Domestic Violence

[Madspirit]

http://www.endabuse.org/resources/facts/

Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year1 to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.

Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.

Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.

Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.

Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.

In the year 2001, more than half a million American women (588,490 women) were victims of nonfatal violence committed by an intimate partner.

Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total).

While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. The same year, intimate partners committed three percent of all violent crime against men.10
As many as 324,000 women each year experience intimate partner violence during their pregnancy.

Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate.

Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men.

The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. Between 1993 and 1995, 18 of 32 states with three year filing figures reported an increase of 20 percent or more.

Women are seven to 14 times more likely than men to report suffering severe physical assaults from an intimate partner.

Domestic Homicides

On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.

Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.

Research suggests that injury related deaths, including homicide and suicide, account for approximately one-third of all maternal mortality cases, while medical reasons make up the rest. But, homicide is the leading cause of death overall for pregnant women, followed by cancer, acute and chronic respiratory conditions, motor vehicle collisions and drug overdose, peripartum and postpartum cardiomyopthy, and suicide.


Health Issues

The health-related costs of rape, physical assault, stalking and homicide committed by intimate partners exceed $5.8 billion each year. Of that amount, nearly $4.1 billion are for direct medical and mental health care services, and nearly $1.8 billion are for the indirect costs of lost productivity or wages.

About half of all female victims of intimate violence report an injury of some type, and about 20 percent of them seek medical assistance.

Thirty-seven percent of women who sought treatment in emergency rooms for violence-related injuries in 1994 were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.

Domestic Violence and Youth

Approximately one in five female high school students reports being physically and/or sexually abused by a dating partner.

Eight percent of high school age girls said “yes” when asked if “a boyfriend or date has ever forced sex against your will.”

Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.

During the 1996-1997 school year, there were an estimated 4,000 incidents of rape or other types of sexual assault in public schools across the country.

Domestic Violence and Children

In a national survey of more than 6,000 American families, 50 percent of the men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children.

Slightly more than half of female victims of intimate violence live in households with children under age 12.

Studies suggest that between 3.3 - 10 million children witness some form of domestic violence annually.

Rape

Three in four women (76 percent) who reported they had been raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 said that a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, or date committed the assault.

One in five (21 percent) women reported she had been raped or physically or sexually assaulted in her lifetime.

Nearly one-fifth of women (18 percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives; one in 33 men (three percent) reported experiencing a completed or attempted rape at some time in their lives.

In 2000, 48 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed against people age 12 and over were reported to the police.

In 2001, 41,740 women were victims of rape/sexual assault committed by an intimate partner.

Rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers are more likely to be reported to the police than rapes/sexual assaults committed by “nonstrangers,” including intimate partners, other relatives and friends or acquaintances. Between 1992 and 2000, 41 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed by strangers were reported to the police. During the same time period, 24 percent of the rapes/sexual assaults committed by an intimate were reported.

Stalking

Annually in the United States, 503,485 women are stalked by an intimate partner.

Seventy-eight percent of stalking victims are women. Women are significantly more likely than men (60 percent and 30 percent, respectively) to be stalked by intimate partners.

Eighty percent of women who are stalked by former husbands are physically assaulted by that partner and 30 percent are sexually assaulted by that partner.


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

1U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998
2The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999
3Heise, L., Ellsberg, M. and Gottemoeller, M. Ending Violence Against Women. Population Reports, Series L, No. 11., December 1999
4The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999
5The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The National Institute of Justice, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, July 2000.
6Lieberman Research Inc., Tracking Survey conducted for The Advertising Council and the Family Violence Prevention Fund, July – October 1996
7Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
8Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
9U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998
10Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
11Gazmararian JA, Petersen R, Spitz AM, Goodwin MM, Saltzman LE, Marks JS. “Violence and reproductive health; current knowledge and future research directions.” Maternal and Child Health Journal 2000;4(2)79-84.
12Bureau of Justice Statistics, Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey, August 1995
13Murray A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles, Physical Violence in American Families, 1990
14Examining the Work of State Courts, 1995: A National Perspective from the Court Statistics Project. National Center for the State Courts, 1996
15National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998
16Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
17Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
18Horon, I., & Cheng, D., (2001). Enhanced Surveillance for Pregnancy-Associated Mortality - Maryland, 1993 - 1998. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, No. 11, March 21, 2001.
19Frye, V. (2001). Examining Homicide's Contribution to Pregnancy-Associated Deaths. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 285, No. 11, March 21, 2001
20Nannini, A., Weiss, J., Goldstein, R., & Fogerty, S., (2002). Pregnancy-Associated Mortality at the End of the Twentieth Century: Massachusetts, 1990 – 1999. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, Vol. 57, No. 23, Summer 2002.
21Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Costs of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States, April 2003.
22National Crime Victimization Survey, 1992-96; Study of Injured Victims of Violence, 1994
23U.S. Department of Justice, Violence Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments, August 1997
24Jay G. Silverman, PhD; Anita Raj, PhD; Lorelei A. Mucci, MPH; and Jeanne E. Hathaway, MD, MPH, “Dating Violence Against Adolescent Girls and Associated Substance Use, Unhealthy Weight Control, Sexual Risk Behavior, Pregnancy, and Suicidality,” Journal of the American Medical Association, Vol. 286, No. 5, 2001
25The Commonwealth Fund Survey of the Health of Adolescent Girls, November 1997
26Children Now/Kaiser Permanente poll, December 1995
27U.S. Department of Education, Violence and Discipline Problems in U.S. Public Schools: 1996-1997
28Strauss, Murray A, Gelles, Richard J., and Smith, Christine. 1990. Physical Violence in American Families; Risk Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145 Families. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers
29U.S. Department of Justice, Violence by Intimates: Analysis of Data on Crimes by Current or Former Spouses, Boyfriends, and Girlfriends, March 1998
30Carlson, Bonnie E. (1984). Children's observations of interpersonal violence. Pp. 147-167 in A.R. Roberts (Ed.) Battered women and their families (pp. 147-167). NY: Springer. Straus, M.A. (1992). Children as witnesses to marital violence: A risk factor for lifelong problems among a nationally representative sample of American men and women. Report of the Twenty-Third Ross Roundtable. Columbus, OH: Ross Laboratories.
31U.S. Department of Justice, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998
32The Commonwealth Fund, Health Concerns Across a Woman’s Lifespan: 1998 Survey of Women’s Health, May 1999
33National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey, November 1998
34Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000, March 2003
35Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief, Intimate Partner Violence, 1993-2001, February 2003
36Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, Reporting Crime to the Police, 1992-2000, March 2003
37Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence, National Institute of Justice, 2000
38Center for Policy Research, Stalking in America, July 1997
39Center for Policy Research, Stalking in America, July 1997

[Madspirit]

1. kicking n/t

[OzarkDem]

2. Good source for stats

Intimate partner violence and rape - is it difficult to control because its so hard to prosecute?

Looks like we still need all the prevention and education we can get - let women know how to deal with the problem and get out of these situations before they get worse.

[Madspirit]

3. Say Something People...n/t

[Fleshdancer]

4. I will never understand domestic violence

I can't comprehend being terrorized by the person who, at one point, made you feel loved and safe. I don't understand the desire to control other people and to dehumanize them while lying to them and yourself by saying you love them.

I've never been hit or raped but if I had to endure such horrible acts of violence, may it be at the hands of a stranger because I don't know if I'm strong enough to survive being victimized by someone I trust. How does a woman experience something like that without questioning everything about herself afterward? How could you possibly trust anyone? It must be excruciating.

[peacefreak]

17. You are very fortunate never to have been in that position.

To be there means that you always second guess yourself. Maybe if you try a little harder, he won't hit you. Maybe if you keep quiet & don't cross him.
Or if you were just a little skinnier, or smarter or prettier or...or...or...
I lived with a verbally & emotionally abusive man for over 20 years. It has taken me years to get over it. Who do I trust? Myself. Pretty good place to start.

[blondie58]

82. it happens very insidiously

it wasn't until my ex literally tried to kill my cat- while I was seven months pregnant- that I knew that I had to get out.

[Breeze54]

118. I'm glad you did!!

Good for you!! :hug:

:hi:

[tomreedtoon]

74. It's a simple lesson. People are bastards.

GloriaSmith, if you had been an ugly, fat boy in first grade you would have learned that lesson early. I suspect that as a girl, you were shielded from that essential knowledge. Now it's come on you all at once and you feel terrible.

Well, it's all very simple. Trust if you must, but keep your powder dry. Always plan an escape. Always expect a betrayal. Be very surprised if you're not betrayed. Never entrust your entire health, welfare, money or freedom to someone else; make sure you have it yourself.

And don't be depressed. Most of the human race knows this already. You're a late bloomer, but that's no crime. It's possible to live a good life, even if people are bastards.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

185. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

5. Murder is a leading cause of death for Pregnant women as well.

http://www.startribune.com/484/story/1264597.html

RIP Jessie Davis

[Madspirit]

10. Yeah

It's listed in the stats above. Heartbreaking, isn't it?
Lee

[mzmolly]

29. So it is...

"Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners."

Indeed it is heartbreaking.

[CTyankee]

19. Don't you know that it is all because of feminism?

Feminism took men's self respect away and they are fighting back by murdering their pregnant partners.

I'm sure you would find something akin to the above drivel over at freeperland. I don't go there myself, but I'll bet they are over there at this very moment blaming all the feminists for stripping men of their God given right as head of household and women should be kneeling at their feet.

:sarcasm:

[mzmolly]

27. Oh, I'm sure it is. "Them damn uppity bitches just don't know when to shut up anymore!"

"They don't know their place." /sarcasm

[raccoon]

85. Yeah, of course that sort of thing NEVER HAPPENED before the

women's movement. :sarcasm:


Also, in those days society and everybody else turned a blind eye to it.

You don't know there are maggots under the rock until you turn the rock over.

[jwirr]

96. Women knew it existed before feminism. They developed a quiet

support for those in their circle that needed help but it was not enough to stop the beatings. I witnessed a house full of neighbor ladies and a few men at the home of a battered woman when her husband was on the "rampage". They just refused to go home and sat there for hours to keep him in line. I worked only until they had to leave because they had lives of their own.

[krispos42]

68. Heartbreaking, but not all that surprising

Most pregnant woman are fairly young, so they are in pretty much the healthiest part of their lives. Probably not doing to die of heart disease, cancer, stroke, or any of the more common suspects that crop up in older people. They are also probably not going to die in childbirth, even though IIRC we are not doing exceptionally well in this area.

Accidents due to physical activity are mostly out, as moms don't want to risk the baby and it's awkward as hell.

So what's left? Car accidents, slips and falls, and...

murder.

I'm kinda surprised that car accidents are not first, but only kinda.

:-(

[EFerrari]

6. I once did a survey about DV resources for men, gay and straight

and what I found was there was nothing in a 50 mile radius for them. In other words, if my brother needed help or support, he was screwn.

:(

On the other hand, my husband used to get violent as a result of f#cked up psych care. The DA wanted me to put him behind bars. I had to say no to that and fought like hell to get him proper treatment. While the whole system was trying to get me to put him in prison, I had to try to survive AND find a good doc for him.

The violence stopped when he got the care he needed. Not rocket science but f#cking exhausting for me. It took eight years, and that's just the AVERAGE. :shrug:

[Madspirit]

7. I know

Our battered women shelter will council couples but doesn't have the resources to let men who are abused stay at the shelter. They do work closely with The Men's Center here, a progressive center run by men, that deals with abuse of both kinds.

This country doesn't want to fund mental health and yet wonders why violence is getting worse every damned day.

Lee

[EFerrari]

8. The system is much more dysfunctional than any of us are.

I once spent a whole afternoon at a pay phone in the rain, begging imMobile Psych disServices to please come and evaluate Doug. They found an out and I had to walk right back into a dangerous situation.

Within 24 hours, there was all kinds of violence and police and every form of bullsh!t you can imagine.

Doug wasn't an abuser. He needed medical care -- the tech we've had for decades that just doesn't get delivered.

We need to get a f#cking clue. :mad:

[Madspirit]

9. Heartbreaking Story

There was a wonderful woman in our town, once upon a time. She was a straight woman who worked closely with both lesbians and straight women. She owned some land and let any woman who wanted to or needed to...have some space, a place to get away... She was fairly poor and had just inherited this land and wanted to do something amazingly generous with it. ...but she had no money. Women built cabins on it and other gathering places.

This woman also had a son. A diagnosed and occasionally violent schizophrenic boy. She tried for more years than you can imagine to get Mikala some help. His meds rarely worked and he was just over the top. He could be a real sweety but he was a sick, sick boy. She loved her boy...MUCH. We all knew him since he was a little boy and we all loved him. No one would help him. Even with money it is hard to get good help for schizophrenics. There are a few speciality places around the US but they are prohibitively expensive. All our town offers are meds, no place to stay and no intervention.

One day Mikala murdered this wonderful woman because he was a very sick boy. Though the mentally ill are more often the victims of violence than the perpetrators, a paranoid schizophrenic can be very dangerous. She spent most of his life trying to get him adequate help. Now she is dead and he sits in prison...a schizophrenic in prison. The last thing his mom would EVER have wanted. There was just NO help for him.

That's our country.


Lee

[EFerrari]

11. Goddam preventable tragedies.

We can do better than this.

:grouphug:

:cry:

:hug:

[Zookeeper]

132. Mikala didn't get help, a woman was murdered....

but, some Rethug asshat saved enough money on his taxes to buy another big screen TV.

C'mon, get your priorities straight, Madspirit! :sarcasm:

:(

[uppityperson]

12. k&r

[Madspirit]

13. Thanks Uppity...n/t

[uppityperson]

15. You are welcome

Using DU for its good parts.

[EFerrari]

14. kick

[Madspirit]

16. If someone kicks me, I kick back... : > ...n/t

[EFerrari]

33. Me, too. And then, I feel guilty.

lol

[Morgana LaFey]

18. Now this is interesting

I am in search of ONE positive post in any of three threads (including this one) by a male DUer. A single post that expresses outrage over these hate crimes, these crimes of violence against women (which are epidemic, btw).

I have not found a single one. One of the threads has over 250 posts. I've seen not a single pro-woman post, not a single post in solidarity with women by a male DUer. Not one.

And in this thread, up to this point, not only are there any pro-women posts by men, there aren't ANY men posting.

But when there are, one of their main points will be: But men are victims of domestic violence too.

[BlueIris]

21. The refusal of male DU posters to recognize the hatred men have for women in our society

is very, very sad. I see it over and over again on this site. That tells me something about the male voices here, and it isn't a good thing.

[senseandsensibility]

56. I have stayed out of all these threads so far

but I have to agree with you. The fact that there is not one supportive post by a male DUer is very telling, and they have been challenged to do so on other threads as well. I'm not sure what to make of it, but it is sad. I know that MOST progressive males are supportive of women. The ones I've met in real life are, anyway. I'm married to one. But it's just not reflected here on DU, and it hasn't been since I've been a member. This topic would actually make a good stand alone thread. I would like to hear other DUers' opinions on why this is true, especially males'.:shrug:

[Codeine]

60. I think most DU males agree.

I know as a DU male I do. I think the hostility that a few female posters have expressed might be making some guys uncomfortable; they don't want to argue with a woman about this subject and they're afraid nearly any response they make will brew into an argument. Perhaps they feel that just being as unobtrusive as possible is the best bet.

Put simply, I believe that men and women have no idea how to communicate anymore; the old social paradigms are no longer appropriate, but it's been only a short time since we made that change and no new "traditions" have been created to replace the old. Everybody's at a loss, both men and women, and all any of us can muster up is distrust and fear, which gets us exactly nowhere.

That's why we need these discussions. We need the arguments, the confrontations, the airing of grievances on both sides until we finally figure out where we're all coming from. it's not going to be quick or easy; feminism is a recent phenomena; we still can't come to grips with race or religion, and those are situations that have been brewing for generations. But we'll get there, and it'll be progressive women and men that get us there.

And hey, DU guys -- step up and let these posters know where you stand. They don't hate men any more than you hate women, we're all just real skittish around each other right now!;-)

[senseandsensibility]

62. Thanks for the thoughtful response

It rings true on an emotional level. It seems like the males responding to these threads have all been afraid to tackle the emotional side of this. They hide behind quibbling about the statistical evidence or being super defensive when no one is accusing THEM of anything. Just my two cents.:)

[Morgana LaFey]

182. With all due respect

and I too appreciate your thoughtful response,

I nevertheless think it's mainly a crock.

Or more accurately, a fantastical cop out.

I think the hostility that a few female posters have expressed might be making some guys uncomfortable; they don't want to argue with a woman about this subject and they're afraid nearly any response they make will brew into an argument. Perhaps they feel that just being as unobtrusive as possible is the best bet.

I'll leave the subject of cowardly men alone. Iit speaks for itself, I think.

For the most part, the REAL reason they stay away is their own SEXISM AND MISOGYNY, and it manifests in two ways: the ones who MIGHT offer some nice constructive support don't bother, and the threads also seem to attract diehard misogynists who absolutely MUST try to dominate the threads, distract, and basically defend sexism and misogyny.

Here's my theory as to why men can't bother to stand up for DU women:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=229x5358

And, frankly, this concept has a lot to do with it as well (see the OP point #4, and post #79 and the subthread starting at #19:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=150280#153212

[Terran]

216. As a male DUer...

...permit me to declare my full agreement and commensurate outrage that the rest of you feel. Maybe it's because I've been working tangentially with the DV community for several years now, but I know enough and have heard enough to make me sick about this issue.

One thing I've seen over the years is that some people in my circle of folks working to end homelessness via mainstream financial sources (i.e., HUD funding) tend to view those working in the DV community as 'over the top', if you will, on confidentiality issues. The intersection of domestic violence and current efforts to end homelessness is a complicated issue, but basically the nationwide community of DV shelters have largely decided to sit out an effort to collect and computerize homelessness information because it invades the privacy of their clients--even if the data is in theory kept safe. A lot of people have expressed frustration over that decision because I don't think they understand what's actually at stake: people's lives, not to mention health and well-being. In my state, there's a documented case where an abuser worked in law enforcement and managed to track his spouse down using his LE resources and ultimately managed to kill her. The most ludicrous sounding scenario imaginable, something most people would scoff at as a possibility, and it still happened.

I'm a man, and even at my age (47), I still don't understand why so many men have the instincts of cave men (and I'm not sure cave men were as bad as some modern men--they didn't have alcohol, for one thing). I really think it's a matter of evolution and biology, but that's not an excuse. We're supposed to be civilized thinking beings; we're supposed to rise above our instincts.

To anyone in the thread who actually works in the field of DV, you have my utmost admiration. I've worked with some truly wonderful people because of that connection.

[Morgana LaFey]

299. Thank you, Terran --

I for one appreciate your remarks.

Oh, the cop who killed his wife scenario? Nothing ludicrous about it to me. Just SOP.

Why do you think husbands, boyfriends and ex's are THE main suspect whenever a woman is killed or goes missing? Being a cop doesn't absolve or save one.

[Skittles]

79. explains why misogyny is so prevalent

they just don't f***ing get it - not even here

[RethugAssKicker]

192. From a DU male....

I agree whole heartedly that there is a major problem with men abusing their wives...and it needs to
end.

However, the stats are not 100% correct... I can say this, because I know that if a man is physically
abused by his wife..HE IS NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT IT... even with his friends, what less go to a shelter or call the cops.. and because of this the stats are not totally accurate... How much is it overstated... I just don't know... but my guess is a whole lot!!...

AGAIN.. THIS DOES NOT take away from the abuses that men do perpetrate...
BUT, in my experience, when a woman gets angry... ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE !!... They tend to go on and on and on and say the most hurtful things... This tends to back the man into a corner and finally he strikes out...pysically.... and then becomes a statistic of our domestic violence system...
And in many instances it is the woman who pushes and pushes(physically) until again the man just can't take it anymore..... but of course, he is the one going to jail that night!!...

I don't have the link... but I read that most domestic violence cases are actually started by the woman.
Has anyone else seen this!!

[Breeze54]

22. lol! Or -- What are the stats????

:rofl:

:kick: & R'd over two hours ago!! ;)

[Breeze54]

23. OMG!! It just happened!!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1172763&mesg_id=1175134

unfuckingbelievable!!!!!!

[Madspirit]

24. Honestly

I don't understand it at all. I have MANY straight men friends in life who lead men's consciousness raising groups, work with the battered shelter and rape crisis center, work in every way possible, fighting patriarchy and violence against women and children. You would think, on a supposedly progressive site, there would be ONE man... It's just strange, imo.
Lee

[CTyankee]

200. Well, my husband is a strong liberal and a feminist but he wouldn't

probably go on DU (he's not registered anyway; DU is just not his thing), but he pledges $200 a year through United Way deductions from his paycheck to the Domestic Violence Center here in New Haven. He also supports the Women and Girls Fund of the NH Foundation, and the Ct Women's Education and Legal Fund. He happily supports some good women we have in local political offices.

The good ones are out there. They just don't talk about it very much.

[MedleyMisty]

25. Another main point will be

Why are you bashing men?

I'm trying to figure it out.

Okay, like, I live in the South. And I do get mad when people paint Southerners with huge wide hateful brushes.

However, I do not interpret bringing up racism and racial violence by whites against other ethnicities as bashing the South. There's a difference between "Slavery used to be an institution in the South and there are still many problems with racial hatred." and "All Southerners are stupid racists and we need to bomb them." (Yes, I have seen people advocating nuking the South on liberal political boards.)

There's a difference between recognizing misogyny and the fact that women are second-class citizens and that a large number of them are victimized and oppressed by men, and saying "All men are scum."

My husband is generally cool and pro-equality, but he once said something that made me think. I often discuss DU with him and I was asking him why so many men who claimed to be liberal would be so sexist and what was wrong with equality. I can't remember his exact answer, but basically he said that equality was fine as long as we didn't start oppressing them. So I said, "Umm, I don't know anyone who's advocating that. So you're worried that we'll do to you what you've been doing to us?" and he said, "Yeah, I guess."

Food for thought.

[Morgana LaFey]

183. Hmmm, your husband's response is VERY instructive, isn't it? nt

[Starbucks Anarchist]

94. I am outraged, actually.

I also don't buy into the "men are abused, too" counterattack -- at least not in terms of claiming parity with male-on-female violence.

[donsu]

100. the DU men always say - not me! its not all men! bad on you for saying all men!

never do they own up to what the race of men do to women and children.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

119. Small correction there:

"Race of men"?

If you're surprised at some men claiming it's not all of them who act like that, you should probably stop referring to what "the *race of men* do to women and children."

[donsu]

150. how would you say it?

nt

[Starbucks Anarchist]

181. I'd replace "race of men" with "some men."

"Race of men" heavily implies ALL men, which I assume you were not trying to say.

[Morgana LaFey]

184. all men benefit from it, bar none. ALL men benefit from it, and few

men stand up to stop it or confront and challenge it in any way.

ALL men is actually closer to the truth than "some men."

[Starbucks Anarchist]

193. Excuse me?

How exactly do I benefit from a select group of cowardly men who abuse women and children?

And the poster said "what the race of men does to women and children," which implies that all men *personally* engage in this hateful behavior -- the "benefit" from it is not implied nearly as much, if at all.

So, no, "some men" is much more accurate, since "some men" ("men" is used *very* loosely here) actually perform such acts themselves.

[Morgana LaFey]

205. Sorry -- the referent had been sort of diluted, ALL MEN BENEFIT

from sexism and misogyny, of which domestic and all violence against women is but one part.

I stand by that. ALL men benefit from white male privielege and male privilege if they're not white. If you don't understand that, I'll suggest you do some reading on the subject of sexism and misogyny.

I think your quibble about her use of "race of men" is both silly on the face of it, and that your rationale against it is, for reasons I've stated, inoperative. YOU benefit from sexism if you are male. Period.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

211. Okay...

Do men benefit from sexism and misogyny? I do agree there is certainly a case for that, though I believe there are varying degrees of said benefits.

I'm not white, so I guess I only benefit from the male privilege part of the equation.

I think your quibble about her use of "race of men" is both silly on the face of it, and that your rationale against it is, for reasons I've stated, inoperative.

Here is where I strongly disagree. The poster used "race of men" specifically referring to the OP which spoke of domestic violence itself, and not misogyny as a whole.

You have previously conflated numerous issues together just so you could fit it under the umbrella of misogyny or other social ills. In fact, I recall a thread recently where you conflated anti-fat bias with anti-gay bias, when, IMO, no such pure parity exists. Therefore, I do think I was in the right to call the poster on that -- if she used a poor choice of phrase, that's understandable, but if she literally meant what she said, then it would be wrong for me to not call her on it.

[Morgana LaFey]

264. Whatever

It's not important enough to me to continue the debate -- you have a good point, but I tend to disagree.

And yes, not being white removes the WHITE from white male privilege. You recognize that yourself from hard experience, I would imagine.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

266. I'm just trying to understand your anger.

Yes, of course, sexism and misogyny is horrible. Where you and I seem to disagree is what constitutes said social ills and what degree of responsibility men in general must bear for it.

Do I think I personally bear responsibility for it, particularly as a man who does not engage in such practices? No.

Do I step up when I see misogyny/sexism in action? Yes, I'd like to think so -- in fact, when you requested a male DUer to post in solidarity upthread, I did so -- feel free to check for yourself.

Do I feel that as a man, I benefit, to some degree, from misogyny/sexism? Yes, and I think it's wrong.

Do I think that means I hold an advantage over all women? No, I believe many women have overcome (to their best ability) misogyny to become quite successful, certainly more than me.

And yes, not being white removes the WHITE from white male privilege. You recognize that yourself from hard experience, I would imagine.

I haven't noticed any significant disadvantages in my life in this regard. Subtle racism against me almost certainly occurred, but I always deflected or overcame it -- and I never held white people in general as guilty because of the actions of a few.

This is where we have our strongest disagreement -- you certainly have the right to be angry at misogyny, but to needlessly attack all men because of the actions of a few ignorant troglodytes is unnecessary. Your posts in this thread (and elsewhere) seem to indicate a heavily anti-male bias -- such as when you attacked DUer treestar with anti-male vitriol, when in fact, she is a woman.

If this general misandry is in fact what you are getting at, I believe you are wrong. If this is NOT what you are getting at, then I sincerely apologize for my assumption.

I realize you may not respond to this post, but I feel the urge to let you know that I have never thought myself better than women, nor was I ever raised or taught that way, nor would I pass those ideas on to anybody else. I have never in my life hated a group of people, nor will I.

Cheers.

[Breeze54]

269. You benefit from misogyny/sexism BUT............. (huge pause)

"Do I feel that as a man, I benefit, to some degree, from misogyny/sexism?

Yes, and I think it's wrong."

How big of you. Yes, it is wrong. Glad to hear you "speak out" about it. :eyes:

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

"Do I think that means I hold an advantage over all women?"

"No, I believe many women have overcome"

But not all and the 'many' you speak of, are far and few between.

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

"Do I think I personally bear responsibility for it, particularly as a man who does not engage in such practices?"

"No."

Er...yes, you are responsible for it's continuation by your admitted limited inaction.


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

"Do I step up when I see misogyny/sexism in action?"

"Yes, I'd like to think so "

You'd like to "think" so.... ???

SO WOULD WE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grr:

How condescending can you get?? :shrug:

:puke:

You are clueless.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

270. Wow...

How big of you. Yes, it is wrong. Glad to hear you "speak out" about it.

What do you want me to do? I don't act sexist and don't hang around sexists. I really don't know what else I'm supposed to do.

But not all and the 'many' you speak of, are far and few between.

To an extent -- I'm not necessarily talking about the famous ones. I was rather thinking of places like my female-heavy office, several of whom rank above me, which I have no problem with.

Er...yes, you are responsible for it's continuation by your admitted limited inaction.

First of all, it's "its." :eyes:

Second, aside from what I stated above, what else am I supposed to do?

You'd like to "think" so.... ???

SO WOULD WE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

How condescending can you get??

I was referring to the disparity between what I perceive on DU as sexism and what others (mostly women) consider sexism to be.

For example, blatantly misogynistic threads/posts needlessly attacking women are wrong, and I alert on them. However, when a topic like the now legendary "Douchebag" thread attempts to claim sexism, I can't help but think extreme threads like that tend toward self-parody and do nothing for the cause.

The "I think so" part refers to how women (on DU, particularly) would gauge my standing up for them, particularly since you and a few other posters have attacked me blindly.

You are clueless.

Wow, I come here and try to stick up for women, and I get this in response. Great job on picking up allies.

:eyes:

[Morgana LaFey]

274. You're no ally

you're a self-congratulatory wannabe, with a long way to go.

If you WANT to help, you have to lose the self-congratulation first of all. Being an ally of women requires a LOT more than just not minding that you work for women, or some women in your organization are higher ranking than you. A LOT further.

Second, it isn't cool to try to tell US what is and isn't sexism, is and isn't offensive, is and isn't appropriate "for the cause."

That's arrogant and yes, condescending.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

278. I am an ally, whether you want me to be or not:

First, I'm not self-congratulatory. I stated that I am against misogyny, which I think would be a good start in building bridges between the sexes.

You posted upthread about how no male DUers posted in support of the OP. When I did post in support of your post, you now accuse me of being self-congratulatory.

So what exactly do you want me to do to combat misogyny? In all these posts, you have not addressed this to me. I can't keep playing a guessing game here -- you have to tell me straight up what else I could possibly do within my power.

[Morgana LaFey]

281. Alrighty, then.

That's a good start. A VERY good start: not backing away and withdrawing your "support" afer a little confrtontation. I'm impressed. Seriously. You've got a lot to learn, but have expressed some willingness. VERY good.

What is needed -- and it's really already been spelled out, but I'll do it again -- is for men of good will to confront the sexism and misogyny of other male DUers wherever you see it. GET into those threads, like this one, that you know are going to have a lot of anti-woman sentiment, and start challenging the trogladytes. (I think you'll find far more of them than you imagine.)

Alerting is good, but a helluva lot of misogny is expressed in attitudes that probably will never get deleted. Go after THEM and question THEM instead of challenging me about my anger.

IOW, don't just sit there saying pleasant, "me too" or "I care" sorts of things, DO something. Challenge those men (and women) who are guilty of sexism. Call them out on it, make it known that there are other men here (well, you and only one more that I can think of ) who won't let that pass unaddressed, unchallenged.

Here's a post where the OP expresses an incredibly old-fashioned, sexist sentiment, and only ONE person got it and confronted it (as of 51 posts). It would be very useful for some MAN to come along and say: hey, that's not cool at all, that's sexist, whatsamatter with you? You ever hear of Women's Lib in Nebraska?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3336460&mesg_id=3336460


You might find me doing a little fawning, and I probably wouldn't be alone. :D

[Starbucks Anarchist]

282. Excellent.

I know we have butted heads before (even in this very thread), but I'm glad we're establishing a meaningful dialogue now.

Sure, it took awhile, but what doesn't? ;)

:toast: to you, Morgana.

[Morgana LaFey]

298. Well, let's be clear here

:evilgrin:

You aren't out of the woods yet (and I'm not recanting my previous remarks), but you sure have won MY affection. Now I'll be looking for you in all these other threads -- challenging sexist MEN (and women), instead of challenging feminists on their "anger," eh?

:toast: right back atcha

Excellent indeed.

[Morgana LaFey]

272. I noted your post upthread

and forgive me for not fawning all over you for it but while I appreciated the effort, it sure as hell SEEMED like an effort. In a word, it was feeble, frankly. Maybe a good start if you're not used to this standing up for women thing, but ... you've got a long way to go to be effective, or even heard.

And now you're here questioning my ANGER. And you're accusing me of eing a man-hater in general, and of "attacking" ALL men because of just a few -- YOUR word, a few -- "troglodytes."

Yeah, boy, howdy. I'd say you're one helluvan ally you are. Terrific support system, you are. Yesirree. With friends like you....

Oh well. What's the point.

It's annoying to have to point out that I'm NOT attacking ALL men. I AM pointing out that all men benefit from sexism and am I angry about that? You bet, especially angry about those men -- and they are legion -- who just sit back and let the benefits roll in while their sisters, mothers, daughters suffer and die to keep their white ass male privilege goin' strong. Angry about those me here at DU to whom their (white) male privilege is far more important than helping stem the tide of sexism and misogyny here. That's inexcusable. But you'll see us feminists supporting gay rights and confronting homophobia, you'll see us standing up against racism. Do we get the favor returned by DU's GBLT community (aside from one man and one woman I know of) and minorities here? Nope. We're on our own.

You are to be commended for even recognizing that you are the beneficiary of women's distress and oppression. However, I'm a little less enthusiastic about what comes after that for you -- apparently, not much.

But you DO have the energy to be overly concerned about what you perceive as my anger -- like the whole universe of men will collapse because of my lone anger? Like some men will suffer and die because of it? Get beaten in their own homes, or raped? Like my anger is going to deeply affect any one man, or any group of men -- make them lose sleep or something? Get lower paying jobs? Have spontaneous miscarriages?

Or maybe just make them uncomfortable. That's worst of all, isn't it? Poor defenseless men, so terrified of a little discomfort due to women's anger that they have to try to talk them out of it, shame them, humiliate them, whatever necessary, just to keep them from being -- and expressing! -- their anger.

Well, frankly, it could be said that the POINT is to make men uncomfortable. The POINT is a little consciousness raising. Too bad men aren't a little more courageous, a little more strong and sturdy.

you attacked DUer treestar with anti-male vitriol, when in fact, she is a woman.

Oh, brother. First, if treestar is female, well, that's a sad case, I'm afraid.

Second, and far more important, so what? Being female doesn't excuse one from being sexist and even misogynist. Some of the WORST sexists are women (Anne Coulter, Phyllis Schlaffly, et. al.). And absolutely NONE of us, as women, escape from internalizing some of the oppression. Most of us still wear make-up, shave our legs, wear high heels, as one very visible example. Look at the pathetic, misguided women who participate in shows like Bachelor or Age of Love, etc. Utterly ridiculous. THAT is internalized oppression!

Also, you're not trying to understand my anger. You're trying to talk or shame me out of it.

As for "a heavy anti-male bias," it's really a VERY heavy anti-sexist bias. When I stop seeing so many sexists around me, you'll stop thinking I hate all men.

Oh, and even among sexist men, I've ALWAYS been especially forgiving of "educable" ones. There aren't even many of those at DU. Mostly just diehard sexists.

Hope to see more of you on these threads where all the anti-woman posters insist on coming out to try to keep us in our places. Maybe you could question THEM and their motivations, instead of us horrible, don't-know-our-places angry feminists?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

277. I didn't expect you to fawn all over my supportive post upthread.

I was just trying to express my anger at domestic violence, and you should note that I didn't pull out the tired "men are abused, too" canard -- I realize the problem is heavily male-on-female in nature.

But you DO have the energy to be overly concerned about what you perceive as my anger -- like the whole universe of men will collapse because of my lone anger? Like some men will suffer and die because of it? Get beaten in their own homes, or raped? Like my anger is going to deeply affect any one man, or any group of men -- make them lose sleep or something? Get lower paying jobs? Have spontaneous miscarriages?

Now you're just being melodramatic. You're conflating my contention that you seem to post against men in general (though you say it's just against sexism, it sometimes comes off differently) with the real struggles women have to go through -- rape and abuse, etc.?

The reason why I have a beef with your (perceived) anti-male bias is because it's always wrong to attack ANY group of people, particularly people who are *on your side*.

Or maybe just make them uncomfortable. That's worst of all, isn't it? Poor defenseless men, so terrified of a little discomfort due to women's anger that they have to try to talk them out of it, shame them, humiliate them, whatever necessary, just to keep them from being -- and expressing! -- their anger.

I'm not trying to stop you from expressing your anger against misogyny -- FAR from it. I am just curious as to why, even though you say it's purely anti-sexist, that it comes off as anti-male instead. That's it.

Second, and far more important, so what? Being female doesn't excuse one from being sexist and even misogynist. Some of the WORST sexists are women (Anne Coulter, Phyllis Schlaffly, et. al.). And absolutely NONE of us, as women, escape from internalizing some of the oppression. Most of us still wear make-up, shave our legs, wear high heels, as one very visible example. Look at the pathetic, misguided women who participate in shows like Bachelor or Age of Love, etc. Utterly ridiculous. THAT is internalized oppression!

I didn't say being female excused one from being sexist -- I was simply pointing out that in response to her post, you launched into a tirade against men when she is in fact a woman. You *assumed* she was a man instead of a woman -- it was a woman who called you "babe," and certainly not me, a man.

And I also think shows like Age of Love are toxic pablum that demean everyone involved, particularly the women on the show.

Also, you're not trying to understand my anger. You're trying to talk or shame me out of it.

Of course not. I really am trying to understand it. I have spoken with and in support of many proudly feminist female DUers, and none of them have possessed the amount of vitriol you seem to carry around. I absolutely understand your anger at misogyny, but I just think your approach -- if bridge-building is your goal -- is poorly executed.

Hope to see more of you on these threads where all the anti-woman posters insist on coming out to try to keep us in our places. Maybe you could question THEM and their motivations, instead of us horrible, don't-know-our-places angry feminists?

As I said in another post, I do alert on blatantly sexist/misogynistic threads. Unfortunately, I can't possibly find and root out every possible post or thread containing such vile thoughts, but when I do see them, I respond appropriately.

And please don't try to reframe my thoughts -- my problem is NOT with the goals of feminism, but rather those select few feminists who are so full of vitriol that they can't even recognize an ally when they see one.

As I said before, I am not a sexist, nor do I associate myself with such people. If you take anything away from my posts, I certainly hope that is it.

[WildEyedLiberal]

284. You're wasting your time

Seriously. Don't even bother with this poster.

[Morgana LaFey]

300. Hah! Shows how much YOU know.

Are you this insightful about everything else?

[donsu]

296. when I'm saying 'race of men' I'm thinking globally, saying 'some men

feels like locally.

[Terran]

219. This is demonstrably true

One only has to look at the comparative incomes of men and women to reach agreement with your statement. White male privilege is about being male as much as it is about being white.

[treestar]

199. Most men would challenge it

There are domestic violence cases in the courts all day, every day. Many a male judge, lawyer, juror steps up and fights it. Many a male legislator voted for the laws that made it possible for a woman to get societal recognition that domestic violence was wrong.

Men of nonwhite races had to fight to get their basic equality. Women are the only group that had it handed to them by the oppressor. How could the 19th Amendment have passed otherwise? At that time the legislatures were all men.

More progress has been made for this oppressed group than any other. Not that more can't be made, but what is the good of alienating people who otherwise would be supportive? You're talking to liberals, generally, on DU.

[Morgana LaFey]

221. What a bunch of propagandistic hooey. For shame!

I wouldn't have the nerve to post such tripe and pretend it was a serious post if I were a man. Unbelievable.


There are domestic violence cases in the courts all day, every day. Many a male judge, lawyer, juror steps up and fights it.

They should get our special thanks for doing their fucking jobs?

Many a male legislator voted for the laws that made it possible for a woman to get societal recognition that domestic violence was wrong.

And many a male legislator didn't. It took a LOT of lobbying by women activists to begin to get the merest domestic violence legislation accomplished, and the work still isn't thoroughly done.

Men of nonwhite races had to fight to get their basic equality. Women are the only group that had it handed to them by the oppressor.

Demonstrably, appallingly wrong. A flat out vicious misstatement. Women fought tooth and nail for every little crumb we've gotten, and the backlash and erosion of the rights we won has been appallilng. I figure we've lost about half of what we gained.

How could the 19th Amendment have passed otherwise? At that time the legislatures were all men.

Yeah, it passed after SEVENTY TWO FUCKING YEARS of lobbying and work by women, which included chaining ourselves to the fence around the White House and going to jail and going on hunger strikes and getting force fed - which outraged a nation -- and eventually so shamed President Wilson, along with the fact that England had granted suffrage to women ahead of us, that the Amendment passed.

And it was one wonderful woman who succeeded in getting a letter to her young Tennessee legislator: "Do the right thing," which finally secured the vote for women.

More progress has been made for this oppressed group than any other.

You wanna try to prove that?

Not that more can't be made, but what is the good of alienating people who otherwise would be supportive? You're talking to liberals, generally, on DU.

I don't give a flying fuck if I alienate you or any other male who can't be bothered to do anything better than lecture us on how far we've come, baby. Especially when women are DYING at the rate of 4 a day because of domestic violence, and geting raped at the rate of one rape every 1.3 minutes, and when our rights over our own bodies are being eroded at warp speed, when our bodies are little better than adornments for products to be sold, and when not a damn one of you steps up to challenge and confront the rampant sexism right here at DU. Alienate you (plural)? Why, from your (plural) behavior, I'd have thought ya'll were already in a war against us.

Nope, ya'll want to engage in it, make sure you don't have to give up your white male privilege because that's what equality for women would mean: it would mean you DON'T have half the population over whom you are innately, by gift of birth, superior in some way, however small. The losers among you wouldn't be able to say to themselves: "Well I may be a loser and nincompoop but at least I'm not a woman. I'm a MAN. And as long as men are superior to women, as they've always been (or so goes the lie you - plural - tell yourselves and have for millennia now), I'm not totally useless or REALLY the bottom of the barrel after all."

If you don't LIKE being alienated, perhaps you could do something positive about it. Chances are that would be too much trouble and you'd have to give up too much (white male privilege). Care to prove me wrong? Consider that a challenge and a dare.

[Name removed]

260. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Morgana LaFey]

263. Yes, we DID have to fight a war to get the vote

It is widely understood that the UK granted women suffrage because it was so lame that women couldn't vote after all they'd contributed to the war effort during WWI. And I already told you that UK's move to women's suffrage showed up the U.S. enough that that combined with how shamefully and brutally women suffragists were being treated, the 19th Amendment passed.

Wha a shame you begrudge us what rights we have because we didn't suffer enough, according to you. OR that you begrudge us FULL equality because we're equal enough somehow. (That perfectly reflects Patriarchy's response to the liberation and equality movements of the 20th Century: okay, a little more freedom and equality, but not FULL equality. You can be only so equal and no more. And that's when the backlash set in for both women and minorities.)

Oh, and any man who considers himself liberal but calls me or ANY woman babe is no friend, and no liberal. It's a sexist put down and you're not even smart enough not to use it while trying to tell me how much a friend of women's rights you are. Do you have calouses on your knuckles?

Calling me idiot is yet another personal attack -- that makes 3 sexist remarks and personal attacks in your fairly short post. Just can't keep it in, can ya?

[ProgressiveAmPatriot]

279. Speaking as a male DUer, I couldn't agree more

I help run an organization at my university called Men Against Violence which works on these kinds of issues. It is extremely hard to get men to take this issue seriously and realize that while men are also victims of domestic violence and sexual assault, the overwhelming majority of cases are perpetrated by men against women. If all a man can say is "men are victims too," it only shows how poorly he understands the issue. This is a serious problem around the world which is completely ignored by society, and specifically by men. It is amazing how otherwise progressive men have extremely conservative (read sexist) views on domestic assault and sexual assault. Progressive men have by and large failed miserably to support/work with women on these issues. In short, they've failed to be feminists. Real men read and real men are feminists.

[Morgana LaFey]

302. Thank you, now where are YOU when the DU sexism starts up

in almost every thread about any rightwing woman, or any thread ABOUT women. It's great to have you here, and agreeing -- are you also directly challenging those men who've said appallingly sexist things on this thread? If not, why not?

[Morgana LaFey]

280. Here's another example -- from a completely different thread

RANK sexism in the OP -- the kind that shouldn't have seen the light of day since about 1982. And not a single soul, until the last poster (Post #51 ) pointed it out. No men, no women either caught it or bothered to say a word about it. The rank sexism appears in the 2nd to last paragraph of the OP in case anyone needs a clue:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3336460&mesg_id=3336460

[BlueIris]

20. Another important thread. Thanks, Mad.

[19jet54]

26. Political Force...

... Iraq & Afghanistan, through our government, train and teach Americans today that violence is OK to solve disputes. In fact we seem to do so about every 20 years or so since the founding of our country. By in large, men resort to physical violence more while women use cunning and deception to achieve life's goals; that is genetic somewhat, but what you refer to is "self-control" during times of conflict. Humans are the only animal species to exhibit self-control during such basic animal instincts, but history does not show much hope really. I agree with your premise, your argument, and your goals, but am cynical about the reality other then by law & police force - but with that, there we go again with political force - a never ending cycle - see what I mean? Hell, even civil chimpanzees beat rival members to death sometimes. I know we like to think we are above such things, but history tells me otherwise - great ideology though.

[raccoon]

86. Oppressed groups always do that because they have to.

"men resort to physical violence more while women use cunning and deception to achieve life's goals"

Slaves throughout the centuries have had to use cunning and deception too.

The one who has less power is the one who has to be more cunning in order to survive. Like Brer Rabbit.

[donsu]

101. oh please - women have had to use "cunning and deception"

not to "achieve life's goals" but to stay alive; unbullied, unbeaten, raped or murdered.

[19jet54]

160. Darfur proves you right...

... major crimes of criminals period - Darfur for example; most men have no value and are killed; the women not killed are raped and left alive - humans are brutal!

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mzmolly]

30. You're not serious?

:shrug:

[Breeze54]

31. You're either very stoopid or very brave.

unfuckingbelievable.

[A-Schwarzenegger]

32. Since I dont know you, I dont know if that's a parody.

I guess I'll assume it's a parody, and that more shall be revealed.

[MrSlayer]

35. This type of humor will not go over well here.

Not a wide audience for it.

[Recursion]

38. double-plus unfunny

Like I mentioned in the flamefest on the other side of the forum, violence against women is so ingrained in our culture that it's a punchline. Try a similar joke with racial overtones ("I promised I'd stop lynching him as soon as he stops being uppity") and you know you'd never have said that.

[Breeze54]

39. Bravo!!!!!

Finally!! :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

[Recursion]

45. I feel bad about how I came off in the flamefest

Since this thread is about domestic violence in general, I might be able to say what I think a little less flame-inspiringly (sorry if I get too much into anthropology here; it's just kind of how I am):

I think violence against women is a bigger problem for society than violence against men (which is itself a tremendous problem) not necessarily because of its quantity but because it is, for lack of a better word, ritual in nature. If you simply take a dispassionate look at statistics (as I was accused of doing in the pregnancy thread), you might conclude women are safe (at least, safer than men) from violence, being a majority of the population and a minority of the victims of violent crime.

But, it's not that simple, because while violence against men is seen as an aberration from society (for the most part), violence against women is seen as a component of society (eg, that joke and countless others). At the risk of getting into too much froo-froo anthropology, I don't think it's really that much different from the ancient practice of sacrificing a girl when you built a mead-hall: men are taught to use women as a "sink" for their negative emotions and experiences; the woman is made a victim of violence in a sort of redemptive ritual for the community. How many movies have we seen where a woman becomes "hysterical" (which if I recall my Greek correctly simply means "having a uterus") and the hero has to slap her to restore order: she has become the "sink" for the negative emotion of the scene, and the male figure can only exorcise that by committing violence against her, which she submissively accepts as her due. If the sexes of the characters are reversed, the scene can only be comic; even if the audience can accept a heroine with the totem ability to exorcise through violence (which is becoming more acceptable in recent years, though whether or not that's a good thing I'm not sure), they still can only view a man "feminine" enough to accept the ritual violence as laughable (which gets to the not-often-repeated-enough point that misogyny is at the root of homophobia -- "he looks at me the way I look at a woman! get him!").

Morgana called violence by men against women a hate crime. I don't know if I would go as far as to say all violence against women by men is a hate crime (some is for the perfectly mundane reasons of money, etc.), domestic violence in particular is because it is an abuse not just of the woman being abused but of womanhood in general; it is her role as a woman rather than her as an individual that is being attacked and use to expiate whatever negative emotions the man is expressing. And, it is generally used as a model for children, to teach them the ritual nature of violence against women ("Dad hit mom because he lost his job").

I think the inevitable charges of man-bashing are ridiculous; obviously the man battering his girlfriend must be responsible and accountable for his actions, but it is a systemic and societal totem that is reinforced by far too many people (even its victims) on far too many levels. It's not man-bashing to point out that men are more violent than women; it's a simple and empirical fact. Does it have a solution? I hope so; certainly education (why are there no women's studies classes in high schools? why do pretty much only women take them in college?) and less exploitative media couldn't hurt.

I'm not a huge Kucinich fan but I love his point that we cannot stop war before we stop domestic violence. Domestic violence is how men are trained to be violent.

Like I said, maybe the Lysistrata had a point...

[WildEyedLiberal]

81. Fantastic post

:thumbsup:

I hope every DUer - male and female - reads this post. And I hope some of the people who flamed you earlier at least do you the courtesy of engaging you in a dialogue.

FWIW, I understood where you were coming from the in other thread... I have several friends (both male and female) who are by their nature very analytical, data-crunching "left-brained" people, and so I understood your desire to understand the data and the statistics of the study.

[WildEyedLiberal]

285. How telling

The people who flamed you most vociferously don't give a shit now. I guess they if they can't point to your posts as examples of "sexism" they will just ignore them. :eyes:

[Morgana LaFey]

301. Actually, you didn't get ENOUGH into anthropology for my taste

Here's what I'd appreciate -- take this whole post over to the Women's Rights forum -- or better yet, Feminists GROUP forum (where naysaying sexist pigs aren't allowed), and post it. And then elaborate on the anthropology part, if you will.

BTW, I missed this post of yours earlier, partly because when I scrolled over to see who the author was, the subject was off the screen and I read the wrong name for the author. I think this is some potentially very valuable information and I'd love to make sure some of my feminist friends see it and have a chance to discuss it.

Game?

[Mushroom]

47. hmm

"i told my wife that i'd stop hitting her...

just as soon as she stops giving me reasons to." Posted by QuestionAll

Do you rape her when she misbehaves you? Do you leave marks and pain on her body so she has to crouch in public? I know you're being a little asshole in order to take away from the OP because you believe that you're larger than online life and smarter than online women to accomplish the job but I assure you, you highlight the OP by contributing male ugliness. Now get the fuck away from me.

[Morgana LaFey]

186. Welcome to DU!

I hope you're around for a good long time. Great post.

:thumbsup:

[Madspirit]

48. Self-Delete...n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

34. What can be done?

The best remedy I've ever seen in action was after a weed dealer in my town hospitalized his girlfriend. A number of people, including myself, urged everyone to stop buying drugs from him. It worked, he went completely out of business and disappeared. The girl left him--she's borderline psychotic, though, and I expect her to get into this situation again. It's sad because she's a really sweet person.

I've crunched data for the DV houses in my community, nothing spectacular, just regular evaluation work to keep the funds flowing. I've never seen the inside of one, though--they are VERY secretive, for good reason. Most homeless people on the streets have been abused--the men as children, the women as children and as adults.

Abused and abuser come in all flavors. I've seen men abused by women, lesbians and gay men abusing each other. In some couples it's a two-way street. For many of the abused it's a continuing cycle much bigger than one relationship with one bad person.

Calling the cops? I wouldn't recommend it if it's not you being abused, or an immediate, life or death situation. If it's the usual lower-grade, routine abuse, calling the cops will make the couple close ranks. Almost any outside intervention will do this. I really think we don't have much power in those cases except to ostracize, ostracize, ostracize the abuser and keep teaching younger folks that good people don't hit or hurt their lovers.

I'm really uncomfortable bringing the polity into a personal relationship. I think the police could be much more diligent bringing in known stalkers and abusers. If they weren't macho, wife-beating, ex-girlfriend stalkers themselves, they would probably take these crimes more seriously. But I do worry that an initiative using coercive force would have the usual "creep factor," and turn into an opportunity for power-drunk madmen and -women to control our lives. Cf.: the war on drugs.

I say we should all work to change the culture. It's slower than coercive intervention but surer and safer.

[Breeze54]

37. IIMHO, more men need to be actively working as role models

for the kids who's Dad's have split and the one's who's Dad's are absent in other ways.

Big Brother is always looking for help.

[Jed Dilligan]

41. Organizations scare me

I generally live in poor communities with lots of kids around, so I'm doing the big brother thing informally a lot.

[Breeze54]

42. They scare me too! lol

That's cool that you're at least engaging them! ;)

But the instituitions like Big Brother/Big Sister?
You only need to deal with them on a short term basis.
Most of the time you'd be with the kid, a few hours a week.

Boy's and Girl's Clubs need more male role models also.

When my youngest got to HS, I insisted on more male teachers.
They said they'd try their best and they did! ;)

[Jed Dilligan]

44. I used to work daycare

If I didn't have so much student loan debt I still would. I was temping at different places and they were always very happy to get a man for a change.

[Recursion]

46. I found volunteering to tutor was a good way to connect with neighborhood kids

I live across the street from an elementary school and they are always looking for volunteers to tutor. After a background check that I can only describe as comparable to re-upping my secret clearance and getting a prostate exam simultaneously (but, that's the times we live in, sadly, and any man who "wants to help kids" gets some wary looks), I started tutoring last spring. I'm still young enough that they don't immediately get into their "adult is around" defensive mode and it was a really good chance to at least try to be a positive male figure, something way too many of these kids don't have in their lives (there are 0 male faculty at the school; our obsession with locking black men in jail probably has a lot to do with the general lack of male role models for them).

It's amazing how much these "problem" boys responded; one kid was smoking and I said, "dude, you really should quit before you give all your money to an old rich white guy who's trying to kill you." He quit.

[SoCalDem]

36. All I can say is that in most cases, there WERE signals.

but many women are needy and naive..and then they pay the ultimate price..and their kids too :(

[Cerridwen]

43. Please, tell me I misunderstood your post and that you did not

just blame women for getting beat and murdered?

Just in case that is what you meant, I'd like to ask that you read my post in another thread about some of the reasons we view "domestic violence" as the women's fault and why it is wrong that we do so.

[SoCalDem]

49. "Blame" is not the operative word..

I just think that society (and parents) sometimes ill-prepare their girls, and that a LOT of women choose very poor "mates"..

Blame is not the issue.. Facts are what they are..

[Breeze54]

50. So it IS the woman's fault, in your opinion!!

"(parents) sometimes ill-prepare their girls, and that a LOT of women choose very poor "mates".. "

ReallY?

It isn't that there are men out there who prey on women and use them?

It wouldn't be because some men are/have been deceitful? Liars?


Naw, must be WOMEN whom are at fault and should've known better, chose better, had lie detectors implanted! :sarcasm: :puke:


Blame IS an issue, as it's men perpetrating most of the violence.

Most victims and perpetrators in homicides are male

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm

Males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder in 2004.

But it must be women causing them to do it too, right?? :eyes:

[Mythsaje]

54. "Alpha" males

They're a big focus in romance novels. Just about every woman in them wants a strong, decisive, powerefully dominant male presence. Unfortunately, as my wife stresses, REAL alpha males are extremely rare. Many of those who project that image are NOT really that way, and become obsessively controlling because of their own inner fear of being weak.

Think back to high school. Who were the guys who were most popular? Mostly loud, arrogant jocks. Men with something to prove, and the chance to do it every week, or every day on the practice field. Looking to these guys isn't the fault of the girls, but of society telling them that these are the guys they SHOULD look to.

I think some of it's instinct, going back a long, long time. Guys who come across this bold and strong provide a sense of security. They seem like they'd make good protectors, where the soft-spoken, introspective types do not.

The worst thing, perhaps, is that these guys don't really KNOW they're deceiving anyone because they are, at the same time, deceiving themselves. They think they ARE strong and capable. They're tough. They're winners. They scored the points. They defended the line. They sacked the quarterback.

But the minute they're put into a situation where that sort of strength doesn't matter, they're NOT strong or decisive. They don't know WHAT to do. They're good at playing a game, or talking shit with their buddies, or blustering up enough self-confidence to convince naive young women, but they're NOT secure in themselves by any means.

It might not be until they're older, when they realize all the success of their high school years doesn't translate into success in the real world, when it hits them in the face that being BMOC back then doesn't mean shit. They've got a wife, a kid, maybe one on the way, and they're trying to keep everything together with a crappy job and a boss that is all too happy showing them exactly how inferior they really are.

So where do these guys turn to prove to themselves that they're NOT weak? To those weaker than themselves. To their spouses, and their children. And this happens even to men who are outwardly successful, because they feel they have to make up for the fear they feel every time they have to make a big decision, or push that little extra bit to make a deal go through. They feel like their life is out of control and they have to find some way to exert control over some little part of it.

It's absolutely fucked up that women are killed. It's fucked up that kids are beaten and sometimes killed. All because our society doesn't teach men to understand themselves--their strengths, their limitations, and how to deal with the real world without bullshit posturing.

And what's even worse is that these assholes RUN the country. The very same mental and emotional issues that drive men to do the unthinkable in domestic cases are the VERY same ones that drive people like GW and Cheney and their ilk to project their fear and weaknesses and ineptitude outward toward targets they perceive as being vulnerable to their power.

In one, perhaps the truest, definition of "Alpha" is one who cannot be dominated, who'd rather die than be subjected to domination. It is NOT a person who seeks dominance over others, but over him (or her) self.

These are just the observations of someone who works in a female dominated industry and sees not only the misconceptions about these personality traits played out in fiction all the time, and how those misconceptions affect society in general. They're dangerous illusions, in my mind, and ones perpetuated in almost every level of our society. True strength is resiliant, and conforms to pressure when necessary. False strength is hard, but fragile, and explodes into razor sharp shards when put under pressure. And all too often it's the innocent who end up skewered on those shards.

edited to fix a typo

[A-Schwarzenegger]

59. "because of their own inner fear of being weak"

This is closer to the marrow than hatred. Hatred is a mask for the fear. Violence is easier than facing myself, accepting myself & my limitations, including that fear. Hurt, fear, vulnerability, living up to a fake and really insane image of what a man is supposed to be--all this is under the violence against women. Especially domestic violence. Play the tough guy in the world, then go home where you are safe to be yourself, to trust, to weep, to spill your guts. But then you have made yourself vulnerable to another, to one other, and if that other turns on you in the slightest, or you perceive her to have turned, in any subtle suspected way, then that is when the male ego says Protect yourself, hurt her before she can hurt you, hurt her because she can hurt you, might hurt you. It's not sane, it's not rational. The problem in changing this, culturally or one man at a time, is that it can really only be done by men who have been there, but what man wants to say, I've been there, I've abused women, and I stopped, and this is what happened, and this is what I did, and this is how I changed, and yet I still have that fear in me, it will never fully be killed, yet I see it now more as my humanity rather than my weakness, or my fear of being weak. And of course, throw in alcohol/drugs into the mix in many if not most cases. Instead of asking for support from men in speaking out against violence against women, ask how many men here have been violent against women, have committed domestic violence, and have changed, and how they have changed, and what it's like today.

[JustJoe]

287. Thank you.

[Cerridwen]

52. So it's because girls are "ill-prepared" and women "choose" poorly

that these same girls and women are beaten and murdered? Do you truly mean to put the entire responsibility on the shoulders of the women who are beaten or murdered? Did you read my linked post?

Surely, we can agree that the batterer has at least some of the responsibility for his/her violent actions?

I'm not sure to what "facts" you are referring in relation to these posts when you say "facts are what they are."

[Madspirit]

53. You are WAY missing the point

It isn't what it says about the women/victims. It's what it says about the men. Men shouldn't beat women and children, regardless of the self esteem or lack thereof of their victim.
Lee

[gollygee]

58. The answer isn't for women to choose better men, it's for men to be less violent

parents need to raise their sons without violence and without the glorification of violence and bullying.

[rainman99]

65. I was in a bad first marriage and my mom would say

'At least he doesn't beat you'. To her, that was the only qualification
for a good husband because she'd been beat.

[gollygee]

69. I suppose if you've been living in fear

simply to not live in fear must look pretty attractive.

[Breeze54]

70. Me too and my sister had the gall to say;

"Can't you just go along with him, let him think he's won, to keep the peace?"

"You mean sacrifice my integrity and self respect"?? Hell NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :grr:

Go along with it?? Let him think he's won? :wtf: And how would that be an honest relationship?

Divorcing seemed like the best solution, to me, although he didn't agree for years!!!

Asshole! Just wanted to (think he had) all the control, as usual. Pitiful.

[raccoon]

87. "We are comfortable with the familiar, even if it is painful."

A counselor told me that once.



" (and parents) sometimes ill-prepare their girls, and that a LOT of women choose very poor "mates".. "

A lot of these women come from families where their father beat the hell out of their mothers, maybe the kids too. It's what they're used to, so that's the kind of man they feel comfortable with...and get involved with.

Which is not to say it is in any way the woman's fault.

[Dora]

99. I hope you don't mean what you say. This is another shade of blaming the victim. n/t

[Recursion]

116. There's a fine and dangerous line here

One that I found very difficult to navigate back when I was helping teach a women's self defense course (my {female} sensei used me as the male dummy to beat up). On the one hand, it can only be a good thing (IMO) for women to adopt a more aggressive security posture and more proactively take charge of their own safety and sanctity. On the other hand, it's difficult to communicate that message without implying that the woman is somehow bringing abuse on herself or "deserving it" if she doesn't do that.

I normally dislike knee-jerk "equivalence" statements in women's issue threads, but the woman-as-victim perception is one thing that is, in my experience, perpetuated widely by both men and women, and a habit both sexes need to break.

[dogday]

125. Uh men have nothing to do with this? Just let them go

crazy and kill other women, but it is the woman's fault because these men are filled with rage and disgusted at themselves and feel inadequate... Always easier to take it out on the woman...

[uppityperson]

133. I was one of these women once.Fact was my boyfriend beat me, I blame him.

Yes, I chose him, but it started gradually. I do not blame myself for buying into the gradually escalating "your friends are stupid and ugly, don't hang out with them, you don't deserve me, you made me angry by answering/not answering so I am right in hitting you". I acknowledge my part in it, but I put the blame for the violence directly on him.

It took years to get away, and broken bones, and years to recover and figure out wtf had happened and how to never ever ever buy into the gradually escalating isolating brainwashing crap again.

If it could happen to me, it could happen to many. And no, I do not believe there is an excuse for violence except to defend oneself. Ever.

[Horse with no Name]

40. This is what should be focused on THIS case and others like it

The violence against women. Especially pregnant women. Great work Lee.

[gollygee]

51. k&r n/t

[Codeine]

55. This kind of crap is infuriating.

I grew up seeing my Dad beat the shit out of my Mom -- when he wasn't kicking my scrawny ass, that is. Even as a small child I recognized that hitting a woman was simply unacceptable. Too bad that lesson doesn't get taught to every little boy.

[Madspirit]

57. Thank-you!...n/t

[rainman99]

64. Yeah, me too.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

61. Any Man Who Lays A Hand On A Woman For Any Other Reason Than Self Defense, Is A Coward.

To this day there are far too many men who use violence to try and control their partners. Unfortunately, there are an equal amount of women who engage in domestic violence towards their male partners as well, though it's reported to an nth of the degree that the reverse are. But the difference between the two (besides the level of damage) is that most often when the male engages in domestic violence, it is due to a core belief that women are to be submissive and controlled, and when they aren't acting in such a manner they deserve to be abused. Women on the other hand, when engaging in their own form of domestic violence, due so more out of emotional instability and irrational response than anything else. Now these are not absolutes; of course, but they are the most common buckets into which the scenarios fall into. That's what makes the men who do it the cowards though. Because most often they're doing it in an attempt to control that which they perceive to be weaker than they are, though they wouldn't dare lash out in similar ways towards those they perceived as stronger.

[Madspirit]

63. From the Above Stats with plenty of links...

On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.

Women are much more likely than men to be killed by an intimate partner. In 2000, intimate partner homicides accounted for 33.5 percent of the murders of women and less than four percent of the murders of men.

Pregnant and recently pregnant women are more likely to be victims of homicide than to die of any other cause , and evidence exists that a significant proportion of all female homicide victims are killed by their intimate partners.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. You're Talking At Me, Not To Me.

It's like you were having a one way conversation that had nothing to do with anything I posted at all. If that's the method you're going to use, I'm not sure I care to discuss anything with you. Don't take offense, I just ain't in the mood.

Goodnight.

[bettyellen]

95. women are just as likely to abuse men? I Call Bull Shit!

Link?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

121. As Likely Or Even More So.

But like I said, generally the incidents are far more severe with men abusing women; of course. But as far as just actual episodes of domestic violence, regardless of severity, women are just as likely; if not even more so, then men to engage in such. Though I think there should be more attention to that in society and it should be taken more seriously, I'm also not going to pretend that it would make both ends equally at risk, since the risk of injury to the woman is far greater regardless of frequency of episodes being equal.

As far as links go, I'm not going to play that game with you. I know you and your manner and it's pretty much an obvious conclusion that no matter what link I could provide, I'd get responses like "that's from men's propaganda site!" or "that study is bullshit!" or god knows what else. I've been through this before and have no desire to do your homework for you right now. I simply would rather spend my time doing other things. But since you believe so strongly that the assertion is not true (when it is), I'd encourage you to do some web browsing and read up on the different things available on the subject. If you do so objectively and with an open mind, I think you'll begin to realize that the assertion does in fact have merit. In the context of learning, I think it may be more valuable for you to find some of this information yourself, and deduce the reality on your own, then if I simply provided links for you since you may be far more quick to dismiss things that I provide, then if you came across them on your own.

But it is true. I'd encourage you to read up more about it.

[bettyellen]

134. It's a game to support your outrageous claim? Bullshit, I'm better versed on the subject than you

Believe it or not I'm very well read, which is why I predicted your links would be laughed at by everyone here. Y
our claims are bullshit, but by all means, go link to te Rape Apologists' Site- because we both KNOW thta they are the only assholes on the web making this claim. Aside from you, that is. You are the company you keep, and we just learned alot about you from this propaganda you picked up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

148. No. It's A Game To You, As You Just Made Readily Clear.

I'm not sure there's an intelligent person I know who would read your response above, and think for a second that your mind could be open even hair-width crack enough to read any links or information with an open mind towards educating yourself.

It is obvious how entrenched in your position you are so as you made obvious in your reply above, it would be a HUGELY futile waste of time on my part to provide links to you. Your mind is already made up, even though your conclusion is inaccurate.

If you were willing to open your mind and be objective, you'd find that there are a ton of articles and references on the web that could be used to deduce that what I'm stating has merit. But you don't want to do the research. It seems you would much rather want to hold onto a narrow minded position that woman = victim and man = abuser. I don't think in a million years your mind would be able to accept the reality that women are guilty as well, since that would shatter the stereotyping you're so comfortable with onto. I'm not under any illusion that you would ever for a second, no matter what information you were given to show otherwise, come back here and state "wow, thanks for that info. I didn't realize it before but you were absolutely right". Therefore, it would in fact be a waste of time for me to even try. But that's a shame, because you will continue to hold onto an ideal that quite simply isn't true. You will argue that while getting red in the face; I'm quite sure, but that's what I'd expect from someone who has already entrenched themselves firmly in their position. But someday, when you have some free time and are feeling open minded, I do encourage you to research the other end of the subject and become more aware to the reality of the situation that at this time you too quickly dismiss.

This is my last response to you, as I know what you're about and know continuing this discussion with you would be pointless. But I'll just have to hope that there will come a time you will choose to open your mind enough to do the research objectively. It is an important topic and accuracy towards it is even more important.

Give it some thought. You may be surprised with what you find. Sometimes, the honor is in learning; not defending.

[bettyellen]

161. what part of "Ive read that BS already" don't you understand? if u think youre educating

me here, you are severely tripping fellow. you really need to read these "studies" a bit closer fella, and not belive what you see at first look.
self reporting is not accurate. nothing very credible stat wise to base your claims on. never was.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

166. I Highly Doubt You've Ever Done So Objectively And With An Open Mind.

In fact, I'm certain of it.

But you can choose to go on believing what you want. As I've stated, I'm not under any illusion that you would have the capability to consider the alternative for even a second. I hope you don't think I would've been. Maybe someday you will, but I won't be holding my breath.

[bettyellen]

175. Who Cares What You *Think,*LOL! You cite meaningless crap

with no back up because you know the studies are seriously flawed. Too weak to link, you shoulda slinked away after that.
Game over quite a while ago. You got nothing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

177. Not Any More Than What You Cite.

Both have value but neither are all encompassing towards use. The sooner you could admit this, the sooner you'll be on your way to being more informed than you currently are.

[bettyellen]

178. Doh! Too bad I have not cited anything. You are f'ing hilarious though.

[Breeze54]

141. Women are NOT more likely to engage in violence then men. Period!

Percent of homicide victims by gender

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm#osex

Male & Female Represented 100%

Intimate ------- MALE = 5.3% / FEMALE = 30.1%

Spouse ----------------3.2 ------------18.4

Boyfriend/Girlfriend ---1.9 ------------10.3

That's a 25% difference!!!

Women are the victims of intimate murder/violence MORE than men!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

144. I Hope You Understand That Violence Includes Far More Things Than Homicide.

Like I said, the instances of violence towards women is far more severe in brutality, hence the greater number of homicides. But when taking severity out of it and just looking at it from the actual definition of what incorporates domestic violence, then women are as likely or more likely to commit an offense. It's just that the offense is far less damaging.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

145. No, she didn't know that.

:eyes:

But seriously, are you going to back up your claim, or retract it?

[Breeze54]

153. Of course... BUT 96% of the offenders were MALE!!!

Women are NOT more likely to commit domestic violence then men.

Average annual percent of nonfatal intimate partner victimizations by gender of victim and offender, 1993-2004

Gender of victim----------------Gender of offender

Gender of victim----Total--------Male------Female------Both*

Female ----------------100% -----96.9%----2.1%--------0.9%

Male --------------------100 -------12.0 ------- 83.9-------- 4.1

96% of the offenders were MALE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/offender.htm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

156. You'll want to re-read that.

The data you're pasting says that most of the abusers that beat women are men. But most of the abusers that beat men are women.

You'll want to go to the next page for the data you're looiking for.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

158. And 83.9% Of Them Were Female. And That's Obviously Only Those That Are Reported.

Taking that into consideration, I would hope we both could at least agree that when it comes to officially reporting incidents of domestic violence, that men are FAR more likely to not report the event. Therefore, conclusions based on official reporting of incidents could only be used as a starting point only, since it would be common sense to conclude that the numbers of incidents towards men by women would be far greater than the reports would show. I'm not saying that as a combative assertion, I'm saying it with a hope that you would know off the top of your head for that to be the case.

[bettyellen]

159. men are far more likely to not admit being violent when they are polled

and their numbers don;t add up with what their partners say. Women over report their acts of violence, men say they aren;t as bad as they claim.
That's why these self reporting studies are as accurate as a DU poll.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

164. I'm Referencing More The Opposite.

You are referencing self admission. I'm referencing a man being asked if he's been a victim and woman being asked if she's been a victim.

But mind if I ask how you have arrived at the conclusion that men under report themselves but women over report?

[bettyellen]

167. it's in the links you don;t want to provide, LOL.

the studies you hve read have HUGE DISCREPANCIES. whatdo yo uthink that means?
they can;t be accurate... they certainly are not stats to quote. yet you pretend they are.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

171. You Seem Fixated On One Direction. But You Need To Turn Around.

Your studies have HUGE DISCREPANCIES as well. Don't you realize this?

[bettyellen]

179. WTF are you talking about? I haven;t cited anything, YOU"RE CONFUSED, EH?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

163. Have you got any evidence...

to support the claim that men are less likely to report domestic violence?

[bettyellen]

168. ask OMC for his links... I have seen the studies he thinks provide "stats"

and the studies are deeply flawed.

[Morgana LaFey]

201. 83.9% are female offenders of the mere 12% of male victims of

domestic violence. There's absolutely no parity there at all. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

218. And You're Pulling This 12% Out Of Where Now?

I love how people make stuff up. :rofl:

[bettyellen]

228. "You Love How People Make Stuff Up" Um We Know You Love Yourself Quite Greatly and Logically!!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

232. Yes, I Love How People Make Stuff Up. Like That Laughable And False On Its Face 12% Number LOL

:rofl:

[bettyellen]

236. not as your hilariously insupportable and pathetically BASELESS LINKLESS bullshit,

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

238. Wrong Again. The 12% Number Was Far More Insupportable Then My Accurate Assertion. 12% Is Laughable

Fact is, the poster thought they were being smart but in doing so looked rather foolish by not being able to read even the most simplistic data set. I laughed my ass off over that reply.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

243. Not according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

If you look at the link she provided, you'll see she's pretty much right.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

245. 12%. LMFAO!

:rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

247. It's right there for everybody to see.

:shrug:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

248. Where?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

250. At the DoJ link, next page over.

Total domestic crimes, assault, rape, etc. for both men and women per 1,000 people. Tally the numbers, divide one by the other and I'm getting 16% male victims. Different than 12% sure, but consider the margin of error. Same ballpark.

[Breeze54]

255. You should read the method of gathering info for the statistics before you laugh.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/nibrs/famvio21.pdf

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

Additional Information about data
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/addinfo.htm

Caution is warranted when interpreting intimate partner violence and marital status
in the NCVS because marital status may be related to a respondent's willingness or
ability to disclose violence by an intimate partner. For example, a married woman
may not view, may not wish to view, or may be unable to report the behavior of her
partner as violent or criminal. That same woman, if separated or divorced, may view
or may be able to report the same behavior as violent.

----------


Estimating change in the reporting of intimate partner victimizations to police

Since 1995, the NCVS has undergone sample reductions because of the escalating costs of data collection.
At the same time, the rate of violence has continued to decline. The combination of fewer survey respondents
and less crime has resulted in a diminished ability to detect statistically significant year-to-year changes
in rates of relatively rare crimes such as intimate partner violence against males.

[bettyellen]

258. Well that's Not an "Impression" from "Multiple Angles" and it maybe an official govt report

rather than a feeling based on reading thousands of hard to find (and impossible to cite) websites. Because that's where the the really credible shit comes from "Impressions" , dontcha know!
:rofl:

[Morgana LaFey]

267. Ooops. Ya got me.

And boy am I glad. I read the chart wrong. Turns out, men are victimized by their female intimate partners far less than 12%:

On average between 1993-2004, nonfatal intimate partner victimizations represented --

* 22% of nonfatal violent victimizations against females 12 and older

* 3% of nonfatal violent victimizations against males age 12 and older.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/intimate/victims.htm

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

271. You Really Need To Learn How To Interpret Studies. My God.

:rofl:

[Morgana LaFey]

275. Well, given how many study links you've posted

with or without any credibility whatsoever,

you'll not be surprised I'm' not taking your word for anything.

Besides, what's to interpret? That's a directg quote from the DoJ itself. :shrug:

[Recursion]

151. You're playing semantics here

Women are "as likely as men" to engage in domestic violence because the stereotypical Lifetime-movie-of-the-week scene of a woman being hit and doing nothing isn't that common; everyone tends to hit back when hit and generally in a domestic altercation both parties are at least slightly injured. It is just that the woman stands a much greater (8? 10? times) risk of being seriously injured.

Violence against men is a tragedy and far more common than violence against women, but for cultural and social reasons I mention up thread is best dealt with in a separate thread (hint) from a thread on violence against women, which is of a different qualitative nature from violence against men even if it's far less statistically common.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

152. For The Record, I'm Not The One Who Started Focusing The Conversation On That.

My initial reply was focused where it should've been. It was others, who quite predictably searched for something they could nit pick in order to start a typical flame war, who started deflecting the discussion in this direction. Personally, I have no real interest in going through the debate here, especially since the people on the attack are ones who would never in a million years have an open mind enough to consider the truth anyway.

[Breeze54]

67. Well; maybe there's one other reason to touch, besides self-defense!

:P

:rofl:

Great post! ;)

ABUSE is all about 'control' and needing to feel 'powerful'.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. Hehehehe. Damn Missing Predicates LOL Guess I Shoulda Said Violent Hand.

:)

[Somawas]

84. True.

More of the ongoing mythology of the feminization of victimization.

[raccoon]

89. I sincerely doubt that.

"there are an equal amount of women who engage in domestic violence towards their male partners as well"

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

122. Rather Than Retyping:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1174136&mesg_id=1179057

[raccoon]

128. Oh, yeah. And you're not going to provide links.

Because you can't. You know it and so do I.

End of discussion.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

143. I Could If I Had To. But Like I Said, I Think Here It's More Valuable For You To Research On Your

own.

Any link I provided would be dismissed by you prior to your even clicking on it and if you think honestly for a second about it you know it would be true.

With a topic such as this that carries some importance, it is more beneficial for someone to find out the facts and details for themselves since there is a lot that can be learned from personal perusal. If you truly were interested in finding out the legitimacy of this issue, you should have no problem investing a little bit of time into researching it. That would hold true for any topic in which someone would have an interest in finding out more the validity of. If you go into it with an open and objective mind while being willing to accept results you may find contrary to what you believed they would be, you may be able to educate yourself more accurately on this matter.

But if you refuse to research on your own, or to invest any time into the possibility of the assertion being true, then it shows clearly to me that the only reason you want links or want to continue the discusion at all is so that you can dismiss every detail that comes your way while holding firm to your belief that the assertion is false and worthy of attack. It would be proving to me that you aren't interested in learning whether or not it is true, but instead are only interested in a tit for tat type discussion where no matter what I say or provide, you will be on guard and ready to attack it while not giving any real objective thought as to whether it does or doesn't have legitimacy. In other words, your mind would already be made up and the exercise of my trying to prove it to you via links would be futile from the get go. Please don't tell me I'm wrong with that, cause you know it's true.

This subject and the assertion I made isn't about me and isn't of my creation. Whether I spoon feed you the links or not the reality of the situation doesn't change. If someone is only interested in waging battle while entrenched firmly in their position prior to actually researching the subject (which is an ignorant method for anybody to argue from), then their opponent would be wasting their time trying to convince them of anything since their mind was closed from the get go. But if someone is interested in actually learning about the subject openly and objectively, they would have a desire to find facts. Any time there is anything we are uneducated about but made aware of, it is the honorable thing to do to seek out further learning. This is an important subject, so I encourage you to do so. But if you are going to dismiss the entire premise based solely on my not choosing to go the 'tit for tat' futile use of my time route with you, then I'm sorry to hear that. Dismissing a premise without educating oneself to the details of it is an exercise in foolishness.

If you have an open and objective mind, as well as a true desire to learn if there is truth to this or not, then please invest some time into researching the subject. It would be far more beneficial and likely for you to be able to convince yourself then it would be for me, who you already are probably closed off to listening to, to convince you.

If you choose not to I'm sorry to hear that. But if you choose to, then I look forward to hearing your thoughts and concerns afterwards.

[uppityperson]

154. If you want to spoonfeed me by PM, I'd be grateful.

[bettyellen]

135. Look up the Sites that defend Rapists- they are the ones who also make

this claim. I guess so they can imply women are asking for it.

[uppityperson]

136. I would like to see what you base this assertion on. Seriously.

not to snark but to learn. Thanks. For my personal reference http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1174136&mesg_id=1179301

[bettyellen]

147. it's all small studies, non published, ALL where people self report-

which is why they ae meaningless. no legit researcher believes self reporting is accurate at all.
men tend to deny they do anything violent- women tend to deny ever being victims. they get skewed stats and some men looove to run with them.

[uppityperson]

155. my poll for self reporting. I think I recall it being done before, but here again

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1179498&mesg_id=1179498

[bettyellen]

157. no researcher with credibility bases anything on the results of questionaires- it's embarrassing

that some here actually confuse these with statistics.
Not even close, but they wanna believe it - they don;t even vet the source. Oooops.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

162. No Person With Credibility Would Dismiss The Results Of Such Things Altogether Either.

You are being extremely disingenuous with the way you are debating this topic in my opinion. Since it is a hugely well known and readily deduced fact that men are exponentially more likely to not report an incident of domestic violence, then issuing a declaration to bolster your argument of "ONLY OFFICIAL REPORTS CAN BE USED!!!" is amazingly disingenuous in premise. It shows clearly to me that you are debating this point from an angle of closed mindedness.

When dealing with a subject of this nature, when what is reported officially contains far too much discrepancy and missing data to be able to be relied upon solely, then other pieces of information need to be used as well in order to deduce the reality accurately. Because that is true, then self-reporting polls and studies absolutely have to be given consideration.

Now I agree that the results of such studies and polls cannot be used as a sole basis for argument either, since as you said their results would contain flaws and discrepancies as well. But the discrepancies within them are likely not any greater than the discrepancies found in the official reports themselves, due to huge gaps in reporting tendencies based on gender.

When trying to deduce an accurate conclusion of a complex topic, one who is sincere and intellectual will use whatever information is available to them, in the best ways they can. That's how accurate conclusions are made. You cannot possibly hold a position of "don't give any consideration whatsoever to self reporting or other non-officially reported evidence" and think that your argument is whole and convincing.

Would you dispute the fact that official reporting numbers would have an exponentially higher frequency of underreporting for men? If you don't dispute that fact (which I hope you wouldn't, cause it's a no brainer), then you should be able to accept and acknowledge that the official numbers are inherently flawed and incomplete, and that other sources of data would need to be included in order to yield the whole picture.

I've done that, and have been able to accurately conclude that women do engage in domestic violence to an equal or even greater degree than men do, but that women are far greater at risk of injury and death than men are, meaning their situation is in more dire need of attention. I do not feel; however, that violence towards men should not be acknowledged as well.

[bettyellen]

165. no, i'm merely saying your arguement is BASED ON VERY FLAWED "RESEARCH"

so flawed, real researchers wouldn;t call them studies.
Sorry, you are not providing links because you KNOW THEY ARE WEAK.
THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE STATS FOR YOU TO QUOTE. YET YOU DO SO, WHY?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

170. You Completely Failed To See A Huge Point In My Post.

"THEY ARE NOT ACCURATE STATS FOR YOU TO QUOTE"

Neither are your officially reported stats.

Therefore, all the data must be taken together and used to make a more complete picture, of which a far more accurate conclusion can be made.

As long as you refuse to objectively consider any other data then officially reported incidents, then your deduction will contain an inherent flaw based on the fact that it was made incompletely and under false guidance.

Only when you are ready to concede that the officially reported numbers are not the complete picture due to an exponentially greater frequency of men not reporting, and that therefore other information needs to be considered, will I be able to take you seriously that you are well informed enough on this matter to debate it seriously.

[bettyellen]

172. I fail to consider data that doesn't exsist? when men band together to

take back the night- insisting this is a legit problem, then i will listen. Shame you guys are just not empowered enough to do that.
I think it's not been studied because it's not a very serious problem, it's more like a reason men give when their asses are hauled off by cops "She hit me first". HAT's when it gets reported- as an excuse to hit women- and you can take that to the bank.
I'm well informed enough to know I don't quote bullshit- if that's all there is- leave it alone, because you look like a fool touting it. You quote bullshit and the stench stays on you fella. Sniff, yep there it is. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

176. You Fail To Consider The Reality Of The Situation, Because It Doesn't Align With Your Agenda.

I have no agenda. I just thrive on accuracy and objectivity. I'm aware you aren't going to be convinced, but your position is also severely flawed and inaccurate.

And no, the frequency of men being victims of domestic violence has nothing to do with using it as an excuse to hit back. I think your ability to dismiss and minimize something as important as domestic violence when geared towards men, is every bit as disgusting and ignorant as when others dismiss it and minimize it towards women. In this case though, I find that in addition to disgusting and ignorant it is also sexist.

I know that some people are incapable of seeing past their own mental wall. Therefore, I understand the futility that would come from my responding to you any further. But just know, whether you like it or not, that domestic violence towards men is a serious problem as well, though admittedly not nearly as dangerous as the reverse, and that your dismissal of it was rather shameful and telling of how your arguments contain no credibility.

Bye now, and may you someday become enlightened past your limitations. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

180. She's offering to consider it, but you won't provide the links.

So is this fun to you?

"But why do I act the ways I do here? Part of it is for fun of course, part of it is due to the frustration that I see fromcertain topics that I consider to be ludicrous in logic, and my impulsive need to call them out as such."

-OMC

So basically, you're just having fun here disrupting this thread? I mean, doing it in a Chavez thread is one thing, but domestic violence? That's just sick.

[Morgana LaFey]

203. He can pretty much be relied on to disrupt and flaunt his

anti-woman sentiments in absolutely every thread I've ever seen that hinges on women's rights. Count on it.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

210. Check Yourself.

I have touted no anti-woman sentiments. In fact, my original reply in this thread was perfectly fine. It was not I who turned this into the subthread that it is. So check yourself and your misguided assumptions.

[Morgana LaFey]

213. Uh, no, your very first reply in this thread was pretty much shit

except the subject line which I thought you'd devised specifically as a clever way to make you look like some sort of hero, for anyone just reading subjects and not whole posts. Here's the anti-woman shit -- and lies (in bold) which AFAIC completely neutralizes what else you said that might otherwise be construed as positive and constructively pro-woman:


Any Man Who Lays A Hand On A Woman For Any Other Reason Than Self Defense, Is A Coward.

To this day there are far too many men who use violence to try and control their partners. Unfortunately, there are an equal amount of women who engage in domestic violence towards their male partners as well, though it's reported to an nth of the degree that the reverse are. But the difference between the two (besides the level of damage) is that most often when the male engages in domestic violence, it is due to a core belief that women are to be submissive and controlled, and when they aren't acting in such a manner they deserve to be abused. Women on the other hand, when engaging in their own form of domestic violence, due so more out of emotional instability and irrational response than anything else. Now these are not absolutes; of course, but they are the most common buckets into which the scenarios fall into. That's what makes the men who do it the cowards though. Because most often they're doing it in an attempt to control that which they perceive to be weaker than they are, though they wouldn't dare lash out in similar ways towards those they perceived as stronger.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

215. Says You. You Are Not The Be All End All. The Response Was Perfectly Fine And Benign.

But that doesn't stop some from nitpicking and starting flamewars, simply due to their own inner sexism and resentment towards men in general.

Other than the first bolded line, which is accurate anyway, I fail to see what else you so readily dispute in my post. What is wrong with the second line you bolded? You disagree with that? Are you saying that you think women who engage in domestic violence towards their partners do it for the same reason of control as men do? If that isn't what you're saying, then what is your theory on why women engage in such acts?

You can't just call things shit without any reasoning as to why, as your point would then carry no legitimacy. Other then the first nit picked line, what do you find so distasteful to warrant your tone of resentment? :hi:

[Morgana LaFey]

265. Sexism isn't benign. Sorry.

If you can't recognize the "reasons" the bolded lines are sexist, then you have some research and stuff to do, don't you?

As for your other demands, I don't hop to at the snap of your fingers, and I'm not your research assistant, your instructor, your mother or your slave. If it's important enough to you, you'll find your answers. My guess is it's not. Prove me wrong, why don't you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

273. Awwwww, So Cute. There's The Cookie Cutter Sexist Crap. Nothing About It Was Sexist.

But I know you and those like you just love to throw that word around every chance you get. There was nothing sexist about the reply at all, and in fact was pretty accurate. You are only arguing because it is your default stance for such things. But other than the other extremists in this argument, how many people do you think are convinced by your whole "I'm not your blah blah, your blah blah or your blah blah blah" spiel? The fact is, you should be able to offer an OPINION (of which would be impossible for me to research your thoughts of) as to what you believe the reason to be for when women engage in domestic violence towards men. You should also readily be able to answer if you do or don't think it has to be for reasons of control, such as is the case with men. I don't know if you do, but since you dispute my premise I don't know what else you think it is. But it isn't some demand that you do so; it's merely a request to bring even the slightest whiff of legitimacy to your disagreement.

So instead of throwing out the cookie cutter attacks and melodramatic declarations of not being my mother, how bout actually giving even the slightest explanation as to why you disagree so much with the statement and/or what you feel the primary reason to be?

I think most people would have no choice but to assume you are arguing merely for the sake of arguing if you choose to not put your opinion or reason for dissent on the table. But do what ya do ma.

[Morgana LaFey]

276. Just so much more mental masturbation from you. I'm out.

You're on your own. If people would ignore you -- like the sensible ones among us should -- you'd get bored and leave.

[Recursion]

188. Actually we have no idea what the rate of underreporting for either sex is

We may have anecdotal evidence that either men or women underreport, and I personally suspect both do, but it's not exactly something that's amenable to research (how do you find out how many people aren't telling you something, when that something is very difficult to verify independently).

Stats showing greater likelihood of women to be seriously injured by domestic violence are gathered from:
1. Arrest rates (men are arrested for domestic violence at a much higher rate than women, just as we are for practically every category of crime)
2. Emergency room visits (women in general receive more medical attention than men, for a variety of reasons)
3. Self-reporting of victims (notoriously inaccurate as you have pointed out, but barring hard data they seem to be a good way to make a baseline of data)
4. Self-reporting of perpetrators (ditto)

In all of these categories, men show a higher propensity to commit serious violence and women show a higher propensity to be victims of it (which should not be surprising given that we know men commit more violent crimes in general, and that most men are heterosexual). Any one of these could be explained away by the parenthetical points I brought up, but when you have all four pointing in the same direction... well, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck...

But none of this is particularly germane, frankly. Female-on-male violence and male-on-male violence are separate problems with separate epidemiologies form male-on-female domestic violence (which is itself very different from male-on-female non-domestic violence). Male-on-female domestic violence has social and legal ramifications, reinforcements, and disincentives that these other forms of violence do not, so the continual insistence on bringing up the one in a forum on the other is a bit irritating, like bringing up leprosy in a discussion on cholera.

As a former victim of female-on-male domestic violence I am particularly sensitive to the damage it can do and the dearth of resources for its victims. However, to claim it is parallel to male-on-female domestic violence completely ignores the social and legal reality and misses the forest for the trees. My being beaten up by my former girlfriend was not reinforced at every level of society, from movies to television to religion to the punchlines of comedians' jokes, and I was not economically dependent on her (though we are starting to see a generation of males increasingly economically dependent on women and in time that situation may start to change). And at the risk of beating a dead horse, I'll urge once again that female-on-male domestic violence (to say nothing of the far-and-away-most-common class of violence, male on male violence), are sufficiently different in kind and in social and legal environments that they are probably best dealt with in a separate thread, one in which I'm sure most of the posters here, male and female, would be more than happy to contribute constructively.

[bettyellen]

194. I appreciate your thoughtful response, as far as the under reporting

I spoke of, it was noted in one of the more well known "studies" (that our friend will not link to) was that things didn;t add up at all when they studied couples- (women would claim to commit more violence than their partners- men said occured, and men less so) so basically it was understood that the data was inaccurate. But pretty much all the studies
backing up his claim of women being as frequently violent are based on questionaires. In other words, they are crap.
I agree with the seperate thread- but as far as I have read, his claims are so far exagerated and quite misleading. Men always come to these threads with the same old same old. Thanks for not participating in beating in that.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

209. You're The One Putting Words In My Mouth. And The Premise Is Not Exaggerated But Accurate.

Just because it hurts you to have to accept it does not make it untrue. Fact is, I have no idea what this specific link you reference even is, or why you keep touting it as if it is the only such thing that exists so therefore must be what I'm referencing.

That is patently absurd and misguided on your part. My conclusion comes from hundreds of different sources that I've read over time and after careful OBJECTIVE consideration of all the details at my disposal.

You continue to avoid the core detail against your own argument. Since you are so closed mindedly against any other data other than official reporting stats, then it is easy to conclude that you are basing your position solely off of them. The part you keep avoiding is that the official stats, due to an exponentially greater tendency for men to not report officially, are every single bit as flawed as the other sources of data one can use. You have refused thus far to acknowledge this simple fact. What this says to me, is that regardless of how much you claim to have researched the subject, that you have never done so objectively and with an open mind. Therefore, your conclusions are always going to be what you set out from the start for them to be, rather than what they actually are in reality. The fact that you dismiss all other pieces of information as 'crap', but appear to be able to have faith in the official reporting numbers as if they are gospel, is more than proof of this.

It is clear you have a somewhat sexist agenda in the premise you are putting forth, as if it harms you or your cause somehow to have to acknowledge the truth that women are just as likely to engage in domestic violence as men are, albeit to a less damaging degree. I, on the other hand, only care about accuracy of what is truth, and have no bitter or resentful sexist in nature agenda. I have done all the research with an open mind and found it to be readily deduced afterwards that what I'm saying is accurate. You can disagree till you're red in the face but the reality of the situation will not change.

I would be willing to guarantee that you and a few others in this thread who appear to have their minds completely closed to the concept, would only ever be willing to consider data and details that align perfectly with what you want them to say; while dismissing everything else that doesn't support what you're comfortable with as 'crap'. And sorry to say, but there is no more an ignorant foothold one can have in attempting to deduce accurate premise than engaging in such cherry picking tactics.

There are an immense number of articles, studies, and data collections that provide insight into my assertion. The fact that you keep wanting to throw one mystery one out there as if that's all that exists is extremely disingenuous on your part.

The part that perplexes me the most though with some in this thread is why the premise I put forth would be so hard to believe to begin with. Why should it be? I'm not claiming that women are more violent or homicidal, which of course would readily be understandable as to why some would balk. But when it comes to verbal abuse or simple assualt such as slapping, beating fists on a chest, pushing or other forms of physical contact, why would it be such a shock to fathom? I want anyone reading this to put their objective hats on and really think about it for a second. Think about actual real life. If you're a man, think about all the girls you've dated. When they've gotten mad, how many times have you seen them throw things, or yell abusively, or slap your arms, chest etc, or do other acts that technically fall under the broad umbrella of domestic violence? Sure, many of them never would have. But I'm sure many of the guys here have had fights with at least one mate in which it led to some sort of physical contact or abusive yelling/threatening on the woman's part. And if you're a woman, think hard about if you've ever acted aggressively, laying a hand on a man at all or engaging in other forms of domestic abuse, to any mates you've had. Again, many of you probably haven't. But I know many of you have as well. Shit, I'll be in stores or out in public all the time and see women yelling abusively at their men. I've been at countless parties in years past where I'd see the girlfriend haul off and hit their guy, or throw a drink on him, or whatever. This is real life. Sure, I've seen men do these things as well. But I've known enough women, dated enough women, seen in public as strangers or as the girlfriends of friends of mine, to know that it is quite frequent for them to partake in such things. Only difference is that society doesn't take that problem seriously. No one blinks when a woman engages in domestic violence towards a man, and the overwhelming majority of men will never report it for any reason. But none of these things mean it doesn't occur. Of course it occurs, and quite frequently. We've all seen it. We've all seen at times some women acting irrationally and aggressively in ways that would technically fall into a category of domestic violence, under its broad definitions. Why then is it so hard to fathom the reality that they partake in it just as frequently as men do?

That's what perplexes me here, but only so much. Because I can pretty easily assume that many balk at it so much due more to an aversion to having to include women in domestic violence issues as well then merely for not having reasons to believe it true. In other words, it's more due to not WANTING it to be true, and refusing to open the mind past that, then due to actually having objectively decided otherwise.

My conclusion is one based on thorough research and understand of the issue, all while being completely objective as always. But just ask yourselves: Why would this premise be so hard to believe? It shouldn't be. Not only shouldn't it be, but it shouldn't be something so taboo to discuss publicly either. It's a shame that some are too narrow of mind to be able to discuss it in the serious manner it deserves, rather than it just being dismissed outright solely due to it including men (*gasp!*) as victims of women.

But it doesn't really matter. A handful of people here choosing not to believe it does not make the problem go away or alter its reality. Though the reverse problem is far more severe, it is important and beneficial to society to acknowledge this premise as well. It is pretty sad how some can so readily dismiss the problem due to sexist bias rather than acknowledging it with the respect it deserves. I'd find it equally sad for someone to dismiss domestic violence towards women in such a ignorant way as well.

So in closing, this is an accurate conclusion and there are HUNDREDS of available resources on the web available for those interested to make their own OBJECTIVE deduction. If researched in that manner, I have no doubt that most will conclude as I have. But so what? All that can do is help; not hurt. So I encourage all of you who disagree, spend an hour or two on google researching domestic violence towards men. See if you don't have a different outlook afterwards.

That's all,

OMC

[bettyellen]

225. You're not backing it up because you cannot. No one is stupid enough tpo fall for this BS anyway.

I didn;t even bother reading your post, because I have seen the stat you made up disproved time and time again over the years. (including here)
so *yawn* to your BS, seen it all before Bucko, sell it somewhere else. if you had one reliable source. you post it alright... just take your toys and go home. we ain;t buying your crap ptoday.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

231. Anyone With An Open Objective Mind And Non Sexist Extremist Agenda Could Reach The Same Conclusion.

It's more than one reliable source. It is something that requires far more research than just clicking on one link. It is a complex issue and due to the at this time still ignorant perception of society that it does not exist as it does, there is not nearly enough quick hit stats available. That's why it requires an actual interest to LEARN and effort to deduce. But enough information is out there, if sought.

And would you mind if I ask you to back up your assertion that men do it far more frequently? I'd ask that in your doing so you provide more then officially reported incidents, since it's a common no brainer to conclude that the vast majority of incidents towards men go unreported. So if you want to back up your position, you're gonna have to do better then copying and pasting stats from official records alone. If that's all you've got to provide, then your argument from the get go has HUGE holes in it and would be deemed illegitimate from the start. So let's see you back up your position using more than just official reports. I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Women engage in domestic violence every bit as frequently as men do, though to a far less severe degree. There should be nothing shocking about this sentiment based even on people's own personal experiences. The fact is, you dispute it because you resent men as a gender and refuse to have to acknowledge them as victims as well. It is your extreme bias that prevents you from seeking truth; not the fact that the truth is not available.

So call it BS all you want. But as long as you continue to show such a closed mind and inability to recognize some of the important issues raised, as well as continuing to dismiss anything that doesn't fit into your comfortable bubble of how you want things to be, you have no solid leg to stand on no matter what you or other gender extremists on the subject would say.

So tata bettyellen. I can only hope that some day you can overcome your blindness enough to see things more accurately. :hi:

[bettyellen]

235. YOUR WORDS DON'T INTEREST ME IN THE LEAST, So Cite A Source Or Kiss Off

can i get any clearer. YOU bore me. If you could prove your BS stat, you would have. It;s less than 30% on this very thread, none of your pals has been able to cite anything higher. You lost again, fool.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

239. So You Can't Do It Then. You Can't Even Support YOUR OWN Position. How Novel.

Gee, how the tables have turned now. :rofl:

[bettyellen]

244. never claimed jack- except thet You Are Full Of Shit. But You Can;t Prove Me Wrong,

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

249. You Can't Prove Me Wrong Either. So You're Admitting To Not Being Able To Support Your Position

either? Cause I bet ya can't. I'd say that makes you a bit of a hypocrite, no? :rofl:

[bettyellen]

251. That's not how it works- You Quoted A Laughable Stat - and it remains Disproven on this Thread

There is no reason you wouldn;t support this if you could, no one buys that bullshit. It's disproven on this thread. Maybe like your friend you got confused about the book where they interviewed as many women who were as arresed as they did men. Soemhow your pal though that was a statistic or something. 50% women, :rofl: Fucking Brilliant, that was.... LOL. That's as close as anyone comes to thos 50% nonsense. You sure haven't even tried to support it, and we both know exactly why that is. It ain;t true, Never was. :hi:

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

256. That Is How It Works. And My Assertion Was Not A Quote.

Yours might be, if you are that limited in being able to deduce things from multiple sources and angles, but my conclusion is one that is the product of careful consideration of all available resources and not just some cookie cutter inaccurate stat from a link with an inaccurate premise. That is you assuming that falsely, as you've assumed so many other things falsely.

But since you want to laugh at it so much and want to put it forth as ridiculous, that means you must believe firmly otherwise. You should therefore also be able to support your OWN position with links and verification. BUT YOU CAN'T. That makes everything you've said a lesson in hypocrisy. Put your money where your mouth is, so to speak. Since you aren't, I can only conclude that you are a victim of your own strategy.

Nice try hon! :rofl:

[bettyellen]

257. In Other Words, You Fabricated That Stat-From "Multiple Angles" LOL- U Got Jack and Ur Owned!!!!

No one gives a shit about your impressions fella. Give us facts or stick a bg smelly sock in it. LOL.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

259. No, In Your Narrow Minded And Simplistic Words. In Reality, Your One Dimensional View Got Owned.

I find it amazingly hilarious how when the same question was put to you, you've turned tail and run away from your own premise and now are hoping people don't realize it. I'm cracking up! :rofl:

You have NO leg to stand on. You know you can't provide anything supporting YOUR OWN position or give ANY substance whatsoever as to why you have argued so heatedly with mine. You have been completely and thoroughly exposed. In fact, I'd say it has been made amazingly clear to others now that your argument had no merit and you are only arguing with such resentment towards the premise because you are shamefully biased by gender and use that as your sole motivation for refusing to acknowledge other angles. I think it's quite sad that you cling so tightly to your one dimensional point of view and have closed yourself off completely from being able to absorb information from multiple angles. The fact that you had the gall to even mock such a concept, as if it is something that doesn't have integrity, is even more of a sign as to how you are blinded by your bias. OF COURSE complex topics like this should be absorbed from multiple angles and sources. The most hilarious thing you've done yet is mock that concept as if your one dimensional narrow minded angle on things is superior somehow. I'm tellin ya, you're just too funny! :rofl:

But you've been owned here. I think it's clear to anyone who would be reading objectively that you have not a thing to support your position with other than hatred and sexist bias. And that, my dear, leaves you with no leg to stand on.

Nighty nite! :hi:

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

217. I've Explained Why. But Then, I'd Wager Explanations Don't Matter To You, And Only Coming Here

to start trouble does. So predictable. :eyes:

[mudesi]

220. Those who make claims are responsible for backing them up

You have no excuse. You know about logic. Either you're interested in having an honest debate, or you're not.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

223. You Need To Pay More Attention To My Explanations.

I've more then explained why that would be a futile exercise. See. lynny skynny, in or to have an honest debate, BOTH sides have to be willing participants. I've been here long enough to be aware that those in which I've been discussing it with are as closed minded to the subject as one can be. Therefore, there is no even remote possibility of honest debate, but instead of just tit for tat nit picking bullshit. No matter what was thrown out there, it would be dismissed immediately and berated. Now don't tell me it wouldn't be. There isn't a genuine person here who would expect it to go any other way.

So like I explained THOROUGHLY to begin with, rather than have to engage in such futility, if someone is TRULY interested in being educated on the subject then it should be no problem for them to be able to seek the information objectively on their own. In a subject such as this, that is by far the more beneficial way to approach it. Because I'm logical, and because I'm intellectual enough to recognize the situation for what it is, I have chosen appropriately by asking that those who are interested do the research for themselves and come to their own conclusion. If they are unwilling to do so, it is overwhelmingly in this context likely to be due to them really not having an interest or curiosity in seeing if the premise is legitimate, but instead only having an interest in attacking it due to purely resentful gender biased reasons.

You should be able to understand this explanation quite readily, and figure out for yourself why my request for those interested to do a little research on their own is the right choice here.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

227. Willing participants?

How can you call yourself a willing participant, when you refuse to back up your claims?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

237. Why Is It Always So Hard For You To Grasp Such Accurately Explained Premise?

Do you even try to understand or do you just rush to the end so that you can respond with something negative?

I'm always more than willing to engage in discussion of topics with anyone who is open minded and objective. In fact, I quite enjoy doing such.

But can you sit here for a second and honestly expect anyone to believe that those in this thread in which I'd be discussing it with would open their minds even a crack? Do you really expect anyone to believe or agree for a second that anything I'd put forth would be looked at objectively with a genuine interest to possibly learn from it? C'mon now. Who ya kiddin pal. You've been here long enough to know better. And since you do know better, then you know damned well that it would be beyond futile to even try. Please, spare me your disagreement otherwise. You know damned well what I'm saying is right as it relates to that. I know you've been experienced enough here in flamewars to know it to be true.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

240. I'm both open-minded and objective.

So please, provide the data to back up your claims.

If you're priding yourself on being intellectual, you're going to have to back up your claims or retract them.

Or to put it another way- put up or shut up.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

242. Oh Come On.

:rofl:

You, me and everyone else reading this knows how funny of a statement that was LOL

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

246. It's true.

Feel free to ask the frequent users of the Science forum and the Skeptics group.

[mudesi]

241. Call them "explanations" all you want

They're excuses.

[bettyellen]

253. the dog ate his links! why there are so many links, he can;t choose just one!

[gravity]

224. The difference is the severity of abuse

While men can be victims in domestic violence, it is not nearly as severe as abuse against women in most cases. Men are in general stronger than the women and also have easier means of getting out of relationships. Even when women do act violent, men can generally control the situation better than if a man starts beating on a woman.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

233. 100% Agree, And I've Repeated That Same Premise Several Times. You Are Right There.

[ismnotwasm]

72. Excellent topic

One that gets too easily overlooked or dismissed. Or minimized, rejected, attacked, laughed at, misunderstood, accepted as "normal" (crime shows anyone?), sexualized, on and on. And perhaps the worst of all (open to debate)--ignored.

[Madspirit]

73. Thank-you!...n/t

[Triana]

75. PLEASE don't ignore verbal and emotional abuse as well which...

...is MORE devastating than physical abuse and which ALWAYS - 100% of the time in domestic violence cases, PRECEDES (ie: occurs prior to) physical and sexual abuse. Abuse begins as verbal and emotional and ESCALATES into physical abuse. Stopping abuse WHERE IT STARTS (ie: when in the verbal & emotional - the most damaging stages) is key.

http://www.escapeabuse.com
http://www.drirene.com
http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/depverbal#s8
http://www.verbalabuse.com
http://www.youarenotcrazy.com
http://opdv.state.ny.us/health_humsvc/substance/codependency.html

Just because emotional and psychological wounds don't show like bruises do - does NOT mean they do no harm. They DO harm and that harm takes a LOT longer to heal than physical abuse.

This stuff DESTROYS LIVES and devastates the victim.

[Lorien]

76. Thanks for the links!

I've been in those relationships. It's hell on earth.

[Triana]

77. You're very welcome...I hope they help someone...

bytheway - those are beauuuutiful kitties!!!! :)

=^..^=

[donsu]

104. TRUE

nt

[nashville_brook]

106. kicking this post!

it can be said that emotional abuse manipulates people to "abuse" themselves. get the person to believe they are worthless and they will act accordingly.

[Triana]

292. Very true. It breaks their spirit and destroys their self-esteem...

...the start believing they "deserve" the abuse, and that it's "all their fault" - their abusers tell them so constantly in many ways. A victim WANTs to trust someone they love or care for so they start believing it.

"you're too sensitive" is often heard.

The ABUSER tries to get the victim to take the blame and responsibility for his abusive behavior. He does not respect his victim. She is NOT too sensitive. HE is the one who need to develop some sensitivity.

If anyone hears "you're too sensitive" - consider the source (often a narcissist and/or socio/psychopath/abuser) and GET OUT of there! It's a big red flag.

[nashville_brook]

304. wow -- this post describes the ex perfectly

i spent years in this scenario. knowing his family of origin, i knew that he was acting out of his experience of being in an unloving, hostile family. i wanted to give him the love he never had. what a terrible mistake. the more unconditional love that was sent his way, the more contempt and abuse came back.

[Triana]

305. another link for you if you (or anyone) still needs support...

http://www.drirene.com/catbox/index.php?

I promise you the people there would understand. We've all been there! :)

[Morgana LaFey]

190. Excellent post. Another warning. Not only does verbal and

emotional abuse precede all physical abuse, just because he's "only" been verbally abuse, even for YEARS just verbally and emotionall abusive, does not mean he would never resort to physical abuse and even murder.

[Triana]

291. Agreed! There IS no such thing as "just" verbally abusive...

...it is the most damaging type of abuse - especially when experienced long-term.

Here' ANOTHER great link!:

http://www.geocities.com/misogynon/problem.htm

I'm not personally nuts about the 12-step thing but the description of the problem and the experiences of the victim and the tactics and attitudes of the abuser are chillingly on point.

If 12-steps works for victims and helps them - MORE power to them, I say!

[Dinger]

268. Thanks For The Links

I'm Bookmarking Them.

[Ron Green]

78. Domestic violence is ALWAYS the man's fault.

I facilitate a men's DV group, and that's the premise from which we operate. As long as a man can take total responsibility for the physical contact in the relationship with his female partner, we have a place to work from. He is stronger and therefore always able to de-escalate confrontation away from physical response. The path of least resistance in the group is usually to assign partial blame to the woman, to cite her physical actions, to do anything that avoids the fact of male strength and responsibility. Our group's constant mission is to steer away from that path, seen everywhere men gather, even here at DU.

[pampango]

88. Thank you. You put my feelings into words better than I could.

My son is 18 now and headed to college in the fall. He understands, I think, that the most important lesson for a man is that it is cowardly and an admission of defeat to hit a woman (or a child for that matter). He can protect himself, if necessary, but that is it. She may be at fault at times, but no matter what she says or does, he needs to control himself in terms of a physical confrontation.

He can talk or take a walk or choose a more permanent solution if necessary, but hitting is off limits.

[donsu]

105. maybe you could tutor DU men?

nt

[edbermac]

202. BULLSHIT!

Grew up with an alcoholic mother and saw her get physical with my father on more than one occasion.

But I suppose it was HIS fault that she drank, right? :sarcasm:

[Ron Green]

214. I don't suppose it was his fault that she drank,

but according to the rules by which I operate, both personally and within groups, it was up to him, as the physically more powerful partner, to ensure that violence didn't occur or wasn't escalated. If his wife was out of control, it would have been up to him to get professional or law enforcement help.

I'm sure there are isolated instances in which a peaceful man lives in fear of his deranged female partner, but they are so few as to be of no importance in the world of domestic violence. Assuming that it is ALWAYS the man's fault is a much more useful position.

[Recursion]

288. Frankly, F you and the horse you rode in on

It took me years to get over the guilt of being beaten up, burned, throttled, and generally terrorized by a girlfriend, and it's still painful to see a post subject saying that it was "my fault". Just about anybody is physically capable of escaping an abusive situation; that's not what's at issue.

[edbermac]

293. Ditto for me.

It's up to the MAN to see that violence doesn't occur in a relationship??

There are so few female abusers that it's NOT IMPORTANT in the world of domestic violence??

It's always the MAN'S fault is more useful postion??

This is the DU message board, not FreeRepublic. Get back on your meds.

[Ron Green]

294. Posts like yours and the one above are normal

for men who have been in a terrible relationship with a violent woman, and who couldn't figure out how to get away from it. My first post that "it's always the man's fault" simply states a position that is useful for working with groups of abusers, MOST of whom, in my experience, are trying to place the blame anywhere but with themselves. The pain of facing their own issues is so great as to keep them rationalizing continuously, rather than examine their actions and their thinking.

Saying "F you" and talking about "my meds" reveals an emotional stake in this debate. I'm not making any claim about your experience, but to allow abusers (who have been mandated to do cognitive work) to play a victim role is to sabotage the chances they may have for real change.

[Recursion]

297. Obviously I have an emotional stake in it, and I don't doubt the statement is useful in your group

However, standing up for myself and saying very loudly her violence was her fault and not mine is important to me, too. Like I've said upthread the social and political elements of an female-on-male abuse are very very different from male-on-female abuse which is why I really hate the fact that female-on-male abuse invariably gets brought up in these threads.

I'm sure my experience has some value to someone in the world, but I don't think it's an appropriate use of the experiences of me and men like me to simply use it in an attempt to somehow nullify the suffering of battered women, which is why people (generally, I've found, not abused men) bring it up in threads like this.

[CTyankee]

204. Please don't take this wrong. I agree with everything you said but

I had a personal experience when I was about 11. My next door neighbor shot and killed her husband in their driveway. She carried a pistol in the car for "protection." The way the whole thing came down was her husband married her for her money (she was pretty wealthy from her first marriage), he was a playboy who was cheating on her and so she shot him, outdoors and in broad daylight.

I hate to say this but this woman had a very bad temper. She must have been brought up in a violent home. We often heard her screaming at her husband in their horrendous fights. My brother and I (and my mother)were scared to death of this woman.

Let me add that this was in Texas and I have never met another woman like her, just totally amoral. The guy was no gem either. It made headlines in the Dallas Morning News for many days. She was convicted of manslaughter.

Just another reason I left Texas many years ago...

[Morgana LaFey]

206. Why do I not see you on any threads about women's issues?

DU women SO need a male champion or two to confront OTHER men in their ugly sexism and misogyny. Are you willing? Are you available? Will you help? Think of it as just an extension of the other work that you do. :D

[Scout]

254. best reply in the thread, thank you n/t

[OneBlueSky]

80. for the past five or six years, I've been doing some part-time work for our local shelter . . .

for battered women and their families . . . in addition to a safe and secure residential shelter, the organization also has a wealth of other programs addressing both intervention and prevention . . . I basically do their writing -- funding proposals, grant applications, appeal letters, newsletters, annual reports, etc. . .

violence against women is a huge problem in this country . . . and will likely grow even worse as the economy tanks and family tensions mount . . . donations to your local shelter are a good way to help foster real social change in your community and in the nation . . .

fyi, here's the link to the group I'm working with . . .
http://www.rocklandfamilyshelter.org

[Breeze54]

115. Good info and advice!

Thanks for the link, as well! :hi:

[blondie58]

83. I also suspect that having children is part of the catalyst

for some of these men. They resent being a father, don't seem to understand that it takes TWO people to have a child and that they have a role in it.

I say that after being married to a domineering, controlling male who blamed me for both of my pregnancies, although I was on birth control.

Then, after my youngest was born- horrors- a GIRL- I was blamed because she wasn't a HE! Yeesh- when his sperm decide the gender.

[raccoon]

90. Probably a lot of them just don't want to take responsibility for anything. nt

[verse18]

92. self-delete

[wicket]

91. ((((((Madspirit))))))))

:hug:

[verse18]

93. I'll add this to the pot as well-

Adverse Childhood Experiences Study (ACEs)

http://www.acestudy.org/aboutacestudy.php

What are Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs)?
Growing up (prior to age 18) in a household with:

-Recurrent physical abuse.
-Recurrent emotional abuse.
-Sexual abuse.
-An alcohol or drug abuser.
-An incarcerated household member.
-Someone who is chronically depressed, suicidal, institutionalized or mentally ill.
-Mother being treated violently.
-One or no parents.
-Emotional or physical neglect.


It goes much deeper than just witnessing or being a victim of violence in the home. These types of experiences have life-long effects.

[cgrindley]

97. Abuse is an equal opportunity crime

so let's treat it as such shall we?

[raccoon]

102. Did you read the original post?

"Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 2001, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (588,490 total) and men accounted for approximately 15 percent of the victims (103,220 total).

"While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.

"In 2001, intimate partner violence made up 20 percent of violent crime against women. The same year, intimate partners committed three percent of all violent crime against men.


"Male violence against women does much more damage than female violence against men; women are much more likely to be injured than men."

[cgrindley]

103. Those are incorrect

Read:

Busch, Amy L. and Mindy S. Rosenberg. “Comparing Women and Men Arrested for Domestic Violence: A Preliminary Report.” Journal of Family Violence 19.1 (February 2004): 49-57.

[gollygee]

107. So you're going to ignore all the studies and info in this thread because of 8 pages in one book?

Wow.

[cgrindley]

110. Considering

that I'm comparing

a) a refereed article in an academic journal

with

a few website and an utterly disconnected and immaterial list of footnotes relating to nothing in the body of the post...

yes.

[Recursion]

111. Can you explain what you think the article you cited says?

To me, it compares the prior criminality, abuse experience, and substance abuse of 45 men and 45 women arrested for domestic violence, and found that the men had a higher incidence of prior convictions for that crime. And the study does not even address the disparity between men and women in terms of incidence of abusive behavior to begin with.

[gollygee]

112. A few websites including the Center for Disease Control

that's a reputable source.

If one source says A, and every other source says B, it is most likely that B is correct or that A is being misinterpreted.

[cgrindley]

114. Tell that to Einstein when he was working on the problem of the ether (nt)

[gollygee]

142. Is that what you think is going on here?

LOL

[Recursion]

174. Frankly that's a romaticization of how science works

Cranks are pretty much as a rule never right. Maxwell's results, combined with Michelson's observations on the constancy of the speed of light, had already led Lorentz and others to introduce a local time t' for particles moving quickly with respect to a frame of reference having time t; Einstein's contribution was a more general and formalized application of Gallilean relativity to the observed phenomenon of the constancy of the speed of light (it was, for that matter, Michelson and Maxwell who killed the ether as a viable idea).

[Madspirit]

283. *snort*

I could send you the footnote numbers. They came out funny in the post so I removed them. I didn't think it was that hard to figure out. Also, the CDC, the DOJ, etc. GO CHECK THEM. Or Harvard Medical School. Is that heady enough for you? Or Cornell.

Shameful response on your part. I will NEVER respond to you again. Dismissive chauvinist deluded... Women don't beat their husbands to DEATH with their fists. Women are much more likely to be beaten to death by their significant other. You should be FORCED to go visit every battered women's shelter that exists on the planet. Men kill men and men kill women. Women...MUCH LESS SO. What an imbecilic and shameful response from anyone who claims to be even slightly progressive.

I will not respond to you ever again. I hope you have no daughters, aunts, sisters, female friends, mother, grandmother, etc.

YOU offend me and you're post is shameful.
Lee

[Recursion]

109. Busch & Rosenberg was a qualitative study

To quote their own abstract,

"This study uses criminal justice data to compare women and men arrested for domestic violence on their levels of violence, reported victimization, general criminality, and substance abuse. Participants were 45 women and 45 men convicted of domestic violence between 1996 and 1998. Results indicate that women were less likely than men to have a history of domestic violence offenses and nonviolent crimes. They were also more likely to report that they had been injured or victimized by their partner at the time of their arrest. However, in other ways, women and men were similar: they were equally likely to have used severe violence and inflicted severe injuries on their victims; to have previously committed violence against nonintimates; and to have been using drugs or alcohol at the time of their arrest. The implications for treatment for women arrested for domestic violence are discussed."

How does the study of prior criminal history of 45 men and 45 women (one, incidentally, which showed that the men were more likely to have a prior conviction) address the question?

[cgrindley]

113. Then how about these refereed sources?

http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

It is a constant insult and offense to human dignity that this myth of female victim hood and male oppression continues to be promulgated. Domestic violence is an equal opportunity crime. Period. End of story. It is heinous misandry to suggest otherwise.

[Recursion]

117. You must have ignored the original claim

"Women are more likely than men to be seriously injured by their intimate partner"

I'm well aware that women are slightly more likely to attempt violence against their intimate partner. If somebody upthread was arguing that's false, I missed it. Men are much more likely to actually seriously injure their partner, which is the direct claim made at the top of the thread.

[cgrindley]

120. No I didn't, I responded to it and you conceded the point even quoting

the abstract of the article I provided:

"women and men were similar: they were equally likely to have used severe violence and inflicted severe injuries on their victims"

So there.

[Recursion]

130. Apparently you didn't read that study

That study questioned 45 women and 45 men already arrested for domestic violence.

Among the population already arrested, it would not surprise me that they had injured their partners in equal numbers.

How does a survey of an equal number of already arrested men and women correlate to the injury level in society as a whole? For this to mean what you seem to assume it does, you would have to assume arrest rates of men and women for domestic violence are roughly equal, which is not true.

[Breeze54]

137. It's rather dumb to think women aren't capable of violence but

it is a proven FACT, that MEN are the one's that do the MOST violence!

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm

Offending rates for both males and females followed the same pattern as victimization rates

* Males were almost 10 times more likely than females to commit murder in 2004.

The gender distribution of homicide victims and offenders differs by type of homicide

For the years 1976-2004 combined -

* Among all homicide victims, females are particularly at risk for intimate killings and sex-related homicides.

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

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/gender.htm#osex

Homicide Type by Gender, 1976-2004

--------------------Victims --------------Offenders

----------------Male -- Female -------- Male -- Female

All homicides --76.5% ---23.5% -----------88.7% ---11.3%

Victim/offender relationship
Intimate -------36.5% ----63.5% ----------65.3% ----34.7%

[ismnotwasm]

234. So I just went on University paper search

A brief one. I stayed out of "Women's studies" and stuck with Social Sciences. I used only peer-reviewed articles less than 6 years old. I found exactly one well referenced paper that even came close to what you're saying. In fact as far as injuries, the study found while the study group females initiated violence, Men were far likelier to inflict injury.
Part of the problem in these studies are the control groups themselves.

"We sought to examine the prevalence of reciprocal (i.e., perpetrated by both partners) and nonreciprocal intimate partner violence and to determine whether reciprocity is related to violence frequency and injury. We analyzed data on young US adults aged 18 to 28 years from the 2001 National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, which contained information about partner violence and injury reported by 11 370 respondents on 18 761 heterosexual relationships. Almost 24% of all relationships had some violence, and half (49.7%) of those were reciprocally violent"

Where are people of color? Where is social-economic status? Where is a larger age variance? Where is the cultural variance? Anyone can toss a paper together using references leaving these factors out and scream "Proof" Or only young, white women, middle class people worthy of study?

Using 5 dollar words and using a link that even a cursory glance is a biased paper doesn't address the issue. Intimate partner violence is a problem. A huge problem that took the Woman's movement to bring to the foreground.

Left out as well are smaller groups like GBLT, Immigrants, the deaf.

Since you obviously care about abused men, is there a Men's shelter in your area? There is not in mine and I'm working on doing something about it. How about you?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

124. You Are 100% Correct.

[Dora]

129. "Heinous misandry."

:rofl:

[cgrindley]

146. I'm glad you think it's a laughing matter

downplaying violence against men is unforgivable. You'll notice that I haven't downplayed the seriousness of violence against women, and have only argued that the situation somewhat equal.

[Dora]

187. No, you haven't downplayed. You have only attempted to distract.

The OP is regarding men's violence directed at women. Rather than discuss the OP, you are attempting to distract from the issue by saying you won't discuss it unless we also discuss women's violence towards men.

Rather than divert the discussion at hand, you can always start a thread of your own.

[Karenina]

261. CLINTON DID IT TOOOOO!!!!

;-) :rofl:

[bettyellen]

198. the studies you have cited ARE LAUGHABLE and you'd know that if you

actualy read them. Embarrasing.

[Morgana LaFey]

222. The situation is no where near "somewhat equal" --

and you or anyone trying to MAKE it so most definitely is a laughing manner because it's so absolutely wrong it doesn't even pass the common sense test.

[gollygee]

226. By claiming INCORRECTLY they are somewhat equal, you are indeed downplaying violence against women

In fact, entering a thread about domestic violence against women and posting only to say, "Oh yeah, well men get beat up too" is downplaying violence against women.

[cgrindley]

230. NO IT ISN'T

claiming that domestic violence is a human issue is a just and right thing to say. Pointing out that men are equal victims in these crimes does NOT denigrate women.

[bettyellen]

252. but you can't actually prove that. and the 50% of arrested women- that shit was hilarious.

seems like wishful thinking on your part. who would believe such an outrageous stat? Thanks for the best laugh on this thread.

[Cerridwen]

149. Fiebert is at best an unreliable source. At worst, a liar with an

ax to grind.

Have you actually read the studies which he links and cites to back his assertions? Had you done so, you might have noticed as I did, that the assertions he makes are unsupported by the studies he cites. In each case, he cherry-picked verbiage, out of context, from a piece of the study which appeared to support his assertion but which was not the researchers' findings. In some cases he went so far as to make the assertion which the study's researchers had advised against. In yet another study to which he links, the author and lead researcher of the study refused to include in his study, Fliebert's "research" based on Fliebert's "study" lacking the rigorous criteria used; in short, one of his peers called him on his sloppy "research".

I was able to access online about 15 of the studies which Fliebert cites and links. In 15 out of 15, his assertions at his website were not supported by or are in direct conflict with the results of the very studies and researchers he cited. So, he's either sloppy or lazy or a liar. Whichever, his assertions are unreliable at the very least.

I will take CDC, FBI and DOJ statistics over a sloppy "researcher" any day, regardless of the alphabet soup behind their name.

[cgrindley]

173. Two and a half points

1. his work passed peer review, whereas government agencies and private organizations do not have to pass peer review (as we well know when they start talking crack about other issues or kow-towing to special interest lobbies);

2. disagreeing with a finding or conclusion of a study while using the data from the study is nothing out of the ordinary;

3. implying that the professor is a liar is way over the top.

[Cerridwen]

189. 1. His website and the assertions he makes are NOT peer

reviewed. Now, if you could provide a link to one of his peer-reviewed studies, I'd appreciate it. So far I can't find anything of his that is peer reviewed.

From his resume I found many of his published articles were published to journals, for which in many cases, he was a reviewer or an associate editor (also listed on his resume). None of the journals in which he published, appears to be peer-reviewed. If you've got a link to one, please share.

2. Disagreeing with a finding or conclusion is usually stated; he did not state that he disagreed with the conclusions but instead ignored the conclusions and made his own assertions in opposition with the studies' findings.

3. A professor is not sacrosanct because s/he has a Ph.D. behind their name or teaches college level classes; nor are they less likely to be free of human frailty or personal agenda. One extremely obvious example is newt gingrich who was a professor of history at West Georgia College.

[cgrindley]

197. Jesus

From his site:

Earlier versions of this paper appeared in Sexuality and Culture, 1997, 1, 273-286, and Sexuality and Culture, 2004, 8, (No. 3-4), 140-177.

That's a refereed publication. His CV contains at least 40 refereed publications.

Do you actually know what a refereed publication is? Why not try googling, for example, "sexuality and Culture" journal. and then read the submission guidelines.

2. that's neither here nor there. ignoring conclusions if that's even what he did (and seeing how you do not even know what a refereed journal is, I am now unwilling to trust you on that issue) is something that I'd actually have to read article by article. I don't particularly feel like that.

3. by implying that the man was a liar, you are basically libeling a full professor at a huge research university. A professor who has worked through the ranks since 1960 and who has an absolutely unimpeachable professional record.

[Cerridwen]

207. You mean the one in my post to which I provided a link -

at which he is listed as an associate editor and at which the submission guidelines provide no hint of the standards to which an article will be subject; unless you consider APA style and double-spaced some form of review standard.

Please, do not insult me. I have not done so to you. Had you bothered to read my post and click the links I provided, you would have seen that not only am I fully cognizant of what a refereed (peer reviewed) journal is, but that I had checked the quality, or lack thereof, of the "journals" in which fiebert has published. I find the "journals" in which he published to be lacking with regards to the rigor of scholarly review compared to the vetting process with which I am familiar.

I've also read some of the studies he cites. You have not; as you finally noted. Believe what I say or don't, trust me or don't; that is of course, your prerogative and in part, what this board is about. This board is also about the opportunity to point out fallacious and malicious "facts" parading as truth. You may not be interested in taking the time to read the articles he cites, others reading these posts might. Others may be less inclined than you appear to be, to accept at face value the words of someone based solely on their ability to obtain a Ph.D.

And, I will repeat since you still didn't quite get it; he's either lazy, or he's sloppy, or he's well aware of what the studies he cites have concluded and he chooses to report otherwise, in which case he is quite deliberately lying; you choose. I'm still not quite sure where you get the idea that an instructor at a university, whether associate or full professor, somehow makes them immune to sloppy research, lazy research or playing funny with the numbers research.

[cgrindley]

229. Peer review

First off. I'm sorry I was harsher than need be. But, really, you did not check the journals. They are peer reviewed. That you do not know their reputation is immaterial and, in any event, they all have excellent reputations.

I'll explain it. Peer review is a system by which academic journals solicit outside academic opinion on articles prior to agreeing to their publication. The minimum standard is that each article should be vetted by two professors at universities having no connection with the person or persons who wrote the article. Articles are refereed without any identification. No names. No institution names etc. There are many databases that list peer reviewed journals, and you can check the editorial boards of many journals (I believe you merely clicked on the wrong link and misinterpreted what you saw).

From his cv:

Perceptual and Motor Skills: peer reviewed
Journal of Psychology: peer reviewed
Men's Studies Review: peer reviewed
New Humanity Journal: peer reviewed
Psychological Reports: peer reviewed
Journal of Individual Psychology: peer reviewed
Sexuality and Culture: peer reviewed

Most of these are impressive journals connected with a specific university. Journal of Individual Psychology, for example, is published by the University of Texas.

Finally, being asked to peer review the works of other scholars is perhaps one of the highest accolades a scholar can have. It means that a scholar is considered to be an expert of experts. Obviously, you never peer review your own work and as the process is anonymous, it hardly matters that you also are a reviewer for a particular journal.

This scholar not only holds a phd, but also went through the ranks of assistant, associate and full professor. He is the chair of the faculty senate at his university. His abilities are utterly beyond reproach unless you have equal credentials.

Now on to the extra point. I'm not saying that faculty are immune to sloppy research. I am advising you not to libel someone who a) is not a public figure, and b) who has an entirely unimpeachable academic record.

[Cerridwen]

295. My, my, my - how patronizing we've become, cgrindley

First you insult my level of intelligence; they you insult my intelligence by responding in a condescending manner using a patronizing tone. Is this your professorial voice I now read? Is this the tone of voice you take with your students who have the audacity to question your "wisdom" as bestowed upon your professorial self and your authoritarian status as "expert", professor cgrindley? You would have done well to note that I am not some naive co-ed still under the mistaken impression that Ph.D. is shorthand for God or who is dependent on your for a grade, professor.

The version of fiebert's "paper" which he's posted and to which you linked, has NOT been peer reviewed; as you stated in your own post

From his site:

Earlier versions of this paper appeared in Sexuality and Culture,..

Earlier versions, professor cgrindley, not the version currently sitting on a web server at CSULB. I even added emphasis to the words so you might be more likely to see it from your lofty perch.

Since you are apparently unaware of this fact, let me explain it to you, professor cgrindley - anything; true, false, partial, complete, rumors, myth may be posted on the web...anything. It requires that we are capable and willing to investigate the validity of claims made at a web site, on our own. I did that, professor cgrindley and you did not. You, in your own words admitted you would "actually have to read article by article. I don't particularly feel like that." I believe it should have read "don't feel like doing that", but, hey, you're the professor, you must know the grammatically correct way to present your words, so perhaps I'm mistaken or perhaps writing for clarity is not important in your particular field of endeavor. But, I digress.

Neither would you have to "read article by article," professor; a sampling, such as I did, would do. I would presume that as a professor, cgrindley, you would be aware of that fact. When investigating a person's claims, should one notice repeated obfuscations and unsupported conclusions, one can presume a pattern. I called attention to that pattern. Rather than prove the pattern does not exist, you chose to divert attention away from the pattern of unsupported conclusions and downright lies and resorted to attacking the messenger while claiming a fallacious appeal to authority. I take it they don't teach or you have not taken classes in logic, professor? I would provide a link to an explanation of the fallacy of ad verecundiam, but as you have already shown, you can't be bothered to or you are unable to click links. Perhaps it is difficult to reach your mouse button from so high on your horse, professor cgrindley?

I'm not sure why, professor cgrindley, you find it necessary to so patronizingly defend your questionable source, nor do I understand why you did not respond to another poster who pointed out the flaw in your interpretation of one of the study's you linked. He even offered you a palatable way in which to consume the, presumably, unpalatable bird representative of your flawed interpretation. What I do know is that I have observed a pattern in your posts on this board. I chose to ignore that pattern and present you with an opportunity to review a source which may have contributed to the contempt and disdain with which you appear to regard women. You chose to ignore that opportunity. For what reason I do not know. What I do know, professor cgrindley, is that you keep dubious company when you cite a standard bearer for the women-bashers and women-haters on the net and elsewhere, who also, either gullibly or maliciously accept fiebert's questionable conclusions to support their women-hating agenda.

Whether your agenda is malicious, ignorant, naive or just an attempt to continue the "good ol' boy" myth of academic perfection and authority, professor cgrindly; if you are in any way representative of those who teach at a college level, your lax standards of scholarship, your willingness to accept sloppy research and inaccurate conclusions based solely on person's residence in the ivory tower of academia, goes far to explain the lack of intellectual vigor I have seen on college campuses and in the "real" world. You, professor cgrindley, are part and parcel of the problem.

The next time you wonder what is wrong with this country, professor cgrindley, you have to go no farther than your bathroom mirror for your answer.

When I first read your post, professor cgrindley, I had nothing but contempt for the words you wrote and the method and tone you chose for writing them. I've moved beyond that first reaction and find that I now find you beneath my contempt.

You have proven to me, professor cgrindley, that you are no honest academician or scholar but only a man who would use the tactics of punditry and distraction to avoid accountability for your questionable argument. As such, you are no longer worth my time and the nominal effort it takes to move my fingers over the keyboard.

[Recursion]

191. Friebert says only 25-30% of intimate violence is female on male

You have linked a list of refereed journal citations that Dr. Friebert includes on his or her university homepage. A journal review is not itself peer-reviewed activity unless one then submits it to peer review, and barring more information on the totality of the literature is not worth very much.

As far as I can find from Google Scholar, pubmed, JSTOR, and the other usual suspects, Fiebert has published the following original research:

(note, I'm not downplaying the importance of literature reviews to science, but original research is still the hallmark of someone's standing in a field)

College women who initiate assaults on their male partners and the reasons offered for such behavior (Psy Rep)
Sexual Coercion: Men Victimized by Women (Journal of Men's Studies)
A Conceptual Guide to Friendship Formation. (ERIC)
Interracial dating: attitudes and experience among American college students in California. (Psy Rep)
Dating and commitment choices as a function of ethnicity among American college students (Psy Rep)
Gender stereotypes: a bias against men. (J Psy)
Controlling Domestic Violence Against Men (familytx.org)

I'll stop here because at this point we start getting into what can only be called "journals" with a snort; I included the last because its abstract has begins,

"People hit and abuse family members because they can. In today s society, as reflected in TV, movies, law enforcement, courts, and feminist propaganda, women are openly given permission to hit men. Presently 25%-30% of all intimate violence is exclusively female on male"

There you have it. At the maximum rate Friebert quotes, 30% of all intimate violence is female on male.

I've found crow is good with tobasco and a nice chianti, btw. Just letting you know.

[bettyellen]

195. Thanks, I read all that years ago- but OMC thinks it's actually good research

he can;t seem to wrap hi shead around the fact that the stats he cited were discredited many times over the years. :shrug:
tks forlooking into it.

[Karenina]

262. The "IGNORE" function

is a work of art. References such as yours remind me WHY I USE IT and make me SO GREATEFUL to Elad.

[bettyellen]

196. NOT PEER REVIEWED, DO YOU JUST MAKE THIS CRAP UP OR WHAT?

and completely dishonest in representing other people's studies. this CRAP was discredited years ago. and yet i'm sure we'll see you guys whip it out again in 6 mos to try and fool someone else.
Unbelievable.

[REP]

289. The Answer Is Yes, They Do

There are a couple of posters who maintain fantasies about violence against men by women; at least one of these fantasizers has posted that he would force a women to carry to term against her will if he impregnated her. They're bullies, and they think they can shout down anyone who disagrees with them and force them to his will; again, at least one has posted that he has done so in real life (not with an intimate partner, but a gas station clerk).

[Morgana LaFey]

208. Yes, by all means, let's "disappear" the underlying misogyny, the

Patriarchal underpinnings of this whole society, by "pretending" that women are abusers as often as men are. Let's do that. We don't REALLY want to talk about the horrible woman-hating that goes on in this society. We don't REALLY want to talk about how disadvantaged women are in every way because of it, or that they are dying at the rate of 3 or 4 PER DAY at the hands of their mates. And getting beaten, maimed, disfigured, and raped daily. Also kidnapped and disappeared (killed) by men who SAY they love them.

Nuh-uh. Nothing to see there. Let's move alone.

(And some men wonder why some of us women are bitter and angry at times. Sheesh.)

[donsu]

108. thank you, thank you, thank you - for posting these stats

and exciting conversation

gold star

[dogday]

123. Women are killed more often in this country than

any other group of people... Usually by someone they know... And we do nothing about it....

[AngryAmish]

126. How do you define group?

Is men killing men attacking men as a group? Men's murder rate is 2.5-3x that of women.

However, if you are saying that all killing of women by men is a group attack then you are right.

[dogday]

138. That is what I am trying to say, that women are killed more by

men, more than any other group of people... Thanks for the clarification.... :hi:

[cgrindley]

127. That is laughably wrong

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cvict_v.htm#gender

Men comprise 79% of all homicide victims.

[dogday]

139. See post #126

[Recursion]

131. about 80% of murder victims are men, along with about 95% of murderers

Men are both the perpetrators and the victims of the vast majority of violence in the US.

[dogday]

140. Yes, that is not exactly how I meant it to come out

see post #126....

[UrbScotty]

169. Real men don't do that kind of thing. (nt)

[barb162]

286. Great post.

Why did the Women's Liberation Movement fizzle? I wish this were on every American newspaper's front page and papers around the world. Women around the world have the same problems, but it's often even worse in other countries.

[salin]

290. great OP and very interesting

(and at times revealing) thread. Many :thumbsup: !

[wicket]

303. kick

:kick: