“Men Are Strong” and “Women Are Weak”

Tennessee Republican Congressman John Duncan explains why he doesn’t think his opposition to the Violence Against Women Act is a bad thing:

“Every bill is given a motherhood-and-apple-pie title,” Duncan said outside the House chamber. “But if you voted [based] on the title, you’d vote for every bill up here. If we’d all done that, the country would have crashed a long time ago.

“So this is another bill with a motherhood-and-apple-pie title,” he added.

Passed in 1994 and renewed twice without controversy, the Violence Against Women Act reauthorizes funding for pro bono legal assistance and training programs to help victims of violent sex crimes, stalking and other forms of dating and domestic abuse. Despite the bill’s title, the benefits apply to female and male victims.

“Like most men, I’m more opposed to violence against women than even violence against men,” [Tennessee Congressman] Duncan said [explaining why he is voting against the bill]. “Because most men can handle it a little better than a lot of women can.”

In other words, the VAWA also helps male victims of domestic violence, and Duncan thinks that a bad thing and that it justifies his reticence to support the bill. Why? Because men are tough and manly, so male victims of domestic violence should just deal. (Read Melissa McEwan’s response here.)

On a similar note, Vision Forum’s Wesley Strackbein is outraged by the U.S. military’s recent decision to allow women in combat:

While all life is precious in God’s sight, we have erred in concluding that the death of G.I. Jane in combat is no more terrible than the death of G.I. Joe. Women should not be placed in harm’s way to defend our nation, and rather than celebrate what should be mourned, we should cry out to God to humble our hearts in repentance.

Only then will the scales be lifted from our eyes and our hearts be made tender to protect the weaker sex.

And people think it’s we feminists who don’t care about men.

Patriarchy is a vile, vile thing.

Steve Is a Man: On Minecraft and Gender
What the Ruff, the Spotted Hyena, and the Cuttlefish Taught Me about Gender and Sexuality
What Courtship Was for Me
When Marriage Looks Like the Only Escape
About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • http://musings.northerngrove.com/ Jarred H

    Yep, that was my reaction to Duncan’s comments, as well. That and to make a snarky Facebook update wondering when we can expect certain “defenders of men” to swarm Duncan with the same outrage they poor out on their so-called “feminist oppressors” on a regular basis.

  • http://www.facebook.com/marta.layton.5 Marta Layton

    It amazes me that he lacks the empathy to see this is bad for him. If his wife came after him with a baseball bat, would he really be okay with the law not protecting him?

    The DV shelter where I occasionally (entirely too rarely…) volunteers with is one of the few that gives shelter to dads with kids, because they recognize DV isn’t gender specific. It’s rare, but it happens and it’s every bit as hellish for a man to be abused as it is for a woman.

    • http://ramblingsofsheldon.blogspot.com Sheldon

      “The DV shelter where I occasionally (entirely too rarely…) volunteers with is one of the few that gives shelter to dads with kids, because they recognize DV isn’t gender specific. ”

      Good. That’s progress. :)

    • Bobby

      It really is not that rare at all. Study after study has shown that women attacking men is as common as men attacking women.

      According to a 1998 US DoJ report, every year in the United States of America, 834,732 men are victims of physical violence by an intimate. That means that every 37.8 seconds in America a man is battered. Of the 834,732 men who are battered, 90,241 men will be knifed, 180,483 threatened by a knife, 360,965 hit with an object, 67,681 beaten up and 620,049 slapped or hit. And those numbers were revealed in a survey conducted about violence – against women.
      You will never hear these statistics on the Dr. Phil show. In fact, they can be difficult to find anywhere because they are ignored under pressure by feminist groups. In fact, a report released on Jan 18, 2011 by SAVE (Stop Abusive and Violent Environments) shows us that 90% of federally funded domestic violence education programs lack accuracy. At most only one in ten domestic violence training, education, and public awareness materials are accurate.

      Stop women’s violence

      When will the domestic violence industry recognize women who batter men? According to the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services and Bureau of Justice statistics, more kids are killed by neglect and abuse in a year (1,460 in 2005), than all the female intimate partner homicides in a year (1,181 in 2005).

      Mothers are the single largest group of kid killers. They have a rate twice that of fathers, yet the taxpayer funded (gender feminist run) domestic violence industry would have us believe that women don’t egregiously batter men too. They’re lying!

      As shown by HHS statistics, the age range for child homicides is about ten times narrower than that for female intimate partner homicides, making that rate of child homicide far more concentrated. Yet funding to prevent those child homicides is minimal compared to the billions that go to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

      Vice President Biden has called the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) “his baby,” but Biden should be ashamed, not proud, of his misandric piece of gender feminist, legislation, which excuses and rewards women’s domestic violence against men, thereby fueling more domestic violence against men by women.

      Credible research overwhelmingly shows that the ratio of domestic violence is at least 50/50 between women & men. According to one study by researchers who work at the CDC, in 70 percent of domestic violence incidents, where the domestic violence is not mutual, it’s women who initiate the domestic violence.

      V.P. Biden recently called violence against women, “the very worst abuse.” The very worst abuse is valuing one life less than another for having been born the wrong sex, or the wrong age. Under Biden’s Violence Against Women Act the wrong sex is men and the wrong age group is children. Shelter and services are virtually non-existent for male victims of domestic violence (as well as men and their children) so options out of a bad relationship, that are routinely available to women, are very often not available to men. Men wind up gender profiled and often falsely accused by the taxpayer funded, domestic violence industry, because of gender feminist ideology controlling the domestic violence industry. Men are often battered by domestic violence, then battered again by the taxpayer funded, domestic violence industry.

      The taxpayer funded domestic violence industry has largely mischaracterized the true nature of domestic violence from the beginning of VAWA and continues to mislead the public. Domestic violence law, following the gender feminist agenda (ideology) over facts in evidence, does great harm to many innocent men and children, (also many battering women who need help).

      The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. ~ Richard Gelles

      I’ll start with some research that most would feel was from a reputable source. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA. This is the summary of their findings as published in the American Journal of Public Health, May 2007.

      First, almost 24% of all relationships had some level of violence. Half of those relationships involved just one of the partners being violent. The other half were reciprocally violent. Now, in relationships where violence was perpetrated by just one person, over 70% of that was committed by the woman.

      Did you get that? In all relationships in that particular study, more than 7 out of 10 batterers were female. Let’s look even closer at the data as it relates to relationships where both partners are violent. This half is even more interesting than the first half. The study concluded that reciprocally violent relationships were most likely to result in injuries, particularly to women. They were also a solid predictor of future, repeated violence for women, but not men. In other words, women who engaged in mutual combat with men were much more likely to have a pattern of instigating repeated assaults. Men’s violence was much more likely to be isolated, and, contrary to the repeated assertions of feminists, not likely to be repeated.

      Now let me sum up those conclusions in a clearer form of English. Relationships where both are violent are more likely to result in the woman getting hurt. Those relationships are also marked by women who are much more likely than men to initiate and maintain that violence in the first place.

      We have common expression for much of the men’s violence in these situations. It’s called hitting back.

      Professor John Archer is a psychologist at The University of Central Lancashire and the esteemed head of the Aggression Research Group at the same university. In his analysis of 100 British and American studies he concludes that women are more likely than men to initiate violence in their relationships and are more likely to be aggressive more frequently. He also addresses the myth that women are only violent as a matter of self defense by reporting that 29% of female college students admitted to physically attacking their boyfriends when no threat was perceived.

      I know feminists won‘t be convinced by this, nor will they by several hundred more studies, but let’s look at them anyway. Professor Martin S. Fiebert of the California State University Psychology Department conducted an analysis of 249 scholarly investigations, 194 empirical studies and 55 reviews regarding domestic violence. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies numbers over 241,700 people.

      Fiebert’s conclusion? Women are as physically aggressive or more physically aggressive in relationships than men.

      And if you think that the incidence of female on male violence is mitigated by women suffering more injuries at the hands of men, think again.

      There are widely conflicting studies on this. Some of them place women at greater risk, but many of them place men. If we examine Fiebert’s annotated bibliography which covers an exhaustive amount of studies, there are many times more studies cited that show women more likely to inflict serious harm, including with the use of weapons, than are men.

      Are there other studies that contradict this? Absolutely. But there is a significant enough body of evidence to make three things patently clear.
      Domestic violence is not a product of gender. Attributing it to one gender over the other is not only misleading, it actually hinders efforts to address the problem.
      Society is wildly misinformed about the nature, origins and realities of domestic violence.
      Most of our legal and political handling of domestic violence is based on the myths and not the realities, leaving us to put all of our resources into half of the problem.

      Now, many people of sound mind might well say, “Fine, let’s just focus our attention on dealing with abusers and the abused, regardless of the sex.” But to say things are not that simple is a monumental understatement. Richard Gelles is currently a dean at the University of Pennsylvania and holds The Joanne and Raymond Welsh Chair of Child Welfare and Family Violence in the School of Social Policy & Practice. He is an internationally known expert in domestic violence, and was influential in the passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997.

      Gelles wrote, regarding his work with Suzanne Steinmetz and Murray Strauss, “The response to our finding that the rate of female-to-male violence was equal to the rate of male-to-female violence not only produced heated scholarly criticism, but intense and long lasting personal attacks. All three of us received death threats. Bomb threats were phoned in to conference centers and buildings where we were scheduled to present.”

      Now is it me, or is making terroristic threats of bombing and murder a rather ironic way to protest being called violent?
      Returning to the evidence, though, it would be easy to make an argument that domestic violence is more a female than a male problem. There are, after all, numerous studies that support that conclusion. But that would be as pointless as the current paradigm, and might result in my car blowing up the next time I start it.

      So for those of you screaming for me to quit picking on women and take gender out of the equation, that is precisely what I am doing. And what I am asking you to do, once and for all. If you really believe that all violence is bad and shouldn’t be tolerated, then here is what you can do to prove it.

      Write Vice President Biden and tell him to seek an end to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), the legislation he authored that allocates billions to women victims but leaves men totally out of the picture. Men are, after all, injured by domestic violence, too. 835,000 per year in America alone.
      Hold shelters and social services to account when they have no real programs designed for men. Their failure to do this is institutionalized sexism and needs to go.
      Confront police and prosecutors for their actions. Men who call for police help when attacked by their partners are more likely than not to be the one arrested, regardless of the circumstances. Victims should be helped, not arrested, incarcerated and stigmatized.
      Be sure to express your objections to and boycott the media outlets and corporations like Pepsi and Fedex that use men getting abused as a sight gag in their advertising.
      When you see or hear a public service announcement that says something like “A woman is abused in her home every 15 seconds,” realize that is is a actually a public deception, a convoluted half-truth, based in blind bigotry and callous indifference to the victimization of men.

      If you follow the links, the articles themselves link to the sources where the authors got their information. I realise that linking to a men’s rights website on a feminist’s blog is asking for trouble, but before anyone attacks me, at least look at the information. The problem won’t be addressed until people admit that it is a problem

      P.S. I really do enjoy reading your blog Libby Anne. I wish you good health and the best of luck.

      • Bobby

        Oh, and just to preempt any ad hominem’ attacks, I do not hate women, and I think that all domestic violence is wrong. But portraying DV as solely men against women is misleading, and shameful.

        Also, I fully support a woman’s reproductive rights, but think about this. A man and a woman have sex. The woman gets pregnant, and she doesn’t want it, so she gets an abortion. The man however, wanted to keep the whatever-you-wanna-call-it and raise it. In this country, as in most. probably all, countries where abortion is legal, he has no legal recourse. He can’t stop her, as it’s her body. Though this is sad, and likely will leave the potential father heartbroken, no one should be forced to go through pregnancy. I agree with this position.

        Next, she gets pregnant and they both want it. No problems here, both come away happy, though statistics show that, if they are married and get a divorce, or they were never married and they break up, he has a very low chance of remaining so for the next 18 years.

        Finally, a woman gets pregnant and wants to keep the baby. Meanwhile, the man doesn’t. Maybe he was upfront about it at the beginning of whatever kind of relationship the two have, maybe it came out where she dropped the nuke in his lap, facts are, he doesn’t want the whatever-you-wanna-call-it Could be that he’s a jerk who’s afraid of responsibility, that it was a one night thing and doesn’t want to be involved in a relationship with the woman, or he simply couldn’t afford to take care of a child. But again, he has no choice. If she so chooses, she can take him to court and get an order that he must furnish her with money to support the child until it comes of age, sometimes even longer.

        For the next 18 years, this man is a slave. Yes, a slave. The fruits of his labor no longer belong to him, but to the state and to the child’s mother, because there is no guarantee that the mother is going to spend the money on the child. Not to mention alimony and all the other things that come along with getting divorced, if that happens to be the case. Fun fact, this happens a lot, even though majority of divorces are no fault divorces, and 70-90 percent are instigated by women. If there is no misconduct, how does he get screwed? Often the man will lose the house, and his kids, because courts almost always award physical custody to mother’s and rarely enforce visitation rights.

        But, I digress. The man will lose his financial autonomy, over something he had no say in. No one can say that he should have just kept it in his pants. I mean, if you tell a woman that, them’s fighting words, and, since I’m operating under the assumption that men and women have equal rights.

        I fail to see the equal rights in this responsibility. To have an right, one must have a corresponding obligation, and vice versa. In two of the three scenarios I listed, the man has no rights, but all the responsibility. Something has to be done. I propose that should the woman continue on with the pregnancy when he doesn’t want the child, he should have the right to give up all parental rights and responsibilities. This would not give the man the right to say, “Sorry hon, I’m just going to sign this little slip and leave you and junior to the system.”

        To give up rights. there should be a grace period of one year after the man finds out the woman is pregnant, or that a woman has a child that is his, wherein the man can sign away all rights, responsibilities. I say, “or finds out that a woman has a child that is his,” because women don’t always tell the man right away that she’s pregnant. There are reported cases where women steal used condoms and use the semen to inseminate themselves.

        On a similar note, should a paternity test determine that the man in question is not the biological father, and should said man wish to relinquish all parental rights and obligations, he should be allowed to do so, no matter the child’s age. Also, should such a situation occur, and it does, the woman should be forced to reimburse the man for every penny spent on a child that was not his. Courts should not enable fraud.

        I will say this again to drive the point home. I do not hate women. I do believe that women have gained many rights due to feminism, some of which men do not have, at least in certain situations. Meanwhile, I fail to see the corresponding responsibilities being applied to the self-same group of people. For example, giving men the vote was the result of people in power thinking that you can’t expect men to die for a country in which they had no say. In every war until after Viet Nam, men were forcibly drafted, with the understanding that they could go to prison if they refused. At least, after 1917 that is. That was the last year where men were executed for being draft dodgers. The Supreme Court has even ruled that the right to vote invokes in a man the responsibility to fight for his country if called. Now that the draft is over, we have the Selective Service, where all men, ages 18-25, have to register. This basically means that should the draft ever have to be started again, they already have our number. Meanwhile, no woman is required to do so.

        You can say that, oh, oh, but women are part of the military too, AND, in combat roles too. That’s not the point. The point is that they won’t be forced to fight. While on the subject, I am fine with women in the military in combat roles. Provided of course that they don’t dumb down the physical standards the way they do. The way things are now, 18-22 females don’t even have to perform as well as a 45 year old man. A clear case of gender-based discrimination. This of course begs the point. If women can do so little and still serve, why do they require men to do twice as much, when they should be able to do just find if they can do as much as the women.
        This physical requirements thing doesn’t just happen in the military. The police, fire rescue squads, all sorts of jobs do the same thing.

        The point is, that women and men aren’t equal. The truth is, the odds are stacked way in the favor of women in our society. This needs to be corrected, and fast. I do not say that there is a conspiracy of people out there saying, “Fuck the menz, fuck the menz,” but our society has taken the lie that women in American society are somehow oppressed as truth, and because of that, for the last 40-50 years, men have been becoming gradually more marginalized and disenfranchised.

        I thank you all for your time. Those of you who actually read this off course. To those of you who enjoyed the style of my font, I welcome debate, and I hope that we can do so without any personal attacks of irrational comments. I especially welcome feminists to say what they will. Now, I have things to do in the morning, so I will check back later. Talk to you later.


      • http://www.facebook.com/lucrezaborgia Lucreza Borgia

        No one forced the man to have sex. Also, being the custodial parent is more expensive than just paying CS.

      • Bobby

        You’re right, no one forced the man to have sex, though in some instances this does happen. Like I said, sometimes a woman will save a used condom and inseminate herself. A lot of women who have affairs and get pregnant lie to the man they’re married to in order to get him to raise the child, almost always in fact. It’s estimated that as many as one in ten to one in three men may not be the biological father of the child they consider theirs. But that’s not the point.

        Judging by your pseudonym, I assume that you are a woman. How would you feel if you got pregnant and didn’t want the child, then, when you tried to get an abortion, you were told that since no one forced you to have sex, you needed to give birth and raise this child? You would rightfully scream that they were violating your rights by forcing you to In the scenarios above where the woman has the child, she chose to do so, she had the legal right to do so. Why is the woman allowed to choose whether or not she wants a kid, but the man isn’t? This is a case where women have rights that men do not, and, in this case, it completely alters the course of his life. Meanwhile, he only has as much say in the matter as the woman let’s him have. This is not right, this is not fair.

      • Malitia

        Most of your wall of text is “patriarchy hurts men too” so I don’t know what you want with it on a feminist blog as feminism IS against patriarchy. (Like the shaming of men more of being victims of domestic violence comes directly from the patriarchal gender norms.)

        But your reply to Lucreza Borgia entered the realm of delusional, while I admit that her reaction wasn’t the most well thought out.

        Only stupid (and patriarchal) women try to catch men with their pregnancy* or try to smuggle their illegitimate children in a marriage**.

        I think it isn’t the fairest to force CS on “fathers” it’s also highly faulty to equate it to 9 months of pregnancy, labor and all it’s health, monetary and societal consequences (also mothers need to pay CS too if the father gets custody). You’re basically found the only right (“I want this child or don’t”) the women have that men don’t, which was fought out and is still fought for by feminism, and quite frankly compared to all the societal privileges men still have is trivial in comparison. I’m actually for mens rights but currently the womens and other human rights issues out-weight it by miles also many mens rights issues will be solved by more gender equality (like the DV one I mentioned earlier).

        * Because thanks to feminism and general societal progress this works less and less. The worst thing she can force on the guy is paying child support, which, because as Lucreza Borgia pointed out
        “being the custodial parent is more expensive than just paying CS” is screwing herself over even more.
        ** Because thanks to science we have paternity tests with 99% accuracy nowadays to settle such disputes.

      • Bobby

        Most of my post is about how feminism, not patriarchy, hurts men. Historically, patriarchy doesn’t make much sense. You’d think that if that were true, it would be the women who were out doing the dangerous jobs and getting killed on the battlefield while the men stayed home, safe with his kids. If there really was bias towards males, you’d think that those in power would be able to convince the women that it was their duty to go out day after day to risk their lives for their families. If they got people to believe in Jesus, I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t be hard to reassign the dangerous gender obligations to the discriminated against sex.

        The social contract was set that men would take care of women, and, in return, she would take care of their home and kids. This is because of the fact that women are valuable for the fact that they’re women. The prime biological dictate is to multiply, and without women, this is not possible. But since women have relatively long gestational periods and, as they age, their bodies lose the capability to reproduce at a rate much faster than men, a lot of women are needed to keep the species going.
        Men, meanwhile, are for the most part, disposable. After all, one man could, if needed, play the part of many. So a man had to show that he could take care of a woman if they married, he had to produce his worth. In other words, women are valuable because they ARE, men because of what they can do for the woman

        Thus, the men got the dangerous bit, women got the mostly boring bit. I mean, you’re going to keep the most valuable thing in your life as safe as possible, and your home is theoretically the safest place you could be. Honestly, I’d rather be stuck at home with a screaming three year old banging on pots and pans than out on a battlefield getting torn to pieces, but then, I’m not very suicidal.

        The problem is that feminism has altered the woman’s part in the contract, but men’s part has stayed the same. Men are still disposable, but women have retained their value, while at the same time getting all of the rights that men have. Although, some of those rights, look an awful lot like obligations.

        Feminism has taught women to feel a sense of entitlement, that the way everything is done should change just because women have entered the picture. It has taught them to take the rights granted to them, but very little of the obligations behind them. It has taught them that the rights and wants of women overrule the rights and wants of men, by virtue of the fact that they are women, and such lunacy is even enforced by the legal system of this country.

        For example, here is a woman complaining that the company she decided to work for doesn’t do enough to cater to women.
        The second page is where it really gets good. I want to know how it takes a whole damn week to move and get settled in. I’ve moved fifteen times in my life and it never took a week to settle in.

        Next, if you wish to respond to my comments above, please click the link and watch the video or read the transcript. She explains the subject so much better than I.
        http:// http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminism-and-the-disposable-male/

        Here’s an article about privileges: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/letter-to-a-young-man-privilege-blindness/

        Three about male reproductive rights: http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/legally-obscene-iii/

        And the last just speaks for itself: http://www.singularity2050.com/2010/01/the-misandry-bubble.html

        It shouldn’t take more than five to ten minutes per article, except for the one about the Misandry Bubble.

        To be honest, as a guy, I’ve never felt privileged over women. In fact, I’ve always felt like girls had it better than me. And the thing is, a lot of men agree with me, especially the young ones. Many young men say that there’s no logical reason to get married, because they have such a high chance of getting screwed.

        Exactly what societal privileges are you referring to. I hope one of them is not the pay gap, as that particular canard has been thoroughly debunked. Women have so much power over men in the legal system that it’d be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. Police treat men who are accused of rape as guilty until proven innocent. Women can financially ruin a man by seeking alimony and child support. Child support I can understand, but not alimony in cases where the divorce was no fault. If it isn’t the guy’s fault that they got divorced, why should he help her when she decides to leave him. She wants his money but not him. Kind of greedy if you ask me. But then children are almost always taken from their father because the mother requests custody, and he only gets to see them when she says due to the rare enforcement of visitation orders, but they have no problem calling a man who can’t pay a deadbeat dad and refusing to let him see his kids. Women are allowed to default on child support with little to no consequence, while men are sent to prison. I could go on, but I’m running out of time before I have to be somewhere, so I’ll try to wrap it up quick.

        Forcing a man to support a child he did not and does not want is economic slavery. He can go to prison for not paying, despite the fact that imprisoning someone for unpaid debt is illegal. It lasts for many years, and often single fathers will end up homeless at one point or another.

        Frankly, the only single moms who engender my sympathy are those who left their husbands/boyfriends/girlfriends/wives due to abusive behavior. Same goes if you’re a man who filed. If you chose to leave him/her when (s)he wasn’t mistreating you, then you no longer have any right to his/her money. Your children do. So, instead of taking him to court for child support, call and tell him what the kids need, and let him buy it.

        If you think that a man shouldn’t be able to give up parental obligations and responsibilities, like women can do by just dropping the kid off at the ER or fire department, or giving it up for adoption, and in many places they aren’t required to tell the father that they are giving it up for adoption, how can you claim to be for gender equality?

        Maybe the argument should be like in a couple of the articles I’ve read. Women have full control over their bodies and their byproducts, men do too. Women have the right to abort, men have the right to say that their sperm cannot be used for reproduction. Fair’s fair.

        Since everyone is supposedly equal under the law, no one’s rights outweighs another’s.

        Men offer a variety of reasons for not testing. Fear that their SO has cheated on them and the unwillingness to uncover the deception. It was not made known to them that they could do so. Fear of ruining their relationship by openly showing doubt of their SO’s fidelity. Education level too low to understand. Prohibitive cost. There are others too.

        Throughout history, the number one source of security for a woman was to have a child in wedlock. This almost guaranteed that the father would stick around. Due to the lessening of social stigma in the case of out of wedlock births, it is now easy to gain some form of security through having a child, because if child support and enough, a lot of single mothers receive welfare. If you think that women aren’t willing to trick men into having children, you are deceiving yourself.

        I am out of time. I thank you for taking the time to respond, and I will be checking back later just to see if you respond.

  • http://gamesgirlsgods.blogspot.com/ M

    *Blink* If men can handle violence better than women, shouldn’t Duncan be all about the law to prevent men from being violent against women?

    I mean, ignore all the other misogynist aspects of his statements for a second. If your goal is to protect the precious wimminz, shouldn’t you act like it and vote for the laws that do that? Or is it only bad for women to be killed by strangers, but if they’re killed by their husbands/boyfriends it’s fine because that bitch should’ve just made him a sammich? The cognitive dissonance required for the same person to make both statements is astounding.

  • http://republic-of-gilead.blogspot.com Ahab

    Men can handle violence better than women!? He’s just invalidated the experiences of male survivors of domestic violence and sexual abuse. He’s just invalidated the experiences of men who have been psychologically traumatized from war and violent crime. Ugh!

    Does Duncan understand that VAWA funds services for victims of both sexes?

    :: facepalm ::

  • Karen

    This makes my eyes twitch. I have two sons; should I be okay with them being victims of violence because they have Y chromosomes?

  • Red

    So all of life is precious in God’s sight, but some life in combat is more precious-er than others.

    No, back up even further. All of life is precious in God’s sight, and men join the military to kill other men.


  • ki sarita

    indeed, in popular culture there is little tolerance for a man acknowledge being abused, and yet people blame feminists.
    I will never watch Judge Lynn again (s she still on TV?) because I saw her berate and rule against a man in a divorce-housing case, for admitting to extramarital affairs, while the ex wife admitted to things like chasing him with a hot iron. I don’t care what else that woman has done in her life, I do not consider a feminist or domestic violence expert as she was described by the producers.

  • Edward Gemmer

    An old divorce attorney told me that when lovers fight, women are more likely to fight with their words and men are more likely to fight with their fists.

    Don’t know if that is true, but it certainly does feel a little right. There is some evidence that domestic violence can fall into two patterns. One is where a man uses violence to control and hold hostage his partner. Two, where people fight (as all couples tend to fight) but where lower levels of violence are used. So, not using violence has been a goal, that I think has been effective, but it is still hard to get around the fact that being physically capable is a strong sign of attraction and status.

  • Kiley Little

    DUDE,Im am actually a guy and this kind of pisses me off.yeah,i dont like weak women.I like strong women.I think women should be strong.