NationStates Jolt Archive

Change this to the present tense, and I agree:)

And have I ever said this is not true?




Victims of gender roles, or victims of unfair comparisons (WHICH I APOLOGISED FOR BY THE WAY!):)?

Victims of gender roles. And we're not talking about you. We're talking about a view. And men do often get overlooked as victims in this situation because they are viewed as getting the long end of the stick.

Ah...so you are making women as violent as men, so there will be more male 'victims' and then any attempt to say that men are the agressors with be met with further hostility and cries of feminazi cover ups... :D

No, although the men in question in my case are fearful, none of them have been "victims". And, the paperwork already says that they are the bad guys.

Kind of hard to say you're a victim when you're the one mentioned as the dangerous one in the protective order.

Victims of gender roles. And we're not talking about you. We're talking about a view.
After you just blasted me for projecting the radical view onto the general population, I'd just like to say,

"I'm rubber, and you're glue, and what you said bounced off me and just stuck to you":)

Don't worry, I do actually get what you're saying, and I agree, I just wanted to put you on the defensive, and make you explain yourself in long, rambling paragraphs:).

Yeah, I guess what bothers me most about this whole argument about 'feminist coverups' is the idea that (as is stated in some of Sal's links) that gender should not be an issue when studying domestic abuse. (The lie really, because many of these studies then go on to focus on men to the exclusion of other genders, and if that isn't gendered, I'm not sure what is!) I think that methodology ignores the reality of the situation, and to no purpose. Men and women are gendered differently. Anyone who is really for men's rights should be looking at how men are gendered, and try to 'undo the damage' of the negative gender roles that are impacting men's health. This is what the woman's movement has attempted to do with women. Some of that has been a 'lashing out' against men. Just as some anti-racist groups sometimes 'lash out' at racists. In both these cases, there is a backlash. Men lash out at being lashed out against:). Both sides can be taken to extremes.

The fact is, domestic violence affects women, and men, and transgendered people differently. It affects women and men in homosexual relationships a bit differently than those in heterosexual relationships. It affects children differently than adults, and children of different genders differently. To really tailor to the needs of both abusers and victims, we have to be aware of what makes these people tick, of how their gender roles shape the abuse and the reaction to abuse. That isn't a 'woman's power' thing. That is facing the reality of the situation, and doing what you can to deal with it. Men are underrepresented as victims of domestic abuse, both statistically and socially. That needs to change. But not at the EXPENSE of all other victims. And feminists alone are not responsible for this change, nor do they have the sole responsibility for the way men are gendered.

Agreed.

Moreoever, feminists have been working to fight all forms of domestic violence and all forms of harmful gender roles.

Just as every family has a crazy uncle/aunt and (almost) every religion has extremists, every social movement or group has a fringe and/or those that go too far or make mistakes.

But feminism never has been anti-male. It is about gender equality. As you say, feminists focused most of their energy on promoting the rights of women because women are the group with the least rights. Trying to raise the level of rights for everyone and trying to seek greater equality are not mutually exclusive. Nor is seeking equality for all genders inconsistent with focusing more effort on improving things for the genders that are disadvantaged. To the contrary, that is merely trying to raise all genders to an equal level.

My question is this? If a man were to attempt to check into a domestic abuse shelter would he be allowed in? I don't know of any shelters like this that are set up for men. By brother was a victim of domestic abuse. The fact of the matter is that good men are taught that it is the wrongest thing in the world to hit a woman. This though was so ingrained in my pacifitic good hearted brother that he couldn't conceive of defending himself when his wife started beating on him on several occasions.
The problem is there is no where for a man to go sometimes when this happens.
Now I don't agree that there is some sort of hidden agenda by the feminists or that they are doing these things on purpose. I do think that they are looking out for their self interest & have blinders on in many cases.
Not only women are victims of domestic abuse by the cutlure we live in promotes the case.

I hate to see anyone get abused & anyone who does should have the same options availabe to them. That is equality.

See, now you are taking the position of the radicals and using it as the position of a larger group. Most men, almost all men, are like Cat and I in that we wish for the[re] to be true equality. We wish for us all to just be people first and worry about culture, gender, sexuality, identity second. I don't think the percentage of women who wish for this to occur in most western countries is higher than the percentage of men.

I wish I believed this were true.

It certainly is not true historically. If it is true at all, it is a recent phenomenon.

But, in my experience, it is not emperically true.

And I think you'll find that there are an similar number of men and women that are either radical in their hatred for the opposing gender or against the idea of equality altogether.

Again, I disagree.

Many, many men are threatened by losing privileges, authority, and "superiority."

There is a very active movement against women's rights. There are many for social or religious reasons are openly and adamantly against gender equality.
I think you will find many women that oppose women's equality.

You will be hard pressed to identify any significant group that is anti-men or that advocates the oppression of men.

Remember that it is the radical feminists that are man-hating.

Pfft. Who? Where? When?

The myth of the man-hating, lesbian feminist really pisses me off.

Remember that is the radical - let's call them masculists - that are responsible for the backlash.

Not so simple.

Again, men started off way ahead. Attempts to seek equality have been opposed all along.

Each bit of progress towards greater rights for women has met with increased backlash from society in general. (At the same time, the increased rights of women have helped to acclimate society to the ideal of equality, increased the power of women, etc. Thus, there has also been momentum towards greater equality.)

Masculinists or men-rights groups fall into different categories. They are primarily radical and anti-feminist. A majority are either anti-women or anti-equality. Some -- the minority -- are more a parallel to feminists in that they seek true gender equality. But, of those, most are still misguided: if you wanted to handicap a race between Afleet Alex and Asafa Powell, it is counter-intuitive to focus first on making Powell carry as much weight as AA's jockey or advocating for AA be required to run the race without a jockey at all. Such misguided efforts would bring into question whether one wanted a fair race (as opposed to the question of distance or other true handicapping).

Both sides need to fight to make the people fighting for true equality heard. Both sides need to fight to debunk the lies of the radicals. Anything less is damaging to the entire movement and equality in general.

We should all fight for true equality. We should all debunk lies about gender.

There shouldn't be "sides."

And the simplistic formula that puts feminists on one extreme and masculists on the other of a general movement for equality is false and deceptive in many ways. There are those that are for gender equality and those that are against it. There are many different views of what gender equality should be.

The labeling that you buy into is damaging to the entire movement and equality in general.

Agreed.

Moreoever, feminists have been working to fight all forms of domestic violence and all forms of harmful gender roles.

Just as every family has a crazy uncle/aunt and (almost) every religion has extremists, every social movement or group has a fringe and/or those that go too far or make mistakes.

But feminism never has been anti-male. It is about gender equality. As you say, feminists focused most of their energy on promoting the rights of women because women are the group with the least rights. Trying to raise the level of rights for everyone and trying to seek greater equality are not mutually exclusive. Nor is seeking equality for all genders inconsistent with focusing more effort on improving things for the genders that are disadvantaged. To the contrary, that is merely trying to raise all genders to an equal level.

You've seen defend this before. I very much think that most feminists are seeking equality for women (which in turns means equality for all) but they are focused on the areas where women are disadvantaged for obvious reasons. I think there are specific issues which can be considered male issues and there are legitimate groups out there that are focused on addressing these issues (like men underusing medical support or the idea that a child is better off with its mother). They are also seeking equality for all genders by correcting the areas where a specific gender is disadvataged. In the specific areas I mentioned, we all benefit from a healthier male population (it's well known that men have a lower life expectancy than women) and increased male involvement in child-rearing. These same groups are preaching increased responsibility on the part of male parents, thus attacking the issue from both sides.

My question is this? If a man were to attempt to check into a domestic abuse shelter would he be allowed in? I don't know of any shelters like this that are set up for men.
There are some, but sadly they are few and far between. Still, it's a step in the right direction. There definately need to be more, for men and their children, if that is what they need.

I think there are specific issues which can be considered male issues and there are legitimate groups out there that are focused on addressing these issues (like men underusing medical support or the idea that a child is better off with its mother). They are also seeking equality for all genders by correcting the areas where a specific gender is disadvataged.
Name some please. Especially the men's groups that are seeking equality for all genders.

Is it just me, or did the article attack feminists by calling them communists?

...riiiiight

Is it just me, or did the article attack feminists by calling them communists?

...riiiiight
That's a very common attack against feminism...that feminism = Marxism. Yes, gender equity is a communist idea :rolleyes:

Cat, I agree that I find it to be a recent phenomenon and for the most part only in Western cultures.

Yes, there is an active movement against equal rights and that movement includes women and men. Whenever there is change there will always be those that oppose it. IWF for example. I'll them credit in at least making an attempt to actually use realistic statistics. It was actually from an ad posted by them called the ten feminist myths where I learned that the one in four number of women rape victims was complete and utter bullshit. I think the anti-man movement is more subversive than what anti-feminist movement, but I live on a college campus and I can spend ten minutes and find you half a dozen man-haters. They exist and there not as small of a minority as one would like. I don't however think they in any way represent feminists. I actually think feminists should be offended that such people would attempt to include themselves under the umbrella of feminism.

My comments were mostly focused on gender-roles and not on women's rights. I think we can all agree that women have been on the short end of the stick on rights for a long time.

I do agree that we still live in a patriarchy, but I'd like to point out that the patriarchy overlooks me and Sinuhue alike. I have no more opportunity to be president than she does. The people running this country may be all people that look a bit like me (white men) but that is about where the comparison ends. They are a over-priveleged, overfed, overpaid select group of white males who generally have had family members running this country since its founding. The good ol' boys network doesn't include every boy and I think you know that. When I got arrested for defending myself in a bar like every poor person, I got totally inadequate representation and though I personally could show I was innocent (I actually had a signed letter from the person who I was charged for knocking out stating that he attacked me first. I couldn't remember the I eventually had to plead it out or risk a year's jail time.

The point being not that minorities, groups that are being denied rights (gays/lesbians) or women didn't start behind the eight ball when it comes to average fiscal worth and rights in general, but let's not pretend like this country is about giving priveledge to white males. It's not. Like in the movie Bulworth, the rich white males keep power by keeping us divided or the whole lot of us would storm the capital and lynch most of the congress, most of the cabinet, the president, and a great majority of CEO's. Any privelege that is gained by women, gays, non-whites, non-christians, etc. isn't taking an advantage away from someone like me, but it is taking advantage and opportunity away from a very small group of the priveleged that happen to be mostly white males and they're pissed. They continue because they convince bubba in rural Iowa that if the blacks get their way they'll take their land, their kids and their women. Then they convince blacks and gays and women that bubba is the problem when he really doesn't have any more power than they do. Bubba doesn't own a company, doesn't do the hiring, only has one vote just like they do. But as long as everyone is looking at Bubba, no one is looking George, Bill, George, Ronald, et al.

Ok, that was way tooooooo long.

Name some please. Especially the men's groups that are seeking equality for all genders.

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/ This isn't about all genders. I said the groups are generally focused on men's issues that would represent a move towards equality. Men do underutilize health services.

http://themenscenter.com/National/national01.htm

http://www.malehealthcenter.com/ This isn't about all genders. I said the groups are generally focused on men's issues that would represent a move towards equality. Men do underutilize health services.

http://themenscenter.com/National/national01.htm
Now, do you think there would be a stigma attached to a woman who wanted to participate in one of these groups? If these groups focused just on women, would there be a stigma attached to men who wanted to participate in them? Which of the two...the group that focuses on women and the group that focuses on men, is more likely to be called sexist? (comparing moderate groups here...like the links you've provided, which don't claim a 'feminist conspiracy' or a 'patriarchal cover up', but just deal with issues in a gendered fashion)

Point being, it is so much easier to attack women for working on women's issues than it is to attack men working on men's issues.

But anyway, we're not really discussing anything new here. *moving on*

Now, do you think there would be a stigma attached to a woman who wanted to participate in one of these groups? If these groups focused just on women, would there be a stigma attached to men who wanted to participate in them? Which of the two...the group that focuses on women and the group that focuses on men, is more likely to be called sexist? (comparing moderate groups here...like the links you've provided, which don't claim a 'feminist conspiracy' or a 'patriarchal cover up', but just deal with issues in a gendered fashion)

Point being, it is so much easier to attack women for working on women's issues than it is to attack men working on men's issues.

But anyway, we're not really discussing anything new here. *moving on*

See, I don't agree. I think if I say I'm sticking up for men's issues many people would immediately jump to the idea that it is anti-feminist rather attacking the same problem from a different angle. I think both groups are attacking by their opponents for being focused on one gender while both groups are looking for the betterment of both genders. Again, maybe there is a difference in the way we see it as members of different genders but I think a woman defending men's rights (though I disagree with Dem on many of the particular issues she makes a good example) is likely to be stigmatized before someone like Cat when defending women's rights. I think there is a large majority that would see Cat as 'good man' because he fights for women's equality (good on ya, too, Cat) and I would guess (GUESS) that only a minority would approve of a woman fighting for male equality (yes, I know they are technically the same thing, but it's about attacking the issue from a particular angle).

EDIT: Also, I'd like to point out that while I find you to be very reasonable, earlier you challenged me to find links to groups that were fighting for equality from a male angle and were not anti-feminist as if they didn't exist. This, in and of itself, is evidence that people have the view that focusing on men's issues is anti-feminist and sexist, even reasonable people such as yourself.

Jumping outside of any disagreements on specific issues I'd like to commend Sin, Dem, Cat, et al (if I didn't mention you by name it's because you haven't posted in last couple hours and I have a bad memory) for their efforts at seeking equality for all. All of you have made me take second and third looks at issues to the point that sometimes I worry that I may appear wishy washy because my point of view has been changed at one time or another by each of you. I know that on a board like this it can feel like screaming at a wall, but know that there are those of us that think standing up for these issues even on an internet board is an important step in moving forward the agenda of equality.

See, I don't agree. I think if I say I'm sticking up for men's issues many people would immediately jump to the idea that it is anti-feminist rather attacking the same problem from a different angle.
You could be right. I concede. ANY activist gets a bad rap.

Originally posted by:
Jocabia
Yes, and Hitler did some good things for the economy...

OK: The man is a right-wing pundit. Yes, I don't agree with him a lot of the time( nor do you, its very clear.) But to compare the guy to Hitler?

If B0zzy were here, we would label you a femin@zi like that.
And frankly, after this last post, i'm not sure i'd disagree. :(

EDIT: Also, I'd like to point out that while I find you to be very reasonable, earlier you challenged me to find links to groups that were fighting for equality from a male angle and were not anti-feminist as if they didn't exist. This, in and of itself, is evidence that people have the view that focusing on men's issues is anti-feminist and sexist, even reasonable people such as yourself.
Na. That's just what you read into my request:). I had thought you were talking about men's groups looking into men's issues, and as I've pointed out, the majority of those groups are more anti-feminist than they are about men's issues. I was honestly interested to find an exception to that.

However, the links you provided were groups that deal with men's issues, but aren't necessarily MEN'S GROUPS. Which is fine.

*snip*
Bozzy hasn't replied in so long, I don't think we're going to get any sort of dialogue going with him.

And I was just saying that I haven't seen you around in ages, and I (as well as others) miss the hell out of you! So, um, HI!

Jumping outside of any disagreements on specific issues I'd like to commend Sin, Dem, Cat, et al (if I didn't mention you by name it's because you haven't posted in last couple hours and I have a bad memory) for their efforts at seeking equality for all. All of you have made me take second and third looks at issues to the point that sometimes I worry that I may appear wishy washy because my point of view has been changed at one time or another by each of you. I know that on a board like this it can feel like screaming at a wall, but know that there are those of us that think standing up for these issues even on an internet board is an important step in moving forward the agenda of equality.
:fluffle: Ditto.

If B0zzy were here, we would label you a femin@zi like that.
And frankly, after this last post, i'm not sure i'd disagree. :(
Hear that Jocabia! You have now been elected into the ranks of us feminazis! :D

EDIT: Maybe u weren't meaning to compare him to Hitler, but thats really what it sounded like u were saying. If I burned u with those last few lines, I apologize. Except if u really were comparing him to Hitler. In that case the statement stands.

So what DO feminists use as a cover-up?

A sari? A sun-dress? A burlap sack?

What?

Originally posted by:
Jocabia
Yes, and Hitler did some good things for the economy...

OK: The man is a right-wing pundit. Yes, I don't agree with him a lot of the time( nor do you, its very clear.) But to compare the guy to Hitler?

If B0zzy were here, we would label you a femin@zi like that.
And frankly, after this last post, i'm not sure i'd disagree. :(

I wasn't exactly saying that he and Hitler are all the comparable, but I don't think that being occasionally useful doesn't make you a good person. I think that Pat Robertson is a bad man. He hasn't killed a million jews or even one that I know of, but he is a bad man who spreads lies under the guise of fact.

Na. That's just what you read into my request:). I had thought you were talking about men's groups looking into men's issues, and as I've pointed out, the majority of those groups are more anti-feminist than they are about men's issues. I was honestly interested to find an exception to that.

However, the links you provided were groups that deal with men's issues, but aren't necessarily MEN'S GROUPS. Which is fine.

Well, technically, NOW isn't a women's group. What's your point? What kind of sense would it make for groups of this type to exclude people of a different gender?

Still the fact that you're interested in finding an exception suggests that you think it's difficult. I still think most people that defend men's issues honestly want there to be equality and for whatever reason think the way to best acheive it is to focus on these issues. You have clearly stated several times that you think most groups of this type are anti-feminist where I believe just the more vocal and sensational (thus more airtime) of them are. So which side is more stigmatized (whether deserved or not)?

I'd have to disagree with you. As I've posted before, I DO NOT AGREE with him nine time out of ten when it comes to politics. But I know a lot of really decent people who are conservative as he is. I don't think his rhetoric is helping the world( quite the opposite.) but in his private he may be a very decent person. His biggest flaw is that hes very vitriolic when talking politics on his show. We don't know whether hes a bad person in private or not.

I'd have to disagree with you. As I've posted before, I DO NOT AGREE with him nine time out of ten when it comes to politics. But I know a lot of really decent people who are conservative as he is. I don't think his rhetoric is helping the world( quite the opposite.) but in his private he may be a very decent person. His biggest flaw is that hes very vitriolic when talking politics on his show. We don't know whether hes a bad person in private or not.

See how can being a nice guy in private make up for the damage he does by spreading lies? I don't care if he's the best father/husband/son/brother in the world, his public life is a blight and does more damage than his private life could ever counter.

Still the fact that you're interested in finding an exception suggests that you think it's difficult.
Exceptions to self-professed MEN'S GROUPS who aren't anti-feminist. Not men's groups who aren't anti-feminist. I'm using the capitals to show radicalism here.

Never mind. The point has been missed, is now moot, and you're reading too much into it.

If Christian people work together, they can succeed during this decade in winning back control of the institutions that have been taken from them over the past 70 years. Expect confrontations that will be not only unpleasant but at times physically bloody.... This decade will not be for the faint of heart, but the resolute. Institutions will be plunged into wrenching change. We will be living through one of the most tumultuous periods of human history. When it is over, I am convinced God's people will emerge victorious.

Okay, so he wants a bloody revolution. Next?

A Supreme Court ruling is not the Law of the United States. The law of the United Sates is the Constitution, treaties made in accordance with the Constitution, and laws duly enacted by the Congress and signed by the president. And any of those things I would uphold totally with all of my strength, whether I agreed with them or not.... I am bound by the laws of the United States and all 50 states ... [but] I am not bound by any case or any court to which I myself am not a party.... I don't think the Congress of the United States is subservient to the courts.... They can ignore a Supreme Court ruling if they so choose.

The Supreme Court which is created by the Constitution to prevent unconstitutional laws should be ignored but the Congress also created by the Constitution should respect the Constitution but not the Supreme Court created by it. Does this make any sense to anyone?

Individual Christians are the only ones really -- and Jewish people, those who trust God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob -- are the only ones that are qualified to have the reign, because hopefully, they will be governed by God and submit to Him.

I never said that in my life ... I never said only Christians and Jews. I never said that.

Whoops, look who's caught in a lie.

When I said during my presidential bid that I would only bring Christians and Jews into the government, I hit a firestorm. "What do you mean?" the media challenged me. "You're not going to bring atheists into the government? How dare you maintain that those who believe in the Judeo-Christian values are better qualified to govern America than Hindus and Muslims?" My simple answer is, "Yes, they are."

If anybody understood what Hindus really believe, there would be no doubt that they have no business administering government policies in a country that favors freedom and equality.... Can you imagine having the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini as defense minister, or Mahatma Gandhi as minister of health, education, and welfare? The Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma and the Muslim idea of kismet, or fate condemn the poor and the disabled to their suffering.... It's the will of Allah. These beliefs are nothing but abject fatalism, and they would devastate the social gains this nation has made if they were ever put into practice.

It is interesting, that termites don't build things, and the great builders of our nation almost to a man have been Christians, because Christians have the desire to build something. He is motivated by love of man and God, so he builds. The people who have come into [our] institutions [today] are primarily termites. They are into destroying institutions that have been built by Christians, whether it is universities, governments, our own traditions, that we have.... The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation.

Did he just say that it's time to fumigate (kill) the current leaders of our country and replace them Christian leaders? I must have read wrong. He wouldn't say such a thing.

The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism, and become lesbians.


N.O.W. is saying that in order to be a woman, you've got to be a lesbian.

God's pattern is for men to be the leaders, both in the church and in the family... "Women should listen and learn quietly and submissively. I do not let women teach men or have authority over them."

I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that's the way it is, period.

Okay, yep, I misjudged the man. He is all about reason and fairness. What was I thinking considering him a bad man?

Many of those people involved with Adolph Hitler were Satanists, many of them were homosexuals -- the two things seem to go together.

Many observers say that AIDS is the hammer and gun of the homosexual movement, an effective vehicle to propel the homosexual agenda throughout every phase of our society.

I have known few homosexuals who did not practice their tendencies. Such people are sinning against God and will lead to the ultimate destruction of the family and our nation. I am unalterably opposed to such things, and will do everything I can to restrict the freedom of these people to spread their contagious infection to the youth of our nation.

It's one thing to say, "We have rights to jobs ... we have rights to be left alone in out little corner of the world to do our thing." It's an entirely different thing to say, well, "We're not only going to go into the schools and we're going to take your children and your grandchildren and turn them into homosexuals." Now that's wrong.

I think "one man, one vote," just unrestricted democracy, would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, a minority, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights.

To see Americans become followers of Islam is nothing short of insanity.... The Islamic people, the Arabs, were the ones who captured Africans, put them in slavery, and sent them to America as slaves. Why would the people in America want to embrace the religion of slavers.

Just like what Nazi Germany did to the Jews, so liberal America is now doing to the evangelical Christians. It's no different. It is the same thing. It is happening all over again. It is the Democratic Congress, the liberal-based media and the homosexuals who want to destroy the Christians. Wholesale abuse and discrimination and the worst bigotry directed toward any group in America today. More terrible than anything suffered by any minority in history.

How does one make up for teaching these kinds of things by being a good father or husband?

So what DO feminists use as a cover-up?

A sari? A sun-dress? A burlap sack?

What?

Pants.

Pants.
I was actually going to say coverup.

I have this link to this bibliography that says that women are as likely to abuse as men.


"SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 152,500. "
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I haven't been able to dispute the claim of this since these kind of surveys aren't made in my country, it is not spoken of or noticed, most people just laugh about women being able to hurt their spouse.

I've spent way too much time thoroughly debunking this bibliography. I got a little obsessive-compulsive about this stupid list and have researched the hell out of it. I'll have to post my rebuttal in several installments.

But here is my initial volley:

1. Don't draw the wrong conclusions from that link. Fiebert himself says that studies "suggesting men are also frequent abust victims should not be used to minimize the threat that women face from abusive boyfriends or spouses." Moreover, he expressly blames the problem of abuse of men on "the culture of patriarchy."

2. Don't draw the wrong conclusions from that link. Feibert claims the list "demonstrate[s] that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners." THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM DEMONSTRATING THAT MEN ARE EQUALLY VICTIMS OF (OR WOMEN PERPETRATORS OF) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. I'll explain in detail more later. But these are almost all surveys that measure isolated instances of "aggression" (equating "crying," "stomping out of the room," a single slap, and a beating) not beatings or systematic violence. As one expert has stated: "On the basis of putative equal reports of violence from phone surveys, it is absurd to consider 'husband battering' to be the equivalent of 'wife battering.'" In fact, these sources aren't really about "battered husbands" at all!

3. This is not 170 studies. This is one man's characterization of 170 sources (of which only 134 are even alleged "empirical studies"). I'll get into (a) his credibility and (b) the many flaws in his characterizations in another post. But simply put: don't just accept his sweeping conclusion that these sources all show women are as or more physically aggressive in relationships than men. They don't.

4. That this is one of the sources on his list speaks volumes:

Saenger, G. (1963). Male and female relations in the American comic strip. In D. M. White & R. H. Abel (Eds.), The funnies, an American idiom (pp. 219-231). Glencoe, NY: The Free Press. (Twenty consecutive editions of all comic strips in nine New York City newspapers in October, 1950 were examined. Results reveal that husbands were victims of aggression in 63% of conflict situations while wives were victims in 39% of situations. In addition, wives were more aggressive in 73% of domestic situations, in 10% of situations, husbands and wives were equally aggressive and in only 17% of situations were husbands more violent than wives.)

5. Obviously, this is not a representative sample of the research on domestic violence. It is an admitted cherry-picking of all the sources Dr. Fiebert could find that allegedly "demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners."

A. To get his 170 sources, he had to look hard. He includes sources from 1963 to 2005. That is 42 years of research -- and only 170 sources that even Fiebert can claim (incorrectly) support his thesis in all that time.

Search of Medline for peer-reviewed articles on "domestic violence between 1693 to 2005 shows 21,398 results.

A search re "interpersonal violence" reveals 1776 peer-reviewed studies during that same period.

Search for yourself:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed

Even if all of his sources were peer-reviewed articles (they aren't), they represent about 0.8% of all of research on "domestic violence" alone (and his sources range beyond that topic).

B. He also had to look far and wide. There are studies here regarding gender violence in many different cultures and at least 14 different countries -- including Korea, Belize, Hong Kong, Mexico, and South Africa.

6. His list has many, many flaws

A. About 20 of these "sources" are unpublished papers or reports. At least a dozen more are not from peer-reviewed sources.

B. Many of these are the same authors or the same study reported different times. This is more than double-counting.

For example, at least seven of the citations in the Fiebert list are based on the National Family Violence Surveys (Straus, 1980; Straus, 1995; Straus & Gelles, 1986; Straus, Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1981; Straus, & Kaufman Kantor, 1994; Grandin, E. & Lupri, E., 1997; Hampton, R. L., Gelles, R. J., & Harrop, J. W., 1989), and the same samples are used more than once, thus creating an inflated sense of gender equality in rates of violence. Only one of these citations (Straus, 1995), covering the 1975 and 1985 surveys, is needed to describe the rates of violence by gender.

C. Just quickly scanning for repeated names, I discovered about the same 20 authors were responsible for about 87 of these 170 "sources."

D. Just by Fiebert's own summary, 80 of the 134 "empirical studies" rely on the Conflict Tactics Scale. A review of the social science literature indicates that the CTS is, even according to its creators, seriously flawed when used as a comparative measure of male and female domestic victimization (i.e., the way men’s righters and anti-feminists use it).
I'll get into that more in another post.

8. The evidence that Fiebert is wrong is overwhelming

I already refuted and provided sources refuting much of his thesis, including many of the sources and underlying research techniques he relies on.

See Misogynist rant - don't believe the hype! (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102); Some REAL statistics from REAL sources (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103)

Here are a bunch more relevant sources:
Are Physical Assaults by Wives and Girlfriends a Major Social Problem? A Review of the Literature (http://www.vadv.org/abw.pdf) (specifically responds to Fiebert list and to articles cited therein)

Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales (http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_ctscrit.pdf)

Male Victims of Domestic Violence: A Substantive and Methodological Research Review (http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/malevictims.pdf) (specifically responds to Fiebert list and to articles cited therein)

On “Husband-Battering”; Are Men Equal Victims? (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/) (critique of "women are just as violent" argument and the CTS)

Claims about Husband Battering (http://www.andvsa.org/Claims%20Husband%20Battering.pdf) (critique of "women are just as violent" argument and the CTS)

Overview of Fiebert's Annotated Domestic Violence Bibliography (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/6708/dvsumary.html) (objective brief comment and summary of what studies say -- shows that studies listed by Fiebert don't all support Fiebert's conclusions -- at least 3 actually say that men are more abusive than women and at least 4 of 8 on who suffers injuries say that women suffer more injuries)

Are Heterosexual Men Also Victims of Intimate Partner Abuse? (http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_MaleVictims.php)

Agents of apathy (http://web.dailycamera.com/extra/thelongwar/12eclin-.html) (critique of "women are just as violent" argument and the CTS)

Towards an Understanding of Women's Use of Non-Lethal Violence in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships (http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_womviol.php)

Domestic Violence (http://newmedia.colorado.edu/~socwomen/resources/domviol.html) (list of citations and quotes rebutting "women are just as violent" argument and the CTS)

*snip*

I hope if I ever need a lawyer again s/he has OCD. This is a ridiculous amount of work. Thanks for doing this.

I pointed out earlier that Strauss is where the "a woman is abused ever fifteen seconds" figure comes from. Strauss doesn't support the idea that men and women equally victimized by DV as far as I know.

Notice how Bozzy disappears now that the premise has been completely debunked.

Notice how Bozzy disappears now that the premise has been completely debunked.

I love it when his type does that.

Thank you so much for this Cat, you are a treasure.

First, I despise the absurd emphasis on finding "sources" on this forum. In my mind Bozzy was just satisfying the implied minimum requirement of having "sources" for any statement, as if nothing is valid unless it comes from an "unbiased source," which frankly just doesn't exist.

My shining sword of reason came into play when people fulfilled Bozzy's expectations by attacking his character (and of course the almighty 'sources') with really, all the reasonability of a pack of rabid wolves tearing into a carcass.

Further he's never said "domestic violence is a feminist lie" anywhere I can see, so I'd say that is just one example of reading too much into his statements in the effort to paint him as a demon. (Startingly similar to attempts to show I am pro-rape, or blaming the victim, in that Natalee Holloway thread.) Now his statements may or may not have validity, but they should be addressed instead of what people interpret his statements are, and definitely instead of who Bozzy is.

Right on.

First, I despise the absurd emphasis on finding "sources" on this forum. In my mind Bozzy was just satisfying the implied minimum requirement of having "sources" for any statement, as if nothing is valid unless it comes from an "unbiased source," which frankly just doesn't exist.

My shining sword of reason came into play when people fulfilled Bozzy's expectations by attacking his character (and of course the almighty 'sources') with really, all the reasonability of a pack of rabid wolves tearing into a carcass.

Further he's never said "domestic violence is a feminist lie" anywhere I can see, so I'd say that is just one example of reading too much into his statements in the effort to paint him as a demon. (Startingly similar to attempts to show I am pro-rape, or blaming the victim, in that Natalee Holloway thread.) Now his statements may or may not have validity, but they should be addressed instead of what people interpret his statements are, and definitely instead of who Bozzy is.Right on.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Was going to let SB's babbling slide, but now ...

Yes, reliable "sources" and "facts" are pesky inconveniences when you wish to advocate lies and nonsense.

If you want to talk about issues with no regard whatsoever for the real world, feel free to debate in the UN. The rest of us live on Earth. An uninformed opinion is worth exactly what we pay you for it.

The "there is no such thing as an unbiased source" argument is a cop-out -- an easy excuse for arguing from ignorance or using unreliable sources. There are such things as degrees of bias, reliability, and credibility.

Bozzy was claiming to make a fact-based argument. He alleged that feminists were spreading lies and that he was uncovering the truth. He very much put "facts" and "sources" at issue. Sadly for him, his "facts" were bullshit and his "sources" absurd.

Moreoever, Bozzy's prediction about character assassination was self-fulfilling. He started out by defaming feminists and any of us that dared disagree with him. And, as I said, he put the credibility of his sources directly at issue.

I find it most amusing that Bozzy and SB attempt to use whining about character assassination as a shield while using the technique as a sword. Nice try, boys!

Regardless, Bozzy's assertions have been thoroughly debunked. And neither Bozzy nor SB have deigned to defend them since. So much for wanting a debate on the merits. :rolleyes:

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Was going to let SB's babbling slide, but now ...

Yes, reliable "sources" and "facts" are pesky inconveniences when you wish to advocate lies and nonsense.

If you want to talk about issues with no regard whatsoever for the real world, feel free to debate in the UN. The rest of us live on Earth. An uninformed opinion is worth exactly what we pay you for it.

The "there is no such thing as an unbiased source" argument is a cop-out -- an easy excuse for arguing from ignorance or using unreliable sources. There are such things as degrees of bias, reliability, and credibility.

Bozzy was claiming to make a fact-based argument. He alleged that feminists were spreading lies and that he was uncovering the truth. He very much put "facts" and "sources" at issue. Sadly for him, his "facts" were bullshit and his "sources" absurd.

Moreoever, Bozzy's prediction about character assassination was self-fulfilling. He started out by defaming feminists and any of us that dared disagree with him. And, as I said, he put the credibility of his sources directly at issue.

I find it most amusing that Bozzy and SB attempt to use whining about character assassination as a shield while using the technique as a sword. Nice try, boys!

Regardless, Bozzy's assertions have been thoroughly debunked. And neither Bozzy nor SB have deigned to defend them since. So much for wanting a debate on the merits. :rolleyes:

That's the frustrating part. They'll wait till the thread dies and then bring it up again and we'll have to find all this information over again.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Was going to let SB's babbling slide, but now ...

Yes, reliable "sources" and "facts" are pesky inconveniences when you wish to advocate lies and nonsense.

If you want to talk about issues with no regard whatsoever for the real world, feel free to debate in the UN. The rest of us live on Earth. An uninformed opinion is worth exactly what we pay you for it.

The "there is no such thing as an unbiased source" argument is a cop-out -- an easy excuse for arguing from ignorance or using unreliable sources. There are such things as degrees of bias, reliability, and credibility.

Bozzy was claiming to make a fact-based argument. He alleged that feminists were spreading lies and that he was uncovering the truth. He very much put "facts" and "sources" at issue. Sadly for him, his "facts" were bullshit and his "sources" absurd.

Moreoever, Bozzy's prediction about character assassination was self-fulfilling. He started out by defaming feminists and any of us that dared disagree with him. And, as I said, he put the credibility of his sources directly at issue.

I find it most amusing that Bozzy and SB attempt to use whining about character assassination as a shield while using the technique as a sword. Nice try, boys!

Regardless, Bozzy's assertions have been thoroughly debunked. And neither Bozzy nor SB have deigned to defend them since. So much for wanting a debate on the merits. :rolleyes:

"The reports of my demize are greatly exxagerated"

You are a bit premature to start claiming that the fact of feminists covering up domestc violence against men is untrue. The facts are clear and the sources many. The only 'absurd bulldshit' is the instant denial of the credibility of the facts and the perception of many that these facts pose some sort of risk or threat to them; Male equality should never be perceived as a threat.

If you need more sources Here you go. How about 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses. That enough for you Sparky?

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I will only admit to being remiss on my 'duties' in a debate. Been busy lately and, frankly, most arguments here were so routine as to be boring. You know the routine, Insult author, attack credibility, post friendly source, ignore potential of possibility, yawn. Same procedure as used by everyone from the 'no global warming' crowd to the 'gay marriage is eeevil' gang. Sorry, but I left because there was really nobody here I found capable of stimulating intercourse - a few false starts, and then tedium.

If you need more sources Here you go. How about 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses. That enough for you Sparky?

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

Er, if you had read the thread, you would have seen that this bibliography has already been somewhat debunked.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9169978&postcount=283

If you need more sources Here you go. How about 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses. That enough for you Sparky?

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Um, B0zzy, this said that it is an examination of articles that state women are as or more violent than men. It does NOT state what the researcher's conclusion is or the paper this bib sheet informed. The professor's web page doesn't have anything further.

Data just sits there, you have to form conclusions with it.

OK OK I get ya'lls point already. Pat Robertson's a total jackass in public!

Sue me, but i don't think theres a person thats in the world today whos UTTERLY EVIL. I occasionally watch the 700 Club, and when they are answering letters, Pat actually gives pretty good advice in my opinion.

Mind u, I still agree with ya'll: All the radical right-wing prop@ganda he spreads via the show is bullsh!tt.

"The reports of my demize are greatly exxagerated"

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I will only admit to being remiss on my 'duties' in a debate. Been busy lately and, frankly, most arguments here were so routine as to be boring. You know the routine, Insult author, attack credibility, post friendly source, ignore potential of possibility, yawn. Same procedure as used by everyone from the 'no global warming' crowd to the 'gay marriage is eeevil' gang. Sorry, but I left because there was really nobody here I found capable of stimulating intercourse - a few false starts, and then tedium.

Fiebert? Isn't that the guy that was just so thouroughly debunked?

Yes, I imagine getting your pathetic excuse for an arguement torn to shreds was boring and routine for you.
I suppose the sites ending in ".gov" are the friendly sites you speak of. Your credibility is the easiest thing to attack, but I think the prosecution (Cat) rests. You haven't got a leg to stand on.

"The reports of my demize are greatly exxagerated"

No one said you were dead. Simply ducking the debate. Which you have been since the first post. And especially since I thoroughly refuted your points.

You are a bit premature to start claiming that the fact of feminists covering up domestc violence against men is untrue. The facts are clear and the sources many.

Um. 4 sources. Only 2 of which had anything to do with domestic violence against men. Only 1 of which had anything to do with a feminist "cover-up."

Moreover, your sources were debunked and your premise disproven. Completely. Thoroughly. Utterly.

Nothing premature about calling a proven lie a lie.

The only 'absurd bulldshit' is the instant denial of the credibility of the facts and the perception of many that these facts pose some sort of risk or threat to them; Male equality should never be perceived as a threat.

*yawn*

You made these silly assertions several times before. They were rebutted. You haven't responded. Simply repeating them is kinda pathetic.

If you need more sources Here you go. How about 170 scholarly investigations: 134 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses. That enough for you Sparky?

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

1. I thought my use of "sparky" was so offensive that you complained to the Mods it was equivalent to your calling me a moron and an asshole. Hypocrite.

2. As noted, someone else already posted this list and I have already largely debunked it. But I can provide many more long posts on why it is utterly unimpressive, misleading, biased, and false ... if you feel it is necessary. Why don't you respond to my arguments so far first?

I will only admit to being remiss on my 'duties' in a debate. Been busy lately and, frankly, most arguments here were so routine as to be boring. You know the routine, Insult author, attack credibility, post friendly source, ignore potential of possibility, yawn. Same procedure as used by everyone from the 'no global warming' crowd to the 'gay marriage is eeevil' gang. Sorry, but I left because there was really nobody here I found capable of stimulating intercourse - a few false starts, and then tedium.

Bullshit. That is a lie.

I thoroughly refuted your assertions and documented the opposite of your thesis with neutral sources.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103

You claimed to be short for time and looking deeply into my citations thereafter and didn't return to the thread for several days. Now you feign amnesia about my arguments and claim you were bored by the lack of a substantive response.

Even before I came along, you had ignored substantive responses and relied instead on your own form of bullying, misdirection, and non-responsive flummery.

Your credibility has gone well below zero.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.

Was going to let SB's babbling slide, but now ...

Yes, reliable "sources" and "facts" are pesky inconveniences when you wish to advocate lies and nonsense.

Or, when you don't want to go one post without someone either disagreeing about how valid the source is or not, or without someone screaming "SOURCE! NOWW!", or when it's understood that opinions are like assholes - they don't need sources.

An uninformed opinion is worth exactly what we pay you for it.

Which is in this case, exactly the same amount as a so-called informed opinion. Nada! Therefore, both uninformed and informed opinions have the same value here.

The "there is no such thing as an unbiased source" argument is a cop-out -- an easy excuse for arguing from ignorance or using unreliable sources. There are such things as degrees of bias, reliability, and credibility.

Which are generally subject to interpretation themselves. Your opinion of one source is that it's credible, another's opinion is that it's not. The answer? An infinite regression of sources, describing sources, refuting sources, describing sources? I don't think so, but that's just me.


I find it most amusing that Bozzy and SB attempt to use whining about character assassination as a shield while using the technique as a sword. Nice try, boys!

Whose character have I assassinated now?

Regardless, Bozzy's assertions have been thoroughly debunked. And neither Bozzy nor SB have deigned to defend them since.

I never defended those assertations in the first place...

Even before I came along, you had ignored substantive responses and relied instead on your own form of bullying, misdirection, and non-responsive flummery.

Your credibility has gone well below zero.

Hehe, Cat said flummery.

Which is in this case, exactly the same amount as a so-called informed opinion. Nada! Therefore, both uninformed and informed opinions have the same value here.

Well, I have to say you're not a hypocrite. You've made it very clear that you have no interest in being informed. Point noted. However, most people would like to form their opinion on actual information, particularly an opinion like women and men commit domestic violence with equal frequency where information either comfirms or debunks that theory (in this case, debunks).

I'm sure Gallileo would have appreciated if his accusers had considered an informned opinion of more value than their uninformed one. Another word for uninformed is ignorant.

So, how long has it been since Bozzy last replied to his thread? "I'm NOT ducking out" he says, in the process of ducking out again:). I wonder Bozzy, will you just come back in, make the SAME statements again, acting as though everyone is attacking you and not dealing with your 'arguments'? Or will you actually read through the threads and finally address some of the questions that have been raised by Cat and others? That would be truly refreshing. I look forward to checking in on this thread to see if you actually allow it to go anywhere, or if you will continue to make the same assertations ad nauseum.

Well, I have to say you're not a hypocrite. You've made it very clear that you have no interest in being informed. Point noted. However, most people would like to form their opinion on actual information, particularly an opinion like women and men commit domestic violence with equal frequency where information either comfirms or debunks that theory (in this case, debunks).

I'm sure Gallileo would have appreciated if his accusers had considered an informned opinion of more value than their uninformed one. Another word for uninformed is ignorant.

Yes, yes, I'm ignorant for daring to suggest that self-proclaimed "informed" opinions have no more intrinsic value than externally-proclaimed "uninformed" opinions. I'm ignorant for daring to think that an opinion is an opinion whether it is informed or not. I'm ignorant for allowing myself to get dragged into this bullshit argument whenever you're feeling testy and decide to provoke me by calling me ignorant. Next time, don't bother with the contrived bullshit about Gallileo, just say "OMG UR STUPID LOL." Your opinion on my knowledge or intelligence has exactly the same value either way.

If as you say I've no wish to be "informed," I certainly have no wish to be called ignorant by the likes of yourself either.

Are you omniscient, by the way?

No?

Then you're ignorant, too.

So, how long has it been since Bozzy last replied to his thread? "I'm NOT ducking out" he says, in the process of ducking out again:). I wonder Bozzy, will you just come back in, make the SAME statements again, acting as though everyone is attacking you and not dealing with your 'arguments'? Or will you actually read through the threads and finally address some of the questions that have been raised by Cat and others? That would be truly refreshing. I look forward to checking in on this thread to see if you actually allow it to go anywhere, or if you will continue to make the same assertations ad nauseum.

The guantlet has been laid down several times now.

We likely will not hear from Bozzy again on this subject until he creates a new thread recycling this same garbage.

We certainly won't ever get a response to the substantive points we have raised.

Yes, yes, I'm ignorant for daring to suggest that self-proclaimed "informed" opinions have no more intrinsic value than externally-proclaimed "uninformed" opinions. I'm ignorant for daring to think that an opinion is an opinion whether it is informed or not. I'm ignorant for allowing myself to get dragged into this bullshit argument whenever you're feeling testy and decide to provoke me by calling me ignorant. Next time, don't bother with the contrived bullshit about Gallileo, just say "OMG UR STUPID LOL." Your opinion on my knowledge or intelligence has exactly the same value either way.

If as you say I've no wish to be "informed," I certainly have no wish to be called ignorant by the likes of yourself either.

Are you omniscient, by the way?

No?

Then you're ignorant, too.

Nice to see you are still eschewing making the argument personal or resorting to name-calling -- even as a response. ;)

Regardless, you rather neatly display the flaw in your point. The distinction is not between the "self-proclaimed informed" and the "externally-proclaimed uninformed."

The distinction is between those who provide and consider information, providing and using bases on which that information can be evaluated for its credibility and reliability, and those who proclaim information is irrelevant, treat all "information" as equally reliable/unreliable, and/or treat only that information they agree with as reliable, regardless of the indicia to the contrary.

Why you would defend the second camp is beyond me.

The guantlet has been laid down several times now.

We likely will not hear from Bozzy again on this subject until he creates a new thread recycling this same garbage.


I fully plan to keep a copy of this thread so we don't have to go through the effort again of refuting him. I'll just copy and paste the arguments he failed to address this time...then he can amuse himself once more by ducking out over and over.

Hmm, let's see if Bozzy will bother trying to actually defend the premise of this thread today? Here is a link Cat Tribe provided a while back, that many people probably didn't bother reading:
The Myth of the "Battered Husband Syndrome"

The most recurrent backlash against women's safety is the myth that men are battered as often as women. Suzanne Steinmetz [1] created this myth with her 1977 study of 57 couples, in which four wives were seriously beaten but no husbands were beaten. By a convoluted thought process [2] she concluded that her finding of zero battered husbands implied that men just don't report abuse and therefore 250,000 American husbands [3] are battered each year by their wives,[4] a figure that exploded to 12 million in the subsequent media feeding frenzy.[5]

In the myth's latest incarnation, Katherine Dunn (The New Republic, 8/1/94) is unable to counter these hard scientific data so she turns to disputed sociological studies by Murray Straus and Richard Gelles [8,9] for "proof" that violence rates are almost equal. She first implies that these studies are unassailable by calling the authors "two of the most respected researchers in the field of domestic violence." Then she cynically attempts to undercut Straus' critics by labeling them as "advocacy groups." In fact Straus' critics are unimpeachable scientists of both genders, such as Emerson and Russell Dobash [10,11] and Edward Gondolf,[12] who say his studies are bad science, with findings and conclusions that are contradictory, inconsistent, and unwarranted.[13,14,15]

There are three major flaws in Straus' work. The first is that he used a set of questions that cannot discriminate between intent and effect.[16] This so-called Conflict Tactics Scale (or CTS) equates a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs.[17] It labels a mother as violent if she defends her daughter from the father's sexual molestation. It combines categories such as "hitting" and "trying to hit" despite the important difference between them.[18]

In any case, criminal victimization surveys using random national samples are free of any reporting bias. They give similar results:

• The 1973-81 U.S. National Crime Survey, including over a million interviews, found that only 3 to 4 percent of marital assaults involved attacks on men by their female partners.[32,33]

• The 1981 and 1987 Canadian surveys [34,35] found that the number of assaults of males was too low to provide reliable estimates.

• The 1982 and 1984 British surveys found that women accounted for all of the victims of marital assaults.[36]

This is not to say that men are not harmed in our society, but most often men are harmed by other men. Eighty-seven percent of men murdered in the U.S. are killed by other men.[37] Those doing the killing in every major and minor war in this and previous centuries have mostly been men! Instead of attempting to undercut services for the enormous number of women who are terrorized by their mates, those who claim to care for men had better address our real enemies; ourselves.


So instead of pretending there is some sort of feminist 'coverup', or that somehow the violence against men is solely the fault of women, feminists in particular, perhaps you should be focusing on how to help men WITHOUT harming women in the process (by advocating funds be cut etc)? Let's ALL of us look at the roots of violence, in people of all genders, look at the gender roles that socialise men to be more aggressive, and decide, "Do we really want to live with the consequences of that sort of socialisation?"

Yes, yes, I'm ignorant for daring to suggest that self-proclaimed "informed" opinions have no more intrinsic value than externally-proclaimed "uninformed" opinions. I'm ignorant for daring to think that an opinion is an opinion whether it is informed or not. I'm ignorant for allowing myself to get dragged into this bullshit argument whenever you're feeling testy and decide to provoke me by calling me ignorant. Next time, don't bother with the contrived bullshit about Gallileo, just say "OMG UR STUPID LOL." Your opinion on my knowledge or intelligence has exactly the same value either way.

If as you say I've no wish to be "informed," I certainly have no wish to be called ignorant by the likes of yourself either.

Are you omniscient, by the way?

No?

Then you're ignorant, too.
I didn't call you ignorant, by the way. You advocated uninformed opinions having equal weight as informed opinions which we both know is complete and utter crap. How do I know you know it? Because you got offended that you might possibly be considered ignorant. When people ask for sources they are not necessarily suggesting your opinion is uninformed. More likely, they just wish to see where you got your information from. Now if you actually think that the opinion "all men are black because I personally have only seen black males" and "according to census figures from 2000 12.1% of the American adults identify themselves as 'black'" followed by a link with actual census data have exactly the same weight, well, I expect you're going to annoy and be annoyed a lot on this forum.

Perhaps what you mean to argue is that bias exists everywhere and as long as your opinion is, in fact, informed in some manner it should be considered. As Cat mentioned earlier, however, generally opinions are worth just about as much as the work put into them. If you spent your entire life studying the brain your opinion is going to hold more sway (and should) than someone who knows nothing about the brain and just decides that brains are made of moldy wax because of the way people's ears smell.

You're really getting desperate when you gotta pull out the "none of us know the absolute truth" claims. We're not talking about the existence of God. We're talking about violence. Yes, we could all be playing some very complicated computer game, but unless we just want to completely derail the discussion, how about we just stick the actual peer-reviewed, studied figures that show the percentages of violence by type, victim and perpetrator? You can't objectively study the existence of God, but, certainly, there is an objective way to study violence.

W00T Jocabia! *hunkers down to wait for SB to respond*

Hmm, let's see if Bozzy will bother trying to actually defend the premise of this thread today? Here is a link Cat Tribe provided a while back, that many people probably didn't bother reading:



So instead of pretending there is some sort of feminist 'coverup', or that somehow the violence against men is solely the fault of women, feminists in particular, perhaps you should be focusing on how to help men WITHOUT harming women in the process (by advocating funds be cut etc)? Let's ALL of us look at the roots of violence, in people of all genders, look at the gender roles that socialise men to be more aggressive, and decide, "Do we really want to live with the consequences of that sort of socialisation?"

I don't want to get into a fight or anything, cause I don't care about gender equality nor gender inequality. Though your reference to those surveys or whatever are completely useless. Most of our lawmakers were children when these surveys were taken. You might have an avid supporter like myself and probably many like me if we could see MODERN facts. I mostly say this because, honestly, I usually do get hit with some sort of hard item or projectile a few times a day from my wife. I would do something, but the second I do, I get labeled a "woman-hater." So I deal with it, and keep telling myself that I'm the man and can take it (even though she outweighs me by ten pounds). So don't tell me it doesn't happen in reverse, that's all Bozzy is trying to say. He never said anything, at least in this thread cause I haven't seen the other one, that it never happens to women. I know woman can be the victims: my grandmother was, three of my aunts were. Though for some reason, when it happens to a man, we are either liars or "not significant enough to note." Anyways, please give me current info.

I don't want to get into a fight or anything, cause I don't care about gender equality nor gender inequality. Though your reference to those surveys or whatever are completely useless. Most of our lawmakers were children when these surveys were taken. You might have an avid supporter like myself and probably many like me if we could see MODERN facts. I mostly say this because, honestly, I usually do get hit with some sort of hard item or projectile a few times a day from my wife. I would do something, but the second I do, I get labeled a "woman-hater." So I deal with it, and keep telling myself that I'm the man and can take it (even though she outweighs me by ten pounds). So don't tell me it doesn't happen in reverse, that's all Bozzy is trying to say. He never said anything, at least in this thread cause I haven't seen the other one, that it never happens to women. I know woman can be the victims: my grandmother was, three of my aunts were. Though for some reason, when it happens to a man, we are either liars or "not significant enough to note." Anyways, please give me current info.

NO ONE is claiming that men are not abused. And Bozzy is not, in fact, claiming women aren't. What Bozzy is claiming is that women abuse men with equal frequency and effect as men abusing women. This is quite simply not true and not supported by fact.

Now, in your case, you need to make your wife aware that violence is not acceptable. It's disrespectful and can cause things to elevate to someone getting injured. If she can't understand that you're serious and that you find it to be unacceptable, I suggest you take more serious steps to correct the problem.

I don't want to get into a fight or anything, cause I don't care about gender equality nor gender inequality. Though your reference to those surveys or whatever are completely useless. Most of our lawmakers were children when these surveys were taken. You might have an avid supporter like myself and probably many like me if we could see MODERN facts.
Don't take things out of context. The research you are talking about was in reference to research done around the same time...in order to refute it.

Modern examples are easy to find. Cat's given some...and you can google your own that will give you stats within the last few years.



I mostly say this because, honestly, I usually do get hit with some sort of hard item or projectile a few times a day from my wife. I would do something, but the second I do, I get labeled a "woman-hater." So I deal with it, and keep telling myself that I'm the man and can take it (even though she outweighs me by ten pounds).
Sounds like you are in an abusive relationship. There is help for that, even when it is the man being abused. Seek it.


So don't tell me it doesn't happen in reverse, that's all Bozzy is trying to say.
No, that is not all he is trying to say. I suggest reading the entire thread.

Though for some reason, when it happens to a man, we are either liars or "not significant enough to note." Anyways, please give me current info. Ok.

http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html
http://endabuse.org/resources/facts/
http://womensissues.about.com/od/domesticviolence/a/dvstats.htm (plenty more links on this page)
http://www.aidv-usa.com/Statistics.htm
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/stats.html

There are many, many more places you can find more information.

Statement 1:
"it calls itself iFeminist, but is about as anti-feminist as you can get...."

I decided to check the site out.

My ascertation is that your statement is fraudulent, as I could not find a single thing in the site "anti-feminist". Your definition of anti-feminism must be an interesting one. Here's mine:

People who are against gender equality, or people who paint all feminists as feminazis.

Some other 'enlightened' editorials for you to peruse:

The Sun of Feminism Shines Brightly in Socialist Europe (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0608roberts.html)

Whatever Happened to Sugar and Spice and Everything Nice? (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0511roberts.html)

This whole site constantly flames feminists as being part of the "Sisterhood", and paints all feminists as evil Ms.Informing man haters. Not really an unbiased picture, is it?

My favourite quote: History teaches that the family is one of the strongest bulwarks against the centralization of governmental power. The proponents of VAWA seek to weaken and ultimately reconfigure the traditional family. That's their socialist vision of the future.



Statement 2:
"It's also incredibly biased as evidenced by the words they use when speaking about 'feminists'...."

They speak about "Radical Feminist" organizations like "NOW"... Which are overtly radical, and slanted. And they describe them as that.
No. They don't just specify NOW and other 'radical feminist groups'. Nice slant on it though. There is nothing in that entire site that ever says, "We are just talking about the radicals, not ALL feminists".

And I don't care if you don't like a group...using perjoritive terms like, 'thugs, Gender Warriors, socialists (when there is no evidence that feminism is based on socialism)' is not an acceptable way to get your point across.


Statement 3:
"I love that this article is trying to say that women are just as abusive as men, and the whole men abusing women thing is just a feminist lie."

No where in the article does it asert, or even illude to the idea that "men abusing women is a lie"; but merely asserts that women do indeed abuse men, comparible to men abusing women, and it is a problem in both sexes (not just one).
Would you check your facts before you start getting all self-righteous? Read the article:

Feminist Cover-Up Means Billion-Dollar Taxpayer Shake-Down (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0525roberts.html)

Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses.1

No wonder that John Leo, columnist for US News and World Report, once described the feminist DV cover-up this way: "news stories on domestic violence are carefully crafted, consistently unreliable, and often just wrong." 2
There's a good reason for this spate of Ms.-information. The rad-fems want to hoodwink the public and politicians that there's an epidemic of violence against women out there, and it's spiraling out of control. Predictably, the cure for that epidemic is a new federal program that carries a hefty price tag.
1)Yes, it DOES say "women are just as abusive as men" (as per my original statement).

2) It also DOES say "the whole men abusing women thing is a feminist lie".


Hmm, out of three statements in in your first paragraph; you were incapable of providing one true statement. Are you a pathological liar?
Spare me your flames. And why don't YOU try dealing with the refutations in this thread rather than getting on your high horse and talking about nothing? We don't need more filler.

I've seen wife on husband spousal abuse more than five times in the last 6 months, with my own fucking eyes. Not limited to seeing a woman throw a TV set over her husband head...
Blah blah blah, anecdotal evidence...not really indicative of overall statistics. And I suggest you restrain yourself...your hostility is quite apparent.

Your dream-land where this does not happen, merely because people don't accept, and refuse to endorse studies in it; is just that, a fucking illusion you've created, and continue to press forth.
You might want to actually read this thread instead of making wild, and false accusations (especially when you just accused me, baselessly, of doing the same). Cat, I, Jocabia and others have NEVER said men are not abused. You go ahead and think that if you wish to...I doubt even reading through the posts in this thread would deter you if that's the route you really wish to take.

Not to say, as you at Cat-Tribe wish to assert; that it does not happen.
Show me where we ever said it didn't. And show me where we've ever said women don't abuse men. Are you enjoying the strawman you've created?

Edit: let me know if you want a recipie for preparing crow. You'll be eating it soon, if you are at all honest with yourself.

women could indeed, and most certainly do, abuse their partner, as much as men...
Back this up. What? You can't? Hmmm...it must all be a conspiracy.

Crow is quite good prepared like duck, I hear.

I don't want to get into a fight or anything, cause I don't care about gender equality nor gender inequality. Though your reference to those surveys or whatever are completely useless. Most of our lawmakers were children when these surveys were taken. You might have an avid supporter like myself and probably many like me if we could see MODERN facts. I mostly say this because, honestly, I usually do get hit with some sort of hard item or projectile a few times a day from my wife. I would do something, but the second I do, I get labeled a "woman-hater." So I deal with it, and keep telling myself that I'm the man and can take it (even though she outweighs me by ten pounds). So don't tell me it doesn't happen in reverse, that's all Bozzy is trying to say. He never said anything, at least in this thread cause I haven't seen the other one, that it never happens to women. I know woman can be the victims: my grandmother was, three of my aunts were. Though for some reason, when it happens to a man, we are either liars or "not significant enough to note." Anyways, please give me current info.

That particular quotation was refuting the very old studies upon which Bozzy and friends are relying. That is why it mostly refers to old studies. :rolleyes:

It was also one of many, many sources cited in this thread to rebut Bozzy's premises.

As to modern, accurate information, already provided. Clicky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103)

This is amazing. We've managed to go for 22 pages without every actually getting a rebuttal from Bozzy, or anyone else...but random people just keep popping in, not reading the thread, making assumptions and repeating the same arguments. It'd be nice if ANY of them would actually look at the arguments that have been made yet...perhaps this is asking too much. I'm sure it's more satisfying to come in, flame away and name call, repeat refuted assertations, and run off feeling all vindicated.

Edit: If it's not too much to ask, Cat, could you provide a quick summary of what has actually been discussed so far? Just links to the relevant posts? Please please please? I have to run, but maybe people just don't want to dig through so many pages...

This crap has been thoroughly disproven, Tekania

I've seen wife on husband spousal abuse more than five times in the last 6 months, with my own fucking eyes. Not limited to seeing a woman throw a TV set over her husband head...

That is unfortunate. Who said it never happened?

Your dream-land where this does not happen, merely because people don't accept, and refuse to endorse studies in it; is just that, a fucking illusion you've created, and continue to press forth.

Again, feel free to torch that strawman. We have never denied that domestic violence occurs against men and is perpetrated by women. To the contrary, I have repeatedly said that both are true.

The "fucking illusion[s]" that I deny are that domestic violence is not serious, that the amounts of violence against women are insignificant, or that men and women are equally victims or perpetrators of domestic violence. Those just ain't so.

Among other things, clicky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103).

According to Canada's own site, analyzing their own GSS Survey on the issue:

Many cases of spousal abuse are still not reported to the police - although there are some signs that reporting is increasing. The most complete information about the extent of spousal abuse in Canada comes from the 1999 General Social Survey on Victimization (GSS). This victimization survey asked almost 26,000 women and men in Canada about their experiences of abuse including experiences of violence and emotional abuse in their current or previous marriages and common law partnerships. According to the GSS, women and men experience similar rates of both violence and emotional abuse in their relationships. The survey found, however, that the violence experienced by women is tended to be more severe - and more often repeated - than the violence directed at men. For example, compared to men, women were:

* six times more likely to report being sexually assaulted
* five times more likely to report being choked
* five times more likely to require medical attention, as a result of an assault
* three times more likely to be physically injured by an assault
* more than twice as likely to report being beaten
* almost twice as likely to report being threatened with, or having a gun or knife used against them
* much more likely to fear for their lives, or be afraid for their children as a result of the violence
* more likely to have sleeping problems, suffer depression or anxiety attacks, or have lowered self-esteem as a result of being abused, and
* more likely to report repeated victimization.

Link?

And this one survey from 1999 in Canada is conclusive?

And this mostly supports our view!

Not to say, as you at Cat-Tribe wish to assert; that it does not happen.

Never, ever, fucking said that. Either quote me saying that men are never victims of domestic violence or retract the lie. I have, in fact, said the opposite. If I have to search the thread to disprove your lie, I'm going to be very pissed.

Indeed, even official studies show a similarity of occurence between both sexes. This is not disputable (once again, as you and Cat-Tribe, wish to assert).

Bullshit. Prove it.

There are differences in the levels that occur... But the survey shows increased likelyhood of women to "REPORT" cases than men would...

Though woman on man abuse tends to have a less of chance to result in death, or permanate injury.... And women are more likely to be killed by their husband; than vice-versa....

At least you recognize the latter statements. The first is based on one report of one study. Others have drawn different conclusions from that same study ... and other studies show that the difference is not just in reporting, but in actual occurrence.

But the issue is abuse.... And the playing field should be level... For every woman out there who reports an abuse case; you can bet there are 6 men who have not reported such upon themselves, out there....[

One must wonder why neither of you would even consider the idea than women could indeed, and most certainly do, abuse their partner, as much as men...

Again, I am willing to consider the idea that the abuse could be equal. I have considered it, and I know it to be false.

I have recognized that women could and mostly certainly do abuse their partners ... but not as much as men.

W00T Jocabia! *hunkers down to wait for SB to respond*

*waits for same*

I didn't call you ignorant, by the way. You advocated uninformed opinions having equal weight as informed opinions which we both know is complete and utter crap.

Way to misinterpret my posts (again). The context (hey, look it up ;) ) was one of "value," which on General forum? Guess what, every opinion has the same value. Free.

And you of course managed to dance closely to insulting me without actually formulating a direct insult, by merely implying that I'm like someone (criticizers of Gallileo) who was ignorant. Whatever.

How do I know you know it? Because you got offended that you might possibly be considered ignorant.

Plenty of people may possibly consider me ignorant. That doesn't bother me. It bothers me when people like you make that the focus of your posts. It bothers me when people apparently, deliberately set out to bother me.

When people ask for sources they are not necessarily suggesting your opinion is uninformed. More likely, they just wish to see where you got your information from. Now if you actually think that the opinion "all men are black because I personally have only seen black males" and "according to census figures from 2000 12.1% of the American adults identify themselves as 'black'" followed by a link with actual census data have exactly the same weight, well, I expect you're going to annoy and be annoyed a lot on this forum.

They both weigh as much as the paper they're written on.

Also, calling someone ignorant just so you could go "aha! Your objection to being called ignorant proves my point!" would annoy a lot of people on this forum too.

And not all opinions are matters of 'objective' or statistical facts.

I'm through with this pointless bickering, so don't bother responding. Honest. I won't read it. I suppose you'll use that to triumphantly blurt out your victory or my proven 'ignorance' or whatever. Knock yourself out. ;)

*snip*

*giggles because he posted similar things to Sin and Cat and didn't get accused of anything*

I'd also like to point out, however, that others have made the same accusations about the people here supporting that women are far more frequent victims of domestic violence and that this domestic violence is more severe. None of them have yet to show that any of the people disputing the accuracy of the original post have made any claim that resembles "men aren't victimized by women, ever"

Maybe you should buy one of these shirts

http://www.coyotescorner.com/images/feminism.jpg


Cheris Kraemer and Pauls Treichler i salute you.

I fucking can, and have, you pedantic twit...

Original Article (http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm/spouseafs.html#widespread)

The only conspiracy is your rank idiocy, you inability to deal with the truth, and your adherance to your personal dillusions; in some fantasy-land where it is impossible for women to abuse men, or even do so at "equal" levels...

Oh, I know, men are all inherantly vile, violent evil slime.... I forgot I needed to apply your bigotry and prejudice first.... I'm sorry I'm not a slimeball bigot like yourself.... I'll try to be worst next time....

Tamp down those flames. They don't help your cause.

The source rather clearly and differently defines physical abuse as: Physical abuse may consist of just one incident or it may happen repeatedly. It includes using physical force in a way that injures someone - or puts them at risk of being injured- including beating, hitting, shaking, pushing, choking, biting, burning, kicking, or assaulting with a weapon.1 Other forms of physical abuse may include, for example, rough handling, confinement, or any dangerous or harmful use of force or restraint.

Using that definition and equating any single incident of pushing or "rough handling" with beating, choking, and assaulting with a weapon, this one survey found equal "amounts" of violence in relationships experienced by men and women.

Contrary to your implication, all the data was based on what was "reported" in the survey. So the same statistic that said women and men reported equal "amounts" of violence in relationships, said (as you quoted):

The survey found, however, that the violence experienced by women is tended to be more severe - and more often repeated - than the violence directed at men. For example, compared to men, women were:

six times more likely to report being sexually assaulted
five times more likely to report being choked
five times more likely to require medical attention, as a result of an assault
three times more likely to be physically injured by an assault
more than twice as likely to report being beaten
almost twice as likely to report being threatened with, or having a gun or knife used against them
much more likely to fear for their lives, or be afraid for their children as a result of the violence
more likely to have sleeping problems, suffer depression or anxiety attacks, or have lowered self-esteem as a result of being abused, and
more likely to report repeated victimization.


Nothing in the page you cited suggests that women merely report the above more often than men, but rather that women experience such abuse more often than men.

I'll go look at the underlying study now. EDIT: No, I won't. I costs $30 to look at.

Not as much huh? Enjoy your fantasy-land.... When you're actually capable of dealing with reality, give me a hollar....

Excuse me?

1. Show me where I denied the existence of women on men domestic violence.

2. Did you even look at my sources? Or my many other posts in this thread disproving your thesis?

Usually you do your homework better than this. Simply insulting us doesn't prove a damn thing.

Sexism, like racism, still exists. It's just more covert than overt.
Twelve years ago in Texas it was still legal for a man to rape his wife. That's within the lifetime of almost everyone on NS.
When my parents got divorced, it was still legal to refuse to rent to a divorced woman.
The first job I ever applied for I was told I wouldn't be hired because I was female. Point blank, no dodging the issue.

Yes things are better. But though law may say we are equal, there are plenty of times we are told in no uncertain terms that we are not.

very true b/k

women have been, and still are being abused all the time and all over the world.
it is much better now for women in the west now then just a few years ago,so many femminests have had valid arguments then and now.
the real injustice towards women seem to be occuring in third world countries and in many muslim nations.

and just to acknowledge the flip side of this somewhat silly debate,yes women are abused,yes women have less oppurtunity towards advancement then men(in the west)and women have been held down as second class citizens forever....

it is equally silly to deny that many men are abused by women now.the laws are stacked against men from divorce to police interaction.

i know from my personel experiance,i came home to find my wife doing coke in my bed with some punk,my kids were in there rooms...junior jumped off my balcony and ran into the woods,never to be seen again...
my now ex wife,after i went out back to beat coke boy up,called the cops..they show up,she says i threw her down the stairs.
never layed a finger on her,but i was arrested and takin to jail,for the weekend.(no bail on fridays,till the judge comes back till monday)

there was not a mark on her,i never was ever in my life charged with anything,i told the cops she was doing drugs in my home with my children present.don't matter,she called,we have to arrest you..sorry.

we went to court,she admitted lying,wanted to get back with me after rehab,so it was (domestic abuse)dropped.the prosecutor said i could file malicous pros. charges,i declined,got a lawyer and now have custody of both my kids going on 8 years,single dad and all.

that doesnt include the many times she threw plates,fireplace pokers and misc. projectiles at me for daring to say she had a problem or we cant afford to buy this or that.

saying women don't have temper problems is about as stupid as saying men dont.and act on there impulses.

sorry for the rant and novel..sore subject for me,and i know many other men that left women because of them hitting and throwing things.
men just don't usually file charges for obvious reasons,and women know that all they need to say now is he hit me and the guy is arrested...period.

is that to say..women arent abused...of coarse not!

my point is,anger knows no gender...just that now the system protects women and ignores men.
and it is not beyond the pale for women to use that to there advantage,either for divorce reasons,or just flat not getting there way.

also,i aint a women hater,i have a 19 year old daughter who is awesome.i just am not so foolish to say men are neanderthals and women are all goodness and light :headbang:

Way to misinterpret my posts (again). The context (hey, look it up ;) ) was one of "value," which on General forum? Guess what, every opinion has the same value. Free.

Getting equal airtime is not the same as getting equal consideration. Let's see I said "You advocated uninformed opinions having equal weight as informed opinions" and you said that was a misinterpretation. How is that different than saying they have the same value? You do know that in this case weight and value are synonyms.

And you of course managed to dance closely to insulting me without actually formulating a direct insult, by merely implying that I'm like someone (criticizers of Gallileo) who was ignorant. Whatever.

No, I specifically said that ignorant is another word for uninformed. Then I disagreed with your suggesting that an uniformed opinion carries equal weight, oh, sorry, VALUE.

Plenty of people may possibly consider me ignorant. That doesn't bother me. It bothers me when people like you make that the focus of your posts. It bothers me when people apparently, deliberately set out to bother me.

As I've said, I've never called you ignorant nor implied that you were. In case anyone else is confused, I am making no assumptions on the knowledge or lack thereof of SB.

They both weigh as much as the paper they're written on.

I doubt you really believe this but if you do then... *random guy approaches* a meteor is about to destroy the earth? *watches as SB doesn't bother to check if it's true* See? If people don't actually evaluate how informed an opinion is they aren't able to know how to properly categorize it. If a guy comes up to me and tells he pinpointed the origin of the universe but he doesn't know anything about physics or astronomy, I'm not going to really spend much time researching it to find out if it's true. However, I am interested in the subject, so if a physicist or astronomer made the same claim, I would research it to discover the validity. I suspect that despite your protestations you would do the same.

Also, calling someone ignorant just so you could go "aha! Your objection to being called ignorant proves my point!" would annoy a lot of people on this forum too.

I didn't call you ignorant. I suggested the fact that you would not want your posts to be considered uninformed/ignorant. And, yes, you have several times confirmed that you find the idea of being considered uninformed or ignorant offensive..

And not all opinions are matters of 'objective' or statistical facts.

But opinions on the pervasiveness of domestic violence ARE. Because some arguments can not be settled by emperical evidence does not mean none can. This one clearly can by anyone who understands anything about statistics and how they can and are collected. No one has come on here and suggested a bias or a problem in the way the statistics were collected by the US government. Not Bozzy. Not you. Yet, the statistics clearly disagree with the argument the men and women are equally victims of DV and yet, some here would pretend there claim is as accurate as my claim that I am currently typing on a computer.

I'm through with this pointless bickering, so don't bother responding. Honest. I won't read it. I suppose you'll use that to triumphantly blurt out your victory or my proven 'ignorance' or whatever. Knock yourself out. ;)

Yes, that's how it works. *Watches SB run away with his hands over his ears, going, "I can't hear you! I can't hear you!"*

Tekania, getting your flames in and then removing them before Mods can act doesn't actually work. I've verified that the quoted passages in other peoples posts are accurate, so don't bother claiming that you were misrepresented. The only thing preventing you from being forumbanned is the fact that you belatedly recognized your error. That, and the in-thread apology I fully expect you to make.

Tekania, Official Warning for flaming and flamebaiting. Get your temper under control, or face the continued consequences of your actions.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

Just for any who cares. All you who keep quoting Canadian statistics, keep quoting irrelevent details, they all include violent non-spousal household victimization. These all include break ins and what-not. Though a surprising result which I noticed was that 29% of men who experienced these types of crimes, said they tried to not let it affect them too much. Whereas 9% of women followed that role. FYI if anyone cares.

My mistake it claims
"Box 1.2: Risk of spousal violence
According to the 1999 GSS, 7% of people who were
married or living in a common-law relationship
experienced physical or sexual violence by a current
or previous spouse in the previous five years. While
the rates for women and men did not vary greatly (8%
versus 7%), women were much more likely to
experience more serious and chronic violence than
were men.
Spousal violence crosses all socio-demographic
boundaries, but it does not affect all women and men
equally. Results from the GSS show that young women
under the age of 25 reported the highest one-year rates
of violence. Data also suggest that those living in a
common-law relationship were four times more likely
to be the victim of spousal violence compared to women
and men in legal marriages. Moreover, while income,
education and urban or rural residence do not play
significant roles in a person’s risk of spousal violence,
excessive alcohol use and emotional abuse appear to
be highly associated with the risk. Specifically, people
whose partners drank five or more drinks on five or
more occasions in a one-month period had one-year
rates of violence six times higher than those whose
partners never drank or drank only moderately.
Similarly, those who indicated that their partner was
emotionally abusive toward them had five-year rates
10 times higher than those whose partners were not
emotionally abusive."

So for anyone still viewing this thread, these are the facts, taken straight from the aforementioned 1999 Canadian survey.

Wow. I fully expected to come back and see an apology from Tekania. All of us get riled up from time to time and take it out on others wrongfully...but most of us manage to admit we've gone overboard and try to make redress.

Just for any who cares. All you who keep quoting Canadian statistics, keep quoting irrelevent details, they all include violent non-spousal household victimization. These all include break ins and what-not. Though a surprising result which I noticed was that 29% of men who experienced these types of crimes, said they tried to not let it affect them too much. Whereas 9% of women followed that role. FYI if anyone cares.

My mistake it claims
"Box 1.2: Risk of spousal violence
According to the 1999 GSS, 7% of people who were married or living in a common-law relationship experienced physical or sexual violence by a current or previous spouse in the previous five years. While the rates for women and men did not vary greatly (8% versus 7%), women were much more likely to experience more serious and chronic violence than were men.

First of all, I'm not really sure what your 'point is'. You've listed a bunch of stats, but I'm not sure if you are trying to prove 'x' or 'y'. Some sort of statement would help.

Secondly. If you notice, about equal numbers of men and women experienced violence, but it very clearly points out that women were more likely to experience more serious and chronic (long term) violence than men. So, this stat could include one single act of violence (a slap, or a hard punch, being raped, thrown down the stairs, stabbed etc...no details of the severity of the violence) or MANY incidences of violence. So saying that men and women are victimized equally using this sort of stat, doesn't really tell the full story, does it? If a man gets a toaster chucked at his head once in the past five years, and a woman is routinely beaten for that time period, would you consider that violence to be equal? And visa versa...because, as we have maintained throughout this thread, men ARE victims of violence too, even serious domestic violence...BUT NOT AT THE SAME RATES AS ARE WOMEN.


Spousal violence crosses all socio-demographic boundaries, but it does not affect all women and men equally. Results from the GSS show that young women under the age of 25 reported the highest one-year rates of violence. Data also suggest that those living in a common-law relationship were four times more likely
to be the victim of spousal violence compared to women and men in legal marriages. Moreover, while income, education and urban or rural residence do not play significant roles in a person’s risk of spousal violence, excessive alcohol use and emotional abuse appear to be highly associated with the risk. Specifically, people whose partners drank five or more drinks on five or more occasions in a one-month period had one-year
rates of violence six times higher than those whose partners never drank or drank only moderately. Similarly, those who indicated that their partner was emotionally abusive toward them had five-year rates 10 times higher than those whose partners were not
emotionally abusive."

Now here is an example of some useful information if one wanted to direct programs and funding towards groups that are most likely to need help in terms of domestic violence. And this approach should be an integrated one, dealing not only with the victims of violence, but also with the perpetrators, with anger counseling, etc. Some risk factors seem to be:

- women under 25 in relationships
- commonlaw relationships
- alcohol abuse
- emotional abuse



So for anyone still viewing this thread, these are the facts, taken straight from the aforementioned 1999 Canadian survey.
So, thank you for pulling out some useful information from the sources that have been provided. However, I'd still like to ask what your stance is on the whole issue, because this post does not really make that clear.

Dang, I was curious about Hemingsoft's responses.

Maybe we can have a response now?

So? It's still pretty far ahead of other nations. And you don't think people fought (feminists among them) for this legislation? That it came in all by itself? Even better, look at this as a current and recent victory.

to be fair, they only did it after about 20 years of immense pressure from the European Court of Human Rights - 20 years in which they pointed out that we were 1 of only 4 countries in the council of Europe (as it then stood) that did not recognise such rights, so i'd hardly call it "far ahead of other nations" at least not when we're talking about european nations.

Rambling about feminist conspiracies is the new rambling about Jewish conspiracies! Rant, righties, rant!

Gravedigging

I'm not sure after just a week or two it is fair to call it gravedigging. Sadly, there were some private issues I had to tend to which distracted me from this thread, plus the response was, (pleasantly) a bit more than I expected. I do wish that I had had the time to respond thoughtfully to all of the posts. I considered doing it now, but was thinking a bit about 'gravedigging' and figured I'd just wait a while and take it up again at a later date when I have more time.

I still could respond (to those who's comments were worthy of a response) if there is interest, but time is still a rare commodity for me and responses may take a day or so. I am actually eager to given the selective perceptions and statistical abuses I've witnessed displayed here.

If 'gravedigging' is an issue, then I welcome someone else to start a thread. I will contribute as time allows.

I think it depends on if you resurrected the thread or someone else did it I think. 12 days is gravedigging.

Whatever. My offer still stands; just reference the post # instead of re-entering everything and I'll respond, though right now I have to go. :( Back Wednesday.

Yup. Right now, we are trying to get Maternity leave changed so that the father can take this time if the woman decides to go back to work. Right now, (in Canada) a woman can take 32 weeks of Maternity leave, but if she doesn't use it all, it's lost. The man can only take 20 weeks of Parental leave. So there *sticks out tongue*.

Oh yeah, and many feminists are also trying to get recognition for transgendered people...and it has worked quite well in some countries...the UK for example, allows a transgendered person to get their gender changed on their birth certificate BEFORE they have the sex-change operation.


But isn't it more fun to believe we're out to install a matriarchy?

Being ignorant is awesome.

I'm not sure after just a week or two it is fair to call it gravedigging. Sadly, there were some private issues I had to tend to which distracted me from this thread, plus the response was, (pleasantly) a bit more than I expected. I do wish that I had had the time to respond thoughtfully to all of the posts. I considered doing it now, but was thinking a bit about 'gravedigging' and figured I'd just wait a while and take it up again at a later date when I have more time.

Oh I see. So, rather than actually address the issues that have been brought up in this thread, you'll wait until this thread is lost, then you'll start up another one, with the same arguments, and abandon that one too when anyone presents you with evidence that you are wrong? Very convenient that. Forgive me for not going through the effort (yet again) of summarising the points, or referencing specific posts. We've all done that a number of times and had no response from you.

Feminism is just like affirmative action, in a sense. Neither are about achieving equality, but rather achieving preferential treatment for specific groups.

Feminism is just like affirmative action, in a sense. Neither are about achieving equality, but rather achieving preferential treatment for specific groups.


Oi vey...

:rolleyes:

Feminism is just like affirmative action, in a sense. Neither are about achieving equality, but rather achieving preferential treatment for specific groups.
That's a nice theory. Actually it isn't really. Would you like to provide some proof to back this up? (Gods above haven't we dealt with this already? It stuns me how well the anti-feminist arguments have convinced people of something that they don't even bother to question...)

That's a nice theory. Actually it isn't really. Would you like to provide some proof to back this up? (Gods above haven't we dealt with this already? It stuns me how well the anti-feminist arguments have convinced people of something that they don't even bother to question...)

Most of the feminists I met thought women were superior to men, and deserved superior treatment.

Most of the feminists I met thought women were superior to men, and deserved superior treatment.
Anecdotal "evidence" is of no use in terms of backing up sweeping generalisations about a movement they AND you may not actually know anything about.

So let's keep opinions based on a complete lack of facts OUT of the debate.

Do you have more to add, based in a reality outside your own?

Feminism is just like affirmative action, in a sense. Neither are about achieving equality, but rather achieving preferential treatment for specific groups.

Clearly, you understand neither feminism nor affirmative action.

Burn those strawmen! Burn!

Most of the feminists I met thought women were superior to men, and deserved superior treatment.

Utter Bullshit.

Either this is simply untrue or you have "met" a remarkably unrepresentative selection of so-called "feminists."

I am rather certain it is the former.

Utter Bullshit.

Either this is simply untrue or you have "met" a remarkably unrepresentative selection of so-called "feminists."

I am rather certain it is the former.

Indeed, I was just about to say the same thing.

Oh I see. So, rather than actually address the issues that have been brought up in this thread, you'll wait until this thread is lost, then you'll start up another one, with the same arguments, and abandon that one too when anyone presents you with evidence that you are wrong? Very convenient that. Forgive me for not going through the effort (yet again) of summarising the points, or referencing specific posts. We've all done that a number of times and had no response from you.

Someone as shallow as you may have difficulty understanding that I do have a life outside of posting here and that it, in fact, resides quite low on my order of priorities. (Particulary when replying to those with a lack of mutual respect such as yourself.)

I've given my explanation and made an offer. You may choose to reject it, but there is really no need for rudeness. Simply reference the post number you wish to continue a discussion on and I'll start there - even for someone as abrasive as you. Courtesy, however, would not really kill you.

Feminism is just like affirmative action, in a sense. Neither are about achieving equality, but rather achieving preferential treatment for specific groups.

I would argue that. your statement is made with too broad of a brushstroke. A clear distinction should be made between militant gender-feminists (sometimes called radical feminists) and those who are more rational in their endeavors.

Someone as shallow as you may have difficulty understanding that I do have a life outside of posting here and that it, in fact, resides quite low on my order of priorities. (Particulary when replying to those with a lack of mutual respect such as yourself.)

I've given my explanation and made an offer. You may choose to reject it, but there is really no need for rudeness. Simply reference the post number you wish to continue a discussion on and I'll start there - even for someone as abrasive as you. Courtesy, however, would not really kill you.
Save your patronising tone for someone else. You've proven again and again that 'courtesy' as you call it should only be shown to you...but that it is perfectly fine to direct your rude and inflammatory comments towards others. So, when you actually get a respectful tongue in your head, I'll worry about the language I use towards you. Cachai?

Read your own thread. I'm not about to waste my time on doing your work for you. Respond to all of it. For once.

Clearly, you understand neither feminism nor affirmative action.

Burn those strawmen! Burn!


The comments El Caudillo has made may be overly general and worthy of considerable expansion and definition - but it is alwasy a pleasure to have people share their personal opinions, obeervations and thoughts. These things are valid contributions to any thoughtful discussion.

Rudness and belittlement however are not - in fact they are more symptomatic of a small and frightened mind. They also seem to be you preferred style of communication. It would seem apropriate for you (and several others here) to reflect on that.

Rudness and belittlement however are not - in fact they are more symptomatic of a small and frightened mind. They also seem to be you preferred style of communication. It would seem apropriate for you (and several others here) to reflect on that.
Ah. I see. You're trying to create a more sympathetic character.

One way of furthering your aim might be to avoid those tactics you profess to abhore. Just a thought, Kettle.

Ah, and continuing your personal attacks rather than actually adressing any of the issues brought up...well...we're noticing it.

Save your patronising tone for someone else. You've proven again and again that 'courtesy' as you call it should only be shown to you...but that it is perfectly fine to direct your rude and inflammatory comments towards others. So, when you actually get a respectful tongue in your head, I'll worry about the language I use towards you. Cachai?

Read your own thread. I'm not about to waste my time on doing your work for you. Respond to all of it. For once.


Sorry, but nobody here is exempt from courtesy. As a senior poster that should be obvious to you. There is no time here that I have been rude or inflammatory to you or anyone else. However there has been an aboundance of it from several others here - including yourself. I really have little regard for what language or tone you choose to take. Your language and tone says considerably more about you than me. The only embarrasment I feel is for you.

As far as reading the thread goes, I have. There has been several updates and counter points made along the way. I really see not point in starting at a subjective location. (Start too far back or too late and it will still be a problem for someone) So instead I'll start from here and acknowledge prior posts as they are mentioned. If doing that in a polite fashion is too challenging for you then do the right thing - show some consideration and move on.

Ah. I see. You're trying to create a more sympathetic character.

One way of furthering your aim might be to avoid those tactics you profess to abhore. Just a thought, Kettle.

Ah, and continuing your personal attacks rather than actually adressing any of the issues brought up...well...we're noticing it.

I'm bored. I think I'm going to go through the thread and quote him. It's hard not to laugh at how he's talking now.

Ah. I see. You're trying to create a more sympathetic character.

One way of furthering your aim might be to avoid those tactics you profess to abhore. Just a thought, Kettle.

Ah, and continuing your personal attacks rather than actually adressing any of the issues brought up...well...we're noticing it.

I've clearly stated many times that I've not 'attacked' anyone - certainly not in the way you attempting to right now. I've also offered to address issues directly.

Since it is clear to me that you have no intention of carrying on a civil conversation here I see no point in continuing this discussion for now. Maybe later you will be prepared to conduct yourself in a more mature fashion.

Good night.

I went to the pro-fem site and it nearly split my sides. Remember too women of today, these nazi man-bashers are stealing from and getting your taxes raised too.

the article that got me was the teacher that had sex with the student and how she shouldn't go to prison because she won't live through it. So what! Another dirtbag gone as far as I'm concerned. That's equality. What do you think they do to guys in prison for that?

My first wife smashed my front teeth out with a plate, why? Because I didn't nurture her right to sit on her duff while I was working 12 to 18 hours a day at two jobs. Who did the local groups make out to be the bad guy? Me for not coming home after those hours and doing all the house work. If ever a wife needed a beat-down she was the one.

In the end I found a wonderful woman that takes care of the house and kids. She has her job and I have mine[mind you I do help out around the house too]. She thinks the fembots take this crap too far too. After 6 yrs. we have worked out well and the Ex has been trying to break us up since[ :gundge: ]. Aint happening.

Someone as shallow as you may have difficulty understanding that I do have a life outside of posting here and that it, in fact, resides quite low on my order of priorities. (Particulary when replying to those with a lack of mutual respect such as yourself.)

I've given my explanation and made an offer. You may choose to reject it, but there is really no need for rudeness. Simply reference the post number you wish to continue a discussion on and I'll start there - even for someone as abrasive as you. Courtesy, however, would not really kill you.

1. Look up the word HYPOCRITE!!

2. Perhaps rather than occasionally pop in to lecture others on manners, you would like to address the many substantive rebuttals of your thesis. Meethinks thou dost protest too much.

I went to the pro-fem site and it nearly split my sides. Remember too women of today, these nazi man-bashers are stealing from and getting your taxes raised too.

the article that got me was the teacher that had sex with the student and how she shouldn't go to prison because she won't live through it. So what! Another dirtbag gone as far as I'm concerned. That's equality. What do you think they do to guys in prison for that?

My first wife smashed my front teeth out with a plate, why? Because I didn't nurture her right to sit on her duff while I was working 12 to 18 hours a day at two jobs. Who did the local groups make out to be the bad guy? Me for not coming home after those hours and doing all the house work. If ever a wife needed a beat-down she was the one.

In the end I found a wonderful woman that takes care of the house and kids. She has her job and I have mine[mind you I do help out around the house too]. She thinks the fembots take this crap too far too. After 6 yrs. we have worked out well and the Ex has been trying to break us up since[ :gundge: ]. Aint happening.

My, what an amusing fictional character. :p

Read any Faulkner?

Wow, Is your ability to address the information and supporting research at hand so weak that you have to bring in your own fairy-tale topic? I would expect better than that from you.

Just because it does not view gender equality through the same biased lense you do does not make it anti-feminist. grow up.[/B} Different people have differet opinions. Lableing them anti- something just because you cannot grasp their point is not constructive and [B]small-minded.

I suppose only someone who does not care what happens to men could miss that.

Really, you are so shrill right now that you are doing yourself and your argument a disservce.

Um, sorry, but there is no forum rules against suggesting your argument is becoming shrill - and this suggestion makes it more so.

Someone as shallow as you may have difficulty understanding that I do have a life outside of posting here and that it, in fact, resides quite low on my order of priorities. (Particulary when replying to those with a lack of mutual respect such as yourself.)

I've given my explanation and made an offer. You may choose to reject it, but there is really no need for rudeness. Simply reference the post number you wish to continue a discussion on and I'll start there - even for someone as abrasive as you. Courtesy, however, would not really kill you.

[QUOTE=B0zzy]Rudness and belittlement however are not - in fact they are more symptomatic of a small and frightened mind. They also seem to be you preferred style of communication. It would seem apropriate for you (and several others here) to reflect on that.


Fortunately, he never says anything rude or inflammatory. Just ask him.

There is no time here that I have been rude or inflammatory to you or anyone else.

I've clearly stated many times that I've not 'attacked' anyone - certainly not in the way you attempting to right now.

Wow, just plain lying. I'd like to say it's surprising, but then I'd be guilty too.

Wow, just plain lying. I'd like to say it's surprising, but then I'd be guilty too.

I've pretty much given up on getting anything but patronising, pointless meanderings from Bozzy as he pops in every now and again to protest that we are attacking him, and since we are he isn't going to bother answering the questions in his own thread. As I've said before, I've bookmarked this thread, and when he invariably starts another just like it, rather than having any of us waste our time responding to someone who never bothers to respond back, I'll just cut and paste so he can continue his one-sided conversation one-sidedly.

And I just LOVE how claiming "I've never been rude or inflammatory to anyone on this thread" somehow makes all the rude and inflammatory things he's said...um....not rude and inflammatory? I wonder if that works for me? Let me try, "I'm not someone who gets my back up when someone acts towards me in a patronising and arrogant manner...." nope, still not true. Weird.

And Jocabia, you forgot this one:

First inflammatory statement...in the very first post no less!
lets see how many posts it takes before some feminist thug suggest in crude or vulgar language I am anti-female for daring to not blindly accept the radical faminist core lies.


Now, Bozzy, if you can manage to contain yourself and actually be as polite as you are telling everyone else they should be (while in no way following these rules yourself), perhaps you could, after gee, only 24 pages, actually address the following posts?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9151269&postcount=124
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9153471&postcount=175
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159299&postcount=182
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159347&postcount=183
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159813&postcount=186
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9162913&postcount=230
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9166165&postcount=241

Further sources offered up, and debunked...though you then went on to try to use them anyway:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9169978&postcount=283
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9181666&postcount=296
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9193402&postcount=305

Now Bozzy, I know you like to pop in and say, "too busy, I have a life to lead an all that"...but I really would like to know why you bother to post at all if that is the case. You seem to want us to simply accept your first post, and not question it, because you have yet to actually respond to the rebuttals of your position. If you are truly too busy to respond to such a controversial topic, then why post it in the first place? It is a phenomenal waste of our time to respond to someone who is too 'busy' to bother responding back.

So let this be the last post 'reminding' you of the posts you've ignored, have promised to address, and yet never have. When you come again, no doubt with the same excuses, I'll simply direct you anew to this post.

Whatever. My offer still stands; just reference the post # instead of re-entering everything and I'll respond, though right now I have to go. :( Back Wednesday.

Someone as shallow as you may have difficulty understanding that I do have a life outside of posting here and that it, in fact, resides quite low on my order of priorities. (Particulary when replying to those with a lack of mutual respect such as yourself.)

I've given my explanation and made an offer. You may choose to reject it, but there is really no need for rudeness. Simply reference the post number you wish to continue a discussion on and I'll start there - even for someone as abrasive as you. Courtesy, however, would not really kill you.


Fine. Challenge accepted.

Please address at least the following:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148462&postcount=95
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9151150&postcount=116
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9151210&postcount=119
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9151269&postcount=124
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9162913&postcount=230
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9166165&postcount=241
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9167269&postcount=254
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9169978&postcount=283
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9193402&postcount=305
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9196014&postcount=310

Don't hold your breath.

Don't hold your breath.

HMMM? Mmm Mmm?

See, don't do that, you two. B0zzy will come back and reply to those posts rather than actually addressing any of the substance and we keep making it easier for him.

See, don't do that, you two. B0zzy will come back and reply to those posts rather than actually addressing any of the substance and we keep making it easier for him.
I'm no damn saint Jocabia, and you know this. If Bozzy choose to be the 'bigger man' and actually post something of substance and reply to the lists we've prepared for him, I will myself applaud him for it. If he follows true to form, and ignores these lists in favour of telling us how to behave, I'll continue on as usual.

I'm no damn saint Jocabia, and you know this. If Bozzy choose to be the 'bigger man' and actually post something of substance and reply to the lists we've prepared for him, I will myself applaud him for it. If he follows true to form, and ignores these lists in favour of telling us how to behave, I'll continue on as usual.

As I've demonstrated, he nevers ignores substance in favor of making personal attacks. They are below him.

TG, \/\/40r3

anip



Fortunately, he never says anything rude or inflammatory. Just ask him.





Wow, just plain lying. I'd like to say it's surprising, but then I'd be guilty too.

Wow, I never realized just how thin your skin really is as to be troubled by these innocuous statements. I will take extra care in the future to baby you so as not to offend your sensitivities.

My, what an amusing fictional character. :p

Read any Faulkner?
That's the spirit TCT! Way to make the new people feel welcome and warm!

And Jocabia, you forgot this one:

First inflammatory statement...in the very first post no less!



Now, Bozzy, if you can manage to contain yourself and actually be as polite as you are telling everyone else they should be (while in no way following these rules yourself), perhaps you could, after gee, only 24 pages, actually address the following posts?
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9151269&postcount=124
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9153471&postcount=175
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159299&postcount=182
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159347&postcount=183
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9159813&postcount=186
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9162913&postcount=230
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9166165&postcount=241

Further sources offered up, and debunked...though you then went on to try to use them anyway:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9169978&postcount=283
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9181666&postcount=296
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9193402&postcount=305

Now Bozzy, I know you like to pop in and say, "too busy, I have a life to lead an all that"...but I really would like to know why you bother to post at all if that is the case. You seem to want us to simply accept your first post, and not question it, because you have yet to actually respond to the rebuttals of your position. If you are truly too busy to respond to such a controversial topic, then why post it in the first place? It is a phenomenal waste of our time to respond to someone who is too 'busy' to bother responding back.

So let this be the last post 'reminding' you of the posts you've ignored, have promised to address, and yet never have. When you come again, no doubt with the same excuses, I'll simply direct you anew to this post.
Quite the collection. Due to time I'll only be able to address this one tonight. I hope to be able to get through it all. I'm starting now, but going to spend a few reading. Hopefully these are all related and I can lump a response into one conceise response. If not I may have to carry over some to Friday. (out of town tomorrow night).

Anyway, BRB after I do some reading. Please be patient as I have dial up and it is 6pm est - jolt can be quirky at times around now...

Wow, I never realized just how thin your skin really is as to be troubled by these innocuous statements. I will take extra care in the future to baby you so as not to offend your sensitivities.
Hmmm...so you get to define rude, and your comments don't fall into that category? That's good to know for future reference.

Rude, by Bozzy:

Things said to me. Not things I say to others.

Ok, got it.

LOL

Do packs of wild feminists beat you up for posting crap like this?

ironic humor considering the topic.


snip (incenidary rhetoric)

Farrell was briefly a member and on the board of directors of one local chapter of NOW in the early 1970s. He left NOW voluntarily to pursue his own theories -- prior to his publishing anything on men's rights.


He is the only man in the US to ever have been elected three times to the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) in New York City. He left NOW, frustrated with what he saw as their female exclusiveness and disregard for men's issues. You are close, but not correct. You get a B- here. Added fact, he is a Democrat.


Farrell has some interesting and occasionally valid things to say. But he is also a notorious crank, with many bizarre views (such as on incest and date rape.) If you are going to appeal to Farrell's alleged authority, I'll be forced to expose him. I suggest you not persist in either that fallacy or tactical error.

Notorious crank? How open-minded of you to say. I will agree that many of his views are not in step w convention, but neither was Socrates. Many of his ideas I too feel are out of bounds of reasonable. So long as we are both able to acknlowledge that he has some valid things to say I see little point for you to attack him like this. Attack the messenger instead of the message? Inefficient and abusive of logic.


Pot, meet Kettle.

You call feminists names and then suggest they may *gasp* dare to fall for your baiting.

I call you a misogynist because of your many rants against women and gender equality. And we'll see who spreads lies.

I missed the part where I called you or any feminist names, but if you feel the need to assign a libel - er lable to me I would ask that you attempt to at least attempt to show some common courtesy. 'Non-conformist' would do just fine. I have had no rants against women and I have gone much further in supporting gender equality here than most others in this thread - or forum for that matter - It is, afterall, the point of this thread.

I will admit I am guilty of occasionally using 'feminist' as too broad of a term. I presume by now most here realize that I am being specific to the gender radical feminists superiority types of organizations such as NOW. I will attempt to be more specific about this moving forward.


ROTFLASTC

"a number of years ago" = 1978??!!



was everything in 1978 invalid? Did I mis something? There is more current research if you wish - I even posted it earlier. I'll probably reference it again later. Since this post is a bit lengthy and there are several more to address I'll save it for now. I suspect it will be best done as a stand-alone.


Real feminists don't deny that men are also victims of domestic violence. And women can be perpetrators. But fake feminists and other anti-feminists try to deny the reality of domestic violence at all and flatly lie about the true statistics.

I don't recall anyone suggesting that domestic voilence is not a reality. I have noticed a very disproportional response from society based on the gender of the victim.

The conclusions you draw (or the hack you quote draws) from this "study" and other similar research has been thoroughly discredited. In fact, the authors of many of these studies have denounced their misuse.

Here are a few examples of the refutation of this silly "conclusion":
The Myth of the "Battered Husband Syndrome" (http://www.europrofem.org/02.info/22contri/2.04.en/4en.viol/33en_vio.htm)

"Because it looks at only one year, this study equates a single slap by a woman to a man's 15 year history of domestic terrorism."
"Men have never before been shy in making their needs known"
Hey now, there's an unbiased opinion free of stereotypes.
-Full of statistical abuse and selective facts.

The Battered Husband Controversy. (http://members.aardvark.net.au/~korman/dv/controversy/)
"The CTS survey doesn't tell us if violent acts were in self-defence.
So what? If that is true would it not apply to either gender?

"An earlier study by Steinmetz showed that abuse by husbands does more damage."
So since men are less likely to seek medical treatment (for abuse or or any other problem statistically) or report a violation somehow violence against them is more tolerable? -This seems to be the primary point of this article.

"Women are locked into marriage to a much greater extent than men... and they often have no alternative to putting up with beatings by their husbands."
Nice innacurate presumption. Preposterous to the point of humerous -Starting with the presumption that marriage is something to which one is locked!

Claims About Husband Battering. (http://www.xyonline.net/husbandbattering.shtml)
"Crime victimisation surveys in Australia reveal further aspects of the violence experienced by men, and how it differs from violence experienced by women. If we compare men's and women's experiences of personal attack, threats, and sexual assault, we find that incidents against men are far less likely than incidents against women to occur in the home (10 percent versus 43 percent), they are far more likely to involve strangers (75 percent versus 31 percent), and they are far less likely to involve partners or ex-partners (1 percent, versus one-third of female incidents) [Ferrante et.al, 1996: 56-61]"
Let's just ignore the fact that men are victims of assault (in general) far more often than women! Apparently it is OK when strangers assault a man, or at lest, so long as they do it more often than women. This twisted logic could result in the conclusion that if women were assaulted by strangers as aften as men are we'd finally have equality.

Four Variations of Family Violence: A Review of Sociological Research. (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hppb/familyviolence/html/1variation.htm)
404

Battered Men? Battered Facts (http://www.fair.org/extra/9410/battered-men.html)
"Gelles put his research in perspective in a Long Island Newsday op-ed (2/22/94): "In the majority of these cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocations or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence."
Ah, so now violence is reaction to psycological provocation is acceptable also! So long as you are a woman.


Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales. (http://www.vaw.umn.edu/finaldocuments/Vawnet/ctscritique.htm)
"Violence Against Women Online Resources has been taken offline for an overall content review at the request of the Office on Violence Against Women. It will return shortly. We apologize for any inconvenience."


The Myth Of 'Battered Men': Men and Women Are Not Equally Abusive (Critiques of the Conflict Tactic Scales). (http://members.aol.com/asherah/cts.html)
"Sometimes women are accused of being "just as violent" as their batterers. However, spousal homicide rates show that women are killed by their partners at a rate of three times higher than women who kill men,"
Thats funny, in the prior link it demonstrated it was twice as likely using 1991 data. I guess it is fun to abuse statistcs.

"Generally, the claim of "mutual battering" is a method of denying what is really taking place. A close look at the history and pattern of a "violent relationship" will most often show that the abuser has superior physical strength and skills for assault as well a superior social status and privilege by virtue of his gender, race or class. "
Ah, so only the stronger is an abuse in the case of mutual violence. How convenient.

"This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men" Ah, so it's only abuse if there is a serious injury? I would disagree.


Really, you can't see the selective facts, stereotypes and bias used in these links? You disappoint me. If you want to play 'my source can beat up your source' be my guest. Let's not bother to address the issue of violence against men and societies dismal record at addressing it, particulary when compared to violence against women.



(BTW, am I going to be forced to expose Wendy McElroy, ifeminists, and the so-called Independent Institute as well? Have you no decent sources?)

Like you did w Warren? Be my guest. That is, afterall the whole point of this forum. Be my guest to attack the messenger. meanwhile, the message is still waiting.



Pathetic.

An old "article" from a self-proclaimed "group of men's activists" that mainly relies on recycled bad information. Its "citations" are primarily to editorials by Farrell and a couple others -- misreporting studies in ways denounced by the authors of the studies themselves! Nice. :rolleyes:
You just said that Farrell has made accurate observations earlier in this post, and now you attempt to discredit him and a considerable number of others with a broad and unjustified statement?
Again you disappoint me.

Here are some worthy quotes from the article you so readily dismiss;
"The cycle of family violence will not end until we are willing to treat not only men who initiate violent acts, but the women also. No adequate treatment programs for abusive women exist.
Children are at particular risk. A 125 lb. woman is just as dangerous to a small child as is a 150 lb. man and the failure to admit that women can be violent has resulted in an increasingly tragic epidemic of child abuse. Shelters must be developed for children and their fathers who live in abusive relationships."
Prophetic considering it was written long before Andrea Yates, Caroline Ollison, Diane Downs and far too many others. Too bad for their victims you and so many others find it so easy to dismiss female violent tendencies.
[QUOTE=The Cat-Tribe]
snip -

I think your quotes got ate by jolt- making your responses to them out of context and essentially losing what message you intended. Regardless the tone was unplesant enough to deserve being ignored anyway.


I think it is clear who is spreading false propaganda and lies, but

You seem considerably more intent on playing 'my source can beat up your source' to really play 'what are the implications of this and how should violence against men be addressed'. You've considerable determination in disproving a vast amount of information simply to support your agenda (and the status quo) of ignoring violence against men. Tell me, why are you so eager to suppress and diminish evidence of violence against men?


I'll post some real stastics in my next post.

(@#%^@ jolt already ate this response once)
Ah, at least here you admit that the flawed sources which I just spent a considerable time on are bunk. I wish I had just skipped to the bottom and read that - It would have saved me much time.


DAH! Jolt almost ate this reply too! ACK I am soo late now.

ACK! That took over an hour. I have to be done for tonight. Heck, if every one of those posts is as long this will be a VERY long thread.
G'night

Hmmm...so you get to define rude, and your comments don't fall into that category? That's good to know for future reference.

Rude, by Bozzy:

Things said to me. Not things I say to others.

Ok, got it.

Don't worry Sinuhue - Everything will be OK. YOU know you're a very special person inside! Jesus, your mommy and your daddy all love you very much.

Wow, I never realized just how thin your skin really is as to be troubled by these innocuous statements. I will take extra care in the future to baby you so as not to offend your sensitivities.

I'm not troubled by them. But then I'm not calling people rude and talking about how I never make rude statements. I think I clearly showed that you're suggestion that you are never rude or insulting is a load donkey crap. Even your reply is rude. Admitedly I suggested you were lying, but it's not rude if it's true. Again, I never said you offended me, I just said you were full of it. See the difference? Nope, you don't.

Let's just ignore the fact that men are victims of assault (in general) far more often than women! Apparently it is OK when strangers assault a man, or at lest, so long as they do it more often than women. This twisted logic could result in the conclusion that if women were assaulted by strangers as aften as men are we'd finally have equality.

Ha, that's great! So now the feminist lie is that they don't consider violence outside the home BY STRANGERS domestic violence? Those bitches!!!

Modern Feminists = Man haters

Thus because I am male, I guess I have to dislike modern feminists.

I like women. I just dislike femnazi's.

Modern Feminists = Man haters

Thus because I am male, I guess I have to dislike modern feminists.

I like women. I just dislike femnazi's.

Modern feminists != man haters.

Some modern feminists are men. Others love men.

Because I believe in equality, I am a feminist. That I am male is irrelevant.

I like women too.

The idea of a "feminazi" is nasty, ugly bullshit. You'll find one in your closet right behind the boogeyman. DON'T USE THAT TERM!

the gender radical feminists superiority types of organizations such as NOW.

does this string of words make sense to anyone else? i assume he's calling NOW a bunch of man-hating lesbians or something equally stupid, but my universal kook translation machine must be broken.

Don't believe in equality. Don't think other than monozygotic twins anyone is equal.

I believe we accept that every one is different and we treat each according to thier needs, strengths and weaknesses. Men and women are physically different and mentally different. Let's accept that first. Then let's treat every one with respect and stop trying to pigeon hole them and clasify them.

To para phrase Oscar. Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. their tastes may not be the same.

Don't believe in equality. Don't think other than monozygotic twins anyone is equal.

when has anyone ever claimed that human equality means that everyone is identical?

Modern feminists != man haters.

Some modern feminists are men. Others love men.

Because I believe in equality, I am a feminist. That I am male is irrelevant.

I like women too.

The idea of a "feminazi" is nasty, ugly bullshit. You'll find one in your closet right behind the boogeyman. DON'T USE THAT TERM!

Oh, thank god! Someone else who *hates* that term. I don't understand how feminism has become the new 'boogeyman'. I know seemingly sane and sensible people who have sane and sensible opinions, which they 'bookend' with the phrase, 'but I'm not a 'feminist' ', like it's some sort of disease!

I am a feminist, my partner is a feminist, his mother is a feminist. I don't hate men, my partner doesn't hate men, his mother doesn't hate men. Neither is my partner some sort of 'henpecked weakling' who is afraid of me (as some scary souls would have you believe *must* be the case for a man who says he is a feminist).
What I dislike rather intensely (I try to be like P. G. Woodhouse in this respect, 'I make it a principle never to hate in the plural') is the kind of fearmongering nonsence that comes out of people who seem to be afraid of feminism (and, who knows, perhaps of women in general) and so try to dismantle all they have done. People who like to argue that violence against women is a myth (trust me, I *know* it's not) somehow 'cooked up' by feminists to 'keep men down', by pointing out that men can be the victims of violence too. I actually try to stay out of such 'discussions' as I tend to get the net rage *grins*.

But it's nice to be reminded in the massive insane asylum that is t'internet that there are sane people too.

Blessings
Cyber

when has anyone ever claimed that human equality means that everyone is identical?
Missing the point here. Equality is about treating people the same. I don't want to be treated the same as every one else. We don't treat people with disabilities the same, we accomodate any difficulties they have and treat them however they wish to be treated. As you say people are not identical so why on earth would any one consider treating everyone the same way.
As a rule Women communicate better than men and men have better spacial co ordination, that's a fact. So we accept that and use it to colour how we treat them. We don't assume a man is going to comminicate his feeling as well as a woman, we see what happens and use the information we have to guide our treatment.
Equality is crap!

Missing the point here. Equality is about treating people the same. I don't want to be treated the same as every one else. We don't treat people with disabilities the same, we accomodate any difficulties they have and treat them however they wish to be treated. As you say people are not identical so why on earth would any one consider treating everyone the same way.
As a rule Women communicate better than men and men have better spacial co ordination, that's a fact. So we accept that and use it to colour how we treat them. We don't assume a man is going to comminicate his feeling as well as a woman, we see what happens and use the information we have to guide our treatment.
Equality is crap!

Missing the point here.

Equal rights.

Equal opportunity.

Equal protection under the law.

in other words ... equality.

MMM, mmm, good.

Missing the point here. Equality is about treating people the same. I don't want to be treated the same as every one else. We don't treat people with disabilities the same, we accomodate any difficulties they have and treat them however they wish to be treated. As you say people are not identical so why on earth would any one consider treating everyone the same way.
As a rule Women communicate better than men and men have better spacial co ordination, that's a fact. So we accept that and use it to colour how we treat them. We don't assume a man is going to comminicate his feeling as well as a woman, we see what happens and use the information we have to guide our treatment.
Equality is crap!

Equality doesn't mean treating people the same. It means giving them the same opportunities. Equality of access and education, and treatment based on facts not assumptions.
For example (and this is a simplistic one), my mum is in a wheelchair, so she can't go up steps. *Your* idea of what equality is, would mean that she would still be expected to make her way up stairs in order to gain access to a service that was only provided at the top of them. *Real* equality would be to provide either a lift or a ramp to allow her to access the same services as a person who is able to walk up the stairs. You see?

Blessings
Lucrece

Missing the point here.

Equal rights.

Equal opportunity.

Equal protection under the law.

in other words ... equality.

MMM, mmm, good.
Never happen.
Child 1. parents have twenty million Child 2 nothing, 1 gets a great education, 2 gets none. they start of pretty equal when apply for a job, even if child 2 has an Iq fifty points higher than 1. the point here is we do not start from a level playing field, any of us. So treating everyone the same does not do this. In the example if I ran a university and child 1 had only slightly better score than child 2, I would accept child 2 over them without question. Again not equal, but I think more fair.

I agree the law should make no distinctions. However it does. Try getting custody of children if you are a man in the west of a women in an Arab sate.

Armed forces, conscription, maternity pay and leave, 'the old boys network'. There are many inequalities in society. Not all are addressed, what posative action is being taken to recruit more male primary school teacher or nurses, or female airline pilots?

If it were a fact tha women find it more difficult to kill and are not as capable of fighting as an infantryman. Why on earth force them to do that, when they may be better suited to flying the helicopter or co-ordinating artillery. My point is why not recognise the diversity we have and use it. No quotas, no limits. Examine why we have disparities but accept that some are ok.

And no, I want children and the vunerable better protected that myself. I want the eldery better protected than myself.

Equality doesn't mean treating people the same. It means giving them the same opportunities. Equality of access and education, and treatment based on facts not assumptions.
For example (and this is a simplistic one), my mum is in a wheelchair, so she can't go up steps. *Your* idea of what equality is, would mean that she would still be expected to make her way up stairs in order to gain access to a service that was only provided at the top of them. *Real* equality would be to provide either a lift or a ramp to allow her to access the same services as a person who is able to walk up the stairs. You see?

Blessings
Lucrece
I agree. But we treat your mum differently, not better or worse. We treat people according to what suits them, not equally.
If we offer food we take into account people's dietry needs, preferences and religion. We don't offer every one the same.

Never happen.
Child 1. parents have twenty million Child 2 nothing, 1 gets a great education, 2 gets none. they start of pretty equal when apply for a job, even if child 2 has an Iq fifty points higher than 1. the point here is we do not start from a level playing field, any of us. So treating everyone the same does not do this. In the example if I ran a university and child 1 had only slightly better score than child 2, I would accept child 2 over them without question. Again not equal, but I think more fair.

I agree the law should make no distinctions. However it does. Try getting custody of children if you are a man in the west of a women in an Arab sate.

Armed forces, conscription, maternity pay and leave, 'the old boys network'. There are many inequalities in society. Not all are addressed, what posative action is being taken to recruit more male primary school teacher or nurses, or female airline pilots?

If it were a fact tha women find it more difficult to kill and are not as capable of fighting as an infantryman. Why on earth force them to do that, when they may be better suited to flying the helicopter or co-ordinating artillery. My point is why not recognise the diversity we have and use it. No quotas, no limits. Examine why we have disparities but accept that some are ok.

And no, I want children and the vunerable better protected that myself. I want the eldery better protected than myself.

Equality isn't about quotas and limits. Equal rights is about allowing people to be treated the same under the law. It's absolutely permissable to discover that a particular woman has poor spacial abilities and to not hire her as a mechanical engineer because of this. It is not okay to dismiss her as a mechanical engineer because she's a woman. You don't seem to acknowledge the difference. Your summary of equality is an equality NO ONE is fighting for.

Equality is crap!
You're talking about equity. FAIR treatment, not SAME treatment.

Generally, equality means this as well, but when you go by dictionary definitions, it comes out lacking, which is why many feminists (hell, any human rights supporters) try to use the word equity other than equality. Why? Not because equality in itself is a bad word, but because people jump on its definition as some sort of 'proof' that people working for 'equality' want everyone to be exactly the same. Clearly not the case, but hey...people like their strawmen and women, and don't often like to let them go.

Quit arguing semantics, or policies that no one favours (treating everyone excatly the same), and move on to reality.

The idea of a "feminazi" is nasty, ugly bullshit. You'll find one in your closet right behind the boogeyman.


Yeah-and she is giving it to him real savage like! :D

Missing the point here.

Equal rights.

Equal opportunity.

Equal protection under the law.

in other words ... equality.

MMM, mmm, good.

Exactly my point. Men should have equal rights. Cuurrently they do not. Here is a current example;
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050722/ap_en_mu/philharmonic_sued
Divorced fathers are also a cased of limited male rights. Another example? - Heaven help you if you are physically assaulted by a woman and attempt to defend yourself.

Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The NIH has an Office of Women's Health, but where is the equivalent Office of Men's Health? There is none.

In 1999, female-specific health received 15.5 percent of NIH funds while male-specific health received 6.4 percent. In 1994 NIH had 740 female-only studies but only 244 male-only studies in progress, according to the General Accounting Office.

Even though the diagnosis and death rate is about the same for prostate cancer and breast cancer the National Cancer Institute spent $92.7 million on breast cancer but only $13.8 million on prostate research in 1991. Then, by 1999, breast cancer funds jumped to $366 million while prostate cancer remained at a measly $96 million.

How do they get away with these lies and hurt so many men and their loved ones? As national syndicate Cathy Young points out, the failure of men and women to speak up against anti-male bias and distortions about health care inequalities (and other issues) gave activists a "free ride" in the media for years.

Yet somehow the NOW crowd seems uninterested even today in equal medical funding.
http://www.now.org/nnt/winter-2000/breast.html.

You want another example? Don't even get me started on the denied college admissions for men. There is a 'male gap' in college enrollment for anyone willing to look. Men are being driven from and denied a college education all under the distorted auspices of 'equality'.

When these particular so called 'feminists' are ready to really talk equality I'm all ears. Until then they are hypocrits who do not deserve any association with the word 'equality'. The are a dishonor to the real feminists of history and the modern world.

Ha, that's great! So now the feminist lie is that they don't consider violence outside the home BY STRANGERS domestic violence? Those bitches!!!
You completely missed the point. Try reading it again. This was in reference to the misleading point that women are assaulted by familiars more often than men, with disregard to the fact that men are assaulted more often period.

If you get your ass kicked twice every day by star trek fans, and a star trek fan gets his ass kicked twice every day by a star trek fan AND twice more by Star Wars fans - he is assaulted twice as often as you, but only half of his assaults are from a star trek fan.

This is a cheezy example of how the statistics were abused. I hope you found it simple enough. - No offense to Star Wars/Trek fans intended.

You completely missed the point. Try reading it again. This was in reference to the misleading point that women are assaulted by familiars more often than men, with disregard to the fact that men are assaulted more often period.

If you get your ass kicked twice every day by star trek fans, and a star trek fan gets his ass kicked twice every day by a star trek fan AND twice more by Star Wars fans - he is assaulted twice as often as you, but only half of his assaults are from a star trek fan.

This is a cheezy example of how the statistics were abused. I hope you found it simple enough. - No offense to Star Wars/Trek fans intended.

Huh, I thought this whole thread you were saying that we were lying when we said that women are the victims of domestic abuse by men more often than men were domestically abused by women. You suggested that men and women were equally abused and that anything that says otherwise is ridiculous. I'm sure I remember this wrong.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9158065&postcount=180
In response to Cat's post showing that women are victims of domestic violence more than are men.

Meanwhile, when there are multiple studies that demonstrate men are abused with relatively equal frequency, why is that the feminists here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-feminist? What is so threatening to them about the idea that this is a problem that affects men and wome equally? Note my every thread has been about the equal treatment of men yet most of the radical feminists have responded with anger, sarcasm, ridicule and other negative affect to the idea. (Or trained others to do it for them)

Huh, I guess I remember it right. No worries. I'll just bookmark this post that shows that it wasn't the feminists that were lying. You were deceiving people for 27 pages claiming that domestic abuse was just as offent men kicking the crap out of women. Looks like you've finally seen the light. Good to know. So we won't hear this crap again about how men and women are equally victimized by domestic violence nor how they are equal perpetrators. Also good to know.

See, I didn't miss the point. You're trying to change it. Admit that you don't care what you're arguing as long as you can pretend it says something bad about feminists.

Huh, I thought this whole thread you were saying that we were lying when we said that women are the victims of domestic abuse by men more often than men were domestically abused by women. You suggested that men and women were equally abused and that anything that says otherwise is ridiculous. I'm sure I remember this wrong.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9158065&postcount=180
In response to Cat's post showing that women are victims of domestic violence more than are men.



Huh, I guess I remember it right. No worries. I'll just bookmark this post that shows that it wasn't the feminists that were lying. You were deceiving people for 27 pages claiming that domestic abuse was just as offent men kicking the crap out of women. Looks like you've finally seen the light. Good to know. So we won't hear this crap again about how men and women are equally victimized by domestic violence nor how they are equal perpetrators. Also good to know.

See, I didn't miss the point. You're trying to change it. Admit that you don't care what you're arguing as long as you can pretend it says something bad about feminists.

What are you smokin? Is you bias so thick as to completely cloud your reasoning? I don't even have to respond because you quoted both messages which clearly address 1) one way which the radical feminists have abused statistics to make the problem look different than it is, and 2) The actual facts on domestic abuse and gender/victimhood.

You seem more interested in trying to post some clever sort of wit and 'trapping' me than to actually engage in this conversation. You end up failing miserably and should be embarrased - I am for you.

Meanwhile nobody has responded to the questions or additional facts which I have posted;
1) What is so threatening to you and others here about the concept of men being victims of violence with similar frequency?
2) How do you excuse the fact that society and NOW clearly show a bias for women over men in several key circumstances (health, college enrollment, many occupations, family law, etc.)
3) What should be done about the inequity which men face?

Posters like TCTribe and Sdjarri hace shown a sporting amount of attitude, but also a fair degree of aptitude. In spite of what they may feel they have a good degree of my respect. - Their attitude just makes it more interesting. Even though I often disagree they do present (mostly) reasonable points and back up their opinions with references when asked. From there a conversation can be had. They each respond with a fairly complete comprehension of the context of the message they are responding to.

You would do well to emulate similar behavior. This attempt to 'trap' me is both grossly erroneous and considerably childish.

Sdjarri

That has to be one of the more epic abuses of my name.

That has to be one of the more epic abuses of my name.
Yah, I figured that out later. Terribly sorry. Hast/waste you know. If you like I'll go back, edit and spell it correctly.

-Bawzi

Gee, B0zzy, perhaps you have time to respond to some more of those prior posts.

Answering part of 1 post did not fulfill your prior challenge.

Go Feminazis.

I would love to see the world in the hands of the women.

Female supremacy!

What are you smokin? Is you bias so thick as to completely cloud your reasoning? I don't even have to respond because you quoted both messages which clearly address 1) one way which the radical feminists have abused statistics to make the problem look different than it is, and 2) The actual facts on domestic abuse and gender/victimhood.

You have never demonstrated any case where women were abusing the statistics to make the problem look different than it is. They have pointed a fact. Women are more often the victim of domestic violence and this violence is more grievous than the domestic violence men suffer.

You seem more interested in trying to post some clever sort of wit and 'trapping' me than to actually engage in this conversation. You end up failing miserably and should be embarrased - I am for you.

Meanwhile nobody has responded to the questions or additional facts which I have posted;
1) What is so threatening to you and others here about the concept of men being victims of violence with similar frequency?

Nothing. Men are more frequent victims of violence. No one has denied that. Generally that violence is brought on by other men, a fact you have repeatedly denied. However, not all violence is domestic violence. And we have been talking about domestic violence. Don't pretend we weren't. You're trying to change your claim. You've now contradicted your earlier claim that women and men are equal perpetrators of domestic violence and equal victims. So which is it? Are men victims of domestic violence with equal frequency as women? Are women the perpetrators of domestic violence with equal frequency as men?


2) How do you excuse the fact that society and NOW clearly show a bias for women over men in several key circumstances (health, college enrollment, many occupations, family law, etc.)

What do you think it is a major factor in men's health? One factor is the role of the man as a breadwinner. When women entered the workplace their frequency of heart attacks increased dramatically. Another factor is the general resistence of men toward preventative medicine. As you pointed out women are more frequent users of general practitioners, i.e. checkups. You know what that's called? Gender roles.

College enrollment - another one that is affected by men as the breadwinner. Gender roles again.

The very few occupations (that you call 'many occupations') where women prosper over men are generally due to the view of men not being nurturing and/or good communicators. Gender roles again.

Family law is another problem of how we view the roles of men in families. You know what that's called? Gender roles.

And who are the leaders in trying to change the gender roles of both men and women? Any guesses? Feminists. You just showed why you should support feminism and particularly the redress of gender roles.

3) What should be done about the inequity which men face?

In the few cases where men suffer inequity, particularly in family law, we should address the views of society that are causing that inequity. The best way to do that is to support those that are trying to address those views. Most people call those people feminists.

Posters like TCTribe and Sdjarri hace shown a sporting amount of attitude, but also a fair degree of aptitude. In spite of what they may feel they have a good degree of my respect. - Their attitude just makes it more interesting. Even though I often disagree they do present (mostly) reasonable points and back up their opinions with references when asked. From there a conversation can be had. They each respond with a fairly complete comprehension of the context of the message they are responding to.

You would do well to emulate similar behavior. This attempt to 'trap' me is both grossly erroneous and considerably childish.
Would I? My attempts to trap you? You are trying to argue from any position that attacks feminists. You can't win one way you try another. You know how I emulate TCT and Sdaeriji is in that I expect you clearly state your position instead of ducking and dodging. Your sniping is ineffective and you're caught.

Now, I've answered your questions which incidently highlight why you should be supporting feminism instead of attacking it. I'd appreciate if you'd clearly state your position and answer the questions above.

Gee, B0zzy, perhaps you have time to respond to some more of those prior posts.

Answering part of 1 post did not fulfill your prior challenge.

I frankly was waiting to see the response to the context of the one I posted, which has thusfar been limited at best. I really don't intend to have a conversation all alone or with the ghosts of past posts.

(edit- written b4 jo's post. Finally a reasonable and thoughtful response. Sadly I am out of time for tonight. Back tomorrow.

I frankly was waiting to see the response to the context of the one I posted, which has thusfar been limited at best. I really don't intend to have a conversation all alone or with the ghosts of past posts.

(edit- written b4 jo's post. Finally a reasonable and thoughtful response. Sadly I am out of time for tonight. Back tomorrow.

So, your "challenge" or "offer" was pure bluster.

You never intended to respond to the "ghosts of past posts."

Color me unsurprised.

http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
http://www.europrofem.org/02.info/22contri/2.04.en/4en.viol/33en_vio.htm
http://members.aardvark.net.au/~korman/dv/controversy/

Your sources were biased, for one thing, they are all editorials. The first link does not include hard number or the research methodology, or even where it is pulling some of its stats from. Indeed, it cites a study from 1978.

The second link uses newspapers as its primary source, a fallacy in research, and again, it is an editorial.

The third link is actually researched, but has more to do with the spending on health related issues, not domestic voilence.

The fourth link is also an editorial from a men's advocy group and does not include any hard number beyond vague references. I would also question the relavance of the Department of Defence's spending on prostate vs breast cancer.

The above links are journal reprints from the orginal researchers that point out a few problems with the 1978 study as well as some current thoughts. It seems that while men and women are as equally likely to start violence within the home, women are far more likely to be seriously hurt/killed by violence from men than the other way around.

Take from that what you will.

Please respond

http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
"As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate goes from being equal to girls’ to being 600% as high as girls. (2) By age 85, the suicide rate for men is 1350% higher than for women of the same age group."

And this is relevant because ..... ?

And this has what to do with feminism? Nothing.

To the contrary, it expressly says the pressures of male stereotypical roles and peer pressure cause high rates of suicide. Good thing feminists are fighting those stereotypes! Hurray for feminists!

(Another dated article by Farrell here. At least these 2 sentences are based on actual statistics.)


http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news...les.asp?ID=2307
" the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

Again, this is relevant because ... ?

This is the fault of feminists because ... ?

And, again, what a pathetic source. An old editorial from a college newspaper written by a self-proclaimed mens' activist who relies heavily on ... (guess who?) ... Farrell.

Please respond.

*Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/index.htm))

*The US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm) (February 2003) reports that women were 85% of the victims of intimate violence (other than murder) in 2001. Previously (October 2001), the Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm) had also reported that "Women accounted for 85% of the victims from among the more than 790,000 victims of intimate violence in 1999".

*In the United States, researchers estimate that 40% to 70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm)) On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

*The National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." Almost 25% of women, and 7.5% of men, had been raped and/or assaulted by a date or partner at some time in their lives. Women who were assaulted by an intimate sustained a higher number of assaults, and were more likely to have been injured in the most recent attack, than men who were assaulted. In addition, the study found that "503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

*According the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vbi.htm) in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."

*The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm) (US Department of Justice, 1997) surveyed injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. 4.5% of male victims had been injured by an intimate, compared to 36.8% of the female victims. Of the 243,000 people who had been injured by an intimate, 39,000 (16%) were men and 204,000 (84%) were women. (In 30% of cases, the relationship between the injured person and their attacker was not identified.)

Among more statistics (http://www.abanet.org/domviol/stats.html):
*as many as 95% of domestic violence perpetrators are male.
(A Report of the Violence against Women Research Strategic Planning Workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Justice in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1995. )

*much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998)).

Note: I cited objective, reliable sources with no feminist agenda. Do I really need to continue or is this sufficient?

Yah, I figured that out later. Terribly sorry. Hast/waste you know. If you like I'll go back, edit and spell it correctly.

-Bawzi

Whatever. It's not as though you're the only one to misspell my name. I'm more surprised when people spell it correctly, to be perfectly honest. That was just more incorrect than most. No need to edit it, though.

So, your "challenge" or "offer" was pure bluster.

You never intended to respond to the "ghosts of past posts."

Color me unsurprised.

TCT- I think you misunderstand. I'm perfectly willing to address past posts, just not in a vacuum. It would be unfair of me to blow through them without giving anyone the opportunity to respond until the end - not to mention a bit of feedback is appreciated just so I know that someone is actually reading it - particularly after one as long as the last one. There oughta be something in it which you'd like to respond to. It would not be unfair to reference posts which came later than the quote I responded to in your response. Just a response to the context is all I'm looking for.

You have never demonstrated any case where women were abusing the statistics to make the problem look different than it is.

I believe you meant 'radical feminists' instead of 'women'.

They have pointed a fact. Women are more often the victim of domestic violence and this violence is more grievous than the domestic violence men suffer.
The statistics I've shown report that women and men are victims of domestic violence with relatively equal incidence. If you can't see that check again - it is in there.

Men are more frequent victims of violence. No one has denied that. Generally that violence is brought on by other men, a fact you have repeatedly denied.
have I? When?

However, not all violence is domestic violence. And we have been talking about domestic violence. Don't pretend we weren't. You're trying to change your claim. You've now contradicted your earlier claim that women and men are equal perpetrators of domestic violence and equal victims. So which is it? Are men victims of domestic violence with equal frequency as women? Are women the perpetrators of domestic violence with equal frequency as men?

Men are victims of violence in general more often than women. This means then, for anyone with any math abilities or a calculator, that women are more likely to be victimized by a familiar than by a stranger, but it does not mean they are more often victimized by a familiar. It is the difference between probability, frequency and incidence.
As far as damage goes - apparently you believe that if the damage is not 'grievous' then the abuse is somehow more acceptable. What a peculiar comfort that must provide you.


What do you think it is a major factor in men's health? One factor is the role of the man as a breadwinner. When women entered the workplace their frequency of heart attacks increased dramatically. Another factor is the general resistence of men toward preventative medicine. As you pointed out women are more frequent users of general practitioners, i.e. checkups. You know what that's called? Gender roles.

College enrollment - another one that is affected by men as the breadwinner. Gender roles again. expand on the college line of reasoning please. How does not attending college reflect 'gender roles'.

The very few occupations (that you call 'many occupations') where women prosper over men are generally due to the view of men not being nurturing and/or good communicators. Gender roles again.
my, you do like your stereotypes. That is so offensive as to not warrant a response.

Family law is another problem of how we view the roles of men in families. You know what that's called? Gender roles.
Um, not, it is called unfair court bias.

And who are the leaders in trying to change the gender roles of both men and women? Any guesses? Feminists. You just showed why you should support feminism and particularly the redress of gender roles.


So lets see if I understand your point - the trouble with men is that they do not act the way feminists think they should. So, instead of adapting society to address male issues radical feminists want to adapt men instead. Hmmm, I suspect that suggesting the same approach with women would get you thrown out of the local NOW chapter ass first. (adapt women to societies expectations instead of society to womens needs) It really does not suggest anything resembling equality at all.

Meanwhile... we'll just ignore the vast difference on government spending on gender-specific ailments and suggest somehow that men deserve it for being men. (male gender roles) :rolleyes:




In the few cases where men suffer inequity, particularly in family law, we should address the views of society that are causing that inequity. The best way to do that is to support those that are trying to address those views. Most people call those people feminists.
Really? NOW is working to equalize the bias against men in family law? I missed that part - care to elaborate?


Would I? My attempts to trap you? You are trying to argue from any position that attacks feminists.
You are mistaken. I support gender equality. I do not support the radical gender superiority groups such as NOW - aka radical feminists.

You can't win one way you try another. You know how I emulate TCT and Sdaeriji is in that I expect you clearly state your position instead of ducking and dodging. Your sniping is ineffective and you're caught.

Now, I've answered your questions which incidently highlight why you should be supporting feminism instead of attacking it. I'd appreciate if you'd clearly state your position and answer the questions above.
I could never in good concience support treating one sex 'more equally' than another - yet many so called 'feminist' groups do just that. Government spending is reflective of that as well. I've illustrated this already in a recent post.

I'll respond when you answer the very simple questions I posted to you B0zzy. I know you hate actually stating your position, but I'm not moving forward until you state your position. You like being a moving target, but your statistics and logic are strong, you should have no need. I'll ask again.

So which is it? Are men victims of domestic violence with equal frequency as women? Are women the perpetrators of domestic violence with equal frequency as men?

TCT- I think you misunderstand. I'm perfectly willing to address past posts, just not in a vacuum. It would be unfair of me to blow through them without giving anyone the opportunity to respond until the end - not to mention a bit of feedback is appreciated just so I know that someone is actually reading it - particularly after one as long as the last one. There oughta be something in it which you'd like to respond to. It would not be unfair to reference posts which came later than the quote I responded to in your response. Just a response to the context is all I'm looking for.

B0z-

I think you misunderstand. Several of us posted many long posts thoroughly rebutting your premise.

You said several times that you would respond to those posts, but were short on time. Much time has passed with no response.

Finally, you pledged that, if we cited the past posts, you would respond to them. This was an absurd requesting -- putting the onus on us to dig up the posts you should have looked up for yourself. Nonetheless, Sinuhue and I did look them up.

Now you are reneging on your pledge. Plain and simple.

Your word is apparently worthless.

B0z-

I think you misunderstand. Several of us posted many long posts thoroughly rebutting your premise.

You said several times that you would respond to those posts, but were short on time. Much time has passed with no response.

Finally, you pledged that, if we cited the past posts, you would respond to them. This was an absurd requesting -- putting the onus on us to dig up the posts you should have looked up for yourself. Nonetheless, Sinuhue and I did look them up.

Now you are reneging on your pledge. Plain and simple.

Your word is apparently worthless.

If you disagree with my letting you have an opportunity to respond there are far more diplomatic ways to indicate such. I may reconsider my desire to engage you if you expect me to respond to so many signifigantly long and autonomous posts at once without any feedback, acknowledgement or commentary along the way - Particularly if your only intent is to bait me along the way without any substantitive response to the context of my posts. Your baiting is only interesting for a while. I can easily find better things to do. I have responded to one. A considerably lengthly and global one at that. There has been no discussion of any of the points therein from you. Why would you expect me or anyone else to want to take on another? I said I would respond, and I did. There was no meaningful reaction from you so why bother to continue?

If you disagree with my letting you have an opportunity to respond there are far more diplomatic ways to indicate such. I may reconsider my desire to engage you if you expect me to respond to so many signifigantly long and autonomous posts at once without any feedback, acknowledgement or commentary along the way - Particularly if your only intent is to bait me along the way without any substantitive response to the context of my posts. Your baiting is only interesting for a while. I can easily find better things to do. I have responded to one. A considerably lengthly and global one at that. There has been no discussion of any of the points therein from you. Why would you expect me or anyone else to want to take on another? I said I would respond, and I did. There was no meaningful reaction from you so why bother to continue?

Cat took the time to reply to each of your posts throughout this thread and all he is asking for is the same curtesy. He's not baiting you. He's asking for you to engage in the conversation you started. You didn't just plan to post your theories and not have anyone question you, did you? Isn't it in your best interest to support your theories?

Cat took the time to reply to each of your posts throughout this thread and all he is asking for is the same curtesy. He's not baiting you. He's asking for you to engage in the conversation you started. You didn't just plan to post your theories and not have anyone question you, did you? Isn't it in your best interest to support your theories?

Actually, he replied (within the context of the thread) to my posts only once - maybe twice since the beginning. The other posts he made were done without any interaction from me. (remeber - I was on vacation) All the rest have been outside of the topic and mostly baiting or berating me. He has yet to respond to my response. Considering it fills up nearly a complete jolt page, it would seem apropriate to wait for feedback. If he waits until I have replied to all of the (quite lengthy) posts, (with equally lengthy ones) then it will be him who ends up replying to long past ghosts of my replies. I am simply attempting to ramp this back up to real-time - or at least as close as we can get it. If nobody wants to participate in a conversation then I really see no point. When I suggested you post the threads you wanted to address I really had in mind one at a time. Considering they are all on such diverse categories we could really end up with a mess (not to mention book long posts) trying to handle them all at once.

Actually, he replied (within the context of the thread) to my posts only once - maybe twice since the beginning. The other posts he made were done without any interaction from me. (remeber - I was on vacation) All the rest have been outside of the topic and mostly baiting or berating me. He has yet to respond to my response. Considering it fills up nearly a complete jolt page, it would seem apropriate to wait for feedback. If he waits until I have replied to all of the (quite lengthy) posts, (with equally lengthy ones) then it will be him who ends up replying to long past ghosts of my replies. I am simply attempting to ramp this back up to real-time - or at least as close as we can get it. If nobody wants to participate in a conversation then I really see no point. When I suggested you post the threads you wanted to address I really had in mind one at a time. Considering they are all on such diverse categories we could really end up with a mess (not to mention book long posts) trying to handle them all at once.

When he has things to say he'll reply. You offered to address the posts in the thread. You can either do so or not. No one asked you to make that offer. You made and should stick to what you said you would do.

Meanwhile, you're avoiding doing anything other than bitching about Cat. I'll ask my questions again.

So which is it? Are men victims of domestic violence with equal frequency as women? Are women the perpetrators of domestic violence with equal frequency as men?

When you clearly and completely reply to those questions I will address your other points. You've avoided answering them since I first asked them.

I see we've managed to go another couple of pages without anything substantial from Bozzy. I get such a reoccurring sense of deja vu every time I read his posts.

So, I am going to take the substantial time to go through and summarize this entire thread for those of you just joining us.

Now, Bozzy started this whole thread with a basic premise...
Feminists want you to believe their propaganda without question. Failure to accept their dogma without question can result in vicious retribution. Fortunately there are a few brave enough to stand up to their juggernaught.
Bozzy is trying to question the 'feminist propaganda'. He brings up two points that deal with this 'propaganda', and makes two statements. Those two, initial statements are:

STATEMENT #1: Women abuse men in domestic relationships as much as men abuse women.

Substatement to statement #1:Violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women equally.

STATEMENT #2: There is a feminist caused societal blindness to men's health and welfare.


To see which quotes I have drawn on to paraphrase these two statements, see the next post. But first, I'd like to take a brief look at those two statements.

The topic is introduced with the idea that feminist propaganda is hiding some important facts. Those facts being hidden by feminists are laid out in statements one and two. Bozzy is linking the idea that men and women abuse with equal frequency within domestic relationships, with societies blindness to men's health and welfare as issues which FEMINISTS ARE COVERING UP. I'm making this explicit so that we don't forget the underlying premise of this entire thread. Let me make it extra clear, because these next posts might get a bit confusing:

UNDERLYING PREMISE OF THIS THREAD:

Feminists (later changed to 'radical feminists') are covering up/using propaganda to hide the fact that men and women abuse one another with equal frequency within domestic relationships, and to focus attention on women rather than on men's health and welfare.

Statements are paraphrased, with referenced quotes. If anyone feels that I have inaccurately paraphrased Bozzy's quotes, please let me know, and give evidence to back up your point of view. Thanks!


STATEMENT #1: Women abuse men in domestic relationships as much as men abuse women.



Post #1After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses."

Post #86 Who said anything about disproving the entire feminist argument? I simply pointed out that the argument that women are victims more often than perpetrators is indeed incorrect.

Post #180
Meanwhile, when there are multiple studies that demonstrate men are abused with relatively equal frequency, why is that the feminists here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-feminist? What is so threatening to them about the idea that this is a problem that affects men and wome equally?

Post #291
You are a bit premature to start claiming that the fact of feminists covering up domestc violence against men is untrue. The facts are clear and the sources many.

Post #391
You completely missed the point. Try reading it again. This was in reference to the misleading point that women are assaulted by familiars more often than men, with disregard to the fact that men are assaulted more often period.

Post #393
What are you smokin? Is you bias so thick as to completely cloud your reasoning? I don't even have to respond because you quoted both messages which clearly address 1) one way which the radical feminists have abused statistics to make the problem look different than it is, and 2) The actual facts on domestic abuse and gender/victimhood.
Post #406
The statistics I've shown report that women and men are victims of domestic violence with relatively equal incidence. If you can't see that check again - it is in there.

Substatement to statement 1: Violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women equally.


'Ms. Information' is funny. Sadly it is funny because there is just enough truth in it to sting. Not about violence, but by the radical feminist attempt to make it into a gender problem rather than a social problem which victimizes both sexes. I suppose only someone who does not care what happens to men could miss that.
The issue of violence is really not a seperate issue at all - it affects both genders equally as I illustrated. However the NOW gang has done all they can to portray it as a problem which only affects women and perpetrated by men. This is not equality nor anything approaching it. It is a cover up and a disservice to men, particularly those who are victims of violence.
Meanwhile, when there are multiple studies that demonstrate men are abused with relatively equal frequency, why is that the feminists here run to the front and shout NO! NO! IT ISN'T SO! and claim the suggestion is somehow anti-feminist? What is so threatening to them about the idea that this is a problem that affects men and wome equally?
The statistics I've shown report that women and men are victims of domestic violence with relatively equal incidence. If you can't see that check again - it is in there.


STATEMENT #2: There is a feminist caused societal blindness to men's health and welfare.


Post #86
I also pointed out that their[feminists] gender inequality suggested for health research, mental health and considerably more quality of life issues is in fact reversed from reality.

Post #89 You miss the point. Feminism is about gender equality, no? If it is not about equlity then what is it about? If it is about equality then why are they distorting facts to suppress information about violence against men and the disproportionate healthcare men get?

MEN NOT ACCESSING HEALTH CARE IS DUE TO FEMINIST-DRIVEN DEMANDS TO REMEDY YEARS OF ILLUSORY INEQUALITIES
Post #1 the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."

Post #96

"VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Domestic Violence: Domestic violence is a pattern of violent or coercive behavior in which a partner seeks to control the thoughts, beliefs, or conduct of their intimate partner. Violent juvenile offenders are four times more likely to have witnessed violence in their homes. Domestic violence destroys [B]families, harms women, and children, and devastates our communities. [B]

but nothing about the male victims of violence. That exclusion = a distortion.

Post #371
I don't recall anyone suggesting that domestic voilence is not a reality. I have noticed a very disproportional response from society based on the gender of the victim.

If you want to play 'my source can beat up your source' be my guest. Let's not bother to address the issue of violence against men and societies dismal record at addressing it, particulary when compared to violence against women.



Post #390
Exactly my point. Men should have equal rights. Cuurrently they do not. Here is a current example;


1Divorced fathers are also a cased of limited male rights. Another example? - Heaven help you if you are physically assaulted by a woman and attempt to defend yourself.


2The NIH has an Office of Women's Health, but where is the equivalent Office of Men's Health? There is none.

How do they get away with these lies and hurt so many men and their loved ones? As national syndicate Cathy Young points out, the failure of men and women to speak up against anti-male bias and distortions about health care inequalities (and other issues) gave activists a "free ride" in the media for years.

3You want another example? Don't even get me started on the denied college admissions for men. There is a 'male gap' in college enrollment for anyone willing to look. Men are being driven from and denied a college education all under the distorted auspices of 'equality'.

When these particular so called 'feminists' are ready to really talk equality I'm all ears. Until then they are hypocrits who do not deserve any association with the word 'equality'. The are a dishonor to the real feminists of history and the modern world.

I see we've managed to go another couple of pages without anything substantial from Bozzy. I get such a reoccurring sense of deja vu every time I read his posts.

So, I am going to take the substantial time to go through and summarize this entire thread for those of you just joining us.

Now, Bozzy started this whole thread with a basic premise...

Bozzy is trying to question the 'feminist propaganda'. He brings up two points that deal with this 'propaganda', and makes two statements. Those two, initial statements are:

STATEMENT #1: Women abuse men in domestic relationships as much as men abuse women.

Substatement to statement #1:Violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women equally.

STATEMENT #2: There is a feminist caused societal blindness to men's health and welfare.


To see which quotes I have drawn on to paraphrase these two statements, see the next post. But first, I'd like to take a brief look at those two statements.

The topic is introduced with the idea that feminist propaganda is hiding some important facts. Those facts being hidden by feminists are laid out in statements one and two. Bozzy is linking the idea that men and women abuse with equal frequency within domestic relationships, with societies blindness to men's health and welfare as issues which FEMINISTS ARE COVERING UP. I'm making this explicit so that we don't forget the underlying premise of this entire thread. Let me make it extra clear, because these next posts might get a bit confusing:

UNDERLYING PREMISE OF THIS THREAD:

Feminists (later changed to 'radical feminists') are covering up/using propaganda to hide the fact that men and women abuse one another with equal frequency within domestic relationships, and to focus attention on women rather than on men's health and welfare.

You forgot the claim that men are generally disadvantaged and feminists don't care.

TG, Sin.

Now that we've narrowed Bozzy's argument down to the following statements:

STATEMENT #1: Women abuse men in domestic relationships as much as men abuse women.

Substatement to statement #1:Violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women equally.

STATEMENT #2: There is a feminist caused societal blindness to men's health and welfare.

...we can go through the rebuttals that have been presented in this thread. I have chosen only the ones who deal with facts; facts which disprove those 'sources' presented by Bozzy as the basis for the claims he has made.

STATEMENT #1: Women abuse men in domestic relationships as much as men abuse women.

Substatement to statement #1:Violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women equally.


REFUTATION:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9148825&postcount=102



http://www.ifeminists.net/introduct...525roberts.html

"A number of years ago University of Delaware professor Suzanne Steinmetz published an article called the "The Battered Husband Syndrome." After culling the findings from five surveys on domestic violence, Steinmetz reached an unexpected conclusion: wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses."
Real feminists don't deny that men are also victims of domestic violence. And women can be perpetrators. But fake feminists and other anti-feminists try to deny the reality of domestic violence at all and flatly lie about the true statistics.

ROTFLASTC

"a number of years ago" = 1978??!!

The conclusions you draw (or the hack you quote draws) from this "study" and other similar research has been thoroughly discredited. In fact, the authors of many of these studies have denounced their misuse.

Here are a few examples of the refutation of this silly "conclusion":
The Myth of the "Battered Husband Syndrome"
The Battered Husband Controversy.
Claims About Husband Battering.
Four Variations of Family Violence: A Review of Sociological Research.
Battered Men? Battered Facts
Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales.
The Myth Of 'Battered Men': Men and Women Are Not Equally Abusive (Critiques of the Conflict Tactic Scales).
One man battered every 14 seconds!

An old "article" from a self-proclaimed "group of men's activists" that mainly relies on recycled bad information. Its "citations" are primarily to editorials by Farrell and a couple others -- misreporting studies in ways denounced by the authors of the studies themselves! Nice.


The Cat Tribe then provides some statistics to back up his refutation that women abuse men as often in domestic relationships as men abuse women.
STATISTICS PROVING THAT WOMEN ARE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE MORE THAN MEN (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9149105&postcount=103)

These sources are from trusted, non-feminist organisations such as the US Department of Justice, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and Centers for Disease Control. Among the information in these sources are clear refutations that domestic violence affects men and women equally and is perpetrated by men and women equally.

Clearly, the majority of perpetrators of domestic violence are MEN. And MEN are also the majority of perpetrators in other types of violence against other MEN. This is not a feminist cover up. This is fact. Facts which Bozzy has been unable to disprove.

You have never demonstrated any case where women were abusing the statistics to make the problem look different than it is. They have pointed a fact. Women are more often the victim of domestic violence and this violence is more grievous than the domestic violence men suffer.

STATEMENT #2: There is a feminist caused societal blindness to men's health and welfare.
REFUTATION:



Originally Posted by B0zzy
http://www.menweb.org/menmag/farrheal.htm
"As boys experience the pressures of the male role, their suicide rate goes from being equal to girls’ to being 600% as high as girls. (2) By age 85, the suicide rate for men is 1350% higher than for women of the same age group."

And this is relevant because ..... ?

And this has what to do with feminism? Nothing.

To the contrary, it expressly says the pressures of male stereotypical roles and peer pressure cause high rates of suicide. Good thing feminists are fighting those stereotypes! Hurray for feminists!

Originally Posted by B0zzy
http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news...les.asp?ID=2307
" the National Institute of Health has dismally failed to live up to its commitment to gender equality in health funding that it made in the Revitalization Act of 1993. Why? Because of feminist-driven demands to remedy years of illusory inequalities."
"Men in the United States live an average of six years less than women and have a higher death rate for each of the top 10 leading causes of death. They are twice as likely as women to be receiving no regular health care (23.2 percent vs. 11.9 percent, respectively), and men under 65 are less likely than women to even have health insurance with which they can receive such care, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services."

Again, this is relevant because ... ?

This is the fault of feminists because ... ?

And, again, what a pathetic source. An old editorial from a college newspaper written by a self-proclaimed mens' activist who relies heavily on ... (guess who?) ... Farrell.


None of the things Bozzy has said here prove that there is any sort of feminist cover up to hide mean's health and welfare issues in favour of women's. He talks later about research monies and focus as being more on women than men, and blames this on feminist activists. Finally, after dozens of pages he has admitted that feminists and RADICAL FEMINISTS are different. However, he still seems to be asserting that radical feminists have so much power, they are able to steer and entire society's interest and money away from men, and focus these things on women. In essense, he asserts, these 'radical feminists' are to blame for men's unwillingness to go to the doctor, for their violence, etc etc.

Violence affects both men and women. No one has denied that. What has been denied is that ALL VIOLENCE AFFECTS BOTH MEN AND WOMEN EQUALLY, or that ALL VIOLENCE IS EQUAL. Bozzy is equating domestic violence to ALL violence. Domestic abuse studies focus on domestic abuse. Obviously. Bozzy seems to take this to mean that the studies are ignoring violence against men that is not domestic. This is clearly true. Hence, the focus on DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. There are many studies about violence against men outside of the home. Studies on domestic abuse also include statistics of men who are reported victims.

The fact is, men don't report as much. Men are affected by gender roles and stereotypes. This affects their health and welfare. Bozzy has not once proven that there is a 'cover up' to hide this fact.

I'd like to point out an excellent quote from Bozzy's first post, from Warren Farrell, the man he keeps referring to in this thread:

None of this is women’s fault. Women are still calling the doctor for men. We can no longer expect women to hear what men do not say. Men are bottom-line creatures and, bottom line, men need to take responsibility.

So Bozzy, instead of pretending that feminists are to blame, why don't you focus instead on dealing with the underlying issues that cause men to avoid doctors, behave more aggressively towards each other, and towards women and children than WOMEN do? Take responsibility. Women are NOT more violent or AS violent as men. NO EVIDENCE YOU HAVE PRESENTED SUPPORTS THIS WILD CLAIM. Men have a problem with violence. Why is that? This entire thread implies that the blame should be put on feminism.

Let me make this clear: FEMINISM IS NOT TO BLAME FOR MEN'S VIOLENCE.

If you really want to deal with men's violence, and the effects of it, please do. If you want to deal with all violence, perpetrated by men or women, then please do. But do not pretend that all violence is equal in proportion or frequency among men and women, or that it affects them both equally. And stop propping up the strawmen of 'feminazis' to beat up on rather than dealing with the real issues. Most of all, if you can't bother to actually debate the thread you began, bow out. Bow out, admit you are wrong, or provide some actual proof that has not already been debunked.

*snip*

*applause* *applause* *applause*

*standing ovation*

I see we've managed to go another couple of pages without anything substantial from Bozzy. I get such a reoccurring sense of deja vu every time I read his posts.

So, I am going to take the substantial time to go through and summarize this entire thread for those of you just joining us.

Now, Bozzy started this whole thread with a basic premise...

Bozzy is trying to question the 'feminist propaganda'. He brings up two points that deal with this 'propaganda', and makes two statements. Those two, initial statements are:

STATEMENT #1: Women abuse men in domestic relationships as much as men abuse women.

Substatement to statement #1:Violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women equally.

STATEMENT #2: There is a feminist caused societal blindness to men's health and welfare.


To see which quotes I have drawn on to paraphrase these two statements, see the next post. But first, I'd like to take a brief look at those two statements.

The topic is introduced with the idea that feminist propaganda is hiding some important facts. Those facts being hidden by feminists are laid out in statements one and two. Bozzy is linking the idea that men and women abuse with equal frequency within domestic relationships, with societies blindness to men's health and welfare as issues which FEMINISTS ARE COVERING UP. I'm making this explicit so that we don't forget the underlying premise of this entire thread. Let me make it extra clear, because these next posts might get a bit confusing:

UNDERLYING PREMISE OF THIS THREAD:

Feminists (later changed to 'radical feminists') are covering up/using propaganda to hide the fact that men and women abuse one another with equal frequency within domestic relationships, and to focus attention on women rather than on men's health and welfare.

Please don't take the liberty of paraphrasing me without at least being accurate.
If you must put it in three bullets then here;
STATEMENT #1: Men face domestic abuse with similar frequency to women. (It can be concurrent with or independant of a reciprocal abuse pattern)

Substatement to statement #1:Domestic violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women with relative frequency.

STATEMENT #2: There is a societal ignorance of men's issues while comparable women's issues are quite disproportionatly addressed.

I believe you meant 'radical feminists' instead of 'women'.

Here's a question to more clearly state your opinion - Roughly what percentage of feminists (a guess) would you say are 'radical' feminists?

The statistics I've shown report that women and men are victims of domestic violence with relatively equal incidence. If you can't see that check again - it is in there.

Yes, and they have all been debunked. You have yet to address the sources that debunk you claims or the response to your posts.

have I? When?

I simply pointed out that the argument that women are victims more often than perpetrators is indeed incorrect.

wives were just as likely as their husbands to kick, punch, stab, and otherwise physically aggress against their spouses

Men are victims of violence in general more often than women. This means then, for anyone with any math abilities or a calculator, that women are more likely to be victimized by a familiar than by a stranger, but it does not mean they are more often victimized by a familiar. It is the difference between probability, frequency and incidence.
As far as damage goes - apparently you believe that if the damage is not 'grievous' then the abuse is somehow more acceptable. What a peculiar comfort that must provide you.

Um, actually based on what you just said, you can't actually draw that conclusions. Men are victims of violence in general more often than women says NOTHING about the frequency or types of violence that women suffer other than they are in general victims less often than men. The rest of your statement is fairly pointless.

I love how you try to pretend like all things are equal. If one man is standing on a corner yelling that black people are monkeys and another is burning a cross on the lawn of a black family and yet another is lynching a black man. My order of concern is the lynching, then the cross, then the guy yelling. I don't pretend the guy yelling is acceptable. I just prioritze my responses to the most grievous. It's not about comfort, it's about being most effective. As is the case with domestic violence and even violence in general, there is a problem of violence that gets both women and men hurt.

You fail to admit it but men are more often the perpetrators of violence. You pretend that is because women are weaker and/or because men don't report, but let's take violence against children as a better example since reporting certainly is based on whether it is fathers or mothers reporting and certainly women are just as capable of injuring or killing a child.

http://nccanch.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/factsheets/fatality.cfm
There is no single profile of a perpetrator of fatal child abuse, although certain characteristics reappear in many studies. Frequently the perpetrator is a young adult in his or her mid-20s without a high school diploma, living at or below the poverty level, depressed, and who may have difficulty coping with stressful situations. In many instances, the perpetrator has experienced violence first-hand. Most fatalities from physical abuse are caused by fathers and other male caretakers. Mothers are most often held responsible for deaths resulting from child neglect. However, in some cases this may be because women are most often responsible (or assumed to be responsible) for children's care (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995).

See how it doesn't pretend like women are never guilty of injuring their children, but clearly violence that results in death more often involves men. And yes I do think men killing children is more important than women slapping men, by a long shot.

expand on the college line of reasoning please. How does not attending college reflect 'gender roles'.

I love this one. What part of men have the role of going out and being the breadwinner moreso than women is confusing? This often results in men going for the paycheck instead of the education. I thought I was pretty clear. You do know that this whole breadwinner thing is related to 'gender roles', no?

One-third of the gap is because after age 35 women are almost twice as likely to be attending college. That's because men are out their supporting their families. Lookee, gender roles again.

generally due to the view of men not being nurturing and/or good communicators. Gender roles again.
my, you do like your stereotypes. That is so offensive as to not warrant a response.

Gender roles are stereotypes. Are you suggesting that there is not a widespread view that women are more nurturing and/or better communicators? Then how do you explain the 'unfair court bias'. We are advocating changing those stereotypes. Will pretending they don't exist make them go away? More to the point, changing stereotypes and gender roles is a direct action feminists are involved in to the betterment of all people, not just women. Later in this rant you suggest they're wrong for trying to do so.

Um, not, it is called unfair court bias.

Ok, and what is that unfair court bias based on or did you not think that deep into your little theory? It's based on how men are viewed in society and that view affects how they are socialized. Feminists are working to address both the view and that socialization.

So lets see if I understand your point - the trouble with men is that they do not act the way feminists think they should. So, instead of adapting society to address male issues radical feminists want to adapt men instead. Hmmm, I suspect that suggesting the same approach with women would get you thrown out of the local NOW chapter ass first. (adapt women to societies expectations instead of society to womens needs) It really does not suggest anything resembling equality at all.

Women are trying to change the general attitude of society that suggests men and women must fit a certain role, you know, roles like bread-winner or caregiver. You're trying to bastardize the thought process, but the goal is to change the view that men cannot care for their children, to change the view that unless a man is bringing home a paycheck that is equal to or greater than that of a woman he is not a real man, to change the view that a man must appear stronger than a women, to change the view that men should not express their feelings (both in those looking on and the ment that hold these views of themselves).

Meanwhile... we'll just ignore the vast difference on government spending on gender-specific ailments and suggest somehow that men deserve it for being men. (male gender roles) :rolleyes:

Who suggested men deserved it? How did you think this happened? It's not feminists specifically. If prostate cancer sufferers were making as much noise as breast cancer sufferers politicians would be pressing for funding increases for prostate sufferers. The squeaky wheel and all.

Really? NOW is working to equalize the bias against men in family law? I missed that part - care to elaborate?

First, you pretend like you're talking about 'radical feminists' only but when I said feminists, you brought up NOW and according to you "NOW - aka radical feminists'. You slipped up and exposed your view that there are only radical feminists. Second, I told you. Gender roles. They are trying to change the unfair biases in the way people view all genders (yes, men are part of those genders).

Would I? My attempts to trap you? You are trying to argue from any position that attacks feminists.
You are mistaken. I support gender equality. I do not support the radical gender superiority groups such as NOW - aka radical feminists.

Really? You claim that you're not attacking feminists only NOW, but when I suggested that feminists are working for gender equality you asked me about NOW. Admit it, you think all or almost all feminist are what you're referring to now as 'radical feminists'.

I'll post it again.

Most people call those people feminists.
Really? NOW is working to equalize the bias against men in family law? I missed that part - care to elaborate?

Are you tired? You're getting less slippery and it's much easier to expose your views are an attack on all feminism and not 'radical feminism' as you've suddenly tried to claim. Or am I just playing word games? When you attack radical feminism and then say that radical feminism and feminism are the same thing, I tend to pounce and that little play on words. More importantly, why can't you just admit that you are against all feminists. Everyone here already realizes it.

I could never in good concience support treating one sex 'more equally' than another - yet many so called 'feminist' groups do just that. Government spending is reflective of that as well. I've illustrated this already in a recent post.
Whoops, you forgot to say 'radical feminists' there. Most feminists actually fight for things that would also benefit men such as viewing fathers as caregivers, allowing for paternity leave (see recent victory in Canada), etc. I don't believe the funding on particular diseases are affected by feminist groups so much as they are affected by advocacy groups focused on those particular disorders.

Please don't take the liberty of paraphrasing me without at least being accurate.

That's amusing, coming from you. Accuracy doesn't seem something you're that interested in when it comes to your own arguments. But hey...I've already shown you wrong, and you've yet to back your claims up. Nothing more needs to be said on that, now does it?


If you must put it in three bullets then here;
STATEMENT #1: Men face domestic abuse with similar frequency to women. (It can be concurrent with or independant of a reciprocal abuse pattern)STATEMENT #1: Women abuse men in domestic relationships as much as men abuse women.

Alright, I'll accept that change in phrase, since mine did not allow for same sex partner violence. We are all still waiting for you to prove this wild, and unfounded claim by the way. With something other than editorial sources. You have not provided any information to debunk the US Department of Justice statistics. Then again, your hit and run method of posting never really addresses the topic anyway. State, restate, claim, never defend...are you ready to bow out yet? Admit you are not accurate in this claim?

Substatement to statement #1:Domestic violence is not a gender issue and affects men and women with relative frequency.
Exactly as I phrased it...and as entirely inaccurate as ever. No information you have provided supports this ridiculous assessment. Would you also claim that violence affects adults the same way it affects children? Only if you could smear feminists in the process, no doubt. Spurious, inaccurate, and deluded. If you simply want to state your opinions, based on nothing more than your guesses and conjectures, please spare us having to take the effort to address these assertations by clearly stating, "I'm making this up".

STATEMENT #2: There is a societal ignorance of men's issues while comparable women's issues are quite disproportionatly addressed.How interesting. So you aren't blaming men's health and welfare on feminists? Read back over your quotes. It's there in black and white. You've again and again shifted the blame onto the shoulders of feminists throughout this thread, either directly or indirectly (claiming they are hiding the facts about men's health). I have to say....your debating skills are dismal. As is your memory, apparently.

This thread was begun on false premises, on inflammatory rhetoric, and on sparse 'facts'. Nothing has sustained it since except for the absolute refuation of your ridiculous and offensive claims. We've waited nearly thirty pages to get something, anything substantial out of you. You duck the questions, you duck the proof, you even ignore the work that was done on your request (looking up the particular posts we wanted you to address). Clearly, you've long ago thrown in the towel on a subject that was perhaps sparked by a feeling of anger at the time. Misguided as your premise is, perhaps you've finally admitted to yourself that you don't have a leg to stand on. Since I can't imagine you will ever be courteous enough to let us know you've essentially thrown in the towel (I mean, come on...we are not about to wait another twenty pages for evidence that is not forthcoming), I propose we throw it in for you.

If there is anyone participating in this thread who feels that there is any point in continuing this one-sided discussion, please say so. Otherwise, we can decide that Bozzy has indeed thrown in the towel, and put this thread to rest.

So B0zzy, instead of pretending that feminists are to blame, why don't you focus instead on dealing with the underlying issues that cause men to avoid doctors, behave more aggressively towards each other, and towards women and children than WOMEN do? Take responsibility. Women are NOT more violent or AS violent as men. NO EVIDENCE YOU HAVE PRESENTED SUPPORTS THIS WILD CLAIM. Men have a problem with violence. Why is that? This entire thread implies that the blame should be put on feminism.

First, please be certain that when you are quoting me quoting another source you credit the source appropriately.

I have stated clearly that feminists (radical) have covered up (or just plain fabricated) the facts (super bowl Sunday anyone?) about abuse. I have not laid blame at their feet for all of the mistreatment men face. There are clear cases when radical fems have taken a course which clearly harms men (family court) and there are cases where they have taken a course which indirectly reduces men's treatement (disproportionate spending on prostate cancer) They have also run interference on addressing topics such as providing services for male victims of domestic violence (including adolescent males victims of their fathers). Their only blame is the continuation of the perpetration of these endeavors.

I've provided several links which address this.

As far as TCTs links 'refuting' the idea that men are abused with similar frequency to women they are grossly flawed. The most obvious flaw is that they are based on reported crimes. It would be unconscionable to make the determination that those results mean men are more violent. It only means men are arrested more. It would require an abuse of logic as grotesque as assuming that blacks are more violent than whites because there are considerably more blacks in jail than whites on a proportional basis. That is an egregious abuse of logic I'm not willing to accept - in either case. Anyone who would is rightfully defined as a bigot - either racial or gender.

I shouldn't even need to point out the gross inconsistencies in these reports TCT provided They invalidate themselves! Here are just a few:

*According the US Department of Justice in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."

*The National Institute of Justice found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States."

*Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003)

572 thousand! 572 thousand! Do I hear 1.5 million? Yes 1.5 million! Current bid is 1.5 million! Do I hear two? two? 5.3 million! We have a high bidder! 5.3 million! Going once.... going twice....

It is hard to take these very flexible 'facts' serious when the results are so variable. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize there are some flaws and quite likely an agenda to these reports...

clearly these sources are not so trustworthy as you seem to think. There are other sources I've found which would claim that me are responsible for 98% of domestic abuse. Only the most radical gender bigot could accept that assumption without question.

here was my favorite:

*much of female violence is committed in self-defense, and inflicts less injury than male violence. (Chalk & King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention & Treatment Programs, National Resource Council and Institute of Medicine, p. 42 (1998)).
And no mention of the male violence which was committed in self defense? Apparently, the trouble isn't abuse, it is the fact the men do more damage. By that standard it would be more acceptable if male abuse did less damage. :rolleyes:


Violence affects both men and women. No one has denied that. What has been denied is that ALL VIOLENCE AFFECTS BOTH MEN AND WOMEN EQUALLY, or that ALL VIOLENCE IS EQUAL. B0zzy is equating domestic violence to ALL violence. Domestic abuse studies focus on domestic abuse. Obviously. B0zzy seems to take this to mean that the studies are ignoring violence against men that is not domestic. This is clearly true. Hence, the focus on DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. There are many studies about violence against men outside of the home. Studies on domestic abuse also include statistics of men who are reported victims.

You've been stuck on this for quite a while. I've made three separate attempts to describe the point I made. I doubt you'll get it even after four - apparently because you are so determined to reject it without considering it. I did not suggest all violence is equal. I did not confuse stranger vs familiar violence. I simply pointed out - quite correctly - that men are victims of stranger assault more often than women and familiar abuse as often as women. The flawed statistic that women are assaulted more often by familiars is incorrect and correct at the same time - depending if you are looking at frequency or probability. If you can't understand the difference between those to things then I cannot help you nor discuss this (or any other statistics) any further with you.

The fact is, men don't report as much. Men are affected by gender roles and stereotypes. This affects their health and welfare. B0zzy has not once proven that there is a 'cover up' to hide this fact.

I'm not sure what male stereotypes has to do with prostate cancer receiving less than 10% of the funding breast cancer receives. Explain how stereotypes result in there being fewer men enrolling in college than women. Explain how stereotypes results in men living six years less than women on average? (and widowers live an average of six months compared to a widows 10 years!) Should we just turn a blind eye and blame stereotypes? Should we just tell men "see? You really ought not act that way!" or should society reflect on the approach and reach out to men in a way men are likely to respond to? (Just as it has for women) I can't wait to get another gender-bigoted answer like "because of your stereotypical actions! You just have to change the way men are!"



Men have a problem with violence. Why is that? This entire thread implies that the blame should be put on feminism.

Let me make this clear: FEMINISM IS NOT TO BLAME FOR MEN'S VIOLENCE.

If you really want to deal with men's violence, and the effects of it, please do. If you want to deal with all violence, perpetrated by men or women, then please do. But do not pretend that all violence is equal in proportion or frequency among men and women, or that it affects them both equally. And stop propping up the strawmen of 'feminazis' to beat up on rather than dealing with the real issues. Most of all, if you can't bother to actually debate the thread you began, bow out. Bow out, admit you are wrong, or provide some actual proof that has not already been debunked.

Men are not the only ones with a problem with violence. Radical feminists refuse to belive that and until they do men and children will suffer. Feminism is not to blame for anyone’s violence - male or female. Nobody here has ever made a contrary ascertation. You may deduce that because your prejudice has been challenged - but it is an incorrect reduction.

I am eager to deal with all violence, perpetrated by both genders. Until the radical feminists are ready to admit that women too are violent creatures that is impossible. That is the point of the thread which I began. If you insist on changing the subject from 'my research can beat up yours' to 'B0zzy is lame for taking time off' to 'I've drawn an incorrect assumption which I will now argue irrationally over' then I would suggest you bow out, take the time to open-mindedly reassess your firm-held stereotypes about men, then return and consider the implications of what information I've provided and contribute thoughtfully instead of reactionary and defensively.

I shouldn't even need to point out the gross inconsistencies in these reports TCT provided They invalidate themselves! Here are just a few:

572 thousand! 572 thousand! Do I hear 1.5 million? Yes 1.5 million! Current bid is 1.5 million! Do I hear two? two? 5.3 million! We have a high bidder! 5.3 million! Going once.... going twice....

It is hard to take these very flexible 'facts' serious when the results are so variable. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize there are some flaws and quite likely an agenda to these reports...

It's three different years. 1994, 2000, and 2003. Of course it's going to go up. There are more damn people. The population of the US went up by over 100 million people during that time period.

Worst. Argument. Ever.

First, please be certain that when you are quoting me quoting another source you credit the source appropriately.

I have stated clearly that feminists (radical) have covered up (or just plain fabricated) the facts (super bowl Sunday anyone?) about abuse. I have not laid blame at their feet for all of the mistreatment men face. There are clear cases when radical fems have taken a course which clearly harms men (family court) and there are cases where they have taken a course which indirectly reduces men's treatement (disproportionate spending on prostate cancer) They have also run interference on addressing topics such as providing services for male victims of domestic violence (including adolescent males victims of their fathers). Their only blame is the continuation of the perpetration of these endeavors.

I've provided several links which address this.

As far as TCTs links 'refuting' the idea that men are abused with similar frequency to women they are grossly flawed. The most obvious flaw is that they are based on reported crimes. It would be unconscionable to make the determination that those results mean men are more violent. It only means men are arrested more. It would require an abuse of logic as grotesque as assuming that blacks are more violent than whites because there are considerably more blacks in jail than whites on a proportional basis. That is an egregious abuse of logic I'm not willing to accept - in either case. Anyone who would is rightfully defined as a bigot - either racial or gender.

I shouldn't even need to point out the gross inconsistencies in these reports TCT provided They invalidate themselves! Here are just a few:

572 thousand! 572 thousand! Do I hear 1.5 million? Yes 1.5 million! Current bid is 1.5 million! Do I hear two? two? 5.3 million! We have a high bidder! 5.3 million! Going once.... going twice....

It is hard to take these very flexible 'facts' serious when the results are so variable. It does not take a rocket scientist to realize there are some flaws and quite likely an agenda to these reports...

clearly these sources are not so trustworthy as you seem to think. There are other sources I've found which would claim that me are responsible for 98% of domestic abuse. Only the most radical gender bigot could accept that assumption without question.

here was my favorite:

And no mention of the male violence which was committed in self defense? Apparently, the trouble isn't abuse, it is the fact the men do more damage. By that standard it would be more acceptable if male abuse did less damage. :rolleyes:



You've been stuck on this for quite a while. I've made three separate attempts to describe the point I made. I doubt you'll get it even after four - apparently because you are so determined to reject it without considering it. I did not suggest all violence is equal. I did not confuse stranger vs familiar violence. I simply pointed out - quite correctly - that men are victims of stranger assault more often than women and familiar abuse as often as women. The flawed statistic that women are assaulted more often by familiars is incorrect and correct at the same time - depending if you are looking at frequency or probability. If you can't understand the difference between those to things then I cannot help you nor discuss this (or any other statistics) any further with you.



I'm not sure what male stereotypes has to do with prostate cancer receiving less than 10% of the funding breast cancer receives. Explain how stereotypes result in there being fewer men enrolling in college than women. Explain how stereotypes results in men living six years less than women on average? (and widowers live an average of six months compared to a widows 10 years!) Should we just turn a blind eye and blame stereotypes? Should we just tell men "see? You really ought not act that way!" or should society reflect on the approach and reach out to men in a way men are likely to respond to? (Just as it has for women) I can't wait to get another gender-bigoted answer like "because of your stereotypical actions! You just have to change the way men are!"




Men are not the only ones with a problem with violence. Radical feminists refuse to belive that and until they do men and children will suffer. Feminism is not to blame for anyone’s violence - male or female. Nobody here has ever made a contrary ascertation. You may deduce that because your prejudice has been challenged - but it is an incorrect reduction.

I am eager to deal with all violence, perpetrated by both genders. Until the radical feminists are ready to admit that women too are violent creatures that is impossible. That is the point of the thread which I began. If you insist on changing the subject from 'my research can beat up yours' to 'B0zzy is lame for taking time off' to 'I've drawn an incorrect assumption which I will now argue irrationally over' then I would suggest you bow out, take the time to open-mindedly reassess your firm-held stereotypes about men, then return and consider the implications of what information I've provided and contribute thoughtfully instead of reactionary and defensively.

I actually laughed at this one. Out loud. Classic. Please keep posting. And whatever you do, don't address my posts or more than one post a week. Is it just taking that long to make up your facts?

Let's see first crime is under-reported and then statistics on reported crime are overblown. Can we make some more stuff up?

If women are equally violent as men then why is it so much more common for children that are victims of physical child abuse to be killed by a males (see the link I posted on the previous page)? Maybe the men are acting in self-defense.

Ah Bozzy. You impress only yourself. Your argument, as it has been from the beginning, lacks facts to back it up, lacks consistency, and frankly, has become just plain uninteresting. You've been proven wrong again and again. No attempt to wriggle out of that using the same hackneyed arguments you started with will work. You've changed your tune so many times...violence is equal, oh, no its not, um, yes it is, oh um...hey look, a RADICAL FEMINIST!!! *cuts and runs from the thread*

Bye Bozzy. You lack worth as an opponent.

Ah Bozzy. You impress only yourself. Your argument, as it has been from the beginning, lacks facts to back it up, lacks consistency, and frankly, has become just plain uninteresting. You've been proven wrong again and again. No attempt to wriggle out of that using the same hackneyed arguments you started with will work. You've changed your tune so many times...violence is equal, oh, no its not, um, yes it is, oh um...hey look, a RADICAL FEMINIST!!! *cuts and runs from the thread*

Bye Bozzy. You lack worth as an opponent.Didn't you want to let this thread die? ;)

Didn't you want to let this thread die? ;)

NOPE. I really wanted B0zzy to reply to all the work that TCT, Sin and myself put in. I wanted B0zzy to support his claim with non-editorial sources or admit that he can't. I wanted B0zzy to actually read and address the sources he said he would almost 20 pages ago. I wanted B0zzy to participate in thread he started (I'm busy... but not too busy to join in on other threads).

I wanted B0zzy to actually reply to reposted or linked information when he says 'just reference the post # instead of re-entering everything and I'll respond' (instead B0zzy replied to exactly one post by TCT, sort of, mostly by just reposting the sources that had already been debunked in the other posts he won't reply to. Then he jumped in and posted more sources, mostly changing the subject and not fulling showing that subject at that, without replying to the posts of TCT, Sinuhue and myself.) And then when he changed it to 'I frankly was waiting to see the response to the context of the one I posted, which has thusfar been limited at best. I really don't intend to have a conversation all alone or with the ghosts of past posts' and TCT posted some of the replies AGAIN, I wanted B0zzy to actually reply instead of using nearly every word to just attack people and complain that we weren't giving him a chance. He replied to ONE of my posts that actually had content (many were like this one) and pretty much ignored any post that included a source like the Department of Justice or anything else that was nearly impossible to paint as biased. I wanted B0zzy to be truthful (I'm weird like that).

In short, I WANTED B0zzy to participate in this thread that he started like a reasonable, thoughtful poster that has something of his own to say (rather than cutting and pasting ridiculous editorials).

NOPE. I really wanted B0zzy to reply to all the work that TCT, Sin and myself put in. I wanted B0zzy to support his claim with non-editorial sources or admit that he can't. I wanted B0zzy to actually read and address the sources he said he would almost 20 pages ago. I wanted B0zzy to participate in thread he started (I'm busy... but not too busy to join in on other threads).


Sorry, but your baiting and flaming was not enough to keep me interested. I left looking for more mature people to have a discussion with. (heaven forbid I don't give your baiting my undivided daily attention!) The vast majority of threads in the last few days were juvenile, narrow minded, just plain rude or a combination of those things. I had hoped it would evolve into something greater, something intellectually stimulating, something with an exciting exchange of ideas - it never happened. Instead there was nothing but ridicule by most of information/ideas they find non-conforming to their ideals, steadfast closed-mindedness, blatant disregard of the content of posts, gros abuse of causality and statistics, and low-brow antics. - Certainly not an environment conusive of free thought. Apparently I set my expectations too high.

Farewell. I leave you with these happy thoughts:

Worst. Argument. Ever.
Ah Bozzy. You impress only yourself.
I actually laughed at this one. Out loud. Classic.
my universal kook translation machine must be broken.
Clearly, you understand neither feminism nor affirmative action. Burn those strawmen! Burn!
Being ignorant is awesome.
Do you have more to add, based in a reality outside your own?
We likely will not hear from Bozzy again on this subject until he creates a new thread recycling this same garbage.

and finally;
I'm through with this pointless bickering, so don't bother responding. Honest. I won't read it. I suppose you'll use that to triumphantly blurt out your victory or my proven 'ignorance' or whatever. Knock yourself out.


Bye Bozzy. You lack worth as an opponent.
That would explain why so few people have stuck around to have a conversation with you. You consider a conversation a competition; Rather than discuss different or non-conforming ideas you want to attack ('debunk') them and the people sharing them.

You may now commence attacking me for my patience. The sucking sound you will hear is the vacuum of how much I care.

There was no baiting. Stop saying that. You just haven't replied to the 100 or so posts that ripped you a new hole.

Sorry, but your baiting and flaming was not enough to keep me interested. I left looking for more mature people to have a discussion with. (heaven forbid I don't give your baiting my undivided daily attention!) The vast majority of threads in the last few days were juvenile, narrow minded, just plain rude or a combination of those things. I had hoped it would evolve into something greater, something intellectually stimulating, something with an exciting exchange of ideas - it never happened. Instead there was nothing but ridicule by most of information/ideas they find non-conforming to their ideals, steadfast closed-mindedness, blatant disregard of the content of posts, gros abuse of causality and statistics, and low-brow antics. - Certainly not an environment conusive of free thought. Apparently I set my expectations too high.

Farewell. I leave you with these happy thoughts:









and finally;




That would explain why so few people have stuck around to have a conversation with you. You consider a conversation a competition; Rather than discuss different or non-conforming ideas you want to attack ('debunk') them and the people sharing them.

You may now commence attacking me for my patience. The sucking sound you will hear is the vacuum of how much I care.
Wow, Is your ability to address the information and supporting research at hand so weak that you have to bring in your own fairy-tale topic? I would expect better than that from you.

Just because it does not view gender equality through the same biased lense you do does not make it anti-feminist. grow up.[/B} Different people have differet opinions. Lableing them anti- something just because you cannot grasp their point is not constructive and [B]small-minded.

I suppose only someone who does not care what happens to men could miss that.

Really, you are so shrill right now that you are doing yourself and your argument a disservce.

Um, sorry, but there is no forum rules against suggesting your argument is becoming shrill - and this suggestion makes it more so.

Someone as shallow as you may have difficulty understanding that I do have a life outside of posting here and that it, in fact, resides quite low on my order of priorities. (Particulary when replying to those with a lack of mutual respect such as yourself.)

I've given my explanation and made an offer. You may choose to reject it, but there is really no need for rudeness. Simply reference the post number you wish to continue a discussion on and I'll start there - even for someone as abrasive as you. Courtesy, however, would not really kill you.

[QUOTE=B0zzy]Rudness and belittlement however are not - in fact they are more symptomatic of a small and frightened mind. They also seem to be you preferred style of communication. It would seem apropriate for you (and several others here) to reflect on that.


Fortunately, he never says anything rude or inflammatory. Just ask him.

There is no time here that I have been rude or inflammatory to you or anyone else.

I've clearly stated many times that I've not 'attacked' anyone - certainly not in the way you attempting to right now.

Wow, just plain lying. I'd like to say it's surprising, but then I'd be guilty too.

Sorry, but your baiting and flaming was not enough to keep me interested. I left looking for more mature people to have a discussion with. (heaven forbid I don't give your baiting my undivided daily attention!) The vast majority of threads in the last few days were juvenile, narrow minded, just plain rude or a combination of those things. I had hoped it would evolve into something greater, something intellectually stimulating, something with an exciting exchange of ideas - it never happened. Instead there was nothing but ridicule by most of information/ideas they find non-conforming to their ideals, steadfast closed-mindedness, blatant disregard of the content of posts, gros abuse of causality and statistics, and low-brow antics. - Certainly not an environment conusive of free thought. Apparently I set my expectations too high.

Farewell. I leave you with these happy thoughts:









and finally;




That would explain why so few people have stuck around to have a conversation with you. You consider a conversation a competition; Rather than discuss different or non-conforming ideas you want to attack ('debunk') them and the people sharing them.

You may now commence attacking me for my patience. The sucking sound you will hear is the vacuum of how much I care.

I echo your reply to my post listing all the ways you've attacked people.

Wow, I never realized just how thin your skin really is as to be troubled by these innocuous statements. I will take extra care in the future to baby you so as not to offend your sensitivities.

Now, I'll tell you a secret. People are open-minded towards tolerant views, and open-minded to views that are held by people who are themselves open-minded. You fall into neither category so expect your mysoginistic views that skew facts in favor of opinion to be thoroughly and utterly 'debunked'.

My only question is how the hell could my post could be interpreted as an insult?! I made a comment on the argument, not B0zzy. If attacking the argument is the same as a personal insult in B0zzy's mind, something is not right.

OMG who dragged this crap out of the cellar?? I remember last seeing this thread about a month ago. This is really not cool.

I have stated clearly that feminists (radical) have covered up (or just plain fabricated) the facts (super bowl Sunday anyone?) about abuse.
This is a very big assertion, based on what I know, it seems unlikely, if you can present information or an argument that shows that this is even possible, I will re-evaluate how likely I consider it to be.

There are clear cases when radical fems have taken a course which clearly harms men (family court)
Another big claim, I tend to believe you cannot demmonstrate that it is true, (or even present a strong inductive argument).

and there are cases where they have taken a course which indirectly reduces men's treatement (disproportionate spending on prostate cancer)
Again I just dont think you can support this assertion with anything convincing? How exactly are you suggesting (radical) feminists and/or (radical) feminism are implicated in 'disproportionate spending on prostate cancer'?

They have also run interference on addressing topics such as providing services for male victims of domestic violence (including adolescent males victims of their fathers).
So have 'anti-feminists'...I just dont see that feminists as a group (or any particular sub-group or the group feminists), are any more implicated as a general or direct cause, than any other analogous category of persons.

clearly these sources are not so trustworthy as you seem to think. There are other sources I've found which would claim that me are responsible for 98% of domestic abuse. Only the most radical gender bigot could accept that assumption without question.
Aha, but why blame this on feminists when feminists have been prominent leaders in questioning the 'male = active&dominant/female = passive&submissive' dichotomy? The reason people find it easier to believe '98% of domestic abuse is perpetrated by males', rather than 'females commit at least as much domestic abuse as males' is probably (as you seem to be implying) because of their 'ideas' about males and females, but these ideas do not come from feminist doctrine, in fact feminists as a group have arguably done as much as, or more than, any anologous group, to 'combat' the root cause of the alledged problem (the perception or actuality that males are more aggressive/violent than females).

Apparently, the trouble isn't abuse, it is the fact the men do more damage. By that standard it would be more acceptable if male abuse did less damage. :rolleyes:
Well actually yes. This is not a novel or out of place suggestion given the social context in which it has arisen. Consider a person charged with a minor assault (such as a slap) that resulted in no inury, and a person charged with sserious assault (such as a punch to the head) that resulted in a person being hospitalised with severe long term or life threatening injuries. Based on these facts alone, who do you think is the more likely to receive a longer sentence? To keep the whole issue in perspective the only reason abuse is a problem is because of the damage it causes.

Explain how stereotypes results in men living six years less than women on average? (and widowers live an average of six months compared to a widows 10 years!)
The problem with all these examples (I edited out much of your text to try to control the length of my post) is that without some argument or reasoning offered as to the connection between them (your examples) and feminism, they (the examples) are entirely irrelevent.

Men are not the only ones with a problem with violence. Radical feminists refuse to belive that and until they do men and children will suffer.
Do they? Why do they (refuse to believe)? And why will men and children suffer so long as radical feminists refuse to believe that men are not the only ones with a problem with violence? How many radical feminists believe this?

I am eager to deal with all violence, perpetrated by both genders. Until the radical feminists are ready to admit that women too are violent creatures that is impossible.
Why?

Instead there was nothing but ridicule by most of information/ideas they find non-conforming to their ideals, steadfast closed-mindedness, blatant disregard of the content of posts, gros abuse of causality and statistics, and low-brow antics. - Certainly not an environment conusive of free thought. Apparently I set my expectations too high.


Thank you for describing the manner in which you have posted in this thread. You've summed up your actions quite well.

That would explain why so few people have stuck around to have a conversation with you. You consider a conversation a competition; Rather than discuss different or non-conforming ideas you want to attack ('debunk') them and the people sharing them.

You may now commence attacking me for my patience. The sucking sound you will hear is the vacuum of how much I care.
If you care so little, why do you keep posting to say you don't care?

This thread was about you, and you alone, because no one else supported your ridiculous claims. And you couldn't support them either, not with facts. That has been made abundantly clear. I have no doubt you'll wish to post again to 'clear your name' and call those of us who actually MADE arguments 'juvenile'.

Am I the only one that notices virtually every "b0zzy is a mysogenist, fact-faking, imbecile" poster is female? I'm just saying, it's... intresting. :confused:

I'm I the only one that notices virtually every "b0zzy is a mysogenist, fact-faking, imbecile" poster is female? I'm just saying, it's... intresting. :confused:
Have you ever noticed how black people tend to be more likely to get pissed off when white people throw around the word "******"?

And how Chinese people tend to be more insulted when the word "chink" is thrown around?

Crazy stuff. Like how these crazy womenfolks get all upset when people post woman-hating rants full of glaring falsehoods. What's with that?

:confused:

http://img336.imageshack.us/img336/228/threadnecromancy2kn.jpg

wait... The Cat-Tribe, B0zzy, Sinuhue, Jocabia et al. aren't even around anymore... and the last post in this thread was 1 1/3 years ago...

Frequently, when old threads like this one are revived, it is because new evidence or something similar has been found to disprove or prove a certain argument and there is something new to add to the debate. In this thread, the debate is OVER (and that is why the thread died). It is one of the few examples of threads that actually end.

So why was the need felt to revive it for the pointless comment above?

Just curious.

This is a growing problem, many girls these days believe that one day all evil men will be extinct and that girls will be able to make each others pregnant, the blame has been passed on to guys, not girls, these days, also there was a "feministic party" and about 4 of the members there believed in female supremacy, not equal rights.

This is a growing problem, many girls these days believe that one day all evil men will be extinct and that girls will be able to make each others pregnant, the blame has been passed on to guys, not girls, these days, also there was a "feministic party" and about 4 of the members there believed in female supremacy, not equal rights.

:confused: Wha ... ?

Modern feminism is not about equality, its about supremacy. Anyone with half a brain can see that

Hear hear !

Brilliantly put.

Leave dead threads alone, folks.

And read the rules posted in the Moderation forum. That'd be a good idea.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia