The Pervocracy, on Domestic Abuse

Trigger warning for domestic abuse.

Holly Pervocracy, a contributor to NSWATM, discusses the reasons why people stay in abusive relationships– and it’s not because they’re weak or stupid. I’ve excerpted the most important bits, but you should really go to the link and read the whole thing.

1. “I don’t want to die.”
Her husband has told her that if she leaves he will kill her, and she believes this. (She may well be right.) The instant he gets a whiff of where she’s staying–and he probably will, at some point, from a well-meaning friend or through the legal system or by persistent stalking or random chance–he’s going to come there and he’s going to do something very, very bad to her. Staying with him may be horrible, but at least she gets to live. She believes that if she leaves, no one and nothing can protect her from his vengeance.

2. “I’ll die without her.”
He lives in his girlfriend’s apartment. He’s unemployed, or minimally employed, and has no education or good experience on his resume. He has no friends besides her. He’s gotten to the point where he doesn’t know how he’ll get food without her help, much less navigate all the challenges of life. And if he leaves her, he’ll be leaving everything–she’ll destroy any of his stuff that he leaves behind, stalk him so he can’t stay at the same job, and maybe even kill his pets. If he leaves her, he’s certain that he’ll end up living on the streets.

3. “He’ll die without me.”
Her boyfriend lives in her apartment. He’s unemployed, or minimally employed. He probably doesn’t know how to get food without her help, much less navigate all the challenges of life. He tells her he’d be homeless without her, maybe even kill himself if she left him. She just couldn’t stand to be responsible for something like that; even though he’s hurt her, it would cut her to the bone to know that she had ruined or killed him.

4.”What about the kids?”
Right now, she protects the kids from her husband. He may rage at her, but she shelters them from the worst of it and she makes sure they have the best home she can give them under the circumstances. If she leaves, she doubts she can get sole custody of the kids without visitation, much less get it immediately. And if the kids are alone with him, something very bad will happen. He’ll hurt them, or turn them against her, or take them away and she’ll never see them again. Maybe all three. Her kids are her life and she can’t bear to let something like that happen.

5. “I tried once, and it made things worse.”
This isn’t the first time. He did call the cops on his husband before, and he ran away that night. The cops didn’t find enough evidence, and when he came back to get his stuff, his husband was… tearfully apologetic, actually. Somehow he talked him into staying and not taking his stuff. The punishment came later–once he’d more or less committed to staying around–and it was horrible. But he’s afraid that if he tried to leave again, he’d go through the same cycle again.

6. “I reached out once, and was rebuffed.”
In a rare moment of courage, he–with shaking hands, summoning all his strength–told someone he thought he could trust what his wife was doing to him. They told him to think about her point of view for once, to not use big drastic words like “abuse,” and to take care of his own damn problems without airing his dirty laundry. He just knows that if he reaches out again, it’s going to be the same thing. He’s lucky she didn’t find out about that time and doubts if it’s worth taking the risk again.

7. “If I call the cops, I’ll be in trouble.”
She’s a prostitute. On the side, she sells drugs. She owns guns she shouldn’t have and lives in a place she shouldn’t be. Hell, she shouldn’t even be in this country. Her lifestyle is so far outside the law that any attention from the police is likely to get her thrown in jail–so she can’t very well tell the police that her girlfriend beats her.

8. “Run away? Call the cops? I can’t even get away with sneezing!”
Her boyfriend controls every second of her time and every inch she moves. Whenever they’re apart she has to call him and check in constantly; whenever she leaves the house she has to tell him where she’s going and how long and why; he doesn’t let her think without telling him about it and getting his approval. And he enforces this–reading her mail, listening to her phone conversations, showing up randomly at her work or when she’s with friends (if she’s allowed to have any). When she’s not allowed so small a rebellion as using the wrong word, really rebelling against him seems impossible. She figures he’d catch her if she even thought about trying.

9. “If it were so bad, someone would have done something.”
Everyone knows what’s going on in his life. His friends have seen his girlfriend hitting him; his parents have heard him say “I can’t do that, she won’t let me” about a million things; the neighbors have heard the screams and crashes when she explodes. He knows everyone knows already, and knows that they haven’t done anything even though they know. So, he figures, what difference would it make to tell them? Clearly they’ve already decided that this isn’t bad enough to call in the authorities over.

10. “It’s a joke to him, so it should be a joke to me.”
His boyfriend hits him and treats it like a joke, laughing uproariously and expecting his victim to laugh along. To make a big deal out of this kind of violence would just be humorless, and he’s got a sense of humor, doesn’t he? Even when the only punchline is “ha ha, you’re in pain!” And how do you go to the cops with a story like “he played a joke on me?” Cops don’t arrest people for jokes.

11. “I’m just terrified to hurt her feelings.”
Abuse has made her telepathic. Years of desperately trying to keep her girlfriend happy so bad things won’t happen have made her keenly aware of her girlfriend’s every fleeting emotion. Her girlfriend is a tiny bit moody and she rushes to coddle and comfort her; her girlfriend is a tiny bit happy and she just about throws a party for her. She’s so used to reading her girlfriend’s feelings and translating them into her own that she can’t stand to do something that would really hurt her girlfriend’s feelings. Just the thought of dealing with that much anger–when even a tiny amount of anger is a big deal in their house–is too terrifying to imagine.

12. “I’m so embarrassed I let him do this to me.”
He’s been abusing her for years. She doesn’t see herself as some cowed little victim; she’s a smart woman, an independent woman to all appearances, maybe even a declared feminist. So to come out now and say he’s been hurting her all along just feels stupid. Everyone’s going to ask “why did you stay with that jerk?” and she’s not going to have an answer. She tells everyone her relationship is wonderful and a paradon of communication and respect, and the longer she keeps up the charade, the harder it is to say not only “turns out I’m a cowed little victim” but “turns out I’m a cowed little victim and also a liar.”

13. “I’ve learned to live in her system.”
He knows all the rules by now. As long as he always treats his wife with the utmost politeness and gentleness, and always has dinner ready before she comes home, always is up for sex when she wants it, and always lets her make the decisions, things are okay. He actually feels pretty safe when he’s being “good.” So it doesn’t seem like there’s anything wrong with the relationship, because it goes great so long as he does as he’s supposed to.

14. “We’re outsiders; no one cares about our problems.”
They’re a lesbian couple, one of them is transgendered, and they’re kinky to boot. She’s had enough problems just explaining to the “authorities” that their relationship exists; how the hell is she supposed to convey that there’s something wrong with it? She’s internalized enough prejudice that she figures it’s sort of her own fault for being in such a strange relationship, and she doesn’t figure anyone cares that much about the troubles of a weirdo.

15. “After all he’s done for a jerk like me?”
Her husband has put up with so much from her. This isn’t #13; these were genuinely bad things. He helped her pay off the nasty credit card debt she was in. He stayed with her even after she got fired from her job and flunked out of school; he even bailed her out of jail when she really fucked up. Who could blame the guy if he loses his patience now and then? She figures she really is a very difficult person to live with, she deserves some punishment for all she’s screwed up, and she should be grateful that he’s kept her around at all. As he reminds her when she’s pushed him too far–who else would love her?

16. “She’s really nice… mostly.”
Her wife is super sweet and loving. She’s a flowers-and-chocolates romantic, a believer in true love and love at first sight, and she treats her just like a princess. Now and then, things get really tense in the relationship, and bad things happen. Really bad things. Her wife just doesn’t seem like herself and she explodes. But the apology is even sweeter and lovinger than before and things are good again. Maybe it was a one-off. Or a two-off. A three-off? Maybe this really is the last time and from now on she’ll just have the nice wife she fell in love with. She’s certainly being nice now, and how could you leave someone like that?

17. “It just isn’t done in our community.”
In her culture, the husband is the leader of the household and what he says, goes. He has the right to hit his wife if he feels it’s necessary. Divorce is a taboo. Good women don’t leave their husbands; good women make their husbands happy. She feels like going against her husband would be going against her entire culture, and she can’t bear to do that. The community wouldn’t support her and she’d feel like a traitor to her own people.

18. “Actually, I’m abusing her.”
When she explodes, she doesn’t tell her boyfriend “I hate you;” she tells him “you hate me.” She tells him that he’s hurting her, that she’s responding the way she is because she just can’t take his abuse any more, and he believes her. He’s trying desperately to treat her right, to treat her the way she deserves, and he just keeps fucking up. Often when she’s yelling he yells back–sometimes he even hits back–and that makes him more sure than ever that he’s the real abuser here.

19. “It’s not that bad.”
She firmly believes that real abuse is when they punch you–and her husband’s only slapped her with an open hand. Real abuse is when they beat you–and he only yells at her until she cries and then yells at her to stop crying. Real abuse is when they rape you–and he always makes her say “yes” before he has sex with her, no matter how little she wants it. She recognizes there’s something wrong in their relationship, but could never call it like, abuse abuse, and so she can’t react to it like it’s real abuse.

20. “This is how relationships work, isn’t it?”
Her parents’ relationship was a constant cycle of drama and violence. Her relationship with her parents was just as bad. Her high school boyfriend hit her and her college boyfriend made her have sex when she didn’t want it. She kinda figures everyone else’s relationship is just the same behind the scenes. All she worries about is how to make the best of an abusive relationship; while she knows it intellectually, she doesn’t believe deep down that a non-abusive relationship is possible, at least for her.

If any of these sound like you–even if they sound like you in a “yeah, but” sort of way–even if your partner never laid a finger on you physically, it was just some yelling–even if you’re a man and she’s a woman and it doesn’t work like that–even if you swear your situation isn’t abuse because–call this number:

1−800−799−SAFE(7233)
TTY: 1−800−787−3224

It’s the National Domestic Violence Hotline and they will talk to you. They are not going to call the cops on your partner (or you). They are not going to tell you that you have to leave your relationship. Calling them is not a commitment of any kind–you can always call them and decide to stay in your relationship after all. All they’re going to do is talk to you, give you an outside perspective from people who are trained to recognize and deal with abusive situations, and help you find resources for getting out of your situation if you decide that you want them.  

This entry was posted in abuse, blog responses, noseriouslywhatabouttehmenz and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

102 Responses to The Pervocracy, on Domestic Abuse

  1. Darque says:

    Great post, and great advice.

    My only nitpick would be the pronouns used, but I’m sure that I could find a problem with anything if I put my mind to it :P.

  2. Darque says:

    Oh, nevermind. That was just the first paragraph, the rest of it seems to mix it up a bit.

  3. Brian says:

    You have not excerpted the most important bits! You copied most of the post! 😛

  4. This post needs to be read by anybody who thinks it’s just a matter of ‘walking away…’

  5. AJ says:

    I don’t mean be exclusionary here, but I can expand a little on the reasons that that men don’t leave.. I have some research on it.

    The most common qualitative response concerned possible repercussions of leaving (12.7%):
    “She spends every penny that comes in and has racked up thousands in debt. I would
    lose everything I’ve tried to save. Or at least half including half my retirement.” (financial)

    “She threatened to ruin me financially, ruin my professional reputation (we work
    together), lock me out of the house, and tell the police anything she wants to tell them
    (domestic situations being as difficult to ascertain as they are, men are guilty until proven
    innocent).” (financial & professional)

    “I was advised that if I leave, I would hurt my chances of gaining custody of the children
    in the long run.” (personal repercussions)

    This was followed by responses that indicated that he felt it was morally wrong to leave his partner (6.2%), as exemplified by this man’s response: Men Who Sustain Intimate Terrorism 17 “’For better or for worse,’ and, well, this was worse. I didn’t care that she was too
    psychologically disturbed to love me back, I didn’t care. I loved her. And I hoped I could get
    help for her condition before it was too late.”

    The third most common response concerned the helpseekers’ fears for the safety of loved ones or pets (4.5%):
    “I stay around to protect the children!”

    And 3.9% talked about how the partner threatened the helpseekers with false accusations:
    “She has promised to lie and accuse me of physical abuse against her, sexual abuse of our
    daughter, if that helps her win custody.”
    Just under 3% of men discussed how the partners’ behavior was not their fault, that the partners were mentally ill or that something in their past made them behave the way they did:
    “She’s mentally ill. I know she’s not doing this on purpose. I know she loves me.”
    Finally, 2.2% talked about concerns for their partners’ well-being, with a particular emphasis on the partner being dependent upon the helpseeker in some way:

    “Concern for her well-being, financially take care of herself.”

    The remaining qualitative responses were discussed by <2% of the sample and are listed in Table 6

    Click to access Hines%20&%20Douglas%20Dec_7_2009_closer_look_at_abused_men.pdf

    There are some problems here for me. VAWA is a bone of contention for gender egalitarian domestic violence activists and the op is openly involved with abuse apology, mra miss-representation, anti mens rights activism and misandry else where. Providing this Holly Pervocracy is the same one that spun the meaning of Thomas Balls self immolation to mean violence against women.

  6. AJ says:

    EDIT – I should have mentioned that a lot of those situations can be eased with replacing VAWA with non ideological legislation and improving fathers rights.

  7. Holly Pervocracy says:

    I what?

    …oh. I comment on Manboobz sometimes. I think that’s what he’s trying to say. (It’s a blog that criticizes misogyny in the MRA movement, but it is in no way anti-male or “abuse apology.”)

  8. eric:p says:

    Also, everyone should read this book.

  9. Rights For All says:

    Heads up for the blog owners.

    VAWA (promoted by the national domestic violence hot line) is hostile to egalitarian domestic violence programs.

    Click to access 2009-flier-From-Ideology-to-Inclusion.pdf

    http://www.acfc.org/site/DocServer/familyviolence.pdf?docID=641

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14822

  10. Rights For All says:

    A little bit more here… being pro-egalitarian services for domestic abuse victims is not compatable with being pro-vawa.

    Domestic Violence Law Fuels Big Government
    January 12, 2005
    Wendy McElroy

    A new appropriation request for over $360 million will soon hit Congress, but a chance for gender sanity is coming. The answer to renewing VAWA should be a thundering “NO!”

    What is the Violence Against Women Act? In 1994, Congress passed the act as part of an Omnibus Crime Bill. VAWA pitted the sexes against each other by focusing on “crimes of violence motivated by gender;” victims were defined as female and only women were offered the massive tax-funded benefits.

    VAWA institutionalized the political belief that women, as a class, must receive special protection from men and privileges from government.

    Domestic violence was a specific focus. When male victims protested their exclusion, VAWA advocates dismissed them as statistically insignificant. Today, an impressive body of research shows that men constitute anywhere from 36 to 50 percent of domestic violence victims. (The situation is similar with rape. Women are the victims only if you exclude prisons where male rape is prevalent.)

    But VAWA is more than an attempt to establish women as a protected class at the expense of men. If this were its only flaw, then including men under its umbrella would have solved the Act’s unfairness.

    The Act seeks to create new gender attitudes through the social engineering of society. The most aggressive example was also VAWA’s biggest failure to date: namely, its attempt to revise the judiciary system in order to benefit women.
    http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1449

  11. Brian says:

    “Providing this Holly Pervocracy is the same one that spun the meaning of Thomas Balls self immolation to mean violence against women.”

    1) I know the article you’re talking about and it wasn’t Holly who wrote it
    2) That article was mainly correct that that guy MRAs (or the kinds mentioned on Manboobz at least) keep touting as some kind of martyr really seems to have killed himself to get back at his ex-wife in particular.

  12. I’ve never billed myself as a particularly sympathetic person. The home I grew up in had varying low levels of manipulation and psychological abuse (very low levels) but there was never any threat of violence.

    That said, I have never thought people who are stuck in violent/abusive relationships should be blamed for getting into them in the first place or not being able to leave.

    That said, I have known some men and women (both! In equal amounts, actually!) who continually return (after leaving) abusive relationships.

    So I’d like to add a PSA to this post, if I could:
    People who cannot leave an abusive relationship are not the same as people who continually return to an abusive relationship of their own free will.

    Society likes to lump these two groups together – and it is wrong. They both need different types of support. The first group needs to be given the real-life tools to make an escape. The second group needs the internal state of mind to recognize the situation for what it is and the discipline to apply that.

    Providing the second group with the tools that the first group needs will only lead to waste and fatigue on those who help them.

  13. Rights For All says:

    @Brian

    I’m familiar with that debate

    “1) I know the article you’re talking about and it wasn’t Holly who wrote it”

    Holly didn’t write the article but was involved in spreading that lie, on a site that was promoting that lie.

    “2) That article was mainly correct that that guy MRAs (or the kinds mentioned on Manboobz at least) keep touting as some kind of martyr really seems to have killed himself to get back at his ex-wife in particular.”

    Apparently you are free to make wild and inaccurate generalizations based nothing but anti-mens rights propaganda. Some POV’s are more equal than other.

  14. ozymandias42 says:

    I’m a Manboobz reader too. Better throw me under the “misandrist” bus.

    And David and the commenters on Manboobz have been nothing but supportive of NSWATM. The general consensus seems to be “yay! Non-misogynistic coverage of men’s rights!” I’m sure if you pointed them to other non-misandric men’s rights websites they’d be happy to signal-boost them.

    Brian: Is it my fault all of it is the important bit? 😛

  15. Brian says:

    @RFA: Though I admit I didn’t read the guy’s suicide note myself, I thought it was clearly reasonable that a man who leaves as a suicide note a pages long rant wherein he mentions his wife specifically several times is probably doing it to get back at his wife specifically.

    But this is definitely a derail; the topic isn’t Holly, and it’s certainly not an article she may have mentioned once.

  16. Rights For All says:

    Ozy,

    Manboobz is the equivalent of all women are gold diggers or all Muslims are terrorists and links to all kinds of misandry in its side bare. All mra’s and mra issues are lied about and treated badly and dismissed there and male abuse victims are swept under the rug. People trying to show tell the truth about abuse are shouted down, mobbed, abused. Its attravisty of a site.

    Also, its very sexist and gynocentric. Misandry = ok / misogyny = terrible.

    Brian, you get your information from the source, not the misandrists that spread that rumour.

  17. Holly Pervocracy says:

    Those who say Manboobz misrepresents MRAs, you can now take The Manboobz Challenge!

    It’s basically an opportunity to tell Manboobz about the good MRA sites that are out there.

    (If you can’t register for the forum or don’t want to, email pervocracy@gmail.com with sites and I’ll post your email without editing.)

  18. ozymandias42 says:

    Links to misandry like… my blog, Holly’s blog, NSWATM, Dan Savage, Captain Awkward, Yes Means Yes, Soc Images and Susie Bright.

    Uhhuh. Vanguard of anti-masculism, we are.

  19. Rights For All says:

    Holly

    The manboobz challenge is inherently sexist because on his site and feminist sites misandy is seen as relatively ok, and misogyny of any sort is not. Its a rigged game too because on a feminist site, an extreme commentator isn’t said to represent feminism but the rules are changed for men’s rights sites and commentator on one site is said to represent the whole movement.

    So don’t be insulting peoples intelligence with the manboobz challenge. Its inherently misandric and gynocentric.

  20. Rights For All says:

    As for VAWA.

    Its institutionalized misandry and marginalization of abuse victims of one gender and protection of abusers of another. To promote VAWA on an egalitarian site was something of a mistake.

    Reasons here – http://www.mediaradar.org/docs/VAWA-Reform-Coalition-Declaration.pdf

  21. Holly Pervocracy says:

    The challenge isn’t to prove that all MRA sites aren’t misogynistic (I mean, good fucking luck with that), but to show one that isn’t.

    If the MRM isn’t about misogyny, how hard can it be to come up with one single MRA site that isn’t about misogyny?

  22. Shora says:

    RFA: What precisely is an attravesty?

    Okay, okay, I’m gonna stop being a smartass now. But seriously, take Holly’s/Manboobz challenge. I’d like to see 1 MRA site that isn’t steeped in disgusting amounts of misogyny. I’ll even take a site that’s “not that bad” in that it still has problematic views on gender but doesn’t say that all women are evil, or slut shame, ect.

    As for your link, I could only get through three “Whereas”s, but if VAWA is indeed trying to restrict domestic violence to male abusers against female victims, I absolutely have a problem with that.

  23. typhonblue says:

    @ Shora

    “I’ll even take a site that’s “not that bad” in that it still has problematic views on gender but doesn’t say that all women are evil, or slut shame, ect.”

    How about finding a feminist site that does not censor?

    Actually, you know what? What’s the point of this pissing contest? Unexamined misandry and misogyny are rife everywhere in our society. What does feminists pointing to MRA sites and saying ‘misogyny’ and MRAs pointing to feminist sites and saying ‘misandry’ accomplish?

    Hell, I’d say they’re all guilty of both.

  24. Clarence says:

    I’m calling Holly out:

    Fathers for Families and NCFM are both often considered MRA sites, they both have more power than just about any other organizations in the “Men’s Movement” and they are not misogynist. They are also linked to on this site. Warren Farrell is also considered an MRA, would she like to call him Misogynist?

    Neither she, nor David Futrelle have ever responded when I’ve mentioned these sites and people before.

  25. Holly Pervocracy says:

    What does feminists pointing to MRA sites and saying ‘misogyny’ and MRAs pointing to feminist sites and saying ‘misandry’ accomplish?
    Helping both movements improve themselves!

    It absolutely accomplishes something, and as the writer of a feminist blog (I do censor, but not all the time–just when people are outrageously offensive, and I mean “hatred” offensive, not “I don’t agree” offensive) I appreciate being called out when I say something misandrist, because it helps me avoid that in the future.

  26. Clarence says:

    As for Thomas Ball:

    I read his letter, it’s not like you people can’t easily get it on the web. He does NOT blame his wife for what happened. That is a lie, indeed in that letter he has hardly a bad thing to say about her. He seems like a man who was pushed too far by an uncaring and unknowing process. He also makes good points, if unsettling ones, about the unexamined laws and policies around domestic violence, many of which are at direct odds with due process and the US Constitution. He calls this the “second set of books”.

  27. trinity91 says:

    trigger warning for discussions of domestic violence and rape
    My parents abused each other. My mother threw things at my father and hit him. My father was controlling and would throw my mom into walls when they would fight. They got divorced when I was five and it stopped. After the divorce my father went to therapy to fix himself. He realized that he had fallen into the cycle of abuse that he had grown up with, and both of his parents had also lived with while they were growing up. He got help and actively worked to change. I saw this process. He went from an angry person who would do horrible things when he was mad to a calmer nicer person who would walk away and go running when he got angry. Shortly after his therapist released him saying that he didn’t need to see him anymore my father met a woman who he eventually married. She was abusive. She beat him, me and her own children continuously. She burned me with a cigarette lighter. My mother remarried as well. He was abusive to her, to me and to their resulting children. He raped me. When both of them finally decided to get out of those relationships it was a battle FOR BOTH OF THEM to get custody of their kids. I’ve gone through this system more than once. To try and claim that only men have it bad in the court system is just utter complete bullshit. Guess what? the person who was abused is the one who has to fight. It doesn’t matter if that person is male or female. If there is a history of abuse in the house the courts make it extra difficult to get divorced and to get full custody regardless of your gender. Why? because our court system is purposefully set up to fail children because the courts see children as subhuman. I got to see abuse from the hands of both my parents and both sets of step parents. I know that women can abuse men just as well as men can abuse women. You know something though? It’s always the kids who get it the worst. When court proceedings are going on it’s the kids who get to deal with angry frustrated mommy and daddy. It’s the kids who get to take the shit because mommy is upset and mommy’s boyfriend needs somebody to blame for that. Father’s rights activists don’t seem to comprehend this. It’s always selfish. It’s about what they want. “I want to see MY kids.” They treat children, actual living human beings, as though they are property. I’m fucking fed up with it. Oh and I’m overtly tired with the whinings about VAWA. It is the ONLY piece of legislation that provides ANY sort of funding for domestic violence recovery. Money which does get used for both male and female victims as well as their children. The fact that a bunch of assholes would rather take that away from victims rather than try and get it to be used to the actual effect of domestic violence is about the most horrendous thing I think that these asshats have come up with yet.

  28. Holly Pervocracy says:

    Clarence – I’ve added your suggestions to the thread.

  29. rezam says:

    Nah, it just ain’t worth it.
    Geez I am sick of this.
    Nope I won’t, that is why mods were invented, although they are here, so …

    ____________________________
    On another note;

    Holly, thanks for the post. I will call that hotline when these things no longer appear on their resource download pages
    http://www.thehotline.org/resources/resource-download-center/
    Did you vet this service? For men who are subjected to female perpetrators? Changing pronouns is pretty straightforward – changing the mindset that informs those brochures, a little less so.

  30. Holly, I hope you don’t take this the wrong way.
    The Manboobz Challenge will never be successful and everyone at Manboobz knows it.
    Anyone who wants to talk about the rights men and:

    -This person must never advocate, applaud, or excuse violence.
    -This person must not express misogyny, homophobia, racism, transphobia, or other forms of bigotry.
    -This person must not advocate “traditional gender roles” as a solution to the world’s woes.
    -This person must not deny the existence of historical and current discrimination against women.
    -This person must not apply gender essentialism (i.e., “all men are aggressive and promiscuous by nature”) or “alpha/beta/omega” roles to men.
    -This person must not link without criticism to openly misogynistic blogs or articles.
    -This person must be on balance pro-male rather than anti-female.

    If a blog like that existed … they wouldn’t identify themselves as an MRA. I, for example am proud of my white, European heritage (even though I’m 1/16 African American), but I would never identify with the “White Pride” movement because that term has already been claimed by folks who are fueled by hatred and/or don’t mind being associated with people who are fueled by hatred.

    People who care about men’s rights in a way that isn’t misandrist don’t identify as MRA.
    And Manboobz knows that.

    Anyone who tried to claim the title of MRA would be descended upon by “true” MRAs and they would either not be able to allow comments or would spend more time moderating than they would writing posts.

    They’d be better off calling them self a “Fibbledegibbetz” and advocating men’s rights from a position that has no baggage – and you all know that. But if it gets your rocks off, I won’t try to dissuade you from having a zombie shoot-a-thon.

    But that’s how these challenges work – you create a series of rules that exclude the all of those blogs, then act pleased with yourself when no one can come up with an exception.

    We COULD do the same thing with RadFem blogs and call it Womanballz. But – what good would it do? It’d be a waste of time. It wouldn’t do one bit of good to prevent angry, hurt people motivated by hatered from joining either side.

    I’d rather talk with people who aren’t Ideombies.

    The only good that could come out of the Manboobz Challenge is that some upstart might try to reclaim the term – but then we run into the same problem that “Feminism” has – One word – two meanings. One motivated by equality, the other motivated by gynocentrism.

    Let’s just take a new term. Be even the act of embracing a new term we can make a statement against the baggage of the other.

  31. typhonblue says:

    (To the mods, just delete the other comments I have stuck in moderation for whatever reason. Because I post too fast maybe? Hmm… trying something.)

    “I appreciate being called out when I say something misandrist, because it helps me avoid that in the future.”

    And how do we define misandrous/misognynist?

    Looking at misogyny. I would define it as anything that removes or soft pedals a woman’s agency. Which I think is more poisonous by far then *criticizing* a woman’s agency. In that sense, feminist blogs are often hotbeds of misogyny.

    In fact criticizing what a women, or many women, have done with their agency is not misogyny unless it ends with ‘and that’s why they should all be killed/stripped of their rights.’ Even angry men ranting about women’s agency isn’t misogyny unless they’re concluding that women should be killed/stripped of their rights. No matter the invective they use. Because, here’s the clincher, they’re actually *acknowledging* women’s agency and promoting it as a social force. The more powerful they make women’s agency, the more powerful it becomes. (Hopefully with all the attendant social responsibilities of course.)

    Which will do way more to benefit women in the long run then yet another philosophy(one of many throughout history) that ignores and minimizes women’s agency.

    And looking at misandrous. I would define misandrous as anything that denies men’s vulnerabilities. In that sense a lot of MRA blogs are hotbeds of misandry.

    Finally, why have I defined misandry/misogyny the way I have? Because traditional social norms are that men are invulnerable agents, women are vulnerable objects. Therefore people, places, ideologies that promote this dichotomy are misandrist/misogynist. Simply because it’s unbalanced.

    Men are as vulnerable to women as women are to men. You can’t have an intelligent discussion about women’s strengths without referencing men’s vulnerabilities.

  32. rezam says:

    I see a few new posts arose, so I will
    AJ – your allegations are hyperventilating misinterpretations.
    I will not comment on the other mind reading.

    Oh, and Manboobz, Holly …
    “For clarity and in order to succeed at our mission, here at NSWATM we do not use the following problematic shorthand:

    * “Men” for “the subset of men who are misogynist or abusive or otherwise bad”
    * “MRAs” for “the subset of MRAs who are misogynist or otherwise bad””

    Well yes, here at NSWATM – it IS acceptable.
    This is you, right? “I respect what you do here, David; it’s a niche blog and it can be fun ”
    You know what – I think we agree overall on much what is characterized HERE as the “MRA” movement. I interpret them differently. You “mock” them.
    Inclusion “en passant” is pretty difficult to reconcile with the stated purpose and ethics of this blog.

  33. I can now see that my comment is in some ways against the comment policy. I wish to clarify that not all MRAs are misogynist or otherwise bad – but only that the “vocal minority” of self-identifying MRAs who subscribe to misogynist ideas is so great that that anyone who created an MRA blog would be at their mercy.
    I hope I don’t get banned. 😦

  34. ozymandias42 says:

    A few points:

    1) The MRAs do contain some non-sexist groups (such as, afaict, F&F); however, the ratio of sexist to non-sexist is far higher than it is in feminism.
    2) Manboobz covers misogyny, not the men’s rights movement. David’s also discussed Scott Adams, the Skepchick elevator thing, etc.
    3) I could win the Womanballz Challenge like that. Let’s start with the personal blogs of basically all the contributors and move on from there…

  35. @Ozy
    You identify as a Radfem?

  36. Holly Pervocracy says:

    Oy… I’m kind of regretting playing into the derails here.

    And I’m also regretting crossing the wires from two different sites that use very different definitions of “MRA.”

    I’m going to leave it at “a lot of people who support men’s rights are awesome, and most people who use the label ‘MRA’ to do that don’t seem to be, but we’re not being entirely sarcastic in asking for counterexamples.”

  37. Also, I apologize, I read Man Boobz very rarely and it appeared he concentrates on MRAs. I hope you see how I could be confused.

  38. ozymandias42 says:

    EE: Oh, it’s radical feminists we’re talking about? bell hooks. Nahida from the fatal feminist. A couple of really nice women (off the top of my head, ithiliana and Lady Victoria von Syrus) from Manboobz.

    On the other hand, I could give a similar list of MRAs, too. 🙂

  39. typhonblue says:

    @ Trinity

    “Father’s rights activists don’t seem to comprehend this. It’s always selfish. It’s about what they want. “I want to see MY kids.” They treat children, actual living human beings, as though they are property.”

    Have you actually read, for example, father’s and families with any regularity? They do address it from the point of view of children.

    Also, statistically, courts do prefer mother custody even in situations where mothers have ‘red flags’. (I will try my damnest to find these statistics.)

    “I’m fucking fed up with it. Oh and I’m overtly tired with the whinings about VAWA. It is the ONLY piece of legislation that provides ANY sort of funding for domestic violence recovery. Money which does get used for both male and female victims as well as their children. The fact that a bunch of assholes would rather take that away from victims rather than try and get it to be used to the actual effect of domestic violence is about the most horrendous thing I think that these asshats have come up with yet.”

    I once read a story from a girl whose father was abused by her mother. It was in the 1970s or so. She concluded that she was glad the abuse didn’t happen today because her abusive mother likely would have gotten her father arrested.

    Fathers and families report on a study about DV against men that found many battered men were threatened with false accusations:

    “Specifically, 67.2% reported that their partner falsely accused them of hitting or beating her; 38.7% reported that she filed a restraining order against him under false pretenses; 48.9% of the men with children reported that their partners falsely accused them of physically abusing the children, and 15.4% reported that they were falsely accused by their partners of sexually abusing the children.”

    http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?tag=partner-abuse

    (Link to the source document is available at the article.)

    “Do not phone police unless you are in immediate danger, and your life is at risk. Law enforcement professionals nationwide have been trained to presume the man is always the perpetrator. There have been many cases where a man has been arrested, even while his wife is in the process of assaulting him and/or a police officer. Don’t add this extra risk unless you absolutely cannot avoid it.”
    http://cliffviewpilot.com/editorials/op-ed/998-the-silent-victims-battered-husbands%20domestic%20violence%20advocates

    There are also woman’s organizations that truly believe men aren’t the victims of domestic violence in any great numbers.

    http://www.justicewomen.com/tips_dv_victims.html

    “n some police departments the percentage of domestic violence arrests of females has shot up to 30 to 40 percent of the arrests. What’s most revealing about this massive shift toward arresting more females is the fact that conviction rates for males vs. females remains basically unchanged. Between 90 and 95 percent of domestic violence convictions continue to be convictions of males. Or looking at it from another angle, a study in San Diego found that in cases in which females were arrested for domestic violence, only 6% of those cases resulted in prosecution.”

    But that can’t be evidence that women get preferential treatment when they’re the abusers by court systems, it’s evidence that _women don’t abuse at all_.

    “I can prove that there are not millions and millions of men being abused day in and day out across this country. If it was true, we would have done something about it a long time ago! Powerful male leaders in America would not tolerate such abuse by women!”

    From “Non Violent Men Have Nothing To Fear”

    This woman’s advocate believes that men aren’t abused because no one’s doing anything about it.

    In some jurisdictions the number of women who can be prosecuted for abuse is ‘capped’ at 15% of all prosecutions because otherwise the police will be investigated for gender bias. That might be a reason why, you know, the police and DA drop persecutions of female abusers.

    This situation is a mess and it’s actively harming male victims of DV. And their children.

  40. Rights For All says:

    Ozy:

    You are using different standards for different groups, like manboobz does, think about “the talk” thread and the double standards, that’s what manboobz does… same sexist system.

    “1) The MRAs do contain some non-sexist groups (such as, afaict, F&F); however, the ratio of sexist to non-sexist is far higher than it is in feminism.”

    That’s not true at all, your sexism detector is more tuned in one direction than it is another, most feminist sites are inherently sexist (patriarchy theory, support for VAWA, and beliefs in gendered abuse) men rights sites are more egalitarian leaning in some ways than many feminist sites (equal opportunity equality under the law, equal rights for abuse victime etc).

    “2) Manboobz covers misogyny, not the men’s rights movement. David’s also discussed Scott Adams, the Skepchick elevator thing, etc.”

    Manboobz as I said, holds one standard for misogny and another for misandry (sexism, misandry, gynocentrism) while deliberately misrepresenting and lying to his audience, most recently he told he viewers that a rant against anti porn feminism,was actually one against all women, he does this sort of thing the whole time.

    There is also years of shouting down people that advocate for male abuse victims in the comments section and extreme misandric ideas is used as a rational – mras advocate for abuse victims because they want to hurt women by him and the other users.

  41. typhonblue says:

    Mods, can we do a separate article on how to actually define misogyny/misandry?

  42. typhonblue says:

    @ EasilyEnthused

    “Manboobz as I said, holds one standard for misogny and another for misandry ”

    Yep. I tune out when a misogynist misandrist vilifies misandrist misogynists for their misogyny while ignoring his own misandry.

    It starts to sound like something out of a really dark Dr. Suess rhyme.

  43. Cheradenine says:

    What does any of this Manboobz/MRA Challenge stuff have to do with domestic abuse?

    @EE:

    If a blog like that existed…

    …we’d name it “No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz?” 🙂

  44. typhonblue says:

    Ooops, that last @ should be @ Rights for all, not EasilyEnthused.

  45. trinity91 says:

    Have you actually had to sit through the court system? My mother had to fight tooth and nail to keep her ex husband from getting custody or unsupervised visitation because the court system with the support of father rights activists treat children like property. Furthermore, the statistic you cite is not ever linked to so that we can see how big the study was, what the actual data says etc. You can’t cite data that doesn’t give us the opportunity to look at the actual study, and expect it to be taken seriously

  46. Rights For All says:

    @trinity91

    There is another misandric double standard. According to the anti-mra movement a man can’t fight to see his children or men’s rights adctivists can’t fight to strengthen fathers rights out of love, its framed as treating them like property. Denying men the right to have positive emotions is misandry.

  47. Rights For All says:

    @typoneblue

    “Yep. I tune out when a misogynist misandrist vilifies misandrist misogynists for their misogyny while ignoring his own misandry.”

    Yeah, Manboobz is what he fights against.

  48. Holly Pervocracy says:

    I’m just going to lay out four things here.

    Being against women.
    Being against men.
    Being for women.
    Being for men.

    These are four different things. There’s no “less of one means more of the other” relationship here. To be anti-misogyny is not to be misandrist.

  49. Paul says:

    I wonder if it’s really fair to compare current day feminism and the MRM? It seems to me that the two are in completely different stages. I wonder if we’d get a more paralel comparison if we compared the current MRM with feminism of say the 60’s and 70’s?

  50. Rights For All says:

    “To be anti-misogyny is not to be misandrist.”

    Obviously that’s true, nobody is suggesting that being anti-misogyny is misandrist.

    You can be misandrist and be anti-misogny (the manboobz dilemma) and be misogynist and anti-misandry (those he mocks). He is just the other side of the coin to the minority of mens movement people he quotes and misquotes as if they represent the opinion of the whole movement.
    Also when we take typhonblue’s definition of misogyny into account, denying women agency and giving special treatment to women, he is also misogynist.

    Support for VAWA, is anti-egalitarian, misandrist and misogynist as it presumes that women need special rights, privileges and protections and that abuse is gendered. (Support for VAWA and Manboobz are interchangeable).

  51. Rights For All says:

    @Paul

    “I wonder if it’s really fair to compare current day feminism and the MRM? It seems to me that the two are in completely different stages. I wonder if we’d get a more paralel comparison if we compared the current MRM with feminism of say the 60′s and 70′s?”

    That’s is a useful way of understanding it. Male victims of abuse were never let out of the closet because the original egalitarian domestic violence movement was co-opted, by rad-fems. That’s why male victims are only at the stage that female victims were at in the 1970s. As well as that men are only beginning to look at and understand their issues for themselves outside the feminist lens.

    There are some arguments that the men’s movement needs a radical wing, in order to be heard and to counter the radical wing of feminism, before there can be equality.

  52. viajera says:

    Oh dear Maude, yes – she Gets It. Let’s see, for me there was a touch of #1, healthy doses of 3 and 5, a touch of #9, a hint of #11, and oh, #12 – yes, I knew you well! #13, yep, in the last few years I made a conscious decision to “live within the system” because it was safer to stay and manage him, than to leave and not know what he might pull THIS time. Throw in #16, 19, and – oh yes, I see you there #20 – and it’s quite a potent mix.

  53. Holly Pervocracy says:

    I still don’t see how Manboobz is misandrist. Even if he gives a bad face to the MRA movement (and I’m not convinced that he does), that’s not the same thing as giving a bad face to men.

  54. typhonblue says:

    @ trinity

    “Have you actually had to sit through the court system?”

    No. But I’ve had friends and relatives who have.

    One of my cousins had a false restraining order put out against him by his wife during a time he wasn’t even in the country. We suspect she’s severely physically abusing her daughter (whom she titles ‘worthless’ in front of us) due to the fact that her daughter has had two broken arms from, and I quote, ‘falling off a three foot high deck.’ She has full custody despite attempting to abduct her children; although she doesn’t actually take care of them, she gets her sister to do it because she seems to hate them.

    One of my uncles was accused of sexually abusing his sons (this was proven to be unfounded). He was lucky, his ex is mentally ill so he gets shared physical custody. The CSA have, apparently, told him that if they have to take his children away from their mother they’re going into foster care instead of his care, but the only reason why they feel the children are somewhat ‘safe’ with their mother is because he’s got half custody and can keep an eye on them. We’re holding our breath that they don’t end up being part of a homicide-suicide by their mother.

    One of my friends was accused of sexually abusing his children, also proven to be unfounded. He had to fight for ten years to get his daughter away from her emotionally abusive mother who keeps trying to falsely accuse him of crimes against her. His daughter only got out when she *aged* out and was allowed to make her own decision on who she could live with.

    Sounds like your mother got full custody and supervised visitation in the end. A better outcome then what I’ve seen for the men I know fighting abusive exes.

    “My mother had to fight tooth and nail to keep her ex husband from getting custody or unsupervised visitation because the court system with the support of father rights activists treat children like property.”

    My own experience tends to contradict this. It sounds like your experience does too.

    Tell me what happened when your father tried to fight to get his kids away from his abusive spouse?

    Did he get custody with limited visitation for her as your mother did?

    Here’s the study:

    Click to access ResidentialTimeSummaryReport2010.pdf

    In 26% of the cases where the dad had no risk factors and the mom had one, the dad got full custody. In 44% of the cases where the mom had no risk factors and the dad had one, the mom got full custody.

    In 42% of the cases where the dad had no risk factors and the mom had two, the dad got custody. In 63% of the cases where the mom had no risk factors and the dad had two, the mom got custody.

  55. Rights For All says:

    Typhoneblue, perhaps you could have a go at explaining to Holly how manboobz is misandrist, I don’t know what else to say without repeating myself, I think you could do a better job anyway, and I’m going bed.

    Goodnight all.

  56. Clarence says:

    I want to acknowledge Holly for finally recognizing my suggestions as to non-misogynistic MRA or MRA affiliated organizations. It even seems they are treating Warren Farrell fairly in the thread.
    The worst thing I’ve ever heard feminists try to pin on him was a Playboy interview in I think 1977 or something where he supposedly said something in favor of incest, which, last I heard wasn’t child molestation or anything.

  57. Clarence says:

    Holly:
    I don’t think David Futrelle is, overall, a misandrist. I’ve seen him do very little attacking of men in general. Heck, I’d say most of his opinion pieces are spot on and some are even funny. He did misquote Glenn Sacks once or something like that, and he and Paul Elam got into something and both say the other was dealing bad faith. I don’t know. The problem isn’t the posts, most of which are accurate enough even if they often consist of making one or a few comments on threads where not everyone is in agreement and etc. Nope, the real problem is that some of his links are misandrist and quite a few of his commenters are too. I mean for quite a while freaking GINMAR hung out in his comment section. Amanda Marcotte has wondered over from time to time. Then there’s more of the “regulars” like Dark Side Cat. Quite a few of his commenters in other words, give the Spearhead commenters a run for their money in terms of hatred. Of course lots of “regular” feminists go over there as well. It’s sort of a gathering place to mock the newer (and more radical) parts of the MRA movement.

  58. rezam says:

    I wrote a post explaining the Manboobz problem, but it has not shown up, Ahh well

  59. typhonblue says:

    MRAs who are not misogynist.

    Feckless.

    Stephen Baskerville.

    The man behind the ‘men are good’ youtube channel (oh so very much. Very nice guy IRL.)

    manwomanmyth

    I would put Paul Elam on the list but I’m sure everyone would vote ‘no’ because of his deliberate choice to radicalize.

    As for finding example’s of manboobs misandrogny? Nope. Not going to. I want to enjoy the rest of my monday.

  60. typhonblue says:

    @ doctormindbeam

    “Wow. What? Got a citation for that?”

    Yes.

    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/practical-implications-research/ch3/gender.htm

    “If the ratio of male to female suspects and victims differs substantially from those found above[86% male abusers; 14% female abusers], departments should be alert to potential gender bias in their response to domestic violence. Ongoing training and supervision can address overrepresentation of female versus male arrests”

    Note the particularly orwellian doublespeak ‘overrepresentation’–the authorities have decided how many female abusers should be (based on how many there were in the past, despite the obvious stigma against male victims.) Instead of actually dealing with the situation in a neutral manner they have a quota of the number of women they can actually charge for domestic violence.

    Just so you know, if we ever do reduce the stigma against abused men so more come forward the authorities have already decided these additional victims don’t exist so… yeah.

    HAHAHA!

    Sorry, just lost my mind again for a moment.

  61. Clarence says:

    Hmm..

    Perhaps I should link to a particularly troublesome post from the Baltimore Sun where Rape Advocates seem to have started messing with police interview procedures.

  62. @typhonblue
    I have to admit, I really didn’t think you were going to be able to find that citation.
    Color me impressed and depressed all in the same moment.

    Part of me was saying “PLEASE don’t tell me that’s true!” Well, shit. It is.

  63. Nahida says:

    @typhonblue

    http://www.manwomanmyth.com/women/toxic-women/

    Yeah, that makes me question all your others.

  64. Clarence says:

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-md-ci-sex-offense-changes-20110630,0,5877598.story

    Anyone can read it and if you need more information the background, feel free to ask.

  65. typhonblue says:

    @ Nahida

    Summation of the link: there are millions of women who have a toxic ‘me first’ attitude. These women should be avoided.

    I agree–although I wouldn’t put the blame entirely on feminism–there is a culture that promotes toxic selfishness in women.

  66. typhonblue says:

    I put manwomanmyth on the list for this:

    http://www.youtube.com/user/manwomanmyth?blend=3&ob=5#p/u/0/6ZAuqkqxk9A

    It’s a really profound look at how male victims are made invisible in media.

  67. Nahida says:

    Well considering that the list was titled, “MRAs who are not misogynist” I wouldn’t have guessed.

  68. Brian says:

    @Clarence: Don’t really see the problem with making a police department take rape accusations more seriously. I mean, it’s not like this was any random department, they were throwing out way more cases than normal.

  69. typhonblue says:

    @ Nahdia

    “Well considering that the list was titled, “MRAs who are not misogynist” I wouldn’t have guessed.”

    Unfortunately my other comment was pulled into moderation. I don’t know why.

    Anyway, what I said was(basically) that in a society where women are told that committing rape, DV and genital mutilation against men is actually funny and people automatically assume the man must deserve it, might, just possibly, be promoting a culture of toxic misandry among women?

    @ Brian

    “Don’t really see the problem with making a police department take rape accusations more seriously. I mean, it’s not like this was any random department, they were throwing out way more cases than normal.”

    If you look at this (BJS Criminal Victimizations 2009):

    http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=2217

    And compare it to this(FBI Arrest statistics):

    http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_32.html

    You’ll find that 85% of all reported rapes resulted in someone being arrested. This is compared to 55% of aggravated assaults.

    Have we ever heard of an overhaul in a department over their ‘aggravated assaults’ not hitting a quota?

  70. Brian says:

    You’re not talking about the Baltimore police department, therefore your data isn’t relevant.

  71. typhonblue says:

    @ Brian

    Maybe the fact that if departments don’t hit a certain number of arrests for rape–(say if the arrest rate is the same as the rate for aggravated assault) the government comes in and does an audit, an overhaul and threatens jobs–might have caused the fact that rape has a higher arrest rate then aggravated assault?

    This doesn’t bother you? At all? The fact that government is basically extorting more rape arrests? That means rape has a lower proportionate burden of proof then aggravated assault; that police departments have huge pressure to make sure that every rape charge results in an arrest.

    That means more presumptively innocent men behind bars. That means a woman’s word on rape is more powerful _then anyone else’s word on any other crime._

  72. Brian says:

    Oh, and also I do want to point out that the FBI’s definition of rape is MUCH stricter than the BJS’s. The FBI actually excludes many things that totally fit the legal definition of rape, most notably rape of men.

    If you use the FBI’s own statistics on reports, out of about 85,000 reported rapes in 2009, about 12,000 resulted in an arrest. But this is a bad comparison anyway because we’re looking at a single year; possibly some of those 12,000 were arrested for rapes commuted before 2009, or maybe some more of the 85,000 will be caught later.

  73. Brian says:

    (But, and I would appreciated if a mod would come by and merge this with my last post, by the FBI statistics about 250,000 people were arrested per 800,000 aggravated assaults. Which if you do the math is about double the rate for rape, if this rate happens to mean anything useful.

    So, you’re really just wrong. You’re comparing two sets of statistics that should not be compared.)

  74. typhonblue says:

    The rate of forcible rape is 88,097 for the FBI statistics. What’s extremely odd is that they give no stat for sexual assault. I guess this is an issue that would have to be resolved at the methodology level.

    The rate of rape and sexual assault is 125,910 for the BJS statistics, which, as you say, use a looser definition of rape then the FBI stats. Therefore the BJS stats capture *more* sexual assault then the FBI stats. Also you need to account for the fact that the BJS is a survey–so many of the people who reported sexual assault on the survey did not go on to report a sexual assault to the police.

    Now, the FBI stats indicate that 12,617 people were arrested for forcible rape and 46,628 for forcible sexual assault, giving a total of ~ 50,000 arrests for sexual assault. Aggravated assault has 267,314 arrests. The BJS says that 55.4% of women reported their sexual assault versus 58.2% of victims of aggravated assault. The number of victims of aggravated assault was 823,340.

    Doing the math. 69, 754 people reported a sexual assault. 479,183 people reported aggravated assault. 72% vs. 56%. (I was off somewhat with 85% as I added two columns wrong but still, a significant difference.)

    “You’re comparing two sets of statistics that should not be compared.”

    Why not? The FBI and the BJS do it themselves?

  75. Nahida says:

    Did you READ that article? That is not what it said. You don’t get to defend it just by using the word “toxic” in an entirely different context. The article itself was pure misogyny and intellectually dishonest.

  76. typhonblue says:

    @Nahida

    “Did you READ that article?”

    Yeah. It does get a bit hysterical in places, so what?

    “You don’t get to defend it just by using the word “toxic” in an entirely different context.”

    What?

    ” The article itself was pure misogyny and intellectually dishonest.”

    Explain exactly what you think was misogynist about it.

    Let’s compare notes.

  77. Brian says:

    “Why not? The FBI and the BJS do it themselves?”

    If they do it the way you’re doing it they’re doing it wrong themselves. You can’t just switch definitions like that.

    For one thing, the FBI is using the unit of people while the BJS (and the other UCR figures) is using the unit of events. You’re just assuming that all rapes are committed by one person.

    For another, if you take a look at the population number (and the FBI’s data declaration), the arrest reports are not for the entire US, but only for the subset of departments that reported data to the UCR for both sample years.

    For three, the FBI actually assembles its own data on how many offenses end in arrest, and rape is about the same or lower than other violent crimes.

  78. Brian says:

    I agree that article was VAST GALLOPING MISOGYNY of the kind that ought to be mocked on Manboobz.

    Choice quotes; I’m going to leave them uncommented on because any comment would spoil the rich broth of fail:

    “Women have become so toxic, particularly American women, that they have themselves realised that they are increasingly being bypassed as wives in favour of brides from other non-western countries. Instead of seeing this as a wake-up call to divest themselves of their toxicity, they instead try to inhibit men from seeking wives unsullied by Feminism. Western women are at risk of making themselves irrelevant.”

    “Hiring a woman of child-bearing age is nonsensical for a small business. Besides the risk of her leaving to have children, women in general in the workplace are a risk and a burden to the employer and to co-workers. The presence of women at work opens up a multitude of liabilities that simply do not exist with male employees. Sexual harassment claims, pay gap complaints, equal opportunities complaints, “women’s troubles”… For large businesses, there is a net gain to the employment of women, but to small business, where every employee matters, women are toxic.”

    “Women have fallen for the siren-song of Feminism and they truly believe that they are the Chosen Ones and are inherently superior to men.

    They are happy when they strip a man of assets on divorce and deny him his rights to see his children – they actually believe that they’ve won something when this happens. They cannot see the damage they wreak against their own children because they are blinded by self-interest.”

    And finally, the climax:

    “Men and boys are treated as inferior to women and girls when the fact is that the world depends on men in a way it doesn’t depend on women. As the saying goes: men build, women decorate.”

    No kidding, he actually said that.

  79. typhonblue says:

    Do you know what I see Brian?

    I see a list of things that frighten him about women. A list of things that women are capable of doing. He also clarifies that he’s not talking about all women (and he’s married so I assume he must be.) There is a meme of toxic misandry in our culture and there are a *lot* of women who promote it.

    He is writing about these toxic women.

    ” Instead of seeing this as a wake-up call to divest themselves of their toxicity, they instead try to inhibit men from seeking wives unsullied by Feminism.”

    This is a reference to IMBRA. A whole slew of laws trying to make it harder and more difficult for men to marry women outside of western nations.

    “or large businesses, there is a net gain to the employment of women, but to small business, where every employee matters, women are toxic.”

    He’s right. The fact is that employing a woman who may go on maternity leave can destroy a small business.

    Having these policies in place, while doing nothing to _big business_ makes small business unaffordable for small business owners. What a surprise that they’re being promoted by government.

    “[Toxic Women] have fallen for the siren-song of Feminism and they truly believe that they are the Chosen Ones and are inherently superior to men.”

    Yep. I have seen lots of ‘women are superior to men’ toxic crap in my lifetime. Don’t know if it can be pinned on feminism completely, but I don’t think the feminists who embrace female supremacy help anything.

    “[Toxic women] are happy when they strip a man of assets on divorce and deny him his rights to see his children – they actually believe that they’ve won something when this happens. They cannot see the damage they wreak against their own children because they are blinded by self-interest.”

    Quote recontextualized.

    “Men and boys are treated as inferior to women and girls when the fact is that the world depends on men in a way it doesn’t depend on women.”

    After seeing evidence of aid agencies that actively deny male victims assistance or an existence; after seeing a mainstream talk show mock male genital mutilation; can you not see how he might have come to the conclusion that men are treated as inferior to women?

    Also, he’s right about the world depending on men because women used to do all the things that infrastructure(maintained mostly by men) does now. And still do in certain areas.

  80. typhonblue says:

    It’s also interesting that you didn’t see the misogyny that I did.

  81. typhonblue says:

    I should say the developed world, not the ‘world.’

  82. Brian says:

    “He also clarifies that he’s not talking about all women (and he’s married so I assume he must be.)”

    Yes he is; a single disclaimer does not help. You need to actually hold up the disclaimer through the article. He abandons the idea that he’s only talking about a certain subset of women fairly fast.

    And besides that, since we’re far off topic, I’m just going to say your argument is a pure denial of common sense and leave it at that.

  83. typhonblue says:

    @ Brian

    “He abandons the idea that he’s only talking about a certain subset of women fairly fast.”

    So you have absolute knowledge of what he was thinking? (Plus he also clarified in the comments that he was not talking about all women.)

    “And besides that, since we’re far off topic, I’m just going to say your argument is a pure denial of common sense and leave it at that.”

    You’re saying that him saying ‘women can do X,Y,Z and that scares me’ is misogynist.

    I don’t see that as misogynist.

    The only point where he descended into misogyny IMHO was this:

    “Will women change? Is there light at the end of the tunnel? No, there isn’t.”

    Moving on:

    FBI and BJS:

    The FBI definition for their forcible rape subcategory is:

    “The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Rapes by force and attempts or assaults to rape, regardless of the age of the victim, are included.”

    Pretty bizarre wording. So their stat of 76,276 ‘forcible rapes’ includes rape attempts as far as I can tell.

    The BJS stat of ~125,000 rapes and sexual assaults includes ~25,000 male victims. 78,038 women were the victim of a completed or attempted rape. (That’s… oddly close to the same number as the FBI stats. Particularly since the BJS statistic is not of reported rapes.)

    Now, here’s where it gets even odder.

    The FBI reports that 12,617 arrests were made for ‘forcible rape’, yet it has a clearance rate of 41.2%?

    These numbers do not follow.

  84. typhonblue says:

    BTW, you’re right that my speculation on this was unfounded, Brian. However someone should figure out what’s going on with the FBI stats because they’re either too high or too low.

    Which is probably a good thing, I’ve had too much of a dose of ‘wtf’ for one day.

  85. typhonblue says:

    Oh, and sorry about the derail.

  86. Brian says:

    “You’re saying that him saying ‘women can do X,Y,Z and that scares me’ is misogynist. ”

    No, actually, which is why I didn’t quote the entire article. Though the whole thing is anti-feminist, the middle portions are not by themselves misogynist.

    “However someone should figure out what’s going on with the FBI stats because they’re either too high or too low. ”

    Keep saying you’re misinterpreting them. I’m not totally sure how, but I think clearly the 41% statistic is the most direct measurement and therefore the most likely to be correct.

  87. trinity91 says:

    Rightsforall,
    when you have to sit through those proceedings as a child let me know. Parents don’t fight for custody in a way which suggests love. They fight for it in the same way they would fight over control of the bank account. THAT IS TREATING CHILDREN LIKE PROPERTY.

  88. Jared says:

    By gum you’re right! If parents truley loved their children they’d give up on ever seeing them with narry more than a hit tip and a “fare-thee-well”. After all, it’s not like the tykes’ll miss them or anything. Permenant emotional and psychological scars from the severing of meaningful of bonds and the loss of one half of the love in their life?

    Don’t. Make. Me. Laugh.

    After all, physical and sexual abuse are the only sort of child abuse that are, you know… abuse abuse.

    Oh, and hey, I can pull up links as well

    http://www.oneinthree.com.au/

  89. RFA says:

    “@Trinity91 “furthermore, since you have decided to be willfully ignorant”

    Please don’t resort to personal attacks, calling me willfully ignorant and then linking me to a site with a vested interest in misleading people on domestic violence. I will show you what Strauss and Gelles themselves have to say about the likes of FinallyFeminism 101 and the bottom of this post.

    “Rightsforall,
    when you have to sit through those proceedings as a child let me know. Parents don’t fight for custody in a way which suggests love. They fight for it in the same way they would fight over control of the bank account. THAT IS TREATING CHILDREN LIKE PROPERTY.”

    I’ve seen that first hand.And when you say “Parents don’t fight for custody in a way which suggests love. They fight for it in the same way they would fight over control of the bank account. THAT IS TREATING CHILDREN LIKE PROPERTY.”
    You are incorrect, some people do that, high conflict personalities do it. But not all parents do it. Fathers rights is reactionary to high conflict women that view the child as their property and the courts and contact as something to use as a weapon of emotional abuse.

    As for the finallyfeminism 101information. Its misandric and deliberately misleading – those quotes by Straus and Gelles are decades old. The problems mentioned with CTS have since been addressed in CTS2 and both have revised their positions – both maintain that abuse self is not gendered, and that women are more likely to be injured, You should go directly to Straus and Gelles, and read their current research and what they have to say about feminism putting out misinformation about them, and domestic violence like on finallyfeminism101 has.

    You can read Strauss and Gelles on the topic of feminists misleading the public on the truth in “THE POLITICS OF RESEARCH: THE USE, ABUSE, AND MISUSE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE DATA—THE CASES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE by Richard J. Gelles and Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symmetry in Partner Violence V74
    Murray A. Straus (2007)

    I don’t want to argue with you back and fourth about this. If you have made you mind up that all divorces are defined by the one you witnessed and that abuse is gendered despite reliable research saying otherwise that’s fine. In my experience people that have these views refuse to accept information that contradicts their impression of the world. We can agree to disagree on things without name calling.

    MODS, CAN I SUGGEST THERE BE A RULE AGAINST CITING ABUSE APOLOGY AS CREDIBLE SOURCES.

  90. Clarence says:

    Yeah “Family courts” need reformed.
    It shouldn’t be easy to take a parents rights to see their kids away for more than a very temporary emergency time. Other than that, everyone should be entitled to a jury trial in a court of law for these kinds of proceedings and visitation should be strictly enforced.

  91. Clarence says:

    Brian:
    You obviously didn’t read the article.
    The cases were sexual assault in general cases, not just rape. And it was being done by officers, NOT detectives. Alot of the cases never made it to the detectives. That was wrong, and I’m gld they changed that.Now, IF the detectives were unfounding cases they shouldn’t have, someone should be suing the city for civil rights violations and a Federal court should be supervising this. My understanding from reading the other articles is they never found any wrong doing by Detectives. So I want to know:

    A. Why did they reassign all but a very few members of the detectives division? Not getting the numbers they wanted even though they couldn’t prove wrongdoing with recorded calls and stuff? Or some other reason?
    B. Why are they letting a domestic violence organization set policies as to how police detectives are to investigate rape cases? Since when is this appropriate? The detectives are the expert interrogators.
    C. Why are they lumping alleged sexual assaults (which can even include calls for teens making out in public for example) in with rapes every chance they get?

    In short, since the main problem was that beat officers with no specialized training in forensic investigations were “unfounding cases” so that they never made it to the detectives and that problem has been solved – why are they letting people who probably believe in the “Duluth” model of domestic violence and sexual assault interfere with investigative procedures?

  92. Brian says:

    “My understanding from reading the other articles is they never found any wrong doing by Detectives”

    It says right in the article they did. Did you read it?

    “A year after The Baltimore Sun revealed that the city led the country in the number of rape reports discarded by detectives

    Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, however, responded to the newspaper’s report by ordering an audit covering 18 months. That review found that half the “unfounded” reports should have been classified as rapes or other sex offenses, and should have been investigated.”

  93. Clarence says:

    Brian:

    I guess I’ll have to go pull the other articles up then. When I do you can apologize and talk about my more substantiative points. I really can’t believe you are ok with political reforms of criminal law investigations.

  94. Clarence says:

    The audit constituted one piece of the city’s rape-reporting overhaul. Police instituted new policies, making sure all sexual-assault reports were referred to a specialized unit and could not be dismissed on the scene. Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III also selected a new commander for the sex offense unit, sent detectives to training and obtained grant money to beef up investigations. A U.S. Senate subcommittee convened a hearing on the topic.
    But as of Nov. 1, with the changes in effect, rape reports were up 48 percent compared with the same time last year, police figures show. Those figures do not yet include the cases the review team said should be reclassified.

    Advocates say that a long-standing police culture that resulted in aggressive questioning of those making rape reports — sometimes leading them to recant their accounts in frustration — is changing.

    “For me, the biggest thing is the shift in attitude toward an appreciation that the process needs to be more victim-centered,” said Gail Reid, director of victim services for Turn Around, a Towson-based group that works with victims of sexual assaults. “That process requires collaboration, and I don’t think it’s an easy thing to do. We have a lot of work ahead of us.”

    Oh my, oh my. Messing with aggressive questioning. Making sure two detectives don’t question an alleged victim – I guess they don’t like someone taking notes. Yeah Brian, this sounds real smart to me. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop.
    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bs-md-ci-rape-cases-update-20101201,0,5629076.story

    You’ll also note it backs up what I said earlier that beat cops were unfounding things. I specifically had no issue with that policy being changed.

  95. Clarence says:

    And here’s the original article that started it all:

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-md-ci-rapes-20100519,0,5338041.story

  96. Brian says:

    “Oh my, oh my. Messing with aggressive questioning. Making sure two detectives don’t question an alleged victim – I guess they don’t like someone taking notes. Yeah Brian, this sounds real smart to me. I’m waiting for the other shoe to drop.”

    These sound like the best ideas so far to me! Aggressively questioning a victim of a traumatizing crime is stupid. Having your detectives gang up on a victim of a traumatizing crime is stupid. I mean, seriously outright idiotic, unless the whole point is to intimidate victims into not saying anything. Which I can’t really muster up the optimism to dismiss.

  97. Clarence says:

    Hey Brian:

    Are you a member of an organization whose sole credo is that women never lie about rape?
    If so, come sign right up so you, to, can mess with police investigatory procedures.

    Sounds like a great idea to me.
    Here’s an idea: Why not have an outside police forensics expert come in and do this, rather than a political organization the members of whose board include the former Mayor now Governors wife?

  98. Brian says:

    If we’re not allowed to bring up off-topic stuff on every post (which I agree is entirely reasonable), can we get posts we can move the off-topic stuff too? Open threads or something like that?

  99. aliarasthedaydreamer says:

    @DMB — I kind of did that earlier today (with the semi-open thread), and unless we get our own hosting, we can’t move comments. We can open threads, though, and I encourage that (but will tend to defer to the OP of any given post to do that).

  100. makomk says:

    trinity91: that particular Finally Feminism 101 link relies entirely on some fairly vicious gender-based double standards. Specifically, there are two prongs to its argument: firstly, that not quite as many men as women are seriously injured or killed as women and this is justification to ignore male victims totally, and secondly that the men must’ve done something to deserve it.

    For example, take this quote: “Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.” Swap the genders around and that would be seen as blatent victim blaming; in fact, police in many areas are trained that it’s normal for female abuse victims to attack their abuser, even without any kind of provocation, and that they should ignore this. Worse still there’s not even any solid evidence to back this claim that I can find.

    I’ve also seen arguments in the comments on mainstream feminist sites that if you’re male, cheating on your female partner not only counts as domestic violence but is justification enough for her to beat you to the point of unconciousness.

    It’s interesting too that, after rejecting CTS-based studies for methodological issues that are largely independent of gender, we’re expected to turn instead to ones that systematically exclude male victims. The problem with it excluding rape as a method of domestic violence might be a good criticism – except that they then go on to use a study that intentionally and systematically excludes most male victims of female-perpetrated rape in order to prove that more women are raped by their partners than men!

  101. Brian says:

    The sentence you quoted is a false dichotomy (one common scenario for male abuse is both partners hitting each other equally), but other than that I see nothing wrong with it. It’s not victim blaming to say “if you are hit once in the process of terrorizing your wife/husband, you are not really a victim of domestic violence.”

    And uh, arguments in the comments on mainstream feminist sites. I’ve seen someone claim in the comments on something on Feministe that men can’t be raped. Twice, and then the mods banned her for victim blaming.

Leave a comment