In the comments to an earlier post, Brad Benjaminson (who doesn’t identify as a men’s rights activist, but tends to cite writings by MRAs) cited several articles he thought of interest. I read the title of one – “Wives Also Kill Husbands-Quite Often” – and before I even saw the date the article was written (1994), I knew the article would use data from before 1990.
How did I know? Because I’ve read a lot of men’s rights articles about “intimate partner homicide” (that’s murdering a spouse, a girlfriend or a boyfriend), and nearly all of them use pre-1990 data. For instance, a quick search of two MRA (men’s rights activist) websites – Men’s Network.org and MenWeb – found seven articles arguing that women are about as likely as men to commit intimate murder. All of them used data from before 1990 to make their case. In fact, almost all of them used the same data set – a Bureau of Justice Statistics study of intimate homicide in 33 of the 75 largest-population (i.e., urban) counties, which was published in 1994 but used data gathered in 1988. The BJS has published more recent work – so why do the MRAs return to this one source over and over? (Or, if not this source, sources that also used urban data from before 1990?)
Because they want to prove – despite clear data, like these recent FBI figures, showing men are far more likely to murder wives and girlfriends than vice-versa – that men are “equal victims.” (This relates, I believe, to a larger project of trying to show that patriarchy doesn’t exist, women have nothing to complain about, etc.)
So what’s special about Urban data from before 1988? Check out these charts (source), both featuring more recent homicide data than the data the MRAs highlight:
This graph shows the reality: although there have always been more women murdered by intimates than vice-versa, the numbers used to be closer. In particular, there’s been a huge decline in male victims – which, unsurprisingly, isn’t something that MRAs with an ideology of male victimhood want to admit.
So that’s why MRAs avoid recent homicide data. Why do they prefer urban data, rather than countrywide data?
As you can see, before 1988 or so black husbands were more likely to be murdered by wives than vice-versa. The BJS data set the MRAs like to use, contains data from spousal-murder cases in 33 urban counties in 1988. In that data set, “Blacks comprised 55% of the 540 defendants, and whites comprised 43%. Among husband defendants 51% were black and 45% were white. Among wife defendants 61% were black and 39% were white.”
So using out-of-date urban data enables MRAs to use a historic anomaly – the high rate of husband-murder among blacks before 1988 – and pretend it represents the norm.
* * *
So why have husband-murder rates been dropping faster? Obviously, there is no one simple answer: but part of the answer is that abused women now have more resources. “Studies of homicides between intimates show that they are often preceded by a history of physical abuse directed at the women, and several studies have documented that a high proportion of women imprisoned for killing a husband had been physically abused by their spouses… the weight of the available evidence shows that often wives kill their husbands in the context of a history of wife abuse.” (Mercy, J.A. & Saltzman, L.E. “Fatal violence among spouses in the United States, 1976-85” American Journal of Public Health 79(5): 595-9 May 1989)
Many of these studies have found that wives who kill their husbands often felt “hopelessly trapped” in an abusive relationship. Therefore, it seems possible that the growth of resources for abused women since 1970 has made a significant number of such wives feel less “trapped,” hence reducing the murder rate of men. To test this possibility, Browne & Williams looked at state-by-state spousal murder rates compared to a “Resources for Abused Women Index,” (availability of shelters, hot lines, support networks, etc, in each state), after controlling for demographic variables (such as the higher general murder rate in many southern states). (Browne, A. & Williams, K. R. “Exploring the effect of resource availability and the likelihood of female-perpetrated homicides.” Law and Society Review, 23, 75-94, 1989.)
The study found that “the Resources for Abused Women Index, although negatively correlated with rates of both types of partner homicide, is more strongly correlated with female-perpetrated than with male-perpetrated homicide…. Moreover, such resources were associated with a decline in the rate of female-perpetrated partner homicide in 1980-1984 compared to 1976-1979.”
So it seems that, thanks to feminism, abusive men may now be less likely to be murdered by their wives.
It’s also possible, that if battered black women (on average) had less access to resources to get themselves out of abusive relationships, that could explain the unusually high rate of black husbands murdered before battered women’s shelters became (relatively) common.
Another question: Why has homicide of white wives declined while homicide of white girlfriends hasn’t? I’m not sure what explains the racial difference, but one factor contributing to the girlfriend/wife difference is the emergence of no-fault divorce. According to a paper (.pdf link) by Betsey Stevensen of Harvard and Justin Wolfers of Stanford, no-fault divorce signficantly helps women in bad marraiges. From an article written by Wolfers:
The findings reveal that under no-fault laws a wife can threaten to leave an abusive husband, and this becomes a credible threat. Under the old regime, this was not so. Our theory is that the fear of divorce creates a strong incentive for abusive partners to behave.
More generally, easy access to divorce redistributes marital power from the party interested in preserving the marriage to the partner who wants out. In most instances, this resulted in an increase in marital power for women, and a decrease in power for men.
Our analysis of US data revealed the legislative change had caused female suicide to decline by about a fifth, domestic violence to decline by about a third, and intimate femicide – the husband’s murder of his wife – to decline by about a tenth.
Unfortunately, as “marriage movement” and men’s right activists have become more influential in recent years, there has been a movement to defund battered women’s shelters and to repeal no-fault divorce laws. Either of these changes would be incredibly harmful to the interests of battered women.
* * *
(Below the fold are links to the seven MRA articles I looked at, with the relevant bits quoted).
Here are links to the seven articles I looked at, all of which used pre-1990 data to make their points, and most of which used data drawn from urban areas. These articles make many additional claims, which I don’t cover in this blog post; many of them, however, are discussed in this earlier post about “husband-battering.”
- From “Husband Battering” by David Goss: In 1958, an investigation of spousal homicide between 1948 and 1952 found that 7.8% of murder victims were husbands murdered by wives, and 8% were wives murdered by husbands (Wolfgang 1958). More recently, in a study of spousal homicide in the period from 1976 to 1985, it was found that there was an overall ratio of 1.3:1.0 of murdered wives to murdered husbands, and that “Black husbands were at greater risk of spouse homicide victimization than Black wives or White spouses of either sex” (Mercy & Saltzman 1989).
- From “Domestic Violence and the Demonising of Men”: If we consider the most extreme form of physical violence – murder of one spouse by another – it is apparent that women are almost as likely to kill as a man. Of urban spouses convicted of murdering a spouse, 41 per cent are wives (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.) [Note: the 1994 BJS report cited uses data from 33 urban counties collected in 1988. –Amp]
- From “Family Violence” (also available here): Men and children may not report when they are injured by a woman, however, the dead bodies of the men and children who are the victims of violent women are usually reported. Murder statistics are far more reliable than reported abuse statistics. The Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report of family homicides in 33 urban counties [using data collected in 1988 – Amp]. Some gender activists claim that violent women are acting in self- defense. These quoted statistics represent convictions for murder.
1. “In spouse murders, women represented 41 percent of killers.”
2. “In murders of their offspring, women predominated, accounting for 55 percent of killers.”
3. “Among black marital partners, wives were just about as likely to murder their husbands as husbands were to murder their wives: (47/53) - From “Assaultive Girlfriends”: In July 1994 the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice released a Special Report detailing the results of a survey of family homicides in 33 urban U.S. counties. [What a surprise – the same data source, with data collected in 1988, shows up again. –Amp]
- From – ironically – “Latest Research Findings”: Some of the best data on serious assault by intimates appears to be homicide data, which suggest that four out of ten intimate homicides are of men. (Mercy 1989, Langen & Dawson, 1995, FBI Uniform Crime Reports). [That 1995 article, it turns out, uses BJS stats collected in 1988 from 33 urban counties – just like the previous three references. And although he cites FBI data, current FBI numbers show that about two out of ten intimate homicides are of men. -Amp]
- From “Domestic Violence: A Two-Way Street”: Nor do husbands murder their wives significantly more than wives murder their husbands. A 1994 Department of Justice study [Yup! The same one! –Amp] analyzed 10,000 cases and found that women make up over 40 percent of those charged in familial murders.
- Finally, this long list of citations include three that discuss spousal homicide. Of the three, the one with the most recent data is a report “on homicide rates in St. Louis from 1968-1992.”
Pingback: Larvatus Prodeo
I don’t understand why the helping/sympathy resources are allocated to the Group of most statistical oppression (women in domestic abuse) and not to the Individual victims (men, women, white, black – just in different proportions – in all kinds of oppression/unfairness/supremacy/anything).
This “thought template” (concentrating on Inidividuals) should IMHO generalize to everything; employers should compare Inidividuals rather than base their employing criteria on statistical Group-based data (if this doesn’t happen, the result is called oppression/unfairness). Similarly, help/sympathy resources should be allocated to Inidividual victims, (if this doesn’t happen, the result should IMHO be called oppression/unfairness, too.)
But if you really like statistics that much, there’s one way to (IMHO) fairly allocate the resources: just allocate them in proportion to the amount of victims (e.g. allocate some time/space/money to male victims of domestic abuse, too, but not nearly as much as to female victims).
So, the fundamental lesson to be taken away from this data is that liberalizing the laws and practices relating to spousal abuse (by and/or of either sex) has the statistically quantifiable effect of lowering “intimate-partner homicide” rates across the board (and have done so consistently over the past 15 years or so)?
Good, let’s all go promulgate the meme in the short-and-pithy version:
LIBERALISM SAVES LIVES!!!
Amp, as I’ve written before, I don’t agree with the conclusion Wolfers made on no-fault divorce (although I do think no-fault divorce is a huge asset to abused spouses, simply because it makes getting out easier and faster); I don’t believe abusers change their tune under the ‘threat’ of divorce…or any other threat. Abusers who cease abusing are not common, and the safest strategy is leaving.
With that said, I think the disparity between murders of white wives/girlfriends can be chalked up to the fact that more white women are choosing live-in partnerships rather than marriage. There’s fewer wives to murder! The abusers have the same controlling, obsessive, abusive behavior, they just aren’t married to the women.
Here’s a question. Why don’t MRAs do this themselves? Instead of bitching at feminists, why don’t they form their own shelters? Why don’t they clean their own house? Feminists faced lots of opposition forming shelters nad getting funding, and yet it appears that straight men in need cannot get help from their brethren.
It’s just another way of forcing women to do all the dirty work.
When asked that question, Ginmar, they never answer it. Reason being, they don’t really care about helping other men. Their primary purpose is to hurt and control women, so a battered men’s shelter built by MRA’s? Never going to happen.
By the way, have I mentioned how glad I am that you’re home?
Yes, you have, but it’s good to hear nevertheless.
I actually have been having discussions about DV on my blog recently, and I’ve acquired a new favorite cliche: “It’s not about gender!” This means, “It’s actually all about gender—specifically yours—but I don’t want to deal with that, so I’m going to claim I’m fair-minded while treating unequals equally. Waah!”
So how do we make men take care of other men? It’s just more emotional housework for women.
We don’t. We just continue calling MRAs on their lies about concern for battered men until the urge to hide their hypocrisy gets those shelters built.
I will have you know that many MRA’s are involved with the creation of projects and shelters for male victims of DV, but the reason that you do not see them springing up it that it takes time, social acceptance and lots of money to do.
Currently we are not living in a social climate that accepts some men can be victims (Some of the replies here are clear of that) therefore campaigner are fighting an up hill struggle to establish provision in this area, and as the social climate is not willing this means that funders are not willing to fund such projects especially to the extent that female victims have been and will (rightly) be funded.
Instead of writing off the men out there trying to achive some good, how about some support on the issue and violence against anyone is not acceptable!
Wookie
“Unfortunately, as “marriage movement”? and men’s right activists have become more influential in recent years, there has been a movement to defund battered women’s shelters and to repeal no-fault divorce laws. Either of these changes would be incredibly harmful to the interests of battered women.”
But probably helpful to every OTHER married woman…as the New York Chapter of NOW is currently fighting to stop New York State from changing its fault divorce laws to no-fault as they have seen how much damage no-fault divorce law has done to women in other states. Basically it has removed any leverage a woman had before to negotiate a financial settlement or even custody of her children. NOW, she’s divorced whether she wants it or not BEFORE she has a chance to even address those issues and Judges or other court officials decide these things for her…
The NY Chapter of NOW also mentioned that the courts here (and I suspect in many other states as well) are biased against women…Women usually get settlements and custody, etc., through negotiation, NOT litigation. So n0-fault divorce might help a small group of abused women get a quickie divorce, but what about the rest of us, who might need the leverage provided by fault-divorce to negotiate custody of our children by
‘horse-trading’ the other issues/assets???
Must every law impacting women be JUST for ONE group?
As LaLuba said fault or no-fault is NOT going to stop a real abuser anyway and that is what I think the meaning of those stats are…that with all the work we’ve done over a 30 year period, what we’ve done basically is improve ourselves but men still remain the same..
Ginmar, they aren’t interested in helping abused men. They are mainly interested in shutting down women’s shelters. A men’s rights group in California had tried to do that twice, claiming the funding women’s shelters receive violates the Constitution, and their lawsuit was rejected. Twice.
You did a piece on that, didn’t you? How interesting.
Yeah, it’ s one thing to know this in theory it’s quite another to have it demonstrated in reality right in front of you. Just amazing. How does inflicting hardship on women help men? Is that the way they really think? “We’ll take away your shetler so we have it.”
The problem with that shelter incident is that it is funded with tax payers dollars, and is discriminating against certain classes of people in the services they provide. If something is to be funded with taxpayer dollars, it should ensure that commensurate services are provided so that the services it does provide are open and accessible to all members of the public who could benefit from said services. Otherwise it is an inappropriate use of public funds, and discriminatory. The fact that the court effectively said, “it’s ok to discriminate when it benefits women but not when it benefits men” does not make it right, rather it just cements the bias into law.
There are battered mens shelters for gay men. We take care of our own. I’m sure they’d welcome straight men.
I hope so. I’m trying to help this guy I kind of know, despite being a ball-busting man-hating feminazi. The thing that just gets me, though, is that women are supposed to help them. Even the guys who’ve been abused don’t see the significance of that.
It doesn’t. MRA’s really just don’t care about anything other than going after and, hopefully, harming women.
You’d think that would be obvious by now.
I keep remember one chilling remark I heard, and it struck me as perfectly revealing of how these guys just feel put upon by any sign of life in a woman:
“She ran into my fist.” LIke, you know, how dare she! I bruise easy! Unbefucking lieveable.
Amp, are you getting hit by a troll invasion? Because there’s a lot more comments listed on the top page than are here now.
NYMOM: no-fault divorce doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t “horse-trade” over other issues. My state is a community-property state, and community-property is still in effect whether the divorce is fault or no-fault. NOW’s rejection of no-fault divorce is one more example of their complete irrelevance to feminism, and their upholding of the interests of well-to-do women at the expense of the interests of working -class women. While the well-to-do have the access and funding for long, drawn-out ‘fault’ divorces, many working-class women will be left to financially support their nonworking hubbies who prefer to drink or drug their days away, and slapping around the wife after she comes home from her workday.
We’re not a “small group”, NYMOM. I am hardly the only woman for whom no-fault divorce meant I didn’t have to subsidize being abused.
So it seems that after decades of more aggressive policies to aid female victims of domestic violence, the result is fewer men being killed. The verdict is in, and it hasn’t helped women at all.
Since it is insane to continue doing the same thing and expecting the opposite to start happening, isn’t it time for an entirely different model for dealing with domestic violence? So that the number of women victims can begin to fall too?
“NYMOM: no-fault divorce doesn’t necessarily mean that you can’t “horse-trade”? over other issues. My state is a community-property state, and community-property is still in effect whether the divorce is fault or no-fault. NOW’s rejection of no-fault divorce is one more example of their complete irrelevance to feminism, and their upholding of the interests of well-to-do women at the expense of the interests of working -class women.”
I’m not sure if that’s completely true what you say LaLuba…
After all most of us own homes, there is equity involved; most of us have pensions plans which are deemed community property to be divided up equally, most of us have cars and alimony can still be an issue even for women who work. It can come into play as Judges will sometimes award it to even out disparties in income…
People don’t have to be rich to have these things…
Many women are more interested in the custody of their children and in the past frequently turned down their fair share of marital assets in order to get that custody and part of that negiotation frequently involved withholding permission to divorce. In a fault state that was a powerful tool…or USED to be a powerful bargaining tool for women until the state made divorce no-fault and then child support against public policy or impossible to waive…
All of these changes made women agreeing to waive other financial assets and divorce waiting period less valuable…
So in MOST respects NOW is irrevelant; but every once in a while, like a stopped clock, they are correct…and keeping NY from going to no-fault divorce is one of those times…
Remember they’ve had the valuable lesson of what has happened to women in other states when they are no-fault and we have to depend upon the courts to seek custody of our children and fair financial settlements and guess what they discovered…Frequently women get fairer treatment when they negotiate it themselves as we have seen we cannot rely on courts to always be fair to us…
So in that sense NOW has matured to realize the courts are NOT always the solution….
Jessy writes:
So is the government discriminating against peace groups because it won’t fund peace services? I mean we all know how much tax dollars go for military support and we know that the military discriminates. Is the government discriminating against car owners when it funds bus services from the car owner’s residence (thereby removing any reasonable possibility that said car owner might use the bus).
No where is written that governments are required to equally distribute monies to all groups, for whatever reasons.
In framing moral questions, issues like “the greater good,” and “the least harm,” come into play. Reducing the communal good to a one-to-one taxdollar parity helps about four people in the short run, and no one in the long run
Jessy’s post—which he or she posted over at Trish’s blog almost word for word—ignores the rather crucial fact that men don’t have the same need for these services.
Long before there were government funds there were women helping other women, often times over the wishes of hostile men. Now men are turning around and demanding that women put other women aside and help them first, in effect.
Men’s Rights Groups are perfectly capable of forming shelters. They have not done so. That speaks louder than any amount of propaganda.
I suspect that one reason a lot of MRAs are interested in getting men into women’s shelters is that it would make it much easier for men who have committed domestic violence to go retrieve their wives.
I would like to acknowledge Wookie’s post (#8). I think he/she makes some very good points.
I think the unwillingness to see men as victims is due to both misogyny and misandry. Our society automatically assumes that women are weak and powerless, and that men are strong. Therefore, the woman is always the victim, according to this view. The misogynist part is that we think so little of women that we won’t accept that they could be capable of inflicting pain. The misandrist part is that we think a man should just “take it like a man”.
Does it really matter which gender is abused more? We are all individuals, and domestic violence should never be tolerated, no matter who the victim is.
I don’t think anyone is advocating abuse of men–or tolerating abuse of men–here. Or anywhere reasonable.
RF, the problem is not lack of sympathy for men who are in abusive relationships, it’s the fact that it seems to be continually brought up only as a reason to cut funding or support for abused women’s programs. It is not either-or, and there is conceivably no reason there cannot be federal or private monies used to help abused men. But when I see a group who ostensibly advocates such a thing who first try to shut down a woman’s shelter, regardless of the consequences, then it’s pretty clear it’s not about abused men at all.
Which of course means that actual abused men have even less chance of getting help, compounding the hypocrisy.
So yes; men who are concerned about abused men, feel free to advocate for men’s shelters, raise funds for it, ask for govt money to support it, set up a hotline, put out education ads to reach men who are abused and afraid. I would support any sincere effort in that direction wholeheartedly. But first I have to be convinced it is sincere, and not a dodge for abusers trying to break down the women’s system.
No, abuse should NOT be tolerated, no matter what the sex.
Gender socialization is detrimental to both males AND females, and this includes the “Be strong” attitude foisted on them.
However, men in women’s shelters? Claiming that it’s an “equal” problem when none of the facts support it? Taking away funding from shelters? That’s not helping anyone.
“So is the government discriminating against peace groups because it won’t fund peace services? I mean we all know how much tax dollars go for military support and we know that the military discriminates.”
Now wait a minute…this is a good point you inadvertently made…Why doesn’t the government fund peace groups…Why should we have to scrounge around and raise money ourselves, paying for our own tranportation, lodging, food, etc., to get to these peace rallies and what not (after all the government doesn’t make soliders pay to get to a war zone)…
Even if we got a 10th of the military budget it would have a HUGE impact and maybe STOP a war….
I know how radical this is… but let’s think about it for a moment before we just turn away from the idea…
NYMOM, I don’t know about other states, but here in Illinois you can get either a ‘fault’ or a ‘no-fault’ divorce. I understand what you are saying about the pension plans and houses, but for most young couples, that isn’t a factor. I was paying into a pension plan when I got divorced, but I wasn’t vested yet (I was still an apprentice). We didn’t own a house, because I couldn’t save for a down-payment with his deadbeat ass not working, and drinking up all the available savings. I know many women who were in the same position. No-fault divorce gave us an easier, cheaper divorce.
How would I have proven that he abused me, since he didn’t hit me in the face, or in front of other people? Even though he didn’t leave enough “evidence” for a fault divorce, I still felt that I should (a) not have to tolerate abuse, nor (b) have to financially support a man who abuses me. I could not have afforded a private investigator to come in and wire the apartment with hidden cameras, to prove that the fucker hit me. And he paid for his booze in cash, so how could I “prove” he was an alcoholic? If I had been required to get a ‘fault’ divorce, I would have been SOL.
Most of the women I know who were divorced from substance abusers had the same scenario; they were the sole breadwinners, and the man had no assets of his own. This is not a rare occurrance, and no-fault works to the benefit of women in this position. And if there are children involved, it works to their benefit also; the sooner they are out of the chaos and violence of the typical household where there is a substance abuser, the better.
All of the funding for the VAWA and laws designed to have the man arrested were(are) based on the idea that men are violent and women are the victims. The thing that has been overlooked by Ampersand is that women were as violent as men in 1976. So the whole idea that the man is the abuser, and the women is the victim, was and still is a myth. Women can get rid of the man now by calling the police, she doesn’t have to kill him, the man on the other hand……? The laws that have been passed to save women’s lives, are saving the man, not the women.
Also, the government won’t fund a study that examines violence by women against men, so men are on their own as far as getting shelters for men.
I had no idea that mens’ rights groups tried to take down womens’ shelters! Does anyone have any links or other citations on this?
I developed and ran a domestic violence program in a rural NY county for nine years. Our programs were primarily nonresidential anyway–help with protective orders, accompaniment to court, advocacy with social services, suport groups, counseling, etc., and we offered services to all victims regardless of gender. Men could not be sheltered WITH women, but we had plans in place to accommodate men if needed.
However, it wasn’t really ever necessary. Of the hundreds of victims we served, only 3 men ever presented for services and two of them were easily confirmed to be abusers. The third was provided the same identical services any other victim received.
The reality is, since it is the imbalance of power in the relationship that defines domestic violence, and it is gender-based socialization and the lack of concrete options that prevents people from leaving domestic violence situations, as long as we are under patriarchy there may be an occasional abused male, but there are not – and will never be – anywhere close to an equal number of male victims. The patriarchy itself guarantees that.
And the argument that males are victimized but just don’t come forward doesn’t really hold water. I’m sure some don’t, but domestic violence is stigmatizing for women too, and many women don’t come forward out of shame (as well as fear) either. Still by far the greatest number of victims/survivors who do present are women.
Ironically, though these same men accuse and scorn WOMEN for “playing the victim,” every single abuser I ever encountered unashamedly and unapologetically portrayed HIMSELF as the victim. He did hit her, but she made him. He didn’t do it, she gave herself the black eye and is lying to make poor him look bad. He’s the boss, it’s his right, everybody’s interfering with his family… Whine, whine, whine.
Abusers are cowards and liars and master manipulators — some of them are damn good at it and unfortunately, too often find willing believers among police, and law guardians, and judges. But as been pointed out here, they don’t care one damn bit about helping men who are abused, they only want to consolidate their power and keep doing what they’re doing without interruption or consequence.
Everytime they sue to get men included in a women’s shelter, the only end result likely that will satisfy MRAs is to shut down the shelter. After all, men cannot be taken into a women’s shelter and there’s no men’s shelters around to give equal funding to. Honest efforts to create men’s shelters would be seen in MRAs actually starting such shelters, but efforts go towards getting rid of pre-existing women’s shelters.
Needless to say, in my research on MRAs, it doesn’t take too many jumps to go from men claiming that women’s shelters are unfair to arguments that domestic violence against women isn’t a problem.
Drumchik,
What you say sounds good, but you can’t just explain away the facts. Woman kill men, and children, women account for 70% of all child abuse in single family homes. Women who don’t take responsibility for their actions use the, “it’s the patriarchy” excuse. The more women blame the man, the more control they are giving the man.
Bobcat, I just looked up “non sequitur” in the dictionary, and it had a picture of your post.
“And if there are children involved, it works to their benefit also; the sooner they are out of the chaos and violence of the typical household where there is a substance abuser, the better. ”
That’s assuming that the spouse that isn’t a substance abuser walks away with custody. That is NOT always the case. First of all abusing any substance today is considered a disability. Second of all, you have to have PROOF that the person is abusing a substance and generally that usually means a CONVICTION, as many Judges won’t allow you to even bring up an arrest if it was dismissed or dropped down to other charges.
When I go to visit my sister in upstate NY the church she works at has many custodial fathers who are in AA and live off disability checks and what they can ‘juice’ out of their kids’ mothers in the form of child support.
Anyway in many states with no-fault divorce, women have been forced to rely on courts and have been screwed…however in your state with BOTH types of divorces still available, it is probably the second best alternative to ours…where fault is always required to get a divorce…
“Piter: I had no idea that men’s rights groups tried to take down women’s shelters! Does anyone have any links or other citations on this?”
I wrote about two cases on my blog, Piter.
Men’s Rights Attack Against Domestic Violence Shelters Dismissed
Another Attack By Men’s Rights Activists On Domestic Violence Shelters Unsuccessful
NYMOM, point taken. I am well aware (actually, personally well aware) of the issues involved with child custody and substance abuse. And you’re right, the system can be a real crock when it comes to what constitutes “proof” of abuse (most judges will take a felony conviction into consideration, but some will not consider anything less, even when there are repeat instances of arrest, repeat instances of firing from jobs for not being able to pass drug screenings, and repeat instances of not passing drug screenings throughout probation).
However, under fault divorce, I could easily see a woman under your scenario (addicted hubby gets physical custody of the kids) burdened even further; the fault divorce process is a long one and requires thousands of dollars in legal fees, expert witnesses, and usually private detectives….and even if a woman is a fairly well-off working class woman, with a house and a 401k, she’s still not going to be able to afford that. Any resources she has will be instantly evaporated. No-fault means she can reserve what resources she has to fight a custody battle, if necessary. Fault divorce means she has that albatross tied around her neck for years to come.
I think Illinois is correct in keeping both kinds of divorce available as an option, even though I don’t really see the advantage to fault divorce (in fact, I don’t know anyone personally who used fault divorce, although we all had grounds to! The expense of coming up with the proof necessary was the reason; private eyes cost beaucoup dollars when it comes to proving a spouse is being adulterous, abusive, or drugging or drinking too much).
Ampersand,
If men and women killed each other at almost equal rates in 1976, where did the idea come from that “only men” are violent in relationships?
Here, Drumchik sums it up pretty well here:
“The reality is, since it is the imbalance of power in the relationship that defines domestic violence, and it is gender-based socialization and the lack of concrete options that prevents people from leaving domestic violence situations, as long as we are under patriarchy there may be an occasional abused male, but there are not – and will never be – anywhere close to an equal number of male victims. The patriarchy itself guarantees that.”
This is the idea that has been sold by the feminist movement, to have the man arrested under almost all circumstances in domestic violence cases no matter who the violent person is.
Now here is the part that you won’t be able to follow if you believe that women are the sheep, and men are the wolves.
Maybe, when the police come and arrest the man, they are saving him from being killed by her….?
The VAWA has done nothing to protect women, it has given women the power to be the victims of the patriarchy.
Wingnut rule #356: When faced with evidence contradicting claims, restate articles of wingnut faith.
No one here has claimed that “only men” are violent in relationships. A quick text search shows that you’re the only person on this thread to have used that phrase.
She didn’t say that “only men” are violent; she said that in a patriarchal system, the majority of victims of domestic violence are female. I agree with her (although if we want to be pedantic we probably should say that the majority of victims of severe domestic violence are female).
Well, if that’s the case – that the “feminist movement” has been selling this idea – you should have no problem providing evidence. Let’s see some links to feminists arguing that in a marriage where the woman is a violent abuser and the man is non-violent, the man ought to be arrested.
Notice in my post, how when I make a factual claim, I back it up with links or citations? Maybe you should try that out.
I don’t doubt that there are particular instances in which this has happened. For example, an abusive man who is arrested might otherwise have been killed in self-defense by his wife or girlfriend.
It’s also possible, of course, that there are cases in which an abusive woman would have murdered her nonabusive boyfriend or husband, except that he was unjustly arrested, therefore saving him. However, evidence shows that the vast majority of severely violent abusers are male.
This isn’t a thread about VAWA. You’re the only person here to have mentioned VAWA at all. This is a thread about intimate homicide.
However, since you’ve brought it up, the law enforcement provisions of VAWA were overturned by the Supreme Court, so of course they haven’t done anything (to protect women, or anything else). The remaining provisions of VAWA provide funding for things like research and grants for shelters, and I think it’s obvious that such funding does help some women (and some men, for that matter).
The largest study ever done in the US about gender and violence examined violence against both men and women – and was funded by VAWA, by the way. Also, the federal government’s annual survey on criminal violence includes both men and women.
TO NYMOM:
I agree with you. As taxpaying citizens, we relinquish control and accountability in this country. Change is difficult, but it is not impossible. If we want funding for peace groups, we will get it. Not right away, or easily, but can get that, and other things, if we really want it.
shouldn’t that read: As taxpaying citizens, we are forced to relinquish control and accountability in this country.
Taxes are not voluntary in the US.
Just out of curiosity, what percentage of single-parent households (I assume that’s what you meant, as comparing houses to duplexes and apartments seems irrelevant) have a woman parent?
The statistic means something very different if that percentage is 90% than if it’s 50%.
Q Grrl wrote:
No, I meant what I said: we relinquish control.
No one is forcing me to relinquish control of anything. I choose to pay my taxes because I do not want to accept the consequences of not paying them. I have chosen to protest how my tax dollars are spent in other ways, primarily through nonviolenct civil disobedience.
I choose to buy gasoline and drive to work because taking the bus adds an additional 45 minutes each way to my trip. This additional time is more important to me than the fact that slaves are used to extract oil.
It isn’t pretty, I know. But it is my choice and I live with the consequences.
All governments are made of people. There is no “THEY.” Just a bunch of people like us we don’t know.
Who forces you to relinquish accountability of your own actions? Who forces you to relinquish control of your thoughts and feelings and imagination?
I am a not victim. As a transsexual the people have tried to control me, but I have refused to be controlled by the whimsies and fears of people who do not understand my choices.
Gender isn’t voluntary either. But I decided some time ago that I had an obligation to myself and others to make decisions about my body and my gender.
If I have chosen to forego an action, relinquish control or accountability, it is because I did not want the consequences or responsibility that came from doing otherwise.
Bean, you actually think this guy is listening? Your optomism is so touching.
None of which addresses the clear fact that the current system has aided far more MEN than it has women, as evidenced by the statistics. So how come the answer to that is to do more of the same? It makes no sense to continue doing the same exact thing and hope that in another thirty years the numbers will reverse. Why would they? I thought the goal was to help women!
As to “building their own” that seems disingenuous. Not only did men do most of the actual building (they’re called construction workers), they also passed the laws and earned the majority of the money that funded it (they had the power, they were in charge). Simply putting up a building and staffing it isn’t going to help. Not without the protection of the law that women’s shelters enjoy. All that would happen is the first time a man left with the kids, he’d be arrested and brought up on charges and the shelter shut down. How would that help anyone?
In reality what women/feminists DID was to raise awareness of the problem, to TALK and complain about it. This led to action, but it wasn’t the action itself. Now we see the numbers have changed and that WOMEN are now being killed in greater numbers, so people are raising their voices and that’s bad? You honestly want MORE OF THE SAME? The motivation thus seems highly suspect at best.
Oh, great, someone from SYG. (“Stand Your Ground,” for “alas” readers who don’t know, is an anti-feminist discussion board.)
That “clear fact” doesn’t seem likely to me. Of course, it would help if you’d say what statistics you’re referring to.
I’ll assume you mean the death-by-spousal-homicide statistics. You could, I suppose, look at the decreased numbers of men murdered by intimate partners, and conclude that “the current system has aided far more men.”
But that’s ignoring the fact that women who, due to the better options created by feminists, leave their abusers (rather than killing their abusers) have also benefited (it’s good not to go to prison!). It also ignores the tens or hundreds of thousands of women (and occasional men) who have been helped by battered womens shelters – next to whom, the number of people murdered (or saved from murder) is tiny.
If I say “Jews built the bagel industry in this country,” you haven’t proved me wrong if you can show that most construction workers aren’t Jewish, and that most of the legislators who wrote the regulatory schemes that made Bagel shops viable aren’t Jewish; you’ve just proved that you don’t understand that putting up a building is not the same thing as building an organization, an industry or a network.
In this context, the phrase “feminsits built their own” refers to feminists (mostly women, but also occasional men) having built – primarily through organization, fundraising, grants wrangling, studies, training programs, and uncountable hours of work – the network of battered women’s advocacy organizations, including battered women’s shelters, that exists to assist battered women today.
It was feminists, not “men,” who did that work. MRAs would do better to follow those feminists’ examples, rather than pretending that all you have to do is whine a lot and eventually the government builds it for you. And, with a couple of exceptions, that’s all MRAs have done.
Actually, women were being killed in greater numbers all along, when you consider the US as a whole.
What feminists like me want is to help people – primarily, but not exclusively, women. In this case, feminists have helped countless thousands of battered women, and as a side effect a few hundred less men were been killed in self-defense. That seems like quite a good track record to me, although of course there’s much more yet to be done.
I remember bobcat, vaguely. I knew of an attempt to provide a battered men’s shelter and asked him for information(if he was such an expert) but as has been said, he didn’t raise the issue out of any great concern for battered men.
It’s like whites getting all mad when African-Americans don’t go out and march in protest when a white man is killed by police. Then again, Whites don’t generally march in protest of Whites shot by cops. They usually back the cops.
All our DV programs are funded mostly by private donors and grants, except ADV, the largest which does get about $20,000-$30,000 in city funds annually, usually allotted to the program under the Chief’s office of the PD. Due to budget constraints, those funds were cut, a bit for next fiscal year.
There’s also an effort to draft an inhouse investigative policy for DV violence committed by LE officers against their spouses, kids, SOs… Last year, the police chief of our agency was investigated for an alleged DV incident reported by a third party(and denied by him and his spouse). No charges were filed.
Research through court records has led me to six current officers, and two past officers who have had reports or TROs filed against them. Almost all of these officers and several others have filed TROs on their spouses. What little can be gleaned on the administrative investigations indicates that either Internal Affairs(which receives all inhouse DV allegations) is not investigating these “private family matters” or they are assigning the battering officer’s buds to do the investigations, which predictably are ruled unfounded and not forwarded to the criminal division.
Research from the Center of Women and Policing shows that about 40% of all officers self-admit to committing acts of DV. Interestingly enough, most police reports involving LE DV, are “mutual combat” type reports and most TROs are filed by the battering officers(who are mostly male. Female officers are more likely to be victims than batterers, and are most vulnerable in relationships with other LEOs), in both cases to use preemptively against the spouse(the majority, female). So it’s a case where it looks like women are battering men more, but it’s because of the high degree of psychological abuse that occurs and how the officers use their training and experience(which used in the wrong way, make them perfect batterers, rapists and stalkers) to manipulate the situation in their favor.
But it’s only through looking at the figures to what lies underneath that they can be seen for what they are.
But you’re not allowed to look beneath. You should just accept the raw numbers, because if you analyze what’s going on then you’re just twisting the facts so they shape your agenda.
Yeah, sorry, I figured I’d save somebody the trouble.
Right, Ampersand. Feminists (men and women) stood up and made lawmakers take notice and take action. Why is it unthinkable, why is it bad, when other people do the same?
I do notice you didn’t respond to half of my key point. It is very clear that we are not talking about just buildings. How on earth could a private men’s shelter possibly provide any help for men when they do NOT enjoy the same protections and cooperations with law enforcement that women’s shelters do? Without the privacy? They would be completely subject to being stormed and raided by the police at the complaint of their wives…women’s shelters do not have that problem. They are protected. So how is putting up a building going to help anyone (men or women) if the law doesn’t first change to even recognize that both need services?
As to who does or doesn’t help people personally, I know grassroots people who do real work helping abused men and boys directly, in their personal lives, and others who’ve tried to build shelters. They were prevented for various reasons. What is the actual interest in preventing them from raising awareness (which is what they’re trying to do at this point), or claiming they really just want to abuse women (which is just ludicrous)?
Pingback: Thoughts from Kansas
I’m not sure about the States, but Canada has something like 155 different women’s shelters. I don’t know the locations of all of them but I imagine that they are spread out across the country to ensure that a shelter would be relatively easy for women who need help to get to.
If MRA’s managed to get a shelter setup in Canada and there are only a handful of men who need them across the whole country, then I expect it’d have to close down. Afterall, a guy in Victoria who needs help is unlikely to move to Toronto for shelter.
So Sloopy thinks a male legal profession that is something like 90% male–and has a higher proportion of wife-beaters in it than the general population—will somehow become prejudced against men they have every reason to sympathize with. Yeah, that makes sense. They can use the very existance of those men to prop up their rationaliaztions for beating their own wives.
I don’t know about you, sloopy, but I’d much rather men and women be unequal, with men murdering their partners at a high rate and women murdering their partners at a low rate than that we be as “equal” as we were in 1976, with intimate men and women murdering each other at equal and high rates. The decline in men being killed is a good thing by itself, even if it isn’t as good a thing as a concurrent decline in men and women being killed would have been.
I don’t think it’s either unthinkable or bad. If MRAs want to ask lawmakers for grants to help fund their own shelters for battered men, then that’s great. I have no objection to that.
However, I think they should do so with honest data. And the claim that men and women are equal victims – either of intimate homicide, or of severe intimate violence in general – is not true.
I have no idea why you think that a MRA shelter couldn’t build the same cooperative relationship with the police that many battered women’s shelters have done. Nor do I know why you think such shelters would be constantly raided by the police. Do you have any actual evidence to support these claims?
Did you even read my post? I never said I have anything against MRAs raising awareness; however, I will disagree when MRAs make claims that seem to me to be dishonest or incorrect, such as the “equal victims of intimate homicide” claim. Nor have I claimed that MRAs just want to abuse women. I don’t know who you’re arguing with here, but it doesn’t seem to be me.
Yeah, isn’t lying kind of the opposite of spreading awareness?
The statistics don’t mention the sex of the perpetrator. Many of the male victims may have been killed by male partners. This would further undermine the contention that there is an epidemic of woman-on-man violence; or even an equity between male and female abuse. It wouldn’t, however, affect the conclusion that men aren’t deserving of some civil protection from abusive partners.
Sloopy:
Feminists (and, let’s be honest, most of them just happened to be women) created the modern network of battered women’s shelters in the 1970s by forming their own groups and buying property on short money from local women’s groups and the support of larger feminist organizations such as the Ms. Foundation. The first modern battered women’s shelter was probably Chiswick Women’s Aid in London, which began offering refuge services in 1971. The next year, the first battered women’s shelters in the United States were started with a similar model in the United States. These shelters were started in nonprofit storefronts, squatted spaces and women’s homes. They built fundraising networks from Women’s Liberation groups, Al-Anon meetings, whatever formal or informal networks they had at their disposal. With time they managed to purchase houses and begin to offer more comprehensive services. Cooperation from law enforcement was minimal and government funding mostly nonexistent until the 1980s, and not provided in any large-scale and coordinated way in the United States until the passage of VAWA in 1994. You should note that by 1979 there were over 250 shelters operating in the United States, even without any particular help from the government. You should also note (as Bean mentioned earlier) that shelters continue to receive the vast bulk of their funding from private donors, not from grants, today. The battered women’s movement did not come about by “making lawmakers take notice” or by extracting government funding. Women did it themselves and carried the torch for years without any help.
Men today have more money, more valuable social networks, and more political clout than women’s liberationists had in 1971. If MRAs were working to use the resources that they have in order to boost funding and availability of resources for battered men, rather than filing suits to try to force women’s shelters to be defunded, or filing suits to try to force existing women’s shelters to admit men, or whining to the legislature to try to get them to give men’s shelters a cut of the very limited government funds that are currently appropriated for women’s shelters, then it would be much easier to take them seriously and I would applaud their efforts. As it stands, though, they mostly don’t seem to be interested in doing the work for themselves and they mostly seem interested in zero-sum legal maneuvers that will only profit men’s shelters at the expense of women’s shelters. To hell with that.
Forgive the digression, but I’m pretty sure this isn’t true – I’ve been meaning to do a post on the subject. For instance, Haven House in LA began taking in wives of abusive alcoholics starting around 1964.
Amp:
Fair enough; but part of this is just a terminological question over what comes up to the “modern” battered women’s shelter. I mean, you can find records of refuges for “unhappily married” women going back to 16th century Italy, and while it’s clear that they have something distinctly in common with the modern battered women’s shelter it’s also clear that there are some distinct differences. In the case of Haven House (and Rainbow Retreat in Arizona, which I believe was operating around the same time and doing the same things), one difference is their growth out of Al-Anon and their primary focus on helping spouses of violent alcoholics, specifically, rather than battered women as such and domestic violence as we understand it today. My understanding (which could perfectly well be mistaken) is that the network of shelters which women built over the course of the 1970s modeled itself mainly on Chiswick, not on the pre-existing U.S. examples, so that while there are some pre-1971 institutions that look interestingly like modern battered women’s shelters (and which did similarly important work in their home communities), there was a significant break with the 1971-1972 shelters, and that these new developments were vital to understanding the huge growth in local shelters between 1970 and 1979.
Whatever the case may be, it’s a fascinating history and I haven’t been able to find nearly as much about it as I’d like. With some of the activity that’s been going on for the past several years in writing feminist history I hope that more of it may be available in the near future.
I look forward to your post on the topic!
I am wondering where Sloopy gets the idea that men’s shelters could not exist, and that the police would for some reason raid these shelters for no reason whatsoever.
Gay men’s groups have put together hotlines and resources for gay men fleeing abusive male partners. And I admit I don’t see anything on, say, RAINN’s page that discourages men or says they will only answer calls from abused women.
Really, how hard would it be for a dedicated group of MRAs to start a shelter for battered men? Nothing is stopping them.
And here is a shelter that could use some help. I don’t think they are being raided by police, but they do look like they could use a few bucks.
Their site also lists a page of resources for male victims of violence, including links for gay men. Some of these links are to MRA groups, but it’s hardly a militant, single-issue link page.
Pingback: Dean's World
Pingback: Pajama Pundits
I think Amp is right about why they use earlier data as they do the same thing with stats concerning custody to women…MRAs and fathers rights advocates (and others) use stats from around 1988 or s0 to prove their points…when in fact if you look at stats from the last 6 to 8 years it’s very clear there has been a sea change in the courts which are now more likely to be biased against mothers…
But stats have always functioned that way…you have to be using them for illumination, not support for theories you already have…otherwise they are pretty useless.
Piter Wrote: I had no idea that mens’ rights groups tried to take down womens’ shelters! Does anyone have any links or other citations on this?
That is not true. Even Trish doesn’t have a citation that says that. What she has is an article or two that SHE wrote about it with no links to anything other than the lawsuit filed against a women’s shelter for turning away (discriminating against…) men who sought assistance for the abuse they suffered. Nowhere in the suit did anyone call for the closing down of that particular shelter.
One more thing…men’s and father’s rights groups (at least 90%) are self-supported. We’re working men who do what we can around our own personal schedules. Advocacy groups for men simply don’t get the across-the-board federal funding that women’s groups get for any number of things that don’t include domestic violence shelters. I’ve always found it telling that the VAWA title alone demonstrates the gender bias that runs in favor of women and against men. Notice it doesn’t even say “Violence Against Women and Children Act.”
Oh, that’s bullshit and you know it. Stop playing games. Trish has linked to at least two different lawsuits where MRAs have bitched that they couldn’t get into womens’ shelters—for very good reasons—and then tried to shut them down.
I can’t you’re here spewing the same tired old bullshit about how reality is biased against men. Men beat up, rape, and kill women in vastly greater numbers than women reciprocate. I’m not going to re-invent the wheel here, but Amp has written enough on the subject that it’s just pathetic for you to come in here and say, basically, “No sources. No proof. Just more lies.”
Ginmar is mistaken. I used to think like her. I used to think all the violence was perpetrated by men, til I myself nearly got murdered by my partner and began to research for myself. Check out Feibert on Google or Prof John Archer from the UK.
The facts are that women are every bit as violent as men AND they are much more likely to initiate an attack perhaps because they know they will get away with it.
if the police are called often as not they will arrest the man irrespective of who the victim is and of course all a woman has to do is burst into tears and play the old victim card . . .
Let’s remind oursel;ves that violence is only committed by a tiny minority of either gender. Feminists exaggerate because they want to demonise men and need arguments so to do. A good example of this is where domestic violence allegations suddenly pop up when a couple break up and the woman wants to stop the man seeing his own children.
Come of it sisters – the game is up ! We know what you are doing and from here on in we are ready for your wickedness. Lets face it the “domestic violence industry” is the mother of all gravy trains for the feminist hate groups.
Seb
Oh. Wow. I am convinced. Women are evil, lying bitches. I will now change my ways and worship OJ Simpson.
SYG strikes again, lol. Just can’t remember which one spelled demonise with an “s”.
In Pajama Pundit’s blog, Donna wrote:
— Now, to Dean’s World, where the author is an advocate for equal access for all to Domestic Violence services. That is a worthy goal. I have also seen with my own eyes how “battered women’s shelters” (non-profits in general, IMHO) blatantly misuse statistics and use their clients for political and financial gain–
Hmm, I’m of the same sentiment as Ampersand on this one. It’s far too often that people offer passively authoritarion views without concrete and valid information to bolster an opinion. For all the ‘they have misused’ that I’ve seen, my personal view, which one would think is just as valid as yours is that domestic violence shelters work very hard to service the women within them in a manner that is as free from the bureacracy as possible, because it’s a life and death matter.
As for equal access for men, sure, worthy goal indeed. As it’s been brought up, time and time again though, why aren’t they working on that? Women’s rights advocates worked hard to get these shelters up and running, and have no problem sharing information that would help MRA’s do the same. Why is it, instead, that they seem focused on shutting down or entering the women’s shelters, which clearly and realistically can’t support a he said/she said situation.
Because caring for battered men is women’s job, Kim. Men who have been battered are symbolically “unmanned” in the eyes of those who worship at the altar of machismo. Oh, and guilt-tripping feminists is easier than confronting other men. Much more fun, too– If you’re a woman-hater. Get with the program. :/
Sebastian wrote:
“The facts are that women are every bit as violent as men AND they are much more likely to initiate an attack perhaps because they know they will get away with it.”
Er, no, these are not the facts. Police and court records, government stuties, hospital records, the UN, the World Health Organization, the Red Cross and UNICEF all agree that the grand majority of domestic violence is men against women – and most of the violence that is not men against women is men against men. All the studies that supposedly indicate women are as violent or more violent than men ignore context and conflate minor attacks (a shove with little impact) with violent attacks (a strike that knocks someone down. A study that deliberately “controlled for” the blindness of studies that ignore context and conflate different types of attacks found that “women were seven times as likely to have been threatened with a gun; 14 times as likely to report having been “beat up”? by a partner; and twenty-six times as likely to have been raped.”
From here, Ampersand’s extensive discussion on the issue.
In terms of context, studies show that men get violent to keep women in their control and (particularly) to keep the woman from leaving, while women get violent when they believe their life or their children’s lives are in danger. Even those who argue that men and women are “equally” violent – Strauss, Moffat, etc. – recognize that, no matter who initiates or what the level of violence is, women are seven to ten times more likely to be injured than men.
I know of no studies that indicate women “are more likely to attack because they know they’ll get away with it.” I have witnessed (in the sense of overheard) three incidents of domestic violence, all of them men on women, and in the first instance the guy in question clearly thought he could get away with it, and was shocked that the police hauled him off. The second guy was drunk but still felt guilty (his wife asked the rest of us to help cover up for him on the grounds that he only got violent when he was drunk, and he didn’t drink often); the third guy, like the first, laughed it off, and in his case he was right. Although my husband offered the woman protection if she wanted to call the cops, she “didn’t want to make a fuss” and said that, now that the guy knew my husband and I were keeping an eye on things, she was probably safe.
In my experience, men are far more likely than women to assume they can get away with domestic violence. And studies indicate men are far more likely to indulge in domestic violence in order to force women to do what they want – women strike out in self-defense. This is a profound difference.
alsis38.9,
It depresses me that your rather cynical analysis strikes me as basically accurate. Having read up considerable on this issue the past week or so, I have to concede that if this is not the attitude of your average MRA, it’s the attitude of a large and loud subset.
[Sebastian:
If you’re going to just cut-and-paste, first of all, at least have the courtesty to do a decent job of it – cut out all the empty spaces and dashes on the front and back end of the article.
And second of all, don’t do it. There’s this little thing called “linking.” If you’re not going to contribute to the conversation, then just put in a link – don’t quote an entire article. It’s just basic courtesy.
For those who are curious, here’s the link to the article Sebastian quoted in full. It has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread.
–Amp]
The two things feminists are terrified of are – accurate research and true equality of respect for BOTH genders.
Seb
Sebastian, if you want polite, respectful, research-based debate, then you’re more than welcome to stay here.
But if you’re just going to be rude, I’m going to ask you to leave.
Is your definition of “being rude” disagreeing with your extremist feminist position?
Do you find anti feminist viewpoints – increasingly finding an echo amongst the population – too threatening.
I regard feminism as a very close cousin of racism. \\\i also regard it as sexist and abusive.
Is that rude?
You want research on female violence?
Well here is a good one – http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
Researchs shows that women are as violent as men and also that they are MORE likely to intitiate an atack, probably because they knwo they will get off with it.
The feminist myth that women are only violent in self defense is also disproved.
And the most violent relationships of all are – lesbian ones !
Sebastian
Another useful source of research showing women to be about as violent as men is Prof J.Archer of the University of Lancashire, England
And a useful site to help those who have for too long allowed themselves to be mesmerised bythe hogwash of the anti male feminists is –
http://www.mediaradar.org
Message to Shiloh – check these out and think again.
most of what you believe about domestic violence is probabaly not true.
love and peace from a real man.
Seb
So, Amp, I guess that answers that question. Anyhoo….
Sebastian,
Did you read the Ampersand post I linked to? According to your second site there, in these studies “The Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) was the most widely used survey tool.” As Ampersand points out, the CTS ends up conflating different kinds of violence and does not deal in motivation. This is why responsible researchers point out that it does not give the whole picture and may even skew the facts. For instance, an article at your second link argues that a Strauss report says; “In terms of severe assaults, a higher rate of perpetration by women occurred in a majority (18 of the 31) of the sites.”
But the report itself says, “Male students inflicted more injury on dating partners than did female students…. For severe assaults, men inflicted injury at a rate that was 2.6 times greater than by women….” In other words, the “severe assualts” perpetrated by women were much less harmful than the “severe assualts” perpetrated by men. The term “severe assaults” covers such a broad range of events that the results are profoundly disparate.
Your Fiebert link does not say anything about whether women are “only violent in self defense” – as said before, CTS studies do not investigate the circumstance, and most of the studies here are CTS. Nearly all the studies here are self-reported with no investigation of the actual event, and one of the reasons CTS studies are questioned is that when CTS reports from the two people involved in actual event are compared and the situation explored, the CTS reports don’t tell the whole story.
One example is when a woman feels threatened by her husband and says she is going to call someone to get a ride out of there, and the husband tears the phone out of the wall and advances on her. She then hits him. A CTS report will tag this as “the woman initiating violence,” but most people would say the man initiated the violence and she is retailiating. She has reason to believe she is under threat.
CTS studies have also been criticised for not considering all the types of violence. For example, one report in your first link showed that “women are more likely than men to throw something at their partners, as well as slap, kick, bite, punch and hit with an object. Men were more likely than women to strangle, choke, or beat up their partners.” If men are more likely to stranger or choke than women are (I have no idea if this is a common finding but I would guess that it is), a study that doesn’t include those two acts of violence will show women as more violent than men – and many CTS studies did not include choking or strangling. Any study that doesn’t include rape as an act of violence (and most of the early CTS studies did not) will skew the results so that women “appear” more violent than they are.
“And the most violent relationships of all are – lesbian ones !”
Not according to the studies I’ve seen. Lesbians in one study were more likely to report having EXPERIENCED domestic violence – but later studies that asked about the sex of the abusing partner show that lesbians are more likely to have been abused by a MALE partner. So while lesbians as individuals may experience more violence, to my knowledge there’s no evidence that lesbian relationships are more violent.
It is possible to write a study that will prove just about anything regarding human behavior – this is why it’s so important to rely on studies that have appeared in peer reviewed journals. Fiebert lost a lot of points with me by including stuff like Farrel’s “Women can’t hear what men don’t say” on his list of “169 scholarly investigations: 133 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses.” Farrel’s book is not scholarly, it is not a study, and it is not an analysis or a review of studies. It is one man’s opinion about how the world works.
The Conflict Tactics scale is used and forme the basis for John Archer’s work.
Shiloh accuse us of the veyr thing extremist feminists have been guilty of for decades, basing their reserach on what women in shelters say. And jus inventing figures.
There is a huge consensus now across the research field that women are as violent as men and more likely to intitiate an attack because they rarely get arrested.
Women also abuse children at amuch higher rate than men though it should be said that more woemn look after children than men, that is still no excuse.
We need to remember also that there is a huge under reporting of female abuse of men because not only do men fear being ridiculed, something feminists never tire of, but of course there are not shelter provisions for them to go to in the first place.
The domestic violence industry is surely the mother of all gravy trains !
I also think what Shiloh objetcs to is that emerging data does not fit with the anti male purposes of feminist propganda.
Figures like “one in four women have been abused” were bandied about for years til challenged then found to have ben totally invented. Then the feminists widened the definition of abuse to include “shouting at your partner”
Has anyone ever been in a relationship where there wasn’t shouting?
As one man succinctly put it – That means that 80% of women have never even been shouted at.
People using violence against each other is not acceptable whether it is a woman assaulting a child or two lesbians battering each other or a man and woman engaed in mutual combat.
The problem is that the issue has become so politicised that objectivity has gone out the window.
It is increasingly obvious to the majority of decent men and women that feminism today has nothing to do with civic equality for women and is primarily concerned with promulgating hatred of men, masculinity and heterosexuality.
They have to deny female abuse and exaggerate male culpability.
Ampersand took great objection to the item showing huge numbers of women rejecting extremist feminism and joining with men to promote equality but the article WAS relevant because the push is now on to show up these extremist feminists for what they really are – nothing but a bunch of hate peddlers.
Why can’t they just admit it – they hate men and it must annoy them greatly that most women do not hate men and want to get on with them and have families and promote equality .
Sebastian
“There is a huge consensus now across the research field that women are as violent as men and more likely to intitiate an attack because they rarely get arrested.”
No there isn’t.
Even the researchers who created the CTS don’t agree that this is the case. One of them, Gelles had this to say:
“[S]elf-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data.”
[…]
“[W]hen we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men.”
[…]
“…it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women.”
The only place there is the consensus you describe is amongst MRA’s.
Oh and Fieberts list is a load of rubbish – as well as being composed almost entirely of dodgy methodolgies (CTS) and / or dadgy samples (i.e. solely using a sample of young, dating and unmarried couples) of the handful that don’t, two were based on people’s *perceptions* of violence rather than actual violence itself, one is based on reports of witnessing violence and has no data relating to actual violence experienced and hilairiously, one is a study based on violence in American comic strips in 1950!
Convincing…. not.
You missed the best part, though, Shiloh—there’s a lot of money to be made from DV. Strangely enough, though Seb didn’t get into the details, I’m fairly certain that it will have to do with female duplicity, not male, and that somehow it will also involve faking victimization for —beats me, actually. They’ve never been especially coherent, and Seb’s just pulling stuff out of his ass now.
“I’m fairly certain that it will have to do with female duplicity, not male, and that somehow it will also involve faking victimization for …”
Diamonds ? :/
Sorry. I know that it’s not really funny, but these “real men” are so hilariously over-the-top and predictable that it’s hard not to laugh at them sometimes. Well, most of the time, actually. If I went over to one of those groups and wrote a post about how I encouraged my partner to smack me around so I could make him buy me expensive baubles later, do you think that it would even dawn on them that I was being sarcastic ? I have my doubts…
No, they’d never guess because it’s their fantasy fulfilled, and because their sense of humor about themselves is utterly absent.
I did a list about the secret feminist takeover and a guy who’d admitted to raping without raping whined that I just hated him because he had a penis and that futhermore….It wasn’t funny!
I couldn’t make up shit like this if I tried.
I think anyone moderating this can see the hatred these women feel for men, feminism, nazi-sim, racism are all much the same ie one group of people is “good” and the other group is”bad” and as for funding – wait a minute isn’t it the case that 100% of the government funding goes to women’s groups only?
As I have said before domestic violence is not a gender issue.
Funny too how these feminists oppose equal parenting .
Children need both parents! And children are not the proerty of their mother!
An empty and bankrupt set of half baked and poisonous ideas based on hate has no future and as Larissa says – feminism is SO 20th century ! It is finished surely except for a few dedicated last ditch lesbians !
Mensissuesonline would love to hear from you sisters !
ginmar, you can post a link if you like. I need all the distraction I can get, what with searching for a new job and all.
Amp, activate that trapdoor, or I’ll post the troll song again ! :D
“isn’t it the case that 100% of the government funding goes to women’s groups only?”
No – wrong again! You really must try harder to prove your claims – so far none of them hold up to even the most cursory of examinations.
Oh and if you wouldn’t mind – could you think up some new tunes? We’ve heard all the songs you’ve played so far.
Aw, hang on, lemme see if I can find it. I did a list of troll tactics, and that’s getting all sorts of people reading it with astraight face then going, “NUH UH!”
One of the entries, basically is, “NUH UH!”
Not a really effective debating tactic.
The only thing I can say in the face of such idiocy is that actually Seb is Amp, trying to discredit the anti-feminist nutjobs.
What?
It’s the only thing that makes any frickin’ sense at all.
Sebastian wrote:
“Why can’t they just admit it – they hate men and it must annoy them greatly that most women do not hate men and want to get on with them and have families and promote equality .”
Who are these “they” you speak of? I’m a stay-at-home mother of five, and while I can’t recall as to this precise thread, I know I’m not the only feminist mother who regularly posts here. A woman may disagree with you without even remotely hating men.
And, just out of curiosity, do you know what peer reviewed journals are? Or why scientists see a need for them? I ask this because you seem to imply that I am relying on studies that consider shouting at someone an act of violence. But, as I said earlier, it is exactly this sort of conflating minor, common acts (shouting) with major uncomon ones (striking hard enough to knock someone down) that makes CTS studies unreliable.
The early CTS studies were valid in the sense that those doing the research were still “feeling their way” and trying to figure out how to go about studying the situation. Researchers are learning as they go; the fact that early CTS studies were criticised for not accounting for all forms of violence (not including strangling or rape) does not mean these studies were poor; it means that the researchers hadn’t yet defined the situation accurately. But the more recent a CTS study is, the more likely it is to have been deliberately skewed for particular results – and the less likely it is to appear in a good peer reviewed journal.
The more that is known about something, the easier it is for unscrupulous researchers to lie about it. Even with my limited knowledge, I could easily WRITE a study that would demonstrate that women are more violent than men; or one that would demonstrate that men are more violent than women. But I couldn’t get it published in a journal with knowledgable researchers on the Editorial Board, because they could easily see what I’d done. I could, however, get newspaper coverage or publish my own book on the subject.
This is why Feibert listing Warren Farrell’s book as a resource on par with peer reviewed studies is highly suspect. No one has vetted Farrell’s book for inaccuracies or deliberate misrepresentation. A good peer reviwed journal will often take a year or more to study a proposed paper before publication – this does not garuntee that the study printed is valid going on the knowledge of the time, but it makes the odds pretty good.
Sebastian wrote:
“There is a huge consensus now across the research field that women are as violent as men and more likely to intitiate an attack because they rarely get arrested.”
Best I can tell, this is not the concensus of researchers in the DV field. The question is, how many of the researchers who do make this argument can write studies that peer-reviewed journals will accept? I notice that Feibert’s more recent research citations are either unpublished, published in a journal or book that’s not peer-reviewed, or only study violence among adolescents (men are most violent when a living-together relationship is breaking up, so any study that eliminates older couples or that doesn’t deal in violence after the relationship or marriage is over will under-report male violence).
If your position is the concensus of researchers in the DV field, why do the US government, the UN, UNICEF the World Health Organization, and the Red Cross ALL argue that men commit more violence against women than the other way around? Do you believe that all these organizations would completely ignore the scientific concensus on the subject? I suppose it’s possible, but I’m skeptical.
Sorry, “or only study violence among adolescents” sbould be “violence among adolescents or undergrads.” I’m also very curious about the studies indicating dating women slap or hit more than men – I would love to know how many of these ask if the man is making unwanted sexual advances and wouldn’t quit with mere verbal resistance. Few people would categorize kissing a woman against her will as a violent act, but I know I’ve slapped one guy who never struck me. I thought he’d backed off with just verbal resistance but as I turned away he grabbed and groped. I slapped him on instinctive reflex and instantly apologized. I don’t think I hurt him any more than he hurt me – we were both startled rather than in pain – but what I did would be considered hitting while what he did wouldn’t be covered in that sort of study. From what I can tell, those studies would label this act as “domestic violence,” but it’s not what most people think of when they hear the term.
I feel asleep in frront of the computer and started to dream. What I dreamt was of a setting that was some sort of a theater. On the stage oft hat teater was a group of MRA guys giving a lecture on how every word from the mouths of women about rape and incest and brutal violence are all lies. What the MRA guys didn’t know was that they were addressing an audience of women all of whom had been victims of either rape, male inflicted brutality or both. Some of the women in the audience had had their daughters killed by serial killers, and some others daughters had been raped as childern.
The next thing I see in my dream is droves of women rushing the stage and beating the fuck out of the MRA guys for telling them their truths were lies.
What a dream.
First you take our history from us then our names as a way to mark us as property and keep us seperated from other women, but when you start denying even the truth of the indiginties inflicted on us you have gone too far.
In some areas of the middle east when a woman dies shes is just gone…no marked grave no listing of her death no photos to remember her by because women are not allowed to have their pictures taken, they are hated that much.
We are not saying all men are miscreants, far from it but the fact of the matter is that there are a lot of men who do rape and who are abusive.
I think whoever above said that the issue has become so politicized was absolutely correct.
No reasonable MRA wants to see women’s shelters disbanded, and the purpose of the lawsuits mentioned in the blog postings above was not to get them shut down, despite what you think.
But what is a heterosexual man who is the victim of violence at the hands of a woman supposed to do? It takes money to start a shelter for men, but men can’t get the money because society and legislators still refuse to accept the fact that men can be, and often are, victims of violence (note – I am not saying that they are victims of the same amount of violence). So, saying you should just start a shelter is kind of a condenscending attitude to have – womens shelters didn’t get started without a lot of help from the government.
Also, most MRAs are more concerned with issues such as paternity fraud, and issues concerning visitation, and child support. These are the issues that are truly important to most MRAs I have worked with and know.
As for me, just so you don’t think I am some troll…
I am a MRA and I regularly donate money to a local womans shelter.
The reason I do this is because one of the women who worked there offered me a room above her garage to stay in after my (now ex) wife attacked me with a hammer for being fifteen minutes late coming home from work. My left arm ended up being broken in four places, and I ended up with 3 cracked ribs. When the cops arrived, they immeadiately cuffed me (with my broken arm twisted behind my back) because my ex had a bruise on her wrist from where I had grabbed her to prevent her from hitting me again. (And please, no one try to claim that I was abusive to her because of that – that response caused Phil Hartman his life when he tried to get help at a DV shelter).
The woman, who was at the hospital with a woman who had been attacked by her partner (I believe it was a female), heard about what had happened and offered to assist me. Once I had recuperated, I went back because I felt I needed to protect my daughter because I didn’t know if my wife would abuse her since I was no longer around to be the object of her anger.
Within weeks of my return, my wife attacked me again – this time with a knife – because I got the wrong type of grape juice at the grocery store.
In the divorce, I was unable to get custody of my daughter despite my wifes violent tendencies (only .4% of men get custody in Indiana). I did manage to get 50% parenting time though. Despite that, I was also ordered to pay nearly 40% of my take home pay as child support despite my ex making only slightly less than me.
Hopefully, after hearing my story you will see that there are actually issues that men do have to deal with, and some of the posters on here will realize that not all MRAs are part of some ‘evil patriarchy’ that is out to harm women.
Peace,
Bradley
I’m sorry for your troubles, Brad. And I agree with you that abused men need help – although I don’t understand why its feminists who often seem expected to provide the help. I agree that building a shelter and services network is not easy, but it wasn’t easy for feminists, either; just because it’s not easy doesn’t mean it’s not worth doing.
Put another way, you object that building a services network for men is very difficult. But since there aren’t any better alternatives I know of, it seems to me that the very difficult solution is also, in this case, the best available solution, and so should be advocated.
Finally, I must object to your final paragraph.
First of all, it’s clear that you don’t know much about what feminists usually mean by the word “patriarchy.” Patriarchy isn’t a conspiracy that particular people are or aren’t part of; it’s a way in which society is organized.
Second of all, very few if any feminists would say that men have no issues to deal with.
I think it’s good that you want people to think of MRAs in less stereotypical ways. May I suggest that you could try thinking of feminists in less stereotyped terms, as well?
The purpose of these spurious lawsuits against women’s shelters is to deny them funding, which would eventually shut them down. Both failed lawsuits, filed in part by the National Coalition Of Free Men, claimed the shelters violated the Constitution. Courts ruled against Free Men. Here’s an important part of one of the rulings:
“California law (CA Government Code, Section 11135) states that no state-funded program shall discriminate against any person on the basis of “race, national origin, ethnic group identification, religion, age, sex, color or disability.” Section 11139 of the law, however, clarifies that this prohibition against discrimination must not “be interpreted in a manner that would adversely affect lawful programs which benefit the disabled, the aged, minorities, and women.” The shelters in question all receive state funding under the California Battered Women Shelter Program, a program created by the legislature in 1994 specifically to aid battered women and their children.”
I know that another women’s shelter in California is now under attack by men’s rights activists. These spurious lawsuits take time, money, and energy away from those who work in women’s shelters. If men’s rights activists want to help abused men, they need to do what women have been doing for decades for abused women – do the legwork; apply for funding; open shelters for abused men. In other words, do the work to create the shelters themselves. Why are feminists and women’s shelter workers expected to do the work for them?
Countess, if you ever get a real answer to your last question from an MRA, please email me ASAP. I’ve lost track of how many times in the last 6-7 years that I’ve asked some variation of the same question, or heard it asked by some feminist like you or bean whose actually in the trenches, so to speak. Far as I know, no substantive answer has ever appeared, which leads me to believe that A) The majority of MRA’s are misogynists and B) The majority of MRA’s also hate battered men, since their costly grandstanding essentially robs men who need help of manpower and care. MRA’s use battered men for their own purposes, which are counterproductive;They clamber into the spotlight on the backs of the very people they claim to want to help.
But feminists are the “man-haters. Oh-KAY. >:
Alsis, I don’t expect to ever get a reasonable answer from an MRA about why men don’t start up their own shelters for abused men, or why they expect women’s shelter workers and feminists to do their work for them. That’s because they really aren’t interested in helping the few bona fide abused men who contact them. They make it sound as if every woman who contacts a shelter gets in all the time. That’s not true. Women’s shelters don’t accept every woman who contacts them. It depends on need, availability, other available options, and a host of other factors. Shelters are really for women who lack finances, are in immediate danger, and have absolutely nowhere else to go. Most battered women’s shelters do provide some help for the few abused men who call them, but they aren’t allowed to stay in the shelter. They give motel vouchers and referrals. The guys aren’t left to wither in the dust.
The latest attempt against a domestic violence shelter in California is more grandstanding by men’s rights activists. Why weren’t the men available to help that man and his daughter when they needed it? I’m not certain how accurate the story I’ve read about the case actually is. MRAs tend to cherry-pick their information, and misrepresent what actually happens in these cases. I haven’t posted about it to my blog because it’s not appropriate at this time. However, I have sent information to my colleagues in California so they are aware of what men’s rights groups are planning. You’d be surprised how much I don’t post on my blog. I know what to post and what to keep quiet about.
Countess wrote:
Yep, in the same tone that some folks use to say that bankruptcies are just the average citizen’s attempt to get beer and vacations for free… [rolleyes]
See how you are ? Why, only a total man-hater would imply that a little of “Masculiste” and his ilk goes a long, long way… :p