Now this ought to piss some of you off, especially the ladies. This was on Trish Wilson’s take on this issue and the attitudes of certain South Carolinian politicians who JOKED about women being abused.
But the amendments never got introduced. Instead, advocates said, committee members joked about the title of the bill and then tabled it with little discussion.
According to a tape of the meeting obtained by The State newspaper, Altman asked why the bill’s title … “Protect Our Women in Every Relationship (POWER)’? … just mentioned protecting women. Harrison suggested making the bill the “Protecting Our People in Every Relationship’? Act, or “POPER.’?
A voice on the tape can be heard pronouncing it “Pop her.’? Another voice then says, “Pop her again,’? followed by laughter.
Cobb-Hunter and victims advocates didn’t think it was funny.
“And they wonder why we rank in the bottom on women in office and we lead in women getting killed by men,’? she said.
Harrison said critics were “overreacting’? and the comments weren’t intended to diminish the gravity of domestic violence. “If you take it that way, you’re overly sensitive,’? he said.
Fuck Harrison and Altman. Hard to believe that some of these beating-up-women-is-funny-and-if-you-think-otherwise-then-you’re-being-sensitive-politicians are married. Those poor women. Please tell me, somebody, that not all men of South Carolina are like this.
Isn’t South Carolina the state ‘they’ (I think conservative christians of some stripe, though I’m not remembering) want to all move to and seceed, and make it a theocracy?
If so, let’s help them move.
Just when I think that we as a society have begun to struggle out of the evolutionary (or is it “creationist”?) mud, remarks like this come to light.
50 years more of this, and “The Handmaid’s Tale” will be happening….
Sigh.
“50 years more of this, and “The Handmaid’s Tale”? will be happening….”
I just went to go read an online summary of “The Handmaid’s Tale” and damn. Yes, that is what the far Rightwing wants to do to women. Creepy……
This is repulsive. It’s a sad commentary that these troglodytes can get themselves elected to public office. Thanks, Alas, for shining some sunlight on this infestation of misogyny and ignorance.
Ever notice that when someone cries about someone being “overly sensitive” it’s usually because they’ve just behaved as an insensitive jackass?
I have nothing but contempt for these people at this point, and I want to know what it’s going to take to get people to stop re-electing these idiots.
Yeah, the ‘overly sensitive’ thing is a red flag.
Then again, there’s so many fucking red flags in this issue that it’s like looking at a rally for Mao in the Forbidden City during the 70s.
I was born and raised in South Carolina, lived there until I was 17, and among white, straight, Christian men that age (my own father included), yes, that attitude is very common.
After all, South Carolina just elected Jim DeMint, who ran on a platform of wanting to ban all single mothers (and lesbians/gays/bisexuals) from teaching in public schools on grounds of immorality.
As far as men my own age (under 40), I don’t remember them holding such repellent viewpoints, but things change as you get older, so who knows?
Sorry, I left out the fact that Jim DeMint is Senator DeMint.
flea, some of my SC friends think he’ll have no problem getting re-elected. Come to think of it, I guess he’ll be called “manly” for “sticking to his guns” and “speaking his mind.”
Not too long ago, I was addressing an audience equally comprised of men and women. I discussed my history as a once victim of domestic violence/spousal abuse. When I disclosed the part about how she used to beat me, the women (about 1/2 I would say) began to snicker and say foolish snippets regarding DV. What I realized at that juncture was that it was not about me personally, but their inability to cope with the reality of the fact that men were victims as well. Those women who snickered were also the same who, during their relationships had bruitalized their partners. Nervousness caused them to laugh. It wasn’t about me, or my history. It was about them and their historic realities.
Those supposed leaders of the public were probably just like the women I’ve just depicted. For as unerving as it is to observe our elected officials acting in such a juvinile manner, it needs to be understood that their ignorance about spousal abuse had just been exposed. These folks need some serious counseling, don’t you think?
——————————–
Brad Benjaminson
MS, BS, C.A.T.S.
http://bradbenjaminson.blogspot.com
My reaction to the comment “…any self-respecting woman wouldn’t go back…” is simple:
So, as long as people rob, beat, murder and rape people who lack self-respect, it’s perfectly legal?
And BTW, the highest likelihood for a victim of domestic violence to be murdered is when he/she attempts to leave the perpetrator. Sometimes, not going back could get you killed.
Just to infuriate you even more, Altman proposed a bill that would disallow same sex marriage, and he proposed another bill for those “Choose Life” license plates. He also included in the second bill a “Choose Abortion” license plate, which completely misses the entire point of what it means to be pro-choice.
And BTW, the highest likelihood for a victim of domestic violence to be murdered is when he/she attempts to leave the perpetrator. Sometimes, not going back could get you killed.
Let’s not forget that domestic violence (especially that coupled with murder) increases during pregnancy. The life of an embryo is more significant than that of a gamecock (which is much more important than a woman regardless of the gravidity of her uterus), so I guess if a women miscarries but survives a beating (or the perp involves a gamecock) there is a chance a felony charge will be pursued.
To answer bean: One of the responsibilities of addressing an audience is being aware of the population I am addressing. Most of the few hundred folks in attendance were in recovery. The type of laughter (snickering), body language and other means of nonverbal communication (facial expressions withstanding), along with the responses I received after the presentation, were all indicative to the commonality of the conclusion I came to; that being the fact that many women do abuse men. I’m not at all attempting to diminish the effect of men’s abuse towards women. There’s more on the topic of domestic violence not being gender specific at my html blogspot site.
Domestic violence IS gender specific. While men do get abused by women, it’s not nearly on the same level as women getting abused by men.
I’m automatically suspicious of someone who tips their hand like that, by claiming that it’s equal or non specific. It is.
I’ve been dealing with DV on blog the past few days, and one of the things I’ve noticed about male victims is that thus far they just don’t display that Men’s Rights group attitude. As a matter of fact, they can’t get help from MRG members. MRG members only appear interested in sticking it to women and feminists, and making themselves into victims.
Ginmar:
In no manner am I asserting an effort to minimize the plight of battered women, nor am I attempting to raise funds for men’s shelters. My thrust is to explore; to allow people to understand that there are men and women who, through the experience of the virulence of abuse who have been through similar psychological traumas. “People” are not gender specific when it comes to low esteem, feelings of hopelessness and abandonment. I and my three daughters are surviors of spousal abuse and years of domestic violence. We were fortunate to wiggle out the other side. My wife died in 1991 and I felt, at that time, that her death was the only way we could have been released from that bondage.
All I ask of anyone is to remain objective. It’s not easy, but when dealing, as I do with families in crisis, I must remember my past and not become enmeshed within the web of abuse. I’m almost 60 now and have assisted countless individuals in their quest for freedom.
Here are a few pieces of literature you might find interesting:
Steinmetz, Suzanne K., Muurry A. Straus and Richard J. Gelles. Behind Closed Doors.
Steinmetz, Suzanne K. and Murray A. Straus Violence in the Family.
Antelope Valley Domestic Violence Councel: Valley Oasis Shelter. “The Other Side of Domestic Violence: Women Battering Men.”? 1.
Dershowitz, Allen M. “Wives Also Kill Husbands-Quite Often.”? Los Angeles Times. 2 July 1994: B7.
Brott, Armin. “When Women Abuse Men.”? The Washington Post. 16 January 1994: “Style.”?
If you wish, please check out my blogspot site.
With all respect
Brad:
You might find this post of mine interesting, as well.
Ampersand:
…men’s rights activists committed to the equal victimization hypothesis.
To some, I suppose, I do possibly portray myself as a “Men’s rights activist”. That’s too narrow a stroke for me. I don’t place myself, or wish to portray myself in any polarity. If I were to activate myself in any fashion, it would be to Human Rights. The right of a person to not be pushed, hit, slapped, verbally attacked, or battered in any fashion. My articles in my blogs set a tone for non bias reporting and personal stories. I’ve been there, done that and because of my history and the higher education I’ve exposed myself to, I am able to empathize and sympathize with men and women who have found themselves stuck in demeaning situations with significant others.
Your article is quite complete and non-biased. I appreciate that. You write well and seem to have been provoked to write because of a passion. We all have a passion. I am thankful for forums like these to be able to vocalize thoughts. All I know is I am able to help. I’ve b een blessed with that gift. I am not now and never have aspired to be in the political arena. That, my friend, is for the polititians. I don’t see myself as that.
With respect…
Good toons too Barry!
Quite frankly, Brad, I wouldn’t waste my time on Dershowitz’s writing, and the Brott aritcle is not available. A scan of his other titles was rather interesting, howver. “Give us a break: not all fathers are deadbeat scum” rings a warning bell because I’ve heard that kind of sentiment before, from people who are so defensive that they will not listen to what you say. I’ve read the Gelles pieces before, and they do not support your contention that DV is not gender specific.
I did access the Wapost article and it was exactly what I feared: mistatements and the usual crap, frankly. “Steinmetz received verbal threats and anonymous phone calls from radical women’s groups threatening to harm her children after she published “The Battered Husband Syndrome” in 1978.”
Huh. Which radical womens’ groups? The fact that this article was published in Penthouse also indicates something.
Here’s the nail on the coffin:
L ast week, in St. Paul, Minn., George Gilliland Sr., director of the Domestic Rights Coalition, opened the first shelter for battered men in the United States. Gilliland, who says his wife hit him with a board with a nail in it, missing his eye by a fraction of an inch, attributes part of the delay to efforts by battered women’s groups and other women’s organizations to block the project.
Brad? I live in St. Paul. I know of this guy. He’s not a battered man: he’s a convicted wife beater who at the time he formed this ‘shelter’ had no less than five restraining orders out against him, inc luding one by George Gilliland, Jr., his own son.
The writer also seriously mistates the work of Gelles and Strause. Steinmetz’s data was pretty swiftly debunked: I can’t believe this writer didn’t do more research.
So, in short, this article was biased, twisted, and not well-researched.
So, Ginmar…
Your apparent passions withstanding, and your critiscism of my research accepted for all it may be worth, would your, or any person’s ethical standards from a human rights position allow condoning of battery upon anyone?
Isn’t it possible to take out the analysis, the politicing, the rhetoric and break the truths down to their roots; the simplest common denominator? No one deserves to be dehumanized, or demeaned, physically, verbally, or emotionally. Whomever the perpetrator: man, or woman, sexuality not withstanding, they must be stopped. The victims have been manipulated into a vortex of pain and hopelessness. Survivors, all of us, at some point thought life was black and void of human kindness.
I truly appreciate your review of my analysis, but at some point down the protracted line of put-downs through the ultimate of murder, we’ve got to agree that there are folks out there who feed on other’s pain and grief. There’s got to be help out there for the victim and their families, no matter what the sexuality of anyone is. That part of me who is that survivor remembers the assistance I received, and I’ve devoted myself to the assistance of others.
With Respect
Problem is, Brad, you start out with the notion that DV is a gender-free phenominon. It’s not. That’s all there is to it. The article you presented as proof contained the same old tortured syntax, could have beens, maybes and so forths. DV is simply not the problem for men that it is for women. It is not an equal problem. It does not affect them equally. It is a false and deceptive premise. It does not help to eradicate DV to have false beliefs about it.
Ampersand’s piece about it sums it up perfectly. The Brott piece was as bad an exmaple of the backlash as I’ve seen. Amp demolishes stuff like that in his piece about it—as well as the way you attempt to use the Gelles material. I notice that article was eleven years old, long ago that you certainly must be aware that the way it used Gelles and Strauss has been thoroughly debunked by Gelles and Strauss themselves.
It’s “notwithstanding”. And the notion that fake calm=ration is a fallacy in an of itself.
Amp’s done another excellent post taking apart Brad’s …uh, ‘data’.
Last week, in St. Paul, Minn., George Gilliland Sr., director of the Domestic Rights Coalition, opened the first shelter for battered men in the United States. Gilliland, who says his wife hit him with a board with a nail in it, missing his eye by a fraction of an inch, attributes part of the delay to efforts by battered women’s groups and other women’s organizations to block the project.
Eeek!! Even men’s rights activists were warning each other to avoid George Gilliland. Check out this 1995 newsletter post from the National Coalition for Free Men:
From NCFM News – Newsletter of the National Coalition of Free Men, Nov Dec 95
BUYER BEWARE – If you locate a men’s advocacy organization and are then asked to pay large fees, be sure to do your homework. Most men’s organizations charge $50 or under for yearly dues. Usually these are self help groups that support some activity and where you get a newsletter and can communicate with other members. Recently NCFM received a copy of a complaint filed with the New Burlington, MN police department against George Gilliland who heads the Domestic Rights Coalition. The Domestic Rights Coalition promoted, among other things, services for battered men. While any legal outcome against Mr. Gilliland has yet to be decided, we feel that the opportunity to perpetrate fraud is as easy within the men’s movement as it is anywhere else. We also think that those who list services at the back of books or pamphlets withouit any care as to the quality of service, but who would thereby seem to give their endorsement, should also be put on notice.
I’ve had my own personal run-ins with George Gilliland, ginmar. You already read what he sent me in comments on my blog. If anyone here is interested, just go to this link and check out my comments. The one with Gilliland’s AOL rants is the long one. The guy was toxic.
Anybody know what happened to him? I’d be surprised if he’s not dead.
Never mind. He’s still around and he’s still claiming he’s helping men fight against false allegations. Cree-pee.