California Penal Code, please point out the evidence of both sides?If I am expected to do home work, so does the feminist side, right?This is the core of my debate, what substantial evidence comes in the female side in the system?
>John, it depends what you mean by "challenged." Yes, it should be made clear it is unacceptable. But responding to violence with violence — as Paul Elam, for example, suggests — tends to escalate the situation and make things worse. Indeed, the study you cited found that violence in relationships where violence is reciprocal caused more injuries than violence in unilateral relationships.
>A woman can claim just about anything and be justified with violence against men. But a man is likely to have a harder time justifying his violence against a woman.Around of applause for female privilege
>nick — what are you talking about? What on earth do you mean by the "female side in the system?" What system? What evidence do you want?
>Yes, David, and that's my point! You associate battering with severe injuries, but also point out that it is sustained over time. Imagine what a man must feel like if his physically little wife slaps him around with impunity. He feels defeated, ashamed, completely debased. Why is this less serious in your mind than a physical injury? Emotional victimization hurts more than physical victimization, and the damage is usually more long-lasting compared to injurious physical abuse. If you're a man, you simply won't be injured as often as a woman will. But you can be injured inside — both by a series of kicks and slaps as well as an ongoing campaign of emotional abusiveness. If a husband is stripped legally of his authority as head of his household, but held to a standard of nominal authority by an abusive wife whose mission is to point out how (due to her abuse) he doesn't measure up, what kind of state does this leave him in? And who can he turn to for help?
>David, as I said before…not sure why you can't comprehend this… the California Penal Code, where are the details to each case? Where is the evidence to each case to this statistic?It's he said, she said. But guessing in each case, “she said” comes first with little or no evidence. That's the problem I have. If a male tries to justify violence against a woman with little to no evidence, I know what will happen in most cases. So now here is the feminist homework as I have to do mine. Point a handful of cases where a male gets away with violence with no evidence to his excuse?
>Nick — what "statistic?" She was quoting a law. John — Emotional abuse is hard to measure. Why do you assume women are doing most of it? Also, physical abuse has emotional consequences, and more severe abuse has more severe emotional consequences. I don't think either partner should be slapping the other one, and I would suggest anyone in a relationship where they are the victim of abuse (even if it doesn't cause serious injuries) should get out of it, but if the abusive partner is smaller and her or his abuse causes minimal physical damage, the victim is far less likely to be afraid of the abuser than someone who. say, has had his or her arm broken by an abuser. If one partner is doing severe physical damage to the other on a regular basis, the victim is going to live in a constant state of terror. Also, why should a husband have authority in a marriage?