A Fisking We Will Go!
If you’ve ever met a “Mens Rights Activist†you’ve probably learned rather quickly that they are fixated on the idea that women beat up men as often, if not more often, than men beat up women in relationships. They further posit that feminists are conspiring to hide this from the general public. I must admit when I first heard the claim that women committed acts of violence against men in proportion to men I was skeptical. Considering the source, I dismissed it as being part of another far-right wing reaction to feminism. However, after doing some research, I did find that some of the information these individuals were pushing was true, although it did not seem to support the conclusions they demanded.
If you have ever met a feminist, especially one of the male variety, you’ve probably learned rather quickly that they are fixated on the idea that women are somehow morally superior, and perpetual victims. Thus, when confronted with evidence to the contrary their first reaction is to dismiss the evidence, and then to try to *EXPLAIN* it away.
Most of the data which supports the Men’s Rights position on domestic violence comes from the research of Martin S. Fiebert, Professor of Psychology at CSU Long Beach. Time and time again his research is used to suggest it is men who are the victims of relationship violence, not women. Even a cursory look on the internet finds his research is used internationally by men’s activists to justify attacks on feminism. It is true that Fiebert’s data suggests that women are as aggressive, if nor more aggressive, then men are in the context of domestic abuse. But what men’s rights activists continually misinterpret is the nature of that aggression, and Fiebert’s own view of Patriarchy and the interpretation of his data.
Correction – the Fiebert list is not research in and of itself, but a collection of statistics gleaned from literally HUNDREDS of other studies.
In a 2002 interview with the LA Times, Fiebert was quoted as saying that part of the reason society thinks men are not abused by women is because men are afraid to come forward and admit they’ve been beat up by a woman.
Note that “PART†of the reason….
“That comes from a culture of patriarchy,†Fiebert argues, “In western society, [men are] in charge of the family, and the economics and the power of the family. Therefore when it’s demonstrated that the person in position of power doesn’t have the power, it’s an area of ridicule and humiliation.â€
…Quickly becomes the whole of the reason.
Quick – for 20 points, name that logical fallacy!
Fiebert’s analysis is certainly in line with many prominent feminist theories on the subject. In her short essay, Supremacy Crimes, Gloria Steinem suggests that masculinity is built on the assumption “that males are superior to females, that they must find a place in a male hierarchy, and that the ability to dominate someone is… important.†If Steinem’s view is correct, then a woman who is able to dominate a man is considered humiliating from a masculine point of view since it inverts the hierarchy and makes a female physically superior to a male.
*IF* Steinems view is correct. Which it is not.
Contrary to Gloria’s – and most feminist’s – warped view of reality, the very vast and very overwhelming majority of men – hell, people – will generally turn only to violence out of a last resort. I am quite capable of breaking any assailant in about 1.2 seconds flat. In my days as a bouncer, I was known to do so in the line of my job. In my private life, I am much more likely to “just hand over the wallet.â€
What the real problem is centers around the fact that if a man does come forward, the probability is almost certain that nothing will be done unless such evidence exists as can’t be pooh-poohed away; that if something is done, it will be a mere token admonishment, and that in all likelihood it will be him who is punished instead under feminist-lobbied-for “primary aggressor†doctrines.
Both Fiebert and Steinem are saying what Men’s Rights Activists won’t: a patriarchy suppresses or ridicules stories about violence and rape committed against men because they portray women in a dominant role. In fact, an organization devoted to battered men writes, “Domestic violence against women is not socially condoned. Men who do beat women typically feel shame and try to keep it a secret. Most men have little respect for a man who “beats his woman.â€â€
This is a half truth, at best. In a REAL patriarchy, the law and culture would give carte blanche to a man keeping his woman in line; hence, if one’s wife were to assault or otherwise defy her social master, he could discipline her with the full blessing of law and society. You can see real patriarchal cultures in the Muslim world where this is so.
In 1997, Fiebert found that the most prominent reason why women attacked men without regard to their safety was “I believe that men can readily protect themselves so I don t worry when I become physically aggressive.†In other words, the perception of men as the more powerful figure was one of the main reasons why women felt they could attack their husbands or boyfriends.
Here’s where the bullshit starts rolling in.
Three words: Little Man Disease.
This is the phenomena whereby a scrawny little runt feels they can walk up to the biggest guy in the bar and begin abusing him. He knows he can’t lose. If the big guy backs off – he’s a pussy. If he doesn’t, his usual posse will stand up saying, “Hey, you big bully, pick on someone your own size.â€
Same thing. And it arises from the same lack of moral character when such women do that.
Blaming the victim, Steven. Bad troll. No biscuit.
While his study did suggest that women are more likely than men to use household objects as weapons in domestic violence cases, Fiebert never suggested that men suffer more injuries than women as a result of their violence. In part then, the assertion then that women are more dangerous than men in society is patently sexist.
Claptrap and codswaddle, in that order. Neither Feibert nor Men’s Activists claim a greater incidence of injury, Steven. It is still criminal. If one drives drunk and doesn’t get caught, one is still a criminal, the same as if they do get caught and “nobody was hurt†or if they run down a 10 year old. “No harm, no foul†is crap – and you know it.
Second – to say that a woman with a weapon swinging isn’t dangerous is also bullshit. I may be a monster of a man with a collection of black belts and have small risk to all but an ambush, but put a club in anyone’s hand, and they are indeed dangerous. Even if they are female.
Your claim that they are less dangerous – because they are mere women – is the sexist claim, Steven.
And yet, Men’s Rights Activists turn the issue against feminists, suggesting that it’s feminism which teaches that violence committed against men is unimportant or nonexistent. Daran, writing from Creative Destruction, writes that feminism. “looks at female oppression through a microscope, and male oppression through a telescope.†The overarching message is that both men and women are oppressed by society, and that feminism cares only for female oppression and not male oppression. This fits into the idea that feminism is “whitewashing†the violence women perpetrate against men and other women, while vilifying men as being the big bad rapist. Of course, it is difficult to make a case for inequality while arguing that both men and women are equally unequal.
Duluth Model, Steven. Erin Pizzey, Steven.
The perception that feminism is the reason society is not sensitive to the needs of men is quite backward. According to feminism, society is purposely not sensitive to the needs of men as a right of passage, calling on men to dominate their rivals or face humiliation, to be a provider and not need the help of anyone. This is a major reason why men would not wish to come forward to talk about their experiences out of shame and humiliation. It is the perception of men as the protector, the provider, rather than the nurturer and healer, which accounts for much of the social organizing and family disputes which assign gender roles that many men and women rightly view us unfavorable to their preferences and needs.
Back to the whole “Patriarchy†crap.
Steven, your statements are so patently untrue I will call them for what they are – bald faced lies and propaganda, as only can be spouted by a kool-aid swilling true believer. The fact of the matter is that most men would come forward – many do, and it is only after being treated like crap by the system, and seeing other men treated like crap by the same system, that men don’t.
Riddle me this, Batman: Why is it that FEMINISTS are the ones complaining when police abandon psychobabble nonsense, and start arresting women for DV? Why are FEMINISTS arguing that men should have to privately fund shelters for men, for fear of taking away “women’s†share of the pie? Why when you propose some rectification of this is it that FEMINISTS are the first to bitterly complain, and advocate maintaining the status quo? Why did FEMINISTS oppose the creation of the New Hampshire Commission on Men?
What feminists DO speaks so loudly, I am afraid, that what they say gets lost. Mainly because it shows that they really don’t believe what they say.
No, I am not accusing feminists of hypocrisy, but of mendacity.
Contrary to the assertion of Mens Rights Activists, many feminist organizations and individuals have begun talking about the objectification, exploitation, and oppression of men. One group, CAFRA, writes:
the objectification of men’s bodies is associated with the emergence of a new consumer culture. Men have long held the power of ‘the gaze’ over women’s bodies and still do. With the growth of men’s style magazines and male modeling, men are being subjected to ‘the look’ of both women and men. This is exemplified by the range of new body-sculpting magazines and exercise machines that are being promoted. Men are being encouraged to have “rock hard abs†and a totally toned physique (a hard body) Also, men are proving to be almost as susceptible as women to a loss of self-esteem and dissatisfaction with their body image. The male image is increasingly being sexualized, eroticized and so feminized.†But while many feminists are willing to take on part of the issues raised by Men’s Rights Activists, they fall short of wanting to call back progress made on women’s liberation.
The last line says it all. Feminists are willing to make a show of ineffectual hand wringing and false concern. They are not willing, however, to actually DO anything about it. Women first.
Feminists consider men to be potential victims of the Patriarchial society in addition to women. But as Keith Nurse, a feminist writer for CAFRA, correctly points out “the men as victims argument is associated with a counter movement to reassert the dominance of men and masculinity.†To portray women as dominating society and men as suffering is a complete distortion from reality.
I repeat, for your answering, a challenge issued years ago. Ready?
• Name one way that western society oppresses women that is socially condoned.
To be socially condoned a oppressive meme, law or social bias has to be one of several things:
1. Invisible with no high profile, government funded groups educating the public about it.
2. Visible but socially acceptable with no high profile government funded groups or enforced laws attempting to eliminate it.
3. Visible and socially promoted with high profile government funded groups or enforced laws upholding it.
Conditions
1. Which gender enforces the meme, law or social bias has no bearing. (If it did then female genital mutilation would not be oppression suffered by women in developing countries since it is mandated and carried out most often by other women.)
2. To be oppressive the meme, law or social bias merely has to restrict the choices and freedoms of one gender without corresponding restriction on the other. (For instance citing the restriction of females to certain roles would not count if males are likewise restricted to certain roles.)
Until, Steven, you can answer this, your whole “Patriarchy†claim is an unproven assertion and unfounded premise.
Given the evidence, and given the feminist research on these issues, I think it’s only fair that Mens Rights Activsts be more honest about domestic violence issues instead of misinterpreting data and laying the blame for insensitivity towards men on feminists rather than the Patriarchy feminists spend their time talking about.
When we have prominent feminists in good standing who talk about how valuable an experience it is for men to be raped, or falsely accused of rape, I think that shoe fits nicely, Steven.
The words of your side. Not ours. I only quote them.
If you don’t like it, I suggest you do one of two things: Clean your house, or find a different place to live.
| More from The Gonzman
Stumble It!
February 27th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Very well-written, Gonzman.
Articulate men who are capable of seeing through her attempts at deception and misinformation, debunking her nonsense logically and rationally are beyond a doubt her worst nightmare……….
Keep writing, guy!
February 27th, 2007 at 4:11 pm
Guess has already written off Fathers as insignificant and as being emotionally retarded
“Steven Guess
I should note that feminists would argue that in a “Patriarchial Society†men do not play a nuturing role,”
This does infer, that according to Feminists, Fathers are incapable of opting for this role but as usual feminist hypocrisy shines supreme while they push the notion of “house husbands”.
The other point is that he automatically writes off any and every effort made by Fathers like myself who has raised 4 kids mostly on my own, is incapable of doing so.
Another straw man argument generated by this feminist Guess to destroy any and every effort Fathers put into the family, He generalises, he is caught up in the feminist vacuum of ingorance and feminist dogma that dictates his every word without having to see reason or just opening his eyes to the world around him that clearly demonstrates that not all males, Men or Fathers are monsters. But Guess would have to re-tune his tunnel vision and face reality as feminists refuse to do.
They have their doctrine and dogma, it’s all they need. Communists only needed their little red book, feminists are no different.
Good response Gonz..
February 27th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
chalk it up to experience, or lack thereof by stephony. she admits she has no real world experience.
February 27th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Don’t be fooled by Stephanie, roger. She’s not as stupid as she appears to be.
She’s a feminazi out to propagandize on MND, as Dave Usher pointed out already.
When confronted with logic, she lies, evades, or pretends stupidity.
You had better believe that “Steven” is simply one of Kim Gandy’s hell-hags, taking advantage of Mike LaSalle’s publication policies.
February 27th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
Just checking to see if I am also spam to you. Eldee George doesn’t like my say. maybe I am also an enemy by being a woman speaking for equality
February 27th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
GONZ
I was pretty angry when I responded to Guess earlier about his posting and his telling a lie about mensrights types.
I think you know that with some brain damage, PTDS issues, if I have had a couple of rough nights, bad dreams, the coordination between experiences, thoughts, words, and typing becomes messy. I was going to avoid Guess but when I read that he had lumped mensrights types into a tiny little package, and then drop kicked it with a lie, “we seem to think women batter as much as men do… well” You nailed it:
Womman by the hundreds of thousands are attacking men, who often, by the tens of thousands have been brought up by abusive mothers and ya, that doesn’t work out so well.
In 1996 I wrote one of the few good things I have ever written about child abuse. November 26, 1995 6 year-old Alisa Ezquierdo was tortured over months by her mother. Dozen of bruises, cigarette burns, and “… a bone sticking out from her right pinky – one of several broken fingers.”
I have another story, a woman laughing at a dying man, mimicking his dying sounds, saying “Die you fat toothless bastard”
These are not the stories of feminist classrooms, they don’t tell such stories, and there are many such stories to tell.
To not tell those stories, while telling horror stories about men is a big f&^%&%$ propanganda event.
To teach our children that men are a horror show, by the millions (4 million women battered, 150,ooo dead because of anorexia) and then to have some UNCLE TOM ass kissing feminist man show up and say SHHHHHHHHHHHHHSSSSSSSSs we don’t want to hear that … we want you to convert to our bullshit and to continue to trash male culture, is such an insult to men.
I was very glad to see you deal with this topic as you did. Guess quotes Steinem – I have read Steinem – she not only doesn’t know men, she seems not to know women either.
Guess made comments about men today being “gazed” at… (was it Guess, – at this point when he wants to blame men for all the woes of the world I am ready to blame him for all the things I hear from feminists) in ways women have complained of the male gaze, … as if women and men in health clubs were not checking each other out “that way” decades ago, as if boys and men have never felt that they needed to be attractive … when I was a young man. hummmmmmmmm Wasn’t it Steinem that helped push the 150,000 women starving a year myth, 150,000 women dying. When it was 50. She should have noticed that year by year just as many women were inline at the stores… We now find anorexic men, we find that half the cases seem genetic, … yet we still hear feminist discussing women’s eating disorders as if it’s a gender issue… And what about steroids, and male images of their own bodies?
Guess hasn’t been able to tell us, after being asked many times, by me at least, what he likes about men, or is proud of about what men have accomplished. He won’t tell us what disident feminist he admires, if any. He will look through what you have written, fire up his computer, and try to find some chink that he can argue against. He knows he is better educated andd writes better than I, and likely figures that makes him smarter, but he hasn’t anywhere near the experiences I have had and he would say I am ten volumes short regarding feminist lit. He knows you are as smart, can kick his ass, and likely have women after you … but like the little gun fighter he will get his pen out to attack other men (Frued would have a field day but we all know what feminists think of Frued)
So, Gonz, you have liberated me from dealing with Guess anymore. My stories about boys and girls are mostly battered by women, or my own sexual abuse as a boy by women, or how Antoine Fisher, John Irving and my plumber were sexually abused by women allthough none of us are recorded in crime stats, or included in feminist lit, means nothing if not recorded by feminists.
The many men in prison, the many men who died on the Titanic, or at work, or war, to protect and provide for families … means nothing to him. More men died in Detroit from wives some years, than woman died, from DV … why, Guess doesn’t know and doesn’t care, doesn’t matter. He sees the boys team and the girls team and he choose the girls team and is scoring as we did, girls get extra points and extra players… for the same basket… equlity… If femiinist hide the child abuse of women, it means nothing to Guess. What matters to Guess is being clever and making us dumbasses see that we have abused and harmed women forever.
I didn’t say it as well as you but when I look at most men, most fathers, I see men struggling in many ways, some barely hanging in there (22,000 suicides by men, to Guess, means nothing – so many men coming back from Iraq with PTSD, brain damage, … so what) I see men who work decades, to provide for women, getting stabbed in the back by women and losing everything they have worked for because men and women who think like Guess does, – if it doesn’t have tits, it’s likely not worth protecting … they sit in court rooms and castrate the men who speak up. Speak too loudly, you are likely violent. Speak to softly, you don’t likely care enough, either way, say goodbye to your kids.
I am ranting. I know it.
So, GONZ, for me – your comments here are the parting shot. There is no way I could have said it as well, and it doesn’t matter, he won’t get it anyway. I won’t waste me time with Guess any longer. He doesn’t care what I say when I share stories/examples from real life… he won’t care what you say when you cleverly explain the complexities to him… but when I compare what I wrote today, to what you did, smile, I can see my time would be better spend working on something else. Thanks for talking the time and writing what you wrote so skillfully.
It’s nice to see a man who studies martial arts, is well read, and who “gets it” about gender issues.
Later
SD
February 28th, 2007 at 6:34 am
Gonzman – I rarely even give you the time of day because your nothing but hot air. I mean take this contradiction:
In the introduction to your little spate you say “You can see real patriarchal cultures in the Muslim world where this is so.”
But then a few paragraphs down you do a 180, saying “Back to the whole “Patriarchy†crap.” I thought you were the one who said Patriarchy is real in the Middle East, now its a crap concept? Obviously you believe Patriarchy can exist, is a legitimate concept, even if you disagree it exists in western society (contrary to your man Dr. Fiebert, I might add).
You play loose with the facts, for example here.
Where I stated “the assertion then that women are more dangerous than men in society is patently sexist” you distorted what I said into this: “Your claim that they are less dangerous – because they are mere women – is the sexist claim”
Can you not see the difference between what YOU said and what I said?
You also turn this common sense interpretation “In other words, the perception of men as the more powerful figure was one of the main reasons why women felt they could attack their husbands or boyfriends” into me “blaming the victim” even though a few sentences earlier you agreed with me calling it a disorder known as “little man disease”
February 28th, 2007 at 7:24 am
Steven, you ignorant slut.
(I just like saying that.)
In the introduction to your little spate you say “You can see real patriarchal cultures in the Muslim world where this is so.â€
But then a few paragraphs down you do a 180, saying “Back to the whole “Patriarchy†crap.†I thought you were the one who said Patriarchy is real in the Middle East, now its a crap concept? Obviously you believe Patriarchy can exist, is a legitimate concept, even if you disagree it exists in western society (contrary to your man Dr. Fiebert, I might add).
See, even you got it.
REAL patriarchy, and what feminists call “patriarchy,” are two different things. The former is true. The latter is a boogeyman made of straw.
Where I stated “the assertion then that women are more dangerous than men in society is patently sexist†you distorted what I said into this: “Your claim that they are less dangerous – because they are mere women – is the sexist claimâ€
Can you not see the difference between what YOU said and what I said?
Well, you sure as hell don’t believe women are dangerous, do you?
If I had a woman come at me with a knife, Steven, I would kill her. She is dangerous. I am not going to take the chance she would get lucky with it – as frequently happens.
Women need to be as accountable as men, Steven – not excused. That is REAL equality.
You also turn this common sense interpretation “In other words, the perception of men as the more powerful figure was one of the main reasons why women felt they could attack their husbands or boyfriends†into me “blaming the victim†even though a few sentences earlier you agreed with me calling it a disorder known as “little man diseaseâ€
The difference being, Steven, that instead of “blaming society,” and calling it some disorder which needs to be understood or treated, I see it as an individual character flaw which needs to be punished. Whether it comes from XX or XY chromosomes.
That’s REAL equality of the sexes – which you feminazis tend to despise.
Do try to keep up, Steven.
February 28th, 2007 at 9:10 am
OUCH! That there folks was the patented Gonzo-clue-by-four if I ever saw one….
TMOTS
February 28th, 2007 at 10:13 am
I tried posting this on Steveno’s blog, but it was flagged as spam. Not sure what is up with that, but I’ll post it here and hope it gets through.
So let’s see how this works? Some guy analyzes domestic violence data and finds the evidence overwhelming that women are comparably as violent as men in relationships. The analyzer then theorizes why men are less likely to report domestic violence assaults against them. His conclusion includes a component that jives with the feminist patriarchy rhetoric. Does that about sum it up?
If Steveno is acknowledging the data is accurate and she is merely arguing that this particular analyzer’s conclusions are based in part on feminist theories, then I’m doing cartwheels! I’ve yet to run into a feminist that was willing to concede that women are the perpetrator’s of domestic violence anywhere near as often as men.
I say let Steveno believe whatever he wants about why women abuse men. The fact he’s willing to accept the data and admit women comparably abuse men is a major shift in feminist distortion.
The average person does not believe patriarchal oppression exists – only wacko feminists believe that – but I do think they’ve been brainwashed into thinking that domestic violence is a male-only crime. If feminists are beginning to concede that women do commit domestic violence crimes, then the battle to protect men and children from the abusers is closer to being won.
February 28th, 2007 at 11:13 am
G-man!
Funny!
Stephoney hates maleness because she/he/it can’t behave is such manner and like intellectual primitives everywhere has to destroy what it perceives as superior which it knows it can’t compete with.
Stephoney is best off going to live in a world purely of feminist making without any taint of ‘menkind’.
Good luck Stephoney, do send a shout out when you get there and meanwhile dont let the door hit ya where the lord split ya..
February 28th, 2007 at 11:41 am
“Gonzman – I rarely even give you the time of day because your nothing but hot air.”
Actually, Stephanie….. your attempts to provide objective, logical arguments against Gonzman’s points invariably end with your clumsy attempts to assert feminazi dogma.
But hey, you apparently don’t mind becoming the butt of men’s humor (not to mention watching your own attempts at reason go swirling down the drain!).
And every time that you attempt to engage him with your harebrained misandry, he educates and teaches more men not only about the nature of feminazis, but how to debunk your propaganda.
Your vagina is of no particular value on a written forum where men can exercize free speech, girl…… not against the likes of Gonzman, Zed, and others willing to make you their “useful idiot” for the benefit of men, children, and families.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
Stephen, fourthwire is right. We need you to keep posting, and more importantly, responding to the Gonzman. Every time you do, more men (and women, for that matter) are educated about “feminism” and other liberal claptrap. You may well be our greatest asset. Thanks.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
While Stephoney truely has become the butt of his own dogmatic superficality, I could do well with less junk in da trunk…
February 28th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Stephanie, “you ignorant slut”
Looks as if you’ve been tagged by the Gonz again, girl…..;-)
February 28th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
I’ve just been notified that the Union of Ignorant Sluts International is threatening legal action if we continue insinuating that Stephoney is a representative member in any way, shape or form. They suggest he may be a constituent of some other much smaller and ineffectual member-ship..