>
ECHIDNE of the Snakes has written an excellent post titled “Eight Anti-Woman Principles of The Most Extreme Types of MRAs.”
It goes through a number of standard MRA arguments and offers pretty persuasive rebuttals of most of them. Among the topics covered: life expectancies of men and women and why this actually isn’t a feminist plot; higher rate of on-the-job accidents for men and why this isn’t a feminist plot; the higher rate of male death in wars and why this too is not a feminist plot; male prisoners; homelessness; and stay-at-home dads. The post also comments on child custody and domestic violence, but without providing real rebuttals on those two issues.
I’m adding this link to my “further reading” post on general critiques of the MRM.
>@David Futrelle:It's not just my opinion that unilateral violence is a distinguishing aspect of battering. Dr. Donald Dutton, a noted researcher on domestic violence, made that argument in the January 2010 issue of the academic journal Partner Abuse.
>If I see one more "Uh" or "Um" before someone's snarky remark, I'm going to check out of this thread. It's that irritating (not to mention juvenile).
>Battery itself is just when someone is actually hit. Assault can be as well but usually means that someone is about to be hit or thinks they are.Which makes for some interesting trials.
>@David Futrelle:If women are inflicting violence at gender parity but are not getting sufficiently challenged by law enforcement (since 80% of arrestees are men), then how can this be ANYTHING BUT an injustice where female perpetrators have effective license to use any level of violence up to (and possibly including) causing injury?
>Mr. Dias-it was not a snarky comment. That is in fact what the law states and not what you assume it states.
>Also, AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME, a woman who is NOT arrested is not being let off the hook if she receives a citation for assault or battery but NONE of your stats show the level of actual citations.
>John, obviously unilateral violence is a distinguishing aspect of battering. But so is severe, repeated abuse and controlling behavior. Unilateral doesn't = battering. The study you cited did not find that women were more likely to be batterers, as the term in generally defined. If unilateral violence was all it took to define a batterer then a woman who slapped her partner once would be a batterer, and that's ridiculous. Also, the "uh" thing. I responded with an "uh" earlier because I thought your comment was petty and dismissive and sort of juvenile. Interesting that this bothers you so much but you don't say anything when witman calls someone "princess."
>Elizabeth:You produce the citations. How about that? Prove me wrong. It should be easy for you. I've made the claim. Now you simply disprove it by gathering all the stats that you expect me to have. Disproving a positive claim is much easier than proving one, so have at it. The scholarship should do you some good. Show me documented proof that women are cited at parity with men who are cited. I'm waiting.
>Witman didn't call me anything, and so I didn't take offense. And enough with your passive-aggressive way of calling something "interesting." Just say what you think."Uh" and "Um" are in my view completely idiotic statements that are best left to high schoolers. I want to have an intelligent conversation.
>John: If someone (male or female) is slapped by a partner and there are no visible injuries and no witnesses, there is no evidence that this slap ever occurred, and the police have no justification for arresting anyone. If someone causes visible injuries (that aren't the sort of injuries caused by people defending themselves) then there is evidence to arrest that person. If men are injuring women in much higher numbers than women are injuring men in DV, and numerous studies suggest that this is the case, it makes sense to me that they are being arrested in much higher numbers. There is "gender parity" in DV only if you conflate minor slaps with severe, injury-causing violence.
>David,If minor violence was challenged from its inception, don't you think that people would have much more healthy relationships (including a far lower likelihood of incurring or inflicting injury)?
>I usually expect someone making a claim to have the evidence to back the claim up not be ordered to go look up the evidence for the claimant.So how about you go find the evidence that women are rarely cited for assault and/or battery since you claim they are.
>Elizabeth:I claim what the evidence shows, nothing less. Arrest data is the data that I have.
>David@nick — She's quoting from the California Penal Code. That IS the evidence.You are missing the whole point here. In ALL these cases from the California Penal Code, please point out the evidence of both sides?If I am expected to do home work, so does the feminist side, right?This is the core of my debate, what substantial evidence comes in the female side in the system?
>John, it depends what you mean by "challenged." Yes, it should be made clear it is unacceptable. But responding to violence with violence — as Paul Elam, for example, suggests — tends to escalate the situation and make things worse. Indeed, the study you cited found that violence in relationships where violence is reciprocal caused more injuries than violence in unilateral relationships.
>A woman can claim just about anything and be justified with violence against men. But a man is likely to have a harder time justifying his violence against a woman.Around of applause for female privilege
>nick — what are you talking about? What on earth do you mean by the "female side in the system?" What system? What evidence do you want?
>Yes, David, and that's my point! You associate battering with severe injuries, but also point out that it is sustained over time. Imagine what a man must feel like if his physically little wife slaps him around with impunity. He feels defeated, ashamed, completely debased. Why is this less serious in your mind than a physical injury? Emotional victimization hurts more than physical victimization, and the damage is usually more long-lasting compared to injurious physical abuse. If you're a man, you simply won't be injured as often as a woman will. But you can be injured inside — both by a series of kicks and slaps as well as an ongoing campaign of emotional abusiveness. If a husband is stripped legally of his authority as head of his household, but held to a standard of nominal authority by an abusive wife whose mission is to point out how (due to her abuse) he doesn't measure up, what kind of state does this leave him in? And who can he turn to for help?
>David, as I said before…not sure why you can't comprehend this… the California Penal Code, where are the details to each case? Where is the evidence to each case to this statistic?It's he said, she said. But guessing in each case, “she said” comes first with little or no evidence. That's the problem I have. If a male tries to justify violence against a woman with little to no evidence, I know what will happen in most cases. So now here is the feminist homework as I have to do mine. Point a handful of cases where a male gets away with violence with no evidence to his excuse?
>Nick — what "statistic?" She was quoting a law. John — Emotional abuse is hard to measure. Why do you assume women are doing most of it? Also, physical abuse has emotional consequences, and more severe abuse has more severe emotional consequences. I don't think either partner should be slapping the other one, and I would suggest anyone in a relationship where they are the victim of abuse (even if it doesn't cause serious injuries) should get out of it, but if the abusive partner is smaller and her or his abuse causes minimal physical damage, the victim is far less likely to be afraid of the abuser than someone who. say, has had his or her arm broken by an abuser. If one partner is doing severe physical damage to the other on a regular basis, the victim is going to live in a constant state of terror. Also, why should a husband have authority in a marriage?
>Nick, what exactly do you think the California Penal Code is?
>I can't believe I just had to ask that.
>@David Futrelle:The study that I quoted showed that 70% of non-reciprocal violence was suffered by male victims from female perpetrators. The men weren't fighting back, and the female perpetration was unilateral. This was measured by the survey results. By your own statement, sustained unilateral violence can have a devastating emotional impact. That's what battering is. Battering doesn't depend on several severe injuries. It merely depends on sustained abuse in order to ultimately break the spirit of the victim. And yes, men do get injured too — approximately 1/3 of all DV-related injuries are incurred by them.Why should a husband have authority in a marriage? Because his wife is comparatively physically incapable of being his protector. The one whose life is on the line is the one who should have the authority. But all of this is moot to you anyway, isn't it, since in America male authority has been systematically derided by feminists as unnecessary at best and dangerous at worst. But imagine being the male protector, and at the same time being slapped around by a mere woman — who points this fact out to you — and you know you could floor her at any time but you restrain yourself. Can any woman know the hell of that experience? To be expected to be the protector, but to be prohibited from protecting even yourself?
>I'm for reducing violence between partners of all genders and don't need regressive ideas about one person's superiority over another to advocate that. The kinds of relationships you idealize sound like hell for *both* parties, Mr. Dias.
>Sorry for my ignorance David. I don't have a clue what the California Penal Code is as I live in Australia. You just simply mentioned it and told me it was evidence. I have no idea how on earth a law can be stated as evidence. That’s why I automatically assumed it was some statistic. It's like murder is against the law, but some people still get away with it around the court systems.Anyway, the way you expressed it, it definitely seemed like that you were saying it was some sort of statistic as it was some type of proof.My whole point is, in what ever statistic or cases you have in mind about violence against women, can you provide the actual details of the cases?