>
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.
>@yohan,Most divorced women HAVE to work as well.
>"he might even end up in jail or as a homeless under a bridge."I know an enormous number of homeless people through my work and not a single homeless man I have ever met has ever been "under a bridge" because of something like that. I know you are just trying to make a point, but it is not fair to make points based on the situations of other people when there is no correlation between your ideology and their situations.
>Believing one is entitled to rule over their partner is not an anger issue and those who operate that way – anger management is a waste of time.Yes, anger management is spinning its wheels trying to overcome what hundreds of years (and still ongoing) of institutionalized religious indoctrination into the righteousness of male supremacy has instilled.
>Please, Bberet Dean, captivate us with your relevant arguments, or are standard MRA-style shaming tactics the extent of your repertoire.
>testing to post comment
>I am getting disconnected, so I try to comment now again in several small parts.—–David: 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. It might be interesting for you, that Ampersands made a report about a different study, not related to the study I mentioned.http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2006/09/12/prison-sentencing-study-whites-women-non-poor-and-us-citizens-are-given-lighter-sentences/#commentsfrom the report (copy/paste from Ampersands blog)The female-male difference is statistically significant for all six categories, the largest of which is for bank robbery, where females receive 21.6 months less than males.Remark by Ampersands:Although the bank robbery differential was largest, women received a break on sentencing compared to men across the board. Of course Ampersands conclusions are totally different from MRAs, but I found one observation interesting from him, he mentioned that female criminals get shorter sentences from male judges, while getting about the same as men when facing a female judge. At least this is how I understand his comments.
>About murder cases, just my personal impression, I noticed these comments "pussy pass"/"women get away with murder" NOT so frequently from our MRA-members from USA.Strongly complaining are Australians, Canadians and British MRAs.http://www.australian-news.com.au/feminists_judiciary.htmhttp://www.australian-news.com.au/Daniela_Dawes.htmhttp://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=624561http://www.australian-news.com.au/Claire_MacDonald.htmAnd how gender-neutral are such laws? May men claiming the same after killing their wife?http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Why+killing+a+husband+in+cold+blood+may+not+be+murder.-a0120326075 Mrs Thornton, 35, plunged a kitchen knife into her 44-year-old husband Malcolm as he slept at their Warwickshire home in 1989. She claimed she had been provoked by violence on the part of her husband, a former policeman who she said was an alcoholic. The case became a rallying point for feminists who said Mrs Thornton was a victim who should never have been tried for murder. The family of her husband, however, insisted he had been neither violent nor drunk and said he was the victim of a cold-blooded, premeditated killing. Not every feminist however agrees with such laws, because if used gender-neutral, what might happen?Sociologist Patricia Morgan said, however: 'There is no reason to bring in new provocation rules – a woman who kills is already able to put arguments in mitigation. 'We have no need of laws that appear to say a crime is less serious if it is committed by a woman.' Some politicians – notably Harriet Harman – have been pushing for the defence of provocation to be removed from murder law entirely. They believe it can be too easily used by men to justify killing women. So, what is your opinion, David?Men to jail, and women go free, I guess, or am I wrong?
>I am shocked to read that in Russia, it's estimated that 14,000 women are murdered by their husbands or male partners each year. 14,000 each year! Terrible! A quote from the first link:"Marine Pislakova says domestic abuse is common in patriarchal societies such as Russia's, where violence is often justified as a way of controlling women and where an old saying advises if he beats you, he loves you." Domestic violence is apparently not even seen as a crime there. No wonder so many women want to escape that barbarian patriarchal society via bridal services. And a shame that even escaping that way doesn't guarantee that they still won't end up with a patriarchal brute.http://boycottsochi.eu/other-reasons/475-russia-butchers-its-womenhttp://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92621334
>I wrote this:"The issue comes down to authority, i.e. that of the State vs. that of the head of the family. It pains me that the only non-feminist people who have really explored the topic of authority are the crazy Manhood101 people. We need a serious discussion (for once) about the reason why females perpetrate partner violence. It's because there is an astonishing lack of authority that can be brought to bear against female perpetrators."And lo and behold, the crazy Manhood101 people came out of the woodwork:"@John Dias please go fetch your balls out of your wife's purse. You're an embarrassing, emasculated mangina DESPERATELY trying to sound relevant. LOL :D"This is typical debating tactics of the M101 people. Invalidate to dominate, diagnose to invalidate, and self-diagnose to self-validate. It doesn't prevent them from embarrassing themselves, nor does it make them in the slightest bit compelling, but it does fill them with delusions of grandeur.
>Yohan: "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. "If you can support yourself and one or more children on $24,300 per year, and call it a "nice living," my hat is off to you.How did I get this number? Well, for child support, Findlaw says http://family.findlaw.com/child-support/support-basics/support-stats.html"In 2001, the average annual amount of child support received (for custodial parents receiving at least some support) was $4,300, and did not differ between mothers and fathers (as support recipients)." So child support isn't a motherlode of any kind. What about alimony? The statistics vary a lot more, because state laws are less uniform.To get a rough estimate of those receiving alimony:http://www.freelegaladvicehelp.com/family-law/alimony/Average-Alimony-Statistic.html says""roughly 450,000 people get payments in the form of alimony in the US"http://www.articleclick.com/Article/Understanding-Alimony-Facts-and-Statistics/1504913 says:"Over $9 billion was paid in alimony in 2007 according to the IRS"$9,000,000,000/450,000 averages out to the fine sum of $20,000 per year.
>"In 2001, the average annual amount of child support received (for custodial parents receiving at least some support) was $4,300, and did not differ between mothers and fathers (as support recipients)." Heh…$358 a month on average for both men and women. Yohan constantly repeats himself that all divorced women get rich this way. He's been disproven before on this blog, but he doesn't care.
>OS, Booboonation,You are saying that in cases where abuse is prevalent, the women is justified in killing her husband in self defense.So you must support that in cases where abuse is prevalent, the man is justified in breaking her jaw?Or are you saying that if abuse is present and the accused is a woman, her actions are justified because you are a Chauvinist Pig but if she abuses him in any way, he has to take it because you are a Chauvinist Pig?I guess this place isn't as bad as Jezebel, but you'll pull any trick to justify bad things happening to women as male privilege and pad things happening to men as male privilege.
>John, I deleted that m*nh**d one oh one guy's comment. It was obnoxious, and they've spammed the comments here with vile crap in the past, so they're not welcome here.
>Interesting case from my work this week-a man came in asking for an order of protection. During the hearing the judge asked about any prior violence-the man said "oh well she had before but you know, you do not do anything about it because it makes you look weak." In light of this discussion about violence against women, I thought it was interesting.The man also complained about how she never worked, would not pay her bills and was mooching off of him for a place to stay. I really wanted to ask "well how come you did not evict her? The legal method of doing so is listed online and there are free legal clinics." Honestly, the second a person starts acting violent in a relationship or refuses to pay their share, out they go.
>Elizabeth,Is this your advice to women? "Why do you need a court order? Just kick his ass out. The legal method of doing so is listed online and there are free legal clinics."I'm not sure what your first paragraph does except highlight the fact that if the man was a woman, the judge would not question her concern for her safety.
>Wow. Just wow.Are you assuming the judge was asking about prior incidents because you assumed the judge thought the guy was wrong for coming into ask for the order or had no concern for the safety of the male? AND you think that I am wrong for pointing out that if someone refuses to pay and is violent (in this case the man's girlfriend), that s/he should have sought to have him or her evicted from the place of residence? Both are court orders you know-just different laws governing them.————By the way, this judge also denied a woman who came in demanding an order of protection because her husband entered the home late at night and she was "scared." The judge told her "it is his house as well-absent any agreement that states the house is to be your sole possession, he has the perfect right to come home any time he wishes. Even at two in the morning while drunk."
>If two people share a financial obligation (say, in a mortgage or a jointly owned commercial property), and yet one of them refuses to live up to their responsibilities, then I could see the merit in the responsible one using some form of contract law or tort to remove the irresponsible one.But when it comes to domestic violence, most of the time I can't see the protective value to the potential victim of obtaining a restraining order. The fact that such orders are called "protective" orders is a farce. What about these orders would make a person any safer from a violent attack? The perpetrator knows where you live, they know your patterns of coming and going, they have a perfect opportunity to monitor you when you're at your most vulnerable because they know exactly where you will be. So if you're genuinely in danger, get *yourself* out of the house and into a safe shelter, rather than forcing the other person out with a restraining order. I think that restraining orders are for the most part only valuable to give one person a form of dominance over the other, and enforce that dominance with the threat of ostensibly legitimized violence (via police enforcement).If you are genuinely in fear for your safety, then YOU move out.
>John Dias: "What about these orders would make a person any safer from a violent attack? The perpetrator knows where you live, they know your patterns of coming and going, they have a perfect opportunity to monitor you when you're at your most vulnerable because they know exactly where you will be. So if you're genuinely in danger, get *yourself* out of the house and into a safe shelter, rather than forcing the other person out with a restraining order. I think that restraining orders are for the most part only valuable to give one person a form of dominance over the other, and enforce that dominance with the threat of ostensibly legitimized violence (via police enforcement)."So they are worthless, and yet they can be used to dominate someone else?I don't understand. Either they have power or they don't.
>John,If the person were truly in fear, they would move out. We're now talking about cases where the person is just done with the other. The other does not need to be violent, just value their freedom so they don't violate a restraining order.Restraining orders work on non-violent individuals.
>A violent person is likely to find you and shove the restraining order up your ass.
>My post disappeared! To paraphrase it-This male owns the home. She does not. She also does not contribute to the household income and she is acting violent. Why should he move out?
>A restraining order means that if the violent person continues to be violent, s/he can be charged with the violence, *plus* violating the restraining order. More likely to be held in jail, more likely to get time, etcetera. It makes their intrusive and violent actions more costly in money, time and freedom.
>HAHAHA! Restraining order is not a body guard. A violent person does not care about laws or mores. That piece of paper (and that's all it is) will get shoved up the person's ass sooo hard.You must be talking about taking a restraining order out on the type of "violence" that most of you hear seem to agree is OK. Just slap them in the face. If you don't put them in intensive care, it's OK.
>Again, witman, if a person is violent, the person will be violent. The order won't stop the violence. But it will put the violent person on the path of greater consequences for a violent act. They will see more jail time. Be less likely to be let out on recognizance. Pay higher fines. We want more violent people to face greater consequences, don't we?
>Generally violating an order of protection is a misdemeanor-one that can carry up to a year in jail.Most people who violate it can do so without committing a single act of violence. A violent act can cause it to be created but the violation could be a merely calling someone.