“The stats on who is more prone to violence and who gets hurt by whom more often are right there. Those facts have nothing to do with whether or not a woman can function well in the military or as a fire fighter.”
“The problem is in the objections raised to attention given to violence against women. "Men's rights" groups use the issue of women's violence to argue that violence against women perpetrated by men is a false or trumped up issue perpetrated by a "misandrist" culture fixed on oppressing men. That's what's wrong with the reactionary response by decidedly misogynistic MRA groups. And if you look through the responses to this article, you'll find plenty of those types of responses.”
borg48 on Jun 1, 2014 at 17:25:17
“That may be true, but that is you moving the goal posts. I have done none of that so again I don't see what your problem is with me. You are now trying to put the faults of others onto me.”
“Your crowd tends to misuse the research; women are as likely to be angered as men, but we are raised with the message that expressing anger is 'unladylike', and therefore urged to suppress it. That suppression does not make the anger go away. Rather, women develop mechanisms for expressing anger that are often more oblique than directly confrontational. Women's anger trends more relational than physical. It's a pretty perverse situation.
Archer found in a 2004 cross cultural study that men are more physically aggressive than women (http://empower-daphne.psy.unipd.it/userfiles/file/pdf/ARCHER-9.pdf). "The overall pattern indicated males' greater use of costly methods of aggression rather than a threshold difference in anger." Meaning, yes, women are as likely to get angry as men, but men are substantially more likely to inflict real damage.
The data are clear on who is actually getting hurt. Part of that has to do with men's greater physical strength, but another at least as important part of it has to do with men's methods vs. women's. A woman may slap. A man is more likely to punch and choke. Men's LEVEL of violence is greater.
But as for domestic violence, in general, to quote Anna North, "If it's true that women abuse their partners as often as men do [albeit with less damage], there's no reason for feminists to feel threatened by this information, just as there's no reason for men's rights groups to feel victorious." Damaging gender roles hurt everybody. That's what we feminists have been saying all along.”
Nesa Simon David on Jun 6, 2014 at 02:19:07
“It's funny how feminists say that men and women are the same when it's convenient to do so (like for joining the military, becoming a firefighter etc), but play weak damsels in distress when talking about DV.”
borg48 on Jun 1, 2014 at 16:31:26
“I agree with all of that. In fact I will quote what I said in an above statement.
"To be exact Archer says 62% of the time so that would leave men being injured 38% of the time. Women still hold a majority for serious injuries, but 38% is still really high for men and not something that should be brushed aside. "
I would say the data is very clear on who is **actually** getting hurt as well. I also agree with with Anna North. I agree that damaging gender roles hurt everybody. I accurately cited a study, but pointed out that even though 38% of injuries is still a minority for men it shouldn't be ignored to the extent it currently is. Apparently that makes me an MRA who is gnashing my teeth and I am trying to shut down any conversation meant to address a very real and present problem in women's lives.
Nothing I have said or the research I have cited disagrees with anything you have said or the research you have cited. Women are the majority of domestic abuse victims, men are the minority, and I have never denied that so I will say this again. I don't know why me saying this threatens you, but you should reflect on why you feel threatened by this and are stereotyping me.”
“Did you know that John Archer has written a book on male violence (called Male Violence) and that he states within that most human violence is perpetrated by men? And backs that up with solid data?
Why is it that you MRA types wail and gnash your teeth claiming that male victims of violence are being "brushed aside" every time anyone talks about the actually much larger problem of violence against women? Is it really because you care about violence against men (at the hands of women), or is it that you are trying to shut down any conversation meant to address a very real and present problem in women's lives? I'll place my bets on the latter.”
borg48 on Jun 1, 2014 at 08:39:17
“He wrote that book in 1993. If you read the study he did in 2000 you will see he got different results. If you read Capaldi's study from 2012 her results backed up his 2000 study. Since I have not read his book I cannot put my opinion out there on why things have changed, but there could be several reasons that include him not being wrong in either case.
For instance since the VAWA was passed in 1994 "The rate of nonfatal intimate partner violence against women has decreased by 63 percent and the number of women killed by an intimate partner has decreased 24 percent,".
Now I can only argue for correlation here, but since then violence against women by intimate partners has dropped significantly. I cannot tell you how much it has dropped against men since that date. It is hard to find data citing how VAWA has helped with men, but if the rate of abuse against men hasn't fallen or has fallen slower than the rate for women then the statistics would naturally change over time.
As I argued using more current statistics women do still have it worse in this area, but 38% is still a very large number compared to how much men are actually helped in this area I feel it is pertinent to talk about it. I cannot tell you exactly why you like to stereotype people that is something you should reflect on.”
“A GPA of 3.1 is nothing to brag about. It's pretty mediocre. And I am going to assume it's also untrue. A 2.1 is probably more like it, based on your phrasing and inability to grasp the concept of reliable data. But never mind all that.
Given the stats I cited, it should be obvious to a thinking person that I do not deny that men are recipients of violence. If females make up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner, and men make up the remaining 30%, then obviously that percentage of men are victims of intimate partner violence that ends in death. Where do you see me denying that? If the data show women are victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence at the rate of 4.3 women per 1,000, and men are victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence at the rate of 0.8 men per 1,000, then you aren't going to see me deny that 0.8 men per 1,000 are victims of nonfatal intimate partner violence.
You, however, insist that men suffer such violence to the same degree (or more) in the same numbers (or higher) as women, contrary to all the data. You are railing in a barely coherent fashion against any effort to highlight the problem of violence against women. And when it's clear that a woman is absolutely trouncing you in this discussion, you pull out the lame MRA "misandry" charge. So sorry, but you being dim does not make me a misandrist.”
“So, it wasn't even a wedding cake. It was a cake for a party hosted by a couple of gay dudes, and the baker didn't want to serve gays dudes. There is absolutely no religious justification that stands any water to that. He was just and simply discriminating against these guys because they are gay, and he doesn't like "the gays" (as I've heard homophobic bigots refer to gays).”
“Oh gee... silly me for thinking that homicide might have anything to do with violence. Where on earth would such a silly girly get that notion?
Can you be any more colossally a stup*d? The intimate partner homicide rates are in the very same Justice Department report. They think there's a connection between homicide and violence. It stands to reason, really. We have data on nonfatal violent victimization, which shows that women are much more likely to be victims than men, and not only that, but men are much more likely to report their own nonfatal violent victimization to the police than women. Then there's violent victimization that leads to the death of the victimized person, who again, is much more likely to be a woman killed by a man than a man killed by a woman. It's all right there. Yet you go off on some weird thing about how homicide isn't really a result of violence.
Dude.You most definitely were not a student in good standing at Columbia. If by some miracle you were ever accepted there -- as opposed to auditing non-credit, 'continuing ed' night courses for the un-enrolled masses -- I'm willing to make serious book on you having achieved the status of academic probation within one term, and suspension by the end of your third, if you even made it that far.”
Merritt Olsen on May 31, 2014 at 09:24:00
“And your arrogant assumptions continue..I can do the same as well..You are a misandronist who denies men are the recipients of violence as well...You assumptions about my education (100% wrong as I finished with an 3.1 GPA) show what a presumptuous lame brain you are..Women are just as violent as men..Accept the fact and get over yourself..So keep making stupid negative assumptions because you don't agree with me..It makes you look bad and I find it funny..”
“In your fantasies, I'm sure. But Adam Lanza went to a range for target practice all the time. With his mother, whom he shot before shooting up a bunch of first graders. Elliot Rodger practiced at a shooting range, too. Most of those nuts get in a lot of practice. That's how they while away the hours before going on their sprees.”
“And you would only have customers who pack their pieces around for all to see. That's a decided minority of your potential customer base. Maybe where you are, that minority might be enough to keep you in business, but maybe not.
You see, in this day and age, with nuts shooting random people (little first graders, inclusive) all the time, someone other than a police officer walking into an establishment with a gun is going to be taken as a sign of very bad things to come. If I were to see some dude with a look of defiance on his face and an assault weapon in his arms come into a restaurant, I would, like anyone else with half a brain, make every effort to get out of there as quickly as possible. Because I don't want to be shot. Thank you.”
“It's not an "attempt to cover myself." The above data are called facts. Try to wrap your head around that. Try to wrap your head around the telling details of the homicide rate, too, which should help clarify the difference in rates of violence perpetrated against women vs. against men. When someone is killed, the dead body has no choice but to "go to the police." Are you really suggesting that dead males are under reporting the instances of homicide they experience at the hands of partner females? Really?”
Merritt Olsen on May 31, 2014 at 01:28:18
“Now you're just getting stupid..The conversation was about violence and frequency of reporting..Now you want to add murder and try to make it seem like overlooking that when in fact it was not a part of the discussion at hand..You can continue to talk with your self as I don't talk with irrational people who engage in hyperbole..You want to make it like it's all female victims with male perpetrators...you get angry when people down play this yet you are doing the same about female on male violence..I took psychology/neuroscience classes at Columbia and women are just as prone to violence as men..In fact women are more violent when they do fight..You should look at some of the women fighting videos on you tube..They are very telling..So good bye and good luck in trying to tell just one side of the story”
“Do you have data to back up this contention that men are victims of violence at the hands of women in the same numbers and to the same degree as women are victims of violence at the hands of men? I'm talking about real, solid data supplied by a reputable body, such as the CDC. Do you have any of that?
I have some for you. According to a Bureau of Justice statistics report (2009):
In 2008, females age 12 or older experienced about 552,000 nonfatal violent victimizations by an intimate partner. In the same year, men experienced 101,000 nonfatal victimizations by an intimate partner.
The rate of intimate partner victimizations for females was 4.3 per 1,000 females age 12+. The rate of intimate partner violence against males was 0.8 per 1,000 males age 12+.
About 99% of intimate partner violence against females was committed by male offenders. About 83% of intimate partner violent against men was committed by women.
Lest you claim it's a matter of under reporting, 72% of the intimate partner violence against males and 49% of the intimate partner violence against females was reported to police.
Intimate partner homicide numbers in this report were 1,640 dead women and 700 dead men. Females made up 70% of victims killed by an intimate partner.
“Nice attempt at trying to cover yourself..But the fact remain that very few men who have been hit by their partner go to the police..I have had 2 girlfriends hit me and I knew if I went to the police nothing would be done (like nothing was done to Ellen Nordgren who chased Tiger Woods with a golf club or to Jay Zs wifes sister and it was caught on video)..The police would just laugh at any man who came to them and claimed spousal abuse..Your facts are wrong and it is under reported..”
“Show me a woman with a fully hands on, cooperative spouse, and I'll show you a woman who is a) a lot less likely to get a divorce in the first place and b) likely to be totally on board with working out a mutually agreed upon parenting plan if divorce ever does happen. My husband and his ex-wife both get, in essence, a week off from the daily grind of parenting every other week. Speaking as someone for whom that kind of arrangement was impractical for a number of reasons, that's comparative bliss. I would have been a very lucky parent if I hadn't had to be a true single parent for nine months of the year for a good portion of my children's childhoods. No, mothers don't "like" the current "system" that encourages a lot of men to be uncooperative and hands-off yet demanding, leaving mothers in the position of having no genuine help and shared responsibility.
A week off every other week. You honestly think any given mother wouldn't like that idea if it were at all feasible? When it is feasible, a lot of women jump at it.
Men-as-victims is as flat earth as it gets, dude.”
“We would have to presume that equality was the default position in the marriage regarding parenting and childcare. It's frequently not. But like I said, I'm all for default mediation to get parents to reach a mutually agreed upon parenting plan (for some, 50/50 would work, but for others it's not feasible -- that should be up to the divorcing couple to determine amongst themselves if they possible can), with courts being resorted to when the parents cannot reach a mutually agreed upon plan.”
WMarkH on May 29, 2014 at 20:21:17
“Nah. That just maintains the status quo. There’s no evidence that maintaining the parental roles set up during the marriage is best for children. There’s plenty of evidence that forcing fathers to the fringes of their children’s lives through divorce and custody policies encourages fatherlessness and all the many ills that promotes. Mothers like the current system, but nobody else does.
You are looking at your personal experiences and applying your own common sense analyses and ignoring the large quantity of scientific evidence on this topic. These are the same tools that lead infallibly to conclusions such as that the Earth is flat and the Sun revolves around it. You are similar to a flat-earther on this topic. Similar examples include people who said that women didn’t need equality because all the women they knew were perfectly happy staying in the kitchen, or slave owners who said their slaves weren’t capable of functioning as free men. It’s just ignorant, closed-minded prejudice, with a healthy dollop of hypocrisy and self-interest. All bigots don’t wear sheets and burn crosses, it turns out.”
“I know fathers who have been through divorces. I'm even married to one, and he's one of those guys who got joint, 50/50 custody, no questions asked. No one even considered the possibility of any other kind of arrangement in his case. Why? Because he's a reasonable person and a very hands-on father. You don't seem very interested in the experiences of men like my husband, now, do you? You don't want to examine them, learn from them or I dare say, even acknowledge them. That would leave anyone puzzled about what you are trying to accomplish.”
WMarkH on May 29, 2014 at 14:46:59
“There’s no mystery about what I want. I want a universal rebuttable presumption of equal 50-50 shared physical custody of children of divorce. That is equal, just, fair, simple and will improve divorce outcomes for everyone.
Your position assumes that, if a father is reasonable, all is well. This is not the case. If the mother is also reasonable, then perhaps all is well. However, if the mother is not reasonable and demands the usual 85-15 split then the father has to go to court to seek equality. In effect, he must prove that he is an adequate parent.
This is not right. Nobody should have to go to court to prove they are an adequate parent unless there is some reason for it. In my view, the fact that one’s sworn life partner has changed his or her mind is not a reason. Going to court to seek equality will cost a minimum of $10,000 and very likely $20,000 or even much more. Why is it okay to force fathers to spend that kind of money in what will likely be a losing cause anyway, when they have done nothing wrong but disappoint their partner? Few fathers even have that kind of money. Why not make equality the default position?”
It helps and the 7% partner rape victim number is quite startling and scary.
The 24% physical assault number is somewhat useless because of the broad category. It includes threats of physical force and even a single slap. By that definition, I guess I am a domestic violence victim - got slapped by wife once (in 30 years) for a particularly vicious comment I made during a verbal fight while she was pregnant.
And anecdotes are a problem. In the 1990s, federal regulations forced changes to school bus rails that cost 60 million dollars in total because 1 child every 3 years was dragged and 1 per decade was killed. In no way was that an effective use of resources but the anecdotes won the day. How many kids could have been saved if that 60 million were instead wisely spent (vaccines, nutrition,etc...)?”
“The question is really why is this blog NOT okay with you?
We have Fox News and their peculiar obsession (i.e. moral panic ) with the supposed "growing trend" of "knockout games" for the former. And we have an actual historical record of pogroms against Jewish communities and ethnically motivated attacks in contemporary Europe and the United States for the latter.
I have a problem with the former, because the evidence suggests that the 'reporting' on it really is a manufactured and racially motivated moral panic directed against black and Hispanic young men. I don't have a problem with the latter, because there is a clear and unquestionable record of anti-Semitic violence perpetrated by known hate groups and individuals with a deep and irrational animosity toward Jews.
We also have a clear and unquestionable record of sex-based violence and the physical abuse of women by men. All men? No. My husband does not beat and rape women. None of the men in my family and circle of friends do, either. But that does not mean that violence against women is a non-issue and should not be discussed.”
“So..... that means no one should ever talk about abuse directed against women by men, because that makes men 'victims'. Interesting.
I think we'll pass on buying into your Orwellian dystopia.”
Merritt Olsen on May 30, 2014 at 12:23:21
“But we dismiss the fact that just as many men are victims of violence at the hands of women (which is even way more under reported) A perfect recent example of the dismissive attitude is the recent Jay-Z elevator attack
Or how about Ellen Nordgren who attacked Tiger Woods with a golf club? (which cause a lot of damage to his car), but the media dismisses it saying it was righteous because he cheated on her..Considering a recent report on human sexuality found that 67% of women and 68% of men cheat (women are just as bad as the men) does this mean then that men can do the same if their wife cheats?
I am sure I can find lots more of female on male violence (which is much more under reported because of the obvious ridicule)..So violence in a relationship is violence regardless of the perpetrator..”
tonymoo on May 29, 2014 at 12:50:27
“Not at all. Just apply the same standards that you would when discussing or publishing about other group on group violence.
Would you be comfortable with a blog about:
- White people who were beaten or killed by black people
- Jewish people who were beaten or killed by Christens
If so, then I guess I have no complaint. If not, then why is this blog OK with you?”
“You can 'put me down' as being opposed to a de facto presumption that joint/split custody is always the best option. Clearly, when one of the parents has demonstrated to a court that s/he is not a team player, is belligerent, combative,and uncooperative, it remains perfectly reasonable to award sole or primary custody to the parent who is not any of the above.
I do feel that mitigation and negotiation with the intent of having parents work out a mutually agreed upon parenting plan should be something that all courts encourage and, perhaps, even require -- provided there's no history of abusive or other behavior that seriously puts into question the parenting of one of the parties. But if that mitigation/negotiation process is going nowhere, judges are left with little to go on but the behavior of the parties and documentable history of parent/child interaction.
Did you act like a belligerent jerk in front of a judge? Did the extent of your demonstrable 'parenting' involvement amount to no more than helping to pay some of the household bills? If so, you have nothing to be incensed about. You could still change the situation by changing your attitude and approach, but it's doubtful you would ever consider doing that, which tells me that the welfare of your children is not really tops on your list. Rather, your pride and sense of 'victimhood' is your prime motivator.”
WMarkH on May 29, 2014 at 13:41:40
“I am puzzled about what you are trying to accomplish. You are not a father who has been through a divorce. In addition to having no personal experience, you have no objective evidence of whether and to what extent divorce, custody and support is biased against fathers. You discount, obscure, minimize, deny or ignore evidence showing bias. To support your position, you offer some anecdotes and suggest that I am somehow to blame for a system of gender bias. Strange.
This is not about me. I am not trying to change my situation, whatever it might be. I am not looking for sympathy, therapy, vindication or revenge. I am interested in other people, like my son and yours, if you have one, and the future. I don't want fathers to continue to routinely be stripped of their children, homes and income by a gender-biased divorce, custody and support system.
Why should a divorcing father even have to prove he an adequate parent before a judge? Do fathers who aren't divorcing have to do this? Do mothers? Does a single woman giving birth have to prove she is a better parent than someone else?
The best way to achieve equality and benefit all concerned is to have a rebuttable presumption of equal 50-50 physical custody of children. If the father is a cannibal or something else undesirable, we can modify that. Otherwise, we'll presume both people are normal, adequate parents, and that children need both of them. How is that?”
“The standard 'custody order' does not "bar" fathers from more than every other weekend, or whatever the average might actually be. It *guarantees* parents a minimum amount of time spent with the kids; if it's a case of sole custody, it's especially important for the non-custodial parent be guaranteed a minimum of some kind. If the parents want to work out another arrangement that ends up being more time with the kids for the non-custodial parent than the 'custody order' decrees, do you honestly think the court is watching over their shoulders and is ready to swoop in and strip the children from the non-custodial parent's arms if he goes over his or her minimally allotted time? Sorry to burst your little I'm-such-a-victim bubble, but the only time a court would step in is if there *isn't* an agreed upon alternative arrangement, and one of the parents files a complaint. If everyone is getting along just fine with something other than the court ordered minimum standard, the court does not care what you are doing.
Perhaps if you were an easier person for your ex-wife to work with as a co- or at least parallel parent, you could come to an agreement with her allowing you more time with the children, if it is at all practicable. Give it a try. But, if all you have to offer is antagonism, self-proclaimed victimhood and obnoxiousness, forget it.”