If I were a man right now I would be spewing. Contrary to the popular stereotype of feminists I am not a man-hater. I know a great number of really wonderful men, some of whom are regular readers of this blog (a big shout-out to my uncle Ian who reads every day). I am a feminist first because I believe in women, but I am also a feminist because I believe in men. I believe in the ability and power of men to play a supportive role in the fight for equality for women. I believe in men and I believe that men can do better.
Men can do better than 1 in 3 women being victims of sexual assault, 1 in 5 being the victims of domestic violence. Men can do better than tooting their horns as they drive by, they can do better than name calling and harassment, they can do better than turning their anger and pain into violence that they inflict upon their families, their partners and children.
As I say that I remind you all that I know a lot of men do do better. I know men who stop their friends from making jokes at the expense of the bruised and battered bodies of women at the hands of their partners. I know boys who don’t think that ‘rape’ is a term that should become a part of their vernacular. They don’t believe the intrusion and violation of a woman who did nothing to deserve it is comparable to a difficult exam or losing a game. These men take the White Ribbon Pledge, they speak to their friends and they stand up against violence against women. These men are good men, they deserve better.
These are the men who understand that the pursuit of equality is not something to be afraid of, it doesn’t present a threat to them. They don’t need to speak about men’s rights, they already have them, they speak about the rights of women and the rights of our society to strive for better.
Last week an organisation called ‘A voice for men’ postered Monash and Deakin university in the South East Suburbs of Melbourne, their most prominent poster was one which said ‘Domestic Violence: Women are Half the Problem’. They claim to stand up for the rights of men and represent their views. If these jokers were claiming to represent my rights, and the views of my gender I would be spewing.
First and foremost, I would like to point out that the posters have no basis in fact, women are not ‘half of the problem’ of domestic violence. That statement has no statistical nor anecdotal evidence behind it. This is not to say that men are not victims of domestic violence, there are some that are, just as men are victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. However, instances of women’s violence against men are much rarer and have not got the same cultural beliefs at their core.
Violence against women occurs because of gender inequality. Men who perpetrate violence against women do it because they believe that women have some intrinsic lesser value than men. Violence against women is rarely about the violence itself, just as rape is almost never about sex, violence against women is an expression of power.
I suppose one of the greatest injustices in equating ‘men’s rights’ with domestic violence, is the knowledge that for this group the rights of men will always be synonymous with the violent oppression of women; which is a far greater indictment upon the gender than I would ever pass.
Since the posters went up women have been speaking out against the attitudes and lies that lie within them. The women who have spoken are being harassed by those who stand for this group, the personal facebook addresses and department facebook addresses are being attacked.
So I suppose I want this blog post to act as a rallying call to any men out there. If you believe these men do not speak for you then don’t let them, stand up for your own voice and the rights of those women around you.
NUS Women's Department 
Crazy! Don’t forget they are racist! They try to compare the protection of women and children from abusive husbands and fathers to the forcible removal of children from indigenous families during the stolen generation.
I think it represents the worst of how men are socialised in our society. No capacity for self-reflexion, no desire to understand other people’s attitudes – just hard certainty that they are right and they deserve what ever they can get. Then they do what ever it takes to get what they want.
Interesting.I guess http://www.avoiceformen.com if the URL in the photo?
Question what about the protest? Any progress as yet?
“First and foremost, I would like to point out that the posters have no basis in fact, women are not ‘half of the problem’ of domestic violence.”
Perhaps you may revise this statement after reading some of the extensive research on Domestic violence not just the feminist filtered view you have been indoctrinated with.
Start with the 1in3 campaign , http://www.oneinthree.com.au , contact them and talk to them, Greg their cheif researcher is very apporachable.
You could also read this article detailing the extensive data confirming gender symmetry in the perpetration of partner violence : http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf indeed there are now over 200 peer reviewed papers finding gender symmetery in domestic violence dating back to the early 1980’s.
Women are half the problem, and DV is a relationship problem not a gender problem, Lesbian relationships have a higher rate of IPV then Hetero or male homosexual realtionships.
Asking for equal rights is always a reasonable thing, however there seems to be a caveat applicable to this depending on your placement in history.
* If you are black and it is 1950 in America.
* If you are Jewish in Germany in the first part of the 20th century.
* If you are a Protestant in England in Tudor times.
* If you are a Christian in Rome 2 thousand years ago.
Rights of an equal nature are best served to those that filter through the genetic mesh weaved by those “correct” for their times.
Are you seeing a pattern here? You know, men with their genes and all that?
The very idea that your assertion, if one asks for equal rights for men then they are ‘against’ women is as narrow minded and elitist to the extreme.
I must respond to one of your points. If you are receptive to reasoned discussion perhaps we may exchange ideas.
This is the 1st thing I feel I must respond to, “First and foremost, I would like to point out that the posters have no basis in fact, women are not ‘half of the problem’ of domestic violence. That statement has no statistical nor anecdotal evidence behind it. This is not to say that men are not victims of domestic violence, there are some that are, just as men are victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. However, instances of women’s violence against men are much rarer and have not got the same cultural beliefs at their core. ”
Well, I’d like you to examine this:
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?iid=2113&ty=pbdetail
95% of adult staff sexually abusive juveniles in custody are women. Women do not make up 95% of juvenile correction staff. Therefore, in this case it seems that women may be more prone to perpetrating sexual abuse than most people are even comfortable considering.
And if you look here:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm
“An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.”
It seems that women DO infact abuse intimate partners at roughly equal rates as men.
Violence does not seem to be a gender issue so much as it is a violence issue. Other studies show lesbian relationships experience higher incidence of IPV than either hetero or gay male relationships.
There are horrid, evil women, there are horrid evil men. But, the reality is being born one sex or the other has absolutely ZERO effect in predicting predisposition to family violence. A better indicator is the family life the person witnessed growing up.
Okay, I lied I have to address this also, “Violence against women occurs because of gender inequality.”
How so? And, what about violence against men, by other men or by women? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. This is grasping at straws.
Violence is committed by immature people of either sex with poor social skills, often with a rather narcissistic outlook where their wants outweigh anothers right to , you know not have their teeth knocked out. That is why they are criminals.
The sex of the victim rarely enters as a thought into the head of a violent criminal, not getting their way or not liking what is said does.
“I believe in the ability and power of men to play a supportive role in the fight for equality for women”
Well, you sort of gave yourself away in the first paragraph there, didn’t you?
Apparently ‘equality’, from a feminist point of view, does not include equality for men, which makes your little rant here completely biased against men, which again makes me wonder, if all the ‘good men’ you claim to know are aware that you feel this way about their situation.
When you look at the number of male shelters, compared to women’s, there’s some very good reasons to start adressing this issue.
The posters does not in any way blame the victims of male upon female DV, but clearly just states that women are a part of the problem too, and that needs to be adressed.
You wouldn’t put out a fire by hosing water on the south and north wall of a buliding only, and you don’t solve the problem with DV by adressing male on female violence only.
It is really that simple, and the fact that feminists like yourself are unable to see this, only goes to show how little they basically care about mens situation, as long as women can keep playing their victim-card exclusively.
The stats clearly show that women are the perpetrators and initiators of DV in a large percentage of the cases, and in cases of violence against boys they are in the majority.
So when you claim that there is no stats backing this information up, you are basically lying to your readers, and I think your readers deserve that you, first and foremost, make them aware of that fact befor you continue.
Also,’cultural beliefs’ means nothing in the real world, and are in the vast majority distortions of facts, based on emotional responses and not much else, and as such they have no validity.
It is however a well known fact that children learn violence from their primal nuturer, so very likely we are discussing a question about reaping as you have sown here.
And it’s time that women start waking up to that fact.
the MRM is NOT a hateful movement. that would be feminism
Hey MRM, I would love to find out how your hate and scare campaign will make this world a better place?
I would hope compassion and empathy for others is a part of your plans for ‘world domination.’
I’m glad I have more respect for my fellow human beings because I don’t have vindictive motives.
Well, obviously this is only a step. How about you visit http://avoiceformen.com and find out for yourself how we are making the world a better place! I find plenty of compassion and empathy for others on the site, in the articles, in the videos. They care about people going through false accusations, divorce courts, misandry, etc. etc. etc. just take your pick!
Hate campaign? How in the world would you interpret it like that? Where is the hate exactly? Prove it….
Remember.. men’s rights are human’s rights too. And here you are saying we don’t have respect…
You are hilarious, you know that?
Paul Elam definitely put you up to this.
Nobody tells me how to run my life. That’s the beauty of it.
Which hate and scare campaign are you referring to? Please explain.
Let me also recommend http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights, which always downvotes comments that express malice towards women as a whole. They discuss matters pertaining to men’s rights and antifeminism extensively. It’s really nice and moderate; I’m sure a lot of people would love it there.
I don’t understand why there is a debate of this nature going on. Why are you making this a battle of the sexes thing? Domestic violence is bad full stop. Domestic violence against women is bad, domestic violence against men is bad.
I took a peek at the 1in3 campaign website, and you posters ‘women are half the problem’ were immediately proven false. Women are not half the problem, but one third. You talk about statistics and yet you couldn’t work that out.
My question is, if you weren’t misogynistic, why would you be making this argument? This is not women vs. men or vice versa! Different situations harbour different intentions. While NUS is talking about women, the statement ‘domestic violence happens because of gender inequality’ is rather accurate, IN REGARDS TO SOME OR EVEN MOST WOMEN IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS. If women were truly equal, then how come only 1 in 3 men as opposed to 2 in 3 women suffer from domestic violence?
I don’t think NUS is ignoring men in domestic violence situations. I think they are saying that your attitude in regards to how you go about promoting your cause is wrong and sexist. You’re making this a sexist argument, when really you’re both batting for the same team. The reasons why men are abused are probably quite different to why women are abused, and I can image both sexes suffer this abuse because of their gender, for different reasons.
My point is, if you weren’t misogynistic, you wouldn’t have a hate campaign you would have an educational campaign. You focus a lot on women when you’re standing for a men’s issue. Why? My answer would be, because you are misogynistic and therefore sexist. You’re the perpetrators of the battle you’re trying to fight. I suggest you change your attitude, because it’s doing nothing for your cause. Your cause is worthwhile and it deserves better execution.
You start out hopeful and then just say what the author of this piece says in a more tactful way.
These men ARE NOT hate mongers as all of you are only too willing to paint them. They’re PEOPLE that are sick of being blamed for anything and everything. Women are not more deserving of the benefit of the doubt or more deserving of sympathy.
The point of the posters is to get the word out that there is a problem. How many people were even aware of this problem before this vs. how many are now? They’ve been a great success in my opinion since it’s opened discussion about it. If you pay attention, then you’ll see that a unteneable situation has been reached. The problem as I see it is that women want equal rights AND chivalry. Now how can you be equal WITH special treatment and protections? This ends with a situation where women are more equal and it clearly shows in real life. As a woman, I’m all too aware that this situation exists. I’ve personally known the women I’ve encountered in my life to be okay with male abuse since there is an attitude that is so pervasive that he must be at fault because his sex makes him auto-guilty. Ever hear anyone refute it when someone says ‘Men are pigs’? I’ve personally known women that said ‘Yeah, he pissed me off so I’m going to lie and send him to jail.’ The legal system is a popular weapon these days. Justice weaponized is what’s being railed against here not women themselves. I, personally, consider feminists to be victims of their own system.
As for your research that women commit ONLY 1/3 of DV? If you want to discuss social expectation men are not as likely as women to report. There is the impetus to MAN UP…not to mention the outright mockery when they are victims. Then there are the people that assume he PROVOKED her somehow and that he had it coming. These are real life problems that are trying to be addressed.
“The reasons why men are abused are probably quite different to why women are abused”
This is the most disturbing part of what you wrote. What are these reasons? That men abuse for evil reasons and women abuse for righteous reasons? The reasons for abuse are going to be universal and this highlights why this discussion needs to happen more than anything else I’ve seen lately.
I am not painting ‘these men as mongers’! Do not put words in my mouth! I was saying that these men have a worthwhile cause that is EQUALLY AS WORTHWILE as women in domestic violence situations, but they are going about it the wrong way. Where, yes, these posters have raised discussion in the issue, there is a much more moral way to go about creating a similar effect.
I am a woman and I want equal rights and I despise chivalry. Despise it. I have got in the habit of holding doors open for people, both make and female. You are seriously misguided if you think all women want the same thing, let alone that. We are people. That’s as sexist as saying all black people in America play basketball is racist.
Why you put these words in my mouth, darling? I never even implied that the different reasons for women and men to abused we rightous or not. I meant that general gender stereotypes can both work for and against an individual of either sex . For example, a man may hit a woman because he has been culturally bred to think this is okay. This is not his problem in the long run, it’s a cultural issue. There may be other reasons as well, such as he has a highly stressful life and feels this is the only way to release his emotion, perhaps another cultural issue. While a woman MAY participate in violence because she feels
Ownerless and that is a way she can gain power or feel powerful. Who knows, potentially she could be expressing her anger on her relative oppression in general society. Do not act as if you are the moral one and I am not. This is not black and white, there should be no sides to this story. This is not moral vs immoral, this is simply a discussion on We are both working for the same goal, don’t you see? We’re basically saying the same things. I know men and women deserve equal sympathy, thats why I said that at the beginning. I don’t women to have special treatment or any more consideration than a man in a violent situation.
About the 1 in 3 thing, that was actually the name of the campaign. Yeah, sure, some men wouldn’t report, but I don’t think it’s up to you to decide if Merge men would re
Ort than women. How would you know? Also, the legal system has always been powerful – that’s kind of why it exists.
What I was saying was, if you weren’t misogynistic, which you are, the focus wouldn’t be in your anger towards women, it would be on the needs of men. You wouldn’t be attacking women as you are here, you would be promoting the men’s issue in its own right… Who cares about women when your talking about a men’s issue? ‘women are half the problem’ creates anger and simply oozes your own anger towards women… It makes the reader just feel angry towards women without reaching any long term goal. Don’t just make people angry, that will only reach your short term goals and will end up doing more harm than good as it creates a women vs men thing in people’s minds, further segregating the two groups. I FULLY SUPPORT YOUR CAUSE! Stop jumping down my throat!
Powerless*
To izzysays:
–I am not painting ‘these men as mongers’! Do not put words in my mouth!
Excuse me?–
Um, funny. Last I checked, the definitions of “sexist”, and “misogynist” do not describe a person who exactly LOVES women…am I right? And I counted up to 7 times that you referred to these MRA activists as sexist and misogynist in your post. Said number actually surprised me. Upon initially finishing the post, I would have been certain that the amount was double of what I later counted.
Never accused them of hate-mongering, huh? When does a rad feminist have much to offer up BESIDE describing their opponents as womyn-hayting, paytriarkal oppryssors?
–I was saying that these men have a worthwhile cause that is EQUALLY AS WORTHWILE as women in domestic violence situations, but they are going about it the wrong way.–
Yep and the first way they’re obviously going about it ”wrong”, is by simply speaking up about male victims. No? I hope you’re not even thinking of me telling me no, since what I described is precisely what these MRAs did. They explicitly pointed out exactly what feminists explicitly try to hide: that women can be aggressors and men can be victims.
Tell me, did the MRAs at any point state that women were the whole problem, or even MOST of the problem with DV? You wouldn’t be able to cite a shred of evidence showing this to be the case. So what was it then, that MRAs went about doing ‘all wrong’, if it was NOT simply bringing to light the existence of male victims and female aggressors?
–yes, these posters have raised discussion in the issue, there is a much more moral way to go about creating a similar effect.–
Yes, nevermind the constant sloganeering from feminist campaigns which explicitly cast men as the SOLE aggressors of domestic violence. Such gems as “MEN must oppose violence against women”, “MEN hitting women is wrong” are certainly addressing the situation in an objective and moral manner that MRAs could learn from.
–I am a woman and I want equal rights and I despise chivalry. Despise it.–
Of course you can say you “despise it”. The type of special treatment that feminists regularly fight to acquire, is the type that they disguise as “corrections of justice”. Whether it’s by affirmative action quotas, violence campaigns that address only women victims, rape campaigns which demand all men “step up and stop rapists” even at the cost of their lives in order to prove they aren’t as BAD as rapists, or providing countless “women only” spaces while denying men’s spaces, you are getting what your feminist ilk considers to be “equal rights” and what everyone else considers to be plain old, institutionalized chivalry.
You are right though, all women do not necessarily want chivalry. All feminist activists, however, certainly do.
–You are seriously misguided if you think all women want the same thing, let alone that. We are people.–
Oh? Then why do feminists as a collective like to assume themselves authorities on what every woman wants/needs? They seem to assume all women share their own same desire to depend on the government (because the government has simply replaced husband in our “liberated” age of gender roles). Considering that I myself am part of this demographic, I speak from the heart here. Does the fact that women are all individuals simply cease to matter to feminists whenever they have a political agenda in mind?
That’s the problem with radical identity politics. You say “we are all humans”, then you want to play the card of being your demographic label when it’s convenient.
There’s “the notion that women are people!” Then suddenly, forget about being people, as soon it comes to down to suffering you look out for your “kind” first, and perhaps only.
People want to play leader and spokespersons of entire demographics, and all in the meanwhile the members of these movements cannot even agree amongst themselves what is “best” for their group. Then you get all the annoying splinter groups, which only further muddle up the definition of “equality”.
Then there’s another problem of “equality” politics. You want to be “equal with men”? WHICH men are you going for?
–That’s as sexist as saying all black people in America play basketball is racist.–
Love the never-ending tendency of white feminists to compare their “plight of women” in America to the social struggle of blacks. See, the civil rights movement.
–I never even implied that the different reasons for women and men to abused we rightous or not.–
Ah, but then in your brilliance, you managed to go out of your way to SPECIFY what you previously “didn’t imply”.
**For example, a man may hit a woman because he has been culturally bred to think this is okay. This is not his problem in the long run, it’s a cultural issue.
While a woman MAY participate in violence because she feels Ownerless and that is a way she can gain power or feel powerful. Who knows, potentially she could be expressing her anger on her relative oppression in general society.**
*eyeroll* Yes you WOULD use the descriptive examples of a man “being encouraged by patriarchal society to hit women” (despite all the laws against it), and a pwoor disadvantaged womyn being “pushed” to her breaking point into using abuse to gain a modicum of power in patriarchal society. OF COURSE you’d resort to examples that position the abusive man as corrupt and inexcusable in his motives, and the abusive woman as completely sympathetic in hers. Holy f-cking Moses.
Honestly, I’ve known of countless women who assault men, often by their own admission, and never ONCE have I heard an an excuse for their violence such as “societal oppression”. Newsflash: most women in the west do not see themselves as gender-oppressed. Please stop acting like your womynism ideology has become the default mentality of all or most women.
I also like how there’s never a single excuse for any man committing assault, yet for women who assault, feminists will surely get imaginative in conjuring up sympathetic excuses.
–This is not black and white, there should be no sides to this story.–
Fems: “Violence against women is so WRONG. Men need to end all violence against women!”
MRAs/True Egalitarians: “Both sexes are victims and perpetrators, it’s been proven fair and well.”
Fems: “The NERVE of you sexist, misogynist monsters. You only want to see women abused!!”
I’m afraid that you, as a feminist in this debate are the lasr person who should be advising about black vs white, us vs them, bad (gender) vs good (gender) thinking. You should be the first one trying to follow said advice.
–We are both working for the same goal, don’t you see? We’re basically saying the same things.–
Feminists only care to say that women are victims, that women need assistance, that women’s pain & suffering are what matter, that WOMEN need “equality”. So no, both sides are not saying the same things. The other side will have to speak up for the excluded sex eventually if feminists will not address them, regardless of whether or not feminists believe that male pain and suffering is too insignificant to care about.
–About the 1 in 3 thing, that was actually the name of the campaign. Yeah, sure, some men wouldn’t report, but I don’t think it’s up to you to decide if Merge men would re
Ort than women. How would you know?–
I would address this, except that I cannot make heads or tails of the grammar. But it does sound like you’re pulling that old “sure some men may suffer too, BUT…” stunt that’s so characteristic of supposedly softer feminists.
–What I was saying was, if you weren’t misogynistic, which you are,–
I don’t think she is. Sure, she stated that women want special treatment, but I’m sure that she meant that feminists do, and besides that I don’t see any evidence of wymyn-hatin’. I’m sure that if she specified feminists over “women” she’d still be called a misogynist anway. After all, I disagree with you and your sister highness above, so I’m sure that makes me a bad old misogynist as well.
–the focus wouldn’t be in your anger towards women, it would be on the needs of men.–
Men addressing the needs of their own sex is automatically dismissed as anger by all of you. You ROUTINELY dismiss all men’s rights related communities as misogynistic hate groups regardless of whether you’ve even familiarized yourselves with any single aspect of their work.
–‘women are half the problem’ creates anger and simply oozes your own anger towards women… It makes the reader just feel angry towards women without reaching any long term goal.–
Again, and painting the male sex exclusively as perpetrators, as feminists have routinely done in their campaigns, doesn’t create anger? Interestingly, the feminists involved in these activities usually seem very angry with the male sex.
–Don’t just make people angry, that will only reach your short term goals and will end up doing more harm than good as it creates a women vs men thing in people’s minds.–
Once again, since you are explicitly feminist, you are probably the last person who should be preaching these words, and the first who should be practicing them.
Izzeysays
To bring you up to speed as to why there is a debate, and more importantly why there must be a debate, I have some information here and some links.
Since 1975, approximately 100 studies looking into the issue of violence between the sexes in a relationship, or ‘in partner violence’ (IPV), mainly in Britain and North America have shown that physical domestic violence rates are much more symmetrical between the sexes than women’s advocates suggest. These studies have ranged from random nation-wide surveys of many thousands of participants to smaller regional surveys, and included national crime surveys.
Case study interview data on men victims in Britain and in Canada, reveal remarkable similarities of physical domestic violence experiences between men in these two societies, and in those in my study that I will discuss in a second.
Two recent studies in Australia have confirmed the both-sex prevalence data I have just mentioned. Dr Sotirios Sarantakos has recently completed in-depth interviews of families with histories of violence. A major aim of the Sarantakos study was to investigate the validity of criticisms that studies showing symmetrical rates of intra-partner violence are relatively meaningless because they do not consider the contexts within which the violence occurred. The Sarantakos findings confirmed these studies showing symmetry between couples and also that self-defence as an argument for all women’s violence could not be sustained.
A recent representative survey by Dr Bruce Headey and Dr Dorothy Scott from the University of Melbourne, and Dr David de Vaus from Latrobe University, on approximately 800 men and 800 women, has again confirmed the accuracy of claims from other both-sex surveys that rates of violence between heterosexual couples are approximately equal, but interestingly, that men appeared to suffer more physical injuries.
From an anecdotal perspective I can confirm the countless studies around the world (over 200 worldwide now) that are reaching the same conclusions. The data coming out time and time again says men and women are suffering at the hands of the other in equal proportions. Some studies suggest women are more violent but I would not suggest this. I am suggesting that the symmetry of numbers can push one gender over the 50 percent line or the other gender.
The thing is that our brains don’t quite know what to do with this information. It is ‘out of the ordinary’, unprepared-for, and so our brains start free-wheeling while we try and figure out what our emotional response should be. Our emotional response is not a measure of what really is in reality, it’s an effect of what we have been taught to believe. To augment this further:
From Wik: “A 32-nation study revealed that more than 51% of men and 52% of women felt that there were times when it was appropriate for a wife to slap her husband. By comparison, only 26% of men and 21% of women felt that there were times when it was appropriate for a husband to slap his wife.”
I didn’t believe it at first, sometimes I still struggle with the very notion of it, but I just cannot ignore what the studies tell us when we look closely.
Erin Pizzey, the founder of the fist woman’s shelter in England in 1971, was astounded to discover that more women than men were the primary initiators of IPV. Read her book if you will, “Prone to Violence”. She says this:
“Those of us working in the field of domestic violence are confronted daily by the difficult task of working with women in problematical families. In my work with family violence, I have come to recognize that there are women involved in emotionally and/or physically violent relationships who express and enact disturbance beyond the expected (and acceptable) scope of distress. Such individuals, spurred on by deep feelings of vengefulness, vindictiveness, and animosity, behave in a manner that is singularly destructive; destructive to themselves as well as to some or all of the other family members, making an already bad family situation worse. These women I have found it useful to describe as “family terrorists.”
In my experience, men also are capable of behaving as family terrorists but male violence tends to be more physical and explosive. We have had thousands of international studies about male violence but there is very little about why or how. [1]
Also Christian Hoff Summors, a feminist, has brought ire upon herself from the feminist community by stating that the feminist methodology for data collection is deeply flawed and the desire to maintain known and uncomfortable untruths is virulent, rampart and an ingrained toxin in their ranks. The organisation S.A.V.E have some more information about this remarkable woman. [2]
Regarding false information we have been led to believe (myself very much in the past) [3] where it says in part: “…between 20 and 35 percent of women seeking medical care in emergency rooms in America are there because of domestic violence.” Studies by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Bureau of Justice Statistics, an agency of the U.S. Department of Justice, indicate that the figure is closer to 1 percent.”
I can attest to the fact that working as an orderly and a wards-man in medical casualty departments the patients coming in reflected very accurately what I have said here. Partner assault of incident was a fifty fifty deal. I am saying this as someone who worked there for many years for many shifts. Fifty fifty – and I was astounded by this. Interestingly, I also noted that time and time again that the worst results of violence from the opposite sex was that initiated by women. Women were more ready to pick up a weapon where the man is more likely to use his hands. Don’t believe me, just ask anyone in a casualty department and see what they have to say.
We are flooded with erroneous information and it has been for so long that it is never questioned and when it is questioned we sometimes find recluse in the ‘comfort’ of finding answers to information we do not know how to process. In other words, MRA’s are haters, misogynistic, mean, violent, right wing and so on. I am an MRA and I am none of these. I adore women, I do not like feminism. Feminism is an ideology and women are free thinking humans like the rest of us.
You say this and I have to address it:
“My point is, if you weren’t misogynistic, you wouldn’t have a hate campaign you would have an educational campaign. You focus a lot on women when you’re standing for a men’s issue. Why? My answer would be, because you are misogynistic and therefore sexist.”
With respect, you are confusing the discomfort you are feeling from the posters with what is considered the poor actions of another. I argue that when someone wants to call to the attention of others that there is a real problem out there regarding the dismissive ways men are treated, (in this case the untruths peddled by the media regarding IPV) then that person is in the right no matter how unpopular their message or opinion.
Please note also, you mention the imbalance of focus on ‘blame’ as it being directed at women and how this is unnecessary. You are quite frankly very wrong about that and here’s why.
How is it possible to address a dreadful situation regarding popular untruths when that very issue’s untruths concern both genders ? Namely, if many of the untruths are “facts” about women and IPV then those very same “untruths” absolutely must focus on women. To not do so to mitigate against the charge of a hater and a sexist would be negligent, irresponsible and immature.
I hope this reply has helped as it might have for me in my days before I delved into this issue much deeper.
[1] http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1997/7-dec97/pizzey07.html
[2] http://www.saveservices.org/2011/02/christina-hoff-sommers-on-dv-myths/
[3] http://chronicle.com/article/Persistent-Myths-in-Feminis/46965/
Let’s clear up something here. Nobody is, as you put it, “making it a battle of the sexes”. Some people are not able to tell “feminist” and “female” apart, but those words mean very, very different things, even if they do have that little “fem” syllable in common.
However, I’m sure you are not one of those people who would get those two words mixed up, so now you can see why there is no “batttle of the sexes”. And indeed, I am confident that men and women can stand together in the battle against feminism.
As for domestic violence — yes, it is bad when it happens to anyone. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is that certain people have been spreading false information, for over thirty years, that MEN are the chief perpetrators of DV, when in fact men and women perpetrate equally.
This false information campaign has had very bad consequences for society, and the issue at present is to correct the false information, and hold accountable the people who have spread it.
Keep all you’ve said in mind when you see the constant “Only men do xyz wrong” claims by feminists… it’s a hate campaign against men. I agree entirely!!! It’s sexist. I agree with that too. Here we can acknowledge that feminism promotes a hate campaign of misandry and relies heavily on sexism to do so. Well said!
Dear izzysays,
I believe your heart is in the right place, but you seem to have a different take on gender relations than MRAs. I consider myself an MRA. I also believe that men and women should be treated equally. I also have love in my heart for the vast majority of women (and men).
My belief is that mainstream feminism believes that men have an underlying dislike of women and therefore seek to disadvantage women in whatever ways possible. As such, you can say that men rank higher than women on the social totem pole. And all the gender inequalities worth addressing seriously are those that affect women.
My view is that the relations between men and women are more complicated than that. Specifically, I believe women are treated like children by society. Women are given less freedom, but are also loved dearly, and more deserving of protection. Now obviously, there are big disadvantages to that. To be thought of us as childlike makes one seem less suited to lead, to run a business, etc. Feminism addresses this aspect, as we strive to get more women involved in the board office, in politics, etc. But there are also positives to being treated as a child – you are held less responsible for your actions and more deserving of protection. As such, we find that men are sentenced to longer prison terms than women for the same crime. When the victim of a crime is a woman, the criminal is sentenced to a longer term than if the victim is a man. We find that men live much shorter lives, yet we still spend most of our health care dollars on women. We require men to fight wars but not women. Most victims of stranger violence are men, but it is women that we worry about walking the streets at night. Men are much more likely to be homeless. Boys are taught to never hit a girl, but they aren’t taught to never hit a boy. It’s why there is a psychological phenomenon called the “Women are Wonderful” effect which shows that both men and women are predisposed to prefer the female gender. It’s why we have lots of DV shelters for women but virtually none for men. Finally, it’s why male on female violence is considered so much more wrong than female on male violence.
Countless studies have shown gender symmetry in domestic violence. Here’s a key meta-analysis showing women being slightly more common perpetrators (Admittedly, women represent 62% of injuries – something I attribute to men being stronger in general)
Click to access Archer2000.pdf
And the Strauss article is a good review of the controversy from a leading DV researcher.
Click to access V71-Straus_Thirty-Years-Denying-Evidence-PV_10.pdf
These aren’t crank sources. My psychology textbook (Miller’s Intimate Relationships) uses the Archer article as the definitive statement.
So, I consider that women are treated as children. I want women and men to be treated equally (with compassion, but as adults). I want violence to decrease against all people.
Then I see that there are countless widespread campaigns to end violence by men against women and no significant campaigns in the other direction. This strikes me as wrong/unfair because it:
a) denies the victimization of males by women
b) wrongly suggests that men and only men are the problem. In my view, violent people are the problem. I could live with, “men and women are the problem”.
c) plays into gender stereotypes by suggesting that women are more deserving of protection, women are not responsible for the violence they commit, and that men are uniquely cruel and uncaring
My solution would be a campaign to stop all domestic violence. Both men and women would be treated as sympathetic victims. And both men and women would be treated as potential perpetrators.
The current campaign is sexist against men. In much the same way that a campaign “Stop Black on White Crime” would be racist against Blacks.
You seem like a reasonable person. Do you agree with what I have to say, or if not, how do you disagree?
Also, I want to address your statement “The reasons why men are abused are probably quite different to why women are abused, and I can image both sexes suffer this abuse because of their gender, for different reasons.” I may be putting words into your mouth, but I suspect that you are saying that men initiate violence and women are violent for reason of self-protection ( or possibly to protect their children). This claim seems to be false.
If you go to table 2 in the Strauss paper, you’ll see that roughly 20% of violence is male on female only, 30% is female on male only, and 50% is mutual. On the following page, in the section “Symmetry in Self-defence”, Strauss reveals several studies showing that women do not often say they hit their partners in self-defence Largely it was anger, punishment, coercion or some other goal.
@issysays “I took a peek at the 1in3 campaign website, and you posters ‘women are half the problem’ were immediately proven false.”
Logic 101 issy – the 1 in 3 campaign says men are “one in three VICTIMS of family violence”, the poster says women are half the PROBLEM the two statements are different and not mutually exclusive. The terms DV, Family violence, IPV, Domestic Abuse all have somewhat different and often poorly defined meanings depending on the studies you read. If you extend to definition to non physically violent abuse then women in general give as good as if not better then they get. This is particularly true of dating violence in young people ( see Straus’s multi country study) The methodologies vary as well. Some studies focus on surveying women in shelters, men and women in emergency departments, crime reports, and community surveys all these methods have different biases, not the least of which is some only ask women. Even the ABS personal safety surveys (the gold standard) surveys far more women then men. Women are half the problem because mostly women are half of relationships and DV is a relationship problem.
What you don’t seem to understand is that feminists advocate for a gendered paradigm of DV based on the Duluth Model ( male perpetrators against female victims exerting patriarchal power and control to oppress women) as the only etiological model of DV.
The more valid ( and NON sexist ) approach is referred to as a gender inclusive approach which examines the multifactorial spectrum of bio-psycho- social issues that contribute to violence in relationships. Such a model is applicale to Hetero relationships as well as LGBITQ and other family relationships ( child abuse , sibling abuse, elder abuse etc)
It is feminists who continue to advocate for a sexist (gendered) view of violence , hence “A time for action the national councils plan to reduce violence against women and THEIR children.”
MRA’s are NOT misogynists, we don’t hate anyone, we do however have a sever dislike for gender feminists and their ideology of hatred. You know all men are bastard, all men are rapists, all men are abusers(these were the posters that I saw in the late 70’s when I started university) , and now all men are pedophiles , even a fireman and male nurse are considered potential pedophiles and not to be seated beside an unaccompanied minor on a flight! Thanks feminsim for supporting the near total majority of good and decent men.
I took out the video because the image that came up would be very upsetting and confronting for some people. Apologies but if they want to people can find it on your website. I will not be approving you uploading it again. NUSWOMENS
izzysays on August 23, 2012 at 7:37 pm
So Izzy you have read every single article at avoiceformen, watched every video and listened to every podcast, in 24 hours!
Domestic Violence- Women are Half the Problem – video
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/domestic-violence-women-are-half-the-problem/
I do agree we do need better execution, that will no doubt happen, thanks for the advice.
Actually you seem to be full of ideas, if you come up with any let me know.
Cheers
KARMA MRA MGTOW
CEO avoiceformen Australian chapter.
http://www.avoiceformen.com
FB https://www.facebook.com/KARMA.MRA.MGTOW
email progressivescan1@hotmail.com
I said I looked at it. Briefly. I got the general idea. The way your jumping to conclusion scares me and also shows how you’re jumping to conclusions for other things too. That aside, I will look at the video later and I’ll see if I can make a couple of comments. A well executed campaign will get you far. I would just like to put my two cents in and say make it about the men. These men need help, the women don’t need hate. It just seems like you’re demonising women in just as bad domestic situations as men. Big no no! 🙂
Ok so posters should should domestic violence women are 1/3 of the problem, with the URL.
Done!
Yeah, such a small change sends such a different message… And more accurate! 🙂
Oh I forgot the AvFM radio link..
A Voice for Men
Did you ever feel like there was something really wrong in the world of men and women, but could not put your finger on it? Well, Neo, to find your answer all you have to do is take the Red Pill. Join your host, men’s activist Paul Elam, as we explore the world of modern men and women in ways far too real for the Matrix of the mainstream media. You will need to buckle up for this one. Seriously. Everything you have ever thought about men, women and maybe even yourself is about to change. read more
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/avoiceformen
I would rather watch The Matrix.
Okay, so I think i’ve been pretty reasonable with allowing you guys a fair go. I jumped on your website and saw that you’re screen capturing your comments to see ‘how long they’ll be up for’. We’re not afraid of your opinion or your beliefs but i’d remind you to keep them civil. Cheers NUSWOMENS
Oh one last thing feminists are free to come to avoiceformen.com and comment.
“nuswomens on August 23, 2012 at 9:15 pm”
Ya keep up the “fair go” as you call it, you are doind a great job. 🙂
nuswomens on August 23, 2012 at 9:15 pm
Don’t just look at AvFM get on there and say something.
Nah I’m watching The Matrix tonight.
Sounds like the Men’s Rights advocates here have swallowed a little too much semen, because all I hear is ‘fap fap fap’.
Really?
Your comment reads like hate speech. The homosexual bashing is a bit much.
I would love to have a reasoned discourse about this if you could hold off on being juvenile and quite frankly disgustingly crude.
You never need to wait very long before feminists begin their gay-bashing hate-speech. The use of shaming language is one of the most frequently-employed tactics that feminists use to silence men who have the audacity to speak out for the rights and welfare of men and boys.
In fact it one of the reasons why I, like so many gay men, woke up to the fact that feminism is an ideological hate movement. I gravitated towards the men’s rights movement and champion ‘A Voice For Men’. It is an organization that does not tolerate sexism, racism, homophobia or religious/political extremism or the advocacy of any form of violence.
We live in a society that expects men to be utility objects and absorb pain and suffering (as victims of DV, for example) without complaint. When we point out that this is not acceptable, feminists react with derision and scorn – we get called semen-swallowers – why not just say ‘fags’ as that’s obviously what you meant.
You define a good man as one who stands up for the rights of women, and a man who stands up for himself as a misogynist. Your indoctrination of the feminist narrative is complete. Would you define a good woman as one who stands up for the rights of men? Of course not. You’d probably call her a fag-hag. Feminists are bigots. We at ‘A Voice for Men’ do not like bigots
The cognitive dissonance is strong with these MRAs…
Please elaborate on this.
“QueenMisandry on August 23, 2012 at 9:33 pm”
Homophobic much?
Yeah, I’m a lesbian who is sick and tired of the misogyny I experience daily from gay men.
A Voice for Gay Men
Life is interesting, if anything.
Within the first 72 hours of the recent facelift for A Voice for Men, two key points of interest emerged. One, the new forum allowed me to invite and present other writers in this world of defiant men (along with facing the challenge of finding them).
The other was an unexpected but perhaps inevitable twist. The subject of a connection between members of the gay community and the MRM was approached. (note: I am not particularly fond of expressions like the “gay community,” as it paints a monolithic picture where the reality is at least somewhat different, but you get my point.)
I have always believed that there was value to the idea of an MRM that wasn’t paranoid about homosexuality, and in making inroads with gays that were not misandric and brainwashed by feminism (as though we don’t have the same exact problem reaching straight men).
Personally, I have maintained for years that the real source of resentment and hostility to gay males in this culture is not because they are defective or immoral or dangerous to children, but because they are free from the mandates that straight men face when it comes to protecting and providing for women.
They are the original “Men Going Their Own Way,” which has always made them the object of ire in a culture where men are supposed to be indentured, not free to pursue life without the typical biological chains.
Well, in a supreme, killing two birds with one stone moment, I was contacted by B.R. Merrick, a writer on social issues who identified himself in his introduction as a gay anarchist, among other things. He linked me to one of his pieces which I found impressive enough to run here. In fact, I was so impressed that Mr. Merrick himself is going to run it here because I have invited him to be the first new addition to an incipient community of writers at A Voice for Men.
I don’t want to dwell on Mr. Merrick’s sexuality, nor will A Voice for Men become the “gay arm” of the MRM. And, as you will clearly see in the post he is about to present, he has much more to talk about than that.
But I also think this is an important opportunity that should not be missed, and an important crossroads for many in the movement who would find value in expanding our affiliations, and indeed, in adding to the timbre of our collective Voice.
With that I heartily welcome B.R. Merrick to A Voice for Men. I look forward to the continued original content he has promised to bring to the readers here.
Ref:- http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/a-voice-for-gay-men/
Mate. This isn’t really a place for you to advertise your bizzo. Please refrain
No probs.
I don’t disagree with the general point you are making, but I do want to challenge this:
This idea is derived from a trap that social scientists fell into somewhere in the 1970s/80s and have not been able to escape since. It imputes intention onto criminals to fit a certain narrative, but is not actually very logical.
If violence against women occurs because of gender inequality, what causes violence against men? Since the vast majority of violence actually occurs between young men, how is it that they engage in the same actions towards women, but suddenly the reason shifts to a power imbalance?
Similarly, how is it that sex is about sex when it is consensual, but suddenly not about sex when it is not consensual? Does the absence of consent mysteriously transform the intention of the rapist from lust to dominance?
You are making the common mistake of giving simple answers to complex questions.
Also,
Just a ‘supportive role’? So women need to fight for equality while men provide support? I feel like there are some misplaced assumptions there.
Actually, Hannah, I don’t care about doing any of those things because all you’re doing is spouting a bunch of gibberish. None of what you said makes any sense to anyone who isn’t as messed up in the head as you are.
“The thing about MRA’s though is that they could actually be fighting for men’s rights and livelihoods that are challenged by patriarchy.
They could help men of color who are hypermasculized while simultaneously being denied bodily autonomy through white supremacist heteropatriarchy, which inevitably leads to violence, poverty and exaggerated incarceration rates.
They could help queer men by providing them with safe spaces nand campaigning against the societal violence (ie. disproportionate homelessness, harassment, assault, denial of housing, state rights as couples, etc.) they experience.
They could stand in solidarity with the trans* men that are having their reproductive rights stripped because mainstream patriarchal cissexism doesn’t recognize ovaries as not being indicative of one’s gender identity.
They could faciliate outreach programs to men who are sexually and physically abused, because again, the notion that men are strong, resilient and unable to be harmed is rooted in patriarchy.
There are a whole host of things MRA’s could be and aren’t doing, because of course these people don’t actually care about anyone or anything but themselves and stroking their inflated egos. That’s why MRA’s are a joke.”
A vast amount of their commenters on AVfM are of different colours, and spanning all over the globe. Claiming that they are in any way denied any say by ‘white supremacist heteropatriarchy” would be an insult to these men, as well as their white fellow MRA’s on those pages.
Your comment only goes to show how absolutely clueless you are about the subject you’re commenting on.
Besides that, I don’t see you doing anything, except belittling the initiatives of some of these men, who are perfectly capable of speaking out for themselves, and have no interest whatsoever in having you speaking on their behalf, thank you very much.
Are you aware of the fact that you’re very much coming across as a racist?
Well said, Mr Kimski. The men’s rights movement is an inclusive movement based on the egalitarian notion that we should fight for the rights of all men. It is not in anybody’s interest to encourage special interest groups to jockey for victim primacy.
It seems that Ms Hannah believes that only men who meet her criteria for victim status are allowed to stand up for themselves. The MRM promotes the revolutionary idea that all men, women and children have the right – and responsibility to fight for their fundamental human rights. Her assumption that certain people, heterosexual men for example, should not be allowed to stand up for their rights is indicative of kind of bigotry that permeates through society. Her attitude alone justifies the existence of the MRM.
Feminists need to understand that gay men identify with men because we are men. We like men – a lot. We resent feminism’s unrelenting attack on our straight brothers as much as we resent the gay-bashing that feminists so frequently indulge in (see above post by QueenMisandry). Men have finally found their voice and we are starting to talk back by calling feminists on their BS. This is a novel experience for them, as indicated by their rising panic.
Feminism is exposing itself as a hate movement based on female privilege, Women’s Studies lies and heaps of man-up shaming. It has succeeded in alienating people from all walks of life. You had better get used to the MRM, because we aren’t going anywhere.
Are you aware of the fact that your tactics are completely ineffective? This is what Hannah is saying.
I think what offends me most about MRAs is not the misogyny (as terrible as it is), but the impotency of their ‘movement’. It seems you only seek to encourage and perpetuate the system that oppresses you, and causes all of the problems you complain about. Feminists do more for men than MRAs ever could, so way to waste your time trying to cut down people who are advancing your cause.
I’m not expecting an intelligent response, so by all means continue spouting your worthless misogynistic bile if you feel so compelled. Just remember that, by the time your fingers cramp up from being a relentless keyboard warrior there will have been thousands of feminists out there achieving more for gender equality than you ever could.
Oh dear Hannah!
Regurgitated feminist rhetoric for women’s studies 101, may score points with your professors but it’s devoid of any attempt to apply argumentative logic to the preposition “domestic violence women are half the problem.”
Be that as it may, I will respond to your points.
Outside the increasingly rare remnants of a patrilineal family inheritance system and persisting and increasing society wide female privilege, there is no evidence for the existence of “patriarchy” in contemporary Australia.
The groups you mention have always had strong and vocal advocacy, well supported by government and private funding, legislation and programs ensuring their rights. The Australian Human Rights Commission for example.
The most vocal opponents of transexualism are in fact the radical wing of feminism (Sheila Jeffries for example) MRA’s don’t give a shit about color, religion, political affiliation, or sexual orientation. We support all men’s rights end of story.
You as feminists in general need to shed your heterophobia and anti male bias and actually enter the dialogue in a logical and evidence based manner. Feminism continues to drive a wedge between the sexes .
To paraphrase your concluding remarks.
There are a whole host of things feminists could be doing to promote true gender equity but of course “these people” don’t want equity, they want to maintain there positions of power and influence in education, policy development, the public and private service sectors and government, and extend female privilege without regard to the impacts on men their children and society. True equity feminists are deserting the self stroking man hating sisterhood that modern feminism has become, and instead advocating for real equity between the sexes by acknowledging that they must now support men and boys issues as well.
A response to ‘NUS WOMEN’
“I believe in the ability and power of men to play a supportive role in the fight for equality for women.” Which I note appears next to a link called ‘Men Being Dicks’
I’m interested in equality for men. Period. I’m not going to apologise for that fact, nor should I have to. You’re interested in equality for women right? Well then – unless you think somehow it’s a zero-sum game, which would be ridiculous, what’s your problem? MRAs usually find that feminists devote almost all their time to demonising men, belittling mens problems, perpetuating negative stereotypes of men, identifying men as the source of all women’s problems (as opposed to actually reflecting on the behaviour of women themselves) etc.
“Since the posters went up women have been speaking out against the attitudes and lies that lie within them. The women who have spoken are being harassed by those who stand for this group, the personal facebook addresses and department facebook addresses are being attacked.”
Feminists make claims like this whenever mens rights gets public attention. I can quite confidently say this will not be true. These claims always prove groundless, no evidence for them is ever produced. ‘Attacked’ usually means ‘disagreed with’, however I won’t argue it further. If you can post one genuine ‘attack’ ‘insult’ or ‘threat’. I will donate £100GBP to a feminist group of your choosing. I’m not worried. My money’s quite safe.
Women control 75% of all consumer spending in the UK and between 55-65% of wealth. Harriet Harman is on record saying “it cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social cohesion”. Men account for 99% of all workplace deaths, 90%+ of the homeless. Family law is hopelessly biased against men. The male suicide rate is much higher for men, the suicide rate for divorced or separated fathers is several times higher still. 40% of separated fathers lose contact with their children within five years, usually due to an unco-operative mother. Legal Aid is not available to them, but it is to women who want money. I could go on.
RESPONSE TO ‘HANNAH’
Firstly, I don’t care what you think we ‘could’ or ‘should’ do, you don’t have a say. You’re a sexist bigot.
“They could help men of color who are hypermasculized while simultaneously being denied bodily autonomy through white supremacist heteropatriarchy, which inevitably leads to violence, poverty and exaggerated incarceration rates.”
Well, who’s been reading Judith Butler and Gayatri Chakravorty then eh?
‘Inevitably’? Really? So you’re denying ‘men of color’ agency then are you? Is the ‘hetero-patriarchy’ full of ‘white supremacists’ in Nigeria? What about Botswana? Isn’t ‘hetero-patriarchy’ a double-redundancy? Do you actually mean ‘kyriarchy’? Do you understand intersectionalism? Who’s the ‘joker’ here? 😉
You’ll find queer men, trans men and ‘men of colour’ in the MRM. White men too, and straight men. Some women as well – quite a lot of them in fact.
Have we got you on the run? I think we have haven’t we?
LOL
Martin s. Fiefert has annotated a bibliography of more than 200 studies finding women are half the problem.
The poster means that the person committing the physical assault is to blame.
But 50% of domestic violence is committed by men and 50% by women.
In that sense, women are half the problem. It certainly doesn’t mean that anyone who is a victim deserves it. Abuse is wrong, whether the victim is male or female, adult or child, hetero or homosexual.
I agree with you that the blame game is unproductive. But I feel an underlying theme of existing “Stop Violence Against Women” campaigns is that men are to blame, and women are blameless. Consider this very blog post:
“Men can do better than 1 in 3 women being victims of sexual assault, 1 in 5 being the victims of domestic violence. Men can do better than tooting their horns as they drive by, they can do better than name calling and harassment, they can do better than turning their anger and pain into violence that they inflict upon their families, their partners and children.”
I believe that it strongly implies that men are solely to blame for these problems. My ideal solution would be for anti-domestic violence campaigns to feature both men and women as perpetrators and victims and suggest that it is a societal problem. But, if widespread campaigns continue to paint men as the problem, I have no problem with counter-campaigns painting women as half the problem.
Sarah ,
you state “Please stop this incessant blame game between genders – bla bla bla – Blaming is destructive and harmful, it doesn’t fix anything.”
and I could not agree more!
But by making that statement you are simply showing your ignorance of both feminist doctrine and the theoretical model on which “societies” (read feminists) approach to dealing with the problem of IPV/DV is based.
Feminist dogma is predicated on blaming men via their unquestioning acceptance of “patriarchy theory” , male dominance control and power over oppressed victimised women. These same precepts are at the heart of the Duluth Model of DV which informs Australia’s National Council’s “Plan to reduce violence against women and their children.” It is feminists who promote this “gendered” paradigm (read blaming one gender) rather than a gender inclusive approach and hence their has been no advance made in reducing Family Violence over the last 40 years.
I recently resigned from university teaching at JCU because of this dogma still being taught as a proven truth to students in the women’s and social work departments.
Here are some quotes from Dr Betty McLellan an Associate Professor at JCU, published works:
“Poor Men. I suppose we ought to feel sorry for them to some extent. In every generation, you see, men are sold a lie. In their socialisation, they are deceived into believing they are superior and that their superiority gives them unlimited power over women, animals, the environment, material goods, and all the worlds wealth.”
“In contrast to other therapies that see women as “sick” or as being “responsible for their own problems,” feminist therapy holds the view that every woman who comes for therapy has been and continues to be oppressed, and is in need of liberation. It is from that basic assumption that therapy proceeds.”
“Blame is crucial to the success of therapy in many instances. Feminists call it naming, finding the courage to name those who perpetrate injustices against us.”
“Naming and blaming our oppressors is essential if we want to rise above the effects of the wrong they have done to us. Consequently, naming and blaming are important issues for feminist therapy.”
“One of the characteristics of blame in therapy is that we have to work with a woman till she gets the blame right.”
So Sarah , ask your self who is really playing a gender blame game? the answer should be obvious. Might i suggest you visit ifeminists.com a group of young and not so young people who embrace “individual” feminism , rather than slavish adherence to the angry feminism of the 70’s. Alternately you could drop feminism altogether and embrace equalism see We want gender-equality (and NOT feminism or masculinism) at UEA https://www.facebook.com/groups/141786891654/
Dr Greg Canning
Australian News Editor
Avoiceformen.com
@Sarah regarding: “I’m confused. Whether I missed it whilst trying to read through what is half BS and half decent I didn’t seem to get any clarity as to why exactly women are half the problem? In what way are you suggesting that women are half the problem when they are physically, verbally, sexually and/or mentally assaulted? All I’m getting from this is that women deserve to be abused!!! ”
Now, now. You really aren’t that thick and in university are you? You know full well that the reference to half the problem refers quite clearly to the irrefutable fact that women are the ABUSER about half the time..
In a flawed study that tried to exclude male victims and female abusers in Australia they STILL came up with men being 1/3rd of the victims of IPV.
More rationale studies have found a very near parity with women being slightly more violent than men . Which I attribute to the “you should never hit a woman” crap, it encourages women to bad behaviour thinking there will be no consequences. It should instead be taught as, “Hitting is not acceptable.”,.
See what I did there? I removed gender entirely. This still tells men it isn’t okay to hit women but, it also means it isn’t okay to hit other men and that women should not be hitting men or other women either.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?iid=2113&ty=pbdetail
95% of adult staff sexually abusive juveniles in custody are women. Women do not make up 95% of juvenile correction staff. Therefore, in this case it seems that women may be more prone to perpetrating sexual abuse than most people are even comfortable considering.
And if you look here:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/050714/dq050714a-eng.htm
“An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/glenn-sacks/researcher-says-womens-in_b_222746.html
“How can we prevent Intimate Partner Violence and injury to women? IPV researcher Deborah Capaldi, Ph.D., a social scientist at the Oregon Social Learning Center, finds that the best way for women to be safe is to not initiate violence against their male partners. ”
That’s a shocker for you I bet, women that get serious injuries are those women that physically start an altercation. So, the “abusive” man in that case is really just guilty of self-defense.
I know you will construe this as abuse apologizing but, anyone with half a brain and half a heart would be willing to look at the real root causes of IPV so that they may be addressed in a rationale manner and eventually reduce the occurrence of IPV.
Or, you could hold onto the radical feminist/gender feminist religious view that only men are evil and keep letting both men and women suffer.
Then there is this one:
http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F20981664%2F285819319%2Fname%2FWhitaker%2Bexchange.doc&ei=__c7UPaLNubDyAHNlICgCg&usg=AFQjCNG4COiwt4i8UEvRz3ia6BVdSTQ1IA&sig2=e3CJCjDqD6JIcotqFpTo5A
” Harvard Medical School just announced that women are just as violent as men in relationships; the study found half of heterosexual domestic violence is reciprocal, with women initiating most of it, and women committed 71 percent of the non-reciprocal violence”
Heyyyyyyyy, with reciprocal violence and non-reciprocal violence being almost a dead even 50-50 split and male:female initiation of reciprocal violence being also symmetrical the 71% figure for non-reciprocal violence actually indicates that women are MORE than half the problem in domestic violence situation. This variation may explain why lesbian relationships result in higher incidents of IPV. Not addressing this will only mean more victims.
Maybe it is time to stop “cheering for the home team” and start addressing the issues.
I’m confused. Whether I missed it whilst trying to read through what is half BS and half decent I didn’t seem to get any clarity as to why exactly women are half the problem? In what way are you suggesting that women are half the problem when they are physically, verbally, sexually and/or mentally assaulted? All I’m getting from this is that women deserve to be abused!!! Do you have the same stance in regard to non-relationship assault e.g. rape or other physical assault? I really hope not.
I’m not saying that men are to blame either. Vice versa in the case where a woman has been the abuser to either a man or another woman. Quite frankly, the blame game needs to stop. I just don’t see how ANYONE can push another person to hurt them, no matter what.
But you know what may be the reason that pushes someone to hurt another? Our backwards society. How our society positions men and women (of any sexuality or lack thereof) to believe and think in certain ways. That apparently it’s ok to hurt someone, that it’s ok to be hurt by someone (because it’s half your fault anyway). WHAT?
Please stop this incessant blame game between genders in heterosexual relationships (and then throwing in homosexual relationships for some sort of justification, or whatever). I’m tired of blaming. Everyone is obviously a victim of society. Blaming is destructive and harmful, it doesn’t fix anything.
Sorry for the double post. This was meant as a reply to Sarah.
The poster means that the person committing the physical assault is to blame.
But 50% of domestic violence is committed by men and 50% by women.
In that sense, women are half the problem. It certainly doesn’t mean that anyone who is a victim deserves it. Abuse is wrong, whether the victim is male or female, adult or child, hetero or homosexual.
I agree with you that the blame game is unproductive. But I feel an underlying theme of existing “Stop Violence Against Women” campaigns is that men are to blame, and women are blameless. Consider this very blog post:
“Men can do better than 1 in 3 women being victims of sexual assault, 1 in 5 being the victims of domestic violence. Men can do better than tooting their horns as they drive by, they can do better than name calling and harassment, they can do better than turning their anger and pain into violence that they inflict upon their families, their partners and children.”
I believe that it strongly implies that men are solely to blame for these problems. My ideal solution would be for anti-domestic violence campaigns to feature both men and women as perpetrators and victims and suggest that it is a societal problem. But, if widespread campaigns continue to paint men as the problem, I have no problem with counter-campaigns painting women as half the problem.
Are you too chicken to publish my comment? 🙂
Peter. Unlike all of you (it would appear) I have other things to do besides approve the offensive comments of you and your friends. It has nothing to do with being ‘Chicken’. As it is your comment was approved, as have all of your comments. One more rude comment like that and you’ll be barred from the blog. Regards, NUSWOMENS
Pingback: Men's Rights and domestic violence: not even half the problem … | Homes Define
‘NUSWOMENS’ – I think you pretty much started the tone by blindly attacking a group which promotes equal rights for men and reaches out to those of us who’ve been on the receiving end of DA and DV by a female partner. Though I feel much better in that regard knowing that my experience, and that of my children, doesn’t really count in your eyes because it doesn’t have the same ‘cultural beliefs’ at its core.
You and several other feminist posters don’t like the emphasis on ‘women’ as perpetrators of DA. Though you don’t mind at all focusing exclusively on demonising men as perpetrators of violence against women.
You accuse men you’ve never spoken to of the vile charge of believing ‘the rights of men will always be synonymous with the violent oppression of women’ – I would ask you to point to a single sentence anywhere on http://www.avoiceformen.com or anywhere in the MRM that makes any such claim.
I hope the response you’ve received over the last few days has made you rethink at least some of your hideously prejudiced and misandrist beliefs. I’m not holding my breath.
It must be enormously disconcerting for you, as a young feminist, perhaps for the first time, to encounter organised opposition to your hate tactics; opposition that will not go away, will not be shamed, will not be shouted down, will not stand by while our brothers and sisters are abused or bullied.
Sorry but women truly ARE half the problem(if not more) when it comes to DV. Also, women are the majority of child abusers as well and almost the majority of rapists.
“I believe in the ability and power of men to play a supportive role in the fight for equality for women.”
And I believe you can kiss my ass. I’ve heard “All men are pigs”,”All men are rapists” “All men are this-and-that” out of your camp my whole life. I wouldn’t support you at a freaking cheerleading contest.
You don’t slap me in the face and ask me to thank you for the privilege. Women commit domestic abuse fully half the time,if not more. Women sexually and otherwise abuse children and old people in nearly every case in which it happens. These are facts. Attacking us will not make them go away. Hiding them WILL NOT MAKE THEM GO AWAY. Lying about them WILL NOT MAKE THEM GO AWAY. As long as we exist, we will let people see the facts, and on top of seeing the facts, your ability to influence the public will be augmented by the fact that you will be famous for LYING ABOUT THE FACTS.
You feminists don’t get it yet,do you?
Paul Elam is NOT our “leader”. Avoiceformen.com is not our “home”. Paul Elam is a servant of our cause, and his website is simply one of the better offerings of our constituency. There are others….many others. We are legion.
Like the men of Fight Club, we are your brothers,your fathers, we cook your meals,we collect your garbage, we guard you while you sleep.
We are Man 2.0. We have evolved to overcome our natural predators. We have teeth for chewing you, we’ve evolved to stand the bitter taste of your poisonous flesh, and we’ve grown claws to slash feminism to bits with.
You cannot stop us. Attacking avfm will simply win us more converts and strengthen the resolve of those we already have. Even if you succeed in taking avfm out, we will simply regroup without missing a beat and then launch an all-out offensive on you that will do much more damage than your feeble attacks.
YOU are the sexists. YOU are the abusers. YOU are the hateful ones. YOU have been conducting a campaign of hate against men, masculinity,religion,the family and everything WE hold dear for nearly half of a CENTURY.
We are not here to reason with you, to bargain with you, or even to punish you. We exist to wipe your hateful ideology off the face of this Earth.
Despite your incessant misdirections,poisoning of wells,and scorched earth policies,when you give them the truth, people can see we MRAs are just as against rape,domestic violence,sexual harassment et al as you are, the difference being we think it is just as bad when a 30 year old woman molests a 14 year old boy as when the genders are reversed. YOU would prefer to see that as an act of “empowerment” for the woman. Well, I got news for you toots, today’s rapists create tomorrow’s rapists. Most male rapists were sexually molested by women when they were younger. You think women aren’t AT LEAST half of that problem?
Attack away,knuckledragging feminist troglodytes. Let’s get your half-century of lies,distortions,half-truths,corruption of the young,and your hidden sexual perversity out in the cleansing light of day. In a battle for the popular imagination,a battle waged with truth and wit rather than lies and manipulation, we will stomp your petite powdered asses right into the ground.
When you declared a battle of the sexes,you abandoned any right to decide how we promote the issues of our men. You feminists are our self-declared ideological enemies and you will bitterly lament the day you decided to take up arms and play soldier against the people who make your pampered lives possible. We are going to DESTROY you,full-stop. It’s your choice how much you suffer individually as a result of that. Put down your arms and join the cause to ameliorate the suffering of your sex war,or go down with the good ship SS Manhater. Choose. We will not wait for you to make your decision.
Whoa mate. I approved your comment because i’ve approved all comments so far but you need to keep an eye on your rhetoric. Threats aren’t tolerated.
Some reality: these Men’s Rights Extremists commonly ignore the absolutely authoritative stats on male-sector violence towards women.
These include the WHO’s 2002 ‘World report on violence and health’, which explains that:
Studies from Australia, Canada, Israel, South Africa and the United States of America show that 40–70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship []. This contrasts starkly with the situation of male murder victims. In the United States, for example, only 4% of men murdered between 1976 and 1996 were killed by their wives, ex-wives or girlfriends []. In Australia between 1989 and 1996, the figure was 8.6%[]. (p.93)
and:
Studies in Canada and the United States have shown that women are far more likely to be injured during assaults by intimate partners than are men, and that women suffer more severe forms of violence (5, 34–36). In Canada, female victims of partner violence are three times more likely to suffer injury, five times more likely to receive medical attention and five times more likely to fear for their lives than are male victims (36). Where violence by women occurs it is more likely to be in the form of self-defence (p.94)
@liberationislife
That is being dishonest and you know it.
For instance, “Studies in Canada and the United States have shown that women are far more likely to be injured during assaults by intimate partners than are men, and that women suffer more severe forms of violence ”
Yet you ignore my prior proof that women that are severely injured in IPV most commonly share one characteristic. and that is, THEY ASSAULTED THEIR PARTNER 1ST.
So, if you truly desire to reduce the severity of violence women face then you would start telling them to “Stop fucking hitting people ladies”.
It would also help to have sex-neutral IPV laws and enforcement. If a guy could call the cops without fear of being arrested for being the victim of a female in a domestic assault there would be fewer total injuries. If you take away all non-violent means from anyone you eventually back them into a corner where violence starts to seem a rational response just to stop an attack.
But, that isn’t what any of you really want is it?
Because, actual success in reducing IPV would also mean less funds transferred to your grubby man-hating hands.
I don’t doubt that men are abused in relationships-speaking to social workers, I have been told of it- as such, I agree it needs to be discussed: but I’m sure this can be done without posters or slogans that attack one group.
Interpreting the 50/50 perpetrator stat as ‘women are half the problem’ indicates a desire to heap blame on women. Why not focus on the victims? And the comeback: feminism always blames men is also false – only the outer radical reaches of feminism has ever done this. Looking at the vfm site, it’s the same-documenting crimes and abused perpetrated by women alone; no feminist site does this
Let’s not forget the world in which the women movement was born- the era of Man Men, when women were kept from the workplace and the public sphere, when rape was unspoken of, where police didn’t intervene in spousal abuse, where women were dinky little things whose duty was to please her man. I don’t doubt that angry, wrong thing things may have been said in the fight against this- but to deny that there was inequality is a lie.
AnotherAnon, I’ll tell you something my grandparents told me as a child.
“Don’t start anything that you cannot finish”.
Looks like the feminists could have saved themselves trouble by heeding that advice.
You also miss that feminists LIE about men to get money for programs, whereas the MRM uses peer reviewed studies and is still claimed to be “attacking women” which you know to be absolute rubbish. That is just a transparent attempt to leverage “victim status” on the part of the group caught out in bald-faced lies.
Your last sentence is interesting, “I don’t doubt that angry, wrong thing things may have been said in the fight against this- but to deny that there was inequality is a lie.”
That is PAST TENSE. Inequality (atleast if you are a woman) does not exist today so, why the hell are we wasting public money on courses like “Women’s Studies”? It does not benefit society, especially when the instructors are not held responsible to even be moderately truthful. Where university professors known to be members of radical feminist groups that openly call for murder of people born with a Y chromosome are allowed to poison young minds.
Feminism is now a “dirty word”, I don’t care if “you aren’t that type of Nazi errr feminist”, more than half a century of hate has made that label unusable by anyone that wishes to better humanity or our interactions with each other.
I will immediately snatch your rss as I can not in finding your email subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service.
Do you have any? Please let me know so that I may subscribe.
Thanks.
“These are the men who understand that the pursuit of equality is not something to be afraid of, it doesn’t present a threat to them. They don’t need to speak about men’s rights, they already have them, they speak about the rights of women and the rights of our society to strive for better.”
To speak of men’s rights does not mean you are threatened by equal rights. It actually means the opposite.
The silence a man’s (or woman’s) voice is to deprive him of a fundamental human right.
Men do not have the same rights as women – and men and women do need to speak about men’s rights.
A woman can abort an unwanted child but a man cannot. Women have all the power and can choose to demand that the father be responsible for that child. As things currently stand, the father does not have that right or choice. Only women do.
Fathers are not treated the same as mothers in Family Courts. Routinely Family Courts deprive good men of reasonable access to their children. These men do not have equal rights and this situation is a direct result of Feminist intervention.
Men fare worse than women in education, health and crime:
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20Subject/4125.0~Jul%202012~Media%20Release~Men%20fare%20worse%20than%20women%20in%20education,%20health%20and%20crime%20(Media%20Release)~6152
Equal access to funding for health research and programs should be a fundamental human right.
As things currently stand, women’s health gets four times more funding. This is a direct result of Feminist Intervention.
http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/men-die-earlier-but-womens-health-gets-four-times-more-funding/story-fneuzlbd-1226794504245