Submitted by ferdette on 29 September 2005 - 4:45pm
From an angry post about how radical feminists are hijacking the cause of domestic violence prevention, I ended up here, at a site called "Hate Male Post," one of those crazy "men's rights" bloggers.
Normally, I just laugh these fuckers off. Because when they use words like man repellant and seriously post beliefs such as this:
1) Men don't have any rights anymore, and2) Unfortunately, many, even the majority of rape and assault claims ARE made up, irregardless (sic) of what NOW and the gender-feminists tell us.
it makes me want to either vomit or punch a wall.
But the most recent post on this "men's rights" blog about the problems of the VAWA legislation has a teeny bit of merit (when you ignore the majority of the post, which is so anti-feminist that it gives Jerry Falwell a run for his money).
Mainly, this: that there is, in fact, an undercurrent of domestic and sexual violence against men, especially sexual, that goes almost universally unreported. While it remains that the majority of these men's perpetrators are also men, there are women violators of this as well.
I haven't studied the language of VAWA ad nauseum (or at all, really), but it seems to me that the name of the legislation -- Violence Against Women Act -- implies that it may, in fact, not extend these protections to male victims of domestic violence. In that sense, at least, it is perpetuating the underreporting of these incidents.
These men's rights' groups do have at least some relevance, then, in their pleading for VAWA to be a gender-neutral piece of legislation. This seems reasonable enough.
So, my question is this:
Can this be done without minimizing the fact that the majority of domestic violence is perpetrated by men against women? Would neutralizing the gendered language in the legislation make it less effective or less of a "feminist issue"?
I have my thoughts, but I'd like to hear others.
(x-posted to where the revolution's gonna begin)
Comments
18 comments postedViolence is primarily a male thing. Women are systematically victimized everywhere on the planet. This is so obvious, I can't believe we have to keep stating it.
Don't torture yourself by going to those misogynistic sites. They claim they have no rights, when in reality they still run everything. All feminism has ever asked for is that they cease to have special rights, and they won't go along with that. Frankly, I think we expect too little. We want to be reasonable, while they want to dominate. This tells me they can't be trusted with power, so they should have as little as possible. We need to stop worrying about equality and restore the natural order that was, and will be, matriarchy.
Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements
Statistics support more women than men are hurt by domestic violence, but supporting such a law does not mean that feminists must put women's lives and well-being ahead of anyone else. If a young or older person, (beyond the legal age of childhood and not *protected* by family services) is being harmed by domestic violence, this law must protect them. If it is a male/female relationship and the male is abused, this law cannot ignore that. If a gay male union contains domestic violence, then that law must protect the abused. If a gay female union contains domestic violence this law must also protect the one who suffers.
I wonder how many of male/female relationships where men are abused are underreported due to shame, stigma, economics and fear and their interests in protecting and staying near their children. I don't believe it does refect the same number of female victims, but it certainly would add to the difficulties of males who suffer to overcome these aspects and report it and try to get help.
Feminists should support this law and if the collective *we* put only domestic female partners into the law or into our interests, then we are guilty of not looking out for the well-being of everyone who suffers and for this issue, we deserve the derision of misogynistic groups.
Hate Male---tee hee hee. You got to hand it to him, very punny.
And man repellant is just like the *spray* we girls used when boys touched our arms ang gave us "boy germs" in the second grade.
www.manicexpressions.net
www.bitchingandmoaning.org
Did you follow the links on the site?
Try this one:
Father's Rights Statistics
Or this: Overview of research on Domestic Violence
Or this: Bibliography of Domestic Violence Research
Or this: false allegations research
Or this: Rape Convictions
You might not like these facts, but they are what they are, and stand in opposition to the standard propaganda that NOW preaches.
Know that men feel like vomiting or punching their walls when they encounter websites like yours that are in denial of their and their fellow men's experience -and the vast majority of legitimate research and evidence which shows that today, men are second class citizens, with few rights when it comes to issues involving women.
In particular VAWA has been a frightening disaster for men. It is worth reviewing the RADAR site, especially their summary of the bill.
I know these facts are not what you like to hear, and are not what the zeitgeist about the man-woman relationship seems to indicate, but they are a very real and very painful fact of life for many, many men, whose experiences and suffering are ignored and mitigated by the feminist lobby. If you accept that near-50% of domestic violence victims are men, let me ask you, what happens to those men? Where do those men go for shelter? Know of any battered men's shelters? (Yes there are A COUPLE in the US. But mostly not.) If they leave their wife, aren't they abandoning their children to the abuser?
If they seek divorce, who do you think the court believes? And who do you think gets children? What do you think happens next? Does the man just walk off into the sunset, never seeing his kids? Or does the court hold him up for alimony and child support, while probably blaming him for the physical violence in the relationship, and denying him visitation.
All I ask is that you read, and you think, and perhaps walk a mile in our shoes.
_-AMan
Yes, AMan, you are correct.
Open your eye's ladies. 30 plus years have gone by and alot has changed. Perhaps you, who can actually read, will. Read it all, follow the links. The data is real enough to anger the gender feminist. That's right, REAL DATA. Not propaganda. You all know you can only fight the truth with lies, you have been doing it for years. You're gonna have to propagate more lies to counter the truth. The truth IS COMING OUT. You lies will be obvious to all within the year.
"...it makes me want to either vomit or punch a wall."
I (a male) have never punched a wall. Isn't this exactly the kind of rage induced uncontrollable behavior you berate men for? Oh ya, there is no excuse for domestic violence. Unless you are a woman. Then you are excused and you can blame him anyway. Somehow I must have provoked you, right? Talk about your psycho hypocrites.
You hurt your own cause with hyperbole. MRA sites are not independent sources. Sorry to break this to you. And frankly, it's getting pretty exasperating dealing with all this hateful whining. MRA types are trolling feminist sites all the time, making claims like:
* Most domestic violence is against men
* Most rape claims are false
* Feminists actually run world governments
* Halfway houses are a feminist scam to make billions of dollars a year
* Feminism is a conspiracy to enslave men
* Feminists are "feminazis" and "Ameriskanks"
Next we're going to hear that Bill Gates really does give away money just to forward chain letters, Nigerian ministers really are trying to give money away to Americans, the Holocaust did not happen, and that Apollo astronauts never walked on the Moon.
Your whole rhetorical approach reveals attitudes that women and children are rightfully men's property, and you're outraged that this is being challenged.
Spare us your pseudo-logic and dialectic poses. The performance is not convincing.
And if you don't like the VAWA, I suggest you take it up with the GOP. In case you haven't noticed, they're the ones running the government.
Sounds like you are saying "na-na-na na-na, I can't hear you!".
The research is real, it just isn't going to be published on the web by NOW. But you want a non-male-positive site that has research on violence in the home, take a look at this one which enumerates that mothers acting alone are perpetrators of a shocking 40.8% of child maltreatment, as opposed to 18% of men acting alone, from the administration for children and families.
or....
Here is a web page on violence from the British Home Office, showing approximately equal levels of violence for men and women.
or...
Here is Martin Fiebert (Ph.D.)'s web page. (California State University, Long Beach) Certainly a well-respected source. Click on his 'Assaults on Men' link.
There are a LOT of studies and resources on these matters, showing that when it comes to violence and the sexes, men are not the villains that they are made out to be. How many resources do you need to see before you stop saying 'na-na-na na-na'?
-AMan
The epidemic of violence against women is worldwide. But that doesn't mean all men are the perpetrators.
But we have a culture here that makes exception. You seem to like examples, so let's look at the "poor Kobe" crap we were fed last year.
And the US is better than most countries.
Of course, you can keep finding the exceptions to the rule, and say, "See?" Yet all the posing in the world from you is not going to somehow "prove" that the experiences women have every day are not real.
Now what are you going to do? Keep coming here, penetrating feminist sites to ejaculate your hate rhetoric?
If you want change, maybe you should talk to the men in charge and leave the women alone. Blaming the victims here really is bad form, and not much of a political strategy.
Despite VAWA's title, it does reach domestic violence against men. Consider, for example, the definition of "domestic violence" in section 404(1) [see below for link]:
Similarly, while Section 332 lists Congressional findings about the problem of sexual abuse of female prisoners by male guards, the actions the statute takes are sex neutral (see Sections 333-36 and especially 336(2), defining "custodial sexual misconduct" in sex neutral terms).
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/vawa1998.html
Thank you, Fred, for sharing that info. (And how ironic, citing NOW as the source!)
...cross pasting from your other post where comments are closed...
>...is that this is my site, and thus the burden is on you to >contribute with courtesy and respect. Fail those and you deserve >none in return.
I believe that you have recieved a great deal of courtesy in the posting, for which I don't think you have returned a lot. You describe facts as rhetoric, and dismiss what are very important issues to men in an offhand way. You deny valid research if it happens to be hosted at a site which advocates equal rights for men, and describe efforts to add some balance to your posting, (which, by the way, was prompted in my case because you posted ABOUT a men's rights site) in terms that extend male sexuality into a non-sexual arena (discussion and debate) and villify it. I quote you: "Now what are you going to do? Keep coming here, penetrating feminist sites to ejaculate your hate rhetoric?"
You are right, I shouldn't waste my time... ...this is a 'gender feminist' site. Not a site that is interested in equality between the sexes, but one that characterizes men as fundamentally evil, without any care for the actual facts.
Back a bit you used the word 'trolling'. I think you were hinting I was a troll, but I don't think you understand the word. Trolls are not interested in legitimate debate, care nothing for facts, and use insults rather than arguments to make points. That behavior has been present here on your blog, but you haven't gotten it from me.
I am sorry we haven't had a more interesting debate, and here's hoping that your perception of men can be improved some day...
-AMan
p.s. - in case anyone cares- much of the funding in VAWA specifically indicates that it is only for women, and cannot be used for others. Not for men. It isn't in any way, shape, or form a balanced bill, especially in light of the already tilted legal system it will be added to.
I'm suprised she hasn't deleted our comments. Gotta give her some credit for that.
I too am done with this debate, however. I have seen this kind of discussion time and again. Logic and real data mean nothing to these people.
Perhaps anger management would help. Ah, but no. Anger management is only for men. When a man gets angry it's his flault and he should be punished for it. When a woman get's angry it's still a man's fault and he should be punished for it.
Back in my hometown, I volunteered at a battered women's shelter. This shelter was mostly supported by donations. They were created by feminists who knew that they were needed and not by the government who chose to ignore it. Now if there is the enormous problem with woman to man violence that you claim (and I'm not saying it doesn't exist, b/c i do believe it does, just not at the rate that you are claiming) are the gentlemen here volunteering and/or donating to create these badly needed men's shelters?
i do believe the law should apply to all people, regardless of gender, age and sexual orientation, but I do believe it's up to the male-ist community to start a grassroots organization to help victims of their gender. When you show me that the numbers are as high as you claim, *I* will donate money to your cause. How's that for support for male issues? (Though, you must allow gay men too, even if they have to sleep in the same rooms as the hets.)
I took a writing course years ago and was instructed: Show, don't tell! Ms. magazine did a issue yrs ago with the faces and bodies of beaten women. I'd like to see the Details do that.
www.manicexpressions.net
www.bitchingandmoaning.org
Well posited.
You get what you give. If you don't like it, you can always go elsewhere. It's not polite to crash the party, and then complain that the hosts aren't friendly enough for you.
And yet you seem to deny any commonly known facts, and dismiss them as contrary to what some Ph.D. posted on an MRA site.
You say it's valid. So why is it just on an MRA site? I did not link to any MRA site. (Maybe all of us "feminazis" look alike.) And yes, your behavior here does seem to be very typically male. Hence the remarks.
Straw man there. Or should I say straw woman. Anyway, you're ascribing to me views I never expressed. Perhaps that's more revealing of you than me.
But then, if all you wanted was equality, you wouldn't have a problem with feminism now, would you? Or the ERA. (That's another topic that seems to inspire MRA invective.) Feminism is the radical idea that women are people. But apparently that's too radical for you, so you and your boys had to come over and rant and ramble way off-topic on a post about John G. Roberts, Jr.
Excuse me, but when you guys all come here en masse and start posting anonymously, you can't exactly expect people to keep you straight. I see the logs. I see what threads you're coming from.
The claim that you came for debate is amusing. Your holier-than-thou comments here seem to prove the point.
You focus on the dollars. I focus on the sanctuary. I don't know anything about the bill, except its title, and that it's a Congressional bill -- that is a Congress dominated by right-wing men. If you have a problem with the bill, I think you should take it up with Tom DeLay or Bill Frist or whoever.
I much prefer the entrails of a goat, myself. Some of us are Vegan, though, and prefer tea leaves. We are everywhere. We worship Lady Macbeth every night, and spend our days planning on how we can screw over men. You have to admit it's brilliant. Our cover is being raped and beaten, so nobody suspects that we're really running the world.
Don't tell anybody.
to go straight into telling us how to behave. Not polite enough. Not accepting fake facts means our minds are closed. How do we ever get through the day without them? ::vomit::
Support the Women's Autonomy and Sexual Sovereignty Movements
Hey guys, whenever you hear someone talk about an "epidemic," you know facts and rational thinking is being tossed out the window.
If you want to know a woman's experience in this world, ask a man.
Here's the problem for men (and some women); they think that feminism means that all these crazy chicks want to subjugate men to their will like a bunch of Amazon Queens....
mmmmmm.....
::enter sexual fantasy #15::
Waiting....
waiting....
Ok, I'm done. Seriously, what feminists recognize and want is to bring forward the issues of women which are considered secondary and overall unimportant to men/society. Let's be clear: That does not mean that we want to place ourselves in a better position than men, we merely want to be equal and that means that all humans get to have equal footing. That's it in a nutshell. There is nothing more and no hidden agenda.
We don't already control the world or the country. If we did, tampons and birthcontrol would be free. If men were willing to see how it is that women are behind in the rights area and help us change it, we'd all be better for it. So it does no good to come over to a feminist site and blame us all for the wrongs done to you by women. We all get our hearts broken, we all get taken advantage of. That's life.
So get over it and stop complaining that there's no dinner on the table.
www.manicexpressions.net
www.bitchingandmoaning.org