|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Statewide last year there were nearly 31,000 claims of child abuse; 74 percent were found to be unsubstantiated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 16, @12:39AM EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas:
Please remember, with all fairness, "unsubstantiated" doesn't mean it didn't happen. Of course, in all fairness, its next to impossible to prove that it didn't happen either. Get an "unsubstantiated" claim against you, and you go on Marylands child abuse registry. I forget if they take it off after a few years , or not.
As for me, I'm gonna write Pritken.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They usually don't take it off ever. I have some friends that are currently going through a similar problem. He has divorced and remarried and his ex-wife is abusing his daughter but because of Oregon law the mother has sole custody of her. She is blaming him and his current wife of abuse and they are denied any legal recourse by a judge. they cannt talk to teachers, send her to a councelor, nothing.
FYI women are more likely to abuse child than men even taking into account the differences in childcare time.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 16, @03:27AM EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
This article was extremely biased. If Washington is anything like California in family law courts, then judges are in no way being skeptical enough of abuse claims. They're believing them on a whim, for the most part. I know so many men who are going through very intense parental alienation syndrom due to false accusations that are unsubstantiated but are nonetheless serving the purpose of blocking access while the child forgets the father and gets fed lies about him. I don't say the abuse doesn't happen. But this article did not give the other side of the story at all. At least I didn't see it. Did I read this too fast, or is this another example of totally biased journalism?
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 16, @08:59AM EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
Dr. Elizabeth Morgan may be the most famous false accuser in history. She is at the center of this story. Her ex-husband was repeatedly cleared of the abuse allegations that Dr. Morgan made against him, as I remember.
There is no evidence, I believe, that Dr. Morgan's ex-husband abused his daughter. Dr. Morgan kidnapped her daughter and effectively prevented him from ever seeing his daughter again.
Stephen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Where is your evidence that she falsely accused him? She went to jail rather than give up her daughter to her husband. Why would anyone go to jail over a false accusation? I think if memory serves, the child contracted a venereal disease while with her father? And, the mother was exonerated and mother and child allowed to return to the States without fear of the child having to see the abusing father.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 18, @02:02PM EST (#61)
|
|
|
|
|
Elizabeth Morgan you are talking about, Wiccid?
I've read something of the case recently. Check out this book:
Hilary's Trial : The Elizabeth Morgan Case : A Child's Ordeal in America's Legal System
You can get it at Amazon.com. It's written by a male reporter who through most of the case was on her side, but later grew more skeptical.
Evidence for her accusations was spotty at best. She had already written a book about sexual abuse before she accused her hubby. She lost every trial they ever had in the US, and even the New Zealand court which awarded her custody made no finding about the abuse charges.
And she was and is a very CONNECTED lady! Two special acts of congress, one to get her out of jail, and one to allow her to come back into the Country:
Hillary and Elizabeth Morgan back in the USA
American Elizabeth Morgan accused her ex-husband Eric Foretich of
sexually abusing their daughter Hillary Foretich (now known as Ellen
Morgan) in a bitter custody dispute when the girl was 2. The couple
had divorced in 1982, months after their daughter was born. They
battled over access and custody, but it was not until 1984 that she
made her allegations of abuse. No evidence was found to support the
allegation. At other points, Morgan also has accused Foretich's
parents and a psychiatrist of sexually abusing the child. In 1987
Morgan secretly sent her daughter to NZ to avoid her father having
access to her. Superior Court Judge Herbert Dixon Jr found Morgan in
contempt of court for refusing to comply with visitation orders for
Foretich. Morgan went to jail for 2 years then joined her daughter in
NZ, where they continued to live in exile.
Last year the US Congress passed a law which removed control of her
case from U.S. courts, so that she would no longer be defying the law
or risking contempt charges by going home. The congressional action,
sponsored by Rep Frank R. Wolf, set aside years of court rulings and
was tailored to cover Morgan's case alone. The relief came in an
unusual amendment to the federal transportation spending bill, a
tactic Wolf chose to hasten its passage. It was the second time that
Congress had stepped into the battle. Also at Wolf's prodding, in
1989 Congress had passed a bill which freed her from jail. Foretich,
who has not seen his daughter for10 years, contends that the
congressional action was unconstitutional because it took away rights
that he had won legitimately in court.
News has now been released that Morgan, 49, and her daughter, now 14,
have returned to the United States.
And she is now re-married to Paul Michel, a US Court of Appeals judge.
You or I wouldn't get such "justice" if that is indeed what it was. We are not of the correct class, and don't know the correct people. Then again, she could have just cooked up the story to help both her book, and her custody battle. Prison didn't hurt her -- this woman fully understands how to play politics.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"FYI women are more likely to abuse child than men even taking into account the differences in childcare time."
No, this can't be true, we are told it is the opposite here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong, DonaldCameron, it is true. If you were told otherwise here, it was probably by some feminist. Women commit the overwhelming majority of child abuse, and they commit the overwhelming majority of it against little boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
True. This is well-documented in Warren Farrell's "Father and Child Reuinion." From what I recall, single moms committed 25 times more child abuse than single dads (combining physical and sexual abuse), and there are five times more single moms than single dads, making single moms about five times more likely to commite the abuse than single dads. Men may be more likely to commit sexual abuse than women, but the difference wasn't anywhere near what the above difference is. And some data shows that boys were more likely to be sexually abused by mothers than fathers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
another FYI: the majority of crime is gender on gender. (puts a dent in feminist's theory about violence)
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Donaldcameron, I have in my possession a copy of "The Thrid National Incidence Study Of Child Abuse and Neglect" also known as NIS-3, published by the US Department of Health and Human Services in September 1996 (during the height of the misandrist Clinton administration), which offers the following well-researched facts:
1) Women commit most child abuse in intact biological families. When the man is removed from the family the children are at greater risk. Mother-only households are more dangerous to children than father-only households.
2) Children are 3 times more likely to be fatally abused in Mother-only Households than in Father-only Households, and many times more likely in households where the mother cohabits with a man other than the biological father.
3) Children raised in Single-mother Households are 8 times more likely to become killers than children raised with their biological father.
4) Women hit their male children more frequently and more severely than they hit their female children.
5) Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male children.
6) Eighty two percent of the general population had their first experience of violence at the hands of women, usually their mother.
You can also find a lot more information on family violence at this web site: [http://www.naplesfl.net/~bestself/Family-Violence .htm] including a copy of the Fiebert bibliography, which examines 117 scholarly investigations, 94 empirical studies and 23 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what your point is, Donald. Although I just skimmed this report, page XVIII lists alleged perpetrators by relationship. Mothers 61% Fathers 38%, Step-Fathers 9%, Step-Mothers 3%. Now this doesn't take into account time spent with child, but if you're arguing that men are the predominant abusers, could you be more specific as to where it says so in this report?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @02:06PM EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Frank?
Just what are you defining as violence? Is spanking violence? If I grab someone , did I punch them? Here, let me show you something:
http://www.angryharry.com/esHaveYouBeenRapedRecent ly.htm
Now I want you to consider just how the current "system" works in the case of advocacy groups in the U.S.
First a problem is discovered. Then, because the problem serves some interest groups agenda some studies (usually funded by said interest group) are done. Then, -- the magnitude of the problem having been exaggerated all to hell-- the government gets involved. "Advisory" groups are formed. Resources of various law-enforcement or medical agencies are diverted to examining and studying and "solving" the new problem/mission/goal. Jobs are created or expanded. Experts are needed -- though only the right kind of "experts". Because of this, the agency has to either
A Reduce or eliminate some of its other responsibilities
B. Get more funding.
Almost invariably, "B" is what happens.
And of course from then on, any "studies" coming out about whatever the problem is, will be tainted by the obvious beauracratic need to show that the problem is yet far from solved -- even if they have to expand the definition of the problem to do so!
If the interest group/groups is/are large enough to form a "movement", and if the "movement" is large enough, cabinet level agencies and advisors will be formed and hired just to deal with its problems and concerns. Feminism is one such movement.
Last but not least, lawyers- both public and private will be slobbering to hear cases or represent suits based on any new laws that come from this ugly , stupid little process.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just what are you defining as violence?
Studies have found that women are at least as violent as men at every level of violence.
Also note, Frank's point that Women commit 55% of child murders and 64% of their victims are male children. I think, or at least hope, we would all agree that murder of children is violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @02:40PM EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"Studies have found that women are at least as violent as men at every level of violence."
I'm sorry, Thomas, but I don't believe those studies. Since your an educated man, I suggest you subject them to the same scrutiny as you would a feminist-funded study. Even though I do believe (from another study I looked at once) that women are more likely to bring weapons into violent confrontations, this is mostly to off-set the larger size/strength of males. It is a well-known fact that the majority of people who die from intimate violence is women. This is partly because , even if they start a fight, they usually lack the strength/skill to do anything really serious.
Thought experiment: Which would you rather have punch you? An average- sized woman, or an average - sized man?
Of course we both agree that punches and murder are serious acts of violence. But in our crazy society, we now include on our list of violent acts: "Verbal assault". And if some people get their way, bad thoughts will be next.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Uhhh, Remo, you're subscribing here to all the gender feminist propaganda we've all been subjected to for the past 30 years.
Somebody want to give Remo a link to the Feibert bibliography so he can research the *objective* studies on his own, minus the feminist propaganda?
Also, you don't *really* believe it matters whether an average-sized man or an average-sized woman punches you, do you? Just because she's not *as* strong as an average-sized man *doesn't* mean she can't do damage.
Women are equally violent. It's proven. They just tend to get away with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I suggest you subject them to the same scrutiny as you would a feminist-funded study.
I have.
In addition, my belief that women are at least as violent as men at every level of violence is based partly on personal experience. I have seen women hitting people, usually children, many, many times as often as I've seen men hit people. Also, when I was in grade school, the women teachers brutally beat the boys. (They never touched the girls.) And I never saw a man hit a child or young adult in class. In fact, I've only seen a man hit children once, and that was one time when my father spanked my brother and me.
In fact (an interesting, though perhaps politically incorrect, point) the women teachers who beat the boys would flare up, typically for several days, and then calm down for about three to four weeks. They would then flare up again. I mentioned this to my mother when I was in fourth grade. She just shook her head, smiled and said, "They get it out of their system."
We've been told that "testosterone poisoning" causes violent behavior. Actually, many studies show that testosterone has a calming effect. There was in fact research done at a southern California university (off hand, I can't remember which school) in which the researchers (women) found that, irrespective of gender and irrespective of levels of estrogen and testosterone before the experiment, testosterone caused a calming, improved mood and an increased ability to focus on tasks. Estrogen caused irritability and a reduced ability to focus on tasks. Since we've been told that testosterone causes violent behavior (and, therefore, men are worse than women by nature), perhaps it's time to truly look into this.
We may find that men are taught to be violent and estrogen poisoning is a (the?) natural cause of violent behavior. (Again, since feminists have declared the opposite and most of society has believed their declaration, it's worth testing.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But in our crazy society, we now include on our list of violent acts: "Verbal assault". And if some people get their way, bad thoughts will be next.
While we have to guard against and properly punish violent behavior, I fundamentally agree with this statement. We must be very careful.
As the saying goes, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @03:26PM EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2001/1204 /opt2.htm
And for Harry's take on this:
http://www.angryharry.com/esWould%20You%20Sign%20T his%20Contract.htm
Sorry guys, I'll stick to my guns on this one. For now, at least :)
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @03:30PM EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmph :(
Was testing those links, and for some reason you have to go to Angry Harry's home page : www.angryharry.com and then look for the relevent articles
Would you sign this contract?
Have you been Raped today?
*puzzled remo*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article:
Equality Committee of the Department of Education and Science to review these 100 studies that find "gender symmetry" both substantively and methodologically.
Remo, you do realize that this is a gender-feminist run arm of the government, don't you? And politically funded studies generally determine exactly what those funding it want them to find.
You should take a look at the bibliography I mentioned, as well as the other literature put together recently by Scott for distribution at the University of New Hampshire regarding men and domestic violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was testing those links, and for some reason you have to go to Angry Harry's home page : www.angryharry.com and then look for the relevent articles
You have to remove the space from between the "T" and the "h" in the link you posted. Sometimes, spaces are added in URLs in the comments here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p.s. The Angry Harry article takes issue with how domestic violence is defined. It really ins't relevant to men and women committing equal acts of violence.
If you define an act of domestic violence as a physical assault on your partner (forget about shouting, etc.), you're going to find that men and women commit domestic violence in nearly equal amounts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
p.p.s. It is also reprehensible that the author of that Irish Times piece (or wherever it was) would defend the victimizing of men just so the government can continue to put all the money toward women. He should be ashamed of himself for suggesting that male victims of domestic violence are too few and far between to be of any importance or consequence. Hell, even if he was correct about the numbers (which he isn't), it's still unfair to treat male victims differently in terms of assistance.
What a moron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @03:56PM EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
p.s. The Angry Harry article takes issue with how domestic violence is defined. It really ins't relevant to men and women committing equal acts of violence.
Yes, but to be unfair here, I'll just point out that it does prove my point about women dying more often due to DV then men do. I'm not about to do what Thomas does and lump "child abuse" in with "intimate partner" deaths. All I was talking about was intimate partner deaths.
Of course AH does make the very good point that often all men have these days is impotent rage. But whatever the reasons, women still die more often then men. And that is an objective fact. So be very careful when making the case for men in terms of DV.
Of course if this society was interested in preventing and punishing serious domestic violence ( instead of hauling off to jail every man who grabs his partners arm, or yells at her) the feminists would , indeed, lose one of the pillars of their funding. And "big government" would be quite a bit smaller.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
the problem is that men and women produce both estrogen and testosterone and have varied sensitivities to the hormone. Meaning the amount that it takes to get a certain possible effect in one sex is not equal to the amount it might take in the other. (men tend to need higher amounts to get the same results. One menopause treatment for women consists of small dosages of testosterone.)
I do feel the studies show that testosterone produces an aggressive result BUT women also produce this hormone and are more sensitive to its effects than men. Hormone research is enourmously diffiucult to study due to feedback loops, interaction with other hormones, individual senstivity just to name a few confounds.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not about to do what Thomas does and lump "child abuse" in with "intimate partner" deaths.
Child abuse, including murder, by a parent (most is committed by the mother) and intimate partner abuse, including murder, are forms of "domestic violence." They should be placed together under this term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hormone research is enourmously diffiucult to study due to feedback loops, interaction with other hormones, individual senstivity just to name a few confounds.
This is why a large sample should be studied and research should be verified. Note that I didn't say the studies so far prove anything. They are, however, quite suggestive that the feminist declaration, that "testosterone poisoning" causes violent behavior, is far from the truth. Preliminary studies suggest something quite different. Since society has largely accepted this declaration, of the culpability of testosterone, it should be studied further.
People who've bought into genfem declarations might be very surprised by the results.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, but to be unfair here, I'll just point out that it does prove my point about women dying more often due to DV then men do. I'm not about to do what Thomas does and lump "child abuse" in with "intimate partner" deaths. All I was talking about was intimate partner deaths.
Why wouldn't you consider child abuse as domestic violence? The child and his parents are intimately related. The more often than not are living under the same roof. How is physically assaulting or killing a child not domestic violence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @04:39PM EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Child abuse, including murder, by a parent (most is committed by the mother) and intimate partner abuse, including murder, are forms of "domestic violence." They should be placed together under this term.
I disagree. That is not how the term is used in everyday speech, nor is it how the advocacy groups use the term. When NOW, Feminist Majority, etc. talk of "domestic violence" they mean violence between men and women in some sort of relationship. Nor do child abuse advocacy organizations make much use of the term "domestic violence." Nor have I ever seen domestic violence defined so as to include child abuse.
When mens organizations ( such as this one ) use the term "domestic violence", would you have them "talk by" the feminists? Do you know how deceptive that would seem when (not if) it is found out? Its sorta like The Brady Center or the Violence Policy Center and their little factoid about how many children are killed with guns per year. Said "children" being mostly those ages 15 -21, involved in criminal activity. You'd never know that -- until you see their definition of a "child".
Anyway, why not try to deal with very real legal abuses that have occurred, and are occurring against men?
Suppose (heaven forbid) I marry a woman someday. And once or twice during our long and mostly happy marriage ( till death do us part -- let me dream, ok? ) she slaps me for this or that. Not all that serious, right? Wrong! By the law those are *gasp* two acts of "domestic violence". Better get the therapuests as soon as possible! And keep HER away from the kids!
Now suppose instead my wife goes crazy ( or makes a pact with Satan turning utterly evil, or goes to a shrink *cause she needs help with her anger* and discovers some "hidden memories" ) and falsely accuses me of raping our precious child. ( Don't ask me where the kid came from :) )
I lose the kid. I go to jail, "group therapy", etc. I'd probably be suicidal or homocidal.
But in our crazy-ass system my pain would be invisible. No reason for ME to be angry. Should I punch her teeth out, assault a rude guard, or hang myself from a bedpost, I'd just be another example of either male brutality or male unreliability. Ain't life grand?
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with a lot of what you say, Remo. A problem here is with definitions (a recurrent problem, I will add, in dealing with feminism -- feminists often use definitions, quite effectively, to cloud discussion). Feminists (genfems) try to separate child abuse from partner abuse because women clearly commit most child abuse. The genfems then focus on partner abuse (and child sexual abuse, rather than all types of child abuse).
We play into their hands by not pointing out that partner abuse and child abuse are closely related -- not the exact same thing, but closely related. They are both, in fact, domestic violence and should be seen as such.
Anyway, if you want to focus, for the sake of discussion, on partner abuse, that's fine. Just realize that an enormous amount of recent research shows that partner abuse by women against men is roughly equal at every level of severity as partner abuse by men against women. And don't forget that the research consistently shows that women most often initiate the violence.
And remember to consider the results, as well as the methodology, of research in addition to (perhaps instead of) conviction records and criminal sentences (both of which are heavily discriminatory against men).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, why not try to deal with very real legal abuses that have occurred, and are occurring against men?
OK, NOW you're suggesting that a lack of justice for male domestic violence vicitms isn't a real legal issue?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @05:41PM EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, Thomas.
I found myself agreeing with you. Except for this:
Just realize that an enormous amount of recent research shows that partner abuse by women against men is roughly equal at every level of severity as partner abuse by men against women.
Do I have to add it again? Except death! If you look at violence that leads to death within intimate partner relationships men do the majority of it. And it is one of the easiest things to measure. Unlike many types of violence and abuse (which often depend on how you define them as to their scope) , it is pretty easy to keep count of the body-bags that result from someone's fists or bullets or blades being used against their "honeybuns".
I do NOT want us to lose to the radical fems. And denying what any Doctor who works in an emergency room can tell you, is not a viable political strategy. We simply MUST have only the best statistics, and know how to deal with both those that support us, and those that seem to go against us.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @05:53PM EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Alright , I will qualify my previous statements to this extent:
How many woman get away with poisoning a man, or having someone else kill him? Just how much this would add to women's violence rates at the highest end of the scale, is anyone's guess.
Remostatistic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @06:39PM EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
OK, NOW you're suggesting that a lack of justice for male domestic violence vicitms isn't a real legal issue?
Well , Nightmist:
Yes, and no. I'd suggest a lack of shelters for abused men is a legitimate legal issue. I'd urge you to persue that. Strike that : I DO most STRONGLY urge you to pursue some funding for mens shelters. If I wanted to be dirty, I'd also urge you to insist that each shelter have a "Mens Domestic Advocate" to staff them, and be tied to several federal agencies. If we wanted to play like the rad-fems, that is.
I'd also suggest that bringing government deeper and deeper into every and all aspects of family conflict isn't a good idea, but alas, political viability makes me advise you to suck on as much gov't tit as you can -- it is the only way to get things done these days, as the government is busy "protecting" everyone.
As for what I was saying, let me ask you this:
Are you going to compare the pain of a parent who has lost their child due to a false accusation (which has happened to TONS of men) to one who might have had a minor scuffle with his or her spouse? In our hysteria over "sexual harrasment" and "domestic violence", we have given up our rights to private relationships. Violence that is repeated and/or leads to a hospital visit is something to worry about. Everything else should be worked out privately. Thats my take on it, and I'll stick to it. Not only would it make the problem of domestic violence much easier to solve, it would free up resources to deal with other pressing issues. And, as an added bonus, it would help people to learn to *gasp* take responsibility for their relationships.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you going to compare the pain of a parent who has lost their child due to a false accusation (which has happened to TONS of men) to one who might have had a minor scuffle with his or her spouse? In our hysteria over "sexual harrasment" and "domestic violence", we have given up our rights to private relationships. Violence that is repeated and/or leads to a hospital visit is something to worry about.
Remo, those are two completely different situations and, in my mind, they are equally deserving of our attention. I will tell you that I strongly disagree with your assertion that a "minor scuffle" which involves physical violence among a couple isn't a big deal. Guess what? If a woman attempts to slap a man and he stops her by grabbing her arm, he can face domestic violence charges. He knows this, and so he doesn't stop her. Well, now that she knows she can get away with hitting him, she's going to keep doing it... and keep doing it... and keep doing it. Maybe she's not even really physically hurting him, but so what? She's reinforcing her dominant position over him by the fact that she can hit him but he cannot hit back. She's trampling his freedom and his rights as a human being to *not* live under her thumb.
I don't know where you got the idea that domestic violence isn't a serious issue, but I can guarantee that you're not going to convince victims of said DV of your argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @07:20PM EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
Remo, those are two completely different situations and, in my mind, they are equally deserving of our attention. I will tell you that I strongly disagree with your assertion that a "minor scuffle" which involves physical violence among a couple isn't a big deal. Guess what? If a woman attempts to slap a man and he stops her by grabbing her arm, he can face domestic violence charges. He knows this, and so he doesn't stop her.
Nightmist, that partly depends on which State/country you live in. And the fact that he might have no place to go if he is thrown out.
Lets focus a bit more on your statment. Man comes home drunk. Says something rude to the lady in his life. He has no violent tendancies, so she's safe. She is tired, has been worried about him. without thinking she attempts to slap him. He grabs her arm. Now, in most relationships it would end there. Maybe they shout at each other. Maybe he goes off to bed, and she sits-- thinking about what she almost did, and thinking about talking to him in the morning. Maybe he throws her to the couch, and they make passionate love. Who knows?
At just what point of that little scenerio is the government justified in intruding?
Ok, suppose its like you said. This isn't something that is happens rarely, and which both partners might share some blame in. Lets say that the lady involved is a sadist, and she likes to inflict any and all pain she get away with. Perhaps she hates men. So she repeatedly abuses and slaps him. What can he do?
Well, if nothing else, regardless of relationship, he can leave. He does not have to put up with her abuse forever. If they were boyfriend-girlfriend its goodbye. He can go to the courts. Physical abuse is usually easy to prove. Slaps , if immediately reported, always have bruises or swelling involved. If they are married, he might be able to use any abusive tendancies she has to get the children from her.
Of course there are many ways it could be solved in private. Marriage counseling. He could hit her back, if its self-defence. Men usually have the advantage when it comes to hitting. They could talk it over.
But in the final analysis there is nothing that forces him to stay with an abusive partner. Threats against the children? Legally, he could take them with him on his way to the courthouse to get his divorce/seperation. He is protecting them from harm, after all.
So, given that he has all these options, and , if we have our way, would have guaranteed shelter to go to, just what more do you suggest needs to be done?
Remo
Btw: Just because I'm not gonna convince victims of DV of my argument doesn't mean I'm wrong. What I am basically saying is that the "cure" is worse than the "disease".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
At just what point of that little scenerio is the government justified in intruding?
You are arguing SO many different issues entangled into your original (incorrect) statement that women are not as violent as men.
What makes you believe I'm for government intrusion at all? I have no idea where that point came from. Providing funding for shelters and services for victims of domestic violence isn't "intrusion." Intrusion would be if the government busted down the door and hauled your ass off to jail without a warrant or even a complaint against you.
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Except death! If you look at violence that leads to death within intimate partner relationships men do the majority of it. And it is one of the easiest things to measure.
Here is where the research, as opposed to conviction records, is important. When men kill women, they usually do it themselves. When women kill men, they far more often hire someone to commit the murder. This is one of the reasons that research is better than conviction records for gaining an understanding of the situation. When a man is convicted of killing a woman, he is listed as the murderer. When a woman hires someone to kill a man, she goes into the official records as an accessory, not the murderer.
Check out the research that Nightmist mentioned. It considers such factors. The fact is, if a woman hires someone to successfully kill someone, she is guilty of murder. But neither the conviction statistics nor the emergency room records list her as such. Warren Farrel does a good job of discussing this type of legal obfuscation in "The Myth of Male Power."
BTW, I'm sure you don't want us, or good women for that matter, to lose to the radfems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo: You are arguing so many things at once that your statements have become utterly convoluted and confused.
Let's take a look at a few particulars...
He could hit her back, if its self-defence. Wrong. When the police arrive, it's not clear who hit whom first. In most cases the man is assumed to be guilty.
Threats against the children? Legally, he could take them with him on his way to the courthouse to get his divorce/seperation. He is protecting them from harm, after all. Wrong. She can deny that she made the threats. If they divorce then fight for custody, and neither has been convicted of a crime, in 80% of the cases, the woman gets primary custody.
The laws are far more prejudiced against men than you realize. Men cannot just turn to the legal system to set things straight. Yes, we need to minimize government intrusion. We also need balance when government "intrusion" (as in the case of serious partner and child abuse) is necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @08:43PM EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
Thomas, nightmist:
I'll reply to you both at once here. We simply must have more confusion :)
Nightmist: You must have been tired. I know my post mentioned that I was for more DV shelters (for both sexes). So I guess we agree that once shelter-vs-shelter access is equalized our domestic violence work is done?
Thomas: I am not unaware of the many horrendous laws that often bias things against men in domestic violence situations. I would make two points to you , however:
A.He would have more/less rights in the U.S. depending upon what state he lived in . For example, in some states the law calls for the man or the heavier/larger party to be arrested at once. However, it is not that way in all states. I seem to recall a few newspaper articles a couple months back that had feminists squawking. Seems some states have laws that mandate the arrest of both parties. And of course, they didn't like that! And in some states, arrest is still at the discretion of the peace officer.
B. Reform of the laws? Very hard to do what with the system already in place. And not only that, they are constantly expanding the definitions. To a large extent, taking men into consideration as anything other than perps is very much NOT in the interests of some very powerful lobbies and agencies. My point to all of this is that we wouldn't have been in this mess in the first place had we dealt with domestic violence more by empowering people rather than empowering institutions.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nightmist: You must have been tired. I know my post mentioned that I was for more DV shelters (for both sexes). So I guess we agree that once shelter-vs-shelter access is equalized our domestic violence work is done?
That doesn't answer my question. What, specifically, prompted you to respond to me with an argument against government intrusion when, at no time in any of my posts, have I advocated for anything but equality under the law for both male and female victims of domestic violence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @11:28PM EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
This article says everything I would wish to say. It couldn't be more relevant if it was written especially for this debate; it contains too many excellent points for me to summarize, so I strongly urge you to read it in it's entirety:
http://www.rational.ca/rational/anarchist/ferrel.h tm
A sample:
"The plight of the victim is only half of what is significant in a case of abuse; the other half is the reprehensible behaviour of the offender. In discussing this half of the issue, JUSTICE WOULD DEMAND THAT THE EMPHASIS BE RATHER EQUALLY DIVIDED BETWEEN THE SEXES IN THE CASE OF DIRECT PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. I have already hinted at the reason. There is no moral virtue in lacking the ability to do as much harm as someone else. Moral virtue and vice reside in how willing one is to harm others, not in how able one is to do it. So when we're looking at who is repsonsible for violence, rather than at who suffers from it, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNISE THAT MEN AND WOMEN INTIATE SPOUSAL VIOLENCE ABOUT EQUALLY OFTEN, AND THAT PERHAPS HALF OF SPOUSAL VIOLENCE IS MUTUAL FIGHTING."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday December 17, @11:36PM EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.rational.ca/rational/anarchist/ferrel.h tm
To get the link to work copy and paste then remove the space.(h tm --> htm)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 18, @07:23AM EST (#53)
|
|
|
|
|
That doesn't answer my question. What, specifically, prompted you to respond to me with an argument against government intrusion when, at no time in any of my posts, have I advocated for anything but equality under the law for both male and female victims of domestic violence?
Perhaps statements like below?
OK, NOW you're suggesting that a lack of justice for male domestic violence vicitms isn't a real legal issue?
I don't know where you got the idea that domestic violence isn't a serious issue, but I can guarantee that you're not going to convince victims of said DV of your argument.
And the reason you think I don't think domestic violence is a serious issue is because I simply refuse to call my two hypothetical cases equivalent. I simply refuse to consider an incident of shoulder- grabbing to be an incident of wife-battering. Or her perfectly understandable human reaction the same as a repeat, premeditated pattern of abuse.
You know I'm for shelters for men. I'm for education for both sexes. I'm for mediation programs to help stop a problem before it develops. I'm for criminal and civil penalties for serious physical abuse. And I'm for reform of the laws so that at least men don't get screwed any more often than women.
But if we are going to declare everything and anything to be part of domestic violence I see no hope for any good revisions of the laws. The logical next step is to do what they are starting to do in Britain: By cracky, if she won't press charges we will do it for her, and press contempt-of-court charges against her as well! Sounds fun.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The quotes you mentioned say ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about more government, Remo. You're reading wild and completely unfounded arguments into my statements about your opinion.
And the reason you think I don't think domestic violence is a serious issue is because I simply refuse to call my two hypothetical cases equivalent. I simply refuse to consider an incident of shoulder- grabbing to be an incident of wife-battering. Or her perfectly understandable human reaction the same as a repeat, premeditated pattern of abuse.
Not at all. The reason I think that about your opinion is because you said, let's focus on "real" issues, by which you mean that domestic violence against men is not a real issue.
But if we are going to declare everything and anything to be part of domestic violence I see no hope for any good revisions of the laws. The logical next step is to do what they are starting to do in Britain: By cracky, if she won't press charges we will do it for her, and press contempt-of-court charges against her as well! Sounds fun.
That's not a logical next-step at all. THAT'S government intrusion, and not one single time in this entire thread have either Thomas or I suggested that's the way things should go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remo: There seems to have been a communication breakdown here. I really don't think Nightmist meant that an incident of shoulder-grabbing is a serious incident of wife-beating, especially if the shoulder-grabbing is done in self-defense. If it's done offensively, however, and causes injury, well, that's a different matter. In addition, I don't think anyone here, including Nightmist, believes that it would be good to declare everything and anything to be part of domestic violence. (He can correct me, of course, if I'm wrong.)
I think you and he and I would agree that a witch hunt for dv perpetrators would be (is?) a bad thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 18, @11:20AM EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you,Thomas.
There does seem to have been a communications foul-up.
My position on domestic violence is both a bit more skeptical then yours and Nightmists. I simply don't consider all intimate-partner violence to be something that is either unexpected , damaging, or amenable to change. Indeed, considering the expanded definition of violence we have these days, I don't really think there is a relationship that could survive careful scrutiny. If you are looking to find "domestic violence", "sexual harrasment", or "rape" you can find them anywhere given todays expanded scope. And I do think that in many cases the cure is worse than the disease.
For all of that, I think that we all agree on prety much the same methods of combating the problems that do exist. So in a way, we are arguing for nothing.
I'm sure I'd get along with Nightmist if I was ever to meet him. He's an intelligent guy with a sense of fundamental fairness. And so are you. Lets shake cyber-hands and make up :)
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sure I'd get along with Nightmist if I was ever to meet him.
Nah, I'm a jerk. :) Anyway, sorry I shouted. :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Happy to shake your cyber hand, Remo, and yours as well, Nightmist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Mrs. Pitkin hosted the meeting to gather ammunition for a law to open up what is seen as a child court system that operates behind closed doors."
All hail Mrs. Pitkin -
"Damn to hell the closed court"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday December 16, @09:11AM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"Damn to hell the closed court"
Ahh, Donald. For once, we share a common dream. But come on -- do you really think they will open up their rotten family courts to public scrutiny? What with that possibly conflicting with the "best interests of the children" , and all? Being open? Due process? Thats not how they do things here in sunny politically-correct-up-the-anus Maryland.
I did a web background check on Lady Pitkin. *s* Most interesting, most interesting.
Guess as to how this goes, if it is not somehow nipped in the bud. Fat chance, but I digress.
A. The law is passed. By allowing any allegation to basically lead to custody of the children *as if enough don't already* this law leads to even more abuse of the system then we have now. I predict no significant or even NEW penalties for false allegations -- after all, we must protect well-meaning people who have the little tykes safety constantly in their pure minds.
B. In PC Maryland, I can guarantee you that the "closed door system" will only be open for inspection whenever it serves the needs of the system. Thus, after every FC decision in which alleged abuse was found to be inconclusive or not merited the doors would be open. Ineivatably, there will be some mistakes. These will be used by the fems to farther tighten the law and make sure even more NCP'S *mostly men* are separated from their children.
At no other time will this disgusting, ineffective, crazy, and hypocritical system be open to public inspection. You don't believe me, or how I can be so cynical? Well, you should do some looking into One Party Politics in the Democratic SIG *Special Interest Group* Duchy of Maryland. PEEEEYOUUUUUUUUUUUU :(
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I personally know several men who have been falsely accused, including myself. In my case, it was an accusation of discrimination that didn't result in any formal discipline. (It was so clearly outrageous and unfounded that no high level person took it seriously. Nevertheless, it, along with other forms of vicious discrimination by the women of the organization against the men, ultimately led to my resignation from an important position.)
I read recently that in at least one state, Florida, I think, even if the falsely accused (almost always a man) is acquitted, his name stays on the registry for at least 7 months. And these registers are public and often published in newspapers.
Ain't the gynocracy wonderful?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new gender feminist tactic seems to be emerging these days...
This article is one-sided to an extreme. Though it mentions unsubstantiated claims of child abuse, this mention merely gives the writer plausible deniability -- he can point out, if challenged on the one-sidedness of the piece, that he mentioned the existence of unsubstantiated claims. (He makes no mention of false claims, and he takes the point of unsubstantiated claims no further.) The article otherwise focusses entirely on a purported bias against those who make charges of child abuse.
After technology (safe, efficient abortions and birth control) freed women to enter the workplace, they were largely welcomed by men. Now that men are protesting abuses by women in the workplace and discrimination against men in the family, the gender-fems are responding with a decided backlash.
When the men's/egalitarian movement objects to false claims of child abuse, the genfems make it sound as though the protest is an attempt to let child abusers get away with their crimes as well as an attempt to victimize those who are trying to protect children.
I compare this to my recent experience, when I called a Nine West store and spoke to the store's manager about their advertisement that I found offensive. The manager immediately had security call and hassle me with the claim that I had created a threatening situation for her -- genfem backlash.
It makes me think that if a woman ever hassles you at work or anywhere else, you should NOT approach her to discuss the matter. In a sane world, that would be the proper response, but we don't live in a sane world. We live under a gynocracy. Now, if you approach a woman to discuss her harassment of you, she can (and with increasing likelihood WILL) go to management and claim that you were threatening when you spoke with her. (If she hassled you in the first place, she's likely to do it again.) All of a sudden, then, you find yourself accused of harassing her, when in fact the opposite has happened -- a little piece of the genfem dream come true.
Protect yourselves. Go through management and tell them that you can't approach her because you don't want her falsely claiming that you harassed and threatened her.
The men's/egalitarian movement has responded to genfem hatred with forwardlash. The genfems are now counterattacking with backlash!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the practical suggestion, which, given current circumstances, seems like a good idea to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I'll put my statement in a nutshell...
This increasingly popular genfem tactic is to purport that claims -- that discrimination exists against men -- are in fact dangerous, possibly life-threatening attacks on women and children.
Be very careful. The hate mongers know that they no longer have free reign. And they are going to get insidious and vicious quite possibly to an extreme that even they have not previously exhibited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am no gender feminist, but I find your assertion that women were largely welcomed by men when they entered the workplace laughable. Women had to fight pretty hard to maintain their footing in the workplace even up until the 80s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find your assertion that women were largely welcomed by men when they entered the workplace laughable.
I was there and the great majority of men wanted women in the workplace. Feminists hadn't yet poisoned relations between the sexes. The greatest opposition to women entering the workplace came from wives who didn't want women competing with their husbands for promotions. Warren Farrell did a good job of explaining this in one of his books, "The Myth of Male Power" I believe.
The fact is women on the whole were welcomed into the workplace by men. Safe, effective abortions and birth control freed women to fully enter the workforce outside of the home. The revolution that took place in a mere 3 decades is astounding and would never have happened to such an extent or so quickly had men truly opposed women. The claim that men opposed women in the workplace, and just about everywhere else, is just another mainstream feminist lie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The claim that men opposed women in the workplace, and just about everywhere else, is just another mainstream feminist lie.
Indeed. And well said, Thomas.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 18, @03:07PM EST (#64)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, and don't forget the economic changes that were occuring. High inflation (for part of the seventies), stagnant or declining wages in most sectors of the economy , international competition, a rise of expectations due to the affluence of the post-war generation: All of these things pretty much FORCED women to work outside the home. The momentum was too large to stop in any case -- even had more men opposed it.
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There were many forces at work, but we would not have come so far so fast had men not overwhelmingly supported women as they fully entered the workforce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Using the body count alone to justify the current government approach on DV is ridiculous. The number of people, men and women alike, who die in these cases is ridiculously small. Further, even though the number of dead male bodies is outstripped (by not that much I would add) by the number of dead female bodies, poisoning is not considered, nor are cases where "mom" talks her boyfriend into killing dad.
The real problem isn't dealing with the dead, it's dealing with the living. How do we get a husband and wife to figure out how to resolve their conflicts without violence? Is it possible that we could educate the potential female victim to recognize the threshold which she must avoid crossing? (Yeah, I know, this sounds like blaming the victim. But it's not. It's just a question of knowing when to not chase your mate into his cave.)
VAWA has promised something like $13.5 BILLION over five years to help ONLY women. Moreover, this has the effect of creating criminals where there otherwise might not be any, because the enforcement agencies need to demonstrate effectiveness in order to get next years funding. And, according the the DoJ/CDC 1998 Report on Violence Against Women, there were over 800,000 men assaulted by their mates. Where, exactly, did these men turn for help?
Remo, I'm not sure what side of this issue you're on. For myself, I say never mind the body count, get help for the men who need it, and I think we all agree that there IS a significant number men in need. Also, it would be useful to pick 10,000 cases of men who were murdered by someone other than their spouse and see exactly what were the circumstances. This might give us a model from which we could determine if the men-killed-by-wives numbers are significantly underestimated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday December 18, @06:00PM EST (#67)
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it would be useful to pick 10,000 cases of men who were murdered by someone other than their spouse and see exactly what were the circumstances. This might give us a model from which we could determine if the men-killed-by-wives numbers are significantly underestimated.
I don't know if this has been done, but I sure like the idea :) Ten thousand is large enough to be statistically significant as to the nation as a whole, yet still small enough as to where say 10 or 20 researchers might be able to check out some of the facts of these cases and come up with a model. And in only a year or two and at a modest cost. I Liiiiiiike it :)
Remo
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And, if the leftover feminists from the Clinton Administration are willing, some enterprising grad student in sociology MIGHT even get the money to do it.
But it's not likely in my lifetime. :-)
Frank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hysteria and heartbreaking stories as a clock for anti-male fascism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As you may know I have started a group to work with abused men. We do not as yet have a phone number, but some men have found my home phone number and called me.
I got two calls from men who wanted me skinned alive for daring to say that women abuse men. I figured I'd get soem of them... Most of the calls though have been from men falsely accused of violence. Many were in tears. I emailed one local talk show host about doing a show on the topic, Jim Chapman (chapman@cjbk.com) and will see if he is interested.
Also, today's London Free Press has a related article here: http://www.canoe.ca/LondonNews/lf.lf-12-17-0016.ht ml
There is a lot of work to be done on the problems. Yet, I do think that we are making a tiny bit of headway.
Greg
the Volksgaren Project: Intelligent Abuse Recovery, http://clix.to/support/, jaxom@amtelecom.net, 519-773-9644
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the article cited by Greg/Jaxom above:
Despite a lack of medical evidence and a conclusion by the Children's Aid Society that no abuse occurred, Lautenschlager's access to his daughter was cut to two hours of supervised access a month.
In industrialized societies today, it is extremely dangerous, to say the least, for a man to allow a woman to become pregnant with his sperm. If you are at all inclined to do so, think long and hard about it first.
We are so often told that the population of industrialized nations is collapsing because of countless concerns of women. I think such analysis ignores the great significance of men's concerns and it should be noted that men's concerns and awareness increase every day. And we don't quite yet have a safe, effective and non-pleasure-reducing form of male birth control. Just wait until that arrives!
BTW, Greg: I'm convinced that we are making headway, and it has just started to become truly consequential.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
