Raped on Active Duty: Why He Didn’t Report

James Landrith had some things to say before the House Armed Services Committee recently.

James is still regularly harassed and abused for telling his story. People don’t believe him, they call him a lunatic and a liar and a misogynist and a loser and a scumbag. I wish I could say I find such reactions surprising, but sadly I do not find them surprising at all. People are assholes. And no one ever wants to believe victims of female predators. You can read about James’ story right here.

You know, having to explain to people what I’m talking about on these issues is just exhausting. But read the links and if you have any questions let me know. Yes people, women rape men. With their vaginas. And it’s more common than you think. If you believe the government’s own figures, where they bury these types of sexual assault in something they nebulously call “other” and don’t include, women rape at about 80% of the rate men do. No one wants to believe it, but all you have to do is look at the freely published numbers.

  • Scott

    This is one (of many) issues that so-called “liberal” attitudes are truly troglodytic. According to them men can’t be raped because all men love any kind of sex they can get from a woman (and sometimes they think that way about any kind of sex they can get). And if you explain to them that for many, many men sex with even a supermodel is disgusting if you don’t know and care for said supermodel they don’t believe you. As all men are, of course, sex-obsessed animals.

    It truly is one area where the so-called “liberals” are more ignorant and offensive than the traditionalists.

    I should know, I’ve seen it in my own life.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    We all come from different experiences; I grew up with conservative traditionalist values and the notion that young males are sex-obsessed animals who will screw any reasonably attractive girl on demand and thus needed to be tamed was pretty much a given.

    What I like about conservative traditionalists is that they tend to say nice things about men and boys and point out the petty hypocrisies and double standards so common to liberal leftists and feminists. But hidden underneath is the attitude that women define men, and men are still dogs and beasts.

    No we aren’t. Yes, we’re more visual when it comes to a woman’s physique. Although even there, just liking looking at a woman doesn’t mean you’re ready to jump her. Despite all the widespread lies to the contrary, the vast majority of men, very much including young men, want intimacy. They aren’t supposed to say they do, but they do. All you have to do is ask them about it quietly.

    Women are visual in their sexuality too by the way, they are just looking at different things–status, mostly.

  • queenofallevil

    Wow…if you don’t want to be viewed as bad as the feminists are viewed you might want to stop sounding like the male version of them. I’m speaking to the catty last statement.

    Women are absolutely visual when it comes to sex but the visual can be and often is overlooked if we find something else we are attracted to like intellect, sense of humor or what have you. Yes, some women are shallow and look at money/status but that number isn’t any higher than the amount of shallow men who treat women like objects and get critical of them if they are less than perfect.

    Women mostly want intimacy with someone they find attractive on some level. Women, like men, will be forgiving of certain lacks if their visual appeal is optimal. I mean Adam Levine could have the IQ of a rock and I would not care one bit – don’t need to talk, just get nekkid.

    Now, you may not like to hear this but there are plenty of men who would just jump on a woman. Plenty of beasts out there. If I walked into a biker bar wearing sexy clothing, the chances are high that I would not walk out on my own, so I wouldn’t do that.

    Do women rape? Sure. Do men rape more and use more violence? You betcha.

    Does it suck? Of course. Will society ever change its views? Maybe but not with the help of the Democrats and the MSM. You have a long uphill battle changing the hearts and minds of everyone. Good luck…try hard not to sound like the male version of feminism though…it’s a turn off.

  • Scott

    Dean,

    I’m not denying that traditionalists can have troglodytic attitudes about male sexuality, it’s just that you can reason with them.

    I usually start out by saying something of the form “You don’t really believe that your [son, brother, husband, father] is a sex-obsessed animal, do you?” And from there it’s pretty easy to show them that their painting of all men as such is bad.

    Since many on the feminist left hate ALL men and masculinity as a rule it’s harder to reason with them.

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    Yes men get raped, however the percentage of those with whom rape would be necessary is a much smaller percentage. In comparison to women, many more men are much more willing to have sex at the drop of a hat.

    Much more so. Hence the gaffaws and disbelief from other men when a case of male rape really happens.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    1) As I stated, women sexually assault men at a rate of about 80% the rate that men rape women; we just don’t call it “rape” even though we probably should. The stats are there for anyone who wants to look at them. They’ve been available for years.

    2) There is surprisingly little evidence that women are less violent than men and substantial reason to believe they are more violent than men under the right circumstances (just for example, they commit the overwhelming majority of neonaticides and murder of small children–more than gun violence kills small children actually–and they commit the overwhelming majority of elder abuse). Women are also prone to what’s called proxy violence and some are very good at it.

    3) Study of women’s sexuality shows that they are just as visual as men, but what they’re looking for is different. In the dating arena, most women decide if they’re interested in a man or not in the first 7 seconds of seeing him. They look at his clothing and his demeanor, primarily. When I say “status” it’s intentionally vague, because different women are looking for different things; some are looking for strength, some are looking for gentleness, some are looking for signs of how much money he makes… they’re always looking for something different. Interestingly enough, it’s been shown that what women look for in a man varies depending on where they are in their ovulation cycle, so during certain time periods they tend to be more attracted to the macho type and during other times of their cycle they tend to look at other things. But in short, it’s mostly unconscious and mostly still visual. (It’s also been shown that when they’re on the pill it often changes what they find attractive in a man.)

    References for any and all of the above are available on request.

    (Why “on request?” Because when I’ve posted them before I’ve either gotten complaints that it’s “too long” or it’s just been ignored. Genuine interest gets you references. Just sayin’.)

  • queenofallevil

    I meant men are more prone to violent raping of women than women are violently raping men. Size differences would make it very tough for a woman to jump a man in a back alley, beat his ass and rape him. Women who rape do it differently than men who rape women.

    Do you have proof that I’m wrong about that?

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    –and they commit the overwhelming majority of elder abuse).

    Unless that has changed drastically in the last decade, that doesn’t look to be true. It is actually just over half, and as women are the majority of elderly caregivers, that says a lot.

    From the National Centr on Elder Abuse (pdf)

    In 2003, slightly more than half (52.7%) of the alleged perpetrators of elder abuse or neglect were female (11 states reporting). Three out of every four alleged offenders (75.1%) were under 60 (7 states reporting). Most alleged perpetrators in 2003 were adult children (32.6%) or other family members (21.5%). Spouses/intimate partners accounted for 11.3% of the total (11 states responding).

  • Scott

    Sandi,

    Just in your quote above I see some questions with the statistics. 11 states reporting? Is that a SRS (simple random sample) or is that all the states they have who’ve reported? It’s hard to extend an inference from only eleven states if they weren’t randomly selected.

    And the definition of elder abuse seems to be tied up with domestic violence as 11.3% of it comes from “spouses/intimate partners”. Is it really “elder abuse” if one 70-year old spouse beats up their 70-year-old spouse or is it simple domestic violence?

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    Scott,

    Don’t know, and would google more, but I have a lot of PHP programming to catch up on ( a casino and a lottery for Invison Power Board forums ). I mostly check in here and a couple other places when I need a coding break.

    I gathered it counted domestic and professional care, but I may be wrong. Professional caregivers tend to be mostly all women, and domestic probably closer to 50/50.

    As for being tied up with domestic violence, it shouldn’t mater either way if the caregiver was a professional nurse, or spouse, adult children, parent or sibling. Abuse is abuse regardless of the abuser.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Queen: the particular type of rape you describe (the violent back alley mug-rape) is, under current definitions of rape, a tiny minority of all rapes. So it becomes difficult to discuss this without first understanding how “rape” is nowadays defined. To understand how it’s currently defined, and how by those very definitions intentionally overstate female victimhood while simultaneously shunting males into a little ignored corner, read this essay I posted not long ago by my radio co-host Typhon Blue (and she is, by the way, a rape survivor):

    Manufacturing Female Victimhood, Marginalizing Vulnerable Men.

    As has been usual on topics like this over the last 10 years, no one commented on it. I found that unsurprising. It appears the only way to get people’s attention on these issues is to be rude and loud and even insulting.

    Our sons are at very significant risk of sexual assault by women, and could even find themselves paying child support to a rapist. This shit is real. And it’s a problem that’s growing worse with time, not better.

    Remember the height of the Catholic Church child sex abuse scandals? Yeah, at its very height, a child was still significantly more likely to be sexually molested by one of his public schoolteachers than by a priest. While this is somewhat changing, it still remains we mostly laugh and think it’s cool when a female teacher beds one of her male students. A few high profile cases get some press these days, but it remains that about 90% of the victims of this sort of thing are not believed and do not report.

    Contemplate how you’ll feel if one day you discover some woman has been simply ordering Draco to passively lie down so she can ride him. You think it’s funny? I happen to know one aspie/borderline Autistic man that happened to when he was a young man. Everyone he told the story to initially thought it was fucking funny. Someone had to actually tell him that there was something wrong with this behavior, and it wasn’t until many years later that someone finally did. You think there’s any chance it screwed up his already-impaired ability to relate to the opposite sex just a little?

    We act like things like this are bizarre. I no longer believe they are:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/woman-molests-boys-gets-the-pass/

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Sandi: The book I have recommended dozens of times on this topic and remains a classic, jammed full of references, and by a feminist scholar no less (although she was pilloried by the Gender Feminist establishment for having the audacity to write it) remains Patricia Pearson’s When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, where she lays this and other subjects out in excruciating detail, and also shows how, quite eerily, most prominently published sources that show women’s violence usually just gloss over the rate of female perpetration in their summaries and titles, most especially when they are in the majority of perpetrators, but if you just dig in and start looking at the numbers it’s startling.

    “Women commit the majority of child homicides in the United States; more than 80 percent of neonaticides; an equal or greater share of severe physical child abuse; an equal rate of spousal assault; about a quarter of child sexual molestations; and a large proportion of elder abuse… The rate at which infants are murdered by women in the U.S. is higher than the rate at which women are murdered by men.”

    (Oh, and by the way, you’re right, women don’t commit the “overwhelming” majority of elder abuse that we know of, just a strong majority of it. And that still doesn’t count the fact that, as in other areas, male victims are far less likely to report.)

    Although published in the 1990s, everything Pearson wrote about these is substantially unchanged, although in some areas the measurable rate of female violence has increased since that time.

    I also note that her 25% figure on child molestations by women is generally acknowledged to be too low, because study on those who self-report molestation by women shows that about 90% of them report not being believed.

    Further references, as always, available upon request.

  • queenofallevil

    No, I don’t think this is funny, I find nothing amusing about rape or abuse, molestation or any of it whatsoever. I have a deep and real fear of something like this happening to either Drake or Johnny because of their inability to communicate they would be perfect victims for men or women.

    I will read the article you linked and get back to on that.

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    (Oh, and by the way, you’re right, women don’t commit the “overwhelming” majority of elder abuse that we know of, just a strong majority of it. And that still doesn’t count the fact that, as in other areas, male victims are far less likely to report.)

    That is confusing because above you said overwhelming:

    (just for example, they commit the overwhelming majority of neonaticides and murder of small children–more than gun violence kills small children actually–and they commit the overwhelming majority of elder abuse).

    Which could be misleading, and to be expected, because women are the overwhelming majority of the professional elderly caregivers.

  • Elizabeth Reid

    I don’t think it’s unlikely that women commit the vast majority of physical child abuse, but they also do the vast majority of care of infants and small children. They are also the vast majority of public school teachers. To evaluate whether men or women are more prone to commit violent and/or sexual abuse, you have to evaluate how many crimes are committed *per hour of contact*, not just how many are committed in absolute terms. Does the book go into that?

  • Elizabeth Reid

    Of course, if you’re talking about abuse as a public health concern, what I wrote above doesn’t really matter; what matters is that women do commit these crimes, and that since women typically have unimpeded access to children of all ages, even a lower rate of offenses will still result in a lot of victims and they need to be supported and believed. But if you’re looking at an individual man or woman and trying to decide if they are likely to harm a small child based only on the base rate, you do have to divide the number of incidents by the number of hours of care.

  • Elizabeth Reid

    I would like to see the reference to the figures that show that women rape at 80% of the rate of men, please. I can’t find anything to substantiate that.

  • queenofallevil

    There is no real way to substantiate the claim that women rape at 80% the rate of men, simply because we do not have any way to get an accurate accounting of who was raped and by whom.

    The best that anyone can do is estimate rates based on reporting. Because rape and sexual assaults are vastly under reported by both sexes. Of all the women I know well, myself included, 90% of us (18 of 20) were sexually assaulted at least once in our lifetime some more than once. Of those 90% that I know personally, 1 reported yielding a 5% report rate. All of us were assaulted by men.

    I imagine that plenty of men do not report either and do to the unreported numbers, the accuracy of any of this is questionable.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    I once again recommend Typhon’s “Manufacturing Female Victims, Marginalizing Vulnerable Men.” In addition to being posted on this site (with her permission) you can find it here:

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/

    If you want to crunch some numbers yourself, you can look at one of her sources directly, The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NIPSVS) 2010 Summary Report, right here:

    http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

    Pay particular attention to pp18-19, page 24, & then jump to page 84 and note the blanket, undefended assertion that “made to penetrate” is defined as a distinct and separate crime from rape and then nowhere else addressed. However, if you look at the rate of “forced to penetrate,” then, you get a figure of about 80% the rate of “forcibly penetrated.” Add in women who use dildos and whatnot to penetrate and it goes somewhat higher.

    All of this does not include other accounts of unwanted sexual contact including groping, having sex while drunk (a woman is now considered a rape victim if she has sex while drunk by the way, but this is not considered true if a man is drunk, even though probably a very large number of “forced to penetrate” incidents with unwilling participants involve alcohol or other drugs), having someone pressure you or use threats to get you to perform non-penetrative acts, and so on (I know one guy who was repeatedly blackmailed into phone sex with a woman who had him by the balls and enjoyed tormenting him–people laughed at him when he tried to tell them).

    When it comes to self-reporting of men who were groped, pressured into sex, or found themselves in unwanted sexual situations with women–when the men are outright asked about it, in a neutral setting where they know they won’t be laughed at or encouraged to dismiss it, such as in the NISVS–the rate reported is virtually identical.

    Here’s the issue: women talk about this, men do not. When men do, they are usually laughed at, told to get over it, or are not believed (about 90% of all victims of female sexual predators report not being believed by the way–yes I’ve got a reference for that too if you care).

    NISVS relies on self-reporting. So great, you’ve asked 20 of your female friends. Now ask 20 of your male friends, while making it completely clear that their answers will be confidential, they will not be laughed at or dismissed, and do not encourage them to see themselves as “lucky” and see what starts to come out of them. When I started doing this, quietly, I was surprised by the answers I started getting.

    Oh, and by the way, I’m one of those guys. I don’t hate women as a result, but I have begun to hate with a steaming passion our social double standards and hypocrisies about this. We treat male sexuality like it’s a cheap, dirty, beastly thing, and there are no emotions involved with sex and young men especially. The James Landriths of the world are supposed to be considered “lucky” (and he still gets almost daily taunting, by the way).

  • Elizabeth Reid

    I did read NIPSVS, and I did crunch some numbers.

    That figure on page 24, in which males who were forced to penetrate reported a 79.2% rate of female perpetrators, applied to the lifetime reports of sexual violence, and the total lifetime prevalence of rape was much higher in their female subjects. It is not true that the rate reported was virtually identical overall. It was only true for the 12 month reports, not the lifetime reports.

    For women, they estimate a total number of lifetime victims of rape (forcibly penetrated) at 21,840,000 (pg 18), of which 1.9% were perpetrated by females (pg 24), with a number too small to count of “made to penetrate” crimes (pg 18). For men, they estimate a total number of lifetime victims of rape (again, as forcibly penetrated) at 1,581,000 (pg 19), with 6.7% female perps (pg 24). Then, for men, they estimate a total number of lifetime victims of ‘made to penetrate’ crimes at 5,451,000 (pg 19), with 79.2% female perps (pg 24).

    So, that’s 28,872,000 rapes total (I agree with you that being ‘made to penetrate’ is absolutely rape and should be described that way, BTW). 41,4960 rapes of women were committed by women, 105,927 penetration rapes of men were committed by women, and 4,317,192 ‘made to penetrate’ rapes of men were committed by women. 4,838,079 rapes committed by women, overall, which is … 16.8% of the total. Which is not negligible, but which is also not 80%.

    It’s true that the 12 month rates of forcible penetration rapes of women and ‘made to penetrate’ rapes of men in this study were the same, but there’s something screwy about the men’s numbers, and not just in relation to the women’s. They say they found a lifetime rate of 4.8% of ‘made to penetrate’ assaults against men, but a 12 month rate of 1.1%. That 12 month rate seems REALLY high in relation to the lifetime rate. It means that over 20% of the lifetime total of these crimes happened in the previous twelve months. For comparison, the women’s lifetime rate was 18.3% even though they had the same 12 month rate (which would mean 6% of the assaults had happened in the last 12 months). If you’re surveying adult subjects, and you assume that at the very least sexual assaults would be more or less spread out a person’s lifetime if not weighted toward the younger years, it would be pretty unlikely that 20% of them would have occurred in the year before the survey. Either this represents a frightening jump in the number of these crimes committed against men just before the survey year, or it represents some kind of sampling problem. Fewer men than women completed the survey; perhaps male subjects were more affected than female ones by recent crimes, so male subjects were more likely to participate if the assault against them was recent, while female subjects were unaffected by the timing of an assault against them? I suppose you could argue that there is still a bias for men against reporting these assaults, even in this setting, but it’s hard to explain how that could affect the lifetime question but not the 12 month question. Using only this one survey it’s impossible to say.

    But with the facts given in this report, you can’t say that women rape at 80% of the rate that men do. The lifetime figures don’t support that, and those are the figures for which the give the sex of the perpetrator on page 24. If you assume the sex ratios were the same for the perpetrators in the 12 month reports, you could at most say that during the year before this survey, women committed rape at 80% of the rate that men did – but that’s if you’re willing to depend on numbers that look kind of hinky in comparison to the lifetime rates. (If one of the people who read this blog who actually knows stats wants to correct me on any of this, go ahead and school me, but this is what I’m getting out of it.)

    None of this, in my opinion, has any real relevance to how Mr. Landrith should be treated. Unless one is arguing that the rate is so low that it is effectively zero, which it clearly is not and which I am not arguing, then there’s no obvious reason to doubt that he is telling the truth, both about what happened and about its effect on him. He has my support.

  • Elizabeth Reid

    I’ve read the other essay now, which does indeed go into the discrepancy between the 12 month and lifetime report rates for men. There are some persuasive arguments for why we might want to assume that the 12 month rate is more accurate, such as the idea that our cultural narratives make it easier for women to recall and report long-past sexual victimization as such. However, then we’re the realm of assumptions, not simply reading the freely published figures. Also, this argument does not take into account data from other parts of the report. For instance, the section on stalking shows a similar proportion of male perpetrators vs female perpetrators to the lifetime rape proportions (I will confess I’m just eyeballing it here and not doing the math, but there were many more female stalking victims and 82.5% of their stalkers were male, vs 44.3% of the stalkers of male victims). This is despite the fact that our culture has a robust narrative concerning crazy women and their tendency to stalk men, c.f. Overly Attached Girlfriend, so you’d think if there were equal numbers actually stalking it would be reported as such. It also does not account for the fact that (nearly) equal numbers of men and women report physical violence from intimate partners, despite a cultural stigma against men who receive physical abuse from partners. So you’d have to be comfortable concluding that even though men stalk at a much higher rate than women, they rape at only a slightly higher rate, and that men are much, much more hesitant to report being made to penetrate a woman than they are to report being beaten up by her. It’s not like I have a really persuasive story in the face of these numbers either, but to toss the lifetime reports out on the basis that they don’t tell the story you want to hear in this instance doesn’t seem reasonable to me.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    If you want to take that commentary and clean it up and do some more number crunching I’ll publish it, not just here but on AVfM if you like. My own strong bias is toward believing the most likely explanation here is that men are not encouraged to think of past experiences like this as rape; at least two I know who had it happen to them never really knew what to think of it and pretty much ceased to think of it until they were actively encouraged to do so; we have an overwhelming cultural narrative about “violence against women” and language that’s now even shifting toward “men’s violence toward women” in publicity campaigns and more (even coming out of the President’s mouth that way, last I heard) which, as Typhon notes, leads to a culture in which everyone feels strongly encouraged to view this sort of thing completely differently when it happens to men vs when it happens to women.

    On the stalking thing, while the “stalking ex-girlfriend” is part of the cultural narrative, it is almost always viewed as something comical (just like women’s violence toward men is viewed as comical), therefore, again, I am inclined to believe underreporting and sloppy definitions are the problem. What, precisely, is “stalking?” A drunken phone call or two? Showing up a couple times where you know the ex- will be in a pitiful attempt at attention? Or, you know, actual constant following, threatening, in a continuing pattern that goes on for months at a time? Like the definition of “rape,” the definition of “stalking” matters. I know a guy who was horrifically stalked by a girl he barely knew; most people thought it was funny but he was terrified because as a black man he knew what this white girl could accuse him of especially if she got him alone.

    Robust study of these things is called for, but much of the field appears polluted by ideology and sloppy assumptions. It’s astounding how “forced to penetrate” is simply relegated to “something else” and otherwise almost completely ignored in the top line reports of the study, although the numbers are right there. “Oh, well, this is something interesting and odd, maybe we’ll look at this some time if anyone’s interested, I guess.”

    Part of this may even be biologically driven; we see women as vulnerable, men as not vulnerable; men as predators, women as prey; men as dangerous, women as perpetual innocents. Vaginas as precious, penises as cheap. How anyone thinks this doesn’t affect young men’s self-image, or young women’s for that matter, in a very negative way, I cannot imagine. The image of men as dangerous beasts and women as victims waiting to happen just isn’t good for anyone that I can see.

  • typhonblue

    ” So you’d have to be comfortable concluding that even though men stalk at a much higher rate than women, they rape at only a slightly higher rate, and that men are much, much more hesitant to report being made to penetrate a woman than they are to report being beaten up by her. It’s not like I have a really persuasive story in the face of these numbers either, but to toss the lifetime reports out on the basis that they don’t tell the story you want to hear in this instance doesn’t seem reasonable to me.”

    This is an imputation of dishonesty.

    I explained the rationale why the lifetime numbers regarding sexual abuse for men were suspect.

    There is a study, cited in the article, that found that men were four times less likely to report documented sexual abuse when they were children then women.

    If men are four times less likely then women to report child sexual abuse, that will skew the lifetime numbers severely.

    As for stalking, I’m not sure how common stalking is in childhood so the difference there could either be:

    a. Men mostly under-report child sexual abuse rather then abuse as adults.

    b. The stalking numbers are also subject to under-reporting by men for some unknown reason that perhaps another study into men’s under-reporting might identify.

    Now if we take the lifetime versus 12-month numbers at face value we have several scenarios.

    1. Men are under-reporting their abuse (which has been demonstrated by studies that look at under-reporting.)

    2. The number of men being raped is accelerating exponentially. .

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    I did not read that as an imputation of malice and as Elizabeth is an old hand around here not given to that sort of thing I am inclined to believe it as an analytical/critical thought at face value.

    That said I don’t see how anyone can look at the enormous areas where men are acknowledged to massively underreport, and to even have great motivation not to report, can look at any issue like this without suspicion. Given that virtually all investigation into these things these days runs through a strong bias of “men’s violence toward women” (in what appears to be an ever-upward spiral) I’m suspicious of virtually all numbers. No one denies that there are bad men who do bad things, and crazy men who do crazy things. But our picture seems horribly distorted and skewed.

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    For some time now these men/women issues on this blog and elsewhere have made me a bit uneasy, and unalbe to fully support either side. Rape, physical violence or just verbal abuse is terrible when done to a man, woman, or a child, and is very wrong regardless of who is doing it. In many if not most cases it is a crime. To take one side, or mostly pay attention to only one side is doing an injustice to both sides.

    There is little difference between AVfM, and the women right’s groups I have been exposed to. I’m mostly turned off by both. Reading articles from either is akin to the anthropic global warming debate. Both sides often make bad assumptions: not because they are dishonest, or chose to use bad data, but because insufficient data exists to reliably crunch the numbers with anything more than shaky certainty at best.

    The only way I will pay attention much attention to any of this, is when the discussion is about violence or abuse of people period. Leave gender out of it and you will find a lot more readers and followers. If not, in my opinion, you end up with the same credibility problem as the many conspiracy groups.

    I’m not very good at putting my thoughts into words ( which is why I gave up blogging years ago ) so I will let Julie Borowski convey my feelings about both men’s and women’s issues.

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    When people say we’re “the same” as the ideological feminist groups, I view that as a great sign of progress. Given that they have, literally not figuratively, billions of dollars to play with (most of it tax money, some of it charitable), as well as the universities and a number of government departments, and we’re nothing but a ragtag group of volunteers and people eking out a living elsewhere and doing this part time yet we’re still getting this much attention shows me that what we’re doing is working and we’re on the right side of the issues.

    Although I see one other big difference: we have no ideology, no “Patriarchy Theory” or any of that crap. We just choose to identify specific areas under the law where men are second-class citizens, we can identify all of those quite concretely, and we seek redress of same.

    To say that there isn’t enough data means you haven’t looked and haven’t even bothered to ask, by the way. Token Libertarian Girl, whatever else she says, gets one thing right: decades of research show that women are as violent as men are. Yet what she doesn’t say is that not just at the federal level, but the state level, this is not generally acknowledged. Think of that the next time you see yet another commercial with men “bravely” standing up against “violence against women” and ask yourself what they’re really saying about your sons, your brothers, and even yourself.

  • http://madisonforum.net/ Sandi

    I didn’t say they are the same, I said there was little difference, and that doesn’t mean that both don’t make valid points. If you view that as progress you have a long way to go. Why you bring up financing is a mystery to me. I would not be inclined to either view because of financial backing. Taxes or otherwise, it doesn’t by my opinion.

    To say that there isn’t enough data means you haven’t looked and haven’t even bothered to ask, by the way.

    You have run a blog more than long enough to know it is the blogger who needs to back posts with data, not ask the readers to find it. Yes you have posted some stats, but more apples and oranges as Elizabeth pointed out. Not saying the data is wrong, just that it isn’t something one can do more than raise an eyebrow over.

    Yet what she doesn’t say is that not just at the federal level, but the state level, this is not generally acknowledged.

    On the contrary I think everyone get that, it just isn’t spoken out loud enough. However I agree that the laws are biased in favor of woman. That should be corrected.

    Think of that the next time you see yet another commercial with men “bravely” standing up against “violence against women” and ask yourself what they’re really saying about your sons, your brothers, and even yourself.

    WTF are you talking about. There is not a thing wrong with a man standing up for violence against women. PERIOD. In what way is that different than you standing up for violence against men? None. Standing up for violence against anyone: women, men, children is a GOOD thing.

  • queenofallevil

    I think Sandi is saying something similar to what I’ve been saying and this quote is apropos:

    “Be careful whom it is you hate; Sooner or later you turn into them”

    or this one:
    “He who fights monsters should see to it that he himself does not become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.”

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    Nothing I suggest goes to anything other than that women’s violence and abuse is routinely underplayed and underreported and men’s often exaggerated, and thus there is an imbalance in how we perceive these things. I don’t see much danger in becoming “like them” when I suggest that women are not really on balance any better than men are. Which is all I believe and all I’m suggesting.

    I see something distinctly unsavory about endless publicity campaigns to end “men’s violence against women” when there are *no* campaigns to “end women’s violence against children” (even though women commit the majority of violent child abuse) or to “end women’s violence against men” even though data clearly shows that in many settings women are every bit as violent toward men, although its nature and context tends to differ somewhat, as do outcomes. But we have to be able to discuss these things like rational adults.

    Did any of you guys even read or watch my interview with Erin Pizzey, or look at any of the shit-ton of references I put on the end of that? She started the international battered women’s shelter movement for goodness sakes!

    Listen up kids: women are just as violent as men. No amount of “I don’t like your style Dean” will change the fact that women are just as violent as men are–that it takes different forms, it comes in different contexts, but in the end, violence is not a “male problem” but rather a human one. That’s such a radical notion?

    When I see my first multimillion$$ ad campaign to fight abuse by women, or politicians standing up to declare that women must be taught that hitting is not OK, or we have a “Violence Against Men Act,” I will agree that we have achieved some sort of balance here. Until then, you can expect me to keep writing on these things because the subject is too serious. The endless drumbeat of shaming young men and letting young women off the hook as if they are volition-free children must end, in my view.

    As always, if I make an assertion that you feel requires references, just ask for the references. And if you then want to challenge them in a rational way (as Elizabeth did), feel free. But please, let’s talk about the substance of the matter, eh?

  • http://www.deanesmay.com Dean Esmay

    For a very good video that makes this point–even though it’s about Australia, everything here applies, up to and including the pandering of politicians who concentrate on female victims but ignore male ones, it’s spot on:

    The False Narrative we all run under is that men are more violent than women and women are more likely to be victims of violence than men are. BOTH of these are demonstrably, empirically false assertions, and are in some ways the exact opposite of the truth.

    So yes, there really is something wrong with condemning “men’s violence against women,” on multiple levels, when all these other things are ignored. Which they are.