Started by lkanneg, Sep 27, 2005, 07:42 PM
I think it is Amp and I think it is here.
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-NEUTRALMen Represent 36% of the Victims of Domestic Violence -- United States Department of Justice 1998Thirty 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"
(3) Anti-sexist or pro-feministPro-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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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?
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 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.