Friday, August 10, 2007

More Fan Mail

I received this comment today on my post, Some Utopia

Mike said:
"Utter sophistry. Do you want to suggest that prison rape is an element of systematic violence against men as men? When a man is raped in prison, is it related to his position in society as a man, or is it related to the fact that he's lower on the food chain inside prison?

Do you have any pictures of men abused by their wives? Any bloody faces or smashed noses? Is the damage done by women to men comparable?

Are there comparable numbers of male to female prostitutes? Is it not true that the overwhelming numbers of prostitutes are destitute women? The same goes with the wider sex industry. In porn, how often do you see "sluts begging for it" and how often do you see "studs begging for it"? You see the former a lot more than the latter.

Circumscision of women involves removal of the clitoris. It permanantly destroys any real possibility of sexual pleasure for a women. While I would never circumcise my son, the comparison of the two practices is utterly ridiculous.

Yes, men suffer injustices, but playing this "men suffer it too!" game when in fact the male version of these problems are comparably trivial is pathetic".


At least someone is trying to engage with the subject for once instead of just screaming abuse, so thank you for that Mike. You made several points and each one requires an answer. However, I notice that you have taken only three or four of the many points that I have made, and ignored the rest. Am I to assume that you agree with the others?

To take your points in order.

Prison Rape
You said:
Do you want to suggest that prison rape is an element of systematic violence against men as men? When a man is raped in prison, is it related to his position in society as a man, or is it related to the fact that he's lower on the food chain inside prison?

There are several things I want to say here. Firstly, I reject the radical feminist account of rape as ‘systematic violence against women as women’, which your comment implies that you subscribe to. I’m not saying ‘the rape of men is the same as that’. I’m saying ‘the rape of women is not that either’. There is no doubt that rape has a basis in evolutionary biology, but that must not be taken as a moral justification for it, any more than the economic basis for theft constitutes a moral justification for it. The fact that rape exists at all does not reflect something profound about the structural position of women in society, any more than car theft reflects something profound about the structural position of car owners in society. We all have a right to expect to live lives free from violence, but it is important to describe social problems in an accurate and honest way in order to have any chance of solving them, and this is something that the feminist movement has been spectacularly bad at in my view. As I said elsewhere, when my musician friend was beaten up, I did not feel the need to invent a new explanatory category called ‘Violence Against Musicians’ in order to make sense of it. I regard the feminist view that rape is ‘systematic violence against women as women’, or ‘an instrument of the Patriarchy’, as similarly spurious political fictions. I believe that these are misleading and unhelpful misrepresentations. This is not the same as trivialising rape.

You continue:
When a man is raped in prison, is it related to his position in society as a man, or is it related to the fact that he's lower on the food chain inside prison?

The two are not mutually exclusive. The fact that he is in prison at all is related to his position in society as a man. Men receive consistently heavier sentences for the same crimes; women often walk free because courts simply do not want to imprison them.

You seem to be trivialising male rape within prison, as if “the fact that he's lower on the food chain inside prison” is somehow his own fault, and the rape of such prisoners is somehow acceptable. I believe that many feminists find the idea of male prison rape funny, and certainly not worth protesting about. This makes them hypocrites. The problem is even more serious due to the fact that they have taken ownership of the rape victim support industry, and control discourse about rape. They are the self appointed authorities on the subject of rape, and yet they believe that some rapes are funny, or simply of no interest. This is at best a dereliction of duty, leading us to question whether they are really qualified to do the job at all. Worse than that, it is reminiscent of a racist police force which refuses to investigate crimes committed against a particular ethnic group. It is evidence of a politically motivated partisanship.

You say, “…the male version of these problems are (sic) comparably trivial”.
The US prison population stands at nearly two and a quarter million. Reference. Some estimates suggest that most of the rapes that take place in the US take place inside prison, where there is an endemic culture of daily rape which does not exist on the outside. If most US rape victims are in fact male, it is difficult to argue that “the male version of these problems are comparably trivial”.

Domestic Violence
You ask:
“Do you have any pictures of men abused by their wives? Any bloody faces or smashed noses?”

I think your question is intended to be rhetorical, clearly based on the assumption that ‘no such pictures can exist because no such thing has ever happened‘. If so you are wrong. I personally know men who have been beaten up, hit with blunt instruments, and even stabbed by their wives, and have indeed sustained facial injuries and broken bones. I suppose that is their own fault for being wimps. I have come across cases (not known to me personally) in which men have been murdered by their wives. One of them dialled 999 as he was bleeding to death, and told the operator he had cut himself while cooking, still trying to protect his wife.

Anyway. Even were I to show you such pictures, you would no doubt discount them as fictional. In any case, I have something much better than that to offer you. I have scientific evidence:

  • References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography. Martin S. Fiebert, Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach
    SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 203 scholarly investigations: 156 empirical studies and 47 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 185,500. Reference
  • Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations, Murray A Strauss. 'Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both male and female participants.' (Abstract)
  • Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence Daniel J. Whitaker, PhD, Tadesse Haileyesus, MS, Monica Swahn, PhD and Linda S. Saltzman, PhD "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases." (Abstract)
  • DV Stats.Com A search engine which locates academic studies on Domestic Violence by keyword.
  • For a collection of more general links on the subject, click here

The scientific evidence clearly shows the following:

  • Women initiate domestic violence at least as often, or more often, than men do.
  • Domestic violence is just as common in the homosexual communities as it is in the heterosexual community.
  • Domestic violence affects approximately 2% - 5% of couples. In other words, it is relatively rare.
  • Domestic violence is almost always reciprocal. It is rarely the case that one partner hits the other exclusively.
  • Domestic violence collocates very strongly with alcohol and substance abuse.


You then ask, Is the damage done by women to men comparable?

The answer here is no. Women statistically sustain more injuries than men because they are smaller and weaker, and in many cases, less accustomed to fighting. They, in effect, start fights they cannot win. However, they often compensate for their size by using weapons, and/or the element of surprise.

It is a standard trope of comedy that the angry wife will greet her drunk and wayward husband clutching a rolling pin or frying pan, and hit him with it; that women will throw crockery at their husbands during arguments. This is not regarded by society as violent behaviour. It is regarded as a woman's prerogative. Feminists have no interest in seeing this being challenged. The use of weapons in domestic violence is not as funny in real life as it is in cartoons. In one case, the woman waited until the man had gone to sleep before pouring boiling fat over him, which eventually resulted in his death. I expect he probably deserved it though.

Get this: Every word that you have ever been told in your life on the subject of domestic violence has been part of an orchestrated pack of lies. The received wisdom on the subject is entirely wrong, and this is not an accident. We have been deliberately misled.

The Sex Industry
You ask:
Are there comparable numbers of male to female prostitutes?

I'm glad to see you admitting that there are some male prostitutes. Of course you are right. They serve both the male homosexual and female heterosexual markets.

The answer to your question is of course, no, there are more female prostitutes than male ones. What are we to make of this fact? Is it evidence of 'systematic violence against women as women'? It is nothing so grandiose. It is simple market forces at work. Very few women want to hire prostitutes, and heterosexuals vastly outnumber homosexuals in the population. Consequently, most prostitues are female. That men have more of a taste for casual sex than women do is very easily explicable in terms of biology. Men and women are just different. There is no use in pretending otherwise.

Is it not true that the overwhelming numbers of prostitutes are destitute women?
That may be true at the bottom end of the market, but it is not true across the market. London has its thousand-pound-a-night call girls, and no-one could call them destitute by any stretch of the imagination. If you read my earlier post, Legalise Prostitution, my views on the subject are there. In summary, I regard prostitution as a legitimate profession, and the social problems commonly associated with it are due almost entirely to the fact that it is illegal.

I don't believe that anyone should be destitute in a country like the UK. However, what would you recommend to those women as an alternative? More especially, what would you recommend to destitute men for whom even prostitution is not an option? Did you know that over 90% of homeless people in London are men? Is this trivial? When a man becomes homeless, is it related to his position in society as a man? Ironic as it may sound, prostitution probably keeps many women off the streets. The only way to make the lives of prostitutes better is to legalise the trade. Interestingly, the International Prostitutes Collective seems to agree with me on that.

If you think that prostitution must be seen as a 'gender issue' because most prostitutes are women, then why is homelessness not regarded as a gender issue also? How can you explain this?

Circumcision
You said:
"Circumscision (sic) of women involves removal of the clitoris. It permanantly destroys any real possibility of sexual pleasure for a women. While I would never circumcise my son, the comparison of the two practices is utterly ridiculous".

Firstly, I did not refer to 'circumcision' in my article; I referred to 'the ritual mutilation of children's genital organs'. In the case of boys, this includes both circumcision and castration.

I think we will agree that castration "permanantly destroys any real possibility of sexual pleasure". The castration of males has been much more widespread throughout human history than the circumcision of females, which has been relatively uncommon.

In Renaissance Italy, talented boy choristers were castrated in order to preserve their soprano voices. 'Castrati' singers were popular in Europe from the 16th Century until 1870 when the operation was banned. A recording, made in 1902, exists of the "last castrato", Alessandro Moreschi. Reference

The Chinese, Ottoman, Mughal, and other courts retained large numbers of eunuch servants. When the 'Last Emperor' Pu Yi was expelled from the Forbidden City in 1924, his eunuchs went with him. Feminists have a lot to say about the Chinese practice of foot-binding, but nothing at all to say about the castration of eunuchs. I put it to you that this practise is as serious, if not more serious, than either female circumcision in Africa, or foot-binding in China, and it has been much more widespread.

Castration is widely regarded as a joke. Consider the Bobbitt case. If he had cut off her clitoris while she slept (domestic violence - weapons - element of surprise), he would have been hounded in the press. She cut off his penis, and this is treated as a joke. How can you explain that?

Now to take your point about circumcision. There is clear scientific evidence that the circumcision of males leads to a marked decrease in ability to experience sexual pleasure.

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis
British Journal of Urology International, v. 99, issue 4, p. 864, April 2007. "The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis...circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis". Reference

There is also clear evidence that male circumcision decreases the sexual pleasure of the female partner. Reference

Furthermore, circumcision carries with it considerable risks. Look at this for example:

Epidemic Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus:
Dramatically Increased Risk for Circumcised Newborn Boys
Warning: This site contains some very graphic medical photographs. Reference

Consider also Bruce Reimer, the boy accidentally castrated during a botched circumcision, and subsequently raised as a girl. After an unhappy life, he eventually committed suicide. Reference

Bear in mind that this practice is carried out without any medical necessity.

I disagree with you when you say that "the comparison of the two practices is utterly ridiculous".

There is one final point to make about male circumcision. It has recently been suggested that it plays a valuable role in helping to prevent the spread of HIV. This is not only profoundly counter-intuitive, but also completely untrue.

The Use of Male Circumcision to Prevent HIV Infection
"All three studies found that non-circumcised males contract HIV infection more quickly than circumcised males. Only one study has been published. All three studies were terminated early, before the incidence of infection in circumcised males caught up with the incidence of infection in the non-circumcised males. If the studies had continued for their scheduled time, it is probable that there would have been little difference between the circumcised group and the non-circumcised group." Reference

Role of circumcision in preventing HIV infection overestimated.
Citation: Talbott JR (2007) Size Matters: The Number of Prostitutes and the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic. PLoS ONE 2(6):e543.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000543. "This paper provides strong evidence that when conducted properly, cross country regression data does not support the theory that male circumcision is the key to slowing the AIDS epidemic. Rather, it is the number of infected prostitutes in a country that is highly significant and robust in explaining HIV prevalence levels across countries".
Reference

In summary Mike, I find that the solutions to social problems which are offered by the political Left are very poor ones, and are promulgated by lies and coercion. Once we put our prejudices to one side and try to think clearly about the subject, we often find that it looks very different than we expected.

49 comments:

Uncharted Thoughts said...

He attacks you with emotional feminist propaganda, you fire back with undisputable facts proving him wrong big time.

You dispelled the main beefs I have with feminists too, so I loved it all the more.

amused onlooker said...

Just thought I'd add my tu'penny worth on this point.

Mike said...
"Do you have any pictures of men abused by their wives? Any bloody faces or smashed noses?"

How about this picture of Ross Kemp after he was attacked by his then wife Rebekah Wade (editor of The Sun newspaper which runs numerous domestic violence articles that only show women as victims and men as perpetrators).

And how about this video?

Heretic said...

Excellent stuff, amused onlooker! Back to you mike...

Mike said...

None of your links are working.

I didn't respond to all your points because I was trying to deal with the logic behind your statements. Porn, prostitution and strip joints can, I think, all be seen as part of the same issue.

Would you agree that rape has, at least in the past, been treated in a way that no other crime would be? In an auto theft trial, would the defense lawyer grill the victim about why they parked their car where they did, or about their past car ownership habits? Of course not. The only question would be whether or not the defendant stole the car. It would be the same for any other crime -- except rape. There has to be a reason for that.

It's telling that the only comparison for males that you have is prison. Males only suffer in prison populations what females suffer in the general population.

That is three significant ways that rape is unique amongst other crimes. The justice system commonly places the victim on trial and the victims are either women or prison inmantes. I don't see how you can deny there is something systematic going on here.

By the way, I do have a problem with the prison system in general. Radical change needs to happen there.

Can you fix your reference links so I can see the numbers?

About domestic abuse. It seems that we both agree that men inflict greater damage on women than women do against men. What, then do we make of the commonness of violence of women against men? It certainly isn't enough to say that women commonly assault men. The severity of the assaults needs to be taken into account, and I don't see you doing this. Assault is an umbrella term that can include just about anything. It's a statistical catagory designed to be broad. If there is violence in a relationship, isn't the woman in a great deal more danger?

It seems pretty clear that men and women don't have symmetrical experiences with domestic violence. Women suffer more physically, and tend to be tied to the home in a greater way, ie through children. A woman's situation can become desperate much more easily than can a man's.

Yes, it is quite possible that the social problems surrounding prostitutions spring from its legal status. I'm not sure what to think about that either way. That doesn't change my broad comments on the sex industry. The experience of men and women in the industry is not symmetrical; women are subserviant sluts and whores, while the men are studs. Do you dispute that?

Comparing castration with female circumcision is sophistry. First, female circumcision is prevelent today, while I am completely unaware of any contemporary cultures that castrate. Secondly, male castration has commonly enough been about initiation into an honoured social position. This is doubly true for circumcision, which has basically been the sign of one's personhood. Yeah, castration and male circumcision suck, but cutting off a woman's clit has always been about reinforcing their position has chattle. Again, the experiences are not symmetrical.

Amused onlooker, do you want to claim that women do as much damage to men as men do to women? An isolated example of a guy with cuts on his face won't support that argument.

And pay close attention to that video you posted, especially near the end. The officer is using one hand to swat the woman away like she's a fly. I wonder how many abused women can use one hand to swat their violent men away...?

Heretic said...

Links should be fixed now - apologies. Let me know if you have any more trouble with them.

About rape trials. Rape is often a difficult crime to prove because it is often one person's word against another's. It is doubly so, because false accusations are rampant. The recent Duke case is a good example, but the scientific evidence shows that up to 60% of rape allegations are false and malicious. See this link: False accusations: The Scientific Evidence.
Duke is far from unusual; it's just that the false accuser and the bent prosecutor were caught out on this occasion. If the defendants had been poor, they would be doing time right now, probably being raped themselves.

The justice system is something of a game, in which the job of a lawyer is to win the case, not to serve justice. This is a situation which pains me, but I'm not qualified to say what can be done about it. Lawyers are not above placing psychological stress onto witnesses in court, and in the case of rape victims, may cross-examine them about their sexual history. Because of false allegations, mistaken identity, and a host of other factors, we can't just take rape accusers at their word without any evidence, as some feminists recommmend; there has to be a fair trial and a defence. I agree that rape trials can be problematic, but I have no cast-iron solutions to offer I'm afraid.

The single best thing we could do for everybody is to recognise and act against false accusers. Even ignoring the rights of the falsely accused men, these women do more to harm genuine rape victims than anything else, by casting every allegation into question.

With regard to domestic violence, there is evidence that male on female violence has dropped sharply in the last few decades, whereas female on male violence has not. The next thing we need to do there is educate women and hold them responsible for their actions. If they think they can get away with it, they will carry on doing it.

With regard to both of these issues, if men pick up the message that women are playing with a marked deck, they will withdraw their co-operation. Why should I stop hitting you if you are allowed to carry on hitting me?

Over the last four decades, women have acquired more rights than anyone could ever want or use. It is time for them to realise that responsibility goes along with that.

"The experience of men and women in the industry is not symmetrical; women are subserviant sluts and whores, while the men are studs. Do you dispute that?"

Well, their experience is not symmetrical; women have a lot more job opportunities than men. In the case of porn stars, women get paid a lot more. I'm not sure about subservient. Porn stars have their devoted fans like all movie stars, and there are plenty of dominatrix style prostitutes around who will make you lick their boots, if that's your thing. I'm no expert, but I would have thought that subservience was a speciality market. I agree that there is this slut/stud type language used in porn, but I'm not convinced that it's actually much of a problem, considering everything else. The industry exists to make money, by giving people what they want. It is not some sinister conspiracy.

About genital mutilation. Female circumcision has never been very prevalent. It is a quirk of certain Afican cultures, historically much less common than cannibalism, and way, way less common than male genital mutilation. I am completely opposed to all of it, but it is important to get it in perspective. My beef is with how the issues have been distorted so that 'everything is always worse for women'. This simply isn't true. Women are perhaps more willing to complain about things, and the feminist movement has adopted the issue as a cause celebre.

What annoys me the most about feminist discussion of female circumcision is their insistence that it somehow benefits men; that it is done, in effect, by men, for men. This is ludicrous. It is conducted by women. It is mothers aunts and grandmothers who do it, not fathers. It cannot fail to destroy a man's sexual pleasure if his wife is in agony the whole time, or shows no interest in sex at all.

It is true that eunuchs often rose to positions of power and wealth, but these were the exception. It doesn't do much to soften the blow. Here's a deal for you: We're going to castrate you, but we'll give you 10 million dollars. However, you may not actually survive the operation, and it will certainly be agony. You have no choice in this: the government will do it to you whether you agree or not. But hey, if you're still alive, you'll be rich. How does that sound?

Uncharted Thoughts said...

Mike, all of your arguement can be summarized with this.

It effects women worse than men.

Circumcision is worse for women than men. Weak.

Porn is worse for women than men.
Weak.

Women get beat worse than men.
Weak.

Your basically saying women should get special rights because they have it so bad. Total feminist mindset and doesn't realize it.

Anonymous said...

Just to add my two cents.

As far as domestic violence goes, is it more dangerous for men or women to be living in a situation of domestic violence? Well, considering females and males both murder their intimate partners at equal rates - and females actually likely murder more as autopsies are not automatic and females often use poison which gets recorded as heart failure with no further investigation - I would say it's probably about equal. Since fatal is the greatest risk there is in a violent relationship and women are every bit as murderous as men.

As for eunuchs often being wealthy, that makes no sense at all. Is a rape of a woman any less serious because she does the daytime talk show circuit, Oprah buys her a house, and her story gets made into a movie that she gets royalties from that will allow her to live a comfortable life? Of course not. Do most women get that treatment after being raped? Of course not. Just like almost all castrated men throughout history were slaves.

Oh, and castration today is at least as common as female circumcision as it still occurs in many parts of the world. Oh, and most humans who are 'trafficked' are males sold into slave labor.

If you want to see a comparable problem to prostitution for males - often small children , it's slavery. As in sold to work in Diamond mines, or rice fields or in munitions factories, etc...

Another interesting thing about female prostitutes is that they are seen to be the victims in the situation when in fact it is the prostitutes who are charging for a service. The person with the who is selling a service which is in desire is usually the one in the position of power. The buy is the usually the weaker party because they want something that they do not have and are willing to pay for it. Go to a strip club sometime and look around to see who has the power the men or the women.

Also, female circumcision does not always involve the removal of the clitoris either. It is an extremely rare practice over all, and it varies from village to village. Some villages merely remove the labia - completely comparable in every sense to the removal of male foreskin.

Mike - you simply need to look to see there is a far broader world out there then what you have been led to believe.

Mike said...

Here we have a causal conundrum. It is difficult to prove rape one way or another. So, are the victim-on-trial tactics of defense lawyers in rape trials the result of this difficulty, or do they have another root?

Here's the thing: the idea that the rape victim brought it on her self is far older than our legal system. The belief that women "ask for it" pre-dates the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt" by thousands of years. Hell, it's in Leviticus; if a woman is raped and does not scream loudly enough, she's just as guilty.

These victim-on-trial defense tactics depend upon an ancient prejudice to operate. The tactics can only operate within a culture that views women in a particular way. To claim that these tactics are only responses to a contemporary problem in our legal system is, again, utter sophistry. The tactics are part of a systemic problem.

Even if you want to absolutely insist that these tactics are the result of this difficulty, it is another thing entirely to argue that these tactics are then justified.

Look at your comments about domestic violence. Read them carefully as if someone else wrote them. I think you are tacitly admitting what I'm trying to say here. Your comments tacitly say "When a man does not hit a (violent) woman, it is an act of mercy." Mercy can only be offered by the powerful. The way you talk about domestic violence indicates that you know the violent male has a great deal more power in the relationship, in that they suffer less and are capable of inflicting more damage.

You can't set male circumcision up against female circumcision. The two are in no way comparable. The female version isn't uncommon, either. According to WHO, about 100 to 140 million women have undergone the procedure.

It doesn't matter what feminists say about it. Stop wallowing in your slavish resentment.

Mike, all of your arguement can be summarized with this... It effects women worse than men.

No. Learn to read. My argument is that the the issues we're talking about are problems for women on a systemic basis, and only contingent problems for men.

And I have never once said that "more rights" is the answer to anything. Again, learn to read.

Women poison men? I dunno, I guess it's possible. Got a source for that? If these poisonings go unrecorded, how do you know about them?

I didn't say eunichs became wealthy, and I didn't say it was "worth it."

Oh, and castration today is at least as common as female circumcision as it still occurs in many parts of the world

Numbers? References? Nothing about contemporary castration came up in a quick google search, while the WHO page I linked to above completely contradicts your statement that FGM is "rare."

Heretic said...

I never said anywhere that rape victims bring it on themselves. Anywhere.

I never implied anywhere that lawyers' tactics are justified. I specifically criticised them.

I do not recognise anything that you say about domestic violence as being anything like my own words.

Did WHO say how many men in the world are circumcised? It's a hell of a lot more than that. There are probably that number just in the US. FGM is historically rare. Very few cultures in history have ever practised it. Cultures can be numerically large. Consider the population of the world as a comparison. FGM is rare, but no-one here is condoning it. The problem is that you, and others, are condoning MGM.

Poisoners:
Mary Ann Cotton (1832-1873)
Britain's most prolific serial killer of the 19th Century used poison to murder up to 21 people. Jack the Ripper only managed six.

Nannie Doss
This sweet old grandma was a serial killer who used rat poison.

Anna Marie Hahn
'Arsenic Anna', the serial killer who posed as a nurse and poisoned a number of wealthy old men was the first woman to go to the electric chair in Ohio

Further reading

Mike, I am reminded of the saying "You can't argue with a fanatic". You ask for pictures, we give them, you say they don't count. We cite countless scientific papers on different subjects, you ignore them. People commonly believe what they want to believe, and you obviously want to think that women are eternal victims of men. The world is just not that simple. I think we are going to have to agree to differ.

Mike said...

The only empirical statements I've disputed so far are found in anonymous's post. Most of this discussion has revolved around interpretation and theoretical frameworks. Insisting that some anecdotes and a picture of a guy with cuts on his face are in anyway a serious refutation of what I'm saying is just plain wrongheaded. Providing a few stories of women poisoning men doesn't indicate a systematic campaign of violence against men, either.

The concern with false accusations of rape has the same logic as victim blaming. Profiling an alleged victim to see if she might be lying is fundamentally the same procedure as profiling her to see if she's a slut.

If you simply want to insist that rape trials require evidence, then you're just stating a tautalogy that no one will disagree with, excepting perhaps these "feminists" that you speak of and yet never cite.

If you're saying anything other than a ridiculous tautology, than you're necessarily wandering into profile-and-then-blame-the-victim territory.

I do not recognise anything that you say about domestic violence as being anything like my own words.

You very clearly implied that men could make a legitimate decision whether or not to return the violence. The luxury of choice is just that, a luxury.

I don't know why you think I'm condoning MGM. I'm saying the comparison between the loss of the foreskin and the loss of the clitoris is a ridiculous one. I've also said I'd never circumcise my son.

Anonymous said...

Insisting that some anecdotes and a picture of a guy with cuts on his face are in anyway a serious refutation of what I'm saying is just plain wrongheaded. Providing a few stories of women poisoning men doesn't indicate a systematic campaign of violence against men, either.

Mike, In both cases, this was data that you specifically requested. Why request it and then ignore it? How much data is enough? In my original article, my very first reply to you, I predicted that you would do exactly that, and you did.

No-one is suggesting a "systematic campaign of violence against men". Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. Feminists and their camp followers such as yourself, believe in a "systematic campaign of violence against women". I believe that no such thing exists. Certainly crime happens, we all agree on that, but there is no "Undeclared war against women", as Susan Faludi termed it. The fact is that men want to have good relations with women (why would anyone think otherwise?), and waging war on them would tend to prevent that.

To repeat one of my previous points, I am not making the same clains for men that feminists make for women; I am denying the feminist claims about women. The world is simply not the way that feminists say it is, and what's more, it simply never has been.

The concern with false accusations of rape has the same logic as victim blaming.
Utter nonsense. How naive. I hope you never find yourself falsely accused of rape or child abuse.

To repeat another of my earlier points, false accusations (and I cited yet more scientific evidence for you to ignore - Ever heard of Duke? Hello? Earth calling!) false accusations DAMAGE GENUINE RAPE VICTIMS. This is not rocket science. I just fail to see what your difficulty is.

"You very clearly implied that men could make a legitimate decision whether or not to return the violence."

I implied nothing of the kind. Do you remember me mentioning weapons and surprise? Have you even been paying attention?

As far as MFM/MGM is concerned, I think we agree: we're against it.

Heretic said...

The last comment was posted by me. It came out as Anonymous due to a mistake on my part.

Mike said...

Mike, In both cases, this was data that you specifically requested.

Context, context, context. I asked about pictures of abused men to make the point that men don't suffer as much physical damage as women do. And guess what? We agree on that point.

About women poisoning men, in order to make the case for some kind of systematic campaign, you'd have to explain how you know about all those poisoning cases that the coroners never find out about. Again, posting any number of anecdotes won't refute what I said.

Utter nonsense. How naive. I hope you never find yourself falsely accused of rape or child abuse.

The problem of false accusations can have no more legal significance for rape than it would for any other crime. Again, unless you want to start profiling women, you're just stating the obvious and no one will disagree with you.

I implied nothing of the kind. Do you remember me mentioning weapons and surprise? Have you even been paying attention?

Obviously there will always be cases like this. However, the tacit aknowledgement that men have the upon hand screams out of this quote:

The next thing we need to do there is educate women and hold them responsible for their actions. If they think they can get away with it, they will carry on doing it.

With regard to both of these issues, if men pick up the message that women are playing with a marked deck, they will withdraw their co-operation. Why should I stop hitting you if you are allowed to carry on hitting me?


Educate women? Show them they can't get away with it? Co-operation? This kind of calculation can only go on when one has the upper hand. You speak like men have to put down a rebellion.

Heretic said...

I find myself constantly re-iterating the same points:

I asked about pictures of abused men to make the point that men don't suffer as much physical damage as women do. And guess what? We agree on that point.

I hope we agree that women initiate DV more often than men do (clue: scientific evidence), and that they kill their partners on an equal basis with men. The fact that they sustain more injuries is verging on the trivial given these other facts. Death is a fairly extreme form of 'physical damage', I am sure you will agree.

"About women poisoning men, in order to make the case for some kind of systematic campaign, you'd have to explain..."

What is this fixation of yours with 'systematic campaigns?' Another point I made earlier which you have failed to grasp:

No-one is suggesting a "systematic campaign of violence against men". Perhaps this is the source of your confusion. Feminists and their camp followers such as yourself, believe in a "systematic campaign of violence against women". I believe that no such thing exists.

Get this: THERE ARE NO SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGNS BY EITHER SEX AGAINST THE OTHER.

"explain how you know about all those poisoning cases that the coroners never find out about."

Isn't that a bit like all the unreported rapes? What is the empirical difference? Why believe one and not the other?

"The problem of false accusations can have no more legal significance for rape than it would for any other crime."

Nonsense. (clue: scientific evidence again. I mentioned it before? Oh never mind...)

It is a vastly more significant problem in the case of rape. If you refer to the evidence I cited earlier, you will find out that there are several motivations to false rape accusations which do not apply to other crimes:
(1)Establishing an alibi.
(2)Getting attention
(3)Getting revenge
(4)Making money
(5)'Feminist ideology': In other words, fucking men's lives up because you hate them.

"This kind of calculation can only go on when one has the upper hand."
Again, unfounded nonsense. It is more likely to be done by the underdog.

Heretic said...

"Mike", I suspect you are actually a feminist troll.

Anonymous said...

Mike doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that women usually use men (or the state) to inflict violence on their behalf.

Anonymous said...

Castration was used throughout History to ensure that conquered POPULATIONS of men did not reproduce - and that their women would only bear of the offspring of the victorious.

Heretic said...

Anonymous, Both of your last points are absolutely true.

Uncharted Thoughts said...

Mike, you’re splitting hairs.

Systemic would indicate the problem affects the entire body of women.
Contingent would indicate isolated groups of men.

Therefore the problems are affecting women more than men. This means, it’s worse for women than men.

You can twist your words however you want, and claim I'm inferior, but the thrust of your message in undeniably the same.

Mike’s style of writing is very feminine. They typically use key words at nausea in a vain attempt to give the impression of logic and intelligence. Also the shaming tone when questioning her smacks of feminism. I love the ‘learn to read’ comment. This was an attempt to shame me for extrapolating the true undercurrent of her message.

ze german said...

Heretic, there is no point on trying to put some sense into Mike, except educating other men who are reading this.

Points to be seen:
- Mike has made up his mind, and a thousand facts will not change them, because Mike knows best.
- Feminist lies have managed the brainwashing of the majority of people, and unlike feminist studies, the unbiased scientifically viable studies proving feminists wrong, will be disregarded as they go against the "truths" told by the femmies.
- Looking at Mike, I just see the impossibility that I see when talking with a woman.
- The same happened with a straight friend who belongs to the feminist dogma and attends gay/bi/les meetings.

Heretic, forget Mike, he is hopeless. Continue this topic for the ones who can be saved.

P.S.: This friend of mine, we were arguing about strippers last week. I know of strippers who work three months, and then take 9 months off for vacation on a Spanish beach. In his opinion, they are oppressed, and I cannot get him to see oppression is mutually exclusive from having the ability to work 3 months and take 9 months beach holiday with that money...

Heretic said...

Ze German,
You're right. But I find it fascinating (and depressing) to study how these people's minds work. The psychology of religion needs to take a good look at secular religions such as Marxism, Fascism and their bastard offspring, Feminism.

The 'Mike' person, or persons, asks for pictures of female on male DV. He gets shown a video. What does he say? "That officer swatted that woman away like a fly". A trivial detail is siezed upon and everything else is ignored. We saw her being violent. Ignored. We saw her boyfriend's injuries. Ignored. We saw her being arrested. Ignored. We saw her assaulting a police officer. Ignored. We learn that she pleaded guilty to six charges of assault. Ignored. She was drunk and handcuffed at the time of the 'swatting', whereas the officer was sober and trained. Ignored. The officer HAD TO JUSTIFY HIMSELF AFTERWARDS, just for doing his job! Ignored. The offical view was that his actions were reasonable. Ignored.

What does 'Mike' think the offier should have done? This is wilful ignorance and bias on the part of 'Mike'.

This has actually been a very enlightening insight into how these people think. I think 'he' knows he is fighting a rearguard action. I see clouds of ink in the water, and nothing much else...

Mike said...

I hope we agree that women initiate DV more often than men do (clue: scientific evidence), and that they kill their partners on an equal basis with men. The fact that they sustain more injuries is verging on the trivial given these other facts.

Do you at least see that you are interpreting those numbers? If women kill men more often, it doesn't necessarily mean women are more violent - it could also mean that women, in order to make up for a physical inequality, need to use a deadly weapon. You toss out a bunch of empirical evidence and act as if it makes its case for you.

Get this: THERE ARE NO SYSTEMATIC CAMPAIGNS BY EITHER SEX AGAINST THE OTHER.

I guess I should be more specific in my language. I never meant to suggest that there's some kind of intentionality on the part of men. What I'm arguing is a matter of gender ideology, of the background beliefs that construct our social reality.

Isn't that a bit like all the unreported rapes?

Nothing I've said here has anything to do with unreported rapes.

It is a vastly more significant problem in the case of rape.

Then, again, you want to profile (alleged) victims. That is indistinguishable from implicitly blaming the victim.

Again, unfounded nonsense. It is more likely to be done by the underdog.

Yeah, plenty of underdogs "educate" and offer or withdraw "co-operation."

Systemic would indicate the problem affects the entire body of women.
Contingent would indicate isolated groups of men.

Therefore the problems are affecting women more than men. This means, it’s worse for women than men.


No, because gender ideology extends beyond the topics we've spoken of here. Everything we've mentioned here affects men, ok -- that doesn't change the fact that men and women hold different positions in society. The problems that we've discussed here are a part of the social structure women face. When men face these problems, it is often enough a breakdown in the system.

Also the shaming tone when questioning her smacks of feminism. I love the ‘learn to read’ comment.

Ha. As if calling a guy "feminine" isn't the exact same tactic. Ridiculous. You're accusing me of doing something while doing it yourself!

Heretic said...

Mike,
I really think we are going to get nowhere. We can summarise thus:

Feminists argue that women are systematically oppressed by men, such that they are akin to 'second-class citizens'.

You accept this model as true. I do not.

The following statement is NOT true:
'You and I both accept the feminist model as accurate, and the only difference between us is that you want to change the situation while I do not.'

We are not fighting on opposite sides of a gender war; I deny that there IS any gender war. I agree with Christina Hoff Sommers' statement that 'Insofar as there is any gender war going on, feminists are the ones fighting it themselves'.

I am not an imperialist overseer putting down a native rebellion as you suggest; I am a liberal democrat who is concerned about terrorism and the rise of authoritarian government.

The feminist model of the world is not accurate. It is simply a modern-day religion. People subscribe to it in the same way that they subscribe to religion. It gives them the sme kind of psychological rewards: reduction of uncertainty; an in-group to belong to; a moral compass to guide them; a feeling of importance, stucture and meaning in their lives. They are on a mission to save the world, a moral crusade. It makes them feel comfortable, and superior to other people.

Religious beliefs are held as a 'closed system', admitting no independent standpoint from which they can be examined. As such, they are irrational superstitious beliefs. Our dialog here has been absolutely textbook:

Feminists: Women are systematically oppressed.
Me (blogging): That is not true.

You: Yes it is, women get raped.
Me: Most women do not get raped, and some men get raped too.
You: where is your evidence?
Me: here you are.
You: That doesn't count.

You: women get circumcised.
Me: Most women do not get circumcised, and some men get circumcised too.
You: where is your evidence?
Me: here you are.
You: That doesn't count.

You: women get beaten by their spouses.
Me: Most women do not get beaten by their spouses, and some men get beaten by their spouses too.
You: where is your evidence?
Me: here you are.
You: That doesn't count.

And so on.

Your belief system is irrational, because it does not admit to examination.

I believe that, like most men, you are motivated by a desire to protect women. That is a good thing. However, you are naive in the way that you go about this.

You want to be a white knight rescuing damsels, and you need something to rescue them from. They are only too keen to facilitate that. There is an elaborate psycho-sexual game going on, and you need to start examining that.

AH said...

Mike said, "If women kill men more often, it doesn't necessarily mean women are more violent - it could also mean that women, in order to make up for a physical inequality, need to use a deadly weapon."

So how's about this?

"If MEN kill WOMEN more often, it doesn't necessarily mean MEN are more violent - it could also mean that MEN, in order to make up for the LEGAL biases that they face, need to use violence because they have nowhere else to turn for help; e.g. when trying to keep a hold on to their homes and children."

Also, see ...

http://www.angryharry.com/esOnlyWomenAreOfferedAnAlternative.htm

... which provides evidence to suggest that women are just as violent as men when the law is more 'balanced'.

Davout said...

"I believe that, like most men, you are motivated by a desire to protect women. That is a good thing. However, you are naive in the way that you go about this.

You want to be a white knight rescuing damsels, and you need something to rescue them from."

Truer words could not have been spoken. The great irony here is that playing the chivalrous role necessarily involves being paternalistic toward women and THAT itself would be framed as sexist by true feminists.
The vast majority of women, however, will not shy away from getting the services a man who is willing to do something for them in return for nothing.

Heretic said...

AH: Welcome

Mike said...

You: Yes it is, women get raped.
Me: Most women do not get raped, and some men get raped too.
You: where is your evidence?
Me: here you are.
You: That doesn't count.


So according to you, I asked for evidence that men get raped. Are you even paying attention to this discussion? Your responses are so robotic. I say X, and you respond to me as if I said Y. Later in the discussion, you call me wishy washy for not being consistent with Y.

"If MEN kill WOMEN more often, it doesn't necessarily mean MEN are more violent - it could also mean that MEN, in order to make up for the LEGAL biases that they face, need to use violence because they have nowhere else to turn for help; e.g. when trying to keep a hold on to their homes and children."

Speaking about violence in the context of custody disputes is not the same thing as speaking about domestic violece as such. Your response isn't even wrong; it doesn't even dignify the term "wrong."

Oh, and I'll say this for the record: I am not a feminist. My perspectives are partly informed by some gender theory, sure, but serious feminism is a particular way of thinking that I absolutely do not share.

You guys can think of me as a white knight. I'll think of you as steeped in the worst kind of slavish resentment.

Heretic said...

I will think of you as someone who keeps shifting the goalposts every time the ball comes near you.

"My perspectives are partly informed by some gender theory"

You should sue your college and use the money to get some cult deprogramming. Try to put it behind you and move on.

"Speaking about violence in the context of custody disputes is not the same thing as speaking about domestic violece as such."

AH did a good job of showing that you yourself are 'interpreting' the data, but again, you discount anything that you find challenging to your existing opinions.

AH said...

Hello Heretical and Davout

I don't think that Mike is being 'chivalrous'. I think that he is just politically corrected, and he simply cannot escape from the indoctrination that he has undergone.

In his eyes, women are victims and men are perpetrators.

He is unable to see ...

1. ... just how powerful women are - especially by using manipulation

2. ... that it is MEN who are the majority of 'victims' when it comes to MOST things - including violence

3. ... that he, himself, reflects what most men actually think! (He seems to think that he is in the minority, and that most **OTHER** men behave badly towards women. 'Systemically' so.)

Tell me Mike - Do you most of your male friends and family members behave badly towards women?

Davout said...

mike,

Why do you suddenly say you are NOT a feminist? Your prior posts contradict this statement.

On a sidenote, what do you say to the fact that women are the primary facilitators of female circumcisions (holding them down) and the primary instigators of female abortions (thanks to feminism for that one btw)?

Here is an interesting publication: Attitudes toward the discontinuation of female genital cutting among men and women in Guinea
Author(s): Gage AJ, Van Rossem R
Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS 92 (1): 92-96 JAN 2006

I do not agree with any form of ad hoc genital mutilation but if female circumcision were so bad, wouldn't you think that more women than men would support its discontinuation? This paper says quite the opposite: 38% of men supported discontinuing while only 23% of women agreed. 51% of men said the act should continue while 68% of women agreed!

Further, what do you say to the Wikipedan statement that "Circumcised women are considered of higher status than those who are not and are entitled to positions of religous, political and leadership nature"?

BrusselsLout said...

Why do you suddenly say you are NOT a feminist? Your prior posts contradict this statement.

The reason Mike says he's not a feminist is because feminists won't let him say it.

Mike, it appears that you are either trying to prop up your own self-image as a ladies' man, or you are aspiring to become one by grovelling.

But you are dancing to the feministas' tune. This is exactly as they want you to do, because they cannot further their cause without hoodwinking men into taking their side.

Competition against your fellow men will ricochet back onto you: in the end, you shoot yourself in the foot as well.

Feminists are laughing at you. (That is if, of course, you really are a man and not a female feminist that's too gutless to admit it.)

Uncharted Thoughts said...

Agreed.

Mike, you are whats known as a 'Useful idiot'. Thats not my words, but a quote by Yuri Bezmenov.

Watch the interview with Yuri Bezmenov. A formed KGB agent explains how you have been brainwashed, and the symptoms.

Someone who is brainwashed is unable to process facts. Even when documented proof is shoved in your face, you refuse to accept it.

I kid you not, watch this interview, he describes Mike down to the finest detail.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=915448763957391352&q=yuri+bezmenov&total=15&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2

Nick S said...

Of all the silly feminist claims that get bandied around, I would have to say the most stupid one is the claim that because there are far more female prostitutes servicing men than male prostitutes servicing women this is proof of women's oppression.

The reason why there are fewer sex workers servicing women is simply because there is less demand. Those women who are interested in casual sex can usually get it for free, so there simply is not a market for it.

The argument seems to be that because men have to pay for something women get free, this is evidence of women's oppression. Too ridiculous for words. Anyone who runs this argument is obviously a brainwashed idiot.

Anonymous said...

Mike said: "Do you at least see that you are interpreting those numbers? If women kill men more often, it doesn't necessarily mean women are more violent - it could also mean that women, in order to make up for a physical inequality, need to use a deadly weapon. You toss out a bunch of empirical evidence and act as if it makes its case for you.

So now there you go profiling the victim and blaming him to.

Because on average men are physically larger in size then women, it must hold true that on average men murdered by women must fit this mold then right?

And since he fit the physically larger and stronger mold, he therefore deserved his fate.

After all, she MUST have been merely defending herself.

Can't dare question rape victims to gain Relevant information about the circumstances of the crime - and 48 States of the Union agree with your asinine opinion there by having what's called 'rape shield law' to prevent such things from being done. So you're complaining on and on about a problem which for hte most part no longer exists thanks to laws that forbid all that 'blaming and profiling hte victim nonsense'

But you your self have no problems at all making a blanket statement excusing females from the highest crime in the land - murder by blaming the victim for being physically larger then his killer.

I guess you are glad murdering Mary Winkler got released yesterday huh? I mean, her husband was so much larger then her she simply had no choice but to shoot him in the back and kill him in his sleep while her two daughters where mere feet down the hall?

I mean, he posed such a threat, the giant mans snores must have practically burst the poor woman's ear drums....

Glad she only had to spend a total of 7 months in a hospital - not prison - for a crime that would have seen a man face the death penalty and likely receive it is the situation was reversed.

You can't judge female criminality by crime statistics when women who kill men in their sleep who are abusive by only the account of the killer get a 7 month stay in a well adorned hospital and then are granted freedom.

Yup, women only kill to defend themselves from big strong men who are out to kill them.

jay c said...

Just a couple of observations to throw out. Not interested in actively engaging in the debate...

I had a lengthy conversation with a stripper a few years ago. She said she loved being a stripper because it was a huge power trip. She had been abused by her adopted father and by other men in her life, and now got off on her ability to manipulate and control men. It's a good illustration of the different tactics employed by men and women in personal conflicts. Men tend to be direct: "Do this or I'll hurt you." Women tend to be indirect: "Do this or I'll screw with your mind and make you do it anyway. You'll even think it was your idea." Over the long haul, both men and women pay a high price for these behaviors.

This also pertains to the arguments re rape accusers. Both men and women make false allegations of all kinds of things, but it's a particularly favorite tactic of women. Accusing a man of being abusive or worse will net her a host of allies and alienate the man from his. Rape and child abuse are particularly effective tools, because they are especially heinous crimes in most people's minds. Very often the woman doesn't even care if she is proven false. The allegation alone is enough to accomplish her goals of shifting power, often permanently.

There is a fundamental difference in the circumstances normally surrounding rape and auto theft, at least in cases in which the rape victim is accused of inviting the attack. Most people who do not want their car to be stolen will lock the doors, install an alarm, or take some other measure to discourage theft. They do not post signs advertising the lack of working locks or the car's desire for a new driver, like the book labeled "Steal This Book." Unfortunately, women very often do things which have much the same effect. They take pains to offer temptations, even invitations, to sexual advances. I am NOT excusing rapists who target such women (or any women at all). They deserve whatever harsh penalty the law can mete out. Nor am I advocating the citation of feminine indiscretion as a defensive tactic for lawyers, except where it might demonstrate an actual invitation. None-the-less, women need to recognize that their actions have consequences, that wearing revealing clothing, behaving seductively, and getting drunk--all in public--will dramatically increase the likelihood they will be attacked by one of the many vile people who infest all societies. It's simply a matter of common sense: Don't stick on a bumper sticker that says "Doors unlocked. No alarm." And don't wear a miniskirt to a club, get drunk, and grind on strangers.

Anonymous said...

Hello JayC - nicely said.

But I would stress that this, I think, might be slightly misleading ...

"Both men and women make false allegations of all kinds of things,"

... because, for example, men get no mileage AT ALL by saying that they have been 'abused' by a woman.

And if they do make such a claim then they are regarded as wimps - and not as 'real' men; i.e. the very act of making such an allegation means that they have already 'lost'.

So, typically, men do not make such allegations.

Furthermore, given that 'abuse' can be made to refer to just about anything that arises from relationships, this means that there is virtually no end to the weaponry that women can use against their men - which men cannot use back.

Indeed, and for example, as you identified above, even when women **choose** to 'sell' their bodies and **choose** to manipulate men through doing this (e.g. the stripper above) these women can still claim to be the victims and men the perpetrators!

My point is that there is no balance at all when it comes to men and women making false accusations - because, basically, there is no point in men making false accusations. The very act of men saying that they have been 'done wrong' by a woman **already** puts them on the losing team!

Davout said...

Where's Mike? *crickets chirping*

Mike said...

Where's Mike? *crickets chirping*

There's a point when the conversation becomes pointless and repetitive, yes? Also useless. It's impossible to have a straight discussion with you people. I don't think I've ever encountered a blog where people are so utterly unwilling to listen and speak in good faith.

I mean, look at anonymous' 7:51 pm comment. The alleged statistic is that women kill men more often. Heretic takes this to mean that men have more potential for suffering. I pointed out this was an interpretation of the statistic, and I offered an alternate interpretation. Anonymous, with his fourth grade reading level, accused me of saying that men "deserve" their "fate."

This discussion became ridiculous a long time ago. If you want the "men's rights" movement to be anything other than a laughing stock, you guys need to learn how to think and how to present.

Davout said...

Mike,

It seems you are the one with atrocious reading abilities and are thoroughly confused. To wit: Heretic said: “women initiate DV more often than men do (clue: scientific evidence), and that they kill their partners on an equal basis with men.” You interpreted this as “women killing men more often”.
Obviously, this is incorrect: Initiating DV is not the same as killing more often.

Further you say that if “If women kill men more often, it doesn't necessarily mean women are more violent”. What you have conveniently omitted to add on to that statement is ‘wrt to men’. In omitting this you create the straw man of “which gender is more violent overall” in order to divert attention away from the real question of “which gender is more violent toward the other gender”. Then, rather than explain why (which obviously you cannot, since if you accept the premise of women killing men more often, as you do, you must accept that women are more violent toward men), you (a) confuse female self defence with female aggression and (b) legitimize female aggression by saying that they need to make up for physical inferiority via a weapon, since we are talking about women INITIATING not women defending. In other words, you try to render the original question of “why do females initiate DV more often than men?” moot by attempting to reframing it as one that you would prefer to answer: “Why are some females forced to be violent in relationships” and then deciphering the reasons behind female self-defence, rather than delving into the unsavoury reasons behind female aggression, which was what the original question entailed analyzing.

Now putting it simply: If someone smaller than me suddenly came up to me and gave me a hard slap, and then I gave him an uppercut in retaliation, should I be punished more severely or should he? He is more severely injured but he initiated the fight. Who should receive the more severe penalty? Now lets assume the instigator was a female. Who, now, should receive the more severe penalty? If your answers are different based on gender, you are sexist. Common sense dictates the instigator should penalized more regardless of gender or of how badly they are injured. After all, there would be no altercation without the instigation! You, on the other hand, choose to look at the more severely injured and pass judgment on the less severely injured for no apparent reason other that the fact that the latter happened to be bigger than the former. It is painfully evident that you are interpreting female violence as self-defence by default. Perhaps you, like ala Elizabeth Cady Stanton, think that women are somehow morally superior to men? If not, I am interested in why you believe women are not morally superior to men and how those reasons square with the fact that empirical evidence shows that women INITIATE the majority of DV.

In addition, I am curious as to why you mentioned you were not a feminist earlier. Much of your ‘reasoning’ is right out of a second-wave feminist textbook.

Heretic said...

OK, Mike, you've persuaded me. I see the error of my evil ways. Women are angels who are incapable of wrong-doing, and I only ask these awkward questions because I feel insecure, and I am psychologically inadequate. I've decided to go and get some aromatherapy, study Dworkin and start wearing make-up. Let's all have a group hug.

Anonymous said...

Heretic and Davout

You are wasting your time. Mike is not bright enough to understand what you are saying.

Anybody who, for example, asks an asinine question such as ... "Do you have any pictures of men abused by their wives? Any bloody faces or smashed noses?" ... to imply that women are **never** violent cannot be very bright.

He is a typical political correctoid.

He is **posing** as some kind of intellectual - but failing completely to carry it off.

You have collectively countered every one of his arguments more than satisfactorily, and all he does is hurl insults.

Finally, I have to respond to this statement of Mike's; "If you want the "men's rights" movement to be anything other than a laughing stock, you guys need to learn how to **think** and how to **present**.

You really are an arrogant sod, aren't you Mike?

So let me inform you of something, you wanker.

I have spent seven years looking at domestic violence research from all round the western world. I have spoken to professors and police officers about the subject. I have two degrees connected with social science research.

And I can assure without reservation that when it comes to 'thinking' about this subject, you are not in Heretic's or Davout's league.

Not even close.

AH

Anonymous said...

It is obvious that "Mike" came here simply to sneer and mock. He thought that he knew his stuff but all his points have been well and truly exposed as worthless.

Davout said...

Thanks for the kind words, AH.

I guess Mike's found out that if he messes with big dogs, he will get pissed on.

Another one of the "I'm not a feminist but..." ilk who's too proud to admit they were wrong, it seems.

Anonymous said...

davout said Another one of the "I'm not a feminist but..." ilk who's too proud to admit they were wrong, it seems.

I'm not sure whether it's that he's to proud to admit he is wrong or is steadfastly genuine in his belief that men exist on this Earth to protect the 'weaker sex'

He fails in his world view of women as merely tall children to see that caveat that women are not at all the weaker sex as he believes and are truly extremely adept ad protecting themselves and their interests from any and all opposition. They genuinely are as capable of protecting themselves and acting to ensure their best interests as males are.

Therefore they do not require class protection or special treatment as a gender.

His views seem unshakable though, and whether that is from stubborn pride or a complete faith in his world view I do not know.

But I do know that he has quite successfully stirred up the debate around here. 44 comments is awesome!

BrusselsLout said...

44, did you say? Anon, I think we're only just getting warmed up mate!

Mike – both Heretic and Davout have presented some excellent and well-thought-out points, which are backed up by facts and which follow logically. To call that sophistry is nothing more than sophistry itself. And from my own experience of feminists on talkboards and elsewhere, sophistry is an irritatingly common technique used by them, because they know their arguments cannot be convincing to anybody but the naïve.

Harry – I think Mike is fully aware of the strengths of the arguments put against him. It’s THAT what’s worrying him. He’s worried that the Men’s Movement really is moving, and really is beginning to appeal to more and more men everywhere. (And worse, to women as well.)

But Mike's position raises some important questions for us all as men to think about.

1. What exactly IS the agenda of the mangina? Why does he take this stance?

2. What does the mangina expect that men and mankind will gain from living in a world dominated by feminists?

The mangina is under self-deception. But we need to understand what goes on in his head.

Maybe Mike thinks that Mary Daly's vision of a society of 90% wimmyn and 10% men would mean lots more sex for him in exchange for his grovelling slavery.

Heretic said...

"What exactly IS the agenda of the mangina? Why does he take this stance?"

Interesting question. Most men are trained from birth to try to please women, to give them what they want, and not to enter into conflict with them. Most women are happy to manipulate this for their own ends, indeed they believe that male support is their prerogative. They have never had to contemplate life without it.

Feminism openly promotes manipulation as a strategy. However it is the most naive and emotionally weak men who get manipulated the most, as they tend to be the most compliant and willing to please, approval-seeking, and hence, vulnerable.

I think it can be seen as a mating strategy on both sides.

(1) Men like Mike want to gain women's approval by agreeing with them. If they play the victim, he can play the rescuer. This makes him feel good. However, men like that tend not to have much success with women. Essentially it is a strategy which doesn't work very well. Is Mike beating them off with a shitty stick? I doubt it. I expect his fawning and approval seeking earns him nothing but contempt from the women around him, who are happy to plunder his resources and smile, but never sleep with him.

(2) Women want strength and masculine leadership. They do not find manginas and metrosexuals sexually attractive, despite what they may say to the contrary. Look around you. Who is bedding all the women? Is it New Men? No. It is the tradtionally masculine bad-boys, leaders, dominant characters, just like it was a thousand years ago.

Women manipulate you in order to test you. It is a filtering strategy designed to separate the men from the boys. If you allow yourself to be manipulated, you immediately go into the 'weak' category. She will have no respect for you. She will not want to have sex with you. You might be a good candidate for paternity fraud, the loyal hubby who brings up the local bad boy's children, naively thinking they are his own, because his wife who despises him has been bedding the bad boy while hubby was out working to get money to give to her.

Many people have speculated that feminists promote using the state as a surrogate husband. I think there is a great deal of truth in that. Feminists manipulate the media and government using the same strategies that they use in private to manipulate men. The intention is to extract money and other forms of support by playing the victim.

angryharry said...

Hello Heretic, et al

Yes; all that has been said about the manginas and fannyflossers wishing to ingratiate themselves to women etc etc, I totally accept.

But there is something else of considerable significance going on here. And it is the fact that today's men have been hypnotised - literally - with the view that women are forever being the victims of men's malicious natures. On and on, for three decades, has this worldview poured out of the media and the government. And millions of people have swallowed this worldview - to such an extent that they **genuinely** cannot see through the distortions of the truth.

And so, for example, I am sure that most of you have come across men who are not particularly 'mangina' or 'macho' in orientation - and yet they still look at you as if you are mad when, for example, you point out to them that it is men who are the victims of most things; including domestic violence, false allegations etc etc.

Furthermore, despite what people often say, they do actually internalise what they are being told by lofty people such as judges, politicians, journalists etc etc; and they also take on board their collective 'sentiments'. And they are not really aware that these lofty people have their politically-corrected backsides to worry about - and so they are not actually telling the truth for much of the time.

It took a long time, for example, for people to accept that the Earth move around the Sun, rather than the other way round - despite all the evidence. And, of course, one of the reasons for this was that those whom the people looked up to - e.g. their religious leaders - were not enamoured with the idea that the Earth was not at the centre of all things.

My point is that even those men who do not have a particularly rosy view of women are still blinded and hypnotised by what they believe is going on in the world - loads of rapes, sex-assaults, domestic violence etc etc.

And, further, they do NOT actually care about men - for many various reasons.

Put this all together and, firstly, they cannot actually believe that men are being grossly mistreated and mis-represented and, secondly, they would not actually care about such things even if they were aware of them.

And, making matters worse, from our point of view, is that even if men were, indeed, more aware of the true situation and, indeed, were more concerned about 'men', a major problem still remains; what can they actually do? - given that so many HUGE organisms profit from the demonisation of men.

And my own answer to this is that those in the MM have to do three things.

1. Inform, and expose what is going on, - and why.

2. Goad men into caring about what is happening to 'men'. (And simply bleating about men being victims is no good. Men have to be injected with the far more aggressive attitude that gives rise to the sentiment, "How dare you treat us like this - you SCUMBAGS!")

3. Encourage men to 'fight' and to demand - rather than simply talk, discuss, or request.

Needless to say, I try to do all these things on my website!

LOL!

AH

Anonymous said...

I agreed with all you said especially your comments on the Bobbitt case. The law definitely treats women differently and many are let off for crimes that men go to prison for. Unfortuneatly for many, perception is reality. Men are not protected and are expected to "take it like a man" .

Christianj said...

"Do you have any pictures of men abused by their wives? Any bloody faces or smashed noses? Is the damage done by women to men comparable?"

Right here

http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2007/09/women-physically-abuse-men-with.html