male acid attack victim538

Acid Attacks: Telling Only Half the Story

Acid attacks or vitriolage, we are made aware of them via the media on a regular basis. The effect of acid on human flesh is horrific to say the least.

The images most of us associate with the term acid attack are that of disfigured and deformed woman with horrendous scars where the acid has come into contact with their flesh. The effects, if the acid in the attack is strong enough or not neutralized quickly, are permanent.

Acid attacks are not new. In point of fact women have a rich history of using acid in their attacks.

Our resident historian, Robert St. Estephe, has documented a substantial list going back to 1865 when Margaret Boyle of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania threw acid in the face of her son-in law as he was not the man she had chose for her daughter.

It was the patriarchy matriarchy that forced Mrs Boyle to commit her crime, right?

And over at E Belfort Bax website we can find it referenced as well. The term used for acid by Bax was “vitriol.” Used primarily by women in his day.

Most of the news fed to us about this particularly heinous form of violence covers about 60% of the story today; about 40% of the victims are men. The feminist organizations feed it to the news groups and they in turn don’t bother checking the facts.

Feminists never blatantly lie about gender violence right?

Now since we know feminists don’t like admitting male victims exist It falls upon us to bring to the public’s attention the other approximate 40% of the victims.

The reasons for these attacks are not really all that important for this article. The reasons are never satisfactory unless a person’s life is in immediate danger. They have no safe escape and that is the only tool they have to defend themselves.

Beyond that I don’t care if your honour has been insulted, you were jilted by your spouse / lover, or whatever reasons a person may try and use to justify engaging in this crime.

ITS WRONG, no further discussion needed. Wrong if it happens to a woman and wrong if it happens to a man.

But our ‘moral betters‘ don’t seem to want to be as bold with their stand against these crimes as you and I are. They have force fed society the same old lie of only female victims. Maybe an odd male child, but other than that, the male victims are kept out of society’s view.

Its just the way feminism likes it so they can fill their coffers with donations and government grants for telling just over half the story.

However recently I stumbled across this article and found this quote;

“Forty percent of the acid attack victims in Pakistan are men or boys.”

I tried to track this number down but unfortunately the best I could find other than the quote from Sharon Behn is numbers from the Acid Survivors Foundation.

On their website they have a statistics tab.

The numbers for the year 2013 for acid attacks are 69 incidents of acid being used as a weapon and 85 victims.

Using a global population number of 6 billion the average person has a chance of 0.000001416 % of being a victim of one of the most vicious and heinous crimes know to humankind.

This crime is incredibly rare and for that I am glad. I wouldn’t wish this on the worst of the rad-fems.

On page 2 of their statistics tab we they break down the numbers for us; 28 men 44 women and 13 children were attacked with acid in 2013.

The report does not state whether the children were intended or unintended victims injured from being with the adults.

Assuming the children were unintended victims the total number of adults for 2013 is 72. Which means that 38.888% or about 40% of those acid attack victims were men.

On another acid survivors website from Cambodia they have numbers from 1999 – 2013. There numbers show that 40% of the adult victims were adult males, 44.8% were adult females, 7.3% were male children under the age of 13 and 8% were females under the age of 13.

Despite about 40% of the acid attack victims being male acid survivors foundation true to feminist form states:

“Acid violence is a form of gender based violence that reflects and perpetuates the inequality of women in society.”

And helping that lie spread was boosted by COMBATING ACID VIOLENCE IN BANGLADESH, INDIA, AND CAMBODIA 

This is subtitled as:

Report by the Avon Global Center for Women and Justice at Cornell
Law School, the Committee on International Human Rights of the New
York City Bar Association, the Cornell Law School International Human
Rights Clinic, and the Virtue Foundation

Notice the list of organizations who are helping promote this heinous lie that acid attacks is gender violence? All of them owe a duty of care to us, society to be honest but hey their feminists so that duty of care is tossed in the manure pile. Too bad their reports aren’t there too, where they belong.
Here is what these alleged groups wrote when describing acid attacks;

“Acid violence is gender-based violence that reflects and perpetuates the
inequality of women in society and as such is prohibited by international law

I call BULLSHIT. There is a about a 10% difference between the sexes in acid attacks. That is not gender based violence. Even if we include the children the percentage of men only drops down to just over 35% that is still not gender based violence.

And what about the criminals inflicting incredible human suffering you ask. Well it is not just men who are tossing acid on women:

Woman throws acid on sister-in-law over land dispute

Two women accused of plotting an acid attack that left a local woman disfigured have been found guilty

Just like every other feminist claim of gender-based violence this one too is a half truth. Omitting the male population from the awareness campaigns is the standard operating procedure of feminism.

To reference my compatriot, Robert St. Estephe again, please note: neither historically nor in modern times have acid attacks been something “men to do women.” It’s something people do to each other, in various times and places. If you doubt there’s anything weird or unusual about women using acid as a weapon, in addition to Robert’s other article (referenced above) see Three New York “Acid Queens” of 1901.

I’ve said it earlier in this article and I’ll say it again:

The feminist insistence of acid attack as male-to-female gender violence is BULLSHIT.

 

Editor’s note: acid victim photo by Zoriah, under Creative Commons license stipulated here.

About Dan Perrins

Dan "Dannyboy" Perrins, up until a few years ago, was blissfully ignorant of what was going on. Then a series of events demanded he either grab his ankles and let a corrupt "just-us" system have its way with him or take action. He chose the latter, and he is now the Ontario News Correspondent for AVFM News.

Main Website
View All Posts
  • Bewildered

    ” The feminist claim that acid attacks is gender violence is BULLSHIT.”

    UTTER BULLSHIT !

    But the mass idiocy that accepts their blatant lies is even more baffling.
    Goes to show that you need more than a label to be a true critical thinker.

    • Jared Spencer

      I couldn’t agree more.

      It’s like saying that throwing a rock is gender violence. It’s like saying that men are slapped exclusively by women all the time with zero exceptions period ever because slapping is only physically possible for a female….and that women are punched by men because punching is only done by men ever and always across the universe and the entirety of space-time period.

      Bollocks.

    • SlantyJaws

      I don’t think feminists claim to do much critical thinking. What they engage in instead is “critical theory”, a very different beast, although slyly named in a similar manner to add a veneer of legitimacy. I copied a good post from someone on this site on the matter, Tofeldian Sage:

      “(Don’t be confused by the word ‘theory’; it doesn’t mean what you think it ought to) In Critical Theory, one simply tears at any scholarly piece of work, using any and every means available. One is not required to provide anything constructive in the process.”

      It’s the rhetorical equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALA as loudly as you can.

      Seriously.

      Creationists use it too, basically anyone without a leg to stand on finds it a useful device, also known as the Gish Gallop.

      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

      The origins of this tactic can be traced back to, who else, the Marxists.

      • whiic

        I also thought of Creationists being pretty equivalent to having something similar to “Critical” “Theory” (and you can use the quotation marks for irony on both words separately because neither part is factual).

        Be if Creationists of Feminists, their “Critical Theory” or religious apology pretty much follows the patter: take any work, be it scientific or cultural, historical or present day, serious or work of comedy… then tear it apart using their dogma and their assumed premises which they either just assume or “prove” via circular reasoning. Then using these premises they “mock” the piece of literature because it doesn’t match their unfounded premises.

        They also quotemine stuff: Cretionists like to quotemine stuff that would let you believe Darwin/Dawkins/Einstein/whomever was a devout and fundamental believer. They can take Einstein’s pantheistic Spinozism and turn it into Judeo-Christian faith. Or they quotemine Darwin and say he doubted his own findings, leaving the context of the sentence. Or assume that acceptance of the fact that species have evolved by survival of the fittest would unavoidably lead to the political ideology of social Darwinism (i.e is-ought fallacy).

        MHRAs deal with all the same. You talk about historic gender-roles to debunk some victim myths or in attempt to understand how even modern society is still affected by them => you WILL be called a misogynist for (supposedly) wanting to support a society that is based on those gender roles. And if that already wasn’t blatantly incorrect, in addition to that, they also express it in an exaggerated fashion by bringing “returning women to between the stove and the fist” (despite the fact that even the “historical oppression of women” didn’t have it that way, nor was it even an oppression for women to be “forced” to stay at home when the man worked in a coal mine or fought a war he couldn’t refuse to participate in (but is today blamed for existing only because of him)).

        You say something with an “if X then Y”, where you oppose X, they will claim you support X, and they have a direct, letter-to-letter quote from you. Minus use “if” and anything that follows after “then”. Obviously that’s not just ideological thinking but total dishonesty but when vast majority of readers won’t check the quote source, they get away with it. When Einstein rejected the label of Atheism over Agnosticism, and said to believe in pantheistic god of Spinoza and strongly opposed to the idea of human-like god (i.e “the God”, Allah or other monotheistic one) or gods (polytheism)… what would a Creationist quotemine? Well, Einstein did believe in god! “CHECKMATE!

        And Feminism does all the same to deserve ridicule by everyone. They just get a lot less because they wear a pretty, neotenous face, which we are socially conditioned to attribute to a child without agency. We may LOL at the idea, but we don’t hold them responsible for them. We just laugh and move on. Forgive it instantly.

        (And I do find it ironic how Feminists want women to be taken seriously because not being taken seriously (thus receiving immunity from differing opinion) is the ONLY reason why Feminism has become a de-facto state doctrine in the first world countries – because anything else is subject to public ridicule. Feminism you are allowed to ridicule only within your mind, or with close group of people who think the same way (and which is probably why which “men’s spaces” are hostile toward gender ideologues).

  • The Real Peterman

    Great work! It’s hard to take feminist claims at face value but it’s nice to have solid numbers as backup.

  • Winstone

    Some italian men have been recently victim of acid attacks, and they are being ignored by institutions because they are men:

    http://it.avoiceformen.com/propaganda-femminista/william-pezzullo-napolitano/

  • http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com Robert St. Estephe

    Feminists succeed in their lie campaigns not because they are female. They succeed because the bureaucracies of the government and the NGOs are unaccountable, authoritarian and deeply corrupt. The only way to boycott tax-payer supported organs of authoritarian coercion is to DEFUND them. The universities provide a good target for the time being. Their corruption and their campaigns of civil rights violations (including using illegal political blacklists over several decades to enforce political conformity in faculties).

    We need to adopt a zero tolerance policy towards the education industry’s corruption.

    Every penny spent on political monopolization of educational discourse is a penny spent towards furthering human rights violations.

    • Duke

      These Massive American Bureaucratic triangles of perversions / lies /and manufactured statistics erroneously believe they have become sovereign nations that no longer answer to the US constitution.

  • Duke

    Fortunately Dan we live in the very first age of widespread use of the internet, which is going to be the first time in US history where the average citizen can challenge the top / down type of media, and any sort of organised top/down media bias.
    organised media bias’s similar in scope and style to What Dr Farrell termed “media lace curtain” type organised bias.

    • MGTOW-man

      We had better use this medium to its max while we can. If one looks at history, when the women snivel and whimper, men do some stupid things to please them. Men will sell (give) down the river that of their own voices and free speech. They will do this deliberately or unwittingly, duped or on purpose…but it will come to pass. Censorship of the net free of truth that which feminists fear its dispersal is coming soon.

      Mark that word!

      If I am wrong, then it it will go against the grain of history and natural biology which is not very likely.

      The feelings of women (ultimately, that IS what we are talking about here and fighting) apparently trump the rights of males. We have always seen it and we will continue for a long time still to come.

      Just being a realist. Ugly, isn’t it? Things will get a lot worse before it gets better.

  • East1956

    An incident in London in 2013 that rather proves the point that acid attacks are not a “patriarchal” crime against women.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/london-acid-attack-mary-konye-guilty-of-attack-on-naomi-oni-9080845.html

  • Jared Spencer

    I, personally, would be far far far more likely to imagine a woman (girl) splashing acid on the pretty pretty face of a rival (woman-girl) or enemy than a man doing so out of malice.

    I know that statistically men do a lot of this vile shit, but that is (within my understanding) usually carried out by those not fully integrated into or a product of western societies and are, if what I read is correct, products of cultural conditions that I cannot relate to and so shall not comment sharply upon.

    Anyone care to expand my understanding of that or am I getting warm?

    • dcanaday

      A while back I read, “Comanche: History of a People” by T.R. Fehrenbach. He described one instance where a Comanche band had kidnapped a white girl. She was pretty and exotic, so the men took an interest in her. The Comanche women didn’t like this very much so they came up with an effective solution. They held her down and burned her nose off. Problem solved. So yeah, it’s not hard to imagine acid attacks as a chick on chick thing.

  • elliottk

    I normally like your work Dan, but that’s some lazy ass analysis of the stats. It’s hugely disingenuous to suggest that the Bangladeshi children could be assumed as unintentional victims – it clearly says that 9/13 were attacked for refusing marriage, love, or sex, and 2/13 over land disputes. I don’t know about the land disputes, but given the structure of Bangladesh, it’s pretty damn likely that those 9 were probably girls.

    Also, while your example of Cambodia has 40% adult males were victims, it is unlikely that the same can be said globally. I think Jared Spencer’s comment is probably spot on – this is a cultural thing. This article (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24835910) suggests that UK men are twice as likely to be victims of acid attacks than women, due to the gang violence which is prevalent here.

    In the Combating Violence report, you may note that they also responded to perpetrator stats – “…men are acid attack perpetrators in Bangladesh in at least 80% of cases. In contrast, in Cambodia, it appears that women may commit acid attacks as often as do men.” They acknowledged that women can be on parity attackers. Even if stats can lie, it’s probably better than just using a bunch of (albeit well researched) anecdotes and making global assumptions about them.

    Though if your data analysis wasn’t great, it did lead me to the ASF vision – “ASF is a centre of excellence with a vision of Bangladesh free from acid violence, where burn victims, especially women and children, live with dignity”. That is f*cked up.

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

      Elliot,
      Check the part that says “even if we include the number of children we have a number of 35%”
      Did you miss that part?

    • codebusters

      >” it clearly says that 9/13 were attacked for refusing marriage, love, or sex, and 2/13 over land disputes.”
      How might this imply that Dan’s inference is incorrect? We are talking about a very different culture where arranged marriages are commonplace and where refusing marriage, love or sex can easily be turned on its head when comparing against a hypersexualized, pornogrified western culture. Also a dowry system might have a bearing on how land disputes play out. I’m not understanding how this supports your criticism of Dan’s analysis as lazy.
      I’ve done a little bit of research myself on the dynamics taking place in these cultures, and mothers and mothers-in-laws can often be the instigators of violence that is typically carried out by men (sons and son-in-laws), in the spirit of violence-by-proxy.

  • http://www.imnotamensrightsactivistbut.wordpress.com Isaac T. Quill

    Nearly twice as many men as women are being injured in acid attacks in England, hospital figures suggest.

    Surgeons treating acid burn victims say male injuries are often related to gang violence or criminal activity.

    Eighty-one male patients were treated in hospital due to corrosive substance assaults in 2012-13. The figure for women was 49.

    BBC News – November 2013

  • JGteMolder

    Great article, but it’s not “men to do women”, but “men do to women”, in the second to last paragraph. Not a correction on the concept, but a correction on the words.

  • Sad Dad

    I can’t stand load mouth feminists and their idiology! You could show the proof to them they are wrong but they have blinders on, it’s not that they can’t see the proof they won’t see it. And I know men like that too!

  • http://www.CanadaCourtWatch.com Attila L. Vinczer

    There is a strong correlation between funding and the gender that is said to be the victim of acid attacks. It is based on cash, not fact or reality. The only reality is to justify the cash-flow. You must either have facts to support that women are the sole victims of acid attacks, or fabricate those facts or skew the facts.

    Excellent article Dan!

    • Rob

      “There is a strong correlation between funding and the gender that is said to be the victim of acid attacks” this is happening with several charities/pressure group whereby the funding is dependent on victimhood. The more dramatic the better.

  • MGTOW-man

    I think we are so careful not to be “sexist or bigoted” (two highly subjective, human mind-made terms that do not usually run so valid in bio-nature terms) that we are overlooking an important thing about women. Could it be that they do not see how wrong the are….that they have let their feelings hijack the rest of their otherwise rational selves?

    Sure, some feminists HAVE to see the wrong in their stuff, but is it possible that even they have feelings that will talk them out of looking too deep in that direction? There has to be a reason for why so many women (that would be about all of them, more or less) who do the obvious wrongs here? Perhaps we need to stop being afraid to be honest about women’s feelings. I mean, if it is their feelings that are messing up everything, then it is fair game to call them out on it. They would us!

    Sure, some of them definitely have to know that men are the victims of violence… and from women too… but since their feelings overwhelm them about how THEY/WOMEN get treated, they stop short of allowing it it surface fully in their minds, thus, run away with “gender violence” for women only.

    Not until we address this phenomenon in women, reach them with it too, will we be able to permanently stop the tendrils of feminism from strangling everything. It is absolutely the interface between success or not.

  • http://fathers4fairness.blogspot.ca/ fathers4fairness

    I noted 2 acid attacks reported over the last 2 years.

    1) Cruel acid revenge. Disclosure that it was an attack perpetrated by a young Muslim women on another women was not obvious initially. It took a few reports after the attack including the trial to decipher this critical fact.
    http://fathers4fairness.blogspot.ca/2013/10/cruel-acid-revenge.html

    2) WA woman threw acid on self – Police. Another example of “False Allegation” – initial story was an attack to gain sympathy (or perhaps something else. We know women will do some pretty strange things to avoid being held accountable for their actions. Perhaps she wanted an alibi or distraction for a boyfriend.)
    http://fathers4fairness.blogspot.ca/2010/09/wa-woman-threw-acid-on-self-police.html

    • http://www.youtube.com/user/DannyboyCdnMRA Dan Perrins

      The whole point of my article is that this is a complex issue that is not as simple as feminism would have it made out to be.
      Its wrong no matter who the victim is, or the criminal.
      Conflicting numbers, It really is hard to nail it down exactly, but we sure as hell can’t let feminism take care of it they’ve failed miserably, multiple times, over many issues males face.

      • Rob

        “The whole point of my article is that this is a complex issue that is not as simple as feminism would have it made out to be.
        Its wrong no matter who the victim is, or the criminal.”

        think you have made it pretty clear.

        acid throwing like so many other forms of abuse and violence has NEVER being gender based.

        violence/abuse has never distinguished the gender of who should be the recipient adn who should be the perpetrator.

        anyway thank you for the englightenment, always thought acid attacks were against women predominately thanks to the bias in the lazy media

  • evinayak

    thanks for the detailed & awakening post

  • Mandy Link

    Oh please. Unveil your women and treat them as equal humans and then try the boohoo sob story again. Arrange a marriage for a 5 yr old and then tell me again how many male victims there are. I will for certain say if I were treated the way the women in these countries are I’d probably want to throw acid on you as well!

    • J.G. te Molder

      Oh, wow. Talk about a narcissistic, sociopathic misandrist.

      I’m glad you don’t live anywhere near me.

      • Scatmaster

        She probably does in one form or another.
        Feminists are psycho.

    • OldandNavy

      I can tell that you hold your own culture high above many others. Must be comforting.

      Ignorance is bliss. I urge you to do some (non western sourced) reading on the subjects you are so upset about.

      That is not to say that I see, in some other groups, social and cultural practices that I find everywhere from distasteful to disgusting…I’m just hesitant to condemn what I don’t understand fully enough to judge.

      Go with your hubris if you must but I’m not done reading yet. Different is not worse and I can TELL you first hand that women of many cultures click their tongues at the state of western women. They wrong?

    • Peter Wright

      “…I’d probably want to throw acid on you as well!”

      Listen Mandy, you may be used to getting a free pass when celebrating violence on feminist forums, but we have a zero tolerance of it here. And with that you are now banned.

      • Bill98

        Thank you for that. Trolls are bad enough, but she’s the worst sort, since she seems to truly believe the inflammatory nonsense that she posts.

    • codebusters

      Typical victim narrative. Get your facts straight. Women have to unveil themselves. Irrespective of whether you talk about the hijab or burkha or other form of veiling, these are typically matriarchal initiatives… women WANT to wear them. It’s a form of control, keeping men in their place.

    • Rob

      “Unveil your women and treat them as equal humans and then try the boohoo sob story”

      How ignorant do you have to be to write such rubbish?

      how many people ( men and women) were veiled??

      veil at most is in muslim arab countries( and even then most likely in the gulf arab countries)

      even my muslim wife would never wear a veil.

      i lived in three major muslim countries in the world and there would not even that many veiled women.

      just to pop your bubble of ignorance.

      “”if I were treated the way the women in these countries are I’d probably want to throw acid on you as well”

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25867695

      tell me which one of these women were veiled?
      i give you a clue one was the victim and one was the perpetrator and none were veiled.

      and in case you are hard of learning, this took place in the UK.

      so for future reference please kindly engage your brain before opening your mouth

      thank you

  • Peter Wright

    Quote about the practice of actid thworing (“vitriol” throwing) from the year 1913 by Ernest B. Bax:
    http://ernestbelfortbax.com/2014/01/25/4-always-the-injured-innocent/

    “Now here we have a substance subserving only very special purposes in
    industry, none in household economy, or in other departments, save for
    criminal ends, which is nevertheless procurable without let or
    hindrance. Is it possible to believe that this would be the case if men
    were in the habit of using this substance in settling their differences
    with each other, even still more if they employed it by way of
    emphasising their disapproval of the jilting of sweethearts? That it
    should be employed by women in wreaking their vengeance on recalcitrant
    lovers seems a natural if not precisely a commendable action, in the
    eyes of a Sentimental Feminist public opinion, and one which, on the
    mildest hypothesis, “doesn’t matter.” Hence a deadly substance may be
    freely bought and sold as though it were cod-liver oil. A very nice
    thing for dastardly viragoes for whom public opinion has only the
    mildest of censures! In any reasonable society the indiscriminate sale
    of corrosive substances would in itself be a crime punishable with a
    heavy term of imprisonment… From The News of the World, 9th May 1909: A nurse in Belfast sued her lost swain for breach of promise. She
    obtained £100 damages although it was admitted by her counsel that she
    had thrown vitriol over the defendant, thereby injuring him, and the
    defendant had not prosecuted her! Also it was admitted that she had been “carrying on” with another man. From The Morning Leader
    of 8th July 1905 I have taken the following extraordinary facts as to
    the varied punishment awarded in cases of vitriol-throwing: That of a
    woman who threw vitriol over a sergeant at Aldershot, and was sentenced
    to six months’ imprisonment without hard labour while a man who threw it
    over a woman at Portsmouth was tried and convicted at the Hants
    Assizes, on 7th July 1905, and sentenced by Mr Justice Bigham to twelve
    years’ penal servitude! As regards the first case it will be observed
    that, (notwithstanding a crime, which in the case of a man was described
    by the judge as “cowardly and vile” and meriting twelve years’ penal
    servitude) the woman was rewarded by damages for £100, to be obtained
    from the very victim whom she had done her best to maim for life
    (besides being unfaithful to him) and who had generously abstained from
    prosecuting.

  • OldandNavy

    You aren’t making it sound very hard. The POINT if the above is to illustrate that things like acid attacks are an issue that both men and women face. Things that both men and women initiate and carry out.

    The point is that this isn’t the gender specific victimization of women that popular fiction err the media would narrate it as.

    There doesn’t have to be a winner’s circle for who can edge the other out as being statistically more likely to face violence brand A or B.

    This isn’t a biggest victim contest.

    • James Sandham

      you are right, it is certainly not a victim contest. but when the author’s own statistics indicate that the crime is carried out against women significantly more often than men by a ratio of 60% to 40%, it seems odd that he would fixate on the simple fact that there are both male and female victims, when the question that begs to be answered is why women are so disproportionately affected by this. this is why the men’s rights movement baffles me: it seems to expend such great energy on non-issues, while remaining stubbornly oblivious to the obvious injustices its members could instead help to solve.

  • Peter Wright

    “suffice it to say that this whole “men’s rights movement” thing continues to baffle me.

    This may help you understand why you are baffled – Alison Tieman explains how we are unable to think past “men are actors” and “women are acted upon” – this even when presented with an up-close picture of a male acid victim.

    http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/mens-rights-versus-feminism-explained-using-magnets/

  • Peter Wright

    BBC NEWS ARTICLE

    http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/70951000/jpg/_70951007_acidattackoldham.jpg

    Nearly twice as many men as women are being injured in acid attacks in England, hospital figures suggest.

    Eighty-one male patients were treated in hospital due to corrosive substance assaults in 2012-13. The figure for women was forty-nine.

    Feminists are falling behind in thier fact-checking, it seems.

    • OldandNavy

      Huh. Who throws acid I a modern western nation anyway? More jacked up does one need to be to think….”Yeah…I’m going to throw A corrosive compound on that mo’ fo’.”

      It would have honestly never even occurred to me, out of the rainbow of ways to harm another person. That (unnecessary violence) really isn’t what I’m into…but still…doesn’t exactly pop in there.

      • Ted Harrold

        Who throws acid on men? Who forgets to fact check the figures? Who rigs every oscar night?

        Seriously, kudos to Dannyboy for openly statin he’d never wish an acid attack on the worst radfem, cause it’s not a fuckin claim I’ll make.

        • OldandNavy

          I really don’t think I could wish that on anyone, as well. Who knows – I don’t hate anyone that much (hope I never do) but life is long and I have time.

  • Joseph G

    This isn’t an academic article. And seriously, what the fuck does “juggling figures without doing the hard work” actually mean? Sound’s like a pseudo intellectual passive aggressive way of saying you don’t like it. I mean shit, you couldn’t even use capital fucking letters and you want to sound all intellectual ‘n shit? And since you missed the point of the article I’d imagine a hell of a lot baffles you. Do the rest of us a favour and stop voting.

    • James Sandham

      you are quite right, joseph, this isn’t an academic article and it certainly isn’t a scientific analysis of the phenomenon in question: it is (imo) one man trying to manipulate the statistics of a tragic crime so as to support the narrative that there is some sort of “feminist” conspiracy (or at the very least, bias) in the the mainstream media’s coverage of the issue. your personal and presumptive attacks on my intelligence aside, my point was simply that the limited statistics the author does provide do not support his position: they state that acid attacks are disproportionately carried out on women (60% as opposed to 40% for men). hence my bafflement, for this seems to counter his own position. as for the mainstream media’s coverage of the issue, the disproportionate victimization of women would therefore seem to explain their slant: this is a crime disproportinately carried out against women – so how come? what underlying social or cultural structures cause this? as for the broader phenomenon of acid attack in general, there certainly seem to be mainstream media sources reporting on that as well – ex. the Voice of America article linked to in the article. my bafflement, therefore, is about why the author seems to think the male victims in particular are of such salience when it has been established that this is a crime carried out against both genders, but against women in particular? does that sound reasonable or am i missing something integral to this article?

  • Peter Wright
  • Peter Wright
  • Cenobite

    I believe that the article is more of a rebuttal of reports that contain the fallacy of observational selection, and suppressed evidence. In the vernacular of the author the article is about, “calling bullshit.” The “hard work,” is in the sited data, linked in the article its self. The point here is not to argue who is on the receiving end of this violence more because as the author points out it is universally wrong no matter who does it. The purpose is to draw attention to the observational selection, and suppressed evidence that is all too often made by feminists. If all you got from the article was that women are affected more than men it does not surprise me that you are baffled.

  • PlainOldTruth

    Here is a little sample of what no university or government-supported human rights organization will tell you about.

    Acid Queens: Women Who Throw Acid (a sampling of cases 1865-2012).
    http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/2011/08/acid-queens-women-who-throw-acid.html

    Request. Please give some time to studying this material and please make an effort to get some of this information “out there.” The gate-keeping, fraud, misrepresentation and intentional deprivation of rights that is practiced by orthodox politically correct indoctrinees is worse than most of us ever imagined. It will take a lot of work to overcome the so-called “progressive” hoaxes.

  • dkmeller

    As long as gender based assault and battery, or attempted murder violence is the issue, one may reasonably ask are women who mutilate, torture, or murder men through acid attacks punished as severely as men who do this to women? Are women who inflict this terrible abuse on children (of either sex) prosecuted to the full extent of the law, as men are-and should be-or do they get a “pussy-pass” for being female?

    “Enquiring minds want to know”!

  • HeraSentMe

    You fail to make your case. You don’t say how many of the male victims were attacked by men, or how many of the female victims were attacked by women. You don’t say if the attacks differed by motivation. If a man throws acid on another man because of a business dispute, it has nothing to do with the fact that acid attacks on women are most often made by spurned men or their disgruntled family members, or as a result of a dispute over a dowry.
    The fact that acid attacks on women that were reported in the Western media were (according to you) few in number ignores the effect the threat can have on those not actually attacked. In the American South, lynching a black man had as much to do with frightening other black men as it did with punishing the actual victim.
    Most of your examples of women attacking men with acid happened over a century ago. You just seem to rant about “feminism” not taking acid attacks on men as seriously as attacks on women. That’s an odd position to take. An organization that exists to fight against attacks on women will of course emphasize them – that’s what it’s for.
    Organizations that fight antisemitism naturally talk about mistreatment of Jews. Those that fight homophobia naturally talk about mistreatment of gays. etc. etc. They aren’t discriminating by not talking about mistreatment of gentiles or straight people, they’re just doing what they set out to do.
    Speaking of which, I don’t exactly see equal time discussion about women and their troubles here. Does that mean I should holler “BULLSHIT” too?

    • J.G. te Molder

      Let’s say for a moment you are actually right about the attacks; how come you are criticizing us? Are we not an organization that advocates for the rights of men? Are we then not supposed emphasize those victims the same way each of those organizations you mentioned favour their pet victim? If you are right, are we not doing the exact same thing?

      Should you not be applauding us the way you applaud them?

      Oh, right; double standards. Male victims don’t matter, and anyone who cares about male victims are evil and anti-women, right? So only organizations that emphasize women, and demographics that feminism and post-modernism has deigned weak, pathetic, useless, and thus proper victims, and thus permissible to care for, are allowed, shocker of shocker, even when they are men; for a short while now of course.

      Misandry, and hateful ideological dogma in action.

      • HeraSentMe

        HE was complaining about women-oriented organizations being primarily concerned with women’s issues. Among other things, I pointed out the absurdity of doing so on a website primarily concerned with men’s issues.

        Your inability (or refusal) to read for comprehension isn’t my problem.

        • J.G. te Molder

          No, he wasn’t; he was complaining that victims not of the preferred demographic are entirely ignored, silenced, made to disappear through wilfully producing a victim-narrative where only women are victims, and only men are perpetrators by feminists. That’s an entirely different thing from focusing on a specific demographic of victims for whatever reason. You can focus on one demographic without erasing the other victims.

          Also, no, you spent your entire rant complaining he was focusing on men, as if that is vile and evil, as if he was doing what feminists are doing and erasing all women victims. He did not such thing anywhere in the article.

          So you can take your complaint about reading comprehension, and go check the mirror.

          • HeraSentMe

            That’s not what he said. Anybody can read his essay and see that.
            You’re simply determined to endorse any anti-feminist statement, no matter how fact free, internally inconsistent or hilariously unself-aware its maker is.
            In other words, you’re a fanatical ideologue, as bad as those you claim exist on and control “the other side”, and not worth bothering with further.

            Have a nice day.

          • J.G. te Molder

            Because the links to evidence in the article equals “fact free”.

            Once again; look in the mirror.

  • http://www.avoiceformen.com/ David King

    Everybody has the right to express their opinions (within the limits of the comment policy), but everybody also gets to take the consequences for what they say.

    Some things said, as with some behaviour, will get you banned. Since the very same conditions apply to men, it’s not discrimination — it’s just the rules.

  • Carole Di Tosti

    My friend who is an Indian American citizen told me a story that a WOMAN who loved her uncle and who had gently been spurned by him…had blinded him in an acid attack and the event destroyed him…eventually he died of a broken heart. She told me in 1984…it was the first time I had heard of such a thing happening. Clearly, this happens to men and women. I for one think it is puerile to put percentages on this terrible act. “Feminists” don’t help matters by making it a “vicitim” attack by men. I wish we could go beyond the divisiveness of gender issues. But…I am happy for you here…speaking out. I can understand. Bottom line…I think when men and women are able to be partners and help one another and encourage one another and be each other’s friends…it is the most solid relationship in the world…and an overcoming relationship. Now, who or what does not want that? That is not a rhetorical question, by the way. But I realize that I sound stupid, foolish and ridiculous, I guess. Sorry. Just wanted to say that there are women out there…who feel the same as I do and may appear stupid, foolish and ridiculous to think that way..

  • Rob

    “However, globally it is estimated that 80% of victims are female.”

    perhaps you might want to read those words again

    the hospital figures were recorded and are therefore more reliable than estimated.

    the key word is estimated.

    estimations are now turning out to be heavily biased dependng on the terms of reference and not subjected to peer review or scruntity.

    the article has already proven that point.

    maybe google the stats correlation on storks and babies. a former statistician for BP told me of a case in the 1970s whereby a statistician released a report which stated that an increase in storks sighting correlated with the increase in number of births, therefore it can be concluded that storks deliver babies

    the “estimated” is about as meaningful as 8 out of 10 cats.

  • Peter Wright

    Well said Rob – Estimates are guestimates that feminists pull out of thier ass. 80% victims, yeah right, lol.