Idunno. There’s a small core of moderate republicans who actually think beating up women is wrong, but the rest just think it might lose them votes. And some of them might be perfectly happy to put the idea to a test.

Speaking as a forensic scientist- in fact a DNA analyst, precisely the the end user of the evidence packaged in rape kits- that policy is just about the most fucking insane, outrageous and obscene thing I’ve ever heard of.

(A bit off topic, why doesn’t the state of Alaska reimburse hospitals for the cost, as the state does here in Ohio and I think most other states? Between the oil revenue and their dedicated suckling at the Federal teat, it’s not as though they’re hard up for cash.)

There indeed ought to be a way to turn this into a campaign issue, along with the crippling debt that was her main “accomplishment” as the “fiscal conservative” mayor.

The GOP hasn’t gone hard right on this issue because it hasn’t been center stage.  The moment this gains media traction, I guaran-fucking-tee you’ll see a host of rape apologists spilling out of the woodwork in a spontaneous campaign to crack down on national slutitude and blame all those feminist lesbian hussies who were clearly just asking for it on the terrible persecution of the red blooded American male.

Ultimately, the argument will find its inevitable conclusion in burkas, and the wingnut brigades will be once more laughed at by 60% of the US Population while gaining massive backslapping support from the other 40% still trapped in whatever oxycotin-fueled delusion of the 50s they still think they are living in.

What, precisely, was the victim supposed to do if she couldn’t pony up the money for her rape kit?

In addition to all the other questions we ask post-violation and pre-911 call (Is going through a trial worth it, ro do I just want to forget and move on? Will I be blamed for this? Does this give him MORE power over me, by virtue of the fact that I’ll HAVE to think about it / talk about it / testify about it for months to come? Will anyone even BELIEVE me?), do we now have to pull up Microsoft Fucking Excel and plan out our budget to ensure we can accomodate the rape kit?

This pisses me off.

There’s a small core of moderate republicans who actually think beating up women is wrong, but the rest just think it might lose them votes.

Seriously?  I find this pretty offensive. What about Republican women?

Fashionably:

What about them. Some are not doubt in that moderate core. Others think that it only happens to women who deserve. it.

What’s offensive is that there are people who get national airtime saying that it’s a good thing for husbands to “discipline” their wives.

Anyway, I’d have to think that - logically - the Republicans have a vested monetary interest in identifying the rapist.

If the victim becomes pregnant, that child (it can’t be aborted!) will have to have child support. That support can either come from the state, or from the father. Surely, in the interest of thrift, it’s worth spending $1,000 to find the father, rather than get stuck with monthly Welfare checks, right?

And, just to be pro-rapist, instead of sending them to jail, we can clap them on the back and give them a promotion in order to be sure that there will be plenty of child support money to go around and the state won’t get stuck with another “welfare mom”.

Everyone wins! The rapist, the baby, the…uh…the rapist! Everyone!

i don’t understand the reasoning behind making women pay for rape kits.  how do they get away with this shit?  when someone breaks into my home, do i pay policemen to come to the scene?  do i pay investigators?  how is this different?

the issue is that everyone thinks they’re anti-violence in theory

The part I was objecting to was the “small core” part—it seemed too broad a brush without some quantifiable statistics.

(Although if online <a >comment threads</a> are anything to go on, perhaps my general faith in humanity is misplaced).  Trigger warning on that thread, btw.

Amanda, yeah, how in the name of God is it the victim’s responsibility to pay for it?  The evidence is something the STATE wants to get in order to carry out a STATE function.  The victim is someone who cooperates in providing the evidence, and from whom the evidence is taken.  Like you say, how does the fact that the evidence is taken from the victim make it the victim’s responsibility to pay?  It isn’t the victim that’s going to be using the evidence?

rats, html failed…

Seriously?  I find this pretty offensive. What about Republican women?

I think that Amanda is right above to say that some people sympathize with the men in the situation, but I think that there’s also a really strong undercurrent of “if it was that bad *I* would have left” and “she must have done something to deserve that, no one *I* know would ever behave like that unprovoked”. They don’t put themselves in the victim’s shoes, they put the victim in theirs, and of course the view of the situation is totally different and it becomes really easy to believe that you would behave differently, and if the (insert insult) woman didn’t do what you would have done then it didn’t really happen at all.

I have a very suspicious feeling that the “rape kit charge” was instituted under the fear that women who weren’t actually raped might CLAIM to have been raped to get…I don’t know…a free pregnancy and STD test and to screw over an ex-boyfriend or something. Or for whatever reason women are supposedly always falsely claiming to be raped. Why should the state have to pay for hysterical women and their ridiculously petty rape schemes?

Whereas, if your window is broken and your stuff is gone, you MUST have been legitimately robbed. No one ever wastes police time, money, and effort pretending to be robbed. Right?

Yeah, I think moderates may agree that rape is wrong, but I don’t see that as what defines the moderate position.  I think the moderate (or common sense) position is defined by how we define/identify rape.  I think this gem from Bill Napoli sums up the far right position:

FRED DE SAM LAZARO: Napoli says most abortions are performed for what he calls “convenience.” He insists that exceptions can be made for rape or incest under the provision that protects the mother’s life. I asked him for a scenario in which an exception may be invoked.

BILL NAPOLI: A real-life description to me would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life.

Shorter Napoli: Only religious virgins can be raped.

i dont know Amanda, i see a lot of the more rational MRA types (yes some do exist) bitching about how lack of evidence of DV means you get a restraining order or lose custody. The issue seems to be, and it varies by state, that one can get a restraining order with no evidence whatsoever. I know in Maine and California thats the case, just say you’re scared and bam you have one. When it comes to acrimonious divorce and custody issues, its amazing how quickly progressive and/or feminist people regress and use the system, which is broken, to their advantage on all sides. its the smart move but pretty frustrating.

also I think the he said/she said issue does relate to how a lot of laypeople think about rape in a criminal and not civil fashion. They have a hard time getting from he said/she said to guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I’ve yet to have anyone explain to me how one gets a conviction in a case where it purely comes down to testimony and that its right that a conviction is attained. I’m not talking about false allegations and all that prattle from some of the MRA’s, I’m talking about if tonight my wife and I go to bed and I rape her and in the morning she calls the police, as a layperson with a little bit of knowledge about rape prosecution but not much, I simply cannot fathom how a guily verdict could ever be rendered in a case like that. Her word is not worth more than mine, both would be equal and as such does not reasonable doubt creep in? Seems the only response I get to that usually is “why would she lie?”.....well that doesnt seem like enough to send me to jail for 20 years. I know the end of this would have terrible repurcussions but I just dont see how it could work and that is terrifying.

Abusers know this, and consciously will choose non-punching violence so that they can maintain the illusion of non-abuse.

Amanda, I just want to thank you for putting this into words for me.  I was once in an abusive relationship, and even now I have a hard time admitting to myself that it was abuse, or taking the situation seriously, because he didn’t usually hit or punch me (and a lot of the abuse was emotional and sexual, or physical in really unconventional ways).  I hadn’t really been able to get into concrete thoughts the very obvious idea that abuse != punching and only punching.  Somehow it’s always easier to digest a thought when you see it in black and white out of someone else’s mind.

When it comes to acrimonious divorce and custody issues, its amazing how quickly progressive and/or feminist people regress and use the system, which is broken, to their advantage on all sides. its the smart move but pretty frustrating.

A common complaint, but one that I’ve actually never seen played out in real life. Could it be a strawman that you might have accidentally bought into?

Sometimes - in my experience - divorces are acrimonious BECAUSE the marraige was abusive. As opposed to claiming a man as abusive BECAUSE you are acrimonious…

ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) - The state has long suffered the highest sexual assault rate in the nation, and the problem is worst in rural areas, according to a report released Tuesday.

The article.

Classy, classy mayor (now governor).  You’re a class act, Governor Palin.  Really and truly.

Answer: She’ll be against domestic violence, but won’t fund programs that provide better prosecution or protection or legal rights. If the hoo-hah about her OKing the Wasilla policy of prepayment in place when she was mayor is indeed correct, she probably did it under the guise of cutting costs or “no special entitlements”.

HOWEVER, it is true that some Assemblies of God churches and some independent churches of the same ilk may discourage women from reporting their own abuse from their husbands, and from reporting corporal (not sexual) abuse of their children by their father/her husband. It is very widespread to counsel women to have patience and to submit better to husband, rather than divorce, though I suspect relatively few churches would do so if the husband had injured the wife seriously enough that she had to be admitted to hospital for several days, or had shot or stabbed her.

dananddanica, why do you think rape cases have such a low conviction rate?  If that imaginary scenario you laid out were to actually happen, there is almost no chance you’d be found guilty.

i see a lot of the more rational MRA types (yes some do exist) bitching about how lack of evidence of DV means you get a restraining order or lose custody. The issue seems to be, and it varies by state, that one can get a restraining order with no evidence whatsoever. I know in Maine and California thats the case, just say you’re scared and bam you have one.

I don’t think you (or the people you’re talking about, if you don’t share these views) really know what a restraining order is or what its consequences are.  A restraining order is not a criminal conviction.  It’s not a “nyeah, nyah, now I get to rule your life by saying what you can and can’t do” document.  It’s an order that prevents the subject of the order from physically approaching or contacting the requestor, which also usually includes other intrusive behaviors like unauthorized visits to the requestor’s workplace, loitering on the street outside their home, etc.  I can’t be absolutely sure about this, but it’s unlikely that the existence of a restraing order against someone would cause them to lose custody of their children without other evidence in favor of such a thing.  Especially if the other partner couldn’t produce any substantive evidence that the children would be in danger. 

Restraining orders are not considered a penalty for wrongdoing, and in fact if someone had absolutely no ill intentions towards the requestor of the restraining order, and it was just a matter of their being “scared”, it shouldn’t matter at all to the person being “restrained”.  If you got an order preventing me from coming within 100 feet of your home, and I’ve never been to your home, don’t know where you live, have no desire to ever go there,  and have no ill intentions toward you whatsoever, that restraining order has no power over me and might as well be toilet paper as far as I’m concerned.

The Opoponax is absolutely correct.

My last boyfriend had a “restraining order” from his ex-wife stating that he couldn’t dispose of “her” (their) car without dealing with the courts first.

The full story was that the registration/insurance paperwork was coming due, and he didn’t want to pay for it and she couldn’t, and he didn’t want it out there without insurance when his name was on the title. Since neither of them had filed for divorce, he asked her whether or not they needed to dispose of the car, or what. She wasn’t sure how to take this question, so she prudently filed a restraining order against him. She didn’t need any evidence or proof or anything like that - it was just a court document saying that, for the time being, the car was “hers” pending settlement and he couldn’t just show up and take it - which he “wasn’t” going to do anyway (I’m not so sure about that, but I’m biased), but it was still a safe measure.

When they filed and went to settlement, the order did not “influence” the settlement in any way, because there was no evidence/proof-of-wrong-doing behind the restraining order.

If, in fact, he hadn’t really intended to swipe the car, the order didn’t affect him; if he HAD been intending to swipe the car, the order would have prevented him. Simple as that. The order wasn’t perjorative, just a fact. And, while I DID think (in retrospect, I wasn’t there at the time) that she kind of over-reacted, I don’t begrudge her protecting herself and her assets, just in case.

To dananddannica,

We get convictions in those cases just the same way we get them in battery/self-defense cases with no witnesses other than the combatants.  Juries judge the credibility of the witnesses.  It really isn’t hard.  And if you’ve actually read transcripts from rape trials, a lot of time the defendant’s story changes.  I.e. from “I never had sex with that woman” to “she came on to me” to “we had consensual sex” changes in details, blah blah.  Or sometimes the defendant and complainant tell the same story, and the question is whether there was legal consent, or the defendant was reasonable in believing that there was.

Rape cases really aren’t that hard, or different.  The difference is that our populace doesn’t understand them very well.  Actually, that isn’t much of a difference either, when I took sociology of crime, I learned that conviction rates are lower for crimes that are not the “generic” form of the offense.  I.e., if a burglary charge involves breaking into a house to steal stuff, no problem.  But if it involves breaking into a car (which in some states is a burglary) and committing some other felony (I dunno, statutory rape in the back seat of said car?).  I bet you anything that violent stranger-rapes have higher conviction rates than acquaintance rapes.

-Ismone

About the only circumstance I can see a restraining order being a serious problem for the person under one is if one of two people living in the same home gets a restraining order against the other one. This effectively renders the person under the order homeless for a period of time, and the fact that you *can* get these things with no evidence means that the potential for abuse does exist.

On the other hand, it’s really difficult to get evidence that, say, your husband rapes you on a regular basis, or that he’s repeatedly threatened to kill you, or things like that, so requiring evidence will result in more people dead. Given the choice between some innocent people being thrown out of their homes for a few weeks, and some innocent people being murdered, sadly we have to come down on the side of preventing murder.

besides, it’s not like men can’t use these things. My husband got one against his ex (he *had* evidence—photos of bruises she left on him, his smashed eyeglasses, a police report. He might not have been able to get it, being male, without those things, but if MRAs claim that DV against men is as prevalent as DV against women, they should be grateful for anti-DV laws, not fighting to have them repealed. As someone who really was assaulted by his wife, my husband is certainly grateful for anti-DV laws, though he wishes there was more support for men in the system.)

Also, another note (in reply to The Opoponax’s comment about abuse) that has been left out is the prevalence of Stockholm Syndrome in women who were abused.

I was abused as a teenager (verbally, physically, and sexually) by a boyfriend and, despite having admitted long ago that that’s the way that it worked, I still feel guilty for it, still feel sorry for the situation he was in (his mother had just died), and still question internally whether I was *really* abused or whether I just had it coming to me.  That kind of cognitive dissonance is extremely difficult to get around (if the conversations I’ve had with other women I know who have been in similar circumstances are anything to go by), and a lot of women never get past it, which is why they keep on returning to the same asshole, or, alternatively, same asshole, different person.

Perversely, since I never went through any kind of therapy for this, it’s comforting to know that I’m not the only one who feels this way, but I still wish I was the only one, period.

A lot of people who have been abused report having had a sudden moment of realization when talking with people from “normal” relationships. “What, you mean you don’t cringe whenever someone touches you? What’s up with that?”

Amanda,

You surely do misrepresent MRAs (Men’s / Father’s Rights Activists).  I wonder if you need to misrepresent them to vilify them (us) so that their legitimate grievences are not listened to.

Allow me to rebut your own words:

================================================
““Men’s rights” activists demand that the government defund battered women’s shelters,”

No, we want shelters to admit men.  We pay 1/2 the taxes into VAWA, we should get equal access.  All the arguments to the contrary have long ago been dealt with:
1) We can’t mix men and women.
  - Why not, we mix them in emergency rooms, dorms, homeless shelters etc - there are things called doors we can change when dressing.
2) These women are afraid of men
  - And when they see male victims and realize men can also be victims then female DV victims will realize it’s not a gender thing, it’s an abuser thing
3) We are already stretched too thin and barely helping women
  - So, we have a preference system?  We help women over men, whites over blacks, Christians over Muslims?  Sorry but “Separate But Equal” was overturned in 1954 (see Brown v. Board of Education)
======================================================

“treat all rape victims like they’re criminals themselves, and prosecute rape victims if the state fails to get a guilty verdict against the assailant—-a move that appears to be designed to make rape legal because filing charges could land a victim in jail, so it’ll never happen.”

No we want verifiably false accusers to face a penalty stronger than a slap on the wrist.  The various arguments against this are clearly not working (see: Duke Lacrosse)
1) Punishing false accusers will stop real victims from coming forward
  - Why?  If it’s simply he said/she said there is no proof the woman is lying - why would an ADA go forward?
2) Punishing false accuser could get a real rape victim punished after she endured a rape
  - and prosecuting a man with no evidence happens all the time now (see: Duke Lacrosse).  The Innocence Project has freed many men who were convicted of rape after DNA proved they were innocent.  Shouldn’t the person who had them kidnapped by the state, socially destroyed, financially ruined, romantically scarred for life, and had years taken away from them be punished?  Were women having their lives effectively ended by a prision term I do not think you would take it so lightly.
3) We have to err on the side of caution.
  - The founders of our country considered the rights of the accused, in ANY crime, to be of great import, and said that gov’t should err on the side of caution (meaning the accused). 
==========================================================

“Obviously, they don’t demand that victims of other crimes be held criminally liable for the state’s inability to make a legal case.  If someone breaks into your house and steals your stereos, MRAs aren’t demanding that you get thrown in jail if the perpetrator isn’t caught. “

That is a gross distortion and a poor analogy.  A better one would be that DAs not prosecute people who defraud insurance companies should get a free ride - and that is YOUR position - but clearly rape is a far worse crime to be accused of than insurance fraud.  So, logically, falsely claiming it should carry a proportionally more severe criminal penalty.

To answer YOUR analogy - if the person claimed the stereos were stolen, NAMED someone (as clearly the anonymity is not an element in rape prosecutions) for various vicious reasons, and was then found to have put the accused in legal peril - whereby they lost their freedom, possibly their job, irrevocably destroying their social/legal/professional credibility, and caused extreme emtional pain - then yes, the false accuser should be locked away.  Both as a deterrent and to keep the rest of society safe.

========================================================

(cont below)

(cont from above)

“They also object to common sense measures to prevent abusers from gaining access to their victims, such as restraining orders and court-supervised visitation for any children that the relationship between the abuser and the victim might have created. “

What MRAs object to is that “restraining orders” are unconstitutional by black letter law. 

(paraphrasing from memory)
“No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or personal property except by proper due process”

An Ex Parte (only one party shows up) hearing wherein NO evidence of wrong doing is presented, save for another persons subjective FEELINGS, is not due process.  In the cases where the person has done violence and it can be presented, it still should be done with both parties present.

At least women HAVE shelters to go to (see first rebuttal), whereas men do not.

And, once again, when the accusation is proven false then the false accuser should be denied THEIR liberty, property (the home), and access to children whose minds they can poison and teach the idea that anothers person’s property and freedoms are of no consequence.

I appreciate your time in reading this and hope that you will respond to me via E-mail so that we can continue our exchange.

With respect,

L. Steven Beene II

sorry but since when is crime, treatment of victims and budget (the PD is part of the municipal budget planning) strictly an internal police affair?

Amanda,

You said:

“What kills me, absolutely kills me, is that MRAs should be grateful that a lot of women prefer to handle DV by divorcing the abuser and hashing it out in civil court.  Because the alternative is to file charges and have the state prosecute him as a criminal.  But instead of realizing how many of their comrades are lucky to escape jail because of victims’ generosity, MRAs bitch about how evidence of domestic violence means you get restraining orders or lose custody.”

I think you misunderstand MRAs issues on DV charges and restraining orders.

If you are accused of DV you are charged CRIMINALLY.  I think we are quite aware of this.

However you seem to only see one side of this.  If the woman uses a false accusation as a tactical advantage in a divorce she first takes away the man’s home and access to his children with the ADDITIONAL implied threat that he can ALSO (sorry for all caps - don’t know how to use bold) be charged criminally.

Why should a falsely accused man, no matter how often it happens it wrong (see: no matter if only 1 woman is raped it’s wrong), be “grateful” he ONLY lost his place to live and access to his children.

Were this happening so often to women, I doubt you’d ask women to be grateful.  Plus it’d be nice if men had access to DV shelters in the first place, don’t you?

“Go build your own”

We did, VAWA is an equal opportunity tax applied to both men and women.

=================================================

You also said:

“The incorrect belief that rape is a civil matter, when it is a criminal matter, explains the baffling explanation for the theory that women make up rape accusations for money.  Most people realize that criminal courts don’t give the victim pay outs beyond maybe a little money to offset costs incurred dealing with this matter, but they seem to think that if you are raped and the rapist goes to jail, you get a big check.  By magic or something. “

Crystal Mangum specifically stated that she was “going to get money from those white boys” after she falsely accused them of rape.

She used a CRIMINAL charge to set up her CIVIL proceedings. 

To pretend that this does not happen is to willfully wear blinders.

Hope that helps,

L. Steven Beene II

Thank you, L.L. Bean or whatever, for reminding us that if one woman, anywhere, does wrong, all women must suffer for it.

I gotta start applying that to men. You know, like they always SAY we feminists do.

LSB II
ttthppppt

- yes lets get rid of sex segregation in shelters so that women can have the security of knowing their abuser can follow them in.
- yes women should totally force women to face their terror, get over it, and “realize it’s not a gender thing, it’s an abuser thing” - this is far more important than letting women desperate enough to need a shelter have a space where they can just feel safe for a bit.
- yes tax dollars should always be split equally in every program so that they benefit the sexes exactly the same; we never ever spend money in any way that disproportionately benefits men.
- yes its common that men are demonstrably innocent were clearly attacked by a vicious liar; cases that just don’t meet the high standards for criminal conviction or hang on mistaken id are so rare - I doubt they exist.  plus clearly women don’t know the pain of the innocently accused man, how severe it is, especially compared to mere rape - clearly we need to step up defend men more.
- that Duke girl - she was certainly in it for the money, fine young upstanding Duke men would never sexually abuse the stripper they hired for their artistic appreciation.
- plus she was wrong about 3 of them, I mean the prosecutor pushed her into making an id that she said was shaky (which was you know part of the proof of her innocence and the evidence against Nifong)  If she could be pressured into a wrong id then clearly she wasn’t abused.  Anyone who was abused at a party would never be able to mistake her abusers for other similar looking party goers.
- TROs (temporary restraining order) are an abomination; how dare someone tell me that I don’t have my liberty to “innocently” hang outside my wife’s window if I want to.  How dare they use a common civil law tool against me!!!
- how dare they issue a TRO ex parte!  I might have to wait a whole 15-25 days to have a contested hearing.  Clearly I need to hang out outside that window right now!  And for feelings?  I mean yeah I threatened her a lot so she feels I might hit her, but I haven’t actually done it!  Your going to punish me for my words - what happened to free speech?!??
- men are equally victims, dagnabit.  Just cause we are more likely to make money and be able to afford to just move out doesn’t mean we don’t need the same number of shelters.  Plus there are studies by certified MRA experts that say women initiate aggression as often as men.  Don’t let the fact that I am roughly 3 times as big as my wife make you treat her pushing me any differently than you would me pushing her.

Seriously, the Congressional hearings for VAWA established how serious the problem of intimate violence against *women* was/is in this country, and how inadequate the response was (still often is).  The evidence of the extent of intimate violence against men is so very much less in comparison that your manufactured equivalency is just offensive.  But hey I am a tax and spend liberal, you want more money ask for some I will be happy to spend it.  But don’t take resources away from women.

“Thank you, L.L. Bean or whatever, for reminding us that if one woman, anywhere, does wrong, all women must suffer for it.

I gotta start applying that to men. You know, like they always SAY we feminists do.”

If you read many of the posts the male=abuser / female=abused IS what is often said here.

So, if any man anywhere does DV, ALL men should be denied access to DV shelters?

I am so glad you prove my point.

=======================================================

Let’s address TomO’s rant:

“- yes lets get rid of sex segregation in shelters so that women can have the security of knowing their abuser can follow them in.
- yes women should totally force women to face their terror, get over it, and “realize it’s not a gender thing, it’s an abuser thing” - this is far more important than letting women desperate enough to need a shelter have a space where they can just feel safe for a bit.
- yes tax dollars should always be split equally in every program so that they benefit the sexes exactly the same; we never ever spend money in any way that disproportionately benefits men. “

So, a shelter is run by idiots?  If Sally says Tom hits her, I highly doubt Tom is going to get let in.
I never said any PERSON (notice you ignore males who are abused Tom(?)) should “get over it”.  Please point that out.
Imaine a PERSON (like, ya know, a man) not even being able to get into a shelter due to his gender alone.  Should we exclude a white person if it was a white person who was the abuser?  Or should we exclude Muslims because the victim was abused by a Muslim - you know - like YOU said: “letting a [person] desperate enought to need a shelter ... etc”

Your logic does not work Tom.  Exclusion based on Gender is bigotry.  As is by color or religious belief.  Look it up, last time I checked it was the law.

As to equal money being spent on women and men - once again, Tom, Brown v. Board of Education said that separate but equal is unconstitutional.  Since the shelter program is ONLY geared towards women, and men don’t even have separate and unequal shelters ... isn’t that discrimination?

============================================

Some men are viciously lied about.  It happens.  Why does that threaten your world view so much?  Is it something you did and are now afraid someone will find out?

Do I think you did anything?  No, and neither will you, nor your sarcasm, nor one sided perception of life put me on the defensive.  Nice try though.

=============================================

Yes, “that Duke girl” - Crystal Mangum was stripping for money.  Are you attacking women who strip?  Are you saying she should be prosecuted or denigrated for doing a service that is legal?

Then how can you apply a double standard attitude towards the men who legally paid her?

But, really, that side steps the point that this vicious woman was not some poor victim of Nifong - her own words “I’m gonna get some money from those white boys” kinda shows her predatory and mercenary nature.

As to her being “abused” at the party: Did you SEE the photographic evidence the players took?

And beyond that, Tom, if the PLAYERS stories, ANY of them, were as contradictory as Crystal Mangum’s I doubt that you’d be so sympathetic.  She deserves no sympathy simply due to gender nor claim of being a victim, but rather first it must be determined if she IS a victim.

She was a liar who was about to go to jail for a parole violation (she tried to run over a COP!) and needed an out.  She cried rape.  She lied.  WHY, if you are so in the corner of rape victims, would you possibly back up a woman who is so clearly lying?

===========================================================
(cont below)

(cont from above)

You said:
“- TROs (temporary restraining order) are an abomination; how dare someone tell me that I don’t have my liberty to “innocently” hang outside my wife’s window if I want to.  How dare they use a common civil law tool against me!!!”

Yes, Tom, so glad you agree.  How dare ANYONE be deprived of their own home without even so much as a hearing they can attend.  Tell you what, after reading this, pick up your wallet, walk out of your house and do not return for 15-90 days.  No excuses nor “yea, but I didn’t do anything” blather.  Since it’s no big deal, just do it.  I’ll be waiting for your reply from some internet cafe or in 90 days so you can tell me how it didn’t bother you.  See you in 90.

Tom said:
“- how dare they issue a TRO ex parte!  I might have to wait a whole 15-25 days to have a contested hearing.  Clearly I need to hang out outside that window right now!  And for feelings?  I mean yeah I threatened her a lot so she feels I might hit her, but I haven’t actually done it!  Your going to punish me for my words - what happened to free speech?!?? “

Clearly he needs to have access to a home he is legally required to pay rent or mortgage for, but has no access to, without DUE PROCESS.  Again Tom, I’ll see you in 90   - but, you won’t do that will you?

Clearly Tom, you haven’t seen movies or TV shows wherein women threaten and hit men and the audience not only isn’t horrified, but people laugh.  We sure have come a long way - violence with impunity - there’s equality for you.

==========================================================

And Tom lights in with these sexist canards:
“- men are equally victims, dagnabit.  Just cause we are more likely to make money and be able to afford to just move out doesn’t mean we don’t need the same number of shelters.  Plus there are studies by certified MRA experts that say women initiate aggression as often as men.  Don’t let the fact that I am roughly 3 times as big as my wife make you treat her pushing me any differently than you would me pushing her. “

A) Equal access is the law Tom.  Period.  If, at any time, you disagree, start to agitate for people of color or religious minorities to be denied access.  Until then, you’re acting as a bigot, no matter how “correct” your politics are currently.

B) Far fewer women are hurt on the job than men, do we also deny women workmen’s compensation? your logic Tom.

C)  Bullys Tom, pick on people who won’t fight back.  Bullys are white, black, Hispanic, Asian, male, female, Christian, Muslim etc.  A bully hits a person, robbing them of their self-worth and terrorizing their victim.  Are all bullys built like linebackers Tom?  Your assertion falls apart in the face of psychological and physical facts.  Some big guys don’t hit back - it’s not in their nature.  Bullys don’t take on people who fight back Tom.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but bullys are vicious abusers who pick people who can’t or won’t defend themselves.  And, yes, Tom, men who allow themselves to be hit, because they are decent human beings and don’t want her hurt their spouse/gf, can be abused and lose their sense of self and their dignity - just like women.

Give it some thought,

L. Steven Beene II

Quit peddling your (pages and pages of barely coherent) tripe here, LL Bean. Nobody’s buyin.

When men stop committing the OVERWHELMING majority of rapes and domestic assaults, we will be more interested in your issues. Meantime, DV shelters refuse men because ABUSERS ROUTINELY TRY TO GET ADMITTED SO THEY CAN KILL THEIR HIDING SPOUSES.  Think it doesn’t happen? Work there for awhile.

And if you think a false accusation is worse than BEING RAPED, then I suggest you spend a week in prison and see how delightful forced sodomy can really be. You blithering fuck.

Well, What ....

I offered logical and quite coherent opinions and ideas. 

You mentioned forced sodomy as a punch line.  I guess you find forced sodomy a joke.  But, only if it happens to men.  How, egalitarian of you.

A shelter that houses one spouse will not admit the accused abusing spouse.  You seem to have knowledge of how shelters work - did YOU check your brain at the door?  I doubt it.

And many men ARE raped, and raped repeatedly, in prison.  I don’t notice how that gets much attention from advocates.  How come Well,What?

It’s not just rapists or pedophiles this happens to, it’s the small, the weak, the non-gang affiliated.  How come I know more about that, and apparently have more empathy for, those this happens to?

Don’t you care for the weak who are raped?  Do you think we should turn a blind eye to rape in prisons?

Any and every man who is falsely accused of rape faces that threat.  I thought the threat of rape is like being threatened with death or worse? 

Do you think those men who are raped much care WHO is doing it?  Male, female with a strap on, or even a pink goat?  Or do they care they are raped.  And once raped in prison, you can pretty well count on it happening regularly.

Seems I care more about fairness, the weak, the rule of law, victims of violence (overwhelmingly MEN, btw) than you do. 

And that makes me a “blithering fuck” .... how exactly?

Steven

A couple reasons why I think Palin bears some responsibility for the Wasilla rape kit situation and wasn’t faultlessly unaware of it:

-The police chief she hired was speaking out on the wrong side of the issue.  Even if she didn’t know, what sort of institutional priorities was she setting where the police chief felt comfortable publicly taking this awful position?  Clearly ‘looking out for women who get raped’ wasn’t one of these priorities. 

-Legislation to make sure rape victims didn’t have to pay was hitting the Governor’s office at the time and making news.  She’s a politician with an eye on becoming governor.  So the issue should be on her radar.

-The town is really small.  It’s not like this decision was ten layers of bureaucracy away from Palin.  Sure, there’s still going to be division of labor, but we’re not talking about LA here.  This at least increases the likelihood that she’d run into the way rape kits are paid for.

Riiiight because having a women’s only shelter is just like a white only school/lunch counter/water fountain.  Clearly I want to make men a subordinate class.  Thats why I also am ok with single sex schools and bathrooms.  Your moral point is idiotic, not all discrimination (used in the neutral sense) is wrong.  Your read of the law is wrong too, discrimination against a protected class is legal if it meets the appropriate standard of scrutiny (which for sex is intermediate).  So people with a lick of common sense can realize that it might be unreasonable to expect every volunteer at the shelter to know who “Tom” is, to recognize him on sight, and to be sure to exclude him.  It might be unreasonable to expect women to feel comfortable around men for a while.  There are so many differences between this and the apartheid of jim crow its not even funny.  Your stretching consistency to an absurd point.  Different situations you treat differently.
I do believe that in a country of 300 million there have probably been some instances of deliberate scheme to falsely convict someone through false accusation of rape.  Spontaneous combustion apparently happens sometimes too.  You can prosecute for it too, its at the very least criminal fraud, probably other crimes as well.  But, no, you aren’t raising this point in good faith.  A once in a blue moon fluke is not a reason to change policy in a way that will discourage people from reporting rapes.  If there is a specific case where someone is lying and you want them prosecuted thats one thing.  But the MRA claim is we need to start prosecuting false claims more vigorously, which is BS, because these criminal fraud claims are so incredibly rare they are essentially not happening—thats why you don’t see prosecution.
The only proof in the Magnum case was that Nifong was unethical and that the 3 people accused were innocent.  The other things are disputed facts—your not showing a link for your quote from her, but googling it says the source is something somone claims they overheard her say to someone else - hearsay, not you know undisputed fact.  Yes, I am sure that if you believe everyone else and disbelieve her that she is guilty, but the fact that a woman under the influence of alcohol and other drugs does not consistently remember the details of an assault (especially when being coerced by a criminal prosecutor to identify specific defendants) does not mean that she was trying to get innocent people convicted.
Sorry, not buying the bs about restraining orders either.  TROs are fricking common in civil law - I can get an order that prevents you from doing whatever you want with your property for all kinds of reasons.  Why do they become an outrage when applied to family law?  Do you really believe that people are kicked out of their home without any ability to go pick things up?  Would you like to buy a bridge I have?  Send someone to the house.  Talk to the judge the next day and ask for permission to come for a set time only.  This is not difficult.  And its so very very temporary - you get a contested hearing in 15-30 days, really as soon as the court can schedule one.  Thats how due process works.

Tom,

Single sex schools are mostly PRIVATE and not funded publicly are they?

Single sex bathrooms are like having single sex rooms in DV shelters.

Homeless shelters have a men’s floor and a women’s floor.  See, no problem Tom.  Artificially setting up barriers that are easily solvable is the move a someone who is more interested in ideology than stopping violence.

Women who use poisons to kill is rare too Tom, should we just not prosecute those crimes?  Many crimes are rare Tom, but we prosecute them nonetheless. 

“Special Protected Class”?  That’s a simpleton’s argument of the left.  You mean anyone not white, male, heterosexual, and/or Christian, right?

So any in those classes can be freely discriminated against, right?  In the name of “social justice” don’tcha know.  For acts I did not commit, had no part in, and abhor. 

Riddle me this Batman, did any woman on this planet’s DNA not come from 1/2 a man and 1/2 a woman? 

My cousin is half black - should he discriminate against himself?

My friend is Asian American - should she get “special protected class” or would her being a conservative exclude her?

========================================

No Tom the proof that Crystal Mangum was lying was the time stamped photos, her motivation after the fact (not going to jail due to parole violations), and the complete lack of DNA which, considering even the most basic elements of her story make her claims physically impossible.

==========================================

TROs

A) You make an appointment with the judge at HIS/HER discretion, not your convenience - it may be weeks before you even get a hearing.  What happens to your personal property in that time is anyone’s guess.

B) You can do things to my property in any # of ways?  Ok, besides a TRO how can I, in a 2-12 hour period deny you access to your place of living and possibly your children?  Name it Tom.  You are such an expert - do name how you can do that?

C) Temporary restraining orders, when used maliciously, and in the course of premeditation used during a divorce can often turn into PERMANENT TROs.  You really don’t know how the law works do you?

D) Why is it that you seem to horrified that, if proved, a false accuser is punished.  I mean, since it’s so rare, what’s the problem?  Oh, you worry that a man (and only men, apparently) will LIE (like false accusers do), and misuse the court’s power?  But, Tom, YOU just said that happens only in a blue moon.  Or did you mean ONLY men lie, and try to misuse the power of our courts.  Women would never do that, or only in a blue moon.

Never did attend junior or senior high did you?  Where girls routinely have “friendship wars” and spread malicious gossip about each other.  You know, a false allegation by any other name.  And upon reaching the magical age of 18, a certain gene goes “poof”, and it’s clinically impossible for more nuanced, thought out, better planned, and now, better practiced lies to come out?

Is that your theory?

Steven

You know, L, I actually see some of your arguments, and I think that they would be applicable in a perfect world where there was no discrimination - but that’s where it falls apart; there is sufficient disparity in the power between genders (and races and so on) that this kind of protection is necessary.

However, you lost me here:

“Never did attend junior or senior high did you?  Where girls routinely have “friendship wars” and spread malicious gossip about each other.  You know, a false allegation by any other name.  And upon reaching the magical age of 18, a certain gene goes “poof”, and it’s clinically impossible for more nuanced, thought out, better planned, and now, better practiced lies to come out?”

Yes, of course, because apparently females are mostly just lying bitches who are looking for a spot in everyone’s back to stick a knife in and twist.

You had me at least convinced that you were coming from a genuine place, if a misguided one, but then you threw this one in and, once again, showed where most people who make these arguments really come from - a distorted, misogynistic worldview incapable of considering that maybe, just maybe, most women who come forward are telling the *truth*.  They’re just starting shit because it’s what chicks do, of course - ANYONE who has been to junior high would know that!

Who wronged you, and in what way?  I dunno; it sounds to me like you probably used to actually have a balanced viewpoint but then were wronged by a female, and then took the next step to assume that all females are out to get you.  It’s like this friend I have who told me that I owe the guy who raped me repeatedly as a teenager an apology for insinuating in a private conversation involving only the two of us that he might be willing to repeat the act.  It’s absurd, but it comes from a distorted view.

“Well what” suggests that “nobody’s buying” the points laid out by LS Beene.  Please don’t speak for me.  And please forward me the memo where you appointed yourself the spokesbeast for the entire board.

INTPagan: Nah, you give L.L. Bean too much credit. He started out as a Nice Guy™ and simply graduated to MRA when his own wife left him for being a douchebag.

There is no good reason—not one—to house battered males and females in the same facility.

If we did, the batterer could claim to also be battered, to gain access to his/her victim.

I have volunteered at some of these facilities.  The security is crazy-tight and with good reason—the battered person in an abusive relationship is most likely to be murdered by their abuser when they are in the process of leaving.  This is not like a homeless shelter.  This is a refuge for the victims of violent crime, who are still currently in a great deal of danger, and who are very afraid.

If you can point me to any men’s groups who are trying to raise funds, charitably or from the government, for more shelters for abused men, I will put my money, or my IRL signature, where my mouth is an sign or donate.

Most of them are not, because they don’t really want to open shelters for men.  They want to close shelters for women.  Not accusing the poster here of wanting that, but know who you’re lying down with, man.  Now, why, oh why, would someone want to do that?

Oh, and BTW, with battered women, at least, the hardest thing to do is not to keep them from seeing men collectively as the enemy.

It is to convince them that they are not the enemy, and that they did not bring the abuse on them by being imperfect.  That the abuse was not their fault, is not normal, is not acceptable, is not okay.  That is the hardest thing to do.  And it is hard for us to hear women defend their abusers again and again and again.

this Beene character (drawn too broadly, not very authentic, too ignorant of obvious truths to be coherently created) is not only longwinded and obsessed and doth protest too much, but to argue for putting unknown men in close proximity to women who have been beaten, etc, by other men, is the most self-defeating, stupid-between-the-ears, jackasseristic bunch of misogyny I may have ever heard.

convinced of his own rectitude and swayed by his own sense of male victimhood (poor patriarchy, starting to go down for the count, awww), he gives up his credibility in his very first sentence, way up the page.  it’s hard to believe one of my fellow males could be so warped and proud of it.

Uh-oh!  History mom is foaming at the mouth again!  Calling someone a douchebag because she disagrees with him.  My my.  I certainly wouldn’t want to tangle with someone as clever as you!

Why should men have to apply for separate funds for shelters.  We pay 1/2 of the taxes that go to VAWA already.  We should then pay MORE?

While the tactic to twist my words to put me on the defensive is lame I will solve the problem of men and women being in the same shelters:  A men’s wing and a women’s wing.

Or if not, simply give the funds to men equally.

Before there were women’s shelters the nonsensical reply to funding them was “well, gee we don’t get many calls from women - so there must not be a problem”.  Retarded.  Women knew there were few, if any shelters.  In the same way why do men not call the police to request to go to a shelter?  Since there are few to none .... the same logic follows.

No, I am happily married.  And no I don’t have to defend that either.

I did not say ALL women were evil and wanting to stab someone in the back, I did however refer to the “friendship wars” that uses character assassination that some young ladies do while in their teens to extrapolate how it doesn’t magically stop at the age of 18.

The ones trying to distort my words and put me on the defensive and who take my words to absurd extremes only reconfirm my claims that some people NEED to lie and exagerate and will do so in a heart beat to either further an ideology, or on the personal level hurt a person they are upset with.

Proving my point is a lame way to dismiss it.

Steven

L. Steven Beene the second, can you give any reason to assume that you’re writing in good faith? Because in my experience, people like you usually aren’t.

Or if not, simply give the funds to men equally.

Mr. Beene, I hate to break this devestating news to you, but life is not fair. Not all crimes affect men and women proportionally, and in this case you are arguing to split funding 50-50 between men and women when the crime that the funding goes to alleviate the effects of affects a much larger percentage of women. Therefore you are all for over-funding male victims of domestic violence and under-funding female victims. If you truly were for equality in care you would (as mentioned above) be petitioning the government to set up shelters for male victims of domestic violence (and hey! you could petition for that money to come from VAWA funding already established if you’re worried that you pay in and don’t get a benefit out) instead of trying to integrate male and female victims. I’m not even convinced that you are taking the male victims properly into account by wanting them housed with women. It would likely be more supportive to have them in male-only housing for at least the initial period of seperation until they come to grips with the situation they are in.

50-50 in this case does not equally address the situation, no matter how “school-yard fair” it sounds on the surface. As for paying VAWA taxes already, well I pay for schools and have no children, I pay for the fire department and have never had a fire, I pay for roads and have a job that I walk to, and yet I understand that being part of a larger community, paying for things that benefit the whole of that community makes me safer all around. Even when I don’t personally get any use out of the community hockey arena or the new town anquet hall built in part with tax payer funding.

Granted I’ve been skimming LL Bean’s posts, but does anybody see what I see?

He sure does talk a lot about anti-DV policy as a violation of men’s property righ.ts.

It’s kind of like he sees women as men’s rightful property.

Steven, just a couple of thoughts:

Is it fair that men pay taxes to fund women’s shelters without getting use of those shelters? Yes. We pay taxes to benefit society, not because we get to “use” those taxes directly. I have no children, but I pay taxes to support schooling - do I get to “use” those schools? No. Am I benefitted by being a part of a society where children are educated and - therefore - more likely to become contributing members of society? Yes. You don’t get to “use” women’s shelters - you benefit from a society where women aren’t having to arm themselves to the teeth to protect themselves because the government won’t. That’s how taxes work.

You claim that an abuser would NEVER get admitted to a shelter because the woman would pre-emtively say “Tom abused me.” Thus, the admissions staff would be forewarned. But you don’t seem to realize that people can get fake I.D. - “Tom” can become “Bob”. A picture? Shave your beard, color your hair - I guarantee an over-worked government employee won’t recognize you. Not to mention that not ALL women say “Tom abused me” - some of them just say “I’ve been abused - I don’t want to say by who, because I love him - I just need a place to stay.”

You claim that false accusers whould be punished, but you seem to conflate a wrongful verdict with a false accusation. A LOT of those wrongful verdicts have involved “wrong place, wrong time” cases where a woman was raped - she’s not sure by who - but Tom happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and she recognized him from the bar earlier, and he had that DV charge from five years ago, and the jury convicted. This happens in murder cases all the time. Does that mean the CORPSE lied about who killed him? No. Neither does a wrongful rape conviction necessarily mean that the WOMAN lied about who raped her. Now, for cases where the woman out-and-out obviously lied and there’s serious evidence that she did so, yes, a false olice report has been filed and should be pursued. The main reason that it wasn’t in the Duke case was that there were serious doubts about the accuser’s mental health (and thus responsibility) and it was far more important to get Nifong (who was clearly in the wrong) and her testimony was necessary for this.

One more point - the “rumor wars” of girls is largely fiction. I had WAY more guys spread rumors about me in high school (“I slept with her,” “She gives good head,” “She’s an ice queen,” etc.) than girls. However, even if one gender is more likely to lie as a child, there’s absolutely no evidence to support that continues in adulthood - boys are harder to potty-train than girls, do you still wet the bed? Unlikely - you are an adult. Statistically, there is NO DIFFERENCE between men and women in terms of false police reporting, and - also statistically - rape false reports are no higher than false reports for any other crime, including insurance fraud. So there’s no female conspiracy.

f you truly were for equality in care you would (as mentioned above) be petitioning the government to set up shelters for male victims of domestic violence (and hey! you could petition for that money to come from VAWA funding already established if you’re worried that you pay in and don’t get a benefit out) instead of trying to integrate male and female victims. I’m not even convinced that you are taking the male victims properly into account by wanting them housed with women. It would likely be more supportive to have them in male-only housing for at least the initial period of seperation until they come to grips with the situation they are in.

Good points, kodiak. But aren’t most male victims of domestic abuse in same-sex relationships? I’m not sure, and I plead that it’s much too early in the morning for me to go looking for data. I’m also not sure what would be the appropriate response. Maybe if someone here has expertise in this area, they can expound.

“One more point - the “rumor wars” of girls is largely fiction. I had WAY more guys spread rumors about me in high school (“I slept with her,” “She gives good head,” “She’s an ice queen,” etc.) than girls.”

That, too.

Although I see some people here making an honest effort - some are intentionally “misunderstanding” what I have said.

“You seem to think women are property”  Snort.  Yea, like I even said that.  And if you “honestly” misunderstood, and just want me to jump through 10 hoops to “prove myself” you are pretty new to board debate.

To the serious posters.  Yes, you pay taxes to schools, and fire departments et al even though you do not use them.  Ummm, but you have the OPTION of using them.  No one is saying that if you have children that you cannot use them.  That is more like the analogy you want, no?  I mean, without children, why would you need to use the school.  If your house is not one fire, why would you need a fire department?

No, those analogies, well meant or red herrings, don’t fit.  If your house were to catch fire you would have the option to ask for the fire department and they would be obliged to come.  If they did not, simply due to gender - people would be fired.

If you were to not have children, you would pay school taxes and not get any benefits.  Once you had children you would be able to utilize the taxes you pay for those schools.  If you were denied benefits, people would be fired.

I can see how some have issues with men being granted access to shelters.  I’ll have to give that some thought.

But, lets address the other problem : Shelters are not just a place to stay.  They are places to get legal referrals, counseling etc - those are vital to a person leaving a violent spouse behind.  Men are denied these services.

Steven

Steven,

You’ve answered the letter of ONE of my responses (not the spirit) and ignored the rest.

If I am barren and incapable of having children, should I get a tax refund because there’s no way in hell I can EVER “use” schools? No. Because the taxes are to help society at large not the specific individuals who pay that specific tax.

To wit, if an illness that ONLY kills men were to suddenly ravage the US population, it would be “unfair” to tax me to subsidize the increased health care and research costs because, hey, I can’t get sick from this so where’s the benefit! However, it WOULD be “fair’ to tax me because our society would be drastically impacted by the loss of 90% of our labor force!

Furthermore, as others have suggested, you are free to argue for men’s shelters to be funded out of those SAME taxes. Why aren’t you? You seem focused on getting men in those women’s shelters and NOT getting men access to equal care which is not the same thing. Given this fact - and the fact that you ignored my other points on the topic, makes me feel you are not arguing in good faith.

You know what, he’s right.  The only fair split of taxes is 50-50.

Thus, half of the funds for prisons, training funds for prisoners, and medical care for prisoners should go to women’s prisons.

QE fucking D.

Ismone,

The funny thing about the argument, is that if society were funded by “fees” (taxes at receipt of service) rather than traditional taxes, it would almost guarantee the downfall of society.

- Why should my money go to welfare when I can’t take advantage of welfare funds? Poor people should have to pay for their own welfare.

- Why should my money go to support prisons? Criminals should pay for their housing. (Not a terrible idea on the face of it, but with what income? Take it from their bank accounts? Sure, I guess the wife and children don’t need that money.)

- Why should my money go to support medical research? On the OFF CHANCE I get something, I’ll fund the research then. I don’t want to fund the research if there’s a chance I might not need it - you know how hard it is to get a refund these days.

- Why should my money go to Social Security? When I get old, THEN I’ll pay into Social Security and they can pay it back to me. How hard is that?

- I don’t drive, fly, or use trains, and I grow all my food locally from seeds my family has been saving for generations. Why do I need to pay for roads, planes, and railroads to ship food to people? They can shoulder that burden themselves.

- Why should I pay for schools (I don’t have children), mortgage bailouts (I built my home with my two hands and I own my own land), bank bailouts (I keep my money in my mattress), roads (don’t drive, see above), or any of the other trappings of society if I don’t use them? Why can’t I live in a little cave of my own making? Who cares if society collapses outside and the starving, violent hordes come to take my resources? I can handle them.

And so on. The argument is absurd. Not to mention, can you consider the amount of paperwork involved in verifying that everyone who claims a tax refund actually is owed one?! I realize the real argument here is that, hey, women’s shelters already exist, so just desegregate them already, but the “tax reason” prong of that argument just doesn’t fly.

And, by the way, we also segregate men and women prisons. For good reasons. And - like Ismone pointed out - the money to those prisons is NOT divided 50/50. (At least in part because there are far more male prisoners than female, of which the flip side is true for female adult victims versus male adult victims of domestic violence.)

You seem focused on getting men in those women’s shelters and NOT getting men access to equal care which is not the same thing.

Quoted for truth.

Mr. Beene, what you should be focusing on is equal access to support services and not eqal access to funds. Additionally, if shelters for men were staffed adequatley, there would be no problem with those shelters offering the same programs offered at womens’ shelters. I for one would be 100% willing to sign petitions and pressure my congresscritter to get male victims of domestic violence the help and support they need to break the cycle, but I have not seen any argument that I could support on any of the MRA sites I’ve seen. In fact I haven’t seen anyone pressuring for an effective solution, instead I see conversations dominated by the abusers, not the abused.

There are a ridiculous number of nuances and shades of grey to get lost in on this issue, but shoehorning men into an environment geared specifically towards protecting women only has the effect of disrupting the safe space that has been established. It does not serve any of the victims of domestic violence, male or female, when you make a safe space fraught with potential dangers.

Faye,

First, I am not obligated to answer an and all of your questions.  I don’t say that to start an argument, but because other posters have asked questions with sarcasm and in such a way as to only elicit “yes” or “no” reponses wrapped in the question.

I noticed this similar phenom on the thread to “find questions to trap Sarah Palin”.

I don’t mind spirited debate and questions that are pointed, but avoid the ones that are not really questions.

Not saying your are that.  But, since you asked a really good question, I’d like to answer.

Faye Asked:
“Furthermore, as others have suggested, you are free to argue for men’s shelters to be funded out of those SAME taxes. Why aren’t you? You seem focused on getting men in those women’s shelters and NOT getting men access to equal care which is not the same thing. Given this fact - and the fact that you ignored my other points on the topic, makes me feel you are not arguing in good faith.”

The problem is the “experts” are mostly working for women-only shelters.  I have tried talking to them, and even the most reasonable ones seem to be blind to the problems of men, think that abuse against men is not a problem, and/or want to “talk about it” (read: delay) whereas if the problem was a lack of access to shelters/services for women the time for talk would have long passed.

I can refer you to a video on YouTube (it’s easy to find) where in Canada a member of the Senate and certain men’s groups had a conference to discuss men as victims of DV and getting help for said men.  The women from the women’s shelter showed up and completely disrupted the meeting.  And I don’t mean they interjected themselves into the discussion, they just shouted out angry “questions”, comments, and kept ANY discussion from even beginning.

One woman would yell an accusation.  Then before anyone could respond ANOTHER shelter employee would yell a “question” (how often do you beat your wife - for example).  Then another and another and so on.

My point is that from my own personal experience the higher ups in shelters are loathe to part with any of the funds so help men.

Faye, It’s like what you have seen here:

One person said:  “How can a woman beat up a man who is twice her size?”
I answered that question using bullys as an example of mindset.  The problem is that even though I gave a pretty good answer, I can just about guarentee that the next time that same person hears about men wanting shelter/services, they’ll likely bring up the same nonsense.  In short, regardless of the answers supplied the are subscribing to an ideology and/or stereotype that is rigid and they are not interested in discussion, just shouting down/wearing down others with the same questions over and over w/out trying to find solutions.

When policy makers want info on who needs services they ask the experts in the shelter community, right?  Most of these higher ups still work on the paradign of male=abuser / female=victim.

And even moderates in the shelters want to “have discussions” and “talk” about how men need help - but I’ve found this “talking” to be a euphamism for delay and wear down - not about solving the problem of a lack of access to men for shelters/services.

Your point is valid Faye, but the obstacles is not men not voicing a need, but the “victimologists” who subscribe to the PC view that ONLY men are violent in relationships hold the purse strings.

Even Joe Biden, who is the author of VAWA talks about how his sister used to commit DV against him, how, in his house he was not allowed to hit back, that her violence was condoned and ignored, and years later, because he had been conditioned and socialized to accept female violence as “not violence” he still can’t see it.

This guy helped WRITE VAWA, was a victim of violence himself, but since society doesn’t deem it important he doesn’t see himself as a victim (hate that word).  But clearly he is.

Does that help?

Steven

Ismone Said:
“You know what, he’s right.  The only fair split of taxes is 50-50.

Thus, half of the funds for prisons, training funds for prisoners, and medical care for prisoners should go to women’s prisons.

QE fucking D.”

Yes Ismone, you are right - if the populations of women prisoners should grow. 

However by YOUR logic, we should not give them anything and let them lobby for it because since most incarcerated people are men, women should have to lobby for medical care, training, et al instead of having access to it just like men do.

I do so love when ill thought out sarcasm and ignorance makes my point for me.

I mean, hey, since men are involved in 90% of workplace injuries, and 95% of workplace deaths, why should women get workmen’s comp or their families get social security benefits - they should have to lobby for it ..... right Ismone?

Try again,

Steven

Faye, your first post asked serious questions, but the second was chock full of nonsense.

Welfare?
Needs reform and a time limit - but asking them to pay it back doesn’t seem fair.

Housing Bailouts?
Why should I subsidize someone who got a loan they could not pay back?  Let them get a smaller house and be happy they have a roof over their heads.  Nice housing is not a right - we are not a socialist country (at least not yet, thank God).

Medical Research?
Who said anything about medical research?  If the people want the gov’t to fund particular research (like a cure for HIV) I’m all for it.  Now, that said, I think gov’t is the WORST in R&D;(on most subjects, but not all) because a free market company has an incentive not to waste money on bureacracy and to find a product.

But NONE of these is anything like services like schools, fire departments, etc etc

In all of those, which I DID ANSWER (try READING my answers before asking me to re-write them) are services available to the general public - without the exclusion of race, gender etc.

And Faye, you’re right, we do have same-sex-only prisons.  But proportionally women’s prisons receive far more funding per capita than men’s prisons do.  Look it up.  And when we need more prisions (regardless of gender) we build them.

No one in men’s prisons are vehemently lobbying against women not getting the prisons they deserve.  You seem to miss that point.

Steven

Mr. Turdball: Maybe if L.L. Bean actually made an intelligent and logically consistent argument he would have earned an equally intelligent and logically consistent argument. But since he has spared us intellectual rigor for misogynist, MRA talking points, he gets mockery and insult.

You don’t like it, find another litterbox to play in.

Ahhh History Mom,

Since you don’t LIKE my opinions, and the logical answers I lay out - you dismiss them.

I did not:

Seek to defund women’s shelters - merely to get men services.

I showed that false accusations are not dealt with at all - and how that can hurt both men and women (not to mention children) - and that is misogynistic ... how exactly?

You show no empathy for men who bring up how they are excluded from services they pay for and ... I’m “whining” or “misogynistic” or [whatever insult you wish to hurl] ...

Sorry Mom, that doesn’t work, no matter how much you want it to.

Wow : “find another litterbox to play in” - sure shows how dismissive you are, how much you don’t like an ideology challenged ...

I didn’t know helping 1/2 the population could be so ... threatening.

If you’d like to try to DEBATE or discuss, like we adults do, then feel free.  Your dissmive tone is dismissed.

Steven

I didn’t know helping 1/2 the population could be so ... threatening.

The problem is that men are not half of the abused population, so a disproportionate percentage of aid going to women is not, in fact, disproportionate to the percentage of abused men vs. abused women.  I am all for whatever aid is necessary going to whomever is abused, and I empathize with anyone who has been in that situation, whether they’re female or male.  However, you, again, seem to live in a bubble where everything is already equal and it just isn’t.

That and you seem to think that this is just an extension of the fact that females are naturally catty, as evidenced by your statements about junior high earlier.  Do you really think that abused women are just kidding around?  If you just hadn’t have brought that up I would have thought you were a genuine, if misguided, activist, instead of just a misogynist in activist’s clothing.

There are groups lobbying to get women prisoners (and male prisoners, and prisoners as a whole) better access to healthcare, education, and other kinds of funding.

And VAWA was passed because . . . wait for it . . . people fought for it.

You want me to join in your fight to get male victims of DV more funding and help?  Just tell me where to go.

Also, before we talk about more female prisoners, you would have to show me that women are being disproportionately not convicted of the crimes they commit.  Like, say, white men are if you use black men as the yardstick.  Or white women are, if you use black women as the yardstick. 

Logic, please.

Also, before we talk about more female prisoners, you would have to show me that women are being disproportionately not convicted of the crimes they commit.  Like, say, white men are if you use black men as the yardstick.  Or white women are, if you use black women as the yardstick.

Logic, please.

But - but - all things are already equal, right?  RIGHT?!  I mean, dude, everyone knows that racism and sexism are TOTALLY over!  (If, by “everyone,” we mean “Steven.”)

INT Pagan said:
“I am all for whatever aid is necessary going to whomever is abused, and I empathize with anyone who has been in that situation, whether they’re female or male.  However, you, again, seem to live in a bubble where everything is already equal and it just isn’t. “

No I don’t live in a bubble, and I appreciate what you say.  I am not saying 1/2 of funds go EXCLUSIVELY to men (nor to women where women are less in need: ie workers comp) - I keep saying, and somehow it gets ignored, equal ACCESS to services.

Some people, not necessarily you, seem willfully, let me say that again, willfully blind to me saying that.

================================================

INT Pagan said:
“That and you seem to think that this is just an extension of the fact that females are naturally catty, as evidenced by your statements about junior high earlier.  Do you really think that abused women are just kidding around?”

Lol, if you are honestly NOT going to believe that some women can be, especially in their teen year, incredibly catty, then you’ve been out of the loop.

Teen boys have their own annoying traits ad infinitum.

And to all who try to label me misogynistic to put me on the defensive - sorry, male guilt (much like white guilt) is not gonna work on me - try another tack.

==================================================

Ismone said:
“You want me to join in your fight to get male victims of DV more funding and help?  Just tell me where to go.

Also, before we talk about more female prisoners, you would have to show me that women are being disproportionately not convicted of the crimes they commit.”

First off, VAWA has had gender neutral language written into it (after the fact) - so all I want is equal application of the law.

You like gender based discrimination?  Wow, I thought leftists hated that.  Guess only when applied vis a vis whites, males, conservative, Christians etc.

========================

INT Pagan,

Sexism goes both ways.  MRAs acknowlege that, but point out that sexism against women is at least addressed, while sexism against men has to be (over and over) proved, and the men pointing it out are the subject of derision (as seen here), mockery (as seen here), and they are insulted (as seen here).

We agree - sexism is alive and well.  And your brand of it is not less sickening.

Steven

And to all who try to label me misogynistic to put me on the defensive - sorry, male guilt (much like white guilt) is not gonna work on me - try another tack.

You may not like being on the defensive (who does?), but please consider the possibility that your views regarding the “cattiness” of women may be stereotypes picked up from the culture and may not reflect reality. Us “lefties” pick up all sorts of nasty preconceptions and biases too; the point isn’t to feel bad (guilty), but to be aware of and mitigate racism/sexism/etc.

INT Pagan,

Just for the record, it’s INTPagan, as one, because I am an INTP on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, and a pagan.  They are not separate, nor are they equal, in my case.

Sexism goes both ways.  MRAs acknowlege that, but point out that sexism against women is at least addressed, while sexism against men has to be (over and over) proved, and the men pointing it out are the subject of derision (as seen here), mockery (as seen here), and they are insulted (as seen here).

My pointing out that you seem to come from a reasonable place without consideration for the real world, and also that your equating this situation with the cattiness of adolescent females (while omitting the cattiness of adolescent males) sounds misogynistic, is not mocking or derision.  Either you picked your words wrong or you think that abused women are just being snotty little bitches, like those girls in junior high.  Pick one.

Also consider that sexism against males is something that individuals carry, but that our culture as a whole does not support, while sexism against females is institutionalized and documented as a societal problem, so your pushing them as equally pernicious is ridiculous and unrealistic.  I loathe bigotry from anyone, but I also believe in taking a position rooted in reality, and the reality of this is that you are out of touch, whether it’s by choice or by simple obliviousness.

Wow, History Mom, you added an “r” and made my name into “Mr Turdball”.  What an intellectual colossus you are.  Can I call you “Hysterical Mom”?  Isnt’ that just as clever?  You haven’t offered any coherent rebuttal to Beene’s arguments, do you really think your 3rd rate ad hominems are a substitute?

Wow, History Mom, you added an “r” and made my name into “Mr Turdball”.  What an intellectual colossus you are.  Can I call you “Hysterical Mom”?  Isnt’ that just as clever?  You haven’t offered any coherent rebuttal to Beene’s arguments, do you really think your 3rd rate ad hominems are a substitute?

Do you have anything, to, like, say, Mr. Tudball, or are you just going to keep on playing apologist for the MRA representative over here?  I mean, I’m sure we’d be more than happy to talk to you if you actually had anything to contribute, but so far you’re acting more like the bully’s smaller friend who takes vicarious pleasure in watching him beat up people far too big for the friend to take on himself, then laughs at the people he couldn’t challenge by himself. 

Except that Steven isn’t giving us a beating, even if he’s trying pretty hard.

Do you even have any arguments of your own to make?

INTPagan,

First off, I apologize for getting your name wrong - not an intentional dis.

You said:
“Either you picked your words wrong or you think that abused women are just being snotty little bitches, like those girls in junior high.  Pick one. “

Or I can pick that people deliberately “misunderstood” what I said.

I ALSO said that teen boys came with their own annoying traits ad infinitum.

And it is telling, with so much “sexism” being directed at women that women cannot be analyzed in any negative way, but men (or boys) can.

A girl or woman who says “women/girls are better at [whatever]” is at worst taken as confidence or at best a statement of fact that women have found a niche/trait that they are better at.  Yet Lawrence Summers even SUGGESTING (again apologize for all caps - don’t know how to italicize or bold) some brain chemistry differences that might have men being better at something gets him fired.

That men and women deal with things differently, sometimes, but not always, is not a bad thing nor a good thing - often, but not always, it is just an IS thing.

Putting me into the position wherein I had to choose between only two options that YOU allowed doesn’t work either if neither is necessarily right.

Steven