Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, and Family Violence: A Dangerous Intersection
by Joan Dawson
March 17, 2010 - 12:27pm (Print)
This article was updated at 1:44 pm EST to insert a missing paragraph.
When do reproductive rights end? Do they end at birth? Do they continue throughout a child’s life? Do reproductive rights extend to parental rights? These are questions we are just starting to ask. And finding the answer can be, in many cases, the difference between life and death.
Most agree that women have a right to control their own bodies. However, recent research shows that some men sabotage women’s use of birth control and some use coercion to get a woman pregnant. Abusive men use these tactics to control women. And in cases where a woman then has children in an abusive setting, what are the woman’s reproductive rights and how do these intersect with her parental rights? Surely, charges of “failure to protect” can be used against her if she or the child is harmed. But what happens when women flee such relationships or try to deny abusive parents access to their children? Does either the judicial system or society support her in her efforts to protect her children? Do we believe her? Provide her with protection? Deny abusers access to children?
We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents are harming women and children trying to escape abuse.
Approximately 100,000 contested child custody cases occur each year in the U.S. Two-thirds of these involve domestic violence, committed overwhelmingly (90 percent) by fathers, according to Harvard’s Jay Silverman, in a forward to the book Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody. Research finds that men who assault their wives are also likely to abuse their children. While we are likely to believe that the protective parent would gain custody, this is not often the case. In contested custody cases, men who seek custody get it up to 84 percent of the time. The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence estimates that approximately 58,000 children a year go into unsupervised, joint or sole custody with an abusive parent. What’s a mother to do to protect herself and her child?
Failure to protect
In a recent case our judicial system was tested and failed. Katie Tagle sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child. She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The judge thought she was lying. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, “One of you is lying…” And later, “Mr. Garcia claims it’s total fabrication on your part.” Garcia also referred to it as “little stunts and games” that “she used” to deny him access to his son. Even when she mentions the evidence of the threats, he says, “Well, ma’am, there’s a real dispute about whether that’s even true or not.” And finally, “My suspicion is that you’re lying…” (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later they were both found dead.
If this were only an isolated case, it might end there. But it’s not.
Within two weeks of the Garcia-Tagle case, on February 8, 20-year-old Nicholas Bacon shot his nine-month-old son and then himself. Bacon had joint custody.
Shortly after these two cases, 34-year-old Jesus Roman Fuentes shot his four-year-old son during a court-ordered visitation. The boy died at the hospital. The father, who had also shot himself, died this past week.
And following on these three cases, Mark Resch shot his seven-year-old son during a scheduled visitation and then committed suicide. The apparent motive was revenge against his estranged wife. In this case, the wife sought two orders of protection and police removed a gun from the household. Evidently, the family court judge still believed this man was a safe parent.
Mark A. Guenther was charged in the murder of his 18-month-old daughter this month. According to a commenter named Brokenhearten, who posted a comment on the news article:
Her mother tried and tried to get something done so that she did not have to go see her father. She had DFS out to his house, they found nothing...She filed for an order of protection on a couple different occassions...they were dismissed...She refused to let her see her dad until her back was up to the wall...the court systems had tied her hands and she had no other choices but to let her sweet baby go to her dads house and hope that everything was ok...
Once again, parental rights trumped safety and the system meant to protect children ignored the dangers identified by the mother.
Family court and fathers’ rights = A deadly combination
Historically, battered women have had problems retaining custody of their children. Mainly this was due to how they present; in a word, poorly. They cry, they’re frightened, they appear anxious and even hostile. Now add to this mix the Fathers’ Rights movement, a group referred to as anti-feminist, backlash and even, the “Abusers’ Lobby” and you have what amounts to a catastrophe, if not a deadly combination, for women and children. (In contrast, positive parenting or responsible fatherhood groups often work as allies with women.)
The Fathers’ rights movement (along with many Men’s rights activists), has introduced policies such as “friendly parent” policies, joint custody, punishment for false allegations and various syndromes to family courts across the country (as well as in many Western countries and in India). Most of these policies seem beneficial on the surface -- but have hidden dangers lurking underneath.
In today’s courts with friendly parent policies, a battered woman will look anything but friendly. So who gets custody? The one who appears most likely to share parenting responsibilities. Often enough, the batterer.
Joint custody is another policy that sounds fair in principle, but experts warn it is not ideal for couples with high conflict. Family court is, however, known to be “the place” for couples with moderate-to-high conflict. Most couples (roughly 85 percent) resolve parenting plans themselves. Those that can’t, and often enough those with some prior history of abuse or control, go to family court. Fathers’ rights groups would like to see family courts enforce presumptive or mandated shared custody. Experts in domestic violence would not.
Domestic violence experts also cringe at the idea of punishing false allegations, something the fathers’ rights groups actively promote. Since accusations of abuse can be difficult to prove – with evidence and witnesses – this can serve to punish parents for alleging abuse. Punishment deters reporting. Parents can be fined, jailed or denied custody if the judge doesn’t believe their accusation. Domestic violence expert Barry Goldstein says, "Research has established that fathers in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. It is not that men are more dishonest, but 90 percent of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody to pressure their partner to return or punish her for leaving. Although fathers are more likely to make false charges, courts are more likely to believe them.”
Parental alienation (PA) or parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the idea that a parent poisons the mind of the child(ren), is another idea introduced within the last two decades by fathers rights groups. Developed by Dr. Richard Gardner, PAS is highly controversial. Proponents claim parents (mostly mothers) turn their children against the other parent. Opponents claim PAS can mask child abuse. Indeed, research by Jay Silverman found 54 percent of cases with documented abuse were in favor of abusers. PAS was used in nearly every case.
In many of the cases I’ve cited, had the women tried to deny the fathers access to the children, they could’ve been countered with “alienation” or the judge could’ve immediately transferred custody over to the more “friendly” parent.
In a case stemming from November, for example, Danielle Horvat fled with her three-and-a-half-year-old boy, Garrett Aguilar on a day that she had a dispute with the boy’s father, David Aguilar. She stopped at one domestic violence shelter. Despite the fact that police did not investigate her claims of abuse, the court immediately transferred custody over to the father, as they often do when parents flee.
The incredible lightness of domestic violence
Thanks to the aid of the Internet, (mostly) men that make claims of being falsely accused or alienated find support, encouragement and targets for their anger -- which is aimed at their exes, or women in general and feminists in particular. Individuals and groups that promote studies referring to domestic violence as 50-50 or “mutual” also find supporters within this crowd. Many of these claims are based on studies that rely on self-reportage or pick up common couple violence. Their limitations include using self-report; not picking up severe violence or homicide; not putting violence into context (was it used for self-defense?); and not including violence during separation (the most dangerous time for a woman). What the promotion of these studies has done is introduce the element of doubt. If you combine this with women’s low credibility (due to societal bias and the biases of the legal system), you have danger.
Take the case of Timothy Frazier. In May 2009, Frazier convinced police his ex-girlfriend Candice Dempsey was a threat to their 21-month-old son. While Frazier made it very clear to police he did not have custody, police readily handed his son over to him. Two weeks later, both were found dead.
Even when the woman is believed, it is not often the father will have his parental rights terminated. Last year, Octavious Dupree Gilmore punched his ex-girlfriend in the head and threatened to kill her, their two kids and himself. The Gaston Gazette reported him as saying, “"...(I)f I can't have you, nobody can," Gilmore allegedly told her. "I'll kill you, the kids, then myself." He was charged but later released. According to the article, he was told to "have no contact with the accuser outside of their child custody agreement," (emphasis mine). Despite an assault and death threats, the judge believed this man to be a safe parent.
In another case, charges of domestic violence were not given much weight, as they were not placed in context of the abuser’s history. Craig Alan Wall, Sr. was a suspect in his 5-week-old son’s death. He violated a protection order when he went to his son’s memorial. The prosecutor never mentioned that Wall was a suspect in his son’s case or that he had served a 14-year prison sentence for armed robbery. The judge released Wall on $1,000 bail. Two days later, he stabbed his ex-girlfriend (the child’s mother) to death. She was 29 and left behind a 6-year-old son.
Fathers rights do not trump women and children’s safety
In many of these cases, the women are doing what they are “supposed to do:” reporting domestic violence, filing orders of protection, using shelters, and so on. And yet, despite jumping all the hoops set up for them, in many of these cases, the system is failing them. The women in question are not finding justice for themselves or their children. As a result, we find women who feel forced to stay with an abuser or forced to share parenting rather than not be able to protect her children at all. These women are not “failing to protect,” but the judicial system is failing to protect them and their children from further harm, abuse and death. (For citations to research on women losing custody, see www.leadershipcouncil.org) [Note: organizations like Justice for Children do report men experiencing similar situations, but overwhelmingly we witness women facing this type of bias and injustice in family court.]
Many of the fathers rights guys think their reproductive rights extend to their parental rights. This should also be the case for women -- and, indeed, many mothers’ rights groups have sprung up in defense of these rights. So the question remains: When do our reproductive rights end? How can we we prevent women from losing custody of the very children they bear? How can we help them protect themselves and their children from harm? How can we help women receive justice in a judicial system that may not believe their claims and may actually punish them for making abuse allegations? Fathers do have rights, no doubt, but their rights do not trump women and children’s safety. That is the balance -- the justice -- that we must seek -- and it’s a matter of life and death that we do so soon.
I've been trying to find a way to merge reproductive rights, maternal health care, and domestic violence/what's occuring in the family court system so that women could know the entire spectrum of what they are up against. We have so many women that join these men's groups and they just don't have a clue what they are getting into. I am so tired.
Wow. You just essentially mirrored my life for the last ten years. I divorced my ex husband because he was abusive towards me and my children. I had the full support of the local police department as well as child protective services. I initlally won full custody but once I was in another state, he kidnapped my children and when I tried to get help from the courts in that state to get my children back, they gave him full custody and me supervised visitation. In less than a month he had me arrested for not paying child support. This continued until I moved to another state. Within five years of me "being out of the picture" I get a phone call that he cant handle our son and to take him or he is sending him to state. My son moved in with me and my new husband. Shortly there after my other two children get removed from my ex's custody because the children were drugged and molested in his care. CPS was unable to substantiate anything because the kids just wont talk and the children were returned to him. This has completely devasted me and destroyed my life. Im terrified to do anything about this in court. They have always treated me like a crazy woman (though you would probably go crazy too). My ex has lied about me and nothing has been done to confirm any of his allegations. I have submitted police and cps reports on him that has been completely ignored. Recently I filed documents in court because he is still trying to get me to pay child support for my when my son lived with me (about 4 years worth) and the court actually had me call and ask his "permission" to appear telephonically even though I filed the appropriate paperwork. This has been going on for 9 years. I feel like Im being punished for divorcing a bad person and the courts are allowing him to do this. This has completely ripped my life apart. I wake up crying everyday, I have nightmares, anger issues, Im just completely devasted. All I have ever wanted was to give my children and better life than I had as a child and now the only children I will ever have are being raised by a pedophile. I dont know what to do anymore but desperately need help. Any suggestions would be wonderful!
I have seldom seen these issues connected in such an articulate and well-documented fashion. Kudos to Joan Dawson for a job well done!
Unfortunately, the family court process is commonly used by abusers to continue abusing their partners. I really appreciate your analysis of this being an extension of reproductive coercion and control. Abusers who impregnate their partners against their will don't want a child, they want a pawn. And they will use that child in an attempt to regain power after a victim leaves.
Several states have passed exemptions from the friendly parent provision in cases where one parent is acting in good faith to protect a child from witnessing DV or being a victim. The problem with carving out exemption for DV, however, is that the burden is then on the victim to prove it. Many victims don't have documentation of the abuse, and as you demonstrated with the examples above, the judicial backlash has been strong. Of course, including the exemption is better than not, so I strongly support it.
One of the most frightening aspects of the fathers' rights movement is how successful they are at spin. Their response to cases where divorced or separated fathers kill their children and themselves is that the court system drives them to it.
This was a fabulous article. Not long ago, I was a resident at a women's shelter, and the stories the other women there told me about child custody battles and courts were just awful. It's good to see a break-down of the policies that lead to these terrible court decisions so that we have a better understanding of how to fight back. Still, it's very discouraging that we have these problems at all.
Your article is so slanted and biased I am not sure even where to start. I guess I would like you to post some supporting documentation proving your points, rather than using anecdotal incidents.
How many fathers total get sole custody of children? What percentage of child murders and abuse are perpetrated by the biological father (not stepfather?) What percentage of child murders are perpetrated by the biological mother? How many women do exactly what you accuse men-cheat or tamper with birth control to get pregnant? What are the motivations to lie about PAS vs outright abuse-who has the most support to do so, and the most to gain and how many are successful? What percentage of domestic violence situations are mutually violent? If mutual violence occurs, then should the kids go into foster care, since violent parents are likely to abuse kids? Are there cases where women kill their own kids to get back at their husbands?
What you are talking about here is trumping the rights of all innocent men (any man who has not been convicted of a crime by definition in the US btw) to preemptively keep fathers from their kids based on accusations alone. It is irrelevant if these accusations are occasionally true-that is sad, but it has to stand. Our country was built on basic principles of law which say you cannot punish someone for something without proving them guilty. What you propose is not only against the law, it is directly unconstitutional. Every person is innocent until proven guilty. What you propose is something out of Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany. Do you really want the government to have that sort of power? WHat happens when you are the person they decide to expel next?
I hate to see stories where one parents kills the child out of retribution or spite. It is just as often women I hear about doing this, yet I would not support preemptively taking kids away from mothers on the unsubstantiated accusation of the father, either. There MUST be checks and balances.
Women and children are not one entity, they are separate people. A solid and factual arguement could be made that men and children are more likely to be abused than women; lumping the two together is a cheap way to bolster stats. Reproductive rights for the mother ends the moment that child is no longer inside the body of the mother; then they become two separate people.
I really hope you are willing to provide documentation for your accusations. I am interested to see what you find to my questions above.
Jen
How many fathers total get sole custody of children?
In a divorce, men are less likely to gain custody of their children than are women. Mothers gain custody of children in 90% of cases. Some have suggested that this is because very few men want child custody. The evidence does indeed suggest that a smaller percentage of fathers than mothers want custody and that even fewer fathers actually request custody.
What percentage of child murders and abuse are perpetrated by the biological father (not stepfather?) What percentage of child murders are perpetrated by the biological mother?
While the perpetrators of murder-suicides are usually men, in 5 per cent of cases it is the mother who is responsible.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/ukcrime.lornamartin
How many women do exactly what you accuse men-cheat or tamper with birth control to get pregnant?
No one is accusing "men" of doing this. The accusation is that "abusers" do this. It is NOT 'normal male behavior' to be abusive.
What are the motivations to lie about PAS vs outright abuse-who has the most support to do so, and the most to gain and how many are successful?
If the man has the psychological pattern of a power and control abuser, he has the most to gain. He literally believes that his wife and children BELONG to him and that it is a threat to his SELF for them to escape his control.
What percentage of domestic violence situations are mutually violent?
Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.
Intimate partners committed 3% of the nonfatal violence against men.
In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.
Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners.
The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.
http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx
Theories based on “mutual” violence do not take into account the different ways that men and women use violence in intimate relationships. Further, any theory that describes violence as a response to “provocation” from the other partner is simply another form of victim blaming. Nor does this model account for instances in which a husband explodes over trivial issues or starts beating his wife while she is asleep.
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/domestic/link/theories.htm
If mutual violence occurs, then should the kids go into foster care, since violent parents are likely to abuse kids?
Once 'mutual violence' that actually is one person being abusive and the other person attempting to protect themselves has been excluded, yes. Child safety should be the primary goal.
Are there cases where women kill their own kids to get back at their husbands?
Yes, however they are far more rare - see above, 5%
Every person is innocent until proven guilty.
Are you speaking of each individual instance? Or of being proven to have a pattern of abusive behavior? Should men who have been convicted in the past of domestic violence be forbidden to live in a domestic relationship with others? Should parents who have been convicted in the past of child neglect and/or abuse be forbidden to have more children?
The thing you are missing here is that the CHILD has a constitutional right to be safe, to NOT be abused or murdered. Certainly you don't seem to give any weight to asking the CHILD whether or not they want to be with the suspected abuser. Allowing the child to avoid an unsafe situation is not designed as a 'punishment' but instead just basic common sense.
I hate to see stories where one parents kills the child out of retribution or spite. It is just as often women I hear about doing this, yet I would not support preemptively taking kids away from mothers on the unsubstantiated accusation of the father, either.
How about preemptively taking kids away from EITHER mothers or fathers when there is a report that they are making threats that they will harm them? That would allow the child to be safe while an investigation determined whether the person actually meant that or might actually carry out such harm. Certainly an interview by a psychologist might be helpful to the Court. He said/she said isn't the point - the point is that once the issue has been brought up by EITHER party, the Court should have a duty to safeguard the children.
Your response clarifies that men get custody in about 10% of the cases. However the article claimed that in contested divorce men obtained custody 84% of the time. Where is the evidence for this claim? It seems false to me.
In contested custody cases, men who seek custody get it up to 84 percent of the time.
Let's see some proof.
It is absolutely possible for women to gain custody in 90% of cases and for men to gain custody in 84% of cases if it means that joint custody is being granted in 74% of cases (which sounds about right to me, but I haven't done the research).
The OP never said that men gained custody in only 10% of cases, only that women gained some form of custody (without differentiating between sole or joint custody) in 90% of cases.
A more logical reading of this data would assume that in 74% of cases, custody is awarded jointly, in 10% of cases, the father receives sole custody, and in 16% of cases, the mother receives sole custody.
The majority of divorces where children are involved aren't contested divorces, and the parties mutually reach an agreement as to child custody, usually with custody being shared in some manner.
Although divorces may be emotionally contentious, close to 95 percent of divorces do not end up in a contested trial. Usually, the parties negotiate and settle property division, spousal support, and child custody between themselves ... Most divorces now are no-fault divorces.
The great majority of the time men don't ever ask for sole custody. In the small percentage of divorces which are contested, and in which the man ASKS for custody, men have a 84% success rate. 84% of 5% isn't a huge number. The difference might be explained because most fathers have no problem sharing the children with the mother and only in cases where the mother is negligent or abusive would he attempt to get custody himself. If he has sufficient evidence that he's right, he would and should win.
My, my, my ...
crowepps -
How nice of YOU to provide the references after the author posts her piece! Shouldn't the author have done that in the first place?
Most of the articles here are pretty concise. I don't think I've ever seen one with multiple references to statistics that support every point made. I've always assumed that was what Google was for.
In a book, on the other hand, where the issues are more thoroughly gone through, extensive footnotes and cites to references used are much more common. It would certainly be interesting to read such a book, and several titles have been mentioned, but you seem to be expecting that on this particular issue a lot of justification has to be given before the issue can be brought up, and that is expecting too much from a blog entry.
Cowepps: She's claiming to tie Reproductibe Rights, Parental Rights and Domestic Violence together into one cohesive indictment of fathers and men. Here it is in her own words ....
"We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents are harming women and children trying to escape abuse."
Stop making lame excuses for her initial attempt to pass this off with only one reference.
You're missing the point:
Cowepps: She's claiming to tie Reproductibe Rights, Parental Rights and Domestic Violence together into one cohesive indictment of fathers and men. Here it is in her own words ....
"We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships.
It cannot be "one cohesive indictment of fathers and men" unless you are taking it for granted that all fathers and men are abusive.
She is talking about a small subset of relationships which are abusive, and the rights of women and children in THOSE relationships, not ALL fathers and men.
I'm curious to see where you've heard that women are just as likely as men to kill children out of retribution or spite directed at their partners.
And as for denying all fathers' their rights: no one is asking for that. Most people aren't coercive controlling abusers. What we are asking, however, is that judges stop ignoring dangerous situations. I think that's something we can all agree on.
Fantastic article, Joan! You covered all the bases including the misogynistic father's rights movement, alienation, domestic violence, custody cases, and more.
I've also noticed the trend of abusive men killing their children and their girlfriends, wives, and exes, especially when they are unemployed. Thank you for writing such an eye-opening and accurate article. I'm sure you'll get lots of angry comments. That won't matter. Your article told the truth and I hope it gets lots of circulation.
"However, recent research shows that some men sabotage women’s use of birth control and some use coercion to get a woman pregnant. Abusive men use these tactics to control women." What recent research?
"We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents are harming women and children trying to escape abuse. No, I'm afraid you did not examine social biases, assuming they are social biases in the first place!
When and where and how did Jay Silverman become such an expert?
Who, besides him, makes the same assertions you make?
Since when do several anecdotes amount to conclusive proof of anything, much less social biases?
"Thanks to the aid of the Internet, (mostly) men that make claims of being falsely accused or alienated find support, encouragement and targets for their anger -- which is aimed at their exes, or women in general and feminists in particular. Individuals and groups that promote studies referring to domestic violence as 50-50 or “mutual” also find supporters within this crowd. Many of these claims are based on studies that rely on self-reportage or pick up common couple violence. Their limitations include using self-report; not picking up severe violence or homicide; not putting violence into context (was it used for self-defense?); and not including violence during separation (the most dangerous time for a woman). What the promotion of these studies has done is introduce the element of doubt. If you combine this with women’s low credibility (due to societal bias and the biases of the legal system), you have danger." You must prove that these are flawed studies, not just slip the accusation into your article and proceed from there!
Try reading Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft (who developed an abuser-rehab program and has worked with abusive men for 20-30 years). He takes considerable time breaking down the ways abusers use the legal system and particularly child custody battles to exercise control over their victims. He also dismantles common misconceptions about abuse and how it is generally addressed by society (and the courts). The Gift of Fear by Gavin deBecker (reknowned security specialist) also has some good information on domestic violence, though the main focus is on predicting violence which is also quite applicable to the topic at hand.
I highly recommend both books. Perhaps not as convenient as a link, but they are easy to read, provide in-depth analysis, cite research, and provide additional resources in their appendices. You could get them at the library if you don't want to buy them... but they are common enough that you might be able to download them using BitTorrent.
I agree that the citations should have been included. While I'm pretty sure you're aware of what I'm about to cite, since I think you're from RADAR, others might be seriously interested.
For an analysis of the conflict tactics scale, check out Michael Kimmel. I believe the article was orginally titled "Gender Symmetry something something" but was published under a different title. You can find it by googling that search term, though.
You can also try Evan Stark's work on the difference between common couple violence and coercive control.
For information on reproductive coercion and control, visit www.endabuse.org. The Family Violence Prevention Fund has a lot of the emerging research on this issue.
More references would have been appreciated in the original post, but for those who are not familiar with the study released in January by the UCDavis on reproductive coercion by abusers, here is a link: http://www.mariestopes.org/Press/International/Study~_Men_%60sabotage%60...
Thank you Dr. Christoforo for highlighting this glaring defect. Thanks to you, a "missing" paragraph has been subsequently added to Joan Dawson's original article. It still, however, does not address the broad stroke fallacy she makes about MRA's targetting their "exes, or women in general and feminists in particular" for some form of amorphous, unjustified anger that the Internet is wrongfully facilitating. This subtle shading of vocabulary choices and clausal component selections uses insinuation and innuendo to convey the ulterior message, and it's high time these persistent purveyors of 'agitprop' are called on it.
One in the same - http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2010/03/captain-courageous-aka-santo.html.
Troublemaker:
They are next-door neighbors. I will take a polygraph and testify to that in court. Stop trying to promote that worthless blog. Good Lord!
Here are two more great blogs,
http://feministavengers.blogspot.com/
http://www.randijames.com/
I have to agree with Jen that this article doesn't seem to have much basis in research to back up such huge claims. Even a very brief glance at the stats on child murder reveals that it is mothers not fathers who more often murder their children, especially if the child is under the age of five. The link goes to a government Health and Human Services statistics page which indicates that 28.5% of the time it is mothers who kill their children while fathers comprise 15.8%.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure4_2.htm
Please do provide some peer reviewed studies that might back up what you are claiming. Otherwise this seems to be ideologically driven opinion that should be labelled as such.
Certainly 28.5% of the time it is mothers who kill their children, which is not surprising when you consider that 95% of the time it is the mother who is ALONE with the children and has the access and privacy in which to do so. Considering how little time the average father spends alone with his small children, the fact that they are the murderers 15.8% of the time is astounding.
AUSTRALIAN fathers spend just six minutes alone with their children from Monday through Friday, averaging slightly over a minute a day.
Overall, they spend an average of just shy of one hour each working week caring for their kids, but 90 per cent of that care is done alongside the mother.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/dads-give-kids-a-minute-a-weekday/story-e6frg6o6-1111117796759
She is not discussing 'who kills the children', however, but instead a particular subset of those killings which happen during custody disputes involving abusers and in which the Courts REQUIRE the child to live with the person accused of abuse. When will the child's opinion be given some respect?
Prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for Jean Philippe Lacombe on Monday, nearly two months after Texas police pulled the boy from his school bus and handed him to his father.
The charges were laid after the story was picked up by local media.
A heart-wrenching school bus surveillance video shows how the boy begged police not to make him go with his father.
"Somebody please help me. He's not my dad. I don't want to live with him," Jean Paul Lacombe cried as he backed away from the officers.
"I want to stay with my mom. Please. Please."
A news crew later captured images of the boy lying down in a parking lot as officers tried to reason with him and then hugging his mother and younger brother goodbye.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/985733/texas-police-tricked-into-helping-man-kidnap-his-son
Since when has "time spent" with a given group been a reason to kill them? That is laughable! If your silly concept is taken into account then we would think that school teachers would be much more likely to kill children since they spend so much time with them! Bull. Quit giving women excuses for their violence. The fact is that both men and women are violent and kill kids. The article was blaming men and omitting any reference to the violence of women. One sided and ideologically driven.
Yccch. We need humanists who care and love all people, not feminists who care and love only women and girls and vilify men like the article above.
I, too, detest that particular argument. It makes abuse a function of duration and therefore asserts it to be inevitable. In my mind an individual will or will not abuse.
It's been my experience most abusers, even those who claim they 'can't help themselves', succeed in keeping their abuse secret by waiting until they're alone with their victim. It's the ALONE, not the duration. I agree with you 100% that an individual will or will not abuse.
It isn't the "time spent" that provides the REASON for killing, it is the "time spent" that gives the OPPORTUNITY for killing.
First, I guess it's necessary to point out that parents killing their children is a very rare event, and second, that the type of parents who do kill their children are NOT typical parents but instead deeply flawed ones. Typical parents do not ever say anything as insane as 'if you don't do what I want then I'll kill the kids'.
In addition, violence happens in only a minority of relationships, perhaps one in five, so that the 'average' man isn't violent at all, but instead violence at any level only happens among a subset of perhaps 20% of dysfunctional inadequates.
The intent in recognizing and guarding against what happens in those RARE cases where children are threatened isn't to 'vilify men' but to protect children from men who are known to be violent, and I absolutely agree that they also need to be protected from women who are known to be violent as well.
This isn't about 'giving women excuses for their violence'. Your counterargument seems to be that there's no reason to protect children from violent men because women are also violent. Why can't the children be protected from violence no matter which sex is violent?
If it is time spent that gives them the opportunity then you still must answer why school teachers don't kill more children since they have much more time spent with children than most others. I think you just need to admit that you were barking up the wrong tree with that sort of silly idea.
It **IS** about giving excuses. When you continually omit one group of perpetrators and only focus on another you are excusing the omitted group. The article in question omitted references to women's violence and only focused on men's violence and women's and children's victimhood. This is one sided and is adding to the already bloated reams of propaganda about male relationship violence and the silence about women's relationship violence. One sided ideologies are not doing anyone any good and need to be called out for their bigotry. I am all for protecting children from pathological parents but I find it disgusting when ideologues paint such a lopsided and sexist, bigoted story that demonizes one sex and excuses the other through omission.
I have a friend whose daughter lived in Washington State. The daughter's first marriage (1 kid) didn't work, divorce. Then the daughter met someone out of state and moved. The grandmother didn't think much of the custody plan they came up with (would have meant the kid would change schools too often), but kept it to herself. Well, when it was time for the court to OK things the grandkid did get interviewed as well as the parents saying what they agreed ... and the judge said "no" to that. There's still apparently sniping & all, but Grandmother is happy with the judge.
Hi crowepps, I don't know if you've seen this, but it summarizes something reported about Maine:
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/135770.html
For the panel’s eighth report, members reviewed 17 domestic violence homicides from 2006 to 2008. Eight victims were women, eight were men, and one was a “self-defense” homicide committed by a domestic violence victim, which was not included in the report’s statistics. Of the 16 perpetrators, 15 were men, and just one was a woman. Ten of the cases reviewed involved intimate partner relationships, and seven of those were in the process of leaving the relationship before being killed.
&
law enforcement and other professionals who have repeated contact with a single victim may experience “compassion fatigue,” which can affect their judgment.
There's this in the comments:
I have to point out that 1/2 of the domestic homicides during 2006-2008 were MEN, and that in all but one case they were committed BY men. So, certainly not to minimize men abusing women in relationships, or women doing so against their partner, I think it is important to note that it is largely a problem of men being violent to others they want to control, be that women or men. Why do some men feel the compulsion or right to control others? Why do some men feel the compulsion or right to use aggression to attempt to control others? I really beleive this is the crux of the issue; men who want to control people in their lives and doing so without regard to anyone else (their partner, parent, sibling, child, etc.)... Naomi Schalit, executive director of the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence has it right: it must begin early, with children, because they see this kind of behavior modeled for them at home, and in most cases not to the extreme of murder, but still learning that aggression is how you achieve your desires.
Popular culture and advertising really turns me off, so much validation of male entitlement behavior, & rich people entitlement behavior.
it must begin early, with children, because they see this kind of behavior modeled for them at home, and in most cases not to the extreme of murder, but still learning that aggression is how you achieve your desires.
I don't think it necessarily does begin with behavior modeled for them at home, but instead in the teens when the boy packs are trying to construct workable masculinities where the message is that to end the right to call yourself a 'Real Man' you must achieve your desires.
The harmful underlying message isn't 'aggression works' but I think instead rather 'real men are the ones who achieve their desires and that end justifies any means' together with its unwholesome companion 'only girlie men act 'civilized', share, cooperate and are considerate of other people'.
"I don't think it necessarily does begin with behavior modeled for them at home, but instead in the teens when the boy packs are trying to construct workable masculinities where the message is that to end the right to call yourself a 'Real Man' you must achieve your desires."
If you take their fathers away and disallow any adult male contact with kids just WHAT is it that you expect?
At every level you choose to examine any male contact with kids and young folk has been, at best, discouraged and, at worst, thoroughly demonised. This article is merely another example of the same aimed at fathers. Our kids get warned in great detail about the bad things men do – and that boys are apparently genetically predetermined to become – and are never allowed to see the good that men do. Boys can complete their entire schooling never seeing any male apart from the cleaner. Who needs role models?
I agree that boys and young male adults need more positive male role models. I think children and young adults in general need more positive role models. They need adults who are willing to have realistic conversations with them about gender constructs, media, friendship, dating, sex, and respect. That does not and never will include all parents, unfortunately. If families are unwilling to have those conversations, youth need other responsible, respectful adults to turn to who are equipped with information. If you're interested, you can look into curricula like Coaching Boys Into Men, or Mentors In Violence Prevention.
However, I wholeheartedly disagree with this:
"Our kids get warned in great detail about the bad things men do – and that boys are apparently genetically predetermined to become – and are never allowed to see the good that men do."
No respectable prevention educator tells boys that they are doomed because they have a penis. Successful prevention efforts focus on the impact everyone has in their own lives and social groups. They recognize that most people want to protect their friends and family, they just don't always know how to do it. Becoming a positive active bystander is vital. Equipping young people with game plans about what they will do when they witness something that makes them uncomfortable or makes someone unsafe is the key to ending many forms of interpersonal violence.
Furthermore, students are continuously exposed to the contributions of men to our society and culture, in an overwhelmingly positive way. To say that boys hearing that it's wrong to hit their partners somehow negates the countless hours of history, literature, and science that focus on men is disingenuous.
"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives. [The teacher tried to] catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish...This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing."--novelist and longtime feminist icon Doris Lessing
My young nephew, much to his parents' dismay, once observed that "all men are pigs". When pressed about where this had come from it turned out to be something his teachers - all women - were spouting on an almost daily basis. No prejudice there of course.
I've worked in my state's education system for two decades and had responsibility for school funding for much of that time. I know where the money goes. I know what programs are in place and planned. The latest initiative is to do with "responsible relationships" which is designed to teach boys to respect girls and to teach girls that they must be respected by boys. Very balanced.
Three years ago feminist Professor Freda Briggs was in our national media exhorting parents to treat all teenage boys as though they were paedophiles. At the same time one can visit the public library and look at as many pictures of naked little boys as one can stand including close-ups of their genitals. All published, in the authors own words, "to position young boys as legitimate objects of womens' lust".
Meanwhile future welfare workers are being taught that male victims of abuse must be disbelieved.
Lessing again...
"The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests."
Highly recommend "The War Against Boys" by Christina Hoff Summers.
To say that boys hearing that it's wrong to hit their partners somehow negates the countless hours of history, literature, and science that focus on men is disingenuous.
Well, if you're coming from a mindset that men's contributions to history, literature and science are all irrelevant, because the REAL way to prove 'manhood' is to 'keep the wimmin under control', and that all the problems in the world are caused by 'wimmin getting uppity', then it isn't disingenuous at all. None of those things matter, because the only thing that REALLY matters is for everyone to acknowledge that 'uppity wimmin deserve what they get because if they weren't uppity it wouldn't happen'.
I've gotten really sensitive to yelling and agression, especially in advertising. There's too much emphasis on sports -- you can't have a winner without a loser. I guess I react to that as being "agression". There's attempted gender role and class role training happening big time, as the economic situation has more people questioning the increasingly obvious income gap, and getting uppity.
.
As I've mentioned often, I avoid popular most popular culture. It's depressiing when I notice, for instance, that a film I otherwise like has 10 to 1 men to women extras, 5 to 1 men to women speaking parts and rarely do the women characters act rather than react. Bah. Why should I spend my money to feel excluded?
.
I've read comments about "bare branches" and "security implications of surplus men" ... and I wonder if I'm just living a sheltered life or if this is another version of divide conquer and victim-blaming. If it keeps getting hammered that young men (especially unmarried young men) are a PROBLEM, then maybe the number that keep getting swept into prisons won't be questioned? USA imprisons a higher % of our population, by far, and it's a big growth industry that depends on continued arrests and continued building of new prisons ... so there's companies that have a vested interest in long sentances and lots of people being arrested. We got police harrassment controversies happening locally.
Obviously you only watch action flicks? Yes, when it comes down to people getting killed in mass numbers, it generally is men who are the victims. If you watched movies geared towards women, which is well over half of all movies, you would find that very few men are even in the movie, and those men are either the handsome love interest, stupid, or evil.
You can find more information about fatality review in your state and others at the National Domestic Violence Fatality Review Initiative's website.
dree you are a fraud!!!!!!! Seams you are the administrator and member at standyourground.com. Now we can see you for who you really are.
Police: Mom Admits To Killing 'Disreapectful' Teen
Tells police her daughter, 18, had "pushed my last button"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35935801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001
This is such a biased article from an author who is woefully ill informed. I will say it was an excellently crafted piece of fiction.
Woman never lie about abuse, right? They may bring an allegation of abuse at anytime and they should be believed. They would never lie about such things or, my personal favorite, why would they lie about such a thing.
There is something out there called personality disorders, I would encourage you to research them. You may know people with a personality disorder and not even realize it. People with PD's tend to only share their specialness with those they love the most.
One particular nasty personality disorder is Borderline. These individuals will lie and manipulate, can be extremely abusive and threatening, all the while telling others that they are the victims of the same bad behavior.
Now, one would think that these folk are easy to identify. They're not. They tend to be very smart people who only target their bad behavior on select people, usually a spouse. To unravel the lies and discover the manipulations, distortions and other falsehoods can take years of court appearances and tens of thousands of dollars. It takes savvy evaluators, GALs and Judges to get to the correct outcome.
Are people with personality disorders more likely to be alienating parents? Yes.
I would suggest that you do a bit more research on this issue. You might want to check out Adult Survivors of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind.
For citations of research on this issue, go to: www.leadershipcouncil.org
Jay Silverman? Harvard researcher, highly credible, expert in this field.
PAS - Dr. Richard Gardner is considered by many to be pro-pedophilia (he defended child molesters and thought many acts "natural") and misogynist (he primarily blamed hysterical women with false allegations and breaking the bond betw father & children-ignoring abuse, harmful effects of divorce, witnessing violence, etc) He did not publish in peer-reviewed articles. The AMA, APA and Nat'l Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges discredit PAS. Gardner committed suicide with a knife - stabbing himself in the chest.
Media RADAR - ideologically-based, misogynist web site created by a guy that had an abusive mother. Full of lies, quotes taken out of context, they hate UN, Amnesty, etc. - read more about them here - http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?code=2561019&menu=c10400&no=383438&rel_no=1&opinion_no=2&page=&isSerial=&sort_name=&ip_sort=
excerpt:
The flyer Media RADAR distributed at the festival had at least two quotes taken out of context:
1) "We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women." -- Angela Moore Parmley, PhD, Department of Justice
I contacted Dr. Parmley and she told me this quote was indeed taken out of context and she sent me the whole document (Violence Against Women Research Post VAWA Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? P. 1424). Following this quote, the document reads: "However, over time we may find that specific VAWA-funded initiatives reduced men's propensity to perpetrate violence against women." In her conclusion, she states: "Few pieces of legislation have sparked such controversy yet hold so much promise as the VAWA. If successful, the Act could lead to a major transformation in the way women are treated in this country."
2) "Involvement with the criminal legal system has not been a positive or helpful experience; ...some women are actively harmed." Ms. Foundation for Women (Under the heading, "Women's Groups Criticize VAWA")
In fact, this document calls VAWA a "landmark" act and says, "The success is real, but is simply a drop in the bucket in addressing violence against women."
Perhaps Media RADAR should change its name to Respecting Fallacy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.
Gardener was convinced that part of healing for child sexual abuse victims was to convince them that what happened to them wasn't abuse.
RADAR also cites itself in a lot of materials. Not exactly the scientific rigor they claim feminists lack.
"The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence estimates that approximately 58,000 children a year go into unsupervised, joint or sole custody with an abusive parent."
But says nothing about the gender of the abusive parent.
"What’s a mother to do to protect herself and her child?"
In my country mothers are responsible for eighty percent of parental child abuse. What's a mother to do? Probably continue the abuse because people like you give her permission.
@Joan Dawson...
I am involved in work for abused children. By turning attention away from the primary source of child abuse you marginalise it's victims. They will continue to experience abuse and likely suffer lifelong consequences. By deliberately - and for reasons of politics - attempting to hide the truth about child abuse you contribute to the harm those victims experience. You may as well be a participant abuser.
You truly disgust me.
Posted by John Dias in Issues on Jan. 11, 2009 | 27 responses
Myth: “Men are rarely victims of domestic violence.”
Fact: Half of domestic violence (”DV”) victims are men. Although men are less likely than women to call police, randomized sociological (behavior-based) research consistently shows: (1) women initiate DV as often as men do; (2) women use weapons and surprise more than men do; and (3) about 38% of physically injured DV victims are men.
Even the latest fact sheet from the Centers for Disease Control (partly from crime-based data) states: “In the United States every year, about 1.5 million women and more than 800,000 men are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner” (i.e., 36% of the victims are men).
Unfortunately, the DV industry has covered up female violence for decades for purely ideological reasons.
(Kelly, Linda, “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse; How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State,” 30 Fl. St. U. Law R. 791, 2003,)
Myth: “Most DV by women is in self-defense.”
Fact: Women commit DV for the same reasons men do. In a large DV study that looked at motives, men and women gave similar reasons for assaulting their partners, usually to “get through to them,” and self-defense was among their least common motives.
(Carrado, “Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships; A Descriptive Analysis,” Aggressive Behavior, (1996) 22: 401-415.)
A 32-nation study found factors correlating with DV, such as substance abuse, jealousy and controlling behaviors, is found equally in men and women who commit DV.
In a survey of college women at California State University, Long Beach, 30% of them admitted assaulting a male partner, the most common reasons being (1) “he wasn’t listening to me,” (2) “he wasn’t being sensitive to my needs,” and (3) “I wished to gain his attention.”
(Fiebert & Gonzalez, “Why Women Assault; College Women Who Initiate Assaults on their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior,” 1997, Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590, www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm.)
The only DV shelter we know of that shelters male victims and their children is Valley Oasis in Lancaster, where men and their children desperately travel from hundreds of miles for shelter because nobody else will shelter them. Male victims are already reluctant to seek help due to shame, embarrassment, and lack of outreach, fear of false arrest, or fear of losing custody of their children. When male victims “take it” and don’t seek help, or are denied services, the violence often escalates until someone is injured, and children who witness it are emotionally damaged no matter how severe it is. DV is an inter generational cycle. To end it, we must first be honest about it.
Which is protecting children from violent parents?
For goodness sake. Joan Dawson's entire premise is built on the strawman argument that men are almost solely responsible for partner abuse. She extrapolates from this to a false assertion that that men are the primary abusers of children.
Her intent is to ensure that custody continues to default to mothers. If her concern was genuinely the wellbeing of children she would advocate removing them from their abusers rather than from their fathers.
There's a lot of distraction from the topic at hand, but I'm sure you've come to expect that.
Yeah, it seems to me that these guys are just here to tell us that the feminist movement in general is part of a conspiracy theory to oppress men, esspecially fathers. The article mentioned men's rights groups, so they just came over to talk about themselves instead of the point of the article.
@MechaShiva
Actually I'm a survivor of child sexual abuse and a board member of a rape crisis and counselling service in Victoria, Australia.
Would you like to make any other assertions for which you have no basis?
Hey, I'm going off of what someone actually said in here about a feminist conspiracy. I worry for your clients, that's all I can say. "Men's Rights" groups disturb me, and your job doesn't legitimize you in my eyes if you are involved with one.
Then I'd better not tell you what some of the sexual assault counselors have to say about feminists in that case.
Frankly whether you "legitimise" me is of little concern. The folk who work in that network invited me on board because of what I can do for them, their services and their clients. They consider me more than legitimate.
Personally I worry more for those victims who are NOT our clients precisely because of the sort of prejudices presented in this article. You know, like male victims and victims of female perpetrators.
Yes, yes, I'm already aware of how great you think you are. Despite that, keep in mind that you and your people apparently think that I am the be-all end-all of feminism. After all, according to you my opinion shapes "what some of the sexual assault counselors have to say about feminists." Either I am damned influential, or you and your cronies expect every woman you talk with to be a spokesperson rather than an individual.
That's pretty dehumanizing.... what a fabulous trait in a rape counselor! Get down with yo' baaad self. Fight that overwhelming oppression of men that is rampant in society.
Man, the ladies weren't kidding when they said guys from Australia were... well, I'd better not say.
LOL
Project much?
I'm not a counselor. I'm a former client and am now their "client and community" delegate. It's an elected role for which they view my political connections and experience to be advantageous.
"your people apparently think that I am the be-all end-all of feminism"
My people? Who would they be?
I've already told you your individual opinion matters not. If you object to criticism of feminism and wish to disown it's actions then maybe you should find an alternative label for yourself.
In the meantime I'll get on with ensuring that ALL victims are addressed instead of only those with the appropriate genitalia. To that end acute feminist sensitivities are the last thing I could, or should, care about.
Ah, I see. Being stoned (at that time, not just now) and all, I mixed up that you aren't actually a counselor but a board member. I'm happy to hear you don't have any direct contact with clients. *thumbs up*
As for the rest, "your people" would be the sexual assault counselors that you said would have some choice things to say about feminism based on my comments. Which, by a simple logic path, leads to the conclusion that my comments influence what you think of feminists in general. Which means... I am influential to you, whether you'll admit it openly or not.
Anyhow, please do get on with the terribly, terribly important work you are doing to end the oppression of men everywhere by the evil feminists who just want to rape them and deny them counseling... and take your crazy conspiracy theories with you.
May I ask the name of the organisation on whose board you sit, gwallan? I'm curious, as a friend of mine works for a DV organisation in Vic and has a somewhat different perspective from yours.
And you, MechaShiva, by your own admission ... are "stoned"!
Yeah, and I wish I was stoned now. I don't have enough drugs for this shit. You people really do bring the crazy. At least when I'm high you people are funny.
I hear you.
They kind of remind me of the Jerry Springer show. (opps, did I say that out loud?)
Between the league of men who are angry because their wives were able to earn enough money to escape what must have been truly wretched marriages and the folks speaking for God and hallucinating Satan I have a headache.
Must be spring break.
Ah, I see. Being stoned (at that time, not just now) and all, I mixed up that you aren't actually a counselor but a board member. I'm happy to hear you don't have any direct contact with clients. *thumbs up*
Read it again then. At times I have more, and broader, contact with victims than the counsellors. You might also notice that I reported the attitudes of others in that environment but not my own. I continue to be surprised at those attitudes. However if you prefer to shoot the messenger that's entirely up to you.
I'm beginning to understand that the sense of superiority and consequent complacency of many feminists is blinding them to the growing distaste for the movement. That's a pity because, like any political movement, it has it's positives and negatives. Your presentation is only reinforcing the negative. An intelligent response would be to ask oneself why is it happening, learn about it and seek to act preventatively. Instead you respond by covering your ears and spouting "la la la pig la la la..."
There are people funding the anti-feminism talking points, these would be the people who like women being subservient because they benefit. Same way insurance companies spending so much to stop or weaken health insurance reform; big business spends to weaken unions; wall street doesn't want regulation. But, dang it, women keep acting uppity and the poor keep organizing for a fair share.
Please, please tell me who is funding anything having to do with men's issues. It has to be the poorest of all groups. No one wants to help. Not men, not women, not corporations, not government, not non-profits, nobody. I sure wish what you are saying is true but I know it is not.
Can't say. I'm more familiar with funding for anti-abortion and anti-gay groups. A lot of their talking points are also about how feminism has been ruinous; so I wouldn't be surprised if whoever gwallan was talking with might have gotten some ideas about how feminists made their situations worse from groups like the Catholic hierarchy, Focus on the Family, or whoever.
The "entitlement behavior" I've seen closely has been the Champaign City Police Department, with the help of the Champaign County DA (she's married to a cop), in full CYA mode after a 15yo unarmed kid got killed in daylight on the other side of town. The family didn't get notified until after the cover-up & blame-the-victim CYAing was well started. They all joined ranks and keep saying how it's the KID'S FAULT HE GOT HIMSELF KILLED and questions about why the office had his gun out of the holster and how could it accidently fire if he had control of his weapon get ignored. Oh, the chief of police was there (though it wasn't his gun that killed the kid). And the local newspaper said both 1) wait for the report and 2) the police were right -- both, in the same editorial. I've had a chance to compare honest anger with CYA/entitlement anger ... and that informs how I react to various rants against injustice as to which I believe.
@Julie Watkins...
There are people funding the anti-feminism talking points, these would be the people who like women being subservient because they benefit. Same way insurance companies spending so much to stop or weaken health insurance reform; big business spends to weaken unions; wall street doesn't want regulation. But, dang it, women keep acting uppity and the poor keep organizing for a fair share.
I too would like to know who is funding "anti-feminism talking points".
Feminism is a lobby group just like all the others you mention. Why should it be immune from criticism? I know of numerous other political movements which have censored criticism. None of them are held in high regard.
...so I wouldn't be surprised if whoever gwallan was talking with might have gotten some ideas about how feminists made their situations worse from groups like the Catholic hierarchy, Focus on the Family, or whoever.
You would be wrong. It seems to stem from problems within the state's network itself and was prior to my active engagement. Note I expressed my own surprise. I wasn't expecting it in that environment.
The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children and Families
MechSiva: Perhaps it's not a good idea to post comments when you are under the influence of psychotropic plants, especially those with mildly hallucinogenic properties.
A better question should be when do they begin...for men that is.
Given that women can, and do, rape young boys and subsequently extort child support from their victims it's quite apparent that there are no reproductive rights whatsoever for any male.
You asked the question, so go ahead and write a post on it. Inform us!
- Women are just as likely as men to engage in partner aggression.
- Men experience over one-third of DV-related injuries.
- Men are far less likely to report DV incidents than women.
- The myths about domestic violence are numerous.
- Many of these myths are based on DV studies that use biased survey methods.
- The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, "In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women, but not men." [Source: Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn and Saltzman, Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence, American Journal of Public Health, May 2007, Vol 97, No. 5, pp. 941-947, http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941]
- Psychologist John Archer reviewed hundreds of studies and concluded, “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680]
- Law professor Linda Kelly noted, "leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates." [Source: Linda Kelly: Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse. Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 30, pages 791-855, 2003. Accessible at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf ]
- An international survey of violence between dating partners in 16 countries concluded: “Perhaps the most important similarity is the high rate of assault perpetrated by both male and female students in all the countries.” [Source: Murray Straus: Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2001]
- Cal State Psychology Professor Martin Fiebert has assembled a bibliography of 175 scholarly investigations: 139 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
- An analysis of the data collected by the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey found that more women than men engage in controlling behavior in their current marriages, but there was no statistically significant difference between men's and women's use of controlling behaviors in former marriages. Controlling husbands were not particularly likely to engage in frequent, injurious, or unprovoked violence. Husband and wives did not differ in their motivation to control. [Source: Sociology Professors Richard B. Felson (Penn State) and Maureen C. Outlaw (Providence College) "The Control Motive and Marital Violence," Violence and Victims, 2007, Vol. 22, Issue 4 http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/17691548/full_citation/The_control_motive_and_marital_violence_
- Of all persons who suffer an injury from partner aggression, 38% are male. [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680]
- Of all persons who require medical treatment as the result of partner aggression, 35% are male. [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, Table 5]
- Men who are victims of severe domestic violence suffer other problems, as well [Source: Richard J. Gelles: Intimate Violence in Families, 1997]:
- 30% experienced depression
- 14% required bed rest to recuperate from the injuries
- 10% needed to take time off from work
- According to the National Family Violence Survey, female victims of DV are nine times more likely to call the police than male DV victims. These are the percentages of victims who called the police in response to the assault:
- Women: 8.5%
- Men: 0.9%
- According to the FBI, a woman is beaten every 15 seconds
- 4,000 women each year are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends
- There are nearly three times as many animal shelters in the United states as there are shelters for women
- Battering during pregnancy is the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality
- Women who kill their batterers receive longer prison sentences than men who kill their partners
- Some studies survey women but not men. Predictably, these studies yield one-sided findings.
- The DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey is flawed because persons do not consider most forms of domestic violence, such as slapping, shoving, or throwing an object at a partner, to be a crime.
- The DOJ National Violence Against Women survey prefaces the questions by repeatedly using the phrase “personal safety.” Those words bias the responses because women are more concerned about personal safety than men.
- Some studies of domestic violence assess both physical and verbal abuse. That inflates and distorts the picture of physical violence.
[Source: JE Stets and MA Straus: Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In Straus and Gelles (editors): Physical violence in American families, 1990, Table 15.]
These are some of the common myths about domestic violence:
Richard Gelles, an internationally-recognized expert on domestic violence, refers to many of these claims as “factoids from nowhere.” [http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html]
[Source: MA Straus: The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In XB Arriaga and S Oskamp: Violence in intimate relationships. Sage Publishers, 1999. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS21.pdf]
Here we go with the information flooding. People always come into these threads and do this with the intent on hijacking the topic. Links are nice, research is great...how about we start giving some sample sizes, populations, and other pertinent info we'd need to be able to look at these studies.
Is there a reason you can't look for yourself. Tell me, can you feed yourself or does somebody else need to spoon it into your mouth.
"People always come into these threads and do this with the intent on hijacking the topic. "
Hijacking? If the thread's premise is dubious correction is appropriate in order to right the original hijacking of the truth.
Never mind that when the male is the victim of domestic violence, the perpetrator is usually also a guy. Most father's rights groups also tend to regard gays as "not real men."
Also, Irving, if you have a point, say it. Don't just post an intimidating wall of text and links and make us ferret it out ourselves. It isn't an effective way to communicate since people naturally skim past the entire thing and miss your point entirely.
However, I think I can sum up your points nicely and save you the work. "Feminists are just women who are too ugly to get boyfriends, so they have conspired over the past forty years to twist mainstream culture into a terrible, emasculating nightmare. Women now beat men and steal their children with no retribution from the justice system. The legal system always goes in favor of the women who can just bat their eyelashes and smile and all the while no one suspects that MEN ARE THE REAL VICTIMS. IN FACT MEN ARE THE REAL VICTIMS IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR CULTURE AND ARE BEING CULTURALLY CASTRATED AT EVERY TURN. Advertising is rampant with misandry. Schools teach in ways that favor female learning styles. Boys are being feminized with our culture's emphasis on safety and empathy. Females are invading institutes of higher learning and the workforce. And women are becoming violent terrors that are physically abusing and raping men and boys and it is all to the invasion of the fat, ugly femnazis. AND KNOW ONE NOTICES AND SO LOOK AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE AND WE HAVE TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE EVIL FEMNAZIS BEFORE THEY MAKE CAPONS OUT OF EVERY ONE OF US!!!"
And sadly, I've visited some Father's Rights sites, so you know I'm not even exaggerating. You people really bring the crazy.
Also, Irving, if you have a point, say it. Don't just post an intimidating wall of text and links and make us ferret it out ourselves. It isn't an effective way to communicate since people naturally skim past the entire thing and miss your point entirely.
I tried doing that---I should be good at this kind of thing, right?---and didn't have much luck. He seems to be making a point about a requested page that could not be found, but the thrust of his argument was left mostly unaddressed by the references. On the other hand, the site that all his links go to did have some cool articles... I'll have to post there one of these days!
ProChoiceFerret: See if you can ferret out the documentation supporting the statements written by Joan Dawson that are highlighted below:
"The Fathers’ rights movement (along with many Men’s rights activists), has introduced policies such as “friendly parent” policies, joint custody, punishment for false allegations and various syndromes to family courts across the country (as well as in many Western countries and in India). Most of these policies seem beneficial on the surface -- but have hidden dangers lurking underneath.
In today’s courts with friendly parent policies, a battered woman will look anything but friendly. So who gets custody? The one who appears most likely to share parenting responsibilities. Often enough, the batterer.
Joint custody is another policy that sounds fair in principle, but experts warn it is not ideal for couples with high conflict. Family court is, however, known to be “the place” for couples with moderate-to-high conflict. Most couples (roughly 85 percent) resolve parenting plans themselves. Those that can’t, and often enough those with some prior history of abuse or control, go to family court. Fathers’ rights groups would like to see family courts enforce presumptive or mandated shared custody. Experts in domestic violence would not.
Domestic violence experts also cringe at the idea of punishing false allegations, something the fathers’ rights groups actively promote. Since accusations of abuse can be difficult to prove – with evidence and witnesses – this can serve to punish parents for alleging abuse. Punishment deters reporting. Parents can be fined, jailed or denied custody if the judge doesn’t believe their accusation. Domestic violence expert Barry Goldstein says, "Research has established that fathers in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. It is not that men are more dishonest, but 90 percent of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody to pressure their partner to return or punish her for leaving. Although fathers are more likely to make false charges, courts are more likely to believe them.”
From women making false accusations and getting off scot-free, despite the US Constitution and laws against false arrest, perjury, false imprisonment and defamation of character, to claiming the men are more likely to file false claims. You people sound truly delusional!
@Elyzabeth...
"Never mind that when the male is the victim of domestic violence, the perpetrator is usually also a guy."
Male same sex relationships are a very small proportion of all intimate partner situations.
For your assertion to be true virtually every gay male relationship would need to be abusive. And you have the unmitigated gall to then say "Most father's rights groups also tend to regard gays as "not real men."" Truth is that gays are not actually on the agenda of those fathers groups and are rarely addressed by them because gay men generally aren't likely to be fathers. QED
You seem to have a very poor opinion of gays however.
It's quite apparent that your view only has room for victims abused by males. Thus we casually write off the significant majority of victims of child abuse and elder abuse, a quarter of the victims of child sexual abuse and a goodly proportion of the victims of partner abuse. Cast into the abyss all of them. Let them eat cake.
Oh, and I just love your ranting caricature of fathers groups. Bear in mind, however, that it's your strawman, your thoughts, your assertions, your words. In fact it tells us far more about you than about them.
You beg the question beautifully! May I quote you? Here goes ...
"However, I think I can sum up your points nicely and save you the work."
No, you you obviously can't do either!
You are a product of long-term and intensive indoctrination in feminist ideology, born and bred of Marxist principles that program you to feel incessantly victimized by a broad, theoretical entity, known as "The Patriarchy". Because this patriarchy has ALL of the power and priviledge, it's OK for you to falsely accuse men of rape and get away with it - despite the Constitution; in fact, it's OK to stereotype males as violent predators, perverts, pinheads and anything else you feel like, despite the fact that it violates law pertaining to civil rights and crimes of hate!
I have learned a lot from the people on this board, even those who disagree with me on every issue, but if you've been here a couple of days and have already started posting diatribes about the Commie Menace, I've got to say I begin to doubt there will be much of anything new here.
Some males ARE violent predators and perverts, just as some women are violent predators and perverts. Nobody here has said that they want to violent those men's civil rights or commit crimes against them. Instead they have talked about how they want to ensure children are protected from that minority. Your assertion that any mention at all of violence and men 'violates their civil rights' ignores the fact that the average man also wants children to be protected from violent men and male predators.
Your reading comprehension is very poor, cowepps! I write about feminism's Marxist roots, and you declare I'm "posting diatribes about the Commie Menace". That's a form of "jingoism" on your part. Not very flattering to you, is it?
I write about men being stereotyped as violent predators, etc., etc. (like stereotyping women as too emotional) and you morph that into "any mention at all of violence and men 'violates their civil rights' ..." What a blatant and gross distortion of my original points - and so self-righteous and sanctimonious to boot!
What I have an issue with is the disparity between your first comment
"Some males ARE violent predators and perverts, just as some women are violent predators and perverts."
and your last
"Your assertion that any mention at all of violence and men 'violates their civil rights' ignores the fact that the average man also wants children to be protected from violent men and male predators.
What about protecting the children from those female predators and perverts? Why narrow down the protection to only half the threat? Shouldn't the author, if she truly wants to protect kids, be including the group which abuses the most often-women?
As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with using the justice system to prosecute child abusers. I do have a problem with bypassing the system and preemptively taking kids from fathers, while ignoring female violence. Either include them both or don't address either. To do anything else is sexist.
And you are correct-the vast majority of men not only don't want their kids or wives abused, but will go to extreme lengths to protect them, even if it means putting themselves at risk. You would never know that from this blog.
You probably would "never know that from this blog" because it wasn't about how courageous and awesome men are. We know that from being in at least 12 years of history class. This blog, rather this post, was about what is happening to women and children in the legal system. You and others constanly attempt to derail the thread by talking about what men are NOT. This makes no sense.
Elyzabeth, you're reminding me a little of this
http://www.redstatefeminist.com/2010/03/male-inequality.html
Such a sad state of affairs for men.
Irving Salos wrote: "Richard Gelles, an internationally-recognized expert on domestic violence, refers to many of these claims as “factoids from nowhere.” [http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html]"
I'm not going to debunk all of your faulty, out-of-context citations because I have neither the interest nor the time, but did you notice the "Factoids Right Of Center" in that very document you link to? Take note of Gelles addressing the equal abuse myth:
"Women are as Violence as are Men, and Women Initiate Violence as Often as do Men"
This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague's surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men."
The point is that one of your own sources discredits your claims (in particular that men and women are equally abusive), and everything you copy/paste here is out-of-context, misrepresented, and a flat out lie. Your posts are men's rights propaganda copied and pasted from the abuser friendly group RADAR, not accurate representations of valid research. Now go back to your cave where you belong.
And yet another fallacy from women more interested in rank-outs than honest debate! One citation of a factoid does not constitute proof that everything else is immediately and automatically identical in content. For your information, I posted these offerings to see if any of you would take the time to pick through each one. I give you credit that you actually made an attempt.
You did, however, unequivocally lend credence to my contention that your method of debate relies heavily on personal insult, ridicule and shame, as well as the clinically inflated belief that it is needed, and you are somehow justified in using it. Wrong on both counts, my little princess.
By the way, it is incorrect to claim that I wrote something I did not. After reviewing every reply on this board, I see no written statement of mine referring specifically to Richard Gelles or factoids. That's another fallacy on your part (ad circularum) and a devious manner of committing it!
We in the Men's Movement have rank-outs that we can use on you, that is, if you'd like to simply turn this into a rank-out fest.
Wow, Irving, 187 words where you said... nothing.
"My little princess"??!? Seriously, dude, you need to go back to your cave.
As you know, all research that supports your precious equal abuse myth rely exclusively on the Conflict Tactic Scales which is very faulty. What Gelles had to say about equal abuse is very important since he's one of the three researchers who, along with Murray Straus, created the Conflict Tactic Scales. Have you seen this paper by Gelles debunking the equal abuse myth? [Highlighting my emphasis.]
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
NOT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD
By Richard J. Gelles
The highly publicized O.J. Simpson case has spawned a flurry of stories in local, national, and international media, all focused on pieces of the domestic violence puzzle. In fact, coverage of the case has become the battleground on which one of the most controversial questions in the study of intimate violence is being debated: Is domestic abuse a "war against women" or are men battered just as much as women?
In the media-frenzy replication of that debate, “war against women” stories are countered with violence against men articles, opinion pieces, letters and broadcast reports. Groups on both sides of the issue are jockeying for media attention and support of their position.
Many feminists content that it is clear women are overwhelmingly the victims of intimate violence and that there are few if any battered men. On the other hand, self-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data.
To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research - and distorted - to “prove” the position on violence against men. However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether, or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that “men typically do more damage.” The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men.
That women are perpetrators of intimate violence there can be no doubt. There is consistent and reliable empirical evidence that women use violence toward their male partners. The question of whether there are “battered” men and the prevalence of the problem of the battering of men is more complex.
We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners.
In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked. A smaller number of women, having been beaten and brutalized for months or years, seek vengeance against a brutal partner. Despite Lorena Bobbit’s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.
Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men. Movie portrayals of the vengeful, violent women notwithstanding (for example, in “Fatal Attraction” or “Basic Instinct”), there are very few women who stalk male partners or kill them and then their children in a cataclysmic act of familicide. The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.
Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women “battered?” No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.
My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year - a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women - but hardly trivial.
Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers. The media, policy makers, and the public cannot simply ignore - or reduce to a parenthetical status the outcomes of violence, which leave more than 1,400 women dead each year and millions physically and/or psychologically scarred for life.
That factoid page was written 15 years ago. That's ages old at this point. Just have a look at the more recent writing of Straus to get a better idea of what those researchers presently think. A good place to start would be an article by Straus titled "Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symetry in Partner Violence."
pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf
The article explains precisely how the feminist researchers have concealed evidence of women being perpetrators and men being victims of domestic violence. It is written by Murray Straus, PhD, a top DV researcher, and is a must read for anyone wanting to understand how they have been hoodwinked by today's media and feminist propagandists. He chronicles the bullying tactics that were used against him and other researchers for years. I have yet to see a feminist be able to refute this article. Very important read for a humanist. Very upsetting for a feminist.
If we continue to only hold men accountable for family violence we are concealing a large portion of the perpetrators and in the process denying them the help that they need and the help that their family and children deserve.
Murray Strauss is a top DV expert? What a bunch of crapola you guys come up with. I met MS at the Am Pscyhological Assoc's summit on Interpersonal Violence. I think I was the only one to talk to him, otherwise he was shunned b/c of his ideological based views (although curiously Strauss & Gelles will still admit women suffer more severe violence). Struass also thought Guatemala had mutual violence. Guatemala??? Where women ask their husband's permission to leave the house??? If he aint an ideologue nobody is.
All these guys that are mentioned over & over by FR or MRAs - Strauss, Gelles, Faubert's list, etc. - all use SELF REPORT DATA and this cherry picked data - - among thousands of studies that find women are 85% the victim -- and credible orgs like CDC, WHO, etc. finding the same -- are then used to hammer home their distorted and misogynist message.
It's ME, ME, ME. - Men are the real victims.
Noone denies men are victims - we deny your cherry picked data that you use to make conclusions. We deny your sympathy for the accused and not the abused.
We wonder why you dont' talk about male violence - as males represent the greatest threat to males.
We wonder why you act like the kettle calling the pot black- -you blame feminists for painting "all" males as violent than proceed to dredge up your self reports to paint women as violent or child abusers.
We wonder why ppl that fight child abuse are not called adult-bashers. HOw ppl that fight elder abuse are not called caretaker haters. Nooo, but have women fight against male violence- our number one cause of harm- and we are called the haters.
We wonder too - how an article on child abuse - can turn into a woman-bashing, male-protecting, violence-denying, hate on women and feminists rant.
And children and women continue to be killed.
But we must protect the males, mustn't we?
He also said that the information gleaned from the Conflict Tactics Scale has been taken out of context and used in ways he never intended. He recognizes the severity and prevalence of sexual violence against women, the incomparable level of injury, and the worth of DV programs for women. The quotation is in the Kimmel article.
I think that the flawed data, however, has spurred important national discussions about differentiation in types of violence. Should the person who:
1. gets drunk one night, gets into a fight with their partner, and hits them
be treated the same as
2. the person who gets drunk one night, picks a fight with their partner, and hits them after months of increasing isolation and verbal and emotional abuse
I honestly don't think so. (At least by people attempting intervention to change behavior.) One is part of a pattern. The other, if the couple tends to be pretty equal in power distribution, is an isolated incident. (Of course, we need reliable screening tools to discern this.) Both need to be addressed, but they should probably be addressed differently.
@ack - How about discussing the Straus article? Yes, I agree that national discussion would be a good thing on this topic and yes, the public has much to learn after being fed one side of the story for 30 years. Now how bout that article?
@ Jo -- Looks like you prefer to attack the person rather that debate the issues. You attack Straus rather than engage in discussion over his viewpoints expressed in the article. How about some discussion about the linked Straus article? Hard to discuss? Get ya a little defensive? :>)
Hey, Jo, interesting anecdote about Straus. As you probably know, the studies that find equal violence between men and women rely exclusively on the Conflict Tactic Scales, and there are serious problems with the CTS. So, that means that any study done by Straus no matter how recent and that long-winded list of studies compiled by Fiebert are seriously flawed because they rely on the CTS to reach their conclusions.
Here's a portion of a paper criticizing the faults with the CTS from Walter deKeseredy and Martin Schwartz.
[http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=388]
Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales
by Walter Dekeseredy and Martin Schwartz
February 1998
Large-scale survey data have played an important role in sensitizing the media, government officials, and members of the general public to the shocking extent of woman abuse in intimate, heterosexual relationships. Today, many North Americans view male-to-female violence in marriage, dating, and cohabitation as a major social problem (Kline, Campbell, Soler & Ghez, 1997). In fact, there have been calls for the end to statistical surveys. Some have argued that the battle for recognition has been won, while others question whether quantitative techniques can ever adequately capture the complex experience of being battered.
Much of the support for continued quantitative research comes from those who contend that accurate statistics are essential to motivate government agencies to devote more resources to the development of prevention and control strategies. Of course, statistics are never sufficient to accomplish this end. However, as feminist scholars Bart, Miller, Moran, and Stanko (1989) point out: "The principal questions that organize policy efforts are ultimately quantitative - how many are there, who are they, where are they, how bad are the consequences, how much will it cost?" (p. 433). Those who fund programs tend to respond better to empirical data. Dealing with these data, however, has led politicians, journalists and scholars to a series of questions on who is at fault in battering, and how much battering actually takes place in society.
Although the academic and feminist literature is filled with debates on whether these instruments are flawed, the best-known and most often used quantitative technique designed to obtain estimates of the extent of physical woman abuse has been the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), and more recently the CTS2. Certainly qualitative methodologists and feminist researchers have employed a wide variety of other techniques and measures, but no other measure has approached the widespread use of the CTS. The main objectives of this brief document are to: (1) critique these two measures; and (2) provide suggestions for enhancing the quality of survey data on woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships, the focus of the CTS measurement.
The CTS and CTS2
The CTS was developed originally in the 1970s by University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus to study violence within families. By now the original or a modified CTS appears at the core of research reported in over 100 scientific journal articles and at least 10 North American books. Although the CTS may in various studies be given only to men or only to women, the most widely cited work involves administering the survey to both men and women in intact heterosexual family units (married or cohabitants). The instrument solicits information from both men and women about the "conflict tactics" used by both men and women. The CTS consists of eighteen items that measure three different ways of handling interpersonal conflict in intimate relationships: reasoning, verbal aggression (referred to by some researchers as psychological abuse), and physical violence. These items are ranked on a continuum from least to most severe, with the first ten describing tactics that are not physically violent and the last eight describing violent acts. The last five items, from "kicked, etc." to "used a knife or a gun," make up the "severe violence index."
The type of "conflict tactic" used to measure violence that occurred in the past year (incidence) is generally introduced to the respondent with the following preamble. Note the ideological and factual assumptions embedded in this introduction, such as the notion that battery is the result of an "argument."
No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree
, get annoyed with the other person, or just have spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. I’m going to read some things that you and your (spouse/partner) might do when you have an argument. I would like you to tell me how many times … in the past 12 months [Read item] (Straus, 1990, p. 33).
Research has suggested that the CTS seems to be a reliable method of eliciting highly sensitive data on the least known sides of intimate heterosexual relationships. For example, in both Canada and the U.S., city-wide, provincial/state, and national representative sample surveys that have used the CTS show that annually at least 11 percent of North American women in marital or cohabiting relationships are physically abused by their male partners. Many social scientists consider CTS data "probably the best available when it comes to estimating the incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in the population at large" (Smith, 1987, p. 177). Yet, quite a large number of researchers have criticized the CTS for the following reasons:
*The CTS rank orders behaviors in a linear fashion, from least serious to most serious. In doing so, it incorrectly assumes that psychological abuse and the first three violence items (e.g., slaps) are automatically less injurious than the items in the severe violence index. Many strongly object to creating what Liz Kelly (1987) calls a "hierarchy of abuse based on seriousness" because emotional abuse is often experienced as more harmful than physical violence (Chang, 1996; Kirkwood, 1993), and a slap can often draw blood or break teeth.
*The CTS works from an ideological base that presumes that violence is family-based, rather seeing the issue as one of male violence directed toward women.
*The CTS only asks about several specific types of abuse, but does not ask about many others. Many researchers fear that respondents will not report abuse that is not asked about, such as scratches, burns, and sexual assault.
*The methodology of the CTS is simply to count the raw number of violent acts committed. What it cannot tell us is why people use violence. Thus, CTS data almost always report men and women as equally violent, and thereby miss the fact they use violence for different reasons. Women use violence for a variety of reasons, but a common one is to defend themselves. Men typically use violence to control their female partners (DeKeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz, & Alvi, 1997; Ellis & Stuckless, 1996).
*The CTS only situates violence and verbal aggression/psychological abuse in the context of settling conflicts or disputes (note again the preamble above). In doing this, it ignores a large number of control-instigated assaults that do not have their root in conflicts or disputes. Even worse, it may miss attacks that "come out of the blue" with no external reason or dispute to mediate. These attacks, whether physical or verbal violence, may be as or more highly injurious as those that stem from conflicts or disputes. The CTS, although it may accurately count numbers of blows struck, overlooks the broader social psychological and social forces (e.g., patriarchy) that motivate men to abuse their female partners.
THE CTS2
Although many of these critiques have been widely voiced for more than a decade, few researchers who use the CTS seem aware of them. However, Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman (1995) recently developed the CTS2 to address some of these criticisms. To meet the concern that the CTS may not elicit responses on a variety of injurious behaviors, it includes more physical and psychological abuse items (e.g., "I called my partner fat or ugly"). To deal with the strong attack that the CTS does not measure sexual violence, the CTS2 measures seven types of sexual assault. Finally, to allow researchers to tell the difference between events that cause physical injury and those that do not (e.g., slaps that break teeth, and those that might not cause physical injury), the CTS2 includes several injury or physical outcome measures, such as "I needed to see a doctor because of a fight with my partner." All of these are positive revisions that speak directly to some of the earlier criticisms.
Still, the CTS2 does not resolve all of the problems with the CTS. The most important place where the CTS2 does not improve on the CTS is that it continues to only situate abuse in the context of settling disputes or conflicts (the preamble remains the same). As suggested above, this limitation in effect tells the respondent to exclude reporting on abuse that is control-instigated or which does not arise from a known cause. It also does not allow the researcher to separate out aggressive abuse, whether physical or psychological, from those assaults used in self-defense.
[end excerpt]
gwallen wrote:
@Elyzabeth...
"Never mind that when the male is the victim of domestic violence, the perpetrator is usually also a guy."
Male same sex relationships are a very small proportion of all intimate partner situations.
For your assertion to be true virtually every gay male relationship would need to be abusive.
It's true that men who are abused are most likely to be abused by male intimate partners, not female intimate partners. See this:
Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence
Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey
June 2000
National Institute Of Justice Report On Intimate Violence
-
[excerpt]
Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings, combined with those presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates. Thus, strategies for preventing intimate partner violence should focus on risks posed by men.
Hey Trish. How's The Spawn these days?
Are you seriously using a Violence Against Women Survey to make assertions about male same sex relationships? That's cute. But not at all unexpected.
In Australia our Bureau of Statistics puts male victims of partner abuse at about a third of all victims. Given your assertions there must be huge numbers of encloseted men in this country. Or alternatively there are numerous male victims of Martians or plankton or anything but a woman or even a man for that matter. Could they be unwittingly partnered with transvestites? Nah. Maybe they're abused by their pets. Yeah, that must be it. It's those bloody puppies. Male puppies of course.
You have to watch those pesky male victims you know. One minute they're there. The next minute they're gone. When it suits they're great fun to use as political footballs. I just love being kicked around.
And you still can't spell my name right.
Hi, there, Gwallan. The Spawn is doing well. He's in college now majoring in computer science. Once a geek, always a geek. :)
That report was published by the U. S. Department of Justice. The same results are replicated in other research that looks at gay male domestic violence. Maybe this study will better suit you because it's not a Violence Against Women Survey. Here's an excerpt from Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men, published by the American Journal of Public Health in 2002.
December 2002, Vol 92, No. 12 | American Journal of Public Health 1964-1969
© 2002 American Public Health Association
Gregory L. Greenwood, PhD, MPH, Michael V. Relf, PhD, RN, Bu Huang, PhD,Lance M. Pollack, PhD, Jesse A. Canchola, MS and Joseph A. Catania, PhD
"In a nationally representative sample1 of heterosexual men (defined in the study as men who reported cohabitation with women), 7.7% reported lifetime physical or sexual partner violence, compared with 23% (95% CI = 21.5%, 25.4%) of our urban MSM who reported such battering during the previous 5 years. Because lifetime rates are generally higher than rates for a 5-year recall period, it is likely that a substantially greater number of MSM than of heterosexual men have experienced lifetime victimization. Similarly, Zierler and colleagues found that among a nationally representative sample of HIV-infected individuals, 7.5% of heterosexual men had experienced some type of battering (since HIV diagnosis), compared with 39% of our sample (within the past 5 years)."
Keep in mind the fact that men are more likely to be victims of abuse by male intimate partners than by female ones does not negate the seriousness of female-upon-male domestic violence. It only shows that most men who are victims of domestic violence are victims at the hands of male intimate partners, not female. So, abuse of men by women is not rampant, nor is there "equal" abuse between men and women. No puppies, no plankton, and no Martians, either. :)
Summary: I sought to back up Dr. Christoforos' assertion that this article is fallacy-ridden. You all breezed right past it.
Like Dr. C, I too have read a ton of feminist propaganda on the internet. Your self-congratulatory back-patting has never before been seriously or consistently challenged, and you know it.
That's why you all are virtually addicted to the same fallacious response tactics: a) only showing data favorable to your cause; b) ignoring data that refute it; c) shaming, ridiculing or insulting your opponent (especially his mental health or his masculinity); d) taking a piece of your opponent's statement and treating it as the entire argument; e) quickly deleting any opposing observation you cannot counter; and f) accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling.
I don't care whether or not you read the bibliographical entries I posted. The point is that you do not hold a monoply on data relating to gender issues. Nor are your views completely unassailable!
Irving - Not to start a "poop storm" here and I apologize if you've posted this elsewhere, but in which discipline did you acquire your PhD? I only ask because I find it interesting that you even list it as part of your screen name. In my personal and professional experiences, I have found that most individuals who have earned PhDs don't feel an overwhelming need to announce it at every turn unless they feel inadequate in some fashion thus needing to "remind" people how smart they really are. Honestly, if your arguments are well developed and logical, the alphabet soup after your name isn't really necessary. But that's my personal opinion and far from an empirical argument, so take it for what it's worth.
You accuse another poster of resorting to "fallacious response tactics" but have done so yourself. Referring to a complete stranger online as "my little princess" is not only patronizing and possessive but generally just... creepy. Feel free to accuse me of committing the sin of "accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling" but I find your position in this instance rather hypocritical... and sophomoric. I also find it rather distasteful and unbecoming of an individual with such advanced educational achievements who espouses such lofty standards for polite discourse... just saying.
Squirrley girl -
1) You're attempting to pull off yet another fallacy "Argumentum ad Hominem", and it won't work.
2) I referred to someone who gratuitously implied that I am a caveman by the term "my little princess". If she wants to dish it out to me, she should be prepared to take it (that's part of being equals).
3) More than once, the males posting replies here have been branded "crazy" as an acceptable rebuttal. Spare me the self-righteous sanctimonious sarcasm about polite discourse or lofty standards.
1. It is only a fallacy from your perspective. But I suppose that's the beauty of self-righteousness (anybody can use that word and feel justified in doing so) and simply dismissing debate.
2. "If she wants to dish it out to me, she should be prepared to take it (that's part of being equals)." While I would generally agree with this concept (teasing or criticism among peers) you've made considerable effort to discredit and discount her posts in a manner that would suggest you DON'T view her as an equal. I've personally formed the impression from some of your statements that you think of yourself rather highly and have, by your own use of the PhD designator, elevated yourself to a standing ABOVE others. So, by your own presentation of self, you are NOT equals with her. And while I have no idea as to what philosophical perspective you may have gained from your educational experiences, I generally expect more restrained and, dare I say, professional, contributions from people with advanced degrees. I know, color me crazy. The, "but she started it" argument doesn't go very far when you purport such intellectual and academic standing. It is the type of self-serving retort I would expect from a bully... and it's kind of pathetic.
3. Maybe you noticed that I, personally, have not done these things and as a general practice I don't take credit (or blame) for other people's actions. I was referring to YOUR statements so perhaps you could limit your response to MINE. As to my sarcasm (glad you noticed) being "self-righteous" or "sanctimonious", please recognize that I wasn't holding MYSELF to those lofty standards, but merely commenting on what I have perceived to be yours (you're the one that started making lists). Again, if you don't want to be held to higher standard or called out for juvenile debate, don't set yourself apart with the PhD. It is a double-edged sword that in addition to the veneration and respect of the degree that SOME people will hold you to a higher standard of behavior and self-conduct. Just saying.
sg: It's only a fallacy from the perspective of everyone who knows what an Argumentum ad Hominem is. As I stated earlier ...
"That's why you all are virtually addicted to the same fallacious response tactics: a) only showing data favorable to your cause; b) ignoring data that refute it; c) shaming, ridiculing or insulting your opponent (especially his mental health or his masculinity); d) taking a piece of your opponent's statement and treating it as the entire argument; e) quickly deleting any opposing observation you cannot counter; and f) accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling."
A woman poster here told me to go back in my cave. That was the usual smug, smarmy insinuated insult I've come to expect when trying to discuss issues with misandrists. I will not try to explain this to you again. You can keep on cherry-picking minutia until the cows come home.
sg: It's only a fallacy from the perspective of everyone who knows what an Argumentum ad Hominem is. As I stated earlier ...
"That's why you all are virtually addicted to the same fallacious response tactics: a) only showing data favorable to your cause; b) ignoring data that refute it; c) shaming, ridiculing or insulting your opponent (especially his mental health or his masculinity); d) taking a piece of your opponent's statement and treating it as the entire argument; e) quickly deleting any opposing observation you cannot counter; and f) accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling."
A woman poster here told me to go back in my cave. That was the usual smug, smarmy insinuated insult I've come to expect when trying to discuss issues with misandrists. I will not try to explain this to you again. You can keep on cherry-picking minutia until the cows come home.
I apologise if the answer has already been posted, but Irving, I am also interested in hearing in which discipline you received your doctorate.
Emma: With all due respect, I see no other poster here, including the author herself, giving out their curriculum vitae. I included the doctoral designation after my name as a reaction to the author's blanket defamation of the MRM, as being somehow illegitimate.
I included the doctoral designation after my name as a reaction to the author's blanket defamation of the MRM, as being somehow illegitimate.
You believe that claiming a Ph.D. grants you and thus the MRM some sort of legitimacy?
If so and with all due respect, you might want to rethink that ploy.
------------------------------------------
The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.
- Dr Warren Hern, MD
Colleen: I believe what my experience with feminists like you has taught me, namely that you are not able to formulate logical, coherent rebuttals to any counterpoint made against your precious ideological doctrine and the agitprop it spawns. So, instead, you divert the issue, ignore the point, take a piece of an argument and treat it as the entire argument in toto, accuse you opponent of pulling you same stuff you're in fact trying to pull and, when all else fails, try to deflate your opponent via insinuation and innuendo.
Even more denigration. Hmmm who woulda thunk it?
And yes I am guilty of misspelling, I don't rightly care. After all according to MRA/FR activists women are only here to do what men want. Just go look at antimisandry.com standyourground.com or mabtw.com (men are better than women). these are just a few of the thousands out there.
Thanks, MzPetuniaPigg. I checked out these sites; antimisandry.com, standyourground.com, and mabtw.com. Seriously offensive, especially http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/. I'll read your blog for more info. Keep up the great work.
"You believe that claiming a Ph.D. grants you and thus the MRM some sort of legitimacy?"
This is a quantum leap in logic and yet another glaring FALLACY! It's also an example of projection on your part ...
a. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.
b. Psychoanalysis. such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.Referring to a complete stranger online as "my little princess" is not only patronizing and possessive but generally just... creepy.
Completly agree, that is creepy. Great post! Thanks!
Rebellious grrl ... first of all, learn to spell. Secondly, grow up. It's nowhere near as creepy as imperiously ordering a complete stranger online to get back into a cave. You can dish it out, but you can't take it. The pity is you honestly think you don't deserve it!
"Irving M. Salos, Ph.D." Was I talking to you? NO.
Can't you do better than "grow up?" Are you really showing your maturity?
Rebellious grrl - Could you please clarify your post? What does any of this have to do with punctuation? Are you a professional proofreader by any chance? Are you a rebellious girl or a rebellious grill?
Nice way to avoid the topic at hand. I think you have proved squirrely girl's point. You slam me for misspelling "Completly," when correctly spelled, completely. Yes, I'm guilty of not using spell check. Wow. You sign your name as Irving M. Salos Ph.D. Usually there's a comma after your name, before the Ph.D. But, it's about as trivial as you slamming me for misspelling one word.
And for my name, rebellious grrl, it's my homage to the riot grrrl movement. (Spelling is, grrl or grrrl)
"Can't you do better than 'grow up?'"
"Are you really showing your maturity?"
You might want to re-write these, to better convey your point.
Don't get me wrong, while I generally try to avoid telling people to go back to caves I DO see a difference between these statements. One is telling somebody to go someplace (away from them) the other is calling somebody a name (implying ownership).
my = implying ownership or possession
little = implying smaller or lesser as in NOT equal
princess = pejorative term generally used to describe a woman or girl that has been pampered, sheltered, and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no real responsibility or understanding of the real world. See: "daddy's little princess"
Unless you were using "my little princess" with the same regard as do toy stores to describe, well, toys.
Seeing as (a) she's not actually "yours" and, (b) she's of no lesser importance to this discussion than you are, and, (c) you don't really know her well enough to imply anything about her social or developmental experiences, and, (d) she's not "a toy"; your use of this term just comes across as, well... creepy. Again, it's paternalistic.
If you want other people to take you seriously, don't reduce yourself to name-calling. Rather, if you want to resort to name-calling, drop yourself back down to the "common folk" and don't hide behind a degree while you do it. And if you want people to take your movement or issue seriously, particularly on a reproductive health blog site, don't resort to misogynistic insults toward women who challenge you. That is seriously lacking in class and maturity and is not a very effective method of presenting one's arguments.
I've been advised that I am simply being baited into a prissy and redundant rank-out session. Please refer to my earlier posts for future reference. Hasta la vista, baby!
If you drag me into a fight don't expect me to be silent. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."
You called me prissy. That's seriously funny!
You, you, you! It's all about you isn't it? ALLLL about you! Nobody else! Just you! Only you!
I found some interested reading at standyourground, It looks like instructions for you from dr e.
Re: Feminist needs some facts thrown at her
« Reply #25 on: March 20, 2010, 05:47:06 AM » UNSOLICITED AND OPINIONATED SUGGESTION: Note to Irving if you are here: I would urge you to not fall for their bait. They are trying to get you into an argument over who called who what and who is the bigger name caller etc. This is a ploy to avoid the issue and make you into the bad guy. If you are the bad guy and the argument escalates they will get the thread closed and can blame you for the problem. I would urge you to apologize for the name calling and move on irregardless of what they say. After that don't get sucked into their web of petty crap. Stick to the issues. Leave a clear record of them not answering the most basic of questions.
This was posted at http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=19110.msg203417#msg203417
Could that be in reference to this post from you Irv?
I've been advised that I amI've been advised that I am simply being baited into a prissy and redundant rank-out session. Please refer to my earlier posts for future reference. Hasta la vista, baby!
Sure thing ... let's see if I understand this. Only people like you can dish out insults, put-downs or rank outs. This is because, if people like me give as good as we get, you consider it to be creepy, paternalistic, misogynistic, lacking in class, etc., etc.
And, of course, your labels, buzzwords and slogans automatically trump those of anyone else ... because you're self-righteous and sanctimonious about it.
If creepy is as good as you get, then it's time for a self chat. And if you have a Ph.D. don't you think you "could rank out" most of us? Yes, in my opinion, you are acting like a bully. You troll this blog and rail against women you don't know. Does it makes you feel better about yourself? I am defending myself from the crap you've hurled at me. And you have the nerve to insult me for defending myself! Get real.
Rebellious one - Listen up cookie, your level of egocentric self-absorption has now taken a psychopathological turn. Take a hint!
Irving, calling complete strangers "my little princess" and "cookie" is creepy. Self defense, and standing up for oneself if not self-absorption. You can comment, I can comment, anyone on this blog can comment. We are all entitled to speak our mind. Now we have come to a complete loop back to squirrely girl's post. And if you can't take the criticism of her post, than I don't know. It seams like you are pissed off at her original post and that I'm a feminist. Hmm. But, like I said before, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to.
Wow another instance of we can't beat them with our knowledge - let's just degrade them so they look stupid.
Well we don't go away so easy....
That accusation is both baseless and ridiculous!
Ms CP - I appreciate your enthusiasm for education on personality disorders, but I think you're somewhat misinformed. Most anybody who has REALLY studied such disorders would acknowledge that pretty much everybody EXCEPT the individual with the disorder knows there's something wrong with their personality. Borderline personality in particular is like "garlic on the breath." And, given the hallmark impulsive and unstable characteristics in their behaviors, most individuals with BPD are NOT very good at hiding their disordered personality. Laypersons may not know the name for it but most people "recognize" it for what it is.
It is also important to understand that not ALL vindictive people who lie, manipulate, abuse, or threaten have a personality disorder. It can often be quite exciting for people new to the area of psychiatric diagnoses to throw around a term like "personality disorder" and apply it to those they know and meet or abstractly to hypothetical cases on the internet. But ultimately these disorders really aren't all that common and this task should be left to those who actually have EXTENSIVE training in differential diagnosis. Just saying.
Indeed, one of the common myths about abuse is that abusers necessarily have some kind of disorder and that if this disorder is treated the abuse will go away. In reality, personality disorders do not cause abuse, and spreading the lie that they do creates more stigma against those with mental health issues.
If an abuser does have a mental/personality disorder, treating it does not stop the abuse. It's the same with alcoholism or drug abuse... if an abusive alcoholic goes through an AA program, you end up with a sober abuser. Abuse is the result of an entitled world-view. Only reliquishing entitlement and developing empathy ends abusive behavior.
Do you have any evidence to back up this idea? If so, can you please present it?
My understanding of abuse comes from personal experiences (mine as well as men and women I have know who have been abused in relationships), some books written by experts in the feild (I mentioned them on the first page of comments), and conversation with counselors, family, friends, and survivors.
I'm not concerned if that's not "good enough" for you (and I'm sure it isn't, just like I am sure that no internet articles out there would convince you of anything).
In all fairness, MechaSiva, your post indicates that you have more in common with MRAs than you think you do. They've spent time in prison for something they did not do and watched their false accusers get away with it, even though what the accusers did is illegal in the first place. They've worked to obtain a house, savings and other assets, only to watch their wives steal it all with a wave of a finger and a lie. No, they don't deserve it, and no, there is no history of patriarchal oppression that justifies it!!! They are reacting to bitterness, the same as you and your friends. They do NOt hate women, and they do not want to them to be "barefoot, pregnant and following ten paces respectfully behind." That Betty Crocker crap from circa 1955 is not their picture of "the ideal woman".
I disagree with everything you have to say not because I am bitter, but because it fits very clearly into the worldview of the abuser, as I understand it to be. I find you and your MRA pals very triggering, and I trust my gut.
My abuser claimed to love independent, strong women. That didn't stop him from emotionally abusing me, raping me, damaging my property, or crushing my kitten's pelvis in an uncontrolled explosion of anger (my kitten, as in my tiny adorable fluffy infant cat). So forgive me if I don't give two shits what you say you want women to be or not be.
MechSiva: What was done to you and your kitten was unconscionable! I sincerely hope that man suffers seriously for what he did to both of you.
By the way, I did not write anything about what I want women to be or not be. I merely pointed out you have more in common with MRAs than you believe you do.
Au contraire, there is definitely evidence on the Internet!
What's with the quotations around the words good enough? Who are you quoting?
No, not really. BPDs are very good at blending in and getting along, they just are not good at doing so over long periods of time consistantly. However they are also good at moving along, so that before anyone actually starts to notice they have changed circles. They are also good at getting everyone around them to assume others are crazy, not the actual BP. You might want to do some research into BPD, especially on forums where people can talk about their experiences with BPD people.
Biscuit Queen are you also aware of the multitudes of studies that have been done about incorrect diagnosis of BPD when it was actually PTSD? Are you also aware that Severe PTSD is being discussed among professionals? And what types of cases are they including and are generally at the TOP of the list for this Severe PTSD?
Ritualistic child abuse (such as sex abuse as infant or religios cults)
Severe and prolonged child abuse
Severe or prolonged domestic violence
Multiple Rapes
Most of these are cirmes and most affect women and children (notice I said MOST).
I will provide links for the BPD/PTSD misdiagnosis studies later, since some are sooooo insistent that what we say is not true.
I'm really not sure where you're getting your information, but I might suggest that "forums where people can talk about their experiences with BPD people" is in NO WAY scientific and doesn't exactly count as "research into BPD".
This is one of the fundamental flaws of internet access for the general public with regard to mental illness. People read something online and think they know EVERYTHING about a disorder when in all actuality they know what some random, self-selected people (who also have internet access and want to vent) think about their PERSONAL experiences with OTHER people who may or may not actually have a disorder.
I think I'll go back to my academic pursuits...
Folks...having done the MRA dance a thousand times...I can assure you that the goal is not the well-being of children, but rather...legal enshrinement of paternal perogative at the expense of children.
Case in point is the disconnect between the "male abortion" advocacy and the assertion that fathers are essential to their children. While it is understandable that men do not want to be coerced into biological fatherhood, the bizarre contention that women deliberately get pregnant to live high on the hog off of child support reflects the delusional nature of the MRA mindset.
And I do have to admire the chutzpah of men who insist that fathers are more important than mothers in the lives of their children while simultaneously arguing that men should have a choice whether or not to be a part of their children's lives.
MRAs want what benefits MRAs.
As the mother of three sons, I am absolutely a supporter of JPC where appropriate. The rest of the agenda is so much hooey.
I think that ahunt is the General Supreme of a very large Straw Army. I have never seen so many straw men! lol
Sigh...
Yah...thats me...
Have you ever lurked on MRA websites? Good Lord.
The facts are these: 90%+ of custody arrangements are worked out before the divorcing couple ever sees a judge. When custody is contested, men have an even shot at winning
The fact is that the vast majority of divorcing couples do put the well-being of their children first, and make arrangements accordingly. I imagine, as women become more economically self sufficient, JPC will become the norm.
Spare us the "custody" proof that men are abused and oppressed.
