Originally posted as a comment on the Big Debate.
We’ve arrived at a point where further discussion about the statistics is not necessary. While on the surface it seems Futrelle denied gender symmetry in his 1st response, even most of his sources admit that women initiate DV just as often as men, the only difference being that women suffer heavier bruises. Gender symmetry in DV is a truth which can’t be covered up much longer.
OTOH there’s also not much to debate about the fact that women DV victims go to the police and to the doctor a lot more often than men do. No matter how we explain this, the simple statistical fact will always supply the feminists with ammunition. And to allow them a small victory, we have to concede that – all else being equal, as it is – women do need more medical attention. Both sexes are violent, both are initiating DV, but women are more fragile (so much for the theory that the sexes are the same).
What we men need is not more victim status or more shelters. Why would a men go to a shelter? Because someone is abusing him (and the children) but he can’t get rid of that abusive person because nobody takes him seriously. The police won’t arrest the abuser – quite the contrary, it will most probably arrest him. Nobody will help him. The shelters – funded by his taxes – will laugh at him or tell him he’s the abuser because he has an almighty penis. If he would be taken seriously, he wouldn’t need any shelters at all.
All this is because the DV laws are seriously fucked up. The statistics actually don’t matter that much, because what if the feminist researchers are right (they aren’t, but let’s just suppose)? If the victims of DV are mostly women, what then? Are male victims to be neglected? Are their human rights meaningless? We should help the women but not the men?
Should the laws be unequal and distorted, trampling on some of the victims, just because women are complaining louder?
Is it impossible to make laws that protect men and women equally?
Is it necessary to make sexist and unconstitutional laws that favor one victim over another?
Is it just? Is it fair? Is it right?
All laws should be genderblind. Is VAWA genderblind? Does VAWA protect all victims?
Is VAWA a result of feminist influence on the government? Yes.
Is VAWA unconstitutional? Yes.
Does VAWA show that feminists don’t give a flying fuck about men, and male victims of DV can go to hell if it’s up to them? Yes.
VAWA in itself is proof enough that there are strong antimale influences in the government. That has to be addressed sooner rather than later.
David Futrelle doesn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell in this debate because no acceptable explanation can be conjured up as to why there are laws out there that protect only one kind of victim while disregarding other victims on the basis of their genitalia. It is literally unacceptable, and yet there it is, right in front of everyone to see. To win, Futrelle would have to argue that VAWA is a good law, which it is not. VAWA proves the antimale bias in government and it justifies the existence of the MRM fighting against it.