Why Men Right’s Activists Prefer Data From Before 1990
| April 25th, 2005In the comments to an earlier post, Brad Benjaminson (who doesn’t identify as a men’s rights activist, but tends to cite writings by MRAs) cited several articles he thought of interest. I read the title of one - “Wives Also Kill Husbands-Quite Often” - and before I even saw the date the article was written (1994), I knew the article would use data from before 1990.
How did I know? Because I’ve read a lot of men’s rights articles about “intimate partner homicide” (that’s murdering a spouse, a girlfriend or a boyfriend), and nearly all of them use pre-1990 data. For instance, a quick search of two MRA (men’s rights activist) websites - Men’s Network.org and MenWeb - found seven articles arguing that women are about as likely as men to commit intimate murder. All of them used data from before 1990 to make their case. In fact, almost all of them used the same data set - a Bureau of Justice Statistics study of intimate homicide in 33 of the 75 largest-population (i.e., urban) counties, which was published in 1994 but used data gathered in 1988. The BJS has published more recent work - so why do the MRAs return to this one source over and over? (Or, if not this source, sources that also used urban data from before 1990?)
Because they want to prove - despite clear data, like these recent FBI figures, showing men are far more likely to murder wives and girlfriends than vice-versa - that men are “equal victims.” (This relates, I believe, to a larger project of trying to show that patriarchy doesn’t exist, women have nothing to complain about, etc.)
So what’s special about Urban data from before 1988? Check out these charts (source), both featuring more recent homicide data than the data the MRAs highlight:
This graph shows the reality: although there have always been more women murdered by intimates than vice-versa, the numbers used to be closer. In particular, there’s been a huge decline in male victims - which, unsurprisingly, isn’t something that MRAs with an ideology of male victimhood want to admit.
So that’s why MRAs avoid recent homicide data. Why do they prefer urban data, rather than countrywide data?
As you can see, before 1988 or so black husbands were more likely to be murdered by wives than vice-versa. The BJS data set the MRAs like to use, contains data from spousal-murder cases in 33 urban counties in 1988. In that data set, “Blacks comprised 55% of the 540 defendants, and whites comprised 43%. Among husband defendants 51% were black and 45% were white. Among wife defendants 61% were black and 39% were white.”
So using out-of-date urban data enables MRAs to use a historic anomaly - the high rate of husband-murder among blacks before 1988 - and pretend it represents the norm.
* * *
So why have husband-murder rates been dropping faster? Obviously, there is no one simple answer: but part of the answer is that abused women now have more resources. “Studies of homicides between intimates show that they are often preceded by a history of physical abuse directed at the women, and several studies have documented that a high proportion of women imprisoned for killing a husband had been physically abused by their spouses… the weight of the available evidence shows that often wives kill their husbands in the context of a history of wife abuse.” (Mercy, J.A. & Saltzman, L.E. “Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1976-85″ American Journal of Public Health 79(5): 595-9 May 1989)
Many of these studies have found that wives who kill their husbands often felt “hopelessly trapped” in an abusive relationship. Therefore, it seems possible that the growth of resources for abused women since 1970 has made a significant number of such wives feel less “trapped,” hence reducing the murder rate of men. To test this possibility, Browne & Williams looked at state-by-state spousal murder rates compared to a “Resources for Abused Women Index,” (availability of shelters, hot lines, support networks, etc, in each state), after controlling for demographic variables (such as the higher general murder rate in many southern states). (Browne, A. & Williams, K. R. “Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female-perpetrated homicides.” Law and Society Review, 23, 75-94, 1989.)
The study found that “the Resources for Abused Women Index, although negatively correlated with rates of both types of partner homicide, is more strongly correlated with female-perpetrated than with male-perpetrated homicide…. Moreover, such resources were associated with a decline in the rate of female-perpetrated partner homicide in 1980-1984 compared to 1976-1979.”
So it seems that, thanks to feminism, abusive men may now be less likely to be murdered by their wives.
It’s also possible, that if battered black women (on average) had less access to resources to get themselves out of abusive relationships, that could explain the unusually high rate of black husbands murdered before battered women’s shelters became (relatively) common.
Another question: Why has homicide of white wives declined while homicide of white girlfriends hasn’t? I’m not sure what explains the racial difference, but one factor contributing to the girlfriend/wife difference is the emergence of no-fault divorce. According to a paper (.pdf link) by Betsey Stevensen of Harvard and Justin Wolfers of Stanford, no-fault divorce signficantly helps women in bad marraiges. From an article written by Wolfers:
The findings reveal that under no-fault laws a wife can threaten to leave an abusive husband, and this becomes a credible threat. Under the old regime, this was not so. Our theory is that the fear of divorce creates a strong incentive for abusive partners to behave.
More generally, easy access to divorce redistributes marital power from the party interested in preserving the marriage to the partner who wants out. In most instances, this resulted in an increase in marital power for women, and a decrease in power for men.
Our analysis of US data revealed the legislative change had caused female suicide to decline by about a fifth, domestic violence to decline by about a third, and intimate femicide - the husband’s murder of his wife - to decline by about a tenth.
Unfortunately, as “marriage movement” and men’s right activists have become more influential in recent years, there has been a movement to defund battered women’s shelters and to repeal no-fault divorce laws. Either of these changes would be incredibly harmful to the interests of battered women.
* * *
(Below the fold are links to the seven MRA articles I looked at, with the relevant bits quoted).
Here are links to the seven articles I looked at, all of which used pre-1990 data to make their points, and most of which used data drawn from urban areas. These articles make many additional claims, which I don’t cover in this blog post; many of them, however, are discussed in this earlier post about “husband-battering.”
- From “Husband Battering” by David Goss: In 1958, an investigation of spousal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that 7.8% of murder victims were husbands murdered by wives, and 8% were wives murdered by husbands (Wolfgang 1958). More recently, in a study of spousal homicide in the period from 1976 to 1985, it was found that there was an overall ratio of 1.3:1.0 of murdered wives to murdered husbands, and that “Black husbands were at greater risk of spouse homicide victimization than Black wives or White spouses of either sex” (Mercy & Saltzman 1989).
- From “Domestic Violence and the Demonising of Men”: If we consider the most extreme form of physical violence - murder of one spouse by another - it is apparent that women are almost as likely to kill as a man. Of urban spouses convicted of murdering a spouse, 41 per cent are wives (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.) [Note: the 1994 BJS report cited uses data from 33 urban counties collected in 1988. –Amp]
- From “Family Violence” (also available here): Men and children may not report when they are injured by a woman, however, the dead bodies of the men and children who are the victims of violent women are usually reported. Murder statistics are far more reliable than reported abuse statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report of family homicides in 33 urban counties [using data collected in 1988 - Amp]. Some gender activists claim that violent women are acting in self- defense. These quoted statistics represent convictions for murder.
1. “In spouse murders, women represented 41 percent of killers.”
2. “In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55 percent of killers.”
3. “Among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to murder their husbands as husbands were to murder their wives: (47/53) - From “Assaultive Girlfriends”: In July 1994 the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice released a Special Report detailing the results of a survey of family homicides in 33 urban U.S. counties. [What a surprise - the same data source, with data collected in 1988, shows up again. –Amp]
- From - ironically - “Latest Research Findings”: Some of the best data on serious assault by intimates appears to be homicide data, which suggest that four out of ten intimate homicides are of men. (Mercy 1989, Langen & Dawson, 1995, FBI Uniform Crime Reports). [That 1995 article, it turns out, uses BJS stats collected in 1988 from 33 urban counties - just like the previous three references. And although he cites FBI data, current FBI numbers show that about two out of ten intimate homicides are of men. -Amp]
- From “Domestic Violence: A Two-Way Street”: Nor do husbands murder their wives significantly more than wives murder their husbands. A 1994 Department of Justice study [Yup! The same one! –Amp] analyzed 10,000 cases and found that women make up over 40 percent of those charged in familial murders.
- Finally, this long list of citations include three that discuss spousal homicide. Of the three, the one with the most recent data is a report “on homicide rates in St. Louis from 1968-1992.”
April 25th, 2005 at 4:49 am
I don’t understand why the helping/sympathy resources are allocated to the Group of most statistical oppression (women in domestic abuse) and not to the Individual victims (men, women, white, black - just in different proportions - in all kinds of oppression/unfairness/supremacy/anything).
This “thought template” (concentrating on Inidividuals) should IMHO generalize to everything; employers should compare Inidividuals rather than base their employing criteria on statistical Group-based data (if this doesn’t happen, the result is called oppression/unfairness). Similarly, help/sympathy resources should be allocated to Inidividual victims, (if this doesn’t happen, the result should IMHO be called oppression/unfairness, too.)
But if you really like statistics that much, there’s one way to (IMHO) fairly allocate the resources: just allocate them in proportion to the amount of victims (e.g. allocate some time/space/money to male victims of domestic abuse, too, but not nearly as much as to female victims).
This comment was written by Mikko.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 5:57 am
So, the fundamental lesson to be taken away from this data is that liberalizing the laws and practices relating to spousal abuse (by and/or of either sex) has the statistically quantifiable effect of lowering “intimate-partner homicide” rates across the board (and have done so consistently over the past 15 years or so)?
Good, let’s all go promulgate the meme in the short-and-pithy version:
LIBERALISM SAVES LIVES!!!
This comment was written by Jay C.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 5:57 am
Amp, as I’ve written before, I don’t agree with the conclusion Wolfers made on no-fault divorce (although I do think no-fault divorce is a huge asset to abused spouses, simply because it makes getting out easier and faster); I don’t believe abusers change their tune under the ‘threat’ of divorce…or any other threat. Abusers who cease abusing are not common, and the safest strategy is leaving.
With that said, I think the disparity between murders of white wives/girlfriends can be chalked up to the fact that more white women are choosing live-in partnerships rather than marriage. There’s fewer wives to murder! The abusers have the same controlling, obsessive, abusive behavior, they just aren’t married to the women.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 6:03 am
Here’s a question. Why don’t MRAs do this themselves? Instead of bitching at feminists, why don’t they form their own shelters? Why don’t they clean their own house? Feminists faced lots of opposition forming shelters nad getting funding, and yet it appears that straight men in need cannot get help from their brethren.
It’s just another way of forcing women to do all the dirty work.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 6:31 am
When asked that question, Ginmar, they never answer it. Reason being, they don’t really care about helping other men. Their primary purpose is to hurt and control women, so a battered men’s shelter built by MRA’s? Never going to happen.
By the way, have I mentioned how glad I am that you’re home?
This comment was written by flea.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 6:47 am
Yes, you have, but it’s good to hear nevertheless.
I actually have been having discussions about DV on my blog recently, and I’ve acquired a new favorite cliche: “It’s not about gender!” This means, “It’s actually all about gender—specifically yours—but I don’t want to deal with that, so I’m going to claim I’m fair-minded while treating unequals equally. Waah!”
So how do we make men take care of other men? It’s just more emotional housework for women.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 7:49 am
We don’t. We just continue calling MRAs on their lies about concern for battered men until the urge to hide their hypocrisy gets those shelters built.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 8:56 am
I will have you know that many MRA’s are involved with the creation of projects and shelters for male victims of DV, but the reason that you do not see them springing up it that it takes time, social acceptance and lots of money to do.
Currently we are not living in a social climate that accepts some men can be victims (Some of the replies here are clear of that) therefore campaigner are fighting an up hill struggle to establish provision in this area, and as the social climate is not willing this means that funders are not willing to fund such projects especially to the extent that female victims have been and will (rightly) be funded.
Instead of writing off the men out there trying to achive some good, how about some support on the issue and violence against anyone is not acceptable!
Wookie
This comment was written by Wookie.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 9:41 am
“Unfortunately, as “marriage movement”? and men’s right activists have become more influential in recent years, there has been a movement to defund battered women’s shelters and to repeal no-fault divorce laws. Either of these changes would be incredibly harmful to the interests of battered women.”
But probably helpful to every OTHER married woman…as the New York Chapter of NOW is currently fighting to stop New York State from changing its fault divorce laws to no-fault as they have seen how much damage no-fault divorce law has done to women in other states. Basically it has removed any leverage a woman had before to negotiate a financial settlement or even custody of her children. NOW, she’s divorced whether she wants it or not BEFORE she has a chance to even address those issues and Judges or other court officials decide these things for her…
The NY Chapter of NOW also mentioned that the courts here (and I suspect in many other states as well) are biased against women…Women usually get settlements and custody, etc., through negotiation, NOT litigation. So n0-fault divorce might help a small group of abused women get a quickie divorce, but what about the rest of us, who might need the leverage provided by fault-divorce to negotiate custody of our children by
‘horse-trading’ the other issues/assets???
Must every law impacting women be JUST for ONE group?
As LaLuba said fault or no-fault is NOT going to stop a real abuser anyway and that is what I think the meaning of those stats are…that with all the work we’ve done over a 30 year period, what we’ve done basically is improve ourselves but men still remain the same..
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 9:42 am
Ginmar, they aren’t interested in helping abused men. They are mainly interested in shutting down women’s shelters. A men’s rights group in California had tried to do that twice, claiming the funding women’s shelters receive violates the Constitution, and their lawsuit was rejected. Twice.
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 9:49 am
You did a piece on that, didn’t you? How interesting.
This comment was written by ginmar.Yeah, it’ s one thing to know this in theory it’s quite another to have it demonstrated in reality right in front of you. Just amazing. How does inflicting hardship on women help men? Is that the way they really think? “We’ll take away your shetler so we have it.”
Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 9:57 am
The problem with that shelter incident is that it is funded with tax payers dollars, and is discriminating against certain classes of people in the services they provide. If something is to be funded with taxpayer dollars, it should ensure that commensurate services are provided so that the services it does provide are open and accessible to all members of the public who could benefit from said services. Otherwise it is an inappropriate use of public funds, and discriminatory. The fact that the court effectively said, “it’s ok to discriminate when it benefits women but not when it benefits men” does not make it right, rather it just cements the bias into law.
This comment was written by Jessy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 10:06 am
There are battered mens shelters for gay men. We take care of our own. I’m sure they’d welcome straight men.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 10:11 am
I hope so. I’m trying to help this guy I kind of know, despite being a ball-busting man-hating feminazi. The thing that just gets me, though, is that women are supposed to help them. Even the guys who’ve been abused don’t see the significance of that.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 10:14 am
It doesn’t. MRA’s really just don’t care about anything other than going after and, hopefully, harming women.
This comment was written by Crys T.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 10:26 am
You’d think that would be obvious by now.
I keep remember one chilling remark I heard, and it struck me as perfectly revealing of how these guys just feel put upon by any sign of life in a woman:
“She ran into my fist.” LIke, you know, how dare she! I bruise easy! Unbefucking lieveable.
Amp, are you getting hit by a troll invasion? Because there’s a lot more comments listed on the top page than are here now.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 10:39 am
NYMOM: no-fault divorce doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t “horse-trade” over other issues. My state is a community-property state, and community-property is still in effect whether the divorce is fault or no-fault. NOW’s rejection of no-fault divorce is one more example of their complete irrelevance to feminism, and their upholding of the interests of well-to-do women at the expense of the interests of working -class women. While the well-to-do have the access and funding for long, drawn-out ‘fault’ divorces, many working-class women will be left to financially support their nonworking hubbies who prefer to drink or drug their days away, and slapping around the wife after she comes home from her workday.
We’re not a “small group”, NYMOM. I am hardly the only woman for whom no-fault divorce meant I didn’t have to subsidize being abused.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 11:27 am
So it seems that after decades of more aggressive policies to aid female victims of domestic violence, the result is fewer men being killed. The verdict is in, and it hasn’t helped women at all.
Since it is insane to continue doing the same thing and expecting the opposite to start happening, isn’t it time for an entirely different model for dealing with domestic violence? So that the number of women victims can begin to fall too?
This comment was written by Sloopy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 11:30 am
“NYMOM: no-fault divorce doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t “horse-trade”? over other issues. My state is a community-property state, and community-property is still in effect whether the divorce is fault or no-fault. NOW’s rejection of no-fault divorce is one more example of their complete irrelevance to feminism, and their upholding of the interests of well-to-do women at the expense of the interests of working -class women.”
I’m not sure if that’s completely true what you say LaLuba…
After all most of us own homes, there is equity involved; most of us have pensions plans which are deemed community property to be divided up equally, most of us have cars and alimony can still be an issue even for women who work. It can come into play as Judges will sometimes award it to even out disparties in income…
People don’t have to be rich to have these things…
Many women are more interested in the custody of their children and in the past frequently turned down their fair share of marital assets in order to get that custody and part of that negiotation frequently involved withholding permission to divorce. In a fault state that was a powerful tool…or USED to be a powerful bargaining tool for women until the state made divorce no-fault and then child support against public policy or impossible to waive…
All of these changes made women agreeing to waive other financial assets and divorce waiting period less valuable…
So in MOST respects NOW is irrevelant; but every once in a while, like a stopped clock, they are correct…and keeping NY from going to no-fault divorce is one of those times…
Remember they’ve had the valuable lesson of what has happened to women in other states when they are no-fault and we have to depend upon the courts to seek custody of our children and fair financial settlements and guess what they discovered…Frequently women get fairer treatment when they negotiate it themselves as we have seen we cannot rely on courts to always be fair to us…
So in that sense NOW has matured to realize the courts are NOT always the solution….
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 11:50 am
Jessy writes:
So is the government discriminating against peace groups because it won’t fund peace services? I mean we all know how much tax dollars go for military support and we know that the military discriminates. Is the government discriminating against car owners when it funds bus services from the car owner’s residence (thereby removing any reasonable possibility that said car owner might use the bus).
No where is written that governments are required to equally distribute monies to all groups, for whatever reasons.
In framing moral questions, issues like “the greater good,” and “the least harm,” come into play. Reducing the communal good to a one-to-one taxdollar parity helps about four people in the short run, and no one in the long run
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 11:57 am
Jessy’s post—which he or she posted over at Trish’s blog almost word for word—ignores the rather crucial fact that men don’t have the same need for these services.
Long before there were government funds there were women helping other women, often times over the wishes of hostile men. Now men are turning around and demanding that women put other women aside and help them first, in effect.
Men’s Rights Groups are perfectly capable of forming shelters. They have not done so. That speaks louder than any amount of propaganda.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 12:48 pm
I suspect that one reason a lot of MRAs are interested in getting men into women’s shelters is that it would make it much easier for men who have committed domestic violence to go retrieve their wives.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
I would like to acknowledge Wookie’s post (#8). I think he/she makes some very good points.
I think the unwillingness to see men as victims is due to both misogyny and misandry. Our society automatically assumes that women are weak and powerless, and that men are strong. Therefore, the woman is always the victim, according to this view. The misogynist part is that we think so little of women that we won’t accept that they could be capable of inflicting pain. The misandrist part is that we think a man should just “take it like a man”.
Does it really matter which gender is abused more? We are all individuals, and domestic violence should never be tolerated, no matter who the victim is.
This comment was written by Redneck Feminist (drumgurl).Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 1:04 pm
I don’t think anyone is advocating abuse of men–or tolerating abuse of men–here. Or anywhere reasonable.
RF, the problem is not lack of sympathy for men who are in abusive relationships, it’s the fact that it seems to be continually brought up only as a reason to cut funding or support for abused women’s programs. It is not either-or, and there is conceivably no reason there cannot be federal or private monies used to help abused men. But when I see a group who ostensibly advocates such a thing who first try to shut down a woman’s shelter, regardless of the consequences, then it’s pretty clear it’s not about abused men at all.
Which of course means that actual abused men have even less chance of getting help, compounding the hypocrisy.
So yes; men who are concerned about abused men, feel free to advocate for men’s shelters, raise funds for it, ask for govt money to support it, set up a hotline, put out education ads to reach men who are abused and afraid. I would support any sincere effort in that direction wholeheartedly. But first I have to be convinced it is sincere, and not a dodge for abusers trying to break down the women’s system.
This comment was written by emjaybee.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
No, abuse should NOT be tolerated, no matter what the sex.
Gender socialization is detrimental to both males AND females, and this includes the “Be strong” attitude foisted on them.
However, men in women’s shelters? Claiming that it’s an “equal” problem when none of the facts support it? Taking away funding from shelters? That’s not helping anyone.
This comment was written by Antigone.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 1:23 pm
“So is the government discriminating against peace groups because it won’t fund peace services? I mean we all know how much tax dollars go for military support and we know that the military discriminates.”
Now wait a minute…this is a good point you inadvertently made…Why doesn’t the government fund peace groups…Why should we have to scrounge around and raise money ourselves, paying for our own tranportation, lodging, food, etc., to get to these peace rallies and what not (after all the government doesn’t make soliders pay to get to a war zone)…
Even if we got a 10th of the military budget it would have a HUGE impact and maybe STOP a war….
I know how radical this is… but let’s think about it for a moment before we just turn away from the idea…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
NYMOM, I don’t know about other states, but here in Illinois you can get either a ‘fault’ or a ‘no-fault’ divorce. I understand what you are saying about the pension plans and houses, but for most young couples, that isn’t a factor. I was paying into a pension plan when I got divorced, but I wasn’t vested yet (I was still an apprentice). We didn’t own a house, because I couldn’t save for a down-payment with his deadbeat ass not working, and drinking up all the available savings. I know many women who were in the same position. No-fault divorce gave us an easier, cheaper divorce.
How would I have proven that he abused me, since he didn’t hit me in the face, or in front of other people? Even though he didn’t leave enough “evidence” for a fault divorce, I still felt that I should (a) not have to tolerate abuse, nor (b) have to financially support a man who abuses me. I could not have afforded a private investigator to come in and wire the apartment with hidden cameras, to prove that the fucker hit me. And he paid for his booze in cash, so how could I “prove” he was an alcoholic? If I had been required to get a ‘fault’ divorce, I would have been SOL.
Most of the women I know who were divorced from substance abusers had the same scenario; they were the sole breadwinners, and the man had no assets of his own. This is not a rare occurrance, and no-fault works to the benefit of women in this position. And if there are children involved, it works to their benefit also; the sooner they are out of the chaos and violence of the typical household where there is a substance abuser, the better.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 4:49 pm
All of the funding for the VAWA and laws designed to have the man arrested were(are) based on the idea that men are violent and women are the victims. The thing that has been overlooked by Ampersand is that women were as violent as men in 1976. So the whole idea that the man is the abuser, and the women is the victim, was and still is a myth. Women can get rid of the man now by calling the police, she doesn’t have to kill him, the man on the other hand……? The laws that have been passed to save women’s lives, are saving the man, not the women.
This comment was written by bobcat.Also, the government won’t fund a study that examines violence by women against men, so men are on their own as far as getting shelters for men.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 6:15 pm
I had no idea that mens’ rights groups tried to take down womens’ shelters! Does anyone have any links or other citations on this?
This comment was written by Piter.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 8:09 pm
I developed and ran a domestic violence program in a rural NY county for nine years. Our programs were primarily nonresidential anyway–help with protective orders, accompaniment to court, advocacy with social services, suport groups, counseling, etc., and we offered services to all victims regardless of gender. Men could not be sheltered WITH women, but we had plans in place to accommodate men if needed.
However, it wasn’t really ever necessary. Of the hundreds of victims we served, only 3 men ever presented for services and two of them were easily confirmed to be abusers. The third was provided the same identical services any other victim received.
The reality is, since it is the imbalance of power in the relationship that defines domestic violence, and it is gender-based socialization and the lack of concrete options that prevents people from leaving domestic violence situations, as long as we are under patriarchy there may be an occasional abused male, but there are not - and will never be - anywhere close to an equal number of male victims. The patriarchy itself guarantees that.
And the argument that males are victimized but just don’t come forward doesn’t really hold water. I’m sure some don’t, but domestic violence is stigmatizing for women too, and many women don’t come forward out of shame (as well as fear) either. Still by far the greatest number of victims/survivors who do present are women.
Ironically, though these same men accuse and scorn WOMEN for “playing the victim,” every single abuser I ever encountered unashamedly and unapologetically portrayed HIMSELF as the victim. He did hit her, but she made him. He didn’t do it, she gave herself the black eye and is lying to make poor him look bad. He’s the boss, it’s his right, everybody’s interfering with his family… Whine, whine, whine.
Abusers are cowards and liars and master manipulators — some of them are damn good at it and unfortunately, too often find willing believers among police, and law guardians, and judges. But as been pointed out here, they don’t care one damn bit about helping men who are abused, they only want to consolidate their power and keep doing what they’re doing without interruption or consequence.
This comment was written by Drumchik.Report this comment to the moderators
April 25th, 2005 at 8:48 pm
Everytime they sue to get men included in a women’s shelter, the only end result likely that will satisfy MRAs is to shut down the shelter. After all, men cannot be taken into a women’s shelter and there’s no men’s shelters around to give equal funding to. Honest efforts to create men’s shelters would be seen in MRAs actually starting such shelters, but efforts go towards getting rid of pre-existing women’s shelters.
Needless to say, in my research on MRAs, it doesn’t take too many jumps to go from men claiming that women’s shelters are unfair to arguments that domestic violence against women isn’t a problem.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 12:37 am
Drumchik,
What you say sounds good, but you can’t just explain away the facts. Woman kill men, and children, women account for 70% of all child abuse in single family homes. Women who don’t take responsibility for their actions use the, “it’s the patriarchy” excuse. The more women blame the man, the more control they are giving the man.
This comment was written by bobcat.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 12:45 am
Bobcat, I just looked up “non sequitur” in the dictionary, and it had a picture of your post.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 3:38 am
“And if there are children involved, it works to their benefit also; the sooner they are out of the chaos and violence of the typical household where there is a substance abuser, the better. ”
That’s assuming that the spouse that isn’t a substance abuser walks away with custody. That is NOT always the case. First of all abusing any substance today is considered a disability. Second of all, you have to have PROOF that the person is abusing a substance and generally that usually means a CONVICTION, as many Judges won’t allow you to even bring up an arrest if it was dismissed or dropped down to other charges.
When I go to visit my sister in upstate NY the church she works at has many custodial fathers who are in AA and live off disability checks and what they can ‘juice’ out of their kids’ mothers in the form of child support.
Anyway in many states with no-fault divorce, women have been forced to rely on courts and have been screwed…however in your state with BOTH types of divorces still available, it is probably the second best alternative to ours…where fault is always required to get a divorce…
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 4:17 am
“Piter: I had no idea that men’s rights groups tried to take down women’s shelters! Does anyone have any links or other citations on this?”
I wrote about two cases on my blog, Piter.
Men’s Rights Attack Against Domestic Violence Shelters Dismissed
Another Attack By Men’s Rights Activists On Domestic Violence Shelters Unsuccessful
This comment was written by Trish Wilson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 5:51 am
NYMOM, point taken. I am well aware (actually, personally well aware) of the issues involved with child custody and substance abuse. And you’re right, the system can be a real crock when it comes to what constitutes “proof” of abuse (most judges will take a felony conviction into consideration, but some will not consider anything less, even when there are repeat instances of arrest, repeat instances of firing from jobs for not being able to pass drug screenings, and repeat instances of not passing drug screenings throughout probation).
However, under fault divorce, I could easily see a woman under your scenario (addicted hubby gets physical custody of the kids) burdened even further; the fault divorce process is a long one and requires thousands of dollars in legal fees, expert witnesses, and usually private detectives….and even if a woman is a fairly well-off working class woman, with a house and a 401k, she’s still not going to be able to afford that. Any resources she has will be instantly evaporated. No-fault means she can reserve what resources she has to fight a custody battle, if necessary. Fault divorce means she has that albatross tied around her neck for years to come.
I think Illinois is correct in keeping both kinds of divorce available as an option, even though I don’t really see the advantage to fault divorce (in fact, I don’t know anyone personally who used fault divorce, although we all had grounds to! The expense of coming up with the proof necessary was the reason; private eyes cost beaucoup dollars when it comes to proving a spouse is being adulterous, abusive, or drugging or drinking too much).
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 6:45 am
Ampersand,
If men and women killed each other at almost equal rates in 1976, where did the idea come from that “only men” are violent in relationships?
Here, Drumchik sums it up pretty well here:
“The reality is, since it is the imbalance of power in the relationship that defines domestic violence, and it is gender-based socialization and the lack of concrete options that prevents people from leaving domestic violence situations, as long as we are under patriarchy there may be an occasional abused male, but there are not - and will never be - anywhere close to an equal number of male victims. The patriarchy itself guarantees that.”
This is the idea that has been sold by the feminist movement, to have the man arrested under almost all circumstances in domestic violence cases no matter who the violent person is.
Now here is the part that you won’t be able to follow if you believe that women are the sheep, and men are the wolves.
This comment was written by bobcat.Maybe, when the police come and arrest the man, they are saving him from being killed by her….?
The VAWA has done nothing to protect women, it has given women the power to be the victims of the patriarchy.
Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 7:14 am
Wingnut rule #356: When faced with evidence contradicting claims, restate articles of wingnut faith.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 8:13 am
No one here has claimed that “only men” are violent in relationships. A quick text search shows that you’re the only person on this thread to have used that phrase.
She didn’t say that “only men” are violent; she said that in a patriarchal system, the majority of victims of domestic violence are female. I agree with her (although if we want to be pedantic we probably should say that the majority of victims of severe domestic violence are female).
Well, if that’s the case - that the “feminist movement” has been selling this idea - you should have no problem providing evidence. Let’s see some links to feminists arguing that in a marriage where the woman is a violent abuser and the man is non-violent, the man ought to be arrested.
Notice in my post, how when I make a factual claim, I back it up with links or citations? Maybe you should try that out.
I don’t doubt that there are particular instances in which this has happened. For example, an abusive man who is arrested might otherwise have been killed in self-defense by his wife or girlfriend.
It’s also possible, of course, that there are cases in which an abusive woman would have murdered her nonabusive boyfriend or husband, except that he was unjustly arrested, therefore saving him. However, evidence shows that the vast majority of severely violent abusers are male.
This isn’t a thread about VAWA. You’re the only person here to have mentioned VAWA at all. This is a thread about intimate homicide.
However, since you’ve brought it up, the law enforcement provisions of VAWA were overturned by the Supreme Court, so of course they haven’t done anything (to protect women, or anything else). The remaining provisions of VAWA provide funding for things like research and grants for shelters, and I think it’s obvious that such funding does help some women (and some men, for that matter).
The largest study ever done in the US about gender and violence examined violence against both men and women - and was funded by VAWA, by the way. Also, the federal government’s annual survey on criminal violence includes both men and women.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 8:31 am
TO NYMOM:
I agree with you. As taxpaying citizens, we relinquish control and accountability in this country. Change is difficult, but it is not impossible. If we want funding for peace groups, we will get it. Not right away, or easily, but can get that, and other things, if we really want it.
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 9:15 am
shouldn’t that read: As taxpaying citizens, we are forced to relinquish control and accountability in this country.
Taxes are not voluntary in the US.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of single-parent households (I assume that’s what you meant, as comparing houses to duplexes and apartments seems irrelevant) have a woman parent?
The statistic means something very different if that percentage is 90% than if it’s 50%.
This comment was written by Jeff.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 10:28 am
Q Grrl wrote:
No, I meant what I said: we relinquish control.
No one is forcing me to relinquish control of anything. I choose to pay my taxes because I do not want to accept the consequences of not paying them. I have chosen to protest how my tax dollars are spent in other ways, primarily through nonviolenct civil disobedience.
I choose to buy gasoline and drive to work because taking the bus adds an additional 45 minutes each way to my trip. This additional time is more important to me than the fact that slaves are used to extract oil.
It isn’t pretty, I know. But it is my choice and I live with the consequences.
All governments are made of people. There is no “THEY.” Just a bunch of people like us we don’t know.
Who forces you to relinquish accountability of your own actions? Who forces you to relinquish control of your thoughts and feelings and imagination?
I am a not victim. As a transsexual the people have tried to control me, but I have refused to be controlled by the whimsies and fears of people who do not understand my choices.
Gender isn’t voluntary either. But I decided some time ago that I had an obligation to myself and others to make decisions about my body and my gender.
If I have chosen to forego an action, relinquish control or accountability, it is because I did not want the consequences or responsibility that came from doing otherwise.
This comment was written by Jay Sennett.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 11:57 am
Bean, you actually think this guy is listening? Your optomism is so touching.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
None of which addresses the clear fact that the current system has aided far more MEN than it has women, as evidenced by the statistics. So how come the answer to that is to do more of the same? It makes no sense to continue doing the same exact thing and hope that in another thirty years the numbers will reverse. Why would they? I thought the goal was to help women!
As to “building their own” that seems disingenuous. Not only did men do most of the actual building (they’re called construction workers), they also passed the laws and earned the majority of the money that funded it (they had the power, they were in charge). Simply putting up a building and staffing it isn’t going to help. Not without the protection of the law that women’s shelters enjoy. All that would happen is the first time a man left with the kids, he’d be arrested and brought up on charges and the shelter shut down. How would that help anyone?
In reality what women/feminists DID was to raise awareness of the problem, to TALK and complain about it. This led to action, but it wasn’t the action itself. Now we see the numbers have changed and that WOMEN are now being killed in greater numbers, so people are raising their voices and that’s bad? You honestly want MORE OF THE SAME? The motivation thus seems highly suspect at best.
This comment was written by Sloopy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 1:06 pm
Oh, great, someone from SYG. (”Stand Your Ground,” for “alas” readers who don’t know, is an anti-feminist discussion board.)
That “clear fact” doesn’t seem likely to me. Of course, it would help if you’d say what statistics you’re referring to.
I’ll assume you mean the death-by-spousal-homicide statistics. You could, I suppose, look at the decreased numbers of men murdered by intimate partners, and conclude that “the current system has aided far more men.”
But that’s ignoring the fact that women who, due to the better options created by feminists, leave their abusers (rather than killing their abusers) have also benefited (it’s good not to go to prison!). It also ignores the tens or hundreds of thousands of women (and occasional men) who have been helped by battered womens shelters - next to whom, the number of people murdered (or saved from murder) is tiny.
If I say “Jews built the bagel industry in this country,” you haven’t proved me wrong if you can show that most construction workers aren’t Jewish, and that most of the legislators who wrote the regulatory schemes that made Bagel shops viable aren’t Jewish; you’ve just proved that you don’t understand that putting up a building is not the same thing as building an organization, an industry or a network.
In this context, the phrase “feminsits built their own” refers to feminists (mostly women, but also occasional men) having built - primarily through organization, fundraising, grants wrangling, studies, training programs, and uncountable hours of work - the network of battered women’s advocacy organizations, including battered women’s shelters, that exists to assist battered women today.
It was feminists, not “men,” who did that work. MRAs would do better to follow those feminists’ examples, rather than pretending that all you have to do is whine a lot and eventually the government builds it for you. And, with a couple of exceptions, that’s all MRAs have done.
Actually, women were being killed in greater numbers all along, when you consider the US as a whole.
What feminists like me want is to help people - primarily, but not exclusively, women. In this case, feminists have helped countless thousands of battered women, and as a side effect a few hundred less men were been killed in self-defense. That seems like quite a good track record to me, although of course there’s much more yet to be done.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 26th, 2005 at 5:14 pm
I remember bobcat, vaguely. I knew of an attempt to provide a battered men’s shelter and asked him for information(if he was such an expert) but as has been said, he didn’t raise the issue out of any great concern for battered men.
It’s like whites getting all mad when African-Americans don’t go out and march in protest when a white man is killed by police. Then again, Whites don’t generally march in protest of Whites shot by cops. They usually back the cops.
All our DV programs are funded mostly by private donors and grants, except ADV, the largest which does get about $20,000-$30,000 in city funds annually, usually allotted to the program under the Chief’s office of the PD. Due to budget constraints, those funds were cut, a bit for next fiscal year.
There’s also an effort to draft an inhouse investigative policy for DV violence committed by LE officers against their spouses, kids, SOs… Last year, the police chief of our agency was investigated for an alleged DV incident reported by a third party(and denied by him and his spouse). No charges were filed.
Research through court records has led me to six current officers, and two past officers who have had reports or TROs filed against them. Almost all of these officers and several others have filed TROs on their spouses. What little can be gleaned on the administrative investigations indicates that either Internal Affairs(which receives all inhouse DV allegations) is not investigating these “private family matters” or they are assigning the battering officer’s buds to do the investigations, which predictably are ruled unfounded and not forwarded to the criminal division.
Research from the Center of Women and Policing shows that about 40% of all officers self-admit to committing acts of DV. Interestingly enough, most police reports involving LE DV, are “mutual combat” type reports and most TROs are filed by the battering officers(who are mostly male. Female officers are more likely to be victims than batterers, and are most vulnerable in relationships with other LEOs), in both cases to use preemptively against the spouse(the majority, female). So it’s a case where it looks like women are battering men more, but it’s because of the high degree of psychological abuse that occurs and how the officers use their training and experience(which used in the wrong way, make them perfect batterers, rapists and stalkers) to manipulate the situation in their favor.
But it’s only through looking at the figures to what lies underneath that they can be seen for what they are.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 4:57 am
But you’re not allowed to look beneath. You should just accept the raw numbers, because if you analyze what’s going on then you’re just twisting the facts so they shape your agenda.
Yeah, sorry, I figured I’d save somebody the trouble.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
Right, Ampersand. Feminists (men and women) stood up and made lawmakers take notice and take action. Why is it unthinkable, why is it bad, when other people do the same?
I do notice you didn’t respond to half of my key point. It is very clear that we are not talking about just buildings. How on earth could a private men’s shelter possibly provide any help for men when they do NOT enjoy the same protections and cooperations with law enforcement that women’s shelters do? Without the privacy? They would be completely subject to being stormed and raided by the police at the complaint of their wives…women’s shelters do not have that problem. They are protected. So how is putting up a building going to help anyone (men or women) if the law doesn’t first change to even recognize that both need services?
As to who does or doesn’t help people personally, I know grassroots people who do real work helping abused men and boys directly, in their personal lives, and others who’ve tried to build shelters. They were prevented for various reasons. What is the actual interest in preventing them from raising awareness (which is what they’re trying to do at this point), or claiming they really just want to abuse women (which is just ludicrous)?
This comment was written by Sloopy.Report this comment to the moderators
April 27th, 2005 at 9:41 pm
Skeptics’ Circle #7
It’s that time again, a time when we put on our thinking caps and ask the hard questions.
This comment was written by Thoughts from Kansas.Why should that be true? Does it make sense? Do extraordinary claims offer extraordinary proof? And, most importantly, what are the bloggers saying?
Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:28 am
I’m not sure about the States, but Canada has something like 155 different women’s shelters. I don’t know the locations of all of them but I imagine that they are spread out across the country to ensure that a shelter would be relatively easy for women who need help to get to.
If MRA’s managed to get a shelter setup in Canada and there are only a handful of men who need them across the whole country, then I expect it’d have to close down. Afterall, a guy in Victoria who needs help is unlikely to move to Toronto for shelter.
This comment was written by Neon.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 4:25 am
So Sloopy thinks a male legal profession that is something like 90% male–and has a higher proportion of wife-beaters in it than the general population—will somehow become prejudced against men they have every reason to sympathize with. Yeah, that makes sense. They can use the very existance of those men to prop up their rationaliaztions for beating their own wives.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 4:49 am
I don’t know about you, sloopy, but I’d much rather men and women be unequal, with men murdering their partners at a high rate and women murdering their partners at a low rate than that we be as “equal” as we were in 1976, with intimate men and women murdering each other at equal and high rates. The decline in men being killed is a good thing by itself, even if it isn’t as good a thing as a concurrent decline in men and women being killed would have been.
This comment was written by Julian Elson.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 5:39 am
I don’t think it’s either unthinkable or bad. If MRAs want to ask lawmakers for grants to help fund their own shelters for battered men, then that’s great. I have no objection to that.
However, I think they should do so with honest data. And the claim that men and women are equal victims - either of intimate homicide, or of severe intimate violence in general - is not true.
I have no idea why you think that a MRA shelter couldn’t build the same cooperative relationship with the police that many battered women’s shelters have done. Nor do I know why you think such shelters would be constantly raided by the police. Do you have any actual evidence to support these claims?
Did you even read my post? I never said I have anything against MRAs raising awareness; however, I will disagree when MRAs make claims that seem to me to be dishonest or incorrect, such as the “equal victims of intimate homicide” claim. Nor have I claimed that MRAs just want to abuse women. I don’t know who you’re arguing with here, but it doesn’t seem to be me.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 11:09 am
Yeah, isn’t lying kind of the opposite of spreading awareness?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 12:07 pm
The statistics don’t mention the sex of the perpetrator. Many of the male victims may have been killed by male partners. This would further undermine the contention that there is an epidemic of woman-on-man violence; or even an equity between male and female abuse. It wouldn’t, however, affect the conclusion that men aren’t deserving of some civil protection from abusive partners.
This comment was written by miken.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 12:49 pm
Sloopy:
Feminists (and, let’s be honest, most of them just happened to be women) created the modern network of battered women’s shelters in the 1970s by forming their own groups and buying property on short money from local women’s groups and the support of larger feminist organizations such as the Ms. Foundation. The first modern battered women’s shelter was probably Chiswick Women’s Aid in London, which began offering refuge services in 1971. The next year, the first battered women’s shelters in the United States were started with a similar model in the United States. These shelters were started in nonprofit storefronts, squatted spaces and women’s homes. They built fundraising networks from Women’s Liberation groups, Al-Anon meetings, whatever formal or informal networks they had at their disposal. With time they managed to purchase houses and begin to offer more comprehensive services. Cooperation from law enforcement was minimal and government funding mostly nonexistent until the 1980s, and not provided in any large-scale and coordinated way in the United States until the passage of VAWA in 1994. You should note that by 1979 there were over 250 shelters operating in the United States, even without any particular help from the government. You should also note (as Bean mentioned earlier) that shelters continue to receive the vast bulk of their funding from private donors, not from grants, today. The battered women’s movement did not come about by “making lawmakers take notice” or by extracting government funding. Women did it themselves and carried the torch for years without any help.
Men today have more money, more valuable social networks, and more political clout than women’s liberationists had in 1971. If MRAs were working to use the resources that they have in order to boost funding and availability of resources for battered men, rather than filing suits to try to force women’s shelters to be defunded, or filing suits to try to force existing women’s shelters to admit men, or whining to the legislature to try to get them to give men’s shelters a cut of the very limited government funds that are currently appropriated for women’s shelters, then it would be much easier to take them seriously and I would applaud their efforts. As it stands, though, they mostly don’t seem to be interested in doing the work for themselves and they mostly seem interested in zero-sum legal maneuvers that will only profit men’s shelters at the expense of women’s shelters. To hell with that.
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 1:03 pm
Forgive the digression, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t true - I’ve been meaning to do a post on the subject. For instance, Haven House in LA began taking in wives of abusive alcoholics starting around 1964.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 4:57 pm
Amp:
Fair enough; but part of this is just a terminological question over what comes up to the “modern” battered women’s shelter. I mean, you can find records of refuges for “unhappily married” women going back to 16th century Italy, and while it’s clear that they have something distinctly in common with the modern battered women’s shelter it’s also clear that there are some distinct differences. In the case of Haven House (and Rainbow Retreat in Arizona, which I believe was operating around the same time and doing the same things), one difference is their growth out of Al-Anon and their primary focus on helping spouses of violent alcoholics, specifically, rather than battered women as such and domestic violence as we understand it today. My understanding (which could perfectly well be mistaken) is that the network of shelters which women built over the course of the 1970s modeled itself mainly on Chiswick, not on the pre-existing U.S. examples, so that while there are some pre-1971 institutions that look interestingly like modern battered women’s shelters (and which did similarly important work in their home communities), there was a significant break with the 1971-1972 shelters, and that these new developments were vital to understanding the huge growth in local shelters between 1970 and 1979.
Whatever the case may be, it’s a fascinating history and I haven’t been able to find nearly as much about it as I’d like. With some of the activity that’s been going on for the past several years in writing feminist history I hope that more of it may be available in the near future.
I look forward to your post on the topic!
This comment was written by Rad Geek.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 6:11 pm
I am wondering where Sloopy gets the idea that men’s shelters could not exist, and that the police would for some reason raid these shelters for no reason whatsoever.
Gay men’s groups have put together hotlines and resources for gay men fleeing abusive male partners. And I admit I don’t see anything on, say, RAINN’s page that discourages men or says they will only answer calls from abused women.
Really, how hard would it be for a dedicated group of MRAs to start a shelter for battered men? Nothing is stopping them.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
April 28th, 2005 at 6:16 pm
And here is a shelter that could use some help. I don’t think they are being raided by police, but they do look like they could use a few bucks.
Their site also lists a page of resources for male victims of violence, including links for gay men. Some of these links are to MRA groups, but it’s hardly a militant, single-issue link page.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 3rd, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Men’s Issues and Stats
It seems the ignorance of feminists is not only alive and well, but growing at an astonishing rate. Or maybe it’s deliberate, this dissemination of obvious untruth. I vote for the deliberate, as I’ve never met a feminist or w…
This comment was written by Dean's World.Report this comment to the moderators
May 6th, 2005 at 6:09 am
Both are right… and wrong
From Alas: A Blog, Why Men Right’s Activists Prefer Data From Before 1990
From Dean’s World:
This comment was written by Pajama Pundits.Report this comment to the moderators
May 10th, 2005 at 1:26 pm
I think Amp is right about why they use earlier data as they do the same thing with stats concerning custody to women…MRAs and fathers rights advocates (and others) use stats from around 1988 or s0 to prove their points…when in fact if you look at stats from the last 6 to 8 years it’s very clear there has been a sea change in the courts which are now more likely to be biased against mothers…
But stats have always functioned that way…you have to be using them for illumination, not support for theories you already have…otherwise they are pretty useless.
This comment was written by NYMOM.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 6:30 am
Piter Wrote: I had no idea that mens’ rights groups tried to take down womens’ shelters! Does anyone have any links or other citations on this?
That is not true. Even Trish doesn’t have a citation that says that. What she has is an article or two that SHE wrote about it with no links to anything other than the lawsuit filed against a women’s shelter for turning away (discriminating against…) men who sought assistance for the abuse they suffered. Nowhere in the suit did anyone call for the closing down of that particular shelter.
One more thing…men’s and father’s rights groups (at least 90%) are self-supported. We’re working men who do what we can around our own personal schedules. Advocacy groups for men simply don’t get the across-the-board federal funding that women’s groups get for any number of things that don’t include domestic violence shelters. I’ve always found it telling that the VAWA title alone demonstrates the gender bias that runs in favor of women and against men. Notice it doesn’t even say “Violence Against Women and Children Act.”
This comment was written by Masculiste.Report this comment to the moderators
May 23rd, 2005 at 3:05 pm
Oh, that’s bullshit and you know it. Stop playing games. Trish has linked to at least two different lawsuits where MRAs have bitched that they couldn’t get into womens’ shelters—for very good reasons—and then tried to shut them down.
I can’t you’re here spewing the same tired old bullshit about how reality is biased against men. Men beat up, rape, and kill women in vastly greater numbers than women reciprocate. I’m not going to re-invent the wheel here, but Amp has written enough on the subject that it’s just pathetic for you to come in here and say, basically, “No sources. No proof. Just more lies.”
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 9:49 am
Ginmar is mistaken. I used to think like her. I used to think all the violence was perpetrated by men, til I myself nearly got murdered by my partner and began to research for myself. Check out Feibert on Google or Prof John Archer from the UK.
This comment was written by Sebastian.The facts are that women are every bit as violent as men AND they are much more likely to initiate an attack perhaps because they know they will get away with it.
if the police are called often as not they will arrest the man irrespective of who the victim is and of course all a woman has to do is burst into tears and play the old victim card . . .
Let’s remind oursel;ves that violence is only committed by a tiny minority of either gender. Feminists exaggerate because they want to demonise men and need arguments so to do. A good example of this is where domestic violence allegations suddenly pop up when a couple break up and the woman wants to stop the man seeing his own children.
Come of it sisters - the game is up ! We know what you are doing and from here on in we are ready for your wickedness. Lets face it the “domestic violence industry” is the mother of all gravy trains for the feminist hate groups.
Seb
Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 4:56 pm
Oh. Wow. I am convinced. Women are evil, lying bitches. I will now change my ways and worship OJ Simpson.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2005 at 5:07 pm
SYG strikes again, lol. Just can’t remember which one spelled demonise with an “s”.
This comment was written by Radfem.Report this comment to the moderators