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.
Yet another troll who takes less than two days to go from “hmm, maybe feminism is going a little too far these days in certain areas” to graphic rape apologism. Sigh.
Hey troll HQ or whoever’s dispatching these assholes: You guys want to send over someone who doesn’t wank over rape next time? He can have absolutely abhorrent views on marriage or women at work or pretty much anything, it’ll just be a relief if he’s not another goddamn rape cheerleader.
My Jo: 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.
Really? Who here said they wanted to sexually assault you?
Go ahead, link to the comment. There are only 8 pages, and I’m pretty sure I’d remember who/when if such a thing were said to me.
Who here said all feminists refuse to face facts which don’t fit the construct of feminism you have in your head?
If that’s your idea of either courtesy, professionalism, you might want to consult a dictionary more often. well It’s that whole English thing again.
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.
Ya think? Here’ the problem, the two things aren’t equal. A rape isn’t a court case. If your bother had a shitty lawyer, that’s not the same as being attacked. Your brother, if he wanted custody, could have made enquiries to find a lawyer who specialised in getting custody.
Because hiring counsel is an active thing. It’s volitional. Rape is the opposite of that. So they are not (so fucking not) equivalent, in any way shape or form. To up the ante and ask, even rhetorically, when the victim is to blame for not fighting enough… Again, English.
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.
David says,
“And that line about cocks and faces wins Mr. Anderson the prize of permanent moderation. Congrats!”
You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic. Dude, I can’t even keep up with the comments directed at me. If I have to deal with moderation, the situation would be unworkable. It should earn me props on a voice for men when I decide to return at least until I start commenting on their discussions. It only took two or was it three days to get semi-banned from the site. Gotta be a record.
Is there a way to get off permanent moderation? I might try it again (even moderated), some people on this thread seem at least minimally open to different view points.
Pecunium, if you have some insights on the relative strengths of the cases were custody is contested; I’d like to read it. I would rather not wade through a bunch of crap, ill thought out comments that rehash discredited arguments and rely on spurious personal attacks to the absence of reasoned debate. I’d appreciate it if it is soon.
I’m pretty sure that even feminists can win a one sided debate, but I have faith in you.
Pecunium says,
“Really? Who here said they wanted to sexually assault you?”
FUCK you means, what? Besides I specifically said I wouldn’t touch her even triple bagged.
Poor John Anderson. On permanent moderation. He didn’t genuflect at the door. And he didn’t worship the divine goddess within all women. He had the audacity of insulting a woman after being repeatedly insulted by women. What was he thinking??? After years of programming by the education system and the MSM you’d think his secondary protocol programming would’ve kicked in.
A man may not injure a woman or, through inaction, allow a woman to come to harm.
A man must obey orders given him by a woman except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
A man must protect his own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.
“FUCK you means, what?”
It means I don’t want to hear your bullshit anymore, so shut up and get out. It is not an invitation to actual sex.
“Besides I specifically said I wouldn’t touch her even triple bagged”.
Again, no one hear wants to have sex with you. Get over yourself.
*should be here, oops
“You forgot bags. It’s bags, cocks, and faces. You have to admit, that statement was a classic. ”
OK, here we go with the attempt to get banned. I called it, what, an hour ago?
A troll being obtuse! That’s new! /sarcasm
I might just have to call you an asshat just to see if you assume I literally mean you’re a hat being worn on someone’s rear.
I always though an asshat was a hat shaped to look like an ass.
Or maybe one of those straw hats they put on donkeys.
See, the possible meanings are infinite, so the context is ambiguous. Ambiguity = misandry, therefore Asshat = misandry.
And “You ain’t shit” just means that you aren’t shit. I have no idea why people use them as fighting words, they’re CLEARLY complimentary.
Pecunium says,
“Because hiring counsel is an active thing. It’s volitional. Rape is the opposite of that.”
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. The sad thing is that you have absolutely no idea how abhorrent that sounds.
Pecunium, you’re messing me up. I was almost gone, but you’re one of the people on this forum that’s worth talking to. At least give me a couple days to check GMP some threads I’m following added over 50 comments since I last checked. I would like to get an idea on the relative strength of case thing. I suspect that you’ll find that those cases are similar to my brothers.
It’s 105 degrees outside. I’m going for some ice cream.
My Jo: FUCK you means, what?†.So… when a Manager says, “fuck you” to an ump it’s a proposition?
What about when a protester says it to a cop?
When a teenager says it to a parent is it a manifestation of &Oelig;dipal/Electra desires (some of which, from personal observation are oddly homosexual)?
I’m sure you, you paragon, have never said, “fuck you!” to anyone whom you didn’t want to bang.
Really, your problems with English are worse than they first appeared.
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.
Since I am feeling a tad generous, I will provide you a primer on the modern american uses of “fuck you” (a phrase with a venerable pedigree, going back at least 200 years, if Royal Navy is to be believed).
Fuck You!
† Besides I specifically said I wouldn’t touch her even triple bagged Which is you repeating a classically troped misogynist insult; that the person you are threatening with unwanted sex is so ugly that you’d need to make sure you can’t see them. Making them somewhat even less of a person… they are too ugly to fuck with any human connection. Just a piece of meat to use for your masturbations.
@JohnTroll: Comments policy here
You got put on permanent moderation for “nasty personal attacks/slurs.” Doesn’t matter if it’s a classic–a shitload of classics are misogynistic, nasty, slurs used by men against women.
And this is a pretty lively blog, esp. on an American holiday (I am barbacuing chicken while posting, and later we’ll go to the movies!).
Even while you were posting freely, you weren’t keeping up since you weren’t able to read/comprehend most of what we said, and are arguing against those strawfeminists in your head.
Oops, hahahaha, in moderation because I blockquoted the comment policy which has slurs!
*snicker*
Shorter for JohnTroll: you attack people, you get put on mod.
And do you really think any body telling you “Fuck you” is in fact inviting you to have sex with them?
REALLY????????????????????????????/
Disingenuous asshat.
My Jo: 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.
I thought you’d go there. They aren’t parallel. If I hire someone to do a task for me, I have some responsiblity for the result. If I hire a contractor to put a stone facing on my building, and he’s not competent the subsequent lawsuit will ask if I performed a reasonable diligence in the hiring.
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.
That’s you being intentionally obtuse about English again. No one has said that such men as want custody and don’t get it deserve no sympathy. What we have said is that it’s not because the courts are stacked against them.
You have pretended both of these, and clutch at your pearls, are staples of feminism. They aren’t. You, however, won’t admit that what was said was what was meant. You have a construct of feminism in your head, and refuse to read the actual words; preferring to twist them to a tale of (aggrandising) persecutions.
Pecunium, you’re messing me up. I was almost gone, but you’re one of the people on this forum that’s worth talking to. At least give me a couple days to check GMP some threads I’m following added over 50 comments since I last checked. I would like to get an idea on the relative strength of case thing. I suspect that you’ll find that those cases are similar to my brothers.
Jo, I’m touched, really. But you don’t have to do it for me. I can already tell you what’s wrong with that survey you intend to do…
Confirmation bias It’s a self-selecting sample, and it’s a sample of a group which thinks it has a grievance. so narratives which don’t fit the construct will be treated with hostility.
But if you want to waste the time, knock yourself out. What I’ll demand is actual studies, with data, and tables, and some sort of peer review to establish the methodology.
Oops. Glitch with the permanent moderation. He’s moderated now.
And, dude, if you want to know how you get off permanent moderation: you don’t. That’s what the word “permanent” means. (Also, if I were the sort of person who was inclined to take people off of permanent moderation, your most recent comments here would not be helping.)
does anyone need kittens after that?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bentorode/with/7500050524/#photo_7500050524
“It’s 105 degrees outside. I’m going for some ice cream.”
Flounce #1!
“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. ”
You’re still screaming that life is unfair because you have to put actual effort into getting things you want. You can sit back and wait for that silver platter all you want. Just don’t try screaming “discrimination!” when you don’t get it.
@Pecunium: Thank you for doing what you do!
does anyone need kittens after that?
Cute overload! O.O
…That sounds pretty good actually?
Ithiliana” You’re welcome. It’s a sense of duty (not quite the “someone is wrong on the internet” that Argenti says drives he, though there is some of that), but more a dislike of peurile assholes who pretend to a nobility of truth seeking; while lying through their teeth.
The implication that he was being civil, and only responding in kind… well that’s bullshit. No one here called him ugly, or said he wasn’t fit to touch. I didn’t even call him stupid. I mocked his locution, and his disputation, but I gave him the respect due to someone who barges in and changes the subject.
It was more satisfying than Aktivarum; because he is having an epic meltdown; and straining to maintain the fa¸de of decency and politesse, but he’s lost it. And I’m going to don a kilt, grab the truffle salt, the rum, and the mead I made in Feb., so I can take it to a watching of 1776, and subsequent fireworks.
I think I’ve fulfilled my duties as a denizen, and that I even managed some good of it.