The Misandry Bubble

[endeavor]

This thread is intended to be a discussion about an interesting blog post I came across. It is old: it was written on Jan 1, 2010. Some of you may have read it.

I'll paste the executive summary here:

The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.

Link: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/...y-bubble.html/

A warning: It is very long. I am still in the middle of it. As the author states, when you do finish reading it, make sure to go through all the supporting reading if you can. It will take time to digest this.

This is probably the only forum I frequent. It is a hockey board, but I know that there are excellent contributors here, so I hope the discussion remains in that regard as well.

Is misandry a major problem in society?

[kirant]

I haven't read through it in any major detail yet, so this is purely my off-the-cuff reaction (after a quick scan, it's obviously not in the exact same area as it, but I thought it'd be worth putting up):
- We have developed into a society where we are scared to go after the daughter more than the son. I used to babysit when I was in high school (mid '00s) and there was a huge number of times I can remember where it's obvious the daughter, older or younger, can get away with virtually anything while the son (older or younger) is afraid to act without asking me (one asked me if he could get a glass of water...water!). It's even worse with younger daughters and I've seen some act in manners that at school would get you suspended for bullying. What do the parents do when I mention it at the end of the night? Nothing. They barely acknowledge that it happens and (as I did have the...fortune of babysitting this family again) it was obvious the daughter learned nothing.
-- Maybe it's because I'm male and I just recognize the mentality of the kid more, but I had an impossible time rounding up little girls for dinner or bed...most times, sons would be easier to deal with.
- I believe the concept of men = protector and provider, women = stay at home was a concept born of what should be outgrown data. It was done because men were stronger and therefore were better protectors and providers of food than women would be. At this point, it seems all it exists to do is enforce the concept that the man HAS to make the money while the woman stays at home. It still exists, don't get me wrong...but this feels outdated to me and I think shouldn't exist anymore.
- I do think that culturally, we're seeing a shift. The concept of masculine traits = good, feminine traits = bad is starting to slowly vanish. I'd particularily point to entertainment for this sort of stuff. Video games have an odd relationship, as it both moves towards progress (Western views of a character like Samus or Lara Croft take us into territory which defy cultural tradition), and back to the status quo (c'mon...use the previous examples. What one (fine...two ) things stand out if I say Lara Croft?). The video game world seems to realize what its best audience is...young teenage boys. And what do young teenage boys like? Sorry if I go off track on that, but it's been a point I kind of struggle with for the longest of time as I definately didn't see Soul Calibur or Dead or Alive the same way my friends did when I was in high school.
-- In film and TV, we're starting to see a bit more of a shift towards balance in agency of characters...at least, more than before. The concept of who has agency, in my opinion, stands to show you who the "strong" characters are. We have a decent grouping of high agency female protagonists who still retain feminine traits, so I think these concepts are starting to become neutral in thought. At a quick look, I think this paper seems to struggle coming to grips with that in its early points as it seems to bemoan the loss of maculinity in society...I personally view it as a change from masculinity being considered a positive trait to masculinity and feminimity being considered equals and more neutral terms.
- ...Of course, this also stands in stark contrast to the online communities at times. I can't determine at times where these "women in kitchen" jokes are for self-amusement and not serious (which I assumed they were initially) or if, as you can notice in things like MMORPGs, actual concerns created by 12 year olds which are then internalized as they explore the depths of the Internet...and whether or not they grow out of it (I don't know enough kids to test that).
- A quick glance at the article makes me wonder how much of it is true and how much of it seems to be stretching the facts. I notice some interesting points, but can't get links on them (such as "women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own". I'd love to read more into it, but there isn't a link provided at it). A lot of papers provide links to solid ground information, but stretch their facts to fit their argument and try to shuffle less than existant data under the table as their arguments diverge more and more from the data.
- It seems sometimes the writer uses Western culture, and sometimes uses both Western and Eastern culture as it suits his argument. In many Asian cultures, it's still expected that the wife's side pay for the wedding. Often when an Asian family and a Western family marry, I've heard (hey, I'm not married yet!) that the bill is split down the middle to reflect the change in cultures.
- The concept of "Feminism" these days is as nebulous as the concept of the Occupy Movement. There's no consistancy. I do consider myself a Liberal Feminist...we should treat people exactly as they are, with gender being no object; if a woman can do a job the exact same as a man with no other conditions, they are effectively the same person. At the same time, Feminist seems to also stand for nut chopping psycho and the group of people who think women are inherently better than men. This article seems to go after the extremists but fails to acknowledge that other groups seems to exist. I'm no expert in divorce laws, but some of them do seem unusual...I can't speak heavily on them as I haven't read them in detail yet.
- Some links definately seem to be weak support. One says that there was more hate from 'Feminists' towards Palin than Polanski...yet the link just points out an article which simply just dislikes Palin. I did a quick Ctrl-F search, but couldn't find mention of two key terms used..."Taliban" and "Polanski". All it claims is that Palin was used as a sex symbol in essence...whether that's true or not seems beside the point to me. It's just that the link and argument aren't supported by the evidence.
- The writer seems to occasionally struggle with how the online community works in terms of grouping like communities into a mob mentality. One thing that caught my eye was right after the above, where he says that a feminist forum would shoot you down if you defend a man...well, let's look at the forums around us. Here, you can get mercilessly attacked by many even if you make a legitimate claim about the Canucks or Oilers. If you go to Edmontonpuck.com or whatever Oilers site you want, I'm sure a suggestion such as "Bouwmeester is a good defensive D" or "Kiprusoff has more value than Khabibulin" will get the lynch mob on you. Similarly, I think if you visit a feminist site, expect to see a natural bias against men because, again, the term is so vague that it collects a wide swath of different people who are self proclaimed feminists.

...Anyways, that's all I can type before I start going on too much. I'll probably do a full reading later. It's an interesting topic and I'm curious to see what supported information this paper brings to the table.

[jammies]

Society oppresses the tall white male! I demand recompense!

If you divide the world into groups that are jockeying for power and control of societal mores and norms, then yah, men are losing power to women. However, that is an extremely simplistic model that says more about the person holding it than the world.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by endeavor

Is misandry a major problem in society?

No.

Stupidity is a major problem for that guy though.

What a bunch of nonsense.

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by kirant

I haven't read through it in any major detail yet, so this is purely my off-the-cuff reaction (after a quick scan, it's obviously not in the exact same area as it, but I thought it'd be worth putting up):
- We have developed into a society where we are scared to go after the daughter more than the son. I used to babysit when I was in high school (mid '00s) and there was a huge number of times I can remember where it's obvious the daughter, older or younger, can get away with virtually anything while the son (older or younger) is afraid to act without asking me (one asked me if he could get a glass of water...water!). It's even worse with younger daughters and I've seen some act in manners that at school would get you suspended for bullying. What do the parents do when I mention it at the end of the night? Nothing. They barely acknowledge that it happens and (as I did have the...fortune of babysitting this family again) it was obvious the daughter learned nothing.
-- Maybe it's because I'm male and I just recognize the mentality of the kid more, but I had an impossible time rounding up little girls for dinner or bed...most times, sons would be easier to deal with.
- I believe the concept of men = protector and provider, women = stay at home was a concept born of what should be outgrown data. It was done because men were stronger and therefore were better protectors and providers of food than women would be. At this point, it seems all it exists to do is enforce the concept that the man HAS to make the money while the woman stays at home. It still exists, don't get me wrong...but this feels outdated to me and I think shouldn't exist anymore.
- I do think that culturally, we're seeing a shift. The concept of masculine traits = good, feminine traits = bad is starting to slowly vanish. I'd particularily point to entertainment for this sort of stuff. Video games have an odd relationship, as it both moves towards progress (Western views of a character like Samus or Lara Croft take us into territory which defy cultural tradition), and back to the status quo (c'mon...use the previous examples. What one (fine...two ) things stand out if I say Lara Croft?). The video game world seems to realize what its best audience is...young teenage boys. And what do young teenage boys like? Sorry if I go off track on that, but it's been a point I kind of struggle with for the longest of time as I definately didn't see Soul Calibur or Dead or Alive the same way my friends did when I was in high school.
-- In film and TV, we're starting to see a bit more of a shift towards balance in agency of characters...at least, more than before. The concept of who has agency, in my opinion, stands to show you who the "strong" characters are. We have a decent grouping of high agency female protagonists who still retain feminine traits, so I think these concepts are starting to become neutral in thought. At a quick look, I think this paper seems to struggle coming to grips with that in its early points as it seems to bemoan the loss of maculinity in society...I personally view it as a change from masculinity being considered a positive trait to masculinity and feminimity being considered equals and more neutral terms.
- ...Of course, this also stands in stark contrast to the online communities at times. I can't determine at times where these "women in kitchen" jokes are for self-amusement and not serious (which I assumed they were initially) or if, as you can notice in things like MMORPGs, actual concerns created by 12 year olds which are then internalized as they explore the depths of the Internet...and whether or not they grow out of it (I don't know enough kids to test that).
- A quick glance at the article makes me wonder how much of it is true and how much of it seems to be stretching the facts. I notice some interesting points, but can't get links on them (such as "women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own". I'd love to read more into it, but there isn't a link provided at it). A lot of papers provide links to solid ground information, but stretch their facts to fit their argument and try to shuffle less than existant data under the table as their arguments diverge more and more from the data.
- It seems sometimes the writer uses Western culture, and sometimes uses both Western and Eastern culture as it suits his argument. In many Asian cultures, it's still expected that the wife's side pay for the wedding. Often when an Asian family and a Western family marry, I've heard (hey, I'm not married yet!) that the bill is split down the middle to reflect the change in cultures.
- The concept of "Feminism" these days is as nebulous as the concept of the Occupy Movement. There's no consistancy. I do consider myself a Liberal Feminist...we should treat people exactly as they are, with gender being no object; if a woman can do a job the exact same as a man with no other conditions, they are effectively the same person. At the same time, Feminist seems to also stand for nut chopping psycho and the group of people who think women are inherently better than men. This article seems to go after the extremists but fails to acknowledge that other groups seems to exist. I'm no expert in divorce laws, but some of them do seem unusual...I can't speak heavily on them as I haven't read them in detail yet.
- Some links definately seem to be weak support. One says that there was more hate from 'Feminists' towards Palin than Polanski...yet the link just points out an article which simply just dislikes Palin. I did a quick Ctrl-F search, but couldn't find mention of two key terms used..."Taliban" and "Polanski". All it claims is that Palin was used as a sex symbol in essence...whether that's true or not seems beside the point to me. It's just that the link and argument aren't supported by the evidence.
- The writer seems to occasionally struggle with how the online community works in terms of grouping like communities into a mob mentality. One thing that caught my eye was right after the above, where he says that a feminist forum would shoot you down if you defend a man...well, let's look at the forums around us. Here, you can get mercilessly attacked by many even if you make a legitimate claim about the Canucks or Oilers. If you go to Edmontonpuck.com or whatever Oilers site you want, I'm sure a suggestion such as "Bouwmeester is a good defensive D" or "Kiprusoff has more value than Khabibulin" will get the lynch mob on you. Similarly, I think if you visit a feminist site, expect to see a natural bias against men because, again, the term is so vague that it collects a wide swath of different people who are self proclaimed feminists.

...Anyways, that's all I can type before I start going on too much. I'll probably do a full reading later. It's an interesting topic and I'm curious to see what supported information this paper brings to the table.

[DuffMan]

we should've never let them vote.

was it written by some from the ME by chance?

[octothorp]

Based on reading the first, maybe quarter of the article and clicking on some sources, I have to conclude that he was just trying to grind an axe rather than building a factual argument based on supporting evidence. I'll pick one of his arguments and give an example, rather than try and do the entire article, which would take days.
Primal nature of men and women:
He starts by stating that 80% of women and 40% of men managed to reproduce. This is actually quite different from what the article that he links to states: it states that today's population descended twice as many women as men. The article is using 80-40 as an example of what this ratio might actually be. And it's important to note that this does not reflect how many men or women actually reproduced; only how many have descendants alive today.
From that fact, he goes on to create a universal primitive society where multiple women chose to hook up with alpha males, rather than beta males. It seems far more likely that there's a vast range of factors involved in this. As the article that he quotes states (but which he fails to mention), societies have traditionally seen men as more expendable (because one men and 10 women can produce the same number of offspring as 10 men and 10 women). So men get jobs that shorten their lifespans and their prospects, whether its soldier, fisherman, factory worker. Honestly, I think that a lot of that would actually help that guy make his point, but instead he misrepresents the article as a simple and incorrect stat.

Next comes an unsupported claim that shows that across ape species, males are more promiscuous. This may be true, but no supporting evidence is given. Edit: I'm just remembering something from the social anthropology class I took in college. There's a great variation in promiscuity amongst apes, and generally penis size is a good indicator of promiscuity; chimpanzees, for example, have very high promiscuity rates and similarly large phalluses in comparison to their total mass. Gorillas have relatively small penis sizes and similarly low promiscuity rates. Regardless species is far more important than gender in determining promiscuity in apes.

The next article he references is for the point that men are not monogamous, but hypergamous. This article he quotes does not actually provide any evidence. It cites a study that says that men see about six partners as an ideal, and that women see one partner as an ideal, then dismisses this study without evidence. At that point, the quoted article devolves into a rant against sluts and cougars.

So, based on that useless source, the article goes on to draw the conclusion that women are the first to want into a monogamous relationship, and the first to want out. Then a statement about how men are shamed into commitment. No evidence for this is given.

The next fact he states is that 90% of divorces are initiated by women. The link he has goes to the same article as the previous link; that article has a link in the footnotes for this 90% stat, which goes to another article on a different blog about how toxic women are, which attributes this 90% stat with a link to a dead page.
Anyway, he uses all of these extremely questionable sources (or misrepresentations of decent sources) for the rest of the section of the article. He next announces that it's 'all major religions' that needed to give the beta males reason to aspire, while limiting the hypergamous instincts of women, and so institute marriage. This overlooks the fact that the institution of marriage actually predates most of today's major religions, and typically occurred in nearly every society, regardless of religion.
The idea that marriage was about providing every beta-male with a wife is certainly false; men continued long after marriage to be seen as expendable by societies compared to women, and his statement that this system, applied over an entire population, is known as 'civilization', is a grand and ridiculous oversimplification.
He also states that societies that deviated from this were quickly replaced. Which is completely false, as societies from Burma to India to the Middle East to Europe all had polygamous elements in them that thrived for centuries.
He also says that the pre-civilization era of alpha males hoarding all the women resulted in violent societies because of all the unsatisfied beta males. Right, because civilized human history was all so peaceful.

And that's the end of that section of the article, a bunch of useless references to support a completely warped and inaccurate view of human history. Though I read much more of the article, looking at any one section in detail is enough to know that the entire thing is crap.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

I haven't read any of this article, but from what I can gather by skimming the rest of the posts, I'd be willing to bet Mikey_The_Redneck would give this article two enthusiastic thumbs up.

[To Be Quite Honest]

I've been assisting a Mens Rights Group now for 3 months and I am shocked at what is considered normal and okay. 3 months = I am not an expert at all but the FACT that women shelters receive $500 million from the government (Tax Payments) per year and Men receive $0 and the only male shelter in Canada is here in Calgary and it is an unfunded shelter, as well, it might close down, is horrifying. Do you care about this?

There is an Alberta Society for human rights that started a few years ago and the Pet Society was asked to join but the Male Representatives were omitted and had to DEMAND inclusion. Pets were more important then Men for human rights. This actually happened.

There is a female blogger called "Girl Says What" who is quite entertaining. I met her a few weeks ago at a Male Rights meeting in Edmonton and she is very well informed and uses fact to back up what she says in her blog. It is a serious issue and it is completely ignored.

Please, help stop the shelter from closing. PM me if you are interested. It isn't going to take much.

Here are the Alberta Websites. We can use some help here too.

http://www.familyofmen.com/

http://mensrightsedmonton.com/

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

NSFW!

- http://owningyour####.blogspot.ca/
- The website is "owningyours**t.blogspot.ca"

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

I haven't read any of this article, but from what I can gather by skimming the rest of the posts, I'd be willing to bet Mikey_The_Redneck would give this article two enthusiastic thumbs up.

This is the exact reason why this serious issue is ignored. Ignorant comments spawned from little or no investigation that belittle the attempt at true equality for everyone.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

This is the exact reason why this serious issue is ignored. Ignorant comments spawned from little or no investigation that belittle the attempt at true equality for everyone.

You think the issue is ignored because mikey_the_redneck is a misogynist?

[Boshi]

Yeah.. socially we're more in-tune with women in need and I think it all comes down to the notion that men are the strong and aggressive ones whereas the women are more fragile and emotionally vulnerable. There's some truth in it but it shouldn't be cast in stone.. as there are always exceptions.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Boshi

Yeah.. socially we're more in-tune with women in need and I think it all comes down to the notion that men are the strong and aggressive ones whereas the women are more fragile and emotionally vulnerable. There's some truth in it but it shouldn't be cast in stone.. as there are always exceptions.

There is no truth to it at all. Men and Women are equal in violence it's just Men can't "talk" about it. In 2010 Domestic Violence against women dropped to 6.4% while Domestic Violence against men is still holding at 6%.

A current issue - second hand but true.

Family of Men tried protecting a small boy and the Father from an abusive Wife/Mother and the "Policy" was to arrest the father. They came to the shelter and tried to corner him to provoke the father to "assault" the officers. They slowly moved toward him and tried cornering and trapping him into the open back seat of a squad car. Until the mans only option was to assault them (by trying to escape and shoving them out of the way) or get in the car. The Man at Family of Men saw what they were doing and stopped it in time. There is currently communication in the works to correct this issue but the CPS are trying to sweep it under the rug. After all, it was a man and not a woman they were bullying. Even though the man requested help of CPS and to protect the boy and himself. If a woman did what would have happened?

Violence against family members is something women do at least as often as men! There are dozens of solid scientific studies that reveal a startlingly different picture of family violence than what we usually see in the media. For instance:
* Women are three times more likely than men to use weapons in spousal violence.
* Women initiate most incidents of spousal violence.
* Women commit most child abuse and most elder abuse.
* Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.
* Women commit most child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.
* When women murder adults the majority of their victims are men.
* Women commit 52% of spousal killings and are convicted of 41% of spousal murders.
* Eighty two percent of the general population had their first experience of violence at the hands of women.


I'm going to clean up the website (One of my many tasks that I am doing alone) and link the facts but right now they are not, but they are accurate. I just don't have time to dig them up right now.

update - Links added on post 243

[HPLovecraft]

It's my understanding that the majority of these domestic violence studies are muddled and often times not very in-depth or specific, especially since much of it is under-reported, for both genders. For instance, do you know of any domestic violence studies that actually differentiate males in homosexual relationships from males in straight relationships? Or are these numbers mixed in with the numbers you're using? Do you know of any studies that actually look at the severity of the abuse (I do know that three times as many women as men are murdered due to spousal violence), or its repetition? Emotional abuse?

Doing a quick Google search of one of the statistics you've used (the women commit more child murders one), the first response is a CBC article stating the numbers are close, but males still commit the most child murders in Canada (unless you mean neonaticide only).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/mi...ldmurders.html

This is from 2004, however, and might have changed in a more recent study. I would like to see the actual studies you refer, too, though. Not to argue with you, but because it would actually be interesting. However, a misrepresentation of the numbers -- whether this is done on purpose or purely by accident -- would not be a very effective way for you to raise awareness of the issue, and would only look like an attempt to vilify women. Whether that seems fair or not, that's the way it would be perceived.

[endeavor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_amendment

In 2003, Keith McLeod, author of The Multiple Scandals of Child Support, testified[5] before the United States House Committee on Ways and Means that

"The 1986 Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D forbids any reduction of arrearage or retroactive reduction for any reason, ever. This reinforces the approach that inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt they will never be able to pay because they were:

• In a coma
• A captive of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War
• In jail
• Medically incapacitated
• Lost their job but were confident of another so did nothing until it was too late
• Did not know they could not ask for retroactive adjustments and waited too long
• Cannot afford a lawyer to seek adjustment when adjustment was warranted
• Wouldn’t use the legal system even if they could, feeling it alien from their world, so don’t ask for a reduction when the legal establishment expects them to.

Some say this measure is a violation of due process and cruel and unusual as it removes the use of human discretion from dealing with individual cases, not to mention removing human compassion. But non-custodial fathers do not have the money to fight a constitutional case."

The Amendment has been a controversial law and has resulted in several notorious examples:

• Bobby Sherrill, a Lockheed employee in Kuwait from North Carolina, was captured by Iraqis and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage. Sherrill was arrested the night after his release for not paying $1,425 in child support while he was a hostage.[6][7][8]
• Clarence Brandley, a Texas high school janitor, was wrongly convicted in 1980 of murder. [9] After spending many years in prison and on death row,[10] he was released in 1990 and he then sued the state of Texas for wrongful imprisonment in 1993.[11] The state then responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.[12] Dianna Thompson of The American Coalition of Fathers and Children told the Houston Chronicle that federal law makes it illegal for states to forgive child support payments regardless of circumstance. [13] Michael McCormick, of the American Coalition of Fathers and Children said, concerning child support payments, "I'm not aware of any state where it says a wrongly convicted individual is relieved of their obligation." [14] Despite paying child support every month since his release via wage garnishment, Brandley's child support total reached $73,000 in 2003, when a judge reduced his total to $22,000; however, this amount is still more than triple the $7,000 in back child support Brandley owed at the time of his arrest in 1980. [15] Recently, Brandley lost his job in the economic downturn in 2008; he has since lost his car and house as the child support bills and interest keep coming.[16]
• Taron James, a U.S. Navy veteran from California, was forced to continue to pay child support until 2006, even after the child was demonstrated by DNA test in 2001 to be not his; James paid $12,000 in such payments.[17][18][19] A California District Court of Appeal eventually set aside the paternity judgment against James in 2006, but the same court denied James' request to have his child support payments reimbursed.[20]

If the ex-husband does make child support payments, then I wonder if the funds are actually going towards the benefit of the child and not being misused? The above are just some famous examples, I don't know how common this is.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

It's my understanding that the majority of these domestic violence studies are muddled and often times not very in-depth or specific, especially since much of it is under-reported, for both genders. For instance, do you know of any domestic violence studies that actually differentiate males in homosexual relationships from males in straight relationships? Or are these numbers mixed in with the numbers you're using? Do you know of any studies that actually look at the severity of the abuse (I do know that three times as many women as men are murdered due to spousal violence), or its repetition? Emotional abuse?

Doing a quick Google search of one of the statistics you've used (the women commit more child murders one), the first response is a CBC article stating the numbers are close, but males still commit the most child murders in Canada (unless you mean neonaticide only).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/mi...ldmurders.html

This is from 2004, however, and might have changed in a more recent study. I would like to see the actual studies you refer, too, though. Not to argue with you, but because it would actually be interesting. However, a misrepresentation of the numbers -- whether this is done on purpose or purely by accident -- would not be a very effective way for you to raise awareness of the issue, and would only look like an attempt to vilify women. Whether that seems fair or not, that's the way it would be perceived.

There is no attempt to vilify at all. My attempt is to squash the "Men are scum and it's okay to ignore them" mentality. The mentality that the Men are abusive and the women need protecting more because they do not abuse or rarely do. I've been hearing it's a tough road to get people to understand and agree, but I'm for it. Men and women are both equally capable of harm and the percentages are pretty close to the same but the treatment sure isn't. My response above was to the comment that men are more abusive or "aggressive". This is untrue and I posted info from the website (that I need to fix up). I am NOT a web guy so it's going to take me some time.

Now this is also second hand as I was not present during this but the Family of Men stopped a university from publishing a paper. There was a questionnaire to the study and the questionnaire was different for each sex. The woman's questionnaire asked if the husband ever assaulted or beat her. The man's questionnaire was have you ever beaten you girl friend or wife? Not a sensible balanced question like "Have you been assaulted by your girl friend or wife?". I can't remember the rest of it but that stuck with me. There is so much more out there that is sickens me.

Here is something going on in Delaware

Press Release: July 12, 2012 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A lawsuit has been filed against Delaware State Police and several other Delaware agencies and four individual officers for failing to arrest individuals who made proven false police reports, failure to conduct investigations prior to making arrests, and falsely entering the Plaintiff into DELJIS resulting in his false arrest and incarceration in a Delaware State Prison the day after he conducted a demonstration outside Kent County Family Court. The lawsuit was filed by Gordon Smith, in Superior Court seeking damages for numerous torts and civil rights violations. Had Mr. Smith not been able to prove his innocence, in the face of false reports by his ex-wife he faced a year in prison on each of the false charges. Despite the fact that in one case he was able to prove that he was miles away when the ex-wife, her sister and her boyfriend told Delaware State Police that he was at her home, the Delaware State Police refused to arrest the individuals that made the false report that resulted in his arrest. In another case he was at Family Court, which is under video surveillance when his ex-wife alleged that he made a call to her in violation of an ex-parte protection order. The police officer that arrested him admitted that he saw Mr. Smith in the court at the time he was alleged to have been making the phone call but refused to review the video tape to confirm that he was not on a phone at that time. Cell phones and other electronic devices are not allowed in Delaware Family Courthouses. In another instance the ex-wife alleged that he called and text messaged numerous times, when he had not and he was charged with harassment by phone with the domestic violence modifier because he was a divorced spouse. The Delaware State Police failed to look at the complainant's phone records which would have shown her statement was another false report. His ex-wife had him falsely arrested twice in one day and three times in that one week period. According to Mr. Smith the pendulum on domestic violence has swung from thirty years ago when it was ignored as a private matter, where abused women were not protected to the same extent that non related individuals would be if victimized to a point now that men are not given the same due process or equal protection when accused of domestic related crimes in comparison to those accused of any other crimes that are not considered domestic. Smith says “in the instances where I was arrested the police didn't even contact me to see if I could prove that I was innocent, in other instances when my ex-wife made reports to police and they did investigate I was not arrested”. He said that “failure of the Delaware State Police to enforce Delaware law on filing false police reports encouraged his ex-wife to continue to file false police reports” in an effort to have him incarcerated because he had moved on in his personal life and was involved with another woman. Men in Delaware are subject to arrest at any time when they haven't committed any crime. Smith stated, "You can get up and go to work and not know there is a warrant for your arrest on some made up allegation and be in prison that night for something that you didn't do. No evidence is required, all a woman has to do is say that you, a current or former spouse or domestic partner, did something and the State Police will run out and get a rubber stamp warrant from the JP Court. You have to prove that you're innocent instead of them having anything more concrete than verbal allegations that you committed a crime." For Mr. Smith this has resulted in five arrests that were nolle prossed but show on background checks preventing him from being employed in his field, despite no convictions and resulting in his being financially crippled. In Delaware, unlike neighboring Pennsylvania, it is not against the law for employers to consider arrest that did not result in conviction to make adverse employment decisions.

Mr. Smith is the co-founder and Executive Director of a family law reform and advocacy organization and the Delaware State Coordinator for an organization that lobbies for changes in Federal and State laws to address the proliferation of false allegations of domestic abuse and for enforcement of laws on filing false police reports.

Smith said that he is looking for other men in Delaware who have been the victim of proven false police reports of domestic violence or violations of PFAs and would consider being part of a class action lawsuit, in Federal District Court. They can contact him at gordonsmith67@gmail.com

[HPLovecraft]

I forgot to add, where did you get that number for the percentage of women that commit spousal killings? That seems to be completely incorrect in Canada.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-224-...estdm2-eng.htm

Women continue to be more likely than men to be victims of spousal homicide. In 2009, the rate of spousal homicide against women was about three times higher than that for men.

In the United States, however, it's closer to half, or at least was, but it's an important qualification.

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/WhoKills.pdf

A hitherto unremarked peculiarity of homicide in the United States is that
the number of women who kill their husbands relative to the number of men
who kill their wives (the spousal SROK) is exceptionally high. In Canada,
for example, 812 wives and 248 husbands were slain between 1974 and 1983
(Daly and Wilson, 1988a, 1988b), yielding a spousal SROK of just 31p

Again, the misrepresentation of statistics is definitely not the way to go about raising awareness for this issue (and don't get me wrong, I do believe it is an issue; the statistics bear it out to one degree or another, though they are often times slightly misleading when it comes to severity and the under-reporting of the crimes by both genders).

[Boshi]

You're honestly trying to spin what I said into "men are more abusive"? I said that socially there is a notion that men are more aggressive--but aggression does not equal abuse. Besides, there are plenty of different forms of abuse.

I know women are capable of the same things.. but there exists a disconnect in society's mind mainly due to the fact that men (on average) are built bigger and stronger. That doesn't mean a woman cannot do damage or use a weapon, etc etc etc.. but that disconnect is there. It's also got some truth to it, as I had said.

Sorry if you thought I was saying something that I clearly was not.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by Boshi

You're honestly trying to spin what I said into "men are more abusive"? I said that socially there is a notion that men are more aggressive--but aggression does not equal abuse. Besides, there are plenty of different forms of abuse.

I know women are capable of the same things.. but there exists a disconnect in society's mind mainly due to the fact that men (on average) are built bigger and stronger. That doesn't mean a woman cannot do damage or use a weapon, etc etc etc.. but that disconnect is there. It's also got some truth to it, as I had said.

Sorry if you thought I was saying something that I clearly was not.

There was no spin - "Yeah.. socially we're more in-tune with women in need and I think it all comes down to the notion that men are the strong and aggressive ones whereas the women are more fragile and emotionally vulnerable. There's some truth in it but it shouldn't be cast in stone.. as there are always exceptions."

What do you mean by aggressive?

ag·gres·sive   [uh-gres-iv] Show IPA
adjective 1. characterized by or tending toward unprovoked offensives, attacks, invasions, or the like; militantly forward or menacing: aggressive acts against a neighboring country.

2. making an all-out effort to win or succeed; competitive: an aggressive basketball player.

3. vigorously energetic, especially in the use of initiative and forcefulness: an aggressive salesperson.

4. boldly assertive and forward; pushy: an aggressive driver.

5. emphasizing maximum growth and capital gains over quality, security, and income: an aggressive mutual fund.


I wasn't attacking your post. I was pointing out that women are in fact not less aggressive. It's a common misconception that needs to be nipped in the bud.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Now this is also second hand as I was not present during this but the Family of Men stopped a university from publishing a paper. There was a questionnaire to the study and the questionnaire was different for each sex. The woman's questionnaire asked if the husband ever assaulted or beat her. The man's questionnaire was have you ever beaten you girl friend or wife? Not a sensible balanced question like "Have you been assaulted by your girl friend or wife?". I can't remember the rest of it but that stuck with me. There is so much more out there that is sickens me.

That depends on what the publication was looking at. Was it looking at a difference between alleged and committed assaults on women? Or was it trying to use it to make a wide statement on society? Papers are extremely narrowly focused (my supervisor keeps rejecting mine on the basis that it's not specific enough...my title is entering 3 lines of text and it's still apparently generic in topic) and one looking at that sort of difference can constitute a publication on its own.

Alternatively, was it challenging a historical piece? Was it challenging an old set of data saying "our results say different"? There are a lot of ways to spin that information and not all of them are shoving on-male abuse under the rug.

The key thing to look at is the discussion and abstract sections...how is it using this information to back up a claim? What is it asserting with the data? A study between the difference of this and women-on-men violence via poll could easily be its own paper (and I've met professors who will do such a thing just to get more grant money...not all, but I've met some who would do it).

There's too little data for me to make a good judgement on whether it was good to request it to not be produced.