A couple of intriguing quotes from Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit.
The topic at hand: A Redditor claims an ex falsely accused him of rape and caused him various other problems and basically acted like a shit. No one, of course, can possibly know if the guy is telling the truth, but the r/mr regulars all assume the alleged false accuser is guilty until proven innocent. (And maybe not even then.)
Naturally, some of the regulars use this as an opportunity to discuss how completely understandable it is when guys kill their exes.
Really, in this misandrist world, dudes murdering their exes is totally like slaves murdering their masters. Illegal, sure, but who can blame them? At least that’s how texaswildfires sees it:
Yep, in his mind, dudes today are totally in the exact same situation as slaves in the antebellum south — so when a guy murders his ex, the person you should feel empathy with is the murderer.
Naturally, both of these comments got upvotes, because that’s just how r/mr rolls these days.
If the ONLY evidence in a rape case is verbal, it never gets to court, unfortunately. Even if it was rape of a child and went on for years. 🙁
How the fuck does one fake bruising? Get someone else to beat the shit out of you, to make it look like the guy you had consensual sex with beat the shit out of you? Throw yourself into random objects until you get an aesthetically pleasing pattern?
Brandon, these are all points that bedevil many a prosecutor and civil rape victim attorney — not defendants. Even when there is force, most of the time there’s no bruising. And if the alleged assailant claims that sex was consensual, the DNA evidence is explained. (although I was talking about other evidence that might be found in a rape kit — oh, never mind. Let’s keep this simple.) FYI, eyewitness testimony can of course be used to corroborate testimony given by the two parties, not just as to what happened in the bedroom, but what happened before and afterwards.
In any case, most of this adds up to rape being incredibly difficult to prosecute successfully. Bruises could be “faked” (self-inflicted, I suppose you mean) — but they almost never are. The MRM paranoia about false rape accusations is a huge, unfunny joke.
” You support proponderance of evidence over innocent until proven guilty, (Title IX).”
Title IX applies to murder cases? So, like, for every time a man commits a murder a woman gets to commit one too, and universities are required to make sure that this happens?
Slavey’s mind is a strange and fascinating place.
I’m never quite sure what MRAs mean by ‘false rape allegations’. Do they mean there was no rape? Or do they mean that the wrong person was accused of rape? Sometimes they seem to mean one but use an example of the other.
CassandraSays, that could make for an interesting science fiction story. 🙂
“There can be no doubt, women have created the hell on earth we live in.”
Women created the Congo? They have milking machine technicians there who have internet access and use it to troll feminist blogs?
That part of Title IX doesn’t apply to criminal cases at all, actually. It applies to internal investigations conducted by universities. Slavey can’t even find the evidence he wants, unsurprisingly
Baack to the op… This thread is particularly fun. Seems like a lot of MRAs treat their own hyperbole as fact… They keep talking about how “when society and the justice system bends over backwards to do you harm,” and when someone will “take everything from you despite of you doing them no ill…” In this particular case the guy eventually recanted… but still.
All the posturing in the world doesn’t make your argument sound. Going off about how being forced to pay child support is like slavery and so on… It’s a good way to get people riled up about nothing, and have them start detailing exactly how child support is slavery in order to avoid admitting they were wrong. Go find something actually worthwhile to support, you don’t need to trap yourself in a sinking ship.
Speaking of worthwhile men’s things to support: Heard a speaker from the Aboriginal Medical Service discussing violence (domestic violence in particular). They are wanting to set up a Men’s Wellness Centre, run by Aboriginal men (all men welcome) where men can talk to each other, and be mentors and leaders to help all of their problems. Physical health, violence, social situations, unemployment, being a good dad, coping with life outside jail, all sorts of things.
Magpie: What an awesome idea, I hope they get the support they need.
*sigh* I wish Brandon would help throw me a bone here… He seems to have left in a huff… Grah… I need sleep. And to do work ahead of time. And various other non-stupid things.
Brandon: As a hypothetical: Say a law came out that basically said “if you use your fists to attack your partner, you go to jail for X number of years”
Now men on average typically use their fists and their own bodies to commit DV. Women on the other hand tend to use weapons (pots, pans, knives, etc,,,). to offset the physical strength disadvantage.
So this law is “gender neutral” but it is affecting men at a larger rate than women.
If the law was “use of weapons but had no mention of using fists” it would be affecting more women than men.
So just because a law is “gender neutral” doesn’t mean that it equally protects men and women.
You’re missing an absolutely fundamental point, which is that in the past the laws on murder as a by-product of domestic violence massively favoured men, for the reason that you yourself give: their generally larger size and greater physical strength means that they’re far more likely to kill in the heat of the moment, and that can be cited as a defense.
Now, because it’s recognized (in my view rightly) that issues like PTSD can (not necessarily will) have a bearing on such cases that might cause people to snap after years of abuse and kill their partners in what outwardly appears to be in cold blood, things have become much more balanced. Clearly, such a change is statistically more likely to benefit women, but would you not also agree that it benefits men who for various reasons may be significantly physically weaker than their partners? And, as a result, the situation today is much fairer for women and men than it was in the past?
But, as we’ve already discussed, it’s very rare indeed for PTSD as a by-product of domestic violence to be admitted as a defense, and if such a defense is assembled, it will be cross-examined with particular rigor. This fantasy (not necessarily on your part but I’ve certainly seen it elsewhere) that abused spouses can just say “Yes, I killed my partner in cold blood, but the balance of my mind was disturbed at the time, so is that OK?” and the court just rolls over and says “Well, if you put it like that…” is complete tosh.
There is another huge problem with Brandon’s argument, that almost traverses back to the concept of “separate but equal.” I think Brandon was trying to find a situation where you would give out different punishments for crimes of the same weight, and that difference was split along gendered lines.
But attacking someone with a weapon is simply a more serious offense than attacking with fists. It doesn’t matter if women are more likely to use a weapon, the two are separate crimes. So trying to say that such a law is unjust is… just a bad analogy.
Or perhaps its a good one, and his argument highlights why gender splits by themselves are not good reasons to say a law is bad or good. If a law pertaining to DV benefited more men than women, or more women than men, but was fair and consistent with other laws… the gender bias doesn’t matter. If the law is unfair or inconsistent, it doesn’t matter if some bias exists or not, it’s still a bad law.
I can’t believe the “Oh, the abuse victim should just leave” line of crap is being trotted out, although after hearing the whole “look at what she was wearing” crap about rape victims, I guess I shouldn’t be so surprised.
Let’s think about this rationally, MRA’s. Couples know eachother extremely well. They know where eachothers parents and relatives live and have probably been over to said relatives homes. They know eachother’s friends and, again, have probably been to their homes as well. They also know where their spouse works and, once again, have probably been there at least once. If an abuser is hellbent on finding their victim, it’s not that hard for them to stalk the likely places that the victim would go and wait to see them. Or to threaten/ attack the victim’s family and friends, to get information on the victim’s whereabouts. If they’re even still able to contact their family and friends.
Besides, if the abusers would stop abusing their spouse, we wouldn’t have anything to discuss, now would we?
Also, why should the victim leave? If the abuser hates her that much, why does he stay?
@Nova – yes, absolutely. And all the excellent points you make become still harder to negotiate if children are involved.
Which of course is why so many unarguable victims of abusive relationships not only don’t but can’t “just leave”, no matter how much they might wish to.
So instead, they rationalize that it’s somehow their fault that they’re having the shit kicked out of them every night.
On the other hand, if they do try to plead diminished responsibility on the grounds that their balance of mind was disturbed, this should be tested in court with forensic rigor. If someone ends up dead at your hand, mere words won’t get you off the hook, and nor should they.
“If a woman sheds a few tears in the courtroom, does that signify she’s telling the truth?”
Eh…no. Contrary to what you believe, NWO, that is not how the courts work.
Brandon, pardon me, but FUCK YOU. We’re in a thread where these assholes are arguing that murdering a woman is justifiable, and you have the fucking nerve to come in here with your smarmy, cliched, “why doesn’t she just LEAVE” bullshit.
I’ve already supplied the various cites in a previous thread, but the facts are crystal clear. The number of women killing their spouses and significant others has fallen by over 75% in the past thirty years. When women have other options and when their abuse is taken seriously by authorities, they DO LEAVE. They do not resort to murder. And some of those men kill them anyway. I remember one case in particular in which a woman even fled across the country only to have him follow her and murder her at church on Sunday morning.
The other stats that I cited on a previous thread is that battered women’s syndrome as a murder defense is no more successful in court than any other defense. This was discussed regarding the Barbara Sheehan case.
“@Joanna:
“Women don’t usually go for physical violence when they intend to commit murder for this reason”
What? So murder doesn’t fall under the category of physical violence? A little clarification if you would..”
By physical violence I meant beating, bludgeoning, stabbing someone to death. That kind of thing. Women tend to poison or target someone in their sleep. Don’t you watch any tv? =P
“I remember one case in particular in which a woman even fled across the country only to have him follow her and murder her at church on Sunday morning.”
I’m waiting for the “she deserved it” excuse.
I found the story. She fled California and moved to New Jersey. She had two restraining orders against her estranged husband. He murdered her in her own church on Sunday morning, and also shot and killed a man who tried to help her.
Another interesting point to this story — she was a mail order bride from India.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/24/national/main4628943.shtml
Brandon:
Both halves of that are wrong.
The second half has been addressed: no one has actually said that. It’s less obvious that the first half is wrong. I’ve lost track of whether we’re talking about hypothetical abuse or an actual incident; if it actually happened, there is a source of information for what actually happened, and there are known patterns to abuse so even if there are specific details we don’t know, some guesses as to what happened are substantially better than others. So it’s not “what if the abuser is exerting significant control over finances, escape routes etc.” That is how abuse often happens. That is often part of the ongoing patterns of behavior termed “abuse.”
Brandon:
What about a man sleeping who has said “when I wake up from my nap, I’m going to kill you”?
And that’s not a what-if.
Slavey:
Then there’s no point in even responding, is there? I support battered women defending themselves, so hfdslib infvpeos phdvuip to you too.
Slavey:
Oh, I think I see.
Not only does the Slaveyworld version of Title IX make “preponderance of evidence” the standard in at least some cases where a man’s liberty is at risk (while leaving the reasonable doubt standard in place when a woman is in the dock), it also defines any testimony by or evidence from a woman as a preponderance.
If that were true, of course, rape and abuse cases would be horribly stacked against men, to the point that men would have no other choice but to refrain from raping and abusing women (in addition to other, less desirable outcomes).
But as it isn’t, it ain’t.
Magpie:
It seems to depend on context. Sometimes it’s “there was no rape,” sometimes it’s “there’s no evidence of rape other than the victim’s word,” sometimes it’s “the law is unfair to call that ‘rape,’ it’s all a plot to keep men from getting laid ever.”
blitzgal, thanks for pointing that out! Strong (well, stronger) DV protections actually help men, but try getting these bozos to acknowledge that… they’ll often counter that the act of reporting DV is itself an act of violence, or whatever.
Brandon: 1) I own gold, but gold isn’t the end-all/be-all solution. Our system (economics and politics) is fucked…and by using “GOOOOOLLLLDDDD” as the magical solution is retarded.
This from someone who was advocating just that.
(someone who earlier said that because the pegged value of gold hadn’t changed, there had been no inflation).
So yeah, you are saying, GOOOOLLLLLD! as if that will magically make things better (even though it did no such thing in the past.
Back to our original program, already in progress.
“Brandon, along with countless MRAs, believe that men are being abused by women in general in the same way that battered spouses are,”
Have you got evidence that show the nature, as opposed to number, of the abuse is co-equal? Because that’s the thing which matters in looking at the incidence of battered spouse defense (see above as to the elements of self-defense as an affirmative defense).
Now men on average typically use their fists and their own bodies to commit DV. Women on the other hand tend to use weapons (pots, pans, knives, etc,,,). to offset the physical strength disadvantage.
Citation needed (since you are linking that to the abuse stats you refer to above. If you aren’t, it’s not relevant, to this discussion. To one about the relative rates of spousal killings it would be, but you weren’t making reference to that).
Using a weapon is a specific crime, one that has much less margin for police discretion (in the way they can be dismissive of claims of non-weapons based abuse). Stabbing injuries are typically reported to police. So are shootings. The blunt trauma injuries of even an ill-used baseball bat, or a pot, are not the sort of things a hospital can be convinced were the result of, “walking into a door”.
So your example fails, because there are already significant punishments in the system for assaults with weapons.
But what I really notice is that this is agreeing, in principle, with the idea that victims are responsible for DV against them. “Why don’t they leave” is putting the onus for stopping the abuse onto the abused.
And to say that the abuser, “can’t help it”, and will continue to abuse so the victim has to do something… is to let the terrorist win. It’s not even negotiating with them, it’s ceding the field to them.
Swell sort of moral system that is.