Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: lkanneg on Sep 27, 2005, 07:42 PM

Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 27, 2005, 07:42 PM
Anybody on here ever seen this article before?  Know anything about the author?  

http://www.xyonline.net/relate.shtml
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Quasimodo on Sep 27, 2005, 07:56 PM
Michael Flood is the anti-Fathers' Rights Antichrist from down under.

Here is a link to his "fan club." (http://forum.dadsontheair.com/index.php)
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: alien on Sep 27, 2005, 07:57 PM
As soon as I read the man-who-hates-being-a-man's name I stopped. Michael Flood a prisoner of his own gender. Yes - he's well known on another site I visit dadsontheair.com. He plucks DV figures out of his imagination and believes men are to blame for societies' problems.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Graboid on Sep 27, 2005, 07:59 PM
I've seen it and the guy is a complete tool. A mangina.  :roll:
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: SIAM on Sep 28, 2005, 02:05 AM
I wrote to Michael Flood way back in March 2004 and got this reply from him (still in my Inbox!):-

--------------

Thank you for your feedback on XYonline. I am disappointed to hear that you see the site as anti-male. I'd describe my own perspective, and that of XYonline, as dedicted to enhancing men's lives. See my document http://www.xyonline.net/misc/pffaq.html, particularly the sections "Does
being pro-feminist mean that you are anti-male?" and "How do pro-feminist men deal with areas of male pain and disadvantage?".

My concern is that a minority of individuals / groups in the men's movement do not want social justice, or at least want a form of 'justice' that in fact would be harmful for women, children, and men themselves. XYonline will continue to critique the inaccurate or women-blaming claims and agendas of some men's groups, while working to build better lives for both men and women.

Best wishes,

michael.
--------------

The e-mail address he used was :- [email protected]
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: woof on Sep 28, 2005, 03:07 AM
Interesting.....he seems concerned about the whole DV issue. Sounds like he has been spending time at Trish Wilsons site, with the whole CST thing.
I fail to see how denying women's violence, helps men.  8)
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 28, 2005, 05:33 AM
Quote
To be male-positive is to be affirming of men and optimistic about men; to believe that men can change; to support every man's efforts at positive change.

Manhood and gender are structured by class, race, sexuality, age and region.

It is to be critical of those aspects of men's behaviour, constructions of masculinity, and gender relations which are harmful to women or children (and indeed to men themselves). It recognises sexism and gender injustice and draws on the wealth of feminist insights and efforts.


Men share very unequally in the fruits of male privilege, and some forms of manhood are dominant while others are marginalised.




These are male feminists. They at least give some credence to marginalization of men, but almost as an after thought. I would not consider them part of the men's movement ie.  the movement towards the developement and protection of men's rights.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 28, 2005, 06:38 AM
Interesting link.  I have always been curious about people like Flood and Hugo who seem to be identified with a group that holds them in such low esteem, held solely responsible or even hated.  This morning it dawned on me that at least a partial explanation of this odd behavior could be found in the Stockholm Syndrome.

Quote
from Wikipedia The Stockholm syndrome  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome)is a psychological response of a hostage, or an individual in a hostage-like situation (e.g. dependent child, battered wife, etc) in which the more powerful person (captor, partner, child molester) (a) has the power to put the individual's life in danger or at least the power to worsen the individual's prospects for the future life, and (b) occasionally exercises this power in order to show that he or she is able to use it, if the victim will not conform to the more powerful person's will. The main symptom of the syndrome is the inidividual's seeming loyalty to the more powerful person in spite of the danger (or at least risk) that this loyalty puts them in.


You can also see this sort of thing in boys who are abused by their mothers.  The mother spouts hatred and viciousness towards the boy and controls his movements and behavior and yet the boy identifies with her to the extreme.  The boy maintains a "love" for the mother as he blindly follows the mother's demands and shows a devotion to her that though shallow will not be exposed as anything but dedication.

The article literally made me laugh out loud.  His condemnation of the CTS is pretty humorous.  If he is going to condemn it for its results that he finds distasteful he will also need to condemn it for all of the stats that the fems love to quote about dv.  How did they get those stats?  Yep, CTS.  For an excellent and scholarly explanation of this just have a look at the John Archer study in Psyc Bulletin in 2000.  The same criticism was leveled against him for his meta-analysis and he responds to the critics pointing out that if they are going to cry foul with his use of the CTS they had better go back and withdraw all of their previous research! Yes indeed, the very critics used the same scale in their own studies.   LOL!  This is so typical.  The fems have a selective condemnation based not on analysis or structure but on whether they find the results to their liking.  Can you say 3rd grade?  Hell, that is even insulting to 3rd graders.  I apologize to all of the 8 year-olds I just insulted.

He tries to paint a picture of  Strauss, Gelles and Steinmetz as being unfairly used by the men's rights advocates to promote their viewpoint.  This could not be farther from the truth.  I know from my own personal experience that Richard Gelles feels stongly that male victims of dv are not getting a fair deal and that VAWA is in urgent need of being amended to help them.  Why else would he be an endorser of the www.vawa4all.org site?  From what I have heard Struass feels similarly and I bet Steinmetz also.  Flood's cherry picking quotes is misleading and not a good representation of the truth.  Funny he didn't give links for those, eh?

http://www.vawa4all.org/endorsements.asp :wink:  

Similar to the Stockholm syndrome idea, male feminists remind me of little boys about 8 or 10 who will blindly defend mommy no matter what.  At this point in their development these boys have yet to develop a strong sense of self and solid boundaries that mark their own adulthood.  This can foster an automatic response to perceived insults to mom with a reaction that appears as if they have just been attacked themselves.  The solution is of course to allow the self to grow.

What is really curious is that most of us agree with having a marked distaste for the sort of straight jacket through which societie's roles have collared men.   That much we can agree on.  The biggest disagreement that I can see here is that the men's rights side of things is upset with the misandry of feminism and the pro-feminist men like Flood and Hugo simply respond to this as if it were an unpardonable sin.  How dare anyone say anything about mom!
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: fezzik on Sep 28, 2005, 01:55 PM
Quote
To be male-positive is to be affirming of men and optimistic about men; to believe that men can change; to support every man's efforts at positive change.


Any guesses what he wants to change men into? That's a damning word. He doesn't want to educate men, he doesn't want men to grow, to gain perspective, to gain wisdom. He doesn't want anyone to be a better man,  he wants us to change into not-men. He's not male-positive for the length of a sentence!

Quote
Men's rights and fathers' rights men share with men's liberationists the idea that men's roles are harmful, damaging and in fact lethal for men.


I'm sorry, but this is just dead wrong. Where does he get the idea that father's rights activists think that fatherhood is harmful, damaging and lethal? Or does he think that fatherhood isn't a man's role?
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Tigerman on Sep 28, 2005, 03:22 PM
Micheal Flood is a ******* ******* and that's all I've got to say about that ******* ***on!
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: woof on Sep 28, 2005, 06:00 PM
This is pretty long, but for those who are interested, this is the argument that is used to de-bunk the CTS using the CTS....LOL :shock:

Quote
First, let me provide a little background. The primary argument made by men's rights activists is that men are as likely, or more likely, to be abused by a wife or girlfriend than the reverse. They base this opinion on various family violence studies. Typical is Warren Farrell's statement that "the great majority of two-sex studies that have been done (more than a dozen) find women and men to be equally as likely to initiate domestic violence at every level of severity." (Farrell's quote is a bit dated - there are now dozens such studies.)

Farrell's claim is based on influential research conducted by family violence researchers Murray Straus and Richard Gelles, and by other researchers who have followed up on Straus and Gelles' work. (It's worth mentioning - I'll get into this later - that both Straus and Gelles have objected to the misuse of their work by men's rights activists). This research, based on interviews with both men and women, has found that wives are as likely to assault husbands as husbands are to assault wives. Other researchers have replicated Straus and Gelles' results, most often using the same survey instrument, resulting in a intimidating list of studies showing equivalent rates of male and female-perpetrated spousal violence.

An article by men's advocate Philip Cook summarizes the Straus/Gelles findings:

Men's rights activists acknowledge that government records such as police reports have found that vastly more women than men are victims of spousal assault. But they dismiss this by saying men would never admit to being abused. As Warren Farrell explains, "male socialization to 'take it like a man' makes men the sex more fearful of reporting their abusers."

Men's rights activists conclude, therefore, that data showing that men are greater abusers is invalid due to male underreporting: fairer studies, in their view, find that men are equal victims, and women are equal abusers. I'm here to examine where that data comes from.

The empirical claims made by men's rights activists about domestic violence are based on studies using Straus and Gelles' Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) (and also from a few studies using methodology very similar to the CTS). When I examined a bibliography of "references examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners" on a men's rights website, for example, I found that of 86 prevalence studies cited, 59 (about 70%) used the CTS as a research tool! In order to evaluate men's rights activists claims of equal male victimization, it is therefore necessary to examine the CTS.

A review of the social science literature indicates that the CTS is, even according to its creators, seriously flawed when used as a comparative measure of male and female domestic victimization (i.e., the way men's righters and anti-feminists use it).

2. How do we define "abuse" and "violence?" What's left out?.

Many critics have questioned whether the CTS's definition of violence can fairly capture the range of marital violence. For example, none of the original CTS's questions ask respondents about rape or sexual assault - an area in which male abusers predominate. Not asking about rape could lead to undercounting of severe male-on-female violence. (In response to this criticism, a later version of the CTS - the "CTS2 - pasted on some questions about sexual assault. However, of the 59 CTS studies I found listed on a men's rights website, only 3 used the CTS2).

More subtly, the CTS's method of measurement may be overly literal, measuring narrowly-defined actions while failing to consider their context and meaning. As Straton points out, results of violence are ignored: the CTS "equates a woman pushing a man in self-defense to a man pushing a woman down the stairs." Similarly, the context of violence is ignored: playful kicking in bed, considered aggressive by neither partner, is counted as more severe violence than a bone-jarring push against a wall.

The CTS ignores not only different physical impacts of violence, but also different mental impacts of violence. A recent study indicated that violence, "even when both the man and woman participate," leads to significantly worse outcomes for women; women are more frightened by the violence, with a greater sense of loss of personal control and well-being.

As a matter of common sense, there's an enormous difference in mass and physical strength between most women and men, and that can make a big difference in how abuse "feels." An ex-girlfirend of mine - who weighed 100 pounds less than I do - once punched me, as hard as she could, on my chest. It left a bruise and hurt my feelings, but I certainly didn't feel frightened or helpless. Why not? Because I could walk out the room whenever I pleased, and she couldn't stop me.

Now, what if I had hit her? Although the action would have been the same, the dynamic would have been totally different - because she would have been effectively trapped with me unless I chose to let her go.

Researcher James Nazroo conducted a survey of domestic violence, which was designed to consider the kind of contextual information the CTS leaves out. As Nazroo wrote:

Don't get me wrong - I know what my ex-girlfriend did was reprehensible. I'm not saying it's okay to hit men. I'm not denying that some individual men are badly abused, sometimes by girlfriends or wives who are much smaller than their victims. But for most male-female relationships, there's a big difference in physical power that benefits the male, and it's pointless to pretend it doesn't exist.

It's no coincidence that, even according to the Straus/Gelles study, women are nearly seven times as likely to report being injured as "equally abused" men are.

3. Sampling bias.

According to Michael Johnson, the CTS's dependence on voluntary interviews with a representative sample population could create a strong bias against measuring the worse cases of domestic violence: "men who systematically terrorize their wives would hardly be likely to agree to participate in such a survey, and the women whom they beat would probably be terrified at the possibility that their husband might find out that they had answered such questions." Straus himself seems to agree with this criticism.

Sampling error is always a concern, of course, but there are reasons to think it's a bigger problem with the Straus/Gelles work than in most. For one thing, according to Michael Johnson, Straus and Gelles people who refused to answer screening questions were not included when Straus and Gelles calculated their 84% response rate; taking this discrepancy into account, the actual response rate may be closer to 60%, low enough to create a severe danger of sampling bias. More importantly, Straus and Gelles compiled information only about abuse within current, ongoing relationships; but fear of a current abusive partner would obviously make a victim hesitate to be frank with interviewers. It's much safer for a victim of severe battery to refuse to be interviewed altogether, in such circumstances.

In contrast, when the US Bureau of Justice statistics did a similar study (see part 5, below), they designed the interview process to enourage current victims to report honestly (they put protections in place to assure that the person interviewed could respond safely while alone in the house, without the spouse's knowledge), and did not ask only about current relationships. They also had a higher response rate, which means a much lower chance of serious sampling error.

Jack Stranton points out another important sampling bias: the CTS, as used in the original Straus/Gelles research and most of the research that follows it, excludes violence that occurs after a divorce or separation. However, such violence accounts for 76% of spousal assaults, and is overwhelmingly committed by men; excluding this violence disproportionately omits most spousal violence against women.

4. Contrary Social Science Data.

CTS studies leave thousands of abused women uncounted. According to a CTS study, a typical woman in a battered woman's shelter reports having been assaulted by a spouse 65 times in the year previous to admission. Straus and Gelles' national study found that there are about 80,000 women in the United States who are abused at that level. In contrast, data from battered women's shelters show that up to 490,000 women use shelters each year - and that figure doesn't even include thousands of severely battered women who don't make it to a shelter.. This huge discrepancy shows that instances of severe woman-battering, far from being fairly measured by the men's rights activists favorite studies, are in fact badly undercounted.

When combined with Michael Johnson and Jack Stranton's observations about sampling bias, it seems clear that the CTS simply isn't measuring the worse cases of violence against women.

Many non-CTS studies have found, contrary to CTS results, that men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of domestic violence, while women are overwhelmingly the victims. Since most (but not all) of these studies are designed to measure criminal violence, Farrell dismisses them, saying men are socialized to "take it like a man" and not report their victimization. However, Russell Dobash pointed out "that women have their own reasons to be reticent, fearing both the loss of a jailed or alienated husband's economic support and his vengeance." Moreover, surveys of domestic violence victims in the US and Canada have found that men are more likely to call the police after being assaulted by their partner. So while it's true that both men and women have motivation not to report their abuse, it's just not true that men are actually less likely to report abuse than women.

Finally, studies using variants of the CTS have found some apparent contradictions. A CTS study of violence by stepparents (conducted by Gelles himself) found no difference in rates of stepparent and natural-parent violence - but as Jack Stanton points out, other studies, including homicide reports, show that "a stepparent is up to 100 times more likely to assault a small child than is a birth parent." Like the unaccounted-for abused women, this finding suggests that the CTS is deficient at measuring the most severe instances of family violence.

5. Putting the CTS to the test.

A 1998 study conducted by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) used a modified form of the CTS to survey a representative sample of 8,000 Americans. Unlike most previous CTS studies, the BJS study asked about rape and sexual assault, and did not limit respondents to describing only violence taking place within marriages or relationships; these changes addressed many (but not all) of the criticisms previously made of the CTS. And responding to the claims of men's rights activists, the survey was designed to be about "personal safety" issues, rather than being presented as a survey about crime. (In this case, by the way, men's rights activists are right: it's better not to use hot-button words like "crime" in surveys.)

This study was an important test for people on both sides of the CTS debate. If CTS critics were correct, such a study would find different results from previous CTS studies, and specifically would find that women are more frequent victims of spousal violence. If, on the other hand, men's rights activists were right, then this study would have found equal abuse, since it asked men and women the same questions (mostly the same questions as the CTS).

Critics' expectations were fulfilled. The results of the government's study strongly contradicted previous CTS studies: the BJS study found that overall women were more likely to be abused by an intimate partner than men, particularly for the more severe kinds of violence. For example, women were seven times as likely to have been threatened with a gun; 14 times as likely to report having been "beat up" by a partner; and twenty-six times as likely to have been raped.

6. Straus and Gelles on the men's rights movement's use of their work.

The evidence against using the CTS to show equal victimization on the part of men is strong and persuasive; not even the creators of the CTS endorse the men's rights activist interpretation any longer. Straus has recently written that the female victims of severe battery are the cases which are "the most serious problems and which need to have priority in respect to interventions." Gelles has put it even more strongly, arguing that "it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appear as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women."

To be fair, Straus and Gelles have also been critical of feminists - although Straus (who considers himself a feminist) has described some feminist work as serious and deserving of respect, a concession that few men's rights activists are willing to make.

7. Summing up what the stats can tell us.

Overall, the evidence supports a commonsense conclusion: there isn't sex equality in serious violence. Women are battered by their intimate partners much more often than the reverse. Given the many reasons to doubt the CTS's accuracy for measuring severe violence in families, the most reasonable conclusion is that the Straus/Gelles studies - at least, as they're used by men's rights activists - are inaccurate.

So should the Straus and Gelles studies be rejected entirely? I say no. The evidence weighs strongly against the "equal victimization" hypothesis, but that doesn't mean the results of CTS-based studies should be thrown out entirely. Although it's clear the Straus/Gelles work doesn't accurately measure the most severe instances of intimate violence, the validity of the CTS in measuring what Michael Johnson calls "common couple violence" - minor, sporadic, non-escalating and mutual violence between spouses - has not been disproved. Some researchers, including CTS co-creater Straus, have suggested that the seemingly contrary data actually indicates two different aspects of domestic assault, the relatively sex-neutral "common couple violence" and the more severe violence that lands some women in shelters. The results from the CTS may, in the end, significantly deepen understandings of the dynamics of violence within families.

It is unlikely, however, that this possibility will provide much comfort to men's rights activists committed to the equal victimization hypothesis. While CTS studies corroborate a key men's rights belief - the capacity of women to commit spousal assault - the possibility of equal victimization is key to the CTS's appeal to men's rights activists. And the facts just won't support that belief.

And to those men's rights activists who say that we need more services for male victims of domestic violence - I agree completely! It's only the men's rights claim that women and men are equal victims of intimate violence that I'm disagreeing with. I don't think anyone can look at the facts and deny that women are sometimes violent, or that male victims of intimate violence need more support services.

8. Epilog: Why It Matters

Men's righters disagree with feminists - and with conventional social science - about how often husbands beat up wives, and vice versa. They argue that men are equal or greater victims of intimate violence. Feminists disagree. Is this just squabbling over numbers? It can sure look that way. But there's a deeper argument going on here.

In the face of strong counter-evidence, and contrary to the opinions of the researchers whose work they rely on, men's rights activists passionately insist that men are equally victims of spousal violence. What compels them to this belief? Men's rights activists are at least partly driven by a fear of guilt and shame. Men's rights activists are attracted to the equal-victimization hypothesis because, to them, it suggests that men are not to blame for violence against women.

It is common for feminists to be perceived as anti-male; bell hooks (herself a feminist) argues that anti-male sentiments have been a significant part of bourgeois white feminism, and that such anti-male discourse is a barrier to male support of feminism. A similar analysis is made by R.W. Connell, who describes the "public face" of feminism as "hostile to men." Shame for being male is a common first reaction among men encountering feminism, and doubtless that first impression drives some men away from feminism.

A fear of shame is also a common theme in the men's rights critique of feminism. From David Shakleton's essay in Everyman Journal, a men's rights magazine: "The deepest, most deadly power given to women by tribal evolution is the power to shame... Today feminism is using that deep power to shame the souls of men." A men's rights activist on an online discussion board expressed similar themes of blame and shame, quite plaintively (capitalization, punctuation and line breaks as in the original):

Allen Johnson's The Gender Knot analyzed seminal men's rights writer Warren Farrell and found a similar subtext: "Farrell seems so worried and angry about guilt and blame that he goes off the deep end to argue that men aren't powerful at all." Farrell's desire to deny the idea of male privilege - and thus deny that any blame can fall on men - leads him to argue that men are equally or more victimized in almost every instance, including spousal abuse.

What the men's rights movement offers men is a defense mechanism - a lens for viewing sex roles which obscures an "ocean of guilt and shame" (in Johnson's words). As Michael Messner describes in his analysis of men's rights discourse, "a few highly questionable studies [provide] an emotionally charged basis for the development of an ideology of male victimization." By describing men as equal (or, often, greater) victims, the men's right lens shields men from shame or guilt; it is this lack of blame that appeals to men's rights activists.

The purpose of claims of equal male victimization isn't to deny the reality of wife-battering (to the contrary, many men's rights activists fervently claim sympathy with individual battered women), but to deny the existence of patriarchy and male privilege altogether. In this way, men's rights activists hope to avoid shame.

(Of course, many feminists - including me - have argued that there is no need for men to feel shame in feminism; wallowing in guilt is not only unnecessary, it's counterproductive.)

What's sad is, men's righters are right about some things. Patriarchy hurts men, too. It's harmful to have only men register for the draft. It's harmful to men to be set on career paths that estrange them from their families. It's harmful to men who face violence from other men. Its harmful to men that some male-dominated jobs are unsafe. And for those men who genuinely are victims of severe intimate violence, it's harmful that there are almost no services available to help victimized men. (Etc, etc.)

Which makes it ironic that the men's rights movement is primarily a movement about preventing change; about rolling back the years to bring back "Father Knows Best"; about denying that patriarchy even exists; and about attacking feminism, the only movement that's made any progress in challenging how sexism and patriarchy hurt us all.

However much they say they want change, by denying male privilege, the men's rights movement has become fundamentally reactionary. It isn't possible to undo patriarchy if you won't even admit it exists.

And that - not just statistics - is what the debate over "husband-battering" is about.

9. References

Connell, R.W. "Disruptions: Improper Masculinities and Schooling." Men's Lives. Eds. Michael S. Kimmell and Michael A. Messner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. 141-154.

Dobash, Russell P., R. Emerson Dobash, Margo Wilson and Martin Daly. "The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence." Social Problems 39:1 (1992). 71-91.

Farrell, Warren. The Myth of Male Power. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1993.

Fiebert, Martin S. References Examining Assaults by Women on Their Spouses or Male Partners: An Annotated Bibliography. 1998. 26 May 2000

Gelles, Richard J. "Domestic Violence: Not an Even Playing Field." 27 May 2000

Gelles, Richard J. and Murray A. Straus. Intimate Violence: The Causes and Consequences of Abuse in the American Family. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1988.

Hood, Jane C. "'Let's Get a Girl: Male Bonding Rituals in America." Men's Lives. Eds. Michael S. Kimmel and Michael A. Messner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. 431-436.

hooks, bell. "Men: Comrades in Struggle." Men's Lives. Eds. Michael S. Kimmell and Michael A. Messner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1998. 578-587.

Johnson, Allen G. The Gender Knot: Unraveling Our Patriarchal Legacy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1997.

Johnson, Michael P. "Patriarchal Terrorism and Common Couple Violence." Journal of Marriage and the Family 57 (1995). 283-294.

Margolin, Gayla. "The Multiple Forms of Aggressiveness Between Marital Partners: How Do We Identify Them?" Journal of Marital and Family Therapy 13 (1987). 77-84.

Messner, Michael A. "The Limits of the Male Sex Roel: An analysis of the men's liberation and men's rights movements' discourse," Gender and Society 12:3 (1998), 255-276.

Nazroo, James. "Uncovering Gender Differences in the Use of Marital Violence: the effect of methodology." Sociology 29:3 (1995), 475-494.

Shackleton, David. "The War Against Men: looking behind gender politics." Everyman Journal November-December 1997.

Straton, Jack C. "The Myth of the 'Battered Husband Syndrome.'" Masculinities 2.4 (1994). 79-82. (Online summary here).

Straus, Murray A. "Physical Assaults by Wives: A Major Social Problem." Current Controversies in Family Violence. Eds. Richard J. Gelles and D. R. Loseke. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1993. 67-87.

Straus, Murray A. "The Controversy over Domestic Violence by Women: A Methodological, Theoretical, and Sociology of Science Analysis." To appear in Violence in Intimate Relationships. Eds. X.B. Arriaga and S. Oskamp. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 26 May 2000

Tjaden, Patricia and Nancy Thoennes. Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 1998. NCJ 172837. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/172837.htm

Umberson, Debra, Kristin Anderson, Jennifer Glick and Adam Shapiro. "Domestic Violence, Personal Control, and Gender." Journal of Marriage and the Family 60 (1998). 442-452.

Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 28, 2005, 06:40 PM
Woof do you have a link for this article?
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 28, 2005, 07:27 PM
Interesting article.  The most important aspect in my opinion is that he is arguing that rates of spousal violence are not equal.  This is light years from  the arguments just a few years back that denied more than a handful of women were actually abusive in relationship.  Hey, the guy is moving in the right direction.  

Frankly, who cares if it is 50/50, 60/40, 70/30 or whatever.  It doesn't really matter.  The important thing is that there is a significant percentage of male victims and they have no services.  The response from the DV industry has been frightfully uncaring and slothlike.  We have, and I have personally contacted legislators, clinical agencies, directors of agencies etc etc and they all remind me of the lady on mad tv who puts her fingers in her ears and says lalalalalala.  That is the real injustice and the obvious sign of true hatred.  They just don't care.  In fact it seems to go farther than not caring, they seem to care that men don't get services.  It seems personal.  They want to make sure that men are not acknowledged and not cared for.  I find it truly disgusting.

All his yak yak yaking about the CTS is pretty funny.  Just read Archers explanation about the CTS in the psyc bul 2000 meta-analysis.  The bottom line is that I trust peer reviewed researchers and a bonafide meta-analysis a whole lot more than I trust this guy or some survey monger who takes the admissions to an emergency shelter and tries to extrapolate data.  

It is interesting to note that during his piece he doesn't give statistics or numbers supporting his point of view.  He doesn't give links to the quotes he offers of Strauss and Gelles.  He doesn't give you any way to check out what he has said other than a list of articles at the end.  Perhaps they were footnoted.  I didn't see any.

Quote
Men's rights activists are attracted to the equal-victimization hypothesis because, to them, it suggests that men are not to blame for violence against women.


Now this is really interesting.  I don't know any man who feels that men who are perps of dv are not to blame.  He is completely incorrect on this count but the interesting side of this is that I think he gives us a glimpse into his own (and feminisms) way of looking at things.  My guess is that this is simply projection and the reality is that the feminists are very frightened of the equal-victimization idea since it would end their own comfort in their self-satisfying blaming of men for dv.

Who wrote this Woof?

E
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: woof on Sep 28, 2005, 07:36 PM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Woof do you have a link for this article?

Not right off the top Dr E, I'll have to go look for it, it's somewhere on this site if it's still active. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/ This isn't Trish"s site like I said in my earlier post but rather Amanda's. I think I can find it later, but I don't have the time to look for it now though.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 28, 2005, 07:45 PM
I think it is Amp and I think it is here. (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/)
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: typhonblue on Sep 28, 2005, 07:47 PM
Dr. Evil, could you give a bit more information on Archer's analysis?

I'd like to take a look at it too.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: woof on Sep 29, 2005, 04:02 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
I think it is Amp and I think it is here. (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/06/26/on-husband-battering-are-men-equal-victims/)

Thanks...Dr E
I think it was in my debate about this write up that I got banned from her site a few months back.....no reason given, she just stopped posting my replies.... :o
I have found that they use each others faulty logic to defend each other, but if you can get to the source you will find that the original truth has been twisted, or distorted to fit their propaganda.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 29, 2005, 08:57 AM
I'm finding all kinds of interesting stuff, now that I'm looking for it--anybody ever seen this one either or familiar with the author?

search | site index | faq | about us | what's new



Domestic Violence Factoids

Richard J. Gelles
University of Rhode Island Family Violence Research Program


Copyright 1995 Richard J. Galles

Published: 1995

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understanding Domestic Violence Factoids
According to the FBI, A Woman is Beaten Every (fill in the blank) SECONDS

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.

There Are Four Million Women Beaten and Abused Each Year

Same problems as above. The Straus, Gelles, and Steinmetz survey estimated that 2 million women were abused each year by their husbands. Straus and his colleagues speculated that if all the respondents told the truth and if ex-husbands and boyfriends were included, the number could be as high as 4 million. However, no study to date using a representative sample and measuring severe violence, has found more than 2 million abused women each year.

Domestic Violence is the Leading Cause of Injury to Women Between the Ages of 15 and 44 in the United States - More Than Car Accidents, Muggings, and Rapes Combined

This factoid has been attributed to both Surgeon General Antonia Novello and the Centers for Disease Control. The actual primary source of this "fact" is research by Evan Stark and Ann Flitcraft. It was probably Stark and Flitcraft who supplied the fact to CDC, who then included it in material supplied to the Surgeon General. Unfortunately, as good a sound bite as this is, it is simply not true. The original source of this statement goes back to two papers by Stark and Flitcraft. First, the actual research the "fact" is based on is a rather small survey of one emergency room. Second, in the original articles, they said that domestic violence may (emphasis added) be a more common cause of emergency room visits than car accidents, muggings, and rapes combined.

Linda Saltzman from the Centers for Disease Control tells all journalists who call to check this fact that the CDC does not recognize this as either their fact or a reputable fact.

The March of Dimes Reports that Batterering During Pregnancy is the Leading Cause of Birth Defects and Infant Mortality

The March of Dimes actually reports that they know of no such study.

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.

Family Violence has Killed More Women in the Last Five Years as the Total Number of Americans Who Were Killed in The Vietnam War

This factoid was often used by Dr. Robert McAfee, past president of the American Medical Association. There were about 55,000 American casualties in the Viet Nam war. According to the FBI, Uniform Crime Statistics, about 1,500 women are killed by their husbands or boyfriends each year. The total number of women homicide victims each year is about 5,000. Thus, in 5 years, even if every women who was killed, was killed by a family member, the total would still be 1/2 the number of American casualties in Viet Nam.

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.

Factoids From the Right of Center
Women are as Violence as are Men, and Women Initiate Violence as Often as do Men

This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.

Other Factoids from Nowhere
4,000 Women Each Year are Killed by Their Husbands, Ex-husbands, or Boyfriends

The FBI reports that approximately 1,500 women are killed each year by husbands or boyfriends. Even if one factors in the number of women killed by unidentified or undetermined assailants, the number could not be 4,000.

Women of All Cultures, Races, Occupations, Income Levels, and Ages are Battered - by Husbands, Boyfriends, Lovers, and Partners

While this fact is technically true, it is also true that domestic violence is more likely to occur in homes below the poverty line, in minority households (even controlling for income), and among men and women 18 to 30 years of age.

Nationally, 50% of All Homeless Women and Children are on the Streets Because of Violence in the Home

An interesting factoid stated by Senator Biden, but one without any actual published scientific research to support it.

There are Nearly Three Times as Many Animal Shelters in the United States as There are Shelters for Battered Women and Their Children

Another great sound bite, but one not actually based on a verified count of either type of shelter.


http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 29, 2005, 09:17 AM
Look at the date.  This crap is 10 years old.  Imagine quoting research in some hard science that was 10 years old. Would it be up to date?  Would the resaerchers want you to go by what they said 10 yers ago?  Duh.  Gelles knows that men are screwed by VAWA and their victim status is clouded by the fems and their dv games.  Don't try to push a bunch of tired old quotes down our throats.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 29, 2005, 09:21 AM
If you really want to know how Dr Gelles feels read this:

He endorses this statement and did so in the past few months, not 10 years ago..

Quote
The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition (SHCFC) advocates that federal domestic violence legislation should provide equal protection to all Americans, regardless of gender.
THE TIME IS NOW TO MAKE THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT GENDER-NEUTRAL

Men Represent 36% of the Victims of Domestic Violence
                        -- United States Department of Justice 1998

Thirty years ago some courageous and determined members of the women's movement raised the consciousness of America about the "dirty little secret" of domestic violence. Through their efforts laws were passed making the ending of family violence a social and law enforcement priority and ultimately resulting in the funding of thousands of shelters, services and educational programs through the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) passed in 1995. Today the VAWA provides nearly one billion dollars per year for programs serving female victims of domestic violence.

Unfortunately, because this issue was left to be championed by activists within the women's movement, the nature and character of the issue was framed in the feminist model of male control and domination over women. Such a model is appropriate in some instances but falls far short of encompassing all of the circumstances and dynamics in which domestic violence is perpetrated.

As is clearly demonstrated by the statistics concerning arrests of women for domestic violence and the relative equal levels of domestic violence within both lesbian and gay couples, the gender based model is both an antiquated and inadequate model upon which to premise our efforts to end family violence.

The reality is that domestic violence is perpetrated by individuals of both genders, all races, religions and socio-economic status'. The universal characteristic of a batterer is his or her inability to control his or her emotions and/or resolve differences through discussion and compromise. These are not characteristics unique to any gender.

The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition seeks to broaden and make more inclusive our efforts to end family violence The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition recognizes that children and families are harmed and put at risk regardless of which parent- mother or father- is the perpetrator of violence. As little Stephanie Doe, appearing on the 1998 Oprah show on male victims said regarding her batterer mother, " We were all crying and upset... mad at the police for taking him instead of mom."

The Safe Homes for Children and Families Coalition has been formed to bring together the multitude of individuals and organizations across the United States who recognize the inadequacy of our present domestic violence policy and it's exclusive reliance upon a narrow model that ignores the reality and complexity of intimate relationships in this post-feminist era.

We seek one singular objective- that gender discrimination and bias be removed from our nation's domestic violence policies and efforts. To that end, the Coalition advocates nothing more than that the following language which was promised to be incorporated in the 2000 Re-Authorization of VAWA by it's sponsor Senator Joseph R. Biden but never so incorporated; To Wit:

" Nothing in this legislation shall be construed to prohibit funding for programs serving male victims of domestic violence"
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: D on Sep 29, 2005, 09:39 AM
Quote
(3) Anti-sexist or pro-feminist

Pro-feminist men emphasise that the current, dominant model of manhood or masculinity is oppressive to women, as well as limiting for men themselves. Pro-feminist men encourage men to take responsibility for challenging sexism and men's institutional privilege. They also recognise the costs of masculinity - that conformity comes with the price tag of poor health, early death, overwork and emotionally shallow relationships - and typically also stress that men's lives are shaped also by race, class, sexuality, age and disability.



Cute.

.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 29, 2005, 09:59 AM
Here's an exceprt from an article by Gelles. (yes, it's only 4 years newer :wink: )  I would encourage you to read it in its entirety but here is an bit of it:

http://www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html

Quote
The "horror" of intimate violence toward men is somewhat different. There are, of course, hundreds of men killed each year by their partners. At a minimum, one-fourth of the men killed have not used violence towards their homicidal partners. Men have been shot, stabbed, beaten with objects, and been subjected to verbal assaults and humiliations. Nonetheless, I do not believe these are the "horrors" of violence toward men. The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the "missing persons" of the problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted. The Federal Violence against Women Act identified as a gender crime. None of the nearly billion dollars of funding from this act is directed towards male victims. Some "Requests for Proposals" from the U.S. Justice Department specifically state that research on male victims or programs for male victims will not even be reviewed, let alone funded. Federal funds typically pass to a state coalition against or to a branch of a state agency designated to deal with violence against women.

Battered men face a tragic apathy. Their one option is to call the police and hope that a jurisdiction will abide by a mandatory or presumptive arrest statute. However, when the police do carry out an arrest when a male has been beaten, they tend to engage in the practice of "dual arrest" and arrest both parties.

Battered men who flee their attackers find that the act of fleeing results in the men losing physical and even legal custody of their children. Those men who stay are thought to be "wimps," at best and "perps" at worst, since if they stay, it is believed they are the true abusers in the home.

Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go--more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is not place to go and no one to whom to turn. On occasion a shelter for battered men is created, but it rarely lasts--first because it lacks on-going funding, and second because the shelter probably does not meet the needs of male victims. Men, who retain their children in order to try to protect them from abusive mothers, often find themselves arrested for "child kidnapping."

The frustration men experience often bursts forth in rather remarkable obstreperous behavior at conferences, meetings, and forums on domestic violence. Such outbursts are almost immediately turned against the men by explaining that this behavior proves the men are not victims but are "perps."

Given the body of research on that finds continued unexpectedly high rates of violence toward men in intimate relations, it is necessary to reframe as something other than a "gender crime" or example of "patriarchal coercive control." Protecting only the female victim and punishing only the male offender will not resolve the tragedy and costs of domestic violence. While this is certainly not a politically correct position, and is a position that will almost certainly ignite more personal attacks against me and my colleagues, it remains clear to me that the problem is violence between intimates not violence against women. Policy and practice must address the needs of male victims if we are to reduce the extent and toll of violence in the home.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 29, 2005, 10:24 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Look at the date.  This crap is 10 years old.  Imagine quoting research in some hard science that was 10 years old. Would it be up to date?  Would the resaerchers want you to go by what they said 10 yers ago?  Duh.  Gelles knows that men are screwed by VAWA and their victim status is clouded by the fems and their dv games.  Don't try to push a bunch of tired old quotes down our throats.


? I'm a little confused by your response.  The article is an attempt to debunk domestic violence sound bytes, most of which point towards women being heavily vicimized by men.  If you think they're "crap," why are you objecting to the article?
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: dr e on Sep 29, 2005, 11:24 AM
Quote from: "lkanneg"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Look at the date.  This crap is 10 years old.  Imagine quoting research in some hard science that was 10 years old. Would it be up to date?  Would the resaerchers want you to go by what they said 10 yers ago?  Duh.  Gelles knows that men are screwed by VAWA and their victim status is clouded by the fems and their dv games.  Don't try to push a bunch of tired old quotes down our throats.


? I'm a little confused by your response.  The article is an attempt to debunk domestic violence sound bytes, most of which point towards women being heavily vicimized by men.  If you think they're "crap," why are you objecting to the article?


LOL!  That's what I get for not reading.  My apologies.  I was rushed and assumed it was the old piece that Amp had quoted from that made it appear that Gelles was less than friendly towards male victims.  My bad.

I do hope you have a look at the last article by Gelles which describes his history in learning about male victims and the response of the feminists to his views.  It is very telling.  I would be curious to hear what you think of it.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 29, 2005, 11:47 AM
Quote
This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.


Well, I went to school with the Steinmetz's kids, and the study that Dr. Steinmetz published resulted in death threats - and attempts - which required police protection.  I used to be scoped out by the police and later private security that guarded them.  But - anyway.  Just pointing out how the "peaceful" feminist organizations and DV industry dealt with heretics.

I'd like you to consider something.

I was beaten by my ex-wife for 6 years and some change, not because I couldn't bust her in two, but because I had been taught that at no time, never-ever, under any circumstance, for any reason whatsoever, is it okay, justifiable or in any respect condoned to Hit A Girl.  Never.  Not even in self defense.  So when she started hitting me, I just stood there in stunned silence, and walked out.

I took some bruises, some burns from things like boiling oatmeal - she broke my toes one time when she drilled an iron pan into my feet, bloody lips, bloody noses - but never anything serious, requiring treatment or hospitalization.

To make a long story short, this finally stopped when she took a LARGE iron pan, full of smoking hot grease, and went to throw it at me - and I had had it.  BEfore she could swing it, I grabbed her wrist so hard she dropped the pan back on the stove, spun her against the wall, drove a knife had to just touching her throat (without making full contact and crushing her larnyx) and coldly informed her if she ever raised hand or weapon to me again, I would drop her where she stood.  And she believed me, and it never happened again.

A few things to consider here:

I did not, despite imminent threat, follow through with anything then, because I knew that I would be the one to go to jail. (And I knew it because of past experience with the Indianapolis Police Department when I called them on her beating me).

Despite there being no marks on her, has she decided to call the police that day, and merely accuse me - I would probably have gone to jail, and if not, I would have been "invited" to to be the one to leave the house and take a time out.

Despite the fact that the ex could inflict no real damage on me without a weapon, or that I never required treatement or hospitalization, was she an abuser?  Was her abuse any less serious, or vicious?

And finally - The raw fact is - I laid hands on a woman.  I threatened and intimidated a woman into obeying me.  Regardless of why, by the standards of conventional wisdom, I'm an abuser, and since I could have seriously hurt her, that is more important than the fact that I didn't - despite any justification for it.  When you take the action out of context, it's abuse.  Place it IN context, and it becomes something else; yet, DV advocates do their damndest to say the context never matters.  So what is the agenda, there?

That is why that little "debunking" up there - is bunk in and of itself.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 29, 2005, 01:48 PM
Quote from: "Gonzokid"
I'd like you to consider something.

I was beaten by my ex-wife for 6 years and some change, not because I couldn't bust her in two, but because I had been taught that at no time, never-ever, under any circumstance, for any reason whatsoever, is it okay, justifiable or in any respect condoned to Hit A Girl.  Never.  Not even in self defense.  So when she started hitting me, I just stood there in stunned silence, and walked out.

I took some bruises, some burns from things like boiling oatmeal - she broke my toes one time when she drilled an iron pan into my feet, bloody lips, bloody noses - but never anything serious, requiring treatment or hospitalization.


I can empathize, because I unfortunately had similar experiences in my first marriage, though the dynamics were not the same.  I have no idea if my first husband was raised not to hit girls; if he was, though, it sure didn't take.  Now, I was raised to never, ever initiate physical violence against someone, BUT ALSO that if it was initiated against me, to defend myself as strongly as possible.  So, when he started hitting me, I usually came up swinging.  Unfortunately, he wasn't interested in an even exchange of blows and then calling it quits--he was interested in my surrender and he'd fight me til he got it.  I admit, he was always the winner.  I ended up collecting the same types of injuries as you--bruises, scrapes, bloody lips, a broken finger and a broken toe, but nothing I ever needed to see a doctor about.  

Quote from: "Gonzokid"
To make a long story short, this finally stopped when she took a LARGE iron pan, full of smoking hot grease, and went to throw it at me - and I had had it.  BEfore she could swing it, I grabbed her wrist so hard she dropped the pan back on the stove, spun her against the wall, drove a knife had to just touching her throat (without making full contact and crushing her larnyx) and coldly informed her if she ever raised hand or weapon to me again, I would drop her where she stood.  And she believed me, and it never happened again.


It's funny--I ended it with an ultimatum, too. He threatened to shove me out of a moving car on the highway and was reaching over to do it--I got that cold, cold feeling; not fear, just utter hatred.  I remember looking at him and telling him that he'd better hope I died of it, because if I didn't, the first thing I'd do was call his supervisor (he was a cop).  And if he ever laid a hand upon me again, I'd do the same thing.  And it stopped; he never did lay a violent hand upon me again.  

Quote from: "Gonzokid"
A few things to consider here:

I did not, despite imminent threat, follow through with anything then, because I knew that I would be the one to go to jail. (And I knew it because of past experience with the Indianapolis Police Department when I called them on her beating me).


That's really unfortunate.  In my ex-husband's county, if the cops are called in on DV, they arrest everyone present accused of dv by another person.  My ex has made a lot of simultaneous arrests of husband and wife.  

Quote from: "Gonzokid"
Despite the fact that the ex could inflict no real damage on me without a weapon, or that I never required treatement or hospitalization, was she an abuser?  Was her abuse any less serious, or vicious?


Those are questions I asked myself a lot (except for the "inflict no real damage" part--he could have, and actually, I could have inflicted more upon him as well, had I chosen to use a weapon), as my level of injury paralled yours, along with the question, since I fought back, could I still be considered being abused?  I still haven't really figured out the answers.  My best answer:  Both our spouses were abusers.  It could have been much more serious, but it still wasn't trivial.  

I really feel for you, Gonzokid.  It's awful to be stuck in that kind of relationship/situation.  For me, the most awful part, hands down, was when it happened in front of the kids--you don't mention that, but you have mentioned having a son and daughter.  The time he was going to shove me out of the car onto the road--our kids were in the car.  That was the worst thing in the world, how they would have felt if they'd seen that happen.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 29, 2005, 02:01 PM
Apparently I hit Dave in anger once, years ago. I do not remember it. Not because I blacked out, or am in denial, but because at the time I did not even think of it as abuse. It never occured to me to do so. It was unworthy of being remembered. I wacked him in the arm, I was pissed, he showed no reaction, so I thought nothing of it. But it was abuse. I was wrong for having done that, but had he told someone I would not have faced any penalties.  

Women are not taught that hitting men is abuse, in fact we are taught the opposite. In the movie Mooseport, for example, the girl keeps hitting Ray Romano's character. He says owww each time and rubs his arm, or picks himself up when his is shoved off a porch. At the end, she really slugs him in the arm, and he says oww, that really hurts, you are stronger than me. She says "I can't be, I am a girl"*big smile, audience expected to laugh*. This woman was commiting domestic violence and we were all supposed to find it funny. We are overjoyed in the end when he proposes to his abuser.

How are women supposed to know that men can hurt, that abusing your husband is wrong, if society thinks it is funny? How are men supposed to ask for help when they are never seen as victims of abuse to begin with?

Gonzo, had be been a woman, and had he killed his spouse, would have had a legal defense and gotten off scott free. Yet because he was a man, he would have gone to prison no questions asked.

I try to point out the abuse misandry in movies to people, and they usually cannot see it even then. They are so ingrained in believing women cannot posible hurt men that they cannot see it when it is right there.

The old ball buster gag is a prime example, need I say more?
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: The Gonzman on Sep 29, 2005, 02:53 PM
The whole thing I'm getting at is that we frequently have the "More serious injury" excuse trotted out by those would would minimize and trivialize male DV victins, and it just doesn't hold up to any reali life scrutiny.  One doesn't have to have serious injury inflicted to be abused.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: lkanneg on Sep 29, 2005, 03:10 PM
Quote from: "The Biscuit Queen"
Apparently I hit Dave in anger once, years ago. I do not remember it. Not because I blacked out, or am in denial, but because at the time I did not even think of it as abuse. It never occured to me to do so. It was unworthy of being remembered. I wacked him in the arm, I was pissed, he showed no reaction, so I thought nothing of it. But it was abuse. I was wrong for having done that, but had he told someone I would not have faced any penalties.  

Women are not taught that hitting men is abuse, in fact we are taught the opposite. In the movie Mooseport, for example, the girl keeps hitting Ray Romano's character. He says owww each time and rubs his arm, or picks himself up when his is shoved off a porch. At the end, she really slugs him in the arm, and he says oww, that really hurts, you are stronger than me. She says "I can't be, I am a girl"*big smile, audience expected to laugh*. This woman was commiting domestic violence and we were all supposed to find it funny. We are overjoyed in the end when he proposes to his abuser.

How are women supposed to know that men can hurt, that abusing your husband is wrong, if society thinks it is funny? How are men supposed to ask for help when they are never seen as victims of abuse to begin with?

Gonzo, had be been a woman, and had he killed his spouse, would have had a legal defense and gotten off scott free. Yet because he was a man, he would have gone to prison no questions asked.

I try to point out the abuse misandry in movies to people, and they usually cannot see it even then. They are so ingrained in believing women cannot posible hurt men that they cannot see it when it is right there.

The old ball buster gag is a prime example, need I say more?


I totally agree with you about the way violence against men by women is trivialized and considered humorous in the media.  Somebody posted a link here when I first started posting and I sent a protest e-mail to the producer...got a pretty rude reply, actually (sigh).
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Roy on Sep 29, 2005, 06:21 PM
Dr. E. has innocently stepped upon the "mother" of all MRA issues.

Re:
Quote
You can also see this sort of thing in boys who are abused by their mothers. The mother spouts hatred and viciousness towards the boy and controls his movements and behavior and yet the boy identifies with her to the extreme. The boy maintains a "love" for the mother as he blindly follows the mother's demands and shows a devotion to her that though shallow will not be exposed as anything but dedication.


Here's just a little kerosene for the campfire.... or maybe balm for future encounters with HugoBoy and his ilk... courtesy of C. Jung ---

A little "fire and water...."

Quote
The mother archetype is symbolized by the primordial mother or "earth mother" of mythology, by Eve and Mary in western traditions, and by less personal symbols such as the church, the nation, a forest, or the ocean. According to Jung, someone whose own mother failed to satisfy the demands of the archetype may well be one that spends his or her life seeking comfort in the church, or in identification with "the motherland," or in meditating upon the figure of Mary, or in a life at sea.


http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/jung.html

All are invited to comment about the connections to the pathology of feminism... and its genesis.

(Maybe call your Mom before posting...)   :shock:
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Sep 30, 2005, 01:06 PM
Women and their mothers are like oil and water. Are you saying that feminism is just one whomping attempt to have a surrogate mother/daughter relationship?

Whoa.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Roy on Sep 30, 2005, 07:20 PM
BQ--
Quote
Women and their mothers are like oil and water. Are you saying that feminism is just one whomping attempt to have a surrogate mother/daughter relationship?


I have observed that daughters have a love-hate relationship with their mothers. (And mothers seem to have a love-envy relationship with their daughters.... seeking to relive their glory adolescent days through their female children?)

So I accept the "oil and water" formula as just an unavoidable aspect of individuation.

But I don't understand the "surrogate" part of your reply.

Could you please explain more?

A surrogate suggests a substitute authority figure, yes?

So, is feminism the new abstract Mommie?

You have more authority in this department than I do....    :wink:
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Tigerman on Oct 04, 2005, 04:01 PM
Someone mentioned kerosene, Jung and the 'mother' archetype - well to add to the conflaguration I suggest that the 'animus' archetype is examined with particulr reference to both feminism and feminists.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: The Biscuit Queen on Oct 04, 2005, 04:55 PM
I think that all women (or most) want a woman figure who will accept them for who they are, value them intrinsically, and watch out for them.

Feminism does all three. Feminism is a way to get everything you didn't get from mom. Acceptance, empowerment, value.

Quote
So, is feminism the new abstract Mommie?


Exactly.

I would bet that women who have really good, strong relationships with their mothers are far less likely to need a cult like feminism.
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Cysterhood on Oct 05, 2005, 11:06 PM
Quote from: "woof"
This is pretty long, but for those who are interested, this is the argument that is used to de-bunk the CTS using the CTS....LOL :shock:

Quote
Researcher James Nazroo conducted a survey of domestic violence, which was designed to consider the kind of contextual information the CTS leaves out. As Nazroo wrote:

Don't get me wrong - I know what my ex-girlfriend did was reprehensible. I'm not saying it's okay to hit men. I'm not denying that some individual men are badly abused, sometimes by girlfriends or wives who are much smaller than their victims. But for most male-female relationships, there's a big difference in physical power that benefits the male, and it's pointless to pretend it doesn't exist.
More excuses. "difference in physical power that benefits the male" Well the difference in physical power benefits the female if this point of view is alowed to prevail - immunity from prosecution!

I look forward to the day when small men can thus get off violence charges with the defence that, because they are smaller than their opponent, they can commit violence because they are less likely to cause injury!(Jockeys the new standover men!)
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Men's Rights Activist on Oct 05, 2005, 11:36 PM
<i>"There are Nearly Three Times as Many Animal Shelters in the United States as There are Shelters for Battered Women and Their Children"</i>

...and do those shelters for women put them to sleep after 10 days???  Hardly apples and apples, eh?
Title: Stumbled across this while looking for something else...
Post by: Mr. Bad on Oct 06, 2005, 12:40 PM
Quote from: "woof"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
Woof do you have a link for this article?

Not right off the top Dr E, I'll have to go look for it, it's somewhere on this site if it's still active. http://www.amptoons.com/blog/ This isn't Trish"s site like I said in my earlier post but rather Amanda's. I think I can find it later, but I don't have the time to look for it now though.


I get this from Google scholar:
Quote


Sociology, Vol. 29, No. 3, 475-494 (1995)
DOI: 10.1177/0038038595029003006
1995 BSA Publications Ltd.

Google Scholar
   
Uncovering Gender Differences in the Use of Marital Violence: The Effect of Methodology
James Nazroo

Since the publication of large, representative, structured questionnaire surveys suggesting that women were equally or more likely than men to hit their partners, there has been considerable debate over women's use of violence in marriage. This debate has focused on the methods used to study marital violence. On the one hand, it has been suggested that this female-perpetrated marital violence is a genuine problem which has been uncovered by the rigorous use of representative samples and quantitative methods of data collection. On the other hand, it has been suggested that the use of methods which simply measure acts of physical aggression and ignore the context and meaning of any violence results in the failure to demonstrate very obvious differences between male and female-perpetrated marital violence. This study uses a community sample of couples to show that, although women may hit their partners more often than men do, if context and meaning is included in the assessment of violence, male violence is considerably more likely than female violence to be dangerous and threatening. The data presented also demonstrate that male-perpetrated marital violence is likely to lead to serious injury and greatly increases women's risk of anxiety, whereas female-perpetrated marital violence has neither of these consequences for men.

Key Words: marital violence Conflict Tactics Scale anxiety gender differences methodology couples


Once again, they change the subject from violence to 'who gets hurt more' and/or 'who is more afraid.'  Baloney.  Men are bigger than women so of course women will stastically get hurt more often.  And men are more stoic, so even they aren't more brave (i.e., less afraid) they wouldn't report being afraid as readily or often as women do anyway.

This is BS.  Violence is wrong not matter who is hurt 'more' or who is more 'afraid.'  This is feminist spin-doctoring and has no place in civil discourse.