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.
My Jo: I’m sure that I have several posts to respond to by the time I return to this thread, but I do want to get back to this context argument. MRAs believe that the context feminists’ use is that men are the oppressors and women are the victims so the context must support this over riding theory even if the context has to be changed or altered to fit this view.
More problems with English. That’s not context, it’s a construct. An overarching theory. It’s a useful tool when designing a model. You are arguing (badly) that feminism has a deterministic costruct (as with the more dubious aspects of Marxist progression in history… the Proletariat will rise, and paradise will happen).
The problem here is you. You think that this is a rigid belief of feminism, a refuse to see where it’s not.
The feminists on GMP helped me start to understand the context argument as it related to prostitution. I support the right to bodily autonomy so reasoned consent is key. I don’t see how an exchange of money to secure that consent changes anything.
If money is being used to, “secure” consent, it’s not consent. that’s what changes. There are things at my job I don’t freely consent to (the requirement that I not wear anything which is not a solid color). I acquiese, because I want the money more than I care about what I wear. But it’s not “consent freely given”. I won’t call it rape, but I don’t call it acceptable.
I do want to understand this context argument better. If you’ve rightly been shamed into not wanting to reply to the context of the 3:2 ratio in domestic violence cases,
Oohhh…. Another round of spot the fallacy; coupled to one of look at the lousy rhetoric.
You’re begging the question (anyone who doesn’t respond has been, “shamed into not wanting to reply; never mind that the math has been thoroughly explained and your position debunked), and now must play with you in the new sandbox of your choosing.
Me, I’m talking about the ratio because the math you are spouting is 1: bullshit, and 2: not relevant to the language claim you made about, “only”.
Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this:
I mean seriously, wft?
Hahaha! yeah no. Feminism and misandry are interchangeable to MRAs. Feminism is often used by you lot to basically mean “something women did that I don’t like”
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/homicide/tables/intimatestab.cfm
Look at the male victims vs the female victims. It can reasonably be assumed that many of those female victims were killed by male perpetrators. I don’t dispute that there are women out there who do murder their male spouses, but don’t pretend it’s equal.
Sorry the facts don’t adhere to your ideology
My Jo: You imply that statistics can’t be misandry because they were invented by a man. This makes the argument that if a man does something (invent statistics) it can’t be misandry because he is a man. Mo other conditions were indicated in your response. Being a man is sufficient to negate misandry. I took issue with this assumption. Defend it, revise it or retract it. Maybe it’s writing comprehension that is the problem.
I don’t need to defend, revise, or retract it, because 1: I didn’t say it.
Argenti (who made the comment you, falsely, attribute to me) made that comment. In context it was plainly a jab at your constructs.
2: It was a non-sequitur. There isn’t any actual connection betweent the two things. Even if he was a man-hating jerk, statistics; as a tool, are completely neutral. So the ability of a man to hate men is irrelevant, as I said.
Again, problems with English.
My Jo: Since many feminists on this board insist on supporting gender norms when it advantages women and oppose it when it doesn’t in the context of men’s custody decisions.
Citations needed.
My brother didn’t originally fight for custody because his lawyer, who had about 40 years experience in family law and was actually a litigator, told him that most judges were biased against men.
More goalpost moving (and an appeal to authority). First it was that your brother thought he couldn’t win. Now it’s his lawyer who thought he couldn’t.
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.
A decent lawyer knows that.
It might be easier to look at it in terms of the Brian Banks case. Brian Banks was falsely accused by Wannetta Gibson of raping her.
No, it mightent. Hasty Generalisation. Show me some actual statistics, not a single case. It might be easier to look at Roger Bannister. His time in running the mile (3:59 seconds), proves I am a slug, since I’ve never run one any faster than 4:51.
Even if you click the link to the DOJ in David’s post it gives the percentage
This is under “The gender distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide ”
Male offenders for intimate homicides are 65.5%
Female offenders for intimate homicides are 34.5%
I’m not sure what all this stuff is about the 5% number either and it’s too damn hot today so I’m going for a swim. Be back later, have fun with Mister Anderson all.
“I’m referring to both my cock and your face.”
There speaks someone who came here with an open mind.
John, being in posession of a penis does not compensate for your failures in reading comprehension and basic math.
Ithilana, I’ll go for three flounces and a half-hearted attempt to get banned.
Pecunium says,
“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.”
Did I say it was feminism’s fault? There are some feminists who oppose allowing biological fathers to establish paternity in certain situations like Michigan NOW, which to my knowledge has actually not been called out by other feminist groups.
In theory based on my understanding of feminism, feminism should help change the situation, but with many feminists supporting traditional gender roles in this situation, I think the problem will eventually end up addressed despite feminism and not because of it That’s fine just don’t right any posts about how feminism has been good for men.
“but with many feminists supporting traditional gender roles in this situation”
Those awful feminists, expecting men to have agency!
And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!
@Hippodameia: Yeah, he’s already starting down the road to personal insults!
OK, we have three flounces.
Any other estimates?
Ninja’d by David who just announced Mr. Anderson’s permanent moderation!
That was fast.
Go, David!
Now we’ll see how long he goes having to have each post approved, heh heh heh.
Snowy says,
“Charming. Ok JohnTroll I’m just going to requote you until you answer why the fuck you would say this:”
It’s related to the number of times I’ve been cursed at. Professionalism begets professionalism. Courtesy begets courtesy.
” “When is a woman responsible for her own rape because it wasn’t worth fighting over? Maybe she liked it and waited to see how good he was before deciding on whether to fight and that whole women don’t report rape thing can’t be a big deal if she didn’t think it was important enough to report.
I mean seriously, wft?” ”
I’m trying to phrase things in a way that people here could understand. Apparently, it didn’t work out as well as I hoped. The bottom line is when females are victims, the effort they exerted to prevent their victimization is never an issue for criticism (as it should never be), but when men are victimized, there are constant questions concerning what he should do, how he should feel, what he should believe, etc. that would have avoided his victimization. It’s like the argument for slut walk all over again. It doesn’t and shouldn’t matter what a woman does or doesn’t do when she’s victimized. It only matters that she’s victimized. I don’t see why that is so difficult to see.
I’m gonna paraphrase that to highlight your complete lack of coherence:
“I agree that that majority of people who kill women in intimate partnerships are men. I disagree that the majority of people who kill their female intimate partners are men.”
You think it’s amusing to imply that a) you’ve been invited to have sex by someone clearly telling you that she finds you loathesome and that b) you would find it fun to asphyxiate your rape victim?
Fuck. You. Twice.
Thank you, David. That was getting my blood pressure up.
Uh, wut? This is true in the general society and is a reason most men who are raped don’t report it. And this same thing also happens to women. Feminists generally won’t tolerate victim blaming no matter what the gender of the victim. I’m not sure where you’re getting this “feminists blame male victims” but I strongly suspect you pulled it out of your ass.
“but when men are victimized, there are constant questions concerning what he should do, how he should feel, what he should believe, etc. that would have avoided his victimization.”
And since you’ve been talking about “victimization” in terms of child custody, it is entirely reaonable to conclude that you feel “victimized” in a situation where you have an equal chance of success.
Equality “victimizes” you.
Yep, your sense of entitlement would choke a T-Rex. It would also choke Galactacus.
Pecunium says,
“Citations needed.”
I’m going ti say the same thing when you told me that the 3:2 ratio was discussed. Read the thread.
“My brother didn’t originally fight for custody because his lawyer, who had about 40 years experience in family law and was actually a litigator, told him that most judges were biased against men.”
It’s causation. It doesn’t move the goal posts. It explains why they are there.
” 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.
A decent lawyer knows that.”
If I ever get married, I’ll keep that in mind. Can you speak as to the relative strengths of their cases? My brother’s lawyer changed his mind when my niece discovered the dirty pictures. In my mind, this could partly explain why men win about 50% of the time. If they only contest when irrefutable evidence that the other parent is unfit surfaces, should they win 80% of the time?
My brother did end up with custody and would appear on the 50% side that received it, but like I said, would he have won if it weren’t for that?
Ohhh I get it now, he’s saying that women being victimized by rape is the same thing is as men being “victimized” by… having a 50% chance of getting custody of their kids if they want? Yeah no, John, the male equivalent of being victimized by rape is to be victimized by rape. You creepy misogynist rape apologist. Oh, I’m sorry, did I just curse at you? No! Looks like I didn’t! I guess that means I’m being perfectly nice, just the way you’re being to us by not cursing. Huh.
So, wait, if men have an entirely equal chance of success in court, but they think they don’t so they never even bother trying, that’s… victimization?
Of what, exactly, are men the victims in this scenario? Because we’ve already established that it isn’t the court system.
My Jo: Did I say it was feminism’s fault?
Yes, you did.
It’s not that he didn’t want custody before. He just thought that he wouldn’t get it.
Why? Because feminism supports gender policing in custody cases.
Since many feminists on this board insist on supporting gender norms when it advantages women and oppose it when it doesn’t in the context of men’s custody decisions.
That’s blaming feminists bucko.
I’d have thought you’d better understood the English of your own words, but the problem seems to me more deeply rooted than I first supposed.
Men, or more correctly MRAs, are victims of “traditional gender roles” that hold that MRAs have agency and are capable of exerting themselves to try and reach their goals.
My Jo: Pecunium says,
“Citations needed.”
I’m going ti say the same thing when you told me that the 3:2 ratio was discussed. Read the thread.
Um… no. The two are different. You said people here were ignoring you. In the thread was a refutation. As such it was a valid retort, because there were obvious refutations. It was a claim of fact.
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 (as a note, that’s what happened in my retort. You made a positive statement [i.e. people were ignoring you], I pointed out that it was false).
So citations are still needed.
Again, English, it wasn’t your best subject in school was it?
If I ever get married, I’ll keep that in mind. Can you speak as to the relative strengths of their cases? My brother’s lawyer changed his mind when my niece discovered the dirty pictures. In my mind, this could partly explain why men win about 50% of the time. If they only contest when irrefutable evidence that the other parent is unfit surfaces, should they win 80% of the time?
In your mind the courts are biased against women because they only grant custody to men in fifty percent of the cases where men seek it.
Qu’elle horreur! On the other hand that level of logic doesn’t really impress me with the acuity of your reasoning. Married to the rest of your attempts to argue persuasively… Really, what is it about having sexually explicit photos that makes your brother’s ex a bad parent?
This from the guy who by his 2nd comment here was claiming that Pecunium could not count to 11. How courteous!
Seriously, I am just going to repeat what I said on the previous page. You fail at being an ambassador to the GMP. You fail at being a decent human being. And look, this time I said it without swearing, because 20 minutes of snuggling with a purring cat can do wonders for a person’s mood.
In a way, it is — but it’s victimization at the hands of the MRM, which is so invested in the fiction that family courts are always and everywhere unfair to men and men shouldn’t even try to get custody.
Not to mention that the fact that his ex-sister-in-law is hardly an unfit parent because she has a sex life, or because the kid stumbled across photographic evidence of that sex life. Heck, I know people who as kids stumbled across their parents (or parent + boy/girlfriend) actually having sex, and they survived.
My Jo: I’m not disputing the 150% number at all. I hope I didn’t leave that impression.
Your hope was in vain. When you take that 150, and pretend that 3:2 is somehow different. When you pretend that 5 percent is roughly the same as 30 percent, those are all dismissive of the state of affairs.
? 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.
Are more men killed than women? Yep. That’s an everyone issue. Are more women killed by intimate partners? Yep. 300:1,000.
That’s an everyone issue too. That’s a pretty impressive ratio of absolute numbers. You want to pretend the latter fact is, in some way, not relevant. That it’s a, “women’s issue”. It’s not.
It is a set of different conditions (overall risk of being killed) is expressed as “Women have 150 percent more chance of being killed by an intimate as a man does”, you balk. You don’t like that phrasing, so you use the less obvious ratio of 3:2.
Then you get all pissy when people call you on it. You pretend it’s that you are being oppressed; when what it is that you are changing the contextual landscape so you can bleat about how women hate men.
The fact is, nothing hateful about men has been said.
It’s a fact, 30 percent of women who are murdered are killed by intimate partners. It’s a huge number of the deaths. It’s also the single easiest one to try to address.
Why does it happen? We don’t know. I don’t see anyone here ascribing some “male tendency” to it. You, however, pretend it’s because feminists hate men: full stop.
That’s horseshit. It’s not that you have piss-poor English skills (though they are far below the level I suspect you think them to be). It’s that you don’t want to be clear. You want to obfuscate, misdirect, prevaricate, in the hope you can baffle people into thinking you have some brilliant new critique of “feminism” (i.e. it hates on the menz). You don’t.
More pathetically, you aren’t anything new. Fundamentally you are making the same case Akitvarum did. The sad thing is that you aren’t making you case in any significantly better way than he did, and English isn’t his first language.
You got only a little slack because, from your first post, most of us knew how it was going to go. We’ve seen it before, more than once, and better done.