Amanda of Pandagon (who is also a frequent poster on “Alas”) will be appearing on Glenn Sacks’ radio show today. (Glenn has been mentioned on “Alas” a few times in the past).
As you might recall, Glenn’s show, “His Side,” is men’s rights activist central, so if anyone’s free from 5pm to 6pm pacific time (8pm to 9pm eastern) today, I’m sure Amanda would appreciate feminists calling in to give her some support while she’s in “enemy territory.”
You can listen to the show live on the web here, where you’ll also find instructions for calling in.
And even if you can’t call in, join me in sending “good luck vibes” Amanda’s way today!
Yep. Mark Lepin, anyone ? His father beat him, so he ran out and shot a bunch of female engineers that were complete strangers to him. The “feminists” ruined his life, not his abusive old man.
It’s funny, isn’t it, how the Lepine case is almost totally forgotten? It’s like the way the FRAs want to talk about the secret feminist conspiracy instead of looking at hard numbers: how many cops are men, how many CEOs, how many politicians, presidents, this, that, and the other—all the powerful people are men. So how can you be discriminated against? Maybe they secretly fear it’s deserved. Sympathize with women and you’re out of the boys’ club.
David,
I think that what has happened to you is terrible. Nobody should have to go through anything like what you describe.
I don’t think that your proposals offer a real solution to the problems that you have experienced, though. I think that your proposals risk making things a lot worse for a lot of people at tremendous social and financial cost to the public at large. Your debit card proposal functions to take decision making away from the person chosen as CP and to give near total control to the person with greater financial power.
I do stand by what I said earlier about the issue being hurt and anger and hate and all the other emotions that go along with divorce and its related stresses. Even through your description of the horrible things that happened to you in court relating to your divorce you never voice concern for the well-being of your children. You never say that you believe that they were being mistreated or neglected or abused. It’s all about you and the bad things that happened to you. How would your debit card proposal rectify any of the ills that you describe in your summary of your experiences of divorce? It seems totally unrelated. These are the reasons that I am now against the positions of FRAs. What comes first for the fathers in these groups? Their children or themselves? I know what it sounds like from the comments on this thread.
Of course feminists despised stay at home mums
People who say this like to pretend that anti-feminists ever honored stay-at-home mothers. Sure they did–the same way that we honor our five-year-old for doing a particularly earnest macaroni sculpture in kindergarten. Being an at-home mom was always seen as a wonderful, honorable and not incidentally necessary role for women–but it certainly wasn’t good enough for men, and it wasn’t anything we honor with anything other than lip service.
Jake Squid:
The fact is I went through the process because the system said my children would otherwise be fatherless. Fatherless children?What decent parent would want that for their children? Not once do you mention what motivated their mother to viciously manipulate the system (and thus the children)themselves) in order to deprive them of a father. Given that her allegations were thoroughly investigated and found completely without merit, do you think her actions showed concern for our children’s well being?
Although I have never discussed details with them (I want them to love their mother), my children intuitively absorbed some of what I went through to remain a part of their lives. Why can’t you realize that THEY wanted me and THEY needed me? My children were the only thing that kept me going. How could I let them down? My concern for my children’s well being is evident and needs no further definition. You see what you want to see. I could have given up…then I would have fit nicely into your stereotype of the deadbeat dad.
As for the debit card issue, it’s not an important concern of mine. I simply joined the discussion and offered some suggestions while you criticized and demanded to know the cost, if I recall. Rules directing support to groceries instead of cigarettes seems to have at least an element of common sense. Even if this idea were shown to save you money, you still, apparently, don’t like the idea because it infringes on a CPs ‘freedom’ to spend support on cigarettes. What’s left to discuss?
No, I believe the critisms on your debit card had nothing to do with the ex-spouse’s “freedom” and more that it was patently ridiculous. YOU, would have control of your children’s money. So, it was all about about what you could force your ex to not have. Car’s TOO luxorious? House is TOO big? Meals TOO nice? I don’t think that shows a lot of concern for women.
Okay, David, you’ve been through a horrible experience where your adversary beat you at all facets of the contest. I understand that and I feel badly for you.
What changes, specifically, are you advocating? The only thing that I can remember is the debit card idea. When you propose a change, you should expect to receive questions and criticisms of that proposal. Coming up with answers to those questions and criticisms should either strengthen your proposal or lead you to discard it. You haven’t answered the questions and criticisms.
Sure you could have given up. But giving up does not mean you become a “deadbeat dad.” Not paying child support is what causes you to become a “deadbeat dad.”
It is clear that in the conflict between you and your ex-wife that only one of you could “win.” By that I mean that only one of you was going to wind up as the CP and have the lion’s share of the time with and responsibility for them. She won, or has won thus far. Given that only one of you will ever win due to the animosity between the two of you what is the fairest outcome? Not knowing either of you I am unable to judge, thus I must rely on the judgement of the courts. It is absolutely possible that you were jobbed and that you went in front of incompetent or biased judges. That happens. How can the current system be improved without simply shifting the bias from mothers to fathers?
You mention in your summary of your tribulations a number of issues that should be addressed. What are your proposals to deal with each of those?
For example, my wife sued a dentist for malpractice. For a variety of reasons, we represented ourselves for a while. When facing a motion for summary judgement, we were not allowed to conceal the identity of our expert witness because in our state only a lawyer is allowed to do that. A person representing themselves must disclose the name of the expert. That severely handicaps anybody representing themselves and is, in my view, patently unfair. So, after defeating the motion and being forced to reveal our expert’s identity, I went to my state representative and had that rule in the civil code changed to allow a person representing themself to conceal their expert just as a lawyer can.
What have you done or tried to do? What reasons were given to you as to why those proposed changes couldn’t be implemented?
Very few things in life are fair. Your ex played the system better than you did. So propose changes to improve the system. Expect questions and criticisms of those proposals and answer them. Realize that your views may be colored by the intense emotions you have about your whole experience.
Amanda,
Thank you, I was hoping you would provide what is obviously in your head. I agree with your points, My ex-husband and I followed your recommendations to a tee when we divorced (I did not have your recommendations at that time obviously). That is why I am very disappointed that you don’t SPECIFY in your writing that your recommendations are directed at both parties involved in the divorce. Unfortunately I FEEL they are clearly one-sided.
One last note, I’m involved with mediations for others divorcing as well as the best interest of children, I won’t be able to refer them to your writing because of your foul words “6) Don’t talk shit about your ex”, “Well, none of that will give you the satisfaction of fucking with your ex”
but I will reference them as well as possible because I think you have good points.
HEY THANKS AGAIN, I ALMOST GAVE UP.
AMP,
YOU ARE RIGHT! I had absolutely no opinion before now, what opinion I do have I learned right here, over the last few days. My opinion on teaching people what you think and feel, is that intelligent people share AND OBJECT/DISAGREE respectfully and use decent words. Anything less shows paltriness and a lack of credibility. That is how I see it, how you see is important as well.
Looks like I’m the last one left standing here. Who says I can’t take criticism. Sorry, will not have time to carry all of you…
Antigone: Neither you, nor anyone else has established that I would have control of anything. Jake Squid, please explain fallacy to Antigone and direct her to your website links.
Jake Squid: “Very few things in life are fair.” Fallacy in this context – consult your website links”
Jake Squid: “Coming up with answers to those questions and criticisms should either strengthen your proposal or lead you to discard it.” Fallacy in this context – consult you website link.
Jake Squid: “You haven’t answered the questions and criticisms.” False statement therefore fallacious ( True statement: I haven’t come around to your way of thinking)
Jake Squid: “Not paying child support is what causes you to become a ‘deadbeat dad.'” Again, fallacy. Ampersand has stated on this forum that the biggest single reason for not paying support is poverty. Involuntary unemployment, becoming permanently and totally disabled, extended deployment in the armed services…need I go on?
Jake Squid: “It is clear that in the conflict between you and your ex-wife that only one of you could “win.”? Fallacy. Presumes facts not established. For one thing, I divorce a violent, controlling spouse.
Jake Squid: “By that I mean that only one of you was going to wind up as the CP and have the lion’s share of the time with and responsibility for them.” Multiple fallacies. Presumes both were requesting to be CP. Presumes custody=responsibility (goes back to your fallacious presumption that NCPs are inherently less qualified parents). etc.
Jake Squid: “What have you done or tried to do? What reasons were given to you as to why those proposed changes couldn’t be implemented?” … “So propose changes to improve the system. Expect questions and criticisms of those proposals and answer them.” You seem remarkably uninformed of the social and political efforts of FRAs for someone who has made up their mind on the matter. Read on….
Jake Squid: “Not knowing either of you I am unable to judge, thus I must rely on the judgement of the courts.” Fallacy. You need place no reliance on the courts whatsoever. You CHOOSE to rely. I prevailed on every judgment made by the court, to include one judge scolding my ex for her behavior.” It’s not their judgment at issue. It’s the system in which they operate that allows it to become a pig-circus in the first place, in my view.
Jake Squid: “Your ex played the system better than you did.” See my previous sentence.
I would hate to think that you are using your anecdote about your dentist to support your position in a debate. If so, consult your website link. Anecdotes aside, it’s interesting that when your dentist “played the system” better than you you complain it’s “…patently unfair.” The judge apparently followed the law in ruling against you. You sought to change the law. FRAs attempt to rectify what they find patently unfair through the social and political process. Welcome to democracy. For FRAs the job is exponentialy more complex and difficult because it involves not only legal concepts, entrenched government bureauracracies and huge vested financial interests, but social values as well. Welcome to the ideological debate. I’m willing to quibble ideologiesl with you here but if you are interested an explanation of the specific social and political efforts of FRAs, consult a legitimate FRA organization.
“all the powerful people are men. So how can you be discriminated against?”
Indeed, very good point….and one I sincerely doubt any of the pro-FRA types will come up with a decent response to. Because the real answer is obvious.
Ginmar said: “If your husband’s ex is truly spending all her time in a bar, why, exactly, hasn’t the hubbie gone to court about it? Oh, wait, lemme guess. It’s because the courts are so biased against men, even though most of the judges are men, and conservative men at that.”
Bingo! That’s exactly the point, conservative men, more than anyone, are notorious for their *chivalrous* attitudes, for the idea of rigid sex roles, and for the idea that women need *protecting*. So it is to this ex-wife’s advantage that the judges are “conservative men.” Though I’d have to say there is little evidence that most judges are anything approaching conservative and honestly there are tons of women judges.
If I were an ex-wife who was pissing away money and not using it properly on the children, I’d far rather go before one of the male judges than a woman…the woman would see through my garbage where the man would want to protect motherhood and apple pie. This isn’t exactly rocket science, or don’t I hear feminists complaining about chivalrous attitudes and men being protective?
Yeah, I think that “protecting” of women only goes as far as controling their action. If judges and cops were so interested in “protecting” women then more rape and DV cases would be getting prosecuted.
But by all means, make sure there are not sexist judges out there. Then they can look at the “primary caregiver” precedent without regard to gender at all. And while we’re at it, make sure that includes homosexuals getting custody of their kids as well
Her question was posed as mocking the very idea that there is bias against men in the courtroom, due to the fact, she claims, that all these conservative male judges must naturally be biased in favor of men.
In fact, by pointing to conservative male judges she destroyed her own argument, since they are notoriously chivalrous and harder on men (for example they regard a stay-at-home dad as a deadbeat and a stay-at-home mom as apple-pie American and to be preserved.)
That was the extent of the point, and it holds.
What exactly do FRAs think that judges have against men? Why do they “hate” men? What is the historical cause of this animosity? The entire history of the world has been a history of women’s oppression–did the handful of secret female superiorists all become judges and take over the court system secretly?
In fact, by pointing to conservative male judges she destroyed her own argument, since they are notoriously chivalrous and harder on men (for example they regard a stay-at-home dad as a deadbeat and a stay-at-home mom as apple-pie American and to be preserved.)
Got any proof for this or are you as usual pulling stuff out of your ass? Notoriously chivalrous—to whom? Nicole Simpson?
The fact is, conservatism is no friend to women. Conservatives want to protect women all right—-from other men, not from themselves. And if a woman is not a stay at home apple-pie American, she’s fucked because she’s a bad mother. ONly good mothers—perfect, sexless, self-sacrificing—get the chivalrous treatment, if in fact they get more than lip service and hypocrisy.
Yeah, conservatives sure do want to protect those wimmenfolks! Just don’t ask why t hey’re not interested in letting women protect themselves against all men, while having no right to defend against conservative scumbags who want to control everybody else’s life.
In fact, by pointing to conservative male judges she destroyed her own argument, since they are notoriously chivalrous and harder on men (for example they regard a stay-at-home dad as a deadbeat and a stay-at-home mom as apple-pie American and to be preserved.)
That was the extent of the point, and it holds.
I don’t think it does hold, Sloopy. The same judges you use as potentially biased in favor of women due to protectiveness would also fall prey to the same sorts of hateful bias that go hand in hand with that stereo-type. Mom was screwing around on dad? Slut’s don’t raise children.
The only way your point holds is -if- mom is fulfilling the apple-pie American dream, otherwise she gets to be with the bad women in the not so nice stereo-types. You know, the drinking and frivolously spending away all of poor good ole’ American Billy down at Maytag’s hard earned paycheck.
Argh, somehow I ended up posting almost the same thing you did Ginmar. Your comment hadn’t shown up yet when I made my post, but yes, exactly. I agree. I concur. I’m on that page too! ;)
The belief that women are natural caretakers of children, and so it’s always in the best interests of the child to be placed with the mother. Do you really find it impossible to suppose that this belief exists, or that some judges might adhere to it?
As Kim (bv!) and Ginmar have pointed out, this belief often comes combined with other, anti-woman beliefs – such as the belief that a woman can’t be a good mother if she’s serious about her career, or is a lesbian, or doesn’t live like a nun. These sexist beliefs, in many cases, might counteract or mitigate the sexist belief that only women can raise children.
But that doesn’t mean that there have never been any cases where a judge’s sexist belief that kids always belong with mom decided custody.
But that doesn’t mean that there have never been any cases where a judge’s sexist belief that kids always belong with mom decided custody.
Also doesn’t rule out the chance that they might have been biased against because of the ‘not fitting in’ to the June Cleaver stereo-type.
Heh, Kim. Great minds think alike.
Thank you for letting my know what ignorance I have in store for me in getting my bill passed by US citizens voting on it- Not a Communistic society that Jake so blantanly accused me of. I only posted and honest question and what I got was alot of people thrashing me and my husband (who is a great guy and makes sure all his kids needs are meet) and meanwhile got a nice email saying how I was the one that was criticising. Okay, “Why don’t you go look at the thread and see the truth?” OR “are you blind to?” I doubt this will be printed because the owner will probably not allow it thus negatting my first amendment rights to speech. Thank you and GOD BLESS!!!
ginmar: “Got any proof for this or are you as usual pulling stuff out of your ass? Notoriously chivalrous…to whom? Nicole Simpson?”
ginmar, nobody can prove much of anything to you until you stop continually discounting everything that ruffles your feathers as coming out of someone’s ass. From what you’ve demonstrated here, a lot of what is in your head should be coming out of your ass.
I only posted and honest question and what I got was alot of people thrashing me and my husband (who is a great guy and makes sure all his kids needs are meet) and meanwhile got a nice email saying how I was the one that was criticising.
You posted an idea that mostly held a great deal of malice and scorn towards custodial parents. You immediately identified yourself as a victim, and as time went on you showed that the victimization was very much a questionable thing. Your husband works under the table so doesn’t even claim all of the money he makes. Your husband does not pay alimony, only child support, and even then right around 125.00 a month per child. You blame your husbands ex-wife for having a better lifestyle than you because she married a man that makes more than your husband, and accuse her of being a drunken and neglectful mother, but admit that it’s based on the rantings of a teenage son who is going through a phase of not getting along with his mother. You do this in the presence of a bunch of people that are also parents that take their roles VERY seriously, and the responsibility that their roles entail VERY seriously and want sympathy. In short, you’ve portrayed little else than a picture of a person intent on controlling and disregarding the children of your ex-husband to get out of having to pay a minimal amount of money towards their support. What do you want? A standing effing ovation over how you’ve overcome adversity with such grace and aplomb? I don’t think so.
I doubt this will be printed because the owner will probably not allow it thus negatting my first amendment rights to speech.
Eh? This is a private board that you are allowed to participate in at the grace of the blog owner, not a public square. This site is very clear on it’s politics, and you either didn’t bother to figure out what those politics were or thought that your stellar and convincing arguments would suddenly make the rest of us see another light. Unlike David, you’ve barely shown a case of question, much less anything more serious. It sucks that you’re broke, but guess what – their are plenty of families that are together that are way more broke than you and trying to make ends meet. Be happy that your step-children live in good conditions and that you have a home payment you can at least ‘struggle’ to make.
Um, David, Sweetie? You belong to a group that makes up 100% of US presidents and a majority of the powerful of the lawmakers and administratos in the US. Sorry to burst your bubble, but whines about how hard you have it need to be supported by more than, “OMG, I have suffered, and therefore all y’all beyotches need to step back cuz I am the most important here.” I’m not gonna prove your case for you. The number don’t look good for you, either. Sealing the deal is you bitching about ‘ruffling feathers.’ Think about it, Dave, seriously. Wanna rely on a stereotype of ‘hens’ to make your case? Because nothing says genuine to me more than some guy bitching that though he’s part of the group that makes up 100% of US presidents, 98% of the Congress, 980-% of the judiciary, he’s still somehow discriminated against by a powerful group that’s a majority only amongst the poor, the raped, the murdered, the abused, and the powerless.
Yeah, David. So what were you saying, again?
ginmar:” Yeah, David. So what were you saying, again?”
David: “From what you’ve demonstrated here, a lot of what is in your head should be coming out of your ass.”
Cry me a river. Where’s the smilie with the violins.
David: Were your children literally ripped from your arms by order of the state?
Nope. Mine were literally ripped from my arms by their father– after he’d broken down the door of our apartment. They were 18 months and three years old. He had beaten me within an inch of my life for all four of the years we had lived together.
This was 1974. There were no laws against a father doing what he did– he was just a father with his kids. The police didn’t do anything. They didn’t even look for him. I did though– for six weeks. I papered the West Coast and Vancouver B.C. with posters: “Have you seen these children?” He finally called me. I pretended I was going to go back to him so I could find out where the kids were. They were 1,800 miles and three states away. I flew there, got a court order, a police escort, and got them back.
He then followed me back to Washington and tried to kill me by beating me with a metal pipe, fracturing my skull, fracturing my eye sockets.
All because he was really so interested in being a good dad. Because what he really wanted all along was to be with his children.
Huh.
He was found guilty of assault with intent to commit murder and with a deadly weapon and went to the state penitentiary. He was released briefly after 12 years and tried to kill another woman and was sent back to the pen, where he died eight years ago.
Did you spend weeks trying to locate them?
Yep.
Was your accesss to them severely limited by a court because of false allegations?
Nope. My access was prevented by their father, who hid them from me after seizing them. And nobody could do a thing about it in those days. He was just a father with his kids. The police didn’t even look for them.
Did you instantly become homeless and have nowhere to go?
Yep. The moment I left him after having been beaten silly for years, I was homeless, with nowhere to go, with two little boys to care for, and the hell of it was, he could find me, because I had a job as a cocktail waitress in a bar and I needed to support my kids. His idea of “work” was high stakes gambling which resulted several times in thugs breaking into our apartment and taking everything we had to satisfy his gambling debts.
Did you spend six months in the bowels of family court PROVING those allegations false at great emotional and financial expense?
I spent four years in hell at the hands of a batterer. When I at first left him, he sought custody, and I had to spend over a year in the bowels of family court PROVING I was not a slut (because I had a boyfriend, in part to protect me from HIM, which is often why women fleeing have boyfriends and are hence called sluts), PROVING I would be a better parent, because after all, he’d be home on welfare and would have time for them, whereas I’d be holding down a job (and, don’t forget, I was a slut, because I had a boyfriend, so I’d be a bad influence). When the family court officials were clearly coming down on my side he broke down my door and took the kids. When I got them back, he tried to kill me.
Did you wonder how this was possible in America?
Nope. I KNEW how it was possible. Because unlike David, unlike most men, I don’t have a sense of entitlement roughly the size of the Rocky Mountain Range. I have never, and will never, enjoy male privilege. I expected to be judged harshly by society, my family and the courts because (1) I was a cocktail waitress; (2) I was a single mom and had left my husband and was divorcing him; (3) I had a boyfriend and hence I was a slut. I knew what I was up against in America, I knew America was not really my country and that its government and laws were not meant to protect me– EVER.
Did you long to see your children everyday yet were told you had no legal right to do so?
I was prevented from doing so because their father took them and hid them, and I was told I had no legal recourse because they were just kids with their dad.
Were you told that, as a man, any protest you made of this treatment would be construed as creating “conflict”? and increase the chance of being barred from any meaningful contact with your children?
The “as a man” part is bullshit. Parental alienation syndrome is actually a weapon FRAs use far and away against custodial mothers, not the other way around.
And no, I wasn’t told any such thing, I didn’t have any way to protest this treatment short of risking my life to find and retrieve my children.
Were you then subject to the worst kind of character assasination by the best sleazy lawyer money could buy?
Yep. Even though all I was was a mother, completely nonviolent, a pacifist, a battered woman, the only working parent, a conscientious mother to my children. Before he tried to kill me, hell yeah, he did all he could to assassinate my character, in every way he could.
Did you then spend another 6 months in the bowels of the family court system and your entire life savings again clearing your good name?
I had no money. I was poor. I had the clothes on my back, my babies, and my job. You had life savings to spend. Most single moms do not.
Ugh, I hit submit before I was done.
But I think I made my point.
Before the feminist movement, dads held ALL of the cards. ALL. Going back a hundred years, women could not divorce, period, almost without exception, but if they did, they had no rights to property or their children, they left with the clothes on their back.
Until the Second Wave, there were no rules against battering one’s wife, against a man raping his wife, against fathers beating children. Fathers got away with paying no child support at all and with taking their children, too, because laws around custody and support were not reciprocal from state to state and could not be enforced in other than the state in which custody and support orders were entered.
Most of what Fathers’ Rights men have posted to this thread is bullshit. When a father seeks custody now days, 85 percent of the time, he is awarded custody. Most fathers don’t get custody because they don’t seek it. Many fathers abuse their wives and don’t admit it. They also abuse their kids and don’t admit it. Time and time again I’ve heard or read fathers complaining of their poor treatment in the court, only to see them later admit to abuse without even realizing what they are admitting they did WAS abuse (or rape or neglect). In most states, courts enter joint parenting plans, custody is shared, and both parents pay child support. If one does not actually cut a check, it’s because the amount one has to pay is offset by the amount the other has to pay because one earns more than the other. Fathers Rights types OFTEN seek to be custodial parents not because they really want custody but because they want a favorable child support order based on the kids residing with them. Once the courts enter the order, they don’t actually care for their children and leave them with the children’s mother far more than the court orders specify, meaning she is bearing the lion’s share of the care and is paying for it and is not receiving adequate support because support amounts were awarded based on the children spending most of their time with their fathers. When the dads get a bug up their butt and decided suddenly that they want their kids to spend time with them — usually without regard to what the parenting plans actually say — and the mothers won’t agree to it, they scream that the mothers are “keeping them from their kids,” without acknowledging that they haven’t wanted their kids with them anywhere near the amount of time specified in the plan and without acknowledging their own failure to adequately provide for their kids in that they deceived the courts and their wives from the get-go. As to all of this support that is not being spent on the kids: bullshit. If the kids are living with their mothers, their mothers are spending the child support caring for the kids. PERIOD. In my second divorce, I had to pay my ex (who took an early retirement five years before our divorce) “spousal maintenance” for the year we were divorcing, even though he got retirement and was living free with friends. I ended up with all the bills, the mortgage, primary custody and responsibility for my business. He paid $261 per month — for seven minor children. He has seen them once since the divorce 11 years ago. And has made a huge stink with the kids when they asked for a little extra money, because after all, that gigantic, princely sum of $261 should be spent for *them* and what am I doing with it anyway.
And my story is COMMON. There are variations woman to woman, but MOST of us have experiences along these lines.
And of course, as to my first husband, I never got a penny and my “kids” are now 31 and 33. He couldn’t pay support in that he was in jail for trying to kill their mother, me.
I have no doubt that some women deal unfairly with their kids’ fathers, but you know what? For MILLENNIA women received NO justice at all under male heterosupremacy. And most of the time, we still don’t. It will be a long time before we begin to. In the meantime, just as billions of us suffered the injustices which were our lot, a *few* of you will suffer a tiny portion of what MOST of us suffered. Things are tough all over.
So like I say, cry me a river. If you men really do care so much about your children, here are my suggestions: pay your fucking child support every month, on time, work overtime if you have to, borrow money when you have to, (because that’s what we custodial mothers have to do, work overtime and borrow money), show up on time for visitation, show up EVERY time for visitation, remember birthdays and Christmas, show up at school for conferences and events, don’t lay your hand on your kids violently to “discipline” them — EVER — don’t badmouth their mothers to them or to anyone, OR your in-laws, and live as responsible adult citizens.
Because does anybody here really believe that we custodial mothers would NOT want shared custody with men we could trust? Would not want that break, that comfort, that support, that respite, that time to themselves, to be able to take off once in a while, to be able to enjoy some peace and quiet on occasion without our kids around? Does anybody here really believe that mothers would NOT want their kids to enjoy a good relationship with a decent father? If you do believe that, you are sorely deluded. And I don’t believe YOU. I think you want what men had until feminism: your way or the highway. Fatherhood on your own terms. Well, thank the goddess, those days are long gone.
Heart
Gee, I wonder if David or Robert will show up now.
Amanda: “What exactly do FRAs think that judges have against men?”
You mean you are a spokesperson for your cause and you don’t know? This only invites the suggestion that your arguments have thier root in prejudice rather than reasons.
Amand: “Why do they “hate”? men? What is the historical cause of this animosity?”
If I understand you correctly, one is to take your rhetorcal questions to mean that judges don’t hate men and there is no “historical animosity.” Why don’t you just say so and establish that as your premise. If you again phrase it as a question because you don’t know, a little research on this subject may lead you to an appropriate rebuttal if a legitimate FRA were to ever assert that judges hate men and the animosity is historical.
Amanda: “The entire history of the world has been a history of women’s oppression”“” A remarkable display of sexism depite that by some estimates the “world” predates women by hundreds of billions of years.
Amanda: “-did the handful of secret female superiorists all become judges and take over the court system secretly?”
Am I to understand that there are secret ones too?
Not one word of your rebuttal made a lick of sense. Checkmate!
Cheryl,
I haven’t heard anyone here advocate beating a spouse, kidnapping children, rape, or child abuse.
You say: “Until the Second Wave, there were no rules against battering one’s wife, against a man raping his wife, against fathers beating children.” — I’m not sure at what point in history your “Second Wave” occurred but I don’t believe this society, or any society from which this country evolved, condoned, promoted, or encouraged any such behavior. I’m willing to change my mind if you can show me that beating your spouse is or was codified in America, an accepted social norm or that such behavior is today socially acceptable. Certainly not denying the behaviour exists, simply that it is not, nor has it been the widely accept norm since the dawn of civilization, if ever.
You say: “Fathers got away with paying no child support at all and with taking their children, too, because laws around custody and support were not reciprocal from state to state and could not be enforced in other than the state in which custody and support orders were entered.” – – – You are really making a mish-mash out of the history of custody and support. So much so as to be innaccurate and take way too lengthy an explanation to set you straight. Since we both were subject to what is most likely the current law you would do best to focus on that.
From what you tell me about yourself and your spouse, frankly I’m surprised that the state didn’t take the children away from BOTH of you (or all 4 of you. It’s a bit hard to know with 2 ex husbands, 7 children or more, boyfriends, etc). I noted several inconsistencies in your story. All I can say is it doesn’t sound like either of you were very responsible breeders let alone parents. God, poverty is such an ugly thing, yet when combined with such ‘white trash’ behavior my heart breaks even more for children in such an environment.
Your situation in no way compares to mine except that we each probably wish we ‘d have chosen different people to have children with.
ginmar, see my previous message to you…
“… ‘white trash’ behavior…”
Charming. Really charming, David. Don’t you think that it’s time you hied yourself back to Glenn-land now, or wherever it is you came from ?
“Your situation in no way compares to mine…”
No, it doesn’t. Your life was never in danger, was it ? Only, it would seem, your obviously gargantuan ego and corresponding sense that everything should go your way, because you’re the man. [shakes head] Gevalt.
Amanda,
Thanks for reading. It is my sincere hope that someday you acquire the capacity to understand every word. BINGO!
Breeders? Oh my goddess, wtf? Cheryl, you’re story is heartbreaking. David, where exactly is your empathy? Seriously.
Eh. David’s a sore loser. They all are. The hit dawgs howl.
It’s really worse than David suspects though: I’m not only a breeder, I am a *rank* breeder. I have given birth to not 7, not nine, but 11 children. And one reason is, I was a conservative Christian for 20 years and the group I was part of forbade birth control. If you do not use birth control, breeding happens, yanno. I was kind of ashamed of this until one day my 29yo daughter — a radical feminist, like me — told me how much she admired me. Men so often preen over their habit of spreading their seed around and knocking up all sorts of women; I had plenty of fun along the way with a number of men, had all of those many beautiful babies, and raised them myself and did a bang-up job. Heh heh. Only a few left to go now, and it’s easy, given that I’ve been at it for 33 years. And I’ve got grandkids now and amazingly cool daughters-in-law, too– lots of family for support and help. I’m a stunning matriarch with a whole lot of life and energy left in me to dole shit out to the likes of David.
Cause ya know, I am strong as fuck. Seven of my children are adults now, all gainfully employed, not a one of them has ever been in trouble with the law, given me a lick of trouble, nothing, despite their deadbeat, violent dads. I homeschooled my kids through high school, for over 20 years, and five of them went on to college. One is on a pre-med track and is a straight A student on full scholarships at a prestigious private school.
I don’t really qualify for white trash, although I feel a bond with those who are called white trash, people who are poor and live very simply, on the land, as I do. But my first two husbands were black, so white trash doesn’t really describe my family. And I live on a six-acre farm in the Pacific Northwest with a beautiful stream adjacent, a barn, a beautiful house, sheep and chickens, orchards, gardens, which I bought after I sued eight organizations on the Religious Right when they put me out of business — for divorcing my second (fundie) ex– you know, the really godly one who has seen his kids once in 11 years and complains (from the bar at the casino where he preaches the gospel daily) about paying $261 a month in child support. With that judgment, won with the help of kickass feminist woman attorneys, I made a great life for myself and my kids.
That women were chattel through the early 1800s, not entitled to own land, nor to divorce, nor to vote, nor to have custody of children when they divorced, is common knowledge. Nothing at all complicated or esoteric or mysterious about it. That through the 60s there was not reciprocal recognition of custody and child support orders is also common knowledge– easily verifiable. Marital rape was not outlawed in all 50 states until very recently. Children may still be legally abused, beaten, in most states in the U.S., though not Europe. Beating of wives was viewed as a “domestic matter” before the DV shelter movement of the 60s and 70s, courtesy of feminism.
So, David, you need to do a little homework. In the meantime, you are Exhibit A of the danger the Mens/Fathers’ Rights movements are to women and to children. Thank god, most people don’t take you at all seriously.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
You know, after reading David’s story, I have been feeling a bit sad for him that he seemed to possibly be one of the unfortunate folks (both men and women) who end up in a bad situation due to circumstances beyond their control.
I then spent a good twenty minutes reading Cheryl’s post and feeling a profound sadness and then relief (that the system has begun to reflect the needed changes).
I then read David’s retort, and suddenly David’s character and motivations became far more clear. David is only worried about David. David has tunnel vision, in which the only victims are the ones that David deems ‘victimized’. Otherwise, David will summarily dismiss any information that might shed perspective that he chooses not to see. The world in which David lives is of David’s design.
Not only are there no inconsistencies in what I say, what I say is a matter of public record courtesy of my law suit against three conservative Christian churches and five organizations on the Religious Right. All anybody has to do is google my name.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
That women were chattel through the early 1800s
This is a typo. Women were chattel in the U.S. through the early 1900s. And of course, they are still chattel in a huge number of countries throughout the world.
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
And thanks for all the support, alsis, Kim, Antigone. The system has begun to change, but men can still work it, and they work it well; hence, the ongoing and continuing need for committed feminist activism.
In solidarity with you, and you, Amanda, and all the kickass feminists here,
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff
Heart
http://www.gentlespirit.com/margins
Cheryl, you’re quite a poster child for the cause…
I’m sorry for not expressing more empathy with respect to the physical abuse/ brutal assault(s) you sufferred. I would not wish it on anyone.
Still waiting for directions to credible information that would suggest that battering one’s wife, beating one’s child, raping ones wife, is or was the prevailing social norm in our society. Anyone…
No problem, Hearrt. Hey, as long as these guys are around, we probably won’t have time to argue with each other. Silver linings, don’t you know. :/
Errr… David, have you tried hitting the archives of this very blog ? How about any one of the many, many feminist blogs listed on this blog’s main page. That would do for a start, if your question is genuine and not just more smoke-blowing. You could also, oh, I don’t know— try googling “domestic violence history” into your handy search engine. That would give you stuff along the lines of:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html
So David, out of curiousity, do you recall that old ‘Honeymooner’s’ line, “One of these days, Alice! Bang! Zoom! Straight to the moon!!” Many laughed. What do you suppose this implied? Couldn’t be a humorous threat to violence, right?
What about men smacking women in old movies – to calm them down from hysteria, you know?
Not tangible enough for you? How about reading this study that discusses the romanticization of domestic abuse, control and violence against women with media and literature.
There is tons more out there, all just waiting for you to google up.
KIm, you’re wasting your time. David’s character could not have more perfectly revealed if he’d tried, even though he does try to conceal it.
David’s biggest problem isn’t what he claims he’s suffered: it’s the revenge that he intends to get. And somehow I don’t think he’s just hostile to his ex; his behavior here has pretty clearly revealed how hostile he is to other women.
In response to David’s request for additional information:
Here is a legislative history of child support.
http://www.childsupport-aces.org/LegislativeHistory.htm
Here is an extensive, annotated history of the movement to end domestic violence against women. :
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/herstory/herstory.html
Here is a history of the movement to make marital rape illegal. It is still not altogether illegal in some states in the United States where there are “exemptions” for husbands:
http://www.vaw.umn.edu/documents/vawnet/mrape/mrape.html#id75103
Here is an article on violence against children in the United States:
http://www.childadvocate.org/1a_research.htm
Alsis, I was thinking the same thing, heh heh.
Heart
David, you know that you don’t actually have a case that men have been systematically oppressed for all of human history like women have, so instead you called me “sexist” when what you meant was “speciesist”. How big a stretch do you have to make? My female cat bests my male cat in their play fighting all the time, true, but what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Perhaps you would like to point to the mythological Amazonian culture to make your case for historical male oppression that is contributing to your perceived victimhood. Or maybe Martians are matriarchal? You could go with that.
David Says:
“I don’t believe this society, or any society from which this country evolved, condoned, promoted, or encouraged [battering one’s wife].”
(I realize this isn’t going to register, but) David, seriously, are you actually that ignorant of American history that you think that men were never legally allowed to hit their wives for disobedience? Or is it not “battering” if there are rules about it?
Oh, c’mon. Why are you all picking on poor David ? His silence CLEARLY means that he is off reading tons of readily-accessable DV History links and having his consciousness raised about how he lives in a patriarchy– the same one all his ancestors did.
Yeah, sure he is. And I won $500,000 playing video p*k*r last night after he left. I’m hopping on the Concorde now and going to Paris for a nice twelve-course champagne brunch. Any of you want to join me ? :/
Still waiting for directions to credible information that would suggest that battering one’s wife, beating one’s child, raping ones wife, is or was the prevailing social norm in our society.
You have an oxymoron in there, David. Until recently, there was no such thing as “raping one’s wife.” Rape laws specifically excluded anything that happened between husband and wife.
Here’s an example for you: a 1986 Alabama criminal case where laws against forcible sodomy did not apply to spouses.
http://www.law.ua.edu/colquitt/crimmain/crimcase/wms.htm
Hate to break it to you, but the VAST majority of victims of violent crimes are male. You’re never going to find a single legit statistics that’s going to state females are victims of crime more often than males. Fact of the matter is the more violent the crime, the more likely the victim is male. Stats show that in EVERY nation that collects them. Funny part about DV is most victims of familial violence are male. DV stats only count intimate partners, and don’t include men, lesbsians or gays in their stats. Or worse they take them from centers and shelters. That’s like going to a hospital and asking how many people are sick. But if you include familial violence (the cops do, that’s why it called a “domestic” distrubance), then men are just slightly more likely to be victims. Don’t believe me? Go check out the stats on for 2003 on the FBI’s website.
You’re right about the laws though. Like how most state’s rape laws say you have to be female to be raped. Or like how sodomy laws exactly imply that both parties were willing participants. Laws are funny like that. But that’s why we have Supreme Courts.
And, just because I noticed a whole lot of “wifebeater” and “baby raper” rhetorictic being thrown around, here’s this link: http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/cb/publications/cm02/summary.htm
My favorite part is this: “Female perpetrators, mostly mothers, were typically younger than male perpetrators, mostly fathers. Women also comprised a larger percentage of all perpetrators than men, 58 percent compared to 42 percent”
Just food for thought. Attack away.
alsis,
I’m in. Paris sounds fantastic right about now. :)
Yeah, but Paris gets more tourists. Tourists mean people like, oh, I don’t know—David there, who probably bellows at people in English in their own country, and gets genuinely offended when they treat him like a presumptuous brat. Azay-le-Rideau, anyone? Langeis? And a patisserie on every corner. Sigh.
*sigh* somebody link Drake, and tell him why his information is false and misleading. I don’t want to.
Drake:
I hate to break it to you, but no one here has said that women are the majority of victims of all violent crime. No one.
I really hate it when people just spout off irrelevant boilerplate, rather than reading and responding to the actual discussion content of the discussion. And, of course, if I don’t let your comment through – even though it’s obvious that you’re not really responding to what people here have actually written – you’ll whine about me being a “censor.”
Actually, that’s true only of murder – which is, relatively to other crimes, very rare. (Which is good!) What I’d call the next most traumatic crime – rape – happens far more often to women than men.
Well, it depends on what source you use. Anyone who says absolutist statements like “DV stats only count X, and don’t count Y,” etc., is showing that they’re ignorant – because not all data collections are the same.
For instance, the CDC-DOJ survey of violence, conducted by the federal government, included men and women, lesbians and gays, in their study.
They didn’t include child abuse – and you’re right, many statistics show that women are the majority of child abusers. (Why on earth do you think that would be news to me?) My guess is that’s because women are so much more likely to be parents (the vast majority of single parents are women), and even when there are two parents the mother spends far more time with the child (typically).
Only in states which make a meaningless distinction between “rape” and some other term for male victims, like “sexual assault.” If I’m wrong, show me – with a link, not just with your unsupported say-so – a state where the rape and sexual assault laws preclude men being victims.
I’d be interested in a link to such a law. Do you know how many states have such a law? What are men’s rights activists doing to change these laws?
Anyway, if you come back, please try actually reading and responding to what’s actually been written here, rather than just repeating boilerplate arguments. Also, please try to dial back your condescending attitude a few notches. Thanks.
Wow–I don’t think I’ve actually seen an MRA pretend that men get raped as often as women. We’re close to the pure insanity tipping point–anyday now they are going to start making noise about how women force sex on men more than the other way around.
Amanda, I’ve had some guys come really, really close to that very argument. That, and one where they argue that rape is so much worse for men than for women.
Amp, (you don’t mind if I call you that, do you?) just how familiar are you with the US legal system? Since my dad’s a lawyer, I’ve been around law my whole life. Sodomy laws were written with the implication that ALL acts of sodomy were illegal. That means consenual acts too. But, you asked for a link. Is this fine: http://www.sodomylaws.org/sensibilities/introduction.htm It’s a little on the long side, but I think this proves my point: White said that Georgia was justified in outlawing private, consensual sodomy because of the “presumed belief of a majority of the electorate in Georgia that homosexual sodomy is immoral and unacceptable.” Thus, merely because the state long had interfered with sexual activity between consenting adults, that was sufficient constitutional justification for permitting them to continue doing so.
And guess what, until recently ALL states had sodomy laws like that.
For the rape law, that’s really easy. Check here: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape
Lots of states have modified their laws under pressure from child abuse groups, prison right activists, and a ton of male victims and their families and supporters like the women from the Independant Women’s Forum. Now when I say modified, most of the time it’s only in court. The law isn’t rewritten or revised. It’s just applied to other people. Some states do have gender neutral rape laws, but a lot don’t. I’m doing something about. So is my dad and some of his close friends with connections to the Illinois Supreme Court.
But those changes weren’t because of feminists. That was all on the men and the groups that support them.
I got a kid, so I’m going to have to dare to be different and say that the worst, most cowardly crime any person could do is a crime, any crime, against a child. Sorry I think child abuse is a worser problem.
BTW, you got a link to this is up: “Actually, that’s true only of murder – which is, relatively to other crimes, very rare. ”
Because every stat I’ve ever seen on violent crime, from Germany, Japan, China, Australia, England, Canada and the United States, along with South Africa, Iraq, Palestine and India says that outside of rape, males are more like to be the victims of violent crimes.
I guess they could ALL be wrong, but I doubt it.
And Amanda, sorry I’m not a MRA. I’m a humanist. I spent last summer fighting with the City of Chicago to get more funding to several women’s shelters on the West Side where my aunts and sisters live. And I spent that time making sure that no boys or men would be turned away without being given info on male-friendly therapists in the area. It’s scary, I know, suggesting that something should be done to help men.
There’s something I say whenever I talk to people like you about stopping violence. I say it to folks when I talk about immigrations, or when I speak to my Southern family who can’t stand a wetback dropping by every Christmas.
I know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us. You’re afraid of change. I don’t know the future. I didn’t come here to tell you how this is going to end. I came here to tell you how it’s going to begin. I’m going to hang up this phone, and then I’m going to show these people what you don’t want them to see. I’m going to show them a world… without you. A world without rules and controls, without borders or boundaries. A world where anything is possible. Where we go from there is a choice I leave to you.
“Amanda, I’ve had some guys come really, really close to that very argument. That, and one where they argue that rape is so much worse for men than for women.”
So you think rape is worse for women? How can anyone say which is worse when you can’t ever know the other? Why can’t they both be bad?
The annual British Crime Survey (Samples size: 22,463) does – and the dv stats still show women are overwhelmingly the victims, overwhelmingly those injured, overwhelmingly psychologically affected – and even the majority of those killed.
For example:
Similar findings occur all over Europe – either your data is incorrect or American women are unusually violent. What explanation do you have for this discrepancy?
Is he using that study that Amp did a piece about MRAs misusing?
I suspect that Americna women are not unusually violent. One has to ask, though, if the police are unusually enthusiastic about arresting them. I think Amp once linked to some studies that discussed domestic violence in the police force and armed services. I can only imagine what would happen if one were being beaten by one’s spouse and the person who showed up to intervene was another wife-beater….
Due to anti-feminist agitation, many police forces automatically arrest the victim for domestic violence when the police are summoned unless she’s been completely beat down and has not resisted her abuse at all. Raise a hand in self-defense and you’re going to jail, too. A woman who is close to me was shoved into the wall by her husband and she called the cops and he, in his self-regret, injured himself, and the cops had her in cuffs and in the car before her husband convinced them that she was completely innocent.
It’s really scary. If a man is hitting you and you lash out to escape, you’re getting charged in many communities. For all we know, this is skewing the stats to make it look like more women are abusers than there are.
So you think rape is worse for women? How can anyone say which is worse when you can’t ever know the other? Why can’t they both be bad?
Didn’t say that. Don’t put words in my mouth. Unless of course you yourself think that if rape hurts one sex, it must be a walk in the park for the other, then there’s no way to contort what I said. However, I would say that rape of women is far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far, far more common. And a couple more fars in there, in case you didn’t get the point. Oh, and before you whine, most male victims of rape were raped by other men.
FTR – I believe that yes, it’s Drake’s data that is wrong.
And the problens Ginmar cites regarding the use of police data is what’s so great about the British Crime Survey – it doesn’t look at reported crime – simply takes a large but representative sample of the population and asks for their experiences of crime. Whilst not without it’s flaws in assessing some kinds of data, it at least negates the usual claims that all these thousands of battered men are somehow missing because of the methodology / sampling employed.
Yep, Drake’s data is wrong.
Also, as for the who’s likely to get arrested idea, was talking to my father at length about this after reading a great deal of information about VAWA and the threads that have popped up lately. My dad is a retired state police officer that eventually became a police chief for three different posts and has worked with community domestic violence programs at extensive length, so I was curious about his ‘take’ on the situation, from the perspective of a police officer. His direct observations were this:
– The person who makes the call is least likely to be arrested. The law as it’s set up focuses the initial investigation on the party that is being complained about.
– Women often are arrested simply due to the laws at hand because upon the arrival of the police the situation sinks in and they feel safer to express their outrage. Men often will shut up at this point, which creates a false impression of who the aggressor was in the situation.
– Women are the victim of DV at least 8 out of 10 of the times the police are called.
– Women sustain the harshest wounds in domestic violence. Frequently close fisted hits to the face, torso, stomach and arms. Men generally sustain scratches from women, forearms, hands, occassionally face.
Most of what he said seems to support the statistics that the government gives, and the suppositions that feminists give instead of MRA’s. Interesting that as a republican man that has been a first responder to DV for decades, he sides squarely with women on this one. It leads me to very much believe that MRA’s are either willfully misinterpreting and misrepresenting statistics, or deluding themselves about them so the scenario they have built up can remain in tact.
Kim, how many of the scratches, etc. on men would your dad say the men sustained as the women were fighting back and/or trying to escape?
No idea, Amanda. He said that women were more likely to slap or scratch, and men more likely to grab and punch.
outside of rape, males are more like to be the victims of violent crimes.
Violent crimes, yes, that’s a well known statistic Drake. What we’re talking about here, however, is domestic violence, which in fact is FAR MORE LIKELY to be men abusing women. Nobody denies the fact that occassionally women do abuse men, and occassionally women do fight back in the domestic violence situations, but more often than not…
(for amanda, actually, as it pertains to the prior question) the reason behind domestic violence cited by men was that the woman ‘went too far’ in what she was saying. IE: She said something that pissed the guy off.
Course I don’t mind being called Amp. As for how familiar I am with the US legal system, let’s just see how our conversation goes, and readers can judge for themselves which one of us knows what we’re talking about.
Let’s go back to your original claim, Drake. You wrote:
You claimed, using the present tense, that most state’s (sic) rape laws say you have to be female to be raped, and that sodomy laws imply that both parties were willing participants.
When I challenged you to back up your claims with evidence, however, suddenly you changed your claim, and pretended that you were talking about what sodomy laws used to say.
Yes, they were written that way – past tense. But, as everyone knows (and the link you yourself provided confirms), those laws have all been overturned, thanks to Laurence vs. Texas. They don’t exist in the present tense.
Those sodomy laws that still exist, like Alabama’s “Sodomy in the first degree” law, require “forcible compulsion” to be a crime – which means that they obviously do not assume that both sides consented.
If you want to admit that your previous claim about sodomy was wrong, and change your claim to one about what laws used to say, that’s fine. But that doesn’t change the fact that your original claim – the one that I objected to – was completely wrong.
Gee, a free online legal dictionary – one so lame that it doesn’t even have a listing for the term “sexual assault,” even though dozens of states use that term. You don’t seriously think that’s authoritative, do you?
I asked you to provide me with an example of “a state” in which “rape laws say you have to be female to be raped.” That shouldn’t be hard for you to do, since according to you this is what they “say” (present tense) in “most” states. Please do so now – quote me the current state law which says that men can’t be victims of rape or sexual assault.
Since you failed to look at actual state laws, I decided to take a quick look. Here’s the text of the relevant laws in the first ten states listed alphabetically (strictly speaking, it’s nine states plus the District of Columbia).
As you’ll see, in every state I checked, the law against rape is written in sex-neutral language. (The only exception is Alabama, where apparently female-female rape has not been outlawed. That’s wrong, but it doesn’t support your claim that in most states men can’t be raped.)
There is absolutely no support for your claim that most states have rape laws which exclude men as victims. Every state code I’ve read has gender-neutral laws. Speaking of which:
That’s a really strange thing for you and your father to be doing. Because I looked it up, and Illinois already has gender-neutral laws against sexual assault. Here’s what the Illinois criminal code says:
(Isn’t it curious that your father is working to make a law that’s already gender neutral, gender neutral? I mean, you’d think – what with him being a big-shot lawyer with friends who are connected to the Illinois Supreme Court – that he’d already know that. Very odd, don’t you think? Oh, well. The good news is, you can now tell your Dad that he can stop working on this issue; that should save him some time. Maybe he can work on emancipating the slaves next.)
So, again, I ask you: Can you provide a single example of a state in which men cannot legally be victims of sexual assault or rape? This should be easy for you to do, since according to you “most” states do not legally recognize male victims of s.a. or rape, and those that do have modified them “only in court,” not by rewriting or revising the code.
And I also ask you: Clearly, you were wrong when you said your Dad is currently working to change Illinois state law to be gender-neutral, since it’s already gender-neutral. So why should we take your word regarding anything else (for instance, that you’ve done work to support women’s shelters?) Since you lied about your Dad’s activism in Illinois, it seems plausible that you’ll lie about other things, too.
By the way, most state rape laws were changed to gender-neutral mostly because of the activism of liberal feminists over the past 10-25 years – years before the IWF and most men’s rights activist groups even existed. If I’m wrong, prove it: provide a link to a MRA or IWF press release describing their recent victories changing rape and sexual assault laws. (The IWF puts out a press release whenever they sneeze; it’s not credible that they’d ever actually have a legislative victory and not announce it.)
As for the rest of your post, most of it consisted of you attempting to be condescending (you really should cut that out), and showing that you think of feminists in stupid, stereotypical terms (we find the idea of helping men scarey, etc etc).
May I offer you two pieces of advice?
First of all, throw out your stereotypes about feminists. Stereotypes are something stupid people do because they’re too lazy to use actual thought. If you don’t want to come across as a stupid person, then stop using stereotypes.
Second of all, next time, for your own sake, do some basic research before pretending that you know something.
So why should we take your word regarding anything else (for instance, that you’ve done work to support women’s shelters?)
Actually, he worded it oddly Amp. He stated:
I spent last summer fighting with the City of Chicago to get more funding to several women’s shelters on the West Side where my aunts and sisters live. And I spent that time making sure that no boys or men would be turned away without being given info on male-friendly therapists in the area. It’s scary, I know, suggesting that something should be done to help men.
One part implies he was fund raising, the other that he spent his time going to shelters and making sure they had a protocol for dealing with men in crisis. He then went on with another off-the-cuff ad hominem.
Read parts of the British survey. It matches what I said earlier. It only studied acts of violence against intimate partners. That means they only looked at numbers for people assaulted by their lovers, grilfriends/boyfriends, or spouses. And that’s what I said earlier. One statement out of the study stuck out though.
“While three-quarters of women who had been victims of domestic violence since 16, according to a definition more restrictive than that of the Home Office, that is, non-sexual domestic threat or force, which does not include emotional or financial abuse, agreed that they would call it domestic violence, one quarter did not. Among men, only 41 per cent would call it domestic violence, and the majority, 59 per cent would not.”
That would play a part in higher stats. Men are also less likely to report assaults, attacks, or even injuries than women, and that’s outside of DV.
Kim, my father’s a lawyer. I’ve met lots of judges, and you know what’s funny? Not one of them ever says the same thing about crime. One guy’s like, “Urban kids are just so violent” and another guy’s like, “I keep seeing more violent women” and this one woman’s like, “The laws tie my hands so much I can’t even judge.” So maybe your father had one experience, and dozens of other people have had different ones. Feminists twist the facts just as much as any men’s groups I’ve seen. More so since you guys already have people’s ears.
Amanda, I’d like to see some info on cops arresting female victims of DV and not the guys. Because that flies in the face of info I heard a police conference earlier this year in New York. New DV laws in lots of states make it so that the aggressor, according to the call-in, is automatically arrested. I already know male victims are arrested, so if female victims are being arrested when it’s obvious they’re victims, send me the info, and I’ll get it to my dad. He can make a bigger fuss than I can.
As for the whole “women are far more+infinity likely to be raped”, there’s no way you can prove that. I hate stuff like that because that’s just bunk. Most victims never report it, and males are less likely to report it than females. So not only you not possibly know how many people are raped, you can’t even give a reasonable estimate who it happens to more. It sounds like you’re bathing in a logical fallacy. Kind of like the one a few decades back that said, “Since there ain’t that many reported incidents of rape, it must not happen all that much.” And anyway, I was respond to ginmar’s comment, not you. I do think that you think that rape isn’t that bad for men and boys. Maybe that it’s not bad at all. You should check out http://www.malesurvivor.org and tell those guys they’re just whining.
Current stats for male rape is 1 in 5. Current stat for female rape is 1 in 4. In my book, that’s not that big of a difference. And this ain’t some sort of contest. I don’t care who rapes who. I care that it was done. Maybe you’re different. Maybe you think it’s funny that men and boys are raped. I don’t. I take it VERY seriously. Especially after my son was born. I don’t want anything happening to my son, my godson, my nephews, my cousins, or any inmate in prison, guy at a bar, or someone guy just to humilate them in the EXACT SAME WAY I don’t want it done to my sisters, my step mom, my fiance, my aunts, my cousins, or any woman. I don’t nitpick genders.
Is Drake trying to convert people to a religion or something? I don’t know, maybe it’s my bad english but I didn’t quite get that. Sounds like some cult, all the talk about no borders or boundaries and anything being possible. Not convinced.
Come on, even anti-feminists ought to concede this point to feminists, as grass-root activism (as feminism) originally brought the revolutionary idea that women aren’t property, and deserve rights. Even married women. But no, let’s just blame everything bad that happens to us men on feminists, and give all credit for good things to non-feminist judges and men supporting them.
And domestic violence is usually (but certainly not always) male as the aggressor, woman as a victim. That should not be argued over and over after seeing the recent statistics dv in almost any country. And there is no dilemma whether one should worry more about spousal abuse or child abuse, both are wrong and largely stem from position of power or fear of losing that position, as perceived by the abuser.
Correction: Feminists do indeed push laws that recognize sexual assault on men too, not just fighting for exclusively women’s rights. However, I do have a problem with anti-feminists who expect feminists to suddenly have the power to change all bad things in the world simultaneously.
Hey Amp, I didn’t backtrack on anything. I said: “Lots of states have modified their laws under pressure from child abuse groups, prison right activists, and a ton of male victims and their families and supporters like the women from the Independant Women’s Forum. Now when I say modified, most of the time it’s only in court. The law isn’t rewritten or revised. It’s just applied to other people. Some states do have gender neutral rape laws, but a lot don’t.”
So here’ what you should do. Go and check out current state laws and read what the rape laws state. Like I said, some states have modified the laws, but a lot of them haven’t. Check it instead of saying it’s not true.
Same with the sodomy laws. I stated: “Or like how sodomy laws exactly imply that both parties were willing participants.”
And you said: I’d be interested in a link to such a law. Do you know how many states have such a law? What are men’s rights activists doing to change these laws?”
So, do the sodomy laws imply that parties are willing participants? According to the link, yep. I didn’t backtrack on that or even say that sodomy laws are still used. Really, dude, don’t just jump down my throat because you disagree with me. Address what I said, not what you think I said.
The Illinois law has been modified several times, Amp. Once back in 1970’s and again in 1992. Here’s a little history on that: http://www.nvaw.org/research/sa.shtml
Let’s look at what I said: “Some states do have gender neutral rape laws, but a lot don’t. I’m doing something about. So is my dad and some of his close friends with connections to the Illinois Supreme Court.”
Did I say he was working to change the Illinois law? No. I said he and his friends with CONNECTIONS (meaning people listen when they drop those names) to the Illinois Supreme Court. There are still states with laws, like Texas, Iowa, and Maine which rape laws that state that victims are females. But those are statutory rape laws, so that’s my mistake. Lot of them were changed recently. While I was checking out current laws, I found a lot of foreign states still define rape as only male-female. So on that one, my mistake. However, the changes did not happen as a result of feminists trying to include males as victims. That’s clear from the link. It happened again as a result of the acknowledgement of victims and the actions of men and their supporters. If you can show me where feminists have argued for the inclusicion of males in rape laws, I’d be glad to see it.
And before you offer advice, take it yourself. Drop your stereotypes about anyone who is critical of feminism and stop twisting their statements to what you think they said. It makes it sound like you think you’re smarter than everybody, and you end up coming off like people who deny there was a Holocaust.
And you should re-read whatever you’re going to tear apart. You would have caught the info on the sodomy laws if yo’d taken it seriously.
Thomas, I think feminism did a lot to get the ball rolling. It’s because of feminism that the psychological community even exists (even though they trashed it when Freud really got started). It’s because they brought awareness to female victims of DV and rape that some people take abuse against men and boys seriously.
But they rarely acknowledge male victims, like you’re seeing on this thread. And saying anything about that usually gets the “you’re a mysognist” treatment. The feminists of “back-in-the-day” ain’t the feminists of today.
You’re right about one thing. This is all about power. One group is trying to shift the power to their side. A small faction is trying to stop them and throw things back 100 years. Another group is trying create equality. And folks like me think we should just scrap it and start over. And all the folks caught in the middle are the ones who suffer. The first group only cares about their gender. The second, I’m not even what they even want. The third is trying to pick up the first’s slack, but have to deal with being called sexist for it. And the latter is like, “You know, we could fit everybody if we just used the van.”
Thomas, I think you missed the point of the quote. People are afraid of change. So are feminists. Lots of folks will listen to men and take them seriously. Lots of judges will try to work around biased laws to make them fair. Lots of women and pro-male feminists actually think there are some legitimate problems men face. Lots of people want to help everyone, not just one gender. And they’re willing to start with everyone, not just one gender. And a lot of feminists are afraid because the more people you listen to men, the less that listen to them. The more equal it really gets. Not just with laws, but in actions. And it’s a scary thought to think that your ideology won’t be needed anymore.
Tuomas, that bit was a paraphrase from the final lines of The Matrix, the first one.
I’ve met men who’ve been victims of sexual abuse when they were young, and I’m inclined to believe it may be underreported. I’m inclined to believe that there are instances when men are treated unfairly in custody settlements. But when someone makes those claims, and then starts attacking feminism, as if feminism was somehow the dominant ideology, I have a hard time trusting those claims.
Drake wrote:
Drake, although it’s obvious that you won’t admit it, you claimed earlier this thread that MOST states had rape laws in which men could not be raped. You later allowed that maybe some changes had been made, but according to you this was mainly in the courts, not in the text of the laws themselves.
I’ve checked out the text of the laws in twelve states laws so far, and not one of them was as you described. You’ve backtracked even in this most recent post, giving three examples of statutory rape laws that (you claim, without offering evidence) are not gender neutral (and if that’s the case, then I agree they should be changed) – but you weren’t talking about statutory rape laws in your original claim.
What I’m seeing is a lot of backtracking from your original lie, Drake, and not a single bit of actual evidence supporting your claim. Let’s make this easy.
Here’s your choice, Drake:
1) You can admit you were absolutely wrong to claim that “most state’s rape laws say you have to be female to be raped.” Admit that this claim was false, admit that you made a mistake, and we’ll move on. No big deal – everyone makes mistakes now and then.
2) Provide evidence that most states rape laws say you have to be female to be raped. This evidence should consist of links to current state criminal codes, or quotes from current state criminal codes, supporting your claim. Let’s say, from five states – since according to you, at least 26 states have such codes, finding five examples should not be hard.
Hell, you don’t even have to provide the quotes – name the five states, and I’ll do the work of looking them up.
3) Be banned from posting in this forum.
Note that you’re not being banned for having contrary opinions – there are lots of people who I very much disagree with who post here, who’d I never even think of banning. The truth is, I love debate, almost more than anything, which makes me value people who can disagree with me intelligently and with civility very highly.
If you are banned, it’s not because you’ve disagreed with me. It’s because you’re a condescending liar who doesn’t even have the intellectual integrity – or guts – to admit when he’s made a clear-cut factual error.
Drake, I really don’t know what to say to you, being that you’re pretty oblivious to how shakey if not outright erroneous your arguments are.
So here are a few thoughts on what I’ve gathered from and about you:
One – you seem to believe that your associations with folks are somehow more valid and legitimate than those posting on this board. You have repeatedly attempted to use the fact that your father is a lawyer to imply authority on a subject in some vague way. You haven’t even stated what kind of law your father practices. I responded to that and another comment made by Amanda by bringing up a relatively interesting conversation I had with my own father this past weekend that involved 20 years of personal experience with the police and DV situations, and gave what I believe to be a better accounting of his veracity on the subject, and was able to establish how I concluded that the statistics and my fathers perceptions seem to correspond with each other. You on the other hand haven’t shown anything, other than a propensity to assume authority on subjects based on association that isn’t even established as reasonable expertise on a subject.
You do realise, of course, that several of the people posting on Alas, and even in this conversation are lawyers and folks who have worked within the social work trenches, so to speak, right? Or had you assumed you came to a forum with a bunch of illiterates that have no understanding of laws, statistics and debate?
Secondly, you seem to want to toss away others mentionings of statistics as meaningless, because well, facts can be misconstrued – but then want others to take at face value the statistics you present, or your own ‘twisting’ (your word) of them as the reality of the situation, despite it being debunked quite thoroughly.
You also seem to want to argue that there is perhaps an equal amount or just less than amount of men raped as women. It’s truly absurd. While I don’t think anyone would fail to concede that men may be less likely to report a rape, the idea that the number is even close to women is just plain bullshit. I have gathered what I could about this supposed 1 in 5 men, 1 in 4 women statistic and haven’t found crap, but I did find these facts:
– There were approximately 4,890 rapes of males age 12 and over in the United States in 1994. The rate for rapes of males was .8 per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997).
– In 1985, the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics reported in The Crime of Rape that there were 123,000 male rapes over a ten-year period. (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1985).
– In 2003, there were 198,850 victims of rape, attempted rape or sexual assault.
– Only about 40% of rapes sexual assaults were reported to law enforcement in 2003.
– One out of every six American women have been the victims of an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime (14.8% completed rape; 2.8% attempted rape). [Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women Survey, National Institute of Justice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1998.]
– In 2003, nine out of every ten rape victims were female. [NCVS 2003]
– About three percent of American men …- a total of 2.78 million men…have experienced an attempted or completed rape in their lifetime. [Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women 1998.]
– Approximately 70% of female rape victims and 74% of male rape victims know their assailant. [2003 NCVS.]
– Approximately 50% of female victims and 44% of male victims are raped by a friend or acquaintance; 30% of female victims and 26% of male victims by a stranger; 12% of female victims and 30% of male victims by an intimate; 8% of female victims and less than 1% of male victims by another relative; but in less than 1% of cases the relationship is unknown. [2003 NCVS.]
*NCVS: National Crime Victim Survey
So here’ what you should do. Go and check out current state laws and read what the rape laws state.
Dude: YOU made the claim. YOU back it up. If you have been around law your whole life, you’d know that’s how you prove a point.
Drake, I have just one question here:
If are 1 in 5 likely to be raped (which i find odd, could you please link me? I don’t disbelieve you, I just haven’t heard that before) and women are 1 in 4 times likely to be raped, who exactly is doing the raping? That’s a LOT of rapists. And before you start accusing me of misandry, I want to know if there are just as many women as men raping someone else. Because if there are roving bands of women raping other people, in equal numbers as men, that means we have a problem as a whole society. But if we have more men than women going out and raping, then we have a problem with the patriarchy.
Oh. It was from The Matrix! (It did sound somewhat familiar, but the exact words didn’t ring a bell. You know, finnish subtitles and damned illogical and incomprehensible english pronounciation ;) ). Thanks Brian. And I quite agree with you (and Drake) on male sexual abuse cases being a problem too.
Drake:
(First of all, there is a Thomas commentor here (not me) and my name is Tuomas – no typo there).
I think your solution to problems is admirable, as in let’s start all over again. However, I also think it is utopistical, unrealistic and unattainable, at least by quick fix. Gender roles exist. We cannot just one day as a species declare them null and void, and live by that. People wont do that overnight en masse Therefore I side with the group trying to create equality, whether that group happens feminist group (as it currently, in many issues seems to be), father’s rights group or whatever. And blanket statements about feminists aren’t really helping you to make your point, and saying that men (as a group) getting their wishes heard instead of feminists -> equality, isn’t realistic. Many men resisted the revoking of the spousal rape exemption, that the feminists endorsed, for example. And I still think it’s easier in most ways to be a man than a woman (BUT gender roles aren’t great for men either) in modern society, so i’m not very conserned about men having less power than women any day soon (and I haven’t met feminists who advocated for matriarchy or getting the right to vote away from men, but plenty of opposite from anti-feminists, so I don’t think they are fair comparisons).
Also, your “gender-blindness” is admirable. But what is the point of your “most victims of violent crimes are male” stuff then? I suspect it is the classic case of wanting to focus on men when discussing something that men mostly face, but wanting to get gender-neutral instantly when discussing crimes that mostly women face. And I’m not buying the argument that you are only doing it to balance the feminists.
And this crap
, just drop that. I don’t think anyone here thinks rape is funny in any way. Yeah, and lot of feminists and pro-feminists think men have legitimate problems. You said it yourself. Then why on earth do you still make these “feminists want to tilt the power to favor women over men” claims? And also, you could try to refute Amp’s, Kim’s, ginmar’s and Amanda’s claims, because I fear were getting nit-picky and off-topic here, you arguing against the classic straw man of feminism and me trying to set things straight (I’m sure you can find a better source on feminism than a debate with me).
bold? (what am I doing wrong to get it?)
[For some reason, if you don’t put a blank line both before and after blockquotes, things end up going bold. CSS is weird. -Amp]
I mean feminists were the ones who fought to revoke the spousal rape exemption. And that wasn’t before Freud, but quite recently. Coffee…
Clearly you didn’t get as far as chapter 4.
Maybe he can emancipate the slaves next.
And this doesn’t sound nearly as snarky as it should in view of Drake’s attempt to pass off dialogue from The Matrix as his own views. Cree-pee.
[For some reason, if you don’t put a blank line both before and after blockquotes, things end up going bold. CSS is weird. -Amp]
Okay. I’ll try to keep that in mind. Thanks for fixing my post again!
Cheryl….
Still waiting for directions to credible information that would suggest that battering one’s wife, beating one’s child, raping ones wife, is or was the prevailing social norm in our society.
Anyone…..?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
So you read the links Cheryl posted, the one I posted, the one Kim posted, and don’t find any of them credible ? Plus, you aparently don’t understand how google works ?
Amp, can I sing the Troll song now ?
Hey, don’t forget the one I posted.
*sulk*
Sorry. :o You can join us in our collective invisibility, mythago. No sweat. :/
Y’all are having a disagreement about what is a prevailing social norm, versus what is legally permissible, I suspect.
In Republican Rome, children were the property of the father. (Paterfamilias.) He could kill them if they disobeyed him. He could kill them if he suspected they were not biologically his. Heck, he could kill them on a whim.
However, that was what was legally permissible. It was not the social norm to kill disobedient children. Someone who did would be looked askance at.
Quite true, Robert. However, I think laws very much mold what is the social norm, and social norms very much affect laws via elected representatives. It might be “egg or chicken” disagreement really.
And about Rome, I don’t think a man who punished severely (even killing) a very disobedient child would be looked very much askance. Same thing about legal wife-beating and spousal rape, if it was “justified” enough, people tend not to have a problem with it (as long as they keep electing officials that don’t want to change the law, that is).
Some people even today don’t have a problem about illegal wife-beating or illegal rape when “she was asking for it” (of course I don’t group you with them, I’ve come to know your opinions better than that).
It’s kind of funny (not in a ha-ha way) to read Robert’s comment in conjunction with the thread about the kid whose been shipped off to the anti-gay camp. What those parents are doing is legal, and it IS a reinforcement of three social norms in modern American culture: The norm of heterosexuality, the norm of Christianity, and the norm of children as the property of their parents.
I think Robert is seeing a schism where none necessarily exists. Also, it’s not enough to notice that someone might “look askance” at such practices. Clearly a number of folk on the net and even in this kid’s home state are not pleased with what’s happening to him. That doesn’t make them the majority and it doesn’t empower them with the ability to change to laws.
Social norms feed and reinforce the law, and the reverse is also true.
Furthermore, how does Robert KNOW who would have looked askance at who in ancient Rome ? Was he there ?
“Look askance” is another way to say “condone.” That is, it’s a fault that isn’t considered worth punishing.
Our society is entirely too at ease with torture. Sending young people off to be tortured deserves more than a “look askance.”
(By the way, speaking of collective invisibility, Alsis, would you mind dropping me an email? I’ve been wanting to send some political stuff your way.)
Robert’s analysis works with “marriage rape” laws too.
This in no way says that such laws are not addressing an existing social evil. However “Until the passage of marriage rape laws, the prevailing social norm was that men could rape their wives” doesn’t appear to be supportable.
For example (to bring up a prior thread): “Until the passage of laws that specifically prohibited a custodial parent from spending support money on cigarettes, it was the prevailing social norm.”
However “Until the passage of marriage rape laws, the prevailing social norm was that men could rape their wives”? doesn’t appear to be supportable.
I think it’s entirely supportable. I don’t think too many women or girls ever wanted to have sex with men they were sold off to be married to or with men they were otherwise forced to marry without their consent. I think the sex men had with these women who were chattel was rape. And I think the norm that was established thereby was that men could rape their wives in that wives were viewed as the property of men.
And the links I posted were more than thoroughly responsive to David’s questions.
Heart
David, that is a straw man. There are laws for child neglect, and if a parent neglects a child he/she will be charged with these. Oh, and rape is equivalent to buying cigarettes. Sure…
And previously, men could rape their wives. Did you miss the point about people electing officials to represent laws AND social norms they want be in effect? How the hell (almost) no one, or at least majority didn’t think about changing the law earlier if they condoned spousal rape etc. so strongly?
Of course, you don’t have an answer, so you’ll just pretend that arguments like this (and others that have been posted) don’t exist. Mythago, alsis, can I join your invisibility club?
I meant not condone, but to not condone, or judge, whatever the best word is for that.
spam, but the word I searched is condemn.
Thats how I meant it.
But for the hell of it, let’s just post some of what was in those links which evidences that men beating their wives and children and raping their wives were prevailing social norms.
****
753 B.C. During the reign of Romulus in Rome, wife beating is accepted and condoned under The Laws of Chastisement. Under these laws, the husband has absolute rights to physically discipline his wife. Since by law, a husband is held liable for crimes committed by his wife, this law was designed to protect the husband from harm caused by the wife’s actions. These laws permit the husband to beat his wife with a rod or switch as long as its circumference is no greater than the girth of the base of the man’s right thumb, hence “The Rule of Thumb.” The tradition of these laws is perpetuated in English Common Law and throughout most of Europe. 3
202 B.C. At the end of the Punic Wars, the family structure changes giving women more freedoms, including property rights and the right to sue their husbands for unjustified beatings. 3
c. 300 A.D. The Church fathers re-establish the husband’s patriarchal authority and the patriarchal values of Roman and Jewish law. The Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, has his wife burned alive when she is no longer of use to him. 3
Middle Ages (900-1300) In Europe, squires and noblemen beat their wives as regularly as they beat their serfs; the peasants faithfully followed their lords’ example. The Church sanctions the subjection of women. Priests advise abused wives to win their husbands’ good will through increased devotion and obedience. The habit of looking upon women as a species apart, without the same feelings and capacity for suffering which men possess, becomes inbred during the Middle Ages. In a Medieval theological manual, a man is given permission to “castigate his wife and beat her for correction…”. 4
Note from Heart: Not long ago I read an article about a certain priest in the Middle Ages who regularly begged his parishioners to stop beating their wives. He cajoled them by saying things like that they didn’t beat their livestock and so they shouldn’t beat their wives. The husbands beat their wives for reasons like that if they beat them really hard when they first woke up in the morning, they’d be happy to go out and work in the fields because it was better than being beaten.
1400’s The Christian church vacillates between support of wife beating and encouraging husbands to be more compassionate and using moderation in their punishments of their wives. A medieval Christian scholar, Friar Cherbubino of Siena, writes Rules of Marriage, in support of wife beating. 3
1405 Christine de Pizan writes in The Book of the City of Ladies about women’s basic humanity and better education and treatment in marriage for women. She accuses men of cruelty and beating their wives. 1
1427 Bernard of Siena suggests that his male parishioners “exercise a little restraint and treat their wives with as much mercy as they would their hens and pigs.” 4
1500’s Lord Hale, an English Jurist, sets the tradition of non-recognition of marital rape. He states that when women married, they “gave themselves to their husbands” in contract, and could not withdraw that consent until they divorced. “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent a [sic] contract with wife hath given herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” This is the basis of the “contractual consent” theory. Lord Hale burned women at the stake as witches and has been characterized as a misogynist. 3
Early settlers in America base their laws on old English common-law that explicitly permits wife-beating for correctional purposes. However, the trend in the young states is towards declaring wife-beating illegal. One step towards that end is to allow the husband to whip his wife only with a switch no bigger than his thumb. 5
Late 1500’s During the reign of Ivan the Terrible in Russia, the State Church sanctions the oppression of women by issuing a Household Ordinance that describes when and how a man might most effectively beat his wife. He is allowed to kill a wife or serf for disciplinary purposes. A half a century later, many Russian women fight back. When they kill their husbands for all the injustices they have been forced to endure, their punishment is to be buried alive with only their heads above the ground, and left to die. It is not against the law for a husband to kill his wife. 4
In England, “the Golden Age of the Rod” is used against women and children who are taught that it is their sacred duty to obey the man of the house. Violence against wives is encouraged throughout this time. 4
1857 A Massachusetts court is the first to recognize the spousal rape exemption. The court in Commonwealth v. Fogerty, relies solely on Lord Hale’s staement (1500’s) in recognizing in dictum that marriage to the victim was a defense to rape. 3
1866 The Amerian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is formed. It predates the founding of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, established in 1875. Both predate any organization aimed at preventing cruelty to women. 3
1867 A man in North Carolina is acquitted of giving his wife three licks with a switch about the size of one of his fingers, but smaller than his thumb. The reviewing appellate court later upheld the acquittal on the grounds that the court should “not interfere with family government in trifling cases.” 4
1878 Francis Power Cobbe publishes Wife Torture in England. She denounces the treatment of wives in Liverpool’s “Kicking District.” She documents 6,000 of the most brutal assaults on women over a 3 year period who had been maimed, blinded, trampled, burned and murdered. Cobbe presents a theory that abuse continues because of the belief that a man’s wife is his property. 3, 5 Her concerns are moved forward by male parliamentarians and the Matrimonial Causes Act is passed. The Act allows victims of violence to obtain a legal separation from the husband; entitles them custody of the children; and to retain earnings and property secured during the separation. Such a separation order can only be obtained if the husband has been convicted of aggravated assault and the court considers her in grave danger. 1
1880’s In England, the law is changed to allow a wife who had been habitually beaten by her husband to the point of “endangering her life” to separate from him, but cannot divorce him. 3
1882 Maryland is the first state to pass a law that makes wife-beating a crime, punishable by 40 lashes, or a year in jail. 3
1886 A lower court in North Carolina, as a result of the 1874 North Carolina Supreme Court ruling, declares that a criminal indictment cannot be brought against a husband unless the battery is so great as to result in permanent injury, endanger life and limb, or be malicious beyond all reasonable bounds. 4
Late 1800’s Courts begin to show signs that they might hold husbands responsible and found guilty of marital rape. In 1899, a Louisiana court in State v. Dowell condemns a husband’s participation in the rape of his wife by a third party. 3
With Queen Victoria’s ascension to the English throne, lawmakers begin enacting reforms regarding women. Wives can no longer be kept under lock and key, life threatening beatings are considered grounds for divorce, and wives and daughters can not longer be sold into prostitution. 3
1905 In Texas, Frazier v. State, a husband is convicted of assault with the intent to commit rape. The appellate court overturns the conviction by essentially restating Lord Hale’s rule of immunity (1500’s). 3
1911 The first family court is created in Buffalo, NY. In 1914, the first adult psychiatric clinic is directly linked to a court in Chicago. Professionals believe that domestic relations courts will better solve family problems in a setting of discussion and reconciliation engineered by social service intervention. This is the beginning of the systematic offical diversion and exclusion of violence against wives from the criminal justice system. 1
1924 A French court rules that a husband does not have the right to beat his wife. Prior to this, the Napoleonic Code is dominant, suggesting that “Women, like walnut trees, should be beaten every day.” 4
1920’s & 1930’s Psychoanalysis develps a myth of female masochism into its conception of the normal female psychology. It is argued that women derive sexual gratification from the violence they experience. 1
1945 A California statute states, “Any husband who willfully inflicts upon his wife corporal injury resulting in a traumatic condition, and any person who willfully inflicts upon any child any cruel and inhumane corporal punishments or injury resulting in a traumatic condition, is guilty of a felony, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for not more than 10 years or in the county jail for not more than 1 year.” A San Jose Superior Court Judge, Eugene Premo, dismisses murder charges against a husband accused of murdering his wife. The judge rules that the California wife-abuse law discriminates on the basis of sex by only making mention of husbands, and is unconstitutional. 4
1950’s &1960’s The civil rights, anti-war and black liberation movements challenge the country, laying a foundation for the feminist movement. 5
Women being killed by abusive husbands is rarely recognized for what it is. Headlines often read “Husband Goes Berserk and Shoots Estranged Wife.” 4
1962 In New York, domestic violence cases are transferred from Criminal Court to Family Court where only civil procedures apply. The husband never faces the harsher penalties he would suffer if found guilty in Criminal Court for assaulting a stranger. 4
1966 Beating, as cruel and inhumane treatment, becomes grounds for divorce in New York, but the plaintiff must establish that a “sufficient” number of beatings have taken place. 4
A study in Chicago reveals that from September 1965 to March 1966, 46.1% of the major crimes perpetrated against women took place in the home. It also found that police response to domestic disturbance calls exceeded total response for murder, rape, aggravated assault, and other service crimes. 4
1968 The Harris poll interviews 1,176 American adults in October. They find that 1/5 approve of slapping one’s spouse on “appropriate occasions.” 4
Late 1960’s The killing of a wife, sister, or mother by a man upholding his “male honor” is made a serious offense in Italy. 5
1970 The index of the Journal of Marriage and the Family includes a reference to “violence.” None existed from 1939 to present. 5
Approximately 1/3 of female homicide victims in California are killed by their husbands. 4
James Bannon, Commander of the Detroit police department, describes how 4,600 battered women’s cases “disappeared” as they moved through the criminal justice system in Detroit. Only 300 cases went to trial. 5
The July issue of Ms. Magazine reports in the “No Comment” section an ad for a bowling alley in Michigan, which reads “Have some fun. Beat your wife tonight. Then celebrate with some good food and drink with your friends.” 4
From 1968 to 1973, the crime of rape increased 62% nationwide. 4
Interval House, Toronto’s first refuge house, opens. Transition House, Vancouver’s first refuge house, opens in January 1974. 4
1973-1974 Of the several thousand domestic violence cases proceeding through the Bureau of Family Relations of the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office, only 8 lead to a formal complaint and prosecution. 4
Al-Anon members who are battered women organize a shelter in Harrisburg, PA. 5
In San Francisco, 25% of all murders involve legally married or cohabitating mates. 4
In Boston, police respond to 11,081 family disturbance calls, most involving physical violence. At the end of the first quarter of 1975, 5,589 such calls were received, half of the previous year’s figure for that period. Boston City Hospital reports that 70% of the assault victims received in the ER were known to be women attacked in homes by husbands and lovers. 4
Eisaku Sato, former prime minister of Japan, is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Prior to his nomination, Sato’s wife accused him publicly of beating her. Sato’s popularity soars after his wife reveals that “Yes, he’s a good husband, he only beats me once a week.” Apparently, the committee did not consider wife-beating a breach of peace. 4
The December issue of Vogue magazine carries a fashion layout depicting a couple alternately fighting and caressing each other. One photograph shows the female with her face twisted in pain after the male model hit her. The caption merely notes that her jumpsuit could “really take the heat.” 4
Most U.S. states allow wives to bring criminal action against a husband who inflicts injury upon her. 4
After seven years of debate, a new family law goes into effect in Italy. It explicitly does away with the ancient Rome concept of patris potestas, which vested sole authority in the father. Wife-beating is also abolished. 4
In Kinghorn, Scotland, the Magistrate George MacKay, fines a husband $11.50 for hitting his wife in the face. The magistrate told the husband, “it is a well known fact that you can strike your wife’s bottom if you wish, but you must not strike her on the face.” 4
Brazil passes a penal code that prohibits husbands from selling, renting, or gambling away their wives. 4
An old town ordinance is still on the books in Pennsylvania stating that no husband shall beat his wife after ten o’clock at night or on Sundays. 2
A study by Stark e al. reveals that 73% of the battered women seeking emergency medical attention for injuries do so after leaving the batterer. 3
1983 The U.S. Department of Justice states that 3/4 of domestic assaults reported to law enforcement agencies may have happened after the couple separates. 3
National attention is focused on male violence after a gang rape of a woman in a bar in Bedford, MA. Four men are convicted of aggravated assault and given prison sentenses. The attack on the woman’s character is subject of the film The Accused, starring Jodie Foster. 2
People v. Liberta, New York. An ex-husband convicted of (non-marital) rape asserts a violation of his right to Equal Protection, i.e. if his wife had not obtained a restraining order, thereby causing a separation, his rape of her would not have been a crime. The appellate court agreed with him and struck down the marital rape exemption in the state statute. 3
1985 Tracey Thurman wins her suit against a Conneticut police department for negligence and violation of her civil rights. Her husband receives a 15-year sentence for attacking her, stabbing her and repeatedly kicking her in the head during 1983. 2
1989 The U.S. has 1,200 battered women programs which shelter 300,000 women and children per year. 1
England has approximately 100 shelter programs. Wales has 32 refuges serving nearly 5,000 women and about an equal number of children. Scotland has 37 groups with 32 refuges serving 12,000 women and children. 1
Brooklyn Supreme Court justice Edward Pincus sentences Chinese immigrant Dong Lu Chen to 5 years probation for using a claw hammer to smash the skull of his wife. Pincus concludes, that traditional Chinese values about adultery and loss of manhood drove Chen to kill his wife. Pincus justifies Chen’s probationary sentence by stating that Chen was just as much a victim as his wife due to extenuating circumstances. The Chen decision sent a message to battered immigrant women that they had no recourse against domestic violence. 3
The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) begins to recognize domestic violence as grounds for asylum in the U.S. A judge rules that the wife and children of a prominent Jordanian may be given asylum in the U.S. and that the batterer be excluded from entering the U.S. The judge’s belief that the batter would carry out his threats to kill them, his influence in Jordan and the threats of abuse justified the asylum. 3
1990 Studies show that 1 out of 7 wives report being raped by their husband; 2/3 of the rapes occured more than once. 3
1992 The U.S. Surgeon General ranks abuse by husbands to be the leading cause of injuries to women aged 15 to 44. 7
The FBI reports that 1,431 women were killed by husbands or boyfriends. 7
1993 The United Nations recognizes domestic violence as an international human rights issue and issues a Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women. A similar resolution is issued by the Organization of American States. 3
1996 There are over 1,200 battered women’s shelters across the United States sponsored by approximately 1,800 domestic violence agencies. 3
There are an estimated 120 to 125 shelters in California. 7
To date, only 11 states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont and Wisconsin) and the District of Columbia have completely repudiated the marital rape exemption. Seven states (Lousiana, Missouri, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota and Utah) recognize marital rape exemption unless the parties are separated. Illinois and Mississippi retain total exemptions for marital rape. In California, a husband can be prosecuted for aggravated or first degree rape, but still retains immunity from prosectuion for “lesser” attacks. 3
References
1. Dobash, R. and Dobash, R. (1992). Women, violence and social change.New York: Routledge.
2. Heinemann, Sue (1996). Timelines of American women’s history.New York: A Roundtable Press Book/Perigee Book.
3. Lemon, Nancy (1996). Domestic violence law: A comprehensive overview of cases and sources.San Francisco, CA: Austin and Winfield.
4. Martin, Del (1976). Battered wives.New York: Pocket Books.
5. Schechter, Susan (1982). Women and male violence.Boston, MA: South End Press.
6. Slaughter, Ruth (year unknown). While Ruth was at Haven House.Pasadena, CA.
7. Sproul, Kate (1996). California’s response to domestic violence.California Legislature, CA: Senate Office of Research.
Tuomas: “Oh, and rape is equivalent to buying cigarettes.”
You seem reasonably well-spoken so I’m sure you can figure out why this statement relies on a fallacy.
I think you missed much previous discussion which was about making broad unsupportable assumptions and presenting it as proof of your conclusion… so I’ll cut you some slack…
However, you’ll note that men and women can still rape their spouses, parents can still abuse their children. Does that mean that it is still, or ever was, the prevailing socially norm?
Additionally, establishing a mechanism to punish what we find unacceptable behavior does not mean (logically) that any unpunished behavior is acceptable. That’s a logical fallacy. Let me try and simplify a bit. That all poodles are dogs does not make all dogs poodles.
Fair enough. I admit my previous post was a bit hyperbole. Oh, and I really don’t much care whether you cut me some slack or not, or set me up as a reasonable commentor as opposed to some others. Simplify things for me with poodles and dogs? Hah. Now…
Can you answer this?