We’re still running a meme surplus in the We Hunted the Mammoth offices, so I’m going to drop a few more on you today. Enjoy the FLAWLESS STEM LOGIC and KEEN GRASP OF REALITY displayed in the following memes, gathered from A Voice for Men’s Facebook page. I’ve lightly censored a couple of them.
WE INVENTED THE MAMMOTH TO FEED YOU
Ha Ha! Girls are stupid and can’t do math amirite fellas high five!
Damn you gals for keeping men out of this low-paying profession that men could easily enter if they wanted to because it’s not actually a “hiring scheme” that keeps them out!
THIS ISN’T ACTUALLY TRUE BUT MAYBE IF WE PUT IT IN ALL-CAPS NO ONE WILL NOTICE!
I wouldn’t put her above it. Would explain the giant random doomsday-esque pic of her face.
If it is her, I guess her and some un-named people are “coming” for us? Whatever that means.
Redsilkphoenix
8 years ago
Dumb question time: who are all the socks running around that everyone thinks are this Aris guy? Just wondering so I know who’s who when catching up on recent threads. I’ve somehow missed this in my catching up reads.
Edit: Well crap, he was banned? I’m glad I didn’t start on some other posts. *sigh* Oh well.
Jamie:
1) What do you mean by “when men’s right’s occurs”? Th
The emancipation of men, when men are free of oppression – when they have equal rights with everyone else, legally and socially.
Hmm First part, has already happened cause men aren’t oppressed. Well, not for being men. There are men who are oppressed, but for other reasons, like race.
Second part, that’s what feminists want.
2) Please define “equal parenting rights” and how things are not equal right now?
That’s pretty simple. A) Women get preference on the birth cert, B)a man cannot get himself on there, C)women get favour in family courts over access, yes even today, D)women get unilateral choices to have children – that effect other people, such as parents paying child support, or tax payers paying benefits – and the women has no responsibility to those parties. At the moment, women control parental rights in virtually every way.
A) one of the few times a woman’s name comes before a man’s name on a form and it’s oppression to men. B)What do you mean “A man can’t get himself on there”? The forms have places for the father. C) This isn’t true. When it’s actually in court, it’s typically 50/50 in terms of custody. The issue is that a very large portion of men don’t even seek custody. This stems from the fact that women are considered the primary caregivers. They’re the ones who society deems are supposed to take care of the children. Feminism wants that changed so no gender is the default caregiver, it can be either one. Men wouldn’t be shamed for being stay at home dads, Women wouldn’t be expected to take the MUCH larger share of the family work even if both partners have jobs. If deciding which parent will stay home and take care of the kids, the mother won’t be the expected choice because men tend to make more (part of which is because women are expected to put more into their family’s care than men are).
This also applies to divorce court in terms of alimony. You know what happens in a divorce when the woman worked and man stayed home with the kids, not gaining work experience for years and years? She pays him alimony. Sooo encourage society to stop enforcing gender roles and the proportions will be more even.
Of course who are we kidding? We all know you want men to be the “bread winner,” while the woman stays home, and she can’t choose to have a divorce. But when the man wants a divorce, he should be able to cut and run even though she sacrificed work experience… No, you don’t want social pressures to be equalized, you just don’t want any negative effects of the social pressures that keep men as the earners.
D) Now we get to the abortion part of our program. Yes, women get to choose to continue a pregnancy because it’s her body. So she does get to decide to go through a pregnancy. You know what it’s called when one adult has control over another’s body? Slavery. But once it stops being about her body, and about a third human being, both parents have equal rights. Once the medical condition is over, both parents are faced with the exact same options. I know that what you said was all code for “men should get to do ‘paper abortions’.” So let’s discuss that.
First, that would also mean women should be able to as well. She should be able to abolish all custodial rights and financial responsibilities immediately and dump the child on the father as soon as it’s born (also with no societal pressure to be the one to take care of the kid). In fact, it should become a race. Whoever says it first, no take-backsies!
Of course, you guys never mean that, you always mean as some sort of perceived equal response to an abortion. It’s kinda funny, this whole “paper abortion” thing greatly contradicts your whole family court bit and even your birth certificate thing. By saying men should get the right to cut himself off from a child it is saying that the newborn baby is by default the mother’s, with the father being able to opt in or out. Why should family court ever even consider men if they simply want the role reduced to “sometimes maybe participant”?
You can’t just complain that fathers should be taken more seriously while in the same breath saying that men should totally cut off their existing kid.
3) Same as 2) but for Equal sentencing, family courts, and education and so on.
A)Men get worse sentencing in court, for identical crimes. B)At the very same time, feminist groups are arguing for even lighter sentencing, and more legal advantages in many areas. C)This is because feminism, and society, has cast men as villans, and women as victims. No matter how exactly the same their actions are, men will be perceived as more culpable. D)And this despite the fact that violence, the platform of achieving a lot of this villany, is pretty gender symmetrical in most areas (like DV), E)and more weighted to men as victims in the broadest sense.
A) Have you done this research with race taken into account? Also, as others have said, a lot of this stems from taking women less seriously than men. B) Can you provide an example of a group doing this? And what “legal advantages”? C) I disagree. D) This is not true. Here, have some real statistics: Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf
In 2008 females age 12 or older experienc
ed about 552,000 nonfatal violent victim-izations (rape/sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated or simple assault) by an inti-mate partner (a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend) (table 1).
• In the same year, men experienced 101,000 nonfatal violent victimiz
ations by an inti-mate partner.
• The rate of intimate partner victimizations for females was 4.3 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older. The equivalent rate of intimate partner violence against males was 0.8 victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older.
• In 2007 intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides in the U.S. The total esti-mated number of intimate partner homicide victims in 2007 was 2,340, including 1,640 females and 700 males.
• Females made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993.
E) Even when men are the victims, men are also much more typically the perpetrator. This statistic isn’t the result of men being oppressed. Unless you’re saying they’re oppressed by men.
I think this is a pretty serious inequality myself.
I could go on. But if you are curious you can look to yourself the many areas where men are being verifiably disadvantaged. The science, and the numbers don’t lie, and they are there for everyone to research. Just don’t be surprised if they overturn the bad science misrepresentations you may have been fed by feminists.
Well, the part I linked to above was from statistic collected by the government. I suppose you can call them lying liars… I’d like to know some of your sources.
(Sorry about the above post! I’d started on it a while ago and hadn’t refreshed, so had no idea the thread exploded and he just got Banned to. Such a waste of time typing that it seems.)
brooked
8 years ago
@Tessa
The same thing happened to me multiple times, Jamie was venting on the high setting, full blast.
Is he a bot? Because he sure seemed to be on a scripted trajectory no matter what anyone else actually said. Hell, he was going “Am I allowed to have a voice??” when literally no one was online and it was just him talking nonstop.
Nobody Special
8 years ago
Tessa, I have to admire your optimism but do you really think that Jamie (James, Aris, Lord Lucan…. well, maybe not Lord Lucan) would have read it? I mean, that’s a lot of words and stuff eating into his hating time.
I’m pissed off that I’m so late to the party. I mean, anybody who claims to be an academic ‘cos he’s read some books and shit (and he knows words, lots of words, and said things, lots of things… ….shit! It’s the Donald!), but cannot tell the difference between inhuman and inhumane, or your and you’re, or evidence based reality and random shit that just popped into his head (the echoes must be tremendous when that happens; might explain the anger issues), is just the sort of person that us men need speaking up for us, and I feel the poor lamb needed an ally against you evil wimminz.
Or maybe not, eh!
Do you think he might have looked at the company he keeps in a different light had it been pointed out to him that this growing army of his is anything but, and that the noise they make is but the final, desperate cry of a mortally wounded beast trying to gather its strength for one final but ultimately futile attack.
Maybe it’s for the best that David acted like a responsible vet and put him out of his misery. I’m told that death by exploding head is not only painful, it’s a nightmare for the clean-up crew.
Nobody Special
8 years ago
Katz, I believe that bots have more self-respect; they do at least make more sense grammatically and tend to spell and punctuate somewhat more accurately.
Skiriki
8 years ago
I just find it weird that he had the nerve to diss talking about men’s depression issues… right after I had posted a fresh article about how toxic masculinity literally kills men. This includes “struggling with depression issues all alone because tough guys don’t cry or show vulnerability”.
Really shows that he does not care about men, believes in taking away from women to try and fill whatever void dwells within. That’s no way to live, dude.
I know Jamie is gone, but I wanted to go through his list of grievances on page 4… or 5… fuck, I don’t know anymore. Because I found there to be an enormous amount of reading comprehension fail. You know what? I don’t think Jamie actually read any of the studies he linked. As PoM said, he’s taking the lazy freshman route of looking up a source that has vaguely to do with his assertion, and trusts it says what he wants to say. Even ignoring that a lot of those studies seem to draw a whole lot of conclusions based on a limited and highly focused sample, they don’t actually support MRA talking points.
For starters, on the whole FoM domestic violence issue, that’s coincidentally how I first got interested in gender issues, mainly because the dismissal of men who experience such is overwhelmingly done – wait for it – by other men. This prompted me to ask the question of men being shitty to everyone around them, and here I am now. So no, the first and third link about male authorities being dismissive of men who don’t fit into a narrowly defined ”real man” category is nothing new or surprising to me, and the authors of those studies are generally acknowledging the role of toxic masculine beliefs in why men rarely report and why (male) authorities rarely take such issues seriously. It is a problem, one that can only be fixed by dismantling age-old, harmful beliefs about gender roles, that is, making society more feminist. This is the exact opposite of what Jamie is suggesting.
Next, a sample from the second link:
A total of 28.9% of 6790 women and 22.9% of 7122 men had experienced physical, sexual, or psychological IPV during their lifetime.
So… Not supporting Jamie’s assertion at all. There was no mention of women being the perpetrators. We already know that men in same-sex relationships face IPV more frequently than men in straight relationships. The next bit was particularly interesting:
Women were significantly more likely than men to experience physical or sexual IPV (relative risk [RR]=2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.1, 2.4) and abuse of power and control (RR=1.1, 95% CI=1.0, 1.2), but less likely than men to report verbal abuse alone (RR=0.8, 95% CI=0.7, 0.9).
Yep, not only did it affirm that women are more likely than men to be victims of intimate partner violence, but that women were actually less inclined to report verbal abuse. Jamie has trouble with reading comprehension, yet claims to be an expert. Who’d have thunk?
The fourth link dumps a bibliography on us, and I doubt Jamie has bothered to read them all, particularly considering that there are no direct links. After some digging, I managed to find a few studies, but I gave up after noticing a pattern.
The first study on the list (Date violence and date rape among adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Ackard, D. M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. 2002) does not, in fact, support Jamie’s assertion that men and women in heterosexual relationships face equal IPV. As the title suggests, it focuses on the effects of IPV on the psychology of the victim, male or female. Don’t draw too many conclusions from sample sizes made to fit a study, dumbass.
The older study Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988) I did not look into it too much, partly because I couldn’t find it, partly because of the description: ”Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.” Which tells us absolutely nothing about the actual frequency of IPV, since it focuses on perpetrators self-reporting.
The study by Allen-Collinson, J. (2009) follows on a single case of a male victim and a female perpetrator. While important in and of themselves, individual cases are not a sign of a larger social pattern. Moving on.
Finally, Anderson, K. L. (2002): Perpetrator or Victim? Relationships Between Intimate Partner Violence and Well-Being. I can’t get the full study because of the paywall, but from the abstract, it appears to address the intersectionality of DV victimization and perpetration, substance abuse, self-esteem and depression. It is an ambitious project, but the highly specialized focus makes its applicability in day-to-day scenarios dubious. Not to mention that it seems to jump to general conclusions based on specific instances.
Notice it yet? None of these say what Jamie thinks they say. IPV is statistically a gendered issue, and focusing on individual cases won’t change that reality. Jamie’s spamming has made it impossible to address his every claim, yet I’m sure all his so-called ”sources” suffer from the same reading comprehension failure. But of course, Jamie would say I’m ”cherry-picking”, because he expects others to do all the reading he himself can’t be bothered to.
I think Jamie seriously thinks feminists are denying that women can be perpetrators in IPV, which is incorrect. It happens, just not equally, since men and women are socially conditioned differently. If anything, feminists are amongst the most sympathetic to men who face abuse.
All right, let’s carry on. The next link addresses a lot of boys’ issues at once, ranging from self-esteem to suicide, all of which have been addressed in great detail before (and even the article states that schools are looking into the causes). Aside from the stupidity of thinking girls doing better in school being seen as an unfair issue affecting boys, why men have trouble finding an identity in an increasingly equal world is something on which academics interested in actual men’s issues and the myths of masculine identity could still make numerous studies, but the problem for Jamie’s argument is, I predict they would neatly align themselves with feminist studies.
The last link is just beautiful. Even ignoring that it does not actually address gender disparity in sentencing, even the abstract says that male judges give lighter sentences to women for serious offenses (because of the aforementioned patronizing attitude that is prevalent amongst conservative men), and that when increasing the number of female judges, the sex disparity disappears. Again, Jamie has demonstrated why feminism is needed, and why regressive ideas (such as those held by the MRM) only end up hurting people of all genders.
I love how he accuses us of ”sea lioning”. Fucking lol. It goes to show that MRAs are happy to incorporate SJ language in order to dismiss others, but have no interest in examining said terms and their meaning.
Finally, for good measure, here are a few chosen Jamie quotes, with commentary by yours truly:
And yet still you call me a bigot, or imply it – for my belief system onky. (sic)
Well, duh. No shit, Sherlock. A person’s belief system plays a pretty big part in whether or not they’re a bigot. What do you think bigotry is, a fucking alien parasite or something?
Any bigots. Anyone who puts themselves before anyone else, and will not tolerate diversity of opinion.
”Diversity of opinion”does not include hate speech. Which is what you and other MRAs are spewing.
To his credit, Jamie did manage to make one spot-on comment:
This is such a seriously large waste of everyone’s time.
Truer words were never spoken.
So, in conclusion, Jamie: Despite your patronizing, self-important pomp, you’ve managed to ”prove” jack all. Stick to your flounce.
Anyway, woah. That was quite the meltdown. Sorry I didn’t ban him earlier before he started spewing all the abuse. If there are any of his comments you think I should delete, let me know.
Anarchonist, thanks for looking into his links. It’s pretty clear he didn’t look at them very closely before posting them.
Nobody Special
8 years ago
Hey, I was awesome too, where’s my praise? Oh, that’s right, the Sexist Feminist Matriarchy don’t praise men and that’s wrong ‘cos I love women ever so much and only found out like literally one minute ago that they are not the fragile angels that I have spent my life putting on pedestals and worshipping, they are nasty bullies and my feelings are hurting and it’s not fair and I hate all you horrible women and never want anything to do with any of you again and I WANT MY MUMMY!!!!
You know, I’m ever so glad I’m not really an arse like Jamie; I feel grubby having typed all of that, despite knowing it was merely satire. How trolls get any enjoyment from doing this full time is beyond the ken of this old geezer.
I will, however, give Jamie kudos for his admission that he is “..not stupid enough to debate science”. It is so rare for one to have the self-awareness to know that he is both not bright enough to understand a subject, and yet not quite dim enough to attempt to prove otherwise. Pity he doesn’t apply that awareness to other subjects he is ill qualified to speak about, even if it does leave him with a rather limited range of conversation topics. I’m sure he can find somebody to chat to about hate and masturbation in the manosphere…. or find somebody in the manosphere to chat to about hate and masturbation. See, there’s two topics.
Now, where’s my feckin’ cookie? 🙂
Nobody Special
8 years ago
Personally, David, I think you banned him too soon.
Once I started reading the comments I wanted to play, too, but found I’d arrived too late.
ImaginaryPetal
8 years ago
Hah. I knew this would explode while I was sleeping. Oh well. I’ve skimmed through the rest.
Loved that one of his links to prove that DV isn’t gendered has this right in the abstract:
Research has found that approximately 3.8 women and 1.3 men per 1,000 are victims of intimate partner violence each year.
OOPS
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
8 years ago
Once I started reading the comments I wanted to play, too, but found I’d arrived too late.
No worries, he’ll be back tomorrow under another sock. =P
Nobody Special
8 years ago
I can hardly bear the antici…………………….. pation!
Makroth
8 years ago
And another member of the Martyrs’ Humbug Rights Movement falls before the evil feminists. You shall be remembered, brave soldier.
that is disturbing
@isidore13
I wouldn’t put her above it. Would explain the giant random doomsday-esque pic of her face.
If it is her, I guess her and some un-named people are “coming” for us? Whatever that means.
Dumb question time: who are all the socks running around that everyone thinks are this Aris guy? Just wondering so I know who’s who when catching up on recent threads. I’ve somehow missed this in my catching up reads.
@Redsilkphoenix
There was a James immediately followed by the Jamie we see in this thread. Aris was banned for trolling the Brussels thread. https://www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/2016/03/22/open-thread-for-discussion-of-brussels-bombings/
@Redsilkphoenix
From the top of my head there’s been: James, Jamie, You’reAnAsshole, and JustAsking. Seems like there was another one or a few more I can’t remember.
Anyone tell me if I’ve missed any.
@Redsilkphoenix
So far, I’ve seen two different Jamies (same name, different email/avatar), James and possibly JustAsking.
EDIT: Ninja’d!
Wait…so the Wall o’ Text isn’t just someone trolling?
Someone was stupid enough to write:
after posting 3+ pages of drivel on his own initiative?
Does he not realize that he can just, you know, do something else with his time?
Dark Lord just got back to me. Jamie’s finally been banned.
If they come back with another sock, I say we don’t even bother, but just email David about them and be on our way.
Edit: Well crap, he was banned? I’m glad I didn’t start on some other posts. *sigh* Oh well.
Jamie:
Hmm First part, has already happened cause men aren’t oppressed. Well, not for being men. There are men who are oppressed, but for other reasons, like race.
Second part, that’s what feminists want.
A) one of the few times a woman’s name comes before a man’s name on a form and it’s oppression to men.
B)What do you mean “A man can’t get himself on there”? The forms have places for the father.
C) This isn’t true. When it’s actually in court, it’s typically 50/50 in terms of custody. The issue is that a very large portion of men don’t even seek custody. This stems from the fact that women are considered the primary caregivers. They’re the ones who society deems are supposed to take care of the children. Feminism wants that changed so no gender is the default caregiver, it can be either one. Men wouldn’t be shamed for being stay at home dads, Women wouldn’t be expected to take the MUCH larger share of the family work even if both partners have jobs. If deciding which parent will stay home and take care of the kids, the mother won’t be the expected choice because men tend to make more (part of which is because women are expected to put more into their family’s care than men are).
This also applies to divorce court in terms of alimony. You know what happens in a divorce when the woman worked and man stayed home with the kids, not gaining work experience for years and years? She pays him alimony. Sooo encourage society to stop enforcing gender roles and the proportions will be more even.
Of course who are we kidding? We all know you want men to be the “bread winner,” while the woman stays home, and she can’t choose to have a divorce. But when the man wants a divorce, he should be able to cut and run even though she sacrificed work experience… No, you don’t want social pressures to be equalized, you just don’t want any negative effects of the social pressures that keep men as the earners.
D) Now we get to the abortion part of our program. Yes, women get to choose to continue a pregnancy because it’s her body. So she does get to decide to go through a pregnancy. You know what it’s called when one adult has control over another’s body? Slavery. But once it stops being about her body, and about a third human being, both parents have equal rights. Once the medical condition is over, both parents are faced with the exact same options. I know that what you said was all code for “men should get to do ‘paper abortions’.” So let’s discuss that.
First, that would also mean women should be able to as well. She should be able to abolish all custodial rights and financial responsibilities immediately and dump the child on the father as soon as it’s born (also with no societal pressure to be the one to take care of the kid). In fact, it should become a race. Whoever says it first, no take-backsies!
Of course, you guys never mean that, you always mean as some sort of perceived equal response to an abortion. It’s kinda funny, this whole “paper abortion” thing greatly contradicts your whole family court bit and even your birth certificate thing. By saying men should get the right to cut himself off from a child it is saying that the newborn baby is by default the mother’s, with the father being able to opt in or out. Why should family court ever even consider men if they simply want the role reduced to “sometimes maybe participant”?
You can’t just complain that fathers should be taken more seriously while in the same breath saying that men should totally cut off their existing kid.
A) Have you done this research with race taken into account? Also, as others have said, a lot of this stems from taking women less seriously than men.
B) Can you provide an example of a group doing this? And what “legal advantages”?
C) I disagree.
D) This is not true. Here, have some real statistics: Source: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvv.pdf
In 2008 females age 12 or older experienc
ed about 552,000 nonfatal violent victim-izations (rape/sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated or simple assault) by an inti-mate partner (a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend) (table 1).
• In the same year, men experienced 101,000 nonfatal violent victimiz
ations by an inti-mate partner.
• The rate of intimate partner victimizations for females was 4.3 victimizations per 1,000 females age 12 or older. The equivalent rate of intimate partner violence against males was 0.8 victimizations per 1,000 males age 12 or older.
• In 2007 intimate partners committed 14% of all homicides in the U.S. The total esti-mated number of intimate partner homicide victims in 2007 was 2,340, including 1,640 females and 700 males.
• Females made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner in 2007, a proportion that has changed very little since 1993.
E) Even when men are the victims, men are also much more typically the perpetrator. This statistic isn’t the result of men being oppressed. Unless you’re saying they’re oppressed by men.
Well, the part I linked to above was from statistic collected by the government. I suppose you can call them lying liars… I’d like to know some of your sources.
(Sorry about the above post! I’d started on it a while ago and hadn’t refreshed, so had no idea the thread exploded and he just got Banned to. Such a waste of time typing that it seems.)
@Tessa
The same thing happened to me multiple times, Jamie was venting on the high setting, full blast.
Is he a bot? Because he sure seemed to be on a scripted trajectory no matter what anyone else actually said. Hell, he was going “Am I allowed to have a voice??” when literally no one was online and it was just him talking nonstop.
Tessa, I have to admire your optimism but do you really think that Jamie (James, Aris, Lord Lucan…. well, maybe not Lord Lucan) would have read it? I mean, that’s a lot of words and stuff eating into his hating time.
I’m pissed off that I’m so late to the party. I mean, anybody who claims to be an academic ‘cos he’s read some books and shit (and he knows words, lots of words, and said things, lots of things… ….shit! It’s the Donald!), but cannot tell the difference between inhuman and inhumane, or your and you’re, or evidence based reality and random shit that just popped into his head (the echoes must be tremendous when that happens; might explain the anger issues), is just the sort of person that us men need speaking up for us, and I feel the poor lamb needed an ally against you evil wimminz.
Or maybe not, eh!
Do you think he might have looked at the company he keeps in a different light had it been pointed out to him that this growing army of his is anything but, and that the noise they make is but the final, desperate cry of a mortally wounded beast trying to gather its strength for one final but ultimately futile attack.
Maybe it’s for the best that David acted like a responsible vet and put him out of his misery. I’m told that death by exploding head is not only painful, it’s a nightmare for the clean-up crew.
Katz, I believe that bots have more self-respect; they do at least make more sense grammatically and tend to spell and punctuate somewhat more accurately.
I just find it weird that he had the nerve to diss talking about men’s depression issues… right after I had posted a fresh article about how toxic masculinity literally kills men. This includes “struggling with depression issues all alone because tough guys don’t cry or show vulnerability”.
Really shows that he does not care about men, believes in taking away from women to try and fill whatever void dwells within. That’s no way to live, dude.
I know Jamie is gone, but I wanted to go through his list of grievances on page 4… or 5… fuck, I don’t know anymore. Because I found there to be an enormous amount of reading comprehension fail. You know what? I don’t think Jamie actually read any of the studies he linked. As PoM said, he’s taking the lazy freshman route of looking up a source that has vaguely to do with his assertion, and trusts it says what he wants to say. Even ignoring that a lot of those studies seem to draw a whole lot of conclusions based on a limited and highly focused sample, they don’t actually support MRA talking points.
For starters, on the whole FoM domestic violence issue, that’s coincidentally how I first got interested in gender issues, mainly because the dismissal of men who experience such is overwhelmingly done – wait for it – by other men. This prompted me to ask the question of men being shitty to everyone around them, and here I am now. So no, the first and third link about male authorities being dismissive of men who don’t fit into a narrowly defined ”real man” category is nothing new or surprising to me, and the authors of those studies are generally acknowledging the role of toxic masculine beliefs in why men rarely report and why (male) authorities rarely take such issues seriously. It is a problem, one that can only be fixed by dismantling age-old, harmful beliefs about gender roles, that is, making society more feminist. This is the exact opposite of what Jamie is suggesting.
Next, a sample from the second link:
So… Not supporting Jamie’s assertion at all. There was no mention of women being the perpetrators. We already know that men in same-sex relationships face IPV more frequently than men in straight relationships. The next bit was particularly interesting:
Yep, not only did it affirm that women are more likely than men to be victims of intimate partner violence, but that women were actually less inclined to report verbal abuse. Jamie has trouble with reading comprehension, yet claims to be an expert. Who’d have thunk?
The fourth link dumps a bibliography on us, and I doubt Jamie has bothered to read them all, particularly considering that there are no direct links. After some digging, I managed to find a few studies, but I gave up after noticing a pattern.
The first study on the list (Date violence and date rape among adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological health. Ackard, D. M., & Neumark-Sztainer, D. 2002) does not, in fact, support Jamie’s assertion that men and women in heterosexual relationships face equal IPV. As the title suggests, it focuses on the effects of IPV on the psychology of the victim, male or female. Don’t draw too many conclusions from sample sizes made to fit a study, dumbass.
The older study Aizenman, M., & Kelley, G. (1988) I did not look into it too much, partly because I couldn’t find it, partly because of the description: ”Authors report that there were no significant differences between the sexes in self reported perpetration of physical abuse.” Which tells us absolutely nothing about the actual frequency of IPV, since it focuses on perpetrators self-reporting.
The study by Allen-Collinson, J. (2009) follows on a single case of a male victim and a female perpetrator. While important in and of themselves, individual cases are not a sign of a larger social pattern. Moving on.
Finally, Anderson, K. L. (2002): Perpetrator or Victim? Relationships Between Intimate Partner Violence and Well-Being. I can’t get the full study because of the paywall, but from the abstract, it appears to address the intersectionality of DV victimization and perpetration, substance abuse, self-esteem and depression. It is an ambitious project, but the highly specialized focus makes its applicability in day-to-day scenarios dubious. Not to mention that it seems to jump to general conclusions based on specific instances.
Notice it yet? None of these say what Jamie thinks they say. IPV is statistically a gendered issue, and focusing on individual cases won’t change that reality. Jamie’s spamming has made it impossible to address his every claim, yet I’m sure all his so-called ”sources” suffer from the same reading comprehension failure. But of course, Jamie would say I’m ”cherry-picking”, because he expects others to do all the reading he himself can’t be bothered to.
I think Jamie seriously thinks feminists are denying that women can be perpetrators in IPV, which is incorrect. It happens, just not equally, since men and women are socially conditioned differently. If anything, feminists are amongst the most sympathetic to men who face abuse.
All right, let’s carry on. The next link addresses a lot of boys’ issues at once, ranging from self-esteem to suicide, all of which have been addressed in great detail before (and even the article states that schools are looking into the causes). Aside from the stupidity of thinking girls doing better in school being seen as an unfair issue affecting boys, why men have trouble finding an identity in an increasingly equal world is something on which academics interested in actual men’s issues and the myths of masculine identity could still make numerous studies, but the problem for Jamie’s argument is, I predict they would neatly align themselves with feminist studies.
The last link is just beautiful. Even ignoring that it does not actually address gender disparity in sentencing, even the abstract says that male judges give lighter sentences to women for serious offenses (because of the aforementioned patronizing attitude that is prevalent amongst conservative men), and that when increasing the number of female judges, the sex disparity disappears. Again, Jamie has demonstrated why feminism is needed, and why regressive ideas (such as those held by the MRM) only end up hurting people of all genders.
I love how he accuses us of ”sea lioning”. Fucking lol. It goes to show that MRAs are happy to incorporate SJ language in order to dismiss others, but have no interest in examining said terms and their meaning.
Finally, for good measure, here are a few chosen Jamie quotes, with commentary by yours truly:
Well, duh. No shit, Sherlock. A person’s belief system plays a pretty big part in whether or not they’re a bigot. What do you think bigotry is, a fucking alien parasite or something?
”Diversity of opinion”does not include hate speech. Which is what you and other MRAs are spewing.
To his credit, Jamie did manage to make one spot-on comment:
Truer words were never spoken.
So, in conclusion, Jamie: Despite your patronizing, self-important pomp, you’ve managed to ”prove” jack all. Stick to your flounce.
Damn, Anarchonist.
http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11112/111121272/4108746-1827368071-16953.jpg
Damn, my comment got eaten by the internet.
Anyway, woah. That was quite the meltdown. Sorry I didn’t ban him earlier before he started spewing all the abuse. If there are any of his comments you think I should delete, let me know.
Anarchonist, thanks for looking into his links. It’s pretty clear he didn’t look at them very closely before posting them.
Hey, I was awesome too, where’s my praise? Oh, that’s right, the Sexist Feminist Matriarchy don’t praise men and that’s wrong ‘cos I love women ever so much and only found out like literally one minute ago that they are not the fragile angels that I have spent my life putting on pedestals and worshipping, they are nasty bullies and my feelings are hurting and it’s not fair and I hate all you horrible women and never want anything to do with any of you again and I WANT MY MUMMY!!!!
You know, I’m ever so glad I’m not really an arse like Jamie; I feel grubby having typed all of that, despite knowing it was merely satire. How trolls get any enjoyment from doing this full time is beyond the ken of this old geezer.
I will, however, give Jamie kudos for his admission that he is “..not stupid enough to debate science”. It is so rare for one to have the self-awareness to know that he is both not bright enough to understand a subject, and yet not quite dim enough to attempt to prove otherwise. Pity he doesn’t apply that awareness to other subjects he is ill qualified to speak about, even if it does leave him with a rather limited range of conversation topics. I’m sure he can find somebody to chat to about hate and masturbation in the manosphere…. or find somebody in the manosphere to chat to about hate and masturbation. See, there’s two topics.
Now, where’s my feckin’ cookie? 🙂
Personally, David, I think you banned him too soon.
Once I started reading the comments I wanted to play, too, but found I’d arrived too late.
Hah. I knew this would explode while I was sleeping. Oh well. I’ve skimmed through the rest.
Loved that one of his links to prove that DV isn’t gendered has this right in the abstract:
OOPS
No worries, he’ll be back tomorrow under another sock. =P
I can hardly bear the antici…………………….. pation!
And another member of the Martyrs’ Humbug Rights Movement falls before the evil feminists. You shall be remembered, brave soldier.