Feminist Bloggers on the Warpath Against Me Again
November 8th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: Last month feminist bloggers Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Jeff Fecke of Shakespeare's Sister vehemently attacked me over comments about the domestic violence issue I had made in an interview. The interview was by Pajamas Media advice columnist Dr. Helen Smith and can be seen at Fighting for Men's Rights (Pajamas Media, 10/8/07), and if anybody can figure out what I said that was so offensive you're a hell of a lot smarter than I am. To learn more about that debate, click here.
Feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and his compatriot Melissa McEwan are on the warpath against me again. Jeff's new attack piece The Tune's the Same, Only the Words Have Changed criticizes my recent blog post Power & Control in the Domestic Violence Industry--a New DV Wheel. In that post I wrote:
"Many readers are familiar with the Duluth Wheel, a visual representation of the feminist view that domestic violence is perpetrated almost exclusively by men and is a function of the patriarchy and men's alleged patriarchal privileges. For three decades, research has shown that this model is faulty, that women are at least as likely to attack their male partners as vice versa, and that a significant percentage of injuries in heterosexual domestic violence are sustained by men. Research shows that women use weapons and the element of surprise to help balance the domestic scales...
"Recently an authority in the domestic violence field sent me and others this new Domestic Violence Wheel which 'visually represents some of the obstacles that reform-minded individuals such as yourselves have had to encounter over the years.'"
Jeff writes:
"Ah, Glenn Sacks. For a guy who says he thinks women should be free and equal, he sure spends a lot of time finding reasons that we should repeal all the domestic violence laws. Take his latest creation, the Domestic Violence Wheel, which documents the massive amount of power women have gained by having legal recourse to get out of bad situations.
"While reading through this little wheel of inanity, it occurred to me that I'd seen this sort of rhetoric before. The complaints about the mainstream ignoring them, anger that ideas had been hijacked. It was all so familiar. And then it hit me: I've seen the same words coming out of the mouths of the global warming deniers and the evolution deniers!
"I don't know what it is about denialists that leads them down the same path, but boy, they sure seem to find it...apart from their rhetoric, these three breeds of denialists all share another thing in common: they're all absolutely, 100% wrong."
A few points:
1) I realize that Fecke compares me to "global warming deniers and the evolution deniers" as a way of discrediting me, but the analogy seems rather attenuated. Worse, he doesn't factually contest what is asserted in the DV Wheel, but instead merely tells us it must be wrong because it's somehow like those who deny global warming and evolution. It's not much of an argument.
Some feminists have a bad habit of doing this--if you're against something a feminist group wants, it's like you're against women voting. If you say something positive about fathers' previous role in society, they say, "People used to think slavery was good."
(As an aside, I believe in evolution, and I think the preponderance of the evidence shows that global warming is real, too. However, I know nothing of science, so I rarely comment on such matters.)
2) Everybody makes mistakes, but Fecke's sloppiness seems to be more than an occasional thing. He calls the wheel "[Sacks'] latest creation," even though it's right there in my original post that the wheel was designed by "an authority in the domestic violence field." This authority currently prefers to remain anonymous, though that may change. I'd happily claim credit for the Wheel, but it isn't mine.
3) Fecke implies that when I and those who agree with me describe the domestic violence establishment as an "industry," we are considering it a "conspiracy." I don't believe the DV establishment is a conspiracy, but I do believe that it's an industry. This doesn't mean that I think the average DV shelter worker is getting rich any more than I think the average oil field roustabout is getting rich. But the domestic violence establishment (and, even more so, the child support enforcement establishment), often do behave like industries or government bureaucracies. They work to protect and expand their funding, they exaggerate and distort problems in order to justify keeping or increasing their funding, they lobby (officially or unofficially), and they work the media.
The DV industry, like most industries, certainly does some good but, like most industries, also does some harm. Society rightfully despises the wifebeater, but the specter of the wifebeater has been used to justify many destructive policies and civil liberties violations. I don't want to get rid of the domestic violence establishment--I want to reform it.
There's a good quote, by Lenin of all people, that the proper way to win a political debate is to counter your opponents' best arguments, not their worst. If Fecke and his friends are interested in countering myself and others who advocate reform in the domestic violence establishment, they'd do better to deal with our actual arguments, rather than painting spurious analogies between us and groups they consider extremist.
Fecke's full post can be seen here.
"));
19 queries. 0.411 seconds.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:47 am
That's laughable, comparing you to creationists and global warming deniers. The difference is, what Glenn says is SUPPORTED by fact, rather than against factual evidence.
This is knee-jerk at the most basic level. He doesn't even critique the statistics, probably because he knows he cannot, because they are correct.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:59 am
I don’t think you can appeal to reason in the case of people like Fecke. I think they are fully aware that they are distorting the truth, by attacking the man, or group, rather than the issue. I don’t think they care and neither do their supporters.
Hate filled revenge for past injustices, either real or imagined, is what motivates these people.
Kevin Merck
November 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
At this point this is laughable. I would think Glenn's DV wheel was a more creative way of visualizing forces involved, but it was also a comment on the Duluth wheel.
Why are both feminists surprised or bothered by Glenn spending "a lot" of time understanding and presenting men's issues? Haven't they spent last 40 years doing the same (except for women)?
On the other hand, I agree with them when they compare the global warming issues with Systematically perpretrated injustice (a.k.a. VAWA), in the way that the proponents of it ignore their sides weakness and scientific validity. Even with global warming, there is a debate if it is man-made (hmm.. person-made? kidding ...). However, feminist supporters of VAWA have to revert to an unrelated thing, since they cannot deny (but they try) the ill-effects and unconstitutionality of VAWA.
November 8th, 2007 at 12:41 pm
"(Male) feminist bloggers against me" = "Weakest kid in school has threatened to beat me up."
November 8th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
I realized what kind of person Jeff Fecke is when he uses the term "evolution deniers". That statement gives me a glimpse into his mind that he is a Godless heathen who probably believes that human beings have no soul and are merely "matter in motion". This view of humanity is the reason that fathers have no value or role in the feminist world other than their contribution of DNA to reproduction. The model of the family with a father, mother and children is one that was created by God and ordained by Him which is why feminists want to destroy it. They are haters of God and all that He created which is good and decent. If I believe in creation why is that a bad thing, or something that should be derided. If I'm descended from monkeys why are monkeys still here?
November 8th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
SOuthernDad,
I don't agree with you. I'm not religious at all, but I realize that according to statistics, kids do better with two parents than one. These people are not suspect because they deny religion. They are suspect because they deny hard statistics and data.
I think bringing religion into these arguments weakens our points. I think the stats speak for themselves.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Do they have conferences, trade magazines, lobbyists, specialized lawyers, specialized licensing?
Then it's an industry.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Though I dislike playing e-psychiatrist, from reading several of Fecke's posts, they guy has admitted a) he was rotten to his wife, b) she has been gracious in their separation wrt kids. He says this has turned him into a feminist. My e-psychiatrist read is that instead of looking at his own problems and how they caused his misery, he has instead blamed all men as a way to continue to shuck his personal responsibility. And then he makes the mistake of looking at his own settlement and deciding that if his is good then all must be good.
More substantially, they guy is a nitwit, and in anything I have ever read, he has yet to back up his vague generalizations and attacks with a single piece of evidence.
Because he spouts the party line, Melissa McEwan et. al., love the guy and feed his ego by telling him and eagerly they would bed him. For shizzle.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I just posted a comment on Jeff's page. Whether it will stay there or they will remove it . . . I don't know, but I will post what I written there here too.
Basically, I am getting sick of this. Feminist Movement/Men's Movement . . . soundslike someone needs to flush in order to clear the air . . . (I know, that is not funny.)
Below is what I've written on what I've written.
-------
"What I don't understand is . . . is why?
Why, do you say that MRA,FRA,MRM advocate domestic violence? Through out the years I've listened and read the feminist view and the MRM views.
To me, both sides have idiots, both feminists and MRA. And in my opinion, sometimes I see you making a fool of yourself and your own movement.
First you claimed that Glenn Sacks created the New DV Wheel, when he originally stated in his blog entry, you hyperlinked, that it came from someone in the DV Field. According to Glenn's entry "an authority in the domestic violence field." This authority currently prefers to remain anonymous. Main reason for this, is because of the flashback, members of the DV community when they voice out what they seen happen.
Also, I have not seen any where written, published (other than feminist sites) that MRA/MRM,FRA wanted to repeal all Domestic Violence Laws, but I have seen them constantly request that many of the laws and policies be reformed (NOT REMOVED). From what it sound to me, is that you are denying some truth about DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, only the truth that does not suit your purpose.
Which is what I think the problem is, no one is really willing to listen. Open-mindedly. Thing is many member of the MRA,MRM,FRA are also, or were at one point in time Pro-Feminist. Me, myself, I consider myself, Pro-Feminist/Men's Rights/Father's Rights. Both sides are trying to improve life for their sexes. Thing is, what we need to do is improve HUMAN LIFE and HUMAN RIGHTS. Men are not a separate species, and we are not too different from Women.
Do you know what I want to see?
A new entry from the Feminist Movement and the Men's Movement. Both stating, what is their movement about and what they believe the other movement is about. Then, place links or documented proof to show what they believe in is correct and how the other movement is incorrect or correct.
Then both parties could do a rebuttal, either acknowledging the other viewpoint or providing data and sources. I have seen reports written mainly on the feminist side where the author of the survey had admitted on leaving out details or ask leading questions to promote their viewpoint and visa-versa.
(I know, some of what I written may have not been the best choice of word, but I want both side to communicate and hopefully join together for the best of humankind. Because, I am only human. So let's stop this pissing contest and talk.)"
-------------
I know, I am not the most eloquent speaker . . . but I do speak from the heart. (Since the Pandragon incident, which sicken me, because of the numerous of personal attacks of many people, instead of being factual and honest.) I was thinking about asking several questions to both movements, and have them provide their viewpoint on both sides. Trying to create a dialog . . . an honest dialog. But with work, family, and everything else . . . I don't have the time . . . even though I did create a rough outline on what sections I would love to cover.
November 8th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
feminist's see logic, facts, statistics ..as men seeking power and control!!
....In an age of hysteria....facts, logics, studies and reason are a threats!!
george orwell....In an age of lies/ missinformation....The truth is revolutionary!!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
....Men that cannot/willnot protect their sons as well as their daughters deserve neither!!
November 8th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Feminist Bloggers on the Warpath Against Me Again, this Time over 'Power & Control in the Domestic Violence Industry--a New DV Wheel'
November 8th, 2007
(As an aside, I believe in evolution, and I think the preponderance of the evidence shows that global warming is real, too. However, I know nothing of science, so I rarely comment on such matters.)
There's a good quote, by Lenin of all people, that the proper way to win a political debate is to counter your opponents' best arguments, not their worst.
^^^
Exactly and this is another weak argument by Fecke, there very well maybe evolution and global warming but evolution does not in itself negate a supreme being (or prove it) nor does global warming prove that it is by mans hand (or disprove it) Current global warming for instance has been happening for over 18,000 years since the ice last ice age (what did man have to do with that 18,000 years ago). Yes it is not disputable that there is and exponential growth of carbon but as with many things in nature this is a typical pattern. A good example is a fire and its exponential growth. Once a process starts in nature it becomes its own catalyst and in the end spirals rapidly (whether or not we think that is distressing) there have been many glacial advances and retreats occurred in fact over 60 in the last 2 billion years, none at the hand of man. Perhaps we are not helping, but to be blunt we are nothing but a pimple on mother natures butt.
b
November 8th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
Pankaj Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Even with global warming, there is a debate if it is man-made (hmm.. person-made? kidding ...).
^^^
No, that was GREAT! It gave me a laugh, thanks.
b
November 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
SouthernDad,
This is slightly off topic and I want to preface this by saying that I respect all religious beliefs so long as they are motivated by a desire to benefit those around them. What I desire to address however is something you stated that is actually a common misconception regarding what evolution actually states. You said the following:
"If I'm descended from monkeys why are monkeys still here?"
Evolution does not actually declare that humans are descended from monkeys... instead it declares that humans and monkeys are descended from the same common ancestor at some point in our evolutionary history.
If we were to translate your question into a more recognizable form it will become clear what the misconception is. Consider the following statement:
"If I'm descended from my grandparents why are my cousins still here?"
The same way you and your cousin share a common ancestor (i.e. your grandparents) evolution claims that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor, so it should not be surprising that we are both still around... just as it should not be surprising if you and your cousins are around at the same time.
Hopefully that clarifies things, at the very least if you are not going to subscribe to evolution, I want you to know what it is you don't buy into.
Also, so far as scientists are concerned it isn't really a debate, evolution is on as solid ground as gravity in terms of observation... but religion is about faith, not about proof.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
I find it quite interesting that this individual must attack you in the fashion that he does and I also love how people continually have to go to "extremes" to try and prove a point.
Anyone who has followed you Glenn knows you're about reforming DV laws not about getting rid of them but yet these people continue to put words in your mouth and misquote you. It's impressive to see how people will try and reform statements to suit their prejudice of you.
Keep up the good fight Glenn, I wouldn't be on your site if I felt you were a hateful person towards women although some of the "responders" that's another story.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
....I'ts quite interesting meeting some men who just ooze of being broken and desperate!! These are the demographic of men who will easilly falselly accusse men/fathers/boys of anything....because they mistakenlly think it will bring them female attention!!
They are mistaken!!
The only thing desperate broken men will accomplish from their anti male tirades...Is It will further exacerbate The anti-male hysteria that is the leading cause why our boys are committing suicide at 5 times the rate of our girls...
And it's politically incorrect to mention this fact in academia!!
desperate men are not harmless eunechs!! They are in fact fueling anti-male hysteria!!
November 8th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Jason Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 1:59 pm
SouthernDad,
Evolution does not actually declare that humans are descended from monkeys... instead it declares that humans and monkeys are descended from the same common ancestor at some point in our evolutionary history.
///\\\ OT ALSO ///\\\
But, from the research and reading I have been doing, (I am red-headed and fair skinned) I am a descendent of Neanderthal (watch this info about us red heads will come out in a study that takes 5 years and $5 million, just remember where you heard it first, LOL). I am sure some of the feminists will have fun with that even though Neanderthals are the most misunderstood of the species.
b
November 8th, 2007 at 2:30 pm
I forgot to add, this guy is getting some great free advertisement for people to go to his site.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Feckless Fecke,
Does always peck,
At minds more clear,
Than his own wreck.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
I am sure some of the feminists will have fun with that even though Neanderthals are the most misunderstood of the species.
Sure Bernie, next you'll be telling us of the oppression you suffered at the hands of homo sapiens and the Sapienocracy.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Hummmm... A, A, B, A. nice.
November 8th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
jerry Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Sure Bernie, next you'll be telling us of the oppression you suffered at the hands of homo sapiens and the Sapienocracy.
^^^
YEP! . . . LOL
November 8th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I went to his site and I lost brain cells reading some of the "facts" he used. In one blog he called the Republican party and its ideals evil and tryed to say they were an evil that needed to be stopped. I find that in itself amazing because the democrats were responsible for 2 of the worst depressions in American History.
Imagine if you are old enough to think about 9/11 happening during the Carter administration. It boggles the mind.
Glenn its very simple....hes the type of ego-centrist who cannot exist without an audience. Melissa and others on that site feed his ego until hes simply a puffed up windbag regurgitating the radical feminist rethoric without substance.
He and others like him will go the way of the Dodo.....Gone and forgotten.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
"My e-psychiatrist read is that instead of looking at his own problems and how they caused his misery, he has instead blamed all men as a way to continue to shuck his personal responsibility. And then he makes the mistake of looking at his own settlement and deciding that if his is good then all must be good."
Yeah, ditto for the now-defunct Trish Wilson. She evidently married a guy who had a smooth relationship with his ex and his child and so smugly concludes that any man who is in a difficult situation must be making trouble and it's his own fault.
If by chance the ex had been a troublemaker you can bet it would have been a whole 'nother story.
November 8th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I’d just like to warn people that the following may contain spiritual content, which might not be considered “politically correct”, in the minds of some of the commentators.
Southern dad:
I agree with you to a certain extent. I think people who argue that an unborn child has no right to life, would make the same argument about anyone who stands in the way of their perceived “choices”.
They preach “tolerance” when it comes to their perceived “rights” and the rights of gay people; yet demonstrate intolerance and hate toward anyone who doesn’t believe in their version of reality.
I think some people claiming to be Christians are just as intolerant.
I’m sure you are familiar with these words:
Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you and persecute you. That you may be the children of God in Heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain upon the just and on the unjust.
The wisdom of these words is “self evident” whether you believe in evolution or not. I think the evolution vs. creation argument does more to keep people divided than any other aspect of spirtuality. (This is why Fecke used it) The truth is that better than 90% of Americans believe in a higher power and that is a far more important aspect. I don’t see how discussing spiritual matters, weakens anyone’s point, when spiritual concepts are so widely disseminated.
Maybe it’s just time people started practicing what they preach. I’m just as guilty sometimes. Some days are better than others. I think hate breeds more hate and love helps break down the barriers that keep us at odds.
I don’t hate people like Fecke, or think that they are some kind of "heathen", although I do think they need to be held responsible for their crimes. I just think he and his peers are driven by hate, and greed, which hinders their ability for reason.
Kevin Merck
November 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Frankly when someone fails to discredit your own arguments and statistics but instead takes the time to draw a correlation between you and a group whose credibility is questionable I think that mean they have no real grounds to dispute you and are resorting to cleverly hidden personal attacks.
If side A wants to discredit side B side A's own credibility is shot the moment they trying to compare side B to side C in hopes of getting people to think side B acts like side C. Side C has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
November 8th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
Danny, you're right, that is in fact, basically just an ad-hominem attack based on a claimed guilt by association that Fecke makes and that McEwan says is "spot on".
I posted the following over there, and reposted it here, because Melissa has demonstrated many times her eagerness to delete any comment she doesn't like and for any reason.
Jeff,
Can you tell me if you believe that are or can be pressures in academia to publish certain findings, to conduct research in certain "politically safe" areas, and not to publish other, harmful findings, or conduct research in "politically" sensitive areas?
If you believe such pressures can and do exist, can you explain why you are certain that Glenn Sacks and others fall into the arena with Global Warming and Evolution Deniers, and say, not into the arena with censored topics in geology, physics, biology, sociology, linguistics, or law?
If you don't believe such pressures can and do exist, what is your explanation for tenure? How do you describe books like this one, filled with descriptions of the literature regarding Academic Freedom and the many scholarly discussions and papers on the subject?
http://books.google.com/books? id...id=ItoS0uwUsCsC
And again, if you think academic pressures exist to suppress various researches, how and why do you place Sacks and other DV "dissenters" with Global Warming and Evolution deniers, and not with reputable scientists and sociologists?
jerry | 11.08.07 - 5:49 pm | http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/#912917
Jeff,
I am curious if you are a follower of "orthodox" Milton Friedman, Greg Mankiw, free trade economics, or a follower of heterodox Dani Rodrik, Fair Trade, Paul Krugman economics?
If you are a follower of heterodox economics, how do you reconcile the heterodox economists opinions that their research and findings are actively opposed by the mainstream orthodox?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/200.../20070611/ hayes
How and why do you group Glenn Sacks and DV "dissenters" with Global Warming Deniers, and not with heterodox economists?
And how do you reconcile Daphne Patai's research with your beliefs? Is Patai a crackpotted Evolution Denier? (And Erin Pizzey?)
jerry | 11.08.07 - 5:54 pm | http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/#912921
November 8th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Since Fecke has said that Glenn is in-league with wife-beaters and rapists, that would fall solidly into the category of "McCarthyite tactics" in which your opponent is a criminal.
November 8th, 2007 at 9:01 pm
I think that the three positions (creationism, global warming denialism, and DV reformism) are similar at first glance, in that they all rely on scientific evidence or supposed lack of it. However, they are not equal in their strength of evidence. Evolution is a theory based on over 150 years of evidence, much of which has been independently verified by more than one scientific discipline. There is virtual unanimity on the basic facts of evolution, with debates over some particulars. Anthropogenic global warming is supported by the scientific consensus as well, though a minority of legitimate scientists question its extent. The data that informs the consensus position on domestic violence, however, is widely different from that of other studies.
The social sciences are more fluid than meteorology and most of the scientific disciplines that support evolution. How you ask questions, define your variables and who you ask can have huge effects. In defining ideas such as complex as domestic violence, abuse, and defense the researcher has a lot of leeway; hence the existence of both "95% of abusers are men" and "women commit acts of domestic violence as much as men."
November 8th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
For five days now, I've been passing those little wheels out in front of my neighborhood courthouse. :-)
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h53/MRA_06/DVMonth2007/DVMonthNoExcuseForAbuse2b.jpg
I was just getting ready to get another hundred printed up. Now I'll make it two hundred. :-)
November 8th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Danny is exactly right on this. If Fecke can associate Glenn with another group that either lacks credibility or stirs controversy, then everyone can forget about what it is he's actually saying. It's like the magician with sleight of hand. Hey everybody! Forget about what really matters here and focus on arguing over Creationism vs. Evolution, or whether global warming is actually happening. It looks like his little ploy was pretty effective.
Whether you believe in God or not, whether you believe that we are descended from monkeys, or that we and monkeys are descended from a common ancestor, whether you believe that global warming is happening, whether you believe that alien spacecraft is really stored in Roswell... none of that matters in this forum. This forum is about a common belief that Men deserve to be treated with respect and dignity, that they deserve to be part of their children's lives, that they don't deserve to be falsely accused by vindictive women, that the deserve the rights every other person on the earth has demanded and been granted. Period.
Fecke can make everyone argue amongst themselves, or you can all choose to ignore his little temper tantrum and focus. I'm thinking focus is the best choice here.
November 8th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
i won't worry if i were you glen, just let then rant and rave, but they know they are full of crap
November 9th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Harq said: "How you ask questions, define your variables and who you ask can have huge effects. In defining ideas such as complex as domestic violence, abuse, and defense the researcher has a lot of leeway; hence the existence of both "95% of abusers are men" and "women commit acts of domestic violence as much as men.""
I have to respectuflly disagree with you on that one, Harq. The 95% figure does not come from any scientific methodology whatsoever. There is no current credible source supporting that figure at all. It comes from 15 year old crime data, and crime data only shows who reports the violent to police, or who considers it a crime in a crime survey. Today, crime data shows 25% of the victims are men, not 5%. ( www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/press/fvspr.htm )
There are hundreds of randomized DV surveys, using various methodologies, and virtuall all of them show men and women initiate domestic violence at about the same rates, and that men suffer about one-third of injuries, more or less. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
The only signification diversion from this consistency is where the randomized survey uses crime-based terminology. The more it uses crime-based terminology, the lower the percentage of male victims. Experts have explained that this is because males are less likely to respond to crime-based terms like "abuse" or "assault" than women are, but are instead more likely to respond if behavior-based terminology is used ("she punched me," "she tried to stab me with a knife," etc.) Where the terminology is not crime-based, it virtually always is about 50/50.
This can be illustrated by looking at the only three federally-funded national DV surveys.
One of them is totally crime based (National Crime Victimization Survey), conducted by the Department of Justice (a crime agency), and it always comes out the same as crime reports to police, currently 25% male.
The other is partly crime-based (National Violence Against Women Survey), co-sponsored by the Dept. of Justice (crime agency) and the Centers for Disease Control (non crime-based), and it shows 36% of victims are men.
Finally, the most reliable one is not crime-based at all (National Family Violence Survey), sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health (non crime-based), and it involved research from 1975 to 1991, with three different reports (1975, 1985, 1991), all of which repeatedly showed women initiate DV as often as men.
The 200 studies/analyses in the Fiebert bibliography (cited above) are consistent with the National Family Violence Survey, and they are non crime-based. Again, they use various methodologies, covering over 30 nations, rich and poor, with an aggregate sample size of about 200,000, and with numerous different researcher and different definitions of domestic violence. They essentially all come out the same.
Some of them even asked about context and self defense (Carado; Fieberty/Gonzales) and show that self -defense does not explain away the violence by either sex.
So I disagree that the 95% figure is somehow a product of methodology. It may be that social sciences are not as accurate or precise as hard sciences. But they are still sciences and have a degree of reliability. When hundreds of social science studies come out consistent, they can be very reliable, as is the case with the 50/50 DV studies. Harvard Medical School recently acknowledged this http://www.patienteducationcenter.org/aspx/HealthELibrary/PrintOnly.aspx?cid=M0907d&p=1
When people say 95% (and some still do), they are either lying, or they are ignorant and are citing what they were told or what they saw in a feminst-influence brochure, usually a DV service provider. Those brochures either cite a 15 year old Department of Justice (crime data) source, or no source at all, in which case sometimes the shelter person says "well that's what we see, 95% of them are women." Of course, because men don't have the outreach or referrals. And actually, about 10% of people seeking shelter services now are men, and it's growing. See page 14 at www.library.ca.gov/crb/02/16/02-016.pdf
Experts all over the world are increasingly recognizing this reality. See Professor Richard Gelles, "The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999, The Women's Quarterly, reprinted with permission at http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
See also:
http://www.ncfmla.org/dv_data.html
http://www.nfvlrc.org/
http://www.nfvlrc.org/pdf/2008-02-15-Conference.pdf
November 9th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Poor old Jeff.
He's fat, ugly and (by his own admission) a nasty bastard to live with. On the evidence of his writing he's none too bright and, to cap it all, he's a ging-er too.
Add a surname like Fecke, and his life must have been living hell at school. Just think what the playground bullies must have done with that - Feck-wit, Feckless, Mother-Fecker....
I almost feel sorry for him.
Then I remind myself that he's chosen to parrot the second-hand misandrist crap that Amanda and her ilk pedal, which just makes him a very very sad man. He's reduced himself to the role of organ-grinder's monkey and, like the said monkey, they feed him little scraps occasionally to keep him rattling their tin.
November 9th, 2007 at 5:24 am
That felt very cathartic - I can see why Jeff stays in the gutter all the time.
I'll try not to join him down there too often.
November 9th, 2007 at 6:51 am
It's the "then they fight you" stage :)
November 9th, 2007 at 8:33 am
..Raise awareness about mens/fathers rights!!
Tell a friend /coworker about an interesting dialogue thats taking place, and give him a few web addresses so he may educate himself!!
Donate a few bucks to glen, or the many other activist organizations...But make sure you see results from the orgainization...not just a smoke screen, and hot air!!
November 9th, 2007 at 8:36 am
Danny Says:
November 8th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
Frankly when someone fails to discredit your own arguments and statistics but instead takes the time to draw a correlation between you and a group whose credibility is questionable I think that mean they have no real grounds to dispute you and are resorting to cleverly hidden personal attacks.
If side A wants to discredit side B side A's own credibility is shot the moment they trying to compare side B to side C in hopes of getting people to think side B acts like side C. Side C has nothing to do with the topic at hand...
^^^
Side A, B, & C I am soooo confused!?!? LOL
b
November 9th, 2007 at 9:17 am
James Howard Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 5:22 am
Poor old Jeff.
He's fat, ugly and (by his own admission) a nasty bastard to live with. On the evidence of his writing he's none too bright and, to cap it all, he's a ging-er too.
^^^
Seriously, there are gingers on Glenn’s side like ME and I do not wish to be in any way associated or guilty by associated genetic pigmentation with Fecke.
b
November 9th, 2007 at 9:31 am
From Bernie Misiura:
"Side A, B, & C I am soooo confused!?!? LOL
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Would you believe me if I said that didn't sound so confusing when I typed it?
November 9th, 2007 at 9:38 am
It helps to drink while philosophizing . . . but I would NEVER do that . . .lol
b
November 9th, 2007 at 11:29 am
# Tony S Says: SOuthernDad,I don't agree with you. I'm not religious at all, but I realize that according to statistics, kids do better with two parents than one. These people are not suspect because they deny religion. They are suspect because they deny hard statistics and data.
I think bringing religion into these arguments weakens our points. I think the stats speak for themselves.
Thank you for posting this. I'm glad the first response to SouthernDad's post was calm and reasonable.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Guess what . . . After that one post I done yesterday . . . I was banned from making comments there (on Fecke's site). What did I say to get myself banned?
I was going to make another post, but I guess they don't want me to say anything . . . so, I will post what I was going to post there, here.
Here is the comment I was going to post but was unable to at http://www.haloscan.com/comments/amsmiles/8298919046479266582/ because I was banned.
This is getting sickening . . . and irritating at the same time. I know I am not the most eloquent writer, I put myself through college while raising three children (my siblings) and now I have one to raise on my own. I don't have the most reputable background . . . but I am willing to wager everyone has done something in their past that they are not completely proud of.
As I mentioned before I am for both the Feminist Movement and the Men's Movement. Both have similiar goals, the Men's Movement is more like the Feminist Movement when they just started. Most of you probably don't even remember, I know I don't but I studied, except the Feminist Movement also have a male support team who believed in equal rights for both sexes.
I don't know the number, but I believe from what I seen written and publish that 25-33% of the original feminists (WOMEN) have joined the Men's Movement. Why would they do that, unless they saw something corrupting the women's movement or the scales tilting over.
The problem is with attitude and lack of diplomatic communications. I posted earlier asking why the Feminist here believe that MRA/MRM/FRA want to advocate domestic violence . . . guess what . . . I GOT NO ANSWER . . . why . . . BECAUSE THERE IS NONE. As I stated MRA/MRM/FRA don't want to remove the laws (since it helped so many . . . even though it never help me and I was a victim and I am a male) but we want them reformed, modified, changed . . . to acknowledge male victims and punished those who committed those crimes. Male victims were not even acknowledged about in VAWA until 2007, and even that report was flawed. Hell, every study that has been done whether it is Pro-Feminist or Pro-Male has been flawed in one way or another. Why? Because we are human . . . with pride, ego . . . I am not talking about men but women too. We all want to be the victims, when in fact, sometimes the true victims are the ones being persecuted and the children themselves.
Which is why I asked for members of the Feminist Movement and the Men's Movement to post their issues. Put facts supporting your beliefs (Studies, Surveys, Research). Also for them to point out the Otherside Issues and Beliefs with your one supporting documents to prove your case. Then you can rebutt each other findings, trying to point out the individual flaws in the study . . . where it is lacking and then maybe together, both the Feminist and Men's Movement can create a study, survey, and research that would cover all the bases, so we will have a true study, and make adjustment to policy that way.
Think is, I had a bout with sexism yesterday, or shall I say last night. I went to ToyRUS with my family to buy a talking electronic cash register which was on sale. They have both blue and pink. Guess what happen, I couldn't find the blue register, found plenty of pink ones in a big display around other pink items. I tried asking about the other registers and they claimed they only carried the pink one, which was a lie, because my nephew had one, that my sister bought for him. When I told them that, they said they must have discontinued them. Why? No answer. I even asked if they could check in the system . . . of course they said they were too busy. So we went to look for again. I found some . . . above the regular racks, in the upper level . . . I saw one unit behind a bunch of pink units. I asked to female customer service if they can get that one down. They claim they didn't see it, but when I hit it with a small bean bag . . . they said no, claiming safety reason. Then I found the only boy in the store (I call him a boy because he looked 17-18, and before you call me a racist, he was white). He then told me, that he will be right back with a ladder. Within five minutes, we had the register. When I asked him if that was the only blue one there, he said no, there was about 25 units up there behind the pink registers. That is not all, when we went to pay . . . I scanned it on one of those scanner, it stated promo (for the advertisment). At the register, they didn't give me the sale price. I showed them the ad, same manufacture, same sku except for one number [if I remember correctly] (denoting color). There excuse was, we are doing a pink sale for the girls only, not the boys. If I wanted the hot pink one and not the gender neutral blue/grey, they will give me $5.00 off. I argued about it for a moment, told them I was going to write about it, paid for the one we wanted and left. I wrote about it . . . but this is not the only place I am going to write about it.
BTW, Ginmar . . . Feminists haven't proven MRAs are pro-abusers. So I wouldn't make that claim. As for a webpage . . . you don't advertise either. And watch the name calling, we try to teach our children manners, we should used them ourselves.
Whatever . . . stop it with the Nazi commentation. It doesn't help when you get into a verbal emotional confrontation with Feminists. Things need to be discussed logically and rationally.
Flewellyn, I already told both sides to put up or shut up, asking for both sides to identify their issues and beliefs, post links to studies, surveys, research, to support their ideal. Also for them to examine their opponents, and post links to support their beliefs in the same matter. Then both sides can discuss where is each study, survey, research is flawed. Point it out exactly where it is flawed, because to me . . . both sides have research, studies, and surveys that have fundamental methadological flaws. Which to me and non-sheep followers, both sides haven't proven their point and is full of it. Make me a believer.
I highly doubt either side will do this. Why, because both sides know I am right. No study is flawless, which is why both sides need to work together on those issues and create a better place for all humanity, or we will all go to hell.
'nuff said.
November 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
See, Lee: what risks you getting banned on those blogs is not being rude, obnoxious, and offensive, but rather politely persistent. If you're rude, they're more likely to leave that on there as an "example" of how male egalitarians behave. If you're simply making good points, it will make them look bad by comparison, and so "POOF!".
November 9th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
bmmg39 Says:
November 9th, 2007 at 1:24 pm
See, Lee: what risks you getting banned on those blogs is not being rude, obnoxious, and offensive, but rather politely persistent. If you're rude, they're more likely to leave that on there as an "example" of how male egalitarians behave. If you're simply making good points, it will make them look bad by comparison, and so "POOF!".
____
Yep been there done that on other sites, non MRA WRA and have been banned for asking people to stop attacking me and deal with he issue (proper debate decorum) and not to swear at me or call me names because I do not do that to them and I fully expect the same respect in return.
Being banned for that NEVER ceased to amaze me
One more point, I notice that this has happened (with me anyway) every time a woman would lambaste me, a male owned the site, and I would defend myself and point. . .things that make you say hummmm . .
Oh well their loss . . .
b
November 9th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
oh man!!!
the anti spam gobblin gets me again
one more try...
b
November 9th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
[...] Background: Last month feminist bloggers Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon and Jeff Fecke of Shakespeare's Sister vehemently attacked me over comments about the domestic violence issue I had made in an interview. Now feminist blogger Jeff Fecke and his compatriot Melissa McEwan are on the attack again, with Jeff's new piece The Tune's the Same, Only the Words Have Changed. My response was Feminist Bloggers on the Warpath Against Me Again, this Time over 'Power & Control in the Domest.... [...]
November 9th, 2007 at 3:47 pm
From Lee:
"Whatever . . . stop it with the Nazi commentation. It doesn't help when you get into a verbal emotional confrontation with Feminists. Things need to be discussed logically and rationally."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
About that I have to admit that I have used feminazi on more than one occasion but allow me to explain why. I use feminazi instead of feminist at times because I am pointing out a difference. A feminist will advocate women's rights and at the same time will at least engage in discussion/debate with those who have a different view. A feminazi on the other hand will advocate women's rights to point of thinking that their view cannot be wrong and will not take the time to even entertain the notion that a common ground can be found between the genders. However after thinking about a post I made (http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1386#comments) about trying to associate and someone with an entity that is percieved in a negative light I've had to come up with another way to describe such feminists and I've come up with "extreme minded feminists".
Point being a distinction must be made between the different feminsts so as not to lump them all together.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I tend to agree with jerry's e-psychoanalysis above. He starts off by saying without evidence that Glenn Sacks wants to "repeal all domestic violence laws".
What is Fecke's motivation for fabricating and distorting the views of others?
Fecke is trying to achieve what Bill Maher calls "making women nod". They're not going to give him any credit for it, though, unlike Oprah - he's a man! And telling women that "yes, we men _are_ pigs" isn't going to get him laid any time soon!
Since he is not advancing any sensible debate on the issue of DV, I'm surprised that we're even discussing the guy on this site. Advocates for change in the DV industry have more worthy and more powerful opponents who might at least be persuaded by rational, respectful argument. Let's work to change THEM and not bother with this idiot - he should be an embarrassment to most feminists.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Oh one more thing just for fun - if we were deranged enough to do it, we could use Fecke's own "logic" to make a better analogy between those feminists who deny and suppress information on:
anti-male bias in education, underfunding of male-specific healthcare, male suicide, disparate sentencing of males for crimes, real reasons for the gender wage gap, truth about domestic violence, etc.
WITH ...."HOLOCAUST DENIERS"!
Choose your stats right and you could probably come up with the same "6 million deaths" number, even.
Please nobody take this suggestion seriously!!!
(Also if you've ever been tempted to compare feminism with the Klan or the Nazis, now's the time to stop giving them ammunition against men's activists - you end up sounding as dumb to them as Fecke does to nearly everyone).
November 10th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Thanks for the info, Marc. There really is no excuse for me to be as uninformed as I am about the studies--it's not like there are a ton of them compared to studies about other social science topics.