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.
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.
Really, NWO. You know what you sound like? This:
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.
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.
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.
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 >.<
@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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
new gasbag’s completely unearned haughtiness is just fucking adorable
ALL THE IRONY!
John Anderson:
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!