Here’s a comment found today in the Reddit Men’s Rights subreddit, probably the most “moderate” MR forum I know of online.
The comment is in response to the video below, which is camera-phone footage of a woman beating the shit out of a guy (who refuses, on principle, to fight back). The physical abuse starts about half way through the video, and escalates at the end. It’s frankly horrifying.
Obviously this woman should be in jail, and presumably this video would be enough to guarantee her conviction. (If the video is pulled, I have saved a copy.) That’s not the issue. The issue is someone suggesting on the MR subreddit that a woman – a black woman at that — should be quite literally lynched, and getting upvotes rather than massive downvotes for expressing this opinion.
It’s not as if the MR regulars have trouble downvoting comments they dislike; another comment in the discussion stating that “men should not hit women” is considered so outrageous that it is assumed to be the comment of a troll (which it indeed seems to be). Last I checked, it had 8 downvotes, and was the most-downvoted comment in the thread.
Lol – a lot of MRAs post on here saying that the comments and articles David posts are not representative of the MRM as a whole, which is seems you are saying as well. Could you please post some links to blogs/forums/comments/etc. that you think are more representative of the movement? I know this request has been made by various commenters to a couple of the MRAs who frequently post here, but I’ve never seen a response, and I am really curious.
Thanks!
LOL – a shift in culture? You mean in a shift in that you finally started paying attention to what feminist have actually been saying FOR YEARS? ‘Cause this thing where all domestic violence is considered wrong IS NOT NEW.
Rachel
Just go to mens rights reddit and follow it for a week or so. David is there every day, and he can only find the odd comment, every-so often that could for all we know be one that he made himself, and I don’t believe that you are genuinely curious.
Plymoth
The official feminist line on domestic violence has been an abuse culture, where the victims and abusers are divided along the lines gender.
It say that feminism has always stated what we now know to be the truth about DV is a grossly inaccurate, this blog own himself went to great lengths to try to maintain the feminism abuse culture in a debate not so long ago.
You can read about how feminism has been covering up the truth about domestic violence for 30 years here..
ht tp://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf
and here
ht tp://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
Who were the feminists and those telling the truth arguing with? MRA’s?
You have any evidence for your assertion in bold or do you just surf http://www.statsoutofmyass.com? Your supposed point was already debunked. I see your gaping memory hole again, you may want to cover that up.
Repetition of a fallacy doens’t make it true no matter how hard you clap.
Perhaps you might consider going outside, meeting people, having a conversation with a woman.
http://www.myvideo.de/watch/127096/Star_Trek_TOS_William_Shatner_SNL_Get_A_Life
@Seraph I understand your point and agree. But this video is about a man who lied about having sex with a woman, pissed her off, and she beats him up in his own house. I don’t think they were partners.
Don’t get the wrong impression here. I am adamantly against DV, physical violence, emotional abuse, and have been exposed to the results of very real violence numerous times. And this B*tch is crazy. The man was ganged up on too, while everyone watched and filmed. Disgusting. She should go to jail. But it’s not a fight between partners. That’s where my remark came from.
Lol – I guess I will attempt to follow the mens rights reddit, although after a quick glance, it looks like a place where anyone can post about anything mens rights related, as it should be, but what I really want is something that I could read that was really explain the goals, grievances, etc. of the MRM. Obvioulsy, individual goals/grievances/successes (I just read on the mens rights reddit about a man who successfully gained full custody of his children after a 6 months court battle with his ex wife) are addressed on the reddit, but I would really like to read something about the movement as a whole.
Also, whether or not you believe in my genuine interest is somewhat irrelevant, but I would like to point out that at no point in my posting on this blog, to you or to anyone else, have a insulted or belittled any MRA poster. Usually my posts are questions for clarification on the MRM or an individual poster’s beliefs. Therefore, I find it really hard to imagine how you could form a belief about whether my intentions are genuine or not based on my participation in this blog. The assumption that someone is asking you a question in bad faith really thwarts the ability to carry on a logical conversation about a point of contention. If you truly want people to listen and pay attention to the grievances of the MRM, wouldn’t it better suit you to have an open and honest dialog with those people you think should hear what you have to say and take it seriously?
edit
TO say that feminism has always stated what we now know to be the truth about DV is grossly inaccurate, this blog owner himself went to great lengths to try to maintain the feminist abuse culture in a debate not so long ago.
I can say, having worked in a court now for a while, the response of “my friend said/says” for why someone thought they could break the law is very common. That includes when someone is charged with assault
Female Defendant: “Well my friend said that women are never arrested when they hit their boyfriends/lovers/husbands.”
Female Judge: “No, you are not allowed to hit anyone ever. Does not matter if you are a woman or a man. No hitting ever.”
Always? No, I didn’t say “always”. I said “for years”. Violence against men by women was talked about in my women’s studies classes in the mid-to-late-1990s though. Which I think counts as years ago.
And on today’s episode of ‘Twisted or Troll’ we have lol. Give him a hand, folks!
So lets see. All men have to be given the benefit of a lot of doubt in accusations of rape. But women who are accused of DV sould be lynched.
Right.
She should be arrested. A trial should be conducted. If guilty I hope she’s convincted.
Comrade Svilova: NWOslave will never accept that we aren’t being “clever”. Our purpose in saying we think this is wrong is to keep the people who have not yet accepted “the feminist dogma” that only men can commit domestic violence, etc. So of course we say things which look reasonable, but we don’t mean it. It’s part of a disinformation campaign. (and I see that someone has already made that explicit claim)
titfortat: yes, we might want to take note of how the idea of people like NWOslave have so pervaded the culture that someone can beat on someone else and think the law/public opinion will support them.
lol: Care to point out the cases where this blog (and/or its commentariat) were going, “to great lengths to try to maintain the feminist abuse culture,”?
lol, David did tell the truth about DV in the debate. Paul Elam did not. Elam tried to push the discredited idea of gender symmetry based on flawed studies using the conflict tactics scale. Basically, he argued that women are beating men up just as much as men beat women up. In those studies Elam relied on, a woman slapping a man is equal to a man pushing a woman down the stairs and causing her to suffer a concussion. Those studies also do not show how men are likely to be repeat batterers, using physical abuse repeatedly to maintain power over their victims.
David proved that females victims suffer worse injuries, get hospitalized more for their injuries, and even die more at the hands of their partners. He also showed that while there are some female batterers, there are many more male batterers. If you call the truth a feminist abuse culture, then I am part of the culture, too. I choose the truth over the spin offered by Paul Elam and the rest of the MRM.
So far, all of the feminists here have already agreed that it is wrong for women to hit men. I also agree that nobody should hit other people or even animals, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator. The woman in the video was clearly in the wrong. You keep telling us that feminists support such violence even when we tell you that we don’t.
Attacking the domestic violence shelters and advocates that assist female victims does nothing to help male victims. It also does not help male victims to minimize or deny the abuse suffered by female victims. Now the ball is in the court of the MRM. What do you plan to do to actually help male victims?
I don’t have a problem with that statement at all. That woman is a criminal and should be persecuted. I think it’s fairly likely she will indeed get a reduced sentence, if convicted at all, because of her gender. I don’t condone ACTUAL vigilantism, but this video should make you angry (it doesn’t for a lot of hypocrite femiassholes , but it should). Are you telling me that no moderate feminist has ever made a hyperbolic statement in anger? It’s an empty threat on the internet, and given the general moderate (almost too moderate) state of the MRA reddit I think we can write it off as hyperbole.
Adding to what Kendra said about the statistics Elam used to attempt to “prove” his point, he used a listing of a couple of hundred CTS studies out of well over 70,000 such studies. They have compiled a tiny listing of those CTS studies, mostly studies that used really tiny groups of subjects. They found a few that match their agenda. This isn’t proof that his claims are truth.
It takes a horrific act perpetrated by a female on a male and the spin becomes about how bad the MRA comments are.
For one, this blog is about the stupid shit MRAs say, not about DV. If you want to talk about the DV aspect of it, find a different blog or write your own.
For two, I don’t think there has been any post on this blog that hasn’t eventually been massively derailed, as the MRAs try to change the topic away from whatever the initial post was.
MRAL: You don’t have a problem with the statement that someone who has been accused ought to be lynched?
Do you know what lynching is? You do realise it’s the killing of someone a mob thinks to be guilty of an offense against public order, not the reasoned result of judicial process?
Because, if you mean that; you’d sure as hell better be willing to say that guys who are accused of rape must be guilty, and be ready to string them up in the public square as an example to everyone else.
Oh… wait, you don’t. You think this this is just some random guy, overreacting a little to the provocations he’s endured at the hands of feminists trying to keep him down, and deny him sex.
That lynching is a fairly specific problem (and while not limited to offenses against blacks, non-black lynching was very different), and has been used to “keep blacks in their place.”
I am not prone to telling people what they, “need” to do, but you do need to get a better handle on the problems your justifying the use of the word lynching in this sort of case.
The Without Sanctuary project has a really good overview of just what “lynching” means.
I’ve cut you a lot of slack, but not on this.
MRAL: Now to the substance of your argument (equivalence of this rhetorical excess, and feminist rhetorical excess): Are you seriously arguing that this comment is, in relative terms, an outlier?
That such comments are not the norm on MRA cites? That the attitude conveyed in it is 1: atypical of the average MRA, and 2: No worse in type, and quantity, than that of feminist comments?
I’ll grant that there are feminists who say outrageous things. I’ll grant that it isn’t even all that rare. I won’t grant that, as a percentage of feminist comment, it’s as common as it is on MRA/PUA cites, and I don’t agree that the top-posters in feminist blogs are as anti-male as the top posters in MRA/PUA sites are anti-female.
Don’t care worth a shit about the race angle. Her actions have nothing to do with her race, this is a woman who has committed a crime based on this video. As said lynching is unacceptable, but anger at this criminal is entirely justified, and I’m not going to condemn someone for making statements in anger.
@ MRAL: So a woman who has just been raped is totally justified in saying that all sex offenders should be castrated? Keep in mind, the woman in question has been *directly* victimized, whereas this commenter is just an observer.
“(it doesn’t for a lot of hypocrite femiassholes , but it should)”
MRAL the mindreader! Not that it’s an uncommon comment from MRAL, but come on!
@t4t “but I guess even a blind.pig finds an acorn every now and then.” I always hated this saying. Hogs (I am more familiar with the term hog being used in this idiom) mostly forage using scent, so a blind hog could be expected to compete fairly well in terms of foraging.
On another trivia note: wtf NWO? The AA is Marxist? How exactly? If anything, one would think that its explicit religious nature would result in a lower than average proportion of Marxists, given that Marxists tend to have a high proportion of atheists. You know that Marxism is an actual political theory (and it is not the same thing as authoritarianism, either), right? And not a word rougly comparable to calling your opponent poo-poo head?
Moving on to on topic issues:
@Laughing gull, I think you are right and this is not a an attack between partners, especially considering the fact that the attacker’s motive appears to be that she believes the victim told people they slept together, making it an unlikely motive for a romantic partner.
I also wonder at what was edited out of the video, because it does seem as if the woman in pink was making some effort to stop the attacker at a certain point (she tries to place herself in between the two before one of the cuts and when the attacker picks up the lamp she says “no, oh my god”).
Trigger warning: Racist language
MRAL: That’s like saying, “This guy should have his nuts smashed in a vise before his castration.”
It’s not about the gender, it’s just that the person responding has a visceral response to that sort of abuse.
In other words, nonsense. This is a case where your lack of age/experience directly relates to the folly of your argument.
This guy could have said, “The damn bitch ought to be dropped in a hole and left to starve to death.” He could have said what she did was grounds for stoning (because she beat on a man, so she should be beaten to death).
He didn’t. He said lynch. Look at the numbers in that chart 72 percent of those lynchings are of blacks. Blacks have never been that large a part of the population. Roughly 12 percent.
That’s a huge dichotomy. So when someone says, “they ought to be lynched” and it’s aimed at a black… it means more than just, “I think that person did a bad thing.”
No. It means “That uppity nigger needs to be taught a lesson so none of the rest of them think they can get away with it.”
It’s also why groups like MRAs call criticism of men, “lynchings”. They are trying to make an equivalence between the unjustifiable attempts to violently oppress an entire people, and the observations of the harms their actions cause to others.
It’s a form of “appropriation”, combined with the shaming tactics they say are unfair, when used against them.
Dave: I’m pretty sure I know what put my post in moderation. I’m sorry. I should have thought that the word might be problematic here. If you think the way I used it wasn’t acceptable, you can edit it to make it work (dingbats, or rot-13, or whatever suits you), or let me know and I’ll rewrite it in some way which avoids that construction.
It’s a tricky line to walk, and I don’t know what your policies are. I hope I didn’t violate them. If I did, I’m sorry, and I will do my best to not do it again.
“So a woman who has just been raped is totally justified in saying that all sex offenders should be castrated?”
She’s not right, but I suppose I could understand it. I’m sure as hell not going to be giving her a lecture on sensitivity.