poppypicklesticks:

samaelcarver: fishmostly: poppypicklesticks: Feminists: “But we fight for men too!!!!” This person is the CEO of a (female-only) domestic violence shelter and winner of the 2014 National Diversity Awards for being a “positive role model”. ( http://kareningalasmith.com/about/ ) That’s both disturbing and fucking terrifying. it got worse

No kidding. In fact, she has a little essay directed at people who think she doesn’t care about men or are sexist. Allow me to excerpt;



I want to see an end to men’s violence against women. I’m campaigning to raise awareness of men’s fatal violence against women and for action to increase our understanding of the reasons behind the differences in men and women’s use of violence and their victimisation, so that we can reduce men’s violence against women. Women who are murdered are most likely to have been murdered by a man. Men who are murdered are most likely to have been murdered by a man. Men are more likely to be violent than women. Not all men are murderers, not all men are violent. Some women are murderers, some women are violent.

And yet, men are more likely to be murdered by other men than women, a fact which you have almost certainly come across while getting the statistics above. Or would acknowledging that hurt your threat narrative?

Gender and gender differences – the ways that many of us behave in ways that are seen as being like a ‘typical man’ or a ‘typical woman’ – are socially constructed. They are not biological, they are not inevitable.

You heard it here first, everyone. Gender is not influenced by biology in any way whatsoever.

All men benefit from inequality between women and men. This doesn’t mean that some women are not in more advantageous positions than some men. It doesn’t mean all men are the same. It doesn’t mean that all women are the same. It doesn’t mean that sex is the only important basis for inequality. It doesn’t mean that everyone wants it to be that way.

You may be waiting for the “but it does mean-”. It never comes.

When men – and it usually is men, but not always – attack me for caring about women killed though men’s violence, by suggesting that this means I don’t care about men who are victims of violence (whether from women, or as more likely, other men), they’re using a straw man argument. They saying that because I care about men killing women, I can’t care about men who are killed, to attack the fact that I care about women who are killed. This may or may not be, as suggested by a friend of mine, Louise Pennington, because they do not care when men kill women.

>says people who criticize her are using a straw man

>tries to poison the well based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever

>uses the exact same illogic she claims her critics are using.

Of course, the fact that she has expressed not the slightest bit of actual concern for men who are killed through violence in this entire article might be why people think she doesn’t care about men killed though violence.

Not to mention her website’s actual section on men, which comes across as callous, at best. In fact, she claims that there’s no taboo against men reporting when they’re DV victims, and, I quote;

men are more – not less – likely to call the police men are more likely – not less – to support a prosecution men are less likely – not more – to drop charges.1

She also uses a 2002 study by known misandrist Michael Kimmel to support the claims. I want to point out that the title of what seems to be the paper is ““Gender Symmetry” in Domestic Violence”



This is the first time in my memory I’ve seen a paper with air-quotes in the title. Scanning through the paper, he claims that MRAs aren’t motivated by a desire to actually improve things for male victims, but to derail and “disrupt” initiatives for female victims. Oddly enough, he neglects to provide any evidence or support for this claim. Listen and Believe, I guess.



Leaving all that aside, on the PDF’s page 14, last paragraph, Kimmel claims that other studies support the claims he makes with Smith quoted, and that it’s the intuitive conclusion, because women are taught to just accept being abused. Which is weird, because last time I checked, in Western society, men are still generally told not to hit women, even in self-defense. Women are allowed to slap men around in public without people batting an eye. In fact, there are hundreds of studies indicating men and women are equally as likely to be abusers. Thing is, if abuse is severe enough to get the police to believe the man the victim, he’s more likely to follow through. A lot of male abuse victims call the cops and get booked for forcing the woman to “defend herself”. At which point they probably stop calling the cops.



Among other things, Karen Ingala Smith repeatedly brings up the fact that women are more likely to be killed by a partner or ex-partner as evidence that they’re less likely to be abusers.



Of course, the obvious flaw in this logic is that sampling (ex-)partner murders isn’t going to be representative of DV. Or even an example of DV; what if some dude comes home and finds his GF having sex with the mailman postman and just goes nuts, like that one dude in the first act of Minority Report? He was a loving husband right up until that moment. What if someone kills their partner for insurance money?

She claims elsewhere that there’s no systemic bias in women’s favor. Why? Because women are, allegedly, more likely to be arrested on DV calls when identified as the perpetrator (1/10 for men vs 1/3 for women). Note that Smith switches between studies about the UK (like this one) and US at the drop of a hat, despite her main area of concern being the UK. Note also that the study in question relies, again, on who the police think are perps. You know, the very people whose bias is under question. I apologize for what seems like gamedropping, but this is really the first thing I think of;



As Ally Fogg points out (and someone who claims to have worked at a shelter backs him up about this being the party line) the study Smith is referencing also repeatedly downplays male victimization, describing mutual abuse in terms of male aggression and female self-defense, and generally goes “well, it’s worse for women”. And did I mention that the study was apparently done in the name of the Violence Against Women Studies Group at U of Bristol? No bias here, no sir.



Oh, and she’s the type of feminist who says men shouldn’t be feminists, and that feminism isn’t about men, and that men just mess up feminism with their pesky concerns about men’s issues as well as women, but can’t quite seem to grasp why people think she doesn’t care about men.



For some reason.



(via sjw-no-thanks)