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.
Hippodameia says,
“John’s got a sense of entitlement that would choke a T-Rex, and he thinks it makes him special.”
In lieu of a rational argument, feminism at it’s finest.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
John, you came to this blog, stamped all over the place derailing the conversation and DEMANDING that you be heard, answered and placated while all the while spewing forth about how much you think all feminists are evil and stupid, then chucked in some rape apologia that you expect people to be fine with.
Can you explain how that’s not having a grossly overblown sense of entitlement?
Claiming women who don’t baby them and cater to their every whim aren’t capable of rationality, MRAs at their finest.
John you are quite the clown.
“I realize that you’re still operating under the gender norm stereotype that men should be able to prevail. Men shouldn’t have any fear. Oh heck, men shouldn’t need a lawyer. It’s only women who need people to defend their rights.”
This is your entitlement showing, John. You think it’s unfair that you might have a chance of not prevailing. You think it’s awful that you might have to work for something and not be successful. You think that if life isn’t automatically tilted in your favor that you’re suffering from discrimination.
You’re a whiner, and a liar (do you really think anyone believes you came here with an open mind?) and a coward who moves goalposts every time he looses an argument.
Do you know what else you are, John? You’re our entertainment. So dance, troll, before we all get bored.
JohnTroll: purpose of blog: mocking misogyny.
Not everybody here is a feminist; not every feminist here agrees with every other feminist, as you would know if you bothered to lurk more and read more before spouting off.
You sound like a misogynist.
You get mocked.
I read the whole thread over at GMP that David linked to: lots of misogyny in that thread.
But I don’t blast over there and tell them all off about it (I have a lot better things to do with my time than tell misogynists they are misogynists, lots better, and men in the aggregate aren’t that important to me). I’d rather focus on women.
There aren’t the many uses of “cunt” and other slurs there, but the overall “feminism is to blame” is just as strong as on the MRA sites.
So feel free to sit in your stew and blame feminism for being so mean and close minded and harming men. Why bother around here any more, given all the closing doors?
Anybody know if the GOOD MEN PROJECT ever has posts by men of color? Does it ever talk about racism? Are there posters who are gay or bisexual or trans men? Any class analysis?
Or is it the privileged straight white men who have been so harmed by patriarchy though they won’t say the evil awful p word gathering together to beat the drum and share their stories of their oppression?
Plus, the fact they kept Hugo Schwyzer around for so long doesn’t speak well for them either.
PsychoDan says,
“Don’t think you’ve got any friends in this thread after that vile little display on the last page.”
I forgot men make you hate them. Oh wait, that was a topic on another thread here about MRAs blaming women for hating them. I won’t too snark too much. You seem decent.
“The 5% number was only given to show that the same is not really a significant portion of the violence against men. The absolute numbers only matter if you’re trying to keep score, which is utterly pointless.”
I think that depends largely on the point being made. If one MRA complaint is that men are unfairly portrayed as abusers within an intimate relationship, than only intimate relationship numbers should be looked at if you wish to refute the claim. I’m not saying that you specifically are trying to.
So the ultimate purpose of the article is what? Based on what you’re telling me, the purpose of the statement is to examine why 95% of men are being killed outside of intimate relationships. If we are only looking at intimate relationships, there would be no purpose in reporting the 5% number unless it was a purposeful attempt to obfuscate the truth and an effort to unfairly paint men as overwhelmingly the abusers in intimate relationships.
I may have missed it. The thread is about 500 comments long, but with men being killed outside of intimate relationships at a rate 12 times that of women being killed inside intimate relationships, you would think that it would be worth discussing.
@Hippodameia
That was very well said. I would like to gift you one internet.
(Spoiler: The internet is made of cats.)
Thank you, TheNatFantastic! XD I shall give them satin pillows and rub their furry tummies.
Itbiliana syas,
“Anybody know if the GOOD MEN PROJECT ever has posts by men of color?”
Sorry if I misspelled your name. This font is not helping me out. There are a few articles by men of color. One section connects to the blog of a man of color. Homophobia, gender stereotypes, body image issues, etc. are confronted and addressed. Come by and visit. Right now there are discussions focusing around the objectification of men because of the Magic Mike movie. There are also multiple discussions around men and feminism. Come and visit.
Itbillieana says,
“JohnTroll: purpose of blog: mocking misogyny.”
Purpose of the blog is for David to mock misogyny.
Misogyny. I mock it.
There are over 400 comments and they’re not all from David. If you were included it would say WE. Learn to read.
GMP discussion = comments are full of MRAs and self-proclaimed “anti feminists”, from what i’ve seen.
The purpose of this particular post is to mock the MRAs who look at a horrible statistic like “30% of murdered women are killed by their intimate partners” and get all offended that nothing’s being done about a TOTALLY DIFFERENT TOPIC.
Allow me to sum up this whole thread.
People: “30% of women who are murdered, are killed by their intimate partners.”
Other People: “That’s horrible. What can we do to make women safer in their intimate relationships?”
MRAs: “What about the men, hey? Men get killed too [mostly by other men, who are not their intimate partners, which makes it a whole different dynamic and different topic, requiring a different conversation and strategy]! Why aren’t you talking about men?”
People in General: “Well, there’s some people talking about that over there, why don’t you go help them?”
MRAs: “NOOOOO! I want to talk about ME here and now and with YOUUUUUUU.”
Manboobz: “MRAs sure are mock-worthy.”
MRAs: “How dare you be so dismissive of men’s pain! You misandrists! Feminists suck!”
Manboobz: “Pffft bwahaha!”
MRAs: “[Incorrect facts, misinterpretation, outright lies, bigotry, rape apologia]”
Manboobz: “Yeah, whatevs.”
MRAs: “Misandry!”
Manboobz: moving on to another example of MRA idiocy to mock.
John Anderson one page ago if anyone didn’t see it:
John, as an ambassador of the GMP, you are failing hard. In fact, you are failing hard as a human fucking being. Protip: Going to court with the possibility you might lose =/= rape. Not even fucking close.
Quackers says,
“Here’s the thing, unless we as feminists agree that men are perfect in every possible way ever, or say that men and women are equal in every way regarding the crimes or bad things they do….then we will be accused of misandry.”
Feminists get accused of misandry, I’m sure this will shock you so please be seated, when they ENGAGE in it. I don’t refute the assertion that more women are killed by men in intimidate relationships. I object to the false characterization that men are the overwhelming perpetrators of intimate partner murders. Nothing on this thread has produced a reasoned argument or plausible other purpose for introducing the 5% number.
And according to you, MISANDRY is expecting MRAs to put forth effort when they aren’t guaranteed success.
MISANDRY also seems to involve properly understanding math, as this thread’s repeatedly demonstrated.
Many men don’t think that they’d get it. I know that this was true in my brother’s case. He fought for custody when his daughter found pictures of his wife having sex with another man on their family computer. It’s not that he didn’t want custody before. He just thought that he wouldn’t get it.
That’s not feminism’s fault. Given the facts (men who petition have an equal chance of getting custody), the greatest inhibition I’m seeing is folks (like the MRM) who lie about how custody is awarded.
Johnny boy said: Purpose of the blog is for David to mock misogyny.
Misogyny. I mock it.
There are over 400 comments and they’re not all from David. If you were included it would say WE. Learn to read.
Oh, you silly billy.
@JohnTroll: So in other words, not much of Good Men Space is inhabited by any other than straight white men. Not surprising, with the default “men.”
I read one post by a feminist, and the entire thread that was attached to it, and see absolutely nothing there of worth to me, and nobody I cared to engage with.
Your performance here has done nothing to change my mind–I am a queer pagan woman living with a woman in rural Texas. I work very collegially with my male colleagues, especially the younger ones who are themselves breaking away from a lot of the default sexism I grew up with (I’m in my late 50s), but have no desire to spend time dealing with men who need to be responsible for their own liberation and especially fucking need to stop blaming feminisms(s) and women for their oppression.
I doubt that will happen anytime soon at the GMP.
Toodles!
Argenti Aertheri says,
“John — no, 3:2 does not have meaning, because it’s forcing the numbers to fit into a ratio of women killed. And “vastly disproportionate number”? 150% isn’t? Even accounting for the higher homicide rate among men, 150% more women are killed by intimates.”
I’m not disputing the 150% number at all. I hope I didn’t leave that impression. My question was how equal do the numbers have to be before something becomes gender neutral. Do they have to be dead even? Let’s look at the CDC stats between rape and forced to penetrate. Let’s assume that the numbers are equal (1.27 vs 1.267) for math’s sake. We can even factor out that about 20% of the forced to penetrate is a male perpetrator (I know that genders it, but indulge me), we would get a ratio of 5:4. 55% to 45% if you’re looking at percentages of a whole. What about 40% and 60%?
Are those number close enough to say that it is a societal problem and not one related to gender or does it still have to be gender related? Since women make up 20% of murder victims, isn’t violence a men’s issue and not a women’s issue? Personally, I think it’s everyone’s issue.
@Molly Moon: Yeah, that pronoun issue weirded me out too (and I *heart* pronouns). David started the blog to mock misogyny. He does.
Others of us are happy to join in.
We also talk about cats, gaming, cats, sf and fantasy, cats, food, what we’re doing, theory and practice, and cats.
So what’s with the “we” white man?
It’s David’s blog–big shocker here, he gets to put whatever he wants on it.
Kyrie says,
“Fuck. You.”
No thanks. Not sure if triple bagging it would help. I’m referring to both my cock and your face. I have to have some fun. 🙂
Yes, Ithilana, but it is MISANDRY for everyone to talk about anything other than what John the Special Snowflake wants to talk about.
JohnTroll: English teacher, so I don’t get stats, but here’s what I know: more women are killed by (male) partners than men are killed by (women) partners.
More women are killed by men than are killed by women.
More men are killed by men than are killed by women.
You don’t have to have “dead even” (doubt the pun was intended) death rate to prove anything–and what the fuck does “societal problem and not one related to gender” even mean given that the major social construct is the gender binary, and men as a class in the U.S. are clearly socialized more toward violence (then add in our stupid ass anybody can buy a gun no matter what), and yes, this is a SOCIAL PROBLEM THAT CLEARLY CORRELATES WITH GENDER ISSUES.
Personally, I think it’s everyone’s issue.
So do I. And I doubt anyone on this blog would disagree. So what fucking straw feminist is this anyway?
I don’t know what the fuck you think you’re arguing, but it all screams bad faith (“social problem not related to gender???”)
And Trolling.
So fellow minions, do we want to set up a pool on how long Johntroll will keep trying to argue whatever the hell he’s trying to argue (I don’t even know)? He’s only appeared in the last 24 hours right–didn’t Ark Troll spend about two weeks with us (John, go read the GLOSSARY thread from SwedishTroll Rapeapologist, then get back with us)?
How many flounces?