If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Breeding misandry
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Was reading a crappy lady's magasine that was left in the loo and was shocked at some of the unqualified comments in there that could paint a disturbing picture of men.
"When married women cheat, it can be the trigger for their men to take revenge in cold blood"
""A man in the UK kills a member of his familyh every eight weeks"
"Mne have an inherent desire for power and control in a relationship,' 'If this is snatched away, it can create an overwhelmning desire to act out revenge."
"And it's not just adulterous women who pay the price for their infidelity. Spurned fathers often take the cruellest revenge by killing their children, too."
"In some cases a man's logic is so twisted, he'll believe he's doing the right by killing his children, 'He feels he's taking the kids to a better place"
"On average two women a week are killed by a current or former partner"
"Every 10 days in England and Wales one child is killed by a parent. And in 53 ercent of cases it will be the father"
"Some men can't deal with the concept of living without their wife or children," "They'd rather their loved ones didn't live at all"
The problem is not necessarily the hard facts there because I've no doubt they are true (although is 53% of parents who kill being men statistically significant - or even statistically true ) it is the way it is presented in the article. There is never any qualification that 'the vast majority of men don't go out and kill' and it just seems to be to be a grossly misleading article about the nature of men. It implies that this violence is generalised across all men although the real statistics show men are just as likely to suffer domestic violence from women as women are from men (and don't believe the myth it's less serious, either). 'Spurned fathers often ... kill their children' - so basically often / frequently fathers who are rejected by their spouse will kill their children. What utter bullshit.
To anyone who is trained to question sources it's a non story because obviously it's just sensationalist drawing on anecdotes rather than evidence but what damage does it do to joe average when it's implanting this idea of 'males are violent'. I don't think the article was wrong in itself, by the way (it's an entertainment piece after all) but it's the way it's presented without qualification. If I wrote an article about white people who were attacked by black people but didn't put any qualification in and just had soundbites saying 'black people tend to be lesser educated so more likely to turn to violent crime' of course it's going to spread distrust, fear and in turn hate of black people.
"When married women cheat, it can be the trigger for their men to take revenge in cold blood"
""A man in the UK kills a member of his familyh every eight weeks"
"Mne have an inherent desire for power and control in a relationship,' 'If this is snatched away, it can create an overwhelmning desire to act out revenge."
"And it's not just adulterous women who pay the price for their infidelity. Spurned fathers often take the cruellest revenge by killing their children, too."
"In some cases a man's logic is so twisted, he'll believe he's doing the right by killing his children, 'He feels he's taking the kids to a better place"
"On average two women a week are killed by a current or former partner"
"Every 10 days in England and Wales one child is killed by a parent. And in 53 ercent of cases it will be the father"
"Some men can't deal with the concept of living without their wife or children," "They'd rather their loved ones didn't live at all"
The problem is not necessarily the hard facts there because I've no doubt they are true (although is 53% of parents who kill being men statistically significant - or even statistically true ) it is the way it is presented in the article. There is never any qualification that 'the vast majority of men don't go out and kill' and it just seems to be to be a grossly misleading article about the nature of men. It implies that this violence is generalised across all men although the real statistics show men are just as likely to suffer domestic violence from women as women are from men (and don't believe the myth it's less serious, either). 'Spurned fathers often ... kill their children' - so basically often / frequently fathers who are rejected by their spouse will kill their children. What utter bullshit.
To anyone who is trained to question sources it's a non story because obviously it's just sensationalist drawing on anecdotes rather than evidence but what damage does it do to joe average when it's implanting this idea of 'males are violent'. I don't think the article was wrong in itself, by the way (it's an entertainment piece after all) but it's the way it's presented without qualification. If I wrote an article about white people who were attacked by black people but didn't put any qualification in and just had soundbites saying 'black people tend to be lesser educated so more likely to turn to violent crime' of course it's going to spread distrust, fear and in turn hate of black people.
0
Comments
Last time I was in book shop there was an entire section of books about abusing children.
When I first read that I thought it was 'an entire section of books about how to abuse children'.
But I think generalising one way or the other is daft, but it's shocking how this kind of material can get into fairly common magazines.
I agree with you it's not part of a campaign as that would imply some kind of collusion but I think it is part of a trend. Budda hit on a subtle point 'people like to be afraid' i.e. from the perspective of people who are reading it. This is written for an audience and for whatever reason this is the kind of story that audience wants to hear. Confirmation that men are pretty evil. Of course it's sensationalist crap and a fair few people can pick through that but not everyone can. Just like not everyone who reads the daily mail about asylum seekers sees it as hyperbole and shit stirring as apposed to confirmation of what they already believe.
Monserrat - I tend to read sciencey magazines myself
I notice things like this more maybe because I am being more aware of masculist issues and realise the biggest problem facing men really is just that nobody challenges anything that generalises about men or worse. I mean people even have hostile reactions to the idea of questioning the status quo. All the while articles like in this magazine are being printed.
As a final point there should never be a conflict of interests between those interested in women's rights and those interested in men's rights, and I don't think there should be a competition to see whose worse off because it just gives rise to more bitterness.
But that's not true. Which "real statistics" are you referring to, because domestic violence is by far a more serious issue in terms of male-on-female violence, and murder-suicide of the immediate family is a predominantly male crime, committed by "spurned fathers". There is no use pretending otherwise. It may be sensationalistic in a sense, but from the quotes (or remembered quotes?) you mention it is not implying that all men kill or are violent, but correctly identifying a pattern, which is in fact supported by empirical evidence, so I don't understand where misandry comes into it.
Sorry this is off-topic but just a little point that seems relevant to a thread about stats and reporting.
You've mentioned the real statistics that show men are as likely to suffer domestic abuse as women a few times in recent threads - is that based on the stats from Home Office Study 191? As someone whose researched domestic violence a few times I'd be interested in any report you have that's different?
For the record the top line in HSO 191 includes
4.2% of women said they had been physically assaulted by a partner in the past year and 4.2% of men also said they had been assaulted in the previous year... of course that doesn't mean that the women were all assaulted by men or the men all assaulted by women. In fact 99% of attacks on women were by men and 95% of attacks on men were by women - so statistically it's actually slightly more likely in 1995 that a women would have been attacked by a male partner than man attacked by a female partner.
However the stats do go to point out that women were twice as likely to have been injured in attacks and three times as likely to have been threatened by a partner.
The report includes a few other startling facts, 6.6 million physical assaults by partners in 1995, 23% of women and 15% percent of men had been assaulted by a current or former partner at some point in their lives. 12% of women and 5% of men had been assaulted three or more times.
Anyway just checking this is the place you meant by the real statistics? You can read it here if you need to check - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors191.pdf
As to the reporting, it's hardly something new. As James Ellroy termed them 'womb-tremblers' or stories designed to play upon the fear of the other in women's trashy literature has been around for a long, long time - from Victorian ladies reading tales of the white slave trade to modern day reporting like this. Shitty reporting makes for shitty stories, and ever it will be.
However I disagree with the implication of your last sentence - that women distrust, fear and are starting to hate men because of this or anything else. I certain don't know any women that hate, fear or distrust me.
They are direct quotes except for a few obvious typos.
The evidence I have read has suggested that women suffer no more or less domestic violence than men. i.e. no significant statistical difference
The evidence I have read also suggests that there is no significant difference between the frequency of fathers and mothers killing their children.
I was wondering what your empirical evidence was. The reason people come to the conclusions they do is because of age old gender stereotypes. Although it really is missing the point...
Misandry comes into it because it is presenting half truths in a context that does imply that men are violent. The whole tone of the article was that it's only men who can attack and kill their family. Like I said, it lacked that 'qualification'. If I had written an article about black people committing crime... surely that's painting a one sided picture as well? Many people would read into it like sensationalism but many would take it too literally and draw their own generalisations from it. We all do it.
If you have one bad experience with someone from a particular group it's easy to hold a prejudice. Write about that experience, in fact even better collect three people's experiences together in one one-sided article and what are people who read that article going to do? Just go 'oh' or make their own prejudgements?
Child Maltreatment
http://web.archive.org/web/20040206092557/http:/www.calib.com/nccanch/chma99.pdf
Perpetrator-
RELATIONSHIP TO VICTIM | | NUMBER | | PERCENTAGE
Female Parent Only | | 145,028 | | 44.7%
Male Parent Only | | 51,752| | 15.9%
Both Parents | | 57,320 | | 17.7%
Female Parent and | | Other 25,703 | | 7.9%
Male Parent and | | Other 3,544 | | 1.1%
Family Relative | | 12,809 3.9%
Substitute Care Provider(s) | | 4,931 | | 1.5%
Other | | 14,305 | | 4.4%
Unknown | | 9,094 | | 2.8%
Total | | 324,486 | | 100.0%
Domestic Violence: Findings from a new British Crime Survey self-completion questionnaire
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/hors191.pdf
"Within the twelve months previous to the survey, 4.2% of both women and men aged 16 to 59 said they had been assaulted by a current or former partner (Figure 3.4, Table A.3.3)."
Although as I said, it's irrelevent really. In BOTH cases (male / female) it is the vast minority of the population who commit these kinds of crimes and my point was in this article it was painting a different picture with the way it was written. And furthermore I believe that painting a picture of men as demons is a trend (not a conspiracy), and a dangerous one at that.
By the way, that study clearly shows it's not a vast minority of people who are involved in domestic violence. With every fourth woman in country experiencing domestic violence at some point and every seventh man I'd imagine that probably makes it more likely than a large number of significant health and social issues that receive far more press coverage.
I'd argue 191's real value, and one relevant to the the points your making, is the amount of men willing to call the police or involve authorities in cases of domestic abuse.
He needs to be stopped!!
tru dat. I think we need a 'thank user for this post' button :chin:. It just makes me so ANGRY :grump: hehe I'm going to play computer games now.
Sorry man, just to be clear. Not questioning your right to question the question - don't think anyone was doing that. Ju best wanted to point out that the thing you've been using as evidence that domestic violence is as likely to be men attacked by women as women attacked by men doesn't actually prove that. The reports statistics actually prove the opposite - that women are more likely to be the victims and women are far more likely to have been regularly attacked.
Just thought it clarifying because I've seen you mention it in a few recent debates.
I just think both the article and the use of 191 just show how everything is presented in a certain way for certain audiences. I really think there are much bigger factors in society that affect people's views in the end.