Wednesday, January 2, 2008

You Were Right, Ampersand

In one of my December 2007 entries, my statements were questioned by Ampersand. He said that "two of the quotes on your list are dishonest -- either fabricated or distorted through out-of-context quoting. Yet you apparently think I should be taking the list seriously. Why should I assume that the rest of the list is an honest representation of anything?" He suggested that my arguments lacked "legitimate evidence".

I wanted to give my answer here, and not in the comments, because Ampersand made a very good point.

You know, you're right, Ampersand. I did go back and verify all of those quotes, including the one that was misquoted, and you know as well as I do that they're accurate. A couple of them were questionable, though, and I don't blame you for not crediting the others as being accurate, or crediting that today's Women's Studies are based on those ideas. You have no reason to do so, because of my sloppy research. I concede the point.

I learned from this experience, and have put in a lot more effort on my blogging homework. You are so right about out-of-context quoting. "If you're incapable of proving your point without out-of-context quoting, then your point is nonsense." I couldn't agree more.

Now that we've established that, though, I do have to wonder about some of the studies I've heard supporting feminism that have been proven to be inaccurate. These are serious propaganda that, if they were true, would certainly prove women to be victims and men to be brutes.

Take, for example Domestic Violence. Here's the quote I've heard any number of times: "According to the FBI, a woman is beaten every XXX seconds." But, according to Richard Gelles,
"First, the FBI does not calculate, tabulate, or track data on domestic violence. The FBI once did estimate that a women is beaten every 15 seconds, but they derived this estimate from Murray Straus, Richard J. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz's book, Behind Closed Doors: Violence in the American Family.

Various other fact sheets list various other number of seconds. The number of seconds depends on the study (if there actually was one) and how violence was defined. For example, some versions of this factoid state that a women is beaten every 9 seconds and cite a study done by the Commonwealth Fund in July, 1993. The Commonwealth Fund study used the same measure as was used by Straus and his colleagues. Unlike Straus and his colleagues who defined "abuse" as acts of violence that were likely to cause and injury, the Commonwealth Fund defined "abuse" as every thing from pushing, shoving, and slapping to using a gun or knife."

Keep in mind that the person who wrote that factoid page is one of the authors of the book they all used.

That brings to mind the whole "Increase in Domestic Violence on Superbowl Sunday" myth. This myth is well-known to be a myth, but if you haven't heard of it, here's the link. In fact, this very myth may have had a part to play in the passing of the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) legislation. Here's the first sentence from this article:
"What do you get when you mix equal parts of gender myth, a casual disregard of Constitutional protections, and old fashioned political pork? VAWA – the Violence Against Women Act -- that’s what."
It's an interesting read.

Here are a few more mistaken statistics from the Richard Gelles page:

Sixty-three Percent of Young Men Between the Ages of 11 and 20 Who Are Serving Time for Homicide Have Killed Their Mother's Abuser

This factoid is often used by Sarah Buel in her speeches. It appears to be yet another fact from nowhere. The FBI has published no data that supports this claim. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reports has no tables that report on prison populations, let alone a table or figure that breaks down prison populations by age of offender and relationship to victim. There are no Department of Justice reports that report on what number or percentage of young men kill their mother's batterer.

Women Who Leave Their Batterers Are at a 75% Greater Risk of Being Killed by the Batterer than Those Who Stay

Women are more likely to be victims of homicide when they are estranged from their husbands than when they live with their husbands--BUT NOT A 75 % GREATER RISK. The risk of homicide is higher in the first two months after separation.

SOURCE: Wilson, Margo and Martin Daly. (1993) "Spousal homicide risk and estrangement." Violence and Victims, 8, 3-16.

Women Who Kill Their Batterers Receive Longer Prison Sentences than Men Who Kill Their Partners

This factoid is often attributed to someone from Pace University. There is no actual published source for this. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Between Intimates (November, 1994), the average prison sentence for men who killed their wives was 17.5 years; the average sentence for women convicted of killing their husbands was 6.2 years.

So looks like there were some cherrypicked and downright misquoted research. According to your logic, maybe we shouldn't be taking domestic violence, or prison sentences for the same, seriously?

Here is some more interesting information I found:

Women Earn 77¢ For Every $1.00 A Man Earns : Not true. Take into account years of work experience, hours worked per year, full- or part-time schedule, leaves taken, danger of the work, etc, and it's virtually the same. If women worked for less, and men were getting the jobs, then businesses would go out of business, now wouldn't they?

150,000 Young Women Die From Anorexia Nervosa Each Year : Not true. "According to the Center for Disease Control there were 101 deaths from anorexia in 1983, 67 in 1988 and 54 in 1991."

Fathers Seeking Custody Win 70% of Cases: Not true. In 1999, 15% of fathers had custody.

Only 2% of Rape Charges Are False: Not true. 30 - 40% of rape charges are false.

So, Ampersand, which "facts" supporting the oppression of women in our society would you have us believe? I'm not really finding any that haven't been debunked, or aren't completely outdated.


Anonymous said...

"Fathers Seeking Custody Win 70% of Cases: Not true. In 1999, 15% of fathers had custody."

The important phrase here is sought custody. If 100% of fathers sought custody, and in 70% of cases they win, then we would expect to see 70% of fathers having custody. To tie the census data to the 70% figure, we need to know the proportion of cases in which fathers seek custody. If fathers win 70% of the time when they seek custody, and 15% of fathers are custodial parents, then we would expect that fathers are seeking custody in 21% of all cases. I'm not sure where to find out that number, but that's the number you need if you want to prove anything.

The comparison of census data to the 70% figure is either mathematically ignorant or intellectually dishonest. I suspect that the site you're citing is both.

Elver said...

I respect, admire, and support the research you're doing, kellymac. Please keep up the good work. The world needs more people like you.

. said...

@ Random Radfem,

You said: "'Fathers Seeking Custody Win 70% of Cases: Not true. In 1999, 15% of fathers had custody.'

The important phrase here is sought custody. If 100% of fathers sought custody, and in 70% of cases they win, then we would expect to see 70% of fathers having custody. To tie the census data to the 70% figure, we need to know the proportion of cases in which fathers seek custody. If fathers win 70% of the time when they seek custody, and 15% of fathers are custodial parents, then we would expect that fathers are seeking custody in 21% of all cases. I'm not sure where to find out that number, but that's the number you need if you want to prove anything.

The comparison of census data to the 70% figure is either mathematically ignorant or intellectually dishonest. I suspect that the site you're citing is both.


(Rob says):

Not actually reading the link provided before criticizing the statement definitely IS intellectually dishonest.

Perhaps this makes it a bit clearer for you (I, um, read the article):

Excerpt from the article:

"The Mother of All Confabulations goes back to 1986. That's when feminist Phyllis Chesler alleged in her book “Mothers on Trial” that divorcing fathers win child custody in 70% of cases.

Never mind that the actual number of fathers winning custody was only 15%. [] And don't worry that Chesler's conclusion was based on a sample of 60 discontented women referred by feminist lawyers — still, it made for a great story.

A decade later, the National Organization of Women was beginning to run out of real issues. So it set out to invent new outrages calculated to rally the faithful.

In 1996 the N.O.W.-nincompoops passed a resolution that repeated Chesler's bogus 70% custody figure. Then they added a new twist, claiming that patriarchal oafs who wanted to stay involved in their children's lives after a divorce represented an "abuse of power in order to control in the same fashion as do batterers." []"


And also on the subject:

Excerpt from the article:

The producers' own page of resources ( contains the assertion, based on the 1990 "Report of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Gender Bias Study Committee," that "fathers who actively seek custody [8.75% of fathers] obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time." This is a highly misleading claim which implies that men usually win custody battles when they go to court. In fact, the majority of these cases are uncontested -- the fathers have sole or joint custody with the mother's consent.


Please don't try to claim that men don't bother to fight for their children. The fact is, most men are actively convinced (or forced) to leave the home immediately at the moment of separation, which virtually nullifies their attempts to gain custody (court rulings that it would upset the child to uproot them from their current home).

Also, most divorce lawyers actively encourage the father NOT to seek custody - as well as the N.O.W., and well, basically all of the feminist society we live in backs this up. It is, of course, horrible for a man to come between a mother and child, while it is nearly honourable for a woman to come between a father and his children.

Anonymous said...

I had come across this "ampersand" character before. My conclusion was he's a devout feminist pretending not to be a feminist but neutral and objective, so he can bolster the feminist movement by appearing to be just an ordinary guy persuaded by the strength of feminist arguments. Of course his double standards as far as "legitimate evidence" is concerned show his true colours. I wouldn't bother too much with him, he's all piss and wind...

Social Justice NPC Anti-Paladin™ said...

I find it interesting that "ampersand" would comment on other blogs.
Considering that he will delete comments on his blog that disagree with him or feminist dogma.
Alas, a Moderation Policy
But in my experience that is SOP for feminist blogs. Amanda Marcotte at Pandagon is a master at it.
Even richer is some threads on his blog are labeled "Feminists only".

KellyMac said...

Even richer is some threads on his blog are labeled "Feminists only".

Heh, I know. I tried to post to a thread about rape - in a completely supportive way, as it has also happened to me - but my comment was deleted because I wouldn't verify that I was a feminist...*rolls eyes*

Anonymous said...

There's little point in carrying on a 'debate' with these zealots anyway. They have all the impartiality of Moonies at a mass wedding. Or Scientologists, although to be fair even those glassy eyed robots have more credibility than the Gender Hatred Movement these days. It's amusing, listening to them drone on and on with the drivel they memorized in Womens Studies and Oprah. It puts me in mind of attending a global convention on phrenology--sure, we can waste days and months debating the mechanics and the supporting evidence, but the whole thing is so patently absurd that one can only laugh in amazement that anyone takes it seriously. Next week, we take an in-depth look at the social framework of the Leprechaun!

Anonymous said...

Kelly, why, oh why give even a second's thought to Ampersand? He has proven himself a hypocrite time and again.

Do not allow these bigots to determine your agenda.

Anonymous said...

You were right not to be thrown by Ampersand. The fact is that anyone can get their facts or evidence wrong occasionally, even with due diligence. This is hardly evidence that the cause they are promoting must be flawed.

The point about feminists is that they continually promote the same false and misleading claims ad nauseam, despite however much evidence and argument is mounted to the contrary. If feminist factoids are simply honest mistakes then they must be making the same mistakes over and over, while remaining deaf to anyone who tries to point out the errors.

Many critics of MRAs often try to play up small errors as proof that the mens movement is bunk. For example, in Warren Farrell's The Myth of Male Power he made the claim that there are 23 articles on women's health to every one article on men's health in medical journals. It turned out that this figure was based on flawed evidence, although it was probably an honest mistake. This has been cited by critics of the mens movement as part of the false claims they rely upon, when in reality this statistic is hardly ever quoted by MRAs and is not an article of faith in the same way that many false claims are within the feminist movement.

Anonymous said...

The important phrase here is sought custody. If 100% of fathers sought custody, and in 70% of cases they win, then we would expect to see 70% of fathers having custody.

So you mean to say men don't win custody more because they don't seek custody enough.

Let's now apply that to feminist rape statistics. Feminists always claim that majority of rape cases go unreported, and rape convictions are very low, so if more victims (And I mean real victims) reported rape, it could lead to more convictions. In this case, I can ask feminists to shut up with their rape hysteria. either mathematically ignorant or intellectually dishonest. I suspect that the site you're citing is both.

It is completely unacceptable to call men mathematically ignorant or intellectually dishonest on an MRA blog. Don’t do it again.

Anonymous said...

Dear KellyMac,

Regarding the feminist 'only 2% rapes are false' myth, please check out this PDF file:

Download PDF

Or view in your browser window

Anonymous said...

Anonymous @5:08 AM said...
Dear KellyMac,

Regarding the feminist 'only 2% rapes are false' myth, please check out this PDF file:


Essential reading. This article serves as the perfect primer on how feminist propaganda enters the culture as "truth" through repeated self referencing. The "rule of thumb" myth followed an almost identical pattern.

On the subject of false allegations Eugene Kanin's original study can be found in PDF form here

Anonymous said...

Thanks for a great article. It sounds like you have done quite a bit of homework, and I appreciate it tremendously.
As a maturing human who happens to be a man :-) I have heard many of the faulty stats during my life, and it has really bothered me. I have never raped anyone or battered my wife, kids, parents, or siblings. And as far as being employed, I have usually given my best and have been rewarded with nearly continuous employment for the past 30 years. So I have always felt a frustrated shame, although I have done nothing wrong except to be male.
So reading the info that you've put out here is soothing somewhat. I really wish that the facts were out there to the public so other guys wouldn't feel like I have in the past.
If we could live in a world of truth (that is to say, "just the facts ma'am"), seeking the truth and holding it more important than alliances or even our own egos, then maybe sick, controlling behaviors and dysfunctional family relationships wouldn't come about nearly as often. Sanity might then prevail. But, I know I'm an idealist!
Another statistic that bugs me is the one where they say us guys think about sex every 7 seconds or somesuch nonsense. I don't. And if most guys did, how the heck did we engineer the Saturn 5 rocket and go to the moon if we were so distracted? I don't think Einstein came up with relativity by thinking about the size of women's breasts, although I could be wrong.
Anyways, thanks again for a great article, and your thoughtfulness to the facts.

Anonymous said...

As expected, Ampersand did not reply.
Maybe he does not know what to say.

Indeed, there is not much to say about KellyMac's blog from a feminist point of view, except to pick out of a long list 2 men-hating quotes and claiming they are not true.

The other stuff is ignored.
Totally ignored. Can you believe that?

It's Ampersand's moderation policy, free speech, but feminists only...

Anonymous said...

Hi, I want to thank you for your activeness.Until today I have thought that man being tutelary for woman will always be on the lost position in action for Human Rights, Man Rights.I forgot, that not only care matters but also attitude and intelligence, and that not every women is against man and hate men (like we see among powerful female-politicians and businesswoman). You showed me that intelligent women with humanistic attitude can be as much tutelary and interested in justice for man as man are tutelary for woman and interested in justice for women.

I really admire American ability to act so I hope I will find more blogs like Yours in the internet and more woman like you in Men Rights Movement.I am also going to settle small masculists’ organization here in my country. In east Europe we do not have such a strong Mans Movement as you have in US.And there is lot of to do.

Man earn less money for the same work (including time of work,responsibility,danger,satisfaction from and sacrifice for work).Man is not owner of his body since he have to serve in army and die on wars. Man are in many ways separated from their children (after divorce,by lack of parental leaves and culture of men working till night).Medicine in XX century separated average age of death of man and woman living men’s age almost decade behind(I am just after testicle cancer about which I have never heard before!).There is redistribution of money form man too woman by the retirement system (women begin it earlier and live longer),health care system(woman live longer) and educational system(even in Iran).

And if it is to Iran,let consider perception of situation around the world.Feminist usually demand special treatment and privileges in Europe claiming womans’ mistreating in rest of the world.But aren’t there also males mistreating???In China boy is more disagreeable not because his perceived value but because he HAVE TO provide for parents in their senility.In Islamic world husband have to work for his wife and children while she can work only if she wants and can spend her salary only on her needs,not for children need or husband need.If she don’t want to work she have mahr(dowry/marriage portion) to use for her needs or as a capital to earn money.In Iran woman ware 75% of students and government had to do something with it because this number even radicalized.So it is not so bad for woman in other parts of the world.And remember that all over the world only mans’ body is use for a war.And that all over the world woman live longer.If there were so called patriarchate,which is supposed to oppress woman,would they live longer?Wouldn’t they be taken to army?

And if it would be truth,that feminists had to fight with patriarchal system,not that woman at one time exaggerated with their care for woman,where are female upraises, female unrests, female riots pacified by the army or at least police?How many women died or were close in prisons during their “fight” for emancipation.During history each oppressed group,which tried to liberate itself were brutally attacked by army and police.In slaves riots died hundreds of thousands of man, and would die more,if they were not treated as a property of someone else.Peasants’ riots were brutally pacified,for example in French revolution 90% of killed were rebelled peasants.Work class had even more rough,during Russian civil war just after Bolsheviks’ revolution died 9 millions of people. Hitler, extremely conservative male who thought woman are to born children,killed 6 millions of people for being Jews but nobody for being just woman.Black people were killed for fun,police were shooting them,they were imprisoned and so one.Even pacifists were imprisoned,though their politic was by definition pacifistic.But how many suffragists was imprisoned because of theirs politics?How many of suffragists died at the time when in Russia 9 million of workers died?

KellyMac said...

@ Adam:

Thank you for your comments. Those are very valid points, but I doubt they'll be addressed.

I'd like to invite you to my new site:

Anonymous said...

I appreciate your effort to discard those outlandish studies. But it's a shame that such action is necessary. Those Women's Studies are usually fabricated from the start. But of course, we still must discredit them.

Anonymous said...

I did enjoy your article very much so
Im researching a project right now and looking at right and left wingled ideals / if feminism is still relevant or irrelivant (which I beleive is a bit of both)
You make some good points and I apriciate you not being afraid to state your opinion so blatnely, ecpecially one that is not adressed
good work

Anonymous said...

See you next tuesday. Were you not getting enough attention. IS this blog getting u some?

Anonymous said...

they think they can dominate over men no they can't MEN RULE always.
the most of shit ideas bought by fucking Americans and they screwed this world. the ruin the every country by culturally, economical and even mentally I guess we need to fight against them. the Feminist and Women trying to rule over the men is just an example of Westernization and Americanization.

does generic viagra work said...

I feel very depressed when i come across any outward incident towards women. I am of the opinion that we should always respect women s feelings and being violent should be the last thing in anybody's mind.

Anonymous said...

If we could go back in time, back to the 1960s when the LSD was flying, and stop feminism and narcissism then this argument would be much better. It is now 2011, there are women out there who are perfectly happy sharing authority with their husbands. There are families that are not in disarray. There are kids, like me, who grew up with parents from that era. What is tearing some of us apart more than feminism, homosexuality, conservatives, liberals or religion is the fact that there is a majority of a generation, not just one group, the whole generation generalized together, who are getting near retirement and still cannot act like adults. A generation full of people who like to point fingers at whichever group bothers them and, before even trying to be sympathetic to the fact people are all raised differently, have different lives, and can make choices for themselves, they shove out something they call a theory or argument against the group of people that bothers them and don’t even consider why they are making speculations and what errors in causality vs correlation may exist. Then they present them as completely true factual connections which are so right to you that any other perspective is rendered meaningless.
Then you get kids, like me, who hear all about how Muslims should be treated like suspects, how Gay people are evil, how Republicans are Fascists and how Liberals are Communists and the kids like me are left watching adults act like three year olds as they play the blame game, give each other the silent treatment, and throw names and words around, carelessly, like “anti-Christ,” “evil, ” “Conspiracy,” and “love” without a second thought. Then you get kids not like me, who grow up dealing with this immature crap from a whole generation still fighting about Regan and Hippies that has no intention of even trying to move forward together because they don’t know how to act like adults and think of what they can do together, right now, to make opportunities to those of us who want careers in addition those of us who want to have traditional families. And some kids not like me don’t see through the bickering and search for an answer beyond their parent’s unquestionable enforced dogma. When searching for an answer some of them find someone’s explanation about how “some people” are responsible for a great deal of misery, and they are so confused and hurt about why their life sucks that they go out and emotionally disregard, or worse, kill a bunch of people they assume are part of whatever group got the blame in the first place. Because they don’t see them as actual other people, because they don’t see grown-ups treating each other like big kids; like thinking, feeling, autonomous individuals that can deal with responsibility for their ideas and lifestyle choices.
I just blamed a group you’re in, let me know how it feels and I’ll actually listen to any argument returned and consider it. In the mean time I am going to go finish a painting that tries to capture some of the sublime beauty I see all around, so maybe one day it will give some hope to someone who is bummed out, perhaps from a destroyed American family, rather than give them someone to hate.

Bonnie said...

You obviously make it a point to never research anything that might force you to reconsider the validity of your own ideals. Hundreds of women were arrested, beaten, broken, sexually assaulted, tortured, and allowed to die in jail during the Suffragest movements. Girls have had acid thrown on them as they walk to school, they've been stoned and beaten for reading, they've been murdered for being raped, had their noses cut off for wearing makeup, and have been allowed to die of sepsis after being denied surgery to remove dead fetal tissue from their bodies during miscarriages due to anti-abortion legislation...women die EVERY DAY just for being women. Also, women fight and die as soldiers in Armies all over the world, just like men do.

The author of this blog can thank FEMINISM for the fact that she is even allowed to write a blog. She can thank FEMINISM for the fact that she can read and write and understand statistics and reporting bias (even though she chooses to blatantly disregard both, opting instead to post whatever nonsense, out of context, erroneously reported numbers she can find on other anti-feminist websites that support whatever cockamamie point she's trying to make a case for). If she has a job (doubtful), she can thank feminism for that. If she was allowed to choose to marry the man she loves instead of being sold to the highest bidding old pervert when she was 11 years old, she can thank feminism for that. She can thank feminism for her right to go grocery shopping by herself, have access to family money, and drive a car. She can thank feminism for her right to own property.

You're welcome, ladies. You're welcome.

Unknown said...

Ampersand, you got snapped, burned and pillaged. Your argument looks like something a dog left on the carpet now. Now take your feminist tail between your legs and cry in a corner lol.

cesar said...

Hello, my name is Cesar, and though it's not the first time i come acroos this female against extreme feminism point of view, its the first time i come across such an in depht view. First i would like to apreciate your racional aproach to the subject, and without wanting to sound like a pig, its is something i am very happy to find in a woman.
Ill just get to the point, today at 4:00 am before going to bed i finall got some peace to the struggle this subject inflicted on me. I was born in 1990, and i grew up within a very well developed intelectual "war" between feminists, and apparently men. It was known we were orpessors, chivalry and courtasy was looked upon as obligation instead of kindness and once in a while some lady would come to our class rooms and instruct us on how our fathers were opressing women and how we would grow up to be like that unless we repent ( i actually remember them making questions like "does your father washes the dishes at home?" or something like that, and condemning the answeres without any context of each situtation. Anyway, what i am saying is that as a kid feminists made all the sense to me and was the only way that made sense. But with time i began to get tired of being put in the same bag as molesters and chauvinistic pigs just becuse i was a man, and being told how much easyer my life was when i couldnt see the difrence. And with this agressive reaction against men i started to get defensive (by the way, i am talking in an intelectual level, never felt it affect relationships, even with persons with opposite opinions) so everytime a woman would point out the share of blame i had for their horrifying problems i would just think of them as a good for nothing cunt. This hatred was really bothering me since it realy didnt go along with what i actualy felt about women, but putting me on the opposing faction while having such extreme thoughts against me, it only really left room for agressive thoughts of my own. But today coming across your blog and having a deeper thought about it i think i am finally starting to make sense out of it.
the bottom line is, feminism was working is way in my head to make me anti-women, lucky for me i am surronded by great women. Feminism creates a weak and stupid image of women and discredits men for their own achievments. This war is realy only being fought by one side and it isnt even the women side, it is only a few of male-hating people than have a free-pass to say whatever they want without being open for discussion. We have to stop forcing this crap on kids becouse some may never get to this conclusion and look at women as theyr enemy for the rest of their lifes.

Well, going to sleep, thank you for your intrest in this subject, only a woman could creat a grey area in this subject.

P.S: sorry for any mistakes, Portuguese here.

By, kisses.

with no repe intent :)