Quantcast

«

»

May 14 2014

Solange, Jay-Z and our problem with female violence

So much needs to be said about the assault on Jay-Z by his sister-in-law, Solange Knowles, and the subsequent media reaction. A lot of it is should be so self-evident it barely needs spelling out. Yes, if the roles were reversed the reaction would be very different. No, headline writers of the world, this was not a “fight” – that word would imply mutual participation, this was a unilateral assault. No, social media users of the world, an incident of family violence is not the most hilarious topic for your jokes and memes. Yes, corporate PR executives who hijack jokey hashtags about violent crimes to share advertising slogans, you do have an extra warm and spiky corner of Hell awaiting you. And no, concerned observers and commentators of the world, you may not speculate on what Jay-Z might have said or done to provoke or deserve it. Physical assault is never justified by the victim’s behaviour. Do I really need to point out to where that kind of thinking leads?

Buried within all this, the affair shows up a peculiar problem our society seems to have in conceptualising women’s violence. Had the wobbly security camera footage shown a man assaulting a woman, we would have had a full range of explanations and an accompanying vocabulary immediately to hand. He’s a batterer, a bully, an abuser. Had it been one man attacking another man, he would be a thug, a lout, a hooligan. A violent woman, by comparison, does not compute, we do not even have the words to describe her. This may well explain the initial instinct either to laugh or to blame the victim, the latter leading to an equally contemptible urge to applaud or even celebrate the assault, despite a complete lack of any background information.

We may not have the language to describe them, but violent women are far from rare. In England and Wales alone, around 75,000 women were arrested for violence against the person last year, accounting for more than a fifth of all such arrests. Far more women were arrested for violence than for shoplifting. It is often assumed that any violence women instigate is relatively harmless, but the evidence suggests otherwise. According to the Crime Survey of England and Wales, women are around 50% more likely to be victims of any kind of partner abuse, but when restricted to ‘severe force’ that difference almost vanishes, with 1.1% of men and 1.3% of women being victims in the past year.

Where does this reluctance to acknowledge women’s capacity for violence originate? It would appear to be the offspring of a bizarre marriage of convenience between traditional, patriarchal social conservatism and a rather blinkered and idealistic textbook feminism. Compare and contrast the patriarchal view of women as nurturing, maternal, gentle and submissive with those of influential feminist pioneer Kate Millett, which I have quoted before but are worth recalling: “Force itself is restricted to the male who alone is psychologically and technically equipped to perpetrate physical violence. Where differences in physical strength have become immaterial through the use of arms, the female is rendered innocuous by her socialization.” I think it is safe to say she never went to any pubs round my neck of the woods.

Many of us have lived a reality that belies the wishful thinking of patriarchs and feminists alike Violence can explode as a reaction to anger, frustration, disrespect or – above all – a threat or history of violence. Scientists are now beginning to piece together the neurological mechanisms by which a person who is exposed to violence will develop an increased capacity to inflict it upon others in turn, and that is not restricted by gender.

If we wish to live in a society with less violence of any kind, we do not get to pick and choose which violent episodes we find tolerable. The society which is laughing and cheering when a woman kicks and punches her brother-in-law in an elevator is a society where children are growing to learn that violence is an acceptable response to insult or frustration. That is a society where violence against our partners, families or strangers can be justified and excused, and thereafter a society where we are bidding farewell to our sisters, daughters, brothers and sons in an ambulance or a hearse.    

148 comments

1 ping

Skip to comment form

  1. 1
    Gunlord

    This may well explain the initial instinct either to laugh or to blame the victim

    I would respectfully contest that this instinct is hardly universal. When I first saw the video, my first thoughts were that I felt bad for Jay-Z and that he acquited himself well in the altercation; unlike Solange, he didn’t lose control and just waited until she could be subdued. I’m certain I’m not the only one, so I question whether or not this instinct is truly deeply ingrained, though I agree with you that it (lamentably) exists.

  2. 2
    Mike Buchanan

    Most domestic violence is reciprocal, but in the majority of cases where it’s not, the perpetrator is a woman. The highest levels of domestic violence are to be found in lesbian couples. The feminist view that men are innately violent and women aren’t is absurd. Solange Knowles was simply exercising female supremacy in that lift. Jay-Z would have known that had he responded with violence, he would have been cast as the villain of the piece.

  3. 3
    Hunt

    Purely as a note of self-reflection, I have to admit that I did have the amused reaction to some parts of that video (I watched the complete version), but I’m not making that a statement of justification. Traditionally we do view violence in women as some kind of comedy, mostly because it’s been impressed upon us the impotence of physically violent women, something that feminism has not really made any effort to dispel.

    So, interesting post, video, and opportunity for some self reflective insight.

  4. 4
    Yvonne

    Very thoughtful post, thanks for writing it. I’m a feminist and blogs like yours make me think outside of my own box. I saw the incident on tv and was really wondering how the general public would react to it. It looks quite shocking, like Solange is losing her mind and Jay-Z and Beyonce are just standing there. But I honestly don’t think the reactions will be as clear-cut as you describe it. For example, Chris Brown still has a nice career, I believe. And violent women aren’t called names? Really? From unhinged to crazy bitch…and some more. Still, it’s good to get the discussion going and make people think about it, for a start.

  5. 5
    Holms

    The feminist view that men are innately violent and women aren’t is absurd.

    Absurd, and also a strawman.

  6. 6
    resident_alien

    @ : Citations or GTFO.

  7. 7
    resident_alien

    Ooops, that was @ 2: Citations or GTFO. Sorry.

  8. 8
    Ally Fogg

    Yvonne (4)

    For example, Chris Brown still has a nice career, I believe.

    I never said that celebrities are destroyed by having committed violent acts / crimes. Chris Brown, as you say. Countless movie stars. Cheryl Cole continued to have a successful career after being convicted of a racist not-at-all-racist attack on a toilet attendant.

    And violent women aren’t called names? Really? From unhinged to crazy bitch…and some more.

    This is a good point. When a woman is violent the other really common interpretation is in respect of sanity / mental illness. In other words, no sane woman would do something like this so she must be “crazy.”

    That is true, I think, in popular perceptions, but there is evidence that it goes all the way up through the judicial system, where women who kill are vastly more likely to have their crimes mitigated by mental health pleas than men are.

  9. 9
    carnation

    Good post.

    I was talking with a member of a male consciousness group once and he asked me why I thought gay men were often ridiculed (distinct from more vicious types of homophobia). I said I wasn’t sure, history etc. He made the very interesting point that perhaps it was a reaction of some people judging some men of adopting the feminine (feminised?) role sexually and socially. I think there is something in this.

    Violence is often seen as a “manly” thing – some reactions to a woman acting “manly” would naturally be ridicule.*

    Note to would be detractors, I am not saying these are my views (violence us “manly” just that sone will percieve it like that

  10. 10
    oolon

    I’m with Holms, Mike Buchanan needs to cite where feminists say men are innately more violent. Even the extreme TERFs I’ve spoken to call it socialisation, not innate. They think there are no innate behaviors that men, women exhibit. The group I’ve seen that ascribes innate behaviors and roles to men and women the most are the MRAs. In my experience that is.

  11. 11
    Mike Buchanan

    @6 @10

    Citations for the two claims I made in @2 are here:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/female-perpetrators-of-intimate-partner-violence/

    The first relates to a presentation given last year by Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan (a leading authority on domestic abuse/violence) to last year’s Mankind Initiative conference on male victims of domestic violence. Slide #7 – ‘Where one sex is the sole perpetrator, it is more likely to be a woman than a man’, and substantiating studies are noted.

    The second is a finding of a British Crime Survey which showed that 12.4% of lesbians reported being the victims of domestic violence, compared with 4.3% of heterosexual women.

  12. 12
    Adiabat

    Mike, I think they were after citations for the claim that it is a feminist view that “men are innately violent and women aren’t”.

    I suspect you meant something like ‘predominantly’ instead of ‘innately’, referring to the tendency among many feminists to downplay the extent of female violence.

    P.S I’m not sure whether admitting that you used the wrong word in your post means you now have to “GTFO”. You may need to ask.

  13. 13
    Hunt

    I think that charge might be applied against some radfems, but radical feminism usually doesn’t count against mainstream feminism. You do see a lot of print about “male violence against women” and not much about female violence in the feminist literature that I’m familiar with. The temptation (for MRAs and others) to use female violence as some kind of tu quoque (fallacy) to counter male violence is great and I think is directly counter to what this post is attempting to convey. The effort should be to reduce all violence, regardless of who perpetrates it.

  14. 14
    Copyleft

    In order to explain female violence, it’s necessary to expand the definition of ‘violence’ to include things like yelling and shouting insults. Then the woman’s physical actions can be properly justified as self-defense against emotional abuse.

  15. 15
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Adiabat

    Thank you. It’s a cornerstone of feminist ‘patriarchy theory’ – which is, of course, as ridiculous as ‘tooth fairy theory’ – that men as a class exercise control over women as a class in numerous ways including violence and the implicit or explicit threat of it. An American ‘Honey Badger’ (non-feminist or anti-feminist woman) – Janet Bloomfield (‘JudgyBitch’) – recently explored the assault on Jay-Z in the lift, in her inimitable manner:

    http://judgybitch.com/2014/05/13/this-is-female-privilege-men-are-not-allowed-to-fight-back/

  16. 16
    Yvonne

    @Ally
    Points taken :)

    You said:
    ‘When a woman is violent the other really common interpretation is in respect of sanity / mental illness. In other words, no sane woman would do something like this so she must be “crazy.”’

    That’s a good one. I don’t agree with this in all cases, but it certainly seems to be this way in instances of, for example, domestic violence and child abuse.

    (Sorry, I don’t know how to use quotes, I know there’s an explanation at the bottom of the comment section, but it reads like gibberish to me)

  17. 17
    Hunt

    I think one of the first things to do is to get rid of the “amusing violent woman” trope, which is totally sexist anyway. I’m trying to think if male violence is ever portrayed as comic. Not often I think, perhaps in slapstick but not very much. And BTW, I love slapstick, so let’s not go PC-insane on this one.

  18. 18
    Mike Buchanan

    @14

    You say:

    “In order to explain female violence, it’s necessary to expand the definition of ‘violence’ to include things like yelling and shouting insults. Then the woman’s physical actions can be properly justified as self-defense against emotional abuse.”

    Two points:

    1. It’s often useful to do a gender switch. How does this look to you?

    “In order to explain male violence, it’s necessary to expand the definition of ‘violence’ to include things like yelling and shouting insults. Then the man’s physical actions can be properly justified as self-defense against emotional abuse.”

    2. The narrative that women are violent towards their intimate partners as an act of self-defence isn’t based on evidence (likewise most of what is popularly believed about DV). If you open the second link on this blog post

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/05/14/female-perpetrators-of-intimate-partner-violence

    and go to slide #11 of Dr Nicola Graham-Kevan’s presentation, you’ll read, “Only 4% of female perpetrators of violence against intimate partners reported their motive as protecting themselves from physical harm.” You’ll see it was the LEAST common motive reported by female perpetrators.

  19. 19
    Mike Buchanan

    A characteristically insightful piece by the American comedian Bill Burr about domestic violence:

  20. 20
    Raging Bee

    A violent woman, by comparison, does not compute, we do not even have the words to describe her.

    This blanket statement about “our” ability to comprehend or find words for something is utter bullshit. Do you have any factual basis for it? We may not treat female violence the same as male violence, but that doesn’t even come close to implying that we “do not even have the words to describe her.” Asinine generalizations like that put a big dent in your credibility.

    Where does this reluctance to acknowledge women’s capacity for violence originate?

    “Reluctance to acknowledge?” Where do you get that? We may not be consistent in our handling male and female violence, but that’s not the same thing as “reluctance to acknowledge.” Ally, you can do better than this.

    Oh, and Mike Buchanan is still a typical MRA liar…

    Most domestic violence is reciprocal, but in the majority of cases where it’s not, the perpetrator is a woman.

    So what the fuck does that even mean? Apparently it means (among other things) that sometimes a woman hits a man and doesn’t get hit back, and other times she does. It certainly doesn’t say anything about the DEGREE of violence involved in either case — there’s no mention of the difference between an angry slap in the face and a full-on beat-down.

    It’s a cornerstone of feminist ‘patriarchy theory’ – which is, of course, as ridiculous as ‘tooth fairy theory’ – that men as a class exercise control over women as a class in numerous ways including violence and the implicit or explicit threat of it.

    Yeah, Boko Haram, the Taliban, and the victim-bashing in the Stubenville rape case are all just theories.

    But wait, Mike cited an expert source! It’s…a comedian.

  21. 21
    Adiabat

    But wait, Mike cited an expert source! It’s…a comedian.

    So on the one hand we have someone whose job depends on analysing society and social interaction; who needs to identify common and recognisable trends to be successful at what they do.

    And on the other we have “gender studies” academics.

    I know which I find more credible.

  22. 22
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    Hypocrite… Mike can cite comedians without censure from you but David Futrelle quoting your fellow travellers sends you in a spin?

    Weak and petulant.

    @ Mike Buchanan: Good to have you back.

  23. 23
    Thil

    Mike Buchanan

    “Most domestic violence is reciprocal”

    source? …also define “reciprocal” in this context?

    “the majority of cases where it’s not, the perpetrator is a woman”

    source?

    “The highest levels of domestic violence are to be found in lesbian couples”

    source?

  24. 24
    Raging Bee

    So on the one hand we have someone whose job depends on analysing society and social interaction; who needs to identify common and recognisable trends to be successful at what they do.

    Um, no, he just needs to know what emotions to pander to in order to get a laugh. Comedy ain’t all that. (And BTW, we don’t really know how successful this guy is at “analysing society and social interaction.”)

    I know which I find more credible.

    Take all the time you need, and come back when you get enough of an education to figure it out.

  25. 25
    Skepsheik

    #20 Raging Bee
    ” It certainly doesn’t say anything about the DEGREE of violence involved in either case — there’s no mention of the difference between an angry slap in the face and a full-on beat-down.”
    I hardly think that a Dear Muslima argument is fitting for this topic.
    Are you really dismissing the case of every woman who has been angrily slapped in the face by their partner as something we can just ignore? Move along, nothing to see.
    Do they have to be beaten to a pulp before we agree there is a problem?

  26. 26
    Raging Bee

    Thil: his “source” is probably his ass — please don’t ask him to show it here.

  27. 27
    Raging Bee

    I hardly think that a Dear Muslima argument is fitting for this topic.

    Neither do I, which is why I didn’t make one. Try reading for comprehension next time.

  28. 28
    Mike Buchanan

    @Thil #23

    Sources in #11.

  29. 29
    mickster66

    Oh and Mike Buchanan did not lie and you are a typical feminist to say so and then produce nothing to prove it. The most serious cases where really bad violence has been inflicted make up a tiny minority of all cases. Most cases (75%) are reciprocal, involving some pushing, shoving, that kind of thing and in these cases women instigate 80% of the time. Men make up a quarter of the victims of serious incidents but we know men are anything from twice to as much as 8 times less likely to report being a victim of DV. As k a man if he has been a victim of DV and he will say no, ask him if his partner ever hit him with a frying pan he will yes. I don’t like labels, I’m not an MRA but I agree with Mike here, the feminist narrative on DV is based on a biased misandrist narrative. So you can cite some bad things some men have done to some women and therefore patriarchy theory isn’t a pile of unfalseifiable clap trap? You’ll have to do better than that, the truth about the nature of DV is starting to come out now after 40 years of hate from feminists like you who clearly want to corner the victim market and don’t like your Manichean narrative to be challenged. Mike cited various academic studies and Bill Burr was’nt one of them, yet you prefer to score cheap points about comedians? You’re the comedian.

  30. 30
    Ally Fogg

    RagingBee

    This blanket statement about “our” ability to comprehend or find words for something is utter bullshit. Do you have any factual basis for it?

    So tell me RB, what are the words in everyday use that have the definition “a violent woman”? What are the cliches, tropes or aphorisms in circulation that refer to a violent women? (By comparison, think how easy it is to imagine the jealous / vengeful / spiteful woman – hell hath no fury, etc)

    Right next to me on the shelf is a textbook called “the psychology of female violence.” It’s just about the only psychology textbook on the topic.

    It divides women’s violence into three types:

    1. Abuse of their children
    2. Self-harm / eating disorders
    3. Women who kill their violent husbands in self defence

    That’s it. No discussion of women who beat up each adult men or women. No acknowledgement that some women who kill are not doing so in self defence. Everything is carefully filtered to limit the discussion to ‘acceptable’ types of female violence.

    I’d ask you how many books, films, TV programmes you can think of that seek to get under the skin and into the head of a violent woman (and I don’t mean cartoony / sensationalised / Kill Bill / Basic Instinct stuff, mean authentic, gritty consideration. Can you think of any? I struggle.

    You are effectively asking me to prove a negative here, which is by definition impossible, but if you can point me towards the vocabulary, the cultural tropes, the material that disproves what I say, I’ll be impressed.

  31. 31
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Raging Bee #20

    I didn’t cite Bill Burr as an ‘expert source’ in DV, but that doesn’t mean his isn’t a useful contribution. In a world where the mainstream media panders to women in general and feminists in particular, comedians are one of few sources of important narratives.

    I said, ‘Most domestic violence is reciprocal, but in the majority of cases where it’s not, the perpetrator is a woman.’

    You said, ‘So what the fuck does that even mean? Apparently it means (among other things) that sometimes a woman hits a man and doesn’t get hit back, and other times she does. It certainly doesn’t say anything about the DEGREE of violence involved in either case — there’s no mention of the difference between an angry slap in the face and a full-on beat-down.’

    I never claimed it said anything about the degree of violence. Tell me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be inferring that ‘an angry slap in the face’ would come from a woman, and a ‘full-on beat-down’ from a man. Try telling that to Ian McNicholl:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/10/22/ian-mcnicoll-we-salute-you

    We know men are markedly less likely than women to report being the victims of DV. They often suffer in silence because if they were to report the matter, they’d probably never see their kids again – it’s the #1 reason abused men stay in their relationships with abusive women (source – the Dr Graham-Kevan presentation I linked to earlier).

    Fewer than 0.5% of refuge places in the UK are dedicated to heterosexual men.

    We know the male/female suicide differential has risen from 1.9:1 to 3.5:1 over the past 30 years. Being the victims of DV at the hands of a female partner is known to be a driver of male suicide.

    One defining difference between feminists and MHRAs is that the former care only for women, while MHRAs care for both men and women. I don’t think I can recall a radical feminist even PRETENDING to care about abused men, which is proof of misandry if ever it were required. But there’s a great deal more support for female victims of DV than male victims, so that’s obviously where we focus.

  32. 32
    Adiabat

    Carnation (22): Sorry, I’m not seeing the hypocrisy you’re referring to. Did Mike quote-mine the comedian, or misrepresent his actual views in some way?

    Raging Bee (24): Are you back onto your weird education obsession already? I thought you had that thoroughly mocked out of you.

    Notwithstanding the fact that my previous post was obviously an attempt at humour, why do you think that the view of a comedian is automatically less of an expert than a gender studies academic? The comedian at the very least has a feedback mechanism, regulated by the market, that tells him if the observations that he makes has relevance to normal people’s experiences. If they don’t recognise the things he talks about then he fails as a comedian, and is out of work.

    On the other hand if the gender studies academic says things that have no relevance to reality then she gets tenure.

  33. 33
    carnation

    @ Ally

    #30

    I’m saying this because it supports your op and subsequent points. The only films I can think of ate the Broomfield documentaries about Aileen Wournos and the related movie.

    There is a brilliant book called Hitler’s Furies, about female Nazi war criminals. I regard it as a feminist book, possibly unique in that MRAs would excitedly salivate at the contents.

    It shows that given the right circumstance, women, albeit statistically far fewer than men, could murder, torture and massacre out of sadism and hatred. What is striking is that they came from a diverse range of mostly “respectable” backgrounds, much like their male counterparts.

  34. 34
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    Futrelle doesn’t quote-mine, only intellectually weak MRAs accuse him.of that.

    Using your rationale re the comedian, you put lend more academic weight to The Guardian than to Warren Farrell (and every MRA blog).

  35. 35
    Skepsheik

    #27
    Perhaps I was mistaken. I thought I was interpreting your reply to Mike Buchanan in the way you intended. Maybe you could help me understand better by making it clear what your intent was.
    You were responding to the following statement:

    “Most domestic violence is reciprocal, but in the majority of cases where it’s not, the perpetrator is a woman.”

    To which you replied:

    “So what the fuck does that even mean? Apparently it means (among other things) that sometimes a woman hits a man and doesn’t get hit back, and other times she does. It certainly doesn’t say anything about the DEGREE of violence involved in either case — there’s no mention of the difference between an angry slap in the face and a full-on beat-down.”

    Are you simply agreeing with Mike Buchanan’s statement?
    Because to me, it looks like you are also making the point that although most domestic violence is perpetrated by women, a lot of it is of the “angry slap in the face” kind.
    Perhaps I am misintepreting your meaning here.
    Do you mean that “angry slap in the face” assault is something we should NOT regard as domestic violence?
    Because it if IS to be regarded as domestic violence (and I think the Solange level assault probably fits in here) then you have no real disagreement with Mike Buchanan’s point.
    If, however, you regard ‘angry slap in the face’ assault as something that is not serious, or not comparable to other types of domestic assault (“full beat-down”), then your angry response to Mike Buchanan makes much more sense.

  36. 36
    Ally Fogg

    Yeah, I thought about Monster etc as just about the only example, and even then it is a proper exception to prove the rule, as it positions her violence as being overwhelmingly reactive to male violence.

    There are a lot of fictional violent revenge parables as well (Baise Moi, I Spit On Your Grave etc etc) but they’re really not what I was getting at.

    Hadn’t heard of the Hitler’s Furies book, cheers. Will look out for it.

  37. 37
    Thil

    “So tell me RB, what are the words in everyday use that have the definition “a violent woman”? What are the cliches, tropes or aphorisms in circulation that refer to a violent women? (By comparison, think how easy it is to imagine the jealous / vengeful / spiteful woman – hell hath no fury, etc)”

    I think there’s a somewhat prevalent stereotype of violent “Chav girls” that you sometimes get in British TV shows and movies.

    examples:

    Holli in Some Girls

    Kelly in Misfits

    Dynasty Barry in waterlooroad

    in one sketch Vicky pollard bites another girl

  38. 38
    carnation

    @ Ally

    Reviewed in The Guardian:

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/oct/05/hitlers-furies-wendy-lower-review

  39. 39
    Thil

    oh and there’s an episode of skins where Sid and Michelle get beat up by a girl gang.

    …..incidentally that scene annoyed me because with Michelle they played it sad and serious, but with Sid it was played for humour

  40. 40
    Ally Fogg

    Thil

    I’m not saying that violent women don’t exist in popular culture. (see also Kirsty in Coronation St)

    I am saying that we don’t have the cultural tools (including language) to easily represent them.

  41. 41
    johngreg

    Ally said:

    That’s it. No discussion of women who beat up each adult men or women. No acknowledgement that some women who kill are not doing so in self defence. Everything is carefully filtered to limit the discussion to ‘acceptable’ types of female violence.

    I’d ask you how many books, films, TV programmes you can think of that seek to get under the skin and into the head of a violent woman (and I don’t mean cartoony / sensationalised / Kill Bill / Basic Instinct stuff, mean authentic, gritty consideration. Can you think of any? I struggle.

    Ally, I don’t know of you are familiar with it — I suspect not — but there is a book titled When She Was Bad; How and Why Women Get Away With Murder, written by Patricia Pearson and published in 1997. It is a very interesting read, and presents a perspective that really needs more exposure.

    Amazon link (add your own http stuff: … amazon.ca/When-She-Was-Bad-Murder/dp/0679309624/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1400081175&sr=8-2&keywords=when+she+was+bad

  42. 42
    Ally Fogg

    Yeah, I’ve browsed that book before. It’s more of a pop psychology True Crime-type thing so it didn’t hugely appeal to me, but might give it a go sometime.

  43. 43
    johngreg

    … pop psychology True Crime-type thing….

    It might be. But it presents some stats and other relevant stuff not usually presented, and Pearson at least attempted to start the conversation.

    And it’s more on topic than Kill Bill.

  44. 44
    Adiabat

    Carnation (34):

    Futrelle doesn’t quote-mine, only intellectually weak MRAs accuse him.of that.

    Well I’m not an MRA so that’s the first disproof of your claim. The second is Futrelle cuts the quote off here: http://manboobz.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/my-first-post-in-domestic-violence.html just before Elam says he’s not being serious. That’s quote-mining.

    (But I’m sure no-one wants this topic being brought up again).

    Regardless of the above, you’ve failed to back up your claim of hypocrisy.

    Using your rationale re the comedian, you put lend more academic weight to The Guardian than to Warren Farrell (and every MRA blog).

    Not really because the Guardian doesn’t sell many newspapers. It could be considered to have no feedback mechanism because it doesn’t actually depend on selling newspapers to stay afloat.

    But the point is that if you are going to devise theories to state “how things are” there should be some kind of control. A comedian has market feedback, and the threat of no work: it’s not ideal and may result in popularism but it’s at least something. What does a gender studies academic have to temper their most out-there claims about reality? What forces them to be accurate, and to represent reality in their claims?

    Peer review? Useless in a field such as this where obscurantism is the norm and they are all enabling each other. Being ‘kicked out’ by peers and rendered unpublishable? Only happens to gender studies academics who publish an original thought against the zeitgeist, or tries to expose it. Public reaction? They ignore it, and call them all uneducated.

  45. 45
    Adiabat

    Ally:

    I’d ask you how many books, films, TV programmes you can think of that seek to get under the skin and into the head of a violent woman (and I don’t mean cartoony / sensationalised / Kill Bill / Basic Instinct stuff, mean authentic, gritty consideration. Can you think of any? I struggle.

    I believe some Chinese literature does this. Ginkgo, who sometimes posts here, is the expert on that.

  46. 46
    Thil

    @Ally @40

    All those examples I listed are representations of the same stereotype, a stereotype I’ve heard both my parents (who are a police officer and school teacher) complaining about supposed examples of many times over the years. you mentioned batterers and hooligans in the blog and I don’t think that what I’m thinking of that much less prevalent than either of those serotypes?

  47. 47
    laura bristol

    @mickster 66 #29: fantastic post. well done. thank you.

  48. 48
    Raging Bee

    I didn’t cite Bill Burr as an ‘expert source’ in DV, but that doesn’t mean his isn’t a useful contribution.

    If you’re citing comedians as “useful contributions,” then the “useful contributions” of female comedians will probably beat this guy clear out of the ballpark.

    I never claimed it said anything about the degree of violence.

    In that case, it’s fucking useless.

    Tell me if I’m mistaken, but you seem to be inferring that ‘an angry slap in the face’ would come from a woman, and a ‘full-on beat-down’ from a man.

    I’m telling you, you are mistaken.

    Notwithstanding the fact that my previous post was obviously an attempt at humour…

    That’s what people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter tend to say whenever they’ve embarrassed themselves with their own words.

    …why do you think that the view of a comedian is automatically less of an expert than a gender studies academic?

    Why do YOU think those are your only choices for good information? If you really believe that, then you’re too ignorant to be commenting here; and if you don’t, then you’re a liar.

    …and Pearson at least attempted to start the conversation.

    That’s another thing idiots and liars say when they’ve said something stupid and indefensible: “Okay, I insulted everyone’s intelligence and made a complete ass of myself, but I still deserve credit for starting a conversation. Because no one ever talked about this subject before I opened my mouth.”

    If all you can say for yourself is “I started the conversation,” then my response is to skip past your crap and get to the conclusion of the conversation — that’s usually where the best substance is.

    So tell me RB, what are the words in everyday use that have the definition “a violent woman”?

    Are you saying the lack of a universal slang or buzzword for something means we don’t comprehend it or it “doesn’t compute?” I thought we were supposed to AVOID thinking in slang words, easy labels and stereotypes. Here in the USA, we do have our simpleminded stereotypes of violent women — one for each race. I haven’t found them all that useful. I don’t use any specific simple labels or epithets for violent men — does that mean I don’t comprehend male violence? I gotta say, that’s a dumber question than I’m used to seeing in your OPs or your comments.

  49. 49
    Thil

    “Everything is carefully filtered to limit the discussion to ‘acceptable’ types of female violence”

    I would have thought “Abuse of their children” doesn’t fit into that category. it’s usually seen as a men thing that women only do if there crazy or being manipulated by a man

  50. 50
    123454321

    “But wait, Mike cited an expert source! It’s…a comedian.”

    Hey there Raging Bee, I suggest you start listening to those clan of comedians out there as they’re one of the few groups left who are excused of pandering to feministic political correctness. They speak out on behalf of more men than you’d care to believe. Fact.

  51. 51
    Thil

    @123454321 @50

    it’s more an issue of ignoring it rather than being excluded.

  52. 52
    Thil

    should say “excused” not “excluded”

  53. 53
    johngreg

    Raging NitWit said:

    …and Pearson at least attempted to start the conversation.

    That’s another thing idiots and liars say when they’ve said something stupid and indefensible: “Okay, I insulted everyone’s intelligence and made a complete ass of myself, but I still deserve credit for starting a conversation. Because no one ever talked about this subject before I opened my mouth.”

    If all you can say for yourself is “I started the conversation,” then my response is to skip past your crap and get to the conclusion of the conversation — that’s usually where the best substance is.

    Have you read Pearson’s book? Do you have even the first clue what the fuck you are talking about? Or are you just striving for something to rage about? I did not say I started the conversation; Pearson did not say she started the conversation. Do you even know what it means to start a conversation? Do you even know what to means to have a conversation? You’re a clown; a raging clown of raging rage.

  54. 54
    123454321

    “If you’re citing comedians as “useful contributions,” then the “useful contributions” of female comedians will probably beat this guy clear out of the ballpark.”

    Subjective-pointless-shit-nonsense.

  55. 55
    Adiabat

    Mr Bee (48): You seem to be mixing the replies from several people in your post.

    Notwithstanding the fact that my previous post was obviously an attempt at humour…

    That’s what people like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter tend to say whenever they’ve embarrassed themselves with their own words.

    It was a stardard setup for a joke: Give a description of one group, then invert it at the last minute.

    And while it was a joke, the underlying point is valid: There’s nothing prima facie that makes a comedians contribution as less valid than a gender studies academic, or anyone else for that matter.

    Why do YOU think those are your only choices for good information? If you really believe that, then you’re too ignorant to be commenting here; and if you don’t, then you’re a liar.

    What the hell are you on about, you’re making even less sense than you used to before you disappeared from this blog before. You are the one dismissing someone’s view just because of their job, so you are the one who needs to justify what about their job diminishes their credibility.

    The fact that I only mention one alternative type of “expert” means little. Choose another one to compare to comedians if it helps.

  56. 56
    Raging Bee

    I did not say I started the conversation…

    No, you made that excuse for Pearson, and I’m calling it out as a lame excuse.

    They speak out on behalf of more men than you’d care to believe.

    So fucking what? Every two-bit demagogue and rabble-rouser says exactly the same thing; it doesn’t mean any of them are right, or that they offer any real answers to anyone.

    IF you really have to go to such lengths to pretend a comedian is a reliable source, that’s probably because you don’t have any more serious sources. Bill Maher is a good and insightful liberal comedian, but we liberals also have more serious and credible sources of information, so we don’t need to cite Maher as a source.

  57. 57
    johngreg

    HAHAHAHAHA!

  58. 58
    johngreg

    /snickers

    No, you made that excuse for Pearson, and I’m calling it out as a lame excuse.

    What, I say What! does that even mean?!? For what am I excusing Pearson? An excuse for what!?!

    /shits ‘n’ giggles

  59. 59
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    OK, I’ll rephrase – only intellectually weak MRAs and Adiabat, who often defends MRA theory, accuse Futrelle of quote mining. Oh look, you just accused him of quote-mining, using an inane example. Just as well you don’t identify as an MRA, or people would have assumed you *ARE* an intellectually weak MRA.

    A comedian, like a newspaper, relies on an audience “feedback”. Both are commercial entities.

    Watching you dance on fire trying to backtrack on your own gaffes is amusing.

  60. 60
    Mike Buchanan

    @ Raging Bee

    “Bill Maher is a good and insightful liberal comedian.”

    On this, at least, we can agree. Enjoy:

  61. 61
    carnation

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Did you watch that video?

    Not a single criticism, or indeed mention, of feminism.

    Lots of stereotyping of women (and men), but nothing whatsoever to do with feminism.

    Pretty standard mainstream comedian fare, stereotyping, vaguely patronising attempts to relate to his audience.

    I think you saw the title and posted it without analysing the content.

  62. 62
    Mike Buchanan

    @carnation #61

    I know perfectly well it has no mention of feminism. But Maher had some insightful things to say about differences between men and women and explored them in an amusing way, I think. That’s why I put up a link. Most of what I write about isn’t feminism-related.

    “I think you saw the title and posted it without analysing the content.”

    Hopefully you can now accept you were wrong in thinking that? I can’t even recall what the title is. I linked to it on a blog post some time ago, and that’s where I picked up the link.

  63. 63
    carnation

    @ Mike Buchanan

    I can accept that, yes.

    But I think that: A/ he isn’t particularly serious about what he’s saying, B/ He isn’t particularly innovative in what he’s sayings, C/ He stereotypes, negatively, men as much as women and D/ Isn’t very funny at all.

    That style of buddy-buddy observational “we’re all alike” comedy is dull.

    Here’s the sublimely brilliant Stewart Lee talking about political correctness.

  64. 64
    Thil

    I can’t accept that. the video was called “Bill Maher vs Feminism”

  65. 65
    Thil

    @carnation

    Stewart lee does something that annoys me which is to that he assumes Ulterior motives for stuff people says and criticizes them based on that instead of anything inherently wrong with what they’ve actually said.

    If you complain about comedians being to scared to mock Muslims you must secretly hate Muslims. If you get obsessed with a semantic distinction about the correct term for a sex worker, you must secretly be a misogynist. If you need to do this sort of thing your not good at arguing a case

  66. 66
    123454321

    “So fucking what? Every two-bit demagogue and rabble-rouser says exactly the same thing; it doesn’t mean any of them are right, or that they offer any real answers to anyone.”

    What! And yet I suppose you think you provide everyone with all the “real” answers. Go spin, fuck-wit. Everything you write is pure unadulterated, senseless garbage with no tangible meaning. You know nothing.

  67. 67
    Thil

    @123454321

    ….john snow

    Seriously though nothing in that implies he believes he has all the answers. you don’t have to have all the answers to be able to see when other people are talking out of the wrong end

  68. 68
    123454321

    “that’s probably because you don’t have any more serious sources.”

    What an idiot. You actually believe that a serious source of factual information is a prerequisite to acceptance. Yeah, yeah, you just go bury your fucking head in the sand until the Home Office provide you with some stats that you can chuck into your egg pan before you smear it all over your face. Maybe in your World, Mr. Cautious you can’t see past the end of your humungous, lying, extending nose , but in mine I can see as plain as daylight that women are beating up on men – physically and emotionally – and getting away with it due to cultural, behavioural mechanisms that are yet to grow up to support the male species. Our sources are coming forward and data is being collected. You’re gonna be the comedian, everyone will laugh at you. give it 5 years, the yolk will be on you!

  69. 69
    Thil

    @123454321 @68

    you seem really angry (like unreasonably so for an online argument) and I’m having trouble deciphering what your point actually is?

  70. 70
    Mike Buchanan

    @Thil #69

    You observe that @123454321 ‘seems really angry’. You link to his comment, which included this:

    “I can see as plain as daylight that women are beating up on men – physically and emotionally – and getting away with it due to cultural, behavioural mechanisms that are yet to grow up to support the male species.”

    That’s why he’s ‘really angry’, and why many millions of men worldwide are ‘really angry’. It’s a perfectly legitimate response from men to being assaulted decade after decade on account of their gender. Do you imagine in your wildest dreams that men will continue to take these assaults indefinitely? If you do, you can’t have a solid grasp on the history of human rights.

  71. 71
    123454321

    Thil, It’s not aimed at you and I’m actually not angry, just disappointed that so many things get ignored.

    Besides, some people need a taste of their own medicine – a much needed soul cleanser that can often help reduce the verbal diarrhoea which they often inflict on others. Raging Bee pulled no punches on me or others before, so why should I care!

  72. 72
    123454321

    Actually, Mike’s right. Yes, I am feeling a little bit angry and extremely disappointed at the same time, and I’m sure many men would resinate with me on that one. Our next generation is growing up in a mixed up world where we have one rule for one and another rule for another. It’s oh so funny when a women kicks a man in the balls, and oh how everyone laughs out loud when a guy has his genitals cut off by his girlfriend. He must have been a bastard, right? But just watch the reaction when a guy lays a finger on a woman. Where has that reaction been bred from? Is it right? Should we make an effort to rectify?

  73. 73
    carnation

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Do you think that men fear violence from women more than men? Responding with “but men can hit other men” is as ridiculous as it is over-used.

    The hyperbole about millions of men being angry about “these assaults” sounds good but has no basis in reality.

    Off-topic, are you expecting to keep your deposit at the election?

  74. 74
    johngreg

    carnation said:

    The hyperbole about millions of men being angry about “these assaults” sounds good but has no basis in reality.

    Speak for yourself, milky, and not others about whom you know nought.

  75. 75
    Paul

    Traditional chivalrous attitudes towards women go some way in explaining why there’s a reluctance to acknowledge the full extent to which women are both the instigators and perpetrators of violence.Feminists clearly can’t be blamed for that although i don’t know of a single high profile feminist who’s ever acknowledge it as being the case.Much easier it seems for them to focus on women as being either victims of male oppression or as being superior to men.

    I notice the book ”Hitler’s Furies” by Wendy Lower got a mention upthread.For it’s telling that it’s taken nearly 70 years since the the end of WW2 for a book to be published acknowledging the full extent to which German women were complicit in the Holocaust. And one of its conclusions was that traditional chivalrous attitudes towards women were a key factor in explaining why so many German women were never confronted about the part they also played in the slaughter of millions.

    Similarly following the Rwandan Genocide in 1994 it’s thought that traditional chivalrous attitudes towards women have meant that the extent to which Hutu women were complicit has never been fully recognized.For whilst only 6% of those found guilty of murder were women it’s a fact that without any pressure being placed on them Hutu women played a key role in leading the execution squads to Tutsi men ,women and children who were hiding.And they did this in the full knowledge they’d be murdered.For anyone who’s interested i’ve left a link to a Red Cross report about the extent to which Hutu women were complicit in the genocide and the reasons why so many haven’t been called to account.

    Part of the gender equality package has to a much greater willingness to acknowledge the full extent to which women the world over are involved in violence whether as perpetrators or instigators and at wherever it takes place..Putting the primary focus on men allows women to slip under the radar so we rarely get to see the full picture.Which may satisfy the narrative of both feminists and those who have a traditional chivalrous attitude towards women but means we’ll never really fully get to grips with the problem of violence .

    http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-877-hogg.pdf

  76. 76
    123454321

    EVERYTHING has a basis in reality, even stuff that you don’t want to hear or agree with. ‘Tough’ is the most appropriate response, to that one, Carnation, me thinks. Hyperbole will no longer be hyperbole once the truth comes through, which it will.

  77. 77
    Danny Gibbs

    If we wish to live in a society with less violence of any kind, we do not get to pick and choose which violent episodes we find tolerable. The society which is laughing and cheering when a woman kicks and punches her brother-in-law in an elevator is a society where children are growing to learn that violence is an acceptable response to insult or frustration.
    Agreed. Since someone mentioned Chris Brown that reminds me of something that happened sometime after that a few years ago. Mary J Blige was at a party (hosted by Jay Z if I recall) and she hit her boyfriend/husband a couple of times in the face and taunted him by saying “What are you gonna do, Chris Brown me?”. And to make matters worse when security got involved HE was the one that got kicked out the party.

    Somehow this managed to not get much attention at the time.

    If we are going to take violence seriously then it has to be all violence, not just whatever form of violence fits the agenda.

  78. 78
    123454321

    “If we are going to take violence seriously then it has to be all violence, not just whatever form of violence fits the agenda.”

    Well said Danny.

  79. 79
    Thil

    @Mike Buchanan

    Yeah there’s lots of bad shit in the world but it’s still weird and uncalled for to rant at people.

    @123454321

    Firstly This is public comment section, you don’t get to “direct” stuff. Secondly RB was just kind of blunt and a bit rude, what you wrote was like watching an enraged drunk rant about nonsense.

  80. 80
    johngreg

    Thil, for what it’s worth, I am pretty much onside with 123454321 on this one. Raging Bee has a long-standing reputation of throwing out myriad so-called facts, without support, citations, or links, and of a markedly hostile, ad hominesque type and generally very rude disposition — long-standing.

  81. 81
    carnation

    @ Paul

    Switch chivalry for patriarchial attitudes and/or benign sexism and you have a small point.

  82. 82
    Mike Buchanan

    @Thil #79

    “Yeah there’s lots of bad shit in the world but it’s still weird and uncalled for to rant at people.”

    I’m genuinely mystified. Are you saying I’ve ‘ranted at people’? I invite you to point to where I’ve done so, in this blog’s comment stream, or anywhere else. I can’t recall having ‘ranted at people’ in all my born days. Perhaps you’ll prove me wrong. I invite you to do so.

  83. 83
    123454321

    Thil – you’ve yet to convince me that I care about what you think. I care more about ending double-standards and helping evolve our screwed-up society to beyond puberty. That means opening your eyes and ears and learning, then fixing, not burying one’s head in sand or coming up with excuses when someone challenges current orthodoxy. Female on male violence should be considered unacceptable just as male on female violence is (quite rightly) considered unacceptable. Why is the media so brutal with men and so soft with women?

  84. 84
    Paul

    Switch chivalry for patriarchial attitudes and/or benign sexism and you have a small point.,

    I haven’t posted on this blog for a while but as certain as night follows day i see you’re still posting the same old shite.

  85. 85
    Jacob Schmidt

    Stewart lee does something that annoys me which is to that he assumes Ulterior motives for stuff people says and criticizes them based on that instead of anything inherently wrong with what they’ve actually said.

    I have it on good authority that comedians are to be trusted above researchers.

    You actually believe that a serious source of factual information is a prerequisite to acceptance.

    It’s not; just a prerequisite to justified acceptance.

    What are the cliches, tropes or aphorisms in circulation that refer to a violent women?

    Here would be a good start. Not that tvtropes is remotely sufficient; an informal (and somewhat esoteric) website cataloguing patterns in the media is not a substitution for the public widely recognizing the phenomenon.

  86. 86
    carnation

    @ Paul

    Did you read the book? Or just the blurb and some reviews? Your comment suggests the former.

    As sure as night follows day, you rehash some of the most stupid MRA theories in existence.

    “there’s a reluctance to acknowledge the full extent to which women are both the instigators and perpetrators of violence”

    The “women as instigators” trope is amongst the most ridiculously half-baked theoretical stances as is possible to find. I feel embarrassed for those that use it. It belittles the agency of men and, as is common is most MRA theories, gifts females with an almost mystical power over men.

    “Feminists clearly can’t be blamed for that…”

    Wow, some sense from Paul!

    “…although i don’t know of a single high profile feminist who’s ever acknowledge it as being the case. Much easier it seems for them to focus on women as being either victims of male oppression or as being superior to men.”

    Oh, look, you just did blame feminists, along with another ridiculous MRA article of faith “as being superior to men.”

    “I notice the book ”Hitler’s Furies” by Wendy Lower got a mention upthread. For it’s telling that it’s taken nearly 70 years since the the end of WW2 for a book to be published acknowledging the full extent to which German women were complicit in the Holocaust.”

    The full extent of, for example, a significant minority of the Ukrainian population in the Holocaust hasn’t been fully acknowledged in general discourse. Nor has the role of the allies use of torture in WW2. It’s a huge subject – it’s beyond doubt that the planners and vast majority of the perpetrators were male – women, as the book amply demonstrates, were simply not in enough positions of power to influence policy, or much praxis. There is a small anomaly in that, but I’ll leave that to those who wish to read the book to discover. In my opinion, Hitler’s Furies is a feminist book *because* it demonstrates that outwith the confines of patriarchal assumptions, women are as capable as men, whether that’s in scientific advances, or something as heinous as genocide and murder. And, incidently, some German female roles have become well known – Irma Grise for example, a perfect case of sensationalistic, pup fact.

    As the book again amply demonstrates, huge numbers of people, women amongst them, literally got away with murder, basically so that the allies could build an effective bulwark against the Iron curtain. An uncomfortable fact, but a fact nonetheless.

    “Which may satisfy the narrative of both feminists and those who have a traditional chivalrous attitude towards women but means we’ll never really fully get to grips with the problem of violence .”
    Why are you blaming feminists for genocide that took place in places where feminism had no influence? It’s beyond parody.

    Which feminists are influencing this discussion? Why not take aim at the almost entirely male armed forces and their culture of violence and jingoism

  87. 87
    Lucy

    “Physical assault is never justified by the victim’s behaviour. ”

    Unless it’s a provocation to violence.

    And no, that doesn’t mean being attractive, that means being violent or threatening violence first.

  88. 88
    Lucy

    “It is often assumed that any violence women instigate is relatively harmless, but the evidence suggests otherwise. According to the Crime Survey of England and Wales, women are around 50% more likely to be victims of any kind of partner abuse, but when restricted to ‘severe force’ that difference almost vanishes, with 1.1% of men and 1.3% of women being victims in the past year.”

    And a significant reason for that is that experience has taught us that proportionate violence by a female against a male will be met with disproportionate or fatal violence in return. Any self-defence course will tell you that if you intend to use violence against a potential threat, use it quickly and use it like you mean it because if you don’t disable them, then you’re finished. You don’t slap an attacking lion, you shoot it.

    These sorts of figures show that when women use violence in a mutually violent situation with a man, the situation is a serious one and they mean to disable him. Draw your own conclusions from that.

  89. 89
    Lucy

    When it comes to the use of severe force or unilateral violence, rather than looking at male against female, a better comparison of female against male, might be male against male. What are the figures for that?

    With women being on average 56% as physically strong as males, you are likely to see a distortion in relative force used in a confrontation. A man only needs to use 56% of his force in order to achieve an equal outcome against a woman, only 56.1% of his force to achieve a successful one. A woman has to use 144% of hers to achieve an equal outcome, so she has to employ outside means (such as surprise or weaponry) to achieve the same result. The violence stats are likely therefore to be misleading, female violence to look unilateral even if it isn’t. Which is why this factor is taken in to consideration in domestic violence killings, where the battered woman might act violently and lethally when her abuser is sleeping for instance. Up until then the law had favoured superior male strength by only allowing “passion” as a mitigating factor in domestic killings, ie. reacting violently in the moment.

    So it would be interesting to know how men react when faced with an assailant of superior strength and what the figures for severe force show then.

  90. 90
    Mike Buchanan

    @Lucy #89

    I understand that in the last Labour administration, the law was changed on murder/manslaughter. The commonest ‘mitigating factor’ for women killing male partners is that they were in fear of them. A woman can kill her partner in cold blood (e.g. plunging a knife into his chest while he’s asleep) and later claim he was a violent man, and she was in fear of him. She need produce no evidence to support the claim, but the charge will automatically be downgraded to murder.

    The commonest ‘mitigating factor’ for men killing female partners is provocation, usually infidelity. Now a man claiming infidelity would be charged with manslaughter, but under the changed law provocation was no longer allowed as a mitigating factor, so the charge has to be murder.

    Just one example of how the justice system favours women over men.

  91. 91
    Mike Buchanan

    @Lucy #89

    Sorry, end of first paragraph should have read, ‘She need produce no evidence to support the claim, but the charge will automatically be downgraded to manslaughter.’

  92. 92
    Ally Fogg

    Lucy, you are spouting almost uninterrupted nonsense.

    Wherever there is any research on any of the points you raise, the evidence shows you to be entirely wrong.

    On the other hand, thank you for a quite splendid illustration of the kinds of denial, avoidance and wilful ignorance I was describing in the OP.

  93. 93
    Lucy

    “Most domestic violence is reciprocal, but in the majority of cases where it’s not, the perpetrator is a woman. ”

    Or in other words, most violence perpetrated by a strong assailant against a weaker target is met with inferior force. Where the weaker party acts as the assailant, they use superior force. Well yeah, what did you expect to happen? If you were up against an assailant almost twice as strong as you, and better trained in fighting than you, what would you do? At the time? Later on?

    Let’s break the figures down why not and get a more accurate picture. Let’s look at the figures for reciprocal and unilateral figures for smaller, weaker men, for disabled ones.
    —-

    “The highest levels of domestic violence are to be found in lesbian couples. ”

    And it’s also the least severe. Which tells you everything you need to know.

  94. 94
    Lucy

    “Wherever there is any research on any of the points you raise, the evidence shows you to be entirely wrong.”

    Let’s have it then, don’t be coy.

    —-
    “On the other hand, thank you for a quite splendid illustration of the kinds of denial, avoidance and wilful ignorance I was describing in the OP.”

    That was entirely predictable.

    I’m not denying anything, of course some men get beaten by women in an unprovoked or sustained way, but your figures do absolutely nothing to illustrate that.

  95. 95
    Lucy

    Just to introduce something factual into all the guess work and supposition (and the misunderstanding “physical assault is never justified”)

    Under section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957:

    Where on a charge of murder there is evidence on which the jury can find that the person charged was provoked (whether by things done or by things said or by both together) to lose his self-control, the question whether the provocation was enough to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the jury; and in determining that question the jury shall take into account everything both done and said according to the effect which, in their opinion, it would have on a reasonable man.

    The initial burden was on the defence to raise sufficient evidence of provocation. As a matter of law, the judge would then decide whether to leave the defence to the jury. This did not change the burden of proof which, as in all criminal cases, was on the prosecution to prove the actus reus and mens rea of the offence charged, i.e. murder. The Act changed the common law, under which provocation had to fall under one of the following expectations:

    a grossly insulting assault
    witnessing an attack on a relative
    witnessing an Englishman being unlawfully deprived of his liberty
    a husband discovering his wife in the act of adultery; and
    a father discovering someone committing sodomy on his son.
    The Act provided that provocation could be by anything done or said without it having to be an illegal act and the provoker and the deceased could be a third parties. If the accused was provoked, who provoked him was irrelevant.

    This section of the Act was repealed on 4 October 2010. It was superseded by sections 54 to 56 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 when they came into force on the same date.

    The factual limb
    This was a subjective test and a pure question of fact, i.e. the evidence had to show that the defendant actually lost his self-control. In R v Duffy, Devlin J. said that

    Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused, which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind.

    Under normal circumstances, the response to the provocation had to be almost immediate retaliation. If there was a “cooling-off” period, the court would find that the accused should have regained control, making all subsequent actions intentional and therefore murder. In R v Ibrams & Gregory the defendants had been terrorised and bullied by the deceased over a period of time so devised a plan to attack him. There was no evidence of a sudden and temporary loss of self-control as required by Duffy. Even the period of time to fetch a weapon could be sufficient to cool off. In R v Thornton, a woman suffering from “battered woman syndrome” went to the kitchen, took and sharpened a carving knife, and returned to stab her husband. The appeal referred to s3 which required the jury to have regard to “everything both said and done according to the effect which in their opinion it would have on a reasonable man”. The appellant argued that instead of considering the final provocation, the jury should have considered the events over the years leading up to the killing. Beldam L. J. rejected this, saying:

    In every such case the question for the jury is whether at the moment the fatal blow was struck the accused had been deprived for that moment of the self-control which previously he or she had been able to exercise.
    But in R v Thornton (No 2) after considering new medical evidence, a retrial was ordered and the defendant was convicted of manslaughter on the ground of diminished responsibility. Similarly, in R v Ahluwalia a retrial was ordered. The defendant had poured petrol over her husband and set it alight, causing burns from which he died. When the defence of diminished responsibility on the ground of “battered woman syndrome” was put, she was convicted of manslaughter. In R v Humphreys, the defendant finally lost self-control after years of abuse and stabbed her partner. She pleaded that the final words had been the straw that broke the camel’s back. The conviction for murder was held unsafe because the accused’s psychiatric condition stemming from the abuse should have been attributed to the reasonable person when the jury considered the application of the objective test.

  96. 96
    carnation

    @ Lucy

    I think you’re not paying attention to the emotional toll that even a small amount of violence, or the threat of violence, can cause to the man, or woman, on the receiving end.

    The greatest physical threat to a man is another man of approximately his own age, social class and ethnicity. That’s just a simple fact. That doesnt mean that womencan’t be abusive, controlling or threatening in intimate relationships.

    The key to this is education, getting out of the intellectual ghetto that houses a lot of gender politics. Teach young people what an abusive relationship looks like. Explain hat a pattern of controlling behaviour is. Talk about stalking. Talk about what drives people to be violent – it’s a myriad of things, anger, self-loathing, shame, projection, sadism, inadequecy – the list goes on. And, of course, three is a fair number of men who want to keep “their woman” in place and do through so violenc eand the threat of it. It exists, there’s no denying it.

    But there’s more to it than that.

    My thoughts on this are that women generally need more service provision than men – for a variety of reasons. The most pressing provision for men is advice and awareness raising.

  97. 97
    Lucy

    Carnation

    Nowhere have I said that men cannot be victims of women. Ally and others have assumed I have said that, not because of what I’ve actually said, but what they think I’ve said, which means only one thing: they have preconceived ideas that they are projecting and are not actually engaged in any meaningful discussion or debate.

    I know I haven’t said it because I don’t believe it. I don’t have any trouble at all imagining the emotional toll on men of female abuse, whatever the relative sizes and strengths. Nor any trouble at imagining strong, but peaceable or psychologically weakened men. I don’t have this trouble because I’m not stupid and I have the human capacity for imagination and empathy.

    However, Ally has done his usual routine of taking statistics and imposing his own (highly ideological) interpretation on them, hypothesising motives and scenarios where none are provided. He has completely failed to take account of the differentials between the parties involved, completely failed to provide any actual evidence of motive, completely failed to take account for delayed reaction to provocation. He apparently doesn’t think provocation even exists. So forgive me if I remain unconvinced by his conclusions.

  98. 98
    carnation

    @ Lucy

    You write:

    “However, Ally has done his usual routine of taking statistics and imposing his own (highly ideological) interpretation on them, hypothesising motives and scenarios where none are provided. He has completely failed to take account of the differentials between the parties involved, completely failed to provide any actual evidence of motive, completely failed to take account for delayed reaction to provocation. He apparently doesn’t think provocation even exists. So forgive me if I remain unconvinced by his conclusions”

    I don’t think Ally’s written anything controvertial, at all. He concludes:

    “If we wish to live in a society with less violence of any kind, we do not get to pick and choose which violent episodes we find tolerable. The society which is laughing and cheering when a woman kicks and punches her brother-in-law in an elevator is a society where children are growing to learn that violence is an acceptable response to insult or frustration.”

    I don’t find this objectionable, I find it applaudable. Violence is wrong because violence is wrong.

    I think you are pretty misguided in this instance.

  99. 99
    Lucy

    He has said

    - “The affair shows up a peculiar problem our society seems to have in conceptualising women’s violence.”

    No it doesn’t. It just has inconveniently conceptualised it differently to how he conceptualises it.

    —-

    “We may not have the language to describe them, but violent women are far from rare. In England and Wales alone, around 75,000 women were arrested for violence against the person last year, accounting for more than a fifth of all such arrests. Far more women were arrested for violence than for shoplifting. It is often assumed that any violence women instigate is relatively harmless, but the evidence suggests otherwise. According to the Crime Survey of England and Wales, women are around 50% more likely to be victims of any kind of partner abuse, but when restricted to ‘severe force’ that difference almost vanishes, with 1.1% of men and 1.3% of women being victims in the past year.”

    His use of victim here is disingenuous. It is clear he doesn’t mean victim in the legal sense, but in the metaphorical one. And as I’ve said, these figures disguise some very different kinds of scenarios. Some of those victims are perpetrators. And that is something that Ally has built up a wall of previous blogs contesting, all built on similarly shaky statistic foundations overlaid with supposition and ideology.

    “Violence can explode as a reaction to anger, frustration, disrespect or – above all – a threat or history of violence. Scientists are now beginning to piece together the neurological mechanisms by which a person who is exposed to violence will develop an increased capacity to inflict it upon others in turn, and that is not restricted by gender.”

    The one he’s left out of his list is, provocation. And not just the immediate kind.

    “If we wish to live in a society with less violence of any kind, we do not get to pick and choose which violent episodes we find tolerable. ”

    That’s debatable, some might say that defence of the self is a human right and we stop tolerating it at our peril, or more likely at women’s peril. Hence we have the situation where in Britain, unlike in much of Europe and the rest of the world, where women cannot adequately defend themselves from the ever present threat of violence with mace spray, etc and instead have to resort to avoidance measures like staying in doors and letting people what time to expect them home, as if they are going on a dangerous expedition in to the wilderness. Meanwhile Ally and others will be writing a follow up blog on how women experience fewer assaults so this means they are safer.

  100. 100
    Gunlord

    That’s debatable, some might say that defence of the self is a human right and we stop tolerating it at our peril, or more likely at women’s peril.

    The problem is that Ally was using Solange’s assault on Jay-Z as an example, and that was *manifestly* not an act of self-defense. Solange just started wailing on him without provocation, which was the sort of violence Ally was talking about. There’s no way you can justify what she did in any meaningful sense. Perhaps you can argue her outburst was an exception rather than the rule when it comes to female violence, but it is something you have to address.

  101. 101
    Adiabat

    Carnation (59):

    OK, I’ll rephrase – only intellectually weak MRAs and Adiabat, who often defends MRA theory, accuse Futrelle of quote mining. Oh look, you just accused him of quote-mining, using an inane example.

    You are being ridiculous. I’m almost embarrassed for you, until I remember that you have no shame.

    Oh, and any word to support your claim of hypocrisy, or do you withdraw it?

    A comedian, like a newspaper, relies on an audience “feedback”. Both are commercial entities… Watching you dance on fire trying to backtrack on your own gaffes is amusing.

    Already dealt with this. The Guardian is quite simply not in the business of selling newspapers, and this was largely intentional “to maintain editorial independence” (until recently it was Trust funded). If it was it would change and make changes to alter its dismal sales, such as change its editorial position so that more people would want to read it. Latest reports state that the newspaper loses £100,000 a day. There are advantages to its current setup, such as its scoops, but one of the drawbacks is that is has no requirement to be relevant to people, affecting its normal, everyday, output.

    But like I said, the point isn’t that the market ensures that someone is always right, but that someone whose views are checked against reality (of which market forces is just one example and not necessarily the best) is likely to be more credible than some whose views aren’t, such as gender studies academics who exist in their own bubble with no repercussions for advancing views that are out of touch with reality (like the Guardian).

  102. 102
    Adiabat

    I love how for the better part of the 90’s and 00’s feminists efforts with regard to DV were focused on expanding what counted as ‘DV in dire need of being addressed’ as far as possible to inflate the statistics and gain funding. Yet as soon as it’s pointed out that men are victims too, and increasingly so the more you expand the definition (possibly even to the point of outnumbering women), feminist efforts are focused on narrowing down what needs to be addressed to only the most serious kinds.

  103. 103
    Thil

    @johngreg @80

    That’s beside the point. I wasn’t defending RB’s position

    @Mike Buchanan @82

    Talking about 123454321

    @123454321 @83

    And you believe yelling at people on the internet will open anyone’s eyes to anything?

  104. 104
    carnation

    @ Adiabat.

    Your understanding of the concepts of audience and business modelling is as advanced as your understanding of quote-mining and charity law: very fucking minimal :-)

    Your wee dig at the straw feminist living in your head further down the page is a timely reminder thst you read AVfM and the Guardian but only take issue with the Guardian. And you talk of feeling embarrassed for others…

    Despite all of this, I’d quite like to have a pint with you. You don’t seem as unhinged and besotted as your fellow idealogues.

  105. 105
    Lucy

    Gunlord

    “The problem is that Ally was using Solange’s assault on Jay-Z as an example, and that was *manifestly* not an act of self-defense.”

    I don’t have any opinion on this assault, I didn’t see it, I’ve not indulged myself in reading about it. It could very well be a case of a battered man and a woman acting with impunity for a prurient crowd. It could also be something different. Even if I had seen it I wouldn’t know the answer to that. Even if there was a fair trial, it’s unlikely we’d know the answer to that. But the tabloid press doesn’t = a fair trial.

    No doubt Ally Fogg would say it doesn’t matter, the violence is the thing and there is no justification for violence ever. I say that it does matter. And when you take away the context you leave easily victimised people in very precarious positions.

    I also say that if you don’t know, don’t pretend to know.

  106. 106
    123454321

    “And you believe yelling at people on the internet will open anyone’s eyes to anything?”

    Yes, a taste of one’s own medicine is often what it takes. Raging Bee can be a Rottweiler. Every now and then it takes a T-rex to get a Rottweiler to engage its brain!

  107. 107
    123454321

    @102 – Yeah, exactly. But it takes a while for some people to realise just how dynamic, stretchy and bendy feminists are when the goalposts move. Dab-hands at making it up as they go along!

  108. 108
    123454321

    “I don’t have any opinion on this assault, I didn’t see it, I’ve not indulged myself in reading about it.”

    How very convenient for you to ignore this assault and not have an opinion. Otherwise it just might tamper with your tunnel-vision agenda!

  109. 109
    carnation

    @ Lucy

    “I say that it does matter. And when you take away the context you leave easily victimised people in very precarious positions.”

    I can’t speak for Ally, but it really doesn’t appear that he was including acts of self-defence in his OP. The piece seemed to me to be about aggressive, not defensive, female violence.

    Speaking for myself, I’m not exactly a pacifist, but believe that interpersonal violence is exceptionally rarely justifiable. I’ll admit to dissonance – I’ve been indoctrinated with a range of masculinities that endorses justification for violence. When a young relative of mine was being bullied, my instinctive reaction was “hit him”, but I kept myself in check, knowing that this was and is wrong.

  110. 110
    Adiabat

    Carnation (104):

    Your understanding of the concepts of audience and business modelling is as advanced as your understanding of quote-mining and charity law: very fucking minimal

    Yet I show you up in every discussion we have. Why do you think that is?

    Plus, as a friendly tip: just stating something isn’t an argument, or at least one that doesn’t work anywhere outside of manboobz; you need to provide reasoning and preferably evidence or it’s just unconvincing to others.

    Take charity law for example: When we discussed that I went into detail about the equity law and provided quotes from the Law Professor at Dundee university to make my argument. You went “nuh-uh” and disappeared from the thread. For quote-mining I provided a definition and a link to examples, as well as showed an example from Futrelle that matched that definition. You just stated that it “wasn’t quote-mining” without an argument. In this thread you’ve just labelled it “inane” without any further comment or clarification as to why. You regularly make statements about MRA’s, and anyone else who disagrees with you, but you provide no argument or examples. In this very thread you made an accusation about me but after several requests you still haven’t backed it up with any kind of explanation.

    In response to my point about the Guardian you could’ve pointed out its focus on online content, maybe referring to it charging for the iPad app to access digital content. You could’ve mentioned its recent plans to publish stories commissioned by companies or continue an unlikely expansion in the US. Though I would of course reply that those sources of income are minor to its plan to use its recently acquired £800m from the sale of interest in another company as investment to fund the future of the paper and its sister papers and “maintain editorial independence”. I.E No need to become relevant to people, or produce something that has any relevance to reality.

    Your wee dig at the straw feminist living in your head further down the page is a timely reminder thst you read AVfM and the Guardian but only take issue with the Guardian.

    Nope, I don’t read AVFM except when I’m linked to it, though once or twice I’ve checked a few stories on its front page at random to see if there’s any merit to the claims made against it. I’m getting my information about the actions of feminists in the 90’s and 00’s from the fact that I was alive back then and can remember the campaigns. It’s also noticeable as a shift in published research, only recently has the focus mainly been on the most serious examples of DV rather than getting as large a number of female victims as possible. Hopefully Ally can vouch for this as well.

  111. 111
    Adiabat

    For quote-mining I provided a definition and a link to examples, as well as showed an example from Futrelle that matched that definition. You just stated that it “wasn’t quote-mining” without an argument.

    Correction: You didn’t comment on the Futrelle quote-mine at all until you made me point it out to you in this thread, despite it being pointed out in that thread as well.

  112. 112
    123454321

    I vouch for you, Adiabat, I totally get what you’re saying.

    By the way, I’m looking for a poster/advert campaign that has/is promoting ending violence against men and/or boys, specifically. Can anyone point me to one? Two would be nice, or even three? Over the last 3 or 4 decades? Anyone?

  113. 113
    Gunlord

    They had a movie about male victims of DV back in the 90s, actually.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_Don%27t_Tell

  114. 114
    123454321

    Thank Gunlord.

    From link: “After the original airing, the film was never rebroadcast on over-the-air television, reportedly because it incurred the wrath of several women’s groups.”

    Kind of says it all really. So who has all the power again?

  115. 115
    kizbot

    Ally,
    Can you please ask Bella to put this up in answer to that disgraceful Brockes piece?
    Im so cross!

  116. 116
    Gunlord

    “Kind of says it all really. So who has all the power again?”

    Eh, “reportedly” is suspicious (reported by who? citation doesn’t say) and it was re-aired on the Lifetime channel, so I don’t think there are any big conclusions there.

  117. 117
    Raging Bee

    A woman can kill her partner in cold blood (e.g. plunging a knife into his chest while he’s asleep) and later claim he was a violent man, and she was in fear of him. She need produce no evidence to support the claim, but the charge will automatically be downgraded to murder.

    “Downgraded” to murder? Mike, if that’s your best example of how “how the justice system favours women over men,” then you have no case.

    Our next generation is growing up in a mixed up world where we have one rule for one and another rule for another. It’s oh so funny when a women kicks a man in the balls, and oh how everyone laughs out loud when a guy has his genitals cut off by his girlfriend…

    Jesus Fucking Christ, number-boy, the only way you can possibly think that is by watching nothing but tired stupid comedians in your spare time. This just proves you’re nothing but an angry idiot wallowing in old prejudices and never allowing yourself to be exposed to real information.

    Lucy, you are spouting almost uninterrupted nonsense.

    Ally, your response to Lucy is disappointingly lazy and cowardly. She may not be right, and the breakdown of your stats she requested may not ultimately prove her case, or disprove yours, but it seemed a reasonable request for clarification; and your dismissal of it diminishes my ability to take you seriously. Your OPs are starting to sink to the level of your hate-filled commentariat, and this place is looking more and more like Slymepit Lite.

    (Oh, and using an inconsequential assault like Solange’s to illustrate how serious a problem “female violence” is? Lame idea; she was almost instantly pulled away by JZ’s bodyguard. Couldn’t you have found a better example from the GenPop of what your statistics allegedly show?)

  118. 118
    123454321

    “Jesus Fucking Christ, number-boy, the only way you can possibly think that is by watching nothing but tired stupid comedians in your spare time. This just proves you’re nothing but an angry idiot wallowing in old prejudices and never allowing yourself to be exposed to real information.”

    Kettle. Pot. You’re the comedian. But nobody laughs.

  119. 119
  120. 120
    Mike Buchanan

    Interesting hour-long discussion on male victims of DV broadcast last Friday, 9 May, on BBC Radio 5 Live:

    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKhX1c3ow6BrzdzP3ydpeZQ/videos

    Under the video we’ve put a chronology of contributions, including some from Mark Brooks, chairman of Mankind Initiative. Also some interesting stories from male victims of DV, one of whom reports his abused brother being hounded by his ex-partner to the point he committed suicide (he himself came close to doing the same).

  121. 121
    123454321

    “Couldn’t you have found a better example from the GenPop of what your statistics allegedly show?)”

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC2XeAduYZY

    There are lots of examples. Stop burying your head. Actually, go bury it.

  122. 122
    Paul

    Wow, some sense from Paul!

    Well Carnation it’s better to make some sense some of the time rather than no sense all of the time.And you’re the latter.

    At no point have i sought to demonise women or either play down or excuse the role of men in violence.What i’ve tried to do -and in keeping with the theme of this thread -is address a dimension to the problem which,imo,is rarely discussed in public discourse .Namely the role of women as perpetrators and instigators of violence.

    I have read both ”Hitlers Furies” and the IIRC report i provided a link for.And in both traditionally chivalrous attitudes towards women were cited as being one explanation of why the role women in both the Holocaust and Rwandan Genocide has never been fully recognized.At no time did i say it was the only explanation.For that clearly isn’t the case.

    I believe that if we’re serious about tacking violence in whatever shape or form it takes place we must also address the complicity of women.The examples of the Holocaulst and the Rwandan Genocide are extreme examples.However there are many more examples much closer to home where female complicity in violence is either played down or ignored.And you don’t have to be a rabid mra to want to address that dimension to the problem.

  123. 123
    Mike Buchanan

    @Livid Wasp #117

    You said:

    “Downgraded” to murder? Mike, if that’s your best example of how “how the justice system favours women over men,” then you have no case.

    I said (#91):

    Sorry, end of first paragraph should have read, ‘She need produce no evidence to support the claim, but the charge will automatically be downgraded to manslaughter.’

  124. 124
    Mike Buchanan

    @Paul #122

    Paul, good points. Maybe I’m having a senior moment but I don’t think anyone’s mentioned women’s use of violence by proxy i.e. where a women persuades a man to assault or even kill a man (or a woman). So the driving force is a woman, but the man serves the time, and in some countries will be put to death by the state.

  125. 125
    123454321

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UyTxLiU2XHA

    My last link as I don’t want to contravene or take over with video links.

    But watching this I can’t see how anyone could ignore the fact that women can be extremely violent.

  126. 126
    Ally Fogg

    kizbot (115)

    KIZ! Lovely to see you. You have Yahoo-mail

    A
    x

  127. 127
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    “Yet I show you up in every discussion we have. Why do you think that is?”

    You must surely realise how pathetic it is to continuously make such claims? Just a lil bit bit of advice, when you need to constantly point out that you’re “winning”, you aren’t. Your ideological fellow travellers in the MRM recite as an article of faith how much they win. They don’t, though. They really don’t. It’s charming in it’s naivety.

    But you’re as invested as you are dogged, I will grant you that. You are also consistent – it’s obvious to anyone except… Well it’s actually obvious to everyone that a newspaper business relies upon it’s audience. Full stop, the end. You can write lots of words about related but irrelevant topics, but it’s clear that you’re just hoping to smother your inherent wrongness in a sea of obtuse factoids (see your previous comments about quote mining for further examples). Keep reliving your vainglorious glory days from previous threads, though, it clearly does something for you.

    @ Paul

    Let’s keep it civil, huh? I agree with your ideas about women as perpetrators of violence. I vigorously *disagree” with your concept of instigators of violence. You previously stated that females need to be held to account for their roles in encouraging males to violent acts, reciting the sexist ol’ MRA trope of “thugs” getting the girl.

    I will invite you to contradict me, or to clarify what you mean?

    Compare and contrast this with the role of male peer pressure, if you would be so kind.

    Paul, you are different to the majority of pro MRA buffoons on this blog – don’t let yourself down with adherence to such bullshiz.

  128. 128
    Mike Buchanan

    @Ill-tempered Mosquito #117

    1. The commonest mitigating circumstances (fear of a partner) used by women who’ve killed their partners leads now to a manslaughter charge (formerly murder).
    2. The commonest mitigating circumstances (provocation) used by men who’ve killed their partners leads now to a murder charge (formerly manslaughter).

    Why, the patriarchy were working overtime in the House of Commons when Harriet Harman and Vera Baird were so influential…

  129. 129
    carnation

    @ Mike Buchanan

    Would you be interested on a wager on you having your deposit returned to you? I’m not saying this to offend you, just interested if you would be.

  130. 130
    Paul

    Let’s keep it civil, huh?

    Carnation, both online and in real life i tend to treat people the way they treat me.I find your manner sanctimonious,patronizing,condescending,dismissive and on occasion downright rude.So if you want to have a civil online relationship with me i suggest you take a long hard look in the mirror before getting on your high horse.

  131. 131
    carnation

    @ Paul.

    Duly noted.

  132. 132
    Raging Bee

    She need produce no evidence to support the claim, but the charge will automatically be downgraded to manslaughter.

    Okay, thanks for the correction. Here in the US, murder charges (for men and women) get downgraded to manslaughter all the time, for a variety of reasons; so something like this doesn’t really stand out as “how the justice system favours women over men.” Especially since men who rape or even kill women don’t always get the full sentence either.

    Again, you have no case.

  133. 133
    Adiabat

    Carnation (127):

    You must surely realise how pathetic it is to continuously make such claims?

    Wait, you actually believe that you come across well in these “discussions” don’t you? How many people, even the most reasonable and even-handed people who comment here such as Paul, have to point out what a joke you are before you realise that your approach isn’t working?

    Just a lil bit bit of advice, when you need to constantly point out that you’re “winning”, you aren’t.

    Lol, you don’t get it do you? I’m not claiming to win these arguments, I’m claiming that I’m the only one taking part. Believe me, I have less interest in “winning” as I am in actually having a discussion. The reason I’m here to discuss topics with people who have different views, and to maybe learn something*. That’s a bit hard when you, or RB and others, never actually make an argument.

    And just because my arguments go unanswered doesn’t mean that I am right. But by pointing out that you never make an argument, or that you have reappeared in a new thread and say the same things despite outstanding arguments in a previous thread, I am highlighting that you are not someone to be taken seriously.

    For example, I fully recognize that I don’t have a full picture of the MRM; I read a few of them but for all I know they may be the only reasonable ones, and the rest are really a bunch of woman-hating misogynists. The problem is that you just randomly saying things about them is useless, it doesn’t provide me with new information, nor change anyone’s mind; it just tells me you’re obsessed about them for no discernable reason, and it makes you look unhinged. That stuff works in echo-chambers but not to anyone else.

    * Ally in particular is very good at explaining his position, even if in the end I disagree with it.

    Well it’s actually obvious to everyone that a newspaper business relies upon it’s audience. Full stop, the end. You can write lots of words about related but irrelevant topics, but it’s clear that you’re just hoping to smother your inherent wrongness in a sea of obtuse factoids

    No, it really isn’t. Y’see we have these things called “arguments” (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument) where someone puts together some facts with a reasoned analysis to support a particular view. For example, one might use the fact that the Guardian doesn’t actually seem that interested in selling itself to the public, nor that it needs to to keep afloat, as well as the fact that it’s actual audience is tiny with little attempt to appeal to a wider range of people, as evidence that it doesn’t rely on its audience. The fact that it puts more emphasis on promoting a rigid worldview than actually providing something people are willing to buy is evidence that political influence is the primary motivator for keeping the Guardian going.

    The thing is that it is more valid to say that “everyone knows” that newspaper ownership today isn’t even about the audience; it’s about influence and power. It’s the only reason these money haemorrhaging behemoths (except the money-making Mail and Sun) are kept going. Your claim of what “everyone knows” is actually regarded very naïve and childish, a sign of someone incapable of insight or original thought.

  134. 134
    Mike Buchanan

    @Irate Gnat #132

    Over the past 15 months, since we launched our party, we must now have published HUNDREDS of pieces about women in the UK, US and Canada being above the law, or treated by the justice systems as being no more responsible for their actions and inactions than young children. Indeed people have started to ask us to post fewer such pieces, because they now ‘get’ why there are 80,000 men in British prisons and only 4,000 women. A recent case where a woman walked free from court:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/what-do-you-have-to-do-to-get-sent-to-prison-fury-as-female-carer-caught-on-cctv-stealing-from-frail-pensioner-who-later-died-of-the-stress-walks-free-from-court

    A 21-year-old barmaid admitted stealing £3,000 from her employer. Her ‘punishment’? To pay back £500, at £5 per week:

    http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/caught-on-cctv-barmaid-helped-herself-to-3000-from-the-till-and-spent-it-on-clearing-her-credit-card-and-buying-cannabis-but-is-ordered-to-pay-back-just-500-at-5-per-week

    Of course men are sometimes treated more leniently than we’d expect. But the number of such cases is miniscule in comparison where women are treated leniently, or walk from court without any punishment after being found guilty.

    I believe I have a ‘case’. Yes, siree.

  135. 135
    johngreg

    Raging Bee said:

    Your OPs are starting to sink to the level of your hate-filled commentariat, and this place is looking more and more like Slymepit Lite.

    HAHAHA. All it takes is an allowance for debate and dissenting opinions and whaddya get? Slymepit Lite. Go team!

    Bee, you and Lucy do indeed provide some LOLs.

    Back on topic. It seems to me that this issue of women as insitigators of violence carries/results in a lot of the same baggage as women as victims of offense — insults, and so on — by which I mean, I have the impression, after some 40 years of paying attention, that the feminist movement, for the most part, has devolved into a sort of distaff Black Panther party — we want equality so long as we are more equal than them. What I mean by that is that the feminist movement seems now to be following these tenets:

    1. Insulting women for any reason is wrong and is sexist and should be labelled as harassment; insulting men is right and appropriate and should be labelled as educational or shutting up and listening.
    2. Accusing women of instigating violence is wrong because women are innately good and should not be accused of instigating violence; accusing men of instigating violence is right, because men are innately instigators of violence.

    And so on and so forth.

    Yes, that is a simplification, but I think it is nonetheless valid.

  136. 136
    carnation

    @ Adiabat

    Your pseudo-hubris is touching.

    @ Mike Buchanan

    I think there might actually be an academic study or two that generally supports your thesis that women are treated with a degree of leniency compared to men. It’s been some time since I read it, but from memory some of it was explained by more women than men being sole guardian of a child etc, but there was some “excess” leniency explainable only really by gender (or patriarchy/benign sexism/chivalry, depending on your ideological stance).

    So I’d like to ask you this, Mike Buchanan.

    Should male criminals be punished as females are (with a more sympathetic view taken of background and circumstances) or should females be punished as males (with less consideration)?

    PS – #129

  137. 137
    123454321

    “Yes, that is a simplification, but I think it is nonetheless valid.”

    Absolutely, johnreg. But simplification is too simple for some people to accept who, instead, like to dress it all up and overcomplicate the issues as part of their delay tactic strategy. I can see straight through it all, and thankfully so can most others these days! it’s all getting very boring. Roll on the election.

  138. 138
    Ally Fogg

    RagingBee (117)

    Your very first post on this thread included such constructive feedback as…

    utter bullshit…

    Asinine generalizations…

    you can do better than this.

    Of all the commenters we have here, you are the most persistently abusive, rude and aggressive by far.

    I think because you pretend to be feminist you somehow consider yourself to be in the right, allowing you to march onto these threads like the worst kind of dick-swinging alpha male. trying to intimidate me and everyone else into respecting your (usually ill-informed and poorly conceived) points of view.

    I struggle to think of any genuinely constructive or interesting comment you have ever made, You have never been anything other than an entirely toxic influence, and now you try to fucking tone-police me? .On my own blog? Really?

    I do not force you to come here, read my blogs and piss all over the walls. That is purely your choice. If you don’t like it here, don’t let the door bang your arse on the way out.

  139. 139
    123454321

    “Should male criminals be punished as females are (with a more sympathetic view taken of background and circumstances) or should females be punished as males (with less consideration)?”

    Yes and yes if we want to get to true equality, which is what every feminist wants, isn’t it? Why should one human-being be treated differently to another based on gender? For every woman who has a child, there is a man with the same child. Ok, men bring different types of benefits to children, but they are worthwhile, important benefits all the same. Women get away with more leniency because they are fortunate enough to get to stay at home with their children in most cases. Also, you can still bang away a bloke and take his money (the main benefit he has to offer), but you can’t bang away a Mother without dismantling her main offering to the child. It comes across to me as a get-out clause for women – have a kid and commit whatever crime you like. Is that the right message to convey? Men are never granted the same level of privilege due to social construct and circumstances. Men want to have children, too, but they are chastised and treated differently in all sorts of ways (usually detrimentally) afterwards.

  140. 140
    carnation

    @ 123454321

    I was talking to Mike. You offers up one of the most crassly stupid points of view that I’ve ever read on a blog. I assume you’re trolling, as nobody could be that fucking silly.

  141. 141
    Mike Buchanan

    @123454321
    @Adiabat

    (and others)

    I commend you for continuing to engage with Carnation and thereby provide me both with nuanced arguments and entertainment. She’s already wasted too much of my time on Ally’s blogs, and she won’t waste any more of it.

  142. 142
    123454321

    Dear Carnation – I don’t give a fuck.

    If two adults, living together with children commit the same crime, you explain to me why the female species gets special consideration, which they do.

  143. 143
    carnation

    @ Mike Buchanan

    I just checked and I’m still a man!! Quite a traditionally masculine one, too.

    I wanted to bet you £250 you’d lose your deposit at the election.

    The question I asked you was pertinent, should you treat women with less humanity and understanding or men with more?

  144. 144
    Ally Fogg

    You know what?

    I honestly have no idea why it happened, what it was this particular subject matter, the blog I wrote, or some sort of astronomical alignment of the planets* but this has turned into the single most unpleasant, personally abusive and abrasive comment thread I’ve ever had on this blog. (Obviously, I’m as much to blame as anyone and more than most)

    I’m going to do something I’ve never done before and close the comments on this thread.

    I apologise to those people (about three of you) who have remained civil and constructive, thank you for your patience.

    I’ll write something else soon and let’s just pretend this discussion never happened.

    Thanks all

    Ally
    x

    * obviously I only wrote that to annoy the sceptics.

  145. 145
    carnation

    @ 123454321

    Females aren’t a separate species. You aren’t understanding my question. Or my point of view. Both are clearly set out in earlier comments.

  146. 146
    johngreg

    Woah, Ally! Way-to-not-go.

  147. 147
    carnation

    @ Ally Fogg

    Apologies for my part in this.

    @ Adiabat, Paul

    Likewise – my tone wasn’t what it should have been.

  148. 148
    Mike Buchanan

    @123454321

    I think the issue of children should be irrelevant. At the moment women know having a child is a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card, so that drives their actions.

    An example. It’s long been a criminal offence for women to persuade men – or seek to persuade men – that children are biologically theirs, when they’re not. It’s one of the two forms of paternity fraud we’re concerned about.

    Now the CSA alone has over the years learned of tens of thousands of cases of attempted paternity fraud, when men have demanded paternity tests and proved they’re not the fathers of children. So the state has known the names and addresses of tens of thousands of female criminals. How many British women have been convicted of the crime? Predictably, NONE

    Estimates of the proportion of children being supported (financially and otherwise) by men who mistakenly believe they’re the children’s fathers range up to 30%. It’s why we’re calling for compulsory paternity testing at birth. A test costing maybe £25 would stop these financial and emotional abuses of men, and we’d finally discover the true scale of this form of paternity fraud. Of course the women in question would then have to lean on the state for support, the state which is 72% financed by men, and just 28% by women. One way or another, it’s men pay for women’s crimes.

    To my mind when a woman with a child commits a crime which would ordinarily result in a prison sentence, she’s only proving herself to be an unfit mother, so the case for her receiving a custodial sentence is increased.

  1. 149

Comments have been disabled.