Feminists destroy posters advocating human rights for men

harrietharmman

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

there is no excuse for lashing out violently at other people - i.e. no excuse for starting the violence. Of course you can defend yourself but nagging doesn´t count as an attack

Ok that's more like it, i agree with that 100%. Interestingly, contrary to sterotypes, study after study shows women initiate more domestic violence as men - i.e. women are just as likely land the first blow. The type of violence where a woman first assaults her partner typically leads to the worst injuries for her. Therefore, contrary to everything you hear in the media, by far the most effective way to reduce domestic violence injuries in women, is for women not to assault their partners first.

Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/a-domestic-violence-victim/

B0jangles

harrietharmman wrote: »

Ok that's more like it, i agree with that 100%. Interestingly, contrary to sterotypes, study after study shows women initiate more domestic violence as men - i.e. women are just as likely land the first blow. The type of violence where a woman first assaults her partner typically leads to the worst injuries for her. Therefore, contrary to everything you hear in the media, by far the most effective way to reduce domestic violence injuries in women, is for women not to assault their partners first.

Source:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/14/a-domestic-violence-victim/

Domestic violence seriously injures and kills a lot more women than it does men. Don't wake the bear ladies!

• Since 1996 there have been 186 women murdered in the Republic of Ireland. 115 women (62%) were killed in their own homes. (Women's Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2012)
• In the resolved cases 71 women (53%) were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. (Women's Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2012)
• Another 47 women were killed by someone they knew (e.g. brother, son, neighbour). Thus, a total of 118 women (88%) were killed by someone known to them. In all of the resolved cases, 99% of perpetrators were male and 1% was female. (Women's Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2012)
• In the UK between 2001 and 2002, 46% of female homicide victims compared with 5% of male homicide victims were killed by a current or former partner. Over 2 women a week were killed by a former or current partner during this period. (Flood-Page et al, Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002: Supplementary Volume, Home Office, 2003)
• 40 - 70% of women who are murdered worldwide are killed by their current or former husband or boyfriend. (World Report on Violence and Health, WHO, 2002).
• In 2007, 45% of female homicide victims in the US were murdered by a male partner or ex-partner, compared to 5% of men. [Female Victims of Violence, Bureau Of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, September 2009, USDOJ]

And for Ireland specifically:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/crime/murder-victims-link-to-domestic-violence-145527.html

"TWO-thirds of women murdered by their partners had previously suffered domestic violence, new research has shown.
In a review of sample cases of domestic homicides by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and Women’s Aid, it was also found that separation was a risk factor for escalating violence and risk of fatality, with just under one-third of the 21 homicides studied being committed after separation. "

They must said some super nasty things to warrant being murdered, mustn't they?

harrietharmman

B0jangles wrote: »

Domestic violence seriously injures and kills a lot more women than it does men. Don't wake the bear ladies!

• Since 1996 there have been 186 women murdered in the Republic of Ireland. 115 women (62%) were killed in their own homes. (Women's Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2012)
• In the resolved cases 71 women (53%) were murdered by a partner or ex-partner. (Women's Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2012)
• Another 47 women were killed by someone they knew (e.g. brother, son, neighbour). Thus, a total of 118 women (88%) were killed by someone known to them. In all of the resolved cases, 99% of perpetrators were male and 1% was female. (Women's Aid Female Homicide Media Watch, September 2012)
• In the UK between 2001 and 2002, 46% of female homicide victims compared with 5% of male homicide victims were killed by a current or former partner. Over 2 women a week were killed by a former or current partner during this period. (Flood-Page et al, Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002: Supplementary Volume, Home Office, 2003)
• 40 - 70% of women who are murdered worldwide are killed by their current or former husband or boyfriend. (World Report on Violence and Health, WHO, 2002).
• In 2007, 45% of female homicide victims in the US were murdered by a male partner or ex-partner, compared to 5% of men. [Female Victims of Violence, Bureau Of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, September 2009, USDOJ]

"

Those two you've put in bold are particularly sexist and sickening feminst tactics but I'd thank you for putting them in bold. Any reputable person woudl compare absolute number of male deaths to female ones. What you and they are doing is taking the fact that men are more likely as a whole to be murdered than women, and then using this terrible fact against them to try to make the number of male domesitc violence fatalities appear smaller than it really is. An absolute disgrace.

B0jangles

harrietharmman wrote: »

Those two you've put in bold are particularly sexist and sickening feminst tactics but I'd thank you for putting them in bold. Any reputable person woudl compare absolute number of male deaths to female ones. What you and they are doing is taking the fact that men are more likely as a whole to be murdered than women, and then using this terrible fact against them to try to make the number of male domesitc violence fatalities appear smaller than it really is. An absolute disgrace.

But for the most part it's MEN WHO ARE MURDERING MEN - who is that misleading when the whole conversation up until now has been about domestic violence between men and women?

I'm truly sorry that reality itself is sexist when it comes to the statistics about killings brought about by domestic violence; when it comes to killing domestic partners men kill women A LOT MORE than women kill men.

Galvasean

Nice to see the inevitable has happened and the thread has descended into a 'which sex suffers more' points scoring exercise.

harrietharmman

B0jangles wrote: »

Have any of you gone to the site given on that poster? It's like the kind of thing someone would put together as a satire about MRAs but it's sincere.

Sample: one of the 6 intro articles for new readers explains how most male on female domestic violence is actually the womans fault for being a bitch.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/how-to-slap-your-way-to-slavery/

Nice.

Oh and according to the author, the woman will reassert her power and control of the relationship by goading the man into beating her. You can't make this shít up...

Or a more accurate summary of that article by any normal person is that men who are in relationships with controlling and emotionally abusive women sometimes lash out. The article rightly condemns both the crimes of the females and the male but simply notes it is the female who has most of the power.

There's nothing remotely wrong with that site whatsoever and the article is a pretty decent rebuttal of the "power and control" lies feminists talk about in terms of domestic abuse against women.

iptba

harrietharmman wrote: »

There's some interesting stories coming out of Canada with feminists objecting to posters which state "Men's rights are human rights". They've been ripping the posters down despite those posting them having permission to put them up.

How the hell can anyone disagree that men should have rights?? Anyway, here's the video:

it's well worth watching and pretty entertaining stuff if you like to see idiots acting really dumb, skip to 2 mins 10 for the fun!

They've finally identified the "star" of the video who was organising the vandalism. Rather worryingly she a teacher:

Here's a news report on the issue:I think the only solution to such censorship is for people to put up even more posters. What do other people think?

Thanks for that.

A lot of it comes down to a freedom of speech argument.

Not all men's right activists are perfect; but then it's hardly the case that all women's rights activists or feminists are either. Here, for example, is a feminist "explaining" why she should be entitled to hate men: http://ballbuster4ever.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/on-hate/ . And the comments underneath are hardly a torrent of criticism or a call for the piece to be deleted.

Also, some/many feminists will often say it's up to men and people interested in men to fight any injustices men have; however, they are then far from consistently supportive when people try, in their own imperfect way. If you leave something to be done by other people, there's a good chance they might not do it in exactly the way you would do something yourself.

FrogMarch

My take on the article:

• Mary is a manipulative, emotionally abusive b1tch who doesn't have the maturity to be in an adult relationship nor does she properly respect the man she's chosen to be in a relationship with.
• Harry is a coward who should have left the relationship. He didn't though and now he himself is an abuser. He's crossed the line and he's gone from hen pecked doormat to a violent, abusive partner.

At the end of the day, Harry and Mary deserve each other. They're both dicks.

Woodward

FrogMarch wrote: »

My take on the article:

• Mary is a manipulative, emotionally abusive b1tch who doesn't have the maturity to be in an adult relationship nor does she properly respect the man she's chosen to be in a relationship with.
• Harry is a coward who should have left the relationship. He didn't though and now he himself is an abuser. He's crossed the line and he's gone from hen pecked doormat to a violent, abusive partner.

At the end of the day, Harry and Mary deserve each other. They're both dicks.

Harry is hardly a coward. People who suffer emotional abuse live in terror and are too scared to leave. The violence is still unjustified however

Khannie

iptba wrote: »

Here, for example, is a feminist "explaining" why she should be entitled to hate men: http://ballbuster4ever.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/on-hate/ . And the comments underneath are hardly a torrent of criticism or a call for the piece to be deleted.

Wow. Someone who doesn't know me, hates me for something I haven't done. Feels weird.

Piliger

Khannie wrote: »

Wow. Someone who doesn't know me, hates me for something I haven't done. Feels weird.

Unfortunately once one has lived for a while in this world, one discovered a few things. Among those is a) There are a lot of stupid people in the world. A LOT. b) There are a lot of emotionally damaged people in the world, emotionally damaged and emotionally hurt and emotionally wounded people.
The internet is a fantastically democratising place, giving a voice to everyone and anyone. The result being that it gives a voice to the stupid, the damaged, the hurt and the wounded.

QED.

FrogMarch

Nevermind, that my entire life men have displayed the most disgusting and oppressive behaviors against me and other women.

Well there's the problem there. She probably never had a positive male role model and now she hates all men. Pity for her. Sounds like her potentially wretched life has turned her into a disgustingly wretched person.

Scuba Ste

This just seems like crazy people being crazy. On both sides.

iptba

Scuba Ste wrote: »

This just seems like crazy people being crazy. On both sides.

If you believed in a cause, spent money you earned or fundraised for printing posters*, spent time designing them and putting them up, how would you react if people came along and tore them down, not once but twice (and presumably they would keep doing it)?

* or maybe there was a grant involved, but there can be time involved in getting them also.

K-9

iptba wrote: »

If you believed in a cause, spent money you earned or fundraised for printing posters*, spent time designing them and putting them up, how would you react if people came along and tore them down, not once but twice (and presumably they would keep doing it)?

* or maybe there was a grant involved, but there can be time involved in getting them also.

I'd laugh at the crazies, not go crazy myself, people dragging you down to their level and all. Its a minority opinion seemingly.

iptba

K-9 wrote: »

I'd laugh at the crazies, not go crazy myself, people dragging you down to their level and all.

Would you not want to highlight what happened?

K-9

iptba wrote: »

Would you not want to highlight what happened?

If I was involved probably, but not in websites like the ones quoted.

People lose interest in crazies getting crazy over crazies being crazy. They write off all the crazies, let the crazies be crazy, a perfectly sane response.

JimmyCrackCorn

Angry lady with a history of bad relationships and a horrible outlook on life.

Unfortunately these types can stir up support with fear,hate, insecurity. Which is what every power grabbing dictator has done throughout history.

Here is a much better approach and just a fantastic speech.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MyCWV_N0EsM

woodoo

Anyone who hates men is not normal. Hating half of the human race is ridiculous. What they have to say doesn't really matter to me.

Reku

woodoo wrote: »

Anyone who hates men is not normal. Hating half of the human race is ridiculous. What they have to say doesn't really matter to me.

Yeah, the right way to do it is hate all the human race! Misanthropy FTW!:p

harrietharmman

iptba wrote: »

If you believed in a cause, spent money you earned or fundraised for printing posters*, spent time designing them and putting them up, how would you react if people came along and tore them down, not once but twice (and presumably they would keep doing it)?

* or maybe there was a grant involved, but there can be time involved in getting them also.

Excellent post. As far as I know avoicformen hasn't received any grants from anyone. In regards to postering, there are various people doing all the work voluntarily and paying all the costs out of their own pocket.

iptba

I have often noticed a dislike for free speech amongst some feminists - it has seemed to be tied with political correctness at some points.

I just happened to be looking at the wiki on Neil Lyndon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_Lyndon and noticed

Lyndon first focused on gender issues in a 1990 essay for the Sunday Times Magazine entitled "Badmouthing". The 5,000 word piece argued that, in advertising, entertainment, the news media, family law, education and health research, "an atmosphere of intolerance surrounded men", blaming this intolerance on "the universal dominance of feminism".[5] It later emerged that female writers at The Times had attempted to have the article censored, although this was unsuccessful they instead wrote a derogatory article about Lyndon in the magazine's "Style" section.[8]

I remember student debates in college where "shame" could be called out if you said something that certain people disliked (incl. things that might have challenging feminism) - that's a good while ago, so don't know if things have changed.

Scuba Ste

iptba wrote: »

If you believed in a cause, spent money you earned or fundraised for printing posters*, spent time designing them and putting them up, how would you react if people came along and tore them down, not once but twice (and presumably they would keep doing it)?

* or maybe there was a grant involved, but there can be time involved in getting them also.

I don't see what your getting at. I'd be pissed if someone tore down my posters, hence me thinking they're crazy for doing so. But, what I've read on the groups/individuals website is also crazy.

I don't post in here much or follow the discussions on feminism or men's rights so maybe I'm not well placed to say anything but the debate seems to move to extremes very quickly in an attempt to undermine the opposing arguments which just makes them both seems nuts.

iptba

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

anybody who ´snaps´ and lashes out violently at other people isn´t to be pitied imo, male or female. If you´re not happy in your relationship, end the relationship. There´s no excuse for violence, ever, by anybody/either gender etc etc

Except is that the attitude taken if women are violent? For example, a while back, the story in the media* was that a well-known golfer had had affairs, his wife found out and she started swinging a golf club. He had to quickly try to get away from the house, trying to reverse their car while she crashed the golf club against it. I think the repercussions for a man for such behaviour would have been a lot greater. She was seen as justifiably angry but men are not allowed to be.

Personally, I think people shouldn't get that violent, but if we are going to forgive women for being less violent but still a bit violent, I'm not sure why men shouldn't be treated similarly if we are in the age of equality. Basically, what I'm trying to say is there seems to be different standards when talking about male and female violence.

Perhaps going off-topic.

* we don't know what actually happened

iptba

I had previously read something on the Voices for Men site which I thought was useful:
"I need the men’s rights movement because.."
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/i-need-the-mens-rights-movement-because/
however I've only just read the two articles discussed on the thread, along with all the comments.

I disagree with the author of the article on rape on the suggestion to generally acquit. However, I think there is a problem with the field e.g. the fairly lenient sentences given for false accusations.
With regard to the commentators, there is one loon who talks about some grandfather (not his) he came across controlling his wife through sex, but doesn't sound like was doing it himself. One or two commentators say they think sodomy of a man is worse than rape of a woman but quite a few challenge them.

I think domestic violence needs to be looked at in more depth to look at what happens in totality. I think men shouldn't lash out physically. But I think at the same time, more recognition of what might be happening to them could be useful e.g. training to spot where one has been denigrated verbally for a long time and become a doormat. I think it is plausible that this might stop some domestic violence. I think it is plausible that in many situations there was a prelude to what happens. I have little confidence in women's groups who talk about "ending the silence of domestic violence" when in fact they don't want to end the silence about men sometimes being victims. I think domestic violence needs to be analysed in more detail.

sha the man

harrietharmman wrote: »

There's some interesting stories coming out of Canada with feminists objecting to posters which state "Men's rights are human rights". They've been ripping the posters down despite those posting them having permission to put them up.

How the hell can anyone disagree that men should have rights?? Anyway, here's the video:

it's well worth watching and pretty entertaining stuff if you like to see idiots acting really dumb, skip to 2 mins 10 for the fun!

They've finally identified the "star" of the video who was organising the vandalism. Rather worryingly she a teacher:

Here's a news report on the issue:I think the only solution to such censorship is for people to put up even more posters. What do other people think?

omg she is actually completely f..ked in the head confirmation that staying alone is better then being with someone. the only difference between her and a regular woman is that she is unable to keep a lid on it. this is what is going on in a womans head all the time. the only differance is that usually it is expressed in a more covert way then this one thank you for posting this video

JimmyCrackCorn

No it's going on in One woman's head most of the time.

sha the man

JimmyCrackCorn wrote: »

No it's going on in One woman's head most of the time.

i'd like to think so and i did at one stage. when was the last time you actually got a womans true feelings on any issue

donfers

Khannie wrote: »

Wow. Someone who doesn't know me, hates me for something I haven't done. Feels weird.

they need to focus their resentment that has built up over a long period of time somewhere and the bummer for them is they can't find a particular individual so they conveniently put it all on the only remaining easy target out there, white men.

the reality is, everybody, has failures or is treated badly or disrespected at some stage, but not all of us deem ourselves so perfect and infallible that it simply must be some patriarchal conspiracy behind the failure/disrespect and can't be in anyway connected to our own performance and attitude

....and even if it is some societal system that has placed the barrier in front of us, then if it's any consolation to the mob,then let me say that plenty of barriers are placed in front of men too


people have to think outside of the divisive men vs woman thing and think more along the lines of superclass vs the rest

LeeHoffmann

Except is that the attitude taken if women are violent?

you quote me as if you´re asking about my attitude, rather than using my post as a soapbox. My post was:

anybody who ´snaps´ and lashes out violently at other people isn´t to be pitied imo, male or female. If you´re not happy in your relationship, end the relationship. There´s no excuse for violence, ever, by anybody/either gender etc etc

So yes, that is the attitude taken by me if women are violent. Not all people agree. A lot of people see domestic violence by women upon men as nothing to worry about - it either doesn´t happen or isn´t that bad. I am not one of those people.

when was the last time you actually got a womans true feelings on any issue

the last time she spoke?