redheadedfemme: (kick nuts)

This is a great article and link via Richie at Crimitism. Richie's comments are insightful as usual, but the scholarly work done by Michael Flood re: "husband battering" impressed me. Some quotes:

There are four problems with the claims about 'husband battering' made by men's rights advocates. Firstly, they only use these authors' work selectively, as the authors themselves disagree that women and men are equally the victims of domestic violence. Secondly, they ignore the serious methodological flaws in the Conflict Tactics Scale. Thirdly, they ignore or dismiss a mountain of other evidence which conflicts with their claims. Finally, their strategies in fact are harmful to men themselves, including to male victims of violence. To make the fifty/fifty claim about husband battering, men's rights and fathers' rights advocates must also ignore or dismiss a mountain of conflicting evidence, from crime victimisation surveys of the population, numerous studies using methodologies other than the Conflict Tactics Scale, calls made to domestic violence centres and services, hospital statistics on how people were injured, and applications for intervention orders.

This massive body of evidence continues to show that men are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence than are women, that women are more often the victims of domestic violence than are men, and that when boys and men are the victims of violence this is usually violence by other boys and men.

However, surveys such as the one by Headey et.al are likely to miss a second important form of domestic violence, what Johnson calls "patriarchal terrorism". This represents some husbands' practice of a terroristic control of their wives. It involves the systematic use of not only violence, but economic subordination, threats, isolation and other control tactics [Johnson, 1995: 284]. This violence is patriarchal because it is based in patriarchal ideas of male ownership and control of their female partners. This second form of domestic violence involves much more frequent violence (although the men using this can also control their wives using other tactics), the violence is more severe, and it is very likely to escalate over time.

Patriarchal terrorism. How scary--and how apt.

Read the whole thing.
redheadedfemme: (kick nuts)

This is a great article and link via Richie at Crimitism. Richie's comments are insightful as usual, but the scholarly work done by Michael Flood re: "husband battering" impressed me. Some quotes:

There are four problems with the claims about 'husband battering' made by men's rights advocates. Firstly, they only use these authors' work selectively, as the authors themselves disagree that women and men are equally the victims of domestic violence. Secondly, they ignore the serious methodological flaws in the Conflict Tactics Scale. Thirdly, they ignore or dismiss a mountain of other evidence which conflicts with their claims. Finally, their strategies in fact are harmful to men themselves, including to male victims of violence. To make the fifty/fifty claim about husband battering, men's rights and fathers' rights advocates must also ignore or dismiss a mountain of conflicting evidence, from crime victimisation surveys of the population, numerous studies using methodologies other than the Conflict Tactics Scale, calls made to domestic violence centres and services, hospital statistics on how people were injured, and applications for intervention orders.

This massive body of evidence continues to show that men are more often the perpetrators of domestic violence than are women, that women are more often the victims of domestic violence than are men, and that when boys and men are the victims of violence this is usually violence by other boys and men.

However, surveys such as the one by Headey et.al are likely to miss a second important form of domestic violence, what Johnson calls "patriarchal terrorism". This represents some husbands' practice of a terroristic control of their wives. It involves the systematic use of not only violence, but economic subordination, threats, isolation and other control tactics [Johnson, 1995: 284]. This violence is patriarchal because it is based in patriarchal ideas of male ownership and control of their female partners. This second form of domestic violence involves much more frequent violence (although the men using this can also control their wives using other tactics), the violence is more severe, and it is very likely to escalate over time.

Patriarchal terrorism. How scary--and how apt.

Read the whole thing.
redheadedfemme: (doughboy with gun)
Read this:

I’d have sympathy if you were genuinely concerned with helping men. You aren’t. You are concerned with making life shit for everybody but men. Heterosexual white men, to be specific.

Go directly to Hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200, an ounce of my compassion or a fraction of my patience.

Feminism didn’t make women hate you. You did.

From now on, this is my answer to alpha male jackasses.
redheadedfemme: (doughboy with gun)
Read this:

I’d have sympathy if you were genuinely concerned with helping men. You aren’t. You are concerned with making life shit for everybody but men. Heterosexual white men, to be specific.

Go directly to Hell. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200, an ounce of my compassion or a fraction of my patience.

Feminism didn’t make women hate you. You did.

From now on, this is my answer to alpha male jackasses.
redheadedfemme: (equal opportunity antagonist)
I saw this article a while back, and the more I thought about it, the more sad and ironic it became.

Passport Rule Helps Collect Child Support

The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for an American businessman now living in China, $46,000 in such payments for a musician seeking to perform overseas and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation.

The new passport requirements that have complicated life this summer for thousands of travelers have also uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions.

The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports.

Gee whiz. Isn't that amazing. They can come up with the money when they want to get a passport, but they can't make regular payments for their children.

Of course, the standard MRA answer to this is, "The mother won't let me see the kids." Bull-frakking-crap. This may happen in some cases (usually for good reason) but it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. That child support is owed the child, whether the father (or mother, if she is the non-custodial parent) sees him/her or not.

I don't see what's so mind-boggling about this concept. You sire--or birth--a child, and you're responsible for it. Period. This is especially applicable in the case of men, because for so many centuries they were able to simply walk away, with little done to stop them.

Boy, that karma's a bitch, ain't it?
redheadedfemme: (equal opportunity antagonist)
I saw this article a while back, and the more I thought about it, the more sad and ironic it became.

Passport Rule Helps Collect Child Support

The price of a passport: $311,491 in back child support payments for an American businessman now living in China, $46,000 in such payments for a musician seeking to perform overseas and $45,849 for a man planning a Dominican Republic vacation.

The new passport requirements that have complicated life this summer for thousands of travelers have also uncovered untold numbers of child support scofflaws and forced them to pay millions.

The State Department denies passports to noncustodial parents who owe more than $2,500 in child support. Once the parents make good on their debts, they can reapply for passports.

Gee whiz. Isn't that amazing. They can come up with the money when they want to get a passport, but they can't make regular payments for their children.

Of course, the standard MRA answer to this is, "The mother won't let me see the kids." Bull-frakking-crap. This may happen in some cases (usually for good reason) but it is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. That child support is owed the child, whether the father (or mother, if she is the non-custodial parent) sees him/her or not.

I don't see what's so mind-boggling about this concept. You sire--or birth--a child, and you're responsible for it. Period. This is especially applicable in the case of men, because for so many centuries they were able to simply walk away, with little done to stop them.

Boy, that karma's a bitch, ain't it?

June 2017

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
1112131415 1617
18192021222324
252627282930 

Words To Live By

Being a writer is a very peculiar sort of a job: it’s always you versus a blank sheet of paper (or a blank screen) and quite often the blank piece of paper wins. ~Neil Gaiman

Of course I am not worried about intimidating men. The type of man who will be intimidated by me is exactly the type of man I have no interest in. ~Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

The road to hell is paved with adverbs. ~Stephen King

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. ~Mark Twain

I feel free and strong. If I were not a reader of books I could not feel this way. ~Walter Tevis

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one. ~George R.R. Martin

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Jun. 23rd, 2017 06:47 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios