The Misandry Bubble

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Here's the thing, if the woman is in a committed relationship, and there is an unwanted pregnancy, I would imagine most women would discuss this with their partner. If the pregnancy comes from a sexual encounter of a casual nature, how often does the guy want to raise that child? Honestly? If he's having casual sex with a girl, he's probably as unlikely to want to raise that child as she is. I just feel like this argument is a very, very rare occurrence used only for the sake of argument. How often is this honestly an issue?

It happens more than you would think, and certainly more than I'd like to see. I agree the ideal situation is to have two committed people talking through the situation, but you and I know the reality of the world is that this often isn't the case. One of my nephews would not be alive today if it weren't for desperate pleading and begging from several family members to keep a child. Shortly after he was born, the mother hit the trail and left the father as the sole guardian. Pretty sure my nephew is happy he had a chance to live.

I may have a bit of a hard line on this one, but I think when you have sex, you need to understand the consequences of that action. Just like getting into a car... If I fall asleep at the wheel and plow into a minivan, am I not responsible for the accident? Can I simply walk away from it and say, well, I certainly didn't want this to happen so I am just going to erase it? I understand that a woman has a right to what goes "inside" her body, but in my opinion, that decision should be made when she decides to have sex, and not after pregnancy.

(I realize my view is simplistic and most situations aren't)

Originally Posted by opendoor

What possible practical way would there be for a man to have an equal say in this matter? Are you really suggesting that women be forced to carry a pregnancy to term against their will?

Biology dictates that the woman has the final say in this matter and there's really nothing anyone can do about it.

Yea, I actually talked to my wife about this last night, as I was curious what she thought. She brought up this exact point and I hadn't even thought about it

If a woman wants to "miscarry" there are plenty of shady ways to try to accomplish it. Not to mention the fact that she may make terrible choices like drugs and alcohol... You can't simply lock up someone for 9 months.. The fact this could occur saddens me, but it's reality and a woman resenting the fact she is bearing a child is not a good thing. The only thing I would say is that I would hope that negligent behaviour such as this would be criminally punishable... But that doesn't help a child born with fetal alcohol syndrome.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1975-85. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 595-599. (Examined FBI figures regarding spousal homicides. During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985 found higher murder rates of wives than husbands <43.4% vs 56.6%>. Black husbands were at the greatest risk of victimization. Spousal homicide among blacks was 8.4 times higher than that of whites. Spouse homicide rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages and the risk of victimization for both whites and blacks increased as age differences between spouses increased. Wives and husbands were equally likely to be killed by firearms <approximately 72% of the time> while husbands were more likely to be stabbed and wives more likely to bludgeoned to death. Arguments apparently escalated to murder in 67% of spouse homicides.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

Most recent study.

Davis. R. L. (2010). Domestic Violence-related deaths. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2 (2), 44-52. (A review article which examines domestic violence-related suicides. Author concludes that "when domestic violence-related suicides are combined with domestic homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related deaths are higher for males than females.")

This is what I have found myself. I'm still waiting to hear back from my requests yesterday morning. These, while they are in the USA certainly describe a distinct need for aid for men where it currently does not exist. I havn't been able to find a domestic violence shelter for men in the USA as well.

As much as I love scholarly journals, there's obviously a wide strike zone.

We're getting published articles that go all over the place. Depending on the sample and analyzing methods ("Measuring stick" if you will), you can get widely different results.

I understand whoever put this up put a lot of time into it, but if you cherry pick from either angle, you can get an extremely long list with some prolific names on it. This is certainly something that can't be proven with a simple link or a few papers, as with this issue, where there's one, there are probably 3 or 4 ready with a counter argument (heck, even if you go to a basic site such as Wikipedia, they'll throw contradictory evidence for analyzing the case.

Another note basic sites like Wikipedia point out is that the measurement system and analytic system seems to be out of date. I don't have time to read through each paper, but it indicates that the gold standard is CTS, which is purely subjective in its reporting and a pretty tough measure because of how it works...a quick read implies that if a women punches a man after he's whipping a kid, it counts as female-on-male violence. Additionally, if a man hits a women back after she lays a serious beating on him, that qualifies as both acting in violence using CTS.

One interesting thing that stood out was the note made by Kimmel, who suggests a reporting bias where men overestimate their abuse and underestimate their abusive nature, and vise versa for women. However, that too is purely speculative. He also points out that CTS only counts physical abuse, not sexual, and qualifies form of physical violence as abuse. So, as in the above example, it'd qualify both the female and the male as equally violent, though my hypthetical example should seriously favour the male.

One note that does heavily stand out is the "sexual abuse is not considered" note by Kimmel. If this is true (and from what I can tell from my overview on it, it is), this means that there are some things the number isn't showing us...that physical abuse may be one-sided, but the overall domestic abuse, and aggregate of various types of abuse, may be less so. Alternatively, some areas are poorly researched (which one it is can be put up to debate).

As HPLovecraft suggests, I wonder if equal funding really is the solution. I think there's not enough data to state that there'd be equal usage and if it's the ideal solution. I would happily suggest more trial centres from the government to see if this works. Dip our feet into the concept and get sample data, if you will.

[AR_Six]

This whole thread is pure

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm


Mercy, J. A., & Saltzman, L. E. (1989). Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1975-85. American Journal of Public Health, 79, 595-599. (Examined FBI figures regarding spousal homicides. During the 10 year period from 1975 to 1985 found higher murder rates of wives than husbands <43.4% vs 56.6%>. Black husbands were at the greatest risk of victimization. Spousal homicide among blacks was 8.4 times higher than that of whites. Spouse homicide rates were 7.7 times higher in interracial marriages and the risk of victimization for both whites and blacks increased as age differences between spouses increased. Wives and husbands were equally likely to be killed by firearms <approximately 72% of the time> while husbands were more likely to be stabbed and wives more likely to bludgeoned to death. Arguments apparently escalated to murder in 67% of spouse homicides.)

Wilson, M. I. & Daley, M. (1992). Who kills whom in spouse killings? On the exceptional sex ratio of spousal homicides in the United States. Criminology, 30, 189-215. (Authors summarize research which indicates that between 1976 and 1985, for every 100 men who killed their wives, about 75 women killed their husbands. Authors report original data from a number of cities, e.g., Chicago, Detroit, Houston, where the ratio of wives as perpetrators exceeds that of husbands.)

Most recent study.

Davis. R. L. (2010). Domestic Violence-related deaths. Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, 2 (2), 44-52. (A review article which examines domestic violence-related suicides. Author concludes that "when domestic violence-related suicides are combined with domestic homicides, the total numbers of domestic violence-related deaths are higher for males than females.")

This is what I have found myself. I'm still waiting to hear back from my requests yesterday morning. These, while they are in the USA certainly describe a distinct need for aid for men where it currently does not exist. I havn't been able to find a domestic violence shelter for men in the USA as well.

Until the United States starts funding Canadian women's and men's shelters, this doesn't really mean anything with the conversation you and I are having. I was under the impression you want equal funding (in Canada) for men's shelters when compared to female's shelters. Some of the numbers you've posted have been wrong in the context of domestic abuse in Canada, with the domestic murder rate being the big one I looked up, and as a result I don't believe equal funding should be given (along with below), as women are in more need of the funds due to the severity of the crimes committed against them.

I am not denying that men are sometimes victims of domestic abuse -- the numbers show they are, to one extent or another. And I'm not denying that the Canadian government should supply funds for some type of assistance program, but I don't believe there is even close to enough clear data to lead to the conclusion that it should be put into a shelters program, even if the nation did have enough funds to give $500M+ to both.

If I were the one involved in trying to raise awareness of this issue, I would go about it by calling for money for more studies into whether or not a shelters program is really best for male victims, for more research into the nature of the abuse, and an extension of women's shelters to actually give assistance to males in need, at least temporarily (I don't know enough to say whether they actually do or not, even though they are supposed to). I would also quit comparing it too much to the plight of women, because it will ultimately attract the wrong types of people (of both genders) and can way too easily be misconstrued in this day and age as misogynistic or sexist (even though there may be the best of intentions in reality). Make the issue about men needing help because they need help, not about some idea that men are striving for equality with women.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

It happens more than you would think, and certainly more than I'd like to see. I agree the ideal situation is to have two committed people talking through the situation, but you and I know the reality of the world is that this often isn't the case. One of my nephews would not be alive today if it weren't for desperate pleading and begging from several family members to keep a child. Shortly after he was born, the mother hit the trail and left the father as the sole guardian. Pretty sure my nephew is happy he had a chance to live.

I really hate this argument. Your nephew is happy he had a chance to live. Fine. Are you saying as an aborted fetus he would've had the emotions to be unhappy?

I may have a bit of a hard line on this one, but I think when you have sex, you need to understand the consequences of that action. Just like getting into a car... If I fall asleep at the wheel and plow into a minivan, am I not responsible for the accident? Can I simply walk away from it and say, well, I certainly didn't want this to happen so I am just going to erase it? I understand that a woman has a right to what goes "inside" her body, but in my opinion, that decision should be made when she decides to have sex, and not after pregnancy.

That's a terrible analogy. The consequences of bringing an unwanted child into a world, to unfit parents, should be weighted a lot heavier than the need to teach someone a lesson about safe sex.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I really hate this argument. Your nephew is happy he had a chance to live. Fine. Are you saying as an aborted fetus he would've had the emotions to be unhappy?



That's a terrible analogy. The consequences of bringing an unwanted child into a world, to unfit parents, should be weighted a lot heavier than the need to teach someone a lesson about safe sex.

You hate the argument, great, does this somehow invalidate it? Two weeks after conception the Fetus has a heartbeat. You can rationalize that they don't have emotions at that age, but ending a life is still robbing them of what could have been.

How is my analogy terrible, it may well be that the parents are unfit, and that is truly unfortunate. Some people are unfit to be on the road, and they drive anyway, and they are responsible for their actions all the same. I would argue they should not be driving, I would not be saying it's OK for them to keep crashing as long as they clean up the mess they make.

I fail to see merit in your responses.

[Five-hole]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

You hate the argument, great, does this somehow invalidate it? Two weeks after conception the Fetus has a heartbeat. You can rationalize that they don't have emotions at that age, but ending a life is still robbing them of what could have been.

How is my analogy terrible, it may well be that the parents are unfit, and that is truly unfortunate. Some people are unfit to be on the road, and they drive anyway, and they are responsible for their actions all the same. I would argue they should not be driving, I would not be saying it's OK for them to keep crashing as long as they clean up the mess they make.

I fail to see merit in your responses.

What kind of a line is that? Jeez. Mr. Serious.

What could have been is that they grew up in to a mass murderer, rapist, or even worse, a drunk driver. So thank god we ended it before we got to that point.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I really hate this argument. Your nephew is happy he had a chance to live. Fine. Are you saying as an aborted fetus he would've had the emotions to be unhappy?



That's a terrible analogy. The consequences of bringing an unwanted child into a world, to unfit parents, should be weighted a lot heavier than the need to teach someone a lesson about safe sex.

In the context of this thread discussing the inequality of men's and women's reproductive rights there would be a willing parent for the child.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

You hate the argument, great, does this somehow invalidate it? Two weeks after conception the Fetus has a heartbeat. You can rationalize that they don't have emotions at that age, but ending a life is still robbing them of what could have been.

Really where do you set the bar then? A heartbeat seems pretty arbitrary. At that point, they still have a pretty high chance of being a miscarriage, so you're not necessarily robbing them of anything.

How is my analogy terrible, it may well be that the parents are unfit, and that is truly unfortunate. Some people are unfit to be on the road, and they drive anyway, and they are responsible for their actions all the same. I would argue they should not be driving, I would not be saying it's OK for them to keep crashing as long as they clean up the mess they make.

I fail to see merit in your responses.

Except we don't make people stop having sex when they screw up, like we do when they suck at driving. It's apples to oranges. Driving recklessly endangers other people. ####ing recklessly endangers the only two involved. Until I see evidence that an aborted fetus is a sentient being, then I'm not considering it part of the equation. Hypotheticals regarding the potential of a fetus get much drearier when you look at the statistics surrounding children born to teen mothers.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

In the context of this thread discussing the inequality of men's and women's reproductive rights there would be a willing parent for the child.

There's no way you can convince me that a woman should have to go through the horrors of pregnancy or childbirth, which includes the possibility of death, to have a child she doesn't want to have. As far as the human body goes, women make all the sacrifices before, during, and after childbirth. That's why they get to make the choice.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Really where do you set the bar then? A heartbeat seems pretty arbitrary. At that point, they still have a pretty high chance of being a miscarriage, so you're not necessarily robbing them of anything.



Except we don't make people stop having sex when they screw up, like we do when they suck at driving. It's apples to oranges. Driving recklessly endangers other people. ####ing recklessly endangers the only two involved. Until I see evidence that an aborted fetus is a sentient being, then I'm not considering it part of the equation. Hypotheticals regarding the potential of a fetus get much drearier when you look at the statistics surrounding children born to teen mothers.

Okay, I am not sure how you see it as apples to oranges, ###ing recklessly isn't JUST about the two people involved, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion would we?

In my opinion, terminating an otherwise healthy fetus when one of the two parents is dead set against it is just wrong and IS violating the rights and freedoms of one of the parents and the unborn child.

It's obvious I am pro-life, but I understand there are situations where termination of pregnancy is better for all involved.

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by rubecube

There's no way you can convince me that a woman should have to go through the horrors of pregnancy or childbirth, which includes the possibility of death, to have a child she doesn't want to have. As far as the human body goes, women make all the sacrifices before, during, and after childbirth. That's why they get to make the choice.

Then use birth control. (or don't have sex)

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Then use birth control. (or don't have sex)

And in cases where birth control was used properly but failed (because no method is 100% guaranteed)?

[TheGrimm]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

And in cases where birth control was used properly but failed (because no method is 100% guaranteed)?

It doesn't say 100% on the box, therein lies the risk. (Not having sex was 100% effective last time I checked)

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

It doesn't say 100% on the box, therein lies the risk.

So you're saying that even if a couple was practising safe sex and properly using birth control but they had an unlucky failure, you would force the mother to carry the fetus to term?

That's the anti-abortion argument, I guess, but that's really a topic for its own thread.

[MarchHare]

(Not having sex was 100% effective last time I checked)

Yeah, keep living in a fantasy land where you can expect people who don't want children to not have sex.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by rubecube

There's no way you can convince me that a woman should have to go through the horrors of pregnancy or childbirth, which includes the possibility of death, to have a child she doesn't want to have. As far as the human body goes, women make all the sacrifices before, during, and after childbirth. That's why they get to make the choice.

I agree with you that the law needs to remain the same however a womens right to make the choice certainly doesnt come from the discomfort or risk of child birth. It comes from the fact that you dictate how someone treats their body. However the morality of abortion and the legality of abortion are two completely different issues.

To your argument above if you think that a women shouldnt have an obligation to go through the horrors of preganacy for a child they do not want to have would you agree that men should be afforded an equal right to avoid the financial obligations and inconvenience of having a child that he doesnt want to have

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by TheGrimm

Okay, I am not sure how you see it as apples to oranges, ###ing recklessly isn't JUST about the two people involved, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion would we?

Except it is. How does a guy knocking a girl up have any effect on anyone except him and the girl, unless you consider the fetus a person (which I don't)?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GGG

To your argument above if you think that a women shouldnt have an obligation to go through the horrors of preganacy for a child they do not want to have would you agree that men should be afforded an equal right to avoid the financial obligations and inconvenience of having a child that he doesnt want to have

In the court's eyes, because it's in the best interests of the child to have financial support from both parents. And honestly, I've yet to hear a solid argument against that.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Originally Posted by rubecube

In the court's eyes, because it's in the best interests of the child to have financial support from both parents. And honestly, I've yet to hear a solid argument against that.

Your eye must be shut and your ears plugged. No, you haven't looked into it at all. Thus, you have not seen such.