An Orlando man, Faron Thompson, was recently charged with battery and child neglect after an altercation in which he allegedly tried to force his fiancée to swallow her engagement ring when she tried to leave him. (More details here.)
This sort of abuse is depressingly commonplace when women try to free themselves from abusive and controlling men; indeed, if I posted every news account along these lines on this blog I wouldn’t have time to do anything else.
No, I mention this case because something that Thompson reportedly told police reveals a lot about the mindset of abusers. When they arrested him, police say, Thompson complained that:
Women always claim assault, but never accept responsibility for provoking someone.
That is how abusers think.
It’s also how a lot of MRAs think.
Indeed, when I read Thomson’s reported remarks, the y immediately brought to mind something written not that long ago by Karen Straughan, the YouTube videoblogger who goes by the name of Girl Writes What. Straughan describes herself in her A Voice for Men bio as “the most popular and visible MRA in North America,” and given the rapturous reception her videos get on You Tube and on Reddit, this may not be an idle boast.
In the rather revealing Reddit comment I’m thinking of (which I blogged about earlier), Straughan suggested not only that abused women regularly “demand” the abuse they receive, but that many of them also get some sort of sexual charge from it. Oh, I’m sure she’ll deny that she really meant all that, but I can’t see any other way to read the following.
Oh, and in case you were wondering what article she’s referring to in the last paragraph — the one she says isn’t “seriously ethically questionable” — it’s a post from the repugnant Ferdinand Bardamu arguing that men should “terrorize” their partners because that’s the “the only thing that makes them behave better than chimps.” For more about that charming piece, titled “The Necessity of Domestic Violence,” see my post here.
I’m having less and less of a problem with calling the Men’s Rights movement “the abusers lobby.”
I’m sure there are some MRAs who are as repulsed by Straughan’s argument as I am. If you’re one of them, and want your movement, such as it is, to be remembered as something other than “the abusers lobby,” you need to call out all those MRAs who make such arguments. Might I suggest that you start by challenging the “the most popular and visible MRA in North America,” otherwise known as Girl Writes What?
I guess that feminsim is a simulation of feminism, maybe part of some sort of VR experience?
Kitteh, so there! 🙂
Re: Fatrelle, dude, seriously? Apparently that whole thing about the ACA covering birth control even if the employer is religious never happened, and we aren’t still fighting the BS that is pharmacists being able to deny the morning after pill, personhood amendment shit? Never happened either!
To everyone else — my not-an-ex is a pharmacy student who finds that to be a smear on zir profession, so yeah, there are still pharmacists who remember wtf their job is (or pharm students anyways)
“You suggest that there couldn’t possibly be any provocation by the women. That’s impossible… Your poor argument may appeal to the perma-victim feminist gaggle that follow you but any rational human being can see through your logical leaps.”
You do understand that abusive behavior is, by definition, the behavior of the abuser and not the person who is abused, right? (Of course you don’t, but everyone else reading does. That’s because some people actually do logic.)
I want someone to give me a dollar every time a troll does a drive by “You don’t haz logic” while not engaging with logic at all.
I have a full-time job with insurance/benefits, but I am unable to commit to this financial expense. It happens too damn often!
“What is “influncing legislation” – it sounds like legislation fail.”
Sounds like an ingrown flounce, which pretty much summarises the MRM.
As for fathead’s claim of the MRM influencing legislation around the world – sorry, nope. Not happening. The anti-women countries were never remotely feminist. My country is better than some, has a long way to go, but even the worst of our conservative politicians would laugh you morons to scorn if they’d ever heard of you.
@David Futrelle
“extremely problematic victim blaming”
I get it. Your site -> Your rules. However, feminists have been using “victim blaming” as excuse to silence debate for a very long time. If you’re asserting that in all altercations between a man and a woman the victim is always the woman and she is always 100% blameless then you won’t have to ban me. I’ll leave voluntarily.
If this is not your assertion and furthermore you allow challenges to your assertions/axioms then I look forward to further debate.
DisposableMan, are you really this obtuse? It has nothing to do with women “always being right” or men “always being wrong.” The point is that NO ONE DESERVES ABUSE. Male or female.
Abused people, male or female, are not responsible for the abuse they suffer. Their abusers are.
Even if someone, male or female, says something “provoking” to their partner, male or female, that partner *doesn’t get to hit them*. Plain and simple.
Yes, there is such a thing as verbal abuse. But the answer to verbal abuse is not physical abuse.
Of course, in most cases of abuse, there is no “provocation” that exists outside the mind of the abuser. That’s simply a rationalization for the abuse that the abuser wanted to inflict.
Disposable, we each are in control of our own behaviors. When a person is being verbally abusive to you, you have the option and the right to determine how you respond/react. Your “blame the women” mentality shines through even to my fogged brain. Stop blaming others for your inability to control yourself. Take responsibility for once in your life.
@mxe354 et al.
OK, I take a “mia culpa” because after re-reading my own post. My point wasn’t as clear as I had intended and it is clear that after reading your post as well as others we’re talking past each other. Furthermore my tone probably invited some of the vitriol I got in return.
I acknowledge that (1) there are men that chronically abuse women, this abuse is wrong and as a moral society we should work to prevent it, (2) these chronically abusive men tend to use physical abuse and so their victims can and do suffer serious injuries up to and including death, (3) these chronically abusive men try to justify their actions by blaming their victims for the abuse they perpetrate.
Contentious bit:
My assertion is that, in North America at least, these chronically abusive men are rare especially with respect to the group I was clumsily referring to in my first post: chronically abusive women.
Chronically abusive women tend to use verbal abuse, lying to manipulate or defraud and destruction of personal property instead of physical abuse although slapping, pinching, kicking and thrown objects are not uncommon.
Firstly, the abuse perpetrated by women is often seen as, if not acceptable, at least permissible. If you disagree, try to slap a man in public. You’ll probably get giggles if not cheers from the public. A man hitting a woman…well lets hope he can run fast.
Secondly, the abuse perpetrated by women is pervasive, chronic and often low-intensity and subconscious. Evidence for this is indirect but easily demonstrable in how men describe their relationship with these abusive women: “nag, nag, nag”, “it’s just easier to do whatever she wants”, “I wouldn’t want to sleep in the dog house”, etc. It is remarkable that such comments are almost never made by women about their relationships with men. Also the pervasiveness of male self seclusion from their abusers provides further indirect evidence.
Thirdly, abused men don’t have socially acceptable, gender appropriate support mechanisms to deal with the abuse perpetrated on them by women. With a feminist’s perspective, you may be unable to appreciate the difficulty a man would have finding support for the abuse of being repeatedly called a loser, having household items thrown at him and periodically having his clothes burned in the backyard.
Consequently, the only avenue for these many abused men is to “be a man, grin and bear it”. Eventually, however, some men after being hit in the head for the umpteenth time just snap and retaliate in the most instinctual, primal way, with violence.
TLDR; Also the crux of my argument..
When you read about a man force feeding a woman a ring you see a “Chronically Abusive Man”. I don’t jump to that conclusion when reading the same material. I give him the benefit of doubt that this could just be him snapping after potentially years of abuse by the “Chronically Abusive Woman”.
Now to address your assertion that despite the abuse perpetrated on a man he has no excuse to retaliate with violence. This is a reasonable demand for a feminist to make of an ideal feminized man but is totally unrealistic of an actual man. This post is too long as it is. I’ll have to defend my last statement somewhere else.
>> Abused people, male or female, are not responsible for the abuse they suffer. Their abusers are.
This is something you tell some abused person to make YOU feel better. The relationship between the abuser and the abused is complex especially if the abuse is chronic over a lengthy period. To make an absolutist statement about such a thing is irresponsible.
>> Even if someone, male or female, says something “provoking” to their partner, male or female, that partner *doesn’t get to hit them*. Plain and simple.
That’s feminist dogma. I DO accept that after a hundred years of indoctrination it has become culturally and legally normative at least in the United States. However, if you were to account for biology, anthropology and psychology it is neither plain nor simple.
I recognize that you either believe these statements are self evidently true and you don’t need to prove them or you wish these statements were universally accepted as true and you shouldn’t have to defend them. However, although I accept them as mostly true, there is nuance in there interpretation.
@ Tina
>>Stop blaming others for your inability to control yourself. Take responsibility for once in your life.
I think David Futrelle would like a word with you.
>> Abused people, male or female, are not responsible for the abuse they suffer. Their abusers are.
Citation needed. Please provide evidence to support your assertion. And by evidence, I don’t mean bumpluck.
The disposable man keeps responding to arguments I don’t see being presented here.
Please clarify. Are you saying that if someone says something “provoking” to their partner, the partner should be able to hit them? Who gets to define what “provoking” is? Who gets to decide how hard the hit is, whether it can be with a weapon, fist, slap only, etc? Is there a sliding scale? Or is it just “might is right”?
Or, more likely, do you like to speak, whether that speech is considered or not?
This guy is the internet equivalent of the dude who stands on Market Street in San Francisco with the sign that demands the impeachment of all the dead presidents, or the other sign which is all about how the Dalai Lama keeps slaves. No answer is necessary or expected, he just wants a platform on which to rant.
I see the Disposable Idiot is a full-fledged member of the abuser’s lobby. Dude, we can see your faux reasonable “two sides” bullshit for what it is. We’re not as dumb as you.
David…thank you for highlighting these people who are part of the problem of domestic violence.
I just told you that a person being physically abused has the right to engage in physical self-defense. Ze just doesn’t have the right to abuse anyone in retaliation because abuse is never, ever justified. Abuse and self-defense are not the same thing.
Also, “actual man” as opposed to “ideal feminized man?” Maybe you should take a good look at your own bigotry before you try to talk about the plight of male victims of domestic abuse.
Forcing someone to swallow a ring is not self-defense. That’s abuse. It doesn’t matter if it’s because he “snapped”; he has no justification for doing that, and no one is forcing him to do that somehow. He chose to be an abusive asshole.
Self-defense implies that there is a threat which one is defending oneself from. What threat requires or even suggests that a response of “make person eat ring” would be a reasonable and/or effective form of self-defense?
If I were a man, I’d be really fucking offended by this assertion that I am inherently violent and cannot be expected to behave in a civilized manner. I hope the men I know won’t mind me being offended on their behalf (or maybe they’re just ~feminized~, whatever that means)
Also, thinking about this whole “she abused him first!” thing, I wonder how many abusers prefer partners who are argumentative or rude because it provides an excuse for the beatings?
MRA logic.
“Honey, could you try to remember to mow the lawn this weekend? You’ve been saying that you were going to for the last few weeks and it’s starting to look kind of unkempt.”
Abuse! Nagging is the worst form of domestic violence there is!
Punching someone in the face because they said something that upset you – totally understandable, you can’t blame the guy for defending himself. Unless the person doing the punching is a woman, in which case obviously that’s real abuse.
Cassandra, while I agree that many MRAs are part of the abusers’ lobby, I don’t think that TheDisposableMan is talking about nagging. Ze is talking about verbal abuse, which isn’t mere nagging. Nevertheless, verbal abuse is not something that can be justifiably countered with violence.
I was thinking of the sort of relationship where Person A yells “and you still haven’t mown the goddamn lawn like you said you would! Why don’t you get off your ass and do some work around this house?”, at which point Person B can feel justified in shoving Person A.
IDK, I’m just speculating, but I wonder if there are abusers who choose slightly aggressive partners so they can feel justified in escalating to insults or violence.
mxe, I think Cassandra’s point is that many MRAs and abuse apologists have a very broad definition of “verbal abuse”. I have actually seen people say that nagging is a form of verbal abuse and justifies physical violence.