>
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.
>You don't actually know what feminism is if you think it puts men in second place, and this comments section has clearly shown that you don't seem to understand much at all about *anything*. It's really quite frustrating.
>MIt's against the law to discriminate women in the work force. Yet feminists still claim it happens.Not that I am using "law" as my stance in that matter. But why is the above statement I made an invalid argument to say that women are not discriminated against in that matter but it's valid to say that just because "law" says this or that for DV, it's valid to say that men are not discriminated against in DV?
>I am invariably amused by this MRA argument that men should be entitled to do whatever they want to their wives and daughters because they "protect them". That's what "authority in marriage" really means, isn't it? The right of a male to have "his" females at his mercy, and the females having no legal recourse and no right to leave — correct? Okay.Two things. First of all, inasmuch as MRA's claim that men's violence is a myth, and that men are all benevolent protectors of females — what exactly are men protecting women from? It can't be other men, because we've postulated that men, being benevolent protectors of women, aren't a threat, or at least not a significant threat to women's safety. What then? Wild bears? Natural disasters? Okay, assuming that men deserve to have the power of life and death over their wives because they protect them from rabid yaks and tzunamis, do patriarchal men do that while they are out in the city, slaying dragons in the office, or during their "male bonding" nights out, or during their "mistress bonding" evenings? Or do they do the protecting on those three to four nights a week when they deign to come home to have a meal and change their clothes? From what I've seen of patriarchal marriages, the wife is almost always alone with the kids and expected — nay, admonished — to take care of things herself, because her husband is stressed enough as it is having, you know, a "real" job at an office. Almost always in a patriarchal marriage, the "patriarch" isn't around to protect any members of his family, and if anyone's protecting them, it's certainly not him; most of the time, they protect themselves as best they can.Or are we to subscribe to the fiction that anyone with male genitalia should have the power of life and death over his wives, daughters and mothers because he "protects" them from warfare? There hasn't been a full-scale invasion of the United States since 1812, and the overwhelming majority of men do not serve in the armed forces, aren't qualified, and never will. I don't see how the extremely remote possibility that a given man will physically protect his wife in a defensive war (as opposed to a war of nation-building, undertaken to promote the geopolitical and economic interests of other men) furnishes any basis for depriving women of civil rights and agency, and reducing them to the status of chattel.
>Or are we to subscribe to the fiction that anyone who has the male genitalia should have the power of life and death over his wives, daughters and mothers because he "protects" them from warfare? There hasn't been a full-scale invasion of the United States since 1812, and the overwhelming majority of men do not serve in the armed forces, aren't qualified, and never will. I don't see how the extremely remote possibility that a given man will physically protect his wife in a defensive war (as opposed to a war of nation-building, undertaken to promote the geopolitical and economic interests of other men) furnishes any basis for depriving women of civil rights and agency, and reducing them to the status of chattel.
>"Not that I am using "law" as my stance in that matter. But why is the above statement I made an invalid argument to say that women are not discriminated against in that matter but it's valid to say that just because "law" says this or that for DV, it's valid to say that men are not discriminated against in DV?"Arguing with a feminist is like playing chess with an 8 year old boy who changes the rules when he sees that he's loosing. "-men are all benevolent protectors of females-"Me? Protect females? lol "I don't see how the extremely remote possibility that a given man will physically protect his wife in a defensive war (as opposed to a war of nation-building, undertaken to promote the geopolitical and economic interests of other men) furnishes any basis for depriving women of civil rights and agency, and reducing them to the status of chattel."I agree. I can think of much better reasons for doing that.
>@John Dias,"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?""Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?" It is a fact that those of us who work in the field of domestic violence constantly see male supremacists, such as yourself, claiming to be the victims when what is really going on is that they have been bullying their partners into submitting to them for a length of time, sometimes years, and the woman has reached her breaking point. In these kinds of cases, you do sometimes see women slapping or hitting a man who has been going at her in that way or even violent towards her numerous times in the past, and of course, that supremacist will give it to her worse than he got or he will often begin screaming abuse. No matter what the evidence of a supremacist's long term violence towards a partner, whether his partner has hit him or not, he calls himself a victim because his sense of what he is entitled to from that person is so high that he feels wronged that he is not getting what he considers his due – dominance, authority, submission, whatever you want to call it. Most of these MRA's on the MRM sites who are sitting around whining that the women who were in their lives didn't submit to their "authority" and at some point had them arrested for nothing are not really victims. Men who murder their girlfriends or wives generally see themselves as the victims. Many of those who sit around in BIP's whining that they are victims have lots of evidence against them that shows they are not. Instructors expect even persons with the most violent histories to claim they are victims – because that is exactly what they do. The violent usually feel profoundly justified in their actions and claim to have been victimized in some way by their victims. The supremacists in the MRM sit around and whine "I am a victim, she is abusive, I am mistreated, disrespected, women are worthless, there are no good wives anymore". Patriarchal values very often lead to violence in relationships.
>Christine WE said… @John Dias,Which laws, specifically, actually give female perpetrators a free pass? In Europe (I do not know about US, California, related to the comments of John Dias) there are guideline for judges to do this or that, and NOT laws.It's about law execution, not about laws themselves.Laws are gender-neutral, but law execution due to guidelines for judges is often very biased.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1311004/Judges-ordered-mercy-women-criminals-deciding-sentences.htmlJudges have been told to treat female criminals more leniently than men when deciding sentences.
>I don't think it can be stressed enough how wrong those DV studies are that these misogynists rely on to further abuse women under the guise that they are victims. If there is no conflict index, the study is toilet paper. Example, a woman throws a tissue box across the room at a man who controls all the finances, is on drugs, has just been gone for two days and has just called her names. That is counted as one act of violence. Man goes over to her and punches her in the fucking face. also counted as one act of violence. Those stats are bullshit. Yes, there are violent and abusive women, but those stats MRAs tout to make things look "equal" are completely false. I'm sure even police laugh at them, and I'm no fan of the cops when it comes to DV. I haven't seen them to be anything but mostly hostile to domestic calls in a general sense. I'm no fan of dysfunctional women, because so many times there is a kid that shouldn't be anywhere near these men. But personal weaknesses and financial circumstances, having nowhere to go and the huge crime of hoping in the "l" word blindsides these people.
>Amused: men are all benevolent protectors of females — what exactly are men protecting women from? It can't be other men, because we've postulated that men, being benevolent protectors of women, aren't a significant threat to women's safety. What then? Wild bears? Natural disasters? A man is protecting his modern strong independent wife or ex-wife against financial problems.His obligation to do so is often over decades after divorce, even when the woman was cheating on him. If he gives her not enough alimony, she has the right to cry raped. – – Financially raped. –
>correction, that's the "L" word. And another thing, we focus on how much women should scramble and react perfectly to protect kids without realizing we're having an "oh of course the man is a bastard" attitude. Why is that an "of course" that the rest of us need to scramble around? Why can't these men take responsibility for the hell they subject everyone to in their personal lives? These truths are what provoke tissue box tantrums and screaming matches, broken dishes and self defense classes. And not only are the injuries more severe, but these MRAs know good and well the legal system is responding to the many DEATHS of women in these cases. They can barely be assed to care even in the face of all these dead bodies, so what are these MRAs talking about? Do you know how hard it is to get funding for those battered women's shelters? If men need shelters they can acquire theirs just like women had to.And here's another thing to debunk. Yes, there is violence against men, which I have NO problems admitting to it's just used inappropriately in arguments by these "nice guy" scoundrels. And I have no problem suggesting that violence toward males will be under reported for a number of reasons, including overwhelming cultural pressures of what it means to be "manly", which feminists have always been against… coupled with the belief that pain hurts them less. But here's the thing with DV people, and it's a no-brainer, so it pisses me off…The reason this issue was uncovered at all is not because of women calling police and reporting things, no WAY, it was because of dead bodies and hospital visits and professionals knowing good and well what was going on. Society finally moved toward solutions, NOT based on REPORTS, based on EVIDENCE. Women show up to work with bruises, why? Women were hurt so badly that reported OR NOT it seeped over into society unquestionably.Bottom line is the "secret" abuse of males that is not being reported only goes so far when severe abuse is going to be noticeable and documented either by hospital visits, time lost at work, or dead bodies. Men have a long way to go and a lot more to prove if they want to achieve that status of vicitm-hood that women have honestly achieved in this dynamic. Oh yeah, and fuck you.
>@booboonation,You are right about those studies. Further, male supremacists, such as John Dias, who believe that "authority" is their natural right, are often bullies in their relationships, many using threats and violence to gain that "authority" they feel they are entitled to, yet they are the absolute first to claim they are victims when they are not. Many are so entitled that they feel "wronged" and "abused" when their dinner is not ready on time or a woman is not bowing to them on everything.
>John,I told you they'd do that. Men just have to stop injuring women. According to the posters here, slapping is fine. Throwing things at them is fine. Just remember to use the LOVE side of your hand.
>New Brunswick resident Crystal Dawn Mckenzie walked free on Monday after her acquittal for the knife-killing of her common law husband, whose name doesn't matter, because he's male, and dead.McKenzie's Lawyer, David Kelly pointed out that “Of course she had other options,” but that she was drunk at the time, and also female, so a violent history between the acquitted killer and her murdered husband was used to excuse making a choice to stab the man to death.http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/case+fuels+debate+over+domestic+violence/4051267/story.html
>Secret abuse (secret?) is an issue, but outright slapping about the face woman -> man is no issue at all. They will always have a double standard John.
>@NickIt's against the law to discriminate women in the work force. Yet feminists still claim it happens.It keeps happening because the perpetrators of discrimination have become savvy enough to wrap themselves in the cloak of plausible deniability whenever possible. If you can convincingly frame your discriminatory decision as a matter of better qualifications, or (as job seekers so often hear today) as a matter of "better fit", then voilà, legality achieved. Also, unprovability achieved: the burden of proof of discrimination is still on the discriminat-ee. In fact, I think it's fair to say that more often than not, those engaging in discrimination don't even realize they're doing it. Because discriminatory decision making– hell, decision making in general– has been proven to be a lot more subconscious and less rational than we thought before. If your leader is a wealthy, Christian white male, guess what kind of person he's going to feel most comfortable with? Guess what kind of person he can best relate to– and who he feels is, in turn, most skilled at relating to others? Who is he likely to over-estimate the qualifications of? Who is he likely to simply like and trust more? Yep– the one who most reminds him of himself.And that is why we need regulation and laws: because sometimes we literally do not know we're discriminating. As far as our emotional selves are concerned, we're only making the decision that makes us happiest and most comfortable. We need regulation and laws– and smart enforcement of them– to ensure that "likeable", "trustworthy" and "most qualified" do NOT become or remain the same as "reminds me of me".
>Secret abuse … Until your brother shows up at your door with a big old black eye needing a place to stay. He never laid a hand on her in retaliation.Isn't Booboonation a charming person?
>And Booboonation,Why is the best Feminism has to offer is the same as the worse the Patriarchy offered. No middle ground?I like how you just take the stance that none of us have taken in your PROVE IT statement. Let's just sweep female violence under the rung until it spills into mainstream society and you can't hide it anymore.
>@David Futrelle:[Quoting me]: "Are you saying that a man with patriarchal values must therefore deserve it if he is first physically victimized by his wife, and then is arrested? Or are you saying that patriarchal values necessarily lead to violence?"[David's reply]: "No, of course not, but I suspect you know that. I was asking why relative male-female size should matter in one case and not matter in the other, in your view."Having the capacity to protect someone because of your size and strength, and then actually protecting them, is what justifies your authority. If, however, someone claims the mantle of authority without taking the attendant obligations, that is where injustice occurs. Authority without responsibility leads to injustice. There are conditions that govern authority figures; this should go without saying.As far as why someone should actually get arrested merely for being male — which is essentially what primary aggressor laws do in cases where mutual violence has been alleged — that is an injustice. The evidence should define probable cause to make an arrest, and ideally a warrant should be issued only on just cause. But instead, we not only have warrantless arrest but also in primary aggressor laws we make maleness itself a form of evidence to justify arresting the male.[David]: "Also: if a woman is bigger than her husband, by your logic, shouldn't she be the 'protector,' the one with authority in the family, etc?"People can embrace whatever authority arrangements that they like within a relationship. It's none of anyone else's business in my view. But understand that in patriarchal belief systems, oftentimes the authority of God is what defines the obligations and responsibilities of the husband and wife, and it is the embrace of this faith that brings patriarchal authority into a relationship. If the man is commanded by God, according to his faith, to be the authority figure, then it is his obligation and role to occupy that position as the husband, out of obedience to God. You can question the validity or justification of his faith all you like, but so long as he's not physically abusing anyone, it's really none of your business in my view."I think that refusing to discuss something with someone because they use 'um' is a bit childish. Especially if you've just called them 'abusive' for being mildly sarcastic."I called someone abusive for actually being abusive — not just to me but to another commenter — and I walked away accordingly.
>I pointed out the difference overall between male and female violence. All you peeps can say is "let's sweep it under the rug", no, quote me where I even come close to saying that. Stop imagining things when you read, you can analyze information better than that. The point I made was, let's not LIE about the difference between male and female domestic violence. I've buried you with solid arguments and have exposed your lies, and you're scrambling around, calling me "charming". You're not charming with your domestic violence lies. And then one dude here asks what feminism offers, like it's a hotel/maid service. What does it "offer"? What does it teach me? It has taught me to notice the cultural system that I live in, that strict gender expectations hurt both men and women and it's taught me that there are some twisted losers out there that will do anything to blame women for everything and disguise this as critique of feminism, while they clearly have no grip on what feminism is. Disguised like an elephant behind a twig. I noticed not one of you toiling and spinning here could take one point I made to task. God, I love this manboobz blog, catharsis…and… Theresa out…
>@Booboonation:First you end your post with an F-U insult, and then you attempt to shame people as somehow inadequate for not acknowledging your "arguments." Rather than winning an argument, you're actually just being ignored.
>"Secret abuse (secret?) is an issue, but outright slapping about the face woman -> man is no issue at all. They will always have a double standard John."Where I live, and I know quite a lot about the police and courts, this sort of infraction receives a warning or a citation both in domestic and non-domestic incidents. It has nothing to do with the gender of the perpetrator or the context of the assault or battery; it has to do with the severity of the attack. A slap, a slight shove, a grabbed arm, are all seen as relatively minor whether a man or a woman does it because of the harm it causes compared to a punch, a kick, etc. People are cited and not arrested for DV incidents all the time, same as they are cited but not arrested for non-partner incidents of the same type. They are crimes in both contexts. They are just relatively low on the misdemeanor scale.
>Also, to Nick:"It's against the law to discriminate women in the work force. Yet feminists still claim it happens.Not that I am using 'law' as my stance in that matter. But why is the above statement I made an invalid argument to say that women are not discriminated against in that matter but it's valid to say that just because 'law' says this or that for DV, it's valid to say that men are not discriminated against in DV?"If people are debating what is actually *in* the law then discussing the actual contents of the law is a relevant dialogue. No one is saying that that law or any law is implemented perfectly by every officer in every police department in California–there was actually a disagreement about the law's very contents. Obviously no one is going to argue that the existence of a law means that it can't or won't be defied.
>@witman,Patrick Andrew Thomas did have a long-term history of vicious violence against the woman who killed him, which makes that case much more complicated than a matter of her being acquitted just because she was female and he was male.
>@David Futrelle:I left a comment around 11:40 AM, just following a version of that same comment that I deleted in order to make a revision. I think it freaked out your spam filter, and is now in Filter Land.
>@David: My comment, too, got caught in the sand trap.What exactly triggers the spam filter? Length, keywords, or just the filter being temperamental?