[TRIGGER WARNING for picture of brutalized woman]
If you want to show someone what sort of website A Voice for Men is, have them look at the following screenshot, which I’m putting below the jump because it may well trigger some readers in its depiction of the effects of domestic violence on women:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
The picture, as you can see, illustrates a recent post by Suzanne McCarley, otherwise known on the internet as Driver Suz. (Regular readers of the Man Boobz comment section may remember her as the troll who was the first runner up for Man Boobz’ Special-est Snowflake Award for 2012.)
This isn’t the first time that A Voice for Men has used a picture of a brutalized woman to illustrate a post about domestic violence. The last time, the picture illustrated a notorious post from site founder Paul Elam suggesting that Domestic Violence Awareness month be replaced by “Bash a Violent Bitch Month.”
Here’s a screencap from that post, which I wrote about in more detail here:
In her post, McCarley refrains from this sort of violent fantasy, but her basic argument – that feminism perpetuates domestic violence for profit – is even more insidiously victim-blaming.
McCarley makes it clear from the start that her post will be largely fact-free, announcing plainly that “I’m not going to quote lots of statistics and studies, or variables and technicalities.”
After some rhetorical fumfering, Suz sets forth her basic argument, such as it is:
Without DV victims, feminists would have no rallying cry, and they would lose political power. Here’s how it works:
Thanks primarily to the Violence Against Women Act, DV has become a multi-billion dollar industry. This industry employs many thousands of people throughout the nation, paying them with federal VAWA grant money. And those thousands of people have made relatively little headway in achieving their “goal” of reducing DV. Indeed they perpetuate it. This is by design; if DV went away, so would their jobs.
Every single one of these people would happily give up their job if domestic violence went away.
And in fact, as Suz would know if she had indeed done even a tiny bit of research on this subject, domestic violence has fallen considerably since the early 1990s. Indeed, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in its most recent statement on the subject, reports that “from 1994 to 2010, the overall rate of intimate partner violence in the United States declined by 64%,” with similar rates of decline for both male and female victims. That’s more than a “little headway”; that’s huge.
Suz continues, oblivious to the fact that the basic factual premise of her argument is dead wrong:
There are many, many factors involved in DV, and it’s no coincidence that feminist policies aggravate nearly all of them, but for the sake of clarity I’m going to address only a simplified but significant few of them here.
Who commits a substantial proportion of DV? Past victims or witnesses of DV. Who committed the DV that they experienced or witnessed? In too many cases to count, it is women. Women commit far more than half of all DV. Among the vast majority of violent couples, the violence is mutual. Additionally, women commit the majority of child abuse. Yes, women are responsible for most DV.
Not true. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, over the period of 1994-2010, “about 4 in 5 victims of intimate partner violence were female.” Numerous other studies using different methodologies also find that women make up the majority of victims. The only studies that find similar rates of abuse – which are also, not coincidentally, the only ones that MRAs like to cite – are based on problematic methodologies that end up essentially equating mild and severe violence, pretending that a slap on the face is basically the same as a severe beating when it comes to determining which gender is responsible for the most abuse. (For more details, see here.)
Next point, what often triggers DV? Stress. What causes women lots of stress? The constant obligations of child rearing. What causes even more child rearing stress? Not having a father in the family. How are so many fathers removed from their families? They are accused of Domestic Violence, whether it happened or not, and whether it’s mutual or not. Disagreements are exaggerated, violence is “invented” or men are blamed for any real violence that does occur.
Suz, naturally, presents no evidence for any of this; she’s simply repeating a basic MRA catechism. Removing violent fathers from the home makes the home less stressful, not more.
The result is that fathers, often the most stable influence in the family, are kicked to the curb and financially bled dry, while mothers are protected and are excused for their “missteps;” this is the unstable – and all too often abusive – environment in which their children are raised.
Violent fathers are not exactly a “stabilizing” influence on the home.
Toss in a few more variables like substance abuse, a string of violent boyfriends, and a bit of poverty, and this process is guaranteed to produce future domestic abusers.
And feminism is responsible for this how?
And this is the process that VAWA has institutionalized. It no longer happens “once in a while;” it is SOP. Was this the intent of VAWA? Who cares? That’s the result.
Well, actually, you just said explicitly that feminists intentionally perpetuate domestic violence in order to make money. You’re moving the goalposts in your own post?
Feminism cares about controlling, dominating, destroying and extorting the men who pay Feminism’s bills. Everything else is window dressing.
Citation fucking needed.
A Voice for Men uses violence porn to fight against those who fight against domestic violence. And Suzanne McCarley is happy to help.
From the OP:
Unfortunately, this looks to be more a general misogynist creep thing than specifically an MRA thing. Australia’s opposition leader who looks increasingly likely to seize power later this year managed to combine that idea, paternalism, a gross insensitivity to the abuse of children in the context of a government which currently and historically has some massive issues with handling child abuse, a Rick Ross-esque way with the word “boss”, and capitalist apologia into one sentence back in 2002:
Note also that the boss is assumed male!
So, wait, dads pay their kids a salary now?
I am so gonna sue my old man for back pay.
Hell, my dad didn’t even pay child support. =P
Lowquacks, I saw an ad for a Rod Quantock show around the last election, I think, called Australia Needs an Abbott-Proof Fence. Couldn’t agree more. Abbott fills me with rage as much as that grotesque little creep Howard did.
All non-Aussies – this is the man our PM directed her famous misogyny speech at. He’s an old-school Catholic who opposed access to RU486 (the Parliament eventually voted to strip health ministers of this sort of power). He was aptly described during his student days (Rhodes scholar or not) as a “second-grade footballer, third-rate academic and fourth-class politician”. He’s also the man credited with smashing his fists into the wall inches from the head of the woman who defeated him in the election for president of the student council at Sydney University.
The thought of this man as our PM is truly frightening.
Mr Bigmomma and I are thinking about becoming citizens so we can vote against Tony Abbott
Yay! 🙂
(Yay anyway and yay because Abbott.)
@Kitteh: WTF I never knew Abbott was a Rhodes Scholar.
I have no idea what image this will freeze on when I post, but this is what I think of automatically whenever someone mentions Tony Abbott, thanks to my Australian friends for showing me this:
I love the logic behind these posts ; that x is true simply because I wrote it down. It’s like defining something into existence ! That obviously makes it real, right ?
Why is/was your prime minister showing everyone his bits?
@CassandraSays
Not our PM, thank god, but there’s a good chance he will be soon.
Yeah, he’s Opposition Leader. Which is far too high up the ranks for my liking. Gods, I wish they’d give him the arse and put Turnbull in. Not that there seems to be anyone really worthwhile in the Coalition since Petrou Georgiou resigned, but Turnbull looks like a radical leftie compared to the Vatican’s man in Canberra.
Kiwi girl, he’s always doing the macho man BS and running around for photo shots doing surf lifesaving stuff. It got to the point where the cartoonists mostly drew him in Speedos.
Every comment from an MRA needs to be opened with: “Warning, ass stats,” because they never seem to use and factual information. This is why when people say, “It’s just my opinion,” as if that alleviates them of all personal responsibility for the things they say, it drives me nuts. How about we make a decision as a society to not form opinions about things we know nothing about? And if you DO decide to form opinions anyways, we;re allowed to shamelessly ridicule you for doing so. LOL, like that will ever happen. Freedom of speech to these people = freedom to pretend complete lies are proven fact.
Oh, and about the whole, “punishing women for hitting a man knowing he won’t hit back.” as if this is something exclusive to women. Plenty of abused women won’t hit their husband/bf back, not due to some stupid honor code, but because HE WILL KILL OR HOSPITALIZE HER IF SHE DOES!
”
Fair enough, if you can’t be bothered to see them out for yourself, here are a few things to consider about the current situation in the UK, along with the Citations which are Fucking Needed:
The public spending cuts implemented by the coalition government have led to the closure of many services for female victims of domestic violence, many of which were provided by charities:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/how-austerity-britain-is-affecting-women-814805
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/patrick-butler-cuts-blog/2011/jan/25/domestic-violence-charities-face-100-cuts
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/03/refuge-chief-warns-charity-close
Britons give more to donkey sanctuary than abuse charities:
Guide dog charity with £156m assets is closing centres
This last one is pretty widely-known: not many people use guide dogs (around 700 per year are allocated to new owners, according to the report linked to below) but it seems that “frightening and debilitating condition which could strike anyone” + “cute animal” = profit. I’m not knocking
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1406292/Guide-dog-charity-with-156m-assets-is-closing-centres.html
tl:dr? In short then: it seems the real CHA-CHING is not in women’s services at all, but in animal charities, and 2013 is a bad time to be an abused woman, but a great time to be a donkey.
Arrrgghhhh… link for that donkey sanctuary story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2008/apr/23/charitablegiving.childprotection
Holy cricket! This one is so blatant that even I can see the hate for women! Go MRA’s and FeMRA’s! Keep up the good work! (sarcasm)
hellkell- I doubt it, as it seems she has already answered the piece in her own little safe space, giving her White Knights another chance to agree with her and keep looking up at her on her little pedestal:
http://shiningpearlsofsomething.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/i-have-so-fing-made-big-time.html
If that’s the case, then I guess being a scientist makes me a troll too, along with every other scientist. If she or any other MRA tried to present their batshit insane views at a serious social science conference, expecting the audience to hang on their every word and question nothing, they’d be surprised to find plenty of their “peers” raising their hands during the Q&A session and then asking for convincing evidence to back up their claims. I assume they’d flounce off screaming “TROLLS!”
This is yet another occasion on which MRAs have reminded me of homeopaths arguing with practitioners of evidence-based medicine:
– Ben Goldacre:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2007/nov/16/sciencenews.g2
I think I will take a (long) break from this blog as well. I noticed that Suz and her friends are mocking my comments at her blog, and making fun of my fear of them. I’ve never really been ‘singled out’ by an MRA commenter here, and this just makes me realise I have better things to do than have arguments with people online. I’m not angry with her or her commenters- mostly I’m just baffled as to why she seems so mean-spirited all the time. I am a bit afraid of the MRM, and I figure I will deal with the ones I know in real life instead of concentrating on faceless blog posts.
I wish everyone here all the best
(*flounce*- ha, not really)
Ha! Yeah, those trolls, demanding facts and figures, interrogating their assumptions and those of others, really searching for the truth. Hate those guys!
Oh, wait. No. Our trolls make arguments from ignorance and hate facts and figures. I’ve seen Argenti snap many a weak mind with an analysis of statistics.
In fact, ‘Citation Needed’ is often my favorite thing to see. Because when you deal with the real world and engage with other people, if you have a citation, you share it. If you have science, you can cite it.
And I have learned quite a bit from those citations that come out when somebody says ‘Citation fucking needed.’
So…. yeah.
I love how Suzjerk dismisses facts as mere “technicalities”. I don’t see why she needs to do that, though. Based on other stuff she’s written, any woman who’s ever bought a decorative pillow, a colored towel or a scented fucking candle is guilty of committing violence against her husband/boyfriend/father/brother/hypothetical son/every man who’s ever existed ever. So, since (I am guessing), the number of women living in houses where furniture is made of cement painted the color of shit is probably quite small, “technicalities” should be on Suz’s side.
They’re actually proud that they don’t back up their claims, because apparently the peer review process has been tainted by feminism.
Carleyblue, take care.
@The Stepford Knife
Ugh, I really hate her style. She’s acting so self-important and smug it hurts to read her response. And it’s quite clear she has no idea what she’s talking about. I mean, just look at this:
I think that speaks for itself.
And then there’s this:
You know, I just did a quick Google search, and this is one of the first things I found: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35205114/ns/health-childrens_health/#.URJ7BB3LTw8
“A massive new federal study documents an unprecedented and dramatic decrease in incidents of serious child abuse, especially sexual abuse. Experts hailed the findings as proof that crackdowns and public awareness campaigns had made headway.”
Public awareness campaigns, eh? You know who started a lot (not all, of course) of these campaigns? Feminists.
Also, her reading comprehension is amazingly bad. It’s as if all she wants to do in responding to articles is to feel good about herself.
By the way, here’s an actual citation of a study that documents a decline in child abuse:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/nis4_report_exec_summ_pdf_jan2010.pdf
I’m sorry they are mocking you Carleyblue. I know I lurk but I want to say take care anyway, and yes their batshittery can be fucking scary especially with the Register-Her type crap they have. I think their goal IS to scare people into being silent and to make people fear for their own safety. The MRM got singled out of SPLC and is called the abusers lobby for a damn good reason. They try to scare people into doing what they want. The above post is an absolute perfect example. It’s sad that the whiny, spoiled, entitled little babies of the MRM can cause such problems.