TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

TIL a CDC study claims more men are victims of partner abuse than women : todayilearned

Bortasz

March 22, 2015
1550 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://np.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/2zvjw7/til_a_cdc_study_claims_more_men_are_victims_of/
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title TIL a CDC study claims more men are victims of partner abuse than women : todayilearned
Author

Bortasz

Upvotes 1550
Comments 129
Date March 22, 2015 3:32 PM UTC
(11 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2zwrv7/til_a_cdc_study_claims_more_men_are_victims_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/til-a-cdc-study-claims-more-men-are-victims-of.985158
https://theredarchive.com/post/985158
Top posts by Bortasz

Just Feminism.

4524 upvotes
March 26, 2015
/r/MensRights

Sarah Silverman Admits She Made Up a Wage-Gap Story, Then Calls Critics ‘Maniacs’

2872 upvotes
April 16, 2015
/r/MensRights

TIL that 47% of male victims of domestic abuse are threatened with arrest. 21% are arrested. : todayilearned

2021 upvotes
May 30, 2015
/r/MensRights

4chan on men suicides.

1965 upvotes
October 3, 2015
/r/MensRights

Female Veteran on Women in Military.

1248 upvotes
January 11, 2016
/r/MensRights

Male privileges

1030 upvotes
September 4, 2015
/r/MensRights

Judge Freaks Out in Court: "I Hope You Die in Prison!"

924 upvotes
March 5, 2015
/r/PussyPassDenied

True equality in mainstream.

806 upvotes
September 10, 2015
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Deefry 129 points130 points131 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

It's refreshing to see that this has been allowed for 12 hours now and is still being discussed.

I'm cautiously optimistic that I won't see this post in /r/undelete.

[–]Hamakua 75 points76 points77 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It is being allowed, not because "TIL" isn't anti-MRA, it is, along with ask reddit, IAMA, off my chest, best of... and probably a few others.

No, TIL is anti MRA when it can get away with it, but this submission's early comments are more aligned to the backlash against SRS and SJW's in general.

That backlash has been growing and will continue to grow.

People are sick of it.

[–]YM_Industries 45 points46 points47 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, as we've learned thanks to #ModTalkLeaks, all the defaults except /r/videos are owned and operated by SRS or SJWs.

[–]davidd00 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

/r/offmychest is totally ran by sjws

[+]Hithard_McBeefsmash -43 points-42 points-41 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

That backlash has been growing and will continue to grow. People are sick of it.

don't be so melodramatic

[–]Elvick 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Pretty realistic to me. Hardly melodramatic. There's only so much nonsense people can take before they stop letting it roll off their back and call it out as nonsense.

That's what's currently happening. People who were silent before are getting annoyed with all the crap and finally saying something about it. Rather than just letting it pass until it stops. Since it's not stopping, only really getting more ridiculous, they're saying enough.

[+]Hithard_McBeefsmash -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm not saying it's not true. It's just that phrasing it like that makes you sound like the protagonist in an anime.

[–]Bortasz[S] 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I also was positively surprise.

[–]Dangerestdrag 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This isn't a til thread it's in men's right?

[–]WiredSky 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This links to /r/TIL?

[–]marswithrings 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

the thread you are commenting on is in /r/mensrights but if you click the link OP posted it leads to /r/todayilearned

[–]Exiili3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Mods are asleep. It will not be there tomorrow.

[–][deleted] 26 points27 points28 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm impressed that this report has even seen the light of day. Not to mention the onslaught of feminists and SJWs.

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It didn't see the light of day. The CDC misrepresented their own data when presenting the conclusions for the media. Why do you think you never hear about this stuff except here?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So what you're saying is the CDC sat down, looked at their findings and said "Shit! We can't say any of this". Then in front of the media they lied about what they found to avoid an inevitable shit storm with feminists and SJWs.

The thing I will never understand is why this is even controversial. There may be 2 sides to a story but there is only 1 side to a fact. The CDC did a proper report and these are the findings, so maybe feminists should accept this and smarten up.

[–]DavidByron2 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

So what you're saying is the CDC sat down, looked at their findings and said "Shit! We can't say any of this". Then in front of the media they lied about what they found

Yes. Exactly that.

to avoid an inevitable shit storm with feminists and SJWs.

No. They already are feminists. They don't fear flak from feminists although it's true they would get that.

[+]sexyjeremypharoahwiz 11 years ago [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

As a male victim of domestic violence, I just want to share that my personal experience with the police was incredibly fair and unbiased.

[–]codyc1515 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Lucky for you. I have not had the same experience.

[–]starbuxed 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am with you, I did not have an unbiased and fair experience with the the law when my ex battered me and hit me with the car. In fact I consider myself quite lucky that I was only "detained" for 5 hours on charges of false imprisonment. All of time, I was in need of medical attention. I had an altered state of consciousness. That's the last time I will call the cops and faith lost in police. And what lead me down the path of men's rights.

[–]officialbum 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ditto. I had "that girl" everybody worried about. She pushed me down the stairs, threatened to kill me and then threatened her life when I tried to leave her and then smashed my car when is did leave her. The cops wouldn't arrest her and said I would have to get a restraining order. So of course I just manned up and waited for her to get over it and leave me alone. If it was a dude arrests wouldn't have even been questioned. Pussy passes are very real.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's sarcasm, right?

[–]sexyjeremypharoahwiz 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Nope, genuinely treated well. They asked if I wanted to press charges against her and everything. There are good people out there, even if the system is broken as a whole.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

For DV you aren't normally asked (because nobody says yes), it's normally mandatory, so they might have dropped that because you were just a man.

Did they ask if you wanted to be taken to a shelter (which presumably none exist for men)?

[–]TRPACC 32 points33 points34 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its wonderful to see the non mra sector mraing.

[–]questionnmark 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Intent is far more important than physical ability to do harm. It is extremely rare for a man to ever intend to physically harm the person that he loves. Once weapons are involved even the weakest people are deadly.

[–]Lucifirius 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Weapons are the equalizer.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (45 children) | Copy Link

It is undeniable that men have inherent power advantages over women.

It is also undeniable that abuse comes in many forms and that women are just as capable of abusing men, coworkers, peers and children in equally insidious ways that don't include violence.

When it comes to violence, men, generally, have the upper hand.

But, people can be fucking crazy. A woman coming from an abusive household and past abusive relationships may have completely awful and irrational conflict resolution skills against a man who may be super passive.

What does this non-violent man do as he is getting slapped, screamed at and threatened with murder in his sleep? Now, say that she has hidden all of the money? Say she threatens to have him fired? Say she threatens to take away the kids? Say she threatens to have him arrested?

What do you do, as that man?

There is only one thing you can do, legally, and only one thing you can do morally. Walk away. That is your only option.

But, then what happens?

She threatens to kill herself. Her fear of abandonment triggers a massive threat response and she goes on full attack mode, telling everyone in your life lies. Filing for a restraining order. Convincing other men to beat you up because of what an asshole you are... even though you have been strictly non-confrontational.

She fakes a proof of service and gets a restraining order against you, intentionally depriving you of your constitutional right to have a fair trial.

Now, you've lost your job, your family hates you, you are getting arrested for a restraining order violation on a restraining order that you never knew existed, and she moves in right behind your mom's house, so you can't even go to the one place you have left to go, because it will be a violation of the restraining order.

Sound crazy? I only tell this story because it is absolutely a real world example.

Abuse isn't about men and women. It isn't about poor or rich. It isn't about addiction or sobriety.

ANYONE CAN BE A PSYCHOTIC ASSHOLE.

[–]ARedthorn 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The strength advantage really only matters in a fair fight.

Given a fist-fight between a 180lb muscled bro and a 140lb nerd, I know who I'd bet on...

But if the nerd pulls a knife or a gun, I'd strongly reconsider. If the nerd gets the first shot, while the jock isn't looking, I'd strongly reconsider. If the jock can't fight back (restrained physically or socially, drugged or disabled), I'd strongly reconsider.

Abuse is never fair. So why do people keep reminding us that men are (on average) stronger?

[–]archnihilist8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I entirely agree with you. The argument that men are stronger has nothing to do with who is abusive and who is not. My point is that it is personality that determines abusive behavior, not physical strength.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

DV isn't a boxing match. It's a terrorism match. Who goes to sleep first? Who says they will slit the kids throats if you don't do what they say?

Bet on the bigger psychopath every time.

[–]SilencingNarrative 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

It is undeniable that men have inherent power advantages over women.

And women have inherent power advantages over men. The particular advantage men have over women, their physical strength, doesnt count for much when it comes to domestic violence, because you have to sleep sometime. And when you do, you can be struck so hard in a single blow that you would not be able to defend yourself, and your abuser can do any amount of damage at that point. So, for people living together, the only practical limit on how much one may abuse the other is how vicious they are. I submit that, despite our cultural bias that holds women to be morally surperior to men, women are just as likely to be vicious, and to the same degree, as men are.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

I found one study's findings to be interesting:

"outside relationships, men and women have equal anger levels, but inside relationships, women both experience and express more anger than men."

http://blogs.psychcentral.com/inside-out/2013/06/study-women-experience-and-express-more-anger-in-relationships-than-men/

It's an interesting subject and one may think that conflict resolution and anger management should be incorporated into general education.

[–]Tinito16 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

"outside relationships, men and women have equal anger levels, but inside relationships, women both experience and express more anger than men."

Because they can get away with that. The man cannot hit her no matter what, so she can do whatever she wants. That's where our society is right now. Men who complain are seen as whiners but if a woman complains it's normal.

NOTE: Not saying violence against woman should be allowed to counteract her anger and acting out (that's a retarded argument). Instead, all violence, be it physical or emotional, from either parter should be seen as bad, to the point of taboo.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (13 children) | Copy Link

But it depends which society. The world, in general, is behind a lot of other countries, where women have no rights, are property, essentially, and there is no such thing as rape between a man and a woman if they are married.

I agree, entirely, though in the society that I and you live in. What can a man do against a woman who wants to be violent against him? Not much. Especially, if she is even a little smart about it.

[–]tallwheel 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

There are certainly countries where women have less rights than in the West, but places where they have literally "no rights" and men can do whatever the hell they want to women? Nah. There is no such place anywhere. Wife beating and rape are at least frowned upon pretty much everywhere in the world.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

Even in the US, there are police and judges who think it is okay for a man to beat a woman.

In my own personal experience, a Judge David Brown, in California, denied a restraining order, with prejudice, against a man who provide a hand written confession to knocking out his wife's teeth. To the allegation of rape, this man admits to having sex, but says the reason it was consensual was because "we were going to miss each other," even though she had already acquired a one way ticket ot leave the abusive relationship.

So, rape apologists and people who are okay with wife beating exist, even in the US.

In California, pretty much half of domestic violence restraining orders are denied. The odds of people falsley reporting abuse? Not nearly half the time. There is a massive discrepancy.

[–]tallwheel 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

We're talking about societal beliefs here. The fact that there may be a few people in a society who believe such things doesn't mean that's what the society believes as a whole.

So, let me ask you more directly, in which country do women literally have "no rights"?

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

There are plenty of places where people live at the whim of organizations that have a monopoly on violence. You don't even have to draw a line between men and women. If you are an organization with a monopoly on violence, then whatever laws may be in place don't actually matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania#Modern_slavery

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2008/03/08/ten_worst_countries_for_women.html

[–]autowikibot 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Section 25. Modern slavery of article Mauritania:


Slavery still persists in Mauritania. Though slavery was abolished in 1981, it was not illegal to own slaves until 2007. According to the US State Department 2010 Human Rights Report, abuses in Mauritania include:

...mistreatment of detainees and prisoners; security force impunity; lengthy pretrial detention; harsh prison conditions; arbitrary arrests; limits on freedom of the press and assembly; corruption; discrimination against women; female genital mutilation (FGM); child marriage; political marginalization of southern-based ethnic groups; racial and ethnic discrimination; slavery and slavery-related practices; and child labor.

The report continues: "Government efforts were not sufficient to enforce the antislavery law. No cases have been successfully prosecuted under the antislavery law despite the fact that 'de facto' slavery exists in Mauritania."

Oumoulmoumnine Mint Bakar Vall is the only person prosecuted to date for owning slaves and she was sentenced to six months in jail in January 2011. In 2012, it was estimated that 10% to 20% of the population of Mauritania (between 340,000 and 680,000 people) live in slavery.

According to the Global Slavery Index 2014 compiled by Walk Free Foundation, there are an estimated 155,600 people enslaved in Mauritania, ranking it 31 out of 167 countries according to the absolute number of people in slavery. It ranks 1 out of 167 according to prevalence, with 4% of the total population in slavery. The Government ranks 121 out of 167 governments on their response to combating all forms of modern slavery.

The government of Mauritania denies that slavery continues in the country. In an interview, the Mauritanian Minister of rural development, Brahim Ould M'Bareck Ould Med El Moctar, responded to accusations of human rights abuse by stating:

I must tell you that in Mauritania, freedom is total: freedom of thought, equality – of all men and women of Mauritania... in all cases, especially with this government, this is in the past. There are probably former relationships – slavery relationships and familial relationships from old days and of the older generations, maybe, or descendants who wish to continue to be in relationships with descendants of their old masters, for familial reasons, or out of affinity, and maybe also for economic interests. But (slavery) is something that is totally finished. All people are free in Mauritania and this phenomenon no longer exists. And I believe that I can tell you that no one profits from this commerce.

It is difficult to end slavery in Mauritania for the following reasons:

  • The difficulty of enforcing any laws in the country's vast desert

  • Poverty that limits opportunities for slaves to support themselves if freed

  • Belief that slavery is part of the natural order of this society.


Interesting: Telecommunications in Mauritania | France–Mauritania relations | Mauritania–United States relations | List of heads of government of Mauritania

Parent commenter can toggle NSFW or delete. Will also delete on comment score of -1 or less. | FAQs | Mods | Magic Words

[–]SilencingNarrative 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Even in the US, there are police and judges who think it is okay for a man to beat a woman.

The fact that a few of those exist says nothing about how many exist. I would be very surprised if that number has not been in steady decline for a long time.

You can make the average courtroom as just and rational as you want and still have a few judges here and there like that. By that standard, society will never be enlightened enough to suit you. Any large scale societal gains can be dismissed by finding rare examples of paternalistic judges and saying,"Well, how far have we come, really, when I can still exhibit people like that?"

Also, what do you suppose such a judge would say if a man approached him/her reporting that his wife was beating him? The existence of paternalistic judges like that says little about the relative position of men and women.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I don't know that it is just a few of them. Like I said, half of domestic violence restraining orders are denied. Systemically, judges are being told not to believe claims of abuse in custody cases and there are organizations in place that are constantly working to fight against judges who repeatedly put children back into abusive situations.

This goes for both genders.

Abuse upsets the dynamic in a family law case because there are a conflicting set of laws.

A judge has to decide if the old laws where children are, essentially, property, should be overlooked for the newer laws where an abuser doesn't get to have their kid.

At this point, the status quo is "all things being equal," and nearly every single California judge thinks that equal parenting works best for the children in all cases... which it does in only some cases.

Point being, there is a measurable standard by which abuse gets ignored and children are court ordered to be in abusive situations every single day. This is a pattern. It is systemic and society can absolutely be "enlightened enough" to suit me. Most of society is, already and most people have enough common sense to know that, if a child says "my dad got angry and cut me with a knife," that the kid isn't lying about it. Even worse, the dad tries to claim that the knife was in his pocket and the child's hand was cut reaching into his pocket. Combine that, and other of child's stories, with a history of abusing the wife, and the judge grants custody to the father.

If a judge is approached with a man who claims to have been attacked by a woman, with no arrest, he doesn't get the restraining order. I've never seen it happen, though I have seen men ask for restraining orders, plenty.

I had a man break into my house, steal a gun, threaten to kill me with it and had him on video violating the temporary restraining order. This man was arrested with the stolen gun. I did not get a permanent restraining order.

I witnessed one man get a temporary restraining order against a woman but she was arrested, at the time. They were treated very differently, though. They weren't separated at mediation, the bailiff was not watching out to make sure she didn't attack him, they weren't instructed to stay away from each other in the halls, and they walked out of the court room at the same time. The treatment in the courtroom is very, very different.

[–]SilencingNarrative 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Like I said, half of domestic violence restraining orders are denied.

Are you under the impression that judges are trained to be conservative regarding restraining orders and that, generally, they are not granted easily enough?

[–]archnihilist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't know that I have the expertise to say that.

What I can say that the amount of abuse that gets reported falsely does not line up with the amount of abuse that gets treated as false.

[–]SilencingNarrative2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

most people have enough common sense to know that, if a child says "my dad got angry and cut me with a knife," that the kid isn't lying about it.

If a child were deliberately/viciously cut by a parent with a knife, there would normally be a lot of evidence beyond the childs sole testimony to go on. If, in the midst of a custody battle, the child was talking about an event that happened years ago, I think the judge should entertain at least three theories:

1 the child was attacked by the parent as described

2 the child was pissed at the accused parent and made it up to punish them

3 the other parent coached the child to gain an advantage in divorce / custody proceedings

If the only evidence to go on is the child's testimony, I don't think the judge should choose 1 to "play it safe". People, even children, lie for all sorts of reasons, and testimony should always require some corroboration before being taken as true. False testimony is a significant threat to justice. Sociopaths are 4% of the population, and can lie convincingly when it works to their advantage to a degree that neurotypicals can scarsely imagine.

I notice that in your examples, men are being violent with women and children. We are arguing about how the court should deal with claims of domestic violence, so by phrasing your examples like that, you are suggesting men are usually the source of spousal and child abuse. I don't think that's true.

I gather you have been viciously attacked by men and not been able to get justice from the courts. I can't imagine how awful that must be. However, I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions about how the courts failed you.

[–]archnihilist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

A scar is on the child's hand.

The Father lied, in writing, in a Request for Admissions, regarding the cut, even though he was only obligated to answer "Admit" or "Deny," which he did with the other questions. The Father told a completely different story to CWS, which was included in their report.

I don't use the example to paint men as being the primarily abusive ones in relationships. I use it because it is from personal experience.

Abuse gets ignored. It gets ignored because of the "all things being equal" paradigm and the laws about giving a parent access to their own child.

[–]SilencingNarrative 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

In what country do you think women are treated like property? I grant you that in some countrues, women are treated like children in that their husbands are responsible for them (women cant, for example, travel without their husbands, or fathers, permission) but I am not aware of any country where they are treated like property. Being treated like a child does come with less freedom, but it also comes with some advantages. Imagine an abusive housewife in pakistan. The husband would have even less recourse to the court system or to the help of his extended family or neighbors than he would in the u.s.

[–]archnihilist0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania#Modern_slavery

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2008/03/08/ten_worst_countries_for_women.html

[–]RedditInfinity 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Wholy shit.

This would be purgatory.

[–]noprotein 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hell

[–]Elvick 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

When it comes to violence, men, generally, have the upper hand.

Do we include proxy violence in this? Because, I think if we do then women have the upper hand.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

I think men and women may be on equal ground here, once again.

One real world example I am aware of is; woman gets restraining order against ex husband, in order to avoid getting arrested, ex husband recruits his friends to terrorize her, follow her, wait around at places they know she'll be... slash tires, vandalize home... violations of the restraining order through proxy... which are all but impossible to prove to the police. Nevermind that they are all undocumented Uruguayan citizens. They all, absolutely, think it is okay to use violence against your wife to keep her in line.

Any male gang member can maintain this advantage, with ease.

[–]Elvick 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Compared to saying "He raped me!" points And the father and random dudes around beating someone to death.

Yeah, I don't think so. But whatever.

[–]archnihilist0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

How many times has that happened compared to how many times gang members back each other up?

In real life, has your hypothetical situation happened more than once? Twice?

You can make up hypotheticals, but without any real world examples, your "I don't think so," is not much more than empty thought aimed to justify what you'd rather believe.

Gang members back each other up in a variety of crimes every single day. The example I mentioned is one I've witnessed myself.

See also, Stalking Victimization in the United States, USDOJ 2009, finding 13.1% of ALL stalking victims are stalked by 3 or more stalkers, with the majority of stalking victims being subject to electronic surveillance:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=vAF14C982tcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=stalking+victimization+in+the+united+states&ots=3-ZiBoLSMN&sig=UgRWFTNyrHkt4YEww52IW4nuLJk#v=onepage&q=stalking%20victimization%20in%20the%20united%20states&f=false

[–]officialbum 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Anyone can be a psychotic asshole but only a select 50% get to use the /r/pussypass

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

It is undeniable that men have inherent power advantages over women

I deny this.

OMG! I just proved it isn't undeniable!

Women have the power advantage because women can threaten to call the cops and men can't. pretty obvious.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

A dishonest woman can threaten to call the cops.

The problem that isn't addressed is the people who are in abusive situations who are made to feel that they deserve the abuse are are dissuaded in countless ways from telling anyone, at all, about it, let alone the police and a bunch of other strangers, and then get dragged through court to tell a bunch of people about being beaten, raped, or whatever, for years and not doing anything about it as it began to happen to your kids, and then feeling like an asshole and deserving it all over again as the defense rips your credibility apart.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

It's a low bar when you're in a mean fight. Women are encouraged to lie essentially.

people who are in abusive situations who are made to feel that they deserve the abuse are are dissuaded in countless ways from telling anyone

Did you mean to say "men" there because that's certainly not true of women.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying that lifetime victims of abuse are likely to speak up?

If you believe that, then you have some research to do.

I meant to say people. Anyone subject to systematic abuse by their family is not likely to speak up unless they face life threatening situations, and, even then, may not speak up.

First of all, the abuse escalates the second you report it.

Second, you lose whatever support system you have in place.

Third, you are put on trial and further traumatized by the system.

Help seeking behavior increases with the amount of abuse.

Abusive people abuse their victim, then go through an "I'm sorry" phase.

People do not usually lie about abuse. It happens, it's true. But it doesn't happen 50% of the time. Furthermore, a child is very unlikely to lie about abuse, and also unlikely to "turn against" one of their parents, even if they are abusive.

Anyone is encouraged to lie in a divorce and the system absolutely does not punish perjury.

However, getting caught lying about material facts, like abuse, will tank your case.

In the end, the stats on false allegations are something like 1% and the number of dismissed restraining orders in California approaches 50%. There is a massive discrepancy.

If you are a man, filing for a restraining order, I suspect the stats are far worse.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Cut the crap. This is what you said:

people who are in abusive situations who are made to feel that they deserve the abuse are are dissuaded in countless ways from telling anyone

Those are false for women. On the contrary a ton of money is spent to make sure those women know the opposite is true. if you disagree then point out to me the government or institutional program that makes female DV victims think they deserve their abuse -- they exist for male victims of course.

if you disagree then point out to me the government or institutional program that dissuades female DV victims from reporting abuse -- they exist for male victims of course.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

Wow. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Just because those programs are available doesn't mean women take advantage of them. Furthermore, it isn't just women who are victims of abuse.

Victims of abuse are victims of abuse precisely because of their demeanor that prevents them from ending the cycle of abuse.

This isn't a men and women issue.

This is an issue about a victim of abuse who, if they report abuse, are put through the ringer.

Step 1, get told that maybe you are in the wrong jurisdiction. So, now you know about jurisdiction. Go find the right people to report to. They run you through the jurisdiction gauntlet again. Make it perfectly clear that you are indeed in the right jurisdiction. (Whatever you do, don't get punched in the face on the border of jurisdictions, like Del Mar Heights road, in San Diego. Neither the Sheriff or the SDPD want your case.)

Step 2, get told that you really can't prove anything. Get told, next time, make sure you get some kind of evidence, like video or pictures. Now, your're screwed. Wait to get abused, next time.

Step 3, get the evidence, this time, bring it, but it is just a series of pictures of your abuser at your car. You can see him bend down, but you can't actually see him slashing your tires, even though you now have 4 slashed tires. Well, it's really your word against his, but you can try to get a restraining order. We'll send it to the DA, but they probably aren't going to move forward with it.

Step 4, now you're desperate and your abuser is super pissed because the police have called and asked some questions. You get your temporary restraining order, but the self help people cut the meat out of your case, so your original petition is shit in order to make it a few pages shorter. "Only stick to the most recent incidents of abuse." Remember, the ones the police already told you you couldn't prove?

Step 5, serve the restraining order. He's expecting it because the police called to have a little chat with him. So, he hides out. Finally, he gets served over the phone because the sheriff can't find him. First thing your abuser does? Calls you super pissed off, in violation of the restraining order, threatening you, then saying they're really sorry and that you should forget about the restraining order and not go to the hearing.

Step 6, You think you've got a slam dunk now, because you got the shitty text messages, a recording of the conversation, and pictures of psycho at your car at the same time your tires are slashed.

Step 7, get denied your permanent restraining order because it's a "he said, she said" kind of thing... remember, this happens around half the time. This happens after you get up on the stand and have to answer questions about being raped, having your teeth knocked out, being dragged across a floor, having a knife to your throat... whatever. It is also after your abuser's lawyer testifies, himself, that you are a drug dealer, live in a mental institution... or whatever batshit crazy lies they can think up. Despite objecting "counsel is testifying," "lack of foundation," etc., you aren't a lawyer and the judge and this guy have a working relationship that spans hundreds of cases. When it comes to your word against a lawyer, in court, you are fucked.

Step 8, Now, your abuser is incited and empowered. Your life becomes hell. Your abuser uses the court finding to tell everyone you are a liar, including the police... every single time you have to call the police on them. You're fucked. Now, you're really, really fucked because no one will believe you, ever, and your abuser continues to sabotage every aspect of your existence.

You may get out of this mess, sure. But it takes a year or more and the abandonment of everything that was formerly your life.

That's what it takes to get rid of an abuser and it doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman and it doesn't matter if there are resources available to help you, or not. Your abuser doesn't give a shit about the resources that are available to you and will do everything to sabotage those resources.

I will give you some examples:

DA Victim Witness: A great resource, if you have scheduled far enough in advance to get their services. The one I have experience with gave tons of great advice and provided 40 free counseling sessions. Other than that, they weren't able to deliver on any of their promises, like providing an attorney, a support person to appear in court, a safe place to go, or follow up on paperwork for the safe at home program. It's not because their assholes, it is because there are a lot of other people who need help.

County DVS program: Group therapy, it's great, there are some other things they do for you, but, for someone who doesn't have problems with addiction, this often feels like you are getting help for issues you don't have issues with. Getting stuck in a cycle comes with a lot of substance abuse, I get it. But that is not the help victims need to escape their abusers. Sure, it is helpful, but when it comes to seeking safety, they aren't set up for that.

State Assistance: Yes, again these are great programs. You are already broke, or the lawyers have taken all your money to try and escape. Cash AID, welfare to work. Watch how hard the county works to find you a minimum wage job. They are pretty good at it. Except, you used to make $30 an hour, but you got fired because your abuser would always show up at your work, call your boss, sabotage your vehicle... whatever. You can't work there anymore, anyways, because your abuser knows where to find you.

Church: You may not be the religious type, but these are good people who know local jobs, provide emotional support, and even a positive social life where people aren't always on drugs... a nice break from your county domestic violence support group. Yes. Do it. You'll meet some good people, find some good jobs leads, help other people along the way. Better yet, even your abuser won't go to church to harass you, even though your abuser knows where it is.

Still, the only answer is to disappear and the people with the county, with the church... when they stop for a minute to process what you have been going through, they reach the same logical conclusion as the lawyers did.

Disappear. It's the only answer.

Delete your Facebook, buy a different car (a white, non-descript sedan), get a confidential name change and go far, far away. It takes money, emotional stability and confidence to achieve something like that and guess how many victims of abuse have all three of those?

[–]SilencingNarrative 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I can see how a lot of people could wind up in the scenarios you are outlining in your post. The essential problem is that, when you live in close quarters with someone, it is easy for them to assault you where there are no witnesses, or public cameras that could capture the scene.

I think the idea that this happens to a lot of women is widely believed and there is significant public sympathy for the women caught in those scenarios and forces. What is not widely believed is that there are significant numbers of men caught in the same forces (I appreciate your recognition of that)

So the public advocacy around the issue has

  1. thrown considerable money at the issue (VAWA)

  2. made resources available to women primarily and men secondarily or not at all

  3. focused on getting the police to believe female accusers on their testimony alone and disbelieve male accusers and male accused who protest their innocence.

This has taken its toll on due process and resulted in absurd cases where the media act like a lynch mob, or as the organizers of a lynch mob.

We are seeing these forces play out in the public's reaction to the Rolling Stone's publishing of Jackie's story about being raped at UVa. I would be curious to hear your reaction to that story. Did you take it at face value when it was published? Or did any of her claims strike you as absurd when you first read it?

[–]archnihilist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I suppose, to cut to the heart of your question about my feelings on rape accusations... it is this:

At one time, I may have had a harder time believing a girl or woman might lie about it. I don't think about it in those terms, anymore.

I have to go, first, to one question:

Are you getting the support you need?

Then,

Can you prove it?

If you are getting the support you need, you aren't making false rape allegations. If you are getting the support you need, you can make it through the process of proving it.

If you can prove it, you are going to need support. If you can't prove it, you are going to need support.

Either way, I wouldn't expect much of the justice system.

I haven't read it, and I'm not familiar with it.

While the process is difficult for rape victims, it is difficult for some common sense reasons.

When you get the run around on jurisdiction, it is shitty, as a victim. But, that is the way it's gotta be. You hate to report a crime against you, relive it it, then get told to go somewhere else. But, jurisdiction is jurisdiction. You don't have to like it, and, as a victim you aren't expecting to have to know all about it. But, you will. A lot of this stuff comes down to lack of education. I think everyone, in high school, should be taught some of the basics about these things, like how jurisdiction works, how a proof of service works, etc. Otherwise, you find yourself immensely frustrated.

Due process is super important. If you have an accusation, in order for investigators to do a proper job, the last thing you do is bring the media into it. This protects both sides.

Next, it is shitty to get told, "It's your word against theirs." Cops are lied to constantly and studies show that the people who are most confident in being able to detect who is a liar, are the least capable of being able to actually detect a liar. If you are truly a victim, the guy who genuinely doesn't know and is willing to suspend his judgment until he gets more answers, is actually the guy you want.

Again, due process is super important and, while it sucks, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about it, as a victim. People should be educated on how this stuff works, but the average person isn't. Because of this, the average person can absolutely get screwed.

First, no one should be surprised that a school's response to a rape in insufficient. It isn't the school's job. They aren't the police. If you get raped, you go to the police. Maybe, emotionally, you need to start with a counselor, a DA Victim Witness representative, or whoever, so you can be ready to face what comes, but a school administration isn't the place to start.

Generally, victims are chosen because they precisely the type of person who is not inclined to speak up. If an attack happens to a person who is inclined to speak up, the attacker will, likely, go about it a different way.

Just yesterday, outside our window, a man began violently assaulting his girlfriend. We called the police and, even without being able to see us inside the house, the man began threatening to kill whoever was in the house if they called the police. The operator heard the threat. The police showed up in seconds. The woman defended him. Too bad, he picked someone who knows enough to speak up. So, he gets arrested.

My reaction to a false rape accusation is pretty bad. Let alone a very public one. It screws up chances for the thousands upon thousands of women who have to go through it.

I find your points about the public advocacy issue interesting.

  1. Throw money at it.

Yeah, money helps. I think it helps the most if it is used towards education.

This is an interesting little infographic.

https://www.uic.edu/depts/owa/power_control-wheel_clip_image001.jpg

It is a simple educational tool that people in abusive situations should be aware of. I think it could and should be modified to be more gender neutral.

The "male privilege" part is... it's actually true. But, that doesn't mean it can't just be "privilege." It makes it easy to understand, I guess, but I have half a family that is abusive and truly a matriarchy. They treat the males terribly, men and children, and prop of the girls. The girls take this attitude into all their relationship. Whether it is "machismo" bullshit, as can be common in the latino culture, or any other microcosm of "privilege," abusers feel that the are entitled to be be abusive to get their way and entitled to be above accountability. "Entitlement" is a cultural problem for a lot of reasons.

Point being, if you are going to spend money, education is the place to start spending it. Proactivity is cheaper and easier.

  1. Resources made available primarily to women.

This happens. What's worse, it happens for animals, too. Ever see how easy it is to raise money for cute little puppy dogs? "Let's SAVE THE ANIMALS!" Fuck the people, right?

Certain groups garner more sympathy than others. It's human nature. Programs are getting better, and I know of one man with 5 kids, doing it all on his own after escaping a nightmare relationship. He is getting significant help from these same resources that are often considered just for women. It's getting better in some places.

  1. Testimony is the only place to start and you face the same problem with any crime. The guilty will lie. What choice does a guilty person have?

http://atlantablackstar.com/2015/01/09/worst-cases-white-people-wrongfully-accusing-black-people-committing-crimes/

Part of the problem we have is that false accusations aren't really punished all that often. Just like lying in court. People will lie blatantly, on the stand, in documents, and will continue to take advantage of the system as long as they aren't held accountable.

Due process is important and it shouldn't be circumvented in rape in favor over other crimes.

Here's the thing. Rape happens and people get away with it. Murder happens and people get away with it. Children drown in bathtubs. Tragedy happens and justice is hard won. If you can get your attacker arrested and prosecuted, great, but I wouldn't tell anyone rape victim to count on it. It's hard to sugar coat what a victim has to go through to get justice, even in the best of circumstances.

As a victim of abuse, or a victim of anything, what people need to escape, move on and return to normal is a lot of support and, without educating these people, there isn't much else to do to implant that intrinsic motivation to create your own support group.

Build an army. It goes for victims and normal people, alike. You need people on your side to do well, in life. Healthy minds, healthy bodies, healthy social lives... there are so many factors that generate resilience. That is what each person has to tend to on a personal level.

On a societal level, we should work to incorporate empiricism into our judgments. Get data, analyse data, improve systematic practices. Identify what isn't working. Identify what is working. Accountability. Abuse isn't going away anytime soon. Rape isn't going away anytime soon.

Teaching conflict resolution. Teaching how to communicate effectively. Awareness. This all goes towards improving the problems.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

What kind of bigot are you coming here and pretending men and women are treated equally when it comes to domestic violence?

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

You are completely back pedaling from your initial claim and you are putting words in my mouth.

I never said that.

I said victims of abuse are disincentivized in a variety of ways from reporting and following through with reports of abuse.

I said that both men and women are victims of abuse.

I said that, approximately, half of all domestic violence restraining orders are dismissed.

I said that men who file for restraining orders, even though I don't have stats for it, are dismissed much more.

I said that, even with programs in place, the only answer for someone who is the victim of a determined abuser, is to disappear. It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman.

At what point did I say that men and women are treated equally when it comes to abuse? Provide a quote, if you wouldn't mind.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This isn't a men and women issue.

[–]archnihilist1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm sorry, where does it say they are both being treated equally?

You having trouble finding that? I know, because it doesn't exist.

I am saying 'victims of abuse' because both men and women can be victims of abuse and both men and women can be abusers.

It doesn't matter if you are a man or a woman, you can be subject to a pattern of abuse.

Where do I say that they are treated equally?

[–]duglock -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Its undeniable? Do you have any sources or just hyperbole.

[+]archnihilist 11 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Heavyweight vs featherweight, anyone can see the advantage, and likely the stats are there to back it up.

Doesn't matter.

Personality determines if a person is abusive or not, along with lack of accountability to determine if they are able to continue to be abusive.

[–]Lamarian9 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To be fair he didn't mention how women are note likely to use a weapon in DV cases to make up for the strength difference.

Plus the whole thing in DV is that the offender is someone you love and do not want to hurt - the victims often don't fight back due to psychological reasons.

Claiming one side is better off because of physical ability is a pretty one sided way to look at things (especially when 96% of domestic psychological abuse is directed at men).

[–]archnihilist-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I wouldn't say either side is better off.

I'd say that violence goes hand in hand with psychological abuse, financial abuse, etc.

Generally, with a weapon, the crime is easier to prove. If one person is all cut up, then the other has pretty strong evidence on their side. In the end, the only option a person has with a partner who is losing their mind, is to walk away.

As you say, it is with someone you love, and walking away seems to be damn near impossible... for a variety of reasons.

I don't know where you get the 96% number, but I keep landing at all things are equal between genders, where I live. But, that isn't the case, everywhere. But, even in those places, there are ways both sides have of equalizing the playing field. Still, I doubt many would prefer to be a women in Saudi Arabia over a woman in a lot of other developed countries.

[–]officialbum 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. A lot of dudes got their big muscles from genetics and summer jobs. Just because a dude has muscles doesn't mean he will be aggressive or abusive.

[–]COYAD 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

Interesting that the CDC is claiming this right after starting the 1 in 5 myth.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Which 1 in 5? The 1 in 5 women or the 1 in 5 college women?

Feminists say both (yes; they do contradict each other, well spotted).

[–]COYAD 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The original study said college women. It had no control group, they only interviewed college women. They also didn't ask if they were raped, they asked vague ass questions and then decided for themselves even if the woman didn't agree. It was also a survey with a low response rate, not a valid sample size. The study was covered in huge errors.

[–]Grumpchkin 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

And also claiming that MGM is beneficial.

[–]COYAD 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Hoooo boy. I missed that part. The fuck were they smoking?

[–]Grumpchkin 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Foreskins, i assume.

They need more.

[–]MagicGainbow 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The cdc didn't start that, that was more one academics misinterpreting her own research.

[–]Goat-headed-boy 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Our fearless leader repeated that tripe in his 2015 state of the union address.

Bullshit at the top rolls down to everyone.

[–]COYAD 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah, but he was talking more about who started it. Not that it matters, but I still think it's the CDC.

[–]MangoFox 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Copying my post from /r/MRref:


I think the OP is referring to the information found in Table 6. The rates for intimate partner violence in the last 12 months are higher overall for men than for women. They're lower for lifetime statistics, which (from what I've seen) is typical for this type of research - men generally report more instances of recent abuse than instances of abuse over a lifetime.

As a sidenote, this is another study in which being made to penetrate is not considered a form of rape. The CDC gives as their first conclusion that

In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes...

19.3% to 1.7%? A huge difference!

We can find the stat they used for that in table 1, first highlighted row. However, check out the other two rows I've highlighted. If we look at 12-month rather than lifetime, and if we include both "rape" and "made to penetrate" in our definition of rape, then it comes out to men having a higher prevalence of being raped, at 1.7% vs. 1.6% per year.

Now, it can easily be argued that this is cherry picking statistics. However, using the first set of statistics is cherry picking to the exact same degree. If we have two sets of data - lifetime and annual - which show two different results, why should we only look at lifetime and ignore annual? And why exactly should we only include being penetrated in our definition of rape, and ignore those forced to penetrate? I would strongly argue that the second set of statistics is just as valid as the first.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

men generally report more instances of recent abuse than instances of abuse over a lifetime.

Generally true of all minority groups. The more privileged you are the higher your lifetime to 12 month ratio. That's why feminists love to use lifetime figures.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

another study in which being made to penetrate is not considered a form of rape

Same study.

[–]NibblyPig 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I thought the CDC were pretty anti-male, I'm surprised this statistic exists without it being reframed to show how women are the main victim

[–]officialbum 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well I'm sure now the feminazis will be sure to label the cdc as a bunch of misogyny apologists.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It was reframed. They just fraudlently misrepresented their data in press releases.

[–]ncweldon52 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Center for Disease Control?

[–]H3CX 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

THERE IS NO CURE!!!

[–]hoobert01 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Mental disease is still disease.

[–]LordIntrepid 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[–]Elvick 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Masturbating at them?

I don't know.

[–]hoobert01 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Theres a difference between assault and battery both are violence but battery requires physical contact. Non-contact violence exists.

[–]LordIntrepid 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This comment has been overwritten by an open source script to protect this user's privacy.

If you would like to do the same, add the browser extension GreaseMonkey to Firefox and add this open source script.

Then simply click on your username on Reddit, go to the comments tab, and hit the new OVERWRITE button at the top.

[–]Metal-Phoenix 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Male privilege, yo.

[–]officialbum 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

We get better pay so we have to buy dinner and take a beating.

[–]Myroaen 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

My only question why is the Center for Disease Control doing the study on this?

[–]AustNerevar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, they're the ones behind the 1 in 5 women rape statistic as well. They've always handled IPV and sex crimes.

[–]officialbum 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Handled them poorly without much actual scientific research. These are the same people that made us freak out about bird flu and Ebola. They are a political issue powerhouse more than medical or sociology institution. They get money and attention directed at an issue, with the supposed unbiased desire to raise awareness and help people. Who knows what they actually care about. I just think they'll say anything to get attention and funding for their buddies projects. Similar to a lot of charity and social justice groups.

[–]AustNerevar 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

about bird flu and Ebola

Uhh, those were big deals...I mean, the rape statistics were totally bogus because Mary Koss fudged the research with rigged questions and definitions. But she didn't have anything to do with Ebola coverage. The idea that Ebola isn't a big deal is kind of asinine.

I just think they'll say anything to get attention and funding for their buddies projects.

Well, I'll give you that. This is pretty much the primary goal of almost any organization whether it be government like the NSA or the CDC or actual con artists like Anita Sarkeesian and Al Sharpton. It's called cronyism.

[–]DavidByron2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No they are behind one of the 1 in 5 statistics and not the dodgey one (that 1 in 5 female students will be raped in college).

[–]Ransom_Stoddard 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All these men must have either lied or drove their women to strike back at them, thus it will not be considered abuse... while when men do it, the women never drove them to it, never lie and is the epitome of abuse.

It's good to see this 4 year old information being disseminated in a tiny little corner of an obscure website with 1000 upvotes while a cat playing with a laser beam gets 6000 upvotes.

[+]lazaro398 11 years ago* [recovered] (10 children) | Copy Link

I'm not fond of the CDC. They claim (without a good source) that circumcision is beneficial.

[–]BAMFSoB -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

What does that have too do with this study?

[+]lazaro398 11 years ago* [recovered] (8 children) | Copy Link

It takes away from the validity of their claims.

[–]BAMFSoB -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

So your feeling can change facts?

[+]lazaro398 11 years ago* [recovered] (6 children) | Copy Link

What facts? One study doesn't make claims factual. Multiple studies over many years do.

[–]BAMFSoB -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

One study? You're surely joking if you think the CDC's study is the only one that has been done.

Quick edit:

Here let me help you a bit;

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=study+of+men+as+victims+of+spousal+abuse

[+]lazaro398 11 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

I was referring to the circumcision research. You're trying to make it seem as if I'm against the research posted. I am not, I am merely stating that the CDC is not a reliable source of information due to their stance on other issues such as MGM. If you are an MRA and you consider MGM ok, I've got a bridge to sell you.

[–]MagicGainbow -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Could you be any more of as stereotype?

[+]lazaro398 11 years ago* [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

Stereotype? What?

[–]MagicGainbow -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Virulently anti-circumcision, you pretty much admit to not wanting to believe a source just because it holds contrary views about mgm, and there are health benefits in that std's catching rates are less prevalent.

[–]lazaro3982 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The studies cited by the CDC purporting to show that circumcision reduces transmission of STIs were conducted in poor rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa over eight years ago. These studies have never been replicated elsewhere—let alone in the United States—and have no relevance to children or men in the developed world. The United States is one of the very few developed countries in the world where circumcision is still a thing.

[–]MagicGainbow 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I could believe that now, in the past few years the narrative that women can't hurt men in any real capacity has been really pushed, just look at Hope Solo.

[–]Madam-Temacia 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

1-800-787-3224

abuse hotline for anyone who needs help btw.

[–]GroundhogExpert 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But no one actually gives a shit, even when the data is compiled. It just doesn't matter because this isn't an issue of empiricism, it's one of placing more value on one group's pain.

[–]icusu 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Link?

[–]Willravel 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The actual study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm?s_cid=ss6308a1_e

It appears that 31.5% of women and 27.5% of men report being victims of physical violence perpetrated by a domestic partner in their lifetime, according to Table 6. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Lifetime figures are unreliable (that's why feminists love them). Try the 12 month figures.

[–]Willravel -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

12 month figures are unreliable (that's why MRAs love them). Try the lifetime figures.

[–]DavidByron2 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Oh it's an idiot playing the game of my baseless opinion is worth just as much as someone who knows their shit.

Yeah -- it isn't.

Lifetime figures are worse because fucking reasons.

[–]Willravel -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Lifetime figures are worse because fucking reasons.

Yes, that's more or less how I read your post. Or, perhaps even better,

Lifetime figures are worse because they disagree with my preconceived notions.

[–]DavidByron2 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that's your "logic" not mine. Next time you are wondering about the "why" how about you just fucking ask the person who knows instead of insulting them? No wonder you lack education if you never ask.

[–]Willravel -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What are "you" even trying to "say" by "responding" to my "posts"? If you wanted to demonstrate that lifetime data was somehow less reliable, you would have actually tried to demonstrate it by backing up your assertion. Instead, it's just your typical uncreative condescension, which is par for the course. Once again it's been delightful talking with you.

[–]DavidByron2 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you wanted to demonstrate that lifetime data was somehow less reliable

I didn't. I simply stated a fact.

[–]SnowyGamer 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I still don't get why CDC does studies on crime.

[–]yelirbear 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

DV is a health issue and the CDC deals with many other non-disease health issues

[–]Dragnil 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would believe it. My roommate for a year in college had a girlfriend that would become incredibly violent when drunk. He used to walk around a lot in his boxers when only he and I were home, and he had bruises all over him. On the occasion she really got violent, he would grab her wrists to keep her from hitting him any more, and she would scream assault and threaten to call the police. He would let go and she'd continue to beat on him. His excuse was "She's only like this when she's drunk". Sound familiar?

[+]votingdownurshit -18 points-17 points-16 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

what a bunch of fucking pussies.

[–]Grumpchkin 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You are the problem with society, people like you enable abuse.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter