Violent French husbands 'may be tagged' (thanks to the reader who sent this):
Why is it that when the left and right finally agree on something, it's to take away the civil rights of men and treat them like dogs? Apparently, misandry is a bipartisan endeavor.
Men seen as likely to be violent towards their wives could be forced to wear an electronic tag under a law being debated by the French parliament.
The tag would have to be worn by men who have received a court order to stay away from their partner.
The proposal is part of a draft law on conjugal violence. It has cross-party support and is expected to pass easily.
According to the government, around 160 women in France are murdered by their husbands or partners every year.
Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence in the home, because it is seen by many as a precursor to physical violence.
It is rare for the left and the right in France to agree on anything, says the BBC's Hugh Schofield, so the near unanimity in parliament behind this law comes as something of a novelty.
Everyone agrees that domestic violence is bad and getting worse.
Why is it that when the left and right finally agree on something, it's to take away the civil rights of men and treat them like dogs? Apparently, misandry is a bipartisan endeavor.
Labels: men's rights (or lack thereof)
posted by Helen at 6:35 AM
49 Comments:
I wonder if that figure of 160 counts the North African muslim population. Or would that be "offensive"?
Either way, it's a bad sign.
I'm not quite ready to condemn this, I think we need much more information. I will say, however, I'm not very big on laws being gender specific. The ankle monitor program should be gender and marital status neutral, but I don't live in France and I'm not a french citizen so I have absolutely no say in the matter.
Getting back to the subject. Here are some questions. Have these men been deemed violent by a court of law? Has there been a study showing that location monitors reduce violence? What criminal acts will result in french men being required to wear location monitors? Who will monitor the monitoring program?
There are programs in place in the US that require violent offenders to wear ankle monitors as well as convicted pedophiles and sexual abusers. Why should violent french husbands not be asked to participate?
Not bipartisan, but biological. These injuries to men are self inflicted. And they will worsen in the current cultural environment until men learn to sanely regulate their natural predisposition to protect women.
Everyone agrees that domestic violence is bad and getting worse.
Whenever I see "everyone agrees", I bet that what follows isn't true, especially when what follows is a standard leftist trope.
If French courts are anything like ours, "receiving a court order to stay away from your partner" is ex-parte and supported by nothing more than a woman's unsupported allegation. Slapping a guy with a tag is a nigh-ultimate revenge and control tactic (the ultimate being a false rape allegation). I predict it will become SOP for women to demand tags coincident to divorce and child custody proceedings.
We have in our country retraining orders, without straping on a device...and we find (I do not know how many per year) that males often do injure or kill their spouses or former spouses. The law specifically notes the proclivity toward violence for those individuals so singled out. France is doing then the same thing but using a device that seems more effective than simply a court order.
It does not matter whether the potential offender is Muslim or Catholic or atheist: the law, if passed, would apply to those deemed likely to be abusive or killers.
Male specific? perhaps but then those so singled out seem always to be men.
Men here and elsewhere seem much more likely to use physical force against a former or present spouse.
How many wmen in the US have restraining orders?
(no need then to worry over gender or left/right)
i agree with the idea...it states clearly in the article that the device is to be won by men court-ordered to stay away from their spouse.
however, it depends how the law is applied.
When I was a young Marine wife working at the local Navy exchange, two of our cashiers (one 8 months pregnant) took out restraining orders against their violent and abusive husbands.
Neither worked because police had no enforcement mechanism. One woman's husband repeatedly broke into her locked apartment and trashed the place.
The pregnant woman (a friend, by the way) was beaten so badly by her ex that she ended up in the hospital and lost her baby.
But who needs anecdotes when the Bureau of Justice has tracked this sort of thing for decades?
According to their most recent data, 2.5% of male murder victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner. Even more interesting, the percentage of men killed by their partners has gone DOWN (by a factor of almost 4) over the past 3 decades.
33.3% of female murder victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner In 1976 (by contrast with the declining proportion of men so murdered) 34.6% of women were murdered by a partner/ex-partner.
I fully agree that this law should be gender neutral, but ignoring a very real problem for fear of being called a misandrist seems perverse at best.
33.3% of female murder victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner In 1976 (by contrast with the declining proportion of men so murdered) 34.6% of women were murdered by a partner/ex-partner.
This is a fascinating statistic with the most interesting of quite plausible explanations.
According to the figures from the US Justice Department female homicide victims killed by intimate partners in 1976 numbered around 1600. By 1998 this had fallen to about 1300. During the same time period the number of corresponding male victims during the same period fell from 1400 to around 500.
This all happened during almost exponential growth of women's shelters and other services.
This is staggering because it indicates that the provision of services to women actually resulted in a decrease in violence toward men!!
But it isn't really surprising when you understand the factors that likely facilitated the drop in violence against men.
As women had services provided, including increased police awareness of DV against women as a problem, they were less trapped and subsequently less likely to react with spontaneous, deadly violence.
Their options literally gave them a way out of the potentially explosive situations that had previously resulted in rates of partner homicide that were near equal!
Now imagine, if we started to fully recognize and address the fact that non lethal violence in homes runs roughly even between men and women, and that refusing to see this for what it is results in many trapped men that may well end up killing their wives.
"Parliament is also considering outlawing psychological violence in the home, ..."
Well, now. Seems the French women would be in serious doo.
Cassandra,
The problem is not the enforceability of restraining orders ("restraingement orders" as Rick Moranis said in a movie) - it's the issuance.
As said above, the issue of restraining orders can be done ex parte and without hard evidence or due process. It is widely abused in divorce and separation cases to control husbands and set up the next move - a request for alimony or child custody, and to induce sympathy from the court.
In deference to your experience, if the protective orders don't protect, then what's the point of violating the Constitution to issue them in the first place?
A better idea would be for the man and wife to both get a matching set of tags. That way the spouse would be immediately alerted if the proximity of the matching tag was detected and not just some monitoring agency.
This would also serve as a warning to potential new soulmates for either that the man or woman has some unfinished business with someone else.
1. To Paul, re:
This is staggering because it indicates that the provision of services to women actually resulted in a decrease in violence toward men!!
No, it doesn't. Many things have changed since 1976 but I'm fairly certain correlation still does not prove causation.
The number of females who commit ALL types of homicide declined by about half from 1976 to 2005 (3296 to 1829). I doubt shelters had anything to do with this.
Homicides in general have fallen for both sexes.
Finally, the homicide rate (a normalized measure that accounts for changes in the size of the populace) has also fallen, and it has fallen more rapidly for women than it has for men.
In 1976: 3.0 per 100K for women/16.3 per 100K for men. So back then, men were a little over 5 times as likely to murder someone else.
In 2005:1.2 per 100K for women/11.9 per 100K for men. Now, men are about 10 times as likely to murder as women.
There has been no proportionate change in the male/female ratio in the population, even controlling for age.
Their options literally gave them a way out of the potentially explosive situations that had previously resulted in rates of partner homicide that were near equal!
Even if I were to accept that correlation "indicates" causality, there are other factors that could just as easily explain such a result.
No fault divorce is just one :p
****
Topher, re:
The problem is not the enforceability of restraining orders ("restraingement orders" as Rick Moranis said in a movie) - it's the issuance...f the protective orders don't protect, then what's the point of violating the Constitution to issue them in the first place?
Restraining orders don't protect the person who seeks them because there's no way to know that the restrainee has violated the order until it's too late. Hence, monitors.
Not having read the French law, it still seems you are ignoring the critical word here: *violent*. I worked in a family law practice. The reason restraining orders are so easy to get is that they are issued for many reasons.
Violent behavior is only one. I have a hard time seeing a judge issuing a monitor to every single subject of such an order. Knowing the police will be alerted if you get within 100 feet of your partner is what I'd call a pretty darned good deterrent.
Not perfect. But better than nothing.
FWIW, I rather like Prof. Hale's idea.
If you're genuinely afraid, you would welcome an early warning system and this would serve as a deterrent to frivolous/harrassing requests.
Restraining orders when a man, or woman for that matter, are intent on harming the other person do nothing. The land is afloat in cases where a woman was beaten or murdered by an ex who had a restraining order issued against him. These anklets will have much the same effect. The anklet won't stop the violence. The problem is that only people who are honest enough to know that they aren't wanted any longer will honor these devices and those are the ones it probably isn't needed for.
As with most solutions that are after-the-fact, maybe this problem (abuse) needs to be approached from a different way. As abusers are rarely created instantaneously or in a vacuum, their behavior is obvious at some point, maybe we can teach and inform women how to make smarter choices in men they choose as partners. Ditto men for those cases of female abusers.
Enforcement of these anklets also heap more duties (and bureaucrats) onto already bloated governments that we can't afford now. Which makes this problem more directly detrimental to all of us on at least a couple of different levels.
33.3% of female murder victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner...
This is also a twisted, misused statistic pulled out of a specific year to over blow the danger to women. It completely ignores that 75% of all murder victims are men. That women, a la Mary Winkler, are less often convicted or prosecuted for murder, and, when convicted, receive lighter sentences.
Here's some other statistics you can find at the Bureau of Justice Statistics:
*Males were 3.4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2002
From 1976-2002 Males made of 37.2% of murder victims from intimate violence.
*Males made up 76.4% of all murder victims during that same time period.
*Females committed 35.2% of all intimate partner murders form 1976-2002
It's all about the women and the ends justify the means of lying, misconstruing, etc.
Arf, arf, arf.
@Caasandra
"No, it doesn't. Many things have changed since 1976 but I'm fairly certain correlation still does not prove causation."
True. My intent was not to assert proof of causation, but there are two facts here that are worthy of study and consideration.
One, as I have pointed out, the remarkable drop in males being killed is notable. And we have not accounted for how many of the rest of that drop was women killing their children, at least the ones who were criminally charged. This could, and I am not citing it as proof, even indicate that services for women saved many of their childrens lives as well. It seems quite plausible to me and worth a look.
Also, even if you don't or can't factor in child murders, the fact that 61% of the drop in female committed homicides is a result of not killing their partners makes it disproportionate to the overall drop in murders by females.
I have no doubt that the etiology of males increased likelihood to murder during the same time period is worth study as it relates to social change as well.
All of this, however, still doesn't play well against the article presented here. If we look at the incidence of non lethal DV, which constitutes the vast majority of all DV, we see with a high degree of certainty that women are as likely or more likely than men to initiate and habituate violence in their intimate relationships.
The fact that we are seeing increasing amounts of legislation, VAWA and the type Dr. Helen writes about here, and that is part of systemic gender profiling against men that is increasing in western culture in opposition to the available research that points to this as misandric and unjustified.
@ Steve
There is one possible preventive measure that I can think of. That would be and end to ex parte restraining orders and the requirement to show probable cause for issuing one at all.
The fact is that right now, one party in a divorce can make a baseless allegation and summarily severe the other partner from their children, evict them from their property and strip them of assets and income, all with no recourse.
The fact that this process heavily favors women is, or should be, a warning flag.
It is well known that many of these judgments are issued on fraudulent charges and that the norm is for this to be generally done with impunity, even when innocence is proven.
Of course, nothing justifies a murder, but I do have to wonder how many women have been killed by men that just lost it under family law oppression.
33.3% of female murder victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner...This is also a twisted, misused statistic pulled out of a specific year to over blow the danger to women.
Actually, as I already pointed out, that figure has changed very little over the past 30 or so years.
It completely ignores that 75% of all murder victims are men.
What does that last sentence have to do with the relative danger of domestic homicide (which is, after all, what this post is about)?
*Males were 3.4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2002
How does this figure relate to the topic (domestic homicide)? In addition to being more likely to murder women, men are also more likely to murder other men :p
From 1976-2002 Males made of 37.2% of murder victims from intimate violence.
Which would logically lead one to believe that the risk of being killed by a partner is higher if you're female.
*Males made up 76.4% of all murder victims during that same time period.
Most of these guys were killed by other men. What does this have to do with domestic homicide?
*Females committed 35.2% of all intimate partner murders form 1976-2002
Yes they did. And men committed 64.7%. But this statistic measures the relative frequency of intimate partner murders committed by women, as opposed to the statistical probability (if you're a woman who was murdered) of being killed by your partner.
Theses are separate measurements. Which one you use depends on which question you're trying to answer.
The bottom line here is that whether you're male or female, your chances of being murdered by a man are greater than your chances of being murdered by a woman and the chance of being murdered by a partner is greater if you're a woman than it is if you're a man.
In short, whether you're killed by an intimate or a stranger, it's more likely your murderer was male. Now some folks might draw the conclusion that all men are murdering, violent b**tards from this. They would be wrong, but when people get emotional they misuse statistics.
It's all about the women and the ends justify the means of lying, misconstruing, etc.
Arf, arf, arf.
Hit a nerve, did I?
Of course, nothing justifies a murder, but I do have to wonder how many women have been killed by men that just lost it under family law oppression.
You should have stopped at "nothing justifies a murder". If nothing justifies murder, the provocation would seem to be beside the point.
@ Cassandra
"What does that last sentence have to do with the relative danger of domestic homicide (which is, after all, what this post is about)?"
Big smile here. Actually, this post is about targeting men with draconian measures that erode their civil rights, ignore women's violence and operate on misandry.
"You should have stopped at "nothing justifies a murder". If nothing justifies murder, the provocation would seem to be beside the point."
Oh really? I would think provocation would be a very important point, especially to the one getting killed.
We can moralize all day long over dead bodies if we want to, or we can try to understand what we can to prevent fertilizing the soil of violence.
An if a simple application of due process and constitutional protections would help that along, then we should pursue it.
I heard the same reasoning though from the Bush administration and now Obama. Let's not look at 50 years of provocative and imperialistic foreign policy when it comes to terrorism. Let's just say that terrorism (theirs anyway) is wrong and give 'em what fer. Even if "what fer" was the very reason they want to see us dead.
Your clearly a bright person. Surely you don't mean to say we should not explore the reasons that contribute to our problems.
Of course you hit a nerve. Something wrong with that? Women get their nerves hit all the time, like when Hillary thinks an African student is asking about Bill Clinton's opinion rather than Obama's. You seem rather testy that I reiterated something you said.
the chance of being murdered by a partner is greater if you're a woman than it is if you're a man.
Much of this is because the chance of a man being murdered by others is much greater. A man is 3 times as likely to be murdered, but lets ignore that because it's all about the women who are twice as likely to be murdered by an intimate partner. (of course, sometimes that intimate partner is another woman.)
How does this figure relate to the topic (domestic homicide)?
It relates in that the problem of domestic homocide is being focused on solely for women while men being murdered is largely ignored. Similar to the difference in how everyone hypes breast cancer awareness while prostate cancer is an after thought.
Paul:
I suppose my response would be that I doubt too many men who murder their partners are pondering the inequities of the family law system as they pull the trigger. If "family law oppression" were a significant cause of intimate homicide, shouldn't we have seen a rise in such crimes as the family law system became more "unfair" to men?
And yet we haven't, have we? A curious person might find food for thought there.
A general comment (and my last).
Profiling of any kind has always been controversial. We tend to think it's a nifty solution when we don't happen to fit the profile. But when we become potential targets, suddenly it's misguided and unjust :p
The law should be evenly applied without regard to identity politics. At the same time, men and women both admit there are profound differences between the sexes. So separating behavior or relative risk from sexual identity is not always as clear cut as it seems.
What seems lacking from a lot of these discussions is any recognition that criminal/irresponsible behavior (whether male or female in origin) creates problems for innocent third parties. Personally, rather than hating all men because some act like jacka**es, I prefer to blame the jacka**es themselves.
There have always been jerks in the world - some male, some female. When I got married, the law was decidedly unfair to women. Women got organized and sought change.
They have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams (and to some, including me, succeeded to a degree that is not beneficial to society). Men are still, however, disproportionately represented in the upper echelons of law, commerce, and society. You are well placed to seek the changes you desire.
I just wish some of this could happen without ranting about how all women are horrible human beings. We're not, you know. We're your wives, your sisters, your mothers, your grandmothers. And many of us have devoted pretty much their whole lives to supporting and loving the men in their lives: our husbands, fathers, sons.
Someone mentioned the majority of victims of violent crimes are men. I agree, you won't get any argument from me.
Actually, the majority of victims of violent crime are young black men. I don't see an outcry, I don't see any organization seeking change. I don't see men getting all that upset about it.
"I suppose my response would be that I doubt too many men who murder their partners are pondering the inequities of the family law system as they pull the trigger."
Well now we are really getting into conjecture aren't we? But as long as we are, I am pretty sure that a lot of men who murder their wives have had a good long while to think about that before they pull the trigger. Many of those can't talk because they kill themselves, too.
When was the family law system ever fair? Men have been giving themselves the short end of family law since before the 19th was ratified. This is going to be very hard to trace.
"What seems lacking from a lot of these discussions is any recognition that criminal/irresponsible behavior (whether male or female in origin) creates problems for innocent third parties."
This is a fail, in my opinion. I have been at this for 25 years. And the pattern is really no different in your case. I don't mean that to be insulting, but it is true. Women's advocates, feminists, whichever you prefer, come though the gate with statistics on how dangerous life is for women and how violent men are, just like you did.
But when confronted with data that they don't seem to deal with, the next turn is to "degender" the conversation with something like "What seems lacking from a lot of these discussions is any recognition that criminal/irresponsible behavior (whether male or female in origin) creates problems for innocent third parties."
In other words, as soon as taking a gender side starts shedding light on inconvenient information, e.g. women are generally as violent or more violent than men in relationships, then it is time to quit focusing on the sex and start just looking at the behavior.
All while, we have never had one real line of exchange here about what the OP was about. And that is unfairly gender profiling men in DV cases when it is patently sexist to do so.
We (as a culture) are not finding solutions to DV and may never. But we certainly won't ever get there until we can have intellectually honest discussions about the subject.
That would be a lot better than telling me not all women are horrible human beings, especially as I have not give you any reason to think that. I certainly haven't ranted about anything.
So it was either just a slip that you injected that into this, or it was calculated to stay off topic, but either way, you clearly are not willing to focus on any facts that are inconvenient for you.
Paul Elam @ 3:16:
Most of the restraining order killings or beatings in my little part of the world (Pacific Northwest, U.S.A) are done by boyfriends. Not to say that divorced husbands aren't part of the mix but I believe the the great majority of violence is not perped by ex husbands. Violence to girlfriends is a way for the man to exert control in a situation where he has none. If she is not married to him, she is free to date or leave at any time (one leading to the other). Most of these restraining order deaths and beatings also come from relationships that are relatively long termed even though they aren't married. The abuse starts out as verbal and then escalates until the woman comes to her senses and a restraining order is needed and then tragedy. What I have seen more from wronged husbands with children is kidnapping rather than killing or beating the ex-spouse.
I have a feeling that you may have been touched by an unfair divorce.
@ Steve
You know, most generally, I really try to maintain a mild manner with people, even in debating some pretty touchy and controversial issues, but I do have to tell you it gets old, really old, to see people with your POV assume to guess something about my life when you don't have a clue what you are talking about.
What's next, are you going to ask if I had a bad mother, or offer me the sage advice that I just haven't met the right woman?
How would you like if I told you I had the feeling you were henpecked or just generally weak with women or had a bad father?
Wouldn't you find that insulting?
If you want to come back to this and start over, fine. But three things I suggest. One, don't presume to know me because you don't.
Two, try to give any person you don't know the benefit of the doubt and relieve yourself of the arrogance of believing that the only reason they could disagree with you or support men's issues is out of some bitterness or post trauma from a bad relationship.
And three, come to the discussion armed with more than anecdotal evidence and personal questions.
Try again if you want to or don't, I really don't care. But I won't let you turn this into some sort of armchair analysis because you can't make a cogent point based on the issues.
Anyone who sees the need to defend violence against women by the "family law system" is truly pathetic.
Also, the only statistic that matter is that women make up 64.5% of all victims murdered by an intimate partner. That is a woman is roughly twice as likely to be murdered by an intimate partner as a man. No need to look at any other statistic.
"Anyone who sees the need to defend violence against women by the "family law system" is truly pathetic."
I don't see anybody really "defending" that situation - but the general cultural assumption is that when a woman is violent towards a man (or divorces him, or cheats on him) it's because he did something violent or oafish to provoke the response. That assumption is bunk, but it's peddled by the culture.
I think Paul's point is that that goes in both directions - if we are going to argue women are driven to violence by oppressive men, it only makes sense to argue that some men are driven to violence by a draconian family law system that can punish innocent men simply on the spouse's sayso.
"Also, the only statistic that matter is that women make up 64.5% of all victims murdered by an intimate partner. That is a woman is roughly twice as likely to be murdered by an intimate partner as a man. No need to look at any other statistic."
That's not logical - the other statistic we have to look at is how many men have their civil rights taken away without proper due process of law. We can't get so wrapped up in "we have to do something!" that we start roping innocent people into the roundup. There has to be some balance in the system so that the threatened get legal protection without women crying abuse to get custody.
As has been pointed out several times, an order that says "don't go near that person" is ineffective in protecting people. The answer is not to up the enforcement power without also solving the problem of oversight of the issue of protective orders - that will simply create more innocent men with their rights removed in more punitive ways.
Oh, Martin - a 2:1 ratio of women killed by partners to men is not particularly extreme, statistically speaking. A man being killed by his partner is less common than a woman, but it is not a statistical outlier or an anomaly.
The name of the game here with women's advocates is controlling the dialogue. The method is simple. Say you have a study that says men and women are equally violent in relationships and it results in, just for the sake of argument, 1,000,000 assaults by women and 1,000,000 assaults by men in a year.
Women's advocates, as we see here and most everywhere else, will trot out the fact that a million women per year are assaulted by their partners.
The intent is to frame the debate in a way that doesn't allow the male victims to be discussed. It is easy and effective and as a debate tool it works well.
And it has been working so well that we have legislation like VAWA that assumes a female victim-male perpetrator model.
On paper the women's side wins. They get the funding, the sympathy and the public recognition.
But here is the real problem. Domestic violence is not something that happens in an internet forum or in a white paper analysis. In many families across western culture it is a real problem, and real people, men, women and children are being hurt, traumatized and even killed.
Families are being destroyed and lives are being ruined and scarred.
And when you put all your resources into half of the problem, the effect is quite chilling. The denied victims, males, are often tagged as perpetrators. And the denied perpetrators, women are often tagged as victims.
Now it doesn't take too much imagination to figure who is going to get the children when there is state functionary intervene on the violent family.
Yes, frequently it will be an unidentified abusive female who gets control of the children while the only real protection the children have, the father, is incarcerated or otherwise removed from the home.
And children do die behind this tragic politicized model of approaching the problem.
See, the ultimate point is not to point anywhere except at the problem, but the moment we tag a gender label on it we quit doing that and become not only ineffective in helping a lot of children, we actually collude with an abuser to makes sure the children are trapped.
But I have seen it a hundred times. A woman's advocate will be given the information with straight up scientific back up, and will look at it long enough to dream up a reason to dismiss it, and go back to telling us about the million women per year, and on, and on.
Or else, as I have seen here today, when confronted with a wall of information that won't go away, they just fade off into the silence or go find someone that will go in circles with them about the 1 million women.
This is how babies die. This is how women get murdered. This is how men get killed as well.
And why? Because we have PC myopia about a problem that can ill afford to be toyed with for such pathetically poor reasons.
But so far, I have never seen the truth spark a woman's advocate to care more about children being alive and secure than towing the party line.
They say we get the government we deserve. We get the advocates we deserve as well. Unfortunately many, many of our children get the advocate the we have pushed on them as well.
It is a silent American tragedy.
Cham --
"Actually, the majority of victims of violent crime are young black men. I don't see an outcry, I don't see any organization seeking change. I don't see men getting all that upset about it."
Then I think you are being purposefully blind.
Just when I start thinking Sarkozy and the French are finally turning things around and becoming a decent place, they start doing insanely misandric things like this. I guess there truly is nothing to admire about France at all anymore.
According to their most recent data, 2.5% of male murder victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner. Even more interesting, the percentage of men killed by their partners has gone DOWN (by a factor of almost 4) over the past 3 decades. 33.3% of female murder victims were killed by a partner or ex-partner
2.5 is not comparable to 33.3. You aren't comparing fractions with identical denominators as elementary mathematics requires.
The reason for the 1/3 number is so few women are murdered at all, and they are rarely murdered by strangers. In contrast, several times more men than women are murdered, and they are frequently murdered by strangers. Men are also pretty much 100% of murder victims whose offender is unknown.
I hope you are using murder in its colloquial rather than legal sense, because women are much more likely than men to be able to plea to lesser charges like manslaughter. You really should be comparing "deaths" and not "murders".
Olig:
Please, show me the outrage.
"a 2:1 ratio of women killed by partners to men is not particularly extreme, statistically speaking. A man being killed by his partner is less common than a woman, but it is not a statistical outlier or an anomaly."
This sentence makes absolutely no sense, statistically speaking.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To Paul Elam and others:
You are probably aware of this, but it is relevant to the female to male violence statistics where, if anything, the male statistics are overestimated and female statistics underestimated:
Warren Farrell, Excerpted from "The Myth of Male Power"
THE SIX BLINDERS (to how we have consciously and unconsciously kept ourselves blind to women who murder men)
1. A woman is more likely to poison a man than shoot him, and poisoning is often recorded as a heart attack or accident. [This will skew the figures]
2. Contract killing is also less detectable because it is premeditated and often hired out to a professional. When it is discovered the Department of Justice registers it as a "multiple offender killing" - it never gets recorded as a woman killing a man. [This will skew the figures]
3. The money factor. Women who murder husbands or boyfriends usually come from middle class backgrounds The money allows the best lawyers, more acquittals, therefore fewer female murderers to become Justice Department Statistics.
4. and 5. The Chivalry Factor, the Innocent Woman Factor prevent many women from becoming serious suspects to begin with.
6. The Plea Bargain Defense sometimes leads to the dismissal of charges.
Part of “The Twelve 'Female-Only' Defenses.” Read it here:
http://www.harrysnews.com/tgWomenWhoKillTooMuch.htm
Cham --
The current return to more conservative values as regards enabling the "due" lifestyle.
Show me women's outrage against barbaric practices in Islamic cultures.
You use that word purposefully, because only the fringe actually gets "outraged". Normal people react rationally and attempt to implement fixes. But, since you watered it down, I responded in like manner.
@ Trust
Yes, I am familiar with the stats, and I know many others, including tossing babies in dumpsters and the like that never see prosecution.
But I disagree that the problem here is skewing, or a lack of, information.
The problem, as was cited in Dr. Helen's article, is misandry.
So while I do what I can to get valid information presented in the middle of the skewed and slanted disinformation cited by people in these threads, I think it is even more important to point out the hatred and callous indifference that drives them.
If you notice, in this particular thread, Cassandra and Steve both (one male, one female) decline to engage anyone on the subject unless they can keep repeating bad numbers or personalize the discussion to cast doubt on those who disagree with them.
It isn't information, it's tactics. These people no more care about people, including children, getting hurt than they do about who got the bronze medal in curling, as long as they can keep the focus on the false paradigm of female only victims.
As you are aware of Farrell's work, I am sure you have seen this before.
To me, the biggest part of the problem is that we have many, many, people, like Cassandra and Steve, that are either brainwashed or just plain calculated, and their misandry is so corrupting that they support policies that end in the death of innocent children.
I think it serves everyone, men, women and children, to hammer this in every time these people raise their propagandized voices in these discussions.
All agendas driven by hate need to be exposed, and so do the people pushing them.
@Paul Elam said... But I disagree that the problem here is skewing, or a lack of, information. The problem, as was cited in Dr. Helen's article, is misandry."
____________
I agree with you. I think skewed stats are a result of misandry, and are used (effectively, I might add) to encourage misandry while hiding its existence.
I enjoy your comments. I consider better informed than most, but you are a rare such person that when what you say may differ from what I think, then I definitely question my views. (In other words, I have great respect for your knowledge and depth of analysis.)
Best,
Trust
P.S. Every time I type misandry and it is flagged as a misspelled word, I get angry. If misogyny was flagged while misandry wasn't, there would be lawsuits.
Men are larger and more violent. Tag 'em and then shoot them dead when they inevitably display the usual propensity to show the bitch who wears the pants.
The one situation where I have no sympathy for battered women is when they display a preference for violent men...as long as they're beating someone else. I seem to remember Rihanna telling Diane Sawyer that she preferred violent men and didn't find non-violent men attractive. If that's really how she feels, then she got a little taste of what she deserves from real man Chris Brown.
Guys, "the only way to win is not to play". Period. End of story.
If you are going to be around women on any basis (personal, professional, whatever) make sure you have 24/7/365 surveillance under your control.
Or accept that the sucker in the game is you.
"The one situation where I have no sympathy for battered women is when they display a preference for violent men...as long as they're beating someone else."
It sounds callous, but while no one should beat anybody, when I hear about women going back to the beater again and again, or going from violent man to violent man, I can only conclude that Darwinism is at work. We tell men not to be slaves to their penises, but the opposite - don't just go for the buff, dominant guy who turns you on - is never really emphasized for women. Get a clue, sister.
Of course, the other possibility for these cases is it's a mutual combat situation and we're only hearing about one side, in which case I also don't have a lot of sympathy. This describes the Rihanna situation, where she demonstrated controlling behavior after Brown's manager sent him a flirty text message, and Rihanna beat him with a high-heeled shoe before he responded in kind.
Martin sez: "Anyone who sees the need to defend violence against women by the "family law system" is truly pathetic.
Also, the only statistic that matter is that women make up 64.5% of all victims murdered by an intimate partner. That is a woman is roughly twice as likely to be murdered by an intimate partner as a man. No need to look at any other statistic."
-------
When a child is killed by a biological parent, the mother is the killer in the majority of cases.
Is that the only figure you are going to look at when deciding to take away the rights of women? Somehow I don't think so.
You are a woman-firster, Martin, regardless of whether you are a man or a woman (you never know on the Internet). You are just grasping for straws - and depending on the chivalry of men - to squeeze out anything you can for women.
@ trust
I appreciate the kind words, as well as your needed efforts to address the misandy that is blazing through the comment section here and throughout the blogosphere.
Please keep up the fine work. I truly believe the lives of children depend on it.
@ JG
"When a child is killed by a biological parent, the mother is the killer in the majority of cases.
Is that the only figure you are going to look at when deciding to take away the rights of women? Somehow I don't think so."
I don't think so either. But I look forward to whether Martin is capable of offering an answer to that question that is anywhere near intellectually honest.
"This sentence makes absolutely no sense, statistically speaking."
Martin challenged my view that with a 2:1 ratio of female victims of partner-murder to male victims,
a male victim was not an outlier. I asserted that his claim that we only need to worry about women getting killed by partners is ridiculous.
Let me put it this way: if the ratio was 19:1 (95%), a man being killed by a partner would be considered an outlier, statistically rare. Women being killed would really be the only problem we worried about, from a social program perspective. But when one man is killed by a partner for every two women, we need to address both genders.
It's like population percentages - hispanic people are in the minority in this country. They are not rare or anomalous, and they are large enough to be noticed on a daily basis. An hispanic person on the street is not an outlier. Nor is a male victim of partner murder on the rap sheet.
and this isn't even for just spouses/ex-spouses, it's for HUSBANDS.
so they can't live in the house anymore, HELLO. He loses everything.
so the above comment that ex-husbands, husbands are less likely to kill whereas boyfriends/ex boyfriends are, is irrelevant
and once again, no evidence is required
we have to thank our misandric T.V. crime shows with its endless portrayal of demon male killers and abusers of women. Such imagery makes lots of $$$ and people watch this crap thinking there's an epidemic of male-only violence on women.
meanwhile, the men who are killed by women and have no justice served, or the children and babies who are killed by women are not portrayed in the T.V. and if they are, are rationalized
crime shows are feminist social engineering programs designed to demonize men and ennoble women. Nowhere do they really reflect real male and female crime rates with respect to domestic violence or child/baby killing
Post a Comment
<< Home