I posted his email below. (And when he quotes me, it's nearly always a misquote.)
Please help me out here. How can I respond to this?

quote:

---

People, if they are worth their salt, will work towards ending domestic violence. Women don't "need to work for their liberation", they need to say to each other "it's not acceptable to be violent to men and rely on the fact that they can't fight back without risking a serious beating." When was the last woman's group to protest modern sitcoms which make fun of women striking their husbands? When was the last woman YOU saw step in when a drunken, abusive woman was striking her boyfriend out of anger in a bar or public place. Have you EVER seen that? I mean the woman intervening, because I've seen plenty of the latter.
If domestic violence is really the lopsided atrocity you think it is, then why not just strive to end ALL domestic violence? Why don't we say that when Madelyne Toogoode beats the living shit out of her child and is caught on fucking tape doing it and caught on tape looking around to see if anyone was watching, that this is "just as bad" as any other domestic violence?

If domestic violence is really a "man's problem", then why do lesbian relationships have as-high-or-higher incident rates? Why don't they have 0%?
It has NOTHING to do with the genders of the participants. Correlation is not causality. And for you to say in one breath that anyone "whose opinion matters" would not have criticized Sarto Blais for not trying to save the women in the class.. and then ending that email with "being a man means saving women", it shows me that you are just spouting the same old, same old man-hating misandrist talking points that I have seen for all my life.

In the most pathological cases of domestic violence - the worst of the worst - men are victims how often?
Well, if you define pathological as "requires police intervention" then our local records show one in eight victims as a reasonable figure over the past few years.

What percentage of World War I war dead were women?
Of the MILLIONS who died fighting in WWI, how many were women? The entire WAC had 1,100 in it, which, assuming that every woman involved in the war died is a HARD MAXIMUM of one tenth of one percent.

Yet, how ardently did women's groups fight for the recognition of the "brave men AND WOMEN" who fought in the Great War?

Feminists want women want to be recognized equally when they contribute one tenth of one percent of the sacrifice, yet when they are 12.5% of the problem, that's "not enough" to merit consideration of domestic violence as a two-way street?

And again, that is the most pathological of cases. It is still funny for women to hit men in our society. ONLY WOMEN can end that. MEN CANNOT SPREAD THAT MESSAGE.

Men AND women need to work together, and NOT in the 999:1 ratio that they did in WWI, to end domestic violence for men, women and children.

If you think ANYTHING less than the above, you are as baneful a misandrist as I have ever met.

I am not going to trade talking points knowing full well that anything I say will be ignored in your man-hating fervor, so have the last word, and thank you for reminding me of how ignorant someone can be, even when they are so well meaning.
Charles

---

It doesn't really accomplish anything to joust with these guys. Certainly more men than women fought in WW 1 ; women had to agitate and struggle for the right to even join the service, and then their participation was severely restricted. But don't bother telling that to this guy, he won't believe you and he'll go off on some other idiotic tangent.

[ 12 December 2005: Message edited by: Serendipity ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serendipity:
I got into an argument about the significance of the Montreal Massacre with one those "Mens-Rights" Activists, you know, the type that aren't really about about male issues, but more about taking up limelight and airtime at the expense of women's issues.

---

quote:

---

posted by lagatta: Have any other babblers read the story (it was front-page on the Globe as well as all Montréal papers) about the policewoman shot dead in Laval ... by a guy who had already been convicted of harassing another policewoman - and who had harassed many other women in construction unions...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by K Connor: Hard story to miss right now, at least here.

---

[ 16 December 2005: Message edited by: deBeauxOs ]

Good ideas, all, here's Charles's email if anybody wants to take a stab:

[Edited by Michelle to take out the e-mail address.]

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

First of all, Serendipity, why did you pretend to be a man when you emailed me?

I'm not being snide; when Serendipity emailed me, she did so under the name "Ross", yet I see from her profile that she is a female. I was stunned to find out the truth, and did a double take. Indeed, she introduced herself: "I am, by the way, a male from Montreal, Quebec.", signed the first (and every) email "Ross", and in a third email, said "You're a male, I'm a male, let's move on."

I have a theory why that might be.

If it looks like I exhibited an argumentative tone in the email, you would be correct. I did explain to him/her that I was very aware of the impact that domestic violence has in women's lives, as I was presently visiting Boise to mourn my friend who took her life, largely fuelled by reams of physical abuse her husband heaped on her (and all at the age of 25). Nevertheless, in spite of this, she agreed that domestic violence was NOT a "man bad, woman good" problem.

Ross chose to dismiss my very dear friend as "anecdotal" and said that her opinion didn't matter (despite my stating that it clearly did) and that since we were "both males", we should just move on.

So yes, if I tell you that I am grieving over a dear friend I have lost, and you choose to dismiss her opinion as meaningless, before bombarding me with rhetoric designed clearly to be inflammatory, yes, I might react emotionally. Given that you then proceeded to post our discussion to this board, complete with a grotesque generalization about what I stand for and a comment about how much you'd like physical violence to befall me (I can only imagine what you had to edit out of that post, based on how another user cautioned you on the content).. topped by an invitation for all to harangue me by email.. I'm going to guess that you went through everything just to pick a fight, which is what I figured at the time and I can only see myself as being justified in thinking. I'm sorry that I didn't oblige once it became obvious to me that this is what you were doing.

Now, I can respect that this message board is devoted to talking about feminism from a pro-feminism point of view, so I'm not going to address the points. I will say that the original post that Ross" was reacting to can be found here and that post represents me articulating my beliefs in a more rational manner.

And if you disagree with them, feel free to reply. Despite speculation to the contrary, I am actually quite willing to listen, provided I am being argued with in good faith - IE you actually are the person you claim to be, for starters - and I am man enough to admit that my opinions are always fair game. I am not so scared of them that I consider them immune from debate, and I CAN say that they have mollified over the years in some areas.

That is all.

Sincerely,

Charles.

[Edited by Michelle to take out Ross's last name and Charles's e-mail address]

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMousseau:
Now, I can respect that this message board is devoted to talking about feminism from a pro-feminism point of view, so I'm not going to address the points. I will say that the original post that Ross" was reacting to can be found here and that post represents me articulating my beliefs in a more rational manner.

---

(ed to add) It is very very bad form to 'out' a babbler. I hope you will edit your post and apologize.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Sorry Charley, but I found that particular post kind of exploitative, inasmuch as it merely sets up other victims to mitigate against a reasonable discussion of systemic violence in our society directed at womyn. However, I do mourn for the loss of your friend, and wish to express condolence. Yes, men too can be caught up in the expression of anti-womyn hatred, but trying to 'balance' it out by citing female to male violence is sophistry at best, misdirection at worst. I hope that you might post a link or an excerpt to Chapter 3: Neutering the 'race card' in the anti-racism forum, if you honestly wish a discussion of systemic injury.

(ed to add) It is very very bad form to 'out' a babbler. I hope you will edit your post and apologize.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: Makwa ]

---

Makwa,

You do not need to apologize or explain your opinion of my post, and I appreciate you lessening your rhetoric from when you suggested I might just be a myopic "dumb fuck".

You are welcome to your opinion. I, obviously, firmly believe that domestic violence will not end until - in addition to men ending violent behavior against womyn, womyn decry violent behavior agaist men as committed by other womyn (I use your chosen terminology out of respect for the fact that I am the interloper in your environment). That is my opinion, and I am welcome to it.

And I appreciate the condolences, I loved her very much and we had talked about a potential relationship in our future. Her husband was a filthy urchin. He is so low that I cannot be moved to hate him.

And you know what? I told her oldest boy (who was not born to this father) that no matter what, he should never, ever hit his wife or his children if he is angry with them. I think we will both agree that this is a positive message.

Of course, I followed it up by saying that if his wife ever did that to him or his children, that he needed to get up and leave that relationship IMMEDIATELY. I guess we disagree on whether that was equally important to mention.

As for apologizing, I'm at a loss to understand what I have to apologize for. Is it because I "blew her cover" and made it harder for her, down the road, to lie about who she is for whatever reason?

And why is it not "bad form" for a 'babbler' to post a private email discussion for public ridicule? And why is it not "bad form" for a 'babbler' to try and encourage people to harass me by email because she disagrees with me?

Sorry, Makwa, I'm afraid that while an apology might yet come from me, the first apology is not.

If "being outed" is that much of a concern for people on your message board, then perhaps they should not post private emails for public ridicule, should not express a desire for violence to befall that person, and should not post that person's email address for the expressed purpose of having hate mail sent their way.

C.

[ 19 December 2005: Message edited by: CMousseau ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMousseau:
You do not need to apologize or explain your opinion of my post, and I appreciate you lessening your rhetoric from when you suggested I might just be a myopic "dumb fuck".

---

quote:

---

As for apologizing, I'm at a loss to understand what I have to apologize for. Is it because I "blew her cover" and made it harder for her, down the road, to lie about who she is for whatever reason? And why is it not "bad form" for a 'babbler' to post a private email discussion for public ridicule? And why is it not "bad form" for a 'babbler' to try and encourage people to harass me by email because she disagrees with me?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Makwa:
Agreed - two wrongs, not right - serin should apologize too, IMHO. Why not make nice and apologize first, particularly since you seem to be posting some rather incendiary anti-feminist ideas in a feminist forum. Anyway, Ima gonna shaadddap now, lest I get into 'buncha guys duking it out in the feminist forum agin' - prolly too late for that, sorry.

---

Makwa,

I've only posted my 'incenidary ideas' because I believe I was being treated VERY unfairly, having my privacy violated, and I wanted to at least let the record show what actually started the discussion. I have no desire to carry on things here out of respect for this being a pro-feminist forum, and invite private discussion off this forum done in good faith if anyone really wants to.

Seriously, can you explain to me what I did wrong? I honestly don't understand why what I did was wrong.

Consider a situation in which you've stated your point (and further assume that the stance is incorrect and/or made out of ignorance). Now let's assume that the responses you receive are all highly negative, the equivalent of "Hey, you're an ignorant a-hole." How will you respond? Are you more likely to switch your view, to say, "Ya know, you're right. I'm a complete idiot and my ideas are invalid"? I doubt it! People think they're right; I would wager that most people don't wake up in the morning and decide to be evil. We believe what we believe (for whatever reason) and will react defensively unless we're shown a different stance--hopefully in a respectful and/or helpful manner. Antagonism will never further the goal of egalitarianism. And when someone else feels like they're being singled out (whether or not you think they have a good reason for feeling that way), it might be useful to acknowledge that it is possible to object to generalizations based on gender (after all, isn't that part of the problem)?

I realize this isn't the most eloquent of responses, but I guess the point is that furthering any goal requires some patience and tolerance. I agree that it's frustrating to be in a position of having to explain something you feel should be self evident. It's annoying. It's isn't RIGHT. But it's necessary if we wish to reach a point when such explanations are no longer required...

Thanks!

Violence against men is very real, and I just hate seeing it happen. Healthy relationships are *not* violent, REGUARDLESS of gender, and it really disturbs me to see a problem ignored just because it doesn't happen as often as a different problem.

The bottom line is that violence of any kind, to any gender, race, age, religion, culture, orientation, etc. is just wrong. Period.

Same goes for that racism comment. Racism against whites is very real, and not the tiny problem you make it out to me. Actually, it's pretty much accepted, and even laughed about on tv. But it's not right. To paraphraze the King himself, I dream of a colorblind society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CMousseau:

First of all, Serendipity, why did you pretend to be a man when you emailed me?

I have a theory why that might be....

---

Your theory is so brilliant I don't even know where to start. Ross is my boyfriend, Einstein, I was standing over his shoulder and helped him write some of the emails. But damn, Charles, you're so smart for "outing" me.

Although, to be perfectly honest, I do feel bad that ross dismissed your friend as an anecdote. That was not me writing, and it does seem a bit too harsh on you. Apologies on his behalf, but you did drive him (and me) over the top with your otherwise inane arguments.

Edited for civilty.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Serendipity ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serendipity:

Your theory is so brilliant I don't even know where to start. Ross is my boyfriend, Einstein, I was standing over his shoulder and helped him write some of the emails. But damn, Charles, you're so smart for "outing" me.

---

So if that was him writing the emails, why did you quote what I wrote to "Ross" and then say:

quote:

---

I posted his email below. (And when he quotes ***me***, it's nearly always a misquote.)

---

Why wouldn't you say that your boyfriend, Ross, was emailing me? Why did you say even on this board (when you undoubtedly suspected I would simply never hear of your actions) that these were your words, from my email to you? Why did you not simply say "My boyfriend, Ross, was emailing this guy, and this guy said something asinine; what do you think of ..."

Why did not one of these people who may have known you say "Oh, that's Ross, it's her boyfriend"?

I'm sorry, but I simply don't believe you. I think the deception you exhibited by posting a heavily edited private email in a public forum you knew would dislike me shows me that I'm justified in not believing you.

And for the record, I did use the war analogy EXACTLY as Noctural Goddess suggested. Yes, women were justified in speaking up in having their one-in-a-thousand sacrifice in the Great War accounted for. It was small on the grand scale, but very important and very noble for each and every woman that made that sacrifice.

Yet, the proportion of woman who commit the worst, most pathological type of domestic violence against their male partners is higher by a factor of dozens-to-hundreds, to say nothing of the proportion of women who commit the more mundane kinds of domestic violence, which every study from Straus & Gelles in '79 on up suggests is virtually a 50/50 split.. yet here, women as a whole seem to be going the OTHER way, downplaying their role in the domestic abuse equation, going out of their way to portray it as a "man bad, woman good" problem.

This is wrong, this is just plain wrong, and it does more harm than good, as the innocent blood of Sarto Blais and others will attest to.

I am opposed to domestic violence because in all cases (male or female perp, male or female victim, gay or straight couple) it is a case of "bully vs victim", not "man vs woman".

And that is all I've ever tried to say, "Ross".

C.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: CMousseau ]

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: CMousseau ]

But the point still stands unchallenged. Sexist violence goes in one direction, and that direction is from men to women. Of course, there were plenty of murders of whites by blacks during 17th C America and many slave revolts, so I guess the next thing you'll say is that the racism of the Slave Era was a two-way street as well, huh? You're pathetic.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Serendipity ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Serendipity:
Why did I write through his account? Why did I only ask for help from babblers for the bits that I wrote? Gosh, Sherlock, I don't know what to tell you.

---

You can tell me why the "bits that you wrote" came to me in an email that said "You're a male, I'm a male, let's move on".

quote:

---

But the point still stands unchallenged. Sexist violence goes in one direction, and that direction is from men to women. Of course, there were plenty of murders of whites by blacks during 17th C America and many slave revolts, so I guess the next thing you'll say is that the racism of the Slave Era was a two-way street as well, huh? You're pathetic.

---

Last time I checked a calendar, this was not the 17th century, although it would explain your beliefs.

If sexist violence only goes from men to women, why do lesbian relationships have very comparable levels of domestic violence in them to those levels in man/woman relationships (Straus & Gelles, 1979 & 1990, and many others)?

Anticipating your reply, if a woman can "pretend to be a man" and be violent in a lesbian relationship, why is it such a stretch to imagine that a woman cannot do the same to her male partner, who cannot or will not defend himself thanks to those lovely 17th century social standards?

Edited for accuracy and civility.

C.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: CMousseau ]

How many men are assaulted by women, raped by women, how many boys are abused by their mothers and aunts? Probably happens. When it does, it's most certainly a tragedy.

I agree there is female-to-male violence. I will agree there is female-to-female violence.

I do not believe either (or both combined) even begin to equal the systematic and too-long-condoned virtually institutionalized violence by men against women.

When someone says "but women...." all I can see is someone who is trying to muddy the water and escape any sort of personal responsibility for not being more active in the struggle to stop violence. Period.

But I will admit, Charles, that I am a long-time committed radical feminist who has worked long weary hours and years to try to help provide some safe places for women and children who are attempting to flee male violence. And I will admit that those experiences and those years have made me cynical,hard-nosed and radical.

And I struggle with that. Because right now my first impulse is to tell you to fuck off and die. And I don't particularly approve of that sentiment nor do I feel the least bit proud to admit that it's one I hold.

Most of the violence in this society is committed by straight men.

Period.

That is a cancer.

The sum total of all the other violence done by gay men, lesbian women, or straight women isn't much more than a pimple on the arse of this society.

quote:

---

Originally posted by anne cameron:
When someone says "but women...." all I can see is someone who is trying to muddy the water and escape any sort of personal responsibility for not being more active in the struggle to stop violence. Period.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nocturnal Goddess:
Same goes for that racism comment. Racism against whites is very real, and not the tiny problem you make it out to me. Actually, it's pretty much accepted, and even laughed about on tv. But it's not right. To paraphraze the King himself, I dream of a colorblind society.

---

Also, CMousseau, from what I can see, Serendipity did post your e-mail address, which is wrong (but at least it didn't identify you). I've edited it out of her post. Your posting of her boyfriend's full name, however, is considered outing. Just because you have chosen to use your full name does not mean you get to make that decision for everyone else who posts here. I have edited out Ross's last name.

And I just want to reiterate how annoyed I am that this thread was even posted here in the feminism forum. This is the kind of thread that just begs father's rights nuts to come crawling out of the woodwork and spamming the feminism forum. You're not going to convince them - but I can't state strongly enough that if you want to try to achieve the impossible and engage these guys, do it on your own time, or maybe start a web site of your own on which to argue with them.

[ 21 December 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]