• Is misandry real?
    333 replies, posted
On divorce and child custody: Correlation does not imply causation. You cannot cite women getting custody at a much higher rate as evidence of misandry. The statistics outside of the courts are not in favor of men. In the US: ~25% of women are victims of domestic abuse at some point in their lifetimes. 85% of all abuse victims are women. 1 in 6 women in the US have been the victim of rape or attempted rape (compared to 1 in 33 men). Of those one in six, 40-45% of cases occur in a preexisting, abusive relationship (e.g. with a husband or boyfriend.) ~50% of domestic abuse cases against wives also entail physical abuse of children. Homicides: In 70-80% of all intimate partner homicides, the man had physically abused the woman prior to the homicide, [I]regardless[/I] of which one got killed. ~1/3 of all female homicides are perpetrated by an intimate partner. Now, compare that to the MUCH lower marriage and divorce rates: The national marriage rate is ~7 per-capita. The national divorce rate is ~3-4 per-capita. [url]http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm/[/url] If you're going to argue statistics for the existence of institutional misandry, you should probably recognize that the statistics also indicate that men are usually the party at fault in serious breakups. If you're going to argue statistics, then the statistics indicate that it's perfectly reasonable that women obtain child custody at a much higher rate than men considering men are usually the aggressors. Women are the victims far more frequently than men, and thus you can't go around saying it doesn't make sense that women win custody more frequently than men.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36859859]On divorce and child custody: Correlation does not imply causation. You cannot cite women getting custody at a much higher rate as evidence of misandry. The statistics outside of the courts are not in favor of men. In the US: ~25% of women are victims of domestic abuse at some point in their lifetimes. 85% of all abuse victims are women. 1 in 6 women in the US have been the victim of rape or attempted rape (compared to 1 in 33 men). Of those one in six, 40-45% of cases occur in a preexisting, abusive relationship (e.g. with a husband or boyfriend.) ~50% of domestic abuse cases against wives also entail physical abuse of children. Homicides: In 70-80% of all intimate partner homicides, the man had physically abused the woman prior to the homicide, [I]regardless[/I] of which one got killed. ~1/3 of all female homicides are perpetrated by an intimate partner. Now, compare that to the MUCH lower marriage and divorce rates: The national marriage rate is ~7 per-capita. The national divorce rate is ~3-4 per-capita. [url]http://www.ncadv.org/files/DomesticViolenceFactSheet%28National%29.pdf[/url] [url]http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/divorce.htm/[/url] If you're going to argue statistics for the existence of institutional misandry, you should probably recognize that the statistics also indicate that men are usually the party at fault in serious breakups. If you're going to argue statistics, then the statistics indicate that it's perfectly reasonable that women obtain child custody at a much higher rate than men considering men are usually the aggressors.[/QUOTE] yet you listed statistics that are not at all about child custody
[QUOTE=dvc;36859926]yet you listed statistics that are not at all about child custody[/QUOTE] Nice reading skills. Women are more frequently the victims in breakups than men. It's entirely justified in such that women also get custody more frequently. If you're going to argue statistics, do not deny statistics which disagree with you. Statistically, it's a safer bet for women to get the kids than men. Statistically, far more divorces involve abuse of women than men. You can't dismiss those statistics off-hand when your entire argument relies upon numbers which match up perfectly. This is not difficult to comprehend.
does anyone remember that video of the talk show where the four women were laughing and laughing about how that one guy got his testicles squeezed until they popped? I'm looking for the video but I can't find it
Wasn't it about a mans penis getting chopped off and thrown in a garbage disposal unit or something? And a bunch of harpies led by Sharon Osbourne, were laughing their asses off.
bah that's not what happened sharon osbuorne was being stupid, but very clearly the other women on the view felt awkward based on their faces.
you remember that time when we pretended the view influenced the courts and legislation
[QUOTE=Lankist;36859962]Nice reading skills. Women are more frequently the victims in breakups than men. It's entirely justified in such that women also get custody more frequently. If you're going to argue statistics, do not deny statistics which disagree with you. Statistically, it's a safer bet for women to get the kids than men. Statistically, far more divorces involve abuse of women than men. You can't dismiss those statistics off-hand when your entire argument relies upon numbers which match up perfectly. This is not difficult to comprehend.[/QUOTE] so what about the other half? what about men who do not win custody of their children even though they have not once beaten their wives, abused their children, or done any of the statistics you listed? dont tell me that doesnt exist.
[QUOTE=dvc;36861931]so what about the other half? what about men who do not win custody of their children even though they have not once beaten their wives, abused their children, or done any of the statistics you listed? dont tell me that doesnt exist.[/QUOTE] The question isn't whether it exists, the question is whether you can prove it is institutional misandry.
[QUOTE=Megafan;36859502]Well then here's a question I have for that: Is it because, statistically, more men get a divorce after a kid's involved are just more detached, or is the justice system purposefully skewed to give them to women more often? Is there a connection?[/QUOTE] Well, according to that, unless the mother agreed to it the father never got even partial custody. [editline]21st July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;36861986]The question isn't whether it exists, the question is whether you can prove it is institutional misandry.[/QUOTE] LtKyle already did, how did you miss all those statistics that are on the top of the page?
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36862661]LtKyle already did, how did you miss all those statistics that are on the top of the page?[/QUOTE] Did you miss the statistics indicating men are simply on the wrong side of a relationship at roughly the same rate? Once again, correlation != causation. A statistical trend is not proof of discrimination on its own, especially not when other statistics show the same trend. If you think that's proof, then you must think black people are genetically inclined to criminal activity, considering that's what the statistics would imply when interpreted by someone who doesn't give two shits about looking any further.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36863108]Did you miss the statistics indicating men are simply on the wrong side of a relationship at roughly the same rate? Once again, correlation != causation. A statistical trend is not proof of discrimination on its own, especially not when other statistics show the same trend.[/QUOTE] So we get back to the question I asked: is there any proof that the men did not win custody because of misandry?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36859962]Nice reading skills. [B]Women are more frequently the victims in breakups than men. It's entirely justified in such that women also get custody more frequently.[/B] If you're going to argue statistics, do not deny statistics which disagree with you. Statistically, it's a safer bet for women to get the kids than men. Statistically, far more divorces involve abuse of women than men. You can't dismiss those statistics off-hand when your entire argument relies upon numbers which match up perfectly. This is not difficult to comprehend.[/QUOTE] Oh well golly gee look at this; [URL="http://news.ufl.edu/2006/07/13/women-attackers/"]Woman more likely to be perpetrators of abuse as often as victims according to University of Florida study[/URL] [B]Although women were the predominant abusers, they still made up the largest number of victims in both surveys, accounting for 70 percent of those being stalked, for example.[/B] [URL="http://pubpages.unh.edu/%7Emas2/ID41E2.pdf"] [B]International[/B] study shows men more likely then women to be victims of abuse.[/URL] [B]The results in the first part of this paper show that almost a third of the female as well as male students physically assaulted a dating partner in the 12 month study period, and that the most frequent pattern was mutuality in violence, i.e. both were violent, followed by “female-only” violence. Violence by only the male partner was the least frequent pattern according to both male and female participants.[/B] [URL="http://domesticviolencestatistics.org/men-the-overlooked-victims-of-domestic-violence/"] Then look at this as well.[/URL] [B]Everyone quotes the statistics given by the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence: 1 in 4 women will be victims of domestic violence at some point in their lives, 1.3 million women are assaulted by their partner every year, 85% of domestic violence reported is against women. However, in a conflicting survey taken by the CDC in 2010, it was found that 40% of the victims of severe, physical domestic violence are men.[/B] [B] Men are largely silent on the issue because of the perception that men are physically stronger and should be able to subdue a female attacker easily. Those men who do report physical violence are more likely to be ridiculed–both by law enforcement and by the public–than women are.[/B] [B]According to one study, 63% of males as opposed to 15% of females had a deadly weapon used against them in a fight with an intimate partner.[/B] [B] Men who suffer domestic violence can only receive help if they break the silence. Not reporting domestic violence because of the stigma attached is the main reason that men currently receive few services, and one of the reasons that studies on the issue are so few.[/B] [I]Sources this website used:[/I] [I] Figure taken from MenWeb: CDC/DOJ Survey Men more often victims of intimate partner violence. [URL]http://www.batteredmen.com/NISVS.htm[/URL] Philip Cook,”The Truth About Domestic Violence”. From the book Everything You Know is Wrong (Russ Kick, 2002). Published by The Disinformation Company. Domestic Abuse Hotline for Men and Women. [URL]http://dahmw.org/[/URL][/I] What does my post sum up? Men who are domestically abused never report it because they are afraid of what will happen to their image. They're afraid of being laughed at, [I]ridiculed[/I], losing their image of being 'strong'. Hence why studies usually only mention women victims and why there is few services for abused men. Because men don't admit to being abused or being victims. If they do try to stop themselves from being abused(self-defense which the women can cry out 'abuse!', or leave and call for a divorce(Which some people do to their divorced partners after a divorce actually, both genders.) it will only make things worse.
The first and third citations are news articles which make no direct reference to any study. It's just "a new study says X." That isn't proof for anything. I give no shits about what some po-dunk, rinky-dink blog has to say about a study it can't reference directly. Here's some bits on the second source you fail to recognize: "Student Sample. This study is based on a sample of university students rather than a sample of the general population, and it is a convenience sample rather than a probability sample of students. Therefore, the conclusions apply to this sample and it remains unknown whether they also apply more broadly." Straus, who doesn't make the same kind of dumbass claims you're making with no foundation of reason, indicates that this study only applies to the specific sample group, and its implications on broader groups is indeterminate and shouldn't be assumed. "Self-Defense. An important limitation of the study is that there is no direct evidence which contradicts the belief that PV by women is primarily an act of self-defense. However, self-defense is unlikely to apply to the roughly one quarter of cases where the only violence was perpetrated by the female partner." TL;DR ~75% or more of all female-on-male domestic violence can possibly be attributed to self defense against an abusive male. "Theoretical Implications. The results showing that mutual violence is the most prevalent form of partner violence in this sample and that Male-Only violence is the least prevalent form, and the results showing that dominance by either the male or the female partner, rather than just male dominance increases the probability of partner violence, call for a basic reorientation of the way partner violence is conceptualized..." Note that he doesn't fucking say "MISANDRY EXISTS!" He says that violence has a way of becoming mutual in violent relationships. He doesn't dispute that men are, by and large, the aggressors in domestic violence. The interpretation of the results also contradicts itself multiple times, claiming non-mutual violence is rare and then immediately going on to expound on the idea of female-only violence as a large portion of domestic violence cases. Did you read this study, like, at all? You do realize statistical studies are very rarely a solid foundation for theory, right?
Lankist, I'm not quite sure how men being more physically violent than women proves that most divorces are the male's fault since most divorces have nothing to do with violence. Is that connection actually given in the study or are you just drawing it yourself? It seems that the number of divorces where the people involved even mention any kind of abuse (including physical and emotional) goes anywhere from 5%-10% of cases based on who you ask, not nearly enough to account for the huge difference in custody. ([URL]http://www.psychology.uiowa.edu/faculty/harvey/People's%20Reasons%20for%20Divorcing.pdf[/URL])
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36777709]Probably because men, on average, exercise more. If a woman were to exercise and train, she could easily be multitudes better than the average man, even the average one who went to a gym.[/QUOTE] With this line of thinking, humans can become stronger than gorillas with sufficient strength training. We cannot. Humans and gorillas are different. Men and women are also different, and our very obvious significant size and hormonal differences are the biggest differences of all.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36866657]Lankist, I'm not quite sure how men being more physically violent than women proves that most divorces are the male's fault since most divorces have nothing to do with violence.[/QUOTE] My point is that it doesn't. I haven't proven anything, and neither has my opposition. Making such baseless statistical inferences goes both ways. If you think you can infer the institutional existence of misandry by statistics alone, then you must also recognize other statistical inferences with precisely the same veracity of evidence. Neither are valid. Every word you use to discredit my argument discredits your own. It's a rhetorical device. Use the exact same brand of logic as your opponent and let them pick it apart for you. That way, they can't deny the flaws which apply to both arguments, as [I]they're[/I] the ones that pointed them out. This is how I operate, man. That's why my go-to rebuttal when someone is on the verge of saying something completely discrediting is "go on..."
[QUOTE=Lankist;36859962]Nice reading skills. Women are more frequently the victims in breakups than men. It's entirely justified in such that women also get custody more frequently. If you're going to argue statistics, do not deny statistics which disagree with you. Statistically, it's a safer bet for women to get the kids than men. Statistically, far more divorces involve abuse of women than men. You can't dismiss those statistics off-hand when your entire argument relies upon numbers which match up perfectly. This is not difficult to comprehend.[/QUOTE]I wonder of those statistics are based on abuse allegations that come up in divorce and custody proceedings. Often, the woman will allege abuse in order to win custody. In this context, abuse covers a multitude of acts that are not remotely violent. Such allegations can impact judges' decisions even without any evidence. I would argue that most marriages that end in divorce never were abusive relationships.
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;36875681]I wonder of those statistics are based on abuse allegations that come up in divorce and custody proceedings. [B]Often, the woman will allege abuse in order to win custody[/B]. In this context, abuse covers a multitude of acts that are not remotely violent. Such allegations can impact judges' decisions even without any evidence. I would argue that most marriages that end in divorce never were abusive relationships.[/QUOTE] Are you just trying to prove that [I]you're[/I] a misogynist? If so, you succeeded.
[QUOTE=Unfrozen;36875681]Often, the woman will allege abuse in order to win custody.[/QUOTE] this attitude right here this is the problem. This is why nobody takes the idea of misandry seriously. It's because you people only claim misandry when you want to discredit women. Feminists don't do that. They're out to empower themselves, not to belittle or denigrate you. What you're doing is flying the misandry flag exclusively so you can summarily dismiss what a woman says [I]because[/I] she's a woman. Courts have the same standard of evidence for eyewitness testimony whether it's coming from someone with testicles or with ovaries. (And it's very, very low on the scale of valid evidence.) That is both patently untrue and wholly irrelevant, considering courts don't put very much stock in eyewitness testimony on its own without accompanying evidence. If you want anyone to do anything but laugh at you when you cry misandry, don't do it solely as a fuck-you to feminists. If it were a real problem, you'd have more valid issues than "I might lose to a woman."
[QUOTE=Lankist;36874399]My point is that it doesn't. I haven't proven anything, and neither has my opposition. Making such baseless statistical inferences goes both ways. If you think you can infer the institutional existence of misandry by statistics alone, then you must also recognize other statistical inferences with precisely the same veracity of evidence. Neither are valid. Every word you use to discredit my argument discredits your own. It's a rhetorical device. Use the exact same brand of logic as your opponent and let them pick it apart for you. That way, they can't deny the flaws which apply to both arguments, as [I]they're[/I] the ones that pointed them out. This is how I operate, man. That's why my go-to rebuttal when someone is on the verge of saying something completely discrediting is "go on..."[/QUOTE] Wait... you're telling me this quote by you, "If you're going to argue statistics for the existence of institutional misandry, you should probably recognize that the statistics also indicate that men are usually the party at fault in serious breakups. If you're going to argue statistics, then the statistics indicate that it's perfectly reasonable that women obtain child custody at a much higher rate than men considering men are usually the aggressors. Women are the victims far more frequently than men, and thus you can't go around saying it doesn't make sense that women win custody more frequently than men," wasn't a claim? You claimed these three things based on the statistic about violence that you provided: 1) "men are usually the party at fault in serious breakups" (your statistics have nothing to do with this because they only cover cases of abuse when most breakups don't involve abuse) 2) "the statistics indicate that it's perfectly reasonable that women obtain child custody at a much higher rate than men considering men are usually the aggressors" (same as above, abuse is in less than 10% of divorce cases) 3) "Women are the victims far more frequently than men" (... of abuse, again nothing to do with custody) You directly tried to relate the abuse statistics with why women get custody more... I'm not sure how you can say you didn't. I'm also not arguing for the other side, just pointing out how your position made no sense at all. At least their statistic relate to custody.
[QUOTE=sgman91;36880570]Wait... you're telling me this quote by you, "If you're going to argue statistics for the existence of institutional misandry, you should probably recognize that the statistics also indicate that men are usually the party at fault in serious breakups. If you're going to argue statistics, then the statistics indicate that it's perfectly reasonable that women obtain child custody at a much higher rate than men considering men are usually the aggressors. Women are the victims far more frequently than men, and thus you can't go around saying it doesn't make sense that women win custody more frequently than men," wasn't a claim? You claimed these three things based on the statistic about violence that you provided: 1) "men are usually the party at fault in serious breakups" (your statistics have nothing to do with this because they only cover cases of abuse when most breakups don't involve abuse) 2) "the statistics indicate that it's perfectly reasonable that women obtain child custody at a much higher rate than men considering men are usually the aggressors" (same as above, abuse is in less than 10% of divorce cases) 3) "Women are the victims far more frequently than men" (... of abuse, again nothing to do with custody) You directly tried to relate the abuse statistics with why women get custody more... I'm not sure how you can say you didn't. I'm also not arguing for the other side, just pointing out how your position made no sense at all. At least their statistic relate to custody.[/QUOTE] How on Earth aren't you getting this? I literally just dropped some science right there, explaining precisely what I'm doing with no subterfuge whatsoever, and you still aren't getting it. [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] Lemme put it this way: statistically, black and hispanic men are more likely to commit crimes than any other race. Do those statistics support the notion that black and hispanic men are genetically predisposed to crime?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36876502]This is why nobody takes the idea of misandry seriously. It's because you people only claim misandry when you want to discredit women.[/QUOTE] Even if you personally do not like your opponent and/or believe they may have a less than noble reason for their cause, is that really reason to discredit their cause entirely simply because of a generalized view of the people who advocate it? Hypothetically speaking, how would you personally advocate a claim of misandry in a way that did not come off as misogynist by your own standards? Let's say your opponent's goal isn't to belittle or denigrate women, how do you think they should advocate that?
[QUOTE=Simski;36881871] Hypothetically speaking, how would you personally advocate a claim of misandry in a way that did not come off as misogynist by your own standards? Let's say your opponent's goal isn't to belittle or denigrate women, how do you think they should advocate that?[/QUOTE] well first of all they have to ally with the feminists, not against them.
[QUOTE=thisispain;36881896]well first of all they have to ally with the feminists, not against them.[/QUOTE] This, basically. If you had a legitimate platform, you'd be chillax with feminists, not assailing them. As it stands so far, all you've done is given feminism shit and inflated your persecution complex. [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Simski;36881871]Even if you personally do not like your opponent and/or believe they may have a less than noble reason for their cause, is that really reason to discredit their cause entirely simply because of a generalized view of the people who advocate it?[/QUOTE] Also, haha, isn't that precisely what you do every single time someone mentions feminism? shit, aren't you the guy who said jeffrey dahmer was romantic?
[QUOTE=Lankist;36882342]shit, aren't you the guy who said jeffrey dahmer was romantic?[/QUOTE] Part of the post you're referring to was my morbid sense of humor that obviously went above your head, and secondly it was about how I feel sympathetic towards people that are mentally ill rather than demonize them. So yes, I don't think Jeffrey Dahmer was a monster despite doing horrible things, I think he's someone who was very mentally ill and delusional. I never said what he did was romantic, I never meant him eating his lovers when they left him because he wanted them to always be a part of him was romantic, I meant that it was tragically pitiable that his delusional mind would make him think it was romantic and for that I feel sorry for him. Now for fucks sake, stop fucking dodging the subject using your misinterpretation of that post as an ad hominem every single fucking time I try to have a reasonable discussion with you. [QUOTE=thisispain;36881896]well first of all they have to ally with the feminists, not against them.[/QUOTE] This is a very valid point, however I don't think (at least most of) the people who are arguing that misandry exists is really opposing feminism. People just want the same light to be shed on both subjects. Even if misogyny is a more notable issue in our society, it is not a progressive thought to treat misandry as a non-issue. If we are to have equality, discrimination should always be equally intolerable.
[QUOTE=Simski;36883157]This is a very valid point, however I don't think (at least most of) the people who are arguing that misandry exists is really opposing feminism. People just want the same light to be shed on both subjects. Even if misogyny is a more notable issue in our society, it is not a progressive thought to treat misandry as a non-issue. If we are to have equality, discrimination should always be equally intolerable.[/QUOTE] then why is it only ever brought up as an attempt to discredit feminists [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Simski;36883157]Now for fucks sake, stop fucking dodging the subject using your misinterpretation of that post as an ad hominem every single fucking time I try to have a reasonable discussion with you.[/QUOTE] [I]I did[/I], expanding on Spain's post [I]and[/I] noting your previous, vocal disdain of feminism. You ignored it. [editline]22nd July 2012[/editline] Megafan has asked countless times and no one has answered: Do any of you have any definite, empirical proof tying the cited statistics to the existence of institutional misandry?
I remember a time when I didn't like Lankist for some reason, a long long time ago. Now he's doing all the hard work so I don't even have anything more to add than what he's already covered. I'm glad he came back.
[QUOTE=Lankist;36883167]then why is it only ever brought up as an attempt to discredit feminists[/QUOTE] It is often brought up, because it is critique against feminism. You don't often hear about feminists dealing with misandry, and when people don't see misandry being dealt with they don't think it's because misandry doesn't exist but because it's not treated as much of an issue. People don't feel as engaged by feminism when they are not seen enough dealing with both genders, because people don't feel like they're striving for equality if they treat discrimination of one gender as less of an issue. I'm not saying they AREN'T dealing with it, only that if they are, they should give it more publicity. [QUOTE=Lankist;36883167][I]I did[/I], expanding on Spain's post. You ignored it.[/QUOTE] My apologies, I merely felt that your post did not bring up anything that required a different response to the one I gave to Thisispain. Also your ad hominem sent me on edge, I sadly have a rather short temper when arguing.
[QUOTE=Simski;36883279]It is often brought up, because it is critique against feminism.[/QUOTE] why are you critiquing feminism if [quote]If we are to have equality, discrimination should always be equally intolerable. [/quote] you don't make any goddamn sense. If you really gave two shits you would be on the same side as feminists.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.