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. John Anderson

    Quackers says,

    “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.”

    Feminists get accused of misandry, I’m sure this will shock you so please be seated, when they ENGAGE in it. I don’t refute the assertion that more women are killed by men in intimidate relationships. I object to the false characterization that men are the overwhelming perpetrators of intimate partner murders. Nothing on this thread has produced a reasoned argument or plausible other purpose for introducing the 5% number.

  2. And according to you, MISANDRY is expecting MRAs to put forth effort when they aren’t guaranteed success.

    MISANDRY also seems to involve properly understanding math, as this thread’s repeatedly demonstrated.

  3. 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.

    That’s not feminism’s fault. Given the facts (men who petition have an equal chance of getting custody), the greatest inhibition I’m seeing is folks (like the MRM) who lie about how custody is awarded.

  4. Johnny boy said: 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.

    Oh, you silly billy.

  5. @JohnTroll: So in other words, not much of Good Men Space is inhabited by any other than straight white men. Not surprising, with the default “men.”

    I read one post by a feminist, and the entire thread that was attached to it, and see absolutely nothing there of worth to me, and nobody I cared to engage with.

    Your performance here has done nothing to change my mind–I am a queer pagan woman living with a woman in rural Texas. I work very collegially with my male colleagues, especially the younger ones who are themselves breaking away from a lot of the default sexism I grew up with (I’m in my late 50s), but have no desire to spend time dealing with men who need to be responsible for their own liberation and especially fucking need to stop blaming feminisms(s) and women for their oppression.

    I doubt that will happen anytime soon at the GMP.

    Toodles!

  6. John Anderson

    Argenti Aertheri says,

    “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.”

    I’m not disputing the 150% number at all. I hope I didn’t leave that impression. My question was how equal do the numbers have to be before something becomes gender neutral. Do they have to be dead even? Let’s look at the CDC stats between rape and forced to penetrate. Let’s assume that the numbers are equal (1.27 vs 1.267) for math’s sake. We can even factor out that about 20% of the forced to penetrate is a male perpetrator (I know that genders it, but indulge me), we would get a ratio of 5:4. 55% to 45% if you’re looking at percentages of a whole. What about 40% and 60%?

    Are those number close enough to say that it is a societal problem and not one related to gender or does it still have to be gender related? Since women make up 20% of murder victims, isn’t violence a men’s issue and not a women’s issue? Personally, I think it’s everyone’s issue.

  7. @Molly Moon: Yeah, that pronoun issue weirded me out too (and I *heart* pronouns). David started the blog to mock misogyny. He does.

    Others of us are happy to join in.

    We also talk about cats, gaming, cats, sf and fantasy, cats, food, what we’re doing, theory and practice, and cats.

    So what’s with the “we” white man?

    It’s David’s blog–big shocker here, he gets to put whatever he wants on it.

  8. John Anderson

    Kyrie says,

    “Fuck. You.”

    No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. :)

  9. Yes, Ithilana, but it is MISANDRY for everyone to talk about anything other than what John the Special Snowflake wants to talk about.

  10. JohnTroll: English teacher, so I don’t get stats, but here’s what I know: more women are killed by (male) partners than men are killed by (women) partners.

    More women are killed by men than are killed by women.

    More men are killed by men than are killed by women.

    You don’t have to have “dead even” (doubt the pun was intended) death rate to prove anything–and what the fuck does “societal problem and not one related to gender” even mean given that the major social construct is the gender binary, and men as a class in the U.S. are clearly socialized more toward violence (then add in our stupid ass anybody can buy a gun no matter what), and yes, this is a SOCIAL PROBLEM THAT CLEARLY CORRELATES WITH GENDER ISSUES.

    Personally, I think it’s everyone’s issue.

    So do I. And I doubt anyone on this blog would disagree. So what fucking straw feminist is this anyway?

    I don’t know what the fuck you think you’re arguing, but it all screams bad faith (“social problem not related to gender???”)

    And Trolling.

    So fellow minions, do we want to set up a pool on how long Johntroll will keep trying to argue whatever the hell he’s trying to argue (I don’t even know)? He’s only appeared in the last 24 hours right–didn’t Ark Troll spend about two weeks with us (John, go read the GLOSSARY thread from SwedishTroll Rapeapologist, then get back with us)?

    How many flounces?

  11. My Jo: 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.

    More problems with English. That’s not context, it’s a construct. An overarching theory. It’s a useful tool when designing a model. You are arguing (badly) that feminism has a deterministic costruct (as with the more dubious aspects of Marxist progression in history… the Proletariat will rise, and paradise will happen).

    The problem here is you. You think that this is a rigid belief of feminism, a refuse to see where it’s not.

    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.

    If money is being used to, “secure” consent, it’s not consent. that’s what changes. There are things at my job I don’t freely consent to (the requirement that I not wear anything which is not a solid color). I acquiese, because I want the money more than I care about what I wear. But it’s not “consent freely given”. I won’t call it rape, but I don’t call it acceptable.

    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,

    Oohhh…. Another round of spot the fallacy; coupled to one of look at the lousy rhetoric.

    You’re begging the question (anyone who doesn’t respond has been, “shamed into not wanting to reply; never mind that the math has been thoroughly explained and your position debunked), and now must play with you in the new sandbox of your choosing.

    Me, I’m talking about the ratio because the math you are spouting is 1: bullshit, and 2: not relevant to the language claim you made about, “only”.

  12. No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. :)

    Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this:

    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.

    I mean seriously, wft?

  13. “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.”

    Hahaha! yeah no. Feminism and misandry are interchangeable to MRAs. Feminism is often used by you lot to basically mean “something women did that I don’t like”

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/intimatestab.cfm

    Look at the male victims vs the female victims. It can reasonably be assumed that many of those female victims were killed by male perpetrators. I don’t dispute that there are women out there who do murder their male spouses, but don’t pretend it’s equal.

    Sorry the facts don’t adhere to your ideology

  14. My Jo: 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 don’t need to defend, revise, or retract it, because 1: I didn’t say it.

    Argenti (who made the comment you, falsely, attribute to me) made that comment. In context it was plainly a jab at your constructs.

    2: It was a non-sequitur. There isn’t any actual connection betweent the two things. Even if he was a man-hating jerk, statistics; as a tool, are completely neutral. So the ability of a man to hate men is irrelevant, as I said.

    Again, problems with English.

  15. My Jo: 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.

    Citations needed.

    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.

    More goalpost moving (and an appeal to authority). First it was that your brother thought he couldn’t win. Now it’s his lawyer who thought he couldn’t.

    My dad’s a family law mediator (runs a non-profit, Eastern Tennessee). He does a lot of work in this field. As a result I get to hear a lot of stories (oh, the stories). I can say, with some level of personal experience… if that lawyer told your brother those things, your brother had a crap lawyer. Because, in the cases where a father actually seeks custody, he gets it, about fifty percent of the time.

    A decent lawyer knows that.

    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.

    No, it mightent. Hasty Generalisation. Show me some actual statistics, not a single case. It might be easier to look at Roger Bannister. His time in running the mile (3:59 seconds), proves I am a slug, since I’ve never run one any faster than 4:51.

  16. Even if you click the link to the DOJ in David’s post it gives the percentage

    This is under “The gender distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide ”

    Male offenders for intimate homicides are 65.5%
    Female offenders for intimate homicides are 34.5%

  17. I’m not sure what all this stuff is about the 5% number either and it’s too damn hot today so I’m going for a swim. Be back later, have fun with Mister Anderson all.

  18. “I’m referring to both my cock and your face.”

    There speaks someone who came here with an open mind.

    John, being in posession of a penis does not compensate for your failures in reading comprehension and basic math.

    Ithilana, I’ll go for three flounces and a half-hearted attempt to get banned.

  19. John Anderson

    Pecunium says,

    “That’s not feminism’s fault. Given the facts (men who petition have an equal chance of getting custody), the greatest inhibition I’m seeing is folks (like the MRM) who lie about how custody is awarded.”

    Did I say it was feminism’s fault? There are some feminists who oppose allowing biological fathers to establish paternity in certain situations like Michigan NOW, which to my knowledge has actually not been called out by other feminist groups.

    In theory based on my understanding of feminism, feminism should help change the situation, but with many feminists supporting traditional gender roles in this situation, I think the problem will eventually end up addressed despite feminism and not because of it That’s fine just don’t right any posts about how feminism has been good for men.

  20. “but with many feminists supporting traditional gender roles in this situation”

    Those awful feminists, expecting men to have agency!

  21. And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!

  22. @Hippodameia: Yeah, he’s already starting down the road to personal insults!

    OK, we have three flounces.

    Any other estimates?

  23. Ninja’d by David who just announced Mr. Anderson’s permanent moderation!

    That was fast.

    Go, David!

    Now we’ll see how long he goes having to have each post approved, heh heh heh.

  24. John Anderson

    Snowy says,

    “Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this:”

    It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.

    ” “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.
    I mean seriously, wft?” ”

    I’m trying to phrase things in a way that people here could understand. Apparently, it didn’t work out as well as I hoped. The bottom line is when females are victims, the effort they exerted to prevent their victimization is never an issue for criticism (as it should never be), but when men are victimized, there are constant questions concerning what he should do, how he should feel, what he should believe, etc. that would have avoided his victimization. It’s like the argument for slut walk all over again. It doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what a woman does or doesn’t do when she’s victimized. It only matters that she’s victimized. I don’t see why that is so difficult to see.

  25. Unimaginative

    I don’t refute the assertion that more women are killed by men in intimidate relationships. I object to the false characterization that men are the overwhelming perpetrators of intimate partner murders.

    I’m gonna paraphrase that to highlight your complete lack of coherence:

    “I agree that that majority of people who kill women in intimate partnerships are men. I disagree that the majority of people who kill their female intimate partners are men.”

    Kyrie says,

    “Fuck. You.”

    No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. :)

    You think it’s amusing to imply that a) you’ve been invited to have sex by someone clearly telling you that she finds you loathesome and that b) you would find it fun to asphyxiate your rape victim?

    Fuck. You. Twice.

    Thank you, David. That was getting my blood pressure up.

  26. but when men are victimized, there are constant questions concerning what he should do, how he should feel, what he should believe, etc. that would have avoided his victimization.

    Uh, wut? This is true in the general society and is a reason most men who are raped don’t report it. And this same thing also happens to women. Feminists generally won’t tolerate victim blaming no matter what the gender of the victim. I’m not sure where you’re getting this “feminists blame male victims” but I strongly suspect you pulled it out of your ass.

  27. “but when men are victimized, there are constant questions concerning what he should do, how he should feel, what he should believe, etc. that would have avoided his victimization.”

    And since you’ve been talking about “victimization” in terms of child custody, it is entirely reaonable to conclude that you feel “victimized” in a situation where you have an equal chance of success.

    Equality “victimizes” you.

    Yep, your sense of entitlement would choke a T-Rex. It would also choke Galactacus.

  28. John Anderson

    Pecunium says,

    “Citations needed.”

    I’m going ti say the same thing when you told me that the 3:2 ratio was discussed. Read the thread.

    “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.”

    It’s causation. It doesn’t move the goal posts. It explains why they are there.

    ” if that lawyer told your brother those things, your brother had a crap lawyer. Because, in the cases where a father actually seeks custody, he gets it, about fifty percent of the time.
    A decent lawyer knows that.”

    If I ever get married, I’ll keep that in mind. Can you speak as to the relative strengths of their cases? My brother’s lawyer changed his mind when my niece discovered the dirty pictures. In my mind, this could partly explain why men win about 50% of the time. If they only contest when irrefutable evidence that the other parent is unfit surfaces, should they win 80% of the time?

    My brother did end up with custody and would appear on the 50% side that received it, but like I said, would he have won if it weren’t for that?

  29. Ohhh I get it now, he’s saying that women being victimized by rape is the same thing is as men being “victimized” by… having a 50% chance of getting custody of their kids if they want? Yeah no, John, the male equivalent of being victimized by rape is to be victimized by rape. You creepy misogynist rape apologist. Oh, I’m sorry, did I just curse at you? No! Looks like I didn’t! I guess that means I’m being perfectly nice, just the way you’re being to us by not cursing. Huh.

  30. So, wait, if men have an entirely equal chance of success in court, but they think they don’t so they never even bother trying, that’s… victimization?

    Of what, exactly, are men the victims in this scenario? Because we’ve already established that it isn’t the court system.

  31. My Jo: Did I say it was feminism’s fault?

    Yes, you did.

    It’s not that he didn’t want custody before. He just thought that he wouldn’t get it.

    Why? Because feminism supports gender policing in custody cases.

    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.

    That’s blaming feminists bucko.

    I’d have thought you’d better understood the English of your own words, but the problem seems to me more deeply rooted than I first supposed.

  32. Men, or more correctly MRAs, are victims of “traditional gender roles” that hold that MRAs have agency and are capable of exerting themselves to try and reach their goals.

  33. My Jo: Pecunium says,

    “Citations needed.”

    I’m going ti say the same thing when you told me that the 3:2 ratio was discussed. Read the thread.

    Um… no. The two are different. You said people here were ignoring you. In the thread was a refutation. As such it was a valid retort, because there were obvious refutations. It was a claim of fact.

    You have made a statement of opinion (you aver certain beliefs were expressed; some of which are from outside this discussion) as such it’s incumbent on you; the person making the positive statement, to support it (as a note, that’s what happened in my retort. You made a positive statement [i.e. people were ignoring you], I pointed out that it was false).

    So citations are still needed.

    Again, English, it wasn’t your best subject in school was it?

    If I ever get married, I’ll keep that in mind. Can you speak as to the relative strengths of their cases? My brother’s lawyer changed his mind when my niece discovered the dirty pictures. In my mind, this could partly explain why men win about 50% of the time. If they only contest when irrefutable evidence that the other parent is unfit surfaces, should they win 80% of the time?

    In your mind the courts are biased against women because they only grant custody to men in fifty percent of the cases where men seek it.

    Qu’elle horreur! On the other hand that level of logic doesn’t really impress me with the acuity of your reasoning. Married to the rest of your attempts to argue persuasively… Really, what is it about having sexually explicit photos that makes your brother’s ex a bad parent?

  34. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.

    This from the guy who by his 2nd comment here was claiming that Pecunium could not count to 11. How courteous!

    Seriously, I am just going to repeat what I said on the previous page. You fail at being an ambassador to the GMP. You fail at being a decent human being. And look, this time I said it without swearing, because 20 minutes of snuggling with a purring cat can do wonders for a person’s mood.

    So, wait, if men have an entirely equal chance of success in court, but they think they don’t so they never even bother trying, that’s… victimization?

    In a way, it is — but it’s victimization at the hands of the MRM, which is so invested in the fiction that family courts are always and everywhere unfair to men and men shouldn’t even try to get custody.

    Not to mention that the fact that his ex-sister-in-law is hardly an unfit parent because she has a sex life, or because the kid stumbled across photographic evidence of that sex life. Heck, I know people who as kids stumbled across their parents (or parent + boy/girlfriend) actually having sex, and they survived.

  35. My Jo: I’m not disputing the 150% number at all. I hope I didn’t leave that impression.

    Your hope was in vain. When you take that 150, and pretend that 3:2 is somehow different. When you pretend that 5 percent is roughly the same as 30 percent, those are all dismissive of the state of affairs.

    ? Since women make up 20% of murder victims, isn’t violence a men’s issue and not a women’s issue? Personally, I think it’s everyone’s issue.

    Are more men killed than women? Yep. That’s an everyone issue. Are more women killed by intimate partners? Yep. 300:1,000.

    That’s an everyone issue too. That’s a pretty impressive ratio of absolute numbers. You want to pretend the latter fact is, in some way, not relevant. That it’s a, “women’s issue”. It’s not.

    It is a set of different conditions (overall risk of being killed) is expressed as “Women have 150 percent more chance of being killed by an intimate as a man does”, you balk. You don’t like that phrasing, so you use the less obvious ratio of 3:2.

    Then you get all pissy when people call you on it. You pretend it’s that you are being oppressed; when what it is that you are changing the contextual landscape so you can bleat about how women hate men.

    The fact is, nothing hateful about men has been said.

    It’s a fact, 30 percent of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners. It’s a huge number of the deaths. It’s also the single easiest one to try to address.

    Why does it happen? We don’t know. I don’t see anyone here ascribing some “male tendency” to it. You, however, pretend it’s because feminists hate men: full stop.

    That’s horseshit. It’s not that you have piss-poor English skills (though they are far below the level I suspect you think them to be). It’s that you don’t want to be clear. You want to obfuscate, misdirect, prevaricate, in the hope you can baffle people into thinking you have some brilliant new critique of “feminism” (i.e. it hates on the menz). You don’t.

    More pathetically, you aren’t anything new. Fundamentally you are making the same case Akitvarum did. The sad thing is that you aren’t making you case in any significantly better way than he did, and English isn’t his first language.

    You got only a little slack because, from your first post, most of us knew how it was going to go. We’ve seen it before, more than once, and better done.

  36. Yet another troll who takes less than two days to go from “hmm, maybe feminism is going a little too far these days in certain areas” to graphic rape apologism. Sigh.

    Hey troll HQ or whoever’s dispatching these assholes: You guys want to send over someone who doesn’t wank over rape next time? He can have absolutely abhorrent views on marriage or women at work or pretty much anything, it’ll just be a relief if he’s not another goddamn rape cheerleader.

  37. My Jo: Snowy says,

    “Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this:”

    It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.

    Really? Who here said they wanted to sexually assault you?

    Go ahead, link to the comment. There are only 8 pages, and I’m pretty sure I’d remember who/when if such a thing were said to me.

    Who here said all feminists refuse to face facts which don’t fit the construct of feminism you have in your head?

    If that’s your idea of either courtesy, professionalism, you might want to consult a dictionary more often. well It’s that whole English thing again.

    I’m trying to phrase things in a way that people here could understand. Apparently, it didn’t work out as well as I hoped.

    Ya think? Here’ the problem, the two things aren’t equal. A rape isn’t a court case. If your bother had a shitty lawyer, that’s not the same as being attacked. Your brother, if he wanted custody, could have made enquiries to find a lawyer who specialised in getting custody.

    Because hiring counsel is an active thing. It’s volitional. Rape is the opposite of that. So they are not (so fucking not) equivalent, in any way shape or form. To up the ante and ask, even rhetorically, when the victim is to blame for not fighting enough… Again, English.

    Your brother wasn’t victimised. Hell, he got what he wanted. He got it despite having an idiot for a lawyer (that, or a lazy one). So your analogy… shit squared.

  38. John Anderson

    David says,

    “And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!”

    You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic. Dude, I can’t even keep up with the comments directed at me. If I have to deal with moderation, the situation would be unworkable. It should earn me props on a voice for men when I decide to return at least until I start commenting on their discussions. It only took two or was it three days to get semi-banned from the site. Gotta be a record.

    Is there a way to get off permanent moderation? I might try it again (even moderated), some people on this thread seem at least minimally open to different view points.

    Pecunium, if you have some insights on the relative strengths of the cases were custody is contested; I’d like to read it. I would rather not wade through a bunch of crap, ill thought out comments that rehash discredited arguments and rely on spurious personal attacks to the absence of reasoned debate. I’d appreciate it if it is soon.

    I’m pretty sure that even feminists can win a one sided debate, but I have faith in you.

  39. John Anderson

    Pecunium says,

    “Really? Who here said they wanted to sexually assault you?”

    FUCK you means, what? Besides I specifically said I wouldn’t touch her even triple bagged.

  40. Poor John Anderson. On permanent moderation. He didn’t genuflect at the door. And he didn’t worship the divine goddess within all women. He had the audacity of insulting a woman after being repeatedly insulted by women. What was he thinking??? After years of programming by the education system and the MSM you’d think his secondary protocol programming would’ve kicked in.

    A man may not injure a woman or, through inaction, allow a woman to come to harm.

    A man must obey orders given him by a woman except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

    A man must protect his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

  41. “FUCK you means, what?”

    It means I don’t want to hear your bullshit anymore, so shut up and get out. It is not an invitation to actual sex.

    “Besides I specifically said I wouldn’t touch her even triple bagged”.

    Again, no one hear wants to have sex with you. Get over yourself.

  42. *should be here, oops

  43. “You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic. ”

    OK, here we go with the attempt to get banned. I called it, what, an hour ago?

  44. ShadetheDruid

    A troll being obtuse! That’s new! /sarcasm

    I might just have to call you an asshat just to see if you assume I literally mean you’re a hat being worn on someone’s rear.

  45. I always though an asshat was a hat shaped to look like an ass.

  46. ShadetheDruid

    Or maybe one of those straw hats they put on donkeys.

  47. See, the possible meanings are infinite, so the context is ambiguous. Ambiguity = misandry, therefore Asshat = misandry.

  48. FUCK you means, what?

    And “You ain’t shit” just means that you aren’t shit. I have no idea why people use them as fighting words, they’re CLEARLY complimentary.

  49. John Anderson

    Pecunium says,

    “Because hiring counsel is an active thing. It’s volitional. Rape is the opposite of that.”

    So women who invite men over for a drink didn’t get raped because she did an active thing and didn’t have to invite THAT particular man in for a drink. Talk about how being alienated from your children is not as bad as rape or how men should not receive ANY sympathy when they are victimized. Talk about how men who let themselves be victimized are weak and DESERVE what they get. That’s the most reprehensible aspect of the whole debate, the implication that men who don’t fight for custody DESERVE what happens to them even if it was desperation, fear or love for their children that caused it. I’m not saying I’ll agree, but I’ll understand.

    You (directed at the majority pf people on this forum) call me an ass for discussing female victimization in theory, but rejoice and find every excuse to blame men for their own victimization in real terms. The sad thing is that you have absolutely no idea how abhorrent that sounds.

    Pecunium, you’re messing me up. I was almost gone, but you’re one of the people on this forum that’s worth talking to. At least give me a couple days to check GMP some threads I’m following added over 50 comments since I last checked. I would like to get an idea on the relative strength of case thing. I suspect that you’ll find that those cases are similar to my brothers.

    It’s 105 degrees outside. I’m going for some ice cream.

  50. My Jo: FUCK you means, what?†.So… when a Manager says, “fuck you” to an ump it’s a proposition?

    What about when a protester says it to a cop?

    When a teenager says it to a parent is it a manifestation of &Oelig;dipal/Electra desires (some of which, from personal observation are oddly homosexual)?

    I’m sure you, you paragon, have never said, “fuck you!” to anyone whom you didn’t want to bang.

    Really, your problems with English are worse than they first appeared.

    As to the question of merits in child custody cases… that was your theory. I’m not going to do your work for you. Doing one’s own work is a matter of professionalism.

    Since I am feeling a tad generous, I will provide you a primer on the modern american uses of “fuck you” (a phrase with a venerable pedigree, going back at least 200 years, if Royal Navy is to be believed).

    Fuck You!

    Besides I specifically said I wouldn’t touch her even triple bagged Which is you repeating a classically troped misogynist insult; that the person you are threatening with unwanted sex is so ugly that you’d need to make sure you can’t see them. Making them somewhat even less of a person… they are too ugly to fuck with any human connection. Just a piece of meat to use for your masturbations.

  51. @JohnTroll: Comments policy here

    I’m not going to ban anyone for disagreeing with me. But I have to enforce some rules to fend off the forces of chaos and douchebaggery. Given the sheer number of comments these days, I don’t have much patience for boring trolls, and I’m a lot quicker to put people on moderation when they’re annoying me. If you’re going to troll, please do it in an interesting manner.

    Beyond that: If you’re especially, or persistently, offensive, disruptive, or tedious, I’ll put you on moderation, which means your comments won’t go up until I get a chance to look at them, and maybe not even then.

    Big no nos: nasty personal attacks and/or slurs.

    Insults, ok, within reason. Calling someone an idiot is fine. Lots of people are idiots. Just use caution when moving much beyond this level of invective. Back-and-forth namecalling is tedious for everyone.

    Nasty slurs, not allowed: Posts using words like “nigger” or “faggot” will go automatically to moderation. If you want to talk about someone else’s use of one of these slurs, disguise the term. Obnoxious bigots will be banned.

    Grossly misrepresenting another person’s argument, or simply lying about them, another big no-no. Unless you’re a troll who’s obviously and hilariously wrong about everything; then I may keep your comments up for the lulz.

    Threats, or posting someone’s personal information, will get you banned. Also bad: speculating about the possible criminal or unethical activity of real people (for example, internet posters who post under their real name). This is allowed only if the person is a public figure/celebrity. Or imaginary.

    You got put on permanent moderation for “nasty personal attacks/slurs.” Doesn’t matter if it’s a classic–a shitload of classics are misogynistic, nasty, slurs used by men against women.

    And this is a pretty lively blog, esp. on an American holiday (I am barbacuing chicken while posting, and later we’ll go to the movies!).

    Even while you were posting freely, you weren’t keeping up since you weren’t able to read/comprehend most of what we said, and are arguing against those strawfeminists in your head.

  52. Oops, hahahaha, in moderation because I blockquoted the comment policy which has slurs!

    *snicker*

    Shorter for JohnTroll: you attack people, you get put on mod.

    And do you really think any body telling you “Fuck you” is in fact inviting you to have sex with them?

    REALLY????????????????????????????/

    Disingenuous asshat.

  53. My Jo: So women who invite men over for a drink didn’t get raped because she did an active thing and didn’t have to invite THAT particular man in for a drink.

    I thought you’d go there. They aren’t parallel. If I hire someone to do a task for me, I have some responsiblity for the result. If I hire a contractor to put a stone facing on my building, and he’s not competent the subsequent lawsuit will ask if I performed a reasonable diligence in the hiring.

    Talk about how being alienated from your children is not as bad as rape or how men should not receive ANY sympathy when they are victimized. Talk about how men who let themselves be victimized are weak and DESERVE what they get. That’s the most reprehensible aspect of the whole debate, the implication that men who don’t fight for custody DESERVE what happens to them even if it was desperation, fear or love for their children that caused it. I’m not saying I’ll agree, but I’ll understand.

    That’s you being intentionally obtuse about English again. No one has said that such men as want custody and don’t get it deserve no sympathy. What we have said is that it’s not because the courts are stacked against them.

    You have pretended both of these, and clutch at your pearls, are staples of feminism. They aren’t. You, however, won’t admit that what was said was what was meant. You have a construct of feminism in your head, and refuse to read the actual words; preferring to twist them to a tale of (aggrandising) persecutions.

    Pecunium, you’re messing me up. I was almost gone, but you’re one of the people on this forum that’s worth talking to. At least give me a couple days to check GMP some threads I’m following added over 50 comments since I last checked. I would like to get an idea on the relative strength of case thing. I suspect that you’ll find that those cases are similar to my brothers.

    Jo, I’m touched, really. But you don’t have to do it for me. I can already tell you what’s wrong with that survey you intend to do…

    Confirmation bias It’s a self-selecting sample, and it’s a sample of a group which thinks it has a grievance. so narratives which don’t fit the construct will be treated with hostility.

    But if you want to waste the time, knock yourself out. What I’ll demand is actual studies, with data, and tables, and some sort of peer review to establish the methodology.

  54. Oops. Glitch with the permanent moderation. He’s moderated now.

    And, dude, if you want to know how you get off permanent moderation: you don’t. That’s what the word “permanent” means. (Also, if I were the sort of person who was inclined to take people off of permanent moderation, your most recent comments here would not be helping.)

  55. “It’s 105 degrees outside. I’m going for some ice cream.”

    Flounce #1!

    “That’s the most reprehensible aspect of the whole debate, the implication that men who don’t fight for custody DESERVE what happens to them even if it was desperation, fear or love for their children that caused it. ”

    You’re still screaming that life is unfair because you have to put actual effort into getting things you want. You can sit back and wait for that silver platter all you want. Just don’t try screaming “discrimination!” when you don’t get it.

  56. @Pecunium: Thank you for doing what you do!

  57. ShadetheDruid

    does anyone need kittens after that?

    Cute overload! O.O

  58. A man may not injure a woman or, through inaction, allow a woman to come to harm.

    …That sounds pretty good actually?

  59. Ithiliana” You’re welcome. It’s a sense of duty (not quite the “someone is wrong on the internet” that Argenti says drives he, though there is some of that), but more a dislike of peurile assholes who pretend to a nobility of truth seeking; while lying through their teeth.

    The implication that he was being civil, and only responding in kind… well that’s bullshit. No one here called him ugly, or said he wasn’t fit to touch. I didn’t even call him stupid. I mocked his locution, and his disputation, but I gave him the respect due to someone who barges in and changes the subject.

    It was more satisfying than Aktivarum; because he is having an epic meltdown; and straining to maintain the fa¸de of decency and politesse, but he’s lost it. And I’m going to don a kilt, grab the truffle salt, the rum, and the mead I made in Feb., so I can take it to a watching of 1776, and subsequent fireworks.

    I think I’ve fulfilled my duties as a denizen, and that I even managed some good of it.

  60. @Cliff Pervocracy
    “A man may not injure a woman or, through inaction, allow a woman to come to harm.”

    “…That sounds pretty good actually?”

    I knew it would. A man sacrificing his life for a woman is always good. Mooks are dispensible, women are indispensible. Born to serve.

  61. You have to admit, that statement was a classic.

    He cracks himself up!

    OT: I am sad to note that YouTube doesn’t have that clip from Robin Hood: Men in Tights of King Richard saying “From now on, all toilets in the kingdom shall be called Johns!”

  62. I knew it would. A man sacrificing his life for a woman is always good. Mooks are dispensible, women are indispensible. Born to serve.

    Although I’m impressed that you know about Asimov (I’m impressed that you know how to use your keyboard), I think it’s fucking hilarious you got “born to serve” from “don’t hurt people.”

    You are a SLAAAAVE to not-committing-assault, you poor thing.

  63. @Hippodameia
    “You’re still screaming that life is unfair because you have to put actual effort into getting things you want.”

    The difference is, a woman backed by the State has the right of motherhood. A man has to fight for the right of fatherhood against the State and a woman, he will lose the majority of times. Just another mook whose only value to society is as a resource to a woman and, “her” family. State endorsed kidnapping and extortion.

  64. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.

    Perhaps those who do take you up on your offer to come and visit ought to introduce themselves “John Anderson style”, as I’m certain that the warmest of welcomes would ensue.

  65. @Cliff Pervocracy
    “You are a SLAAAAVE to not-committing-assault, you poor thing.”

    Or the inaction of not placing my life on the line to save the massah. Don’t forget about the second half of the sentence.

  66. Wow, John turned into a nasty little asshole when his ass wasn’t kissed. That took no time at all. These guys really think we can’t see that nasty edge before it show up and throws itself a parade, don’t they?

  67. Or the inaction of not placing my life on the line to save the massah

    Dude, stop with the “massah” bullshit, it’s racist as fuck! You can convey ur pansy-ass whining just fine without showiing your racist ass simultaneously. Jesus fuck!

  68. NWO can no more divorce himself from his racism than he can from his sexism, Shadow. Some people really ARE that bad.

  69. Actually Shadow, I am pretty sure Owly can’t whine without showing his racist ass. It seems to display itself with regularity.

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 9,538 other followers

%d bloggers like this: