Men's Rights

Feminism should be about equality for males, too.

Earlier this month DoubleX, Slate's short-lived female-oriented publication (launched six months ago and about to be folded back into the parent site as a women's section), ran an article ringing the alarm about the dire threat posed by the power of the men's rights movement. But the article, written by New York-based freelance writer Kathryn Joyce and titled "Men's Rights' Groups Have Become Frighteningly Effective," says more about the state of feminism—and journalistic bias—than it does about men's groups.

Joyce's indictment is directed at a loose network of activists seeking to raise awareness and change policy on such issues as false accusations of domestic violence, the plight of divorced fathers denied access to children, and domestic abuse of men. In her view, groups such as RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) and individuals like columnist and radio talk show host Glenn Sacks are merely "respectable" and "savvy" faces for what is actually an anti-female backlash from "angry white men."

As proof of this underlying misogyny, Joyce asserts that men who commit "acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo" are routinely lionized in the men's movement. This claim is purportedly backed up with a reference that, in fact, does not in any way support it: an article in Foreign Policy about the decline of male dominance around the globe. Joyce's one specific example is that the diary of George Sodini, a Pittsburgh man who opened fire on women in a gym in retaliation for feeling rejected by women, was reposted online by the blogger "Angry Harry" as a wake-up call to the Western world that "it cannot continue to treat men so appallingly and get away with it." But does this have anything to do with more mainstream men's rights groups? The original version of the article claimed that Sacks, who called "Harry" an "idiot" in his interview with Joyce, nonetheless "cautiously defends" the blogger; DoubleX later ran a correction on this point.

Sacks himself admits to Joyce that the men's movement has a "not-insubstantial lunatic fringe." Yet in her eyes, even the mainstream men's groups are promoting a dangerous agenda, above all infiltrating mainstream opinion with the view that reports of domestic violence are exaggerated and that a lot of spousal abuse is female-perpetrated. The latter claim, Joyce asserts, comes from "a small group of social scientists" led by "sociologist Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, who has written extensively on female violence." (In fact, Straus, founder of the renowned Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire, is a pre-eminent scholar on family violence in general and was the first to conduct national surveys on the prevalence of wife-beating.)

Joyce repeats common critiques of Straus' research: For instance, he equates "a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs" or "a single act of female violence with years of male abuse." Yet these charges have been long refuted: Straus' studies measure the frequency of violence and specifically inquire about which partner initiated the physical violence. Furthermore, Joyce fails to mention that virtually all social scientists studying domestic violence, including self-identified feminists such as University of Pittsburgh psychologist Irene Frieze, find high rates of mutual aggression.

Reviews of hundreds of existing studies, such as one conducted by University of Central Lancashire psychologist John Archer in a 2000 article in Psychological Bulletin, have found that at least in Western countries, women are as likely to initiate partner violence as men. While the consequences to women are more severe—they are twice as likely to report injuries and about three times more likely to fear an abusive spouse—these findings also show that men hardly escape unscathed. Joyce claims that "Straus' research is starting to move public opinion," but in fact, some of the strongest recent challenges to the conventional feminist view of domestic violence—as almost invariably involving female victims and male batterers—come from female scholars like New York University psychologist Linda Mills.

Contrary to Joyce's claims, these challenges, so far, have made very limited inroads into public opinion. One of her examples of the scary power of men's rights groups is that "a Los Angeles conference this July dedicated to discussing male victims of domestic violence, 'From Ideology to Inclusion 2009: New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention,' received positive mainstream press for its 'inclusive' efforts.'" In fact, the conference—which featured leading researchers on domestic violence from several countries, half of them women, and focused on much more than just male victims—received virtually no mainstream press coverage. One of the very few exceptions was a column I wrote for The Boston Globe, also reprinted in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

Whatever minor successes men's groups may have achieved, the reality is that public policy on domestic violence in the U.S. is heavily dominated by feminist advocacy groups. For the most part, these groups embrace a rigid orthodoxy that treats domestic violence as male terrorism against women, rooted in patriarchal power and intended to enforce it. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women—for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings, and cancer combined.

These advocacy groups practically designed the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, and they dominate the state coalitions against domestic violence to which local domestic violence programs must belong in order to qualify for federal funds. As a result of the advocates' influence, federal assistance is denied to programs that offer joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence, and court-mandated treatment for violent men downplays drug and alcohol abuse (since it's all about the patriarchy).

Against the backdrop of this enforced party line, Joyce is alarmed by the smallest signs that men's rights groups may be gaining even a modest voice in framing domestic violence policy. She points out that in a few states, men's rights activists have succeeded in "criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases" (this is apparently meant to be a bad thing) and "winning rulings that women-only shelters are discriminatory" (in fact, the California Court of Appeals ruled last year that state-funded domestic violence programs that refuse to provide service to abused men violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but also emphasized that the services need not be identical and coed shelters are not required).

To bolster her case, Joyce consistently quotes advocates—or scholars explicitly allied with the advocacy movement, such as Edward Gondolf of the Mid-Atlantic Addiction Research and Training Institute—to discredit the claims of the men's movement. She also repeats uncorroborated allegations that many leaders of the movement are themselves abusers, but offers only one specific example: eccentric British activist Jason Hatch, who once scaled Buckingham Palace in a Batman costume to protest injustices against fathers, and who was taken to court for allegedly threatening one of his ex-wives during a custody dispute.

The article is laced with the presumption that, with regard to both general data and individual cases, any charge of domestic violence made by a woman against a man must be true.

One case Joyce uses to illustrate her thesis is that of Genia Shockome, who claimed to have been severely battered by her ex-husband Tim and lost custody of her two children after being accused of intentionally alienating them from their father. Yet Joyce never mentions that Shockome's claims of violent abuse were unsupported by any evidence, that she herself did not mention any abuse in her initial divorce complaint, or that three custody evaluators—including a feminist psychologist who had worked with the Battered Women's Justice Center at Pace University—sided with the father.

More than a quarter-century ago, British feminist philosopher Janet Radcliffe Richards wrote, "No feminist whose concern for women stems from a concern for justice in general can ever legitimately allow her only interest to be the advantage of women." Joyce's article is a stark example of feminism as exclusive concern with women and their perceived advantage, rather than justice or truth.

Cathy Young is a contributing editor at Reason magazine and a columnist for RealClearPolitics.com. She is the author of Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality. This article originally appeared at Forbes.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    But as Contributing Editor Cathy Young writes, real feminism means equality for men, too.

    That's a cop-out. The term "Feminism" by itself precludes men's rights.

  • JB||

    Generally yes, and it almost always signals that the woman using that word to describe herself is a wacko.

    I avoid women who self-identify as feminists. Just call yourself a woman.

  • Agent Provacateur||

    ... battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings, and cancer combined.

    And that's just during the Super Bowl.

  • Legendary Urbanist||

    And did you know if you eat a bunch of pop rocks and down a shot of a carbonated soft drink your stomach will explode?

  • Tim||

    Yes, it happened to Mikey from the life cereal commercial.

  • Unclaimed Mysteries||

    Yes, but it didn't stop him from becoming an Army sniper in Iraq.

  • ||

    Well, whether battered or breaded frying is bad for the heart.

  • ||

    feminism is sexism

  • Almost Raped||

    I'll just leave this here.

  • Alexander Pope||

    Women can be also be quite clever about invoking "You emotionally abused me!"

  • ||

    I had a friend in culinary school that this happened to. His girlfriend at the time called the police and told them he was "Beating her with his words." They promptly told her that was not a crime and since his name was on the lease he could say whatever he wanted in his own home.

  • JB||

    Or 'basically raped'.

    You were either raped or you weren't. Having sex with an ugly guy and then regretting it isn't rape.

  • Joe||

    To the feminists it is.

  • Bouncer||

    all sex is rape to the feminists.

  • hmm||

    Imagine that whackos on both sides. Never seen that trend.

  • Chris||

    The mindless partisan creed:

    The side that doesn't agree with my position exactly mirrors the position of their most tin-foily-hat-nut jobs. It is my duty as a mindless partisan to identify them as such.

    While MY side is only represented by sane rational people, no whackos at all.

    If you mention my non-existent fringe whacked-out brethren, even if thier position is identical to mine, I will begin the creed agian, in case you missed the first paragraph.

    In the name of the [pick ONLY one group] (Maddow, Obama, and Barney Frank) (Bush, Cheney, and Sean Hannity). Amen.

  • ||

    men's rights activists have succeeded in "criminalizing false claims of domestic violence in custody cases"

    I've read enough of SugarFree's Feministing-type links to grok the standard feminist line of thinking, but this is totally nonsensical. There should be no repercussions for lying, as long as the purpose is to hurt someone with a penis?

    Using domestic violence as a bludgeon in gender wars is pretty fucking scummy.

  • Wicks Cherrycoke||

    It is now a standard tactic in divorce cases in NJ, in which the wife can get an immediate, temporary no-contact order simply by alleging that she is afraid of her husband, thereby removing the husband from the house and giving the wife an advantage in winning possession.

    And the truly sneaking wives will get the TRO, and then tell the husbands how much they regret having done what they did, begging the hubbyies to meet with her ... thereby tricking the husbands into violating the no-contact order, which is an offense leading to jail time.

  • JB||

    That calls for a beating in my book.

  • Kroneborge||

    +1

  • ||

    men who commit "acts of violence perceived to be in opposition to a feminist status quo"

    You mean like every single women's movie out there made since Thelma and Loise?

    Even in Glee a few weeks ago the black girl smashed the windshield of the gay boy because he didn't like her, and then sang a fucking song about how "strong" and brave she was for destroying property. Nothing ever happened to her, so it seems the writers there definitely think violence is ok when women commit it because they are angry at some man, even a gay man.

  • ||

    that was of course directed at the person being quoted.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    Reminds me of that Dixie Chick's song... What was it, "Earl"? About the woman who killed her husband because he abused her or something, and then everyone was so proud of her for murder. I had a bunch of girl friends at the time who thought that was a powerful anthem for girls... I was like... wtf... she murdered a guy!

  • BakedPenguin||

    "Goodbye Earl". Me First and the Gimme Gimmes do a cover version of it.

  • R||

    Yes, it's a horrible song, isn't it? If a guy beats his wife so that she needs hospitalization, it's no big deal and nothing should happen to him.

  • ||

    Apparently "R" is for Reduction ad Absurdum.

  • ||

    Bleh, snark is better when not typod.

  • ||

    I really question any guy who has to cry "men's rights!" and ask for protection from women.

  • skr||

    It's not so crazy to have to ask for protection from a woman. Not because they can take you or anything, but because if you do hit them back you go to jail. My GF has a friend that has had to put up with a lot of abuse because he doesn't want the woman to have any leverage in the custody disputes. But if he tells the court she gave him a black eye no one believes him or apparently cares.

  • ||

    But if he tells the court she gave him a black eye no one believes him or apparently cares.

    If some bitch gave me a black eye, there is no way in hell I'd let the court or anyone else even know about it to care. Perhaps if your friend knew a bit more about self defense the females wouldn't be such a threat.

  • ||

    Easy to say, but as soon as you put a hand on her you're going to jail. My cousin's first marriage was exactly what skr is describing. He weighs in at about 3 bills, so taking his ex-wife wasn't the issue. Spending time with Bubba wasn't worth hiting the bitch back.

  • BeesInTheBrain||

    I have to question any guy would not want their children raised in a violence free environment or who believes they could not be a viable and effective parent to their children.

  • ||

    Thank you for missing the point, Internet Tuff Gai. It is not specifically protection from women that is sought, but protection from the legal system rigged in women's favor by decades of politicians fishing for female votes.

    And of course, women are just as capable of harming men as vice versa. Not all harm is done with raw muscle power.

  • ||

    Riiight, just the same as Jesse and Al claiming that blacks are the victims of a legal system rigged in whites' favor.

    Victimhood comes in all shapes, colors, and (apparently) chromosome combo's. I suppose it's not any less satisfying for some.

  • MJ||

    There are plenty of men who were raised to believe it is dishonorable to strike a woman even in self-defense. Apparently there are some women who will exploit this moral standard if they have a chance.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    There are plenty of men who were raised to believe it is dishonorable to strike a woman even in self-defense.


    Where did they get this idea?

    The Taliban would think he is crazy.

  • ||

    That's how I was raised.

  • ||

    Well, I'm not one of those guys

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I really question any guy who has to cry "men's rights!" and ask for protection from women.


    It is not protection from women, but from the judges and police who side with them.

  • ||

    I'll tip my hat to that argument, but clearly many on here are arguing it's not fair that women beat up men. I've got little sympathy for that.

  • John Markley||

    Jacob,

    You're an utter piece of shit.

  • ||

    John, quit typing on here and get back to sucking cock. The adults are talking.

  • Mad Max||

    It's not about men v. women, it's about justice v. injustice.

    The men's rights movement protests against some real injustices, and their protests are needed.

    But the problem has many root causes, some of which have to do with deliberate public policies.

    There is the policy of unilateral divorce on demand, by which either spouse can dissolve a marriage and demand a share of the marital loot - a privilege which used to be limited to an innocent spouse who had been victimized by the other party's adultery, abuse or other misbehavior.

    But now, the misbehaving spouse can get a divorce from an innocent spouse, and the innocent spouse can be deprived of his *or her* spousal rights simply because the misbehaving spouse wants it that way.

    If the misbehaving spouse is the wife, the system will in many respects be on her side versus the innocent husband. He can be deprived of custody of his children, and then stripped of much of his wealth so that he can pay child-support for children he only gets to see on a very irregular basis. There's no need for proof that he actually did anything wrong vis-a-vis his wife or the kids.

    No amount of punishment for false child-abuse reports in divorce cases will cure this problem.

  • ||

    A marriage kept together solely by the difficulty of getting a divorce is not a good situation for anyone involved -- both spouses AND the children.

    So long as our culture and society cling to the backwards, outdated institution of marriage (and the pretense of permanence thereof) there has to be an out for both spouses. A look at what your typical marriage was like under the restrictive divorce regime of the past might just disabuse you of the notion that a legal system based on Catholic moral teaching is such a good idea.

  • Robert||

    Of course they should have an out, but on what terms?

    The problem with the old regime was that it limited the reasons for which a divorce could be granted. So they went to the opposite extreme and now you don't need an approved reason (good), but you don't have to buy your way out on terms that approximate "supply and demand" (bad).

  • ||

    Of course they should have an out, but on what terms?

    On any terms they choose. The problem isn't answered by more government intrusion into personal lives. The problem will be answered by not establishing artificial legal incentives and disincentives to getting married in the first place.

    Some people don't get married because they will get more entitlements.

    Some people do get married because they will get a tax break.

    I have a wild idea, people should get married because they want to get married, and/or because they want to raise children.

    Marriage is a reflection of morality not a cause of morality. That morality is distorted by legislative policy which makes marriage into a scam to milk the system one way or the other.

  • MJ||

    "So long as our culture and society cling to the backwards, outdated institution of marriage (and the pretense of permanence thereof) there has to be an out for both spouses."

    Exactly how is marriage "backwards and outdated"? The new standard of easy divorce or no marriage whatsoever is a social experiment that does not appear to be working out all that well for children or adults.

  • ||

    I think he meant "institution" in the sense of marriage as a legally protected class of contract, not in the sense of cultural institution.

    See my post above yours for more exposition.

  • Crilltog||

    What do Catholics have to do with it? Catholicism started about 300 years after Christ, so about 1700 years ago. But, the "outdated institution of marriage" goes back a lot farther than Catholics. The Chinese were getting married 1000 years before Christ. The Egyptians were getting married 3000 years before Christ.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Asa Barber used to write about this topic in his Men column in Playboy, mostly from the standpoint of "Dad's rights" in divorce. I have seen the effects of "The Man is Always Wrong" on an abused husband by social services. So, no, it's not always men vs women.

    ... Hobbit

  • Brian Sorgatz||

    Asa Barber used to write about this topic...

    Actually, his name was Asa Baber.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Actually, you're correct. I thought there was one extra letter in there when I typed it in!

    .. Hobbit

  • ||

    Both wrong.

    It's Asa Hair Stylist.

    We can't say Barber or Beautician any more, as it's sexist hate speech.

  • ||

    Damn that's funny.

  • ||

    While the consequences to women are more severe—they are twice as likely to report injuries

    This is hardly the smoking gun feminists think it is. Since women are as likely to initiate partner violence as men, what this actually measures is the fact that some men are able to reject their "never hit women" conditioning and retaliate for the abuse they're suffering. Unsurprisingly, women don't win that fight. Since our laws and culture deem retaliatory violence by men (and only men) as domestic violence rather than self-defense, these incidents get lumped into the domestic violence stats feminists are reporting.

  • MARY STACK||

    "Since women are as likely to initiate partner violence as men"
    ARE WE TALKING ABOUT PLANET EARTH OR THE PLANET YOU LIVE ON?

  • ||

    I have gotten hit by plenty of women...and last time i have hit a girl was in the 4th grade.

    I think it would be hard to find a man who has not been assaulted by a women.

    Most of it can be tallied up to the equivalence of being hit by an upset child. Girls tend not to hit hard. Still a swift kick to the nuts or a well leveraged choke hold does hurt even "men", and I have been on the reviving end of both.

  • MARY STACK||

    "I think it would be hard to find a man who has not been assaulted by a women" OK THAT SETTLES IT YOU LIVE IN THE land of Themyscira, Wonder Woman is a princess, ambassador and greatest warrior AND HAS BEEN SLAPPING YOU AROUND. OTHERWISE,I MUST NOT BE ON THE FUNDRAISERS LIST FOR THE BATTERED MENS SHELTERS.

  • Chris||

    Your excessive, and seemingly random, use of CAPS LOCK is extremely annoying.

    Less IS more.

  • ||

    Ha!!! I don't know any men who've been hit by a woman. Maybe Joshua Corning is just an a-hole who's asking for it. Wow, you've been kicked in the nuts AND put in a choke hold, too? WTF are you doing?

  • ||

    Ladies, seriously, if you meet anyone named Joshua Corning, run like hell.

  • ||

    Did you read the above article? Apparently not. The reason you think women don't initiate partner violence is because you, like most people, do not think of a woman's violence against her man as violence. A man slapping a woman is domestic violence, a woman slapping a man is either cute or righteous.

  • MARY STACK||

    The reason I think women don't initiate partner violence is because AS A RULE THEY DON'T. I HAVE NEVER SEEN IT EXCEPT FOR SOME TV SHOWS AND I THINK THEY ARE MORE PERFORMANCE THAN REALITY. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY WOMEN WHO SLAP MEN AROUND BUT I HAVE HEARD OF MEN WHO HIT WOMEN. THE FACT THAT YOU FIND VIOLENCE PREVENTION SITES THAT CATER TO WOMEN AND CHILDREN ONLY IS AN INDICATION THAT MALE ABUSE IS INFINITESIMAL

  • Super Nate||

    0
  • Super Nate||

    aww... my snarky tag didn't work that should have been an end-troll-feeding-tag.

  • JB||

    Are you keeping Osama company in his cave?

    If you haven't seen a woman hit a man, then you are either blind or live on the moon.

    I don't think I know any men who haven't been hit by a woman.

  • MARY STACK||

    AM I BEING PUNKED? I AM STARTING TO THINK THIS IS THE MIDDLE SCHOOL DIVISION OF REASON.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    WHY ARE YOU WRITING IN ALL CAPS!???? ARE YOU ANGRY ALL THE TIME!!? WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!?

    No seriously though... I've never met a guy who's not been hit by a girl multiple times in their lives. Me included.

  • ||

    Hahaha! I'm still laughing at Joshua Corning's similar assertion. What are you boys up to? I have never, ever come close to being hit by a woman, and none of friends have, either. Either you are dating trailer trash or you are doing something that is possibly not very nice to these women, Sean Malone. Leave. the. trailer. trash. alone.

  • ||

    Wow, nevermind, Malone. I just visited your website, and you're obviously a couple of tacos short of a #2 platter.

  • Zeb||

    Capital letters are for indicating useful information, such as proper names or the beginning of a sentence. They do not make people more sympathetic to your argument. And they do not make anyone seem like a rational and sensible person.

  • ||

    Your experience means nothing, just like mine and anyone else here. The only facts to use to judge are those gathered by researchers, and you can question their methodology.

    But just because it is your experience does not mean it does not happen.

  • ||

    CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

  • ||

    Women hit men way more than men hit women, because they can and men can't hit back. But calling it violence is technically true I don't know if it's relevant to the discussion. It's not "SLAPPING AROUND".

    Women just are not as often taught the sort of self control over violent impulses as men are because the results are rarely as dire.

    I've never hit a woman but I've been hit often. I usually just stare them down and ask them if this is really the path they want to go down.

    Course by now I've learned not to do the stuff that elicits that response;)

  • rightshu||

    Course by now I've learned not to do the stuff that elicits that response

    "If you didn't make me so mad, I wouldn't have to hit you."

  • ||

    Wow, all of these guys being hit and talking about it in such a tough way. A bunch of pussies. Faithkills, you're a puss, dude. Seriously, you seem way too into this subject.

  • ||

    I think Dr. Helen posted research about a year ago showing that in couples where both hit each other then the man is the one who is injured worse. Apparently women are injured much worse in couples where only the man is abusive.

    I suppose there might be some reason, such as if both are fighting the man isn't really an abuser trying to keep someone down, but just fighting like he'd fight someone else, and so he holds back because it's a woman? Just guessing. Where in the other case, where he is just abusive towards smaller and weaker people, there is nothing to hold him back.

  • ||

    Do you think media coverage in the U.S. is biased? We are looking for people interested in politics to take our Institutional Research Board approved study.

    Many people feel that the media can lead people in different ideological directions. We are Smith College students in a Senior Political Psychology Seminar and we want to invite you to take our survey. We are investigating the relationship between media coverage and political information. If you take our short, confidential survey you can choose to be entered into a raffle for a $50 gift certificate to Amazon.com. If you are interested, follow this link to Surveymonkey.com

    http://www.surveymonkey.com/s......lKxA_3d_3d

    Please help out two college students!

  • Michael Ejercito||

    (in fact, the California Court of Appeals ruled last year that state-funded domestic violence programs that refuse to provide service to abused men violate constitutional guarantees of equal protection, but also emphasized that the services need not be identical and coed shelters are not required).


    Ah, separate but equal.

  • anonymous||

    Like bathrooms.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Indeed.

    Our society is much more tolerant of separate but equal when it comes to gender. See the debate over the definition of marriage for one of many examples.

  • MARY STACK||

    CATHY,
    YOU LOST ME AT joint counseling to couples in which there is domestic violence IS A GOOD IDEA. THE ONLY COUNSELING THEY NEED IS TO GET THE FUCK OUT OF THERE. BTW, GTFOOT DOES NOT REQUIRE FEDERAL FUNDING

  • MNG||

    You might need some counseling with all that yelling.

  • ||

    its not her fault guys after all shes a feminist and shouting, whining, and complaining is what they do especially when the idea of mens rights comes up in an article.

    "gasp" men getting equal treatment under the law it cant be!!

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    Mary,

    You lost me when you STARTED SHOUTING!

    .. Hobbit

  • MARY STACK||

    I SWEAR DO PEOPLE ACTUALLY HEAR SHOUTING? WAIT, IS THIS SHOUTING VERBAL ABUSE?

  • ||

    I presume you are new to the internet.
    Caps lock is commonly interpreted as shouting online.

    You may have noticed that nobody else is using it.

  • MARY STACK||

    I KNOW BUT DON'T CARE. IT IS A CONVENIENCE THING FOR ME. I ALWAYS WONDERED WHO DECIDED THAT RULE. I GUESS SOMEBODY WITH 20/20. HMM, DOES SMALL PRINT SUGGEST WHISPERING?

  • tarran||

    I KNOW BUT DON'T CARE.

    Wow, you care enough to comment, but don't care enough to ensure that people actually read what you write?

    How... odd.

  • MARY STACK||

    "but don't care enough to ensure that people actually read what you write?" INTERESTING PREMISE BUT I READ WHAT I FIND ENGROSSING(I ASSUME OTHERS DO AS WELL). I WILL READ YOUR BLOG & IT MATTERS LITTLE TO ME IF YOU DON'T READ MINE.

  • juris imprudent||

    Trust me, if you write a blog in CAPSLOCK, there is no chance I'm going to even take a peek at it.

  • MARY STACK||

    TRUST ME,I KNOW YOU JUST DID.

  • wayne||

    Mary,

    Capital punishment is restricted to only the most egregious crimes. Please use it sparingly.

  • interested_male||

    if you can't read it change your screen or web browser resolution..stop being an ignorant MF and using caps lock.

  • MARY STACK||

    if I can't read it & change MY screen or web browser resolution.. I stop being an ignorant MF and BECOME AN LEARNED MF? IN THIS CASE, I WOULD ARGUE "IGNORANCE" IS AN ASSET.

  • Chris||

    Wait, I think if you look at Mary's post just right you can see a Schooner.

  • MARY STACK||

    WTF? I LOOKED THIS UP ON THE URBAN DICTIONARY: Introduced in the 1950s, Schooner is a popular Maritime lager. Unique ester properties from special lager yeast and a special blend of North American hops deliver a clean, smooth taste. Schooner beer was named after the famous sailing ship the Bluenose II & IT STILL DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. BTW, I HAVE BEEN ON THE Bluenose II.

  • ||

    That's because you are not supposed to keep your eyes out of focus, you are supposed to use deep focus.

  • Sean W. Malone||

    It's a sailboat. :P

  • jesse||

    I brought a lunch today and im not leaving until i see it.

  • ||

    No, she will never get this joke ;)

  • Sean W. Malone||

    I'm so in love with how completely oblivious Mary is to what we're talking about. It's made my fucking day. :)

  • MARY STACK||

    12 YEAR OLDS ARE ALL THE SAME. HAVE FUN SITTING AT THE KIDDIES TABLE.

  • ||

    You're desperately needed in the Lobster Girl thread, MARY.

  • juris imprudent||

    Tulpa, you are a demon from hell. Well played sir.

  • MNG||

    There seems to me to be some irony, often lost on many feminists imo, that many of the landmark cases in women's rights were cases dealing with discrimination against MEN (Craig v. Boren, Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan, etc). Historical gains for women have been realized when the importance of treating BOTH genders fairly and equally has been recognized...

  • ||

    Men,

    Wear condoms. Avoid marriage. Unless...

    She has behaved consistently well for a long period of dating, and so have you... her romantic interest level in you is very high and her attitude is good, particularly her attitude towards men and relationships in general... and so is yours. Otherwise, don't bother.

  • Edwin||

    Indeed...

    You have to be very careful picking a spouse nowadays.

    As a matter of fact I have serisously considered/do seriously consider a mail-order bride from some other country. Or more generally just marrying someone who wants to get into the country. The statistics show that these marriages actually fair better in aggregate than normal American marriages. And that actually kinda makes sense to me - you both come into it knowing that you are each going to be husband and wife, you know what roles you're going to fill; it's such a deliberate thing that all you can do is be the husband/wife to your spouse.

    I've also heard numerous people comment not to marry an American girl. This makes sense to me. It's American girls who are imbibed with the ridiculous one-sided feminism described in the article, that asserts that men and women are the same and that gender roles and differences are SOLELY social constructs (they're not), along with every other feel-good philosophical premise that you find in those stupid "heartwarming" emails idiots send to each other, you know, the kind of crap that would make Tyler Durden puke (e.g. "dance like nobody's watchin")
    But when you talk to women from other countries, they actually treat men like men and women like women.
    Don't know how true it is - but in my experience I have found it somewhat true so far.

    hell, maybe I should get an arranged marriage with some Indians. Hell, I'll convert to Hinduism if it'll save me from the life-shattering modern divorce where half my money will be taken from me, I'll never get to see my kids again, and I'll be branded an abuser on some government list for the rest of my life even if it's not true.

  • ||

    Back when my mom bought me a month's membership on eHarmony, I would start off every "question and answer" session with a question on the order of "How receptive are you to anal sex on the first date?"

    It was the perfect jerk filter, as I couldn't imagine any of the women who've driven me berserk in my life actually continuing to talk to me after that question.

    Alas, every woman I met on eHarmony also failed that test. Damn eHarmony.

  • Edwin||

    you just gave me quite a good laugh there!

  • MARY STACK||

    YOUR MOM SHOULD HAVE SIGNED YOU UP FOR HEHARMONY. I THINK YOU WOULD HAVE FOUND MORE "TAKERS"

  • ||

    Dear H&R web staff,

    MARY here is a good example of why I requested in-line, at-will filtering on the comment form.

  • MNG||

    Nooge
    Do you have to be such a pussy ALL the time? Scroll down if reading someone you don't like pains you so. Jeez. Posters like Mary are goofs but no reason for you to curl up into a fetal position and cry.

  • ||

    Actually I think Mary is an ex girlfriend of mine. She said the same things and shouted all the time. Her name wasn't Mary, but I suppose that is just a pseudonym.

  • ||

    Tulpa, your *mom* bought you an eHarmony membership? I might not admit that if I were you, lonely boy.

  • Mark||

    Your idea of "a mail-order bride from some other country" is likely to be an even worse choice. There are numerous reports of women in foreign countries being instructed in how to play the system before they come here. By the time she arrives in the U.S. and moves in with her "beloved", she knows exactly what magic words to say to the police. She moves in, waits a month or two, and then makes the false accusation that gets him thrown out of his house, and possibly jailed. She seizes control of all his property. He can't get any justice because of clauses added to the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Google "IMBRA". Also see http://www.csiinvestigations.v.....d101.html. And as for marrying someone from India, not only do they have the same (or worse) DV laws, but they also have anti-dowry-abuse laws that are being used to falsely accuse a man's entire family.

  • Mark||

    Your idea of "a mail-order bride from some other country" is likely to be an even worse choice. There are numerous reports of women in foreign countries being instructed in how to play the system before they come here. By the time she arrives in the U.S. and moves in with her "beloved", she knows exactly what magic words to say to the police. She moves in, waits a month or two, and then makes the false accusation that gets him thrown out of his house, and possibly jailed. She seizes control of all his property. He can't get any justice because of clauses added to the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Google "IMBRA". Also see http://www.csiinvestigations.v.....d101.html. And as for marrying someone from India, not only do they have the same (or worse) DV laws, but they also have anti-dowry-abuse laws that are being used to falsely accuse a man's entire family.

  • Mark||

    Your idea of "a mail-order bride from some other country" is likely to be an even worse choice. There are numerous reports of women in foreign countries being instructed in how to play the system before they come here. By the time she arrives in the U.S. and moves in with her "beloved", she knows exactly what magic words to say to the police. She moves in, waits a month or two, and then makes the false accusation that gets him thrown out of his house, and possibly jailed. She seizes control of all his property. He can't get any justice because of clauses added to the 2005 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Google "IMBRA". Also see http://www.csiinvestigations.v.....d101.html. And as for marrying someone from India, not only do they have the same (or worse) DV laws, but they also have anti-dowry-abuse laws that are being used to falsely accuse a man's entire family.

  • Mark||

    My browser hiccuped, and there are now three identical copies of this comment. Can this site's editor please delete all but one? Thanks.

  • Mark||

    The URL I posted doesn't work because it includes the period at the end of the sentence. Use this URL instead:

    http://www.csiinvestigations.v.....ud101.html

  • Edwin||

    of course I know marrying someone who wants to be in the country can be iffy. I'm just thinking it might work with the right (family) connections.

    I meant some Indian immigrants here.

    If anybody can be trusted I figure its them - and Asians. All both groups seem to do here is study, work hard, and raise successful families. You could call it a stereotype, but its what I've actually seen. Walk into any engineering department at a university nowadays and it immediately smells. lulz

  • ||

    Matt Welch got a mail-order bride, or at least a foreign one, right? If you ask me, she's a bit of a "fixer-upper." The "fix" being schnozz-reduction surgery. Chick's got a nose like a rubber hose!

  • Dear Mail-Order Brides, Inc.||

    "I said BIG HONKERS, not BIG HONKER!"

  • ||

    If someone starts a serious Men's Rights Movement I will be pissed.

  • Chris||

    I blame Hillary Swank.

  • ||

    And Milla Jovovich. Yes, they are very blameworthy and must be punished by spanking. Not in an abusive way, just in a firm way that they will never forget.

  • ||

    Feminism was a terrific deal for men, as the Disney comedy "Mary Poppins" brilliantly underscored.

    Few people were more miserable, in any time in human history, than industrial-age "masters of the house." Most of them slaved away from dusk until dawn in factories, mines, and (if they were lucky) stale offices... for the sake of homes they hardly ever dwelled in, wives who they rarely spoke to, and children who they could hardly even recognize.

    Between sexual liberation, women in the job market (which meant both dual incomes at home and female company in the workplace), and freedom from the expectations of what a man "must do" (many of my male friends our stay-at-home dads, with no stigma to it at all), life for the Western Civilization male has really never been better.

  • MNG||

    Bullocks. Freeing women up to pursue the same things a man can (having a career for example) was a good thing for women to.

  • SK2/SS||

    Let me tell you something, ten years active duty in the US Navy has taught me that any woman can be just as violent as any man! Maybe even more so.

    I got to say though, the best American wymen I've ever met (and loved) were all in service. They're well motivated and smart enough to join an organization that pays them to be educated, self-sufficient, in shape, and trained with firearms. Not to mention they have a insight into equality that can only come from doing push-ups until you puke right along with the humans next to you.

    Woman or man, straight or gay, regardless of color, creed or code, you feel pretty f***in' equal when you're pukin' up the same lunch with someone!

  • SK2/SS||

    In hindsight, maybe the real reason I prefer Military Gyrrls is because of the old Mutually Assured Destruction philosophy, couples who BOTH know who to murder, maim, and maraud seem to be more sensitive to each others needs.

  • ||

    Interesting. The same applies for martial arts couples.

  • jesse||

    I am going to raise the bullshit flag on this one. Every female I came across in the military was a bitch flat out, especially officers. They walked around like they were some kind of badass just because they got into the military. Well I am sorry to disappoint anyone who takes pride in there service but even a fucking retard can get into the military these days. That’s not to say that there aren’t some great warriors in our military but it isn’t anything like it used to be. Yes, one of the things you are to do while enlisted is stay in shape but that doesn’t mean everyone pts like they should. You go to any base (even marine bases) and you will find quite a few fat bodies walking around.

    If you think the civilian legal system is in favor of women then don’t even think about getting involved with a chick in the military. They do not require any evidence to get you thrown in the brig and busted down to pvt or discharged.

  • SK2/SS||

    Sorry 'bout that, I forgot to say this guide line applies to wymen enlisted (E5 and up) or warrants. Towards the latter part of my time in, I only dealt with the other girls (yes, I meant to say GIRLS) when I was bellowing obscenities about their life story and how they needed to unf*ck themselves ASAP.

    After tens years in, I can count maybe five officers I didn't feel the urge to float test and of that many, three of them were a lady I'd salute (with my HAND, you twisted animals).

    Then again, I was a submariner turned surface puke and had avoided dealing with the junior women service members until I was mid way up the rank structure. I had been trained to assume that their damage was due to being surface targets and not genetics or lack of hugs.

  • ||

    When i was in the navy, most of the E-women looked more like men

  • ||

    Which I bet turned you on. Guys in the navy like the feel of whiskers on their scrotum, don't they?

  • monk||

    NO MA'AM
    National Organization of Men Against Amazonian Masterhood

    Ahh T.V. memories

  • wangyan991||

    But as Contributing Editor Cathy Young writes, real feminism means equality for men, too.

    That's a cop-out. The term "Feminism" by itself precludes men's rights.

  • TheOtherSomeGuy||

    As a single father who faced untrue allegations of abuse in our custody hearing (where I won legal and physical custody), I am speaking from a position of "affected".

    So often the courts ignore the man, his rights as a father, and the scientific evidence that fathers who care do a better job at raising kids than mothers (but ONLY fathers who care. I dispise a deadbeat). Part of this is to streamline the custody process (where a disproportionate number of cases are decided in the woman's favor and deserve to be decided thus), but the effect of cutting down on the time and effort required by our legal system to resolve custody disputes has severely disadvantaged the men out there who truly do care and want to be a primary fixture in their children's lives, as a father should be.

    Good article.

  • Pierce Harlan||

    Feminism sadly has been transformed from a tool for social change to a rigid ideology to a cult where facts are not just brushed aside but denigrated if they interfere with the movement's victim metanarrative.

    My website is devoted to raising awareness about the taboo problem of false rape claims. We do not suggest in any way that rape is not a serious problem -- rape and false rape claims are entirely separate problems. Our mission is to raise awareness about the needs of the presumed innocent, who too often turn out to be falsely accused. Their reputations are too readily destroyed beyond repair by publicizing even far-fetched rape accusations against them (this reputational harm is far worse, qualitatively and quantitavely, for rape claims than any other criminal accusation); they are too readily jailed on even wild, unsubstantiated claims of a lone accuser, with bail set so high as to insure they will stay there until trial; and their false accusers are rarely punished in a manner commensurate with the harm they cause, thus providing no deterrent to other false accusers.

    Given the vitriol of feminist response to our site, one would think we are advocating legalizing rape. This only underscores that mainstream feminism is no longer about gender equity; it is a political lobby for a small class of women whose gynocentric world view leaves them no room to be concerned about any unfairness that strikes men or boys because they were born male.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I can't find it now, but several years ago there was a great article about how men in California are roped into paying child support for children they did not make, with women they'd never met - let alone had sex with.

    I think it was in Liberty magazine, but I haven't checked their online archives in a while.

    Add that kind of thing, though, to false rape and abuse claims (yes, sometimes they aren't really true), and the anti-male sentiment just gets worse and worse.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    I can't find it now, but several years ago there was a great article about how men in California are roped into paying child support for children they did not make, with women they'd never met - let alone had sex with.


    I remember reading about that.

    Amazing how our society managed to out-Taliban the Taliban.

  • The Libertarian Guy||

    I'm looking for the article I mentioned; in the meantime, check this out:

    http://libertyunbound.com/arch.....ction.html

  • ||

    I suppose coed shelters might be scary for women, but they might be good. Imagine if instead of a battered woman being reassured that all men are evil, she instead sees only HER man was evil, and here are others right in her group therapy that can be helpful. That might be good for victims.

    The only thing you need to do is make sure 2 people from the same couple don't both go. I guess it would have to be whoever shows up first.

  • ||

    Not many men would go to a shelter for a variety of reasons.

    Coed shelters would be the equivalent to and as effective as coed Pier One Import stores.

  • NeonCat||

    Last night on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon he and a woman, Blake Lively, had a bit where every year for Thanksgiving they would accidentally bring the same dish. She would then look exasperated and slap him. After several years of this he started to object.

    Why is it that men are expected to just stand there and take it? If the situation were reversed, if he had slapped her for having the same dish, it sure as hell wouldn't be considered a comedy bit.

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Last night on Late Night with Jimmy Fallon he and a woman, Blake Lively, had a bit where every year for Thanksgiving they would accidentally bring the same dish. She would then look exasperated and slap him. After several years of this he started to object.

    Why is it that men are expected to just stand there and take it? If the situation were reversed, if he had slapped her for having the same dish, it sure as hell wouldn't be considered a comedy bit.


    I am sure it would be considered a comedy bit by large portions of the Afghan population.

  • Barry Loberfeld||

    From Feminism: Selected Contentions:

    The shift from liberal individualism to Leftist collectivism is ... what has largely defined contemporary "feminism." Early feminism was so opposed to any sexual "stereotypes" that many worried the movement was committed to complete androgyny. (Remember the controversy over pink-or-blue for babies?) Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique was a clarion repudiation of gender collectivism, a call for sex, like race, to yield to content of character as the new standard of judgment. Appreciating this, Edith Efron, in her review, noted that Friedan "asks why the Nazi view of women [Kinder-Küche-Kirche] received such unanimous support from the 'thinkers' of America -- why it was so readily integrated into modern American culture." Efron answered: "Doctrines which deny mind, independence and individuality are magnetically attractive to Statist 'intellectuals' in all societies; [misogynistic sexism] was totally harmonious with the anti-reason, anti-individualism of modern American [Leftists]." ...

    Efron presented this as analysis, not prophecy, but the irony is very obvious in light of what was to come. In the 80s, the women's corps of the Left's "Statist 'intellectuals'" seized the term feminism (like civil rights) to label their own doctrines, which did indeed "deny mind, independence and individuality." "Feminism," in the hands of collectivists (who, again, need collectives), was deformed into an ideology that assigns gender the same function that class and race serve in Marxism and Hitlerism, respectively.

    Full article

  • Keith||

    This has always been a sore spot for me. Even more so when I was dealing with "custody" issues in a state that only recently made it a standard practice to allow a man visitation on Fathers Day.

    I had to seek help from a mens rights group just to have a slim chance at being a permenant fixture in my kids life instead of just an ATM for the mother. I saw many very good fathers there being screwed over through the system by deadbeat mothers. 

    Yes, men need activists to advocate for their rights too. It's become too popular and acceptable to blame everything on a man for being a man. 

    Turns out the kid wasn't even mine. Talking about false accusations. 

  • Michael Ejercito||

    Yes, men need activists to advocate for their rights too. It's become too popular and acceptable to blame everything on a man for being a man.


    I have heard and read that injustice breeds terrorism.

    Could these injustices breed terrorism or rape against women and girls?

  • Keith||

    My experiences throughout life with women who use and/or manipulate men have definitely spawned some level of bitterness towards women who behave or believe certain ways. Mostly actions or though processes that stem from double standards or a lack of integrity.

    I'm a non-violent person in general so it wouldn't ever get to the point of terrorism or rape. And I'm definitely not bitter towards women who live with integrity.

    I can't speak for people with more "extreme" personalities though. There's always a risk involved when you poke a lion with a stick over and over. That guy from Office Space comes to mind who only wanted his stapler.

  • No Name Guy||

    Well enough as far as it went Cathy.

    But cover the blatant discrimination WRT to custody, so called child support (a thin veil for alimony), visitation games that ex-wives get away with, etc.

    I read enough divorce decrees in my prior career (real estate title) to know that, basically, the male in a divorce is nothing more than a well of dollars to be pumped dry. That the soon to be ex husbands are presumed to be unfit fathers and only in the case where the soon to be ex wife is a complete druggie or smashed on wine all the time, he stands at best a 1 in 10 chance of gaining custody. That once said father is screwed, he, effectivly, has no more say in the upbringing of his children.

    One of the best screw jobs that guys get in divorce is the child support: here in Washington it's a formula that magically says that the cost of her raising the kids is determined by how much he makes. Oh, she's get's remarried? Nope....no impact on what ex-hubby has to pay. Ex-hubby gets remarried to a well earning professional? Oh yes, the new wife's income DOES matter and magically the 'support' bill goes up.

    And what's that thing called again....oh yes - implied (?) income. In short, you work a hell year of OT in a pressure cooker and the wife dumps you since you're obviously uncaring for working all those hours. The upside is that it's presumed you have that earning power and the alimony, uh, I mean child support, is based on that. Never mind that you might want to down size your career a bit to something a wee bit more sane and, you know, have a little time at home. Nope - the ONLY reason you'd do that is to screw the ex-wife's alimony, uh, that's child support.

    So, again Cathy...well enough as far as it went. There's plenty more for you to get to.

  • ||

    The divisiveness of mainstream ("middle-class white") feminism is exactly what has spurred emerging men's rights groups. And rightfully so.

    Although we as women like to believe that feminism encompasses both sexes, dichotomous historical feminist philosophy and literature suggests otherwise. The women's rights movements largely rested upon the proposition that woman were inherently equal to (or greater) than man. It was a struggle for WOMEN to gain equality in education, work, and social norms.

    Compare this to Womanism, which centers on the experience of African-American women. From its inception, black women have been concerned with race, class,gender... Womanism is centered on the BLACK COMMUNITY, not merely women's sole advancement. For example, the Civil Rights Movement acknowledged, to an extent, that race transcends gender lines when black men and women unitedly organized. Compare this to the face of the Women's (not gender) Rights Movement.

    Do you know which demographic has been most affected by this recession? Men. Men, in particular black men, have experienced the greatest layoffs.

    As a result, black women are disportionarely left as the head of households as they have a far greater probability of graduating high school, attending college, and attaining employment than black men. (Let's not even talk about black men's incarceration rates).

    Given that women far outnumber men in college (both black and whites), what is the future for men who will assist raising our children? Will there be black men to raise black children or will women of color have the heavy burden of single parenting?

    It is futile to have a feminist discussion without incorporating the plight of black men. We are one community.

  • 'Nother Thing||

    I remember reading an article a while back, I think it was by Stossel, but it said that according to the Association of American Colleges & Universities that black men were earning degrees at a rate one for every four black women.

    Now, take that bit of data concerning African American Male Youth and combine it with their incarceration rates and strong influence of rap/street/gang/prison culture. In one or two generations we're going to see a HUGE shift in the black community (hopefully for the better).

    We might already being seeing the start of this tidal wave as the past decade has already seen a big spike in the number of African American Women forming partnerships with other races.

  • ||

    "Will there be black men to raise black children or will owmen of color have the heavy burden of signle parenting?"
    I'm a single father, work 70 hours a week, do the housework, cooking, cleaning, and raise my children. I've heard this cry (100% of the time from single mothers) My question is what is so damn' hard about that? Men and Women, black, white or purple are all adults so stop crying about how hard it is and just do it.

  • Mike||

    I don't necessarily think that feminists need to agitate for greater rights for men. But if they are basing their philosophical arguments on notions of equality that should *not* fight them, but see them as partner movements working in different spheres.

  • CW||

    Is Cathy Young trying to be relevant again?

    “. They also have a record of making grotesquely exaggerated, thoroughly debunked claims about an epidemic of violence against women-for instance, that battering causes more hospital visits by women every year than car accidents, muggings, and cancer combined.”

    See, Cathy, back when you mattered, this was an issue. Yes there were urban legends, yes people thought in like 1994 that abuse happens more during football and that there was a “rule of thumb”. But guess what? Wife-beating was dismissed as “trifling violence” legally back then. Look it up. That was the point, not what it was called. But I think it’s bemusing how you dismiss the support of the likes of George Sodini among MRAs (check Darren Mack too) and whatnot for a myth that hasn’t mattered in 15 years. It IS a big deal when people support this, moron. Also that you on one hand say feminists lie, exaggerate (or did about 1 thing 15 years ago), and hate men, but on the other hand turn around and say feminists should put the needs of women aside for the menz. Why would you want a bunch of man-hating liars to do the work MRAs should be doing? It’s as if you’re deliberately overreaching the significance of such myths to drown out the actual, factual issues that feminism addresses with women to make feminism seem illegitimate unless it’s all about the menz! A cynical person may think you’re full of sh*t is all I’m saying…

    Like the way you put up straw arguments and after using examples from 15-20 years ago (while ignoring the underlying point that, yes, these issues effect women disproportionately) to dismiss feminism all together, but then turn around and spout out the much debunked crap MRAs spew out – which is why after being drawn into that I quickly got OUT. Like how they say women are more likely to abuse children yet any ham sandwich who understands statistics gets that since women are more likely to care for children it skews the statistics one way but when adjusted for proportion it’s made clear that men actually are. Or how they say a woman denying a man sex because she’s mad at him and, you know, doesn’t WANT sex is domestic abuse. But I’m glad to see you’ll dismiss whackos defending Sodini and Mack, not to mention convicted abusers being leaders in the movement (it wasn’t just the one example, but unfortunately the only one Joyce used), ignore the exaggerations and lies on part of MRAs, all because a couple myths perpetuated when I was 8 years old. Get with it, old lady. Oh – and I’m glad you support MRAs suing shelters that can’t house men (most give vouchers). There are legitimate reasons for that, never mind the fact that they turn away more women than they ever will men due to lack of room or resources, but as long as these guys can score points then who cares if all these victims have no where to go. Because at least they aren’t men, right? Right?

    Also-

    “For instance, he equates "a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs" or "a single act of female violence with years of male abuse." Yet these charges have been long refuted: Straus' studies measure the frequency of violence and specifically inquire about which partner initiated the physical violence.”

    That does not “refute” the criticism, you idiot. What would refute the criticism is if you’d said, “Straus’ studies take into account the actual act of violence committed and the context of the situation.” You’ve basically attempted to refute the criticism by repeating what is being criticized but in different words. Then you mention who ends up genuinely hurt (the woman) in passing then say the man does not escape “unscathed”. Well that’s terrible and it’s terrible that sometimes women abuse men. But the facts remain that men are more likely to abuse and kill female partners than the reverse (during and after the relationship) and that men under-report their violence against women and women OVER REPORT their violence against men. None of your verbal dancing around is going to change it. You know what is though? Feminism.

    But, I guess saying that things that affect women = ZOMG HATING MEN!

  • Edwin||

    woah, calm down, hoe!

  • John Markley||

    I went from reading to skimming reading after your second use of "the menz," the expression that is invariably brandished by feminists whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that harm done to men might actually matter. It's the same principle I generally follow when I run into screeds where "ZOG" and "14/88" keep popping up.

  • CW||

    "woah, calm down, hoe!"

    Uhp, he called me a gardening tool!

    '"the menz," the expression that is invariably brandished by feminists whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that harm done to men might actually matter.'

    No, you see it "brandished by feminists" when somebody has the arrogance to derail a topic about women and turn it into an issue about men or any variance of that. I understand Cathy Young and her ilk equate not throwing women on the backburner so that everything is about men all the time = hating teh menz (there it is again!) but it doesn't accurately portray the reality of the usage to suggest it's used at the mere suggestion harm done to men matters.

    So yes, everytime one of you come into a thread or respond otherwise to something about a woman who was gang-raped or beaten to death by her husband/boyfriend/ex with, "well what about FALSE ACCUSATIONS?! And men are beaten and raped too!", feminists actively know and discuss that patriarchy also hurts the ones you demand are first and foremost when it comes to every issue - men. Feminists just happen to also do evil, man-hatey things, like discuss issues that disproportionately to exclusively affect those non straight, white male beings (I know. Bitches.)

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp. I'm not concerned that Mr. Crumb will go to hell or anything crazy like that! It's just that he, like many types of religionists, seems to take it literally, take it straight...the Bible's books were not written by straight laced divinity students in 3 piece suits who white wash religious beliefs as if God made them with clothes on.

  • nfl premier jerseys||

    What you had mentioned is quite reasonable! Beautifully written article sir.

  • nike shox||

    is good

  • قبلة الوداع||

    THANK U

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement