Categories
antifeminism domestic violence misogyny MRA oppressed men reddit Uncategorized

Men’s Rights Redditors angry that reality is reality. (Murder statistics edition.)

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.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

668 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
fatcat
fatcat
9 years ago

You know what, I did used to think that a relationship where one or both partners ocassionally hit each other was perfectly normal, and I’m still having to unlearn that. But anytime physical violence has come up in my relationships, I realised it’s over. There’s no real chance of having a real relationship after that.

Anna
Anna
9 years ago

Really, NWO. You know what you sound like? This:

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

NWO: 1) it’s mandatory. The question is why? There’s no reason other than to stir up trouble where none existed.

What? That’s daft man. If there is no, “trouble” this test won’t find it. Even if there is, this test will miss lots of it, because abused people often represent their abuse as being, “normal behavior”.

But the reason to look is that abuse is a problem.

You, however, think there isn’t enough abuse in the world. This pisses you off because it will do just what it says on the packet, make abuse less socially acceptable.

So… you say your father, and his sons, were indentured servants in the 40s, in Texas (I find this hard to credit, but I’ll take it at face value for the moment). This, you compared to slavery. And yet, you were reared in Philly, to a family which wasn’t in the sort of grinding poverty that former slaves suffered in the South; suffered for more than 100 years after their emancipation.

And you want us to feel sorry for you; to give you a pass on your shit because? Oh right, because you are a white man and white men suffer so. Got it.

Not gonna happen.

First off, you’re on the wrong link. That page in no way translates to the punishment, which isn’t stated what it’ll be on the HITS site. I know you believe everything the State tells you but sometimes they lie by ommision.

Unh hunh. This is your problem. You have no falsifiable beliefs. You KNOW there is a feminist conspiracy. You KNOW it has a secret plan to make all men criminals and slaves. The lack of details is the PROOF.

Idiot.

“Even threats are not violence.” — they aren’t legal, and can certainly be a part of verbal abuse. DV includes verbal abuse, please try to remember that.

Idiot twice over. If I point a gun at you, that’s a threat. It’s a violent threat, as well as being a threat of violence. If I say, “I’m going to kill you,” while holding a gun, most jurisdictions will allow me to attack you and claim self-defense.

You, you weaselly little shit, think that it’s perfectly acceptable for a man to leave a room (and so not be threatened) when a woman slaps him, and come back to beat her skull in with a pipe. That’s your idea of, “not abusive”.

I can see why you wouldn’t want women to get this question set… you might have a romantic partner, and she might get asked these questions and be referred to counseling; take it, see what an abusive asshole you are.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Cliff: Yeah, in, like, the 1600s. Indentured servitude of white people pretty much died down around the time of the American Revolution.

Because Malaria and Yellow Fever made them less cost effective. They died too fast. If that hadn’t been the case it’s probably that slavery would have been a minor problem, because indentured servants cost less, up front, and created a labor-pool/market at the back end.

It’s interesting to look at where/how slavery manifested in the US. The Mason/Dixon line was pretty much the break point. North of that line Malaria was rare. South of that it was endemic. Prior to Europeans there was no Malaria in the Americas.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
9 years ago

I’m wondering if Owly is conflating poor folks only paid barely enough to live on, with slavery. Which, while terrible, just isn’t the same thing.

There’s also the possibility that it’s a massive lie, of course.

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

Shade — I think you’re half correct, I just remembered (thanks to your comment) that NWO thinks all Americans are enslaved by the NWO. He probably just means they paid income tax or some stupid shit like that >.<

nwoslave
9 years ago

@Cliff Pervocracy
“I think saying that anywhere black people live is the “ghetto,” that Philly is a shithole because it has black people and that you’re traumatized from having to grow up with them, and that black people belong in National Geographic is pretty fucking racist right there.”

You are quite the spin sister. Only someone so mired in a hate movement could ever spin anything I’ve said into what you’ve just written to make me out to look like a racist. Pathetic. You sould be either a teacher or a policy maker, you’d fit right in. Al least a paragraph of lies to add to the book o larnin is in order. If you’re a typical example of a modern day woman, do you really need to wonder why men consider womens opinion valueless?
—————–
@pecunium
“You, you weaselly little shit, think that it’s perfectly acceptable for a man to leave a room (and so not be threatened) when a woman slaps him, and come back to beat her skull in with a pipe. That’s your idea of, “not abusive”.”

How long you gonna bleet over the MccyDs story? She didn’t leave, she jumped the counter and went after him, the other girl went aroud to the door to trap him in. The guy spent his life in prison and was trying to make a go on the outside as a cashier at MccyDs. I’m guessing his actions were a little bit colored by the life he had to endure, as oppossed to the privileged princesses who thought it was their right to punch the shit out of him.

You’re on the losing side of this one. It took the jury no time at all to find him innocent and the privileged class guilty. Funny how the women who attacked, pressed the attack and went after an innocent man aren’t abusive. You’ve been praying at the altar too long. The abusiveness belonged exclusively to the ladies. What would your verdict have been? Lock him up? Is he a danger to society? One out of a million times the pussy pass fails and your frothing at the mouth. Give it a rest with the MccyDs story, team woman lost for once.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

It looks as if My Jo doesn’t have much stamina. Prevent him from the opportunity to being a gratuitously insulting little twerp and he goes home.

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

It took the jury no time at all to find him innocent and the privileged class guilty.

But Mr Slave, I thought feminists control all the courts. Why wasn’t he sentenced to toil in the bonbon mines for the rest of his life?

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

NOWsalve, the simple fact that you call yourself a slave and throw around the term “massah” as part of that appropriation reveals you to be a massive fucking racist, even if we ignore everything else.

And as excuses go, “There were black people where I grew up.” really doesn’t cut it.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

NWO: The jury was wrong. And your boyos in the MRM all for juries rendering verdicts contrary to the law.

And aren’t you the one who is all up in arms that the laws aren’t what they should be? If you want to go that way, go all the way. You won’t, because you aren’t really interested in the law.

But… if it’s reasonable and justifiable for him to leave the room to get a weapon, why isn’t it reasonable and justifiable for a woman to do the same? Why can’t a woman who has been abused for years, and knows it will continue get a club, or a knife, or a gun, and deal with her abuser the way this guy did?

Go ahead, make the case? Tell me why juries who acquit women who make the burning bed defense aren’t correct?

You won’t, because you don’t really believe such a claim is ever legitimate. You supported this guy not because it was self-defense, but because he beat on a woman.

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Admit that a history of abuse justifies an act of proactive self-defense.

I dare ya.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Oh yeah… gonna tell me that me pointing a gun at you isn’t a threat? I’m not touching you. I might not even be loaded. So long as I don’t pull the trigger it’s innocent fun, right?

John Anderson
John Anderson
9 years ago

Pecunium says July 4, 2012

“As to the question of merits in child custody cases… that was your theory. I’m not going to do your work for you. Doing one’s own work is a matter of professionalism.”

Actually, you submitted into evidence that your interpretation of your father’s (who conveniently was a family law mediator with the suggestion that he had enough experience to rival my brother’s lawyer) stories was sufficient to rebut my brother’s lawyer’s assessment that the court system was biased against fathers. That doesn’t mean fathers couldn’t win 50% of the cases if 80% of their cases were superior.

Qualify how your personal experience weighs into this. Unless of course you meant to write that you were totally ignorant of how the legal system works, but that persist problem you have with the English language just made it come out as I have personal experience and it tells me your brother’s lawyer was a crap lawyer. I suspect you won’t overcome your issues with logic, though.

pecunium | July 4, 2012 at 1:17 pm

“My dad’s a family law mediator (runs a non-profit, Eastern Tennessee). He does a lot of work in this field. As a result I get to hear a lot of stories (oh, the stories). I can say, with some level of personal experience… if that lawyer told your brother those things, your brother had a crap lawyer. Because, in the cases where a father actually seeks custody, he gets it, about fifty percent of the time.”

So first you say that it was personal experience. Then you move the goal posts and say it’s because men win 50% of the time. The two statements together imply that through your personal experience men should win 50% of the cases based on relative strength of case and they do.

pecunium | July 4, 2012 at 2:16 pm

“You have made a statement of opinion (you aver certain beliefs were expressed; some of which are from outside this discussion) as such it’s incumbent on you; the person making the positive statement, to support it”

Since you brag about your proficiency with English, I assume that this is the common feminist tactic of let’s have a discussion under different rules. I let you have an advantage for awhile. It keeps things interesting. Unless I misinterpret your position, it is.

1. Family court laws are fair
2. Family court laws are consistently applied without outside bias
3. This results in the expected 50% win/lose outcome. The assumption being made was that the cases were of equal merit. This is what I’m saying you need to qualify. What were the relative strengths of the cases. You’ve proven nothing without answering that.

pecunium | July 4, 2012 at 2:17 pm

“The fact is, nothing hateful about men has been said.”

So was Ruby said about men was a decent way to treat men in your opinion. I would disagree, but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions regardless of its repugnance. Of course I’ll be charitable and allow you an out, if you admit to your problems with the English language.

pecunium | July 4, 2012 at 2:27 pm

“Your brother wasn’t victimised. Hell, he got what he wanted. He got it despite having an idiot for a lawyer (that, or a lazy one). So your analogy… shit squared.”

Don’t think I ever said he was victimized, but why do all the feminists on this board just assume that a man will have counsel? Why do feminists on this board assume that a man can afford to continuously return to family court to enforce visitation?

pecunium | July 3, 2012 at 1:50 pm

“1: Fathers who petition for custody get it about half the time. The reason women get primary custody most of the time, is that most men don’t want it.”

Because there could be no other reason why they wouldn’t? Implying that most fathers don’t want their children sounds pretty hateful to me. Unless there are a significant number of women who are fathers.

ShadetheDruid
ShadetheDruid
9 years ago

Oh noes, look who’s back.

So was Ruby said about men was a decent way to treat men in your opinion. I would disagree, but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions regardless of its repugnance. Of course I’ll be charitable and allow you an out, if you admit to your problems with the English language.

Except even then, Ruby doesn’t give a shit who it is. Regardless of gender, she thinks “evil people” being raped is just, and even hilarious. Ruby is a horrible person, but she doesn’t save that just for men.

But even that’s besides the point, because trying to trap pecunium into a situation where he would have to admit he was unclear in one sentence doesn’t invalidate your continued failure to understand anything.

And the implication that he supports Ruby’s views if he doesn’t admit he wasn’t clear is disgusting. He’s called her out on them multiple times, we all have, even when she’s making unrelated points (though, really, Ruby and any sort of valuable point parted ways a while ago).

Stop being a disingenuous fuck and associating people with beliefs they’ve denounced just to try to one-up them.

Sharculese
9 years ago

new gasbag’s completely unearned haughtiness is just fucking adorable

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
9 years ago

but that persist problem you have with the English language

ALL THE IRONY!

Amused
9 years ago

John Anderson:

Implying that most fathers don’t want their children sounds pretty hateful to me.

There are many people, both men and women, who have children when they shouldn’t, who aren’t particularly fond of picking up toys, washing play-doh out of the carpet, cooking lunches, supervising homework and doing all the other endless, thankless tasks that make up so much of being a parent. These same people would gladly deal it off with someone else, while retaining the more enjoyable aspects of parenting, such as playing with kids at one’s leisure, pontificating about the facts of life or providing them with pleasures that reinforce the child’s love for the parent.

The gender difference here is introduced by way of societal expectations. Men simply do not face the same degree of social opprobrium as women in walking away from the grinding day-to-day, not-fun part of parenting. Hell, a man can walk away from a sick wife or a disabled child for the price of leasing a Honda Civic, and still enjoy widespread sympathy. By contrast, any woman who does that faces an immense backlash. Women are expected to be children’s day-to-day caretakers no matter what. A woman who changes a diaper is regarded as merely an adequate mother; a man who changes a diaper is regarded as a freakin’ hero. Thus, a man can leave his family and his kids, but as long as he still pursues occasional visitation (which, of course, consists solely of fun activities), he is still considered a good father. A woman who does the exact same thing is considered a monster who is not fit to live.

Based on that, yes, I would say most divorcing fathers don’t want custody, because they don’t want to deal with child care; and most importantly, because public expectations allow men — but not women — to voluntarily forgo the primary caretaker role without incurring any social cost. I am sorry, but not liking the idea of divorce simply because you want to retain a servant who will take care of “your” children, assist you in enjoying fun activities with them, and keep them out of your way when you’d rather do something else, doesn’t make you a good father OR a good husband.

Feminists have said so repeatedly — we would really like it if men got custody half the time. But that merely flows from the fact that we would really like it if men did half the not-fun part of child care and actually wanted to do all in the event of a divorce as often as not.

pecunium
pecunium
9 years ago

Jo “My dad’s a family law mediator (runs a non-profit, Eastern Tennessee). He does a lot of work in this field. As a result I get to hear a lot of stories (oh, the stories). I can say, with some level of personal experience… if that lawyer told your brother those things, your brother had a crap lawyer. Because, in the cases where a father actually seeks custody, he gets it, about fifty percent of the time.”

No, it’s not “moving the goalposts”. Moving the goalposts is an informal logical fallacy in which previously agreed upon standards for deciding an argument are arbitrarily changed once they have been met.

Nothing was changed after the fact. It was an argument from personal experience, supported with evidence from outside.

It’s how I avoid doing what you did (extrapolating a whole from a sample size of n =1).

Unless I misinterpret your position, it is.

1. Family court laws are fair
2. Family court laws are consistently applied without outside bias
3. This results in the expected 50% win/lose outcome. The assumption being made was that the cases were of equal merit. This is what I’m saying you need to qualify. What were the relative strengths of the cases. You’ve proven nothing without answering that.

You have done three things… one you have misinterpreted my argument, and two you have inserted conclusions not supported by even your misunderstanding. Third you have taken my rebuttal, and attributed it as being an argument de novo

We are still debating your claim men are disadvantaged in the courts.

Onwards.

Where did I say the laws are fair?

The unsupportable conclusion you attribute to me is all that follows from your assumptions.

My argument was that men (such as your brother) are disadvantaged by people like his lawyer, and yourself; who argue the system is unfairly biased against men.

That’s what I said. I said it based on men winning custody in fity percent of those cases in which they contested.

Nothing about the law being fair, or evenly applied is implied in my statements. Your inference is false, and the pretense of being able to divine my beliefs is specious. I have, insofar as I have proven anything shown that the system favors men.

Why? Because if we assume (arguendo) that the guiding principle of, “best interest of the child” is at play (and is the nominally guiding principle in a significant number of states, more significant if one looks at the populations served. New York and Calif. between them total almost 25 percent of the US population), then we might also assume the primary caregiver is the person most likely to represent that interest.

Men are not the primary caregivers in anything close to fifty percent of the families in the US (If they were, this sort of conversation wouldn’t be being had). If that’s the case (are you going to dispute that?), then we have to assume that either the only cases being presented are the best of the best (which burden, again is on you to prove; since you are the one claiming the system is biased against men, and you introduced the argument), or we have to admit that men win cases when the presumptive best interests of the child lie with the mother.

In either case, the claim you are making is disproven.

“The fact is, nothing hateful about men has been said.”

So was Ruby said about men was a decent way to treat men in your opinion. I would disagree, but I guess everyone is entitled to their opinions regardless of its repugnance. Of course I’ll be charitable and allow you an out, if you admit to your problems with the English language.

Nice try, half marks for the attempt to hoist me on my petard, but… show me where I (or the commentariat in general) have said her views are acceptable to us? As a rhetorical device I was perhaps (perhaps) overbroad.

Because you most certainly can’t, as you imply, that I hold to those beliefs. You also can’t claim I was lying, since it was a challenge to find them. You certainly can’t claim (as was implied in the comment to which I was responding, and established the context of the statement you made to which it was reply) that I, or the rest of us agree with her, not when she has but to make a single comment; on anything, and get at least one, and usually several, comment in reply telling her how much we despise her belief.

So all marks granted are forfeit (not that half marks is close to a passing grade).

Don’t think I ever said he was victimized,

Really…. so

this comment of yours doesn’t apply to him?

So women who invite men over for a drink didn’t get raped because she did an active thing and didn’t have to invite THAT particular man in for a drink. Talk about how being alienated from your children is not as bad as rape or how men should not receive ANY sympathy when they are victimized. Talk about how men who let themselves be victimized are weak and DESERVE what they get. That’s the most reprehensible aspect of the whole debate, the implication that men who don’t fight for custody DESERVE what happens to them even if it was desperation, fear or love for their children that caused it. I’m not saying I’ll agree, but I’ll understand.

You (directed at the majority pf people on this forum) call me an ass for discussing female victimization in theory, but rejoice and find every excuse to blame men for their own victimization in real terms.

Your words, yesterday.

BTW, can I get answers to my question on the use of fuck? re umpires, cops and parents? I’d hate to use it incorrectly in future.

And now I have to leave for work. Take your time, I’ll be gone all day.

nwoslave
9 years ago

@Amused
“Feminists have said so repeatedly — we would really like it if men got custody half the time. But that merely flows from the fact that we would really like it if men did half the not-fun part of child care and actually wanted to do all in the event of a divorce as often as not.”

Half the, “not fun part” also includes going to work to earn the wealth to support the child/children. After all, baby needs a new pair of shoes. I know thousands of men and none of them have ever said they leap up in the morning and say, “Woohoo, another day of working to an early grave!”

When you flush baby’s potty mess down the toilet, do you know where it goes? How it get’s there? What’s done to sanitize it? There are men wallowing in shit making it all go away. When your power goes out in a thunderstorm and you call to demand the magic returns. There are men out in that driving storm to ensure that comfort making magic returns.

Just because men aren’t doing their fair share of the direct unfun parts, doesn’t mean men aren’t doing the vast majority of indirect unfun part. Women are recognized for their unfun efforts. Men are invisible for their unfun efforts.

Kyrie
Kyrie
9 years ago

NWO, you seem to be pretending that only men work in harsh, dirty, tiring jobs. At this point I can’t say if that’s stupidity or pure lie.

Cliff Pervocracy
9 years ago

When you flush baby’s potty mess down the toilet, do you know where it goes? How it get’s there? What’s done to sanitize it? There are men wallowing in shit making it all go away.

Sanitation
Sewage is processed by men wallowing in it until it gets clean again.

Fractions
Women do half the un-fun work in the world. This means that women don’t work.

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
9 years ago

When you flush baby’s potty mess down the toilet, do you know where it goes? How it get’s there? What’s done to sanitize it? There are men wallowing in shit making it all go away. When your power goes out in a thunderstorm and you call to demand the magic returns. There are men out in that driving storm to ensure that comfort making magic returns.

Just because men aren’t doing their fair share of the direct unfun parts, doesn’t mean men aren’t doing the vast majority of indirect unfun part. Women are recognized for their unfun efforts. Men are invisible for their unfun efforts.

I know you think she doesn’t exist, but I’ve mentioned before, my sister-in-law is an electrician. (She’s mostly worked in construction before getting her instrument mechanic ticket, but my point stands.) I’m acquainted with two women who work at a sewage treatment facility. There are women garbage collectors in my city. Men are not the only ones who do shit jobs for money. Men are not the only ones taking years off their lives by working shift.

Hating women who work in the home because YOU work at a job you don’t like is illogical, irrational, and kind of stupid.

Amused
9 years ago

NWO: Your reply assumes facts not in evidence. Most mothers, including myself, work outside the home AND do most of the child care. Also, not every man, nor even the majority, works in dangerous or dirty jobs. As for the sanitation system — I do, in fact, know how it works. Most of it is automated, so it’s not like there are millions of men standing waste-deep in sewage, shoveling it along.

Besides, what does this have to do with custody? Do those men who do dirty and dangerous jobs, and who single-handedly buy the baby’s shoes include those “international bankers” you’ve been going on about? Or do the “international bankers” automatically get credited for doing a dirty, life-shortening job in custody proceedings just because some other penis-havers do?

thebionicmommy
thebionicmommy
9 years ago

When your power goes out in a thunderstorm and you call to demand the magic returns. There are men out in that driving storm to ensure that comfort making magic returns.

Women never work for electric companies? Women never risk their lives during storms? Wrong, I read the obituary of a female customer service rep that died at the AT&T store. When the tornado hit, she ushered a family to safety but didn’t have enough time to save herself. There are women out there just like men, chasing storms and getting warnings out to people. The storm chaser that got Joplin to sound the first sirens had his wife with him, helping him read the radar while he drove. She deserves credit, too, for saving lives.

Cliff Pervocracy
9 years ago

Seems like men are in kind of a catch-22 here. If men keep working at their 80-hour sewage-wallowing jobs, they won’t have time to care for young children.

But if men quit those jobs to care for children, they won’t have the moral superiority of their terrible jobs anymore!

nwoslave
9 years ago

@Unimaginative
“Hating women who work in the home because YOU work at a job you don’t like is illogical, irrational, and kind of stupid.”

Denying men equal custody for having no choice but to work in dirty, dangerous jobs to support their family is law. You opinion a hatred where none exists. Hatred by law is a fact.
————-
@Cliff Pervocracy
” But if men quit those jobs to care for children, they won’t have the moral superiority of their terrible jobs anymore!”

If moral superiority were given to men who supported their families, men would be given default custody. Women are given moral superiority by gender, she is given custody as the primary caretaker, a morally superior position.
————-
@Amused
“Most of it is automated, so it’s not like there are millions of men standing waste-deep in sewage, shoveling it along.”

Every job I’ve had for 30 years has been in, or related to the automation of some product or another. Watching an episode or two of, “how that works,” is a far cry from reality.
————-
@Kyrie
“NWO, you seem to be pretending that only men work in harsh, dirty, tiring jobs. At this point I can’t say if that’s stupidity or pure lie.”

An exception to the rule doesn’t change the rule. Are all black men doing fantastic because Obama is at the top of the food chain?
————-
@Amused
“Besides, what does this have to do with custody? Do those men who do dirty and dangerous jobs, and who single-handedly buy the baby’s shoes include those “international bankers” you’ve been going on about?”

Your obsession with mentioning international bankers when addressing every comment I make is annoyingly predictable. International bankers are a conspiracy theory, they don’t exist. Happy now?

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

Denying men equal custody for having no choice but to work in dirty, dangerous jobs to support their family is law.

Owly, I hope you’re being careful pulling entire law books out of your ass, I wouldn’t want you to injure yourself.

Fembot
Fembot
9 years ago

“Denying men equal custody for having no choice but to work in dirty, dangerous jobs to support their family is law.”

Again, MRAs attribute economic issues n to misandry. Because women never have to work to support their families.

cloudiah
9 years ago

The thing is, Owly doesn’t actually want to do anything about the economic issues. He thinks it is good and right for men to suffer in dirty, dangerous, destructive (that MGTOWers thread has me thinking in alliterative phrases) jobs — he just wants women to acknowledge that all men are heroes and that all women survive because of men’s labor.

People who actually try to DO something about those dangerous jobs are evil communists, don’tcha know.

Kendra, the bionic mommy
Kendra, the bionic mommy
9 years ago

Hey NWO, you never responded when I told you about Francis Perkins a woman who advocated for sick and dying men in Joplin’s lead and zinc mines. She wanted them to have safer, healthier working conditions.

In another thread, you said it was an easy vacation to cook, clean, and take care of small children. Why don’t you become a maid or nanny so you can do what you enjoy? I know the pay is terrible and there is no prestige, but it sounds like your current job makes you so miserable, why not do something different?

By the way, many of the pink collar professions are dirty, too. Try spending a day at a daycare during an outbreak of a stomach virus. Nursing can be very gross, too. I wouldn’t want to work at a wound care clinic draining MRSA boils for anything.

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
9 years ago

Tried to find “hatred by law” as it relates to child custody. What I found (at http://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/child-custody-basics.html ) was:

Custody Decisions: Factors to Consider
In deciding who will have custody, the courts consider various factors. The overriding consideration is always the child’s best interests, although that can be hard to determine. Often, the main factor is which parent has been the child’s “primary caretaker” (more on this below). If the children are old enough, the courts will take their preference into account in making a custody decision.

Although the “best interest” standard does vary from state to state, some factors are common in the best interest analysis used by the individual states, including:

Wishes of the child (if old enough to capably express a reasonable preference);
Mental and physical health of the parents;
Religion and/or cultural considerations;
Need for continuation of stable home environment;
Support and opportunity for interaction with members of extended family of either parent;
Interaction and interrelationship with other members of household;
Adjustment to school and community;
Age and sex of child;
Parental use of excessive discipline or emotional abuse; and
Evidence of parental drug, alcohol or sex abuse.
Determining “Primary Caretaker” of the Child

In addition to the above factors, some states’ family courts allow a preference for the parent who can demonstrate that he or she was a child’s primary caretaker during the course of the marriage. In custody cases, the “primary caretaker” factor became important as psychologists began to stress the importance of the bond between a child and his or her primary caretaker.

This emotional bond is said to be important to the child’s successful passage through his or her developmental stages, and psychologists strongly encourage the continuation of the “primary caretaker”-child relationship after divorce, as being vital to the child’s psychological stability.

When determining which parent has been the primary caretaker, courts focus on direct care-taking responsibilities, such as:

Bathing, grooming, and dressing;
Meal planning and preparation;
Purchasing clothes and laundry responsibilities;
Health care arrangements;
Fostering participation in extracurricular activities; and
Teaching of reading, writing, and math skills.

Depending on the state where the custody determination is being made, other factors may be considered as important when determining primary caretaker status. Even such things as exposure to second-hand smoke and volunteerism in the child’s school have been considered in a primary caretaker analysis. While, in the past, the primary caretaker preference seemed just another way to award custody to mothers, as more and more men share parenting responsibilities, this preference does not necessarily favor mothers. When it is apparent that both parents have equally shared parenting responsibilities, courts once again will fall back on the “best interest” standard in determining custody.

All of which appears to indicate that the courts are less interested in enslaving men and more interested in ensuring that children get the most stable, supportive environment possible from the time their parents split up to the time they’re on their own.

How is it you think that men have “no choice” about working dirty, dangerous jobs? Child support payments (in Canada, anyway) are based on what the payer makes. So if you’re making $30,000 per year as a daycare provider, you’d pay between $220 and $280 per month for one child, depending on which province or territory you live in.

And if you were working as a daycare provider, you could probably make a good case for being the better choice for custodial parent.

nwoslave
9 years ago

@Kendra, the bionic mommy
“In another thread, you said it was an easy vacation to cook, clean, and take care of small children. Why don’t you become a maid or nanny so you can do what you enjoy? I know the pay is terrible and there is no prestige, but it sounds like your current job makes you so miserable, why not do something different?”

It can’t be low paying, according to the ladettes, the labor of houskeeping, (cooking/cleaning,shopping, laundry), and childcare is worth some astronomical sum. Even if you minus the, “theoretical” cost of childcare, just cooking, cleaning, shopping and doing laundry for myself would seem to be worth about 75K a year. I can’t see how what I do in just my spare time could be worth that much.

Even being monsterously generous to the point of laughable it takes no more than 2 hours a day, more like 1 but I feel generous. 2 hours a day times 365 days a year equals 730. 75,000/730=$102.73 an hour. Since I’m such a nice guy I’ll make it an even $100.00 an hour to cook, shop, clean and do your laundry.

http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/what-is-a-mothers-work-really-worth-456608.html

All these “studies” seem to run along the same lines. My services are at your disposal. Child care will of course add on another 50K or so a year, plus room and board. Again, I’m feeling generous, with child care, an even 100K a year plus room and board. This offer won’t last forever. Don’t pass up this bargain.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

Slavey’s usual babble sounds even funnier if you’re British.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ladette

nwoslave
9 years ago

@Unimaginative
The State dictates who has the right of parenthood? And here I thought parenthood was an irrevocable right. How lovely that women in all their collective genius have handed over children to the corporation to decide what’s, “in the best interest of a child.”

Argenti Aertheri
Argenti Aertheri
9 years ago

In wtf world do you live in NWO that you can mange to do laundry, shop, cook, and clean, all in an hour? Do you live next to a grocery store or something? Or eat only take out that somehow doesn’t take a half hour to arrive? Drop your clothing off at the drycleaners, pick up take out and turn on the roomba?

Or do you just have a really bad sense of time? (Hint here, even if you don’t count the 45+ min the machine is running on it’s own, doing your own laundry is at least half an hour, assuming you actually fold your clothing that is)

And hello obvious fact, you don’t get paid for your services, period. You’d get a percent of Kendra’s income if you divorce. Which, if we’re using the first 4,850~ years of your “last 5,000 years” you can’t do anyways.

Dracula
Dracula
9 years ago

And here I thought parenthood was an irrevocable right.

Children, like adults, are people. No one has an irrevocable right to people.

cloudiah
9 years ago

If parenthood is an irrevocable right, WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN? Can I call 911 and demand they supply some? How many do I have a right to? Can I exchange them for puppies if I’d rather have puppies? What is the exchange rate?

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

NWO, you’re such a Constitution humper, where in there does it say that you have the right to have children?

cloudiah
9 years ago

I believe the right to bear children is in Article Title IX.

hellkell
hellkell
9 years ago

Or maybe it’s in section VAWA.

Snowy
Snowy
9 years ago

I think I’ve spotted it! It’s in section ARGLEBARGLE

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
9 years ago

And here I thought parenthood was an irrevocable right.

No, bonehead, parenthood is a RESPONSIBILITY. A great big, heaping pile of many, many, many responsibilities. Which many people blow off, and then whine about their exes getting custody.

And courts only intervene when the parents can’t come to an agreement between themselves. You know, when one parent or the other puts more effort into screwing over their ex, than into making sure their kid(s) have the best situation possible to grow up in.

There are actually couples who split up, divide their assets, and manage to raise their children without either actually having to get a lawyer. Because they choose to act like responsible grown up parents instead of spoiled assbags.

Shaenon
9 years ago

The point is, NWO, there are real-life jobs in housekeeping and childcare available. If you enjoy that type of work, and you hate your current job, why don’t you seek it out?

I’m serious. You could be one of the housekeepers or childcare providers you envy!

Housekeeping jobs: http://www.indeed.com/q-Housekeeping-jobs.html
Childcare jobs: http://www.indeed.com/q-Childcare-jobs.html

Go for it!

John Anderson
John Anderson
9 years ago

Fembot suggests that I see misnadry where there is none. I’m sensitive to this because it’s come up on GMP a few times. There has been discussion about word choices and the relevance of each statistic.

I’ve been told that 30% and 5% have relevance because one is much larger than the other when you put them side by side. The issue is that THEY HAVE NO RELEVENCE TO EACH OTHER. They only have relevance when compared to total deaths as stated in the article so 30% and 70% has relevance and 5% and 95% has relevance. Trying to assign relevance to something that isn’t will be seen as misandry in the MRM.

Now some feminists tried to get props by saying oh we realized there was a 3:2 ratio, but immediately lost it when they also asserted that this ratio has no meaning. That’s like saying I know the books are cooked, but how else am I going to show a profit. These numbers actually are relevant because it breaks down the killings within intimate relationships. Denial of relevant statistics will be seen as misandry in the MRM.
The classic defense was what does it matter, men still kill women more often. That is true, but not at 6 times the rate which is implied by putting those statistics together. That was totally ironic because the point of the article was that you shouldn’t be angry at the truth. I have no problem with feminists using the 3:2 ratio or saying women are killed 50% more often than men by their intimate partners. They chose to say something else. That will be seen as misandry in the MRM.

Now throw in the use of the word ONLY, which is used to highlight the smallness of a number minimizing it even further. This will be seen (rightly or wrongly) as misandry in the MRM. What would have happened if David took it out? Would it have changed the message or would 30% and 5% been able to stand in its own? When a disagreement could be resolved by retracting a word as I’ve suggested that David may have picked a poor word choice and feminists elect to instead defend the word choice, It will be seen as misandry in the MRM. It’s not the crime. It’s the cover up.

Feminists will always assert that we have to tackle the big problems first. When some people are being abused or impacted much more severely than others, we need to direct our attention there. I haven’t actually looked at new comments made in the last three days or so, but since I mentioned that about 12 times as many men are killed outside of intimate partner relationships as women within them, it probably got some token comments voicing concern. When your level of sympathy and how you determine whether a problem is big or small is determined by the gender of the victim. It will be seen as misandry in the MRM especially when the problems that don’t merit the concern are consistently the problem with overwhelmingly male victimization.

For those who want to retort yes but it’s men killing men, I already know that feminists don’t count male on male violence when they keep score in their gender war. I have no problem with that just don’t claim that you are equally (or at least significantly equally) concerned with the welfare of men and boys. That won’t be seen as misandry in much of the MRM simply dishonest.

nwoslave
9 years ago

@Argenti Aertheri
“Or do you just have a really bad sense of time? (Hint here, even if you don’t count the 45+ min the machine is running on it’s own, doing your own laundry is at least half an hour, assuming you actually fold your clothing that is)”

Do you do laundry every day? No, once a week. So even for five people that’s 2.5 hours a week, althoug it really won’t be 5x the time it takes. Not so bad is it?

Shopping is the same. If it takes 2 hours to shop for one person for the week, which it doesn’t, it doesn’t take 10 hours for five people. Instead of one pound of ground beef you get five pounds. Does it take 5x as long to pick up that prewrapped package? A bottle of ketchup will suffice for all 5 people.

Cooking is the same. If I make a pot of stew the only difference is the size of the pot I use. I got loads of cookbooks princess. 20 servings of beef stew doesn’t take 20x as long a 1 serving. Do you even know how to cook?

When I vacuum the floor does it take 5x as long for five people? It takes the same amount of time, nothing has changed.

The reason why no one pays the outrageous sum feminists have decreed domestic chores are worth is because they aren’t worth that much. The sums of money all these “studies” claim are a joke, they normally hover around 150K a year. I’ll do it for half that, 75K a year. Any takers? If I offer a brand new corrolla for $7,500.00 you’d junp at it. A 200K house for 100K you’d kill for. How about gas, $1.75 a gallon, you’d buy that. The insane value placed on what people do for themselves in their spare time is just that, insane.
——————-
@cloudiah
“If parenthood is an irrevocable right, WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN?”

If you have a child the right is irrevocable. If you believe the State has the right to decide you’ve handed over that right to the State. You’re a good little soldier for the State. All hail the patriarchy.
——————-
@Shaenon
“The point is, NWO, there are real-life jobs in housekeeping and childcare available. If you enjoy that type of work, and you hate your current job, why don’t you seek it out?”

I’m giving you a cut rate offer. My prices are far below what women have declared domestic chores are worth. Since I kinda know you, for you and your husband I’ll only charge 45K a year to cook, clean, shop and do your laundry.
—————–
@Unimaginative
“No, bonehead, parenthood is a RESPONSIBILITY.”

For the person who doesn’t get custody it’s a responsibility. For the person who get’s custody it’s a right.
—————–
@Dracula
“Children, like adults, are people. No one has an irrevocable right to people.”

Custody is ownership. If no one has an irrevocable right to their children, what’s all the hubub about child custody? If that’s the case, no one get’s custody.
—————
@hellkell
“NWO, you’re such a Constitution humper, where in there does it say that you have the right to have children?”

If no one has a right to their children, anyone can claim any child they wish. After all, no one has a right to their children.
—————
Stupid laws for stupid people who let the State think for them.

captainbathrobe
captainbathrobe
9 years ago

NWO would never get a job as a childcare worker because a) it pays for shit; and b) it requires a capacity for warmth, empathy, and compassion. He wouldn’t want it, and they wouldn’t want him. For the best, really.

captainbathrobe
captainbathrobe
9 years ago

Besides, NWO knows that parenthood is just a nonstop fun fest. After all, he’s babysat his nieces and nephews; therefore, he is an expert.

katz
9 years ago

NWO, you’re such a Constitution humper, where in there does it say that you have the right to have children?

If NWO manages to impregnate the Constitution, I say that he has full rights to all children produced by that union.

CassandraSays
CassandraSays
9 years ago

I love his confident declarative statements. Laundry is only done ONCE per week and it should only take 2.5 hours even if it’s for five people. (This strongly supports my “he shoves everything in at once even if that means overloading the machine” theory, and also suggests that his personal hygeine is probably not very good.) Shopping for food NEVER takes more than 2 hours a week, no matter where you live, how far from a store it is, or how many stores you have to go to. And so on. He just knows these things, because that’s what he does, and how could anyone else possibly be any different?

Unimaginative
Unimaginative
9 years ago

Wow. The custodial parents have no responsibilities, only the non-custodial parents do. Wow. I’m not even going to comment further on that.

You know, the state (representing society in general) intervenes and revokes access to children ALL THE TIME. And society in general wants them to, because IRRESPONSIBLE parents put their children in danger.

When somebody’s raising kids in a meth lab, for instance, we rational, empathic people think that it’s a GOOD THING to have the children removed from that parent.