>
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.
>Nice try Jon, and those were pretty long posts to focus your radar on my punctuation at the end directed at those who try to muddy this issue. I was not ignored, my arguments were ignored, nice try again. And by your logic, all you do is feminist "shaming" …come off it with that weak nonsense. I "shamed" you? You people are on this blog daily bitching on and on about this stuff and right in this comment section using PHONY DV STATS. I put that to rest and you can't resurrect it. Do you feel ashamed? Good because it's sick to do that with violence against women. And my argument for secret abuse was just in case MRAs are suggesting that so many men suffer in silence I made that abundantly clear why that could be true, but also pointed out that DV was not a discovered issue because of reported abuse, it's because the violence, when it's REAL and when it's SERIOUS seeps out into society without the reports. You should be absolutely unabashedly ashamed of spreading this misinformation and bile around about violence against women. Only abusers complain about an "Unfair" system, because they think it's "unfair" that the system is on to them now. DV stats are not feminist lies, but MRA stats ARE.
>booboonation said:"Those stats are bullshit. Yes, there are violent and abusive women, but those stats MRAs tout to make things look "equal" are completely false."Says the raven misandrist bigot.You automatically assume men are more likely to commit violence more so than women simply because they are men.How dare men believe that any human being regardless of gender can be as violent as the next person of whatever gender. In a skewed feminist perspective, this means you are sexist. However it's not sexist to automatically believe men are a 10000 times more evil than women.Oh well, you gotta laugh at these feminazitards
>I am not sure if this article is posted here yet. I am too lazy to look. This was created a few weeks ago.It's funny how there is more than one voice expressing the anti-male bigotry in DV. NOT JUST MRA's.Is this just a coincidence? Are all these people misogynists even that they are not MRA's? I wouldn't be surprised if the raven bigoted feminists truly believe that they are.Anyway, this is a good piece of writinghttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2013743521_domesticviolence26.html
>MDavid was expressing earlier in this thread that the law was evidence.Oh well
>'Feminazitards'. LOL! Ooh, you sure told us! So CLEVER! /sWhat are you, 14? Jackass.
>There were a bunch of long substantive comments (well, in some cases just long) that got caught in the spam filter, some since early this morning; I've just unblocked them. If you've been following this debate you should scroll up to see what you missed. Again, sorry about the spam filter; I can't turn it off.
>I saw the accusation of "male supremacy" mentioned before. I think it's easy to define it as "female supremacy" if you actually believe women are better, more innocent, less evil, human beings than men. That's pretty much the whole feminist perspective
>"Only abusers complain about an "Unfair" system, because they think it's "unfair" that the system is on to them now"Wow just wow. Unbelievable. This is sickening anti-male bigotryOn the contrary, I can say that you're an abuser if you attempt to shame and silence the need for help of victims that simply don't get any help.I think that shoe fits a lot better than the feminazi shoe
>Oh, and to answer a couple questions about the spam filter: I honestly don't know what criteria it's using to declare something spam. Really offensive language will set it off, but that's not what set it off today. Possibly a bunch of comments in a short period of time will do it, but most of the time that doesn't. Sometimes a bunch of links will set it off, but not always. Long posts seem slightly more likely than short posts to set it off, but then again if you break a long post into short posts, posting a bunch of these in short succession may set it off as well. It's kind of a crapshoot.Basically, the spam filter sucks, and I can't turn it off. There are a lot of things I like about BLogger, but the spam filter is so irritating it may drive me to move the blog elsewhere. Still, I can generally unblock spam filtered comments fairly quickly. But I was offline for a long stretch today and didn't see the latest batch until just a little while ago.
>Nick, for the love of GOD. Here is what happened:Elizabeth posted the actual language of the penal code to show what the law actually says in California. This was *evidence* of the law as written.You quoted it back to her and asked if she had any evidence to back it up. David responded that it *was* the evidence–it was evidence of what the law actually said. You didn't understand what penal codes are and kept insisting on evidence when the evidence of *what is in the law* is actually the *contents of the law*.Now, wondering whether or not the law is actually applied fairly is perfectly reasonable, but don't accuse David of doing something he wasn't, or others of misrepresenting things when what's happening is a misunderstanding or comprehension issue *on your end*. Also "raven misandrist" is the funniest thing I've read in a while.
>"I saw the accusation of 'male supremacy' mentioned before. I think it's easy to define it as "female supremacy" if you actually believe women are better, more innocent, less evil, human beings than men. That's pretty much the whole feminist perspective" Except that it is *not* the feminist perspective. I know not one single feminist, not one, who believes women are better more innocent, less evil human beings than men. Not one. And I know a lot of feminists.
>Thanks for clearing that up, M. But still, what was the whole point in showing the Penal Code to begin with in an argument?
>"what was the whole point in showing the Penal Code to begin with in an argument? "Because a claim was made bu John Dias that primary aggressor laws "require or coerce police to overlook the violence of one party in an allegedly mutually violent couple, and instead arrest the most dangerous, a.k.a. the primary aggressor. The criteria set forth for police to identify the so-called "primary" aggressor includes such factors as which party has the larger physical stature, which is code for "arrest the man." Female perpetrators thus avoid arrest this way."The quoted law (Dias was characterizing laws, remember, not the implementation of the law) doesn't fit this description.
>Here's a detailed summary of primary aggressor laws broken down by state:Predominant Aggressor Policies: Leaving the Abuser Unaccountable?Stop Abusive and Violent EnvironmentsAugust 2010http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/Predominant-Aggressor-Policies
>@John Dias,"People can embrace whatever authority arrangements that they like within a relationship. It's none of anyone else's business in my view."As long as the "authority" arrangement within a relationship is a mutual agreement by both parties, there's no problem. However, in many cases, it is not by mutual agreement. It is a man believing he is superior and entitled to bully, threaten and assault his partner into submission to him. Anything that affects her is her business as well, not just his. Save Services puts out a lot of skewed information and is not a reliable source for facts on domestic violence.
>Woman gets 26 to life for killing drunk boyfriendhttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2011%2F01%2F04%2FBATF1H42V1.DTLWomen don't get away with murder just because they're women.
>@Christine WE:Regarding Save Services, I cited this because they document the jurisdictions where primary aggressor laws are in place and cite the applicable statutory laws so that you can read them for yourself.
>@Christine WE:"Women don't get away with murder just because they're women."On average, women who are convicted get lighter sentences than male convicts for committing the exact same crimes. When it comes to domestic violence, women are more likely than men to get away with committing murder on the pretext that they were abused and were therefore somehow entitled to commit murder. It may even get them invited onto Oprah, as a few high profile cases indicate. Lastly, primary aggressor laws let female perpetrators not only initiate, and not only cause injury, but also avoid arrest so long as the male victim can be portrayed as the greater threat between the two individuals.
>@John Dias,"When it comes to domestic violence, women are more likely than men to get away with committing murder on the pretext that they were abused and were therefore somehow entitled to commit murder." No, John, it is not about women being somehow entitled to commit murder. No one is entitled to commit murder. In cases where a woman kills a man in his sleep, for example, she will end up convicted and in prison. In cases where an active altercation was taking place, she may not be charged at all or may be acquitted if there is evidence of SELF-DEFENSE. As far as domestic violence arrests, most of the time, the right person is arrested. There aren't nearly as many false arrests as you believe there are.
>Here's another woman who just got life in prison yesterday. If it's not in self-defense, women won't be getting away with murder.http://www.beta.cjonline.com/news/state/2011-01-03/eberhardt_pleads_guilty_to_murderAlso, those sentencing disparities you're talking about. Are those ALL crimes or are they domestic violence crimes only? Where is the break down on that?
>John, the seeming statistical disparities between male and female sentences may be misleading; the research of Kathleen Daly suggests that a straight statistical comparison of men and women "sentenced for the same crime" isn't a clean comparison; when she looked at the details of a representative sample of such cases she found that the men getting longer sentences had, for example, longer criminal records, were the instigators of the crimes in question rather than "followers", and so on, things that would naturally cause a judge to give them longer sentences. http://yalepress.yale.edu/Yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=9780300068665Much of the book is available on google books as well:http://books.google.com/books?id=c_gPDQOBZjAC&pg=PP1&dq=Gender,+Crime,+and+Punishment+++Kathleen+Daly&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false
>I love it when people are like "Men can only choose to work while women can do whatever they want!"My boyfriend is British. He's planning on moving out here to be with me (and the warmer weather). He knows he can't work until he gets his paperwork and just last night, offered to be a house husband until he got his paperwork (even though he'd much rather have a 9 to 5). I thought it was wonderful that he decided on that, and that he had the ovaries to offer doing the house work and grocery shopping- it's a hard job.
>In general, women are getting away with more lenient sentences than men.See link below…We find that women receive prison sentences that average a little over 2 years less than those awarded to men. Even after controlling for circumstances such as the severity of the offense and past criminal history, women receive more lenient sentences. Approximately 9.5 months of the female advantage cannot be explained by gender differences in individual circumstances.Do You Receive a Lighter Prison Sentence because You Are a Woman? An Economic Analysis of Federal Criminal Sentencing GuidelinesFree download site, no restrictions,http://ideas.repec.org/p/iza/izadps/dp2870.html
>LexieDi said… I love it when people are like "Men can only choose to work while women can do whatever they want!" Only if the woman agrees, (like in your case) the man has a choice.For divorced men for sure they have no other choice but to work. Either he works and pays, or he might even end up in jail or as a homeless under a bridge.For divorced women however, who got the house and car, and got the children, it is possible to make a nice living out of alimony and child-support as they do not have any financial obligation.
>Yohan: Hey, a real honest-to-goodness academic paper! Looking at the longer summary you've got posted on your blog, it looks like the 2 year figure is before controlling for things like criminal history; the 9.5 month figure looks like it is based on a cleaner comparison. But they give several other numbers, and there are several other complications to figure out. I'll read the paper and see if I can figure out how they got their numbers. From this paper at least, it appears that some of the statistical difference between male and female sentences is genuinely due to bias and not to factors like criminal record. But it's a far cry from the "pussy pass"/"women get away with murder" claims regularly posted on MRA sites.