About these ads

Men’s Rights Redditors angry that reality is reality. (Murder statistics edition.)

Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, mgriff2k4 is angry that the picture to the right here showed up on his computer screen. Sorry, make that fucking angry. “Did this really just fucking pop up on my news feed?” he asks in the title of his post, adding in a comment: “sorry about the word “fucking” but im really pissed off about this.”

Why is he angry? Presumably, he assumes the statistic is untrue, and that it unfairly paints men as evil murderers.

Luckily, in this Age of the Internet it is trivially easy to find out whether statistics like this are true. It involves something called “Google.” mgriff2k4 did not bother to avail himself of this easy-to-use research tool.

But I did. In less than 5 minutes, I confirmed that this factoid is indeed true, at least according to the most recent figures on gender and homicide found on the Department of Justice’s web site, drawn from FBI data covering the years from 1976-2005. According to the FBI, 30% of women who are murdered are murdered by “intimates.” Roughly 20% are killed by husbands or ex-husbands; 10% by boyfriends or girlfriends. (In the overwhelming majority of cases the murderers are boyfriends, not girlfriends; men are ten times more likely to commit murder than women.)

While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.” Men kill women more than twice as often as women kill men. Women suffer far more serious injuries from domestic violence than men do; so it is not altogether unexpected that they are also far more likely to be murdered by intimates.

If you want to see what this means on a human level, I suggest you take a look at the excellent if depressing web site Domestic Violence Crime Watch, which links to stories in which men are the perpetrators, and in which men are the victims. There are far more of those in the former category than in the latter.

I should note that (as of this writing) one commenter in the thread also found his way to the DOJ site, and noted that men were more likely to be killed by strangers or acquaintances. But he didn’t bother to tell mkgriff2k4 that the sign in the picture was in fact accurate.

About these ads

Posted on June 29, 2012, in antifeminism, domestic violence, misogyny, MRA, oppressed men, reddit, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 668 Comments.

  1. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    The Zygons were always my favourite, Brrrr.

  2. So women abuse those weaker than themselves and are SHOCKED. SHOCKED that people stronger than them may abuse them.

    Actually, John, women may be SHOCKED… SHOCKED I say … at this factoid, but for the reason that Cloudiah put forth:

    Here’s my radical position: people shouldn’t abuse each other, no matter their age, gender, relative strength, etc. Shocking, I know!

    What we are not, however, is SURPRISED by this factoid, and it is our lack of SURPRISE that, apparently, makes us (at least in some circles) … now, wait for it … misandrist.

  3. I hate typing on my tablet, so just want to thank Pam (and bacon) for expressing that so clearly.

  4. My Jo: It’s the 11th word in the quotation (quote, my good man, is a verb)

    Now, if you can show me that feminists are saying the deaths of men who aren’t killed by intimate partners is no big deal, then you might have some sort of point.

    But you can’t, so you don’t.

    But, since you brought it up, I see you didn’t address the question I asked, for those same quotations I’m asking for here.

    If it’s so easy to do I’d have expected you to be all over it. A lot more persuasive (if less self-reinforcing) than empty invective.

  5. My Jo: Which facts are you looking at, the fact that women perpetrate the vast majority of child abuse? The fact that women abuse those that are weaker than they and are SHOCKED that those stronger may abuse them.

    Ah… another who likes to use raw numbers, rather than the statistical average. Yes, more child abuse and neglect is perpetrated by female caregivers.

    That’s because women are, far and away, the primary caregiver. It’s really easy, when one sex is something like 80 percent of the population being studied, for that group to outnumber; in absolute terms, the other.

    But the real questions are (again… strangely to the instigation of this post) rate; and severity.

    The male portion of that population (primary caregivers) has a higher incidence of abusive violence. When that violence occurs it tends to be more severe (this is not to say that women who are violently abusive towards their husbands kill at a different rate then men; that’s not part of this data set, and I can’t address it, so I don’t. If you want to say they do… feel free to provide studies to support the claim).

    So women abuse those weaker than themselves and are SHOCKED. SHOCKED that people stronger than them may abuse them.

    More of that question about your understanding of English. People aren’t shocked that people exploit those in their power. They are appalled. It’s an important (and not very subtle) difference.

    “I forgot, you can’t see any fact that show females abuse males.”

    No you didn’t. Forgot means to no longer recall a fact. Since that’s not actually a fact about me (supra); and you’ve not conversed with be before, you can’t have forgotten it. Again, it’s a question of English usage; though I’ll give you a pass on the question of comprehension; that was more a pair of rhetorical failures. 1: Cheap device; overused trope, and 2: (the more egregious) failure to take the target/audience into account.

  6. My Jo: I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least. I think that I’ve mostly lived up to that promise so far as I’ve asked for clarifications and I’ve used qualifiers like seems. I can understand if this comment was written in frustration, but understand that I and any new visitor to the site won’t understand the back story if there is one and the comment just comes off as being dismissive of male victimization.

    You are lying, if not to us then certainly to yourself.

    You haven’t, so far as I can see, even pretended we aren’t man-haters. You have, to some degreee, pretended to be open to information; in that you have asked leading, and loaded, questions; which are phrased in a hostile manner (no bucko, a lack of fucks and insults doesn’t make it polite, it just makes it rude speech you don’t have to worry so much about your grandmother deciding you need to be reminded of how unpleasant Ivory tastes).

    You’ve used those qualifiers dishonestly (because you don’t believe them; and won’t accept answers which account for doubts of your premises).

    In short, you’ve been acting in bad faith, and gotten the short shrift such behavior merits.

  7. My Jo: It reduces the relevance of their deaths. What if I were to say only 30% of women are killed by an intimate partner? Doesn’t that sound minimizing? Does that sound trivializing? Maybe he picked a bad choice of words and would like to edit it out. I get it people make mistakes. That’s why I asked him to clarify.

    So only has just one meaning?

    “He only missed the gold medal by .03 seconds. What a shame”

    Yep, that means it was wonderful that he didn’t win.

    Got it.

    “Zuckerberg made bllions, and he only made 35 million dollars when facebook went public.”

    That poor dude, it’s a real shame he so poor. That only really makes it plain how hard done by he was.

    But yes, saying, “only 30 percent of x group is killed by Y” is minimizing; if that’s the only comparator you have. But the issue wasn’t an absolute reference, it was a relative one.

    Only 5 percent of X are Z, as opposed to 30 percent of A who are Z.

    I hope it really is just English that’s giving you troubles. If it’s not then I’d have to say you are letting a set of irrational beliefs and hatreds keep you from looking at facts. You may not like those facts, but they are facts. Wait… it’s not that yo aren’t looking at the facts. You are trying to change the subject. So that the single most obvious threat group is removed from the picture, and we just treat all death by malice the same. The accidental homicide, the felony homicide as side effect, the drunk driver; all are to be treated as if they were equal in risk to intimate partner violence.

    Here’s an interesting question… what’s the incident rate in small towns? Those places where we are told the crime rate is so much less. Are they places with a higher, or lower, rate of intimate partner homicide? What are the relative rates there?

    You don’t care. You just want to yell at people who think 30 percent being killed by intimate partners is noteworthy.

  8. My Jo: Why doesn’t DV stats include third parties, because women hire hit men more often?

    We’ve done this one too. The FBI says it deals with fewer than 100 killing for hire per year.

    I’ve only got direct (i.e. personal knowledge) of one. It was the man who hired someone to kill his wife.

    Robert Blake tried to hire someone to kill his wife.

    When I put murder for hire into google, the list is, oddly, all men who hired men; usually to kill their wives.

    If the prevalence of women doing it is so high… why isn’t it making the news?

    Maybe it’s because you are wrong.

  9. Cassandra: I’m still trying to figure out how NWOs math made sense to him. Obviously it doesn’t make sense from a mathematical or logical perspective, I’m just curious what sort of logic path he went down that made that progression of percentages seem in any way mathematically sound to him.

    I think it was language fail, more than math fail.

    I think he was saying, “70 percent of all xyz”. Then he was trying to work with a round number. He didn’t see that it looked as if he was making a percentage.

    At least I hope so, otherwise I shudder to think of him trying to do the math to run the turns for a step-down converter.

    And now to the post office to exchange the kilt I got. The style is such that it’s a bit small. I’ll be, sadly, about a week without a more “modern/casual” one. Which means I can’t wear one to work, because we aren’t allowed to wear patterned clothing.

    :<

  10. @John
    “Every person’s death has relevance to those who love them. Did you really mean to say that? MRAs will use that as proof of misandry because it sounds misandrist.”

    This is the problem I have with MRAs. I am merely stating that one number is larger than another, and you twist the context of the sentence to make it seem like misandry.

    Of course every person’s life and death has relevance to the people in their lives. This is ASSUMED. MRAs are not happy unless it is explicitly stated every time that men can be victims and their lives are valuable. Nor are they happy if women are the subject of conversation, without any mention of men’s problem. The topic always has to be about men, otherwise, misandry.

    Everywhere you go, you look for misandry. You see it when it isn’t even there. And this diminishes the significance of REAL examples of men’s suffering. Yes, men have problems and need help, I wouldn’t deny that and I doubt anyone here would either. I would like MRAs to focus more on helping men, but it seems to me that 90% of the MRM is just bitching about how awful women are, and battling straw feminists.

  11. Shit, you think I don’t know black men are at the bottom of the pyramid?

    No, you fucking moron – I think you don’t care. You care as much about black men as you care about white men, or asian men, or latino men. Not a drop. Your mind is so small and your persecution complex so vast that the only person you care about is you. You don’t think that black men are “…at the bottom of the pyramid…”. You make it plain on these and other sites, day after fucking day, that you think that you are.

    You don’t know shit about me princess.

    Really? I know that you’re, an admitted criminal who remains employable despite having an arrest record. You’re a man who brags about driving without a license when men of color have to be papered to the hilt every time they so much as get in a vehicle. You’re a single man who is responsible for no one but your own selfish ass and yet you plead poverty while claiming to work 60 hours a week at $19 an hour. I know that you’re a man who has said that he can’t actively do anything to help men’s causes because feminism and poverty prevent him but then calls me a “princess”. You lying, hypocritical, ignorant, spoiled sack of shit.

    Your “activism” consists of calling women whores on the internet in between bouts of online gaming and whacking to iCarly, but somehow I’m the princess?

  12. Yay, party at Varpole’s!

  13. When I was a kid of five years old I use’ta walk down fifth and market alone at dusk. Back then black men were still head of the household. There was something for them to care about. How’s the new woman as the head of the household workin out for ya? Welfare state lookin pretty good is it?

    You’re a child; no wonder you still view the world through the simplicity of a child’s mind and limited observations. A small boy stuck in the body of a bitter, middle-aged man. You saw black men when you were five? In Philly? And you knew all about their lives, huh? All of black America was doing great, 50 years ago, right? The men you saw were all employed and their wives stayed at home, and they all had access to the kinds of jobs and union security, and home owners’ loans, that ensured they could create a better future for their children during America’s truncated period of growth and prosperity? Just a chocolate version of The Donna Reed show.

    It can’t be said enough: you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about. I guess while black men were being oppressed by institutional racism –last hired/first fired, subject to absurd sentencing discrepancies, over-represented in the draft, shut out of the political and economic opportunities that enabled white men in this country to establish a middle class- black women should’ve just bowed their heads and out of loyalty to the patriarchy let their children starve in the streets. Rather than work outside the home and take the meager handouts offered by “big daddy government.” I mean, it’s not like black babies needed to eat every day or anything.

    You espouse the superiority of the “patriarchy” as the “model for a thriving society…”. Then you choose to conveniently ignore the fact that through most of America’s history Black men were, by-in-large, shut out of the jobs and opportunities that would have allowed their families to function successfully under that model. Because you’d rather pretend that black women in the “ghetto” all sat around eating bonbons and reading “The Feminine Mystique” in their book clubs and decided that they didn’t need black men.

    You are a complete waste of a functioning brain stem

  14. Men are screwed over in family court over custody and visitation, but women’s excuse is they have the kids more. Why not fight for father’s rights if women are overburdened?

    I (and many other women that I know) would absolutely fight for father’s rights if and when fathers ease some of that overburdening when their relationship with the mother is still intact, instead of shaking their fists at the sky over the injustice of it all when the relationship has been severed and they’re in the family court system. Problem is, what many are bemoaning is their loss of status as the absolute authority who has control over the household, not their loss of sharing in the thankless, menial tasks of child-rearing. Hell, they’re bemoaning that loss of status and feel humiliated when having to do those thankless, menial tasks when their relationship with the mother is still intact!!
    From Patriarch to Patsy
    subtitled: “A father of three young children discovers the humiliations of being a modern dad”

    In case you or anyone else doesn’t care to read the above article (which is a book review), here are a couple of choice excerpts:

    “Fathers, who enjoyed absolute authority within the household for several millennia, now find themselves at the beck and call of their wives and children. Indeed, most of my male friends are not fathers in any traditional sense at all; they occupy roughly the same status in their households as the help. They don’t guide their children through the moral quandaries of life — they guide them to their extracurricular activities from behind the wheel of a Dodge minivan”

    “The poor sucker agreed to take on responsibility for all sorts of menial tasks — tasks that his own father was barely aware of — and received nothing in return. If he was hoping for some gratitude, he was mistaken. According to Mr. Lewis: “Women may smile at a man pushing a baby stroller, but it is with the gentle condescension of a high officer of an army toward a village that surrendered without a fight.” “

    The article and the book that is being reviewed were both written by men, not misandrist feminists.

  15. @Nobinayamu

    NWO is an admitted criminal? Can you tell me more about this?

  16. You’ve been duped princess. Your now a self suffecient slave. So am I.

    No, you whiny fucking titty baby, I am not a slave. I am the direct descendant of slaves and slave-owners. My great-great grandparents were slaves. But I am not a slave. I work for a living. The work that I do earns me money. I use that money to keep a roof over my head and food in my belly. I work hard and sometimes I get tired. And when I need to take a break, I take it. And at the end of the day, I leave my place(s) of employment and go to my own home. I am a citizen.

    The organizations that I work for profit from my labor but they do not own me. My supervisor cannot legally rape me, impregnate me, and then sell my child away from me because it is convenient and profitable to do so. I cannot be beaten for failing to work hard enough or fast enough. I cannot be sold away to a different CEO. It is not illegal for me to be literate. I cannot be legally killed for upsetting my employer.

    You diminish and trivialize the lives of my great-great grandfathers when you call yourself a “slave.” You who are not half the man that they were. But you will not diminish and trivialize me.

    You may be a slave to your delusions but I am not.

    Now, I need to stop procrastinating and get back at these grant protocols. And make potato salad. As always, NWO, you can fuck right the fuck off.

  17. @Nobinayamu

    NWO is an admitted criminal? Can you tell me more about this?

    NWO claims that he was homeless and deeply impoverished and stole from a mom and pop store and escaped the cops by running across train tracks. He also claims the he did time for the crime of poverty.

    He’s an admitted criminal with an arrest record. I’ve got kids who’ve been arrested for simple possession who can’t be hired at McDonald’s. But feminism is oppressing him because he wasn’t hired for a managerial position once.

  18. Men are screwed over in family court over custody and visitation, but women’s excuse is they have the kids more. Why not fight for father’s rights if women are overburdened?

    There is so much wrong with this.

    1: Fathers who petition for custody get it about half the time. The reason women get primary custody most of the time, is that most men don’t want it.

    2: You aren’t really asking for father’s rights. Fathers have rights. Most states have joint custody as the desired outcome. And most states also have, as the primary consideration of custody matters,”the best interest of the child”.

    The MRM doesn’t actually like either of those. They want to have the right of refusal. They also hate the interests of the children in divorced/non-cohabting families. That’s why they are so adamant that child support should be a gift from a non-custodial father, as opposed to a court order.

    So, under the terms the MRM clais to want to expand the “rights of fathers” you are correct. I don’t support that,and will fight against it.

    Because those modifications make it harder for the children, who are already having enough problems. They don’t need to add grinding poverty to them.

  19. John Anderson

    Argenti Aertheri says,

    “Context, it’s about context. If 50% of women were killed by strangers, then saying “only 30% are killed by an intimate partner” would be correct. But 30% is unarguably much larger than 5%.”

    “You’ll note that we discussed the 3:2 thing back on page one before getting side tracked by free will and Ruby. (And note that Ruby is a feminist getting shit for saying prison rape is okay.)”

    The question is how close do the numbers need to be before the context disappears. Is the 3:2 ratio sufficient? Do they need to be exact? I hesitate to use context because it tends to change and is too easily manipulated.

    “You should google “Stanford Prison study” and find the video, the problem is prison, not gender.)”

    I’m familiar with this. That was terrible, but I would caution that we don’t cherry pick what is gender related crime and what is not based on the genders of either the perpetrator or victim

    About your linked post:

    “And before you claim statistics are MISANDRY, modern statistics were invented by a man”

    Being a man and misandrist are not mutually exclusive. Would being female and misogynist be?

  20. “And before you claim statistics are MISANDRY, modern statistics were invented by a man”

    Being a man and misandrist are not mutually exclusive. Would being female and misogynist be?

    So…you are saying that the existence of statistics oppresses men? Or are you making a disingenuous non-sequitur?

  21. Katz: I’ll go with B.

  22. I dunno, “A” might be kind of fun.

  23. Hippodameia: Perhaps it’s the existence of statisticians. If no one ever compiled,and analysed the stats, then the men wouldn’t be oppressed by all those unpleasant facts.

  24. John Anderson

    Pecunium says,

    “Fathers who petition for custody get it about half the time. The reason women get primary custody most of the time, is that most men don’t want it.”

    Many men don’t think that they’d get it. I know that this was true in my brother’s case. He fought for custody when his daughter found pictures of his wife having sex with another man on their family computer. It’s not that he didn’t want custody before. He just thought that he wouldn’t get it.

    “You aren’t really asking for father’s rights. Fathers have rights. Most states have joint custody as the desired outcome. And most states also have, as the primary consideration of custody matters,”the best interest of the child”.

    Fathers have very few rights. Presumptive fathers may have more, but are not necessarily the fathers. There are many states that presume that a married man is the father if a child born during a marriage. That was an unrebuttable assumption in Michigan until recently and I understand is still true in a few states. We still have issues with adoption where paternity does not have to be determined through DNA testing and a father does not have to agree. The putative father can lose his rights simply by failing to act within a time frame whether he had the opportunity or not. I think that much of that could be alleviated by requiring a mother to pay child support to the adoptive parents if a father’s consent to the adoption was not acquired.

    The only agreement I have with the mainstream MRM concerning not paying child support is that if the mother has the ability to unilateral adoption (adoption without the expressed consent of the biological father as determined by DNA test), the father should have the same option to place his child up for unilateral adoption. I don’t see where the mainstream MRM finds the legal precedent for a “legal abortion”. I see precedent for a unilateral adoption, but if mothers are prevented from pursuing it or must pay child support to the adoptive parents in a unilateral adoption, I would not support a father’s right to one either.

  25. John Anderson

    Katz says,

    “So…you are saying that the existence of statistics oppresses men? Or are you making a disingenuous non-sequitur?”

    Feminists, always stuck in the binary mode. Answer is neither. I was pointing out something I thought was fairly evident, but obviously is not.

  26. Pecunium: Yes, that’s what I was thinking. Facts are MISANDRY! And work is too, and responsibility, and a whole host of other things.

    “Many men don’t think that they’d get it.”

    Trying is too hard for them?

  27. John Anderson

    @ Pam

    I wouldn’t say that the authors are wrong because each man is different, but if raising kids is so thankless, why would women want to do it? Before you say they have to, let me point out that the men in your example did what they were obligated to, unless there is also an excerpt where they abandoned their obligations.

  28. My Jo: “So…you are saying that the existence of statistics oppresses men? Or are you making a disingenuous non-sequitur?”

    Feminists, always stuck in the binary mode. Answer is neither. I was pointing out something I thought was fairly evident, but obviously is not.

    More problems with English (btw, there are still some pending questions for you. I’d let it slide but you made a big point about my supposedly not addressing some of yours. Sauce for the goose, and all that).

    It was a non-sequitor, unless you can show some interrelation between the two ideas. Since the existence of statistics is neutral, there is no connection between them. Argenti was being whimsical. She was mocking you.

    You seem to have not noticed. It’s that English thing.

  29. Many men don’t think that they’d get it. I know that this was true in my brother’s case. He fought for custody when his daughter found pictures of his wife having sex with another man on their family computer. It’s not that he didn’t want custody before. He just thought that he wouldn’t get it.

    John’s original position? “Men are screwed over in family court over custody and visitation.” Pecunium refutes that. John moves goalposts with anecdata about his brother.

    John, why don’t MRAs run a positive educational campaign for divorcing fathers, telling them that if they petition for custody they have a decent chance of getting at least shared custody, and often primary custody? Is it because the actual reality on the ground takes away one of the MRM’s most cherished grievances? Because honestly, that is what it looks like.

  30. Cloudiah – it’s because expecting MRAs to actually work for anything is MISANDRY. If MRAs can’t get everything they want handed to them on a silver platter the world is obviously fucked up beyone repair.

  31. Men not wanting primary custody =/= men thinking they can’t get it.

    50% shared custody is probably the best option when both parents are working and can support themselves. But honestly, how many men actually want to spend 50% of their time parenting, let alone 100%? I know my father didn’t want to. And a lot of MRAs don’t want to, either. They would rather spend their time galavanting around Europe with their young girlfriends a la WTF Price, all the while bitching about how unfair the courts are to men.

  32. John Anderson

    Why do feminists only support gender norms only when men are disadvantaged, he should be confident, he should be resolute, he should be strong? If a man shows doubt, uncertainty, or fear then he’s not a man. The feminist position got it.

  33. @John

    “…he should be confident, he should be resolute, he should be strong?”

    He should at least know whether or not he wants custody of his children.

    “If a man shows doubt, uncertainty, or fear then he’s not a man. ”

    Only in MRA Land. You call these men “manginas.”

  34. MISTER Anderson said:
    Why do feminists only support gender norms only when men are disadvantaged, he should be confident, he should be resolute, he should be strong? If a man shows doubt, uncertainty, or fear then he’s not a man. The feminist position got it.

    For a minute there I thought you might be arguing in good faith, but that’s just glaringly silly. No ones said anything like that.

  35. WTF, John? Those strawfeminists in your head are acting up again.

  36. I proudly think in the binary that a statement is either somehow related to the conversation or it isn’t. But John is boldly striking out in new directions and finding a third possibility! His statement is neither related nor unrelated!

    P.S. for everyone: non sequitur, with a U. “Sequor” is a deponent verb.

  37. John, tell us what should be done to help men like your brother. A national campaign with slogans like
    “Hey divorced fathers, you could actually have custody of your children!”
    “Fighting for your children, not just a girly thing”
    “Guys, you know you have 50% chances of having share custody!”

    Because, I can understand why people don’t want to fight when their chance of winning are very slim (like it is the case for many rapes) but when your odds are 50-50 and that, if you don’t fight, you’ll lose your children, what is the excuse?

  38. “I was pointing out something I thought was fairly evident, but obviously is not.”

    Maybe you weren’t so clear? That’s just a suggestion.

  39. Kyrie, I think the MRA argument is if they fight for custody, they’ll be falsely accused of something, so don’t even try.

  40. For a minute there I thought you might be arguing in good faith, but that’s just glaringly silly. No ones said anything like that.

    I did offer him an out. If he was willing to admit he has problems with English than we can still work under the assumption of good faith. But if he’s going to insist he’s not got any problems with English, we have to assume he’s either lying, or spouting bullshit.

    I’d tend to lying, myself. Because he just pretends we’ve said things, but he never actually provides evidence to support the things he says feminists believe.

    So he’s making it up; conveniently it all supports his idea that women hate men (remember that was the belief he, “put aside” until one of us (who might have been a man) said something which hurt his widdew fee-fees.

    Then it was “game on” for the misogyny.

  41. Why do feminists only support gender norms only when men are disadvantaged, he should be confident, he should be resolute, he should be strong? If a man shows doubt, uncertainty, or fear then he’s not a man. The feminist position got it.

    This has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. I mean, absolutely nothing.

    When parents are not living together and have to co-parent their child(ren) despite no longer sharing a household, the child has to be provided for and must have a place to live. Children don’t stop needing food and shelter because their parents’ romantic relationship fails to work out.

    If your brother didn’t pursue custody initially because he wanted joint custody of his daughter then he has no one to blame but himself. If you’re brother only sought joint custody because he realized his ex was having sex with someone else then he needs to examine whether or not he really wants the responsibility of joint custody, or he just wants to punish her mother.

    Either way, the onus is on him. And more and more states (and hopefully even more states) are defaulting to joint custody rulings.

  42. Nobinayamu, that’s unclear but maybe the brother decided he needed to fight for custody because this ex wife was being careless by not hiding her naughty pictures well enough. That’s the most charitable explanation I can think of, but it’s unclear.

  43. I wouldn’t say that the authors are wrong because each man is different

    I agree that each man is different, and perhaps I should have included another excerpt in my previous post which more clearly demonstrated that the authors were extrapolating what is their perception of hands-on child-rearing (i.e., thankless and humiliating) to be the veracity of the American male experience. My point, however, being that continuing to propagate that particular meme as being representative of all men (or all American men) doesn’t really help men who desire to have
    full or even a 50/50 split custody arrangement.

    but if raising kids is so thankless, why would women want to do it?

    Ya got me on that one. I am a woman who is childfree by choice, so I don’t really have an answer as to why women want to do it. In addition, since each woman is different, they each probably have different reasons for why they want to do it. I do know some women who did not want to have and raise children, but did so anyway because they couldn’t handle the stigma that I sometimes endured (selfish bitch, etc.) In a slightly different vein, I have known women who did not fight for primary custody of their children when their cohabitating relationship broke down, and that is social-stigma-worthy too …
    “must be some kind of MONSTER if she didn’t fight for custody!”

  44. Why do feminists only support gender norms only when men are disadvantaged, he should be confident, he should be resolute, he should be strong? If a man shows doubt, uncertainty, or fear then he’s not a man.

    Yeah, that’s exactly what feminists mean when they say that if he wanted full or partial custody of his children he should have tried to gain said custody. ::eyeroll::

  45. Nobinayamu, that’s unclear but maybe the brother decided he needed to fight for custody because this ex wife was being careless by not hiding her naughty pictures well enough. That’s the most charitable explanation I can think of, but it’s unclear.

    I actually considered that interpretation and I agree that, while charitable, it’s certainly as likely as his just being vindictive. Doesn’t change the fact that if he wants custody of her daughter he needs to do something about it.

  46. Argenti Aertheri

    “The question is how close do the numbers need to be before the context disappears. Is the 3:2 ratio sufficient? Do they need to be exact? I hesitate to use context because it tends to change and is too easily manipulated.”

    First, that context changes is the definition of context, yes, nice tautology there. Second, math time! Math part one — 3:2 = 150%, women are 150% as likely to be killed by an intimate as a man (no, that’s not right, because this is a ratio, but let’s play pretend some more?) Math part two — why this ratio is nonsense:

    total homicide risk, male * % killed by intimates * X (we’ll get back to x) = total homicide risk, female * % killed by intimates * Y

    Now, since we want to know the number of men killed by intimates, as compared to women killed by intimates, but using the ratio, we need those “total homicide risk” variables in there, we’ll round to 4 and 1. Y = women killed annually, rounding to 4000, which is slightly higher than reality, but only by ~50. % killed by intimates are 5% (.05) and 30% (.3), respectively. This gives us:

    4 * .05 * x = 1 * .3 * 4000
    .2x = 1200
    x = 6000

    Except the total number of men killed annually is about 13,000 — 6,000 is ~46% of 13,000; not 5%. This ratio thing, it doesn’t actually work for determining anything besides how bored math geeks are. You can only validly collapse ratios like that if the variables are actually related, and really “for every 100 women killed, 20 men are killed by intimates” should sound like nonsense at face value. This math fails the first test of any study, does it make sense at face value? Are you measuring what you claim to be measuring? (I’m now curious the number of manboobz regulars eating ice cream, as a ratio of all people over 6′ tall, it’s about as valid, and I can’t work ice cream into this stat lesson!)

    I can, however, work ice cream into why those juvie rape stats need that dreaded thing called context. (Pulling this from a hat, but) 70% of all ice cream is chocolate, thus if you’re eating, it’s probably chocolate ice cream. That’s what that 90% number is doing, 90% of juvie rape is a woman raping a boy, so boys are more likely to be raped in juvie. Well, maybe, but first you need to account for how my boys versus girls are in juvie, the same way you’d need to account for how much food eaten is ice cream. You want to find and compare the risk, if a girl in juvie, of being raped, to the risk, if a boy in juvie, of being raped — as it is that percentage is broken down as a pie chart of all rape. (The difference between this and the CDC data is that it can be assumed that in the general population the ratio of men to women is fairly 1:1)

    (I have a thing for ice cream examples, this is not an attempt to minimize rape by joking.)

    “I’m familiar with this. That was terrible, but I would caution that we don’t cherry pick what is gender related crime and what is not based on the genders of either the perpetrator or victim”

    You missed where I said in that linked comment that rape was gendered regardless the victims gender, eh?

    About your linked post:

    “And before you claim statistics are MISANDRY, modern statistics were invented by a man”

    Being a man and misandrist are not mutually exclusive. Would being female and misogynist be?

    You’d do a lot better calling Galton a eugenicist than a misandrist…he’s the father of statistics, and eugenics. And fuck, even if he were a misandrist, that doesn’t magically make statistics inherently misandrist (a claim you don’t seem to have yet made, despite it being a common enough MRA talking point that I prefixed my Arks’s reply with it).

    The only agreement I have with the mainstream MRM concerning not paying child support is that if the mother has the ability to unilateral adoption (adoption without the expressed consent of the biological father as determined by DNA test), the father should have the same option to place his child up for unilateral adoption. I don’t see where the mainstream MRM finds the legal precedent for a “legal abortion”. I see precedent for a unilateral adoption, but if mothers are prevented from pursuing it or must pay child support to the adoptive parents in a unilateral adoption, I would not support a father’s right to one either.

    I realize that wasn’t directed at me, but google “safe haven laws”.

  47. @David Futrelle
    “Kyrie, I think the MRA argument is if they fight for custody, they’ll be falsely accused of something, so don’t even try.”

    No one should have to fight for equal custody. Equal custody is an irrevocable right above the authority of the state. You’ve accepted your slavery to the communist state once you start believing they have the right to meddle in someone’s family. Children aren’t a commodity a man needs to pay for to visit.

  48. Nobinayamu, that’s unclear but maybe the brother decided he needed to fight for custody because this ex wife was being careless by not hiding her naughty pictures well enough. That’s the most charitable explanation I can think of, but it’s unclear.

    My best guess is that the brother didn’t initially pursue custody because he may not have had evidence nor even thought that his ex-wife was an unfit parent. What may have been a general rule of the court (and perhaps still is in some places) was to award full physical custody of a child/children below a certain age to the mother unless she is proven to be an unfit parent. When the daughter found pictures of his wife having sex with another man on their family computer, he may have then thought the ex-wife to be unfit parent and had the evidence to prove it.

  49. PosterformerlyknownasElizabeth

    The putative father can lose his rights simply by failing to act within a time frame whether he had the opportunity or not.

    There are things like “Motion to Set Aside Entry of Default” or “Motion to Reopen Case” “Motion to Set Aside Due to Lack of Jurisdiction” and numerous other methods of letting a court know that a father had no ability to respond. But even then at some point the court will say “you had your chance, so no.” Most of the males who are “screwed” are only “screwed” because they ignored the vast volume of mail from the court, the ex and other people who are usually involved in one of these cases. So they had a chance and never bothered to show up. And the excuse of “I did not know what to do” is starting to go away since there is a serious movement nationwide to make court procedures as simple and easy as possible for the average litigant. At some point the father himself has to make some effort, misandric as that may be.

    I think that much of that could be alleviated by requiring a mother to pay child support to the adoptive parents if a father’s consent to the adoption was not acquired.

    That makes zero sense. Why would the mother of the child pay the adopted parents for not talking to the father?

  50. That makes zero sense. Why would the mother of the child pay the adopted parents for not talking to the father?

    Because he thinks child support is punitive.

  51. Are there currently States in the USAs where the father would, by default, need to proof that the mother is an unfit parent to get a part, even beneath 50% (like, having one in two week-ends) of the custody?

  52. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    If there are men who want custody but don’t seek custody because they don’t think they’re going to get it, then the MRM could actually help men in this position, simply by not endlessly repeating the meme that men never get custody!

    Actually help!

    And guess what? Doing so would take even less effort that the “activism” they’re doing now. All they have to do is whine less about this one subject! If the problem is the meme, stop pushing the goddam meme!

  53. What Sir Bodsworth said.
    My brother got interested in MRM forums when he was trying to rescue his kids from their (very abusive) mother. These guys sounded like they were all in his exact position. It worked against him because he started talking like the MRM guys. So when he talked to police, or social workers, or the court, they recognised the catch-phrases. They’d heard these words before, always from abusers, so he had to work much harder to explain the awful situation the kids were in.

    (Does that make any sense? Not very coherent on this subject, ay.)

  54. Argenti Aertheri

    Kyrie — I don’t think so, but IANAL. Wiki only speaks of the opposite though, mandatory joint support in NY.

    And NWO, much as you may hate it, divorce is a thing in the real world, has been for centuries now. Joint custody is a whole lot better than the kids moving away with one parent never to see the other again — which basically never happens now, and when it does, either the “never seen again” parent chose that, or was so unfit as to be a risk to the child(ren).

    Shade, if you’re around, I was nearly late to my psych appt, and I blame Clef for this. (Brain zappingly good, I lost track of time somewhere around “oh gods, not 682″)

  55. NWO: So… abusive parents should have totally equal custody with non-abusive ones? Even if the kids are harmed? When should police/social workers/concerned neighbors be allowed to intervene?

  56. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    @ Magpie – that’s terrible. It’s bad enough that these idiots only see children as pawns in their ridiculous ideological struggle, when their idiocy affects actual real children, it’s nothing short of appalling. I hope it all works out for your brother and your nieces/nephews.

  57. NWO: Before you say ‘that’s not what I said,’ I shall turn to copy/paste and blockquotes:

    Equal custody is an irrevocable right above the authority of the state.

    Irrevocable for abusers, too?

  58. There’s also the fact that equal (physical) custody isn’t necessarily a very good idea even when both parents are capable for reasons like distance, etc (for example, if the parents live far enough apart from each other, the kid has to go to school at one parent’s home, though most of the couple I know who do this switch in the summer.) Also, I think equal legal custody is default and you have to work really, really hard to lose that even if you don’t end up with joint physical custody.

  59. There are lots of reasons why equal physical custody isn’t always best for kids. One (somewhat personal, the kid involved is my godson) example: When a father’s reaction to his son’t autism diagnosis is: “You mean my son’s a fucking retard?!?!?!” And then said father proceeds to not give the kids his meds on his weekends, refuse to take the training that would allow the kid’s service dog to come along on visitation weekends, and keep unsecured guns in the house and car. This is not a person who should be in charge of a kid with special needs. This is not a person who should be in charge of a houseplant.

  60. @ Sir Bodsworth: The kids are safe with my brother now, but of course all of them have a hell of a lot to recover from. He eventually woke up to the MRM because he loves his children as individual people who were suffering, and (as you said) MRAs see kids as pawns.

  61. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    @ Magpie – glad to hear it. And I hope you don’t think I was calling your brother an idiot; I just realised what I wrote was a bit ambiguous on that. I was commenting on the quality of advice he was getting, not him himself

  62. CassandraSays

    Glad your brother was able to get his kids out of a dangerous situation, Magpie. It’s frustrating that the people he looked to for help actually impeded the process, though.

  63. Oh no, I didn’t think you meant my brother was an idiot. You were saying what I was thinking.
    Thanks for the kind words, Sir and Cassandra.

  64. John Anderson

    I’m sure that I have several posts to respond to by the time I return to this thread, but I do want to get back to this context argument. MRAs believe that the context feminists’ use is that men are the oppressors and women are the victims so the context must support this over riding theory even if the context has to be changed or altered to fit this view. So, in our current discussion, feminists have admitted that they realize that 4 times as many men were killed as women so looking at domestic violence in real terms that would be a ratio of 3:2, but even after this realization feminists continue to want to look at this in terms of percentage 5% vs. 30%. They seem to want to make the argument that if men kill non-intimate men than women ought to be able to kill male intimates. I as I’m certain many people with good conscience find that reasoning to be depraved. Yet feminists still try to frame this in that context leading credence to the theory that the true context that feminists view things is that everything must support the men as oppressor / woman as victim theory and that statistics should be spun to reflect that. That’s easily proven by looking at the subsequent conversations I’ve had with feminists since they themselves came to the realization that the ratio in true numbers is 3:2. I’m still waiting on an answer as to whether this ratio is sufficient to change the context. If you find that 40% male victimization is sufficient to gain equal sympathy for men, reexamine my objection to David’s use of the term ONLY in this context.

    The feminists on GMP helped me start to understand the context argument as it related to prostitution. I support the right to bodily autonomy so reasoned consent is key. I don’t see how an exchange of money to secure that consent changes anything. The feminist argument was that economic coercion could negate reasoned consent. On a thread concerning human trafficking, one MRA pointed out that there is a social safety net for women (an argument arises as to whether the same safety net essentially exists for men), welfare and shelters, so women essential have no economic coercion. I think that the standard should exceed immediate survival to support reasoned consent. I still don’t understand how I ended up on the feminist side of the argument.

    I do want to understand this context argument better. If you’ve rightly been shamed into not wanting to reply to the context of the 3:2 ratio in domestic violence cases, reply in terms of legalized prostitution. Is immediate survival sufficient or is welfare and shelters insufficient. One former feminist (not quite an MRA, but we’re working on getting him to join the “dark side”), thought that it was access to jobs that is the problem. I agree, but if a woman has to work 80 hours a week to meet basic needs, are the conditions such to negate informed consent? Is the context argument even refined to this point or is it still a crap shoot?

  65. John Anderson

    Pecunium says,

    “It was a non-sequitor, unless you can show some interrelation between the two ideas.”

    I wasn’t debating this merely pointing out that being male is insufficient to negate misandry. You really should work on that reading comprehension problem.

    You said

    “And before you claim statistics are MISANDRY, modern statistics were invented by a ma”

    You imply that statistics can’t be misandry because they were invented by a man. This makes the argument that if a man does something (invent statistics) it can’t be misandry because he is a man. Mo other conditions were indicated in your response. Being a man is sufficient to negate misandry. I took issue with this assumption. Defend it, revise it or retract it. Maybe it’s writing comprehension that is the problem.

    I said in reply

    “Being a man and misandrist are not mutually exclusive. Would being female and misogynist be?”

    Where did I mention statistics? Your problem is probably both reading and writing comprehension.

  66. Argenti Aertheri

    Re: context, you fail at it, the point was the context of numbers next to each other 30% is large in comparison to 5%, and small in comparison to 70%.

    Re: 3:2 — we’re ignoring it because it isn’t actually telling anyone anything. I already did that math, you can find it. Simple question, if the 3:2 has meaning, what’s it 20% of?

    “They seem to want to make the argument that if men kill non-intimate men than women ought to be able to kill male intimates. ”

    o.O?! No, we’d prefer no one got killed, but are realistic enough to realize that minimizing the numbers is probably all that can be done.

    “I’m still waiting on an answer as to whether this ratio is sufficient to change the context.”

    Oh read the damned thread first would you?

    “If you’ve rightly been shamed into not wanting to reply to the context of the 3:2 ratio in domestic violence cases…”

    Just a guess, but the radio silence here has been because I did that math already. It’s a meaningless ratio as anything other than intellectual curiosity.

    And if you’re hoping to get a coherent view of sex work from feminism, good luck with that.

    You said

    “And before you claim statistics are MISANDRY, modern statistics were invented by a ma”

    You imply that statistics can’t be misandry because they were invented by a man. This makes the argument that if a man does something (invent statistics) it can’t be misandry because he is a man. Mo other conditions were indicated in your response. Being a man is sufficient to negate misandry. I took issue with this assumption. Defend it, revise it or retract it. Maybe it’s writing comprehension that is the problem.

    I said in reply

    “Being a man and misandrist are not mutually exclusive. Would being female and misogynist be?”

    Where did I mention statistics? Your problem is probably both reading and writing comprehension.

    Um, that all was me, not Pecunium. And no, I implied that if Arks wanted to discount all the statistics on account of statistics being inherently misandry, I was going to laugh at him. You seem to continue to miss that that was me snarking at the common MRM claim that all statistics are inherently misandry.

  67. John Anderson

    Since many feminists on this board insist on supporting gender norms when it advantages women and oppose it when it doesn’t in the context of men’s custody decisions. My brother didn’t originally fight for custody because his lawyer, who had about 40 years experience in family law and was actually a litigator, told him that most judges were biased against men. This was the opinion of a person who actually tried cases. Now, much could change over 40 years, but this was the reality that he faced. He made the decision to go after custody when the pictures appeared because he needed to protect his children from that environment and he felt that it would be siffucuent to overcome the bias in favor of the mother.

    It might be easier to look at it in terms of the Brian Banks case. Brian Banks was falsely accused by Wannetta Gibson of raping her. He took a plea deal on advice of his attorney because had he been convicted, he would have had to serve significantly more time. After he had served several years in prison and after she received several hundred thousand dollars from the school district in a settlement, she friends him on Facebook and admits on tape that she falsely accused him. Are you feminists saying that Brian Banks is responsible for his own victimization because he chose not to fight it?

    When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report. Feminists say you should never blame the victim. What feminists mean is that you should never blame the victim unless the victim is a man.

  68. Feminists say you should never blame the victim. What feminists mean is that you should never blame the victim unless the victim is a man.

    No.

    I don’t know whether you are being willfully disingenous because you hate “feminism” (or rather, what you think feminism is), but it’s clear that you don’t know the first thing about the actual beliefs of people on this board. I would never blame the victim of a rape, no matter what their gender was.

  69. CassandraSays

    “Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report.”

    Why is anyone even bothering to engage someone loathesome enough to write this?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,494 other followers

%d bloggers like this: