The title of this blog can sometimes be a tad misleading. Because sometimes the biggest boobz out there are not men at all. A case in point: TyphonBlue, a proud member of the Men’s Rights Movement Women’s Auxiliary who sometimes makes boobish pronouncements like this:
Challenged by a non-MRA somewhat perplexed by her “logic” here, TB elaborates:
Nah. Still doesn’t make any sense. Or, as Peggy Olsen might put it:
Well, a geat deal of violence is directed at men when you look at violence overall. I looked at reported DV cases as tracked by Stats Canada, and it equals out almost. What isn’t accounted for is that women experience more hospitalizations and serious injuries as well as more reports of beatings by the same partner. I’ve spoken to her before and I’d agree that awareness of DV could be made more gender neutral, but I would still think that it needs to be said that women suffer greater physical harm and or increased risk of death at the hands of their partner.
Oh for fuck’s sake. This isn’t a zero sum game! Hell, it isn’t even Newton’s Third Law in action.
Stopping violence against women does not mean increasing violence against men. Is violence some kind of physical force like momentum that must go somewhere?
Because the amount of violence in the universe is fixed, and it must be perpetrated on other human beings. What, did you think violence was some kind of thing humans could choose not to do to other humans? Or – gasp! – not do at all? Pish!
Now if you’ll excuse me, I need to go fulfill my weekly quota of punching other humans in the face.
The Butterfuck Effect: for every puppy that is not kicked, a star will go Supernova.
Or something.
pillowinhell. I’m with you on that. For last year, in Minnesota alone 23 female dead bodies, one man in intimate partner violence. Also… should be noted that in many cases of the murdered females, there were others murdered, children, family members and police officers. Also those studies that show “equal” violence don’t account for self defense usually, and equate throwing a box of tissues to a punch in the face. The stats are too blind for determinations. When campaigns are drawn up, they focus on the body count. When funds are allocated, and shelters built, it’s the toe tags that are making the difference, and the dynamics of no where to go. Also if you have a murderous partner, some victims of IPV would not dream of running to family and turning their lives upside down. The MN report alone shows how dangerous that can be. The shelter in our area was secret and even the police could not know where it was, some of their partners needed the services, so it’s a good thing.
It is true that most violence is committed against men. It’s also primarily committed BY men, against men. So the point of discussing issues of violence committed by men still stands.
In other news, all anti-child-abuse campaigns are encouraging elder abuse, and cat shelter workers want dogs to die.
This is MRA logic 101. Anything that benefits one group of people does so at the expense of other people. For example, if a person does a walk-a-thon to raise money for a charity to help people with multiple sclerosis, it harms a charity for people with cystic fibrosis. The only fair thing is for nobody to do anything nice or helpful for anyone else.
/sarcasm
Refuses to compute! What exactly is her point? That anyone who supports VAW initiatives don’t care about men? Or that men are gonna fuck people up no matter what, so women need to handle their share of getting their ass kicked?
Waaay off-topic but can we please have this, please please please? At the very least it will eliminate one of the haters’ arguments for excluding women from being firefighters, thus forcing them to find something more ridiculous to justify their hate with, and more easily showing it for what it is.
I suspect that this is actually their position, but TyphonBlue comes the closest to admitting it. Otherwise, wouldn’t anything that reduces the amount of violence in the world be a good thing?
TyphonBlue seems to me to argue that efforts to end violence against women aren’t valid because they don’t try to end violence against men.
It’s like, if you say you’re against violence against women, you are assumed to be for violence against men unless you specifically say otherwise.
Therefore, unless TyphonBlue has stated that she is against violence against women, I am going to assume that she’s for it, because she has only said she’s against violence against men.
LOGIC. IT WORKS.
Falconer, that is super cool.
There are already laws for violence against men.
They’re called laws.
The reason stuff like VAWA was brought up was because the laws were either being applied differently between the sexes, or that women were suffering more often than men. MRAs like to pretend that everything is an even playing field, and that any law that specifically applies to a certain sub-population is necessarily biased. It’s childish.
Say there was a preschool classroom, where kids got cookies for snack time. Let’s say that, for whatever reason, boys had been getting three cookies while girls had only gotten one cookie (insert “boys need more nourishment for muscles” argument and the like here). If there was a law stating that girls need to recieve extra cookies, that isn’t favoring girls, that’s evening the playing field.
In this metaphor, laws being applied correctly are cookies or something… I wanna make cookies now. I also want this to be the standard metaphor from now on for explaining feminism. ^_^
*applause*
The thing about the real world is that it isn’t immediately obvious how many cookies each person has. Cookies are different sizes too, so there’s variation in how much cookies people get, and you need to look at the average amount of cookie to estimate how equal the sexes are.
Then people like NWO come riding in and say “Hey, I only have one cookie, and the girls have two now! Boys aren’t advantaged because I don’t have more cookies, so take cookies away from the girls. Those sluts will do anything for cookies.”
Typhonblue is one of Elam’s minions. Anyone who actually cared about social issues would have the wisdom to stay as far away from a sick fuck like him as possible.
Arguably VAWA should really be called the Domestic Violence Act, because domestic violence is an arena in which “assault is already illegal” doesn’t necessarily cut it.
When someone gets beaten up by a mugger or in a bar fight, existing assault laws cover their situation pretty well. When someone’s assailant is someone they live with, may be financially dependent on, and have a lot of emotional entanglement with, it’s different.
Someone who’s been mugged won’t need a shelter to stay in and someone hurt in a bar fight (probably) won’t need to worry that the person who beat them up will start stalking them. But someone who’s been attacked by their intimate partner has to worry about these things.
These are the sort of problems that VAWA’s really about, not just making violence against women extra illegal or whatever.
@cloudiah: Isn’t it way cool, though?
I thought people here might like it seeing as a few weeks ago there was “women are too weak to be firefighters!”
Now I’m sorry I used my derail because I just found out Geraldo said something dumb.
In other news, dog bites man, bird sings song, salmon swim upriver.
@Falconer And Herman Cain just released the most WTF video I have ever seen. Must not derail. Must. Not. Derail. [Sits on hands.]
I think you hit the nail on the head on how their “logic” works. Its that they don’t actually think anything can be done about it, nor do they try, so they want women to suffer too. I remember David once posted a screencap to r/mensrights post…the OP was complaining about men dying on the job and why don’t feminists do something about it, and someone left a thoughtful reply about workplace safety standards, the OP replies and basically says “that’s not what I asked, I want to know why bitches aren’t made to die with men”
Its not about helping men, it’s about making women suffer “equally.” Because the point of equality is not to improve people’s lives, it’s to make them worse *eyeroll*
There have been groups that bring the attention of male violence in a non-domestic context. Usually by those “concerned mother” people. They argue that videogames, movies and other entertainment encourages young boys to be violent and try to ban them or at least make them harder to obtain. I don’t agree with that but at least they are actually DOING something. What are MRAs doing to combat violence against men? what campaigns and awareness are they setting up? How convenient that they always forget to mention that most male victims of violence are being victimized by other males too. Because feminism/women are not to blame that’s why. And they’re only interested when we’re the ones to blame.
@Holly:
Good point, one that isn’t brought up nearly as much as it should… (“It’s called violence against WOMEN!!! Misandry1!!”)
I still like the cookie metaphor though though.
I’ve seen Typhonblue before
Just an insecure woman looking for male approval. She doesn’t get it in her real life so she turns to the internet. Serious Daddy issues.
I don’t know anything about TB’s real life or her father. You do? Fascinating. Where’d you learn that?
For some reason, this makes me laugh so hard. I’m envisioning Cookie Monster as an MRA demanding to know why some women have chocolate chip cookies and he’s stuck with pecan sandies.