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.
Torvus Butthorn?
LMAO.
I may have to name my next cat that.
The next time someone cuts me off in traffic: “YOU BUTTHORN!!!”
OK, a little late to the party here, but on the Anti-Manboobz site:
Did they imply that empathy and altruism are negative traits?!
creativewritingstudent: Did they imply that empathy and altruism are negative traits?!
Not imply. It’s a truism in the PUA community that such things make one look “submissive” and so moves one from the realm of the “alpha”.
I challenge Hugh, Timothy, and anyone else to show me where men are routinely encouraged and/or expected to hide, deny or abandon their strengths while simultaneously emphasizing their weaknesses in order to get a date.
See examples from my previous post on that topic. Abandoning strengths: altruism and sensitivity. Emphasizing weakness: playing stupid.‘
Which was, of course, question begging, since the previous comment was him saying that men needed to suppress those things, or they would fail to get the women they were trying to seduce.
Mellertoad, we already know you’re a sexist, homophobic, white supremacist Gor fetishist who gloats over women being abused and/or killed. Stop advertising and go play with your dolls.
So… they give up on meaningful human contact and plan to have lots of casual sex with complete strangers to replace that?
That’s one of the ways of showing ‘our protagonist has reached the depths of despair’ in stories. Really, really sad that someone would choose that.
Also, the ‘unempathic charmer’ type? Would enjoy watching them from a distance (through a TV screen), may admire their good looks (if relevant), would not want to spend time alone with them. Brr.
I seriously can’t even tell is meller seriously believes all he spouts. He has to be a poe right? But what kind of poe spends all their time trolling so consistently on one blog. I really don’t understand.
“Find out if these stats are “true”?
Attaboy, go to the Dep’t of Justice! After four decades of federal feminuttery generally, and four years of Obama, militant,hardcore man-hating feminists are undoubtedly at least as frequent in DOJ offices, from top to bottom, as sundry black and “hispanic” supremacists, global warming frauds, illegal alien apologists and firearms prohibitionists”
Nice hatred there, it’s very becoming. It is very, very difficult to skew demographic data with any sort of bias.
“Are such people even capable of telling the truth, even if they wanted to?
When do politicians–or feminists–lie? Whenever they speak!”
ALL THE PROJECTION (you should talk to NWO sometime, you’d get along great and could then maybe both go off somewhere else)
“Thirty percent? How long has this supposedly been going on? When are women going to disappear entirely? When will these murder stats rise to 40%, 50% and up? Will it reach a point where 99% of (heterosexual) women with “husbands or boyfriends” are murdered by them? Why stop there? Leave at least a few women to be murdered by complete strangers,. shall you? Hey, don’t forget the lezzies! Let their “wives and girlfriends” also have some fun.”
Ok clearly you can read, so did you somehow miss where that was 30% of women who are murdered? I doubt it, I suspect you’re trying to make yourself sound all smart, when really you’re just driving home how much you hate women.
“I could continue but the point has been made. There are three “facts” associated with feminism, lies, damned lies, and statistics. This included all three!”
The point that you’re a lovely mishmash of bigotry? Yes, yes it has. (And you’re misusing “lies, damned lies, and statistics” btw)
“feminuttery” = crazy shaming = ableism
“as sundry black and “hispanic” supremacists” = white supremacy = racism
“Why stop there? Leave at least a few women to be murdered by complete strangers,. shall you?” = violent levels of hating women = misogyny
“Hey, don’t forget the lezzies!” = slurs against lesbians = homophobia
Would you like to try fitting antisemitism and trans* phobia in there too? You could manage to hit all bigotry at once, which would be a sick sort of impressive.
Jumbo: I’ve looked for Meller on the wider web. He’s out there, and he’s consistent.
Whoever mentioned Phineas Gage got this stuck in my head (unfortunate choice of words): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGl5SUB8IXM&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL4BC23FC1D6EF7ED2
Jayem: Nice, my favorite bit is “A tumbleweed just went over my Macbook.”
PS just dump the plain URL in the post and it’ll embed.
“Reward, manipulation, coercion, deception. These would probably be the top four methods of getting someone to kill.”
NWO please focus for a second. I italicized parents for a reason.
How does someone get someone else to kill their own PARENTS? Are you telling me that you would kill your own parents out of “deception” “coercion” ?
Why did you say, “getting someone to kill” when I was clearly talking about killing one’s own parents? OBTUSE.
I’m saying that almost no persons on this blue marble would kill their parents ever, and most people would not murder to start with but kicking it up ten notches to parents – sorry but another person cannot “use deception” to make someone murder their own parents. That takes a special kind of evil.
Also the case in question, the parents were regular joes btw. Nothing extra-normal, no abuse, etc.
What I gather NWO is that any point made/written on manboobz, you’re reading cursorily, barely glancing, and sure not to reason on any points or let any of these words and sentences do anything but glance you. Actually think about what’s being said and the point a person is making, or trying to make.
How about using suggestion? Could work if will is his bad save.
“Whoever mentioned Phineas Gage…”
That was me, and me and my macbook got a kick out of that. Luckily a tumbleweed shouldn’t hurt the mac any (mine’s been dropped, but it was closed, so idk on the screen).
Every time anyone here makes a D&D joke, I’m reminded of Order of the Stick, in this case — Elan got a 4! (And ooh, a new one, wtf trouble is V in now?)
NWO, if everything you say is true, and men can be manipulated by women to do anything and everything (including murdering their parents) using The Power Of the Pussy, then I’m sorry – but women should actually run the world.
Seriously, if men have so little willpower, sense, and self-control that the mere sight of a woman drives them to violence, and the mere promise of sex drives them to murder their FUCKING PARENTS, then it’s a damn good thing that (according to you) women run the government and the world. How could you think otherwise? imagine if The President of the United States was a man (I know it’s hard, what with women ruling everything and holding every position in government including the presidency since forever, but try to use your imagination) – why, the moment a woman entered the oval office and flashed him her boobs (or lifted her skirts to show her vagina ::coughcough::), he’d press the red button and blow up the western hemisphere for her!!! Really, who would want to take that chance?
So yeah, I don’t understand how, on the one hand, you can claim that men are such slaves to their hormones that they have no free will when women are around… and then complain that women run the world. It’s not like we have a choice – men do whatever we say. Even if we did not want to run the world, we can’t help it, since whenever we make a wish or suggest something we want to anyone of the male sex, they run out and do it for us.
Think you’d be getting a bit more out of this conversation if you stopped thinking it as “free will” and started to use “impulse control” instead…
The pillock doesn’t mean “women” in the sense of women that think and do stuff. (Or not…(heh), “impulse control”.)
His version are the ones who’re rewarded to the “hero”, like land power and gold…the 72 virgins of wrongheaded martyrs. That sort of thing.
Amazing what either a born or raised sociopath can accomplish if they’ll be “rewarded” for it.
What I really don’t get is why they think a significant portion of women actually WANT men to murder for them. I mean, yeah, I get that to them it’s because women are evil, but really, it makes no goddamn sense if you have anything other than that sort of warped worldview. I mean, I have an ex who’s reaction to my dating a new beau scared me a bit, but I don’t fucking want him DEAD or hurt because even though I don’t want to be with him anymore, I still care about him. And I don’t want my current boyfriend to murder him because I love him and don’t want him to go to jail. Also, I uh, you know, don’t want to be dating a murderer.
And quite frankly, I think my current guy’s reaction to an execution request of mine would go something like, “Haha, sure, I’ll get right on that”… “wait, you’re serious?” … “Haha, you aren’t serious.” … “You’re serious?” … “Um, maybe we should talk.”
Which, you know, is a good thing. I don’t WANT to be dating someone who’d go kill someone for me at the drop of a hat. The idea that men regularly are subject to becoming murderers at the behest of who ever they are currently fucking (or may get to fuck) takes an extremely dim view of both men and women. Not that I’m surprised, Most MRA schticks do.
That’s a good point. Why would the average woman want to end up living with a murderer? Wouldn’t she feel, I dunno, a bit paranoid that if a guy was capable of killing his parents he might turn on her too at some point? I’ve broken up with a guy because he punched someone (not me, another dude), so I can’t imagine going “oh hey, boyfriend bludgeoned his parents to death, that’s cool…maybe we should go apartment hunting next weekend”.
Are you suggesting that women are better than men because they kill fewer of us than we kill of them?
“Why is he angry? Presumably, he assumes the statistic is untrue, and that it unfairly paints men as evil murderers.”
Are you suggesting that it is fair to paint men as evil murders?
“While four times as many men are murdered than women, only 5% of murdered men are killed by “intimates.”
Are you suggesting that makes it cool?
I’m trying to determine what the main point of the article is. I always thought that one murder was unacceptable, but it seems that as I read feminist writing, there is an acceptable amount of victimization and it only becomes relevant if it exceeds this amount. It also seems that when females are the majority of victims, quantity determines what the acceptable level is such as in comparing suicide rates. Men commit more suicides, but women attempt more. When the quantity of victims are close, such as in domestic violence cases where victimization is nearly even, severity is taken into account.
It also seems that this standard changes in order to illustrate that women are more often victims and/or men are more often perpetrators. So I suppose I just need to point out a situation where males are more often victimized by females.
“In regard to incidents of staff sexual misconduct, 92.0% involved male youth and female staff members; 1.7% involved male youth and male staff members; 2.5% involved male youth and both male and female staff members; 3.0% involved female youth and male staff members; 0.0% involved female youth and female staff members; and 0.8% involved female youth and both male and female staff members.”
“Facilities that housed only female youth offenders had the highest rates of youth-on-youth victimization (11.0%), whereas facilities that housed only male youth offenders had the highest rates of staff sexual misconduct (11.3%).10”
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reviewpanel/pdfs/panel_report_101014.pdf
p.S. If I’ve mistaken you for a feminist and you are in fact not, my sincerest apologies.
One woman, somewhere, is reported to have said/done something evil to a man, and suddenly ALL women, EVERYWHERE want to do the same thing to all men, all the time.
MRAs: you know that movie you saw, where the evil woman seduced some naive loser to kill her husband? Yeah, that was just a movie, not a documentary. It was all sensational and shocking and everything, but it’s not a common, real-life occurrence. Most real-life people have an aversion to killing. Most real-life people, given the opportunity, figure out non-violent solutions to their problems.
Cassandra, right. I figure NWO thinks that it’s silly for women to fear for their safety in the presence of a murderer (or misandry!) because they have their all-powerful love-holes to keep men from murdering them.
Which kind of begs the question though, how is it that women just have SOOOOO much control over the men thy fuck (or promise to fuck) yet are more likely to be killed or raped by them than a total stranger?*
*rhetorical here. I’m betting the answer to that is something along the lines of a b horror flick plot scenario, where a few select dudes “awaken” from their vagina trance and, overcome with rage at the havoc their mistresses have made them wreck, violently revolt against the all-powerful vagina. Which, you know, works in a shitty b horror flick plotline, but pretty much falls apart in the real world.
@Gillian
“NWO, if everything you say is true, and men can be manipulated by women to do anything and everything (including murdering their parents) using The Power Of the Pussy, then I’m sorry – but women should actually run the world.”
Of course women can and do manipulate men sexually, just as if men chose to they could manipulate women sexually, (threat of rape). Isn’t that the reason behind all those take back the night crusades? Men and women can both manipulate in their own way if they so choose.
Women are already running the show, whose at the top of the political pyramid has no bearing on which demographic is privileged or running the show. If whose on top of the political pyramid did dictate whose privileged at the bottom, black men would be the most privileged since Obama is black, yet black men as a whole reside at the bottom of the social, political, economic spectrum.
—————–
“Seriously, if men have so little willpower, sense, and self-control that the mere sight of a woman drives them to violence, and the mere promise of sex drives them to murder their FUCKING PARENTS, then it’s a damn good thing that (according to you) women run the government and the world.”
Let’s start with a quick description of human reproduction/sexuality. Strip away all technology and all human sexuality is based upon a womans ability to sexually arouse a man. If thruout history, sans technology, women weren’t able to sexually arouse men, the human race would’ve died out.
So the willpower you speak of is a two way street. For a woman to tame her animal instinct she needs to not act in a hypersexual fashion to arouse men indicating reproductive readiness. For a man to not act in a hypersexual fashion he needs to not have sex whenever he is sexually aroused.
No matter how much technology is created and how many different theories on this or that sexuality is taught everyone has two imperatives. Survival/reproduction. These are the only drives of every person. Everyone needs to tame their sexual beast if you will, women need to not unneccesarily display hypersexual reproductive readiness, men need to not act hypersexual by acting on their impulse to have sex everytime they’re aroused.
An example of men acting hypersexual all the time might be the vikings raping as they went from town to town. The women in those towns most assuredly weren’t acting hypersexual, yet the invading vikings were.
In modern day society this hypersexuality is reversed. Everything women wear and how they act is designed to enhance and exaggerate their reproductive readiness, and arouse men. Colorful tight clothing, short skirts, jewelry, perfume, shoes, the way women walk, act and talk is all about arousal. None of these things have anything to do with survival, they are all strickly about increasing a womans ability to arouse and readiness to mate.
An example of a healthy society would be the old christain societies, or even the modern amish culture. This type of culture is ridiculed by feminists and most women today as controlling womens sexuality. Which of course it is, but it’s controlling mens sexuality as well. Women save their ability to arouse for only one man. Her loyalty is to him. Men in return mate with no other, his loyalty is to her. This is the only model of a healthy society.
Women are hypergamous by nature. Men are polygamous by nature. This is a fact. Women, in a purely animalistic sense, seek to display their reproductive ability in hopes of arousing the highest status man possible in order to reproduce with due to her limited number of reproductive possibilties. Men, in a purely animalistic sense, having no such constraints or limits on reproductive capacity seek to mate with the largest number of women possible.
No amount of technology, contraceptives, theories, ect, will change the basic drives of men and women. Survival/reproduction, every action taken by men and women revolve around these two instincts. For a healthy society men must overcome their instinct to reproduce at all costs, and women must overcome their instinct to arouse men at all costs. Both men and women need to, “tame their inner beast.”
Slavey’s view of gender relations seems to be basically Morlocks/Eloi (think endless descriptions of working class men being spurned by female HR executives in silky panties on the bus). He’s very upset that feminists have attempted to suppress the natural instincts that he thinks all Morlocks have to devour the Eloi, and that man/woman is basically a class distinction. Which, btw, is why I don’t really believe that he’s working class, because what kind of working class man doesn’t realise that working class women exist?
Cassandra: He does know they exist. They are just futher oppressing men, by taking their jobs.
He doesn’t, though. He consistently insists that all women work in nice offices in which they wear silky underthings and push paper around for no real reason.