>
To judge from numerous MRA sites, women are responsible for the vast majority of wickedness in the world. On mensactivism.org we read about a German woman’s killing spree that left four dead; further down the page, there is a story about a female stalker, an update on the case of two girls allegedly killed by their mother and another story about a woman found guilty of negligent homicide. No stories, of course, about badly behaving men.
Porky’s Place, meanwhile, has a special page devoted to “Women Behaving Badly,” (WBB) a category capacious enough not only to include stories about female perps — most recently, a woman who allegedly managed to taser both her brother and herself — but snide attacks on Oprah Winfrey, Jennifer Aniston and Kim Kardashian for offending in various ways Porky’s apparently quite delicate sensibilities.
The Men’s Rights subreddit, on Reddit.com, meanwhile, so routinely features WBB posts that the moderator has written up a little FAQ in order to try to rebut those who regularly point out, quite rightly, that random stories about random women committing random crimes don’t really have anything to do with men’s rights. Not so, says the moderator:
What follows is a rambling collection of individual news items and dubious statistics that really prove nothing more than that the FAQ’s author has his own set of prejudices he’s trying to justify.
But the entire premise of his FAQ is a bit loopy. I haven’t met many people, male or female, who actually think that women are “more fragile, gentle, loving, caring, honest, and … morally superior to men.” I have met lots of people who think men, on average, are more violent than women, on average. They believe that because it’s true. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men.
Homicide? Men are responsible for almost ten times as many murders as women, according to figures from the Department of Justice. They are also killed more often than women, but almost always by other men. What about those evil wives and girlfriends who are killing men in their sleep? An MRA boogey-woman. As the DOJ notes, only “about 3% of male murder victims were killed by an intimate.”
How about the particularly awful crime of child murder? Looking at all children under the age of five who were murdered from 1976-2005, we discover that 54% were killed by fathers or male acquaintances, and 29% by mothers. (Most of the rest were also killed by men.)
Rape? Again according to DOJ figures, nearly 98% of rapists and attempted rapists are men. MRAs suggest that rape by women is vastly underreported, which is no doubt true, but rapes of women by men are also vastly underreported as well; we don’t really know by how much, in either case. Men make up 10% of all rape victims, true, but their rapists are almost always other men. No matter how you crunch the numbers, no matter how you spin the results, the overwhelming majority of rapists are male.
Domestic violence? It’s a little more complicated — and I will deal with it in more detail in a future post — but, again, the vast majority of serious abusers are men. “Women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men,” notes one researcher. “Husbands have higher rates of the most dangerous and injurious forms of violence, their violent acts are repeated more often, they are less likely to fear for their own safety, and women are financially and socially locked into marriage to a much greater extent than men.”
All this is not to say that women aren’t capable of horrific crimes. Of course they are. But the notion that men commit far more violent crimes than women isn’t a prejudice, it’s a fact. That, and not some sentimental notion that women are as pure as the driven snow, is the reason that most crime stories in the papers have men in the starring role as villains.
The effect of all this selective reporting on the part of MRA sites, which trumpet every grisly story of women-gone-bad and completely ignore the much larger number of stories about evil men, is to further an atmosphere of hysterical lady-phobia amongst their readers. It’s no wonder that so many MRAs have started talking about “marriage strikes” and “Men Going Their Own Way.”
And so, as a kind of corrective to all of these Women Behaving Badly posts, I am launching a new feature, called Men Behaving Worse.
This week, CANNIBALS, a whole rogues gallery of them. Let’s meet them all, shall we:
A Ukrainian man who chopped off parts of his grandmother and ate them while she was still alive.
An Australian killer who told fellow inmates he’d eaten a leg and the penis of his victim.
A former Mr Gay UK who killed his boyfriend then fried up chunks of the body with fresh herbs.
A Chinese man awaiting trial for murdering his two children and eating their brains.
What does all this prove? People do fucked up shit. Both men and women. But mostly men. Film at 11.
EDIT: Added a sentence to the first paragraph; made a few minor edits. Added link about violent women.
EDIT 2: Removed potentially confusing statistic from the paragraph on child murder. See comments for discussion of this.
>"Also, the stuff you posted about stepfathers? I don't know if you realize this, but stepfathers are, you know, men. The point I was making was that a higher proportion of child murders were committed by men than women. Mothers and fathers commit child murder at about the same rate; but other men (including stepfathers) commit the vast majority of the rest of the child murders."The point I was making is that children are safest when they live with their biological father. I don't deny that stepfathers are a problem. I just don't see any point in saying, "more stepfathers commit child murder, blah blah" because it doesn't solve anything. Arguing against single motherism and denouncing single-mothers might lead to less women exposing their children to dangerous men. If so, then this is beneficial to children.
>By the way, lesbian-on-lesbian violence is more prevalent than man-on-woman violence. How are you going to spin this to make men look evil?
>Women Who Kill Intimates for MoneyPeople have committed murder for money, power and material gain since the dawn of time. It should be expected that women are not absent from this group. To deny that a woman could kill for money is to both deny historical accounts of women who have done this in the past, and to deny the nature of the human being who does not always make the wisest of choices.There are two basic styles of women who kill for money. The black widow and the contract killer or manipulative killer have not been studied in depth; however, their crimes most assuredly occur, and their deeds have been documented as the aberration of all that defines womanhood, motherhood and life partner. These women are considered to be some of the most intelligent, resourceful and careful killers in the realm of domestic homicide, and it is theorized that many of their crimes go undetected. The true numbers of their successful homicides are not reflected in history and crime reports. They are known to use a variety of methods to kill, and are highly dispassionate about the murders they commit.Black widow killers are frequently young, often starting their criminal pattern in their early to mid-20s. Named after the poisonous spider that kills her mate and eats him, black widow women have been known to kill other individuals in addition to their husbands and intimates, such as children, other family members or anyone else with whom they’ve developed a close relationship. The most common method of homicide for the black widow involves using a variety of poisons. Some poisons may be those of convenience, such as rat poison. Others may be obscure, and be difficult to obtain and utilize. A woman of this intellect will have spent hours studying the reactions and effects of poisons and have searched for ways to have the poison mimic other diagnosable illnesses.Still other women have utilized poisonous snakes and insects to make a death look like an accident. Though not a poison per se, black widows have utilized specific agents that a partner is known to be violently allergic to such as nuts, shellfish or bee stings in order to cause the deaths of their husbands. In addition, drug overdose has been utilized a simple method for some of these women who find ways to coerce or trick their partners into committing what appears to be suicide by ingesting too much of the drug.The dominant motive for the black widow is the inheritance of the spouse; however it may not be the only motive. There are instances where the motive could not be determined, and the possibility of some sort of underlying mental pathology was assumed by investigators. The typical pattern of a black widow killer is to murder six to eight victims in a period of 10 to 15 years. Numbers of victims have been known to be higher in areas where law enforcement is minimal and investigators are either less vigilant or less suspicious.14, 11Historical examples of Black Widow killers include women such as Belle Gunness, nicknamed Lady Bluebeard, who killed 49 people, including multiple husbands. This 20th century black widow used various poisons or caused freak accidents to occur to her victims. She was never brought to trial or convicted of her crimes.Lydia Trueblood, who lived in the early 1900s, poisoned and killed five spouses, a brother-in-law, and her own child. What seemed like typhoid or influenza at the time was actually discovered to be the great mimicker of illnesses — arsenic. Another black widow, Rhonda Bell Martin (1932-1956) killed two husbands, her mother and five of her own children. She eventually confessed to her crimes because of autopsy results, and was sentenced to the death penalty, carried out in 1957. 11http://www.forensicnursemag.com/articles/391lifedeath.html
>The Manipulator: Hired Help or Hopeless LoveThere are recognizable patterns within this subset of killers. It is notable that in the past, most women have hired men or adolescent boys to kill for them. Their victims are often husbands or ex-husbands. Some have been boyfriends and occasionally this group of women has contracted to kill their fathers. The greatest commonality among this group is the existence of a fairly large insurance policy on the person the woman wishes to kill.Women who form this group of killers are never serious suspects in murder cases. It takes some shrewd investigator or subtle evidence to expose their culpability. Women who kill for money in this fashion often use the manipulation of a lover’s affections in conjunction with a web of lies in order to convince the lover that there is no other way out than to kill her husband. Other women in this category simply commandeer the assistance of young adolescents or men from disadvantaged backgrounds to kill their spouse, while still others take no chances and hire a professional killer.http://www.forensicnursemag.com/articles/391lifedeath.html
>And how many of these "black widows" are there? Is there any evidence they're actually more than a tiny fraction of the total number of murderers? Again, my point isn't that women never kill, but that overall the vast majority of murders are committed by men, a fact the article you refer to acknowledges in its very first paragraph.
>"And how many of these "black widows" are there? Is there any evidence they're actually more than a tiny fraction of the total number of murderers?"Since only a small fraction of "black widows" are ever caught, I'd say it's impossible to conclude how many murders are committed by this type of killer. The "stats" you cite are based on age-old methods that were honed on catching men who kill. Citing those stats is about as objective as citing a KKK publication on race."Again, my point isn't that women never kill, but that overall the vast majority of murders are committed by men, a fact the article you refer to acknowledges in its very first paragraph."Again, my point isn't that men don't kill, but that we cannot say most murderers are men because only a small amount of women who kill are caught. If you reckon it's foolish to write off the murder statistics for this reason then don't go on about rape being a highly common crime. Why? Because if we were to use your logic, then you'd have to admit that the low conviction rate for rape defendants who go to trial is "proof" that rape is one of the remotest crimes on the planet — you are saying that the statistics represent the absolute truth. Feminazis and manginas like you try to divert attention away from this by saying most rapes go unreported, yet every one of you cunts scoff at the idea that most women who kill go undetected. This sort of cognitive dissonance is the reason people no longer take feminazism seriously. Sorry son, but your prejudice is so bright it can be seen from Mars.
>Citing crime stats from the govt. is equivalent to quoting the KKK on race? Ok, we're done here.
>"Citing crime stats from the govt. is equivalent to quoting the KKK on race?"In today's society, yes. Would you cite rape statistics from the 19th century? No. Why? Because many innocent African-Americans were convicted for no other reason than the colour of their skin. Citing those statistics and saying they are "proof" that African-Americans were violent rapists back then would lead to all sorts of liberal hysteria about "racism". Today's Governent is almost as prejudicial against men. I know you'll deny it — librals always do when their moronic arguments are backed into a corner — though anyone who is objective and insightful knows the truth.
>A few decades ago it was thought that women were capable of sexually abusing children. It was also believed that men couldn't rear children. Some judges still carry these stereotypical beliefs with them. It leads to the prejudicial ones giving impunity to female defendants. You'll never see this in the official statistics.I think the best judges are women. Not all of them are good, though some of them are okay. The feminist ones give impunity to women just as often as the chivlrous male judges do, though the ones that aren't feminist tend to treat female defendants more equally to men. The Australian Bureau of Statistics admitted that convicted women receive lighter punishments than their male counterparts.
>Correction: A few decades ago it was thought that women were incapable of sexually abusing children.
>Another reason people shouldn't take governmental data seriously is the fact there is no such thing as equal justice for everyone. There's a class divide in society that allows rich, privileged persons to gain a large degree of impunity that ordinary citizens can only dream about. Then there's the fact that women gain impunity under many areas of the law. Feminist laws and feminist policies can turn murderous women into "victims" who aren't considered murderers, too. It's not all that uncommon for women or elite men to use an ordinary/desperate man to commit murder, robbery, etc. The people who plan out these crimes — many of them are female — are just as culpable as the men who carry them out. You spoke about most child maltreatment being perpetrated by women because they spend more time with them. The logic you used is that people commit crimes when they are burdened with responsibility. In that case, one could argue that men are more likely than women to perpetrate violence because society expects them to be tough, strong, competitive, and resilient. Women are the ones who force men to live by these standards — you don't see them choosing weak, feminine men over strong, resilient ones very regularly, do you? Forcing men to abide by a dangerous lifestyle like this can cause some of them to follow the wrong path. The women who send these sort of men down the wrong are just as culpable as the men themselves. In my opinion, none of this will change until women refrain from setting unrealistic standards for men. Every time a woman rewards a thug with sex and chooses a thuggish man over a genuinely nice one — which is the general rule — is a reinforcement to all violent bullies that "might makes right". Violent men will continue to be violent bullies until women stop rewarding them for it. I'm not saying the violent men aren't cuplable for their actions — they are and they should be punished severely — just pointing out that the cycle won't change until all components of it are deconstructed. This means women need to play their role.
From the perspective of civil liberties and individual rights, propagating a “x category of people tend to perpetuate x crimes most often” line of argument is extremely unfortunate. Even if true, it will contribute to a situation in which the presumption of innocence is whittled away for people falling into that category. Take for example current anti-Muslim hysteria. Is it partially due to the “truth” of the matter that a large number of recent terrorist acts (as we currently define them anyway) stem in some way from Islamic religious fundamentalism? Yes, absolutely. Does that justify profiling individual Muslims or stripping away their presumption of innocence? Of course not. Similarly, men accused of rape, domestic violence, any other sexual abuse, etc. should be offered the full presumption of innocence as with any other crime, with all the attendant consequences, and the chance to rebut their accusers. Agreed?
David, I think it is time to revisit your comment here: “according to DOJ figures, nearly 98% of rapists and attempted rapists are men. MRAs suggest that rape by women is vastly underreported, which is no doubt true, but rapes of women by men are also vastly underreported as well; we don’t really know by how much, in either case. Men make up 10% of all rape victims, true, but their rapists are almost always other men.”
To be fair, you did say in a later comment, “if a new wave of scholarship proves me wrong on this point, I will change my tune.”
The 2010 NISVS survey has demonstrated that women are a significant percentage of rapists, if you properly count “made to penetrate” as rape. Furthermore, it demonstrates that the majority of male victims are raped by women, contrary to your claim that their rapists are “almost always other men.” Have you changed your tune?
It was progressive MRAs, not feminists, who suggested that women could be a significant percentage of rapists. The NISVS survey implies that they were right, and you were wrong.