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.
@Unimaginative
“Hating women who work in the home because YOU work at a job you don’t like is illogical, irrational, and kind of stupid.”
Denying men equal custody for having no choice but to work in dirty, dangerous jobs to support their family is law. You opinion a hatred where none exists. Hatred by law is a fact.
————-
@Cliff Pervocracy
” But if men quit those jobs to care for children, they won’t have the moral superiority of their terrible jobs anymore!”
If moral superiority were given to men who supported their families, men would be given default custody. Women are given moral superiority by gender, she is given custody as the primary caretaker, a morally superior position.
————-
@Amused
“Most of it is automated, so it’s not like there are millions of men standing waste-deep in sewage, shoveling it along.”
Every job I’ve had for 30 years has been in, or related to the automation of some product or another. Watching an episode or two of, “how that works,” is a far cry from reality.
————-
@Kyrie
“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.”
An exception to the rule doesn’t change the rule. Are all black men doing fantastic because Obama is at the top of the food chain?
————-
@Amused
“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?”
Your obsession with mentioning international bankers when addressing every comment I make is annoyingly predictable. International bankers are a conspiracy theory, they don’t exist. Happy now?
Owly, I hope you’re being careful pulling entire law books out of your ass, I wouldn’t want you to injure yourself.
“Denying men equal custody for having no choice but to work in dirty, dangerous jobs to support their family is law.”
Again, MRAs attribute economic issues n to misandry. Because women never have to work to support their families.
The thing is, Owly doesn’t actually want to do anything about the economic issues. He thinks it is good and right for men to suffer in dirty, dangerous, destructive (that MGTOWers thread has me thinking in alliterative phrases) jobs — he just wants women to acknowledge that all men are heroes and that all women survive because of men’s labor.
People who actually try to DO something about those dangerous jobs are evil communists, don’tcha know.
Hey NWO, you never responded when I told you about Francis Perkins a woman who advocated for sick and dying men in Joplin’s lead and zinc mines. She wanted them to have safer, healthier working conditions.
In another thread, you said it was an easy vacation to cook, clean, and take care of small children. Why don’t you become a maid or nanny so you can do what you enjoy? I know the pay is terrible and there is no prestige, but it sounds like your current job makes you so miserable, why not do something different?
By the way, many of the pink collar professions are dirty, too. Try spending a day at a daycare during an outbreak of a stomach virus. Nursing can be very gross, too. I wouldn’t want to work at a wound care clinic draining MRSA boils for anything.
Tried to find “hatred by law” as it relates to child custody. What I found (at http://family.findlaw.com/child-custody/child-custody-basics.html ) was:
All of which appears to indicate that the courts are less interested in enslaving men and more interested in ensuring that children get the most stable, supportive environment possible from the time their parents split up to the time they’re on their own.
How is it you think that men have “no choice” about working dirty, dangerous jobs? Child support payments (in Canada, anyway) are based on what the payer makes. So if you’re making $30,000 per year as a daycare provider, you’d pay between $220 and $280 per month for one child, depending on which province or territory you live in.
And if you were working as a daycare provider, you could probably make a good case for being the better choice for custodial parent.
@Kendra, the bionic mommy
“In another thread, you said it was an easy vacation to cook, clean, and take care of small children. Why don’t you become a maid or nanny so you can do what you enjoy? I know the pay is terrible and there is no prestige, but it sounds like your current job makes you so miserable, why not do something different?”
It can’t be low paying, according to the ladettes, the labor of houskeeping, (cooking/cleaning,shopping, laundry), and childcare is worth some astronomical sum. Even if you minus the, “theoretical” cost of childcare, just cooking, cleaning, shopping and doing laundry for myself would seem to be worth about 75K a year. I can’t see how what I do in just my spare time could be worth that much.
Even being monsterously generous to the point of laughable it takes no more than 2 hours a day, more like 1 but I feel generous. 2 hours a day times 365 days a year equals 730. 75,000/730=$102.73 an hour. Since I’m such a nice guy I’ll make it an even $100.00 an hour to cook, shop, clean and do your laundry.
http://shine.yahoo.com/work-money/what-is-a-mothers-work-really-worth-456608.html
All these “studies” seem to run along the same lines. My services are at your disposal. Child care will of course add on another 50K or so a year, plus room and board. Again, I’m feeling generous, with child care, an even 100K a year plus room and board. This offer won’t last forever. Don’t pass up this bargain.
Slavey’s usual babble sounds even funnier if you’re British.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ladette
@Unimaginative
The State dictates who has the right of parenthood? And here I thought parenthood was an irrevocable right. How lovely that women in all their collective genius have handed over children to the corporation to decide what’s, “in the best interest of a child.”
In wtf world do you live in NWO that you can mange to do laundry, shop, cook, and clean, all in an hour? Do you live next to a grocery store or something? Or eat only take out that somehow doesn’t take a half hour to arrive? Drop your clothing off at the drycleaners, pick up take out and turn on the roomba?
Or do you just have a really bad sense of time? (Hint here, even if you don’t count the 45+ min the machine is running on it’s own, doing your own laundry is at least half an hour, assuming you actually fold your clothing that is)
And hello obvious fact, you don’t get paid for your services, period. You’d get a percent of Kendra’s income if you divorce. Which, if we’re using the first 4,850~ years of your “last 5,000 years” you can’t do anyways.
Children, like adults, are people. No one has an irrevocable right to people.
If parenthood is an irrevocable right, WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN? Can I call 911 and demand they supply some? How many do I have a right to? Can I exchange them for puppies if I’d rather have puppies? What is the exchange rate?
NWO, you’re such a Constitution humper, where in there does it say that you have the right to have children?
I believe the right to bear children is in Article Title IX.
Or maybe it’s in section VAWA.
I think I’ve spotted it! It’s in section ARGLEBARGLE
No, bonehead, parenthood is a RESPONSIBILITY. A great big, heaping pile of many, many, many responsibilities. Which many people blow off, and then whine about their exes getting custody.
And courts only intervene when the parents can’t come to an agreement between themselves. You know, when one parent or the other puts more effort into screwing over their ex, than into making sure their kid(s) have the best situation possible to grow up in.
There are actually couples who split up, divide their assets, and manage to raise their children without either actually having to get a lawyer. Because they choose to act like responsible grown up parents instead of spoiled assbags.
The point is, NWO, there are real-life jobs in housekeeping and childcare available. If you enjoy that type of work, and you hate your current job, why don’t you seek it out?
I’m serious. You could be one of the housekeepers or childcare providers you envy!
Housekeeping jobs: http://www.indeed.com/q-Housekeeping-jobs.html
Childcare jobs: http://www.indeed.com/q-Childcare-jobs.html
Go for it!
Fembot suggests that I see misnadry where there is none. I’m sensitive to this because it’s come up on GMP a few times. There has been discussion about word choices and the relevance of each statistic.
I’ve been told that 30% and 5% have relevance because one is much larger than the other when you put them side by side. The issue is that THEY HAVE NO RELEVENCE TO EACH OTHER. They only have relevance when compared to total deaths as stated in the article so 30% and 70% has relevance and 5% and 95% has relevance. Trying to assign relevance to something that isn’t will be seen as misandry in the MRM.
Now some feminists tried to get props by saying oh we realized there was a 3:2 ratio, but immediately lost it when they also asserted that this ratio has no meaning. That’s like saying I know the books are cooked, but how else am I going to show a profit. These numbers actually are relevant because it breaks down the killings within intimate relationships. Denial of relevant statistics will be seen as misandry in the MRM.
The classic defense was what does it matter, men still kill women more often. That is true, but not at 6 times the rate which is implied by putting those statistics together. That was totally ironic because the point of the article was that you shouldn’t be angry at the truth. I have no problem with feminists using the 3:2 ratio or saying women are killed 50% more often than men by their intimate partners. They chose to say something else. That will be seen as misandry in the MRM.
Now throw in the use of the word ONLY, which is used to highlight the smallness of a number minimizing it even further. This will be seen (rightly or wrongly) as misandry in the MRM. What would have happened if David took it out? Would it have changed the message or would 30% and 5% been able to stand in its own? When a disagreement could be resolved by retracting a word as I’ve suggested that David may have picked a poor word choice and feminists elect to instead defend the word choice, It will be seen as misandry in the MRM. It’s not the crime. It’s the cover up.
Feminists will always assert that we have to tackle the big problems first. When some people are being abused or impacted much more severely than others, we need to direct our attention there. I haven’t actually looked at new comments made in the last three days or so, but since I mentioned that about 12 times as many men are killed outside of intimate partner relationships as women within them, it probably got some token comments voicing concern. When your level of sympathy and how you determine whether a problem is big or small is determined by the gender of the victim. It will be seen as misandry in the MRM especially when the problems that don’t merit the concern are consistently the problem with overwhelmingly male victimization.
For those who want to retort yes but it’s men killing men, I already know that feminists don’t count male on male violence when they keep score in their gender war. I have no problem with that just don’t claim that you are equally (or at least significantly equally) concerned with the welfare of men and boys. That won’t be seen as misandry in much of the MRM simply dishonest.
@Argenti Aertheri
“Or do you just have a really bad sense of time? (Hint here, even if you don’t count the 45+ min the machine is running on it’s own, doing your own laundry is at least half an hour, assuming you actually fold your clothing that is)”
Do you do laundry every day? No, once a week. So even for five people that’s 2.5 hours a week, althoug it really won’t be 5x the time it takes. Not so bad is it?
Shopping is the same. If it takes 2 hours to shop for one person for the week, which it doesn’t, it doesn’t take 10 hours for five people. Instead of one pound of ground beef you get five pounds. Does it take 5x as long to pick up that prewrapped package? A bottle of ketchup will suffice for all 5 people.
Cooking is the same. If I make a pot of stew the only difference is the size of the pot I use. I got loads of cookbooks princess. 20 servings of beef stew doesn’t take 20x as long a 1 serving. Do you even know how to cook?
When I vacuum the floor does it take 5x as long for five people? It takes the same amount of time, nothing has changed.
The reason why no one pays the outrageous sum feminists have decreed domestic chores are worth is because they aren’t worth that much. The sums of money all these “studies” claim are a joke, they normally hover around 150K a year. I’ll do it for half that, 75K a year. Any takers? If I offer a brand new corrolla for $7,500.00 you’d junp at it. A 200K house for 100K you’d kill for. How about gas, $1.75 a gallon, you’d buy that. The insane value placed on what people do for themselves in their spare time is just that, insane.
——————-
@cloudiah
“If parenthood is an irrevocable right, WHERE ARE MY CHILDREN?”
If you have a child the right is irrevocable. If you believe the State has the right to decide you’ve handed over that right to the State. You’re a good little soldier for the State. All hail the patriarchy.
——————-
@Shaenon
“The point is, NWO, there are real-life jobs in housekeeping and childcare available. If you enjoy that type of work, and you hate your current job, why don’t you seek it out?”
I’m giving you a cut rate offer. My prices are far below what women have declared domestic chores are worth. Since I kinda know you, for you and your husband I’ll only charge 45K a year to cook, clean, shop and do your laundry.
—————–
@Unimaginative
“No, bonehead, parenthood is a RESPONSIBILITY.”
For the person who doesn’t get custody it’s a responsibility. For the person who get’s custody it’s a right.
—————–
@Dracula
“Children, like adults, are people. No one has an irrevocable right to people.”
Custody is ownership. If no one has an irrevocable right to their children, what’s all the hubub about child custody? If that’s the case, no one get’s custody.
—————
@hellkell
“NWO, you’re such a Constitution humper, where in there does it say that you have the right to have children?”
If no one has a right to their children, anyone can claim any child they wish. After all, no one has a right to their children.
—————
Stupid laws for stupid people who let the State think for them.
NWO would never get a job as a childcare worker because a) it pays for shit; and b) it requires a capacity for warmth, empathy, and compassion. He wouldn’t want it, and they wouldn’t want him. For the best, really.
Besides, NWO knows that parenthood is just a nonstop fun fest. After all, he’s babysat his nieces and nephews; therefore, he is an expert.
NWO, you’re such a Constitution humper, where in there does it say that you have the right to have children?
If NWO manages to impregnate the Constitution, I say that he has full rights to all children produced by that union.
I love his confident declarative statements. Laundry is only done ONCE per week and it should only take 2.5 hours even if it’s for five people. (This strongly supports my “he shoves everything in at once even if that means overloading the machine” theory, and also suggests that his personal hygeine is probably not very good.) Shopping for food NEVER takes more than 2 hours a week, no matter where you live, how far from a store it is, or how many stores you have to go to. And so on. He just knows these things, because that’s what he does, and how could anyone else possibly be any different?
Wow. The custodial parents have no responsibilities, only the non-custodial parents do. Wow. I’m not even going to comment further on that.
You know, the state (representing society in general) intervenes and revokes access to children ALL THE TIME. And society in general wants them to, because IRRESPONSIBLE parents put their children in danger.
When somebody’s raising kids in a meth lab, for instance, we rational, empathic people think that it’s a GOOD THING to have the children removed from that parent.