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.
Both Roscoe and NWO have suddenly decided that it’s common for women to hire men to kill their exes. Okay, boys, which MRA site is spreading this particular goofiness? Fess up. I know you didn’t think of this on your own.
Maybe the next step in this evolution of ideas will be that women only hook up with new boyfriends so they can get someone to kill their exes for them. You know, since all women spend all their money on scented candles and wouldn’t be able to afford to actually hire someone.
Okay, boys, which MRA site is spreading this particular goofiness?
I’m betting it’s MRA conventional wisdom. It follows on rather naturally from their belief that women cause wars by being mean and horrible to men until they join the army. Also if they are the wives of politicians they stamp their feet and cry/point and laugh at their husband’s penis until the husband gives in and says “OK dear, we can have a genocide if that’s what you really want.”
… I’m actually not sure of the fine details of how women cause all the wars, but it’s a thing, in MRAland. So obviously women are causing all the murders too. I bet that behind all the statistics of men who were killed by other men, there is a woman who manipulated the murderers by crying/withholding sex/using SHAMING LANGUAGE till they meekly said “Your wish is my command, my love, I live to satisfy your bloodlust.”
Which means that despite what statistics say, women are the more violent sex and are responsible for approximately 100% of all murders. Because men who’ve been subjected to SHAMING LANGUAGE are not responsible for their own actions. Damn those biased statistics for not showing the true underlying truth.
Did I get it right?
Wait, just got here, reading the comments backwards…
someone quoted that they don’t call it Intimate Partner Violence when a spouse hires someone to kill the spouse.
CITATION FREAKING NEEDED.
Until then can I just say, stop pulling things out of your ass?
I know at least one state that collects domestic violence stats that include anything EX related. The FBI does not? There are more places to get the info from than the FBI
http://www.mcbw.org/files/images/2011_Femicide_Report_FINAL_0.pdf
Here’s for 2011
SticksAndPucks says.
I guess you’re being sarcastic, but we’re talking about the 0.005% of the population who get murdered (in the USA anyway), of whom about 20% are women, and 30% of those are killed by their partner. The 30% is not taken from the total proportion of women who die.
Also, people are not statistics, the average man simply doesn’t have a “percentage chance” to randomly rape or murder people. It takes a certain type of man to actually commit serious violent crimes, usually with accompanying warning signs in their personality and behaviour.
NWO said this to me
“That’s incorrect, law enforcement are taught feminist predominant aggressor theory when dealing with DV. ”
NWO you completely changed the subject.
I said that when there is a MURDER and they show up to investigate, the suspects are who they are due to EXPERIENCE and FACT.
They didn’t just decide the husband is the first suspect, HE IS.
Sorry about all the caps. I’m like that.
But this has nothing to do with a DV call where nobody is dead. I was obviously talking about murders where they don’t know who did it. On a DV call they follow procedures that also stem from reality. Also it’s different in every state, so what are you talking about? You lay it down like it’s a federal fact, and in California if ANYONE is violent, or the other person claims it, both parties are arrested. That makes no sense. In cases where they realize it makes more sense to look for primary aggressor, then guess what, that does not have to be a MAN you know! You just don’t make any sense.
NWO said
” In all cases, men are considered the aggressor under predominant aggressor theory.”
You
are
nuts.
NWO: Now you admit that feminists tell other feminists they aren’t perfect? My God Man! How ever will they continue to rule the world if they have dissension in the ranks.
How will you be able to continue to lie about no woman ever being called bad?
Ok, I understand that you won’t actually care that you said one thing here, and will continue to lie, and bear false witness against people you disagree with.
As I said before go to Hell.
Nice to see that Ruby is stiil not educating herself…
Hell is entirely redundant for NWO. He’s already in one of his own making, which is why I can’t feel sorry for him.
in 20years of working with homeless people where there is an elevated risk of violence and increased vulnerability to violence, i have known a lot of people die, from alcohol/drug misuse, suicide and violence. In that time and in my circle of clients, i personally have never known of a man killed by his partner…beaten, yes. In the last 5 years however, i have had 3 women clients who were killed by their boyfriends. i posted here about the most recent on here.
Knowing that women have been killed doesn’t make me erase violence against men. Having facts empowers us to advocate for change in all areas. i don’t carry the blame on my shoulders for the women who do abuse but i do carry the responsibility for change. i view that responsibility as positive and affirming…
@pecunium
“NWO: Now you admit that feminists tell other feminists they aren’t perfect? My God Man! How ever will they continue to rule the world if they have dissension in the ranks.”
All feminists reside in the same tent. The differences are superficial. They all seek to dictate the actions and resources of men. Feminism is a social disease of hatred spread by the education system, the MSM, the UN, ect.
————–
@CassandraSays
“It shouldn’t be counted under the category of “people who kill their partners”, but there’s no reason why it couldn’t exist as a related statistic. If you think it’s important, work on making it happen.”
Well that’s pretty tough to do when met with the people in power like feminist doc katz. He works for big daddy, it’s in his best interest to spread propaganda, his livelyhood depends upon it. Big Daddy gains ton’s of wealth and power from feminist propaganda as well.
The lilly ledbetter act, paycheck fairness act. Boatloads of money, shitloads of lawyers and agencies galore to enforce anyone who feels they’ve been slighted. How does one enforce feelings? How much will it cost in insurance, lawyers, agencies, ect, for all these feelings? Communism is supremely expensive.
Further, lobbying for accuarate reporting is met with…
@Shaenon
“The FBI statistic also doesn’t include people who didn’t kill anyone and went out for grilled-cheese sandwiches instead.
WHY IS THE FBI SUPPRESSING THE EXISTENCE OF GRILLED CHEESE?”
Now it sounds silly to even question the powers that be.
@CassandraSays
“Oh, so there’s a conspiracy theory? Yay.”
The conspiracy theory gambit stifles many in the herd.
@viola
“I’m trying to apply the principle to non-monogamous relationships, and the result is hilarious.”
The analogy is always an excellent silencing tactic. So many people will say, “yup, it’s silly alright.”
@Argenti Aertheri
“The usual 3 trick pony and usual intentional dishonesty in other words.”
Kafka trapping… This is an exceptionally effective method to cast doubt on anything said by anyone who disagrees with your position. Person X hates his mother, is a rape apologist, loves hitler, ect. It doesn’t matter weather it’s a lie or not. The tactic is to simply so disparage person X’s character that anything person X says will by considered unreliable.
So in order to have relaible reporting, one would have to defeat those at the top with all the wealth and power, (the state, msm, corporate, military complex). Defeat all the tactics used to silence and/or discredit person X. Defeat the herd of followers and/or open their eyes to the truth. And of course not get oneself accidentally killed in the process. A monumental task to say the least.
You know, I’m also starting to get annoyed at the implication that when we disagree with Ruby, we’re being bad feminists or something.
I still wonder if perhaps she’s an MRAs ideation of what a feminist is, but mostly I think she’s just legit stupid and like our MRA trolls got some crackpot idea in her head that feminism is all about shitting on men. Then when the rest of us don’t agree that men are programmed by their dude hormones to kill or that women are programmed by lady hormones to go for rich (but not too rich? Still confused by that one) dudes, it’s all, “why are you attacking me? It’s science! And aren’t we on the same side and but look at the brown people over there doing stuff!”
What I really can’t figure is why she keeps coming back.
As for NWO’s bullshit claim that cops are brainwashed, yeah, sure, I’ll bet that’s exactly why they feel totally confident telling the press that they figure 9 out of ten women reporting a rape are liars. But I guess he was just a brave lone truth teller (just like all the other cops I’ve heard talk like that).
You know, I just can’t imagine being such a person. I mean, I know that it’s all dismissing the problems of women as unimportant, but I just can’t imagine why anyone would actually do that.
By no means am I erasing the experience of women — I know that this happens.
I just can’t get into that headspace. It’s completely baffling to me.
“It’s funny how some people bring my rape apologia when actually I was just gonna talk about my racism. I guess you guys must like the bad, foreign kind of sexism if you don’t like my normal American sexism.”
I don’t know I’d this link will work, but this book addresses this issue of testosterone and violence.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0684838915/ref=redir_mdp_mobile
Robert Sapolsky is ten different kinds of awesome.
I know I’m late to this particular party, but man, I love Roscoe’s “a statistically significant number of men are killed by another man at their partner’s behest!” theory.
It’s so… you know what it really, is, besides silly and overdramatic, and filled with “I did this because of you, so basically you did it yourself” abuser logic? It’s not really worried. He’s not afraid he’s going to be killed in some unlikely love triangle. It’s not something that actually effects his day-to-day existence, his decisions about who’s safe to go out with, whether it’s safe to let a date walk you home, whether it’s safe to call your boyfriend out when he does something hurtful.
It’s just something he figures probably happens out there. But I get no sense that he’s ever had to worry that his ass is on the line.
Hey, NWOslave, got a practical conundrum for you.
See, me and my sister got this room to paint and our upstairs air conditioning is broken. Our dad is on vacation, and my sister’s boyfriend lives hours away. We’d cry on the street for some manly men to paint for us, but we’d get ridiculously dehydrated in this hot weather. How do we use our pussy pass and/or female privilege to get the room painted?
What should I make for dinner? I need to feed some guys who have just moved and don’t have their kitchen stuff unpacked.
Oooh, thanks for the recommendation for the book, Captain Bathrobe! My library has that in stock, and I was already interested in Robert Sapolsky from a documentary where they interviewed him about his peaceful baboons. I think it was a NatGeo show on stress.
>Men, in Roscoe’s eyes, are puppets to whoever they’ve been sleeping with lately. So pliable they’ll murder someone just because their lover asks them to. He does not have a high opinion of men.
With that low opinion of their own gender their policy regarding women at least makes sense somewhat. They do need the isolation, they really do.
Guys antimanboobz has a post on the Roscoe’s of love triangle conspiracy.
http://antimanboobz.wordpress.com/2012/06/30/love-triangle-violence-a-psa-of-sorts/
Thanks, Jumbofish. That was . . . interesting.
I suppose I was expecting that post to have a completely delusional, paranoid, and ass-backwards view of reality. So that wasn’t surprising.
But you know what did surprise me? When they quote something NWOslave said with this introduction:
. . .
Well, I suppose NWOslave could be called “inimitable”, in that his paranoid beliefs and rants are so absurd and irrational that no parodies can possibly replicate the real thing.
You know, I’d kind of assumed that even NWOslave’s fellow MRAs wouldn’t want to be associated with NWOslave.
But apparently NWOslave is not only someone they’re fine associating with, he’s someone they look up too. Someone “inimitable” who uses “biting satire”.
Maybe the MRAs at antimanboobz simply don’t know what satire is? I don’t know. If NWOslave’s comments count as “biting satire”, then I weep for the English language.
You guys really need to stop watching so much Investigation Discovery. It’s warping your perspective. Also, corporations? What the fuck are you even talking about?
As long we’re asking questions, how many women have? I notice the “Man hires hitman to kill his ex.” part of the conversation is conspicuously absent from anti’s post.