The Big Debate – p4 – Fer cryin out loud

Originally posted as a comment at the big debate at A Voice for Men.

Futrelle #3

“You STILL have not dealt with the fact that THE VERY PEOPLE YOU CITE TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT do NOT think women are “half the problem.””

Already addressed: Arguing that “women initiating half of DV” does not mean “women are half the problem” is just playing with semantics.
Let’s get thinking:
Women initiate 50% of DV. If they wouldn’t do that, we could cut all DV by 50%! It is evident that women are just as likely – if not more – to suffer serious injuries in fights they have started. So if they wouldn’t start 50% of the fights, they would suffer (at least) 50% less serious injuries. Quite a cool thing to aspire to, ain’t it? Are women 50% of the problem? The only way for them to not be would be if someone could prove that no women in history suffered a serious injury in a fight she have started, and every serious injury was the result of fights men started. Get real. Women are half the problem, period.

“The flaws in the Conflict Tactics Scales”

Already addressed: These “flaws” in reality are just some minor theoretical disagreements between experts, inflated by feminists, proven quite satisfyingly by the fact that some of Futrelle’s feminist sources have also used the CTS, of which he is “strangely” silent.

“Does not address the context or consequences of the violence.”

Already addressed: Context and consequences are subjective things and therefore can’t constitute the basis of scientific research. Also it is a fallacy to assert that factoring in context would automatically help women’s cause.
Let me quote Straus on this issue: “However, the revised versions [of the CTS] deliberately do not “correct” the most frequent criticism because it is erroneous. This is the fact that the CTS does not measure the causes, context, and meaning of the violent acts. This criticism is analogous to criticizing a test of reading ability for not identifying the reasons a child reads poorly (such as limited exposure to books at home or test anxiety) and for not measuring the harmful effects of reading difficulty (such as low self esteem or dropping out of school). These are vital issues, but they must be investigated by using separate measures of those variables along with the reading test.

“injuries suffered by both partners”

Already addressed: It is not contested that women on average suffer heavier injuries. But that does not explain why the current laws ignore male victims, why there’s a sentencing discount (pussy pass) for women for the same crimes, etc. etc.

“CTS problems #2”

Already addressed: There is no proof whatsoever that feminist methods are any better. In fact many feminists are using this method for the lack of any better. Most of independent researchers still use the CTS, which is proof enough that it’s a very good method. Recommended reading from Straus: The Conflict Tactics Scales and Its Critics and Sex, Violence, Politics, and the CTS.

“Questions about emotional, verbal, psychological, or sexual aggression were also not included.”

Every sane person with an ounce of real-life experience knows all too well that emotional, verbal and psychological violence is the turf of women. You can see this as early as elementary school. Also, if you consider the conscious denial of sex or the use of sex to enforce one’s will sexual violence than it’s highly questionable that men would commit most of S.V. And don’t let me get started on paternity fraud and such, because while I know perfectly that it is currently not categorized as DV, it could be, and it’s a quite serious offence.

“medical attention was needed or sought”

Already addressed: It’s a well-known fact that women are more likely than men to go to the doctor with the same injury. Also already addressed is that women are more fragile, yes, we recognize that, but …again and again… it does not mean that anti-male laws are justified.

“As for the most severe form of violence — murder — one survey notes, “homicide rates are higher for women who have separated from their partners than for women in intact relationships … and this heightened risk of homicide following a separation is not found for men.””

Well, LOLz. We all know what the current feminazi divorce laws do to men. It’s not just some failed attempt at being funny to say “assraped by the divorce court”. Why would a women want to murder her ex-husband who will pay CS and alimony for 20 years or more? Why would a man want to kill his ex-wife who have just evicted him of his own home, stolen half his life’s work and his kids, and probably a good chunk of his future work too? I’m not saying that killing an ex is justifiable but the rage is understandable. Angry Harry talked about this in his fantastic comment earlier; his point is that the laws are giving women a lot of options while men are left with nothing – no wonder the outcomes are different. These laws saved a lot more men than women and this should alert feminists but they actually don’t give a f*ck.
Also, it is still unanswered that women a lot more often than men incite or hire other people to do the dirty work and this skewes the results of DV research, including murder statistics.

“The severity of the violence is critical, and so is the intent.”

Already addressed: Feminists know nothing real about “intent”, they are just guessing it as ever. Case in point: “rape is not about sex”.
Severity of the violence is critical in allocating funding, but this would mean that if women are injured 7 times more than men then for every seven shelter for women there should be one for men. Are there as many men’s shelters? Don’t make me laugh. Also, the “uneven distribution” of severe violence does not mean there are no male victims, so we get back to the argument which seems to be at the end of all other arguments: nothing justifies the current misandrist DV laws which dismiss male victims and are set up to punish innocent men.

“If someone, male or female, slaps their partner lightly on the face in the heat of an argument, that’s unquestionably a bad thing, but it is not as bad as if that person beat their partner black and blue.”

What you neglect to mention, or to realise, is that women slapping a men in the face is at least a thousand times more common than black and blue women. What you also neglect to mention is that the cases that end up with the women being black and blue quite often start with an unprovoked slap in the face by the women. And this is a real problem which is swept under the carpet – by activists like you – but if we’d bring it to the light of discussion it could save a lot of pain for women. Thanks, feminism.

“If you want to make the case that any of the specific research I have cited is simply feminist propaganda, you cannot just assert this.”

Already addressed at least a dozen times: If there is a clear and radical difference between the findings of two huge groups of researchers, while their findings inside their own groups are showing roughly the same picture, it is easy to spot who is lying: follow the money. Or in this case, money and political prejudices. Feminists have prejudices against men, independent researchers don’t. One is saying we’re all equal, the other is saying her union-members are angels and their opponents are scum. Feminists borrowed Engels’ words stating that women are oppressed in the family and they have built a huge structure on this premise in the last 150 years; how can you expect their findings to not be influenced by such bias?

“On self-defense, again, studies vary, but as you will see below, Straus and Gelles believe that women are far more likely to strike back in self-defense.”

You know it would strike me as rather strange, because women initiate more DV than men. This is clear and you never refuted it (your constant repeating that women suffer more serious injuries does not disprove the fact that women initiate more DV). And if women initiate more DV than it’s only seems logical that men use self-defense more. You cannot “initiate self defense”.

“the studies that we do have find men much more likely to use violence to control their partners.”

Already addressed: Pure bullshit. No men ever hit any women with a calm, peaceful mind thinking “oh, let’s have a bit of controlling here”. This is pure feminist fiction. See Angry Harry’s another comment.

“those who report that husband abuse is as common as wife abuse overlook two important facts. First, the greater average size and strength of men”

Yep, and we all know from statistics that women use weapons more often.

“Second, nearly three-fourths of the violence committed by women is done in self-defense.”

They have said this somewhere around 1975. This was a common belief then. There are still no credible research results out there to confirm this victorian notion.

This entry was posted in Feminism, Politics and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to The Big Debate – p4 – Fer cryin out loud

  1. Nergal says:

    Failtrelle had his fucking ASS handed to him. Everybody watched him make his assertion, backpedal on it, and then pretend that he was making his case by saying what we already said, that women are probably injured more seriously by DV.

    If I pick a fight with Mike Tyson, I’ll probably wind up more seriously injured than him, but it still doesn’t change the fact that I was responsible for the situation when I assaulted someone for no reason. Without that, I wouldn’t have been injured in the first place. Each subsequent action took place because of my initial action, which precipitated the whole affair.

    That’s called “logic”, feminists, try it some time.

  2. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Halloween Edition

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s