One must not judge the quality of the argument by the scary appearance of its presentor.

My preffered part was "Feminism has morphed from an enlightened social movement into high-octane mass hysteria, shunning reason and fact in its compulsive quest to flog the long-dead horse of patriarchy." That is some creative writting!

However, while I think he is missing more than a few points regarding the issue of DV (and maybe a few marbles), I think the issue he is flagging, namely that DV is not solely an issue of men inflicting DV on women, is worthwhile and merits consideration.

I agree that DV is not only a women's issue, but what a hateful coward.

Also, he has problems dealing with statistics. I gave him a little help in comment #2.

LOL

Double double toil and trouble, indeed! :D

I don’t know, perhaps it is a mental disorder; professor Nancy Hopkins of MIT told the Boston Globe that she had to leave a lecture delivered by Harvard president Larry Summers because if she didn't she would have "either blacked out or thrown up."

Behavior like this denotes some pretty severe mental stress and anxiety. Maybe its just a phobia though.

So Fitz, if I told you to fuck off would that make crazy? Or just smart?

I find it hard to believe that Ms. Hopkins' statement was not intentionally hyperbolic in order to convey her sheer disgust. I know I felt similarly after reading Mr. Summers' address.

"I know I felt similarly after reading Mr. Summers' address."

It’s contagious!

"Peer into the dark heart of radical feminism, and you’ll get a glimpse of a seething caldron of delusion, phobia, and paranoia."

Wouldn't that happen if you peered into the dark heart of any radical movement, including radical Christianity?

"FIPH – feminist-induced phobic hysteria." - women not being able to list to Summers' address or Jessica not being able to spend five minutes in a room with an anti-abortionst is the same as my conservative relatives having to leave the room if I even suggest anything from a liberal point of view (family reunions are lonely for me). Many people do not seem to be able to listen to an opposing point of view nowadays (I thank the ladies for putting up with us every time I read this site).

I don’t mind telling the good people here at feministing that I am conflicted in my thoughts regarding feminism. I see how the conservatives attack feminism to further their agendas. Agendas I don’t agree with.

But I also see the same and many problems in liberal feminism for instance because he is an old man his opinions are worthless? If I told you that makes me worry, not like that’s mental, more like, what would make a person say that? Would you say I was trolling?

Attack his ideas all you want poke holes in his theories debate his concepts. That is liberal. Writing someone off because they are male, female, white, black, young, old, that’s intolerant. I have met many feminists that label me a wife beater or rapist for even presenting conflicting credible stats that conflict feminist claims. If I told you that it hurts and saddens me to meet so many feminists online that do indeed refuse to consider stats outside the feminist domain, would you laugh at me?

To me it seems the feminists with power are literally working to stagnate male victims. I share the author’s beliefs that the motivation is more about funding, they realize there are male victims and female perpetrators, they don’t care, they maintain the inflated one-sided stats to create empathy of women and scorn of men, this bolsters the funding they receive from the patriarchy, the “old boys club� doesn’t mind, they look good for seeming to care about women.

The “OBC� is indeed “out of touch� they are as much a cause of problems to the MRA’s as they are to feminists. I don’t think feminists in power are in cahoots with feminists in journalism, but the media sure goes along with the feminist claims, however, I do see the truth getting out now, only since the turn of the millennia. Liberal feminists should get behind TRUTH, it is what will save your movement. I just think these kinds of things are hurting feminism, it shouldn’t be rejected and dismissed as “anti-feminism from some old guy� It would be researched and considered by any smart sassy ass-kicking feminist that calls himorher self a liberal.

Jessica said:

"So Fitz, if I told you to fuck off would that make crazy? Or just smart?"

Neither, it makes you less feminine.

It appears we have a case of conflicting statistics here. Poster "Proud Feminist" cited a number of figures in the comments (and the Justice Department, and CDC would agree) showing that women are by far the most serious victims of DV. Yet this would be a contradiction of the implications in the Conservative Voice article. Despite men being physically much larger than women, the Conservative Voice finds not even a shred of contradiction in putting forward statistics on incidence alone while entirely ignoring actual severity.

The Conservative Voice advances a radical, revolutionary implication: that DV against men is more serious than DV against women. All of society's special attention toward the problem of abused women, it implies, has been misplaced. But on the other hand, the Conservative Voice is not concerned with domestic violence against men. Oh, no. Not a single mention in the article can be found that DV, against men or women, is any way a problem, or any proposals on how to fight it. To them, that would probably be feeding into the 'hysteria'. Which leads us to Roberts' final point, the ultimate purpose of the article: that the 'damage' done by feminists' efforts to fight DV and the effects of DV is worse than what they have accomplished in that fight.

I quote: "Abuse 'hysteria' [aka fighting domestic violence] is on the move and poses a threat to the well-being of millions of normal, happy women." In other words, the 'threat to well-being' posed by fighting violence is worse than the existence of violence itself (Never mind the notion that speaking up for someone else's security or peace of mind could possibly be an uplifting endeavor). If the choice is between defending DV and its harms, or defending those who fight against DV and its harms, Roberts chooses the former, even though between a couple of out-of-context quotations and ramblings about the Vagina Monologues, he never really shows how the latter is so damaging.

This is very extreme stuff, people. A critical examination of strategies to fight DV for the purpose of better fighting DV is one thing. A hatchet job on opponents of domestic violence for opposing domestic violence, with broader implications for the effect of standing up against other types of crime and violence, is another. This type of fascism belongs more in Germany than Italy.

less feminine? um, ok there.

The Conservative Voice advances a radical, revolutionary implication: that DV against men is more serious than DV against women.

I don’t believe this for a second. I do believe that women
More often throw things to inflict heavy damage but men are most always in the advantage when defending against women, women are more severly injured in most instances.

I do believe women use violence almost as much as men, and that women commit emotional, mental and verbal abuse as much as men, the problem for men is there is a greater "patriarchal induced" social stigma about reporting it. "Suck it up, your a man she’s a women, don’t be a wimp"
And there is way less dv awareness funding allocated for them, most men do not know the signs to look for to identify abuse, the victim stigma for men remains unchallenged and ignored.

Men are also reportedly punished more severely for similar levels of assault. And abused men are reported to have been the ones arrested. Because of vawa an accusation removes the MAN from the residence, disregarding his civil rights.

As a society we ignore men in this area, feminism making dv a rallying point, has enabled us to do this. Women should not be given an out; I do believe it is about the assault itself, not the severity. Stepping over the line, choosing to inflict injury on your spouse because of insecurity or loss of emotional control, this is the crime, regardless of the damage it causes. Anyone that crosses this line commits the crime. However those more severely injured deserve the most immediate help and support, so of course women would get the lion’s share of funding and support.

It is about simply researching and actually just considering men in this area along with women, it would seem feminists and the media are committed to keeping men in the dark.
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/050714/d050714a.htm

The supposed problem of men vs women and the total only being 89%. Hmm, unreported? Both man & female equally guilt of action, whether or not of effect? Perhaps children are a seperate catagory? Was it really women and men in the base stat or husbands and wives? Sibling violence and child on parent in same household are often also considered DV. So many possible answers.

I'll agree, the text is a bit hyperbolic. I think it's a natural tendency for people to define a school of thought by its most extreme logical conclusion. Not that that's fair, but human nature is what it is.

At the same time, I can kind of see the point. Radical ideologues of any kind--be they political or religious--tend to embrace such a hard-line stance based on more than a purely academic or civic interest. At some point, personal trauma, I think, may begin to come into play, and polarize one's view of the world. Now, I understand every ideology needs its committed firebrands, but at what point does affiliation with a movement become less about the MOVEMENT, and more about the demons in our own pasts?

Obviously, 90 percent of the practicioners of any ideology. But they can be potentially swayed and led by the 10 percent who are. At what point does our ideology begin to cloud our minds, and how can we foresee and prevent it from doing so?

All I can say is, if men like this author and our little troll friends feel that radical feminists are disrupting the social order, we must be doing something right.

Interesting comments freeman. I think extremists of any nature have their place, even if it is being so caught up in their own ideology that they are in a place to be unbiased by human inhibitions that they raise interesting points every once in a while. Someone who is so untouched by 'reality' has the ability to really think beyond normal bounderies - even if they are ideas that are abhorent.

It is then the 90% that can rationalise and contextualise. Some of the most extreme comments here have completely blown open my mind rather than shut it. My favorite recently being 'how do we not know that heterosexuality is a socially created norm' it seems so obvious but I didn't think of it by myself, and I really think that any analytical person needs to fully think this through.

PS I'm not saying that whoever made the above remark was an extremist, but that it is an extreme remark by everyday standards....It's a wonderful point.

"All I can say is, if men like this author and our little troll friends feel that radical feminists are disrupting the social order, we must be doing something right. "

What about if women feel that? Oh wait, I forgot - men are the enemy.

Disrupting social order to create positves but feminsm is not doing a whole lot of that.

Gosh. Who put out the "trolls welcome" sign?

I continue to be amazed at how quickly the "boys" swarm over here and accuse everyone of being "unfeminine" and of hating men and cutting off penises in our spare time and goodness knows what else. It's so invigorating. :D

ANyone with a brain can see that the article above is silly tripe written by a single old man who has some sort of axe to grind with the bra-burners. Yet if we (gasp!!) make a reference to his maleness and the fact that he *might not* be the best person to ask about feminism, we're sexist. If we note that he is older and from a different generation, one that had different views of women, we're (sin of sins!) ageist. And if we tell the trolls to fuck off we're UNFEMININE!!!!!

I think I speak for all of us hideous man-haters when I say that I'm going to have to cut off extra penises tonight, just to drown out the sorrow of being exposed for the hollow shell of a human being that I am. ;)

>"Peer into the dark heart of radical feminism, and you’ll get a glimpse of a seething caldron of delusion, phobia, and paranoia.">

Holy melodrama, Batman!

I'm sorry; and his main point is that *feminists* are the ones who get all up in an irrational lather?

oh, well. Perhaps the poor dear would care to borrow my Midol?

i also can also recommend some excellent vibes and other penetrative toys designed to hit the "P-spot." maybe that would loosen him up; he sounds rather on edge.

...not that i haven't had my own bone to pick with, if not radical feminism per se, some things said by some people styling themselves radical feminists.

but if this dude thinks NOW is about "radical" feminism...

well, you just keep thinking there, o'butty; that's what you're good at.

i will share with all of you my comment to Casey Roberts on this article:

Dear Ms. Roberts,

I was hesitant to even comment on this column, as it cites Ann Coulter's new book and doesn't even make sense in parts. But, as an advocate for victims (men, women, and children) of family violence, I do not think I can keep silent.

It seems today that the new pet cause of the conservative media is to talk about "domestic violence hysteria" and the "domestic violence industry" in derogatory terms. It also seems that there is this fanatical need to prove that women are violent - if not equally as violent as men, perhaps even MORE violent! I don't understand this line of thinking, mostly because it is simply not true.

Your deceptive use of research is very interesting. My husband (who has never threatened me, nor I him) points out that the report you cite does indeed say that there is a higher incidence of female-to-male violence than the other way around. What you left out was the data on the chart on page 4 (140). This shows that women are more likely to push, shove, grab, slap, hit, kick, bite, throw things, or THREATEN to use a weapon. MEN, on the other hand, are more likely to "beat up," burn, choke, force sex, or USE a weapon. The researchers in this study have a loopy way of defining "severe violence," considering it includes "tried to hit with something," for instance. Finally, notice that MURDER is not on the list.

Here are some statistics:
-- The American Medical Association estimates that over 4 million women are victims of severe assaults by boyfriends and husbands each year. About 1 in 4 women is likely to be abused by a partner in her lifetime. (Sara Glazer, "Violence Against Women," CQ Researcher, Congressional Quarterly Inc., Vol. 3, No. 8, Feb. 1993, p.171.)

-- Females are victims of family violence at a rate at least 3 times that of males. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, Highlights from 20 years of Surveying Crime Victims (Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1993, p25.)

-- The victim in domestic violence is female in 85% all cases reported. She is white in 64% domestic violence cases. The average age of the offender is 31 years. (Uniform Crime Reports as cited by M.C. Moewe, "The Hidden Violence: For Richeer and For Poorer," Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Apr. 5, 1992)

-- Based on domestic crime data kept by 17 states, experts estimate that 1.37 million domestic violence offenses were reported to the police in 1991, women were the victims in an estimated 83% the cases (1,130,000) ("Violence Against Women: A Week in the Life of America,", Senate Judiciary Committee, Oct. 1992.)

I was not even going to post them, because I am sure that anyone reading this blog has determined by now that they are biased, feminist (and probably communist) loving sources, and that clearly I am blinded by my own deep-seated "feminist-induced phobic hysteria". Sigh.

Also, when Gudrun Schyman, founder of the Swedish Feminist Initiative, said “It’s every man and in every class of society�, she meant that there is no stereotypical batterer. She did not mean that every man is a batterer. Sheesh.

Get another cause. Unless you are going to actually commit to help the MEN who are affected by as well as perpetrate domestic violence, why don't you just shut up.

Thank you.

Julia Campbell
Director of Development and Community Relations
Transitions Family Violence Services
P.O. Box 561
Hampton, VA 23669
www.transitionsfvs.org

There are some theories that suggest that mental illness can be a form of social protest.

And of course, looking at mental disabilities as a revolting insult (which is how this guy wants you to see it) as opposed to as a fairly common obstacle that many people face, is playing right into their hands. If a feminist is mentally handicapped, (and there certainly are feminists with mental disabilities)that doesn't in any way invalidate his or her arguments.

I think any treatment of this kind of dreck needs to first question the way he takes for granted that people who have real mental disabilities should be treated with hate and fear.

So if i have his reasoning correct, i can abuse my girlfriend emotionally and verbally until she finally strikes back at me physically, and i proven that she is the cause of the entire problem for i never hit her. Or i can abuse her all i want as long as it is not reported for if it is not reported it does not happen.

"Gosh. Who put out the "trolls welcome" sign?"

Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll.

Julia Wrote
Get another cause. Unless you are going to actually commit to help the MEN who are affected by as well as perpetrate domestic violence, why don't you just shut up.

Conservative feminist bashers usually don’t stand up for men because to do so would be to aid in creating a new “whiney special interest group like “the women� or “the minorities� or the feminists. One conservative goal, of course, is small government and destroying feminism suits that goal where aiding men defeats it. Incongruously liberal feminist I have met and in power feel that male rights awareness would be a whiny victim club as well, ironic.
Men in general don’t have many political friends. :(

“Bowtie� Carlson on the findings of the NH status of men.
But wait a second. Here‘s my concern. And I think it does sound like a concern, but I don‘t want to see men become yet another whiny interest group. Virtually everybody whines about being oppressed and that, except men. You‘re not allowed to whine if you‘re a man. You‘re a man; shut up and deal with it. And I‘m for that. I‘m for shutting up and dealing with it.
http://downloads.mensactivism.org/Tucker_Carlson_NHCSM.mpg
(link is for reference only, not to sidetrack the thread!)

Labyrus:

If a feminist is mentally handicapped, (and there certainly are feminists with mental disabilities)that doesn't in any way invalidate his or her arguments.

Hell, I'm a mentally ill feminist. Trust me, I'm quite familiar with "delusion, phobia, and paranoia". They ain't in the feminism I know.

"Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone a troll."

No, but only saying "I disagree" and not adding anything of value does. Disagree all you want, there is nothing wrong with that but state at least why you disagree so that we can better understand your side. A one or two sentence disagreeable response will be dismissed quickly and will be labeled as trollish.

So please, explain why you disagree or state your point of view Zaij.

I haven't said I've disagreed. I'm merely commenting that you saying that they're a troll because they disagree with your position (and explain why)doesnt make it so.

Trolling for Idiots 101:

Zaji, saying "Oh wait, I forget - men are the enemy" is trolling. You don't put an argument forth, you just spew common ridiculous statements about how feminists hate men, want all men dead, like to cut off penises, etc. It's trolling.

It's stupid for me to respond to the trolls, but I hated for your "I'm hurt, I was just being REASONABLE and that bitch attacked me!" post to be the last word here. ;)

Wow. This guy didn't really begin to substantiate what he was trying to say.

EJ-

Actually that is not an example of trolling. If that is said in the course of an argument, it might not be the best way to put forth an argument, but it is not "trolling".

Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "trolling", but traditionally, trolls are people that post on message boards/blogs/etc solely to elicit a large emotional response. They do not engage in any type of rational debate of any kind, and usually what they say is preposterous. Trolls post only to attract attention to themselves without any effort to even address the philisophical points of a debate. Trolling is something that I actually haven't seen occur here that much (a couple of posters I've noticed are trolls, especially the obvious ones that are men posting with women's names).

Trolls typically don't engage in debate...they just try to enrage the majority.

I have seen the word "troll" thrown around when someone doesn't agree with someone.

"Trolls typically don't engage in debate...they just try to enrage the majority."

Uh, DUH.

That's what I said Zaji was doing.

Or wasn't "Oh wait, MEN are the ENEMY" NOT supposed to "enrage the majority" and was instead meant to "engage the debate"?

Geez, TT, you're trolling about trolling. Give this guy a medal.

I was reffering to "C"'s post where she didn't use gender neutral language to prove her point. My post was a remark dripping with irony to show her that it's not only men that can disagree with feminism (and I consider myself a feminist, or at the very least an egalitarian). So often feminists consider men as the biggest obstacle to face in search of equality but it's not - it's the patriarchy. Your refusal to see my point the way it was inteneded shows your own prejudices and inherent sexism (because if this was all reversed, I'd bet my life your response would be different).

Thank you very much Zaij for explaining exactly what you meant and how it was not in fact a troll.

EJ has a habit of saying that any opinion that she doesn't agree with is a "troll". As is evident from how I defended you as not a troll, I then became a troll.

Zaij, according to traditional English rules, the post was correct. "Men like this author" is correct - "People like this author" would be more pleasant but no less correct. You boys can't have it both ways. You get on our case when we use the "male default" as an English rules and you make fun of us when we try to "degenderize" everything. I cannot count how many farcical references the trolls make to "wymmyn" on this site, so get over yourself.

A troll nitpicks on English and spelling. A troll makes useless posts that have nothing to do with the argument and try to derail everything. You can stand here all day and go "la la la not a troll" but it doesn't change the fact that you have YET to add ANYTHING to this discussion - you are a derailer.

So is The Truth, but then "The Truth" thinks that working at McDonald's is as bad as forced prostitution, so I'm not too worried about HIS view of reality. ;)

First of all when did I say that working at McDonald's is as bad as FORCED prostitution? (Hint: I never did...you mentioned that I might have that idea...but I never addressed it.)

Of course, when you say that, YOU ARE TROLLING. (You do realize that don't you?).

Feminism is anything BUT a mental disorder. Feminism is the completely rational manifestation of hatred of males and male sexuality that females have exhibited atleast since primitive times. Feminism is the default mindset of the average female.

Thanks for the laugh brosef. That was actually pretty funny.

"The BIBLE and the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women's emancipation". Elizabeth Cady Stanton