Glenn Appears on PJTV (Video)
December 11th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I was a guest on PJTV's Dr. Helen Show yesterday. Dr. Helen, a forensic psychologist, has helped promote men's and fathers' issues via her blog.
To watch the show, click here or on the image above.
A couple of the questions Dr. Helen asked were:
Do you think men’s rights are a bipartisan issue? It seems that the left is so infiltrated with radical feminism to the exclusion of men and the right is so biased in terms of chivalry for women that it is hard to reach either group.
What do you think of ads like this one from JCPenney where men are put in the doghouse for giving their wives the wrong gift--a vacuum cleaner rather than a piece of jewelry. How does this affect men?
The segment before I came on was with syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin and blogger king Glenn Reynolds of www.Instapundit.com. Reynolds is in Knoxville, Tennessee but while watching Malkin I asked a few of the co-producers where she was based. They said they weren't sure--that because Malkin receives so much hate mail, etc., she's very secretive about her location. That's pretty sad.
"));
19 queries. 0.393 seconds.
December 11th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Very nice sir. Enjoyed it very much, and Dr. Helen is a stand-up soul worthy of praise as well!!!
December 11th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
That's what you sleep in!?
December 11th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Excellent. I'm especially glad Glenn clarified that the domestic violence victims who are men (that comprise the 1/3rd of all victims), are heterosexual. I had always wondered about that stat, i.e. whether the feminists could find fault with it.
December 11th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Norman...domestic violence victims are 50% of all the victims since domestic violence (DV) is about 50/50 across the genders.
Men are 33-38% of the seriously *physically* injured. This is ignoring emotional harm.
If you review this URL it shows about 250 academic references showing that DV is about 50/50 as well as the 33-38% seriously injured:
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
This one is searchable:
http://dvstats.org/
BTW this video shows Rape stats in an interesting way, and it contradicts the PC view that informs laws and law enforcement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RliMu2JxVr0
December 11th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Stan says,
"domestic violence victims are 50% of all the victims since domestic violence (DV) is about 50/50 across the genders.Men are 33-38% of the seriously *physically* injured. This is ignoring emotional harm."
I assume the link you give is Fiebert's list. I also assume you meant men are 50% of all the victims? I think what Glenn stated in the video is the figure MRA's generally go by, i.e. the "one third". I've heard other (not necessarily conflicting) claims which is maybe what you're gettng at..for example I even read somewhere that men suffer, according to proportion ,the same amount of injuries at all levels of seriousness.
Since it is known that men under-report, I think it's really hard to nail this down. As far as "emotional violence" I don't believe in it..it's a figment of someone's imagination. I believe one person can abuse another psychologically, but even that's problematic since it's too subjective, and too open to interpretation by the courts.
The law, and these stats, should be based on cold hard realities. The other stuff may count as something, but it is not violence.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Stan,
Thanks for linking to angry harry's video. I can't fault his math, but whether intended or not, I think he made some real clunker apples to oranges comparisons. Still, the implications of his math in the "best case scenario for feminists" is pretty interesting.
December 11th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Bravo!
This video approach is very effective. We as a movement need to learn the skills that have been used here. We need to get really good at this, and we need to do a lot of it.
Thank you Glenn and Helen!
December 11th, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Glenn, I thought that you did a spectacular job with Dr. Helen, but in my humble opinion you missed out on one major point: Another aspect regarding women's violence against men is the reality of women's violence by proxy. By this I'm referring to the common practice of women bringing the authorities, i.e, the police, into their conflicts with men via claims of domestic violence, abuse, rape, sexual harassment, etc. In this way, women are enabled to inflict direct harm against men without being personally involved, i.e., by using proxies, aka, 'hit men' to do their dirty work for them. I think we need to keep this in mind and include women's violence by proxy when calculating these sorts of 'balance sheets' vis-a-vis IPV in the context of debate.
Just my two cents worth.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Norman, it matters what you mean by domestic violence. Suppose person A punches person B several times. This is domestic violence but may not result in a serious injury.
Suppose person B hits person A with a heavy object and breaks their arm and two ribs. That would be a serious injury. Men get seriously injured or killed about 33-38% of the time. Women get seriously injured or killed about 62-67% of the time. Women tend to use weapons or surprise. Sometimes they attack when the man is asleep. You may have heard about men who have had their genitals cut off while asleep. Or that had gas poured on them and then lit on fire.
So on the 50/50 that means that about 1/2 the time a man attacks a woman. And about 1/2 the time a woman attacks a man.
It gets complicated. Since things can get mutual.
This is hard to go over in a live, uneditable post. But if you track down some of the references I've noticed you'll get the gist of it.
Most typical intimate relationships do not have domestic violence problems.
Most nice people do not realise ( I didn't) that DV can come from women too. That is the main point. Many folks think that all DV is coming from men. Or that if a man is attacked that this happens once every 500 years like I did before I was attacked. I also thought that the courts would sort this out in a fair manner when I was advised by counsel not to call the police after I was seriously attacked. I had to have surgery to repair damage from a high heel shoe attack. Then, when vulnerable from the meds and weak where the surgery took place (my right elbow...my arm was raised to cover my face, it was hit full force by the heel about 15 times, then I fell down some stairs. The stairs were a few steps from where I had been asleep. I was attacked when vulnerable (asleep) using a weapon. And then I could not call the Police or I'd be arrested (vulnerable, my exe knew this and taunted). And then attacked when on strong pain pills (vulnerable) and on the spot that was operated on and in pain (vulnerable).
By all means look at the stats and reports.
DV is a people issue and not a gender issue.
December 11th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Stan,
I'm sorry to hear about your experience. Speaking for myself, I would not go within 1000 yards of any woman in the current environment, leave alone get married or even have a girlfriend. Let me address your comment:
1)"it matters what you mean by domestic violence."
I agree, that's why I made the comment I did about the nonsense concept of "emotional violence". If something is going to be called "violence" for legal purposes, it needs to be based on objective reality, i.e. not encompass things like "financial violence" etc.
2) "Men get seriously injured or killed about 33-38% of the time. Women get seriously injured or killed about 62-67% of the time. Women tend to use weapons or surprise. "
I agree..like I said, 1/3rd of the victims.
3) "on the 50/50 that means that about 1/2 the time a man attacks a woman. And about 1/2 the time a woman attacks a man. "
I agree..I've seen many studies which show this (like Fiebert's 250 or so)
4) "It gets complicated. Since things can get mutual"
I agree.
5) "if you track down some of the references I've noticed you'll get the gist of it. "
see numbers 2 and 3 above.
6) "By all means look at the stats and reports"
Have been doing so for the last 5 years.
7) "DV is a people issue and not a gender issue"
I agree.
Stan, you do know I am an MRA, don't you? I mean, I'm not a feminist..I was hoping you'd picked up on that, mainly by virtue of the fact that I post here. I'm on your side!
December 11th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Stan,
another thing to mention is,
Warren Farrell actually believes that more women murder their husbands than men murder their wives. He has a very convincing argument for this - see "Myth of Male Power"
December 12th, 2008 at 12:41 am
Nothing to add really, but I just wanted to say nice work Glenn, and to Dr. Helen. It is refreshing to see figures in the media sympathetic to the MRA movement. Dr. Helen is a class act. Does she have a regular blog or website that she maintians? I'm not familiar with her. Thanks.
December 12th, 2008 at 12:43 am
I guess my question is where does she broadcast out of? I'm in Chicago and I'm not sure I can find her except on the internet. Thanks.
December 12th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Michelle Malkin's web site
December 12th, 2008 at 2:31 am
No Norman it's not 1/3+ men & 2/3 - women for the violence. That's the serious death or major injury violence. As in needing medical treatment above some amount. Yes those figures seem to be true and about right.
Lots of DV is not at that level (such as a trip to the emergency room / xrays / casts / operations / funerals) but is still physical domestic violence. That is the 50/50 by gender and is physical violence.
They are both true. There are many other yardsticks and many can coexist. Much depends on the definitions used.
You might also be referring to what VAWA calls domestic violence. As in you raise your voice over the phone or from the next room. Some consider that domestic violence. Or if there is a verbal argument and the neighbor calls the cops and they arrest the man since he has greater upper body strength even though no physical violence occured some call that domestic violence.
It takes some time to get the picture, it took me years. Just remember that most of the DV information you'll see on the sides of buses (like the DART ads) or on TV (except for guys like Glenn explaining it) tends to be very PC and agenda driven.
December 12th, 2008 at 3:25 am
Glenn,
Please don't feel sorry for Malkin. Her hands are not exactly clean when it comes to spouting hatred on fox news. I still remember that herself and O'Reilly first claimed that Cho Sueng Heui was on an Korean student on F1 visa trying to link him to the 9/11 style terror attacks during the early hours of the VT tragedy. No apologies issued for this misinformation after things were clarified - as if it did not matter.
Forget that just say the word "Islam" or "Democrat" and watch her hatred spew. Its not accidental that Fox news has her on - they love such hatred against muslims, even democrats. Not that I am sympathizer of either of them beyond a human level - but if you as blatantly spout hatred towards a people as Malkin does - don't be surprised if people hate you back.
December 12th, 2008 at 4:38 am
Glenn,
Thanks again for being a guest on my show. I just want to add that I agree with commenter Richard S. who says that the men's movement needs to use the video approach that PJTV has taken on and other alternative media to reach people and change the way our society thinks about men. The MSM has men and their advocates on occasionally but often does not let them talk, makes fun of them or misinterprets their message. The alternative media is a good way to start building an alliance of us who believe in true equality between the sexes, not just special privileges and rights for women.
December 12th, 2008 at 6:23 am
Honestly, I don't even watch TV anymore, I prefer non-fiction audio books and internet for passive relaxation. Damn, her webisite is agressively themed with anger using pics of guys as sign posts into her articles.
December 12th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Helen,
THANK YOU for giving Glenn the opportunity to speak.
All to often as you pointed out MSM simply doesn't seek out the viewpoints of men. I know with my local TV/Radio stations it's almost impossible to get "asked" about various issues. Funny thing is I've had MANY reporters (both print and media) say they would LOVE to speak to us but they aren't allowed to by the higher ups.
December 12th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
cdub - Dr. Helen is a class act. Does she have a regular blog or website that she maintians? I'm not familiar with her. Thanks.
http://drhelen.blogspot.com/
here you go.
January 2nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
I believe men's rights activists should distance themselves from Malkin. Our movement is not about hatred, Malkin is all about the hate. Take a look at her record. If David Dukes were to announce his support for mens rights, you wouldn't accept him with open arms would you? Just because someone says they're with us doesn't mean we should be with them.
quote: "Do you think men’s rights are a bipartisan issue?" /quote
yes it is a bipartisan issue. It is not a liberal or a conservative issue, it is a civil rights/gender issue.
I fall to the left on most things. I do not follow the misguided ideology of party over policy, as is often displayed by the extremist on the right and left. I pick and choose, I only throw my support behind things I feel are the right things to support. I don't support things because some political party says I should, or FOX news said so. Heck I don't even agree with some of the things other people in the mens rights movement do.
So yes mens rights is bipartician, but we do not need the support of haters like Malkin.