Columnist: Men's Rights' Activists Will Use New Report on Women's Domestic Violence in 'Poisonous Deceit'
May 29th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Research consistently shows that women are at least as likely as men to initiate and engage in domestic violence, and that a significant minority of the injuries sustained in domestic violence are suffered by heterosexual men. This research is increasingly coming to light, for a few reasons:
1) Dissident domestic violence experts have worked hard to stick to science and solid research methods in the face of tremendous pressure. Many of these attended the Sacramento Domestic Violence conference From Ideology to Inclusion: Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence in February. (Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, one of the speakers from that conference, is pictured above. To learn more, click here. Photo by Kevin Graft.)
2) The feminists' media stranglehold on gender issues has weakened somewhat.
3) Advocates for male victims of domestic violence have done fine and effective work.
4) As Shakespeare noted in The Merchant of Venice, "At the length truth will out."
When confronted with the unwelcome news that women are as much a part of family violence as men are, feminists use several evasion tactics. One is to claim that the data is faulty, though that has largely worn thin and has been replaced with claims that female violence is somehow "different," or more justified. That one is also starting to wear thin, too. (See Dr. Langhinrichsen-Rohling's views in 'Every time we tried to say that women's intimate partner abuse is different than men's, the evidence did not support it')
Another one--not new, but increasingly prominent--is to say that evidence of women's violence is being misused to promote a misogynist agenda. A subset of this latter argument is what I've described as the "Feminist Intentional Walk"--when feminists ignore credible men's advocates and instead quote some obscure loony in order to discredit all of us.
One example of this can be found in Janice Kennedy's recent Ottawa Citizen opinion column We can't help victims of violence if hatemongers hijack the agenda (5/25/08). Kennedy grapples with the fact that a recent study found that a significant amount of men are victims of domestic violence.
Kennedy could have quoted or cited any one of dozens of credible advocates on the subject, but since her intent was to stigmatize rather than edify, she reached way, way down and came up with an individual named Kirby Inwood. No, I'd never heard of him either, but his website features gems like this:
"I have consistently found women lawyers to generally be the scum of the earth."
"If you don't like what I say, you must be a blind, feminist bigot or a male collaborating white ribbon wimp."
Kennedy adds that Inwood was once convicted of "assault on his wife and infant son." (I don't know the details on the case, and it is possible it was one of those domestic violence railroad jobs.)
Anyway, in palming off Inwood's comments as somehow representative of men's activists, she writes, "There are many public purveyors of misogyny, but one colorfully venomous Canadian example sums them up. Kirby Inwood." She adds, "The 'men's rights' activists, are going to gobble [the new report] up and spit it out again in a malignancy of poisonous deceit."
So instead of quoting the many, many experts who have researched and quantified women's family violence, we're instead supposed to focus on this obscure loony. That's weak journalism on Kennedy's part, to say the least.
[Note: If you or someone you love is being abused, the Domestic Abuse Helpline for Men and Women provides crisis intervention and support services to victims of domestic violence and their families.]
"));
19 queries. 0.391 seconds.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Of course. Anything disparaging to women, true or not, is misogyny in their eyes.
The truth is not misogyny.
This is not a "gem" it is his personal opinion. Are we to say that the interactions HE has had with female lawyers were all wrong? He didn't say all female lawyers were scum, just the one's he's interacted with. I guess he's not allowed to have an opinion if it's not PC.
Journalism? It's hate speech. To hold one "bad" example as the stereotype for all is the classic definition of hate speech.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:11 am
Glenn, VERY well written. A landmark post.
Any suggestion that men are often victims of dv does not fit the feminist dv metanarrative, and I am always amazed, why? Why the gender divide on the part of feminists when it comes to domestic violence? Shouldn't the focus be on victims versus perpetrators, as opposed to men versus women?
May 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Demonspawn - don't you know that "the truth" is a patriarchal construct? Shame on you. You should embrace "other ways of knowing" and a woman's "lived experience" ;-)
May 29th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Feminists are also trying to divert the issue of DV to 'who gets hurt more.' Well, since men are generally bigger and stronger than women, generally-speaking in a physical altercation between a man and a woman the woman will likely get hurt more severely, at least physically, so this approach is a proxy for 'blame the man.' However, this is disingenuous because it relies on the fact that violence has already occurred and is inevitable. If we are truly interested in reducing or ending violence we have to work to avoid it in the first place, and that entails abandoning these sorts of lame attempts to blame men and address the source of interpartner violence in the first place, which includes at least as many women as it does men.
From what I see in the area of DV advocacy (among others), it's clear to me that feminists are not nearly as interested in actually ending violence as they are in blaming men. And so it goes.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am
...I have found that any criticiscm or disagreement with a politically privileged group is immediately labeled hate. It's a great way to silence all dissent in the Land of the Free...
May 29th, 2008 at 11:33 am
"As Shakespeare noted in The Merchant of Venice, 'At the length truth will out.' "
I think it was the philosophr Schopenhauer who said,
"All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed, then it is violently opposed, then it becomes accepted as self-evident."
I'd say we're well into stage 2 now, which at least is "progress" since stage 1.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Tim asks - "Why the gender divide on the part of feminists when it comes to domestic violence?"
Well, because the feminist explanation for domestic violence - that it is men's way of exerting "power and control" over women - is the lynchpin to the whole Evil Patriarchy argument.
Feminists believe that DV is a way to control women through fear and intimidation. That only a very few men commit violence against their partners is irrelevant. The feminists argue that it is the demonstrated potential for male aggression that keeps women cowed and submissive.
The need to prop up the evil patriarchy as the ONLY acceptible explanation for DV is also why feminists, through state licensing agencies, ensure that alternative explanations for intimate partner conflict cannot be proposed. It is not permitted to consider factors like relationship skills, substance abuse, family-of-origin history, mental health problems, situational stress (unemployment, divorce), or other known factors ackowledged by objective social scientists.
If the emerging dissident DV experts were able to reform and broaden the discourse about domestic violence, it would be the beginning of the end of feminist hegemony in the field. Worse, it would debunk the Evil Patriarchy mythology and the simplistic "women good - men bad" mentality that has impeded progress in DV prevention and treatment for going on three decades.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:44 am
I find the push-back from feminists to be extremely entertaining and telling. Feminists have been saying for years that "men and women are equal", "a woman can do a man's job", "gender is a social construct and not a biological fact", etc..etc...etc... So why is it any surprise to them that women can be just as violent as men? Why is this so damning to feminists? Didn't they realize that just as women can do all of the "good things" men do, there is nothing that says they can't do the "bad things" as well? Feminists should be parading in the streets and feeling vindicated in their belief that "gender is a social construct"...instead, they try to play down or explain away female violence as an aberration or excusable.
Just more proof that mainstream feminism is a hypocritical hate group bent on female supremacy (queue dramatic music).
May 29th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Yes, female-on-male domestic violence IS different, in that females are more likely to use means such as poison, or to have violence done for them by proxies. That doesn't make it any less a problem.
May 29th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I've struck men in anger. I've never struck a woman. But somehow I've been struck in anger more often by women than by men.
Anybody catch the Indy 500 with sugar and spice role model for girls Danica Patrick stalking down pit row looking to start a fight with the guy who collided with her in pit row?
http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/8177058/IRL's-most-marketable-driver-needs-attitude-adjustment
But of course a woman would NEVER hit a man. [/sarcasm]
May 29th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
Lewis,
thanks for the link. Did you notice where it says,
"Patrick was creeping toward the front, but it was clear that her No. 7 Andretti Green Racing machine simply didn't have the speed to battle with eventual winner and polesitter Scott Dixon and the other front-runners"?
Funny how if a man falls behind, they do not generally blame the car, unless there has been a catastrophic problem like if the engine blows up or something.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Glenn - you mention it in the blog entry, but it's a bit misleading to quote this moron of a columnist, and have a photo of Dr. Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling. People skimming the article might not catch the distinction. I might have made that assumption, but I recognaized the photo from an earlier blog entry.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
There IS an objectively verifiable truth out there. But the topic has become so embroiled in the gender-politicized dv milieu, where serious dialogue grounded in fact is displaced by vituperative rants and politically motivated misstatements of fact, that the reports from the feminist dv lobby are inherently untrustworthy.
The big hurdle before us is that many women are employed full-time in the victim industry:
In the dv cottage industry, their job is to promote the myth that only women are victims.
In the sexaul assault cottage industry, their job is to prove that women don't lie about rape (itself a lie) and that rape is rampant -- they tell us one-in-four college women are raped, even though only one in 1,000 or fewer actually report. But, they tell us, that's simply because there's so much "underreporting" in this area. And we know there's underreporting precisely because no one is reporting all these rapes that must be occurring, which proves rape is rampant. Get it? Oh, and most women who are raped don't even know they were raped -- we need the feminists to educate them. (Of course the "rapist" had to know he was raping, right?)
In the education cottage industry, their job now is to prove there is no "boy crisis" in our schools, even though there is. In 1992, they convinced everyone there was a girl crisis, and everybody nodded their heads. Now that that boys are FURTHER BEHIND than the girls were in 1992, they say, "Let's not talk about crises, let's talk about race instead." And they divert eveyone's attention to a topic that NOBODY disagrees with: there's a racial education divide.
After much thought about these issues I conclude that the only reasonable explanation for their dishonest and mindless advocacy of one gender over the other is that they truly hate men and boys. That may sound inane, but their advocacy strikes me as nothing short of psychotic.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Lewis,
Are you new to auto racing?
Tony Stewart has been penalized so many times for such actions that it's got to be coming soon to Saturday night live.
How about AJ Foyt Jr. (not AJ IV), he was probably one of the original "Bad Boys", or Dale Earnhadt Sr., ......
If I were Danika, and had some bone-head drive across multiple lanes like some idiopt in 5:00 traffic, I'd be fuming too, especially if I had been fighting an ill handling car for 3 hours prior to that, and managed only to hold ground (then again this year was a duel of maintaining momentum, no real dominant cars, so to win you had to minimize errors.
There comes a time in the sport where you have to at the very least put on the public face that you will fight (figuratively) for your position on the track, otherwise you will soon enough get run over (literally) by every other competitor, less so in open wheel, but none the less true.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Norman,
What the heck are you talking about?
Do you not watch auto racing?
Driver and team manager alike frequently admit that they didn't have the car or engine to catch the winner.
How about asking the question like "How many times has Mario Andretti, one of the best drivers around, won the 500?
How many times did Mario overdrive his equipment and fail to finish the race?
the 1st rule in racing is this, "To Finish 1st, first you must finish". I.E. don't abuse the equipment to the point that parts break before the finish line, and drive with your head, crashing out because you want to beat 15 other guys into the 1st turn of the 1st lap (a certain driver previously mentioned, named AJ comes to mind) is likely to put you out of the race very early, if you have to drive beyond the cars abilities, wait until the end of the race to do so.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
So where's Danica's fine?
Look, accidents happen has someone else pointed out when I criticised Ms. Patrick for hitting a crewperson in pit row. The guy maybe came out to far (and it wasn't across three lanes by any means) and maybe he was fighting for HIS position on the track or thought she'd be around him already. I have seen that particular type of accident more than once and I'm at best a casual race fan (usually most earnest in May.)
The point I'm speaking to is that it was right there on National television a WOMAN with a mind to go open a can of whoop ass. Yet we must hear spin that women don't play any part in domestic violence or violence of ANY sort.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
IIRC, a few weeks after the conference, in a comment here, I found that none of the major feminist bloggers had covered the conference in anyway. I have to get to work, but it would be useful I think for someone to see what reaction, if any, the dv conference got in the femisphere and compare that to its reaction in the mainstream media. I suspect crickets.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Sorry, for Danica hitting a crewperson with her car in pit row in the course of practice.
I did not mean to suggest that Danica maliciously ran over someone.
Back to the DV discussion.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Tim Murray said:
“After much thought about these issues I conclude that the only reasonable explanation for their dishonest and mindless advocacy of one gender over the other is that they truly hate men and boys.”
There is probably some truth to that but some are also “true believers” who have been duped by their “leaders” and by the propaganda their leaders have promulgated through the media into genuinely believing that the whole problem is caused by men. Finally, I am convinced that, like other industries that survive (and prosper) on PR, many of these people perpetuate the most emotive claims regardless of their veracity out of SELF-INTEREST. They have built an entire industry out of this, they don’t want the truth (or even a near facsimile thereof) undermining them in any way.
“. . . their advocacy strikes me as nothing short of psychotic.”
Profoundly, obsessively, irrational is probably a better diagnosis. Psychosis is a treatable condition – profound irrationality on the other hand isn’t.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
The neo-feminist victim demagoguery paradigm that has made made them the most priveledged group in the world (at the expense on men fathers/boys) is starting to have some breaches.
May 29th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Rober Kerr said,
"Driver and team manager alike frequently admit that they didn't have the car or engine to catch the winner"
I didn't say the team doesn't admit that. I'm of course talking about the media. They automatically blame some external factor besides the woman.
As someone said, "back to the DV discussion.."
May 29th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
The true Academics who have the integrity to stand their ground in the face of th overwhelming "group think herd hysteria" should all get publicly recognized for their bold academic integrity.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Exactly Norman, lets get back to DV, Danika's situation has less to do with DV than your typical sturday night bar "cat-fight between two girls fighting over the college jock. and you don't need to be a racing fan, or make personal attacks on a perfectly good (arguably much better) individual to make that comparison.
How many cat-fights take place every weekend over some guy, but then again you never hear about those when talking about DV being purely a purely male crime (and read DV laws, those cat-fights could well be classified DV, as there is generally some "relationship" between each of the women and the target of their attentions, beyond which, many of those fights do wind up at a hospital.
May 29th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Here's a cyber-hijacking for you...
Type www.menmatter.com into your browser. You'll get redirected to a site with the headline:
Online community making women's issues men's.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Of course that Kennedy chick would use any means, dirty trick or otherwise, to discredit an unfavorable part of a new study. In fact, if you look at her trick, it is ingenious: she starts off saying that the stats about men getting hit are valid and worthy of discourse (bad for her and the DV industry); but, (here’s the genius part) she says this alid part of the study will be co-opted by MRA crazies who hate women (good for her and the DV industry.) She, in one fell swoop, appeared sympathetic (can bad mouth DV victims, even those evil males) but she set up the idea that anyone who uses this study to make a point is a Kirby Inwood.
The interesting question is why she would launch a pre-emptive attack on the USE of the findings of this study? To answer this I must speculate on what the uses could be:
1) Women are perps as well a victims
2) DV might not only be about control
3) Women might try to control men through violence (is that still the fault of the evil Patriarchy?)
4) Having 98%+ of DV money going to women might not be a fair use of the money
There are probably more uses, but I am going to look at these four. I think each of these uses is dangerous to the feminist controlled DV industry, if not a complete affront to it. Use One flies in the face of the feminist DV paradigm: Men are perps, women victims; therefore: women good, men bad. It is not hard to estimate how challenging it would be for people in the DV industry to have to start saying something like “and the not insignificant amount of men that are vicitimized by the partners, male and female” during any policy, theory, etc discussion.
Use Two is quite damning. Everything the DV industry offers up starts with “DV is about controlling someone”, or, if they give up the pretense of equity, “DV is about a man controlling a woman.” Maybe women hit men to control them. But, perhaps, these women use violence as the expression of anger. (Not any more acceptable reason, but the idea of control is not implicit to this reason) Maybe the women are lashing out to fend off more emotional abuse? Or any other reasonable motivation. This Use is very troubling, because, to treat DV with such draconian measures it must come from a place of evil (white male privilege) and not from poor interpersonal skills.
Use Three is less damaging, but still presents a threat. If women control men through violence, then DV laws, that are predicated on men controlling women through violence; are way off base. Could anyone see a DA continuing a DV charge against a woman because her man was too terrified to leave and lacked the ability to leave? Or, would it be DV if a wife wouldn’t show her husband her paycheck, but instead gave him the portion she thought was reasonable? If women can be just as controlling (read: evil); then all these laws set up to protect these innocent women do make as much sense.
Use Four is the natural conclusion of finds like One, Two, and Three. If women are perps capable of bad behavior, the all of this money going to people how exist in, and perpetuate the DV Industry Men = Bad, Women = Good model are in trouble. The money would have to go to more balanced programs, and can these ‘true believers’ really be trusted to create a new system, more effective system?
In conclusion, Ms. Kennedy had to attack this report; and she did so in a eloquent, ingenious way. If she, and the Feminist/DV Industry, do not set frame of the debate about this study in the very manner that Ms. Kennedy; then they will be forced to start looking at questions that might tear the premise of model asunder. The threat to their model, and the benefits they have derived from getting their model accepted, is the reason for the attack.
I’ve rambled enough.
Later,
B
May 29th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
"Another one--not new, but increasingly prominent--is to say that evidence of women's violence is being misused to promote a misogynist agenda. "
That has to be the ultimate hypocritical statement, considering how the VAWA hate movement has used that law to destroy the lives of so many innocent men. Someone should put the founders of VAWA in a jail cell for a long, long time for the premeditated evil they have foisted on so many innocent men.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Greg:
Here's a cyber-hijacking for you...
Type www.menmatter.com into your browser. You'll get redirected to a site with the headline:
Online community making women's issues men's.
Well at least they got some things right. I found this in the right hand column of the About section.
"Traditional feminism can alienate men by promoting male hatred or women’s superiority, and is therefore antiquated."
May 29th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I love this one in her column. She does have potential, but then she pulls this one:
So she tries to make an apples to apples comparison (ie: violence of women vs violence of men), but instead so she can make herself feel better, she pulls an apples to oranges: violence done by women vs women KILLED by men. These are two completely different things. She is trying to imply that 29% somehow compares to 84% which it would if these two percentages were comparing the same thing! They are not considering the vast majority of DV victims are not killed by their spouses.
Out of curiosity, does anyone happen to have the percentage of women who experienced physical or emotional violence over their lifetimes? It would be good of us to email Janice and her editor this important tidbit and school the poor journalist on how to properly make comparisons. My guess is the number is far closer to 29% then it is to 84%!
I'm trying to download the original paper since I'm sure that Reid does make that comparison, but I am not having a lot of luck. Thanks!
May 29th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
It sounds to me like many women are worried about being hoisted upon their own petard. They have invested so much into their rhetoric over the last generation that they now are running into the feminist version of double speak. In the end they have no choice but to deny the reality. Shades of 1984.
You have to ask yourself if they are truly fighting domestic violence or if they are simply advocating for female gender racism.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
People with an agenda don't want to see the truth.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
If we're ever going to solve all this hostility between genders, women are going to have to acknowledge (without hesitation) that men are also victims of violence not just from other men, but women as well.
This columnist can dance around the evidence all she wants, but constantly sweeping violence against men under the rug will only impede any progress in gender equility. Claiming women are perfect, fragile beings incapable of nefarious acts and victims of male oppression/violence, is disengious.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Big B,
Good points.
As a follow up to point 4, by sharing resourses equally I am sure you also mean more balanced regarding the police, courts and prison system. When women start getting arrested and sentenced for what they are doing they will sharing more equally in a system they pushed and advocated for. This is why the double speak is so necessary.
"All animals are equal. Pigs are more equal than others".
We are also living in a world where because these "truisms" go unchallenged, it allows the radical feminists to behave in a way they would not (even if they wished to) if they were in the spotlight. I am sure there are racist judges and cops, but because we do not tolerate racism as a society it is much harder for openly racist people to occupy positions of power. The same could be said for radical feminists. This is of course why research like this is so dangerous to so many people.
May 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
John Boy: I love the Orwell reference.
Later,
B
May 29th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
With the economy taking a crap, wait until these entitlement princesses start not getting their way. I will make a prediction; female violence against men is going to rise sharply. The difference will be noticable.
May 29th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
BigB said: "3) Women might try to control men through violence (is that still the fault of the evil Patriarchy?)"
================================
The first time I saw the Duluth Wheel of Power and Control I started cracking up. It described soooooo many women I know! My sisters, my wife, my wife's sisters . . . Just do a gender flip
"Has she ever made you feel guilty about the children?"
"Has she ever used the children to relay messages?"
"Has she ever put you down?"
"Does she play mind games?"
"Does she define which tasks around the house are yours?"
"Does she use jealousy to justify her actions?"
"Does she try to control what you do, who you see, and where you go?"
"Does she make light of her abusive behavior and not take your concerns seriously?"
"Does she say the abuse did not happen?"
"Does she shift responsibility for her abusive behavior, saying that you caused it?"
Oooooooooh nooooooooooo! Never! OK, I gotta stop. My ribs still hurt from laughing so hard at the AAUW's recent self-parody.
But my favorite entry on The Wheel, for the shear stupidity, is: "Has he ever threatened to take the children away?" Right. Like that'd be a credible threat for a man to make to a mother.
May 29th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.
"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like.
"As some feminists say, it's counter-intuitive. We would not expect that to be true; and if things are not expected to be true, for some people they are not true."
http://www.franks.org/fr01060.htm
I guess the main point is that some women are not very comfortable about being confronted with aspects of female behaviour that they wish did not exist, perhaps because they see aspects of that behaviour within themselves.
So it is, of no surprise that certain women will try their best to shift the focus, because being confronted means that they will have to examine and accept responsibility for their own destructive behaviour.
May 29th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
"The first time I saw the Duluth Wheel of Power and Control I started cracking up. It described soooooo many women I know! My sisters, my wife, my wife's sisters . . . Just do a gender flip "
The key is that when women engage in those types of behaviour listed, it is not considered abuse, but is instead accepted matter of fact-ly - not just by feminists but by everyone. 99.9% of husbands would, if interviewed, not count that stuff as abuse, but instead would laugh it off.
May 30th, 2008 at 3:35 am
“There are many public purveyors of misogyny, but one colourfully venomous Canadian example sums them up.”
That’s funny, there are many, yet she gives us only one. Either this woman is lazy, or he was the only real jerk she could find.
“We can speak up for the principle of equality before the law (which, yup, even Militant Feminists cherish)”
Which is why militant feminists never attack the idea of shared custody or paper abortions for men.
“Janice Kennedy's column appears here on Sundays.”
You mean it takes a whole week to write such waffle? Or perhaps she writes it on Saturday night, when she’s nice and sloshed, then staggers into the office, hands it to the editor, throws up on his rug, and passes out on the couch.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:04 am
My Name is Earl:
So it is, of no surprise that certain women will try their best to shift the focus, because being confronted means that they will have to examine and accept responsibility for their own destructive behaviour.
A woman (that follows the ways for feminism) examine and accept responsibility? Anyone that thinks that will happen must be smoking that good stuff.
Serenity Now:
But my favorite entry on The Wheel, for the shear stupidity, is: "Has he ever threatened to take the children away?" Right. Like that'd be a credible threat for a man to make to a mother.
The place a father could possibly pull that off against a mother would be in the upper class of society. And even then it would be difficult. That is a matter of class, not gender. I'm really getting sick of people trying to turn issues of class, race, religion, etc. into gender issues so they can build up their "progressive" street cred. If they really wanted to be progressive they would just address the issue instead of trying to figure out how they can turn it into their own.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Classic feminist mis-direction. If you notice they NEVER argue issues on merit but on emotion. Usually by attacking the presenter of the information and applying a label (ie Gardner was a pedophile) to them.
Sadly we as a group must acknowledge the brilliance of their plan. It works almost every time and has for 30 years. They have no need to deviate from the plan just change the point of attack. Why? BECAUSE WE FALL FOR IT EVERYTIME. Instead of remaining calm as a group one of us just "goes off" and then becomes the spokesman for ALL men..... Seen it played out in legislative meetings over and over. Seen it played out in hearings, and commission fact findings over and over. It only takes ONE of us to "go off" and we are done.
IT's all a Public Relations game and the only way to change it is to stay calm, state the facts and when THEY Go off just keep silent.
May 30th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Because emotion is more powerful than reason. Feminists know and respect that.
May 30th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
"DCR Says:
May 30th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Classic feminist mis-direction. If you notice they NEVER argue issues on merit but on emotion. Usually by attacking the presenter of the information and applying a label (ie Gardner was a pedophile) to them.
Sadly we as a group must acknowledge the brilliance of their plan. It works almost every time and has for 30 years..."
I 1/2 agree, the thing is we now have the internet, that is the big difference they might be able to take over TV, radio, newspapers, three dying outdated man-bashing mediums, but if they try to stop free speach on the web this will fail.
If women don't want us fine, we should withdraw our support and stop feeding
the machine that devours us.TV off, radio off, newspapers or mags that bash men or women cancel your subscription. Hit them where it hurt$.Less in more....
Females - canceled due to lack of male interest.
May 30th, 2008 at 10:52 pm
I think that sometimes, feminists and others purposely mix the words "abuse" and "violence" together when presenting or discussing an issue. The goal seems to be to create a momentary state of confusion within the reader's or listener's mind, so that he/she will be more gullible when the "slam dunk" hits..that is, the moment at which the manipulation and biasing of the reader's mind culminates in him/her getting a totally false impression, and subsequently accepting it as fact.
If you guys think I'm paranoid or am "over-analyzing", please refer to the book "Legalizing Misandry" about how ideological feminists manipulate language. They are geniuses at it.
May 31st, 2008 at 9:55 am
Feminists often accuse their critics of basing their criticisms on what the most extreme feminists argue, instead of the mainstream.
Yet when it comes to critiquing MRAs, they are happy to find the most extreme loony and cite them as representative of most men's rights views.
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:43 am
I can honestly say that I have never used physical violence against any woman. I can also honestly say that I have been assaulted by the women in my life. Once, after I was assaulted, my then girlfriend called the police and told them that there was a stranger in her house who was assaulting her. The police came very quickly, and she demanded that I be thrown in jail. Fortunately, they quickly figured out that I lived there, and that she was lying. Even so, though I was not arrested, I had to leave the home at 2:00 in the morning and find somewhere else to stay for the night. When I came home the next day, the girlfriend acted as if the previous night never occurred and wanted to go on with our day together. I packed my things and moved out.
June 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 am
Everyone who may be thinking of putting Hillary into the oval office may want to remember that Bill Clinton brought about VAWA in 1994, and also was responsible for it's renewal in 2000. I wonder what further acts against men would come about if Hillary's elected.
Following is what Wikipedia says about VAWA under Bill Clinton's term in the White House.
Violence Against Women Act
Title IV, the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), allocated $1.6 billion to help prevent and investigate violence against women. (VAWA was renewed in 2000 and in 2005.)This includes:
The Safe Streets for Women Act, which increases federal penalties for repeat sex offenders and also requires mandatory restitution for the medical and legal costs of sex crimes.
The Safe Homes for Women Act increases federal grants for battered women's shelters, creates a national domestic violence hotline, and orders that protection orders of one state must be enforced by the other states. It also added a rape shield law to the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Part of VAWA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in United States v. Morrison (2000).
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:18 am
Many years ago I spoke with Kirby Inwood. If I remember correctly he got tired of beating his head against a patronising and insulting family support system. If I remember correctly he had married an immigrant who as soon as she bacame a citizen disappered with his child. He recieved no help in trying to locate the child. Hence his hatred.
August 7th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
To correct John R, Ms. Sidorova did not disappear with Mr. Inwood's child but rather sent the child to live with her mother in Russia after Mr. Inwood was convicted of assault on her and his infant son. Mr. Inwood applied to the courts for access but I believe he was denied. Inwood has always used this as a rallying cry for his Men's Rights propaganda stance.