I sincerely commend you for your great work on this Karl..
I loved your comments..do you mind if I put it on my blog ?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

sure, go for it!

Aaaagh- did it AGAIN!
Last post mine

Quote from Anonymous

Hmmm..... I'd say the tennis match came out fairly well. Despite the desperate "...and your enemies closer." attempt, I'd say you can now count on a larger audience of lurkers.(I'll TRY to be more polite for awhile)

This is the first I've seen of the Rogues Gallery.

My two cents-
I think the snarky stuff at the end of Dr.Schwyzers bit would be better served by his self explanatory CV. I'm not convinced his marriage history is appropriate but that's certainly a judgement call on your part. I do believe the "on others terms" bit is essential, as that forum spot reserved for him still stands(blankly)-and the host has offered a limited "free pass" (not sure how THAT would work?)

In My Humble Opinion-
The tennis match certainly shone a brighter light on some of "the usual suspects" -and their allies. (as N.O.W. likes to say)

Aww, i must have REALLY upset hugo, he's entirely deleted the post - not just my comments, but the entire post!!!

LOL

i wish i had known he was going to do that, i could have copy & pasted the contents... but oh well

Ohh, the page is back online now ...

Quote from karlmathews

Ohh, the page is back online now ...

He must have uploaded it again after seeing this thread and thought "I'll be brave, I'll show them, I'll upload it again. I AM NOT AFRAID"

Then he no doubt spanked himself with a nail-studded plank whilst wailing "Oh no, I showed the manly traits of fortitude and aggression, in contrast to my carefully cultivated demeanour of a lay-deeh! Woe is me! Goddess forgive my heretical testosterone!"

Here are the comments so far:

Oooh - me too!

Posted by: Davina | December 12, 2005 at 05:05 PM


It's your internet, but if I were you I'd be more inclined to try hard to ignore this sort of nonsense. Engaging polite and occasionally thoughtful critics like Stanton, bmmg39, etc. is one thing, but these clowns are just begging for attention they don't deserve.

(unless this is a reverse ego-boost sort of thing. I suppose if Michelle Malkin said I was one of the most unhinged of the unhinged liberals I'd feel a bit of pride...)

Posted by: djw | December 12, 2005 at 07:33 PM


Ahuh

I bet you're super impressed! The only reason any of you are there, is due to absolute inability to recognise two things:
1) men & women are actually equally responsible for just about everything that happens in this world. That means that just because you say so - doesn't actually make it 'real' that only men do bad, or only women can do good. No matter how many times you infer that to people, it will not be a reality.
2) that men can be the victims of a woman's wrong doings - perhaps manifested differently, but equally as abusive and equally as damaging to a man's life as it would be to a woman's. (and let us not forget - there ARE many men who are victims of domestic violence in the most serious form - and although DavinaJ would like to sweep these men under the carpet, they do exist - but it is thanks to the supremacist attitudes like yours that these men and perhaps their children are unable to get proper help, as any woman could.)


However, thank you very kindly for the free traffic

Posted by: Karl | December 12, 2005 at 08:19 PM

Geez, Hugo, why ARE you giving free traffic to somebody who uses words like "mangina" seriously?

Posted by: mythago | December 12, 2005 at 09:49 PM

Wow. What a moron...

Y'see, Karl, the thing is, that feminists don't insist that men aren't victims of violence caused by women just as easily as the vice versa, that's really not the issue is. The issue is that we live in a society that systemizes and excuses male violence against women. (normally I'd feel bad about opening up an argument with an insult to someone's intelligence, but seriously dude, look at your website. You use the word "Mangina")

Posted by: Labyrus | December 13, 2005 at 01:08 AM

You'd think if feminism was really so bad that 'Karl' wouldn't have to resort to making stuff up... I've probably done more for male victims of domestic violence than 'Karl' has ever done and with the exception of a handful of men, my colleagues have all been women - and - gasp! - feminists as well.

Do try to stick to the facts instead of attacking strawfeminists.

Posted by: Davina | December 13, 2005 at 03:13 AM

Labyrus wrote: "Y'see, Karl, the thing is, that feminists don't insist that men aren't victims of violence caused by women just as easily as the vice versa, that's really not the issue is. The issue is that we live in a society that systemizes and excuses male violence against women."

Hmm, what planet do you live on? Here on Earth violence against women is in no way excused; in fact, it is women's violence against men - up to and including murder - that is not only excused, it's celebrated in film, television, news media, etc. Get a grip.

As for Davina, I see she's from Islington, which I believe at least used to be the home of my friend Erin Pizzey. Davina, I've known Erin for over 15 years now and she has a lot to say about the sexist, misandrist folks who took over the women's shelter movement there. I'm going to have to see if she has any direct knowledge of and/or interaction with you. I think we MRAs need to take a closer look into you all - you've been off of our radar, but we can fix that.

Posted by: Mr. Bad | December 13, 2005 at 07:40 AM

Mr. Bad, the tone of the last sentence is positively threatening. Stand down, old boy.

Posted by: Hugo | December 13, 2005 at 08:23 AM

As for Davina, I see she's from Islington

No. Guess again!

And does the irony of issuing veiled threats completely elude you?

Posted by: Davina | December 13, 2005 at 09:56 AM

"Threats?!" - oh come on, spare me. You two need to get out more.

If checking up on the activities of adversaries is somehow "threatening" then explain the actions of, e.g., the NOW, the Women's organizations in Canada (who used government funds to monitor "anti-feminist websites," etc.), Trish Wilson and Co., and most other feminist organizations and activists.

Please you two, don't insult our intelligence by suggesting that politics doesn't contain an aspect of "know thine adversary." If the feminist vs. MRA debate/conflict isn't politics, then nothing is.

Posted by: Mr. Bad | December 13, 2005 at 02:15 PM

I wish I hadn't contributed to the free traffic. What an unfortunate website.

Posted by: Space Kitty | December 13, 2005 at 03:11 PM

If checking up on the activities of adversaries...

So an adversary is someone who works around domestic violence as it affects both men and women as well as children of both genders? Hmmmm. Are you just a total misanthrope?

Posted by: Davina | December 13, 2005 at 03:17 PM

Mr. Bad, I used to work as "abuse@.com." There are *many* people who would see your comment, "I think we MRAs need to take a closer look into you all - you've been off of our radar, but we can fix that," as a veiled threat.

Of course, it's nothing like the troll who followed several women around Usenet, spouting lies and threats. His threats weren't the least bit veiled. When they were aimed at me, I invited him to come on down. But I don't react to threats in the same vein as most people do.

Now, if I were Ms. Davina, I'd probably be inviting you to come down to the shelter and take a look around. I'd also warn you that if you showed up, I'd be putting you to work, just like the rest of the volunteers.

Posted by: Caitriona | December 13, 2005 at 04:20 PM

He's using your photo. That's copyright infringement.
And when are you going to address the "mangina" issue?

Posted by: chris the artiste | December 13, 2005 at 04:33 PM

I gave Karl the free traffic because I don't take lads like him seriously. Better to laugh at 'em. Any picture I put up here, as far as I'm concerned, is in the public domain. Photo-shop them to your heart's content!

Posted by: Hugo | December 13, 2005 at 07:25 PM

So an adversary is someone who works around domestic violence as it affects both men and women as well as children of both genders? Hmmmm. Are you just a total misanthrope?

Show me such a person, and I will embrace them - let's see - I go around the local "DV shelters" and - hmm - all for women. All run by women - or more properly, by wymmin. All recieve government money - services for men - zero - one will refer you to a rat-trap motel, on your dime, of course.

We had someone a few years ago try to start a men's shelter - like all the feminists say, "start your own." Whatever happen to me - I mean, him? Oh yeah. An alliance of feminist groups put pressure on to have his permits screwed with, his zoning screwed with, called the sheriff, threatened contracters with removal of business...

No, Davina. Not adversaries at all. Sad to say, the people who taught me that feminists were my enemy because I was a man were - well - feminists.

And as long as "the many flavors of feminism" are silently complicit, I find any claims to the contrary to be - well worth a skeptical take of "Show me."

Posted by: The Gonzman | December 14, 2005 at 06:02 AM

Funny how hypocritical that little website is is - Karl is complaining about all the lies used by feminism, only to plaster up a bunch of his own without any citation, source or justification.

Show me some hard facts buddy and I might be less inclined to think you an absolute braying jackass. If I won't take "feminist" propaganda at face value, why should I swallow your "masculist" crap?

The whole thing comes off as a big case of sour grapes...

Posted by: Breadfish | December 14, 2005 at 06:58 AM

Davina said: "So an adversary is someone who works around domestic violence as it affects both men and women as well as children of both genders? Hmmmm. Are you just a total misanthrope?"

No, but as Gonz correctly notes, feminists are not - and to date never have been - interested in "work(ing) around domestic violence as it affect both men and women..." They are singularly interested in advancing the cause of women, and only women, using children as pawns and domestic violence shelters as fronts to funnel money to the wider movement. Erin Pizzey has documented that quite clearly, and she of all people is one who should know. Also, feminists have conducted a steady campaign of misinformation and outright lies re. domestic violence so as to continue their substantial funding stream and at the same time to deny funding to men's services for domestic violence, healthcare, legal assistance, etc.

Now, you might not feel that people who directly target you for slander, persecution, and discrimination are adversaries, but I do. And that certainly doesn't make me a misanthrope, it makes me a sensible realist. However, judging from the behavior of feminists who work in the domestic violence industry, the term "misanthrope" applies to them quite nicely. Perhaps that's who you were thinking of, hmm?

And will do everything I can to shut down operations that directly target my brothers and me, including so-called "women's shelters" that are really fronts for feminist political activities.

Posted by: Mr. Bad | December 14, 2005 at 08:40 AM

To cover a few comments:

Labyrus:
"Wow. What a moron..."
A slight change of tone from the guestbook entry you left, but ok - that's your opinion and you're quite welcome to it.

"Y'see, Karl, the thing is, that feminists don't insist that men aren't victims of violence caused by women just as easily as the vice versa, that's really not the issue is."
Erm, feminists in my experience - and looking at various (pro)feminist sites and having conversed with Davina in the past, it sure does appear that they are keen to marginalize or excuse violent women. In fact, we have "Battered WOMAN Syndrome" but nothing to lower a man's sentence who may have been prone to violent attacks from his wife or g/f. And as we all know, despite the claim that feminists are against all forms of sexism....well Patricia Hewitt did a great job of discrediting that lie all by herself just recently

"The issue is that we live in a society that systemizes and excuses male violence against women."
You're kidding, right? I didn't know we had a "VAMA" that states at one section:
**(b) USE OF FUNDS- Grants awarded under this section shall be used--
`(1) to provide personnel, training, technical assistance, advocacy, intervention, risk reduction and prevention of domestic violence, dating violence, stalking, and sexual assault against disabled men and boys; **
Oh, wait a moment... we haven't. Davina once told me VAWA does not discriminate at any level against men or boys (though she couldn't even see the sexism in the title - let alone the rest of it).. but there it is! only women and girls are to be funded to provide the above.

"(normally I'd feel bad about opening up an argument with an insult to someone's intelligence, but seriously dude, look at your website. You use the word "Mangina")"
The word mangina, in my understand basically means a man who is so sickened by those of his own sex, quite sexist against men & boys etc. And what does Hugo do? Well, he blames everything on men (typical feminist mentality) and not much else. So he does, in my understanding, fit the definition quite well. Just like i seem to fit YOUR definition of a MORON. Pot, Kettle, Black?

Davina - could you please say loud and clear what is made up - and provide the necessary proof to your claim?

Space Kitty - Thank you very much I'm glad my site upsets you, that means it's doing what it was intended for. To reflect issues from an anti-feminist (i.e. against half truths and demonizing of men) mind.

Gender = mental / sex = physical. Please remember that. I udnerstand it is normal fem-speak but sex is the correct terminology when talking about a child's physical sexual attributes.

As with gonzman - my experience with feminists (including one mil) has been terrible. I realise not each and everyone is a pure cold-blooded man-hater... but a damn high volume of them are. The double standards would be amusing if they were not so damaging to not just men, but society!

Breadfish:
"Funny how hypocritical that little website is is - Karl is complaining about all the lies used by feminism, only to plaster up a bunch of his own without any citation, source or justification."

That's why i use images with links to nearly all my sources! LOL. No, i don't cite... no i don't offer my sources... bwahaha. What was that name Labyrus referred to me as earlier???

Mr Bad:
"including so-called "women's shelters" that are really fronts for feminist political activities."
spot on... as Erin Pizzy pretty much summarized herself.

Posted by: Karl | December 14, 2005 at 10:05 AM

Hugo, I'd try to laugh if the whole thing wasn't so disheartening.

I must admit, the idea of "mangina" being an insult is an interesting commentary on broader views. Surely no one who's committed to equality would suggest that a man having feminine traits was worthy of scorn. No siree.

Posted by: evil_fizz | December 14, 2005 at 12:49 PM

evil fizz

i'd agree... but i don't see hugo asking for equality for BOTH sexes.. i see him blaming men over & over again. He's effectively repeating what he's been brought up on - man = bad, woman = good...

Posted by: Karl | December 14, 2005 at 02:02 PM

Wow, you definitely missed my point there...

Posted by: evil_fizz | December 14, 2005 at 04:26 PM

mangina / 1 n.sl A man's anus (esp. San Francisco Bay Area.) 2 n.sl Illusion of female mammalian genitalia created when male genitalia are concealed behind thighs.

Posted by: Beste | December 15, 2005 at 02:23 PM

I recently had the pleasure of visiting Karl's little site, and was very taken with the google adwords ad that had attached itself to his forum:

"Colonic irrigation
Sites and resources for colonic irrigation from ten sites in one."

Says it all, really, I think.

Posted by: meerkat | December 15, 2005 at 04:06 PM

I wasn't talking about your picture page, karl, I was talking about things like your "myths vs facts" page that really should be called "myths and some more myths".

Posted by: Breadfish | December 15, 2005 at 07:00 PM

Ah, meerkat - how the devil are you?

Yes, and you're so open and lovely you accuse my wife's list of jokes as 'hate-speech' while saying nothing of man-bashing jokes which are far more the norm. and then banned me, having accused me of hostilities on my forum, when all i did was quote you! if it was 'that' hostile - perhaps it says something about YOU.

Posted by: Karl | December 17, 2005 at 12:31 PM

Quote from karlmathews

Awww

http://hugoboy.typepad.com/hugo_schw...some_note.html

I nearly woke my daughter up when i laughed hard at Breadfish's comment:

Funny how hypocritical that little website is is - Karl is complaining about all the lies used by feminism, only to plaster up a bunch of his own without any citation, source or justification.

If in another life i would have to make a choice, to reincarnate as a cockroach or as Hugo Schwyzer, i would definitely choose the first...

OOOH, an update from Davina!

Apologies for the length of my comment but to set the record straight...
there ARE many men who are victims of domestic violence in the most serious form - and although DavinaJ would like to sweep these men under the carpet, they do exist

Not true
I work closely with the national help-line for male victims of domestic violence (we are both members of a consortium seeking to establish a national domestic violence resource centre) I also work closely with Respect – whose national phone line for perpetrators is also called in error by male victims who are given advice and support appropriate to their circumstances

called in error, eh? From what i've read time after time, the men who call for assistance are given that number as operators have difficulty acknowledging men can be victims. The men are disbelieved, and given that number purposely. The men then call, having no option. Pretty disgusting if you ask me. Imagine a black man calling the police for help after being burgled, only to be told he must be mistaken and must BE the burgular.

I have consistently challenged the idea that male victims 'don't matter' in a variety of fora, in writing and verbally. I have successfully lobbied for domestic violence monitoring data to be divisible by gender in a wide range of agencies so that male victims are made visible. I successfully argued for the inclusion of a section on male victims of domestic violence in the BBC Hitting Home website. I have ensured that male victims are addressed in the UK national training programmes for police and prosecutors

Now that I'm impressed with! I've seen the BBC 'hitting home' pages, and they certainly do pander to the 'women only' political correctness.

Are you in an abusive relationship?Davina James-Hanman
If you're reading this section, chances are you already know your relationship isn't healthy. All relationships have their ups and downs but there are certain types of behaviour which are unacceptable and abusive.

Taken from BBC's "are you in an abusive relationship"
Of course, the Help for Perpetrators reflects an image of a man talking to another person, who certainly seems to be another man, unless it's a dark haired woman with a man's haircut.

In the 'help for perpetrators' section, it asks: "What about support for women?" to which i thought it was asking about abusive women.. Alas, this is the BBC - not a chance. The answer to this question:

What about support for women?
Any woman whose partner or ex-partner is attending a domestic violence perpetrator programme will have experienced some level of violence or abuse and for most this will have been over a long time.
It is extremely important that these women are offered support to help them deal with the often devastating effects of this violence. Most perpetrator programmes offer (and Respect recommends) a separate and confidential support service for the women partners and ex-partners of the men they are working with.

And further, when discussing perpetrators who are getting help, it goes on:

Do the programmes work?
It is the man himself who is responsible for his behaviour - no programme can guarantee that he will / has changed or will be safe. Unfortunately it's impossible to predict exactly which men will change and which won't - or how much. Some will change a lot, some a bit and some not at all.
As there are no guarantees about which men will change, it is crucial that the focus of programmes is not on men changing, but on women and children being safer. So, even if he doesn't change, the perpetrator programme can ensure that steps are taken to protect his partner by working closely with the women's support service and other agencies.

Clearly, no woman can be a perpetrator...
I have noted they have a section for men, but it is one single page.. Wow, impressive!

Perhaps you could elucidate further on the standard one must reach to avoid being accused of trying to 'sweep these men under the carpet'? Or better still, share your own contribution to raising this issue?

First there is no evidence you personally responsible for the men's help, as you claim. Your name is plastered over your work - but the men's section remains anonymous.
As it is, i don't claim to be helping men in these situations, unlike you. I also don't have the kind of power at my fingertips that you have. I can't abuse my limited powers in the same way as you can.

Show me such a person, and I will embrace them - let's see - I go around the local "DV shelters" and - hmm - all for women. All run by women - or more properly, by wymmin. All recieve government money - services for men - zero - one will refer you to a rat-trap motel, on your dime, of course.

I can only comment on the situation in the UK where the issue of shelters (they are called refuges in the UK) for men is different because the context of our welfare state. Any person who cannot reside in their usual residence because of fear of actual or threatened violence is entitled to temporary accommodation (for themselves and their children) provided by the state – refuges are just one option and actually only provide accommodation for 15% of families homeless due to domestic violence. All temporary accommodation used by the state is subject to quality standards and if the individual cannot pay, housing benefit is available. Motels (called B&B here) are not used for applicants with children (except in extenuating circumstances and even then, is subject to a maximum of six weeks). More usually, private sector leasing is used – this means the local authority enters into a long term rental arrangement with a private sector landlord.

It *may* be the case that further research would find that male domestic violence victims also need their own specific refuges but current data (see for example this study) would suggest this is not the case because alternatives do exist as described above and because the primary function of refuges is to provide safety rather than a roof over ones head.

IOW, and cut the crap out - there is very little offered to men, and it is certainly not brought to any man's attention or - unlike womens - even the public's attention.

I am NOT arguing that male victims donÂ’t need services. Because I *do* care about male victims, I believe we should have services based on *their* needs rather than on womenÂ’s needs. Being gender neutral in our approach means that we ignore important information.

This does *not* mean all victims are female and all offenders male *nor* does it mean that violence against men is acceptable. What it *does* mean is that the gender of both victim and offender influences the behaviours and needs of both.

But in the meantime, very little is offered and women still have the upper-hand in all these situations.

For example, women victims are more likely to be injured, more likely to be frightened, more likely to be repeatedly abused and more likely to be murdered. Male victims are less likely to access existing services, often fearing ridicule should they disclose abuse at the hands of a woman.

..fearing ridicule based on experience. it has been documented that men who've called for help were further taunted and handed the perpetrators number instead of the victims number...oh wait, you claimed that was done in error....riiiight. You forgot to include in your list of "women are more..." such things as "vindictive and intent on revenge", hence these services are designed so as to allow easy abuse by women, in the form of a man being forced out of his home & childrens lives, regardless of whether it is in their best interest or not.

Gender also influences the type of abuse. Male perpetrators are far more likely than female abusers to abuse post-separation, indeed this is the most common high risk situation for female victims - the time when they are most likely to be murdered. This is not the case for male victims so rather than waste resources on duplicating services which assist women with their very real need for safety out of some misguided idea that if women have them, men should have them too, we would be more effective in using those resources to provide services that meet men's priority needs.

Ahh, nice dig at men you included there - misguided indeed. The above is effectively saying: We don't really care if he has the kids with him and she can stalk them and perhaps kidnap them. We don't really care if he needs to be anonymous for a while so he can pick himself up and rebuild his life with his children. We don't really care if he needs to be protected from physical assault, or the children for that matter. That only matters if it is a woman.

From the limited information we have, it would seem that one such approach might be to have more services that men could access anonymously. Here in the UK for example, an organisation which deals with depression has had great success in reaching young men (the highest risk group for 'successful' suicides) through email counselling.

So men, stay and endure it - KNOW that you have no services to turn to. We'll talk on Email for you, but if she's stabbing you at that time - remain calm... you'll soon be dead, and then she can start hacking your children too!

There is also some evidence to suggest that male victims of domestic violence have a low awareness of the services that do exist to help them and I would certainly support (and have) initiatives designed to increase their awareness.

which is exactly what i said above, that the goverment - going with feminist suggestions - do not do anything to raise awareness. However, i am glad (though proof will be in the pudding) if you actually DO do anything to raise such awareness for men.

I am interested in effective help and support and ignoring the role that gender plays is foolish if we want to really make some progress.

feminists are not - and to date never have been - interested in "work(ing) around domestic violence as it affect both men and women...

See above.

indeed, see above...

They are singularly interested in advancing the cause of women, and only women, using children as pawns and domestic violence shelters as fronts to funnel money to the wider movement.

I can only speak with authority on the situation in the UK where this is not true at all. Services for children exposed to domestic violence are overwhelmingly provided by the refuge (shelter) movement; indeed very little exists outside of this provision. Despite there being no Government funding for this work, refuges continue to prioritise fundraising for these services and consistently lobby for more services for children to be developed – especially outside of refuges. I fail to see how this equates to using children as pawns.

Hmm, yes - it is true. I've been there myself. My ex and I had an argument due to her flirting & meeting up with other men online with one thing on her mind. Due to this argument, she abused - and the refuge endorsed her abuse of - the refuge system. I ended up severely depressed after not being allowed to even know where my child was, if she was even safe, not even a phone call was allowed. This system is sick as it allows children to be used by a woman in order to hurt their husbands or b/f's. You know this happens, they know it happens, and no-one seems to be against this happening, if anything, feminists (as you've just proven) will do all within their power to deny this even happens. But men are waking up to this abuse, slowly but surely. They ARE waking up and they ARE understandably UPSET at this abuse. If you condone kidnapping of children - then you are as good as an abuser yourself.

As for your claim of funnelling money to the wider movement, here in the UK, Government funding is subjected to quarterly budget monitoring and an annual review to assess service quality and value for money. It is thus extremely unlikely that any large scale fraud could be committed without detection. Of course, private donations are not subjected to nearly as much scrutiny which is how Mike Kenny managed to defraud several million pounds out of donors claiming to be running a refuge for male victims that didnÂ’t actually exist.

I will find a link for it - but there was a 'refuge' which one woman complained heavily against due to it's insistence that women did NOT move on, they remained victims, and painting all men as abusers. This is documented and i shall find a link for it. As for Mike Kenny, i see the paper says 'suspicion' of fraud. I do not see anything about a definate crime.

Erin Pizzey has documented that quite clearly, and she of all people is one who should know.

Erin Pizzey has not been active in the UK refuge movement since 1982. As such, anything she claims to have documented – if indeed it exists at all - relates to events that occurred at least 23 years ago. Refuges have moved on since then.

Ah, so is that an admission of past fraudulent behaviours by the refuge homes?
Also, just because she hasn't been directly involved - does not discredit her work as she saw it from word go.

And let’s not forget how Erin plays fast and lose with her own data. For example, her claim that women are as or more violent than men falls to bits when examined more closely. What she disingenuously fails to clarify is that she is including within her claim of ‘violent women’ acts of self-harm. In other words, she is equating a woman attempting suicide as ‘evidence’ that she is ‘equally violent’ as the man who assaults her.
[Reporter]: So women are as violent as men? [Pizzey] "Well, we tend to implode, our violence is turned in on ourselves or is covert - men explode and hurt others."

[Reporter]: So it's not exactly the same?

"It's violence," Pizzey says stubbornly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/stor...606006,00.html

Just like feminists who look at suicide rates amongst young men use it as evidence of their violent nature... However, you fail to acknowledge that she also included CHILD ABUSE in her findings... nice how you forgot to mention that though, eh?

feminists in my experience - and looking at various (pro)feminist sites and having conversed with Davina in the past, it sure does appear that they are keen to marginalize or excuse violent women.

Nice try at trying to group me in with those feminists you claim marginalise or excuse violent women but not actually true of me is it?

Erm, yes! We've talked and you continually excuse women's (while acknowledging a tiny fraction, so as not to entirely deny) bad behaviour.

[i]Davina once told me VAWA does not discriminate at any level against men or boys (though she couldn't even see the sexism in the title - let alone the rest of it).[i]

ThatÂ’s not true. Our exchange in fact went as follows:

‘Karl’: i don't see any feminist asking for VAWA to be made gender neutral.
Me: With the *sole* exception of the title – that’s because there’s no need - it already is.

See here for more detail about how, with the exception of the title, VAWA is gender neutral

But i've just given you a QUOTE showing that VAWA indeed is sexist...and STILL you cannot see it. All i changed was "girl & woman" to "boy & man"... See folks, i give her an example quote from VAWA and still, she denies sexism. hmmm

but there it is! only women and girls are to be funded to provide the above.

ThatÂ’s not true either. For example, VAWA also funds programmes to provide street-based outreach, education, counselling, information and referrals to runaways, homeless and street young men AND women who have been subjected to or are at risk of sexual abuse.

VAWA also funds programmes designed to address rape and sexual assault - for example through the provision of specialist training to investigating police officers or by ensuring that hospitals have a ready supply of rape kits - again, initiatives that benefit anyone who has been raped or sexually assaulted. regardless of gender.

Cool, that's good to know, but it does not remove the fact that sections of it - including the Title ARE sexist!

In practice VAWA hasn't wholly excluded male victims; rape crisis lines help anyone who calls them (And BTW, I don't see any men's groups helping female rape victims.)

Well, i didn't realise VAWA was a group - i thought it was an Act of law. As for groups, most men's groups don't exclude women, that i know of at least.

Davina - could you please say loud and clear what is made up - and provide the necessary proof to your claim?

See above plus your denial that you have ever posted my name and photograph on your website.

Posted by: Davina | December 18, 2005 at 04:24 AM

Right, let us look at that URL....

WhingeVillage feminist forum

Sep-15 11:21 pm
I wholeheartedly deny having posted Davina's name on my message board...I don't have a message board on the site.
And if i had, what business is it of yours what i do or don't do with my own webspace? Oh, wait that's right - you're Goddess in disguise and love to issue commands & demands, while equally demanding respect for yourself... my bad!
Yes i complained about spam - and here's why:
http://antifeminism.mathews.me.uk/sp...#whingevillage
"I went there to grab various things to answer your post..."
IOW, you actually can't locate misogyny (woman hating), you could only find disliking feminism...

I didn't have a forum at that time. In fact, this forum (and the former forum i was using) STILL do NOT and never have had an image of Davina on them. The website, however, is a different matter. So hence, i was telling the truth based on a technicality. Unlike Nelly who claimed to be a woman but was actually a man dressing in women's clothing...each to their own though.

Was directed here by one of our people (who's been using the gender-neutral Crossing Bridges centre that Davina's expertise helped us to set up). Interesting that there are those who are claiming that Davina does not help male survivors, since that is the precise opposite of our experience of her. Davina has been invaluable in helping us set up national policies that help all victims no matter what their gender, culture, religion, age or nationality. Domestic violence can happen to men or women, but government statistics show with absolute clarity that there are many more women very badly beaten than there are men. That does not mean that male victims are less important.
Regards
Amber

No, statistics from proper studies - not ones by feminists and feminist-controlled government lobbies - show that men are as much victims as women. That's from evidence from police forces too.

Feminists distort and lie with everything, like the way they claim a man criticizing his wife is "abusive" or that other bizarre new idea feminists have come up with, "financial abuse", which is where a guy refuses to allow his greedy wife to go out and spend his hard earned money on more shoes, clothes and other crap. Then, of course, feminists applaud women who kill their husbands and hail them as heroines, and come up with stuff like the SCUM manifesto.

Finally, the obvious and clear fact that women physically abuse children - especially boys - far, far more often than men, and the fact that women commit the overwhelming majority of infanticides is all hushed up. "Shhhh! Don't put women in a bad light!"

Don't even attempt to make out that you give a shit about men (apart from self-hating losers like Hugo, who doesn't count as a man anyway.)

Can you please clarify to whom your post was directed? Specifically "Don't even attempt to make out that you give a () about men"? (was the () really necessary?) Since I co-run a centre for male and female victims of dv, and am a victim of female abuse, I'm struggling with that one a little.
Do you have verifiable evidence that all government statistics showing 89% of the worst affected victims of DV are women are lies invented by feminists?
Regards
Amber

If in another life i would have to make a choice, to reincarnate as a cockroach or as Hugo Schwyzer, i would definitely choose the first...

LMFAOROFPIMP!!!!!

Quote from amber

That does not mean that male victims are less important.
Regards
Amber

Then stop acting like they are, for instance, citing women are more badly beaten even though that is irrelevant when considering that abuse comes in many more forms.

Regards
Herb

Do you have verifiable evidence that all government statistics showing 89% of the worst affected victims of DV are women are lies invented by feminists?

Nope. No government does. That's just what MRAs are trying to change. As Duncan touched on, there are male victims of DV that are even DEAD and yet we still label THEM the abusers. They drove these women to do these things.

It's great to hear you're helping male and female victims. I mean that. But the men you're helping are the men that you're allowed to help, and that isn't enough.