Over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, mgriff2k4 is angry that the picture to the right here showed up on his computer screen. Sorry, make that fucking angry. “Did this really just fucking pop up on my news feed?” he asks in the title of his post, adding in a comment: “sorry about the word “fucking” but im really pissed off about this.”
Why is he angry? Presumably, he assumes the statistic is untrue, and that it unfairly paints men as evil murderers.
Luckily, in this Age of the Internet it is trivially easy to find out whether statistics like this are true. It involves something called “Google.” mgriff2k4 did not bother to avail himself of this easy-to-use research tool.
But I did. In less than 5 minutes, I confirmed that this factoid is indeed true, at least according to the most recent figures on gender and homicide found on the Department of Justice’s web site, drawn from FBI data covering the years from 1976-2005. According to the FBI, 30% of women who are murdered are murdered by “intimates.” Roughly 20% are killed by husbands or ex-husbands; 10% by boyfriends or girlfriends. (In the overwhelming majority of cases the murderers are boyfriends, not girlfriends; men are ten times more likely to commit murder than women.)
While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.” Men kill women more than twice as often as women kill men. Women suffer far more serious injuries from domestic violence than men do; so it is not altogether unexpected that they are also far more likely to be murdered by intimates.
If you want to see what this means on a human level, I suggest you take a look at the excellent if depressing web site Domestic Violence Crime Watch, which links to stories in which men are the perpetrators, and in which men are the victims. There are far more of those in the former category than in the latter.
I should note that (as of this writing) one commenter in the thread also found his way to the DOJ site, and noted that men were more likely to be killed by strangers or acquaintances. But he didn’t bother to tell mkgriff2k4 that the sign in the picture was in fact accurate.
Maybe women who work in factories are invisible to him?
Wish I’d been invisible when I worked in one. But I know, all the creepy shit was totally deserved because how dare I take a good job from a poor, deserving man?!
Also, I was totally wearing all see-through clothes all the time, consistent 35 degree (Fahrenheit) temperature in the factory be damned! My vagina must ruuuuuuuuuuuuule!
Can you goddamn imagine if men were held to the same standard?
Every time an MRA trots out the stock list of female murderers, I kinda boggle. Does he want a list of male murderers? Would that counter whatever the hell his point is? Because I’m pretty sure I could find a very, very long list for him.
That NWO guy reminds me of hyper-religious fundies. He has a worldview is based on what’s emotionally satisfying to him and he is so emotionally invested in it that he will automatically reject any information that could potentially threaten it with a mere wave of his hand. Don’t know how anyone here can be so masochistic as to continue to offer actual rational discourse in the face of that type of tinfoil hattery. You are all far much nicer people than I.
@CassandraSays
“That’s a good point. Why would the average woman want to end up living with a murderer? Wouldn’t she feel, I dunno, a bit paranoid that if a guy was capable of killing his parents he might turn on her too at some point? I’ve broken up with a guy because he punched someone (not me, another dude), so I can’t imagine going “oh hey, boyfriend bludgeoned his parents to death, that’s cool…maybe we should go apartment hunting next weekend”.
Why do so many men in prison for murder and rape get love letters and proposals of marriage from so many women? Even men who are mass murderers of women get these proposals. Why? It runs contrary to everything you’ve said. Why do women who are actually getting abused by a man go back time and time again?
The answer is always the same, he is in someway powerful and worthy of reproduction. That’s how men of note or some type of power control women, his reproductive value.
————-
This is also how a woman can control a man sexually. Reproduction of course. Even when contraceptions are used, the drive and instinct remain the same. If a man has sex and wears a condome or the woman is on the pill he doesn’t feel less satisfied afterwards. The reason is because ever cell in his body just screamed, “Huzzah! Huzzah! You’ve just had a chance to reproduce and pass on your genes!”
————
The value of reproduction overrides even the value of ones own survival in many cases. Humans are no exception. How many men and women have given their own lives to save their children? Why? We’d like to think it’s altruism and honor and protecting the weak, which may be a part of it, but not all of it. A person is far more willing to sacrifice their life to save their own children than someone elses.
Animals sacrifice themselves to save their offspring as well. It’s not honor or altruism. It’s the all important passing on of their genes that rules them. Even above survival, every cell in your body, every instinct say’s, reproduce, pass on your genes.
————
Arnold, the governator, and the maid is an excellent example of hypergamy in women and polygamy in men which I wrote about above. It doesn’t really matter who initiated between the two of them, either of them could’ve said no.
Arnold had a lovely wife, a great life, ect. In terms of conventional beauty, his wife demolished the maid in looks. So why would he do it? Why take such a huge risk having sex without birth control? Reproduction of course, pass on those genes with as many women as possible.
The maid, surely knew he wouldn’t leave his wife for her, which he didn’t. She didn’t abort the child. According to reports she persued him to engage in sex without birth control. She could’ve had a child with a bum in the streets, a mook from the welfare lines, ect. She had a chance to reproduce with Arnold, which is high up on the gene ladder of power.
————-
In the feminist ghetto’s there’s like a 70% out of wedlock birthrate. I’ll just use 100 as a nice round number. A 100 women in a neighborhood of 200 women get pregnant out of wedlock. They’re not getting pregnant from 100 different men. It might be 50 men or less. Some of the women already know the guy knocked up some other girl and didn’t stick around, and they know he won’t stick around with them. So why do they do it? He’s got the genes they’ve decided is the best they can hope for. The all powerful reproduction rules all.
oops! I meant: ‘has a worldview based on’ NOT ‘has a worldview is based on’. Ugh, that’s what I get for typing that out while on the phone.
“Average”, manacles boy. “Average woman” and “small minority of odd people who seek romance with scary dangerous convicted criminals” are not the same thing.
Also, I will now invoke the magic of Maru in this thread too. Behold, this (male) cat’s (male) owner has trained him to seek to imprison himself in a plastic storage device! Clearly this is part of the vagina conspiracy.
NWO: You ignorant, lying, twit.
Of course women can and do manipulate men sexually, just as if men chose to they could manipulate women sexually, (threat of rape)
Rape /= sex. Your example even admits this. You are saying the denial/offer of sex is capable of making men murder their parents.
And you are also saying women in, “take back the night” are dealing with men using rape to control them.
Note that the one is a question of consent (if you want to fuck me you have to do this for me). The other is an issue of force (if you come outside I’ll fuck you).
Cassandra: He doesn’t, though. He consistently insists that all women work in nice offices in which they wear silky underthings and push paper around for no real reason.
Not all of them. Some work for Pepsi by stealing jobs from the slaves of the New World Order.
It’s one of his shibboleths.
Why are MRAs so hung up on evopsych? is it because it offers a scientific justification for assholery?
John Anderson (my Jo): I’m trying to determine what the main point of the article is.
Well… reading it might help.
A dude on Reddit is all upset that people think men killing domestic partners at that rate is horrible.
I always thought that one murder was unacceptable, but it seems that as I read feminist writing, there is an acceptable amount of victimization and it only becomes relevant if it exceeds this amount.
Is English your first language? Because if it is, I don’t see how you came to that conclusion. Would you care to share some quotations, so we can see help you out?
p.S. If I’ve mistaken you for a feminist and you are in fact not, my sincerest apologies.
If I’ve mistaken you for someone engaging in good faith, with nothing more than issues of reading comprehension, my sincere apologies.
Fembot: Why are MRAs so hung up on evopsych? is it because it offers a scientific justification for assholery?
Not quite. It lets them pretend there is science behind their arguments. Then (as with Ruby) they can just shriek about “SCIENCE”, and ignore the actual facts.
Apparently Owly is an expert on what arouses men, who knew.
This is the most amazing math I’ve ever seen.
“The number is 70% based on I just made that up. So let’s say it’s 100%. That means 100 out of every 200.”
@pecunium
Exerting control over someone for something they want. Exerting control over someone for something they don’t want. Both are wrong. I defend neither. How about you?
And please stop the silly nonsense that rape doesn’t involve sex. You’d be hard pressed to make a rape charge stick unless unwanted sex occured.
Yeah, twelve-year old girls in their sexy, sexy capri-pants. Or, you know, any female human over 4 ft. tall dressed in anything less than a burka/full mennonite garb.
Nothing signals sexual readiness like an exposed lower calf, apparently.
Oh noes, women are having babies without being married! The greatest risk to the universe. Seriously.
I mean, if women are doing that then there’s no limit on the number of babies (because marriage limits baby production!), and once the universe has finished expanding and starts contracting.. Well, it will just be full of babies and we won’t be able to move.
Disaster.
@Cliff Pervocracy
Large racial/ethnic differences exist in the percentage of births to unmarried women, with
non-Hispanic white women and Asian or Pacific Islander women being much less likely
to have a nonmarital birth. In 2005, 69.5 percent of all births to non-Hispanic black
women, 63.3 percent of births of American Indian or Alaskan native woman, and 47.9
percent of births to Hispanic women occurred outside of marriage, compared with 25.4
percent for non-Hispanic white women and 16.2 percent for Asian or Pacific Islander
women (preliminary estimates).
In 2005 it was 69.5% in the feminist ghetto. Apparently my ass keeps pretty good stats.
A lot of animals kill/eat their young for various reasons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
Reproduction does not always override an animal’s will to survival. It’s pretty ignorant of you to say that but color me unsurprised at your barf-all-over-the-place research and lack of care with any subject you talk about.
Or, apparently, jewelry, because everyone knows that women wear jewelry specifically to arouse every man who sees them. There is definitely no reason a woman would wear, say, a ring on her left hand except to announce her sexual availability to all men.
Let me stop you right there, you bigoted fuckwit. There are a lot of issues -cultural, political, historical, and socioeconomic- that have a lot of negative effects on the lives of the urban poor. But for your fool-ass to claim that the “ghetto” is feminist is as bug-fuckingly ignorant as just about everything else you’ve ever written.
Fuck off.
So the men are murderers and rapists, the women are writing love letters, and this is evidence of how women are horrible?
I mean, really, this shit isn’t that common anyway–high-profile murderers sometimes get love letters because they’re famous and people react in weird ways to fame, but your average Joe Murderer doesn’t get a fan club–but even if it was. You’ve still got a situation where the man is a murderer, the woman has bad taste in her crushes, and this is evidence against the woman???
Wow, that was an extended glimpse into the mind of Owly, and it looks surprisingly like the mind of Ruby.
So when I just walked to the break room to heat up my lunch, wearing black jeans, sneakers, and a crewneck shirt with 3/4-length sleeves (exposing my VERY sexy forearms), I left a trail of aroused men in my wake? Good to know.
NWO: Viking was what Norsemen (and women, some warrior graves in England have proved to hold female skeletons) did. It’s a verb – when one went a’viking, one was out raiding.
Source (not the greatest, but it’s too damn hot to hunt up references!): http://usat.ly/NpSDbd
I love that NWO’s solution to all worldly issues is that all people just need to convert to christianity.
NWO you do realize that christianity is already very dominant religion right? Stuff like rape and murder still happens in places were christians are the majority so forcing people to convert isn’t going to make all the problems in the world go away. In fact forced conversion will make more problems because most people would not be converted easily. Maybe it would make you happy but it would not solve shit. Before when christianity was even more dominant in the US there were many problems, rape still fucking happened. Christianity does not make you a good person overall, exhibit A: you NWO.