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.
He…takes them down in order to edit them?
(Not accusing you of course; it would never occur to me to archive Anti-Manboobz. Although now it’s occurring to me.)
Pecunium says,
“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.”
Which facts are you looking at, the fact that women perpetrate the vast majority of child abuse? The fact that women abuse those that are weaker than they and are SHOCKED that those stronger may abuse them.
“Nearly two-fifths (37.2%) of victims were maltreated by their mother acting alone. One-fifth (19.1%) of victims were maltreated by their father acting alone.”
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm10/cm10.pdf#page=31
Or the DOJ report on abuse in juvenile detention.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/panel_report_101014.pdf
“In regard to incidents of staff sexual misconduct, 92.0% involved male youth and female staff members; 1.7% involved male youth and male staff members; 2.5% involved male youth and both male and female staff members; 3.0% involved female youth and male staff members; 0.0% involved female youth and female staff members; and 0.8% involved female youth and both male and female staff members.”
“Facilities that housed only female youth offenders had the highest rates of youth-on-youth victimization (11.0%), whereas facilities that housed only male youth offenders had the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct (11.3%).10”
So women abuse those weaker than themselves and are SHOCKED. SHOCKED that people stronger than them may abuse them.
I forgot, you can’t see any fact that show females abuse males.
“So women abuse those weaker than themselves and are SHOCKED. SHOCKED that people stronger than them may abuse them.”
So, since women are abusers, they deserve to be abused?
“I forgot, you can’t see any fact that show females abuse males.”
No, but you and other MRAs spin the statistics so that it looks like women abuse men in equal or greater proportion than men abuse women, and it’s simply not true.
MRAs gloat over any instance of a woman abusing someone, as though it is typical of women’s behavior. But when a man’s criminal actions are pointed out, you see it as reflecting poorly on all men, and call it misandry.
Here’s my radical position: people shouldn’t abuse each other, no matter their age, gender, relative strength, etc. Shocking, I know!
John Anderson’s position, on the other hand, seems to be that stronger people should be expected to abuse weaker people — that strikes me as a pretty disgusting position, lacking in empathy.
Unimaginative says,
“MRAs: you know that movie you saw, where the evil woman seduced some naive loser to kill her husband? Yeah, that was just a movie, not a documentary. It was all sensational and shocking and everything, but it’s not a common, real-life occurrence. Most real-life people have an aversion to killing. Most real-life people, given the opportunity, figure out non-violent solutions to their problems.”
So when feminists talk about men killing women, you think they should realize that “it’s not a common, real-life occurrence. Most real-life people have an aversion to killing”. When you say “that was just a movie, not a documentary ” are you suggesting that women haven’t killed men before and the reported occurrences are all fabrications?
I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least. I think that I’ve mostly lived up to that promise so far as I’ve asked for clarifications and I’ve used qualifiers like seems. I can understand if this comment was written in frustration, but understand that I and any new visitor to the site won’t understand the back story if there is one and the comment just comes off as being dismissive of male victimization.
Cloudiah says,
“Here’s my radical position: people shouldn’t abuse each other, no matter their age, gender, relative strength, etc. Shocking, I know!”
Mine too. You must have missed my previous comment were I said that I thought one murder was to much. Since you didn’t chose to criticize the OP for stating that only 5% of men are killed by intimates, should I assume that you’re lying or is it because you don’t think men have a gender? That explains why you don’t use your real name.
“John Anderson’s position, on the other hand, seems to be that stronger people should be expected to abuse weaker people — that strikes me as a pretty disgusting position, lacking in empathy.”
When did I say that? I simply stated that it shouldn’t be a surprise to those who abuse the weak to be abused by someone stronger. I never said it was right. In fact, I’ve said one murder was too much. Such hate from feminist who simply do not like the facts, shocking.
“I promised some feminists, who I really admire, at The Good Men Project that I would initially engage feminists without assuming that they are misandrist, a very difficult task for me at least.”
And look, you’re already failing. Doesn’t seem like you’re actually trying very hard at all.
Cassandra I am shocked, shocked! that he’s already failing. Well, not really.
Fembot says,
“So, since women are abusers, they deserve to be abused?”
No, why do you think I took exception to the OP’s use of the term ONLY to describe the number of men killed by intimates. It seems that I’m the only person who has taken exception to that.
“No, but you and other MRAs spin the statistics so that it looks like women abuse men in equal or greater proportion than men abuse women, and it’s simply not true.”
Look at the DOJ National Intimate Partner Sexual Victimization Survey 2010 page 18 table 2.1. It indicates that in the last 12 months there were 1,270,000 rapes of intimate partners. That is 1,270,000 too many. Page 19 table 2.2 under made to penetrate (the statistic they use to indicate male rape victims. This always reminds me of how the feminist lobby championed a change in the FBI definition of rape that specifically exempted the majority of female perpetrated rapes from the count) it shows 1,267,000 during the same time period. That is 1,267,000 too many. Rape should be stopped regardless of how it is called and who it is done too.
http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf
“MRAs gloat over any instance of a woman abusing someone, as though it is typical of women’s behavior. But when a man’s criminal actions are pointed out, you see it as reflecting poorly on all men, and call it misandry.”
Some of them do, not all of us. Are you surprised that in an article playing to the oppression Olympics that there would be some comments pointing out that two could play? I was on a voice for men a while back. They had nothing but contempt for the GMPers. I’m certain that I’ll cross paths with them. It is my heartfelt intent to reclaim my movement from people who would disgrace it.
This was the most civil response I’ve received so far. I appreciate it.
“So when feminists talk about men killing women, you think they should realize that “it’s not a common, real-life occurrence. Most real-life people have an aversion to killing”.
I think everyone knows that MOST men are not killers. Do we need to always spell this out to spare your feelings?
“When you say “that was just a movie, not a documentary ” are you suggesting that women haven’t killed men before and the reported occurrences are all fabrications?””
Are you really that dense? You know very well that is not what she meant.
John, how do you know I don’t use my real name? How do I know you do use your real name? (And how is that even meaningful to anyone except you?)
Citing actual statistics does not mean approval of the situation, by the way. Saying only 5% of murdered men are killed by intimate partners does not equal “5% is an acceptable number.” Most people understand that.
Also what you said is what you said, and that is exactly what my comment was based on.
“This was the most civil response I’ve received so far. I appreciate it.”
Well now I feel like an asshole.
“Only” does not mean “totally acceptable” — I really can’t understand how you think that, unless it’s through a lens of “feminists hate men and want them to die.”
CassandraSays says,
“And look, you’re already failing. Doesn’t seem like you’re actually trying very hard at all.”
Snowy says,
“Cassandra I am shocked, shocked! that he’s already failing. Well, not really.”
I only promised not to assume that feminists were misandrists. Once proven, it is no longer an assumption.
Oh another “don’t make me hate you even though I already do” kind of mra? yawnnn
“I only promised not to assume that feminists were misandrists. Once proven, it is no longer an assumption.”
I hear this a lot from MRAs. What exactly is your evidence for our misandry? I don’t hate men and I don’t think any contributors here do either. I certainly don’t think David hates men. Nobody is making light of male abuse victims, or saying all men are violent, or stupid, etc.
Fembot says,
“Well now I feel like an asshole.”
Feminists have told me that feelings are valid. 🙂
John, have you read the tagline of this blog? Mocking misogyny. That’s what we do here. Sorry if this hurts your feelings. Well, not really. Since you’ve proven yourself to be a misogynist I have no qualms about mocking you and your ridiculous “shocked, shocked!” affectations.
“Feminists have told me that feelings are valid.”
That’s a good one. But since everything feminists say is poppycock, I guess I’m not an asshole after all. 🙂
Cloudiah says,
“Only” does not mean “totally acceptable” — I really can’t understand how you think that, unless it’s through a lens of “feminists hate men and want them to die.”
It reduces the relevance of their deaths. What if I were to say only 30% of women are killed by an intimate partner? Doesn’t that sound minimizing? Does that sound trivializing? Maybe he picked a bad choice of words and would like to edit it out. I get it people make mistakes. That’s why I asked him to clarify.
“It reduces the relevance of their deaths.”
This is not because men aren’t valued, or are trivial, as you think.
It is reducing the relevance of being an equal comparison to the deaths of women, because clearly 30% is more than 5%.
No one condones violence against males. Murdering men is not “less” bad than murdering women. I don’t think we need to clarify that because you think it sounds misandrist. As I’ve seen, most MRAs will twist the meaning of anything we say until they find a crack they can exploit, using it as “proof” of our misandry.
Nah, this appears to be a “the purpose of this misogyny mocking blog ought to be to convince me that feminism is OK, even though I’ve already decided that feminism is misandry – wait, why isn’t everyone trying to win me over? you’re all so mean” troll.
Fembot says,
” I hear this a lot from MRAs. What exactly is your evidence for our misandry? I don’t hate men and I don’t think any contributors here do either. I certainly don’t think David hates men. Nobody is making light of male abuse victims, or saying all men are violent, or stupid, etc.”
It’s partly due to the reception I received here. I don’t think all the commentators hate men or are necessarily closed minded to other view points. I actually stepped away from a safe space to engage people who don’t see things the way I do. The feeling that I get is that there is great hostility to anyone who may consider men to be victims under any circumstance.
We’ve had a discussion on GMP concerning derailing. I forgot that the prevailing sentiment among our feminist members was that it was not appropriate to mention male victims on a forum discussing female victimization. I guess you’re sensitive to that. I guess I actually had to see it. Point taken, understood. His use of the term only in describing male victims irritated me so I showed him an instance where males were overwhelmingly victimized by females.
I’ve quoted DOJ and CDC statistics and included page numbers or links on an article that says that we shouldn’t be angry over truthful statistics. I’ve been told that the statistics have been spun. Maybe I should have refrained from that SHOCKED bit. I probably should have considered the feelings of the people on this site. I’d consider apologizing, but too many people here seem mean.
I’m sure you’ve had bad experiences. That’s why a lot of people on GMP became feminists or MRAs. I don’t know the back stories and suppose I should just let the stupid sniping comments go. We’ll see. I hope you’re right about the people here.
You’ve been duped princess. Your now a self suffecient slave. So am I.
Okay, I believe you. I’ve been fooled by the Powers That Be into wanting equal rights. My question is: what alternative do you offer, and how does it benefit me more than the existing system?
Let me clarify. At present, in my slave state, I’m a happily married woman who works as a cartoonist and comic-book editor. My husband is a museum curator, a job that doesn’t pay a lot but does good in the world and makes him happy. This past weekend we visited the Academy of Sciences, went shopping for comic books, and caught a sneak preview of the new Spider-Man movie. We’re planning a barbecue for the Fourth of July.
In your ideal society, what would I be doing instead, and how would this be better for my husband and me? Why should we support your ideas?
Fembot says,
“It is reducing the relevance of being an equal comparison to the deaths of women, because clearly 30% is more than 5%.”
Every person’s death has relevance to those who love them. Did you really mean to say that? MRAs will use that as proof of misandry because it sounds misandrist. I’ve been told that this is not a zero sum game, we should play the oppression Olympics, ect., but even if you look at raw numbers, he didn’t say what you think he said.
“While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”
If I were to multiply the number of men killed by 5% I would get the relative number of men killed to women’s deaths or 20%. So in absolute terms for every 3 men who kill a woman, there are 2 women who kill a man. Who is really spinning the stats? Does it sound more relevant? What proportion needs to be reached before it attains relevance?