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. @CassandraSays You’re right. I’m disengaging forthwith, as reading that actually made be feel nauseous.

  2. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Point 1: Men are screwed in custody disputes in divorce court!
    Point 2: Actually, men think they’re going to be screwed in said courts, so they don’t even bother trying!
    Point 3: I take no responsibility for point 2, even though arguing in favour of point 1 makes me part of that problem. It was actually all the fault of, uh, my brother’s lawyer, yeah, who… look over there! A false rape case! This has something to do with feminism, probably!

    Seriously, if you’re going to go for smoke-and-mirrors, at least learn how to use them.

  3. And John Anderson reminds us why we need feminism.

  4. CassandraSays

    No shit, that was the fastest transition from “delusional weirdo, sadly common on the internet” to “you are a sick puppy, please get help before you hurt someone” I’ve seen in a while.

  5. Argenti Aertheri

    Also done with new-troll after that last comment, first though — I’m sorry your brother had a shitty lawyer, and I’m sorry Banks had a shitty lawyer, however that’s where the similarities end.

  6. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    D’oh, shit, I just sort of skipped over the boilerplate. Yeah, that’s more fucked up than I thought.

  7. John Anderson

    Argenti Aertheri saus,

    “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?”

    3:2 has meaning. It means that men don’t kill their intimate partners in vastly disproportionate numbers. It may not be something that feminist want to highlight, but it definitely has meaning.

    “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.”

    It’s meaningless to you because it doesn’t support the men as oppressor / women as oppressed theory. The silence here is not because you did the math already BUT WHAT THE MATH SAYS.

    “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.”

    Oops, sorry Pecunium. I’ve read that theme a man wrote this or a man did that on this blog that it didn’t occur to me that it was snark and then it seemed you were defending it. Like I said, I don’t know the back story of people here. I take it that many people here have engaged with the more militant segment of the MRM. For me, my interest in issues of gender equality was sparked when I did research for a project in ethics class. I’ve only looked at this for about a year. It brought back some memories long repressed. This kind of helps to deal with those experiences by letting me see them in a different light.

    Of course my journey would start on feminist sites. They are the standard bearers of equality. Men’s issues seemed to be minimized or dismissed. Then I found the MRM, but there was too much anger. Then I found GMP, which I believe to be a feminist web site focused on men. It’s helped me understand feminists better. Why I got the reaction I got when discussing men’s issues on feminist web sites, but it doesn’t change how I feel. I almost laugh when I hear the feminists on the site say that it’s important to feminism to hear men’s voices (some even think MRA voices are important) and discuss men’s issues. I wonder how that happens when the first response is to try to bully the person into leaving the thread. Yeah, I come in hard, but I know I have to because that’s the response I’ll get.

    If you think it’s important to hear the other side and what issues are affecting men, come by GMP.

  8. 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?

    Doesn’t that ratio ultimately simplify down to “percentage of all women who are killed by intimates:percentage of all men who are killed by intimates”? (Incidentally, looking at your numbers upthread, that’s not really accurate, and it should be much closer to 2:1, but that’s because the 4x likelihood of homicide should actually be more like 3x.) I’m not saying that’s necessarily an important number to talk about, but it’s not the nonsense you’re making it out to be.

    To put it another way, here’s the math he’s doing: (number of women killed by intimates/total number of women killed)*(total number of women killed/total number of all women):(number of men killed by intimates/total number of men killed)*(total number of men killed/total number of all men)

    which would simplify down to (number of women killed by intimates/total number of all women):(number of men killed by intimates/total number of all men)

    It’s late, so I easily could have missed something, and I may not be making much sense. But it was just confusing me that you were treating the whole ratio thing like it was a completely arbitrary. It might not be important, per se, but it’s not totally arbitrary.

  9. Argenti Aertheri

    PsychoDan — you missed a step, it isn’t 20% of men who are murdered are murdered by intimates (that’s 5%), it’s that for every 100 women murdered, 20 men are killed by intimates. And worded that way it’s obviously silly at face value. (And yeah, I checked the 4:1 claim, got 3.x and rounded up since it was easier to use the 4x everyone was already using; I actually used the raw risks at one point and got fundamentally the same ~50% nonsense result) — The point was that if you try to look at male homicide as a ratio of female homicide, you get nonsense.

    John — no, 3:2 does not have meaning, because it’s forcing the numbers to fit into a ratio of women killed. And “vastly disproportionate number”? 150% isn’t? Even accounting for the higher homicide rate among men, 150% more women are killed by intimates.

  10. If you think it’s important to hear the other side and what issues are affecting men, come by GMP.

    Uh, you are aware that the majority of the 825 posts on this blog so far are in fact devoted to what “the other side” says, right? And that most of the 164,000 comments here are also devoted to discussing what “the other side” says?

    I’m pretty sure the regulars here have a much better idea of what MRAs say than most MRAs do.

  11. Argenti Aertheri

    PsychoDan — I’m tired, I’m not sure that was clear — I’m using 4:1 because it was used to arrive at 3:2. Of all women murdered, 30% are by intimates; of all men murdered, 5% are by intimates; it was stated/assumed previously that men are killed 4 times as often as women, thus 5%*4=20 (20%, of what?) — but 30:20 – 3:2. ‘Cept that’s nonsense because you can’t look at how many men are murdered by intimates in terms of how many women are murdered (or you can, but it doesn’t tell much besides how bored people are).

  12. John Anderson

    Pam says,

    “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.”

    What makes the responses (I’m trying to be nice) misandrist is that they are more focused on the gender of the perpetrator and the victim then the actual victimization. I’m told that 30% and 5% have meaning. The implies that men kill women in vastly greater numbers (that is what is misandrist) when the reality is that it is a 3:2 (obscuring reality, more misamdry).

    I’m told that the 3:2 ratio has no meaning, but the ration only exists because FOUR TIMES AS MANY MEN ARE KILLED. To say that the 3:2 ratio has no meaning implies that the 4:1 ratio has no meaning. That is what is misandrist. The thinking that if men kill men, that shouldn’t be counted in feminism’s gender war and if they can use that fact to obscure the fact that women kill nearly as many intimates as men, then double bonus.

  13. Argenti Aertheri

    Oh, one more thought PsychoDan — your math is valid for arriving at a valid result, my math is invalid because the premises are invalid, I know, that was the point of the experiment. It isn’t totally arbitrary, but it is conflating things in a matter that results in illogical results. (Sorry if my ice cream analogy threw you, I try to make all my math examples involve snacks, it keeps peoples attention, because NOMS!)

    Re: GMP — yeah that’s about the closest there is to a moderate MRM site, but I refuse to read anything that gives Hugo a platform on general principle.

  14. John Anderson

    Argenti Aertheri saus,

    “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?”

    I forgot to answer your question. It’s not 20% of anything it’s 40% of the total number of intimates killed as opposed to 60%. Glad to do the math for you.

  15. Anderson, you comparison is terrible. You’re comparing case where there is legitimate danger and pain if the person goes to trial (like Banks facing a longer sentence or a rape victim having to suffer, to be called a liar, a slut, having her personal life showed to the world,… with little chances of winning the trial) to your brother not bothering to fight for his children. What’s the worse that could have happen to him?

    And I still don’t know why the picture made the mother such a bad mom. Was it because she’s irresponsible for not hiding it well enough? For having taken the picture? For having sex with another man?

    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.

    Fuck. You.

    If a woman enjoy the intercourse and then don’t (and it happens! for plenty of reasons) you should stop the instant the woman shows she doesn’t want it anymore. Same if the person is not a woman. That’s how you don’t rape people, asshole.

  16. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    I’m an English major, so it probably goes without saying that stats aren’t my strong suit, but am I right in assuming that the take home message from these stats is: “a given woman is at significantly greater risk of being murdered by an intimate partner than a given man?”

  17. Argenti Aertheri

    “I’m told that 30% and 5% have meaning. The implies that men kill women in vastly greater numbers (that is what is misandrist) when the reality is that it is a 3:2 (obscuring reality, more misamdry).”

    No, it means that if murdered, women have a much higher risk of it being an intimate partner. The 4:1 ratio has no meaning in this context. Because we are not talking about raw numbers here, this was never about the raw number of people killed, but rather if someone is murdered, what are the odds it was an intimate partner? And that answer is a lot higher if the victim was female.

    “The thinking that if men kill men, that shouldn’t be counted in feminism’s gender war and if they can use that fact to obscure the fact that women kill nearly as many intimates as men, then double bonus.”

    No, even working with the 3:2 ratio, that’s still a 150% higher risk to women. To inverse it, that’s saying that 67% of people killed by intimates are women, 67% isn’t just a majority, it’s a super majority (yep, I just repurposed a political term for stats, it’s late). That 67% btw, that’s when 3:2 becomes valid math. There is no 20% though, what would that even be, of women killed 20% are men killed by intimates? My head hurts now…

  18. Argenti – It’s not 20% of anything. It’s only there because you’re multiplying by a ratio that’s already been reduced down. But the idea is this: the 4:1 was presented as the ratio of men to women killed out of the total population. 5:30 is the ratio of men killed by intimates out of men killed to women killed by intimates out of women killed. When you multiply them together, the men killed and women killed simplify out; they’re in the numerator of one of the percentages and the denominator of the other. It just looks weird because instead of looking at the raw numbers for (men killed/all men) and (women killed/all women), we got an already reduced ratio of the two.

    And now I’m pretty sure I’m not being clear at all. This is what you should really take away from my last post:

    here’s the math he’s doing: (number of women killed by intimates/total number of women killed)*(total number of women killed/total number of all women):(number of men killed by intimates/total number of men killed)*(total number of men killed/total number of all men)

    If you can muddle through my probably poor wording there, it should hopefully make sense.

  19. John Anderson

    PsychoDan,

    Thanks, I’m trying to catch up to the posts and hadn’t gotten to yours. I appreciate this.

  20. Argenti Aertheri

    “a given woman is at significantly greater risk of being murdered by an intimate partner than a given man?”

    Yeah. In raw numbers, and sticking with the previous rounding because I’m too tired to dig up excel files again (and excel for mac remains evil)

    women killed annually * % killed by intimates = 4,000~ * .3 = 1,200
    men killed annually * % killed by intimates = 13,000~ * .05 = 650

    As PsychoDan noted, the 4:1 ratio isn’t really accurate, so that really is closer to 2:1. But the 3:2 ratio was a thought experiment setting it in terms of the number of women killed, which, while interesting, is kind of useless (the level of uselessness should be made clear from my applying the ratio to the raw numbers and arriving at ~50% of men being killed by intimates, which um, is off by a factor of 10).

  21. John Anderson

    Argenti Aertheri says,

    “Re: GMP — yeah that’s about the closest there is to a moderate MRM site, but I refuse to read anything that gives Hugo a platform on general principle.”

    Hugo is not generally liked by the commentators on GMP. I’m glad he is no longer affiliated with the site. He quit last year something about disagreeing with Tom.

  22. Argenti Aertheri

    PsychoDan — I’m not sure why you’re involving the total number of men and women in general (particularly since that’s very nearly a 1:1 ratio)…oh, you want the total number of murders in general there, not the total number of people, that’s why it’s reading weird. Yeah, that’s the math I did above, and it does indeed work out to about 2:1.

    John — that’s saying that women stand twice the risk of men (of being killed by an intimate).

  23. Argenti Aertheri

    w00t! for one less place giving Hugo a platform. Your claim about why rape isn’t reported is still disgusting though.

  24. Argenti Aertheri

    “Argenti Aertheri saus”

    Oh! That was a typo of says! Here I was reading it as Argenti Aertheri-saurus…I am clearly tired if my brain is reverting to DINOSAURS RAWR!!

  25. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Oh, good. I was trying to do the maths based off the DOJ website, and I was getting about 2:1 as well. I think part of the problem some people are having (assuming good faith argument) is the 4:1 men murdered to women murdered ratio, which seems to be valid specifically for the year 2005. If you look at the entire period covered 1976-2005 it’s closer to 3:1 overall.

    Maybe I’m not as bad at maths as I thought.

  26. John Anderson

    David Futrelle

    When I said men’s issues, I meant issues affecting men not some men’s “issues” manifesting itself into an irrational hatred of women. I don’t know if that makes a difference.

  27. Argenti – The problem there, the reason you’re coming up with that useless number, is that you’re putting the numbers of men and women killed annually in there twice once as part of the ratio between the two, and then again as the raw number.

    John – Don’t think you’ve got any friends in this thread after that vile little display on the last page. I’m playing with numbers with Argenti here for the sake of playing with numbers, not to help you make some misguided point.

    Incidentally, I don’t think the comparative percentage for men was even necessary in the original post. The point, for the most part, was that almost a third of murdered women are murdered by there partners, and holy shit, that’s a lot. The 5% number was only given to show that the same is not really a significant portion of the violence against men. The absolute numbers only matter if you’re trying to keep score, which is utterly pointless.

  28. Argenti – And you got it while I was typing out that last comment. Yeah, that’s what I was going for. And the fact that my word-mash kept us talking past each other that long means I should probably get some sleep.

  29. CassandraSays

    I don’t think the comparative percentage in relation to total murder numbers was very useful either. If you want a useful comparison to give a sense of relative scale of murder by an intimate partner by gender, roughly 2:1 is it. The 30%/5% numbers are useful if evaluating individual risk, but not for much else.

  30. John Anderson

    Kyrie says,

    “What’s the worse that could have happen to him?”

    He could have a vindictive wife who retaliates by attempting to limit his visitation and actively seeks to interfere with it. Feminists approach the discussion from the standpoint that in this case men don’t want their children anyway and the law will always be applied in a gender neutral manner. Feminist fail to realize that enforcing a visitation order often involves spending huge amounts of resources. It’s nit like you have the police and prosecutors on your side. If you don’t have the resources and the judge could be biased. You run the risk of not being able to see your children at all. Is that serious enough?

    If a woman doesn’t have the resources to leave an abusive relationship, it’s not her fault. If a man doesn’t have the resources to continuously enforce a visitation order, which usually only ends up in him getting make up time, it’s his fault because the sole purpose and value of a man is the amount of financial resources he can gather. Some guys feel it is better to be assured some time than to be cut out of their children’s lives.

    They approach the idea of a woman not reporting a rape because the justice system will victimize her some more.

  31. They approach the idea of a woman not reporting a rape because the justice system will victimize her some more.

    Not sure I know what this sentence means (I guess you’re sticking to your vile and dubious comparison between rape and custory law), but what?! You think rape victims don’t report rapes because “the justice system will victimize” them “some more”? Please do some reading about rape and rape victims and try to gain some compassion while you’re at it.

    I should add that I don’t actually agree that women should automatically have custody of children, but as soon as you start spewing hateful stuff like this you’ve lost me forever.

  32. John Anderson

    Argenti Aertheri says,

    “No, it means that if murdered, women have a much higher risk of it being an intimate partner. The 4:1 ratio has no meaning in this context. Because we are not talking about raw numbers here, this was never about the raw number of people killed, but rather if someone is murdered, what are the odds it was an intimate partner? And that answer is a lot higher if the victim was female.”

    Unless you are assuming that men have 4 times as many intimate partners as women than the odds of men being killed by an intimate partner are 2/3 the odds of a woman being killed by an intimate partner.

  33. ShadetheDruid

    You want to know why feminists get annoyed when it comes to men’s issues? It’s not because we don’t care about them, but if you’d actually bothered to take note you’d see that often a lot of discussions of women’s issues gets invaded by men looking for attention for their issues (or with the illusion of doing that, when they’re actually just there to troll). In fact, how do you think Ozy’s blog on the GMP got its name?

    The best example of this is when every discussion of FGM gets invaded by men wanting to know “what about circumcision?!” Then look at a discussion of circumcision (i’ll be right there agreeing that it’s a practice that needs to stop, btw).. See any women complaining “what about FGM?!” Nope.

    I can tell you now that if David did a post on circumcision (not that he necessarily would, since it’s not exactly relevant to the blog’s subject), i’m pretty sure that the majority of the feminists here (not that I mean to speak for everyone, it’s just a feeling) would quite happily have a conversation about why it sucks without it going off the rails like conversations about FGM tend to do.

    It’s good that places like the GMP exists (even if i’m not a big fan of the place, and that’s not because of the subject matter), designated solely for the purpose of discussing men’s issues! That’s what feminists keep saying! We’re quite happy to discuss men’s issues (and I say that as a man, so it’s not like I don’t have a stake in it), just don’t do it where it isn’t the subject. If you feel there’s not enough talk about men’s issues (and this is where MRAs, and generally sexist men, fall down): start a conversation on them that doesn’t involve invading other spaces!

    Unless you want to go discuss white people issues in a discussion about racial minority issues. Or straight issues in a discussion about gay issues. Etc etc.

    (I don’t expect him to get this at all. Apologies for continuing to interact with him :( ).

  34. “He could have a vindictive wife who retaliates by attempting to limit his visitation and actively seeks to interfere with it. ”

    And how is it worse than “having no visitation at all”, which is what you get when you don’t do anything?

  35. John, I haven’t read over the comments, so I don’t know if people are arguing against your point about the justice system, but if it makes you feel any better, yes, it’s an absolute reality that any person is intimidated, or just flat out does not have the resources to counter a lawyer telling you, “oh you likely won’t get the kids in equal PHYSICAL custody that’s very very rare”…

    or especially when a defense lawyer tells you, if this goes to trial and you lose, you’ll get LIFE. We can never predict a jury, and they’re going to say this, this and this…. so you can plea bargain. That’s a real issue with innocent people pleading guilty, men, women, whoever.

    And it is like you say, the justice system can victimize a person, and yes, that contributes to rape victims not reporting.

    I don’t know if anyone here is arguing directly against that, but what you are saying in this case is correct.

    BTW, equal PHYSICAL custody, meaning back and forth for the child is considered bad for the child. It only works well under rare circumstances, it’s Solomon’s problem. “Split the child in half.” and many men openly admit they seek this for monetary reasons only. In fact most of the bitching the MRM does surrounding this topic is their screaming entitlement to give birth and not want to care for their own flesh and blood human beings monetarily. Not wanting to support their own children is a way more pronounced discussion in the MRM than the topic of the human beings they should naturally love and want to DIE for, as normal parents do.

  36. John Anderson

    Kyrie,

    You misunderstand what I’m saying. If a wife offers a man set visitation in return for agreeing to give her custody. He gets visitation if he does not fight custody. It’s only if he fights for custody that he could get nothing. He could get custody also, but that was the point of the Brian Banks case. Do you fight knowing you could lose more, but possibly win? If Brian Banks felt the system was biased against him as many fathers do, how would that affect their decision?

    I’m more objecting to the comments that many people here made that assumes that if a man doesn’t fight for custody, it automatically means he never wanted it. Hope that clarifies things.

  37. Sir Bodsworth Rugglesby III

    Ooh, new one for the list. We already had
    Point 1: Men are screwed in custody disputes in divorce court!
    Point 2: Actually, men think they’re going to be screwed in said courts, so they don’t even bother trying!
    Point 3: I take no responsibility for point 2, even though arguing in favour of point 1 makes me part of that problem. It was actually all the fault of, uh, my brother’s lawyer, yeah, who… look over there! A false rape case! This has something to do with feminism, probably!

    and now:

    Point 4 – Okay, look, forget everything all that stuff about the law. Even if the law is on the man’s side in a custody case, somehow he still loses anyway, just because.

    Looking forward to point 5!

  38. Argenti Aertheri

    “The problem there, the reason you’re coming up with that useless number, is that you’re putting the numbers of men and women killed annually in there twice once as part of the ratio between the two, and then again as the raw number.”

    I don’t think I did? I took the ratio of men killed (or rather, the risk of homicide if male), multiplied by percent of men killed by intimates, multiplied that all by the infamous X and left it while multiplying the risk of homicide if female by the percent of women killed by intimates, by the total number of women killed, and solved for X. And then compared X to the total number of men killed, and laughed at the ratio being pointless. Using the actual risks from the FBI got similar enough numbers that I thought it easier to work with the assumed 4:1 than explain the source of new numbers, but I don’t think I repeated the risk (I would have if I’d used 20 in there instead of 5%).

    I am now tired and testing the waters of the amnesia drug (ativan) though, so please forgive me if I’m failing math.

  39. Argenti Aertheri

    I should hit refresh before commenting, I see we’re just talking past each other because we’re both tired, oops!

  40. Argenti Aertheri

    “Unless you are assuming that men have 4 times as many intimate partners as women than the odds of men being killed by an intimate partner are 2/3 the odds of a woman being killed by an intimate partner.”

    Yes, if we set women’s risk at 1, mens risk would be .67; contra, if we set men at 1, women’s risk would be 1.5. I repeat, for every 100 PEOPLE killed by intimates, 67 will be women. Outside gambling, most people don’t set ratios with 1 as the higher number. Do you get what 2/3rds the odds means? It’s the inverse of 150% odds. (I mean, you seem able to divide 2/3, so try 3/2, note how it’s 1.5, yeah, that’d be a 150% risk ratio)

    Re: Banks, I see we have another MRA ignoring racism, color me unsurprised.

  41. Argenti Aertheri

    Oh and in the land of decent math, it’s more like 2:1. As in women have risk that is 200% that of men.

    (Someone check my 67% above, the latest in mind melting meds has kicked in and my math skills are failing)

  42. What makes the responses (I’m trying to be nice)…

    Yes, John, we KNOW that you’re trying to be nice, just as you’re trying to be open-minded and trying to set aside the fact that you KNOW that you’re stepping, with great trepidation, into a cesspool of vile, man-hating misandrists.
    Remember, John, context matters, even in the realm of the type of responses that you receive.

    As for the remainder of your post that was addressed to me, I don’t know if I could respond any better than Argenti Aertheri did:

    No, it means that if murdered, women have a much higher risk of it being an intimate partner. The 4:1 ratio has no meaning in this context. Because we are not talking about raw numbers here, this was never about the raw number of people killed, but rather if someone is murdered, what are the odds it was an intimate partner? And that answer is a lot higher if the victim was female.

  43. haven’t been able to comment on this thread much because of sneezing fits from all the STRAW in John Anderson’s straw feminists.

    “Feminist monolith mean to men” yeah yeah yeah, old stuff.

    There are all sorts of problems in how the legal system (created by, dominated by, run by mostly straight white middle class MEN btw) operates.

    But you know, it isn’t feminists’ fucking fault, and if all a man does is blame feminists for everything, then I put him firmly in the misogynist troll category, not in the category of someone who wants to work to change kyriarchical gender roles which disproportionately har men of color, men of alternative sexualities, and men in lower socio-economic classes. And I don’t see much concern for those men.

  44. Yeah Ithliana, it’s all well and good talking about ending systematic and often deadly oppression which affects people who aren’t John, but John’s FEELINGS WERE HURT. His PREJUDICES WERE CONFIRMED. Won’t somebody think of John?

  45. John’s idea of the “worst that can happen”: vindictive wife! limits access to children. Oh, the horror of it all.

    As opposed to men Killing their ex-wives and children and sometimes other innocent bystanders while the MRA cheers, and

    women and children in poverty due to lack of child support.

    Oh, and the “women have a support system so saying that they’re forced into prostitution is FALSE” is pure and utter crap and ignores, among other things, sex slavery.

    And the idea there’s some lavish support system for ALL women in this country is pure stone ignorant MRA bigotry, and you John Anderson are an asshat troll.

  46. Hmmm lets see…who should I listen to for reputable information- the CDC or some dudes on the internet with a very obvious bias?

    Here’s the thing, unless we as feminists agree that men are perfect in every possible way ever, or say that men and women are equal in every way regarding the crimes or bad things they do….then we will be accused of misandry.

    Well you know what? I guess I’m a misandrist then, because I refuse to pretend facts and reality don’t matter just to appease MRAs and their victim complexes. Fuck that shit. Women are more likely to be killed in a domestic dispute. There are men out there who rape women. There are men out there who harrass women, who threaten women when they say something they dont like. Fuck MRAs who want me to pretend this doesn’t exist just because they feel it reflects badly on them or other men. Sorry they are to dumb to realize that a group of people may be more likely to do something, but that doesn’t mean everyone in that group will. I can confidently say women as a group are probably more likely to use a man for money, enjoy makeup and shoe shopping but still not get all bent out of shape because of it? Why? Because what some women do, does not reflect on me as an individual. I am not a golddigger, or false accuser, just like most men are not rapists or serial killers.

    And here’s another thing. Why can I as a feminist concede when I’m wrong or agree with an MRA point (ie there are more women who initiate violence in a relationship than I originally thought) yet MRAs can never ever fucking conceuniquede with any feminist points. No. they have to argue and twist shit around or pretend men have it equally bad on everything even on the things that uniquely effect women? Because this isn’t about helping men, its about proving your ‘enemy’ wrong.

    Women are more likely too be killed by a partner. Men are more likely to be killed by a stranger. Men are also more likely to be killed by other men. Get the fuck over it and accept the facts if you truly want to move forward and tackle these problems.

  47. Also if too check the links on the CDC page, there is one that links the actual number of men and women killed by intimate partners. In 2005, 300-something men were killed, 1000-something women were killed. I can’t get the link because I’m on my phone though (also why my spelling is off)

  48. @TheNatFantastic: Yep, John is the single most important center of the universe, him and his brother.

  49. @Quackers: *CHEERS*

    Yes, plus add the fact that while women do rape men, men are more likely to be raped…by other men.

    And deciding that all the statistics are lies (and that there is a shitstorm of women getting other men to kill exes but there’s no proof of it because FBI LIES, and the lack of proof, is tah dah, PROOF) is just more trolling.

  50. John’s got a sense of entitlement that would choke a T-Rex, and he thinks it makes him special.

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

    This coming from the dude who thinks Affirmative Action is flooding workplaces with incompetent employees? The dude who claimed that white, hetero, Christian men are the most oppressed group because there are no groups advocating for their rights? You’ll have better luck arguing with goldfish Owly if you’re looking for a blank slate for every post you make

  52. @ithiliana

    Yes that FBI thing had me facepalming so hard, as usual no proof was offered either.

    As for the rape problem, I think there needs to be a massive campaign that just says look, everyone gets raped, this is how we stop it. Obviously its more fair if male victims are given equal attention, but the very cynical part of me also thinks that if its framed as a people issue rather than mainly a woman’s issue, it will be taken more seriously. Also maybe that fucking clothing myth will finally die.

  53. John Anderson

    Bodsworth Rugglesby III,

    allow me to paraphrase

    1. Point one women are re-victimized by the legal system when reporting rape.
    2. Point 2 women believe that they’ll be screwed over by the legal system if they report rape.
    3. Point 3 women who don’t report rape are part of the problem.

    I realize that you’re still operating under the gender norm stereotype that men should be able to prevail. Men shouldn’t have any fear. Oh heck, men shouldn’t need a lawyer. It’s only women who need people to defend their rights.

    I entered thinking feminists would be closed minded. I never imaged that the door would be welded shut.

  54. I entered thinking feminists would be closed minded. I never imaged that the door would be welded shut.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy, John.

  55. 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.

    Care to explain what you meant by this, John? Because to me it looks like a particularly gross bit of rape apologia from you. Just a thought, but maybe it’s not the closed-mindedness of everyone here but the actual words you have been typing that caused the chilly reception you keep whining on about.

  56. John Anderson

    Hippodameia says,

    “John’s got a sense of entitlement that would choke a T-Rex, and he thinks it makes him special.”

    In lieu of a rational argument, feminism at it’s finest.

  57. I entered thinking feminists would be closed minded. I never imaged that the door would be welded shut.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

  58. John, you came to this blog, stamped all over the place derailing the conversation and DEMANDING that you be heard, answered and placated while all the while spewing forth about how much you think all feminists are evil and stupid, then chucked in some rape apologia that you expect people to be fine with.

    Can you explain how that’s not having a grossly overblown sense of entitlement?

    Claiming women who don’t baby them and cater to their every whim aren’t capable of rationality, MRAs at their finest.

  59. John you are quite the clown.

  60. “I realize that you’re still operating under the gender norm stereotype that men should be able to prevail. Men shouldn’t have any fear. Oh heck, men shouldn’t need a lawyer. It’s only women who need people to defend their rights.”

    This is your entitlement showing, John. You think it’s unfair that you might have a chance of not prevailing. You think it’s awful that you might have to work for something and not be successful. You think that if life isn’t automatically tilted in your favor that you’re suffering from discrimination.

    You’re a whiner, and a liar (do you really think anyone believes you came here with an open mind?) and a coward who moves goalposts every time he looses an argument.

    Do you know what else you are, John? You’re our entertainment. So dance, troll, before we all get bored.

  61. JohnTroll: purpose of blog: mocking misogyny.

    Not everybody here is a feminist; not every feminist here agrees with every other feminist, as you would know if you bothered to lurk more and read more before spouting off.

    You sound like a misogynist.

    You get mocked.

    I read the whole thread over at GMP that David linked to: lots of misogyny in that thread.

    But I don’t blast over there and tell them all off about it (I have a lot better things to do with my time than tell misogynists they are misogynists, lots better, and men in the aggregate aren’t that important to me). I’d rather focus on women.

    There aren’t the many uses of “cunt” and other slurs there, but the overall “feminism is to blame” is just as strong as on the MRA sites.

    So feel free to sit in your stew and blame feminism for being so mean and close minded and harming men. Why bother around here any more, given all the closing doors?

  62. Anybody know if the GOOD MEN PROJECT ever has posts by men of color? Does it ever talk about racism? Are there posters who are gay or bisexual or trans men? Any class analysis?

    Or is it the privileged straight white men who have been so harmed by patriarchy though they won’t say the evil awful p word gathering together to beat the drum and share their stories of their oppression?

    Plus, the fact they kept Hugo Schwyzer around for so long doesn’t speak well for them either.

  63. John Anderson

    PsychoDan says,
    “Don’t think you’ve got any friends in this thread after that vile little display on the last page.”

    I forgot men make you hate them. Oh wait, that was a topic on another thread here about MRAs blaming women for hating them. I won’t too snark too much. You seem decent.

    “The 5% number was only given to show that the same is not really a significant portion of the violence against men. The absolute numbers only matter if you’re trying to keep score, which is utterly pointless.”

    I think that depends largely on the point being made. If one MRA complaint is that men are unfairly portrayed as abusers within an intimate relationship, than only intimate relationship numbers should be looked at if you wish to refute the claim. I’m not saying that you specifically are trying to.

    So the ultimate purpose of the article is what? Based on what you’re telling me, the purpose of the statement is to examine why 95% of men are being killed outside of intimate relationships. If we are only looking at intimate relationships, there would be no purpose in reporting the 5% number unless it was a purposeful attempt to obfuscate the truth and an effort to unfairly paint men as overwhelmingly the abusers in intimate relationships.

    I may have missed it. The thread is about 500 comments long, but with men being killed outside of intimate relationships at a rate 12 times that of women being killed inside intimate relationships, you would think that it would be worth discussing.

  64. @Hippodameia

    That was very well said. I would like to gift you one internet.

    (Spoiler: The internet is made of cats.)

  65. Thank you, TheNatFantastic! XD I shall give them satin pillows and rub their furry tummies.

  66. John Anderson

    Itbiliana syas,

    “Anybody know if the GOOD MEN PROJECT ever has posts by men of color?”

    Sorry if I misspelled your name. This font is not helping me out. There are a few articles by men of color. One section connects to the blog of a man of color. Homophobia, gender stereotypes, body image issues, etc. are confronted and addressed. Come by and visit. Right now there are discussions focusing around the objectification of men because of the Magic Mike movie. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.

  67. John Anderson

    Itbillieana says,

    “JohnTroll: purpose of blog: mocking misogyny.”

    Purpose of the blog is for David to mock misogyny.

    Misogyny. I mock it.

    There are over 400 comments and they’re not all from David. If you were included it would say WE. Learn to read.

  68. ShadetheDruid

    GMP discussion = comments are full of MRAs and self-proclaimed “anti feminists”, from what i’ve seen.

  69. Unimaginative

    So the ultimate purpose of the article is what?

    The purpose of this particular post is to mock the MRAs who look at a horrible statistic like “30% of murdered women are killed by their intimate partners” and get all offended that nothing’s being done about a TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC.

    Allow me to sum up this whole thread.

    People: “30% of women who are murdered, are killed by their intimate partners.”

    Other People: “That’s horrible. What can we do to make women safer in their intimate relationships?”

    MRAs: “What about the men, hey? Men get killed too [mostly by other men, who are not their intimate partners, which makes it a whole different dynamic and different topic, requiring a different conversation and strategy]! Why aren’t you talking about men?”

    People in General: “Well, there’s some people talking about that over there, why don’t you go help them?”

    MRAs: “NOOOOO! I want to talk about ME here and now and with YOUUUUUUU.”

    Manboobz: “MRAs sure are mock-worthy.”

    MRAs: “How dare you be so dismissive of men’s pain! You misandrists! Feminists suck!”

    Manboobz: “Pffft bwahaha!”

    MRAs: “[Incorrect facts, misinterpretation, outright lies, bigotry, rape apologia]”

    Manboobz: “Yeah, whatevs.”

    MRAs: “Misandry!”

    Manboobz: moving on to another example of MRA idiocy to mock.

  70. John Anderson one page ago if anyone didn’t see 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.

    John, as an ambassador of the GMP, you are failing hard. In fact, you are failing hard as a human fucking being. Protip: Going to court with the possibility you might lose =/= rape. Not even fucking close.

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 7,938 other followers

%d bloggers like this: