Domestic Violations by Cathy Young
This is a loooong article, but well worth your time to read. Cathy Young has written a number of article about subjects that are important to me, like domestic violence, and I’ll probably be posting some from time to time. This one is from February 1998, but it’s just as true today as it was then, maybe even more so.
This article resonated with me because I’ve been hearing a lot lately from feminists who see domestic violence as only being from a man to a woman. When you try to point out the data that shows they’re wrong, they just quote their own data that says they’re right.
What’s ironic is, their data is from the same period their leaders made such profoundly misandric statements, and when you try to call them on it, they say, “that was soooo long ago!”
Whatever…
Domestic Violations
Cathy Young | February 1998 Print Edition
In the fall of 1996, Susan Finkelstein’s live-in boyfriend was arrested and charged with abusing her. Today, Susan, a 31-year-old free-lance editor in a small Midwestern town, feels that she was abused by the justice system. “I felt so helpless,” she says. “I had no rights. Nobody listened to me, nobody wanted to hear my story.”
The tale sounds familiar enough–except that what angers Susan is not that her boyfriend was treated too leniently but that he was prosecuted at all.
It all started when Susan and her boyfriend, a 44-year-old college administrator whom I’ll call Jim, were having a heated argument on the way home from a party. Both of them, Susan explains, were under a great deal of stress. The quarrel escalated, and Jim decided it would be best to pull over. He wanted to get out of the car and walk, and Susan tried to stop him. “I lost my temper, he lost his temper, and we got into a mutual scuffle,” she says. “I may have scratched him, he may have pushed me. It got physical, but there certainly wasn’t any beating.”
Finally, they cooled down and got back on the road–only to be stopped by a police car. Susan remembers thinking that Jim might have been driving erratically during the fight and might have looked like a drunk driver. But it was something very different. A passing motorist had seen their altercation, written down their license plate number, and called the police.
Despite Susan’s assurances that Jim hadn’t hurt her and she wasn’t afraid of him, he was handcuffed and taken away. Under department policy, an officer told her, they had to make an arrest in a domestic dispute. Says Susan, “I was very upset that they wouldn’t listen when I said that I was fine. They said, `Well, we know that women who are abused often lie out of fear.’”
After spending the night in jail, Jim was arraigned on a misdemeanor charge of domestic violence and prohibited from having any contact with Susan, who had to stay with a friend. Her efforts to convince the judge and the prosecutor that nothing had happened were fruitless.
On a lawyer’s advice, Jim pleaded no contest. He had to write a letter of apology to Susan (which he wrote in her presence and mailed to the district attorney’s office, which forwarded it to her) and attend 10 weekly counseling sessions for batterers, a three-hour drive away, at a cost of $400. He is acutely aware that his record puts him at risk: “If Susan and I have a loud argument and a neighbor calls the police, I’ll be arrested immediately,” he says.
What happened to Jim and Susan–who are still together as a couple–is not an aberration. It’s just another story from the trenches of what might be called the War on Domestic Violence. Born partly in response to an earlier tendency to treat wife-beating as nothing more than a marital sport, this campaign treats all relationship conflict as a crime. The zero-tolerance mentality of current domestic violence policy means that no offense is too trivial, not only for arrest but for prosecution. Consider these recent examples:
In 1996, Seattle City Councilman John Manning, who came home one day and was shocked to find his wife loading her things into a truck, was charged with assault for grabbing her shoulders and sitting her down on the tailgate (causing no injuries). He pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence, received a deferred prison sentence, and agreed to complete a treatment program for batterers. (The Seattle Times editorialized that the case gave “a public face” to the tragedy of domestic violence.)
The same year, Michigan Judge Joel Gehrke made headlines when he gave convicted spouse abuser Stewart Marshall a literal slap on the wrist, citing the wife’s adultery with her husband’s brother as a mitigating factor. This episode, which provoked cries about judges who go easy on wife beaters, should have raised questions instead about frivolous prosecutions. Aside from the fact that many of the jurors believed Chris Marshall had set up the incident as a leverage-gaining divorce tactic, Stewart’s assault consisted of grabbing her by the sweatshirt and pushing her; she did not suffer a single scrape. A woman juror who backed Judge Gehrke’s decision explained that the jury “had to say guilty” because “if you touch, it’s battery.”
In those cases, at least, the alleged victims wanted a prosecution. But increasingly, women who don’t–like Susan Finkelstein–find their wishes ignored. This issue was brought into the spotlight by the 1996 Texas trial of football star Warren Moon, whose wife Felicia was forced to take the stand against him. In a less famous case in St. Paul, Minnesota, two years earlier, Jeanne Chacon, an attorney, tried not only to drop battery charges against her fiancé, Peter Erlinder, but to serve as his lawyer. Though Chacon herself had called the police and accused Erlinder of “slamming” her to the ground, she quickly changed her story: Abused as a child, she explained that she was prone to violent outbursts, and that Erlinder had merely restrained her with a “basket-
hold” technique recommended by her own therapists. Her therapists corroborated her story, and Chacon had several violent episodes while the case was pending. Still, prosecutors insisted on going to trial–which, like the Moon case, ended in acquittal.Like many crusades to stamp out social evils, the War on Domestic Violence is a mix of good intentions (who could be against stopping spousal abuse?), bad information, and worse theories. The result has been a host of unintended consequences that do little to empower victims while sanctioning state interference in personal relationships.
The battered women’s advocacy movement, which has led the campaign against domestic abuse, is heavily influenced by radical feminist politics and tends to frame the issue in terms of a male “war against women.” The mission statement of the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence links “violence against women and children” to “sexism, racism, classism, anti-semitism, able-bodyism, ageism and other oppressions.” Booklets funded by government and by charities such as United Way assert that “battering is the extreme expression of the belief in male dominance over women.”
Such thinking is responsible for such widely circulated factoids as “domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to American women,” “battering causes more injuries to women than car accidents, rapes, and muggings combined,” or “25 to 35 percent of women in emergency rooms are there for injuries from domestic violence.” These patently false numbers (data from the Justice Department and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest that less than 1 percent of women’s emergency-room visits are due to assaults by male partners, and that about 10 times as many women are injured in auto accidents) are complemented by increasingly expansive definitions of abuse.
Thus, in her landmark book, The Battered Woman (1979), psychologist Lenore Walker writes that “a battered woman is a woman who is repeatedly subjected to any forceful physical or psychological behavior by a man in order to coerce her to do something” (emphasis added). While Walker focuses primarily on women who have been physically assaulted, she also talks about men “battering” their wives by, for example, being inattentive. Pamphlets distributed by family violence programs stress that one doesn’t have to be hit to be abused and list such forms of abuse as “calling you names,” “criticizing you for small things,” or “making you feel bad about yourself.” A booklet published by the state of New Jersey, Domestic Violence: The Law and You, informs the reader that she is a victim of domestic violence if she has experienced “embarrassment or alarm because of lewd or shocking behavior” or “repeated verbal humiliation and attacks.”
These ideas have consequences. By 1982, largely due to lobbying by advocacy groups, a majority of states expanded police authority to make arrests in misdemeanor assaults which the officers had not actually witnessed–a move applauded by most law enforcement personnel and family violence researchers. But as the rate of arrest remained low, many states and jurisdictions began to go further and mandate arrests, a policy viewed with far more ambivalence. This trend has been boosted by the post-O.J. Simpson-trial attention to domestic abuse and by incentives for pro-arrest policies in the federal Violence Against Women Act of 1994.
Such policies have undeniably increased the number of arrests. It is far less clear, however, that they have had a significant impact on spousal abuse. Christopher Pagan, who was until recently a prosecutor in Hamilton County, Ohio, estimates that due to a 1994 state law requiring police on a domestic call either to make an arrest or to file a report explaining why no arrest was made, “domestics” went from 10 percent to 40 percent of his docket. But, he suggests, that doesn’t mean actual abusers were coming to his attention more often. “We started getting a lot of push-and-shoves,” says Pagan, “or even yelling matches. In the past, police officers would intervene and separate the parties to let them cool off. Now those cases end up in criminal courts. It’s exacerbating tensions between the parties, and it’s turning law-abiding middle-class citizens into criminals.”
Many police officers agree–though all of those who were willing to discuss their misgivings asked that their names not be used, given the charged nature of the subject and their criticism of official policy. “We need domestic violence law but we need common sense, too,” says a veteran small-town policeman in New Jersey. The officer stresses that he doesn’t miss the days when a woman could be bruised or bloodied and you couldn’t arrest the man unless she was willing to risk enraging him further by signing a complaint. But today, he says, the law has gone to the other extreme: “Sometimes the wife’s begging, `Don’t arrest him, the kids are here,’ and you have to arrest.”
It’s not just male officers who chafe at having their hands tied. A woman I’ll call Sally Gilmore, a sergeant on the nearly all-male police force of a working-class New Jersey town, feels that mandatory arrest rules often force cops to act against their better judgment. She recalls responding to a quarrel between a woman and her ex-boyfriend, who had come over to pick up his things. After being told that he couldn’t be arrested for shouting at her, the woman suddenly “remembered” that he had also hit her and pointed to a bruise on her leg. “I asked, `When did this happen?’ and she said, `Just now,’” says Gilmore. “Well, this bruise was days old. He said he didn’t hit her. I basically knew she was lying, but I had no choice.”
The effects of mandatory arrest are compounded by no-drop prosecutions. The assumption behind no-drop policies is that when women recant or refuse to press charges, it is out of fear or dependence. But reality is far more complex. The woman may feel, rightly or not, that she is not in danger and can handle the situation better without the complications of a legal case; or the lines between aggressor and victim may be blurred; or the charge may have been false, made in anger, and later regretted.
A counselor with a family violence intervention program in Florida who generally favors no-drop prosecutions saw this happen with her own daughter Angela–a troubled young woman with a severe drinking problem–and her live-in boyfriend. One evening, says the counselor, who also requested anonymity, an intoxicated Angela wanted to go out to buy more liquor: “Her boyfriend won’t give her the money. So she goes out to the corner and calls the police saying he has locked her out–which he probably had because he didn’t want trouble–and fills out a report saying he threatened her, she’s afraid of him, and so on.” The police took her home and arrested the young man. The next day, a now-sober Angela was appalled by what she had done and tried to back out–to no avail. With her mother’s help, she hired a lawyer, and her boyfriend was eventually allowed to plead no contest.
These policies apply not only to violence between spouses or cohabitants. Shortly after Wisconsin’s mandatory arrest law took effect, a Milwaukee mom was locked up for slapping her misbehaving teenage son. In 1996 in Missouri, a father was arrested and charged with assault because, after his 17-year-old son refused to get up early to mow the lawn, the father pushed the lawnmower into the teenager’s room and started it up.
Curiously, battered women’s advocates (and journalists who take their cue from the activists) continue to claim that police and the courts treat domestic abuse less seriously than non-family assaults. In fact, this may not have been true even prior to feminist-initiated reforms. In the 1992 book Policing Domestic Violence, University of Maryland criminologist Lawrence Sherman concludes that underenforcement of assault and battery laws was hardly unique to domestic violence. He cites data from the 1970s showing that police were reluctant to intervene in any violent personal dispute, be it a marital squabble, a neighborhood quarrel, or a bar brawl. All else (such as injury) being equal, the rates of arrest were similar for domestic and non-domestic cases. Certainly, more recent studies show no evidence of discrimination against battered women. Analyzing the handling of violent offenses in 1987-88 in Arizona, feminist criminologist Kathleen Ferraro found–to her own surprise–that while most attacks of any kind were either not prosecuted or were charged as misdemeanors, felony assaults were less likely to be dismissed if they involved spouses or partners (even though the victims in domestic cases were much more likely to request a dismissal). Nor did the victim-offender relationship affect the severity of the sentence.
Nowadays, however, some crusaders openly argue that domestic violence should be taken more seriously than other crimes. In 1996, the sponsor of a New York bill toughening penalties for misdemeanor assault on a family member (including ex-spouses and unwed partners) vowed to oppose a version extending the measure to all assaults: “The whole purpose of my bill is to single out domestic violence,” Assemblyman Joseph Lentol said. “I don’t want the world to think we’re treating stranger assaults the same way as domestic assaults.”
These arguments, however, are rooted in the paradigm of domestic violence promoted by the battered women’s movement: the woman, powerless and trapped by economic or psychological dependency, is victimized by the brutal, domineering man who uses force to impose control. Certainly, some cases fit this model; but many others do not.
For one, the feminist paradigm ignores mutual combat and female aggression. Surveys by pioneering family violence researchers Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire and Richard Gelles of the University of Rhode Island have found that half of all spousal violence is reciprocal while the rest is evenly split between female-only and male-only violence (though men are more likely to inflict serious damage). Those findings are confirmed by a host of other studies. Nonetheless, materials distributed by advocacy groups and used in training for judges, prosecutors, and police assert that 95 percent of domestic violence is male-on-female and dismiss mutual brawling as a “myth.”
Because of this ideology, the War on Domestic Violence gets a bit schizophrenic when it comes to female aggression. Ironically, mandatory arrest laws have led to a rise in the number of women arrested for domestic assault, as sole perpetrators or together with their partners; in some states, women now account for about a quarter of all arrests. According to criminologist Lawrence Sherman, this “resulted in intensive lobbying [by battered women’s advocates] not to arrest women regardless of probable cause to do so.” In response, many jurisdictions have devised ways around formal gender neutrality.
In Michigan, for instance, when Susan Finkelstein told the arresting officer that she was at least as much the aggressor in their altercation as Jim, she was informed that the policy required arresting the larger of the two parties. More commonly, mandatory arrest laws are amended with a “primary aggressor” clause, which can be interpreted quite creatively: Sherman recalls an incident he saw in one of his field studies in which the man was arrested because he had yelled at his wife–even though she was the only one to actually strike a blow.
While battered women’s advocates have had a major impact on the ways in which charges of spousal assault are handled by criminal courts, the reach of the War on Domestic Violence is still somewhat limited by constitutional protections for defendants. Perhaps the worst excesses of this crusade are found in the use and abuse of civil orders of protection, also known as restraining orders–which require lower levels of evidence and can be issued without the accused having a chance to defend himself.
Court orders prohibiting one party not only from harassing but, in some cases, from approaching or contacting another are not limited to domestic violence cases. Normally, getting such an order is a cumbersome process. But under abuse prevention laws, on the books in 48 states by 1988, restraining orders are easily available against current or former spouses or cohabitants and some other family members. (Whether the relationship is close enough to qualify–how about an ex-sister-in-law?–can become the key issue at a hearing.) In the last decade, many states have strengthened this legislation, further streamlining the process of obtaining an order, extending eligibility to people who had dated but not lived together, and toughening penalties for violators.
The basis for a restraining order need not include violence. In Massachusetts, over half of the 60,000 restraining orders in domestic cases issued every year do not, according to a 1995 state report, involve so much as an allegation of physical abuse. Elaine Epstein, past president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, recalls “affidavits which just said someone was in fear, or there had been an argument or yelling–not even a threat.” In 1990, the state’s highest court ruled that a restraining order had to be based on “reasonable fear” of “imminent serious physical harm”; but many judges don’t like taking chances and are satisfied with a positive answer to the question, “Are you afraid of bodily harm by the defendant?” In New Jersey, abusive acts which qualify for a restraining order include verbal harassment (which need not involve threats).
Moreover, temporary restraining orders are granted ex parte, without the defendant being present or notified–much less informed of the specific charges. Supporters of current laws concede that getting an order takes very little evidence. “I think judges grant the restraining orders without asking too many questions,” Massachusetts state legislator Barbara Gray, a sponsor of the original abuse prevention statute, told me in 1995. (Gray has since retired.)
Usually within 10 days, a hearing must be held to determine if the order will be extended for a year or more. That’s when the defendant can tell his side–in theory. In fact, writes Boston attorney Miriam Altman, “the mere allegation of domestic abuse…may shift the burden of proof to the defendant.” Hearsay is allowed; cross-examination may be limited; and, many lawyers say, the judge is unlikely to give serious consideration to exculpatory evidence. “I don’t need a full-scale hearing,” one judge told attorney (and Massachusetts state legislator) James Fagan when he brought witnesses disputing a woman’s claim of harassment by his client. The only issue, the judge declared, was whether he felt the woman was fearful–”it isn’t even who’s telling the truth,” he said.
The consequences of a restraining order for the man on the receiving end (and it usually is a man) can be quite serious. If he shares a home with the plaintiff, he will usually be ordered to vacate the premises. Any contact becomes illegal–in many states, a felony punishable by prison or fines (it doesn’t matter if the “victim” agreed to or even initiated the contact). This can have particularly wrenching consequences when there are children involved.
Men who have had restraining orders issued against them on the basis of uncorroborated or trivial allegations have been jailed for sending their kids a Christmas card; for asking a telephone operator to convey a harmless message; for accidental “contact” at the courthouse; and for returning a child’s phone call. The pressure on judges and prosecutors to be tough on violators comes not only from women’s groups but from the media. In Massachusetts, the Boston Globe has been crusading tirelessly on the issue, while showing no interest in horror stories of restraining-order overkill.
While father-rights activists claim that most restraining orders are based on false claims, defenders of the law say that no more than 5 percent of the charges are false. That still adds up to about 2,000 a year in Massachusetts alone–hardly an insignificant figure when it’s a matter of people being evicted from their homes, cut off from their children, sometimes jailed, and branded with the equivalent of a criminal record (their names are entered in the abusers’ registry)–all without the safeguards of a criminal trial.
The policies in Massachusetts may be unusually tough, but they’re hardly unique. Connecticut attorney Arnold Rutkin, editor of the legal journal Family Advocate, writes that judges tend to take a “rubberstamping” approach to protection orders, and the “due process hearings” held later are “usually a sham.” A New Jersey woman whose estranged husband threatened to take “drastic measures” if she didn’t pay the household bills–by which he meant having her telephone disconnected–was granted a permanent restraining order due to “harassment.” When state appellate courts moved to curb these excesses, resulting in fewer restraining orders, an outcry from advocates was quick to follow.
When the advocates and their friends in the legislatures do acknowledge the potential for the misuse of restraining orders, it is usually to say that no safeguards can be adopted without endangering victims. As Barbara Gray told me, “You [would be] saying to a judge: On an emergency basis, you have to look at this woman and see whether you think she’s telling the truth.” Given the horrifying statistics on violence against women, says Gray, one can’t take the risk of not taking all accusations seriously.
Some judges seem to share that attitude. At a 1995 seminar, dispensing advice to incoming municipal judges, Judge Richard Russell of the Ocean City, New Jersey, municipal court declared, “Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around. …The woman needs this protection because the statute granted her that protection….They have declared domestic violence to be an evil in our society. So we don’t have to worry about the rights.”
Judge Russell’s comments, captured on tape and printed in the New Jersey Law Journal, raised a few eyebrows. However, he suffered no consequences beyond a mild chiding from the Administrative Office of the Courts. By contrast, recently in Maine, Judge Alexander MacNichol was denied reappointment by Gov. Angus King after battered women’s advocates complained about his alleged insensitivity to women applying for restraining orders–which, the judge’s many defenders said, meant simply that he listened to both sides of the story.
Beyond questions of civil liberties and due process, there is no proof that the crackdown prevents domestic homicides, the ostensible goal of hardline restraining order procedures. Nor is there evidence that it prevents serious assaults. A man who intends to kill a woman and either plans to take his own life or knows that he will face murder charges won’t be deterred by the penalties for violating a restraining order, as too many headlines show. A 1984 study by Janice Grau, Jeffrey Fagan, and Sandra Wexler has concluded that the orders have a protective effect for women who were not severely victimized in the first place. If so, peddling them to women in real danger is like giving cancer patients aspirin.
“The restraining order law was changed to protect women who were really abused, but it doesn’t work,” says Sally Gilmore, the New Jersey police officer. “All it does is create an incredible amount of paperwork for the cops, and most of the time it’s just revenge, or just to get him out of the house.”
Indeed, it has become a commonplace among lawyers of both sexes that restraining orders are routinely misused as a weapon in divorces. It’s hard to come up with reliable estimates of how frequently that happens. But given the advantages conferred by a restraining order, from possession of the house to virtually automatic custody of the children, the temptation is certainly there.
Robert Byers, a Georgia contractor, found himself embroiled in a particularly twisted saga. In 1993, his wife, Lori Anderson, left the state with their 8-year-old daughter. He soon learned that they were with her relatives in Massachusetts–and that the police there were trying to serve him with a restraining order. He went to Massachusetts for a hearing; his request for a continuance so that he could get a lawyer was denied, and the order was extended for a year, barring him from all contact with his wife or child.
Byers went home and filed for divorce. When the Georgia court had trouble locating Anderson to notify her of the custody hearing, he returned to Massachusetts and went to serve her with the papers. She called the police and he was arrested for violating the restraining order; unable to make bail, he was locked up for three months. Finally, he pleaded guilty to the violation in exchange for a suspended sentence.
In October 1994, Byers won custody in Georgia and went back to Massachusetts to petition for the return of his daughter. The next day, Anderson filed a complaint, alleging that he had loitered in her driveway and made threatening calls to her sister. This time, Byers was held without bail. In February 1995, he was found not guilty by a five-woman, one-man jury; the judge also threw out his earlier suspended sentence after reviewing the evidence.
Two hours after Byers’s release, Anderson got a new restraining order. It’s hard to tell how long this farce would have dragged on if a probate judge had not put an end to it by ruling that Massachusetts had to honor the Georgia custody decree. Byers was able to take his child home only after a total of nearly 200 days behind bars.
Stories like that of Byers, perhaps without happy endings, are likely to become increasingly common. Spurred by the O.J. Simpson case, the War on Domestic Violence has intensified in the past three years. The Michigan legislature, in a fit of O.J.-itis, decided to allow restraining orders to take effect as soon as they are issued, before the defendant has been served–which means that he can face criminal charges for something he didn’t know was a crime, creating great opportunities for entrapment. Last June, California abolished a provision allowing defendants in misdemeanor domestic assaults to have the incident expunged from police records if they compensate the victim and undergo counseling–an option still available to the accused in other assault cases. In 1996, a new federal law made domestic violence the only misdemeanor for which a person loses the right to own a gun (with the spurious explanation that domestic assaults are more likely to be prosecuted as misdemeanors than non-domestic ones of equal gravity).
Undoubtedly, there are cases in which victims of intimate violence are badly let down by the system, sometimes with fatal results. But apathy and excessive zeal can coexist–just as horror stories of children yanked from parental homes on flimsy suspicions of abuse coexist with ones of abused children handed back to their tormentors. Indeed, when apathy and excessive zeal do coexist, the policy implications are often disastrous. Douglas Besharov, a child welfare expert at the American Enterprise Institute, compellingly argues that overzealous probes of frivolous claims of child abuse lead to underenforcement where action is needed most because the system is too bogged down in trivial pursuit to single out the serious cases.
It’s probably the same with domestic violence. The system, says sociologist Richard Gelles, fails to differentiate between minor charges of abuse and cases rife with danger signs–such as the events leading to the death of Kristin Lardner, the daughter of Washington Post reporter George Lardner. (The former boyfriend who fatally shot her in May 1992 before killing himself had a long history of criminal behavior; yet after assaulting Kristin, he was not jailed, despite violating his probation.) Indeed, manipulators may be more likely to get the system to work to their advantage than real victims, too scared or too unsophisticated to navigate its channels.
Even if the dangerous cases are caught early, some people are going to be badly hurt or even killed by their mates. Such things are not always predictable. And we might ask, without creating a new “abuse excuse,” whether being denied access to his children might not push a nonviolent person over the edge. “People with nothing to lose are dangerous people,” says James Fagan, the Massachusetts attorney and state legislator.
The most obvious casualties of the War on Domestic Violence have been men, particularly men involved in contentious divorces. But it has also hurt many of the women who are its intended beneficiaries. Part of the problem is the one-size-fits-all approach to domestic violence. For many couples in violent relationships, particularly those involved in mutual violence, joint counseling offers the best solution. But if they have come to the attention of the authorities, it’s one form of counseling to which they are unlikely to be referred. Couples therapy is vehemently opposed by battered women’s advocates–ostensibly out of concern for women’s safety, but also because of the implication that both partners must change their behavior.
A few years ago, James Dolan, first justice of Dorchester District Court in Massachusetts, warned that the system may be engaging in “benign abuse” by “denying women the right to continue a relationship without submitting to the authority of the court.” Dolan may have been stretching the term abuse, but quite a few women might agree with his assessment.
And then there are the women who, often on the basis of a misunderstanding or a single, trivial incident blown out of proportion, are labeled as victims against their will. “It was very paternalistic, even if women were involved in the system,” says Susan Finkelstein, reflecting on her experience. “At one point, I told a prosecutor that I didn’t appreciate being told what was best for me by someone who didn’t even know me. She said, `It strikes me as odd that you don’t appreciate the fact that we’re trying to protect you.’ What I said didn’t matter. It seems so ironic that in trying to give women a voice, they are taking away their voices.”
I’m find it extremely interesting that you continue to portray people who believe in equal pay for equal work as evil.
Yes I know that there are “feminists” out there who are way over the line. However the same is true of any kind of group. There are always people on the fringe. They DO NOT represent all of us so stop acting as if they do.
Yes the incidents represented in the article were bad. However when a society is changing, i.e treating domestic abuse as just that, abuse, it often swings to far. Only good sense, time and accessing the problem is going to solve that.
Perhaps instead of leaping to conclusions, at which it appears you are quite adept, you should work on getting the problem in front of the legislators that need information to reform the law.
April 18th, 2008 at 5:34 pmAnd, I’m really curious about the no esponsibilities we have and the messes we leave behind.
Can you clarify?
April 18th, 2008 at 6:25 pmsorry make that responsibilities
April 18th, 2008 at 6:26 pmI can explain it all, easily. However, you can’t understand it or you would not be asking.
In the early 90’s, some wimpy guy wrote a column in our city newspaper fussing women were getting paid less than men. I wrote a response, saying I was not going to ask him to prove women made less on average. I was only going to ask him to show one woman in our city of 100,000 inhabitants, who worked the same hours at exactly the same job; with the same seniority and who made one cent less than the man.
There was, of course, no response. Because it simply does not happen and hasn’t happened in decades.
The man-hating losers who do your thinking for you lump women who work part-time with men who work full-time, then announce women are making less money. Frankly, anyone who is not smart enough to see through that simple fact probably should not be holding any kind of important job.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:37 pmI believe in equal pay for equal work. We’ve had equal pay for equal work for quite some time now. What we don’t have is equal pay no matter your performance or reliability or longevity on the job. And we shouldn’t, no matter how much we complain that women are getting short shrift.
Open your eyes, sister.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:40 pm“I’m find it extremely interesting that you continue to portray people who believe in equal pay for equal work as evil.”
Of course, Kelly has never said anything even remotely of the kind. I find it extremely interesting that Feminist swine continue to attempt to misrepresent Kelly’s position using the same dreary, FREQUENTLY DISPROVEN lies and innuendo. No…wait…considering Willful Misunderstanding and Falsehood have been the standard operating procedure for you and your ilk for 4 decades, I’m not suprised in the least. You’ve had 40 years to come up with some new material, yet you continue with the same drivel your High Priestesses (Steinem, Solanas, Dworkin et. al.) squeezed from their digestive tracts back in the 70’s. Feminists–too goddamn lazy to even come up with new strawmen!
“Yes I know that there are “feminists” out there who are way over the line.”
In that case, why not concentrate your energies on preaching to them, rather than coming here and boring those of us who refuse to bow the knee to your little hate movement? Hmmm? No, you come HERE instead, in order to wax morally outraged because we have the audacity to discuss the painfully, painfully obvious sexism Feminism represents. It isn’t 1975 anymore; you don’t automatically win moral superiority by parroting the most dominant flavor of hypocrisy.You’ve come such a long way, baby, that the scam has become rather transparent.
“However the same is true of any kind of group.
There are always people on the fringe. They DO NOT represent all of us so stop acting as if they do.”
The same argument could have been made about your phantom Misogynists. Why did you insist on pretending they represented all Men, you Gender Warrior, you? Hmmm? Of course, what I’m pointing out here is the extension of your own argument. It’s based on logic and as such will be unable to penetrate the Fembot Fog you live and breathe in.
“Yes the incidents represented in the article were bad.”
It’s a Feminist, folks, so you know what she’s REALLY saying is, “OK, some of this is so patently absurd even I vaguely suspect it isn’t fair, BUT I’M STILL RIGHT!” And so we move on to the inevitable “But!” portion of the paragraph.
“However”
And there it is! Is anyone at all suprised? No, I’m not either.
“when a society is changing, i.e treating domestic abuse as just that, abuse, it often swings to far.”
Once again, we have to ask why you are wasting your time attacking the messengers who point out that things HAVE swung too far? Wouldn’t your time be more effectively employed in stamping out the injustices highlighted on this site? I thought you selfish shrews were all about E-kwaaaaaaaal-lity!? No, instead you wag your finger in our faces as though advocating for change somehow makes our side the unreasonable party. The one source of amusement the Sisterhood can be counted on to deliver without fail is this tone deaf inability to draw inferences.
“Only good sense, time and accessing the problem is going to solve that.”
Jesus Christ! If we have to wait for Fembots to begin evincing good sense we’re even more screwed than I thought! Even if Hell DID freeze over Feminists would just use it as an excuse to demand free ice skates from the minions of Hell. They have that Entitlement mindset, you know.
“Perhaps instead of leaping to conclusions,”
The statistics are all available for those who truly want to see them. The stats on Female against Male Domestic Violence are not ‘conclusions’, they are scientifically proven facts. For the Feminists in our midst, that means we didn’t just pull it out of our ass, the way you did with Super Bowl Sunday and a vast number of similar lies.
“at which it appears you are quite adept, you should work on getting the problem in front of the legislators that need information to reform the law.”
Perhaps instead of smearing the same unconvincing,self-righteous Idiocy around the Internet, at which you are clearly quite adept (no appearances necessary here,) you should work on going away and leaving your Betters alone. With typical, predictable Hypocrisy you demand that Kelly address her concerns to our legislators. You have admitted she has a valid point (”Yes I know that there are “feminists” out there who are way over the line.” Remember that? It’s an unfortunate aspect of the Man Brain; we are able to carry your comments in our heads for greater than 2 seconds. Wouldn’t it be useful if you could do the same?) So, why are you not contacting a legislator and leaving us alone, Cupcake? Physician, heal thyself!
And here–let me save you time by supplying all your ‘counter arguments’ for you. This will hopefully expedite the rapid removal of your Feminist stench from our nostrils. I am:
A Misogynist (natch!)
I hate Womyn (of course!)
I’m sexually frustrated, because no womyn would ever tolerate my obvious social maladjustment (You saw that coming, right kiddies?)
I’m gay (There’s a vicious streak of homophobia amongst the Sisterhood, made manifestly plain by their predictable use of ‘gay’ as an attack on their critics.)
I have a small penis (Yawn)
I have ‘issues’ (Double yawn)
I need anger management classes (One can only hope these classes will be conducted in the placid, even-tempered manner made so popular by Andrea Dworkin et. al.)
That’s all the boring clichés I can think of at the moment. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to trot out the ones I’ve missed. On second thought, just go away.
April 19th, 2008 at 4:52 am“And, I’m really curious about the no esponsibilities we have and the messes we leave behind.
Can you clarify?”
Can you read?
There’s an entire site’s worth of information on that very subject here. Comprehension not your strong suit, is it?
April 19th, 2008 at 7:19 amI wanted to just email this to you, Kelly, but I can’t find your address. Anyway, if you’re a Man and you have eyes you would do well to stay away from Maine. This is the kind of thing that has me actively looking into visa requirments in South America. Can you imagine the epidemic of false allegations and injustice a bill like this will enable? It’s gotten to the point that males are officially second-class citizens. The smart Germans got out prior to 1939. I’ve had just about enough of the jackbooted Femi-thugs, how about the rest of you guys?
http://www.seacoastonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080406/NEWS/804060343/-1/NEWS01
April 19th, 2008 at 7:56 amWO, Flint’s Gunner a little angry are we?
I’m not sure where you got those counter arguments but they’d never come out of my mouth.
I treat men and women with with the equal respect that they deserve. It’s sad that everyone in the world doesn’t behave the same way.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:22 pmAlso, I just looked at the link you left. Of course that’s a stupid law. Anyone with a brain in their head can see that. Of course people need to speak up and say that rather than just ranting online.
April 19th, 2008 at 2:25 pmAnd last but not least. Flint’s Gunner I’d really like to have a conversation with you if it could be civil. I truly do not understand what messes I’m supposed to have left for you to clean up. I’m 55. I have personally experienced not equal pay for equal work where I was just as qualified as my male co-worker. I was also told by my college advisor that women do not belong in medicine after I told him I was planning on going.
If you don’t want to talk please go to my blog, you will find my email address and you can send me the websites you were talking about.
Thank you,
April 19th, 2008 at 3:27 pmCathy Carey
Because I cannot explain myself if I have no idea what references you are using.
April 19th, 2008 at 3:30 pmI find it interesting that those who believe we have achieved equal pay and can prove it are portrayed as evil.
winecat you clearly believe there is a basis to feminist claims on the “wages gap”. If you wish to discuss this here I’m quite willing to hear you out. There must be a reason why you believe their claims.
Do you speak out against those “over the line” feminists? Or do you only chastise those who do?
You clearly think of yourself as a “moderate” feminist. The typical experience for moderate feminists - Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Summers, Erin Pizzey et al - is threats up to and including death threats, whispering campaigns, false accusations. Have you been the unfortunate victim of these experiences?
In light of the experiences of those who dare to challenge the feminist orthodoxy it comes as no surprise that moderates would prefer to stay quiet.
However, winecat, you’ve not just remained quiet have you? You’d be the one in the town square tugging on the sleeves of the possible dissenters while the lynch mob is forming. You’ve crossed a line here winecat. It’s one thing to remain quiet in the face of what even you admit is “way over the line”. It’s another to hamper those with the courage to speak out. By doing that you defend and enable the wrongs.
“swings too far”? When victims are arrested instead of protected? When children are denied protection because their abuser is female? “swings too far”? When victims are forced to compensate their abusers? When boys are denied protection outright because they’re boys?
Now class, can you say “human rights violation?”
When VAWA was up for renewal a couple of years ago the were efforts by some groups to put a moderate and equitable viewpoint. They were denied even the opportunity to present data including the work of the foremost researchers in the field.
The most polarising agent where gender is concerned is feminism.
Ahem…Some of us do. These laws come about as a consequence of feminist advocacy. My local MP is a feminist who was sponsored and mentored by Emily’s List from age seventeen. Guess what kind of hearing I get?
Interesting? What were you doing? In my country equal pay was made mandatory in 1973. All business sectors complied very quickly. You would have been approximately twenty.
I was delivered by a female doctor in 1959. My grandmother ran and financed her own business in the thirtys. Please reserve your disdain for your advisor rather than us. In those days as many women as men would have tried to dissuade you and these days that’s probably still true.
Equal Justice Foundation - Domestic Violence Index
or simply google Murray Strauss or Martin Fiebert…
April 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pmWow, I wanted to thank Kelly for the great piece from Cathy Young and I walk into a spat about wage gaps…
Keep it up Kelly, the fact you’re getting noticed is a good sign.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pmWhat we need are a few guys or girls(equality) to go postal and run up to N.O.W headquarter and shoot them all up!
April 22nd, 2008 at 6:02 pmTo winecat about equal pay for equal work…
You claim you have been paid less than an ‘equal’ man. Unfortunately, it is not the ‘worker’ who gets to decide who is ‘equal’, it is the employer, and many factors go into that equation.
I work with many woman and the vast majority of them are, like the vast majority of men, competent at their jobs and most seem to be fairly compensated. However, I once had to supervise a woman who constantly ranted about how she was underpaid and more qualified than many of her co-worker men. (She tactfully didn’t claim to be more qualified than me… in my presence). On paper she could *almost* make a sound argument, based on years of experience, education, etc. But let me tell you that not only was the productivity of this woman well below par, but it was just plain hell working with her. I didn’t make an overt effort to get her fired but I certainly didn’t get her a positive review and I’m sure she felt I was discriminating against her because she was a woman.
I’m not claiming that you are the same as this women but whenever I hear a woman claim she is being unfairly treated, from a salary perspective, my first impulse is to roll my eyes and remember this incident.
April 23rd, 2008 at 4:07 amHey Opinion, may I just add to that? Last week I stumbled across an old Harper’s magazine at a flea market. It was the Centennial edition 1850-1950. Inside was an essay written by Elanor Roosevelt called ‘Women Have Come A Long Way’ which was elaborating on how far women had advanced in just her lifetime. She makes it abundantly clear that in her opinion the battle for equality had already been won. The last paragraph reads, “I think it might be still said (in 1950, mind! FG) that if a woman wants really to succeed she must do better than a man, for she is under more careful scrutiny; but this is practically the only handicap under which women now labor in any field of endeavor.”
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:00 amThis date of 1950 falls well outside the living memory of a Feminist who would be, let us say, 55 in 2008. In fact, the oldest person I am personally acquainted with is my grandmother, who was born in 1919–she would also be unable to remember a time before women were equal with men before the law, and yet we hear a constant buzzsaw whine about phantom oppression. I bring this up only to say that while your point is valid it misses the larger point, i.e. Western women have becom insufferable phony Martyrs who will NEVER aknowledge that the battle is won. They will instead submit loads and loads of anecdotal stories which illustrate ONLY that they once met someone who held a negative attitude. The fact that this applies to EVERYONE does not enter their heads because they have beenm brainwashed by the Sisterhood to consider their OWN interests only,and so are incapable of realizing that back then a lot of men were equally disenfrachised. For example, only landowning males were allowed to vote when the Constitution was drafted. I would have been unble to vote too, back in 1788. But this does not occur to them, because all they can hear is ME ME ME! Society in the USA (and indeed, the world) has evolved dramatically, but not as some bizarre plot to keep the wimmin barefooted and pregnant. That’s just ludicrous! Slowly but surely the light of Reason has won out over Darkness, those who were once slaves are now free, those with no voice in government (both men and women) are now given their voice. It’s a natural progression as we shed our previous, counter-productive attitudes and move ahead. Eleanor Roosevelt, a woman who saw these changes unfold in real time and in a manner which affected HER PERSONAL LIFE would agree with my position. Shew as an intelligent, cosmopolitan woman who observed these changes first-hand. Can you say the same for the Shrew Brigrade, Steinmem et. al.? Of course not. Who are YOU gonna believe?
To gallwan and Opinion - I was a budget analyst in charge of the expenses in a Fortune 100 company. The presidents of the 2 divisions I worked for were completely unequal in terms of education and experience, the woman much more qualified. She was paid approximately 1/3 less than the man because he had “connections”. The same held true for director and manager positions.
Obviously if the woman you reference didn’t preform up to par it wasn’t equal work for equal pay. Equal means Equal nothing else.
To gwallwan - I’m not sure how I’m hampering the courage of anyone. I’m merely asking for information and pointing out the the references Kelly uses do not best support her statements. And yes I speak out about those “over the line people” they do none of us any good. How can we possibly have a world where everyone is treated with respect when either sex is targeted as being evil? And thank you for the links I will go check them out so I can educate myself. I truly want to understand your side of the conversation. The more information I have the more intelligent our discussion.
“The most polarising agent where gender is concerned is feminism.” What does that mean? My statement was about treating people with equal respect.
And I don’t hold you in distain. I hold your views in distain because I don’t understand them.
to bachelor tom - IT’S NOT ABOUT WAGES! It’s about not understanding each other’s positions.
To Frankie - yes violence will solve all your problems
To Fint’s Gunner Ok I give up. It appears that civil debate is impossible.
Good bye one and all. Maybe some time in the future men and women will be able to have an honest discussion about sex, civil rights and money. I only hope I’m around to hear it.
April 23rd, 2008 at 12:29 pmRight. That woman president was WAY more qualified! Cuz, you know, the conveyor of this information hasn’t displayed any bias thus far. Yup. A clear-cut case of discrimination. Nothing proves your point faster than buttressing it with unsubstantiated hearsay emanating from dishonest Feminists determined to make a point no matter what. Did you guys know that more women suffer Domestic Abuse (a registered trademark of Victimhood Inc.) on Super Bowl Sunday than on any other day of the year!? This is my favorite part of its illogical, condescending screed–
Part A, its first sentence of its first post:”I’m find it extremely interesting that you continue to portray people who believe in equal pay for equal work as evil.”
Part B: Her abrupt about-face: “to bachelor tom - IT’S NOT ABOUT WAGES! It’s about not understanding each other’s positions.”
Gee, I’M find that real interesting too!
Yes, it longs so very, very much for an honest, open debate! How stupid does it think we are? As long as it defines ‘civil debate’ as me being forced to agree with its Feminist talking points it will continue to be disappointed. Oh my…it gives up, does it? Whatever shall we do now!? Way to seize the moral high ground. Of course, it would have been more entertaining to hear it address the actual points myself and others raised, but we knew all along THAT wouldn’t happen. That’s why it won’t get any ‘debate’ from me; I’ll just continue to jeer at its poorly thought-out assertions. Good riddance.
April 23rd, 2008 at 2:54 pmYou said previously…
…I have personally experienced not equal pay for equal work where I was just as qualified as my male co-worker.
Was it you or somebody else? If it was unjustifiable why wasn’t it reported?
If it is somebody else how do you know the details? The woman may have given you her story. If anybody else told you anything at all that would be most improper. Her behaviour in saying these things to you should be considered suspect also. Think about this - if she’ll bad mouth others she’ll just as easily do it to you. If I heard this type of discussion between colleagues I would think less of both of them. I detest office politics.
Do you know the actual details of the contracts, their real qualifications, their responsibilities, their performance? How are her negotiating skills? Often in these sorts of roles natural selection rewards those with the stronger negotiating skill set. This is entirely appropriate as the role normally requires it. Her performance in gabbing about this situation to subordinates I find troubling.
How are you positioned to evaluate those senior to yourself and their actions? It seems you have heard one side of an equation and chosen to believe it.
Confirmation bias - it fitted into the scheme of things as described to you by feminism. Must be nice to always have a faith based solution. That way the entire gamut of possibilities need not be explored.
How exactly are you helping them? You clearly agree that the “over the line people” are in the wrong. They are also the folk influencing our culture. So if you are “speaking out” you’re not doing a very good job of it. Surely you’re not leaving the dirty, dangerous work for the menfolk? Again?
And yet we do. Courtesy of feminism. Why do you support the very movement that practises this outrage? I know you claim to not be one of “them”. Unfortunately “them” are those who are influencing public policy.
Then I would also suggest Gendercide Watch which may dissuade you somewhat from the feminist understanding of oppression. It’s worth a bit of time even if you don’t have a political interst. Very informative on some well known and interesting historical events.
In principle that’s fine but men are treated with far less compassion in our culture than are women. Feminism is not responsible for the origin of this which has more to do with the greater disposability of men. Don’t argue this point - “women and children first”, conscription et al.
Feminism has the effect of focussing all attention on one gender. It polarised the attention of every element of our society in one direction. It enhanced an already observable tendency in our culture to apply less importance to the well being of men individually and collectively.
When I see a man pilloried because a woman brutally excised part of his sexual anatomy. AND then see that woman given standing ovations by millions of women…
When the rape of a boy by a woman results in a bit of nudge-nudge-wink-wink-say-no-more, a suspended sentence and possible child support payments by the victim TO his rapist…
When agonising injury to a man, particularly if inflicted by a woman, is a typical comedy device…
When a domestic violence shelter protects the rapist of a twelve year old boy which event occured on their premises. When the judge then looks that victim in the eye and calls him “the aggressor whether you liked it or not”…
When men in some parts of the world no longer have a right to consent…
When men are the agents of global warming. Maybe women don’t breathe or fart. Or drive cars. Or use electricity…
When teenage boys are described by nationally awarded sexual abuse (feminist)”researchers” as “too great a risk” of paedophila who should be kept away from younger children. And then, by contrast, a whacko muslim cleric who complains rather indelicately about the way young women dress is piled on by twenty million media outlets, assorted pollies, EVERY womens group, and the rest of the hoi poloi(his epitaph will read MYSOGINIST in huge scarlett letters)…
When my local library openly displays a coffee table book full of glossy pictures of nude boys…
When speaking out about these things morphs into “keeping women barefoot and pregnant” or “rape apologist”…
…Yeah, I reckon we have a problem with respect.
winecat I write and speak about victims of sexual assault and most specifically male victims of heterosexual abuse. A bit over a year ago I was briefly on radio regarding this. That station received calls from representatives of three groups denouncing me and what I’d said. W.T.F. They don’t advocate for male victims…only female victims…what’s their problem with somebody who does? What do they know about male victims anyway? The only women I referenced are sex offenders.
Guess who they were? I wade through turbulent, snake infeministed waters constantly.
Then one would expect you to be neutral. Am I to assume you are not neutral?
You introduced wages to this thread(ostensibly about intimate partner violence) in the very first sentence you posted. BTW I’m a tax consultant who sees the in-depth income detail for thousands. There is no pay gap. It is feminists who are claiming a wage gap. The statistics they use to back their argument are available for all to see. The gap they point to is easily solvable. If women work the same average hours as men they will get the same pay to a margin of about one percent. The whole thing is a crock. Cherry picking the odd example in a contracted situation proves nothing. I question their motivation given the specifics of the information they present. You should do the same to all you think you know about feminist thinking. It may be an enlightening experience.
Then get your feminist sisters to start telling truths for a change. Much of what they want can be achieved without the hyperbole. It’s the hyperbole that’s causing problems for men when it’s reflected in our systems and culture.
And take this message with you…
Silence is one thing. Active defence is another. No longer will apologists for feminism get away with arguing “I’m not one of those feminists”. Yes, you are. An ideology that requires leaps of faith is understandable to me. There are many which have gone before and some that persist. Your protectiveness of feminism generally will always result in your more easily gravitating to the extreme feminist position than to my non feminist one. You operate from the same faith. Thus it is inevitable.
The alternative is fot you to shatter the fundamental, but unfounded, beliefs you hold. This is always the painful way for those who dare. But it’s the only way.
April 24th, 2008 at 4:31 amYou guys aren’t playing fair. You have to cite revisionist history, not real facts. We all know that men are evil, and we can twist out of any noble feminist argument. Get with the program!
April 24th, 2008 at 8:59 amgwallan I visited the links you listed. Now I understand, men are battered because women are feminists.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:14 amWinecat, I’ve never heard a feminist answer this question:
If women are superior, why did they let themselves be oppressed for thousands of years?
April 24th, 2008 at 9:54 amBachelor Tom, while you’re at it maybe you can explain to me why there are seperate events based solely on sex in the Olympics? Because a woman can do ANYTHING a man can do!! Except, apparently, compete on a playing field which is actually level. Thanks Big Momma Gub-mint!
Oh, and Bachelor Tom, you’ll never GET an answer to that question. What you WILL get is some lame comeback they believe is a real zinger, conveniently ignoring every argument raised against them. Then they’ll sniff in faux outrage and whine about the lack of civil debate. It puts one in mind of stubborn children who threaten to hold their breath til their face turns blue when confronted with clear evidence of wrongdoing.
I hesitate to mention any names, but one of the posters on this board has done nothing else for the duration. But what can ya do, eh Bachelor Tom?
April 24th, 2008 at 10:34 amI’ve decided this is something akin to a traffic accident. I really want to get past it but can’t keep myself from taking a peak.
I’ve come to understand that most of you posting here feel as if equal rights has somehow damaged your lives. I do not understand how or why and realize that I never will. Your are entitled to your opinions as I am entitled to mine. I respect them and ask you to do the same to mine.
Flint Gunner everyone with 1/2 a brain knows that women are not physically equal to men. That’s why they have separate events. And in my opinion civil debates means no name calling or insults. I’ve tried very hard not to do that. I have tired to gather information to understand your point of view. You however have not provided any so don’t tell me that you’ve raised arguments against my points. You’ve just pontificated.
To answer the question of the 2 presidents. He had a jr. college degree and had been a VP of a small company acquired by our division. I hesitate to say he was dumber than a box of rocks but it was close. He could not grasp simple budget allocations that I explained every. year. for. 7. years. The allocations never changed. He was fired from the company in disgrace. Even his big time, big business connections could not get him another job.
She had a master’s degree and had successfully run two other divisions in the Fortune 100 company, one a bank the other a publishing house. She left to company to start her own very successful business and raise 2 children on her own as her husband died. No she did not get special treatment when she was pregnant. She was at a high level corporate meeting out of the country when she went into labor.
I knew their salaries, bonuses and incentives down to the penny because I was the budget analyst and had to made those numbers work in the company budget. Are you happy now?
This time I’m really leaving because this debate is just not going to change. It makes no sense to waste your time or mine. I’m sure most of you will read something into this that I did not intend.
Whatever.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:27 pmSee, car accident.
For those of you who’ve decided I’m a lesbian, I’m off to cook my husband (whom I love dearly and don’t seem to have made his life miserable) dinner. Sweet potato waffles and turkey maple sausage.
April 24th, 2008 at 5:36 pmfrom scratch. But (gasp) he cleans. That’s the deal. I cook him (mostly) gourmet food, he cleans the pots and pans and unloads the dishwasher. I load it as I go along.
By the way the other men besides my husband that I worship and adore - my breast cancer surgeon, my breast cancer radiologist, my brothers-in-law and I’d worship and adore my dad if we were still alive.
April 24th, 2008 at 7:58 pmStrawman. Nobody here is suggesting that. Your resort to that type of fallacy demonstates your ignorance. There were abuse victims of both genders a long time before feminism came along.
If you had a viable point you would have raised it. Some men are abused because some women are abusers exactly as is the case if reversed.
Men and boys who are abused are denied help BECAUSE of feminists. These are victims of physical, sexual and psychological abuse who are denied aid because of non gendered issues feminists have caused to be dealt with in a gender specific manner at a community level.
I mentioned my engagement in advocacy for male victims of heterosexual child sex abuse. These are a quarter of all victims. Feminist driven advocacy refuses to acknowledge the female offender. They are idealogically driven to have abuse positioned as something only males do to females. In my state there are government funded support services for victims which refuse to help male victims because “there’s no such thing”. Any deviation from the feminist orthodoxy results in unrelenting, often personal, attack.
It is an area where feminists truly show their bigotry. Up to three quarters of the men imprisoned for violent rapes of women were molested by women when they were young. If our community treated the offences against boys with the same gravity applied to those against girls many of those subsequent violent rapes of women or girls would be avoided. Male victims might actually be able to get some help when they need it and even see some justice themselves. Not while feminists control the services, advocacy and outreach however. Not while feminists have exclusive input to all the systems which deal with victims. The female offender MUST NOT be acknowledged. They go so far as to sacrifice some of their own in order to maintain the myth that only men sexually abuse. Show them a way to prevent some rapes and they don’t want to know because it means acknowledging that there are female abusers. Hypocrits.
The Invisible Boy
Advocates for Survivors of Child Abuse - Australia
=======================
Isn’t it interesting that among the famous men who are victims of domestic abuse is one William J Clinton.
=======================
Feminists have argued, and continue to argue, that men exclude women at every opportunity. And that our history is replete with examples of this exclusion. The basis of their constant claims of dicrimination stem from this argument as well as implying intent on mens’ behalf. This stands in stark contrast to everything men have done over the past century and continue to do.
The truth is that historically the genders have operated in distinct spheres of influence.
Is There Anything Good About Men? - Roy F. Baumeister (Don’t be fooled by the title.)
Modern feminism consists, in part, of demands to enable, and even advantage, womens access to what were once predominantly male spheres. Simultaneously they actively work to deny males access to the traditionally female spheres.
If one looks at the areas where feminism has had it’s greatest influence since the seventies - family law, abuse and the law, health, reproductive rights etc - it is notable that they consistantly run closed shops. Services, advocacy and outreach are not only run almost exclusively by women/feminists they are also exclusively FOR women. Their advocacy research starts from a position that there are no male victims and proves it by not looking. There are constant demands, often successful, for women-only “spaces”, services and businesses while men-only spaces attract outrage and hysteria.
In much that they do feminists are prone to projection or transference. Simply put they have no insight into male thought processes and have only their own upon which to base their theory. Their thinking stems from a distinctly female mindset(feminists are the last folk who would be willing to even try to empathise with men) and they frequently accuse men of behaving in ways that they, as women, are far more inclined toward.
Judge them by their actions. Men have demonstrated for decades a willingness to enable women and even advantage women over their fellow men. Contrarily feminists do everything in their power to limit, or even deny altogether, mens opportunities.
In politics there is a concept refered to as the “slippery slope”. Once a particular position or action is legitimised, no matter how wrong or unethical, it will continue and all things stemming from it become possible. It can be seen throughout history where changes in regimes or governments make no real difference. The little corruptions and violations will continue under the new regime because the previous one has legitimised them.
In the case of feminism, particularly of the radical variety, there is an almost religious belief that men have consistantly oppressed, disadvantaged and discriminated against women. Make no mistake that, as they gain power, they will act in exactly the way they believe the “patriarchy” has throughout history. They have already demonstrated their willingness to exclude men at every opportunity.
“One of the great tragedies of life is that men love women, women love children, and children love hamsters” - Bettina Arndt - Australian gender commentor
Warren Farrell argues that the man who abuses a woman is, rather than behaving in a typical male fashion, experiencing a complete break from his conditioning. That the default male state, by virtue of both instinct and social conditioning, is one of protectiveness toward women and children. “Don’t hit girls”. “Don’t hurt those weaker than yourself”. “Don’t fight dirty”. “Women and children first”. Women, by contrast, while normally instinctively protective of their own children have no such instinct or conditioning where men are concerned.
Ester Vilar, in her 1974 book “The Manipulated Man”, warned against giving women control of mens welfare. Thus far it appears she may be very well be correct. If radical feminism achieves widespread power they will not only consider their own previous modus operandi appropriate they will also behave in exactly the way they “know” the patriarchy(ie men) to have done.
Ester Vilar, decades ago, seems quite prophetic in the warnings she gave.
==============================
Regarding your two presidents…
You note the incompetant man was fired. Sounds like the situation was created by structural situations and WAS dealt with. Sounds also like that took waaay too long. I still don’t see the relevance of this individual tale. I’ve seen as many incompetant women as men advanced beyond their competence. I’ve been guilty of causing it myself. Arguably a combination of the Peter Principle and affirmative action makes it predicable that more female executives will conform to this pattern. But this was one of the understood trade offs we made when we commenced affirmative action. It still remains that equal pay for the same work has been a legal requirement for decades and there are remedies for noncompliance. If individuals choose to not use those remedies?
Really it seems that the complaints of wage discrimination devolve to a few anecdotal instances in high level executive roles. Quite elitist actually. For the great mass of men and women equal pay is a reality and has been for decades.
Meanwhile ninety five percent of the homeless are men. I wonder if they confront glass ceiling arguments from their female peers?
You are the budget analyst. You are the expert on this. Part of your responsibility is being able to explain the information in a manner accessible to the layperson. Did you achieve this end?
I’ve performed the same task with government ministers. It is my responsibility to ensure they understand the information and know how to apply it. Not theirs.
Next time I’m buiding a team and looking for folk to fill team roles you will not be invited. Destroying the reputation of others does not enhance your own.
April 24th, 2008 at 10:50 pmFrankie said,
I don’t normally intervene in KellyMac’s blog, but as the domain owner here, I couldn’t let this one pass by.
Let me make it very clear: The management of this site does not in any way advocate any sort of physical violence. It also does not advocate any sort of illegal activity.
“frankie’s” opinion is his own, and this site takes no responsibility for them.
April 25th, 2008 at 7:54 amgwallan: great stuff, the Baumeister piece is excellent - but we’re not allowed to bring nature into these debates are we? coz we know that nature is patriarchal…or something
April 25th, 2008 at 8:18 amRest assured, Winecat, everyone outside of your Fembot echo chamber recognizes you have been thoroughly trounced here. All you’ve done is spew the standard issue ad hominems and misrepresentations common to your loathesome ideology. I don’t need external links, I can reason through things on my own–it’s called Abstract Reasoning, perhaps you may have heard of it in between bouts of bra burning and the Two Minute Self-Righteous? Are you unable to exercise this esoteric ability? And if you say you ARE able, why do you routinely claim to be unable to understand me because I haven’t linked anything? Your tedious defense of lacking the information to understand my points is fooling nobody; you refuse to engage in real debate ONLY because you are unable to refute anything I have said. Otherwise you would have done so by now. You can characterize my remarks as pontification if it makes you feel better; it only makes me laugh all the harder. This bears repeating: The one source of amusement the Sisterhood can be counted on to deliver without fail is this tone deaf inability to draw inferences.
“To answer the question of the 2 presidents. He had a jr. college degree and had been a VP of a small company acquired by our division.”
Education level means very little in terms of genuine competence or ability. Edison and Einstein both did miserably in school but were clearly gifted genuises. What degree did Bill Gates earn, Winecat? That’s right, none at all. If this is the yardstick you use to measure ability it’s no wonder you fell for Feminism. It’s extremely telling that you bring this up at all.
“I hesitate to say he was dumber than a box of rocks but it was close. He could not grasp simple budget allocations that I explained every. year. for. 7. years. The allocations never changed. He was fired from the company in disgrace. Even his big time, big business connections could not get him another job.”
Even if this is true it doesn’t prove systemic discrimination. Companies go bankrupt every day due to mismanagement or garden variety stupidity. This is called Real Life and does not indicate intitutionalized discrimination. If your story were true–that he was a moron who was given the job ONLY as a result of your ridiculous Patriarchy–he never would have been fired at all, would he? But he was fired. Gee, I guess the system works after all.
Your bias shows quite clearly, by the way, when you say things like ‘dumber than a box of rocks’ and the sneering flavor of ‘even his big time, big business connections could not get him another job.’ (Nice display of Vindictiveness, too. Aren’t you supposed to be the Caring, Nurturing sex? Yeah right!) Uh-huh, I’ll accept your tale without question in the face of the impartiality of the tone here. So I guess your pristine dedication to the avoidance of insults can be tossed aside when convenient, eh? Interesting.
So that was it? Your story of Big, Bad Sexism? Jesus, that was weak. What do you plan to do if you ever encounter genuine injustice, such as being jailed for decades for a rape that never took place or losing your home and children in our demonstrably Misandrist ‘Family Court’? Oh that’s right, you’re a woman–you don’t need to worry about any of that, since the laws have been twisted in your favor. According to FBI stats 40% of rape charges turn out to be false. There is no laws in place to punish these evil whores for destroying a man’s life, of course–they just walk away, along with muderers (Mary Winkler, who served no prison time for killing her husband in cold blood.) and female sexual predators (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2003874026_predator10.html)
As that article points out, men are demonized, women are diagnosed. I guess the Patriarchy must run the FBI, too. Q. How many links are required to show a Fembot a double standard? A. Don’t be silly, anything that contradicts their diseased idelogy will be ignored.
At the very least spare us the insulting charge of lobbying against equal rights–that’s a Strawman that will only speak to those already converted to your world view. (I guess Eleanor Roosevelt was against equality as well, seeing as she declared the battle won back in 1950? Would you care to address this point? No, of course not; you can only understand what is being said when you are spoon-fed external links. It’s a marvel that people don’t take you seriously, isn’t it?)
Make no mistake, men my age and younger are tired of the SYSTEMIC sexism in this country. All the brow beating in the world will not contradict the evidence of our own experiences.The rest of this is just bizarre. Your husband cleans? Big F’ing deal, as a single man who does not wish to live in a pig sty I do all my own cooking and cleaning on a daily basis–a habit I picked up in the Navy. Am I supposed to be stricken dumb with wonder? Your little (gasp!) aside is intended to imply that men as a whole are slovenly and unconcerned with keeping a clean home. And you offer this snide remark in the middle of a remark designed to illustrate how unbiased you are? As I say, it certainly is a marvel that no one here takes you seriously, isn’t it?
“Good bye one and all. Maybe some time in the future men and women will be able to have an honest discussion about sex, civil rights and money. I only hope I’m around to hear it.”
The first of her many attempts to get in the last word.
“I’ve decided this is something akin to a traffic accident. I really want to get past it but can’t keep myself from taking a peak.”
She admits she cannot refrain from trying to get in the last word.
“This time I’m really leaving because this debate is just not going to change.”
Promises, promises!
“It makes no sense to waste your time or mine.”
Translation: If you refuse to agree, I refuse to engage!
“I’m off to cook my husband (whom I love dearly and don’t seem to have made his life miserable)”
As if you’d listen to him if he tried to say you did. You’d simply shout him down, the way you’ve tried to do to us. That’s the real reason you’re so allegedly appalled; you’re unused to people who cannot be dominated and silenced.
April 25th, 2008 at 9:52 amgwallen: You are clearly an intelligent and articulate advocate for Men’s Rights. I’m glad people such as yourself are concerned with this issue. Keep up the excellent work!
April 25th, 2008 at 10:18 amFeminist Code Speak
Men seeking equal treatment = “backlash”
Women seeking equal treatment = “feminism”
Discrimination against men = “equal opportunity”
Discrimination against women = “discrimination”
A woman with grievances = “victim”
A man with grievances = “angry”
Open discussion of gender issues = “misogyny”
Men looking for equal treatment in the courts = “abuse”
Consensual sex between a man and woman = “rape”
Heated discussion between a man and woman = “domestic violence”
Women receiving preferential treatment/privileges = “equality”
A numeric majority of the human species = “minority”
Any woman = “victim”
Any man = “oppressor”
Any child = “property”
A woman talking about hating men = “empowerment”
A man talking about hating women = “hate speech”
A sexually predatory woman dressed like a hooker = “liberation”
A man with any interest in sex = “rapist”
A woman who wants to be with her children = “mother”
A man who wants to be with his children = “abuser”
A woman who forces children under her care/authority into sex = “the
child was lucky”
A man who forces children under his care/authority into sex
= “pedophile”
A shelter providing emergency services to abused women = “women’s
shelter”
A shelter providing any services to abused men = “prison”
Female genital mutilation = “sexual repression”
Male genital mutilation = “acceptable custom that protects women from
HIV”
A man assaulting a women = “(domestic) violence”
A woman assaulting a man = “humor”
A man who beats his female partner = “batterer”
A woman who beats her male partner = “victim”
A disposable slave = “man”
A human being = “woman”
Hating women = “a crime”
Hating men = “‘a viable political act’”
Distorting or lying about reality = “feminist analysis”
Biology = “lies”
Reality = “discrimination”
Any power a man has = “patriarchy”
Any power a woman has = “empowerment”
Pornography pleasing to lesbians = “erotica”
Pornography pleasing to men = “exploitation and degradation of women”
Person who says feminists are wrong = “hate criminal”
Woman-firster and advocator of any measure against men = “feminist”
Patriarchy = “bad”
Matriarchy = “good”
Male leader = “backwards”
Female leader = “improvement”
Pro-lesbianism and female, anti-male = “feminist ideology”
Same standards, honest competition = “unfair”
Female sexuality = “nurturing”
Male sexuality = “objectifying”
Female virgin = “pure”
Male virgin = “pathetic”
Female modesty = “noble”
Male modesty = “creepy”
Pandering to male audiences = “sexism”
Pandering to female audiences = “fulfilling a niche”
Women standing up for themselves = “empowerment”
Men standing up for themselves = “chauvinism”
Woman proud of her appearance = “confident”
Man proud of his appearance = “vain”
Innate female advantages = “complementary”
Innate male advantages = “sexist”
Women’s space = “safe haven”
Men’s space = “patriarchal breeding ground”
Women discussing their issues = “theraputic”
Men discussing their issues = “whining”
Female intellect = “pioneering”
Male intellect = “masturbatory”
Man obeying a women = “respect”
Women obeying a man = “slavery”
Men being sexually critical = “shallow”
Women being sexually critical = “having standards”
Female rage = “indignation”
Male rage = “insecurity”
Male abuse of power = “direct consequence of patriarchy”
Female abuse of power = “indirect consequence of patriarchy”
Unemployed woman = “homemaker”
Unemployed man = “loser”
Female indulgence = “happiness”
Male indulgence = “selfishness”
http://antimisandry.com/blog.php?b=38
April 25th, 2008 at 1:29 pmApril 25th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Reposting. Screwd up tags.
Mother Nature? A patriarch? Who woulda thunk it?
Baumeister demonstrates how nature impacts on socialisation. One of the fundamental flaws in feminist theory is the isolation of “nature” from “nurture”.
April 25th, 2008 at 6:31 pmThis is for Flint’s Gunner. I’m posting here because I have no other way to contact you.
I’ve been searching the web to try and understand the point of view of this blog. There are lots of sites out there and your comments pop up frequently. That you so so angry and cynical at such a young age is just sad.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:05 pmAnd no it’s not pity. It’s a mere statement of fact.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:24 pmHi Kelly, I feel that I owe you an apology. I didn’t mean to start a war on your blog. I was just trying to get information. In my search the last couple of days I stumbled upon these 2 posting. I thought you might find them as interesting as I did.
I first learned about Islamic feminism, which is what real feminism should be in my book, when I read “The Faith Club”. Excellent, excellent book.
here are the links if you’re interested. http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2003/0318.html
http://members.aol.com/yahyam/equality.html
again I’m sorry I started the war and I promise not to do it again. I will keep reading your blog because how else will I understand where you and your posters are coming from if I ignore a source of information?
Cathy
April 26th, 2008 at 5:35 pmI only hope you are moderating everyone’s comments in an effort to end this discussion and not just mine.
April 26th, 2008 at 5:52 pmhttp://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html?ex=1343793600&en=c941c53c0149a9a4&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Oh My God!! To the trenches!! There’s GENDER INEQUALITY to be fought! To arms, sisters, to arms! Once more into the breach to battle the forces of pure, unadulterated EEEEEE-vil!!
(crickets)
April 27th, 2008 at 5:35 pm“I’ve been searching the web to try and understand the point of view of this blog.”
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.Keep sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting NYAH! NYAH! NYAH! if you must, but do not continue insulting my intelligence by presenting yourself as a person who is trying to ‘understand’. My position is not difficult to grasp–Feminism has devolved into a hate movement whose sole aim is the promotion of preferential treatment for women at the expense of the other half the human race. There is no jargon here, no words designed to cloud the issue. Either you are deliberately pretending confusion, which makes you disingenuous, or you are not intelligent enough to grasp this exceedingly simple premise. Which is it? Dishonest or Dullard? And no, you are not bein