‘We’re here to stay. We’re here to stay. We’re here to stay’

YouTube Preview Image

“It’s offensive to me as a Christian, as a woman, and as someone with a brain.”

“Years of irrefutable scientific evidence go down the drain, when we right-wing Catholics (or evangelicals, like the ones running Hobby Lobby and Mardel) need to prove that women are primarily baby machines.”

“Father Piero Corsi of Liguria said in a Christmas bulletin that the rise in domestic violence in Italy was caused by women serving cold food, not looking after their children, not cleaning their home, acting arrogant, and dressing provocatively.”

“I’ve noticed that people’s interest in discussing or accounting for privilege may be inversely proportional to the amount they possess. Which can be sort of a problem.”

“Women are empowered in the religious wing of conservative thought –” which seems to be more than religious progressives are doing.”

“Proponents of the [Violence Against Women Act] hope to revive the law in the new Congress, starting from scratch, but in the meantime, there will be far fewer resources available for state and local governments to combat domestic violence.”

“No matter how broad the bipartisan support, no matter who gets hurt in the process, the politics of the right wing of their party always comes first.”

“The primary stated rationale for the House GOP’s opposition to a Senate-passed version of the VAWA (as opposed to less seemly, muted rationales involving a general hostility to feminism in any form) was an objection to the extension of rights to people in LGBT couples — who presumably deserve whatever they get after defying God’€™s Law –€” undocumented folk, and Native Americans.”

“The modesty doctrine revolves around the assumption that a man has a right to sex with every woman he finds attractive.”

I can’t put a lot of faith in your good faith.”

“So here I am, days away from my son’s sixth birthday, thinking about how we need to teach our boys not to rape, instead of cautioning our daughters on how not to get raped.”

“This was a medical service that is advantageous for both women and babies, so we thought it should be seriously considered.”

“Last month a woman whose baby had died en utero was coming to the clinic to have it removed. In an awful coincidence, that was the day, Watters said, when the pro-life demonstrators collected a children’s choir on the sidewalk to sing ‘Happy Birthday Dead Baby’ to anyone driving in.”

“I have found the misunderstanding about late-term abortion to be widespread even among many of those in the public health advocacy community.”

“Developments in women’s health care were disseminated via a national game of political telephone, with information about our menstrual cycles, contraceptive options, and pregnancies filtered through the fuzzy interpretation of conservative talk show hosts, religious officials, and candidates for public office.”

“Medical and other experts say some dispense scientifically flawed information, exaggerating abortion’s risks.”

“My real problem, here, is that harmful books like these are still popular in Christian circles.”

“If you’re screening partners for how good they are at modeling future behavior, date statisticians. If you’re looking for someone who cares more about serving you than about showing off their precision of their model of you, date someone who isn’t ashamed to ask about your preferences.”

 

  • Water_Bear

    I’d say I can’t believe that the House didn’t pass VAWA, but that’s not true. But I wish I didn’t believe it, and even more so that I didn’t have to. What a disgrace.

  • EllieMurasaki

    “Last month a woman whose baby had died en utero was coming to the
    clinic to have it removed. In an awful coincidence, that was the day,
    Watters said, when the pro-life demonstrators collected a children’s choir on the sidewalk to sing ‘Happy Birthday Dead Baby’ to anyone driving in.”

    Oh fuck, that poor woman.  That had to be about as much fun as a gut shot, just getting from the road to the surgery room.

  • Lori

    The truth is that young women are empowered in the Religious Right.

    Yes, they are. For certain, very specific, very disempowering, values of “empowered.”

    Jesus wept.

    I’m sure there is a need for better efforts to nurture the political perspective, skills and aspirations of young progressive Christian women. There’s certainly a need to do a better job nurturing every other group of progressive women, so why should Christians be left out? Buying into the utter bullshit that the Religious Right empowers young women is not a good starting point for that effort.

    The Religious Right doesn’t empower women, young or otherwise. It permits a small group of quislings to buy a seat at the table by carrying water for misogynists and sells the rest on the lie that those mean, ugly old feminists want to keep them from shaving their armpits and being stay at home moms. If Ms Merritt would like to see more progressive Christian women become politically active I suspect she’s going to need to start by grasping the implications of that particular reality.

  • hidden_urchin

    Some of these stories make me feel like I am entirely unwelcome in the U.S. because of my sex. They make me think that maybe after I graduate I will take my engineering degree and accompanying skills elsewhere.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    “I’ve noticed that people’s interest in discussing or accounting for privilege may be inversely proportional to the amount they possess. Which can be sort of a problem.”

    It is very frustrating to realize that a person who refuses to understand the invisible advantages they have probably depends on that lack of understanding to rationalize the way society smooths the path for them.

    “I have found the misunderstanding about late-term abortion to be widespread even among many of those in the public health advocacy community.”

    There is no misunderstanding when one takes the position that abortion up to the moment of childbirth must be permitted in order that a woman’s life be saved if her pregnancy should endanger her.

  • stardreamer42

    Boy, there are some horribly creepy guys (and yes, they do all seem to be guys) in the comments on that last link. I hope none of them have daughters. 

  • http://readingseisho.wordpress.com/ friendly reader

    I’m debating whether to post this on my FB on Tuesday (the anniversary of Roe v Wade) or whether that would just cause drama, but I know I can say it hear without people getting mad:

    Luther reinterpreted the idea of “vocation” (religious calling) to mean more than the narrow range of priest-monk-nun that was available at his time. He argued that any job, done with Christian love and compassion, could be a divine calling, a service to God.

    And it didn’t matter what the job was, how much it made society despise you, how much you might wish, in a perfect world, that it didn’t have to be performed. The example Luther always used was a hangman: “If you village needs a hangman, and you can be a hangman, be a hangman.”

    From every interview I’ve seen with him, and every story I’ve heard of him, George Tiller (who was Lutheran, and murdered in his church during a service) had reinterpreted that to its modern analogy: if your state needs someone to perform late term abortions and you can perform late term abortions, perform late term abortions. And if you do it with Christian love and compassion, then that’s a calling from God.*

    My parents were only a few hours away at the Central Synod Assembly when
    he was murdered, and it brought it all horrifyingly close. His death is what made me go from being grudgingly pro-choice to very pro-choice, because it made me wake up and hear what people were saying about women, about doctors, and in the case of Tiller a fellow brother in Christ.


    *I know some people may not like the analogy of hangman to abortion service provider, and I agree that society is better off without capital punishment – though our prison system isn’t always better than a swift neck-snapping. But I think it’s also the case that we’d be better off without abortion – that is, in a world where every pregnancy was planned, wanted, and healthy to term. Let’s work towards that too, but let women make the tough decisions without bureaucrats and protestors giving them hell.

  • http://jamoche.dreamwidth.org/ Jamoche

    I’ve noticed, in office environments at least, that the word “empowerment” tends to be thrown around in cases where you really don’t have any power at all. “You’re empowered to make decision X about your job” where X is something that you get to take for granted at better jobs, and what they really mean is you might get to do it if you ask for permission first – but hey, we let you ask!

    It’s like it’s a magic buzzword – they get points for using the word even if it doesn’t actually apply.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    If you’re screening partners for how good they are at modeling future behavior, date statisticians.

    This isn’t really fair to statisticians. My statistics professor was actually a really awesome guy. He emphasized what statistics are and what they aren’t, and he had us read some excellent statistics articles that taught us a lot more than statistics. For instance: men married to feminist women report much higher levels of satisfaction in their sex lives in marriage than men married to not-feminist women. Which, duh. But it was nice to see it mapped out like that. He’s married to a women’s studies professor, and I have a feeling they have a great sex life.

    I also have to call out this: I thought it would be a good time to call out one similarly destructive secular and sex-positive model

    Sex-positive means something very specific. It does not mean “yay sex let’s all have sex sex is good all the time wheee”. At all. Sex-positive activists talk a lot about how harmful the traditional crappy rom-com model is.

    Also, while media can tell us some things, using stories as guidelines for sexual behavior, or expecting them to be guidelines for sexual behavior, is silly. Stories are stories, not handbooks. They’re usually more interested in either how hot things look from the outside, or in character development. Every character is not going to suddenly become a perfect model of the bestest clearest sexual behavior and speech ever. When they’re the only models of sexual behavior, and kids aren’t given good, thorough sex educations, then there’s a problem. But we are capable of telling the difference between fantasy and reality.

    the BDSM community [has] shown it’s possible to have community norms of talking to your partner and then having sex

    What? Unless you’re gagged, why would talking stop with starting sex? That’s ridiculous and completely unhealthy. (And also, what? Who has sex in silence?) Consent is not a switch. It is an ongoing process. AND I always talked with my partners before and during and after sex, about sex, before I was into BDSM. 

    Anyway, I think my high school must have had a really excellent sex ed program, comparatively speaking. Because it emphasized the necessity of being clear about what you want and don’t want, and about talking talking TALKING.

  • Kiba

    A comment from the last link: “You should both understand your body does not belong only to you but to your spouse as well.”

    Maybe this is why I’m still single but, no. My body belongs to me and no one else whether I’m married or not. Sharing my life with someone, having sex with someone, does not mean that my body no longer belongs to me. I don’t suddenly become a time-share. We can discuss things like health issues, body modification, what have you but just because I’m maybe willing to discuss things with you does not mean that you in anyway own/share my body.  

    Father Piero Corsi of Liguria said in a Christmas bulletin that the rise in domestic violence in Italy was caused by women serving cold food, not looking after their children, not cleaning their home, acting arrogant, and dressing provocatively.

    The fuck?

  • http://readingseisho.wordpress.com/ friendly reader

    I don’t know if you followed through to the article she linked (which you should, and read all of her “Cosmocking” series because they’re hilarious), but the “talk and then have sex” refers to the opposite model we tend to have depicted in media, “have sex and then talk.” I.e. sex has to be totally spontaneous, no talking until something goes wrong. It doesn’t mean “stop talking once you’ve had sex,” just “talk first, the sex will go better.”

  • http://twitter.com/FearlessSon FearlessSon

    the BDSM community [has] shown it’s possible to have community norms of talking to your partner and then having sex

    What? Unless you’re gagged, why would talking stop with starting sex? That’s ridiculous and completely unhealthy. (And also, what? Who has sex in silence?) Consent is not a switch. It is an ongoing process. AND I always talked with my partners before and during and after sex, about sex, before I was into BDSM. 

    I get the feeling here that what they are getting at is that talking about sex before a given act is the norm in the BDSM community, rather than each partner simply assuming that they know what the other wants which may be the norm elsewhere.  

    So for example, someone who has very firm ideas of what gender roles are like will probably just assume that their partner wants something from them and will react a certain way.  However, as we know there is a lot more variety and granularity to human sexuality than simple gender.  A subculture in which partners talk about respective desires and boundaries before any sex occurs is therefor notable in contrast.  

    As for the talking during sex, that certainly happens, but that changes a great deal depending on the context established by the pre-session discussion.  I am guessing someone is less inclined to detail desires in the middle of the act if being in a certain “headspace” is part of the desire to begin with, for example, and the discussion might pull them out of the moment.  Regardless, the discussion of desire before sex happens is the distinguishing factor.

  • Nirrti

    ” Father Piero Corsi of Liguria said in a Christmas bulletin that the rise
    in domestic violence in Italy was caused by women serving cold food,
    not looking after their children, not cleaning their home, acting
    arrogant, and dressing provocatively.”

    Sooo…..

    Italian ices and Caesar salads make the menz go crazy. I’ll remind myself to avoid restaurants if I ever visit Italy.

  • Kiba

    Italian ices and Caesar salads make the menz go crazy.

    Evidently so does dust and clutter which means, I guess, my place is off limits to Italian men since my cleaning routine is rather lack luster. 

  • Carstonio

    Men are not allowed to see themselves as objects of desire,
    to consider themselves attractive or to enjoy the idea of sex with an
    initiating woman. The corollary to accepting that sex isn’t about having
    a right of use for another person’s body means enjoying the experience
    of having a woman express genuine interest in you.

    For a long I assumed that I wasn’t attractive because women didn’t seem to be treating me as though I were attractive. Sort of how money in a ledger or statement doesn’t seem as real as currency in a wallet. At the same time, I might have been afraid if a woman had indicated obvious interest. Partly from inexperience and partly from the fear that often arises when anyone wants anything from me , the fear of consequences if I don’t meet others’ requirements or expectations. But this could be simply a variation on the mindset that Sierra describes.

  • Carstonio

    Because of my gender, it’s not my place to label Schlafey and Palin and Bachmann as quislings. Similarly, because of my skin color, it’s also not my place to use the Uncle Tom label for black politicians who endorse policies that perpetuate or exacerbate inequality. I can say that it’s defensible for women and blacks to use those labels. But my role in both is mostly limited to condemning the misogynists and racists who claim that Palin disproves their sexism or that Cain disproves their racism.

  • Paul Durant

    No matter how ass-headed the reason for opposing it, the Violence Against Women Act was a terrible law and it’s good that it wasn’t renewed. Its entire basis is a model of domestic abuse that simply isn’t true: the Duluth model upon which it is based states that domestic violence is a form of patriarchal terrorism by which men exert privilige to oppress women, when domestic violence perpetration is symmetrical

    It defines the “primary aggressor” as whoever is bigger and stronger (ie, the man) regardless of who actually perpetuates the violence, which leads to the situation where a man who calls the police to report domestic violence against him isthree times more likely to be arrested than the woman abusing him (scroll to page 831). 

    It imposes gender restrictions on offering aid to the victims of domestic violence, providing shelters, renumeration of legal fees, and advocacy to women victims of domestic violence and shit-fuckall to men victims. An update to the law provides funding and incentives to any work aimed at preventing domestic violence against women and, again, shit-fuckall for anything that concerns the other 50% of victims. It promotes policies viewing men as the only ones capable of domestic violence and then (in Part U, Sec. 2101) provides monetary incentives to implement mandatory arrest programs. It continually refers to DV as something that only women are victimized, and orders the commission of experts and research and panels into violence against women and ignores the other 50% of domestic violence.

    It was a horrible, sexist law and I don’t give a shit if the Republicans opposed it because they thought it was a means for the Reptoid takeover of Earth, it should have been repealed. A law that protects half of the victims of a crime while specifically excluding the other half of the victims is a bigoted law. And go ahead and cue the angry, self-serving outrage from people who see “opposes VAWA” and immediately conclude that I hate women without reading the goddamn post I made, I don’t care about that either. It’s the truth.

  • EllieMurasaki

    I would like to propose that we NOT HAVE THIS ARGUMENT AGAIN, because it went so well the last time you started it.

  • Paul Durant

    I’m not going to ignore the truth and allow lies to perpetuate because certain people get extremely shitty, aggressive, and self-righteously uncomprehending when the truth is brought up. You would not allow someone to say to you “Let’s not argue about how what I do harms gay rights because it made an unpleasant argument the last time my horrible behavior was brought up,” why should I allow the same argument to stop me?

  • EllieMurasaki

    certain people get extremely shitty, aggressive, and self-righteously uncomprehending when the truth is brought up

    Gee, that doesn’t sound like you at all.

    I’m done.

  • Paul Durant

    One of us backs up their statements with citation of scientific studies, and one of us refuses to read them and treats their refusal to do so as evidence of their invalidity. 

  • Ttricksterson

    The Republicans never miss an opportunity to shoot themselves in the foot do they?  Not only does this weaken them among women and minorities but it will be re-introduced in the next session when the Democratic grip on the Senate is stronger and their minority in the House is larger.

  • Ttricksterson

    Transllation:  If you did what we told you we wouldn’t have to beat you.

  • Jenny Islander

    Yes, this.

    The poisonous corollary to this is the tendency for teenagers raised in certain subcultures to go without birth control because if you talk about birth control before having sex, you’re a slut, but if you are ~swept away by desire~ then you are a helpless victim of the way that sex “really works” and you are guiltless.

    They’re having just as much sex as their “slutty” agemates; they’re just having more dangerous sex.

  • Worthless Beast

    Is it weird that I’m also worried about that children’s choir?  Are these kids going to remember doing that when they grow up?  Assuming they decide not to follow in the footsteps of the adults in their lives who taught them to sing that… once they’ve realized what the adults encouraged them to do… the guilt! 

  • Jenny Islander

    “Your body doesn’t belong only to you” is Paul’s advice to married couples, which is specifically worded to include women’s equal rights over men’s bodies, and followed immediately by directions to discuss when there will and won’t be time for sex.

    As for Father Corsi: Someone in another forum suggested that his problem is that there is no longer a group of local women who are willing to cause food to appear on his table and get down on their knees to polish away his footprints.  Poor baby.

  • EllieMurasaki

    No, not weird at all, and now you mention it I’m ashamed not to have thought of them myself.

  • http://shiftercat.livejournal.com/ ShifterCat

    Sex-positive means something very specific. It does not mean “yay sex let’s all have sex sex is good all the time wheee”. At all. Sex-positive activists talk a lot about how harmful the traditional crappy rom-com model is.

    Glad to know I’m not the only one who noticed that.

  • Lori

     

    One of us backs up their statements with citation of scientific studies,
    and one of us refuses to read them and treats their refusal to do so as
    evidence of their invalidity.    

    Both of these people are figments of your imagination. We have been over this and really have no desire or need to go over it again. If you want a welcoming audience for your MRA crap you’re going to have to peddle it elsewhere.

  • P J Evans

     PIECE. OF. CRAP.

  • Madhabmatics

     You know, isn’t his posting style a bit like a 9/11 or sandy hook truther

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    Maybe this is why I’m still single but, no.

    Your body belongs to you alone. Not your spouse. Your spouse has the amount of input over what you do with your body that you choose to allow them.

    I’m married and a sub, and even for me, my body “belongs” to my husband/dom precisely as much as I choose to say it does. I can retract any of it at any time. Anyone who claims marriage means your body belongs to your spouse is wrong.

  • http://lliira.dreamwidth.org/ Lliira

    For a long I assumed that I wasn’t attractive because women didn’t seem to be treating me as though I were attractive.

    I’ve actually heard this from quite a few men. All of them attractive.

    Patriarchy screws over everyone.

  • Kiba

    “Your body doesn’t belong only to you” is Paul’s advice to married couples, which is specifically worded to include women’s equal rights over men’s bodies, and followed immediately by directions to discuss when there will and won’t be time for sex.

    If I’m married or in some form of relationship where sex occurs we can discuss all sorts of things, including when there will and wont be sex, but that still does not mean that my body does not belong to me or that theirs belongs to me. My body is mine, regardless of the relationship I’m in, and the only person that gets to say what I do with it, who I share it with, when I share it with them, is me.

    Both parties can discuss when there will and wont be time for sex without either thinking that they no longer completely own  their own bodies. 

  • Lori

    IDK. At least on this issue AFAICT it’s MRA boilerplate. I have no patience for it.

  • Kiba

    When I was a kid I was physically abused by my mother and her 2nd husband and I never bought their bullshit self-justification statements then and I don’t buy other peoples’ now.  

    Food cold? Heat it up. Issues with partner’s cooking? Learn to cook. Issues with state of house? Get off your ass and help clean. Kids? They are your responsibility too. 

    As for “acting arrogant, and dressing provocatively”? Oh no! She has opinions.  Get over it. Dressing provocatively? I don’t see the problem. I’m guessing they didn’t have much of a problem with it before they got married so why now? 

  • Lori

    This particular passage is basically Paul’s version of Dan Savage telling people that their partner does not give up the right to want sex just because they, for whatever reason, have decided that they do not. Obviously Dan’s solution is rather different from Paul’s, but the underlying issue is actually the same. It’s not OK for half of a couple to make unilateral decisions about sex and simply expect the other person to fall in line. In Paul’s time the issue was married people essentially taking vows of chastity because they thought Jesus was coming back any minute now (2k years and still counting, so they were a little off there). In Dan’s case the issues tend to be a bit more hot button.

    The problem with both Paul’s & Dan’s advice is that trying to talk in generalities about this almost always gets you into a bad area really quickly. No, your partner doesn’t own your body in any sense. No, it is not OK for your partner to expect sex from you when you do not want to have it. No, it is not OK to decide that since you’re not into having sex any more your partner needs to give it up too. No, it’s not OK to use having or withholding sex as a reward or punishment to manipulate your partner. Yes, it’s totally legitimate not to feel like having sex with someone when you’re mad at them. And on and on.

  • Kiba

    I think my problem is the starting premise. I think the argument can and should be made but not start off with the premise that “Your body doesn’t belong only to you”. That phrase is just incredibly problematic on many levels for me.  

  • Lori

    I agree. Paul is definitely not the guy I’d go to for marital advice. I’ve always thought there was something off about the fact the the scriptures preserve so much blather about marriage and women from the proudly unmarried guy, while the apostles who we know were married had nothing to say on the issue. Just try bringing that up in fundie Bible class though and see what it gets you. We must never question the almighty Paul or the appropriateness of the canonical scriptures.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    Anderson, K. L. (2002).  Perpetrator or victim? 
    Relationships between intimate partner violence and well-being.  Journal of
    Marriage and Family, 64, 851-863.  (Data consisted of 7,395 married and
    cohabiting heterosexual couples drawn from wave 1 of the National Survey of
    Families and Households .  In terms of measures: subjects were
    asked “how many arguments during the past year resulted in ‘you hitting, shoving
    or throwing things at a partner.’  They were also asked how many arguments
    ended with their partner, ‘hitting, shoving or throwing things at you.’” 
    Author reports that, “victimization rates are slightly higher among men than
    women and in cases that involve perpetration by only one partner,
    more women than men were identified as perpetrators .”)

    Given the relatively low percentages and how close they are I’m not sure what great revelation is supposed to come from this.

    Also, 7395 couples means 14790 people which is a pretty small sample from a population in the hundreds of millions. While it’s unlikely the sample size is that biased I would believe this more if the chi square test result were included.

    Archer, J. (2000).  Sex differences in
    aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. 
    Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. (Meta-analyses of sex differences in
    physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use
    one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” 
    In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and
    analyses reveal that  62% of those injured were women.)

    The  numerical result given contradicts the MRA-based assertion in the previous sentence. Conclusion: Men, being stronger, can defend themselves more easily. Corollary: the odds already favor a man even in a defensive fight.

    Bernard, M. L., & Bernard, J. L. (1983). 
    Violent intimacy: The family as a model for love relationships.  Family
    Relations, 32, 283-286.  (Surveyed 461 college students, 168 men,
    293 women, with regard to dating violence.  Found that 15% of the
    men admitted to physically abusing their partners, while 21% of women admitted
    to physically abusing their partners.)

    Sample size issues.

    And so on.

    The point being, that while taken as a whole, that bibliography may support the “men and women use violence about equally” assertion used by MRAs, there are weaknesses in the individual data points.

    You also cannot extrapolate from this to another major problem, which is that the frequency of rape lies far over on the woman-as-victim side.

  • SisterCoyote

    It seems like one of those things that, taken out of context, is a totally clobber-verse thing, when in reality, it was meant to be freeing, not further restricting. Men and women being equals in the body of Christ, something that terrified some men back then… and apparently, still terrifies them today.

  • David Starner

    I find it interesting that that article about privilege, after talking about privilege in general, goes on to the type of privilege the author lacks. Which I think would be more honest then talking about amounts of privilege; everyone is willing to talk about the types of privilege they lack, but I don’t think white women are better then white men about talking white privilege, and statistically blacks seem worse then whites in talking about cis privilege or Christian privilege.

  • Paul Durant

    Your discounting of the first and third studies are meaningless; you claim “not enough sample size” (which you would do no matter what the numbers were) when the first at least has more than enough for a statistically representative sample (it’s seven times the amount of likely voters that need to be polled for such a sample!), and adding an “and so on” to ignore the fact that hey, maybe the fact there are 280 of these studies indicates these aren’t statisical outliers!

    But your discounting of the second study perfectly encapsulates every single thing wrong with how you and the others here respond to this information. It is shameful and embarrassing and you aren’t even aware what an ass you just made of yourself. Nobody else will call you on it, because all of you are making the same error.

    You saw that I opposed VAWA and instantly you stopped paying attention to what I actually said. You thought “This person opposes VAWA, so they must be an MRA, which is the same thing as a misogynist.” Then you mentally substituted your funhouse-mirror distortion of what an MRA must be arguing in place of the words I actually said.

    The fact that the ratio of seriously injured women to seriously injured men in domestic violence incidents is 38-62 does not in any way discount what I said. It does not undermine the point I am making (“VAWA is a wrong and bigoted law”) or the point of those research papers (“perpetration of domestic violence is symmetrical”). It is not a counterargument to words I actually said. It is only a counterargument to the person you imagined as soon as you saw I opposed feminism. Men being more likely to seriously harm women in the domestic violence incidents both sexes perpetuate with equal frequency does not justify denying victim services to men and it does not justify arresting men who call the police to complain they are being domestically abused and it does not justify forcing domestic violence treatment and response to act in accordance with a model that treats it as an expression of male power over women and hatred for womankind. But you brought it up as a counteragument because you could not be bothered to understand the thing I was actually saying. Just like every other time I bring up things that oppose feminism that are also objectively correct and backed by facts, you don’t engage with what I say AT ALL. You engage with someone you imagined.

    It is fucking shameful.

  • P J Evans

    Don’t just tell us that we’re wrong when we don’t support your (biased) views. Admit that women are abused far more frequently than men, or SHUT UP about it.

  • Paul Durant


    Don’t just tell us that we’re wrong when we don’t support your (biased) views. Admit that women are abused far more frequently than men, or SHUT UP about it.

    I provided a massive list of scientific papers stating no, women ARE NOT abused far more frequently than men. You interpret this as me merely claiming you are wrong because you don’t support my views. You demand that I “admit” something for which I have provided overwhelming evidence of its falsehood.

    You aren’t wrong merely for disagreeing with me. You’re wrong because you ignore scientific evidence

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     Categorically and for everyone, regardless of how they might feel on the matter?

  • EllieMurasaki

    Dunno about Lliira, but from my view, yeah. I own my body. I can, if I and they choose, share my body with anyone I choose. I can even do a lifetime BDSM scenario in which I’m my dom’s slave (not that I would, not my kink, but I could). But the moment I retract consent to or otherwise end the situation that involves me not being full owner of my body, my body is wholly mine again.

  • http://blog.trenchcoatsoft.com Ross

     

    No, your partner doesn’t own your body in any sense. No, it is not OK
    for your partner to expect sex from you when you do not want to have it.
    No, it is not OK to decide that since you’re not into having sex any
    more your partner needs to give it up too. No, it’s not OK to use having
    or withholding sex as a reward or punishment to manipulate your
    partner. Yes, it’s totally legitimate not to feel like having sex with
    someone when you’re mad at them. And on and on.

    Even this has some difficulties. From a practical perspective, the difference between “I am withholding sex to punish you for not doing the dishes” and “The thought of a sink full of dirty dishes is a real mood-killer for me” is rather subtle. Likewise “Here is some sex as a reward for doing the dishes” and “Having a clean living area makes me feel good and more interested in doing fun things”

  • P J Evans

     When you can produce papers based on a large sample, that are in peer-reviewed journals, and haven’t been retracted. then you can qualify to claim that men are more abused than women.
    Until then, remember that white male is the easiest level there is, and stop whining about how hard your life is. Because most people aren’t white or male, and they know more about life than you.

  • http://apocalypsereview.wordpress.com/ Invisible Neutrino

    To be fair, I doubt they’ve all been retracted. The other thing is that there are substantial variations in the violence-reporting rates. Example:

    Ackard, D. M., &
    Neumark-Sztainer, D. (2002).  Date violence and date rape among
    adolescents: associations with disordered eating behaviors and psychological
    health.  Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 455-473.  (A Minnesota statewide
    school sample of 81,247 students in the 9th and 12th
    grade responded to the question of whether they ever experienced date related
    violence.  Over 90% of students reported never experiencing dating
    violence.  In terms of grades, 3.3% of 9th grade girls and 2.8% of 9th
    grade boys reported experiencing violence, while 5.5% of 12th grade girls and
    2.3% of 12th grade boys reported experiencing violence.  In terms of
    ethnicity, American Indian boys and African American boys reported
    experiencing higher rates of dating violence than American Indian girls
    and African American girls ).

    That’s actually a rather large sample size, but the violence-incidence rate is much lower than in some of the other reports.

    Given that this actually represents 81247 / 371600 = about 20% of the total sample size quoted by the compiler, this would suggest that given sufficiently large populations with no prior selection, the violence-incidence rate, while equal, also becomes relatively small instead of the much higher percentages reported for samples of less than 1000 people each.

    (which suggests some sort of systematic effect not captured in the summaries.)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X