Monday, November 17, 2008

The Mehnz Love Womens Spaces: Beware The MRA Invasion

I ran across another link from Glenn king of the MRA misogynists. (once again, google if interested I don't link to men like Sacks) It seems the trolls are busy celebrating because the Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled in Woods. v. Shewry that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights.

Yes the mehnz are gloating and circle jerking their way to ecstasy.  I can feel the bile rising and creeping even as I write this.  For a true victim of DV, obviously I feel concern and sympathy, but lets be clear, we do not live in a society where men are the ones that are routinely the victims of abuse.  Just because it happens to men, in no way means that they makeup the majority of the victims, no matter what MRA lies get spun.  There aren't enough illicit drugs on the planet to turn their fantasies into a believable reality.

DV shelters are an outcome of radical feminist organizing.  They are a response to the centuries of violence that women have been subject to at the hands of men that claim to love them.  For many, they are a place of sanctuary and safety and to have them triggered by the presence of yet another man is unconscionable.

On one hand the MRA are quick to speak about women leaving shelters because of ill treatment, it seems however the treatment is not had enough for them to accept their exclusion.

This is not about providing a safe space for men, this is about ending a safe space for women.  The MRA are not interested in creating domestic violence shelters, that cater specifically to men.  They are well aware that such an effort would be extremely expensive and yield little results, as men do not make up the majority of DV victims.

Men are over represented in the homeless population.  They are desperately in need of clothing and shelter.  Often products donated are clothing for women and children, and men routinely get left out of the loop.  This is a space where the MRA could conceivably work for change, and make a huge difference in the lives of men living on the margins; however building shelters, job training, counselling and outreach for homeless men are not high on their agenda, because it does not take anything away from women.

They claim that feminists are about gender wars and setting one sex against another, and yet they routinely work against their own interest to maintain a false hierarchy that in the end hurts their own members.  The MRA are racist/classist/sexist/homophobic trolls that do nothing but feed the psychopathic hatred that some men have of women.

A true mens movement would be interested in the needs of all men, not just the ones that exist with race and class privilege.  The idea that an MRA movement is even needed is one of the most ridiculous suppositions I have ever come across. Men control ever social institution, and every path to real power; and yet we are to believe that they are disenfranchised as a group.  The MRA should really get into the business of swamp salesmen because they certainly know how to pitch bullshit; it might save them all from drowning on their unacknowledged privilege.


141 comments:

whatsername said...

Reading through the case I am rather conflicted about the ruling.

I DO think shelters should be somewhat gender divided, in that a battered woman probably doesn't want to be around men right then very much, and I think being so could be triggering to her.

On the other hand this man should have had some sort of service available to him, even if his case is far more rare than that of a woman.

Additionally, I was reading an article for school recently which discussed a woman and her son who were out on the streets to avoid the abusive partner/father. The woman called a domestic violence hotline numerous times and was turned away from place after place because she could not speak english well. The hotline advocate argued with many different places that the woman's son (if I recall he was 17 or so) could translate for her but was told that would "revictimize" her and they couldn't accept them as a pair. While the article was focused on the language barrier aspect I couldn't help wondering also how having her son along would revictimize her, but if they had facilities strictly for women perhaps it was that he was a male bodied person. :\

I guess my point is it does seem like this service could be provided better. And I hope this ruling will lead to that and not to forcing us out of any gender separated spaces.

thisonewoman said...

The thing that bothers me about this is that by and large, MRA's just whine about this and try to change the laws to make shelters and support male inclusive, while ignoring that those things are there becauses women did all the work to put them there and that if men want spaces like that then they need to put in the work on that, not expect women to provide them

whatsername said...

SUCH a good point!

julie said...

Whatersname, I just have to reply to you. A boy 12 and over is a man to feminism. He has to find his own way in life. That doesn't even make sense to me either.

But he is not allowed in a refuge because he has hit testosterone stage. He is man and could harm or rape a woman in the refuge.

julie said...

thisonewoman. Yes. good point.

whatsername said...

But he is not allowed in a refuge because he has hit testosterone stage. He is man and could harm or rape a woman in the refuge.

I'm sorry Julie but that just makes no sense at all. Were I a mother I wouldn't leave my child out in the cold or at the mercy of his abusive father for anything. It's positively absurd for a supposedly feminist organization to forcibly separate a mother from her teenage child to "protect" her.

What will protect her is getting her out of that house and off of the street (where the woman in question had already been mugged twice). Protecting her son along with her? Shouldn't even be a question if he is still dependent on her.

randombabble.com said...

The shelters I worked in had boys that old. As long as their mother had legal custody or there was reason to believe they were in danger. Each shelter might be different.

Renee, I know how these posts can get, so thank-you for continuing to do the work you are doing here. You have my respect.

Delilah said...

Renee, thank you for continuing to bring us information about this growing movement. We must constantly be looking behind our backs for another one to slip something shady into the already skewed law books.

Women need to reeducated themselves to what this movement is doing to years of hard work by feminists who fought for the protection a lot of women take for granted now.

If we are not careful, these new laws and ordinances will sneak in and take away our rights little by little.

Anonymous said...

Renee:

Exhibit A: "A true mens movement would be interested in the needs of all men, not just the ones that exist with race and class privilege."

Exhibit B: "The idea that an MRA movement is even needed is one of the most ridiculous suppositions I have ever come across"

You admit the exitence of men that need and deserve help, then deny the existence of such men in the next.

Pick one.

Chris Marshall

Danny said...

While the article was focused on the language barrier aspect I couldn't help wondering also how having her son along would revictimize her, but if they had facilities strictly for women perhaps it was that he was a male bodied person. :\

Its common practice for shelters to turn away boys over a certain age. One of the reasons an abused parent would not want to leave the abusive home is for the sake of the children. They make the bold decision to leave with the children just to get to a shelter to be tole that his/her son is not allowed in because he is over the age limit (but still a child).


Yeah men may be the minority of victims of DV but that does not justify denying services to them. And there most certainly is no justfication for putting a DV victim in the situation of having to choose the safety of the family or the safety of a boy over a certain age.



A true mens movement would be interested in the needs of all men, not just the ones that exist with race and class privilege.
I really don't see MRAs just looking out for the upper class rich white guys.

Renee said...

@Chris I stand by both. The so-called movement that is currently in existence works to privilege certain bodies and the issues that some men are having in society are not because of gender discrimination but due to the fact that we live in a society of unequal value. Homeless men aren't homeless because they are men, they are homeless because of capitalism.

James said...

"Homeless men aren't homeless because they are men, they are homeless because of capitalism."

While I think you raise an important point here, the fact is that the homeless aren't homeless because of capitalism.

We can see this in the fact that there are substantial numbers of homeless in non-capitalist systems, as well. In fact, non-capitalist societies don't have a better record when it comes to the homeless.

This suggests to me that the problem isn't created (or solved) by capitalism, but rather by our willingness to neglect those in need.

Renee said...

@Danny The only reason these shelters are in existence is because of the hard work and sweat of the radical feminists of the 70's a fact that the MRA conveniently forget. When women were organizing to build these safe spaces who did they have to fight against---the men. Isn't it ironic that now that women have safety networks set up that the MRA want to invade.

Here is my thought. If the men want shelters, build them. Work as hard as the feminists organizers did to create these spaces. Of course no such thing will happen because this isn't about the victims. It is about forcing men into womens spaces period.

John Dias said...

thisonewoman wrote: "[Domestic violence shelters] are there because women did all the work to put them there. If men want spaces like that, then they need to put in the work, not expect women to provide it to them."

The issue in the Woods vs. Shewry case is that the state of California specifically excluded men from even making the attempt. The law provided that any women's group would be eligible for matching funds by the state if it could raise 20 percent of a given grant. So, if the government was offering say, $100,000, the women's shelter would have to raise $20,000 first, then the government would kick in the additional $100,000. So it was already built into the law that the initial work is expected by anyone applying for the grant.

But the problem was that men were excluded from even having the right to get that far. If a men's group had actually DONE the work, and if they DID raise 20% of a given grant, they would have been ineligible for matching funds. By contrast, a women's group who had done the same would not have been turned away.

SunlessNick said...

I DO think shelters should be somewhat gender divided, in that a battered woman probably doesn't want to be around men right then very much, and I think being so could be triggering to her.

It strikes me that the same is likely true of a male victim. Putting male victims into women's shelters seems like less of a service for them than for abusers who want it to be easier to get to track their victims down.


On the other hand this man should have had some sort of service available to him, even if his case is far more rare than that of a woman.

Certainly. But as Renee said, a service that would actually help a male victim would be parallel to one helping women rather than impinging on it. And it's the latter goal that MRA's really seem to care about.

Danny said...

@Danny The only reason these shelters are in existence is because of the hard work and sweat of the radical feminists of the 70's a fact that the MRA conveniently forget. When women were organizing to build these safe spaces who did they have to fight against---the men.

And those hard working women started by bringing attention to how women victims of DV were treated. This is the same thing. MRAs are pointing out how male victims and sons of DV female victims who are over a certain age are treated.

Isn't it ironic that now that women have safety networks set up that the MRA want to invade
It would only be ironic if you assume that all men have safety netoworks. And that is no the case.

thisonewoman said...

But the problem was that men were excluded from even having the right to get that far. If a men's group had actually DONE the work, and if they DID raise 20% of a given grant, they would have been ineligible for matching funds. By contrast, a women's group who had done the same would not have been turned away.

except the point you are missing is that in the begining when women set up shelters and support it was all run by volenteers, are men incapable of doing this? The way things are funded are always less than perfect and the best way to prove a need for funding for something is to set it up and run it volantarily first.

Nancy said...

Renee, a Friend of mine works for CARSA and stated in a heated debate that Niagara once had a phone help line for men. It turns out it was a short lived venture as it was constantly spammed by men looking for sex talk or men trying to bully the men on the lines or men not respecting the availability of the service. This news is not surprising. A service was offered to their community and they abused even that.

julie said...

I don't know what MRA is, but this reminds me of the lawyer in Pleasanton or Dublin or some ugly suburb, who sued "dykes on bikes", claiming the term was offensive to him, for some reason that I don't understand. I believe the judge said he had no standing.

John Dias said...

Renee wrote: "The only reason these shelters are in existence is because of the hard work and sweat of the radical feminists of the 70's -- a fact that the MRA (men's rights advocates) conveniently forget. When women were organizing to build these safe spaces, who did they have to fight against? The men."

In fact, it is YOU who have conveniently forgotten something. The founder of the women's shelter movement was Erin Pizzey, and from the beginning she never turned away assistance for male victims, including non-adult males. And she was NOT a radical; in fact, Pizzey was specifically singled out and banished from the 1970s women's movement, specifically because she recognized that women could abuse men too. She noticed that many of the women in her shelters were violent, sometimes abused drugs, and often engaged in self-defeating behaviors (including returning to their abuser, who such women in turn abused right back). This fact -- that Pizzey acknowledged the mutual nature of domestic violence -- is what eventually made her a pariah in the very shelter movement that she started in Cheswick, England. By the end of the 1970s, the radicals (who did NOT start the shelter movement) had taken over that very same industry.

Listen to this following interview by Erin Pizzey, taken in February 2008, in advance of a domestic violence conference that acknowledged male victims:
MP3: http://www.cafcusa.org/multimedia/2008/02/14/pizzey-64k.mp3
Stream: http://www.cafcusa.org/multimedia/2008/02/14/pizzey.m3u

This is the woman who started the shelter movement -- and she essentially agrees with the MRAs who are trying to open up spaces for male victims. She is not radical. She is reasonable. Her reasonableness is the offense that got her purged by the radicals who now run the shelter movement. I suggest that you get your facts and your history right.

Today, shelters are well-funded, but too many are run by radical ideologues who can't see that they are doing women a disservice by constantly designating them as victims. If abusive women can't get meaningful therapy that helps them resolve conflicts peacefully -- i.e. if such women are deemed victims in need of no therapy -- they remain in greater danger of violence in retaliation for their attacks. The "woman as victim, man as perpetrator" paradigm simply makes women (and children, and men!) less safe.

There is plenty of peer-reviewed and published evidence that shows that women initiate more (or just as many) assaults as men. Perhaps it's not always true, and men initiate as well in particular cases. What's important is that even when women initiate assaults, male victims are routinely denied any assistance if they seek to exit an abusive situation. Where can they go? Is there a password that they can give to the local Marriott hotel which will gain them free entry, due to their vaunted male privileges? Get real! Show some compassion for regular people, and put aside your rigid ideology for once in your life.

Amber Rhea said...

Wonderful post, Renee.

Valerie said...

@ John Dias

Wow there are so many thing wrong with your post I hardly know where to begin. One thing is for certain though, this is Renee's space and she can say whatever the hell she wants, even if she weren't right, which she is.

You MRA trolls just can't stand the fact that the women here owe you nothing and we know it.

John Dias said...

Valerie wrote:
"Wow there are so many thing wrong with your post I hardly know where to begin."

And so, rather than beginning, you never even got off the ground.

julie said...

Gosh, there a two Julies here now. Gidday juie@19.

The way I see it ... women are getting their quotas up in government. 50% are to care for women's needs and want. That means 50% are left to men.

I am sure that means the men are supposed to be caring for men.

Question for the women... have any of your countries already started pushing for women to vote for women? NZ has.

So, I think men need to be supported to care for the men else we are going to have very off balanced Governments.

nia said...

I'm still learning a lot about this, but if the point that John Dias has raised is true, I'm still not sure how it changes the main argument here in anyway. In civil rights movements you always have differences of opinion, changes and conflict in position and ideology. Martin Luther King and Malcom X had a common cause, but disagreed in how it should be implemented. Malcom X himself went through shifts throughout his life concerning his own ideologies.
So even if Erin Pizzey did have this particular point-of-view, I'm still not sure how it proves that she was right and other feminists were wrong.

John Dias said...

Nia wrote:

"So even if Erin Pizzey did have this particular point-of-view, I'm still not sure how it proves that she was right and other feminists were wrong."

Nia, in your perception, what is the difference between:

a. One's point of view

vs.

b. Being right?

Rj said...

what nia said

Rj said...

Renee, if you haven't noticed, the Male Supremacists will spew the same filth repeatedly, no matter what the title of your post is....men are victims, men and women equally cause domestic violence, shelters are discriminatory, etc.... They cite the same studies which use different methods for data collection and analysis, often with small sample sizes, or samples that do not reflect the larger body of the population; and they apply them to general situations. I, like Valerie, hardly know where to begin. I am exhausted. And that's their strategy: wear the opponent out until the truth is irrelevant.

nia said...

I would think that A. one's point of view is something that is often formed and influenced heavily by your life situation, interaction and pressure from groups and people around you, personal experiences, how you would benefit most from the outcome and so on. I don't know if I can give a definitive answer to B.

I chose the MLK and Malcom X examples because to me both of them were right and had a common cause - they just had different approaches in the way they went about it. Malcom X was considered radical by the mainstream society - that however did NOT mean he was wrong in comparison to MLK. Both men did what they had to do based on their life situations and who they interacted with.
I don't even know if I should be using them as an example for this, because obviously this is not the same situation at all here. But somehow that just came to mind.

Rj said...

The mutual nature of domestic violence theory would suggest that both parties are responsible; however that could be construed as a victim-blaming. ie What did you do to provoke him? Men and women have engaged in this mentality--especially women (read Renee's post on Double Colluder)!

You can get all the therapy in the world, it doesn't give you the power to change someone else's behavior, only how you respond to it.

Renee said...

@Nia I think that your comparison is valid to an extent..neither Malcolm or Martin were colluders the way that this woman was.

@RJ..I know that that MRA are attempting to invade but it is us that are continuing to feed these trolls. Make it a point to only respond to the most reasonable suppositions and move on. If we focus on the mehnz, which is what they want, then it dilutes the purpose of posts like this. As progressive feminists/womanists, what we need to be is aware of the ways in which the precious gains that have been made by womens organizing is increasingly under attack. We need to begin to organize in a way that will maintain our gains as well as press for new ones. Engaging with the MRA or their colluding GF's is pointless because they are only interested in spreading hate. Arguing with them also supports the idea that they have a point worthy of being engaged on.

This post is for the purposes of awareness raising. Who would have believed that DV centers would someday become a place that would become unsafe for women. This is what happens when women become complacent about the gains of feminism.

Rj said...

We that are in the d.v. movement actively, are aware of things like this [California court decision] that go on around the country/world almost instantly. We have action alerts just like NOW and the other major organizations.

My concern really is, for those like "nia" who are unsure, if they come into the conversation, and do not know where to begin, it is much easier to jump on the Supremacists bandwagon. And although I'd hope that people would do their own research, it is easier not to because we are so used to hating ourselves and letting others dictate our reality.

I respect you for keeping things going though, because we survivors deal with this bullshit on a regular basis and we love for others to support us during this difficult journey.

John Dias said...

Rj wrote:

"The mutual nature of domestic violence theory would suggest that both parties are responsible; however that could be construed as a victim-blaming."

It's no theory. Mutual abuse actually happens. The question is what are we going to do about it. The blaming aspect is certainly problematic. To fixate on blame is to ignore the important of causation. Blame is a moral judgment. Causation is A leading to B, absent of any moral judgment. Here's an example of straight causation:

1. Parties A and B have an argument.
2. Party A verbally abuses Party B.
3. Party B threatens Party A.
4. Party A threatens Party B.
5. Party B augments their threat.
6. Party A augments their threat.
7. Party A slaps Party B.
8. Party B hits Party A.
9. Party A kicks Party B.
10. Party B scratches Party A.
11. Party A stabs Party B.
12. Party B kills Party A.

Who is to blame? In my opinion, what does it matter? More importantly, WHAT DOES IT SOLVE when we assign blame? Arguments escalate, and violence escalates, until someone gets hurt, until someone gets severely injured, until someone dies. Forget about blame, except in the sense that a victim (which could be both parties in the above scenario) should not be denied assistance to heal or escape the relationship.

Why not just focus on getting both parties help, help each individual to acknowledge their own dysfunctional patterns, and help each one make rational choices? After all, people are still adults, and if they learn to be rational, they're going to do what's in their best interest (as they define "best"). When we say that it's "victim blaming" to acknowledge female abuse, it's patronizing to that very woman. I would hope that women's advocates might rise above that, and realize that womanhood does not confer perfection on any woman; every woman is capable of making moral choices.

Let's put our moral judgment at the door and just help victims, whatever sex they may be.

Renee said...

@John Dias..everyone has sympathy for anyone who is being abused but misrepresenting facts and then saying don't assign blame is ridiculous. Not all mean beat their wives but the majority of DV victims are women. That simply needs to be acknowledged as truth. No reasonable person would say that male victims of domestic violence are not in need of protection but they are not entitled to invade the spaces of women in order to achieve it.

John Dias said...

Renee wrote:

"No reasonable person would say that male victims of domestic violence are not in need of protection, but they are not entitled to invade the spaces of women in order to achieve it."

So is it "invading the spaces of women" if a shelter serving male victims receives matching state funds for a DV shelter? That's what the Woods vs. Shewry case was all about: state law permitted discrimination against male victims, and more to your point, denied funding to male-only shelters. As I stated in a previous comment, the California statute being challenged in Woods vs. Shewry (Health and Safety Code 124250) specifically denied matching funds to male-only shelters, while providing them to female-only shelters. Even if you qualified for the grant (by raising the first 20 percent via other means), if you intended to use the grant for a male-only shelter, you would be denied.

The state court for the 3rd Appellate District struck down that law, saying that it denied equal protection under the state constitution. More importantly, the justices agreed that both men and women are "similarly situated." That's huge. Whether or not you believe that women are hurt more severely by DV, the court found that this is no justification to deny public services to any particular male victim. His membership in the "oppressor class" (men) does not disqualify him from receiving victim assistance.

You wrote, "Everyone has sympathy for anyone who is being abused."

I would challenge that idea. We've seen a lack of sympathy for female victims in the past, but that changed when female victims started to stand up and speak up. But we're still seeing victim blaming against male victims today. How do I know?

Because I was sitting right there in the court room on the day that Woods vs. Shewry was argued. I listened to the state's attorney argue that discrimination against male victims was justified, on the assumption that more female victims exist. If that's not bigotry, then I don't know what is.

New Friend said...

What the MRA conveniently forget to point out is that if a male victim who is truly in need of services from a shelter calls and tells the shelter he is a victim, they will generally work with him in order to secure safety for him. This usually means (for shelters in my area anyways), getting him inot an undisclosed location - in a hotel. I know this for a fact I have called the state coalition and most of the individual city/county shelters.

It is simply MRAs trying to invade and take away from women.

They are so concerned with keeping women in line. I should also note that Sacks has completely blocked me from posting at all. If I post using an anonimizer (sp) it is being moderated and then deleted. That's okay though. I am off tomorrow, don't have but one homewrok assignment to do so I will be spending a lot of time on my cult blog ;-) Some of his cult following really has some strange belief systems.

Rj said...

John, your argument is tired.

Mutual abuse actually happens.

Sure it does, but we're not talking about that, and still, it keeps being brought up.

Blame is a moral judgment.

And we are a moral society. That's why we prosecute petty drug crimes and prostitution. In NOT blaming, we allow the perpetrator to escape the consequences of his conduct.

Arguments escalate, and violence escalates, until someone gets hurt, until someone gets severely injured, until someone dies

And so, we should stop blaming the party who kills...because said person was also a victim?

every woman is capable of making moral choices.

I thought you were against moral stuff? Every woman is capable of making CHOICES...and that's where feminism has come in--to empower women who have felt stripped of their basic rights. And what do the men come in and do? Disassemble the blood, sweat, and tears that have been put into this movement.

Solution. Get some grants. Start your own hotlines and shelters. Serve men and offer counseling that will offer them coping mechanisms for their anger and control. Read some Michael Flood. He offers fantastic solutions.

And don't tell me the money isn't there. I'm not a fucking fool. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE under the Department of Health and Human Services.

Advocate for men and "men's rights" and decreasing violence worldwide. And until then....this conversation is dead.

John Dias said...

Rj wrote:

"John, your argument is tired."

The tired old "Tired argument" refrain... Yes, I know it well. It's the last refuge of someone whose idea of assessing the merit of an argument is that it is a fresh idea.

Danny said...

It is simply MRAs trying to invade and take away from women.
So pointing out a ruling that says excluding men from DV assistance is a violation of constitutional rights is invasion the space of women?

So its okay for people's rights to be violate as long as said people aren't women right?

I often hear MRAs being told that if they want something they should do it themselves. Calling attention to their situation is a start.



What the MRA conveniently forget to point out is that if a male victim who is truly in need of services from a shelter calls and tells the shelter he is a victim, they will generally work with him in order to secure safety for him. This usually means (for shelters in my area anyways), getting him inot an undisclosed location - in a hotel. I know this for a fact I have called the state coalition and most of the individual city/county shelters.
This sounds a lot like that "Thats not me!" Renee is always pointing out. In the areas you worked in men did receive right? Based on that since I've never committed DV against a woman that means it doesn't happen right?

drex said...

Women can be violent too. Thats a fact that should not be swept under the carpet.

Renee said...

@drex, no shit sherlock, but we don't have the same kind of history of violence and abuse that men do. So the whole women can be violent argument in response is a ridiculous strawman meant to distract from the fact that the true bloodletters of the planet happen to be male. When you have something original to say post again.

Rj said...

Yeah john, point out the one thing I said, ignore the other 85%. YOU WILL BE EXPOSED. THE TIME IS COMING. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVES. IGNORE IT ALL YOU WANT AND KEEP POINTING THE FINGER BACK AT FEMINISM. UNDERGROUND PEDOPHILIA RINGS, MAJOR HOTEL CHAINS AND PORNOGRAPHY. Ya, you betcha! ; )

Rj said...

Prepared by Dr Michael Flood, August 2005

Summary

Fathers’ rights groups have attempted to;

Wind back the legal protections available to victims of violence;
Wind back the legal sanctions imposed on perpetrators of violence.
While fathers’ rights groups often claim to speak on behalf of male victims of domestic violence, these efforts undermine the policies and services that would protect and gain justice for these same men.

Fathers’ rights advocates also;

Make excuses for perpetrators;
Act as direct advocates for perpetrators or alleged perpetrators of violence against women;
Use abusive strategies themselves;
Work to undermine and harass the services and institutions that work with the victims and survivors of violence.

Rj said...

Men Stopping Violence is a social change organization dedicated to ending men's violence against women.

Men Stopping Violence works locally, nationally, and internationally to dismantle belief systems, social structures, and institutional practices that oppress women and children and dehumanize men themselves. We look to the violence against women's movement to keep the reality of the problem and the vision of the solution before us. We believe that all forms of oppression are interconnected. Social justice work in the areas of race, class, gender, age, and sexual orientation are all critical to ending violence against women.

Marx said...

Michael Flood is one of the most hateful bigots this planet has encountered.
He also claims that feminist fathers are not abusers while none-feminist fathers are abusers of children & women.

This man is nothing short of a sexist.

As for men needing to step up and start their own homes, we have tried - and we have been shut down by feminist opposers.

Despite nearly forty years and well in excess of 100 research documents showing that D/V occurs roughly in equal numbers, feminists cannot detach themselves from the 'women are victims' mentality.

To get a feminist to aknowledge that men have needs too is like drawing blood from a stone.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

Here's an interview with how sexist & hatefilled the feminist controlled "women's shelters" are:

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=xLU-d9GvFRs
(there are others, view them in order I,II,III,IV,V)


Pretending feminism is not sexist, is nothing short of a lie.

You should be ashamed.

whatsername said...

Pretending feminism is not sexist, is nothing short of a lie.

You should be ashamed.


This absurdity prevents any reasonable person from taking the rest of your post seriously.

Marx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marx said...

Why do feminist have to rely on censoring?

Cry babies...

Renee said...

@Marx your post was filled with blatant falsehood that were rife with sexism, and you wonder why you were deleted. I don't even know why I am bothering to respond to you period, as your are not entitled to any explanations on what I chose to allow on my blog.

You don't want to get deleted don't be a sexist jerk, tell the truth in your posts and don't victim blame. Rules are very simple really and are such common sense that I shouldn't even have to tell you. Word to the wise, referring to women who have power over you as cry babies when they choose to exercise said power is also sexist. On a more final note if you don't like the conditions I set the simple solution is to stop reading and commenting, MRA are not welcome here anyway.

Marx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marx said...

1) should read "Blame men" - sorry for typo.

There is nothing sexist about pointing out that feminists in positions of power within the government work to men's detriment and women's advantages over men.

That's not sexists, that's fact. I'm sorry that facts upset you.

whatsername said...

You're not presenting facts, you're presenting opinions. Facts have documentation behind them. The vast majority of your ilk here have provided no documentation at all, you personally sure as shit haven't.

Marx said...

Harriet Harman: Alleged "equality minister" and "minister for women" (no conflict of interests???) as well as a very well known feminist:

Pushing for laws to close women's prisons, convert them to men's prisons. She wants women convicts to go to 'day therapy' and be at home with their family of an evening. She is pushing for more male convicts to be imprisoned for lengthier terms.

This hateful woman has also published her opinion that fathers are entirely unecessary in a family environment.

She is also pushing for a law that prohibits 'white men' (her words) from claiming discrimination when turned down for a job.

This comes a year after her feminist friend, Patricia Hewett (formerly health minister) was found guilty of discriminating against ... a white man.

Sure looks like an abuse of her power to me.

Renee said...

@whatsername don't you love the whine and moan because I won't allow him to foul my blog with his filthy lies. The little MRA troll is upset because he cannot behave like a bully on a feminist blog? They're all about equality and they prove it by invading womens spaces and immediately trying to assert control.

Renee said...

@Marx in the eyes of an over privileged spoiled white male. Cry me a fucking river.

Marx said...

And if you want to complain about "presenting facts, not opinion" then look at this blog entry itself - it is a hatefilled 'opinion', with zero credibility or 'facts' to back it up. None, what-so-ever!

And as for the lie that trying to engage in 'debate' is somehow 'bullying' - that confirms my 'opinion' that the admin here is nothing short of a complete cry-baby who cannot tolerate objective discussions and must resort to censorship. But it's ok, it's all public elsewhere.

MRA's do not have to resort to bullying tactics and control issues... we take on feminists and discuss logically, rather than getting all bitter and control-freak about it.

whatsername said...

What's sad Renee is that so many of these men are so caught up in their own self righteousness that they don't see or care how they're behavior comes off to anyone else.

And Marx, Renee has proved herself time and time again as thoughtful and willing to engage in complex topics. She doesn't need to prove anything to me. YOU however are new here, have no background to me, and thus, I have absolutely no reason to give your opinions the authority I give Renee's. That's even putting aside the fact that I work in womens studies and thus have a pre-existing basic understanding of many of the facts behind the topics which she discusses.

Also, your first impression could use some work.

Marx said...

"@Marx in the eyes of an over privileged spoiled white male. Cry me a fucking river. "
~~~~

Thank you for acknowledging that you condone, support & endorse feminists abusing their power in government positions.

I am very glad to have had this little chat with you, as many feminists will pretend to be against such discrimination (while refusing to do anything about it, but would jump on the nearest man who did similar). At least you have some limited degree of integrity to your name.

Renee said...

MRA's do not have to resort to bullying tactics and control issues..

Now if that isn't just a crock of shit. Your actions disprove your words. You have already been told that MRA are not welcome here and your response is to keep posting, um that would be bullying.

I am going to assume that something got lost in translation and put it even more plainly. I know the MRA have trouble with basic facts... get the fuck off my blog, you are neither wanted or welcome, you lying misogynist asshat. Oh when you return to anti misandry.com you can deliver the message that stealing someones work, even a womans without permission is still theft. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out

Marx said...

"What's sad Renee is that so many of these men are so caught up in their own self righteousness that they don't see or care how they're behavior comes off to anyone else."
~~~~
That works both ways. The fact that you are indoctrinated with victimology101, aka womyn's studies, only confirms that you are educated in seeing sexism where none exists, seeing men as abusers and women as victims. You see with your very own eyes the admin of this blog condoning & supporting sexism, as well as making assumptions about my ethnic group. And you feel, what, about this?
Is sexism fine with you too, as long as it's against men only, specifically white-men?
So, earlier - when you claimed that I was absurd, because I consider feminism to be as sexist as the men it accuses of sexism... here's proof - before your own eyes, by the very admin of this blog...

But as you're a feminist, no doubt you can find a way to 'justify' this... As I said, feminism has two goals:
1)Blame men (admin makes false allegation of bullying against me)
2)Absolve women of blame (admin of this blog justifies feminist abuses in government, and you will no doubt justify her sexism).

Case closed!!!!

whatsername said...

Oh stop being hysterical.

You don't know anything about me or my education. Piss off already.

Marx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Marx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
whatsername said...

Oh shit Renee he said CASE CLOSED. I guess we might as well hang up our hats! The man has spoken!!!

And he thinks a three sentence post is a rant. That's just, sad. :\ Clearly never seen a proper rant.

Ugh this has gone from mildly entertaining to totally boring, I'm sorry they find you Renee, I can't imagine having to put up with this as much as you have. *hug*

Marx said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Renee said...

@whatsername thanks for your support. I will admit it gets tiresome putting up with their daily hissy fits. What bothers me the most is the way their presence fouls my beautiful blog. Having a conversation is one thing but spreading lies and creating an unsafe space is another.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
whatsername said...

It's true, sometimes I'll see one of these with a bunch of comments and go, Ohhh wonder if there's something cool going on. And sadly (it seems especially lately) I find THEM instead. *sigh* It's as if they think the interwebs are their personal domain which our posts are intruding upon, isn't it?? Like by even putting our opinions on THEIR web (*cough* OUR BLOGS) we're just asking to get terrorized. As if we post FOR THEM.

If I didn't have such generally good guys in my family I might really start despairing for the male sex. :\

Valerie said...

Oh, well, case closed, eh?

I guess that's it ladies, we may as well pack up our flags and stickers...oh, wait, what's that you say? This is a feminist blog? We don't have to obey arseholes like Marx, Danny, et al.?

Kudos, Renee. You are the ironwoman. You aren't arguing, just correcting fact calmly, and apparently tirelessly, while they wail and moan and gnash. Very impressive, actually.

Renee said...

@whatsername Oh I wholeheartedly agree. They are the perfect example of how not to be a man. If they engaged in good faith I could find them to be tolerable but their insistence in lying and bullying sickens me. I am even less inclined to allow them space here when they behave like a three year old in need of a nap.

You make an excellent point about their feelings of ownership re the internet. It seems that there should be no space which they are not allowed to dominate. This is part of what makes running a feminist blog do tough. The more my stats rise the more of a pain in the ass the MRA become. I cannot imagine what sites like shakesville, feministing have to put up with on a daily basis.

Anonymous said...

"Having a conversation is one thing but spreading lies and creating an unsafe space is another. "
~~~~
Do you have the decency to prove your claim, that lies were spread, or is this just hearsay and opinion?

If you can't prove it - and as you cowardishly relied on control-mechanisms (censorship), it seems to me there is zero proof any lies occured.

The only way of proving your case, is to highlight the alleged lie and prove it to be a lie.

I'm betting you will instead choose to censor this question though.... diddums.

http://www.redhotlindyhop.com/Images%20Newletter/Nov%202006/Cry-Baby.gif

whatsername said...

It seems that there should be no space which they are not allowed to dominate.

Seriously.

When will we learn OUR PLACE?!?!

drex said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
whatsername said...

Oh drex kudos to you. Due to your use of "FACT" I am now laughing at Dwight from the Office in my head. Thanks for lightening the mood!

Ok though seriously now, as much as I love hanging out with you Renee I have GOT to finish this paper on "Paris is Burning". I'm really going to try and give your mad modding skills a break and hope if ignored they'll eventually get bored and wander off in search of someone else posting on their Webz.

Renee said...

@whasername well for as long as I have the patience to run womanist musings my place will be to put them in theirs.

whatsername said...

Cheers! I'll drink (caffeinated tea!!!!) to that.

Anonymous said...

"@whasername well for as long as I have the patience to run womanist musings my place will be to put them in theirs. "
~~~~

AKA - use censorship to control truths from getting through - Can't let dem pesky facts get in de way.

John Dias said...

Rj wrote:

"Yeah John, point out the one thing I said, ignore the other 85%."

Well, I didn't want to talk your ear off. But I guess you want a point-by-point reply. So here goes.

Rj wrote:

"Sure, [mutual abuse happens], but we're not talking about that, and still, it keeps being brought up."

It's a relevant point, because there are no places where abused men can go for help, while women do have a place. We MRAs are talking about creating safe spaces for abused men; we're not trying to spoil what good services that women have. We just want men to have safe places too. You seem to be demanding that men organize on their own, yet despise us for doing just that.

Speaking of safe places, not all of them need be shelters. One such space is the home; why shouldn't the home be a safe space? Why can't an abused man simply report his female partner's abuses, and remain in the home as she is carted away? Why can't a woman be held accountable, but a man can? Abused men tend not to report their victimization. The reason for this is because abused men who DO call 911 for assistance are more likely to be arrested, as though they were perpetrators. This is because of so-called "primary aggressor" statutes. Look it up. Essentially, if a man is abused by a woman, calls police, and then the cops arrive, all the female perpetrator needs to do is say that she was attacked by him. Even though he called, she can neutralize it by alleging mutual abuse. Instantly, it's now a case of "mutual aggression," even though the reality was that she unilaterally attacked him (70 percent of non-reciprocal DV attacks are due to women beating on men, but not the reverse). At that point, police have to pick a victim to arrest. The primary criterion that they use is who has the greater physical capacity to inflict harm. In case you're wondering, that would be the man. In effect, his biology precedes his arrest. Therefore, men who call police (even after being unilaterally victimized) are likely to be arrested, due to such primary aggressor laws.

And so yes, men do need safe spaces, and it's germane to point out that existing shelter infrastructures do not help such abused men. Such men have nowhere to go. They don't even get hotel vouchers. The plaintiff in the Woods vs. Shewry case, David Woods, called the local battered women's shelter three times and was told that they don't serve men, including providing him with a hotel voucher.

Do you see that such bigotry against men can have a roundabout effect of endangering the abusive woman? Less patient men may just retaliate with full force. Do you really want that, if it could have been prevented by merely offering some type of assistance to a man who requested it?

Rj wrote:

"And we are a moral society. That's why we prosecute petty drug crimes and prostitution. In NOT blaming, we allow the perpetrator to escape the consequences of his conduct."

It is abusive women who are escaping the consequences of their conduct. In DV, the above scenario (arresting male callers to 911) proves it. Combine the primary aggressor laws with mandatory arrest laws, then top it all off with "no-drop prosecution policies," and you virtually assure that abused men have no recourse but homelessness or jail.

Justice is not applied equally; male victims have to scratch and claw for assistance, and can't even get a hotel voucher. Tell me, how is this moralistic attitude serving legitimate victims, when no crime has been committed except being born male?

Also, speaking of moral justice being reflected in our laws, when women are convicted, they receive lesser sentences for the same crime compared to men.

Rj wrote:

"And so, we should stop blaming the party who kills...because said person was also a victim?"

You're making my case for me. Ever heard of Clara Harris? Lorena Bobbitt? These were women who got away with killing or mutilating their husbands, because they were able to sell the idea that they were DV victims. In our moralistic, judgmental culture, a man deserved death and mutilation, even though no court sentenced them to death. Meanwhile, the women got away scott-free.

Rj wrote:

"Every woman is capable of making CHOICES...and that's where feminism has come in--to empower women who have felt stripped of their basic rights."

When I say "choice," I mean the choice to do harm or not. When you say "choice," you refer to options. We're not using the same language. I'm referring to the burden on each human being to take responsibility for his or her actions, and if not, to be held accountable under the law. No woman has the basic right -- the legal option -- to commit a moral crime. But feminists routinely justify female-on-male violence, even when men don't retaliate, because the women claims she "felt like he might" be abusive. Such women receive a slap on the wrist. Mary Winkler shot her unarmed husband to death, orphaning her kids, and then heroically went on Oprah weeks later. That is not empowerment; it's privilege.

Rj wrote:

"And what do the men come in and do? Disassemble the blood, sweat, and tears that have been put into this movement."

It is not disassembling anything when MRAs celebrate the overturning of a state law that specifically denies funding to male victims. Nor is it disassembling anything when a male victim gets admitted to a DV shelter, as if a VICTIM is a perpetrator, simply because he is a man. Again, why must your rigid ideology keep painting it as some sort of invasion if a male VICTIM simply reaches out to a shelter for help? On what basis can you say that such men would be a threat to women in a shelter environment, when there are no men allowed anyway?

Did you know that there is, in fact, a co-ed DV shelter in Lancaster, California? It's called Valley Oasis. They admit both men and women. And they have not had a problem. Then male victims do not threaten the female victims. They get along just fine. Victims of both sexes simply need to be given a safe and nurturing place to stay, some place away from the explosive situation that they escaped. How dare you accuse men who seek these services as being raiders of some female exclusive domain. These men need help too, but your ideological blinders prevent you from seeing that fact.

Rj wrote:

"YOU WILL BE EXPOSED. THE TIME IS COMING. RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVES. IGNORE IT ALL YOU WANT AND KEEP POINTING THE FINGER BACK AT FEMINISM. UNDERGROUND PEDOPHILIA RINGS, MAJOR HOTEL CHAINS AND PORNOGRAPHY."

You know, you're really losing it.

John Dias said...

FYI: In my previous comment, I provided a link to a page explaining mandatory arrest policies. The link didn't work. Here's the correct destination.

Anna said...

Does this mean that the group that challenged the law will now build a Men's Domestic Violence Center? Is that in their plans? I can't view the website from here.

whatsername said...

Why can't an abused man simply report his female partner's abuses, and remain in the home as she is carted away? Why can't a woman be held accountable, but a man can? Abused men tend not to report their victimization. The reason for this is because abused men who DO call 911 for assistance are more likely to be arrested, as though they were perpetrators.

Well, if we're talking about California if either reports domestic violence they are both arrested, if the cop is doing his job. I have witnessed this happen, and it is the procedure now. Both are arrested, statements taken, etc. to try and sort the facts out.

That is if the claims are taken seriously at all, unfortunately. And I have sadly been witness also to them not being. Repeated reports to the police of fear for her life, and her boyfriend and his brother stalking her went unheeded, being flat out told "no, we can't do that" when she asked for a document I know for an absolute fact they are legally compelled to provide (emergency order of protection) because "we'd have to wake a judge up for that".

John Dias said...

Anna wrote:

"Does this mean that the group that challenged the law will now build a Men's Domestic Violence Center? Is that in their plans? I can't view the website from here."

That group is the National Coalition For Men. The answer is yes, they have a shelter. It's called the California Men's Centers, and the San Diego chapter is one such shelter. It was in place a few months before the Woods vs. Shewry ruling came down. So now, it is eligible to receive matching funds. I have talked to the director, Harry Crouch, and he says that the challenge of raising the required 20 percent of the grant money is achievable. So yes, men will be creating shelters. They won't have to face the same obstacles as women did when women founded their own shelters; I concede that. But why should men have to? Women blazed a trail that brought domestic violence out into the open. We fund shelters all over the world today, and in California, for the first time, men can now apply for matching public funds. Thank you, certain feminist women, for bringing this issue (DV) to the forefront 40 years ago. You deserve credit for that. But don't tell me that the prerequisite for male victims is to go through the same hell that the women did. That's not necessary, and it's a rather callous position if you truly care about victims of both sexes.

And by the way, the Men's Center in California is not going to turn women away, as many women's shelters have done to men. Men have felt the sting of being turned away, even when DV was a national issue with public sympathy for victim, even when an infrastructure of support was in place. We won't show the same level of contempt to women as feminist shelters did toward men.

whatsername said...

But don't tell me that the prerequisite for male victims is to go through the same hell that the women did.

I don't think anyone here is saying they should.

We won't show the same level of contempt to women as feminist shelters did toward men.

See why do you have to go and ruin a perfectly reasonable post with this?

You seem far more rational than some of these others here, it wasn't contempt of men that led to the practices that even I earlier criticized. It was very real experiences of abuse or witnessing of abuse at the hands of men. It wasn't just aimless anger with no root.

I support the mission of building shelters for men too, and it seems like the kind of task female and male abuse advocates should be working together on. But that's not possible if you're harboring hostility for women 40 years in the past and letting it infuse the work you're doing today.

New Friend said...

@danny #39

Okay maybe it is just me and doing my tests tonight has fried my brain but i do not get the gist of your post. Mine was simply this:

1) Men have said that dv shelters deny services to men.
2) I called the state coalition to verify what services they offer men and they explained those servcies to me. They are slightly different than women's services as men are NOT allowed access to, nor is the location of the secret shelter divulged.
3) I called 3/4 of the local shelters in my state and all of them offer the same services to men that were explained to me by the state coalition. Men unable to secure safe temporary living arrangements who do not have family, friends or the money to pay for hotel expenses and women with older male children are put up ina hotel at the shelter's expense with the express goal getting them into permanent housing or investigating the claims of abuse through law enforcement so as to regain the housing that was used before the disclosure of abuse.

Now gee I hope this is clear for your timy brain to understand. men say one thing, I have proven it the opposite in my state, and men either ignore me (as evidenced on Sacks' site) or they talk in doublespeak. I don't listen to doublespeak, I don't listen to threats. Ask my ex - he has tried both pre and post divorce and I aint scared of ya. Not my blog but geesh just go away doofus.

New Friend said...

@Marx #50

Marx writes
Why do feminist have to rely on censoring?

Cry babies...

NAME CALLING ABUSER and quite probably FR/MRA Cult following wannabe

Anonymous said...

John, the vast majority of women's shelters do not accept men, even male children over a certain age.

In addition, many women's shelters have referred abused men to helplines... for abusers, not abused persons.

Further, men as a class have supported the building and upkeep of women's shelters. How many times have I personally dropped money in a can held by a woman raising funds for her local house? Plenty. Yet, we see feminists (primarily female) are promoting that men should not receive any protection or assistance.

Seems a bit... odd.

Anonymous said...

@new friend #88
"Now gee I hope this is clear for your timy brain to understand"

NAME-CALLING ABUSER!!!!!

OH, let me guess, it's ok when YOU rely on name-calling, but not when someone else does - right? and quite probably pro/feminist Cult following wannabe

New Friend said...

Oh and I should add that I was sent a link (wish I still had the email) about a man and a woman (exes) figghting in public over custody issues. The officers showed up and told the two of them that custody/visitation is a civil matter and it should be settled in civil court (family court aka mother enders court). The police left and not a few minutes later both the man and woman were at it again. Cops showed up arrested both. Man got out of jail on own recognizance, woman had to pay 5000 unsecured bond. Granted that is only 500 but why him 0 dollars, her 500 dollars?

This is one of the FR/MRA sticking points is sentencing and criminal leniency towards women. I cangive you several more examples where a woman has either gone through court quicker than a man with the same crime, has gotten a stiffer penalty, or been charged with a higher crime than a man.

Most recent cases I have been following regarding this:

Man and a woman in Florida. Bothleave their infant child in a closed car in the summer. Woman was charged within hours of crime, children taken from her and she has already gone through criminal court and is serving her sentence. Last I checked, the man guilty of leaving his child in a hot car in Florida, still had not been charged (and this was 3 months after the incident).

Second scenario was two people, one man, one woman, different state. Both put their baby in a mocrowave. Woman (mother) received 25 years to life. Man (dad) received 10 years with time off for good behavior.

Now explain to me how the women in all of these cases are receiving a gender excused discount?



Oh gee MRAs and all colluders..... you can't explain it. This is why one of your fearless leaders (Sacks) has to resort to censorship on his website.

To that I say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhEQ1E8XPp4

Danny said...

I guess that's it ladies, we may as well pack up our flags and stickers...oh, wait, what's that you say? This is a feminist blog? We don't have to obey arseholes like Marx, Danny, et al.?
So funny. You go around calling people names and then act surprised when they something back. Yes I don't agree with everything that is said here but that doesn't make it okay to respond with personal insults. Renee has been able to respectfully disagree with me for the last 4-5 months I've been coming here and I can honestly say that (only because I am not an MRA) she has never resorted to childish personal insults like you have. And I'll bet that you see yourself as the noble troll vanquisher seeking the approval of the authority (in this case that would be Renee since this is her place). In fact since I've seen you here in the last few days all you've done is chime in with insults.


I cannot imagine what sites like shakesville, feministing have to put up with on a daily basis.
Sites like that are so steeped in their own bigotry and hypocrisy that it is easy for them to stay "safe".


Now gee I hope this is clear for your timy brain to understand. men say one thing, I have proven it the opposite in my state, and men either ignore me (as evidenced on Sacks' site) or they talk in doublespeak.
But I see that your brain is still functioning enough to scrap together an insult or two. Amazing how disagreeing with someone means that you can personally insult them. Threats? What the fuck are you talking about? When did I threaten you? I suppose next you're gonna cry to that I'm trying to silence you right?

The point I was making is that men state that men are denied DV services and you somehow managed to conclude that since 3/4 of the local shelters in your state do then the MRAs entire point is proven wrong. Renee often talks about men who abuse women. Well by your logic since I have never abused women then Renee's statement is proven wrong. In other words just because you found shelters that offer services to men does not invalidate their claims (unless all men live in your state).


Now explain to me how the women in all of these cases are receiving a gender excused discount?
So some examples of where gender privilege don't get someone off the hook proves that said gender privileges don't exist?


They are so concerned with keeping women in line. I should also note that Sacks has completely blocked me from posting at all.
So when Renee tosses MRAs out of her site its the right thing to do because they wanted to "invade her space" but when you got tossed off of Glenn's site he was "silencing you" right?

New Friend said...

@danny

I am off to some well deserved sleep after my 100% grade on my test tonight woohoo!!!

But before I go, I must know where I said you or anyone threatened me or anyone? I do not recall saying those words. I might have said something like "MRAs are threatened by our very presence". And I did not say 3/4 of the shelters provide services - I said I spoke to 3/4 of the shelters and those all provide some sort of services to male victims. I did NOT speak to the other 1/4 so I have no idea what their polkicy is. But according to the state coalition, they do help male victims.

Last how is it that when I provide 3 examples (I have many many more, just too tired to dig them all up right now 2 pretests and a final in 2 hours is just too much for me after working a 9 hour day and caring for my child as well has a tendency to make one tired. MRAs are fond of throwing Mary Winkler's name around all the time as if that is a prime example of how ALL female criminals are treated. I tried pointing out that we did not reside in the Winkler's household 24/7 and neither did the adult child who went against Winkler (the child was grown and out on her own), so we cannot say what type of abuse occurred or did not occur. But MRA types use her name quite frequently. Glenn Sacks mentions her name in 26 seperate blog posts. Now who is obssessed?

Good night ladies and gentlemen (and trolls) :-)

Danny said...

I must know where I said you or anyone threatened me or anyone?
Here:
I don't listen to doublespeak, I don't listen to threats. Ask my ex - he has tried both pre and post divorce and I aint scared of ya. Not my blog but geesh just go away doofus.


I tried pointing out that we did not reside in the Winkler's household 24/7 and neither did the adult child who went against Winkler (the child was grown and out on her own), so we cannot say what type of abuse occurred or did not occur.
I have to admit that you are the one and only feminist that did not instantly jump to her defense in what she did (and I've come across a few that believe their size difference was justification to fight back with lethal force). And that is actually one of the points that MRAs made about that case. She killed him then cried abuse. There is no way we will ever find out if he really did abuse her but she has managed to snow over more than enough people that the belief that he did abuse will be what most people remember (and a lot of that is thanks to her boo hoo session on Oprah). That fact that the "abuser" was dead he wasn't exactly around to tell his own story.



Congrats on the 100 on your test and good luck on the rest of your course work.

nia said...

Hey RJ, just responding to your comment #32. Don't worry, I’m one woman who won’t be jumping on any supremacist bandwagon any time soon, trust me! I could see why you might think that, but when I'm not too knowledgeable about something, I always ask questions AND do my own research. That's how I learn. I was leaving the office when I wrote that post and I knew it should be subject to correction all over the place, so thanks to you and Renee for the responses.
I know that whenever marginalized groups make a small inroad or gain, they are always told, "Ok you can relax now, you don't have it so bad." When Caribbean countries gained independence from British colonialism in the 1960's, instead of capitalizing on that acheivement, we were fooled into thinking it was the end of the struggle, when in reality it was only the beginning. We are paying the price for that today. The same with South Africa. Nelson Mandela was freed, apartheid "officially" ended, and it was paraded as the end of all ills. Mandela himself colluded with the white powers that be and created the truth and reconciliation travesty. That's why he is so beloved by white people in England and Europe today.
But what much has truly changed in South Africa today at all?
I say all that to say this: To me, gaining safe shelters for women from DV would also be a beginning not an end. They should remain safe places for women while the wider struggle against violence towards women continues.

Rj said...

Title: Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence

Series: Research Report
Author: Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes
Published: National Institute of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, July 2000

o Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings, combined with those presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates. Thus, strategies for preventing intimate partner violence should focus on risks posed by men.

Rj said...

Father’s Rights or Wrongs?
Hate fuels the destructive path of the Fathers’ Rights Movement
Joan Dawson

Lastly, FR groups claim domestic violence is 50-50. If you notice the pattern of 50-50 in the Fathers Rights agenda, you are observant. It’s a good facade for claiming to support “true equality,” and bashing feminists for wanting “privileges” and trampling on “men’s civil rights.” (Some have called their way of thinking “equality with a vengeance” because it’s delivered with meanness rather than fairness in mind.) In regard to the claim that domestic violence is mutual, they can be attempting to dilute the problem and to erase the idea of men as perpetrators. It is true that women initiate domestic violence, too, but by credible sources, it is more like 85-15.

The surveys (such as the Conflict Tactics Scale) that finds mutual violence in Western countries is questionable because it does not decipher violence as a means of self-defense nor does it take into account verbal over-estimates of violence. Finally, it does not provide an accurate overall picture of family violence: women are more likely to use emergency rooms, police stations and shelters. They are more likely to be injured, suffer more forms of violence, need medical attention and fear for their lives. Men, on the other hand, often leave danger behind when they walk out the door.

Rj said...

Are men evil? Reflections on the tactics and motivation of men’s rights advocates

By Stephen Fisher, Chisholm Institute of TAFE, Victoria

"Are men equally victims of domestic violence?" The actual forum title is so loaded it is at risk of tipping over. While the answer is easy – NO – the question itself requires deeper interrogation. The answer is simply NO because there is no rigorous or legitimate research to support such a claim. Consistently, crime victimization studies typically find that domestic violence is serious, escalates over time, and is largely perpetrated by men (Kimmel 2002). While the complexity of human behaviour defies definitive generalisations there is a high degree of consensus among researchers that around 85% of intimate partner violence is committed against women (Dubin 2003). Recent research undertaken by the highly credible firm Access Economics found that 87% of victims of domestic violence are women with 98% abused by a male partner.

One key source is repeatedly cited by men’s rights groups to claim equality in violence. This work is based on a dubious methodology, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), for measuring partner violence. According to Flood (1999) “…It leaves out important forms of violence, it treats violent acts out of context, and it depends only on reports either by the husband or wife despite poor interspousal reliability.” For example, there is no recognition of female violence as self-defence, and minor acts – breaking a teacup – are given equal weight to major aggression – breaking a rib.

Despite the research identified above why is this claim of mutual violence made so consistently and vociferously by those concerned about ‘men’s rights’? Overtly, I think there are two ways of understanding the strategy of claiming symmetry in violence. One involves using extremism to shift a debate and the other is the commonly employed “Straw (wo)Man” argumentative technique.
In polarised social action campaigns where two sides advocate quite different moral positions, it is common that the public sympathy would sit somewhere in the middle. One technique to shift opinion more to one’s own end of the spectrum is to have a fringe group deliberately promote ideas or actions that sit at your end but are more extreme. Your group then deliberately distances itself from such radical and unreasonable views, and as a result your own position appears to be much more reasonable in comparison. The general public are more likely to align with such a reasonable voice, unwittingly moving the centre ground to a position more favourable to your cause. Radical feminist organisation SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) was actually a piece of artistic fiction by Valerie Solanas (1971) but may well have encouraged the uptake of more moderate feminist positions. So it is possible that men’s rights advocates actively promote absurd falsehoods as a deliberate strategy to shift the gender political debate their way.

Rj said...

Nia, I hear you. I often make parallels between what is going on here and the Civil Rights Movement. It amazes me how those in power feel the need to create a movement to protect their own interests when we live in a world built and thriving off of that interest.

So now there will be more men's shelters who should serve MEN (I cannot imagine why any woman would want to seek services within). Okay great. Is it over now?

Anonymous said...

You complain about MRA's, and yet, in truth, you love it when MRA's come here, because it drives traffic to your site. I know what you're up to, you sly dog, Renee . . .

You're the feminits verison of Ann Coulter.

Rj said...

Renee, yes you are such a sly dog, you keep dropping the bone and they keep coming back for it. Shame on you. You should learn to control that bone dropping problem of yours.

Danny said...

It amazes me how those in power...

Who says that all men are "in power"?

Renee said...

The boys are not feeling well today, so I don't have time to police this thread like I should. Treat each other nicely or I will simply shut down comments

space said...

WTF? ANOTHER MRA flamewar? Guess you can't talk about this subject without people going crazy.

space said...

I have no problem with there being men's domestic violence shelters, as long as they don't interfere with women's shelters.

figleaf said...

There's no doubt that there needs to be a men's movement. One measure of just how badly it's needed would be that MRAs imagine their real problem is feminism. It's a peculiarity of privilege that men tend to most fear imaginary oppression while enduring... even collaborating with... oppression we believe is just our lot in life. Sort of the way bulls ignore the matador and attack the cape. (Suing your way into women's shelters? Really? Ole torro, torro guys.)

As for shelters there's no doubt men are victims of domestic violence, nor for that matter is there any doubt that DV is limited to heteronormative relationships. The reason the shelter system was developed, though, wasn't so much that only women are victims, it's that for whatever reason male perpetrators (straight and gay) are more likely to pursue and retaliate against victims who flee.

Finally, though it's been years now my understanding from college roommates who were training to be shelter volunteers is that the dynamics of domestic violence inside families is such that, inadvertently or deliberately, children of any gender can put their fleeing parent at risk by attempting to contact the pursuing parent. That was a long time ago and I was obviously only peripherally involved so I'll totally defer to shelter workers with more recent information on that.

figleaf

New Friend said...

@ figleaf

I can tell you as a victim of dv that my child loves her father (our abuser). She tries to see the good in him and trust him yet he uses that trust to obtain information he wants. So your roomates were correct. The abuser does use his relationship in order to gain knowledge about his victim.

SACOG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Renee, when you say "This is not about providing a safe space for men, this is about ending a safe space for women" where is that coming from?

I ask because I think you may be misreading the case.

The case doesn't seem to have a requirement to insert men into women's shelters (which could well be inappropriate,) but rather seems to address only the issue of funding.

In fact, the case specifically acknowledges the reality that women are the primary victims of DV. And in that vein, it acknowledges that you might provide different services to men and women (you might need a much larger population to justify a standalone men's shelter, for example) The issue is simply that some basic level of services has to be available to men, if you're going to use public funds to get there.

You can still make a PRIVATE shelter, I think, that serves a selected population. And you can still use public funds in a separate and unequal manner, because things AREN'T equal in the DV world--you don't need to do everything for men that you do for women, because men generally speaking don't need as much help*.

The only thing you can't do now is to get public funds and provide no services to men at all. You can do that without public funding. Or you can provide a very minimal level of services to men--both would seem to be OK under this ruling. You just can't completely deny men access if you get public money, and you can't completely deny public money to men.

In fact, from what people are saying here, many DV shelters already provide some men's services... they won't be affected at all. I don't think this case is as bad, or as inappropriate, as you are making it out to be.

-Sailorman

*as a segment of the population. An individual man might need just as much help as an individual woman; there are just fewer of such men.

Danny said...

The only thing you can't do now is to get public funds and provide no services to men at all. You can do that without public funding. Or you can provide a very minimal level of services to men--both would seem to be OK under this ruling. You just can't completely deny men access if you get public money, and you can't completely deny public money to men.

Precisely. To think of it in another way how fair would be for public assistance programs like WIC, Welfare, etc... to only be available to one ethnic group because most of the people that need such assistance are in that one group? You would have millions of people paying into programs that they would in turn not have access to should the need arise.

Anonymous said...

Can I just say that just because I happen to be attempting to explain the case and also happen to have a penis, does not mean that I agree with any of the MRA nutcases who are also in the thread?

So if you're one of those, please don't quote me. 'kay?

thanks,

Sailorman

Danny said...

Can I just say that just because I happen to be attempting to explain the case and also happen to have a penis, does not mean that I agree with any of the MRA nutcases who are also in the thread?

So if you're one of those, please don't quote me. 'kay?


I'm not "one of those" either. Just because I don't automatically disagree with all MRAs doesn't warrant the holier than thou "Eeeewwww!" attitude.

New Friend said...

I for one have no problem with services for male dv victims. I do have an issue (which many MRAs want) with allowing access to undisclosed shelters for men. All that a man needs to do is call the shelter, tell them he is a victim of dv, local police show up and take him to the shelter. An intake is done and he is now in the shelter. he can then finish what he started with his victim.

This is what the nutjob MRAs want - equal access to all dv services including the shelter. I foresee MRAs being somewhat successful with this and a victim being killed in the shelter due to this. Then all bets are out the window.

Oh and I do not remember which post I wrote on about the supposed claim by MRAs about sentencing discounts, but I found the link for the story I was speaking of regarding the man and woman fighting, being arrested and man being released with no bond and the woman getting a 5000 unsecured bond. It is here:

http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=9303263&nav=MXEF

New Friend said...

@anon #109

The only issue with providing funds to mens shelters and services is that womens shelters and services are already suffering greatly with little funding having to rely a great deal on outside donations. Grants and federal/state funding do not supply the centers with all of the needed money. If men have their own centers (because of a few well placed statements), this will take away from already under-funded women's shelters.

We do not know what the men in this case went through, we do not have the women's side in this story and sadly the courts took these men at their word.

Christianj said...

"We do not know what the men in this case went through, we do not have the women's side in this story and sadly the courts took these men at their word."

As you never hear a man's side of the story. Shelters for men is what feminists should be promoting as they are supposed to be into "equal opportunity",but I guess they forgot to mention that they only focus on female victim hood..

And bugger any body else on this planet.

Anonymous said...

Men originally built and set up the universities, that's why women shouldn't have been allowed in. Whites built the universities in the United States, so blacks shouldn't have been allowed in. Let them build their own.

Don't like those arguments?

Well that's the same argument as: Women built shelters, so men shouldn't be allowed to use them.

And the giggle is that women built those shelters with a lot of tax money and donations from men and, in fact, the men built the shelters (from that donated men's money), because men are usually the construction workers. The women just kind of pointed as to where they should be built.

But aside from all that, getting back to the original point, do you really think that blacks shouldn't be able to use universities because whites built them?

Danny said...

The only issue with providing funds to mens shelters and services is that womens shelters and services are already suffering greatly with little funding having to rely a great deal on outside donations. Grants and federal/state funding do not supply the centers with all of the needed money. If men have their own centers (because of a few well placed statements), this will take away from already under-funded women's shelters.
You are quite literally crying about the zero sum game on federal/state assistance. You want women's shelters to continue to get the lion's share of such funding and for men's shelters to "do it themselves" because "women built theirs on their own". Unless you can say and prove for certain that men didn't help women build all those centers and that men don't pay taxes (thats were a lot of that federal/state funding comes from) then you speaking that bullshit.

Anonymous said...

Whites built what?

Don't even talk about what whites built because they likely didn't build SHIT. Why don't you give the universities to the Hispanics and stop making dumb ass arguments.

And this is about the methodology...the original case, the men weren't victims. This was a fucking SET UP, under FALSE premises. That's why they lost the case. They weren't really "similarly situated." So then, what did they do, they went and found some "victims" and did the case again. Yall are all caught up in the face value of the argument and you don't even see the contempt behind it.

And back to White people again. What did they do about Black colleges and scholarships? They challenged that shit too, on the basis of reverse discrimination.

Wake the fuck up people.

Anonymous said...

Shelters for men is what feminists should be promoting

No SHIT, Sherlock. Women have been promoting them since before men ever had a clue. Doesn't mean women should be spending ALL their energy on it when their community is in such desperation for their own funding right now.

Why don't you chip in and stop bitchin and come up with something original?

New Friend said...

I have no problem with men receiving federal/state funding if women shelter funding goes up to a level where the shelters can handle all of the victims who come in their doors. All shelters need to have at least one attorney on staff (not just a victim advocate or legal advocate). Women's shelters are typically at capacity or extremely exceeding capacity with waiting lists. When these issues are resolved for women who are typically the victims of dv, then men can have whatever they want.

If men want to do this alone, then do it. Don't take away from female victims shelters which are already suffering financially. Again, when women's shelters do not have to seek any outside fund raising and only do so as extra, then we can finance men's centers. This is not about men's centers, this is about accessing women shelters and women losing their privacy and protection (according to many MRAs on Sacks/Sucks site)

Danny said...

This is not about men's centers, this is about accessing women shelters and women losing their privacy and protection (according to many MRAs on Sacks/Sucks site)
Wrong. It is about making sure male victims of DV aren't blocked from getting assistance when they need it. I'm not going to say that feminists should be standing by the side of people who are trying to look out for male DV victims but it is pretty damn hypocritcal to say in breath that "they need to do on their own" and in the next when they start by trying to draw attention to the issue cry foul because it takes funds away from the "real" victims.


We do not know what the men in this case went through, we do not have the women's side in this story and sadly the courts took these men at their word.
A crock of bull. There are plenty of stories of men being carted when they are the one call the police for help and there are plenty of stories of women who tried to get help, were ignored, and ended up dead. Fact of the matter is when the police respond to DV calls they go in so hyped up on assumptions (like, "she probably needed to be put in her place" or "he probably did something to deserve it like cheating on her") that they have already decided who to arrest (or not arrest) as soon as they get on the scene.

Anonymous said...

"New Friend said...
I have no problem with men receiving federal/state funding if women shelter funding goes up to a level where the shelters can handle all of the victims who come in their doors...When these issues are resolved for women who are typically the victims of dv, then men can have whatever they want."

What about a percentage thing? If women make up, say 95% of abuse victims then it seems reasonable to give them 95% of the funding.

Alternatively, if women have greater needs for whatever reason then the case seems to support that analysis as well. So if women make up "only" 90% of DV cases but their need makes up 95% of all DV need in the state, then perhaps women could still be entitled to get 95% under this ruling.

But as it is public funding, it is difficult to justify a complete denial of funds to any particular group.

I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to make up a sex-reversed example, so I'll use an easy one: The military was very exclusionary in the past (still is, though less so.) So there are, some pretty large categories of veterans in which they're mostly male.

Let's assume for a moment that those veterans need benefits (they do) and that they don't get all the benefits they need (which they don't.) Obviously, it would be ludicrous to give public benefits only to men, merely because they are men. Even though giving benefits to women would "take money away" from the group who collectively needs it most, the women are just as entitled to those public dollars as are the men.

New Friend said...

I again spoke to the local shelter and asked what they do for male victims. Those victims are referred to a local church and the church helps them with lodging, food, and other needs. Now since I am off tomorrow from work, I will again call each and every shelter in my state and I guarantee that either there are seperate services for men or they are sent to a local church for assistance. I am also going to see if I can get the numbers on male victims versus female victims in my state by calling the state coalition. I guarantee that the numbers will be at least 95% female and 5% male if not more females/less males.

John Dias said...

New Friend:

What you are finding is probably right on target. Ninety five percent of applicants to women-run shelters are women. And yet the Centers for Disease Control says that men comprise 38 percent of domestic violence-related injuries.

Men simply don't ask for help from a battered women's shelter the way that women do. That doesn't mean that there isn't a need to help such men; it just means that there is insufficient outreach. The federal government says that the numbers are there.

whatsername said...

And yet the Centers for Disease Control says that men comprise 38 percent of domestic violence-related injuries

That doesn't mean that 38% are being beaten by women.

1) They could have gotten hurt from self defense from their wife.

2) They could have accidentally hurt themselves.

3) They could be gay and be victims of partner violence themselves.

I don't think those CDC numbers are compelling to the ends you're suggesting at all.

eibhear said...

Christ, Renee, however do you put up with all these bigotted eejits?

Danny said...

And yet the Centers for Disease Control says that men comprise 38 percent of domestic violence-related injuries

That doesn't mean that 38% are being beaten by women.

1) They could have gotten hurt from self defense from their wife.

2) They could have accidentally hurt themselves.

3) They could be gay and be victims of partner violence themselves.

I don't think those CDC numbers are compelling to the ends you're suggesting at all.

I find it funny that an exact breakdown wasn't necessary until some stats on male victims came up.

whatsername said...

Not until male victims came up, until you tried to use that stat to prove something I don't think it does.

Anonymous said...

John Dias,

I think the comments from most of the people here suggest that they don't care the slightest about male victims of DV at all. In fact, I think they're happy about male victims of DV. It sounds to me like they're actually promoting DV against men.

John Dias said...

Anonymous wrote:

"John Dias,

"I think the comments from most of the people here suggest that they don't care the slightest about male victims of DV at all. In fact, I think they're happy about male victims of DV. It sounds to me like they're actually promoting DV against men."


- - -

All the data that I could ever provide about male victimization from DV can be easily dismissed by feminist ideologues and womanist bigots, because all they have to do is portray male victimization as the result of a female victim "fighting back" against HER aggressor. In fact, that's the defense that alleged murderers use when they're tried in court: it was "self-defense."

Therefore, no amount of male victimization (and no measurements of it) will ever be sufficient to convince womanists of the true hell that abused men are facing. They have no resources to help them, are deemed aggressors or wimps when they talk about their pain, and even risk arrest if they summon the police for help. Until you have actual video cameras in the home, conclusively documenting a man's innocence while demonstrating a woman's violence, there will continue being a bias against abused men in the justice system.

And even if you were to demonstrate with video footage that it is the woman aggressing against the man, to a "womanist" it still wouldn't prove that a particular woman is the aggressor. This is because even though a woman's violence during a particular event might be completely unilateral, a womanist would argue that the woman was "defending herself" against a climate of fear and intimidation imposed by the male. And so even if a woman walked up on a sleeping man and poured boiling hot cooking oil all over his body, a womanist would say that the man probably asked for it through all of the prior moments in the relationship where he mentally intimidated her.

There is simply no meeting of the minds in a disagreement with ideologues and/or the mentally ill. They can only be defeated -- in court at an innocent defendant's jury trial, in the court of public opinion, or in the legislatures.

As Tony Blair once said (referring to the perpetrators of 9/11):

"There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of the minds, no point of understanding with such terror. There is just one choice. Defeat it, or be defeated by it."

Dori said...

Holy shit.

Most of the feminists/womanists on this thread have been pointing out that most shelters do indeed have services for men and challenging the idea that one group of people needing help means that the other should be ignored.

how one stretches that to "promoting violence against men" (I'm looking at you Anon 129) or "ignoring the hell that abused men face" is beyond me.

In fact, John, one thing that feminists focus on is constructions of masculinity and how these constructions lead to things like men being called wimps for talking about abuse. We are actually breaking it down and trying to do something about it. You are just whingeing about how we aren't doing it when that is a blatant falsehood.

John Dias said...

Dori wrote:

"In fact, John, one thing that feminists focus on is constructions of masculinity and how these constructions lead to things like men being called wimps for talking about abuse. We are actually breaking it down and trying to do something about it."

You're breaking it down? Trying to do something about it? Speak for yourself; if you're sincere, then I commend your efforts. But don't speak for all of feminism, because I know better. Most feminists, when confronted with objective government data that reveals a significant portion of DV injury victims (38%) are men, address such victimhood as your fellow feminist did in this comment. I'm sure that an actual male victim would prefer acknowledgment of their pain, their aggressor's violent behavior, and some sort of solution to address both of these. Far less valuable is societal browbeating from a bunch of feminists going on about how everyone needs to redefine masculinity in their own minds.

I'm talking about doing something tangible about the problem. Redefining social conceptions of masculinity are not particularly useful to a man who's kids have just been ripped away, has lost his home, is looking at time in a hospital, and a possible jail sentence for reporting on his aggressor. You want to do something useful? Instead of redefining the meaning of the phrase "man up," try getting rid of primary aggressor laws -- those laws which require police to designate and then pick an an aggressor between two alleged victims.

California's primary aggressor law is one such example. From the California Penal Code, section 836(c)(3):

(3) In situations where mutual protective orders have been issued under Division 10 (commencing with Section 6200) of the Family Code, liability for arrest under this subdivision applies only to those persons who are reasonably believed to have been the primary aggressor. In those situations, prior to making an arrest under this subdivision, the peace officer shall make reasonable efforts to identify, and may arrest, the primary aggressor involved in the incident. The primary aggressor is the person determined to be the most significant, rather than the first, aggressor. In identifying the primary aggressor, an officer shall consider (A) the intent of the law to protect victims of domestic violence from continuing abuse, (B) the threats creating fear of physical injury, (C) the history of domestic violence between the persons involved, and (D) whether either person involved acted in self-defense.

Notice that under the above law, a woman who initiates violence against a man is probably immune to arrest. A man who defends himself from her attacks -- with a violent defense or merely shielding his body with his arms -- is likely to be arrested. Yes, if you're a man who shields himself from a woman's attacks, you can get arrested in California! This is because your attacker's blows leave marks on your arms, and those marks can be considered evidence of aggression (rather than self-defense).

You just don't know. You have no idea. You think your common sense and good intentions are enough, but you simply don't know what it's like.

whatsername said...

Give me a break John, I live in California and both parties usually get arrested no matter who does the reporting. That's IF you can get the cops to take the accusation seriously. I'm not sidelining male victims of DV, but the FACTS are you didn't provide analysis of who of those men are in homosexual relationships. That's a pretty big factor if you're trying to wage a convincing argument against abusive women.

John Dias said...

whatsername wrote:

"That's IF you can get the cops to take the accusation seriously."

You think you're aware of the law in California, but you're not. You see, California is a "pro arrest" state. Here's a map of the arrest policies of all 50 states. California requires that when DV has been alleged, or when the officer has probable cause, he MUST make an arrest. Who he arrests is determined by several factors, but chief among these is the question of which party is able to inflict the most harm. Obviously, through his greater physical stature, that would be the man. Absent any other mitigating factors, it is the man who is arrested, and this is because of his biology.

As far as DV in homosexual relationships, there is a very similar percentage of violence in gay, lesbian and heterosexual relationships. You can't blame the majority of DV on members of one sex or members of one sexuality. See the following study for more info:

Bricker, D. "Fatal Defense: An Analysis of Battered Women's Syndrome Expert Testimony for Gay Men and Lesbians Who Kill Abusive Partners," 58 Brooklyn L. Rev. 1379 (1993), 1382-84.

whatsername said...

California requires that when DV has been alleged, or when the officer has probable cause, he MUST make an arrest.

Omg, really?! I had no idea!

Why do you think I told my co-worker to call the cops?

Precisely because I knew that.

Guess what the cops did?

Nothing. :) And I even gave her lawyer speak, she asked for exactly what she should have. The cops said "Oh we can't do that, we have to wake up a judge for that".

On top of that my husband's mom went through quite a few step fathers while he was growing up, and some were abusive. I'm quite sure between him and me we've interacted quite a bit more than you with California law. So don't tell me what I do and do not know about how it's actually practiced.

In addition, this?:

You can't blame the majority of DV on members of one sex or members of one sexuality.

That's you putting words in my mouth, I did not say that, nor even allude to it. My point was, you can't produce an overarching number and try and apply it to something specific. If you want to be more convincing, you'll provide that number with at least an attempt at context.

No one is denying men are abused too. I don't don't agree with your particular presentation.

John Dias said...

So because you say that the draconian law is not enforced, you think that this logically means that the law is not draconian. Little suggestion... Read it. It's public information.

whatsername said...

I have no idea what you just said. Except for "read it it's public information". And I have read it. But your other sentence, I have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

John Dias said...

Whatsername:

The law statutorily discriminates between two mutual abuse victims; that's why it's called a primary aggressor law, because it coaxes police into picking the victim that they assume is capable of causing the most physical harm. The criteria on how police must make this choice essentially describes the man. The point is that the statute discriminates against male victims. Both parties are mutually abusive, and yet when an arrest is made, the male victim is arrested. We don't even know if he even touched the woman, except he's defined as a mutual aggressor merely if she says so at the scene.

You simply have no empathy for male victims. They risk arrest if they call for help (I demonstrated this with objective facts, quoting the statute). Male victims comprise 38 percent of DV-related injuries, as the federal government has said. You ignore this, saying that if the male has been injured, it must have been self-inflicted due to his aggression, inflicted by his female victim, or caused by his gay partner (who, being male, you imply is therefore an aggressive brute anyway). Can none of these factors apply to female victims as well, canceling out the "mitigating exceptions" altogether for both sexes? Your bias against men is quite clear.

The statute discriminates against males. Your misandry (denying female aggression, while attributing male victimization to male aggression) blinds you to the injustice. Further complicating matters, you don't understand the definition of the word "draconian." This is a problem.

whatsername said...

You appear to have extreme difficulty reading. Perhaps your misogyny blinds you to what I'm actually typing, I don't know.

1) I didn't say I don't know what draconian means, I said I don't understand your sentence. I don't understand what that sentence had to do with what I was saying. It's like you started up in the middle of a completely different conversation. So maybe you should clarify instead of assuming "I don't understand what you said" means "I don't know the definitions of the words you used".

2) I never said the numbers "must" be for the mitigating reasons I listed. I said your numbers are not compelling because you provide a blanket number without any specificity. I'm sure those specifics also apply to female victims, but the numbers are so astronomically higher that even taking those into account doesn't change the blinding need for services for female DV victims.

3) I am telling you right now that it is policy in the bay area at least to arrest both parties in the case of DV calls, no matter who made the call. So maybe you should look up the laws again.

John Dias said...

whatshername wrote:

"I said your numbers are not compelling because you provide a blanket number without any specificity. I'm sure those specifics also apply to female victims, but the numbers are so astronomically higher that even taking those into account doesn't change the blinding need for services for female DV victims."

Of course they apply to female victims! 38 percent of DV injuries are borne by males. I wonder what the remaining 62 percent apply to; it must be non-males, but who could they be? Women, perhaps? The point of demonstrating that men bear 38 percent of DV injuries is to show that men comprise a SIGNIFICANT PORTION of DV victims. Your claim that female victimization is "astronomically" higher than male victimization is simply taken straight out of your ideology. These are federal numbers, taken straight out of the study conducted by Nancy Tjaden and Pat Thoanes -- two feminist researchers. The fact that the number of male injury victims is 38 percent indicates that men need greater assistance than is currently offered. They are denied assistance in two ways:

1. Male victims have fewer options than female victims -- and I would accurately call that difference "astronomical" despite the significant number (38 percent) of male injury victims. In terms of how the victims received the injuries, there is no data. Therefore, you simply have to view the injuries in a non-judgmental light, and extend services to victims in general. Many abused women who wind up at DV shelters are not pure victims; some are drug abusers, child abusers, and spouse abusers. But they're given shelter regardless, especially if it's their last resort. Who are you to play moral arbiter in parsing out what services are available to which victims? If men are injured, then offer them services. If injury points to the aggression of the injured, then doesn't that bode poorly for the 62% of female injured victims?

2. When the primary aggressor policy is implemented (and police are not forbidden from making dual arrests for mutual DV -- just coaxed), the male victim is arrested, rather than assisted. It is written into the law that the one with the larger stature is favored for arrest. That is flat-out anti-male discrimination, because the one with the larger stature will be the man. He is punished for his biology.

whatsername said...

Honestly John you're just not listening. I've repeatedly stated support for providing services for male victims. And I haven't disputed that males are victims of DV in significant numbers. I don't even know what you're arguing about at this point.