“we also — obviously — had Chris vs. Rihanna, along with the common and supposedly exculpatory allegation that she hit him first.”
Well, I don’t see any feminists saying that she was wrong to hit him, so, if it was okay for her to get so mad as to hit him, why on earth is it not okay for him to get mad and hit back? I think the first agressor is the one to take most of the blame, be it male or female. Feminists on the other hand seem to think that the man is the one to take all the blame regardless of hitting first or hitting back.
In other words: if Rihanna hitting first is not an excuse for Chris Brown’s hitting back, what is Rihanna’s excuse for hitting first?
“Inherent in the above is some suggestion of perverse 21st century gender parity: Both partners are equally to blame, both partners are equally abusive; women are strong enough to punch, women are not — or no longer — the only victims.”
Well, this was true all along. It is true now. It’s a strange notion that we all are people. We get angry and we hit each other regardless of what’s between our legs.
On the other hand, it was never about “strength”. Women doesn’t hit men because they have more physical strength than before, or more than men for that matter. Women hit men because they are angry and they do not consider the consequences. And often they hit because they know the man won’t hit back.
“People who support women’s rights, and who have worked for decades to get male-on-female domestic violence taken seriously, may find this conversation not just eye-rolling, but deeply troubling.”
I do believe that feminist “experts” find this unfolding of the truth deeply troubling. Geez, the lies they have spread for decades are being disproven by facts, statistics and real-life examples. Technically what she’s saying here is that taking female violence seriously would be a “mistake”. It is perfect proof that they do not take DV as it is seriously, they just care about wymyn. Would taking female violence seriously lessen the seriousness of male violence? Of course not, even the idea is stupid. But they present it nonetheless…
“As expert Jill Murray, author, most recently, of “But He Never Hit Me,” puts it: Equating the scope, incidence and danger of male vs. female domestic violence “stands to negate everything we’ve been trying to fight for, all the work we’ve done.””
The stats show parity, so how can you not equate the scope, incidence or danger of DV against both sexes? If you don’t care about one sex, that’s how. Guess what sex feminists don’t care about. The statistics are clear (as we will see in the salon article too), feminists are just trying to misconstrue them or give them a different meaning altogether, or just outright forget them and keep on with the rhetoric.
So let me tell you what she actually means: Recognising the truth will destroy our decades of evil work, so while every fact shows that we’re lying it’s the facts that should be forgotten.
“How so? Because when not just played for man-bites-dog laughs, female violence against men — especially in cases of heterosexual domestic abuse — is invoked to diminish, even deny, the reality of male violence against women.”
That is a fucked-up lie if I ever saw one. Female violence invoked to deny the reality of male violence against women? Come on, gtfo. Show me one example, just one. Advocates for fair laws have never said that male violence does not exist. Never. This is 100% pure feminist bullshit.
“[the] media have for decades tried to create a false equivalence, discussing the few women who have been violent and using those women’s stories as proof that A) there’s ‘just as much’ female-to-male domestic violence as male-to-female, and B) domestic violence isn’t a problem that women have to deal with as victims anymore.”
The media tried to hype female DV while downplaying male DV? For decades? Really? Who do you think will believe this crap? Feminists are sooo losing it. Their shit is becoming weirder by the day. The lies they come up with are more and more transparent.
And why the apostrophies? There’s just as much female-to-male domestic violence as male-to-female, period. The statistics show it quite clearly. And women were never ‘victims only’. That was just the overplaying of the female/feminist victim card which is also getting ever more transparent.
“Men’s rights activists go even further […]”
It’s always a joy to see feminists posing as MRAs. Like the quote above, they almost always say things MRAs have never said. Ah, teh evil MRAs sayed that violence against wymyn is good! Except MRAs never said that.
“Let’s see what the stats really say”
So far so good.
“and what they mean in context”
Erm, not so good anymore. The statistics are facts. It’s women admitting their own violence against men in surveys. “Context” is a feminist buzzword in this case, their only option to somehow distort and hide the aforementioned facts.
“Males and females in violent relationships are “hit, slapped, or knocked down” by partners at almost exactly the same rate.”
Well looky here. And by “almost exactly the same rate” they mean that men are hit and slapped more. It’s clear as daylight. One could almost think it’s practically misinterpretation-proof.
“Other research accumulating since at least 2000 suggests that, in fact, females are at least as likely as males to perpetrate intimate partner violence”
Say it isn’t so…
“Experts say the raw, in-a-vacuum numbers don’t even start to tell the whole story of a given relationship, or of the complex dynamics of domestic violence.”
Translation: Feminists say the truth does not suit their political agenda and might be bad for their DV business. “Complex dynamics” my ass. This is clearly and visibly an awful attempt at hiding and disguising the truth by the use of meaningless catchphrases like “the whole story”. Rihanna hit Chris, he hit back, the facts are that they have committed reciprocal DV. “The whole story” according to feminists is that Chris Brown is a dirty rotten scoundrel who should be jailed with the keys thrown away while Rihanna is a victim because… because she has a pussy. This is the difference between facts and their feminist interpretation.
“Other DOJ data shows men are more likely to be attacked with a knife or hit with a thrown object; women are more likely to be grabbed, held or tripped, raped, or sexually assaulted.”
Interesting to see rape and sexual assault here because it’s absolutely very rare in marriages, but of course it’s a topic which is heavily loaded emotionally. Saying that a wife slaps her husband but a husband rapes his wife is really really stupid – and might I add: evil – because the wifely slap occurs ten million times more often than marital rape. But rape had to be thrown in to the mix to divert our attention from the fact that men are more likely to be attacked with a knife which is a bit unnerving and quite a bit nastier than being grabbed or held.
“Perhaps more to the point, females are more likely than males to sustain severe or injurious violence and to require medical treatment.”
Women go to the doctors more, that’s for sure, but there are more factors behind this than a simple presumption that women are hurt more badly. First of all they generally tend to visit the doctor with lesser problems than men do. Also men tend to think it’s shameful to visit a doctor with a DV injury. And there’s one thing the feminists never seem to care about, namely that women are much better at social agression than men, meaning that women a lot more often use others to inflict harm on their behalf. For example fights incited by the wife between the hubby and the lover does not show up in DV statistics.
Also, let’s just remember the previous quote about knives. If men are more likely to be attacked with a knife, then I think the “men are stronger” argument should be thrown out the window. Women can and do cause serious injuries and death. Also the writers at salon somehow forgot to mention the fact that women more often commit violence when the man can not defend himself, ie. he’s sleeping, drunk, whatever. There are Mary Winklers, Lorena Bobbitts and Rajini Narayans out there with a lot less male equivalents. Why there’s no discussion about this?
“When you take the data out of context, in some cases, women come up as violent as men,”
How can you take numbers like this “out of context”? Feminists sure as hell do not talk about context when the topic is male violence. The context is only ever mentioned when it’s used for diminishing the importance of female violence.
“But men will often use the excuse ‘she hit me first’ to justify decking her or throwing her against a wall. She slaps him, and that’s used as a pretext to beat the crap out of her. She’s the one who winds up in the hospital.”
Oh yeah, at least a third of the female population is currently in hospitals for this reason, that’s how often men use the excuse ‘she hit me first’ to justify decking her. “Often” my ass.
But then again, look at these words closely. There’s a confession that women are violent (‘she slaps him’) but no condemnation. Who’s the evil one? The men of course, for hitting back. Did anybody expected anything else from feminists? Men are to blame, their headline is, as always.
“She’s the one who winds up in the hospital.” Well, as any sane person will tell you, don’t start a fight with someone clearly stronger than you. She is saying this like winding up in a hospital is a retrospective excuse for initiating violence.
Also it’s evident that feminists don’t know how to lie their way out of this problem because on the one hand they try to tell us that women are not violent, but on the other hand they admit that they are, it’s only they are hurt more. Which one is it? If women initiate violence at comparable rates to men then women are as violent as men, period. That they – supposedly – suffer heavier bruises does not mean they are not violent, it only means they are weaker. Can a physically weak person be violent? Of course, there’s no question about it. And this dispels a feminist myth about female violence, namely that women commit less violence because they are weaker. They are weaker, but so what? They initiate the same number of fights nonetheless.
“Research also shows that male victims do not take violence by their partners as seriously as females do”
Is this a fault of men somehow, or what? Does it justify laws taking female violence less seriously?
“women are more likely to be frightened by future violence”
No doubt it’s thanks to feminist rhetoric, scare tactics and divorce laws favoring “frightened” women when deciding who’ll take the kids (and the house and the cheques for the next decades).
Also worth noticing that they are depicting women here as poor little victims based on their feeeeelings, with no real violence present. Oh, they are afraid! Well, don’t be. We can’t create new laws that protect women from fear (although feminists will try).
“Men, perhaps most significantly, are much more likely to commit the extended, continuing violence known as “battery.””
Any hard evidence on this other than feminists think so? Because it’s all there is to it: feminists think so. The statistics say otherwise. Forgive me if I don’t take what feminists say at face value – they are politically and financially motivated to lie and have been proven to do so many, many times. (Like the famous ‘1 in 4 women raped on campus’ lie with most uni’s in the USA seeing years passing by without any rape reported.)
“In other words, even where select data points appear to be equal, “shared rates are not shared problems,””
And again and again: hiding the facts behind feminist rhetoric. Yeah, the truth is that women are violent, but that’s not a problem, because… because poor wymyn are suffering out there.
By saying that DV against men is not the same kind of problem as DV against women these feminists explicitly saying that men are less important than women. That’s feminist ekvalitee for ya’. They don’t care if men are killed or hurt; that’s not as bad as if poor wymyn are hurt! Who gives a flying fuck about men, anyways?
“Temple also notes that […] reporting of female domestic abuse has increased; that skews the numbers as well.”
How on earth real cases of female violence can “skew” any numbers? Feminist logic spelled out: “reality skews numbers”.
“Another fallacy, says Chesney-Lind: the presumption that violent women are a new post-feminist breed, hitting because being “empowered” makes them more like men.”
That is a fallacy. Women were always people and so they were always violent. It was just not trendy to talk about it. But do notice that Chesney-Lind actually admits that women are violent.
On the other hand, it is a fact that women are getting angrier and more “courageous” by the day thanks to grrrl power shouting retards. More and more of them see men as fair game. Examples are easy to find on women who provoke men willingly to get them in trouble with the police and so on.
“In reality, male and female domestic violence tend to emerge from different places, and with different intentions. In the context of heterosexual domestic abuse, she says, “male violence is an expression of power and control over women; men are hitting to control and get things. Women’s violence is an expression of frustration and rage and exasperation.””
The oldest and most retarded myth in the feminist book. According to feminists everything a man does is about power and control. Literally. Everything. But no women in
history herstory ever did anything for power or control, and that’s a scientifically proven fact!
Come on, get real. This got really old really fast quite some time ago with it’s demented sister ‘rape is about control’.
Like a few paragraphs above, there is no proof whatsoever to support this claim other than feminists think so. And that’s not news that feminists think that men are evil and women are angels, all the time, everytime. It’s not like they have a personal axe to grind against men and a clear political agenda, no… They are honest independent researchers of these subjects who somehow always seem to find that men are evil and women are angels.
“Bottom line, says Chesney-Lind, “we are fascinated by girls’ and women’s violence.””
I wonder how I should interpret this. I have consulted some dictionaries about the word “fascinated” and it does not reflect well on Chesney-Lind.
“For those who like to see women — Angelina Jolie, even Helen Mirren — wielding serious, even heretofore forbidden, power, it’s hot.”
Are we still in reality? Are we really talking about “female violence is hot”? Are feminists out of their minds, admitting openly that they are violent and they like it that way? And these are supposedly experts on DV?
“For all the increased tolerance, even celebration, of aggressive women in pop culture”
Compare this with “[the] media have for decades tried to create a false equivalence, discussing the few women who have been violent” quoted above. Do they know what they are talking about? Have they forgotten their previous lie already?
“in daily life there’s still a lot of disapproval of women […] committing a physically aggressive act,” says Maud Lavin
What the fuckin’ fuck?! I’d say this is so far beyond sanity that it would be too much for even a satire. It is positively unbelievable that any person with an intact brain could say something like this. I’m at a loss of words.
“Adds Chesney-Lind: “To take the longest possible view, one of the things you do when you want to discourage women from seeking social justice for their gender is show that there are terrible downsides to ‘mimicking maleness.'”
Let me get this straight: she is implying that violence is a male trait which women should internalize (ie. women should be more violent) for “social justice”, but men are trying to prevent this. Female violence equals social justice?
Is it just me or feminist ‘experts’ really celebrate and urge female violence? And these are the people whom we should trust as experts explaining what the black-and-white numbers in statistics mean? Loss of words, loss of words.
“None of this is to say that domestic violence by women should be accepted, excused or cheered.”
The whole article is nothing but precisely, exactly that. Or how do you explain “we are fascinated by girls’ and women’s violence”?
“a game of one-upmanship”
Is she accusing MRAs here? I reckon she does, the retard. MRAs fight for fair laws, not act out of some imaginary genderpride, for pete’s sake. What we want is a “violence against anybody act” instead of the gender discriminating pile of shite VAWA we have. What we want is the elimination of the mandatory arrest of the supposed primary aggressor, ie. the feminist mandate to always arrest the male no matter what. This is not a “game”, especially not one of one-upmanship. Typical of feminists that they see this as such. For them it’s just a political issue, a part of a wider agenda, a fight for money and power. For MRAs it’s their life.
“Once we became concerned about them, it was very easy to find violent girls, because they’d always been there”
Okay, and if you admit this so readily, what the frekk were you talking about up to this point?
Let’s summarize what we have:
1. All the facts and statistics show that women initiate violence at at least the same rates as men
2. Feminists admit this and also explicitly say that there are violent women out there
3. They say that violence against men is not that important, for no other reason than they care more about women
4. Politics, and sadly the laws reflect their sexist view
5. This is – contrary to feminist rhetoric – anything BUT “equality” in any perceivable meaning of the word
6. Feminists are lying systematically about their motives, their resources, their “research”, and so on
The rest is up for you to consider.