 |
posted by Adam on Saturday February 17, @10:21AM
from the domestic-violence dept.
|
|
|
|
|
This is an excellent study about DV against men committed by women, written by Anne Lewis. The study examines many factors involved in DV against men (powerlessness, feeling trapped, etc.) and does so in a sympathetic way. However, the interviews with the abused men are the most haunting thing in the entire study, and such brutal honesty is hard to take, so don't read the study if you're depressed or feeling uneasy right now. And as Anne says "In giving abused men a voice and the opportunity to tell their stories in an atmosphere of trust, I went on a journey of discovery. As an abused person, I was giving myself a voice. The men's pain became my pain, their injustice my injustice, their anger my anger. I listened to myself as I listened to them, and in helping to free them, I freed myself. My inner processes were facilitated by the validation which I as a woman receive from society, and I sought to bring something of that hope and vision to the men whose stories I was privileged to share." Be certain that you read the study to learn for yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It did say things that needed to be said.
What was discouraging was the fact that "Anne Lewis" is not the real name of the author, but a psuedonym. She chose not to use her real name for fear of reprisals from hate groups.
Call me naive, but I do not share in that fear. I have always and will continue to use my real name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Saturday February 17, @01:57PM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
How did you know that trudy? oddly enough,Nancy Allen has played a woman called Anne Lewis in Robocop in case you were wondering fact fans.
Adam (the man in the know)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Even more oddly, I just got back from a sandwich shop which had a TV in it, and they were showing the movie Robocop. Go figure.
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I first heard it from Chuck Corry, in e-mail then saw it again repeated on a website. Of course now I can't find it ;>)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Several days later, I finally finished reading this essay. My reactions are mixed:
- Amazing insights and enough one-liner "Ah-ha"'s to last several months.
- I'm always suspicious of arm-waving, artsy-fartsy language and "studies" in which the observer gets emotionally involved with the subjects in the name of "sympathy" and "consciousness-raising." How is this different from writing about your own opinions with a few citations and interviews? Is this science? Is this research? I'm not so sure.
- Regardless of her questionable methods, this researcher managed to nail my feelings of alienation and discontent pretty much on the head. So, maybe she got lucky, or maybe my objections to this kind of "research" are ill-founded.
- I still don't like the implication that men's problems stem from their inability to express their "feminine side," although she gave enough time and consideration to other factors that I'm willing to consider her presentation balanced and my own opinions less than balanced.
- I've read plenty of stories written by abused men, and plenty of opinion pieces written by therapists of abused men, but this is the best piece I've read so far for covering the whole subject thoroughly and pointing out all of the sources of this complex problem. Unlike other papers, this one doesn't get bogged down in blaming only one force in society for the problem (or, conversely, assiduously avoiding mentioning a major contributor). If you can get through this paper, it hits all of the main points unflinchingly.
- My main criticism of this work is that it is very, very difficult to read. Apart from the academic, pop-therapy, and occasionally impenetrable language, whoever translated it to HTML sort of forgot to insert the odd blank line or horizontal line to give the reader a break. I found that I would have to read a few paragraphs then take a break. It was tough going, but well worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BusterB writes "I'm always suspicious of arm-waving, artsy-fartsy language and "studies" in which the observer gets emotionally involved with the subjects in the name of "sympathy" and "consciousness-raising." How is this different from writing about your own opinions with a few citations and interviews? Is this science? Is this research? I'm not so sure."
Buster, have you done any science or reserach? Have you published any scientific papers in peer reviewed journals? I have (obviously sociology isn't my field, if you've read my Andrea Dworkin style tirades on a certain routine medical practice performed on individuals who never give their consent :).
The author managed to keep her emotional involvement in the subject in check, although references to the authors feelings could have been omitted altogether. That would have changed the tone of the thesis without changing its substance.
The use of Critical Theory to expose the silence surrounding abused men was clever twist on its feminist doctrinal use, which is to "show" that only women can be abused and that men are the abusers, among other indictments of the patriarchy. The discussion of the use of critical theory in feminist doctrine in relation to the silence on the subject of abused males goes beyond "writing" ones "opinions with a few citations and interviews".
The thesis was more of a methodological and institutional critique more than a statistical study.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wish there were some way of performing ex post facto post editing :) Apologies for my execrable grammatical constructions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, as a matter of fact I have. I spent three years in post-graduate studies doing research, a thesis, and a couple of papers.
You took my criticism of the article too seriously. Note the point right after that where I mention that her conclusions are so dead-on that maybe my objections to her methods are ill-founded.
As I said, "I'm suspicious...." I'm still suspicious, but maybe that's my problem. I've always more comfortable with good ol' arms-length, dry research, and researchers who "go native" with their subjects worry me.
But hey, who says that what worries me can't be OK nonetheless?
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
