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.
Shaenon says,
” 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?”
I have over 7,000 comic books in my garage, but I’m not giving them up. 🙂 One thing we agree on at GMP was that people shouldn’t be prevented from following the path that they want. I don’t know what your complaint is. It seems like a fairly fulfilling life. I hear you’re happily married. I’m assuming that you love comic books because you work in the industry and buy them. You also watch Spiderman (I gave away all my Amazing Spiderman comics, but have a run of Peter Parker the Spectacular Spiderman). I guess you love your husband and he loves what he’s doing and that should make you happy.
I don’t really see a problem, but feel that you should be able to follow your heart. What would you wish to be different?
CassandraSays says
“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.”,
So if the blog mocks misogyny, I should have known that it would support misandry? If I thought that feminism was wrong, and I thought misandry was wrong, and this blog supports misandry and is feminist. Then I guess I was right. Feminism is wrong. Good of you to clear that up.
I’m sorry that your reading comprehension is so poor (and that your sense of humor has been surgically removed), that must all be terribly difficult for you.
Interpretations of stats are spun, not stats.
If you assign relevance to ‘the vast majority of child abuse it done by women’, I want to know what kind of relevance and what conclusions you’re drawing from that.
Because the vast majority of kids are with women, first of all, so what are you gleaning from that fact? That is what’s in question. Also where child abuse is concerned and children are severely wounded or die, the statistics for men being involved skyrocket, and it’s no longer the “vast majority” of abuse by women.
Also ANY domestic violence statistic, unless it’s a childless couple is also child abuse.
Look up the murdered women in Minnesota for 2011 and read their stories, see how many children are involved and/or dead.
http://www.mcbw.org/files/images/2011_Femicide_Report_FINAL_0.pdf
My favorite comment about you here is the “don’t make me hate you when I already do” comment, it’s spot on. There is a certain type of person that could up up with “feminists are misandrists” as a hypothesis about millions of people, and it’s not a type of person with much common sense or basic understanding of how human beings work. It’s also a very bigoted mindset, and politically entrenched in fantasy land.
So far the conversation here has been bigoted, but I know you won’t get that.
It’s a challenge for people to over turn your strange angles on reality without sounding like they’re engaging in oppression Olympics, or giving the impression that they take the same bigoted views on life, just through the looking glass, or on the other side of the mirror, in reverse, etc.
It would be very hard for most MRAs to understand the nuance of feminism, and that it’s really NOT the flipside of what they are doing, it’s soooooooooooo much better than that.
The reason we end up having to talk about statics of violence and rape is only because of the denial and opposition. There should be no problem in going about the business of tending to these circumstances.
There are some issues that affect women in a large way, yet even though we are/have been otherized as a different species and dealt with as such to the point where we share some distinctive qualities through negative external influences, we are only allowed to identify as that distinct group with peculiar samenesses when it benefits the ruling group, but not in any way to organize to help ourselves in any way.
Heads you win, tails we lose.
John, Shaenon was responding to NWOslave, not you.
John, sometimes it’s easier for people to get what I’m saying if we look at race. Black people in the US have a unique history. There is a fallout from that history, and social external influences that have shaped some distinctiveness and commonalities among darker skinned people in the US. There are experiences they can all almost universally identify with, and unfortunately that is through oppression and negativity.
In order to deal with this, then those dynamics have to be recognized, regardless of individual snowflakeyness.
Racists will call any attempt to acknowledge these realities of sameness, or acknowledgement of group identity, racism. They think it reinforces their points.
See how shitty that is?
I know I’m not explaining things well, I used to be able to explain that well, and I should look up how I used to write that out, but where I wrote it no longer exists, so I’m going to have to wrack my brain. I think there are holes and ironies in my word useage here, so I hope that my point gets across.
Since NWO still has a hate-on for me, let’s tackle some of his many claims!
“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.”
Um, no, she really couldn’t have, not without risking her job, and thus, iirc, visa to be in the US. There’s a reason it isn’t legal to have sex with your employees in many places…
“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.”
Ok, I knew you were bad at math, but 100 is 50% of 200; 70 is 70% of 100; this is pretty simple. And citation needed on that “50 men or less” part.
“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.”
Didn’t you bring up rape by object like, yesterday? Or is forcibly inserting a bottle/broom/not-sex-toy into someone sex by the common definition now?
“In 2005 it was 69.5% in the feminist ghetto. Apparently my ass keeps pretty good stats.”
Those stats, what’s the source of them? Does this nonsense apply? — “So if ya give me a link to a Big daddy site don’t be too insulted if I laugh in your face. I might be laughing a little at your gullibility, but mostly I’m laughing at the total unreliability of the site you’ve provided.”
“For public schools, the number of pupils per teacher—that is, the pupil/teacher ratio—declined from 22.3 in 1970 to 17.9 in 1985. After 1985, the public school pupil/teacher ratio continued to decline, reaching 17.2 in 1989. After a period of relative stability during the late 1980s through the mid-1990s, the ratio declined from 17.3 in 1995 to 16.0 in 2000. Decreases have continued since then, and the public school pupil/teacher ratio was 15.3 in 2008.
The average salary for public school teachers in 2009–10 was $55,350, about 3 percent higher than in 1990–91, after adjustment for inflation.
Average wage in 2010, $41,673.83”
Ditto, and you’ll want the median here, not average, for all the reasons already given, and also because special area schools can be public, but usually have smaller class sizes (eg art focuses HSs). Only class I had with <20 people was Latin, and we joked about how tiny our class was because of that. Nonetheless, those Latin classes with 7 students will skew the average, as will the shop classes that are kept smaller for safety reasons, you need the median here.
“Has Argenti been giving you lessons in kafka trapping?”
You really think me far more important than I am.
Indifferentsky,
“Because the vast majority of kids are with women,”
Is there no abortion or adoption option? When men realize that they can’t care for children, they are vilified, but women are praised for giving their children a wonderful gift of adoption. Men are screwed over in family court over custody and visitation, but women’s excuse is they have the kids more. Why not fight for father’s rights if women are overburdened? Do those stats include men who are forced to raise another man’s child because the law won’t allow the biological father to assert rights. One such law was just overturned in Michigan over the opposition of NOW.
http://jeannehannah.typepad.com/blog_jeanne_hannah_traver/paternity/
Here from the chapter web site.
”The putative father’s rights bills (HB 4067, SB 256, SB 557, 558, 559, 560) have passed the Senate and House Judiciary Committee. We testified against the bills as they take away a protective mother’s rights. The bills are supported by the Family Law Section of the State Bar, the DHS Office of Child Support, the probate judges, and of course the father’s rights groups. Now that there is DNA testing, biological fathers can be identified should they wish to come forward and make a claim. The logic of allowing putative fathers to gain access to and some control over their progeny seems to hit sympathetic chords with legislators in the silence of the affected women and children.”
http://www.michnow.org/capitolreport-2012-03.htm
Feminism the pro-infidelity lobby.
Why doesn’t DV stats include third parties, because women hire hit men more often? Why don’t they include the sexual assault stats in serious DV because if they did men would make up a lot more than 30% of the victims of serious DV. We know that many murder for hire plots were foiled. Why aren’ those included? Many more men are murdered than women. Not all those crimes are solved. How many were 3rd party perpetrators of DV?
@ indifferent sky
It isn’t the way that you’re explaining it that’s the problem, really, it’s that in order for someone to get the point you’re making they have to step outside themselves a bit. Someone who comes to a blog full of people who they’re already convinced are prejudiced against them on account of their gender when there’s no real reason to assume that would be the case, announces that it’s hard for them not to assume that said people are prejudiced against them, and then expects a positive conversation to ensue is not in the right sort of mental or emotional space to be able to do that.
@ Argenti
I’m still trying to figure out how NWOs math made sense to him. Obviously it doesn’t make sense from a mathematical or logical perspective, I’m just curious what sort of logic path he went down that made that progression of percentages seem in any way mathematically sound to him.
Most of what he writes goes straight through the “no actual content, ignore” filter these days but that part triggered was hilariously dopey enough to jump out.
John Anderson —
I realize you weren’t around then, but I already tackled that CDC rape data. Please see this comment, and the footnote to it.
“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.”
Context, it’s about context. If 50% of women were killed by strangers, then saying “only 30% are killed by an intimate partner” would be correct. But 30% is unarguably much larger than 5%.
Re: child abuse stats — I’m sure we’ve already done that one, but I don’t seem to have saved it. In any case, when you factor for single parent households generally being female headed, the risk of child abuse in single parent male headed households looks pretty grim. Same math as how you arrived at “for every 3 men who kill a woman, there are 2 women who kill a man” (that should be “for every 3 men who kill a woman they were/are intimate with, there are 2 women who kill a man they were/are intimate with” btw).
You’ll note that we discussed the 3:2 thing back on page one before getting side tracked by free will and Ruby. (And note that Ruby is a feminist getting shit for saying prison rape is okay.)
Re: the DOJ report on abuse in juvenile detention — has anyone here said anything even implying we like the US “justice” system? Or has everything been the opposite, that that shit needs serious reform? You also need to account for just how many more boys there are in juvie, because holy shit is it a lot. And I was gong to review the numbers, but the table of context has a whole section on how the data isn’t generalizable, so yeah, I’m not going to bother. Small sample size or not, yes, the prison system is fucked up. (You should google “Stanford Prison study” and find the video, the problem is prison, not gender.)
Pecunium — “Was that the Buttvords Brainded (or whatever it was, I forget) that made its appearance while Dave was in Cape Cod?” — Yup.
David says,
“John, Shaenon was responding to NWOslave, not you.”
Sorry, Shaenon..
Indifferentsky,
I will read your posts, but must prepare for work. Good morning, all.
John Anderson — oh, you intend to make us answer every MRA talking point ever, nevermind the attempt at statistics then. We did the murder for hire thing already, on this very thread. My inital reply, first comment with math, and my number crunching.
Cassandra — your comment to indifferentsky basically sums to “confirmation bias, he’s having it”. Re: NWO’s math, yeah, it’s usually at least plausibly bad, eg “you failed to carry a 1, oops!” not just…failboating — how 70% became 50% is beyond me.
Usually NWO sticks to the traditional MRA percentages of 100%, 99%, 50%, and 0%. 70% at least qualifies as an attempt to diversify, even if it makes no sense at all in context.
Then again he loves making up statistics. Remember when he decided that some random (very high) percentage of gay men are pedophiles and responsible for X% of all murders?
Why is it that so many MRAs are also racists? Is it because of the reliance on evo-psych and social Darwinism?
Why is it that so many MRAs are also racists? Is it because of the reliance on evo-psych and social Darwinism? – Sorka
I think it’s more simple than that: different bigotries just tend to overlap.
Cassandra — no, I missed that. Explains why he got so upset when I said that shit had been debunked repeatedly — he was all “you didn’t debunk anything!” when I never claimed I did, merely expressed amazement he was saying all male rape that’s committed by men is by gay men because sex with a man is de facto gay. (Argh, I’m sorry, he’s going to derail into that now probably)
The way he phrased it last time he brought it up almost sounded like he was blaming gay men for most of the rapes of women too, which was like…huh? At a certain point you just have to accept that most of what he says doesn’t have even the most vague connection to reality. Which is why I mostly ignore him unless I’m mocking him. The new troll has the potential to be more irritating because really, he’s going to try to run through every single one of the points that we’ve already debated a dozen times again?
“The new troll has the potential to be more irritating because really, he’s going to try to run through every single one of the points that we’ve already debated a dozen times again?”
Maybe if we’re lucky we can end up solidly refuting them all and just citing those rebuttals next time? These things do seem to work in circles after all.
I’m just gonna throw in that I’d use my real name too, if my real name were John Anderson. Big risk-taker here, guys.
My only thought on his real name being John Anderson is a Doctor Who quote —
Biff: No one’s called John Smith! Come off it!
That’s from Midnight, which features another baddie that makes me shudder more than the Daleks do (idk, maybe they are just too goofy to take seriously) — the baddies that go on killing sprees while remaining invisible get me the most though.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled topic (if there still was one). /snark
I’m just gonna throw in that I’d use my real name too, if my real name were John Anderson. Big risk-taker here, guys. – Cliff
You mean your real last name isn’t Pervocracy? I am disappoint. 🙁
I was thinking the same as Cliff – my name is literally unique, I am the only one person with my name in the whole world.
After a year of starting to use this name I found out there’s a children’s book called Nat Fantastic about a superhero-boy who flies by the power of his farts.
And after a year of starting my blog that’s called Forty Shades of Grey… yeeeah.
So I guess having a unique real name is pretty good if it means you don’t get confused with the other ones.
Also, Family of Blood are fucking terrifying