THE MAN HATERS' CORNER
Shelly Strauss: Short Sighted Web Feminist (Page 2)
Shelly Strauss: Short Sighted Web Feminist (Page 2)
PAR 24:- Apparently, Ms. Strauss here seems to think that a woman has the right to slap a man's "for some rude comment or unacceptable behavior�" I wonder if she would think the same if the genders were reversed? As for studies being 'manipulated', Here are a list of studies by experts in the field of domestic violence, who know the difference between a 'slap' and a punch. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________
PAR 25:- Ms. Strauss's rationalisation of women's higher propensity for child abuse is understandable. However, it does not apply here. This is an argument I got from www.vix.com which illuminates the folly of using this argument in this case. A woman had declared that since 90% (I'm not so sure of this) of childcare is done by women, then it is only understandable that women abuse more...
...Let's think about this model, and sexual abuse. Do you believe that an average woman is more likely to sexually abuse her child the longer that child is in her care? That's what your linear model would predict. OTOH, would you consider that the risk of leaving your child in the care of a known child molester is low if you left your child with him/her for only an hour? If you pick an average man, does his chances of molesting a child increase with caretaking time? Propensity to engage in abusive behavior has more to do with attitudes than with opportunity, because it takes very little opportunity to set up the situation that will enable the crime for those with a propensity to do the crime. You yourself gave an example that lots of child abuse happens when the boyfriend of a single mom babysits for a mere hour. I've seen video of a female babysitter beating a baby, even dropping the baby intentionally, in her short caretaking time.
If an hour of time is all the opportunity necessary to bring out the abuse, then a mere 10% caretaking figure is more than adequate to give every abusive man the opportunity to abuse...and to give every non-abusive man the opportunity to avoid abusing. We could just as easily assume that all abusers have all the opportunity they need to become abusers in either their 90% or 10% caretaking allotments, which would make these figures constant even if the 90% and 10% roles were reversed..."
PAR 26:- Mr. Doyle was wrong. Women are FAR less violent in the public sphere but the story changes dramatically in the domestic sphere.
PAR 27:- If Ms. Strauss actually looks at objective evidence and studies, rather than studies commissioned by NOW or the Ms. Foundation she would realize that the 'attacker' is just as often the woman...with a weapon.
PAR 28:- Ms. Strauss makes light of a serious situation by using very simplistic, not to mention stupid, reasoning.
PAR 29:- Ms. Strauss here obviously dismisses the possibility that Mr. Doyle approves of the harsh sentencing of convicted child abusers (as do I). Ms. Strauss also seems to have a low opinion of 'public opinion'. She apparently thinks that the vast majority of the public are racist and chauvinists. How unfortunate. I always tell my friends that as much as we think it unfair that just because we're black we're assumed to be violent, it is also unfair to assume that all white people are racist. Ms. Strauss also seems to forget, that it was a completely male legislature that granted women the right to vote. What Mr. Doyle is talking about is that some men have been accused of abusing their children because they gave them baths, smacked them for stealing, etc.
PAR 30:- I wonder whether Ms. Strauss would feel the same disdain for hard evidence if one of her sons claims she sexually abused him. She knows she didn't do it and there's no proof that she did it but then again� "No hard evidence? That does NOT mean it [didn't] happen...just that [she (Ms. Strauss)], is tricky enough to hide all the signs." It's thinking like this that resulted in the travesty of justice that was the McMartin child abuse case. What Ms. Strauss is advocating is a dangerous precedent, an attack against the concept that the accused is innocent until proven guilty.
PAR 31:- Consider Kathleen Willey and Bill Clinton. According to Ms. Magazine founder and high ranking feminist Gloria Steinem, Bill Clinton groping Ms. Willey's breasts and placing her hand on his crotch is a "clumsy sexual pass", not sexual harassment because he stopped when she said "no". If she hadn't said "no" did that mean that he should have continued? If that's the case, and if Anita Hill was telling the truth about the 'pubic hair' and 'Long Dong Silver' episodes, is it still sexual harassment? After all, she didn't say "No". Both Willey and Hill needed the help that both these powerful men could give them, so their situations are the same. Why are all the feminist organizations in the country either silent or supportive of the President? They didn't wait for all the evidence before declaring Thomas guilty, why are they waiting now?
PAR 34:- Ms. Strauss would see that in all the studies mentioned above, women are about as likely to initiate violence as men. However, women are 7 to 10 times as likely to need medical attention. This is not because of some male penchant for cruelty. It is simply because men "are more physically...capable?�" than women. An average woman gets angry (loses control) and punches an average man as hard as she can, it hurts and the man gets angry (and loses control) and punches her back as hard as he can. Who would get hurt more? Naturally the woman, so the police arrest the man. However, who is at fault? It is she who started it, and since she didn't see it necessary to restrain herself, why should he? What does this say about women? That they cannot be held to equally as responsible as men? Both of them are violent�for the safety of the children, BOTH of them should be charged with domestic violence. At the same time, Ms. Strauss's rationalization of 'only' the man being taken away because the woman is almost always closer to the children (probably because the husband is the primary breadwinner and cannot spend as much time at home), this is shortsighted because it ignores those families where the husband is closer to the kids than the wife. Should the police ask the feuding couple who is closer to the children so they can take the other away? Or should they consider the incredibly cruel stunt of asking the children to choose between their parents?
PAR 35:- Ms. Strauss fails once again, to provide a list of the rights women are being denied right now. Not a 100 or 50 years ago, right now. Is she advocating that children should have the right to vote?
PAR 36:- I must agree here that Mr. Doyle was patently stupid.
PAR 37:- Ms. Strauss once again assumes that her experience is identical to that of most people.
PAR 38:- It is clear from all accounts (namely hers) that Ms. Strauss's ex-husband is a lousy father. But she also mentioned that her kids go to visit their father every two weeks. I also remember her telling us that her ex is currently unemployed. He can't give her 25% of nothing, can he? What with affirmative action (which benefits white women more than it benefits black men), which Ms. Strauss supports, I wonder if he is having a hard time finding a job? I also wonder whether she knows that among the "many men who do not pay child support", up to 66% of them CANNOT pay because they are unemployed, incarcerated or broke. A further 28% with a slight overlap into the original 66% do not pay because they are living with the mothers of their children or are DEAD. A further 20% with overlaps into the original percentages are those fathers who have come to other financial arrangements with the mother. Basically, only 11% of custodial mothers do NOT receive child support because their exes are 'deadbeat dads'. And among those 11% there are cases were it's not so simple. This is from the United States General Accounting Office (GAO).
PAR 39:- The word to describe this paragraph accurately is "misandristic." Ms. Strauss earlier claimed that men don't suffer mental anguish from divorce. Presented with statistics about men's suicides caused by divorce all she can say, in a sneering tone is "Interesting". She forgets that women are 70-80% of the time, the filers of divorce. The women believe they are about to start a new and better life (they're often wrong)...the men have just lost their families and what is for many, their reason to live.
PAR 40:- The "rule of thumb" law is a feminist myth. It helps them rouse the anger of their constituency. This is from Christina Hoff Sommers of 'Who Stole Feminism?' fame. After careful research of this 'rule of thumb' phrase, she came up with this... _______________________________________________________________________________________________
That the phrase did not even originate in legal practice could have been ascertained by any fact-checker who took the trouble to look it up in the Oxford English Dictionary, which notes that the term has been used metaphorically for at least three hundred years to refer to any method of measurement or technique of estimation derived from experience rather than science. According to Canadian folklorist Philip Hiscock, "The real explanation of 'rule of thumb' is that it derives from wood workers... who knew their trade so well they rarely or never fell back on the use of such things as rulers. instead, they would measure things by, for example, the length of their thumbs." Hiscock adds that the phrase came into metaphorical use by the late seventeenth century. Hiscock could not track the source of the idea that the term derives from a principle governing wife beating, but he believes it is an example of 'modern folklore' and compares it to other 'back-formed explanations.' such as the claim asparagus comes from 'sparrow-grass' or that 'ring around the rosy' is about the plague.
We shall see that Hiscock's hunch was correct, but we must begin by exonerating William Blackstone (1723-1780), the Englishman who codified centuries of legal customs and practices into the elegant and clearly organized tome known as Commentaries on the Laws of England. The Commentaries, a classic of legal literature, became the basis for the development of American law. The so-called rule of thumb as a guideline for wife-beating does not occur in Blackstone's compendium, although he does refer to an ancient law that permitted "domestic chastisement".... In America, there have been laws against wife beating since before the Revolution. By 1870, it was illegal in almost every state; but even before then, wife-beaters were arrested and punished for assault and battery. The historian and feminist Elizabeth Pleck observes in a scholarly article entitled "Wife-Battering in Nineteenth-Century America":
"It has often been claimed that wife-beating in nineteenth-century America was legal... Actually, though, several states passed statutes legally prohibiting wife-beating; and at least one statute even predates the American Revolution. The Massachusetts Bay Colony prohibited wife-beating as early as 1655. The edict states: "No man shall strike his wife nor any woman her husband on penalty of such fine not exceeding ten pounds for one offense, or such corporal punishment as the County shall determine."
[Pleck] points out that punishments for wife-beaters could be severe: according to an 1882 Maryland statute, the culprit could receive forty lashes at the whipping post; in Delaware, the number was thirty. In New Mexico, fines ranging from $225 to $1000 were levied, or sentences of one to five years in prison imposed. For most of our history, in fact, wife-beating has been considered a sin comparable to thievery or adultery. Religious groups -- especially Protestant groups such as Quakers, Methodists, and Baptists -- punished, shunned, and excommunicated wife-beaters. Husbands, brothers, and neighbors often took vengeance against the batterer. Vigilante parties sometimes abducted wife-beaters and whipped them.
PAR 41:- Actually, it's a well-known fact that most men do not fight for custody because their lawyers advise them not to. First, in 9 out of 10 cases they are bound to lose. Secondly, they would lose a great deal of money for nothing. Thirdly, with the mother always in court, who would take care of the kids? Add to that the high probability of being accused of child abuse by the wife. This information has as its source, countless surveys among men, not 'guesses' and the 'personal experiences' of women. And once again, Ms. Strauss, by inaccurately implying that her personal experiences with her husband accurately represents the personal experiences of most people and the minds of men, confidently asserts that "most men do NOT WANT custody of their kids. And those that try are usually motivated by spite-- they do it to hurt their ex-wife, not because they really want the kids." A brilliant catch-22�If he doesn't ask for custody, he did not want custody (so he doesn't deserve it, or love his kids enough). If he does ask for custody, he only wants to hurt the mother by taking away 'her' (not 'his' as well?) kids (so he doesn't deserve it, or love his kids enough). I wonder whether Ms. Strauss is aware of the hypocrisy of her statement.
PAR 42:- Once again, Ms. Strauss uses her personal experiences to judge all men. No doubt, her ex-husband may be a bad father but her assertion is (once again) faulty.
PAR 43:- More kids lose their fathers to divorce than anything else and only a miniscule percentage of divorces are as result of domestic violence. Note that the most respected experts in the study of domestic violence say that women initiate violence at rates equal to that of men so the assumption that ALL troubled fatherless children are delinquent because of their fathers begins to fall on its face. And also note that the sociologists who do the studies on father absence always control for such factors (violence, abuse, etc.) and STILL come up with the same result. Fatherless children are 5 times more likely to commit suicide...32 times more likely to run away...20 times more likely to have behavioral disorders�14 times more likely to commit rape...9 times more likely to drop out of high school...10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances...9 times more likely to end up in a state-operated institution...20 times more like to end up in prison. This is from the U.S. Department of Justice. There are many others where that came from...
PAR 44:- Apart from losing massive amounts of money to his lawyer, then to his wife's lawyer (in lots of cases) he normally loses his house and everything in it, then half of his assets, not to mention the children. The only reason why his standard of living may 'seem' be higher is because he still has his job and if he was the primary breadwinner he would be making more money than his wife. He is paying child support and alimony though. It means that in reality, his standard of living, in most cases have FAR from improved. And what about the men who have second families? They are supporting two households, now. That drastically changes the picture, doesn't it?
PAR 45:- Here, Ms. Strauss spouts an absolute untruth. 76% of non-custodial fathers pay their child support, while correspondingly 63% of non-custodial mothers pay their child support. This is from the US Department of Census, circa 1991. It's been steady ever since, men who pay their child support are around the 80% marker as of 1997. This last from Roger F. Gay, recognized international expert and researcher on child support issues and listed as an expert with the US Office of Child Support Enforcement, not to mention the USOCSE itself.
PAR 46:- Apart from using personal experience as proof again, Ms. Strauss also uses an irrelevant and unrelated 'in the past' argument which has no bearing on the subject in question. What about those women who decide to be stay-at-home parents or housewives and later on, as in the '70s and '80s asks for a divorce so she "discover" herself? What about those women who leave their husbands for somebody else? What about those who give no reason, but just leave? Should a man pay alimony to a woman so she can be with someone else? Should he pay alimony to a woman who (apparently) frivolously and unilaterally decides to end their marriage? It's true that some women supported their husbands and I believe they are entitled to a share of their husband's wealth. Those women who are divorcing their husbands for adultery deserve even more. What is amazing to me, however, is how the woman who is leaving her husband for another person (through no fault of the husband's) thinks that she is entitled to being supported in the 'lifestyle to which she has become accustomed'. She wants to be with her lover but she also wants to be with her husband's money. She wants to commit adultery but she doesn't want to pay the consequences (lowered standard of living). This makes her the moral equivalent of a child. Apparently, Ms. Strauss thinks that the reason women seek divorces so often is because men "use them as personal valets and/or beat them when they came home angry and/or drunk/high, maybe women wouldn't have to leave so often." I personally think this an unfair stereotype though I cannot say I'm surprised to see it.
PAR 47:- Ms. Strauss rightfully claims that the mother is normally the primary caregiver in two parent household. What the courts forget is that, once she's the single parent, she is, in most cases, nowhere near as primary as she was before. She also takes a cheap shot at Mr. Doyle's suitability as a parent. Fatherlessness is a huge social problems and it is one of the major roots of the increase of the social ills plaguing society today. Ms. Strauss simply cannot seem to see that.
PAR 51:- Ms. Strauss seems to believe that women would have made a better Welfare System. Frankly, I don't think they can do any better or worse. As for her obvious (I think) attempt to get female readers on her side by suggesting an absurd conspiracy theory that the current welfare system was designed by men "to keep women in subjugation", she is obviously unaware of the fact that any attempt to reform the system so people get the opportunity to work (which involves welfare cuts) has always been decried by N.O.W. as a 'War Against Women'. Like they say: "Damned if you do, and damned if you don't."
PAR 52:- What Mr. Doyle says is true. The pathetic 'New Man' is enough proof of that. This "perversion of chivalry" is what allows a male 'feminist' to nod sagely when a pseudo-feminist gets up on a podium and declares "In everything men make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, still their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives,"(Quote from Andrea Dworkin). It is that same type of perverted chivalry that enables a male politician to forget such a vital concept as equality under the law and support a discriminatory bill such as the VAWA, which says that violence against a man is not worth the attention of violence against a woman.
PAR 53:- Here Ms. Strauss uses a common stereotype to combat Mr Doyle's argument, and as is common with people who use stereotypes in arguments, she completely fails to harm what he is saying. She seems to think that only men abandon their families and most of the children who grew up without a father were actually abandoned by them. Insulting but not surprising.
PAR 54:- What Mr. Doyle says might not necessarily be all true but there HAVE been reports of certain battered shelters turning away bleeding wounded men and their children, because it goes against their 'feminist' beliefs i.e. a man simply CAN'T be a victim of domestic violence. Some actually call the police to ARREST the man.
PAR 55:- Ms. Strauss seems to think that in the past men played no part in the raising of children. I thought it was society, not just men, and the conditions of living back then that put separate but equally rigid demands on both men and women. Apparently she thinks that men just 'worked'. For who? For themselves alone or their families? This is an insult to the countless men who wake up everyday to go to jobs they HATE because they believe that their obligation to provide for their families is greater than their obligations to themselves. She also seems to be confused as to who does/did most of the DIY. I was under the impression that in the past, or so history says, men BUILT the house, then went to work so they could provide for their household. Was I mistaken? Did they just have fun while the women suffered all this time? I was under the impression that the poor working class men who went to the coal mines and worked long back breaking hours, then came back and gave their wages to the wives, who then did the shopping for the house, in the 19th century had it a lot harder than their wives. I guess I was mistaken. I didn't know that "managing household budgets" was so much more difficult than coal mining. How could I have been so blind? How about the hunters, the farmers, the guardsmen, the soldiers? Were they all having fun?
PAR 56:- How does Ms. Strauss know what men go through that drives so many to drinking? Does she know that while most of the women who live below the poverty line are in housing projects, most of the men who do, live on the streets? More than 80% of the homeless are men. What does that say to people? What about the fact that feminist have never fought for affirmative action in garbage collection, coal mining and all other such disgusting and dangerous jobs? As for this statement; "Women take what has been handed to them and work with it to make the best of the situation. That is something we've learned how to do after being subjugated for so long," Do women have some sort of collective memory that is genetically passed on from generation to generation? What does Ms. Strauss know of the lifestyle and life choices of a pioneer woman in the 18th century? Assuming she was born within the last thirty years, what first-hand knowledge does she have about this so-called 'subjugation'?
PLEASE SEND YOUR STORIES, THOUGHTS, OBSERVATIONS AND OPINIONS
ON THIS OR ANY OTHER SUBJECT TO:
[email protected]