10 Myths Anti-Feminists Have About Feminists

Previously published on Thought Catalog

 

Before Janet Bloomfield even launched into the meat of her diatribe on the lies feminists tell, she decided to tear down all feminists. If a woman is a feminist, she is an “unattractive, angry woman who blames all her problems on men. She is single, bitter and spends most of her time showering other women with contempt for not making the ‘correct’ feminist choices, whatever those happen to be. She is loud, screechy and deeply unhappy.” While she acknowledges that this is a stereotype, she seems to have no issue with promoting it. She even justifies it, which makes sense. People who promote intolerance often justify that intolerance in some way. And she uses this intolerant view to promote five lies that she thinks feminists tell. And when she says this, she makes sure to use hyperbolic language to promote her own feelings of intolerance. The problem with this is that she is using her own feelings of anti-feminism to promote ignorance and not promote actual facts. Let’s take a look at what she and many like her get wrong.

 

MYTH: Trigger warnings are a feminist thing that turns women into children. They are illogical and only exist for women.

FACT: Though many feminists talk about trigger warnings, the warnings exist outside of feminism. Triggers are words or actions that lead to a trauma victim having flashbacks. These flashbacks happen not only to women, but to men and to transgendered persons. They don’t just happen with victims of rape and domestic violence, but to people who have gone to war, been in car accidents, women who had a difficult delivery, or been in any other traumatic situation.

Though they have only recently become a part of everyday language, flashbacks, trauma triggers, and PTSD have been discussed throughout history. By the end of the first World War, the British army had dealt with 80,000 cases of a condition that is now best-known as ‘shell shock’. These men would have unrelenting anxiety, tics, and nightmares. Despite the fact that it was the cause of 1/7th of the disability discharges in the British Army. Though these men had killed other men, while fighting for their country, they were labeled as cowards or weak. (If they deserted, like some did, they could face execution.) When people like Janet Bloomfield suggest that feminists who support trigger warnings want to turn grown women into children, she is doing the same thing to them that people did to men returning from war almost a hundred years ago. Having PTSD is not something that makes a person childish or weak or a coward. It is not something that people should be mocked for having. In fact, it’s sometimes summarized as a “normal reaction to abnormal events”. Asking for people to respect your limits is not a childish thing. It is an establishment of a boundary, something that is very difficult for persons with PTSD.

 

MYTH: Simply stating that there is something triggering could trigger.

FACT: For some, yes. For some, no. Some people do get triggered by the warnings themselves. Some don’t. Some are triggered by graphic descriptions. Some are triggered by seeing a simulation of the trauma they endured. Each person’s triggers are different, but that doesn’t mean that we have to stop respecting them by doing away with the warnings.

 

MYTH: Feminists view people who can’t deal with being triggered are “pathetic simpletons” who are “incapable of controlling their emotional reactions or confronting the slightest bit of adversity or conflict”. They see women as being emotionally fragile.

FACT: No. Having a mental health issue does not make a person weak or fragile. Trigger warnings for people PTSD are like allergy warnings for people with food allergies. If you don’t call a person who is allergic to peanuts “weak” because a chocolate company puts a warning that a product that doesn’t have peanuts was manufactured in the same factory as food that does have peanuts in it, then you shouldn’t call a PTSD patient’s trigger warnings a weakness. They are just a warning that there is the possibility that if you look or listen to a particular thing that there is a possibility that your illness will be triggered.

If you look at people who openly discuss their triggers as being fragile or being weak, then that really says more about you and your intolerance than it does about the person being triggered.

 

MYTH: Feminists who talk about “victim-blaming” don’t view women as smart, rational or aware.

FACT: Feminists do view women as smart, rational, and aware. They also know that the blame for a rape lies on the rapist.

A rape victim can be dressed provocatively or like a slob. A rape victim can be drunk or sober. A rape victim can be pretty or ugly. A rape victim can be drugged or they can be asleep or they can be awake. A rape victim can be raped by a stranger or by someone that they know. A rape victim can be a baby or a small child or an older child or a teenager or a young adult or middle aged or elderly.  A rape victim could be armed and still be raped. A rape victim could know self-defense and still be raped.

A rape victim could drink water from a bottle they’ve brought from home that has never been opened. This bottle might never leave their sight. They could still be raped.

The only thing that is true for all rapes is that they were committed by a rapist.

And the reason that victim-blaming is often brought up is that there are people who continue to blame any and every rape victim for their rape. For example, when Austin Clem received a suspended sentence for his conviction of the rape of his neighbor from the time she was thirteen until she was eighteen, someone commented that it was an affair, saying, “At what point does one take responsibility to report her rapist?”

In another local rape case, where a teacher at Vina High School was accused of raping a student, there were comments like this on the local news’ Facebook page:

“yes she is young but she knew what she was doin I am sure tgat [sic] wasn’t her first fling just saying”

Meaning: She might be 17, but she’s probably had sex before and that makes this okay.

“It was definitely wrong on his part, but I hope the girl is punished in some form, because at 17, she consented and now the man’s career is probably over, and it’s not right for her to walk away from it free and clear and with no consequences.”

Meaning: He did the wrong thing by having sex with her. She did the wrong thing by allowing him to have sex with her. She’s not only responsible for her actions, but for his as well, and she should be punished for poor decision-making by man who was twice her age.

“It seems unfair that she can ruin him for life while she carries on with hers as if she didn’t have anything at all to do with it.”

Meaning: Whether this is rape or sex, she doesn’t have to live with what happened at all. It’s not like research has shown that boys and girls who have been raped or been “in relationships” with their teachers have long-lasting psychological problems.

“these days 17 looks alot [sic] older and more filled out must be the water”

Meaning: She has boobs, so it’s totally okay to rape her.

There were two other teachers (one male and one female) accused of rape at that school. As far as I know, only one of the three has been convicted of rape. Guess which one that was.

MYTH: “Women are so easily intimidated by the most soft-spoken and accommodating of men that even when they say yes and consent to sexual activity, it is up to the man to read the depths of her mind to make sure she is not in fact being coerced into activities she doesn’t want.”

FACT: Some are easily intimidated. Some are not. This can go back to things an individual experiences in their life. Rapes can be perpetrated by a person who is soft-spoken or who seems accommodating. Coercion can happen if a victim thinks that the rapist holds any power over her. The rapist could be the boss of the victim. The rapist could be the owner of the place the victim lives. The rapist could be a teacher. These are cases where if there is an implied position of power, the choice of the victim can be called into question. If a rape victim (regardless of gender) feels that a rapist (regardless of gender) could harm the victim’s life in anyway by resisting, then sex with the victim would be considered a case of coercive sex or dubious consent.

 

MYTH: Feminists hate when women choose to marry, have a family, and stay home with that family.

FACT: Feminists believe that if a woman chooses to marry, have a family, and stay home with that family, then she can do that. We believe that men and women should have the ability to choose whether or not they want to do things like go to college, get a job, get married, have kids, etc. As long as it is that person’s choice, then it’s okay. The thing that feminists don’t like is when that the choice can be taken away from a person by their biological family or by their partner.

I don’t actually remember learning at a young age that earning money would give me satisfaction or self-fulfillment. I was raised by two parents who identify as feminists, but I was also raised within a highly conservative religious movement (LDS) in a highly conservative state (Alabama). The culture I grew up in taught me that women are not as smart or capable as men.

As for how people actually feel on opting out or in, in a 2010 survey said that 75% Americans believe “a working mother can establish just as warm and secure a relationship as a mother who does not work” and that 40% of mothers are their family’s sole breadwinner. There’s research that shows that the number of men becoming the primary caregiver and stay-at-home-parent is going up. Of the women interviewed for the book Opting Out? Why Women Really Quit Careers and Head Home, 60% of the women that Pamela Stone interviewed who had quit their jobs had gone back to work. In a survey by economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett, 89% of the women who opted out of working decided that they wanted to go back to work, but only 73% succeeded in getting any job and only 40% got full-time work.

 

MYTH: Feminists want you to have lots of sex, which is bad because it won’t actually liberate or empower you.

FACT: Feminists believe in having sex if the parties involved are consenting. If you only have sex with one person in your life, that’s cool. If you have sex with hundreds of people, that’s cool. If you have no sex ever, that’s cool, too. The big thing is that the sex is consensual and that you don’t judge people for their sex lives.

 

MYTH: Lack of intimacy in sex denies people the opportunity to pair bond.

FACT: Pair bonding is not solely a sexual activity. Pair bonding can be achieved in other social relationships. Social pair bonds exist with relatives and friends. While sexual pair bonds are natural and important, they are not the only way that a person can pair bond. A cultural concept based upon the idea that we need sexual pair bonds is just that: cultural. The main purpose for the intimate and monogamous relationships that JB talked about is to legitimize reproduction.

((The myth for this part seems to have disappeared. Her claim was that disappointing sex was the reason that women falsely report rape.)) If disappointing or unfulfilling sex were the real driving force behind rape complaints by women, then the rate would be higher. When 13,000 women were interviewed for a study published in American Sociological Review in 2012, 69% of the women reported having at least one “hookup” by their senior year of college and, in that same timespan, 74% had been in at least one relationship that last six months or longer. Only 39% of the hookups involved vaginal intercourse and only 11% of first-time hookups involved an orgasm for the woman. That got as high as 16% in second- or third-time hookups with that person. In relationships, the rate of orgasm is higher, at 67%. Now, the lack of an orgasm while hooking up with someone could be seen as disappointing or unfulfilling sex, which means that 89% of the first-time hookups might be considered rape. My math may be off, but that means that of the 8,970 women who had a hookup in college, 61% could (by your definition of rape on college campuses) report that a sexual assault had happened. The rate that feminists use is between 20% and 25%. That definition would make the rate 3 times higher than any feminist has argued it is. The 1-in-4 or 1-in-5 claim that feminists have takes into account the 48.8% of women who don’t consider their assaults to be rape and 60% of rapes that go unreported.

 

MYTH: Feminism Hates Men, Masculinity, etc. Feminism causes gender role issues.

FACT: Feminism doesn’t hate men. Feminism does challenge the patriarchy, which holds both men and women back. Hatred of the patriarchy is hatred of system that gives power to people who have always had the power and continues to deny it to people who have never had it. It is the same system that leads to impoverished people remaining impoverished all their lives. It is the same system that imprisons and harshly punishes minorities while giving whites lesser punishments. It is why the rate of minorities being executed is higher than that of whites. It is the status quo. It is a system that needs to be changed.

Feminists also don’t hate masculinity. Feminists hate the idea of rigid gender roles. Boys who want to play with dolls should be able to and girls who want to play with toy cars should be given that opportunity. It will not harm society to allow kids to grow up feeling comfortable with the things that they like rather than being shamed for an unwillingness to conform. Feminists want people to be able to be themselves and achieve at the things that they can do and want to do, not the things that they are expected to do.

 

MYTH: Feminism is responsible for ADD diagnosis and over-medicating of kids.

FACT: There are three different types of ADD and ADHD. The type that most are diagnosed with is the combined hyperactive-impulsive and inattentive type. The type that goes undiagnosed most is the predominantly inattentive type. The other type is the predominantly hyperactive-impulsive type.

While studies have shown that more children are being diagnosed with ADD before and that boys are 4 times more likely to be diagnosed with it, no cause has been shown for that increase. Research has shown that by adulthood, women are as likely as men to have the disorder. This means that girls and women may be going undiagnosed because their symptoms are different. Now there are also issues of boys and girls being diagnosed with the disorder when they have a different mental health issue, with some doctors thinking a bipolar child must have the disorder because mania can closely resemble hyperactivity and impulsivity. With regard to the misdiagnosis issue, doctors and parents need to be more vigilant about making sure that these children actually have the disorder before giving them any medication. (Treating children with bipolar disorder or schizophrenia using amphetamines can cause problems later on.) Diagnosing people with this particular disorder is not the same as hating them, though. ADD medicine can actually help a child who has ADD function better. It can help them to learn.

On a personal note, I got diagnosed with ADD when I was in my first year of college because I was one of those quiet, abstract thinking kids. I excelled in school despite the fact that I spent almost every moment daydreaming. I couldn’t tell a person what had been going on in a class that I just left, but I could do the work and I could test well. It was easy for everyone to look the other way. Most of the people I knew who had ADD growing up were girls; I knew a lot because my mom used to chaperone almost every field trip and teachers liked to put the ADD kids in her group. (They even got other teachers to send their disruptive kids to my mom’s group.) There were boys in the groups and they did act up, but their actions were no more disruptive than those of the girls.

 

There are other myths that anti-feminists like JB like to focus on, like that women believe that all men are rapists. That’s not true. Feminists believe that the majority of rapes are committed by men because statistics have shown this to be true. Feminists also don’t believe that only women get raped. Feminists understand that all people can be rapists and all people can be victims, but that isn’t the same thing as believing that all people are rapists or that all people are victims. Feminists also don’t believe that men’s issues don’t exist, but we do believe that feminism is not the cause of those issues.

It’s time that people stop blaming feminists for all the world’s problems and start actually working toward ending the problems.

See, I can use hyperbolic language, too.

“Men DIE at work. Women do not.”

@judgybitch1 @brooklynjuggler Women don’t die at work? They don’t have jobs that threaten their lives. Really.

You sure you want to go with that argument?

  • Brenda Yeager was killed at work. She was a social worker.
  • Boni Frederick was killed at work. She was a social work aide.
  • Teri Zenner was killed at work. She was a social worker. 
  • Frances Mortenson was killed at work. She was a case manager.
  • Diruhi Mattian ran a program for mentally ill children and young adults. She was stabbed during a call to a client’s home.

Social workers1 are frequently sent alone and unarmed to dangerous situations in neighborhoods that police do not enter without a partner and a gun.

This is a profession that is made up mainly by women; 79% of social workers are female. It’s a job that requires a great deal of training in order to have. And part of this training involves classes where it may be stressed, at least in the ones I took, that this is a job where you will risk your life daily.

The facts hold this up.

Estimates are that one third to three quarters of all social workers have been threatened at work. Most do not report the threats. According to one survey, 19% of social workers have actually been victims of violent crimes while at work. Other surveys say the number is even higher.

According to a 2000 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report, 48% of all non-fatal injuries from assaults and violent acts in an occupational setting took place in health care and social services settings. This report also noted that social workers had an incidence rate of 15 per 10,000 full-time workers for injuries resulting from assaults and acts of violence.

In other words, I call bullshit.

via Tumblr


  1. What social workers do and why it’s important. Not sure why nursing is considered the only important primarily female field, but this is the same woman who made a post about the age of consent being lowered and how 13 year old girls who look like adults should be charged with prostitution if they have sex with a celebrity

Back and Forth on Feminism vs. MRAs

putmeincoach:

janersm:

putmeincoach:

janersm:

shaeroden:

papa-and-the-sea:

shaeroden:

papa-and-the-sea:

shaeroden:

draumbouy:

papa-and-the-sea:

draumbouy:

soyeahitsdevin:

mankindglobalmedia:

No, that’s the Feminism you wish to convey. The one at the top is the Feminism that we encounter.

No, the one on the top is the one that is noticed. Radicalism is always easier to notice than fair minded social justice.

NO THATS THE ACTUAL FUCKING FEMINISTS. 

ya know id think you people would actually do some goddman research once in a while to look into feminism and the current leaders and the roots of its political birth.

currently feminists are royally fucking men over in court among other things these arent radicals. these are college educated feminists with law degrees and womens studies degrees doing literally everything they can to fuck men over. not some stupid teenage misandry4lyfe bitch on tumblr, though that is also problematic.

and nobody is trying to stop them. and you saying “not all feminists” doesn’t mean shit. nobody fucking cares about your stupid blog. you aren’t doing anything. you’re just spewing rhetoric and acting like it excuses the connotation and association you have with psycho bitches. what people care about is that you chose to take up the banner of a hate movement without even remotely researching it to find out wether it was a good idea. people care about the stuff that the real politically active feminists do. people care when valerie solanas a feminist revolutionary writes books about gendercide and attempts to assassinate andy warhol. of course you probably have no idea what the fuck im even talking about because you didn’t do your research.

you dont know what the fuck you are talking about and you side with a hate movement that had roots in white supremacy

if you dont like the shit a political party does stop defending it and leave the party. you choose to be a feminist instead of an egalitarian or what have you. you’re choice sucked and we are tired of hearing you defend it.

shut up.

Ahh another idiot who just believes anything they hear and believes fucking Bullshit CONGRATULATIONS

I linked everything to a list of proof…..this is kinda awkward for you.

if the above image were true, feminists would have no problems at all with the men’s right’s movement.

i have yet to see any feminist express any sympathy for the MRM.

Why would amyone show sympathy for people who have EVERY right but are working to somehow get more?

> “men have every right”

> “men want more rights”

can you even math?

Yes you just proved how stupid MRAs are because there are no more rights they can even have.

oh yeah.  men have all the rights, huh?

you mean like the right to not have our dicks sliced open shortly after birth?

you mean like the right to refuse to sign up for selective service?

you mean like the right to custody of our own children?

oh yeah.  so many rights.  i’m just about drowning in them.

Stop blaming feminism for Selective Service, circumcision, custody rights, etc.

Male circumcision? Did you realize that “feminist friendly” countries have already banned it? Yep. Don’t believe me? Check out Scandinavian countries.

Don’t want to be drafted one day? (Even though the draft hasn’t been enforced in about 40 years. Odd how feminists who weren’t even around in the 70s get blamed for this and other shit.) Tell your Congressional representative. The Congress is predominantly a Republican institution right now. Explain to an anti-women’s rights political party that you feel your rights as a man are being violated because women aren’t being drafted. I’m sure they’d be willing to swap it over to women being forced to sign up if you do that. By the way, when Carter originally reactivated the conscription process, he said it should apply to women as well as men. Congress said no. Clinton also tried to include women. Guess what happened?! Congress. Said. No. So blame fucking Congress for that.

As for what does the MRM do that goes against feminism:

Supporting 2013’s House version of the VAWA is the first thing I can think of. I know the name throws some MRAs off, but the House version would have stripped the rights of abused people and strengthened those accused of DV. This included taking rights from male victims.

Advocating against rape shield laws. Not only would this have publicized the sexual history of female accusers, it would have publicized the sexual history of male accusers as well.

Denying the wage gap. I’ve seen some acknowledgement that there is racial pay inequity, but no real acknowledgment by MRAs that even amongst different racial groups, men still make more.

Custody rights are unfair. Despite numbers that show they aren’t the gender biased issue that many think they are. Most men don’t seek custody of their kids. (Sad, but true.) And in cases where they do, men being awarded primary or sole custody is more common now than it has been in a long time. Also, protective divorces and lack of custody can be a result of domestic violence.

Being completely opposed to child support. I have seen so many MRAs complain about paying child support and then talking about how their greedy bitch of an ex won’t let them see the kid until they pay up. Here’s the thing you guys forget sometimes: child support is meant to take care of your kid. It is based on your salary and the cost of living where your child lives. It is not alimony. If your ex misuses it, tell the court, but do not complain about supporting your child.

Slut-shaming. If a woman supports free birth control pills, she’s a whore. If she talks about not being a virgin, she’s used up. If she wants to have sex, she’s a Jezebel. If she complains about being viewed this way, she’s a tease who likes to friend zone men. If she refuses sex, she’s a prude. If she wears a tank top, she’s a bimbo.* If she masturbates, she’s dirty. If she says she was raped, she just thinks it was bad sex.

And we are back to rape. MRAs have a tendency to suggest that women (as a group) like to lie about rape and sexual assault and abuse. Any woman who talks about having been raped meets one of these responses from MRAs: they regret the consensual sex, they were drunk, they were dressed like a sex worker, they asked for it, they let the person kiss them or take them into a private space, they’d had sex before so they didn’t have to consent this time, if it really happened they wouldn’t talk about it at all ever, their claim of PTSD is fake, no one “survives” a rape because it doesn’t threaten their lives—they’re just being whiny, they want attention, they should be happy the person wanted to rape them.

Opposition to laws banning marital and acquaintance rapes.

Denial of the existence of MRAs who do actually want to oppress women or who use domains to post personal details of feminists to FTSU.

Use ableist language against women with certain disabilities. Also failing to acknowledge the root causes of those issues and that they can also occur to men.

Men who’ve been raped are always raped by women. Most men who have been raped were raped by men.

Male victims of domestic violence are beaten by their wives or female partners. This disregards cases like Johnny Weir, where he attacked his husband.

Promoting traditional gender roles.

That’s it for now.

*The tank top thing comes from last week. I was called a bimbo and a narcissist because I support wearing weather appropriate clothes. It’s 1PM & 90°F here now, but this MRA told me that to wear shorts and a tank top would make me a narcissistic bimbo flaunting her goods at a guy she didn’t intend to sleep with.

Nothing but unfounded claims. Why am I not surprised?

“Nothing but unfounded claims.”

You think these are unfounded claims? Okay. Let’s check out some of the things I’ve said

Recommended by medical associations within Sweden and Denmark. In Sweden, it was recommended that boys should be at least 12 and consent to the procedure. In Denmark, non-medical circumcision of boys was compared to abuse and mutilation. Sweden’s medical association also said that circumcisions should only be performed by physicians in a medical facility. While the recommendation was non-binding, and the Swedish government is not going to ban the circumcision of Jewish and Muslim males, it is another step toward that eventually happening. There is already support of a ban of non-medical circumcisions by 87% of Danes polled on the matter. A ban was also recommended by the representatives of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Iceland, and Greenland to Child Rights International Network, a group of pediatric experts. In 2012, an Israeli rabbi was arrested for performing the procedure in Germany. And last year in Australia, a ban was being considered by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute. JTA, Huffington Post, CRIN, IB Times (AU), Patheos, The Daily Beast, SBS News, BMC Pediatrics

I’ll give you that an outright ban doesn’t exist in the countries, but it has been recommended and, in several, it has been socially unpopular for years.

Draft/conscription:

Selective Service System website’s page entitled ” BACKGROUNDER: WOMEN AND THE DRAFT IN AMERICA”

Also there’s this from USA Today:

Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., has made several attempts during the past decade to reinstitute the draft on the grounds that a small fraction of U.S. citizens are bearing a disproportionate burden in fighting the nation’s wars. But his bills have gone nowhere.

That hasn’t stopped him from trying. Earlier this year, Rangel — who earned a Purple Heart and a Bronze Star for Valor after volunteering for the Army during the Korean War — introduced another bring-back-the-draft bill that also would require women to register.

Three proposals of women being included in the draft? Let’s break them down by party

Democrats: 3

Republicans: 0

Further proof that Republicans are the non-equality party toward women in the military:

“We support the advancement of women in the military…[and] We support women’s exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions.” (2012 GOP platform)

“To have women serving in infantry, though, could impair the mission-essential tasks of units. And that’s been proven in study after study, just from a matter of — it’s nature, upper body strength, and physical movements, and speed, and endurance, and so forth.” (Tom Cotton, R-AR)

And before you point out that right now women can serve in combat, I know this. It’s a recent development, but there is still a tendency of the GOP toward keeping women out of combat.

VAWA Act:

AVFM’s oppositional stance on the Senate reauthorization, National Coalition for Men’s letter to stop the Senate reauthorization, American Coalition for Fathers and Children on their opposition to it’s reauthorization—same post as the one from AVFM. Other articles from AlterNet, Patheos, Talking Points Memo, IB Times, Al-Jazeera America

The Senate version actually helps men:

the law itself

MRAs advocating against rape shield laws:

“With rape shield laws and their trampling of every defendants right to a fair trial, the law itself cannot be trusted. Indeed, even your fellow jurors, who can be assumed to be living unconsciously in the misandric matrix, and prepared to condemn men on accusation alone, cannot be trusted.” (That doesn’t sound very pro-rape shield to me. Does it to you?) Honey Badger Brigade also has a post on advocating against rape shield.

Rape shield laws also apply to male victims:

http://ift.tt/1lNuOLw

MRAs denying the wage gap exists/ignoring racial implications:

here, here, here

Race/gender gap does exist:

AAUW, IWPR, The Nation, Essence article on gap

Custody rights are unfair/the courts aren’t biased toward men:

According to Child Custody Made Simple:

  • 51% of cases are decided by the parents with no assistance
  • 29% settle without third party involvement
  • 11% went to mediation
  • 5% resolved differences after custody evaluation
  • 4% went to trial and 1.5% of those complete the trial
  • When decided on their own, 82% of mothers want sole custody to go to them, with 29% wanting it to go to fathers. 3% of mothers want sole custody to go to the fathers with 33% of fathers wanting that.15% of mothers and 35% want joint possession
  • With mediation, 63% of the time sole posession goes to the mother vs 43% when parents go to evaluation or trial. 6% of mediations end in sole custody going to the father while 11% get it in evaluation or trial. 25% result in joint custody for mediation while 40% do with trial or evaluation. Other results happen in 6% and %5 respectively.

Slate

MRAs blaming their evil exes:

“VAWA has been pivotal in the destruction of the family by depriving fathers of their civil rights, due process rights, and their right to cross-examine those who falsely accuse them of DV — most notably during divorce proceedings…With the restraining order in hand, the police remove the father from the home (often in the middle of the night) with nothing but the shirt on his back, order him to stay out of his home and away from his wife and children, and immediately begin paying child support to the woman who just “stole” his children and his home from him.”

MRAs saying women lie about abuse and rape, as well as rape apologism:

“VAWA most effectively destroys families through temporary Restraining Orders. Gone are the days when physical evidence of DV was required and cross-examination was permitted to help judges distinguish between false and true allegations. In today’s courts, a woman can allege to a judge (without the accused being present) that she was the victim of DV and is requesting a restraining order based on “expanded” definitions of DV. “Expanded” definitions include vague senses of discomfort, fears, and “Economic DV” (where the man did not fulfill the woman’s economic wants)…Judges virtually always grant VAWA restraining orders to women “just to be on the safe side” even when there is no tangible evidence of threat — just the woman’s non-verifiable internal purported feelings.”

“Think about the ramifications if this were allowed to happen: 1. Man and Woman Marry 2 Woman starts to spend all the money and cuts off sex and gets really bitchy all the time. 3. Woman starts to hang with the “girls” more and more, meets a bad boy and decides she is bored with her stupid kids and her husband. 4. Woman consults an attorney. 5. Attorney knows something called the “silver bullet” that will slice and dice that motherfucking husband in family court and ensure his client the “casa, cash and kids”. 6. Attorney tells his client all she needs to do is say two little words when she calls 911…….”I’m Afraid” 7. After those words are spoken, man is arrested, jailed for domestic violence, given a restraining order while in jail, (in a hearing that took place without him present the day before) and basically treated like a motherfucking boot licking bastard piece of shit whenever he appears in family or criminal court from that point forward. 8. Man hires an attorney. Attorney tells him NOT to plead in the domestic violence case until the divorce case is decided since a guilty plea in ANY form in criminal court will destroy his chances of being the father he was before the 911 call took place since he will be deemed a “danger” to the kids if family court finds out about his plea. 9. Man, after being fired from his job due to an allegation of domestic violence is now living with his parents and borrowing money from friends to get through the divorce case. The woman’s attorney knowing his situation drags out the divorce proceeding knowing that he will have to plead/go to trial in the DV case sooner or later and who the fuck cares? The man will get to pay his fees at the end of the divorce anyway.10. Man’s attorney also starts to drag out the divorce case and asks for another retainer of 5k to keep representing him in both the family court and domestic violence cases. Man is broke as a motherfucker, wife has his house and bank accounts so he begins to represent himself pro-se in both cases. 11. Knowing he is FUCKING FUCKED in both cases now, man pleads to the domestic violence case and gives his wife what she wants in family court just to get it FUCKING over with. 12. Unknowingly, man REALLY FUCKING FUCKED himself since now he has a domestic violence conviction on his record and he finds that finding a FUCKING job with that FUCKING plea he should have NEVER FUCKING taken in the first place is totally FUCKING HIM OVER really FUCKING bad in the employment arena. 13. Man, now without a job or the ability to find one since his is deemed a MOTHERFUCKING wife beater starts to fall behind on his “chalimony” and as a result the people who get paid to get that MOTHERFUCKING CHALIMONY are really starting to poke his MOTHERFUCKING ass…….they don’t seem to understand…..all he hears is the line from Goodfellas……….FUCK YOU, PAY ME. 14. Woman, now living comfortable in the house he paid for, driving the car he bought and spending the money he slaved to save brings bad boy after bad boy around the house to pound that pussy rotten and all of her friends say……”you go girl”…..(little does she know, 30 years from now, she will most likely be living alone in an apartment with 5 cats, overweight and bitter……..but for now the dick train is feelin fucking GREAT! Plus child services garnished half of his unemployment so it’s all good…… 15. Man meanwhile can’t find a motherfucking job since everyone thinks he is a motherfucking wife beater and all he thinks to himself morning, noon and night is Aint this a motherfucker get’s a knock on his door and is summoned to court to explain his lack of payment to his baby mama. 16. Man goes to court, no trial, no jury…….just a pissed of Judge that wants his MOTHERFUCKING money sentences him to 6 months in prison and also adds a felony to his record for disobeying a court order……..after he is handcuffed and lead to the holding cell……all he can think to himself is…….Aint this a MOTHERFUCKER. 17. Man goes to prison and is raped repeatedly by a big guy named Bubba and when he get’s out hangs himself rather then endure any more of his motherfucking life. Oh, Did I say that could happen earlier? Happens every day boys and girls……Now Ain’t THAT a Motherfucker…….”

“Voting not guilty on any charge of rape is the only way to remain faithful to the concept of presumed innocence. And any participation in the system as it stands, other than with the intent to undermine it as much as possible, is taking part in the destruction of that sacred presumption. If you are sitting on a jury hearing a case of rape, the only way to serve justice is to acquit.”

“This is where lying cunning women get to use their pussy privilege to destroy a man or men. And where any number of manginas/white knights out there who have hitched their blood money making schemes to this one bullshit crime, are ready to assist this woman in her hateful intent to carry out this crime.”

Opposition to paying child support, not paying for their kids:

“I feel the way court-ordered child support is handled in our culture is ridiculous, and is a really bad idea.Yes, no one should disobey the law, but the way child support is set up today immediately marginalizes fathers from the beginning. I refused to pay child support to my ex-wife. I would suggest to any man even remotely thinking about having a child that they understand the law as it is currently written in your state. If you don’t, you are putting yourself in a terrible position and possibly setting yourself up for financial ruin.It is truly risky having a child with a woman here in the United States…Child support has NOTHING to do with children. NOTHING!!!!!! It’s all about supporting and subsidizing mothers. It is all about the transfer or wealth from fathers to mothers. It is a system that does not take into consideration the accountability for how the money is spent to care for the children. It’s also a massive game between the Federal government and the states that is only getting more and more convoluted. It is a subsidy for single motherhood. I’m glad I stood up to the nonsense I saw in family court and did what I had to do to free myself of the financial slavery that state ordered child support really is. It’s time more men either understand the game before they get in it, or stop playing altogether.”

“Child Custody and Child Support is legal slavery for most men…Instead of giving joint physical legal custody to the parent that is most suitable (stable, loving, caring, financially fit), courts are bias and give welfare mothers the child while penalizing the father.My advice is: Fellas, Don’t Get Married and Never Impregnate a Women! It’s not worth it! Forget all that hype and talk about legacy. You alone, should be your legacy. Your legacy does not have to be generational blood lines.”

“More and more children are winning 50/50 shared custody, but the child support laws were written to assume that the lazier spouse who makes less money has sole custody. That is why it doesn’t matter if custody is 50/50 in some states. As more people experience, and/or learn, about the injustice of this system, there will be more impetus to pass new child support laws.”

“Child support is f-r-a-u-d, e-x-t-o-r-t-i-o-n and i-l-l-e-g-a-l in every way- both technically and morally. Child support is, as is alimony, f-r-a-u-d. It is a forced extraction of money for property that has been confiscated, is not in the possession of the victim. The property- the child- was confiscated and reappopriated by the state to the mother. The mother was an active participant in the confiscation of property. The father has had the property taken from him, and the state then coerces the father to pay for this property, after the state has removed the property from the possession of the father. This is a fraud. One cannot be charged for property that is not in their possession, property that the state has ruled is not in their possession. Child support is fraud and it is de facto extortion.”

“Child support subsidises family breakdown. What sort of man sponsors the breakup of his own family, and the fatherlessness of his own children?”

“I have refused to pay child support for my first daughter for 17yrs because her mom dropped me off on the side of the RR tracks and told me to hope a train out of her life she was cheating on me and ran me off cause I wasn’t good enough same thing happened to my second daughters mother I’m not paying for something I can’t see and be a part of its not fair”

“Quit hiding behind the supposed best interest of the child in order rationalize thievery. It is disgusting and immoral.”

Slut-shaming, victim-blaming, rape apologist talk, other random comments by MRAs:

“Clearly, we live in sickening culture which attempts to oppress sluts by forcing personal volition and self-responsibility on them.”

and btw, none of these girls even got raped. They are living in Canada where the rate of violent crime and specifically rape is among the lowest on the planet. They should go to Newark or Detroit and try dressing like sluts there and walk around late at night. I would like to see what kind of public support they get after actually getting raped on the streets.”

These feminazi’s already have the right to be sluts and do whatever they want no matter how disgusting it might be to their parents. But now they also want the right not to be blamed and labelled for it. Too bad bitches, you made your bed, now lie in it and get screwed. It’s all good though, we love screwing you. At least until you lose your looks. After that, there are always younger, hotter sluts and you will be one of those beer-drinking pot-bellied nasty sluts with HPV who no man will touch with a ten-foot pole.

“‘Women are taught to do everything from dressing not provocatively to never leaving your drink, to walking in groups- all common sense’ Women have always been taught, and yet never learn.”

“When prostitutes dress up to go to work to sell their ‘wares’…do they not wear revealing, skin tight, short, cleavage-push-up, tacky, ‘this-is-what-I’ve-got-for-you-baby’ clothing? And then there’s the normal self-respecting woman……………..wearing the same shit, but does not understand why she appears to be viewed as the same person? Give ME a fucking break. When a woman looks in the mirror, she knows what the fuck she looks like going out the door. And let’s go back to RAPE. It’s okay for a man to raped of all of his worldy possessions, his paycheck, his children, his self-esteem… by women who are in bed with the ultimate rapists….the family court system. AND let’s not forget the women that ACCUSE men of rape, and their lives are stolen from them, as they are put into jail…only to be truly, and viciously RAPED over and over again…FOR REAL because some skanky bitch decided to punish him, or ‘cover her ass’ from a mistake SHE made the night before.”

Women who dress in a sexually enticing manner need to realize that if they portray themselves as sex objects, then they will be treated like sex objects.”

“Flirting with girls used to be fun. It was harmless, a bit of a game and made both sexes feel good. Flirting is now illegal, men shy away fro it and prescriptions for anti-depressents are on the rise for women…”

“”Women aren’t useless sex objects…” Truth be told, that isn’t anything even close to what I was saying anyway. What I was saying was that women don’t offer men anything besides sex. I wish that wasn’t true,but it is. You’d be hard pressed to find,in all the history of women leaders, one thing that women offered men specifically and exclusively, yet until very recently, the rape laws in many places were worded in such a way that the law didn’t even recognize that men could be victims of it. In other words, they were created exclusively to protect women. Most things that men do are done exclusively for women, or for men,women,and children. This “only want one thing” thing is just a pet peeve of mine. To this day, nobody has been able to sufficiently explain to me just what the hell that’s supposed to mean. I’m sure men would take other things if women offered them,but they don’t, and they bitch about offering the one thing that they do offer,like it’s some kind of grand gift and a heavy burden to them to provide. Women should be grateful that men “only want one thing”, it sounds to me like women wouldn’t know what to do with themselves if men asked for anything else.”

“Take all of women’s accomplishments out of the picture. What would you be left with? A world without windshield wipers.”

“What else are men supposed to want from women? They have nothing to give,besides sex and children, that we can’t do ourselves. And, as women have sufficiently demonstrated to me, and most other men, they won’t even provide that without making impossible demands, charging exorbitant prices or a fuckload of bitching about how men “only want one thing”. Women don’t fucking provide anything else! What the fuck are we supposed to want? Why the fuck would we approach women for something we could make or do for ourselves? I know there’s exceptions to all of this but in general, women produce nothing.They have nothing to offer but sex and children.”

Ableism/discarding of a mental health issue that impacts abuse victims, including men

Should I go ahead and back up the other claims or do you realize that I have made a good faith effort to prove that I’m not a liar? By the way, the link in each quote takes you to the exact place where the comment was made. (Permalinking is fun.)

Why am I not surprised a fat chick spends the majority of her time slandering MRAs?

Uh-huh. You don’t know what slander means, do you? Lucky for both of us, I do. “A false statement, usually made orally, which defames another person. Unlike libel, damages from slander are not presumed and must be proven by the party suing.” Now, as I have been more than willing to provide foundation for the claims that have been made, including links to exactly where such statements can be found, I would love to hear how what I said could be construed as a false statement. Oh, that’s right. They can’t be. You can’t prove slander if the person is using the truth to defame you.

As for the fat chick remark, it would be nice to have one MRA not resort to that sort of cheap shot. I just have to assume that you’re not prepared to refute and decided to go negative. Buh-bye now.

via Tumblr

Thieves Caught on Video Stealing 6-Year-Old Burn Victim’s Beloved Pug

Thieves Caught on Video Stealing 6-Year-Old Burn Victim’s Beloved Pug:

via Tumblr

Pot Meet Kettle

A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person’s thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mental illnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity for coping with the ordinary demands of life.

Serious mental illnesses include major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder. The good news about mental illness is that recovery is possible.

Mental illnesses can affect persons of any age, race, religion or income. Mental illnesses are not the result of personal weakness, lack of character or poor upbringing. Mental illnesses are treatable. Most people diagnosed with a serious mental illness can experience relief from their symptoms by actively participating in an individual treatment plan.1

I’m mentally ill. This isn’t really news. I’ve never been ashamed of being mentally ill. I’ve never felt the need to say that I am embarrassed by what’s wrong with me. I’ve been open about my experiences. I’ve made a fool of myself a few times because of my mental health issues. I don’t feel that my issues are all that makes me me. Even though they impact most aspects of my life, they aren’t all that there is to me. I know other people don’t feel this way.

Meet one of these people:

@Crimefile on Twitter

At first I thought that I was misunderstanding Paul’s response to Marci on the issue of gun control. He brought up mental illness as part of his argument against gun control. He was very big on his interpretation of the Second Amendment2 and how his right to bear arms was somehow the most important thing in the world. He wasn’t so big on other Amendments and how they might impact other people. For example, the Eighth Amendment3 or the Sixth Amendment4

First, it was a Twitter discussion. Then, Paul deleted the tweets and decided to blog about it instead, so here are the responses I have to what he has said:

Los Angeles, CA—There is little doubt that every mass shooter in the USA suffered from severe mental illness, usually schizophrenia. Most or all have rejected taking anti-psychotic medication and accordingly they went on deadly rampages.

Nope. Not true. The Washington Post actually addresses this myth in a recent article by Dr. Dewey G. Cornell, a forensic clinical psychology.5 And it’s time that we stop blaming every single one on the mentally ill, okay?

We used to put these people in mental hospitals that were more tolerable and comfortable than our jails. After our medical community determined that wonder drugs were more humane that hospitalization they convinced government officials to close the asylums.

Now the same people are simply sitting in jails and prisons without treatment. The effort to be more humane has backfired.

The solution offered against violence by the insane is to eliminate gun rights for the sane and law-abiding. They seem to forget that the insane use knives, clubs or brute force to murder. They can’t seem to understand that before the Oklahoma Bombing and 9/11 attack on America that the most significant mass murder was committed with a single gallon of gasoline at the Happyland Social Club taking nearly 100 lives.

Bringing up those events within the context of a discussion on mass murder has me wondering what all we’re considering to be mass murder. Oklahoma City was a bombing committed by an American anti-government, right-wing extremist. The events of 9/11 were 20 non-Americans using planes as weapons because a terrorist group didn’t like American foreign policy. The Happy Land fire was an arson committed by the jealous ex-boyfriend of one employee that ended up killing 87 people because the business blocked the fire exits. She survived the fire. We have two acts of terrorism with political motivations and the act of a guy who thought he could get revenge on his ex and the place she worked.

Are we going to include other acts of terror? Perhaps since 9/11 led to one war directly and another indirectly, we should include things that happen within wars. Perhaps we should also include things that lead to wars. Should we include acts of terror against other countries that were perpetrated here? Should we include other anti-government acts, or do the reverse and show acts of violence perpetrated by people on behalf of the government that ended in the deaths of other people? Since we’re talking about a fire started by a jealous ex-lover, do we include all acts where an ex kills or attempts to kill someone because that ex feels jilted in some way? Do we include school shootings? Do we include workplace violence? Do we include spree killers? Do we include family annihilators? Do we include serial murders? Do we include genocidal actions towards the indigenous population of America? Are we going to talk about all mass killings or just the 1-in-6 that are known by the public?6 Or that 25% of mass killings that don’t involve strangers, gangs, or robberies are due to a breakup.7 Or how 57% of victims knew the attacker, even if they weren’t that attacker’s initial target.8 Or how some are from being fired9 or being evicted10.

Now, I don’t know Paul’s experiences in the mental hospitals of old or the jails that exist, but from what I know, they were not “more tolerable and comfortable” than the jails and prisons in this country.

I’m guessing that he didn’t realize that compulsory sterilization laws impacted people in institutions for criminals and ones for the mentally ill, as well as outsiders, the poor and minorities. The eugenics law craze started in 1907 in Indiana and spread to 30 other states. People who were seen as defective underwent sterilization procedures. I’m guessing he also was unaware that between 1936 and the late 1950s, an estimated 50,000 lobotomies were performed in the United States. Between 1953 and 1957, in Athens County, Ohio, there were 200 frontal lobotomies performed at Athens State Hospital during 7 visits by one doctor, Walter Freeman. His technique was different from the type performed by Egas Moniz, in that he did his quickly, outside of an operating room, and without anesthetic drugs. Instead, he used electroconvulsive therapy. Basically, this guy used electricity to induce seizures so that he could then destroy part of that person’s brain more quickly. Screw the pain. Screw the suffering. And he didn’t just do this in Ohio. He did it in around 50 state hospitals all over the country. After he took part in a recommendation to the VA for lobotomies, 2,000 veterans were lobotomized by the US government. Other doctors suggested he enjoyed doing the procedure a little too much.11 Freeman was also the doctor behind the lobotomy of Rosemary Kennedy that led to her being physically and mentally disabled.

Mentally ill persons were also given electroshock treatments without having lobotomies, too. It was considered a valid treatment for schizophrenia and other issues. Though it is still done now, it is not nearly as dangerous, in part because the dose is lower and the procedure is done under general anesthesia. Previous uses of it included extremely high doses of electricity and a lack of anesthesia. It caused memory loss, fractured bones, and other serious side effects.

So, yeah, I’m not exactly feeling the warm fuzzies towards the mental hospitals.

It’s impossible to keep deadly weapons out of the hands of the insane that are driven or determined to kill. We must face that fact and deal with it.

I don’t have the answers to or mental health problems of America anymore than I have for the millions of Americans using street drugs and alcohol. However taking the rights of the sane, sober and law-abiding is no answer.

If we really care about the mass killings we have to address and revisit the real issue behind these massive catastrophes. If we refuse to consider reopening the mental hospitals we must accept that we will continue to have these unthinkable tragedies.

Let’s not use the word “insane” or “crazy” or anything like that. Also, let’s not pretend that the mentally ill are less human because of their illnesses. You don’t look at a patient with a brain tumor or with migraines or with epilepsy as being less-than-human, right? Well, the same goes for the mentally ill. Each of those issues involves the brain. Each can cause a person to act in a way that is not necessarily consistent with their behavior or with what is considered normal for the place that they live in.12 The mind and the brain are the same place. It is time we stop treating mental illness like it is less of a physical problem than it actually is.

And if the solution to this problem is to strip a person of their freedom so that you can keep your guns, then I’m going to say no. More than 1% of the country’s adult population is incarcerated, with a quarter of those being seriously mentally ill. That means that 75% of the adult prison population in America is not seriously mentally ill. It seems like if we were going to put a bunch a people in jail for potentially being a threat to lives, we’d choose the ones who weren’t mentally ill. The odds that they would commit a crime seem to be higher. But that probably wouldn’t be very popular because those are people who are not disenfranchised because of a disability.

The horrible massive shootings were unheard of in America until we ended hospitalization of the mentally ill.

This is not true. Aside from being factually inaccurate, it makes it sound like deinstitutionalization was some quick process. The deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill and intellectually disabled took place over about forty years.13 The peak number of mental institution patients was measured in 1955. President Kennedy signed the Community Mental Health Act in 1963.14 By 1977, there were 650 community facilities and they served 1.9 million patients. If the number of cases of severely mentally ill patients grew at the same rate of growth as the country’s overall population, then there were only around 749,674 people who would have been in the hospital.15 Three years later, Jimmy Carter signed a bill to restructure the mental health care system to improve services for the chronically mentally ill. The next year, under President Reagan, that legislation was repealed and established block grants for the states, which ended federal funding of services to the mentally ill.16 In 1985, the federal government dropped its funding of community mental health care from 30% to 11%.

The Happy Land fire17 happened in 1990. There were mass murders and mass shootings before 1990. Or how several of those mass murders are still among some of the worst in the history of the country.181920212223242526272829

And not all of the mass murders since then involved a mentally ill person. For example, despite what a lot of people think, Adam Lanza was not actually diagnosed with a mental illness. Then there are people like Wade Michael Page, who committed the shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin. He was a racist, not a psychiatric patient. There are no indications that Sonny Enrique Medina was mentally ill, but there are some that he was abusive. Mental illness didn’t cause Lawrence Myers to set a building on fire to cash in on the $250,000 insurance policy; greed did, though.

Is it fair to allow the dangerously mentally to roam free and force the law-abiding to surrender their right to keep and bear arms? Disarming people does not make them safe. Not only is it unfair it’s absolutely unconstitutional.

Roam? We aren’t fucking deer or buffalo, dude. We’re people. People who deserve to be treated just like all other people. We have rights, just like you do. The same exact ones. And to suggest that all people who are “insane” need to be locked up to protect the rest of the public is a truly fucked up idea. Who decides what meets the characteristics of “dangerous”? Do we put everyone in when they’re first diagnosed? Or do we wait until they actually express a desire to harm other people?

I won’t get into the whole “that’s not what the Second Amendment really means” debate thing right now because I’m pretty sure I’ve covered that before. I will point out that putting a person into a psychiatric hospital that you cannot say for a fact is dangerous is unconstitutional. It is a form of imprisonment. It would be considered a cruel and punishment. And it could be a violation of that person’s due process. These rights are no less precious than your belief in owning guns.

We need a sea change in our approach to threats of violence. The police are hamstrung by an antiquated model which requires them to either arrest someone for a crime or determine that they are mentally ill and imminently about to harm someone. Most cases do not fit into either pigeonhole. Locking people up in a jail or a hospital to prevent violence is not the answer.

In case after case of mass shootings, we learn later that family members, friends, and even mental health professionals were concerned that someone needed help. Predicting violence is difficult, but identifying that someone needs assistance is not so difficult. This is where we need to readjust our focus and concentrate on helping people in distress. This approach requires not only a change in police policy but community mental health services that are oriented around prevention.

You’re right that we have an antiquated model for treatment. We’re back to 1850’s standards of using jails as psychiatric hospitals. We need to increase funding to the mental health care system. People who need to be treated don’t necessarily need to be hospitalized. People need to have access to medication and to therapy that they need without having to worry about costs. They need to be able to secure treatment without having to worry that they will lose their job or their kids. If you want to advocate for a better mental health care system, then I’d get behind that. If you’re just going to advocate locking up other people because your rights are more important than their rights, then I’ll just point out how hypocritical you are being.


  1. NAMI 

  2. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. 

  3. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 

  4. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 

  5. It seems intuitive that anyone who commits a mass shooting must be mentally ill, but this is a misuse of the term “mental illness.” Mental illness is a term reserved for the most severe mental disorders where the person has severe symptoms such as delusions or hallucinations. Decades of mental health research show that only a small proportion of persons with mental illness commit violent acts, and together they account for only a fraction of violent crime. Some mass shooters have had a mental illness. Most do not. 

  6. 51% of mass killings are family related. 

  7. A breakup is the trigger behind 1 in 4 mass killings that do not involve strangers, gangs or a robbery gone wrong…And often, that violence occurs in families that otherwise seemed normal. 

  8. 1 in 4 were closely related. 

  9. UAH shooting by Amy Bishop Anderson 

  10. Stanley Neace in Breathitt County, Kentucky 

  11. In 1948, one senior VA psychiatrist wrote a memo mocking Dr. Freeman for using lobotomies to treat “practically everything from delinquency to a pain in the neck.” – WSJ 

  12. Yeah, even migraines can impact behavior. 

  13. Deinstitutionalization began in 1955 with the widespread introduction of chlorpromazine, commonly known as Thorazine, the first effective antipsychotic medication, and received a major impetus 10 years later with the enactment of federal Medicaid and Medicare. Deinstitutionalization has two parts: the moving of the severely mentally ill out of the state institutions, and the closing of part or all of those institutions. The former affects people who are already mentally ill. The latter affects those who become ill after the policy has gone into effect and for the indefinite future because hospital beds have been permanently eliminated. 

  14. President John F. Kennedy signs the Community Mental Health Act to provide federal funding for the construction of community-based preventive care and treatment facilities. Between the Vietnam War and an economic crisis, the program was never adequately funded. 

  15. The number now would be around 1,068,483. There are 43,000 total beds in this country to take care of patients, though. There was also another $4.35 billion in public-mental health spending cuts from the federal government in 2009. 

  16. Three years after that the study from Ohio about 30% of homeless people being mentally ill came out. 

  17. The Happy Land fire resulted in the deaths of 87 people. Many of those deaths might have been prevented if the club had not blocked fire exits. 

  18. 1989: Louisville, Kentucky – Joseph Wesbecker. 

  19. 1989: Stockton, California – Patrick Purdy. 

  20. 1988: Sunnyvale, California – Richard Farley. 

  21. 1987: Palm Bay, Florida – William Cruse. 

  22. 1986: Edmond, Oklahoma – Patrick Henry Sherrill. 

  23. 1984: San Ysidro, California – James Huberty. 

  24. 1984: Manley Hot Springs, Alaska – Michael Silka. 

  25. 1984: Dallas Texas – Abdelkrim Belachheb. 

  26. 1982: Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania – George Banks. 

  27. 1982: Miami – Carl Robert Brown. 

  28. 1973: New Orleans, Louisiana – Mark Robert James Essex. 

  29. 1966: University of Texas – Charles Joseph Whitman. 

Look, “Lester”, I’m Allowed to Support #NoMRA

When I got online this afternoon, I saw that “Lester” left 2 comments on the fuzzypinkslippers.com Facebook page about the Op-Ed by Marc E. Angelucci on the conference in Detroit. My response to his two postings got to be a little wordy, so I thought that I would post it here.

Hi. You don’t know me, but you decided to share your link on my Facebook page for my blog. Perhaps you thought that this would enlighten me or sway me to your side of this discussion. It won’t.

I don’t like MRAs and I have a very good reason for this. You see, despite what the movement claims, no actions are really taking place within it to improve the lives and rights of men. Most of what goes on is bashing of women, declaring us to be misandrists; telling male feminists that they’re playing for the wrong team or that they are emasculating themselves. Basically, a lot of bullying and very little actual activism, which sucks because there are a lot of issues that impact men that deserve to be advocated for.

In the Op-Ed, Angelucci suggested that people who paint MRAs in a negative light were ignorant. I can assure you that this is not true. In a lot of cases the people who criticize the movement are actually very aware of what has been said and what has been done. When MRAs are called misogynists, it’s because they are. When Chris Brown attempted to kill Rihanna and she decided to file charges against him, it was the National Coalition for Men (which Angelucci states he is the Vice President of) that decided that it should criticize Rihanna for speaking up against Brown. It was also the National Coalition Men that declared that their support would go to a GOP backed version of Violence Against Women Act, which would have empowered abusers not victims. H.R. 4970 was not only anti-women, it was also homophobic and would have denied rights to gay males who were victims of domestic and sexual violence. The Senate version of the bill (S. 1925) would have protected all victims of domestic violence. This makes his group hypocritical with regard to concern for the rights of all men.

Now, with regard to the actual conference, I refuse to change my opinion on a conference that has speakers who have advocated or been apologists for abuse.

Warren Farrell

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration, Partial scan of the issue.

“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.”

“The average incest participant can’t evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

“Incest is like a magnifying glass, in some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and it others it magnifies the trauma.”

“Most women’s ideal is to not be sexual until nine conditions are met: physical attraction; respect; emotional compatibility; intelligence; singleness; success (or potential ); being asked out; being paid for; and the man risking rejection by initiating the first kiss…. Men want sex as long as only one condition is met—physical attraction.”

“In San Diego there is a highly popular course called How to Marry Money. Note that the marriage is to money–not to a person. I inquired about the percentage of men attending… ‘The course is really for women,’ [the instructor replied,] ‘it’s not relevant to men.'”

“When men give lines, women learn to not trust men. When women wear makeup, men learn to not trust women. Male lines and female makeup are divorce training.”

“When divorces meant marriage no longer provided security for a lifetime, women adjusted by focusing on careers as empowerment. But when the sacrifice of a career met the sacrifices in a career, the fantasy of a career became the reality of trade-offs. Women developed career ambivalence.”

“From the male perspective, when commitment is associated with diamonds and mortgages, promises of love can feel like promises of payment.”

“When women are at the height of their beauty power and exercise it, we call it marriage. When men are at the height of their success power and exercise it, we call it a mid-life crisis.”

“We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.”

“Women attempt suicide more often because they want to become the priority of those they love rather than always prioritizing them.”

“Unemployment to a man is the psychological equivalent of rape to a woman.”

“Minimizing the role of sexual attraction in rape denies our responsibility for reinforcing men’s addiction to female sexual beauty and then depriving men of what we’ve helped addict them to.”

“Feminism has taught women to sue men for sexual harassment or date rape when men initiate with the wrong person or with the wrong timing; no one has taught men to sue women for sexual trauma for saying “yes,” then “no,” then “yes.” … Men [are] still expected to initiate, but now, if they [do] it badly, they could go to jail.”

“Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape.”

“The reporting of depression is often associated with the dependency of women on men. But it is dependency on men successful enough to allow a woman the time to think about more than survival. Which is why, when we think about women who report depression, we think of middle-class women, not working-class women. The working-class woman is too worried about survival to report depression. Depression is a diagnosis that tends to increase among those with the luxury of worrying about something other than survival. The more a person is in Stage II, the more that person can afford to focus on depression.”

“A man being sued after a woman has more sex than intended is like Lay’s being sued after someone has more potato chips than intended. In brief, date rape can be a crime, a misunderstanding, or buyer’s remorse.”

“If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying.”

“We often hear, “Rape is rape, right?” No. A stranger forcing himself on a woman at knife point is different from a man and woman having sex while drunk and having regrets the morning. What is different? When a woman agrees to a date, she does not make a choice to be sexual, but she does make a choice to explore sexual possibilities. The woman makes no such choice with a stranger or an acquaintance.”

“Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen.”

“By starving our children of men, we have made them more vulnerable to the very abuse we are trying to prevent.”

Erin Pizzey

“Given that history, you might think I would be pleased to learn the Government is looking closely at the issue of domestic violence, and is launching a consultation on whether the definition of domestic violence should be widened to include emotional bullying and ‘coercive control’. But I’m afraid quite the opposite is true: I’m horrified.

“The Home Secretary Theresa May says: ‘Coercive control is a complex pattern of abuse using power and psychological control over another — financial control, verbal abuse, forced social isolation. These incidents may vary in seriousness and may be repeated over time.’

“In other words, she believes that in the eyes of the law it should no longer be only physical violence which constitutes domestic abuse.”

“Domineering, bullying husbands who shout at their wives but never lift a finger to hurt them would find themselves in court.”

“To me, the definition of domestic violence is quite clear: if you are not in fear of your life, you are not suffering it. In all other cases, where the aggression takes only an emotional form, or a few coffee cups have been chucked around, women in modern Britain thankfully have the option of finding a lawyer and choosing to separate from their husbands if they wish to do so.”

And those are just the first two speakers1 that are listed. But with those two speakers alone what do we have? Incest apologism. Objectification of women and viewing women as prostitutes. Date rape apologism. Equating rape and unemployment, which is beyond repulsive. Classism. Ableism. Support of allowing spousal rape to continue. Blaming women’s rights for child abuse. Suggesting that emotional abuse isn’t really all that bad.

I’m wondering how it is that you support or defend these people. How can you support a movement that claims to help men, but spends most of its time suggesting that abused persons weren’t actually abused? How can you support a movement that denies the reality that 99% of rapes are committed by men? How can you support a movement that blames victims for their rapes? How can you support a movement that mocks and ridicules people who have PTSD or Borderline Personality Disorder or other psychological issues stemming from traumas they have suffered? How do you support a movement that objectifies women, treating them as little more than sex toys, while simultaneously accusing women of either being too slutty for “Nice Guys” or of putting “Nice Guys” in the “friend zone”? Before you regale me with the sob story of how your movement is so misunderstood, maybe you should explain why you can support such a lying and bigoted movement in the first place. Better yet, save us both time and just walk away.

By the way, I’m guessing that you are a troll since you had to create a Facebook page just to spam my Facebook page for this site. It’s not all that shocking since I’ve encountered other troll-like MRA accounts that exist on Twitter for the sole purpose of deriding feminism.


  1. Other speakers: Robert Franklin, Esq., Dr. Miles Groth, Barbara Kay, Karen Straughan, Carnell Smith, Paul Elam, Sen. Anne Cools, Dr. Paul Nathanson, Dr. Tara Palmatier, Psy.D., Tom Golden, LCSW, Vladek Filler. 

Paul Elam suggested feminists browse A Voice For Men, So I Tried…

I submitted this post to STFU MRAs on Tumblr after the “discussion” Thursday night, with regard to donating extra money for their conference to men’s charities. The quotes are taken from the articles they are linked to. As far as I know, all articles are from the last few months, so they are not old or out-of-date. They have not been edited to say or suggest a particular agenda. The owners of STFU MRAs added the last paragraph where Lundy Bancroft was suggested.

stfumras:

Elam suggested that feminists browse A Voice for Men, so I tried to. And this is what I found:

Slavery 101:

Women are groomed to enslave men. This is no secret…The problem is not the men, it’s that women want to own them. While Glass acknowledges that so-called toxic men can be completely non-toxic in other relationships, she doesn’t quite make the leap to switching who the victim in the relationship might have been. Given the advances in psychology, she feels that women “can do a lot more now than walk away – you have options. Sometimes a bully needs to be bullied.” Slaves are, after all, an investment. If you can tame your slave it’s better than trading him in.

Where’s she driving that economy to?

Most of the money changing hands is done by women with limited and/or poor education. As such, this means that fickle poorly thought out spending habits are what drive the economy; is it any wonder economists run scared when asked what they predict the state of the economy will be in six months; today it’s fifty shades of grey, tomorrow it’s the latest kitchen appliance destined to collect dust after one use, the day after… what?

You go to a department store, and who’s taking your money? Some moderately cute girl who can’t do basic math in her head on a single item (much less multiple items) without the assistance of a virtually flawless machine called “the cash register”, or a calculator back-up. Now, I can give you an anecdote or two about this (one of them very recent), but anyone who “consumed” before the time of the laser scanner will remember this sound (tickatickatickatick tick err… tickatickatickatick tick err… tickaticka…; you get the idea).

Okay, MGTOW, I get it now. If this is the option, I’d pass too:

Why would a Nice Guy want to date you? What do you have to offer now that you’ve ridden every bad boy in town?

The Misandry Behind Misogyny:

Feminists’ failure to distinguish between great men versus thugs is projection that speaks volumes of their stunted emotional development, and their view of the world in simplistic, two-dimensional terms. Think of how toxic this feminist attitude is to our cultures, how much harm it has caused. With feminism, we are supposed to be ashamed of the men (The Patriarchy) who are responsible for the cultural achievements that make modern, advanced society possible, and we are supposed to make amends to women for all those millennia of patriarchal oppression… all without any reference, of course, to women’s hypergamy,  and no reference to the dynamics of provider/provided-for that have always been integral to the workings of most every culture throughout human history.

#YesAllWomen is Complete Nonsense:

I think it’s worth pointing out, that Elliot Rodger said rather specifically in his manifesto, “If only one pretty girl had shown some form of attraction to me, the Day of Retribution would never happen.” He also bragged about having $300 sunglasses. I can think of one way Elliot Rodger might have gotten more than one pretty girl to show some form of attraction to him, for the price of a pair of those sunglasses, and that’s legalized prostitution. Feminists who drive so much of the policy agenda in the world however are split on that issue, and as with so many things pertaining to the State, the people who favor more laws tend to win.

...

 Now, it’s absolutely true that men do most of the violence in this world. Be it by nature or nurture, this is how we’ve turned out, and for better or worse this is the situation that we’re in. If you ask me, the effort to change this by encouraging men to behave more like women is how you get guys like Elliot Rodger. He was an effeminate guy who considered himself the “perfect gentleman”. Women predictably didn’t find this attractive at all, the strategy failed miserably, and it drove him out of his mind. This kind of social engineering is unnatural and destructive and easy to predict. In any case, the fact that men do most of the violence in society has upsides and downsides for women.

And on.

And on.

I didn’t take ANY quotes from comments on the site, just the entries themselves. The comments section over there is even worse.

So, Mr. Elam, I tried to read your site, but it was infuriating and I decided that I would just walk away before I actually became the misandrist that the contributors to your site and it’s/their supporters already believe that I (as a feminist) am.

Thanks for the submission.  You should also check out Lundy Bancroft’s article about Mens Right’s groups when you have time.

via Tumblr http://ift.tt/1ut5sJS