What percent of the victims of domestic violence do you think are male? What percent of the services avaiable are open to male victims?

Your first two posts are kind of confusing. First of all you ask for statistics and resources. Babblers are usually a helpful bunch, but it is considered rude to ask everyone to do your research when it seems like you haven't tried to find out the information yourself.

In your second post, as a way to explain your question, you state you want to hear feminists' views on the issue. So which is is, do you want data or do you want a discussion on the issues? If you want a discussion, it helps if you write a longer post where you pose some specific questions and outlining your thoughts on the issue.

New babblers who ask loaded questions in their first post are often dismissed as trolls -- that's not what you want is it? To get an idea of what the general atmoshpere is around here, I'd
suggest reading this thread: Babble FAQ

By the way, on Babble's front page you'll see the Feminism forum has the following description: Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view.

If that doesn't describe your point of view, you'd be better to put your threads in other forums which are open to all points of view.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beansnrice:
I read a newspaper article recently that shocked me. It offered one side of things. I am looking to hear the other side.

---

If you're serious, I'd suggest you go in to the News forum and start a thread. Include a link to the article or, if none is available, supply some of the factual content so we know what you're talking about. So far, you haven't given us much to go on.

On edit: Yeah, what Sara said.

[ 09 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]

I think we need a title..

Judging from some of the numbers you've supplied I suspect you're referring to a survey done in 1998 by the Department of Justice and the Centres for Disease Prevention and Control. The results are available here in pdf format. The survey questioned 8,000 men and 8,000 women and then extrapolated to arrive at the figures you quoted of 1.5 million female victims and 835,000 male victims. But that report offers no support that I can see for your contention that more than 50% of domestic violence is initiated by women. In fact it noted that very often male victims are assaulted and raped by other males, not by their female partners.

(You'll get a gold star if you cite links to backup your statistics)

I don't know where you got your statistitics, but what I found on the US department of Justice website, shows that of almost 700,000 cases of domestic violence in 2001, just over 100,000 of the victims were male. That means about 15% of US domestic violence victims are male. I wonder if the Canadian statistics are any different?

Regardless of the numbers and the sex of the victims, domestic violence is a terrible crime and all the feminists I know would agree.

It would be insteresting to see the results of studies of these statistics. I am willing to venture that a great proportion of the female perpetrators of domestic violence were acting in self-defense.

As for the services available for male victims, I completely agree with policies that forbid men from staying at women's shelters. If the women feel they want a woman only space to recover from the violence then power to them.

Men should look at the histories of the Shelter mouvement and see that it was started by women reaching out to other women, not through some benevolence of the govenrment. If some men want to start a shelter for men victims of abuse, then power to them!

[ 09 October 2003: Message edited by: Sara Mayo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beansnrice:
The article was in a small local newspaper and featured a man who was attacked repeatedly by his wife. When this man tried contacting the domestic violence shelter he was told that they would accept only women! The bottom line is that there were no services available for him according to the article. ?

---

That unfortunately happens a fair bit. Men are badly underserved in this area. Most often though, male victims of domestic violence or abuse, whether gay or straight, don't report what happened at all because, either, as you mentioned, there's nobody there to help them or because they'll get told to suck it up and not be such a wuss. Similar in uselessness to the things women in that situation were told before they organized and got things changed.

In dealing with your question, the trouble is that such statistics always end up comparing apples and oranges. Without addressing the specific stats you quote, I have seen similar studies which are often touted by anti-women mens groups. What they do is lower the bar to include such things as shoving, or hitting and scratching while engaged in self defence. Where there is more serious abuse of men by women in domestic situations is in a situation where there have been decades of abuse, and now the male is older and the power balance has shifted. I in no way condone this even if it is rare. I have some legitimate studies that deal with this. If you're still around later, and interested I can dig them up.

In the matter of resources available, I cannot think of any shelter dedicated as being for male victims of domestic violence. This would be for a couple of reasons. First, there are shelters for men who find themselves on the street, and also ones specifically dedicated to people in some psycho-social crisis, and are able to deal with these issues which you describe. There are also community based crisis response services that can help with such issues in the home, and are gender neutral. I used to work for one.

Now, there are specific shelters for female victims of domestic violence ONLYbecause dedicated women fought tooth and nail, against overwhelming obstacles, tirelessly and over many decades to achieve this. They didn't get much help from men. They fought in the political arena, in the media, in their churches and too often in their homes. Women were killed and injured while politicions delayed.

"Men are free to start their own shelters. What are you doing about that?"

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by beansnrice:
Michelle said:

"Men are free to start their own shelters. What are you doing about that?"

This is a surprising response. It seems to attempt to divert attention away from the topic by casting blame. In some ways it reminds me of some whites in the south in the 50's and 60's who told the blacks that if they wanted water fountains they could build their own! This is precisely the sort of response I was hoping not to hear. It simply validates the stereotype of feminists not having compassion for men.

---

Your comparison is pretty ridiculous, but there is a grain of wisdom in it. Blacks in the south did take matters into their own hands. Sometimes their efforts were effective, and sometimes counterproductive, but in the end they won the right to those drinking fountains on their own. A sympathetic federal government offered support but the blacks had to fight for it. What they had going for them was not only courage, but a demonstratable case.

Your idea about self-defense has been long held by many folks. Most of the research tends to show that it is more a myth. If women initiate the violence over 50% of the time then it is more likely that the men would be responding in self defence don't you think?

The idea about shelters not being able to take men is also a myth. There are shelters in the U.S. which have been co-ed and very successful for years. Here's a letter from the director of that shelter:

http://www.ncfmla.org/pdfdocs/commissionletters/overberg.pdf

"That unfortunately happens a fair bit. Men are badly underserved in this area. Most often though, male victims of domestic violence or abuse, whether gay or straight, don't report what happened at all because, either, as you mentioned, there's nobody there to help them or because they'll get told to suck it up and not be such a wuss. Similar in uselessness to the things women in that situation were told before they organized and got things changed."

Exactly Doug. I was working in a community mental health center in the early 70's and remember very clearly
how we worked very hard to make it safe for the women who were victims of domestic violence to feel safe enough to come into treatment. TV radio, free lunches, seeing people in beauty parlors, etc. Now we need to do the same for the men.

And you haven't verified your 50% statistic. For all we know, you made it up.

By the way, why don't you consider yourself a feminist? Just wondering.

[ 09 October 2003: Message edited by: Jacob Two-Two ]

quote:

---

It was only by the direct intervention of the Queen that she was able to continue.

---

quote:

---

Archer, J. (2000). Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 651-680. (Meta-analyses of sex differences in physical aggression indicate that women were more likely than men to “use one or more acts of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” In terms of injuries, women were somewhat more likely to be injured, and analyses reveal that 62% of those injured were women.)

---

Here's the link:

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

quote:

---

Brutz, J., & Ingoldsby, B. B. (1984). Conflict resolution in Quaker families. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 21-26. (Used Conflict Tactics Scale with a sample of 288 Quakers <130 men, 158 women> and found a slightly higher rate of female to male violence <15.2%> than male to female violence <14.6%>.)

---

Nobody seems to be explaining that they are other individuals who are posting as themselves.

Even though I can argue my position with valid research and relative importance to feminist issue obviously I have been banned and will respect the moderator of this thread for her decision.

However, I'm not saying there's not good stuff there. In my first post I referred to some studies I have kicking around, and it occurs to me now that they're about 15 years old. We live in a changing world, and orthodoxy of thinking is not productive. Much for instance has been written about how violent female teens seem to have become over the years.

- there are a number of claims made on the website you cited http://www.dvmen.org, such as "It isn't likely that calling 911 during a crisis is the best solution a person can come up with to deal with intimate partner violence and abuse.", "We are more often frightened than hurt: Our troubles spring more often from fancy than reality.", "If you have children be aware that the woman is very likely to charge you with child abuse and sexual abuse, as well as domestic violence or abuse in a custody battle.", "As evident from previous sections in this chapter, the issue of domestic violence against women has been grossly overstated in a successful attempt to obtain funding for feminist groups. " Do you agree with theses statements?

- What makes you think that website is a credible source?

- Are you more likely to believe a website that comes from a male perspective than a female perspective? If so, take a look at this site: http://www.menstoppingviolence.org/

quote:

---

Now we need to do the same for the men.

---

Who's "we"? Generally, when people say, "we need to do something about this", what they really mean is "someone else needs to do what I think ought to be done about this".

I'm fully in support of shelters and services for men who have been abused by women. I also believe that in order to best service abused men, to best share their experience, provide them with proper support and protection from their assaulters, as well as provide them with empowering role-modelling, these services should be staffed and managed by men. Women's shelters aren't staffed by men because abused women don't often feel safe around men. The corollary would surely be true of abused men; why would they want support services from people who they identify with their abuser?

So, while women can be supportive of the cause, and no doubt many of us are, it's men who have to take the action in providing the required care. Do you know any men who are organizing to address this problem? If you could post some contact information, I know that there are many men who work in social service who would be willing to participate.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: andrean ]

quote:

---

oh shit. If the crap against men doesn't stop soon I may snap and go on a pyscho killing spree like my long time idol, Marc Lepine.

---

quote:

---

Someday all the Feminazi liars on this planet are going to eat every last word that vomits forth from their frothing maw. Tyrannts like Marx, Hitler, Stalin, MaoTseTung, Steinem, Dworkin, Satan, Mackinnon, Abzug, Allred, Frieden, French and all the other legions of Urukai marching forth, chanting their Kremlin-Reichstag PC Dogma all the while sealing their coffins with every syllable that stammers from their venomed snouts. They were human once, but then from the bowels of the cosmos, forces putrified by Malignant Narcicism ensnared them, enslaved them, mutilated, twisted and fused their neurology into the Dragon that is chained to the Gates of Hell. The Pit of no Return awaits them. A fate they most justly deserve!!

---

Any good public library will have a copy of this. It is an important read.

The first quote is truly disturbing.

I'm left to wonder just why these Warren Farrell fanclubbers have found there way here, of all places.

http://www.safe4all.org/

quote:

---

Men are gentle, honest and straightforward. Women are convoluted, deceptive and dangerous.

---

quote:

---

beansrice, now that we've answered your questions, and surprise surprise, you don't agree with us,

---

That's funny. I don't remember you even answering the first question. Maybe you can paste in the answers you gave to my questions?

Similarly, another major Canadian study of dating couples found 46 percent of women vs. 18 percent of men to be physically violent. You guessed it. The 18 percent male violence was published immediately. Not only was the 46 percent female violence left unpublished, but also the authors did not acknowledge in the Canadian Journal of Sociology that their study had ever included violence against men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanMan:
I have been banned and will respect the moderator of this thread for her decision.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dr. Mr. Ben:
[QB][/QB]

---

Still , being silenced un democratically on a democratic board seems kind of ironic. I made those posts primarily for canadian content since this is a canadian board.

The largest cities in the U.S. tend to have services for battered men, usually geared for the victims of violence in gay relationships. There's a major campaign in Massachusetts along these lines - big billboards with a picture of a bruised man and the slogan, "He loves me NOT." I know San Francisco and New York have specifically dedicated shelters.

The situation for male victims of female domestic perpetrators is a bit trickier. Due to societal expectations of "manly" behavior, male victims may be even more reluctant to get help than female ones, sometimes with tragic results. Due to this fact, it's very hard to nail down accurate statistics. At the moment the picture seems to show that the phenomenon is considerably less extensive than that of male-on-female violence, but due to this underreporting, this is highly uncertain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by April Follies:
Actually, the question of violence against men is one worth pursuing - as I said before, I get tetchy when anti-feminist goons try to hijack it to start this "women are evil" crap.

---

I think this is exactly how many men feel. In Erin Pizzey's early days she comments on her life in China as it was turning communist. In her later years she regonized such a similiarity in the women's gatherings in england. She was envited to houses where such communist figures was posted on the walls: Mao, Stalin. Immediatly the women were telling her that she was oppressed and kept in servitude to her husband and that divorce was the solution.

Erin was not interested in divorcing but rather in building a network in which women could help eachother and find solutions to their problems. Erin later opened a women's shelter and fought for funding. The same communist hardcore women hijacked the shelters and starting "in-doctrinating" women with anti-male slogans and propaganda primarily trying to induce communistic ideals.

No doubt men are aprehensible to the notion, but being an anti-feminist really doesn't equate to the goon just by chance. I can show documentation after documentation along with film footage where feminists were actually the "goons". Especially when senator Ann Cools of Canada who is known for figthing for women's shelters in the original sence is now actually fighting the other way. She is fighting for men and it is feminists who have been threatening her. Now of course none of the feminists on this board would do such a thing, but what is amazing is how much of this has been kept so quiet to the public.

So for those who are asking about the earlier women who started women's shelters, they are now trying to start men's shelters and are fighting an uphill battle not with men but with feminists and the beuaracracy they dominate.

They knew the violence was a two way street and the amount of men who have lost their rights and thrown in prison without due process and void of human rights, ya, I could see them being extremely bitter about feminism on a general sence.

But people can tear down that nonsence if given the chance to openly discuss the issues. What's happened in the political arena is that politicians don't care or are afraid of losing votes if they speak up. The real changers of society is not politicians it's the people on the groundfloor. Politicians just get the credit for it.

Another thing that strikes me about your version of events, besides a tendency to tar every woman calling herself a feminist with the brush of a handful of (allegedly) manipulative women, is the passive, almost impotent, role men play in the whole drama. How is it that women managed to band together, fighting rigid social structures and a discriminatory culture, to create an infrastructure of support and protection for female victims of domestic abuse, while men (the more abused gender, according to you) just suffered in obscurity? They didn't form a common purpose, didn't defend their rights, only lived in fear and isolation, not knowing what to do about it. In fact, it seems, again according to you, that they couldn't even get it together to make a men's shelter until some women took pity on their helpless state and did it for them.

quote:

---

How is it that women managed to band together, fighting rigid social structures and a discriminatory culture, to create an infrastructure of support and protection for female victims of domestic abuse, while men (the more abused gender, according to you) just suffered in obscurity? They didn't form a common purpose, didn't defend their rights, only lived in fear and isolation, not knowing what to do about it. In fact, it seems, again according to you, that they couldn't even get it together to make a men's shelter until some women took pity on their helpless state and did it for them.

---

This is an excellent question and gets to the heart of the matter.

The problem is surrounded by chivalry. Men are physically and socially geared to provide and protect for women and children. When women share concerns about their safety mature men will feel responsible to do somehing. There is no facsimile for men. Men have no one who wants to insure their safety or provide for them. Chivalry is the main reason that feminism has been able to make the legislative gains that they have. Men have responded to women's cries for help.

The problem is also compounded by a man's emotional pain being taboo in our culture. No one wants to hear it much less do anything about it. Think about the number of articles you have seen having to do with female victims of domestic violence and compare that to the number you have seen about men. Make the same comparisons about depressed people. How often do you see articles about depressed men? It happens but it is very seldom. A man's pain is disregarded and preferably hidden. A woman's pain is a media event.

These two things make any efforts to obtain services for men to be an uphill battle when compared to getting services for women which is much more a downhill battle. I know. I have been involved with both.

April said:

quote:

---

The largest cities in the U.S. tend to have services for battered men, usually geared for the victims of violence in gay relationships.

---

I would be very curious to hear why you or anyone think this is the case? Why would it be that gay men would be funded for services while striaght men would be ignored? Just by numbers the straight victims outnumber the gays by a huge margin.

Shelter personell have been brainwashed to believe that shelters cannot admit men due to all sorts of excuses. Having worked in mental hospitals where we admitted both men and women from a variety of abusive situations I can say that both men and women found the other gender of great help in their healing. If it were blacks being denied service everyone would be up in arms. Why not over sexism?

quote:

---

Originally posted by DanMan:

Still , being silenced un democratically on a democratic board seems kind of ironic. I made those posts primarily for canadian content since this is a canadian board.

Just trying to be helpful.

---

Democracy has nothing to do with it, nor should it. You were banned for violating the policy you agreed to when you registered.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]

quote:

---

Imagine a system of 2000 hospitals for heart disease that would only take men. 5 billion dollars has been spent on these facilities. Women are instead sent to motel! Wouldn't that get you upset? Duh.

---

INteresting that you should chose that topic as a comparison when up till very recently research on stroke and heart disease has been pretty much soley on men.

Hundreds of women die every year because they don't fit the male pattern and are turned away from hospitals as being hysterical or suggesting they are having panic attacks.

After care is deplorable for women also as again the needs of women who have had heart attacks differs greatly from that of men.

Perhaps you would like to try a different tact.

The babble policy is here. The thread where Dan swaggered in and started insulting and baiting feminists is here.

You'll note that not only have you not been banned, but since you started offering facts and cites insteading of making claims like Feminism = Stalinism, there's actually a conversation going on here.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: Slim ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by beansnrice:
I read quickly through that thread Slim and I must be missing what Dan did to qualify him for being banned. Can you tell me what it was?

---

quote:

---

Is this sort of information difficult for you to hear? That men are victims of DV and have been excluded?

---

quote:

---

Men have no one who wants to insure their safety or provide for them. Chivalry is the main reason that feminism has been able to make the legislative gains that they have. Men have responded to women's cries for help.

---

I know of a large group of very vulnerable men whose vulnerability is a direct cause of the even greater vulnerability of the women who care for them.

I started to write out a riposte to that quote above, but I just don't have the stomach or the heart to do it properly. We have had serious discussions on babble before about women who become caregivers, and we will have them again. This is not the place to waste the energy or the tears.

I think I will bow out at this point and leave you all to your thoughts. My motivation was to get some sense of the degree of understanding and compassion that feminists might have towards men who were victims of domestic violence and you have given me a great deal of data. The responses of "Build your own" are quite telling and the lack of any response from the regular posters on this board is obviously a tacit approval.

There were one or two of you who showed some compassion for men. Good for you! You give us all hope. In the next century we must have people in leadership postitions that have love in their hearts for all people. The rest of you may have some work to do though I am sure that you don't see it.

Blessings to you all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beansnrice:
So the name calling begins.

---

Where?

quote:

---

I think I will bow out at this point and leave you all to your thoughts. My motivation was to get some sense of the degree of understanding and compassion that feminists might have towards men who were victims of domestic violence and you have given me a great deal of data. The responses of "Build your own" are quite telling and the lack of any response from the regular posters on this board is obviously a tacit approval.

---

Define "regular poster"? I've posted more on the Feminism forum in the last two days than I had in the previous year and a half that I've been here.

quote:

---

There were one or two of you who showed some compassion for men. Good for you! You give us all hope. In the next century we must have people in leadership postitions that have love in their hearts for all people. The rest of you may have some work to do though I am sure that you don't see it.

Blessings to you all.

Peace.

---

quote:

---

So the name calling begins.

---

Name calling???

The weaknesses of your arguments are being exposed. You are being called on the manner in which you frame your arguments. I see no name calling.

Regular posters here have gone out of their way to treat you as being seperate from the recent infestation of trolls we've had from a pathological group of social misfits from whatever that site is.

Oh well, they come, they go, life goes on.

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

If abused men need shelters, fine, I agree, men who are being abused by their partners -gay or straight- should have a place to go to, so, start a grassroots movement, like the women did, and do some fundraising, buy property -or have it donated- and start a shelter for men who need it.

Start support groups for men who need someone to talk to, get a hotline established, get charity status from the federal government.

I do have sympathy for men who find themselves in physically abusive relationships, and there should be services for them.

On the topic of abusive relationships, this is something that tends to get overlooked.

Since the thread is about men, what services are there available for gay men? Does anyone know?

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by audra estrones:
Yeah, to steal someone else's metaphor, it's like getting mad at the Canadian Cancer Society for not helping out people who have Cystic Fibrosis.

---

On the other hand...
I remember (a couple of years ago) numerous politicians and such complaining about research dollars focussing on male centered diseases and that women's disease research was being shortchanged. I guess the answer based on the above opinions for these women would be to get off their ass and form a society to raise money. That seems callous and wrong.

I personally don't know of any man who is physically abused. Likely there are some in my circle of aquantances, I just don't know them, they hide it well. It would take incredible courage for someone to come forward. To get the critical mass to form a group is asking the impossible.

quote:

---

Originally posted by googlymoogly:
Abuse in lesbian relationships

On the topic of abusive relationships, this is something that tends to get overlooked.

Since the thread is about men, what services are there available for gay men? Does anyone know?

[ 10 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

---

For gays and lesbians living in larger urban centers such as Toronto, there is a pretty good range of relationship counselling services including resources which deal specifically with abuse issues. Probably not as much will be publicly funded, but some is.

Another problem I see with straight men advocating for domestic violence shelters is that for them, it's more about blaming all domestic violence against men on women, ignoring that gay men do it to gay men, rendering that group of victims and perpetrators invisible(but then men's rights= straight men's rights usually) Not to mention that men create most of the reasons why male victims of domestic violence don't come forward, by equating them with men who aren't really men because they can't control their women, and other assorted verbal garbage.

The problem is that men have grown conditioned to women doing ALL the work, from boyhood on forward. IMO, that's to their detriment because many men then have to learn how to take care of themselves. That's why if I ever have a son, or a daughter, they both are going to wash dishes, vaccuum, help in the kitchen, take out the garbage(the one male chore) etc.

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

Also, there seems to be little attempt to deal with class issues which allow some perpetrators of domestic violence to pay their way out of trouble while others have to be jailed b/c they can't pay restitution to shelters or organizations.

Also, male activists loathe it when women play the victim yet they play that card as well. If women including feminists have an issue, they tell us to quick whining and go do something about it. That advice works both ways.

[ 11 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by googlymoogly:

Since the thread is about men, what services are there available for gay men? Does anyone know?

---

What area? These things are heavily area-dependent, and I only know about a couple of US cities. Beyond that, I'd recommend a Google search, such as
this one.

Both male victims and gay/lesbian/bi/tg victims may be able to find resources at Stop Abuse For Everyone.

[ 12 October 2003: Message edited by: April Follies ]

I found beansnrice's question to be intriguing, but I believe as a few of you commented that he is a troll and was definately baiting the feminists.

I too am a feminist, and have used shelters to escaped from violent domestic situations. Unfortunately, when I first needed them, they weren't available, but my sister and I helped to establish one in our mostly rural area. I am very grateful to all the people who helped and contributed, not just here, but around the world. It's wonderful to have a safe place to run to. It is also important for women who are traumatized to be able to have a women only environment.

I am concerned about the few people who made comments to the effect that there is no need for mens' shelters, or that if they are needed that men should build them. That seems callous and professes an ignorance to the needs of men.

I personally know a number of men who have been abused by their female partners. This is hard for some people to understand as most men are bigger and stronger than most women. One I know of is 6'1", 220lb and he was not only struck, but sent to the hospital a number of times and carries visible scars from his abuser who was only 5'8" and 110lbs.

This man had been taught to never hit a woman. He couldn't restrain her without harming her, and so he was beaten. He finally left the relationship only to be involved in another abusive one. When he left in crisis, he was virtually on the street for a time until family became aware of the situation and helped.

Most men that are abused feel embarrassed, humiliated and terrified. Could you imagine admitting to the above situation in his place. Who't going to believe him? Well I've seen it happen and I do believe.

We as concerned people offer help to all kinds of causes. Why should men have to do this alone? The people that need help are often not in the position to help themselves and others until further down the road.

quote:

---

I found beansnrice's question to be intriguing, but I believe as a few of you commented that he is a troll and was definately baiting the feminists.

---

Actually windymustang, I have a few thoughts on the subject that would proceed well from what you've posted. The above thread went the way it did in the context of a nasty troll infestation from another site, and I didn't think that a really productive handling of the topic was possible under the circumstances. I was planning on giving it a few weeks and maybe posting something on the Body and Soul thread, 'cause I don't think that given the unique mandate of the Femminism thread it really belongs here.

Slim points out politely, this is a feminism forum. BeansnRice says he was interested in what feminists had to say though he's not one himself.(!). Another red flag.

Slim makes excellent point about getting a more broad perspective at other forums at this sight. Doesn't it make sense that if you want to discuss male victims of domestic violence, that you would go where other men are?

(also notice how initially beansnrice is vague about the source of the article)

Beansnrice doesn't like the response. He doesn't like his stats being challenged by better stats. He starts to get defensive, then he pulls the real zinger out of the bag, the one he had when he first got here, the one that's supposed to hit all women including feminists where it hurts:

"

quote:

---

This is a surprising response. It seems to attempt to divert attention away from the topic by casting blame. In some ways it reminds me of some whites in the south in the 50's and 60's who told the blacks that if they wanted water fountains they could build their own! This is precisely the sort of response I was hoping not to hear. It simply validates the stereotype of feminists not having compassion for men. "

---

we're supposed to go, I guess.

Trinnity makes an excellent point, why is Erin Prizzey brought up twice in two days? My guess and this is not seeing the other reference that the other reference was made by Dan Lynch?

Nah, they both came from the same place.

a) Nazis
b) the KKK or Jim Crow segregationalists
c) any entity that ever committed genocide
d) any combination of the above

How long did it take beansnrice? About three posts.

I'm not saying this issue isn't important. It is. I just wonder why it's so rarely discussed on other forums besides feminism or women-centered topic forums.

quote:

---

In some ways it reminds me of some whites in the south in the 50's and 60's who told the blacks that if they wanted water fountains they could build their own!

---

(not that that wasn't obvious already)
so they all are different people; Dan just thinks he has a chance at getting others to join them by sending his minions here

[ 13 October 2003: Message edited by: googlymoogly ]

I'm not saying it's not an important issue but if these men put their energy into dealing with these issues rather than simply using them to flog women with, they probably could help some men in need. Why don't they? Too much work involved and it is work creating shelters.

One thing's for freakin' sure: if I only had a dollar to give to a shelter, and I had to choose one which would help my son or one which would help my daughter, there really isn't a question of who is likely to need it most.

How can we be asked to choose between our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers? There is no choice here for me. I agree with you that the problem of women suffering from domestic violence is more prevalant than men suffering from domestic violence, but I cannot choose one over the other.

Well yes, if we were only speaking of genderless people who get abused, sure...but domestic abuse is not separable from gender relations in general. This means that a) my daughter is far more likely (regardless of picking nits about the numbers) to be abused at home. b) The consequences of violence are far more likely to be death for her than they are for my son, so this concerns me somewhat more. c) If she leaves, she will more than likely be responsible for the children, (which most women wouldn't want to leave with the abusive partner, anyway). d) this means that she will be a sole-support mother in a labour market that pays women less on average and doesn't provide child care. If my son left with the kids, he is likely to earn more money. Besides, he hs less likley to have had extended absences from the labour market to raise said kids, which whould lower his earning potential e) my son is also more likely to find a partner who then will relieve him of the child care duties, while my daughter will take longer and is less likely to re-marry, find someone else, etc.

Now, of course Dan L will say that these are averages, and that we should treat people on the basis of their "individual" situations...well, gender isn't an individual attribute..it's a social relation in which women get the shit end of the stick in general for the reasons above... notwithstanding the odd guy abused by his wife, the wife who makes six figures and has a stay-at-home husband, etc.

sorry...pent up frustration with Troll Nation over here.

[Edited to take out something not nice that I wouldn't have written if not for the tequila]

[ 13 October 2003: Message edited by: Mush ]

The thing I was objecting to was "choosing". Yes, women suffer in greater numbers from domestic violence, they have fewer options and less pay for employment, they usually have the care of the children etc.etc.etc.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trinitty:
Don't you all find it interesting that Erin Pizzey has been brought up twice now, in two days, by two TOTALLY different people?

The coincidence is astounding.

---

It isn't astounding at all. Anyone with any knowledge of this issue knows Erin Pizzey. Feminists know her very well too, usually.

Has anyone bothered to consider that the reason these activists (and yes, most of them ARE fighting in the political arena AND the public opinion arena to get their goals met) confront feminists is because that is who OPPOSES them politically? They are curious why, if these shelters are such a good thing for victims, some victims are excluded from help wholesale based on something as ridiculous as their gender.

However, I know enough about why they're really excluded to not ascribe such pure motivations to it. It isn't the bogus "Oh they're afraid of big bad ol' men right now and just need to be away from them" (the answer to that kind of xenophobia is exposure to male victims and good men as well as women, not coddling it), the real reason has a lot more to do with the secrecy with which most of these shelters are run. And the reasons for that secrecy of course.

FWIW I'd bet Beans isn't a newcomer (or someone who just happened to read a newspaper article ) at all; but is obviously educated in this subject. It isn't Dan, but seems to me to be one of two others I know. For what else it's worth, I'm not "with" them, as despite the fact that they're right in some aspects they're also misogynist assholes in many other ways . Doesn't excuse the type of bigotry I'm seeing here, but what else is new?

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by googlymoogly:
Believe you me, Mr. Lynch is a moderate compared to most of the guys who post there regularly

No mention that I could see about improving services for abused men on their forum, just a lot of ranting about how western women can "burn in hell" (direct quote) because they complain too much, and how they want to go to other countries to find wives who don't complain about serving their men (no exaggeration)

---

And a backlash against the insanity of radical feminism is what, a surprise? Backlash was being bitched about long before any men got off their butts to start realizing that they really WERE being f-ed over royally by the law and the courts. There was no real backlash then, but yeah there probably is now. Feminists only have themselves to blame for that fact. They've hurt women tremendously too, not that you find many women willing to express that fact. (Yes, they're afraid - yes, of feminists.) And with intense systematic bigotry have brought about a real (finally) backlash which also harms the nonfeminist women who had no part in bringing it about.

So women like me are left with a choice between misandry and misogyny. Great freedom of choice I have there

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by windymustang:
Mush, I think we generally agree on principle.

The thing I was objecting to was "choosing". Yes, women suffer in greater numbers from domestic violence, they have fewer options and less pay for employment, they usually have the care of the children etc.etc.etc.

Louise

---

The problem with statistically controlling for education, work experience, etc, in a straightforward cross-sectional regression type of analysis that it negates the way in which gender operates through these labour market differential to produce different outcomes. Ceterus just ain't paribis. This mistake is often made with respect to studies of racial differences, too. Control for education and work experience, then take the remaining differences in income as a measure of "discrimination", and if the residial is not significantly different from 0, then there is no evidince of labour market discrimination.

The problem is then of course you are comparing invented people. An Aboriginal woman with a Ph.D. earns the same as a white guy. Perhaps, but who has more obstacles to getting there? Ceterus just ain't paribis, and to make it look like it is is the real statistical hocus-pocus.

As for "choice", well, choices don't come out of the air. Do women choose to be single mothers? Well, let's say a woman chooses to have children in the context of a partnership or marriage. Perhaps then she chooses to get divorced. Given that she's now a sole support parent, for her given education level, she might "choose" a job (of the many offered, I'm sure) that lets her care for her child as well as work. Do all of these add up to choosing to work part time and take care of a child? I doubt it. And if so, why excatly is it that men rarely "choose" the same thing? Chromosomes? Penises? (Hint: think social structures).

BTW, if it is the Canadian NLSCY to which you refer, I would suggest you try to perform the same analysis on the SLID, which has much better information on labour market characteristics and outcomes.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Mush ]

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Mush ]

I'll answer that one though.

#1 It's not Aimee; and no I'm not Canadian.
#2 The attempt to talk over my head is duly noted but that will prove inordinately difficult
#3 Translation of above appears to be, "I will make the stats say what I want them to regardless of the mathematical gymnastics required to do so."
#4 The comparison to race was called ridiculous towards the beginning of the thread - good to know it's acceptable when you think it is.
#5 Quite obviously controlling for RELEVANT factors IS essential. The "wage gap" myth is based on an highly irresponsible comparison - simply taking all that men earn across the board and seeing if it's more than what women across the board earn. Calling it unfair (in whatever way you choose) to control for any other factors is sheer madness and, as I mention, highly irresponsible. It doesn't even take a statistician to know *that*.
#6 Choices are choices. We don't and can't legislate those.
#7 Your question "Why don't men choose" A or B is not well stated. You're bringing in a not-average situation (single motherhood) to the entire issue of the disputed wage gap and then asking why "men don't". You would better ask whether SINGLE MALE PARENTS do or don't. That is the only relevant question. For all we know, single male parents DO do the same thing; you haven't even addressed whether or not they do.

However it does then appear that you're saying it is single motherhood that is responsible for the entire wage gap, and that this is because single mothers work part time jobs? In that case we need to control for single parenthood and compare single parents of both sexes to see where we are on that. In families where both parents work it has often been the mother who takes time off to go through pregnancy, childbearing, spending the first months or year with each baby, etc. She does indeed lose work time, experience, and sacrifices potential position to do so. If she doesn't want to do this perhaps she should reconsider having children or adopt, or have children with a man who wishes to make all those sacrifices himself. Though she might be surprised at how she feels and how her desires change upon actually going through pregnancy and childbirth - at this point in time we are unable to hand that part of the job over to men, correct?

Which, by the way, is exactly the reason fewer fathers of families choose to do that exact thing. Yes, it's in large part nature. If I had a dime for every woman who was positive she was going to continue pursuing her career equally doggedly after she gave birth who then changed her mind when she met her baby and decided to stay home, or work part time instead, my husband could retire and finally we'd both be able to stay home.

Not to mention you ARE ignoring the growing number of men who most certainly DO choose to stay home more. As women leave the home unattended more and more, many men ARE stepping in to fill the void and finding that they like it too. Many more men are sacrificing position and wages and advancement for the sake of being available much more to their families; I meet them constantly and read of them constantly, see them on TV more and more. Yes, they're finding they like it as much as women always have. So it shouldn't be very hard to find a husband/father who will happily let you pursue your careers to your heart's content and throw his hand in at home. Many women don't care for that as much as they thought they would, though; they end up being pissed that they're carrying the bulk of the financial burden then...well you can't have it both ways.

I believe women are somewhat more likely to report a domestic assault than men are; but police do often take photos, and I can assure Babblers that I have seen nine injured women for every injured male.

So, basically, I believe the "assaulted male" is a small minority. That doesn't mean he should be completely ignored, but it hardly justifies an attack on the system overall.

If you meant me by the "some" people are just "angry" then you're barking up the wrong tree as well as being needlessly dismissive and rude. Anger has nothing to do with this...at least on my end. Some men are angry, but no one with a shred of honesty (who has access to the facts) can blame them for that. Being screwed over with regard to your legal rights to your children in divorce or your rights in DV cases tends to make people angry. Go figure.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jeff house:
In Toronto, we have a court for domestic assault, called "K" Court. 96.4% of the complainants are women, as per last statistics I know of (from about two years ago).

---

Interesting. According to
Family Violence in Canada, 12% of complaints are filed by men and police DO charge most batterers regardless of their gender.

quote:

---

I believe women are somewhat more likely to report a domestic assault than men are; but police do often take photos, and I can assure Babblers that I have seen nine injured women for every injured male.

---

Maybe. Had I a chance to work as a lawyer I would of known more.

But verbal abuse can also cause tremendous damage. Many man and women actually kill themsaelves because of it. Yet it is not even illegal.

quote:

---

I think some posters are just very angry people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by windymustang:
Mush, I am agreeing with almost everything the feminists are saying on this thread, but I find it disturbing what you said about if you had a dollar...I know who I'd give it to...

How can we be asked to choose between our sons and daughters, our sisters and brothers? There is no choice here for me. I agree with you that the problem of women suffering from domestic violence is more prevalant than men suffering from domestic violence, but I cannot choose one over the other.

We can not compaire one person's pain over another's. Who are we to say that one suffers more than another? Unless we are in their shoes we can not know.

---

I agree. Most people who are abused become abusers. Women generally become child abusers. Men generally become felons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Internet Devil:

I agree. Most people who are abused become abusers.

---

Let's say in 1700 there were only one thousand mean, nasty child abusers in the American colonies. (Of course this all neglects the point of why there weren't tons more since each previous generation should have turned out exponentially more abusers, but OK, 1000.) Let's say each married and had two children, considerably less than most families in those days. The children grow up to be abusers, married, etc. By 1980 we would have had 330 million abusers, more than double the adult population of the US and Canada at that time.

You can play with those and use various definitions of "most" but even on its face it's ridiculous. Then again if you ask questions in a poll the right way, you can come up with a child abuse rate of 100 percent. Hell Gelles and Strauss (who I referenced before) came up with 97 percent of people abusing their children, because they call spanking abuse. So...it's anyone's game right? Most people who suffer don't wreak vengeance on the world; many people who have never suffered or been hurt on purpose do cause harm to others. In any case the one or two empirical studies that have been done with your claim have shown the opposite. Most abused children don't want to hurt their kids; those who were raised very permissively were the most likely to lash out in anger, since they had poor impulse control and hadn't been disciplined well. The in between group - neither abused nor raised too permissively - was the most effective as parents.

None of this explains why out of 100 reports to child services, the vast majority (about 86) are unfounded; of the founded reports, most are minor abuses and only one involves serious abuse. Not to mention if you separate natural parents from foster families and state care, you come up with a much higher statistical likelihood of being severely abused or killed with non-natural families (fosters, stepparents, etc). Unfortunately when they report the statistics they don't separate those two things and merely lump child abuse into one category so that it appears from the outside that it's mostly parents who do it.

www.cpswatch.com

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Madame X:
Mush, excellently put, particularly that it's men's attitudes towards female on male domestic violence that also must be dealt with.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anniee:

Let's say in 1700 there were only one thousand mean, nasty child abusers in the American colonies.

---

Actually, in 1700-s physical child abuse was the norm. But at least in a society where most children are abused, abused children have less problems growing up. Today, when only 1.5% of children are severly abused, when they grow up they can not fit into the society. That, along with anger causes them to commit crimes. Many of them can fit only in a penitentery, so they become habitual criminals.

quote:

---

Let's say each married and had two children, considerably less than most families in those days. The children grow up to be abusers, married, etc.

---

Since that time each following generation engaged in less child abuse then the previous one. In USA today not all child abuse victims abuse their children. Some commit other crimes, and a few abuse no one.

quote:

---

Most people who suffer don't wreak vengeance on the world;

---

You mean they all spanked? Yeah they did. So do 97% of parents today.

"Since that time each following generation engaged in less child abuse then the previous one."

Which is the exact opposite of what you said before and what you go on to say.

"In USA today not all child abuse victims abuse their children. Some commit other crimes, and a few abuse no one."

Well you said "most", not all. My mathematical analysis can be messed with to make it most and not all. I guarantee you a lot more than a FEW abuse no one.

I really don't know where you're going or what your point is; my reply was really a side note. Just because "most abused people grow up to be abusers" has become accepted as a catchphrase doesn't make it true; and evidence doesn't bear it out. At least I see you recognize that most children aren't abused. Despite the fact that most children are spanked...even though you seem to consider spanking abuse, but maybe you're talking about using a paddle to administer said spanking.

By the way, 1.5% of children are abused, you say...do you mean severely? Also, how many children are in the country today?

ETA: Never mind, I looked up the numbers. 1.5% would come out to a million per year...over half being cases of "neglect" which can actually mean "poverty" or a host of other things. I don't think this is the place for it actually; that's a year's worth of discussion right there.

[ 14 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Anniee:
I guarantee you a lot more than a FEW abuse no one.

---

Among those severly abused most carry tremendous anger. And those who do not hurt others hurt themselves.

quote:

---

By the way, 1.5% of children are abused, you say...do you mean severely? Also, how many children are in the country today?

---

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

If this subject is too painful, as someone else said, then maybe you shouldn't be discussing it on this forum. I find your comments to be so aggressive, inflamitory and inaccurate that I am actually angry even after trying to cool off. I must say that I don't anger easily, so you've done a really good job.

I just don't know where to start...the wage differences between men and women being a fallacy; your saying that women "choose" to care for their children and "choose" to have them and if they don't want that choice they shouldn't have them; that so many men are actually participating more in child care; that almost no men report domenstic violence so the numbers are scewed. I could go on for pages. Some of your facts and figures and opinions are so convuluted and distorted that they don't even bear arguing.

I think that this thread need to be brought up again so that people can challenge each and every one of your opinions. Your attitude of "you made your bed now lie in it" is offensive to women as a whole and mothers inparticular. How would you react to being alone, on the street, caring for your children, uneducated, penniless and cold? Where is your empathy?

I just can't imagine what your life has been like or hasn't been like to think that women choose all these catastrophic situations. Yes, we make choices that influence how our lives turn out, but most uneducated women don't choose to be uneducated. Most poor women don't choose to be poor. Most abused women don't choose to be abused. and on and on and on.

These situations leave many women with the need of asylum and assistance...hence the shelters. They are not there because of choice. They are not able to support themselves properly because they choose to be in that situation. They are not looking at minimum wage jobs as a choice. These are their realities and was at one time my reality.

How many of these 'abused' men are dependent financially upon the women they say are abusing them? How many of these abused men are househusbands raising the children and maintaining the home while she is the primary source of income and he is the dependent?

Men leave their wives, sometimes because the wife is abusive. They pick up and walk. Some pay $$ for doing so .. but they had the option to leave and set up home elsewhere.

Alone.

No kids.

Some even pay the child support and spousal support as recognition that the marriage didn't work and they need out and they have financial responsibilities to tend to and emotional and physical responsibilities to their children, who are in no way at fault for the abuse or even the dissolution of the marriage.

How many woman can or would do that...leave the kids and set up home with another man. How many men would take a woman and her children in and support them?

This 'men get abused, too and need supports and shelters' just really truly rings hollow to me.

Women's shelters were started BY women FOR women. I will post later about all the details of that.

We didn't see MEN starting shelters for abused women.. did we? nope.

That dang old 'male privilege' rearing it's ugly head again.. and I'm seeing a lot of postings about this crap on here lately..and it's starting to bug me.

If these men think they are so hard done by, then they can do what the women did... talk to each other and set up their own support systems.

Personally, I think the abuser needs to be removed and their option is a shelter. The woman and her children stay in their own home because they weren't the cause of the trouble.

I'd offer that suggestion to men, too... when the hockey stick practice of cross charging 'she hit me after I abused her' ends.

Men who feel they are under-respresented or ignored..do what women have had to do.. take care of yourselves and work for change. Oh, and while you're at it... see if you can't change the systemic white male hierarchy we live under...'cause whatever 'oppression' you feel is worthy of change and challenge...and you can't blame the women for it. We aren't running the show here.

In recent postings by a woman, I am sadly reminded of something I once read (can't remember who wrote it).... a lumberjack with an axe walks into the forest..the trees get scared...then one tree says to the others... 'don't be scared.. the handle is one of us'

[ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

Judging from the women's struggle, awareness is necessary before shelters can be built. That is, the extent of the problem has to be recognized, preferably tied down to some solid numbers. Otherwise, people will say: "With so few cases, a shelter would be underused," or something. This is not a denigration of men so much as the reluctance of governments and communities to spend money on a problem until it's screaming in their ear.

In order to get some decently representative numbers, however, and more widespread recognition of the problem, a cultural shift is going to have to take place. Heading the list of things involved in that shift is convincing men that it's all right, not un-manly to report it if your spouse grabs things to hit you with every so often. "Real men get help" needs to be the message, not the current societal assumption that a real man should be able to handle anything a mere woman can do. Likewise, one needs to cultivate awareness on the part of the cops that a man who reports abuse needs to be taken very seriously.

In a sense, I do see this as a feminist issue. It's rooted in the same cultural stereotypes that give so many women grief. Just as female DV victims were ignored because, "well, men are like that, and it's a woman's responsibility not to cause offense to her husband," male DV victims were ignored - and even mocked - because "what kind of man would let his wife do that to him?" Note the unspoken assumption that it's impossible that he should be the weaker of the two.

Certainly one doesn't want to place men's issues ahead of women's issues, in any sense; that's not the point of feminism, I agree. However, I'd argue that feminism serves both women and men by breaking down these artificial stereotypes; and conversely, some attention to how these issues affect men does not hurt, but rather advances, the cause of women.

To argue that "women got no help from men" in fighting DV is a fallacy. There have been many male feminists over the years who have been of great assistance and support to women. Yes, it was largely a "we, ourselves" sort of movement, and yes, that's as it should be; it's about the empowerment of women. Great. But let's not run down the contributions of those who helped along the way, eh? No movement exists in a vacuum.

How would your average feminist feel if certain lesbian women declared that they got no help at all from straight women? There is, after all, a bitter streak of truth to that, as quite a cadre of feminists didn't want to "dilute the message" even by the inclusion of lesbian women. But "no help at all" is going too far. Lesbian women benefitted a good deal from the quiet support of straight women who felt that everyone should have a chance to make their own choices, even in the ever-controversial area of sexuality. Similarly, among all the opposition and well-meaning patronizing obstructionism and institutionalized indifference... has been a solid core of men who have supported women without trying to take over their movement; who have defended feminist choices and provided help when it was needed. There's a volunteer carpenter in Texas who might be quietly hurt to know that men had no hand in building shelters for women; he donated hundreds of hours of his time to the effort.

One needs to have a balance. I'm not saying that feminists should have to put up with antifeminist invasions like we've seen too much of in this thread. I'm not saying that feminists should spend great chunks of their time dealing with male issues when more extensive wrongs are still being suffered by women. What I am saying is that one can't be too quick to say "these are my issues, these are your issues; tend your own house." Often, the issues are the very same issues, just seen from a different perspective. Attacking such issues helps everyone.

So to those men concerned about male DV victims, I'd say: if you're just using these poor guys as an excuse to attack feminists and feminism, shame on you. You're using their suffering to advance your own prejudice - how unutterably petty. If you honestly think feminists should be helping you, you'd be doing what I'm doing here: saying that this really is related to the feminist struggle, and explaining why you think so. (Hint: one reason's because the stereotype of "male strength" works against a man when he's in the position of a victim. Sorry, but flattering though it is to some men, we're going to have to expose that old canard if we're going to be able to help the men in need.)

It is not feminists who are standing in the way of shelters for men. If not for feminist struggles, there wouldn't be shelters for anybody. Feminists have brought up the whole Domestic Violence issue in the first place, and put it in the public eye. If you feel feminists have left out men, by all means argue for their inclusion - but don't you dare blame feminists for standing in the way of male victims. The abuse has been going on since ling before feminism was ever dreamed of, and no one did anything about it then, either. What's standing against male victims is largely the same thing that stands against female victims - the unthinking assumptions about where people stand in society according to gender, and the occasional vicious abuser who (often unintentionally) exploits those assumptions to continue the abuse.

In fact, though the men's rights movement has an occasional point about some feminists stressing the woes of women to the point that they won't admit men have woes at all - there's another side to it. By concentrating so much fury on attacking women and/or feminists, rather than on helping men, some men's movement folks have actually doen more harm to men and the men's movement than any number of women. They take some perfectly legitimate problems and, in using them as a bludgeon to attack feminism, make those problems seem (to the average person on the street) like just the exaggerations of a few men afraid of losing priveledge. Ye gods, talk about self-defeating.

The best thing that both men and women can do for their respective struggles for the right to be complete human beings is: forget the thought that this is some sort of zero-sum game. Not every advance for women comes at the expense of men, and vice versa. As often - perhaps more often - an advance for women turns into a triumph for men. "Family leave" is a direct outgrowth of "working women" - yet as a result men, also, gain the benefit of more time to spend with their families, when stereotyped roles would have relegated them to the position of distant provider and occasional disciplinarian.

And, fellow feminists, it may well be that "shelters for men" has in it the seeds of some advances for women. Human rights, after all, tend to tie into one another in subtle and intricate ways, and the trick is to raise the standard for all. So while it should not be alowed to dominate the agenda, it sure wouldn't hurt to tack a little note on here and there. Many feminist groups do just that already. If one falls into the trap of nay-saying everything to do with men's issues, aren't you letting men define the agenda still, just in the negative?

I'm damned if I'm gonna let twits like "Dan" define for me what I am and what I believe. And for me, "feminist" means "concerned with all the injustices created by gender stereotypes". So I figure I'll take the opportunity of their little forum invasion to do a very feminist thing - challenge the underlying assumptions concerning gender roles and the effects they have on us all.

For those who seriously want to help male DV victims, I refer to the SAFE link above. Support for that group, with its inclusive ideals, seems to me one of the more productive avenues. We're also going to have to make a concerted effort to show the where and how of the problem, and that means getting victims to speak up. Remember that the truly victimized are the most reluctant to speak, so especially at first, one must be very careful to filter out those who're e.g. using false accusations to win custody cases. Each "model case" later proven false is a blow to the movement. Therefore, working out some careful standards of evidence is crucial. One of the best routes I've seen involves medical records - it's hard to argue with photos of the injuries. A campaign to get doctors to document cases of possible abuse is already well underway. One could, I think, best serve male victims at this point by stressing as part of that campaign that men should also be looked at as potential victims, and the same 'document everything' policy should be employed regardless of the sex of the possible abuse victim. A few clear-cut cases can make all the difference in the world, later down the line. Don't waste time arguing about who's been hurt more; this is not some sort of macabre contest. Just get those victims out there with the really simple message: "We exist. We are hurt. Please help us."

You make some valid arguments and points. I for one appreciate that far more than 'so...to all you 'feminists'.. how many men get abused? huh? huh? take that' kinda junk.

Start a thread about men getting abused..don't jump on the backs of the feminists and bash them with the progress they've made for women. Do the same for your own and elicit support. Feminists will give it. We've learned to challenge our own and as we are not anti men and challenge systems and practices and not sex (gender is cultural-masculine or feminine, sex is physical characteristics of male or female, which is also open to challenge ) but that's another thread

[ 19 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

I interpret this as meaning that if you are a feminist, you believe in equal rights between males and females. A practicing feminist is someone who is an activist on behalf of women's rights and interests.

Heh...I must say it's sort of amusing; I know an antifeminist who gets just as irrationally emotional/hysterical at the drop of a hat too. Then again I suppose I know people who have little opinion on feminism who are just that uber-emotional too. I'd repeat "hysterical" except it actually is an anti-woman term and despite your rantings I will assure you I'm not anti-woman. You see, I'm a woman; it doesn't often work that way

[ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: Anniee ]

In my opinion, it's very slave like thinking that we need the men on our side to change that they oppress us.. that we need them 'on our side' to effect change. We don't. Yes many men throughout history have supported women's emancipation, etc. In fact, my great great et al uncle was John Stuart Mill... who wrote and spoke to parliament his document 'the subjection of women'. Yet, we live in a patriarchal, white male dominated culture and some feel we can't move forward for ourselves without everyone's consent and support.

Harumph I say

[ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

It is not "slave-like thinking" on the part of the African National Congress that began their mandate: "We, the people of South Africa, black and white together..." Nor do the ANC scorn the white anti-apartheid fighters. The ANC is not bowing to colonial pressures in this, just recognizign that peoples contributions, not their race, are what matters. To me, people's contributions to feminism, not their actual sex, is what matters. So I have no trouble in the world with the term 'male feminist'.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it's true that women need to do things for themselves, not ask others to do things for them. But that doesn't mean it's right to reject someone from 'our' movement because they're the wrong gender. I mean, what kind of message would that be? "It's not OK when you do it to me, but it's OK when I do it to you?" C'mon, now. Safe spaces are great, but 'feminism' is not a safe space, it's a movement to change society. Movements that change society need to take every member of society into account.

To say men can't be feminist is like saying whites can't be civil rights activists. I'd argue that a movement should embody the values it seeks to bring to society, and that means upholding equality inside the movement as well.

If you feel that these male feminists are trying to 'take over', well fer heaven's sake, we're feminists. We just don't let ourselves go along with such a thing! We're not going to faint the first time a guy starts shouting 'THIS is the WAY.' We're perfectly capable of shouting back.

What really bothers me is the feeling that some feminists are trying to make things into a matter of 'choose your side'. It's easy to divide the world into Good Gals and Bad Guys, but it's also a vast oversimplification. The struggle is not, and never has been, about men versus women, or even about women versus patriarchy. It's about the ideals of some women and men - concerning equality - against the traditions upheld by other women and men.

I base my actions and participation in women's emancipation in large part on this, taken from 'the subjection of women' from 1869 by John Stuart Mill and read in Parliament:

"Again, in practical matters, the burden of proof is supposed to be with those who are against liberty; who contend for any restriction or prohibition either any limitation of the general freedom of human action or any disqualification or disparity of privilege affecting one person or kind of persons, as compared with others. "

Far too much time is wasted in having 'educating the oppressor' the primary goal or the focal point.

With issues of racism as well... there is far too much time spent on explaining to white folks why they are racist. If they care about being non-racist and truly want the balance of power to shift or be equal, they will figure it out for themselves. They aren't sheep or brain dead...they can learn just as the ones being oppressed learned about their oppression.

Oppressors saying 'we don't get it? tell us what we are doing wrong' is yet another method of oppression. If they don't 'get it' in the first explanation, they aren't going to. Because, I think they damn well DO get it and are enjoying all the privilege of that oppression and truly don't want to give it up.

In a nutshell

[ 20 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

Dianal you still haven't justified your arguement that to be a feminist, you must be female. If someone is fighting for the equal rights of women in society, by definition, they are feminists. Where is it said that a feminist must be female?

As far as educating the oppressor being a waste of time, I disagree. Through education, society's opinion has changed on numerous topics; race, religion and sex discrimination being just a few. In my grandmother's day b.1895 in New York, she just naturally called black's "niggers" until she was educated that it was a cruel thing to say. It took a while, but eventually she changed how she spoke. If we don't beat society about the head with repetition of what is right, society will never change.

To you this might be a waste of time because you have more important feminist issues to tackle. That's OK, fight the good fight. In my mind though, education is never a waste of time.

Some women are afraid of men. They've got ample reaosn, within the context of their own experience. They want "safe spaces" to grow and develop without the pressures of male behavior - or their own expectations of male behavior, just as much. This is something I sympathize with, and think they should be granted as much as possible.

But eventually we must come out of the safe spaces to rejoin the world at large, that most unsafe of places. To make the world at large safer for women (among others) is an admirable goal, but in the process we must consider that men are a part of that equation. That includes recognizing, and respecting, those men who have given much (and a heckufa lot more than e.g. Phyllis Shclafley) to help empower women. That includes, among other things, those fathers reading this right now who've done their level best to help their daughters empower themselves, as well as their sons. Shout-out, guys.

Men are risking their lives to go out to places where women don't have decent medical care, in order to see that they have access to it. Men are spending their lives to found schools for women who would otherwise grow up illiterate. Men are fighting in legislatures around the world to get pro-feminist legislation passed. And most of 'em don't present that as a lordly gift from men to women (after all, they have many women right next to them doing just the same), but as a simple matter of human rights, the things every human being ought to grant to one another. They see an imbalance, they address it. And you're telling me somehow that, walk the walk how they may, they don't deserve to be called 'feminist'?

I'd be very, very careful with the answer to that. There are anti-feminists already who are all too eager to paint feminism as 'sexism in reverse', and this plays right into those hands. We might not care about the anti-feminists themselves, but we should care about the generation of young women (and men) growing up right now with those messages dinning in their ears. If we lend credence to the idea that feminism is an exclusionary, rather than inclusionary, movement - we'll have a lot fewere feminists, that's the bottom line.

You must be male for suggesting I need to 'justify' my position.

[ 21 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dianal:

You must be male for suggesting I need to 'justify' my position.

---

Dianal, I find that quite offensive.

When we ask others to accept our reasoning, it is therefore perfectly reasonable for them to ask us to justify our base position.

I feel strongly that the unexamined life is not worth living, and the unexamined movement is not worth fighting for. It is, to my mind, one of the most important things in the world to be self-critical. Yes, it can be taken too far, I grant. But only a self-critical movement is self-correcting. When we become unable to criticize our own tendencies, or to discuss those criticisms rationally, we too often go off into the realm of dogma, which helps no one.

I think one of the great strengths of feminism is its very diversity of views, all included under the general banner. The ecofeminists, for instance, have a very interesting take on the relationship between traditionally 'feminine' modes of thought, and the environmentalism which we know now is vital to society. So-called 'radical' feminism has made us re-examine the entire concept of gender from the ground up. Of course, the marxist feminists will probably have a significant following here, given the board.

I'm most interested in that general line, myself, (the marxist, that is) as the intermingling of class, race, and gender structures - all artificial categorizations of human behavior - are the things that I think are in deepest need of re-examination and possible dismantling. The group to which I belonged, while it lasted, was called Women for Racial and Economic Equality, which should right about tell you what we were all about.

This is not a contest, it's not supposed to be anyway... feminists, the ones _I_ know.. respect and engage in intellectual discourse. Join my other thread. The one where I hope pro feminists will engage in discussion, not ditch dragging.

yes I'm angry at being insulted for speaking and choosing to share what I chose to share, then being called on the carpet for it and jided and chastised by you and one other poster.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Ever read that anywhere? You did now. And ya.,.this posting and most of the thread is a problem and in this instance, I choose NOT to try for a solution. Not worth my time to salvage this thread. I'm going to another one.

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

I hadn't previously joined the other thread, because I wanted to let others get a word in edgewise; and because I wanted to back off if you (dianal) were feeling pressured and threatened. That's not my intent, though I come on strong sometimes when I feel strongly, which is, well, quite a lot of the time. I'm thinking that backing up, deep breaths, and a little less passionate discourse from me on this thread might help the air clear a bit.

Also, I note clersal's distress that this has turned into a slightly acrimonious argument, and I wouldn't want to keep that going in other forums.

Re-reading the thread, it looks like we parted company with polite discourse somewhere around the misunderstanding over what "ducks" meant. Still, although the tone was a little strained, thanks to the difference of viewpoints, I don't think anyone was calling anyone out on the carpet, so much as presenting a strongly-felt counter argument, up until the point of the "you must be male" jibe, at which point, yes, I did jump all over ya, I admit, because that hit some of my personal buttons.

Like I said, I'm willing (and I think it might be advisable, in fact) to back off, let the air clear, and even shut up for awhile, if that will help reduce the level of acrimony here. Conversely, if you feel that further discussion - on, as it were, a slightly higher level - would help clear the air, I'm willing to do that too. Having been "part of the problem" in raising tension levels, I wish to become "part of the solution" in lowering them again.

Double talk all you like.. it's all just blowing smoke up my ass. Enough. All I've seen is you getting into business/posts that aren't yours and you interpreting others words to suit an agenda that I don't even want to imagine.

Attribution, jumping to conclusions, etc etc. have not impressed me and you can type the world's longest post it won't change my now sullied opinion of you.

Feminists RESPECT other women, whether they are as 'feminist' as another, or not. To interpret my words and turn my comments into something I did not say, is total disrespect. Quote me exactly and respond with your own words and thoughts..would be respect.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dianal:
windymustang:

You must be male for suggesting I need to 'justify' my position.

[ 21 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

---

My reaction to this was that it constituted a serious lapse in the discourse, that it did indeed take the conversation to 'confrontational' levels. I find that comments about the location of my head versus my a** are also not exactly what you'd call helpful, friendly, or non-combative.

Now, in all fairness, I've made a mistake myself, I believe, which was in over-personalizing the discussion over whether there can be a 'male feminist'. Instead of simply presenting my arguments that there can be such a critter, I also cast those arguments in such a way as they seemed to say, "YOU are WRONG to say this, and what have you got to say for yourself, huh?!?" While this was not intentional on my part, I can quite easily see the damage it caused. Bleah. Therefore - while I stand by those bits that concerned the arguments of the position itself ("there can be male feminists") I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologize for casting them in a confrontational fashion.

Now, if your opinion of me is cast in stone as you say, there can, alas, be no further productive discourse. In that case, I will merely leave the apology to stand, and ask only that you refrain from lofting more insults my way (head up ass, etc.). We can always ignore each others' posts hereafter, if we can't converse without the sparks a'flyin'.

quote:

---

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Ever read that anywhere? You did now. And ya.,.this posting and most of the thread is a problem and in this instance, I choose NOT to try for a solution. Not worth my time to salvage this thread. I'm going to another one.

---

My last word on this subject: I am sure there are many male victims of domestic violence. Maybe a thread on 'masculism' would be appropriate. I presume the counterpart of feminism is masculism?

and yes.. I would, too, like to get back to the topic at hand altho the instigator seems to have left the board and that's all fine and well with me. I don't feel like expending energy explaining myself or 'justifying' my opinions to those who choose to poke at someone for their opinion that is not being imposed upon other's in any way other than respectful discussion and respect for other's opinions.

I crossed no lines and was participating in a thread until someone (april) decided I was worthy
of denigration. she's feminist? hah.

It's interesting to me that the one 'feminist' here, april, could easily go back to the original topic, so could clersal, and get the stats and get it back where they way they want it to go. I won't do the research 'cause my contribution was after the intial topic. I am now into so called feminists talking about what feminism is and for that... we need another thread to bring them 'up to speed' to use a 'male inspired' quote.

Look.... it's all fine and well to be pasionate about a 'cause'. Those people have moved mountains. It's not fine and well to attack the people participating. There can be nuances to positions aka 'men can be pro feminist but not feminists'. Break it down.. it's the same thing.. men can and have been supportive. Jumping on a woman for saying that only derails the original purpose. Is men being 'feminists' the issue? Or is it the advancement of women? What are we really trying to accomplish here. Infighting or support. This thread went from a troll to attacking a staunch feminist to this. Blech.

Now.,.. I can look up the stats and info for the original question .. or someone else can. I will if I don't see them posted in the morning.

Easy squeezy to do so. There was never any need to attack a woman stating her opinion and not attacking anyone. Geez.. no wonder we haven't made much headway...too many women jump on other women thinking they have to defend men.

On second thought.. I'm gonna look up all this stuff and source it and post it on the other thread.

Night

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

[ 22 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

quote:

---

Oct. 21, 2003. 07:30 PM
Gest sues Minnelli for $10M, claims abuse

ASSOCIATED PRESS
NEW YORK — Producer David Gest sued Liza Minnelli for $10 million U.S. today, accusing his estranged wife of alcohol-fuelled violence that caused neurological damage and headaches.

Gest, 50, alleges in court papers that Minnelli, 57, flew into drunken rages on several occasions on both sides of the Atlantic, insulting and striking him.

Liz Rosenberg, a spokeswoman for the singer, said Minnelli had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment. Minnelli's lawyer, Allen Arrow, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Minnelli and Gest separated in July, just 16 months after they wed at a celebrity-studded ceremony that featured best man Michael Jackson carrying the bride's train. Elizabeth Taylor served as maid of honour.

In papers filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, Gest alleges that Minnelli began battering him before the wedding.

Gest's lawyer, Raoul Felder, said his client suffered neurological damage and headaches from the alleged attacks, and is staying at a rehabilitation clinic in Honolulu.

In one incident last June in London, court papers allege Minnelli consumed a bottle of vodka before she threw a lamp at Gest in their hotel suite.

She later "began beating (Gest) about the head and face with her fists," the lawsuit said. When Gest asked a security guard to intervene, court papers say Minnelli punched him in the stomach.

When the couple married in March 2002, attendees said Minnelli danced in happiness at the altar. Hundreds of fans lined Fifth Avenue to watch guests including actors Michael Douglas, Anthony Hopkins and David Hasselhoff, rocker Elton John and TV news personality Barbara Walters arrive in limousines.

The wedding marked a personal comeback for Minnelli, the daughter of Judy Garland and director Vincente Minnelli. She has won an Academy Award, an Emmy, two Golden Globes and three Tony Awards but also battled substance abuse, weight gain, and a near-fatal bout with encephalitis.

Gest, an event and concert promoter, produced Jackson's 30th Anniversary tribute concert

---

[ 15 June 2007: Message edited by: writer ]