So apparently according to my 20-something associates this article is a huge anti-gay slur, which is surprising because it's an article about how straight women suffer less relationship violence if they engage in stable marriages to men vice a series of boyfriends.
I'm not sure I understand what the connection is supposed to be, really, but apparently it's really offensive. You shouldn't consider it at all, even if you limit marriage to a "straight" context, which obviously would be totally wrong and immoral (you are expected to dispense with essentially all human history here).
So, you know, don't read it. Or if you do, don't think about it.
I think a lot of people should actually read the linked reports.
ReplyDeleteIs the decrease in violence from living with a married Dad a cause? (married dads protect women and girls)? Or an effect (women - mostly whiter, more educated, and more wealthy are more likely to marry in the first place. That general demographic is overrepresented in married couples and underrepresented in samples of women living with boyfriends)?
I suspect both interpretations would be equally distressing to the brand of feminist who seems to think women have some vague, unspecified "natural right" to do whatever they please, regardless of the dangers.
*sigh*
Japan is supposed to be safe for a 1st world economy, but a lot of it has to do with individual initiative, not top down social rules.
ReplyDeleteTheir police aren't afraid to box themselves in police boxes every few blocks, alone and without backup, in order to respond more quickly to insurgencies and criminals.
The men are taught to escort all women home, so they aren't left alone in the evenings and nights on the streets.
Without these elements and more in addition (such as the criminal agencies sometimes having honor and not merely greed, vis a vis distributing emergency supplies in emergencies better than the national gov), Japan's Sword and Gun Control laws would be ineffective.
A lot of people import guns from America, strangely enough, there. And the US FBI is involved in Japanese affairs too, which I had thought a fiction but turned out was not.
A father or husband may not be able to protect a woman 24/7, but by providing emotional support, the woman may begin doing less risky actions or begin considering violence as a real threat. They won't have to feel a need to assert their independence or social status in the eyes of their peers, by running around New York at night with headphones on. Or going after "bad boy" boyfriends for a source of authority and protection.
The fear of rape is what several women have said made them consider voting Democrat, and caused them to also never to consider voting Republican. It was a fear and emotional issue, block. They didn't feel comfortable enough to have choices, so they felt their only choice was to stick with the devil they knew. Robin of Berkley made mention of it, personally. Others have also.
The Left's weapons trial with the psychotherapists, has turned into a modern application and weapon that is usable against 50% of the human population. This fundamental fear is a resource they work with to improve political and economic domination. And it's probably also convenient that their Muslim rape squads and their black criminal overlord gangs, are also responsible for much of the inner city violence. Well, the Muslims are at least responsible in France and Sweden. Perhaps that will be replaced with Mexicans over the border, for the US version of the same.
To tell the truth, I've never known a woman who was struck by either a boyfriend or a husband, that I knew about. I did have three different friends who were raped, or had a sibling who was raped, by a family member. One had an incestuous relationship with her father, another's brother was routinely raped by her stepfather, and another was raped by her brother. What the mothers in these households were thinking, I can't imagine.
ReplyDeleteWhether it's marriage itself that's protective, I don't know. It does strike me as plausible that parents who marry are a little more grounded in the basics of carrying out adult duties instead of viewing the more vulnerable members of their households as convenient targets for their free-floating fury or sexual appetite.
But back to Grim's original point: what has any of this got to do with homosexuality? I noticed that the WaPo comments were pretty furious, but mostly the issue seemed to be annoyance at any argument that single women should have to marry in order to be safe. Whatever is bothering your 20-something associates is opaque to me!
To tell the truth, I've never known a woman who was struck by either a boyfriend or a husband, that I knew about.
ReplyDeleteWow - I've known tons of them. Worked with quite a few, ran into it again and again in the military.
I'm not sure what this has to do with homosexuality, really. Lesbians living with a girlfriend weren't more likely to suffer abuse. Male homosexuals living with a boyfriend *were* more likely to suffer abuse.
The common thread here is that some men are dangerous and violent. Others aren't. It behooves people to behave appropriately.
I find it endlessly diverting that so many conservative authors deliberately frame ambiguous study results in a way that implies direct causation rather than stressing correlation. I am convinced that overall, men (and women) who marry are probably a nonrepresentative sample - more responsible on average, less violent on average, probably less dysfunctional on average.
There's considerable selection bias at work, just as there is with college grads.
Grim has often noted the "some men are dangerous" point, so he has some credibility on this issue. Feminists and reactionary conservatives make the same dumb arguments - i.e., their favored identity group ought to be able to behave with reckless disregard for real world consequence and if they encounter one of those consequences, it's somehow a tragedy and deeply "unfair".
Increasingly I find myself firmly in the "a pox on both their houses" camp.
...and by "some" credibility, I meant "considerably". Being too subtle there, I was.
ReplyDeleteI can't tell what anyone is going to get upset about anymore. My scorecard went through the washing machine last week, and I can't do a thing on the 'net without it. Perhaps "married families have less domestic violence" is anti-gay the same way that "women should be encouraged to learn some sort of self-defense" is pro-rape-culture victim shaming.
ReplyDeleteLittleRed1
Perhaps "married families have less domestic violence" is anti-gay the same way that "women should be encouraged to learn some sort of self-defense" is pro-rape-culture victim shaming.
ReplyDelete*snort* :)
I find the "selection bias" theory plausible--the same people who tend to marry and settle down are the ones who are perhaps less likely to be socially marginal enough to beat up members of their households (though obviously I'm speaking only in the broadest terms, on average, since most people who don't marry and settle down also don't beat up and rape other people, either). But then I also find the theory plausible that there are atavistic human impulses that make it safer for men to share households with their own children, on average, than for them to try to raise those of other men. Beyond these seat-of-the-pants reactions, I haven't found the data tremendously persuasive one way or the other.
ReplyDeletePS--It's strange, isn't it, that I have no personal contact with domestic violence against adults, but considerable contact with rape of minors by family members? I have no idea why that would be. I take it that's not a usual pattern?
ReplyDeleteOK, I think I've tracked it down. Apparently the author (Wilcox) has also written about gay adoption, and is part of an organization that supports the traditional definition of marriage.
ReplyDeleteSo, anything he says about marriage must perforce be anti-gay. Somehow. I gather they know all this stuff about his association with non-right-thinking organizations, but not much about his arguments. (They were aware chiefly of the headline, which the author doesn't even write.)
Priming is a powerful phenomenon, Grim. It scares me more than a little that so many young people seem unable to separate the person from the argument. Bad people make valid arguments and good people make a great many terrible arguments.
ReplyDeleteActually, Tex, I think most reported rapes are of young girls and teens so I suspect it's not at all uncommon.
People don't talk about it as much, I suspect. It is a bit surprising in that people are more likely to talk about domestic abuse than incest or rape.
It isn't just young people Cass. I see it everywhere.
ReplyDeleteGo check out Buzzfeed's coverage of the reaction to JK Rowling and David Bowie opposing Scottish independence.
It isn't just young people Cass. I see it everywhere.
ReplyDeleteYou're right, Eric. I do too, but somehow I felt better about confining that observation to just kids.
We're living in a Buzzfeed and Twitter world nowadays: a centimeter deep and a mile wide. Doesn't bode well for our future.
The 'bad company fallacy".
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be endemic -if someone ever expressed an opinion with which I disagree,every opinion he will ever express is suspect. How extremely convenient.
While I think it's a common human problem, young people are indoctrinated to be this way by our culture and educational system under the guise of tolerance and social justice.
ReplyDeleteI understand that the studies don't establish causation. That said, marriage & having kids can seriously change people. For the most part, when my friends have gotten married and had kids, they have become a lot more responsible and considerate of others.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the correlation is not just marriage, but biological mother and father being married. So if there is selection bias, it goes deeper than just the decision to get married.
I agree with you, Tom.
ReplyDeleteI wanted to write about this yesterday but didn't have time. Hopefully I can get to it today.
I look forward to reading it.
ReplyDeleteStill planning on it - have just been too busy to collect my thoughts. So glad you wrote about this, Grim. I had seen it, but just didn't have the time to do anything with it.
ReplyDelete