|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 05, @02:30PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
While DV programs intend to teach boys how to "treat girls" - popular cultural trends in the media, expecially TV and movies have had a dramatic increase of women being overtly violent towards men.
why aren't the feminists outraged at this? Does it not seem hypocritical that TV programming is screened for negative portrayal of women, while on the other hand shows like Dark Angel, WitchBlade, Buffy, and just about every actions show now depicts 105 pound woman beating the snot out of an army of (patriarchal) men.
Do as we say, not as we do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not only is it hypocritacal, its counter productive.
These women can't get it threw their heads. They dont want to solve the problem, they want to create more victims to gain better funding, will someone please enlighten our politicians to these tactics.
I notice the swarmy side steps of their language, very classic
"Domestic violence does not discriminate according to race, age, or socioeconomic/educational level."
<<But apparently to sex>> 40% of girls age 14 to 17 reports knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend.
<<really they know someone, wonderful>>
Even more frightening, about 1 in 5 female high school students reports being physically or sexually abused by a dating partner.
<<And what about the boys??>>
This could mean that boys as young as 14 years old are beating their female classmates.
<<"This could mean"?? This could mean a lot of things. It could also mean they are lying or misrepresenting the situation or exagerating or and its obvious, that they are not talking about the boys being abused by the girls, its also not talking about the fact that all forms of crime has dropped except violent assualts perpetrated by girls in the same age group, which has gone up dramaticall, since Xena and Buffy and Dark Angel started kicking some ass. Don't forget Alias. Now I know why girls are so hostile towards male's , the constant misinformation and propaganda as such a young "target" group, easily impressionable, how am I not surprised. These people are predators they should be numbered. Funding them is like funding the Nazi's to kill Anne Frank, or in our case a young teenage boy raised that its up to him to ask girls out. But of course "asking a girl out is now sexual harrasement" now isnt it according to these people.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I ran into an educator acquaintence over the weekend who told me what's going on in the inner city middle schools in Trenton. It seems that the girls are beating the living shit out of the boys on a regular basis. Keep in mind that, at this age, the girls have a strength advantage. The boys are really getting the short end of the stick. Then, once in high school, when the hormones have allowed the boys to catch up, the girls are getting their cumuppence. Not that I think it's justified, mind you, but it's significant that they chose not to look at abuse below the age of 14: it would clearly make the girls look bad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
" Then, once in high school, when the hormones have allowed the boys to catch up, the girls are getting their cumuppence. Not that I think it's justified, mind you, but it's significant that they chose not to look at abuse below the age of 14: it would clearly make the girls look bad."
Typical.
Thanks for the info, btw, what are these people really trying to get at here anyways, I mean why are they always trying to slam the boys??
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They're just pandering to the women. You know, the old "women make 85% of the buying decisions" thing. The ad council won't do ANYTHING that offends their buying base. And the fact that the top two officers of the club ARE women (or appear to be) helps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Domestic violence does not discriminate according to race, age, or socioeconomic/educational level."
This omission of 'sex' in this is so blatently contrived.
All the other stats are just women's experience - they don't ask men and they don't ask women about men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"All the other stats are just women's experience - they don't ask men and they don't ask women about men."
Derry, I like you. I have had some good relationships with Australian girls too.
Do you by chance Know Kelly de Haas?
Tell her to give me a shout.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well - there is only about 18 million of us out here, but if I bump into I'll tell her hi ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Well - there is only about 18 million of us out here, but if I bump into I'll tell her hi ;)"
Hehehehe, muchly appreciated.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These programs are just getting sicker and sicker - my kids love buffy but the latest ones out (and we are behind in Australia) with the two main characters and love interests constantly bashing the shit out of each other (female initiated) and behaving in a very depressed and black way is really disturbing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the Ad Council's site:
Boys must be taught that there is
never any excuse for domestic
violence, against anyone
They're in for a rude shock when they
start cohabiting with females then!
As they really want to reduce male on
female DV they'll be teaching the boys
useful skill for dealing with women:
debating skills, recognising and combating
manipulation, useful put-downs, the power
of indifference, ways to get sex without
committment, that kind of thing.
I'm dreaming: the only skill they will teach
boys is how to submit to females.
sd
Those who like this sort of thing
will find this the sort of thing they like.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mwahaha, I'll teach your course. I'll say I'm doing a presentation for Teaching Young Men About The Treatment of Women in the Media or some such nonsense. I'll dress conservatively and wear a N.O.W. pin, I'm sure my mother has one somewhere. I'll present pie charts on the amounts of dumb blond jokes in the media. Then the dire moment when I have wormed my way into their trust, and have dreadfully bored students at my disposal and boom! Submission is no longer the inevitable! Never let your rights be trampled for fear of being labeled chauvinist or anti-women!
Ah, but somehow I doubt I'll achieve that level of power, terribly sad.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never let your rights be trampled for fear of being labeled chauvinist or anti-women!
You got it, Crescent.
somehow I doubt I'll achieve that level of power, terribly sad.
Don't bet on it. Things are gonna get very, very ugly before the evil known as feminism is overthrown, but the evil WILL be overthrown.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Don't bet on it. Things are gonna get very, very ugly before the evil known as feminism is overthrown, but the evil WILL be overthrown."
Our daily mantra should be "men are being discriminated against all the time". Keep saying it, and ad that boys are too in the schools and it sucks.
Hey you know I'd really like to have some faces and stuff on our boards it would be hilerious.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'll dress conservatively and wear a N.O.W. pin, I'm sure my mother has one somewhere.
Sensible shoes! Don't forget sensible shoes!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I'll dress conservatively and wear a N.O.W. pin, I'm sure my mother has one somewhere."
I think your mistaken about how the NOW girls dress, I will try to find a quote from a girl that used to work there.
Found it, on the IWF
"A N.O.W. Intern sees the Light
By Kerry K. Doyle " quote
"My first day at NOW was a nightmare. I was already nervous just from excitement and eagerness to impress, but when I arrived the situation immediately became much, much worse. It was clear that I did not fit in—with my heels, pressed dress slacks, pink button-up blouse, and long, plain hair. I looked entirely out of place among the jeans, angry slogan-splashed t-shirts, spiky buzzed hair, and nose rings.
The first thing I heard was a joke about Catholics. I reached up to touch, but not cover, the silver cross that I wear around my neck every day. Next, I and several other new interns were summoned to the conference room for “acquainting.” We watched several videos. During the last one, I had to leave the room to relieve my nausea. The graphic abortion propaganda was too much for my stomach. I held in tears and what was left of my breakfast for a few more hours, until I became so distraught that I left early."
I left in the part about them being bigoted to ad fuel to the fire. I will leave the url for anyone interested in this and other "ex-feminista" stories. http://www.iwf.org/pubs/exfemina/April2002i.shtml
http://www.iwf.org/pubs/exfemina/index.shtml
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*Laughs*
"I think your mistaken about how the NOW girls dress, I will try to find a quote from a girl that used to work there..."
Oh, but that's when around other Angry Grrrrls(tm)
as opposed to worming their way into the school system. THEN, they appear professional - if they sent their Grunge refugees into school conferences it wouldn't work nearly as well. Ugh, was visiting college girls talking about how wonderful their last production of The Vagina Monolouges was and how my dearest friend will direct it next year. BLAH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ya but think of how many people will be able to just be able to say the word "vagina". Or at least the "V" word.
geeezzzzzzzzzz.
The local sexual assault center made $10 000 dollars showing a production of this play, I wonder if the 13 year old girl that was raped by the 23 year old woman was given a piece of that?
I'd call them hypocrits but its seems far to tame for what they really are.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Wednesday June 05, @07:56PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
If the Ad Council is promoting anti-male propaganda, complain to the companies that sponsor it: the ones that buy ads from its members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I also found this at their site:
"Father's Day is a time for children and families to celebrate and honor dads and the important role they play in our lives. However, today, one out of every three children in the America lives in a home without a father. Fatherhood absence has increased dramatically during the past 40 years and the consequences are irreversible. Kids without fathers involved in their lives are more likely to commit violent crimes, drop out of school and abuse drugs. Fathers need to recognize the important role they play by just spending time with their kids."
Frosts my ass, I'll tell ya.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Fathers need to recognize the important role they play by just spending time with their kids."
This is still the problem: yes, there are irresponsible fathers out there who are shirking their responsibilities. But I believe in most cases, fathers are desperately trying to be involved in their children's lives but are being blocked, either by a vindictive ex-spouse or family court system that sees dads as obsolete.
What a great message for father's day - can there ever be anything positive said about men without including something condescending?
Scott
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What a great message for father's day - can there ever be anything positive said about men without including something condescending? "
Condensending? I was thinking more skitzophrenic.
Like you said, they do everything in their power to make sure they have the children and kick the man out of the house, then blame men for not being "dads". Of course they couldnt possible be in the wrong now could they.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, today, one out of every three children in the America lives in a home without a father.
And how many abortions have women had? When a women doesn't want a child, she can destroy the fetus or embryo or, in many jurisdictions, dump the child off at a firehouse or hospital.
All a man can do is flee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"All a man can do is flee."
I think that if men were given the oppurtunity to decide their fates on this, child fraud, and entrapements would become non existent. "Unplanned pregnancies" would dissappear.
Give men the pill soon!!!
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give men the pill soon!!!
It's coming, and the incipient population collapse, which societies are finally starting to recognize as a serious problem, may well prove to be chump change compared to what we're gonna see in a few years, once men gain a little more control over reproduction.
Population collapse is going to be a major international crisis. In fact, it may well prove to be the greatest calamity created by the alienation of men and women caused by the hatred and lies of feminism.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, what is the answer to the population collapse?
Given that everyone on this board is into increasing men's choice to say no - and reduce the population further.
What is it that men need to make them want children at all?
And what is the opinion of people on this board about population growth - what is a desirable rate?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Deep questions, derry.
Population growth is needed in traditional economies because growth is the engine that keeps them moving. Without growth, prices inflate because tomorrow will no longer pay for today.
All a man needs to want children is the security that what he brings to the family is valued and will continue to be valued so that his participation in the family is assured.
I would like to see ZPG, and I would like the economy to find a way to adapt to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Frank about what's needed to get men to want children more. It won't do to continue to, with the collaboration of the state, kidnap children from men. (It slays me, when people complain about Saudi Arabian men, for instance, "kidnapping" their children and taking them to Saudi Arabia, when American women with the collusion of the majority [read "female"] elected government as a matter of course kidnap the children of American men.) It also won't do to continue to give mothers, but not fathers, increasingly lengthy parental leave from work. We all know there's a host of such injustices.
As for ZPG, I wouldn't even mind NPG, Negative Population Growth, for a while, but, like Frank, I would like to see the economy adapt to it in a smooth fashion. At this point, population decline, especially among the more highly educated groups or races, is approaching a catastrophic rate. I've read that Japan is at about 50% of replacement rate. With a current population of about 120 million, and a generation of about 25 years (these are appoximate, I'm using them because they're easy numbers to deal with and will give an idea of what's happening), this means in 25 years the youths will represent a total population of about 60 million. After 50 years, the youths will represent a total population of about 30 million. After 75 years, a population of about 15 million and after 100 years, a population of about 7.5 million. (Professional demographers and population experts could, no doubt, refine these estimates, but their a good, first order, back of the envelope calculation/estimate.) With people living longer, this means that people, representing a population of about 7.5 million, will be working to maintain a country with a population of still about 100 million. Note that this is happening today and a good form of male birth control hasn't yet, but probably soon will, burst upon the scene. Good chance the reproduction rate will decline even further, when men are able to find themselves less often with children that they don't want. For information on what's happening in Australia with regard to population collapse, see this article. The break point will come in far less than a century. In fact, it's already panting down our backs.
A few weeks ago there was, finally, an international conference in Spain to address this problem.
Frankly, I think it will become a crisis because people won't be able to agree on a solution. Feminists will want men to work and to have their income taken from them to support SAHMs, while the men are effectively barred from the family. It ain't gonna fly. Many men are already too fed up to submit to such a vile plan, and men's anger increases by the day. On the other hand, feminists are too deeply entrenched in power to be quickly removed.
I'll be very surprised if population collapse doesn't soon lead to catastrophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With the population falling and the improvement in genetic technology, all those single moms who want children might well decide to have girls and not boys, so the imbalance will be even worse. On the other hand, a population that allows that to happen will make itself vulnerable to attack, and will likely be subjugated.
Islam may well inherit the planet unless we wake up and re-instate the notion of manhood. (Not that I have anything against Muslims, but the fundamentalists have clearly said what they believe the Koran to forecast.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
With... the improvement in genetic technology, all those single moms who want children might well decide to have girls and not boys, so the imbalance will be even worse.
The technological "bright side" (I use quotes because many people won't see it as a bright side) is that artificial wombs may soon make pregnancy and birthing by women unnecessary. We will be able to reproduce as we need, without women facing the pain of child-bearing and birthing.
As for Islam inheriting the earth, that thought has occurred to me. Between immigration, the plummeting birth-rate of European-French, and the relatively high birth-rate of North African-French, France will soon be an Islamic country. (I think this accounts in part for France's luke-warm support of America's war on terrorism.)
Population growth/collapse, and the attendant radical changes in national demographics, may prove to be a greater source of social upheaval than anything else during the next half-century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The interesting thing is that the nations without the technology will be the "winners."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well I was thinking that when I had children it didnt have to coincide with some economy, even though the practical advatages of a flush one are clear.
I just dont want to end up with some girl having my kid because I picked her up somewhere and she found out what kind of money I make. It's happened before, I know it will happen again. At least if I have the pill I can choose for myself. Untill they start equalizing the laws, and give me privledges I deserve in regards to- women that simply claim ownership of me the child and whatever else femi-nit-wits want to give to her in what their definition of "equality" is, jeezzz.
Dan Lynch
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, what is the answer to the population collapse?
I plan to have achieved immortality and control of the physical universe by then, so my answer is "Whatever."
Given that everyone on this board is into increasing men's choice to say no ...
I think that is a mis-statement - from my perspective anyway. I am into giving men the same choices to say no to parenthood that women have. That means increasing men's choices.
IMO, this will strengthen families. It turns fathers into volunteers, not conscripts.
What is it that men need to make them want children at all?
Frank said it well. It's pretty simple. They need fatherhood to be recognized as something much more than a support system for a mother. For society and the law to acknowledge that the father-child bond is just as invaluable and inviolable as the mother-child bond. (The Kerkorian trial here in the U.S. shows what a mockery the courts have made of fatherhood.) Men need to know that children are just as much theirs as the mother's and that no one can take them away.
And, finally...
And the bit about denying the father access to the child - that only happens if the father doesn't have to pay for the child.
We need to demolish the demeaning notion that you're not a father until you pay the access fee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"And the bit about denying the father access to the child - that only happens if the father doesn't have to pay for the child."
That comment referred only to the outcome of a Paternity Fraud case and was not a general comment - if a man wants to bring a women to court for paternity fraud he is not likely to want to have access to the child is he? Otherwise there is no point in taking it to court at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if a man wants to bring a women to court for paternity fraud he is not likely to want to have access to the child is he?
Who knows? If a man brings a women to court for paternity fraud he almost certainly wants to sever his relationship with her, the person who deceived him about two of the most important relationships in his life. If it's gone to court that relationship has probably been reduced to a legal requirement to send her a check.
He may or may not want to continue his relationship with the child. Why put up roadblocks to that? If we do, let's not spout any bullshit that we worry about how the child will feel to lose his/her father. The kid doesn't care if he's sending a check.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Derry,
It may seem to you that I'm coming back and flogging a dead horse about this one aspect of paternity fraud. What I'm doing is working through the ramifications of your statement:
Think it important that men are not portrayed as caring more about the money than the child/ren.
If that is important, then we have to be aware of all the ways in which society shows men that society is more concerned about money than men or their children.
Within a day or two after making that statement, you agreed without qualm to a law that made fatherhood contingent on a man's willingness to open his wallet. No pay, no play. You're sending me a very mixed message.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why should a man get rights of access to a child that he doesn't consider his own? Traditionally parents have a right to decide who there children mix with. How can a man say he has the right to force access rights for a child he has gone to court to prove he is not the "father" and I don't simply mean biological paternity I mean any form of paternity. If you want the right to 'force' access without paying to support the child - that is having all of the rights of a father and none of the responsibilities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you misunderstand me. I am against a man who gets a woman pregnant from a one night stand or even less - like the Boris Becker incident - having to pay for the child if he doesn't want to. I am not for a man saying well I want the rights of being a parent but not the responsibilities.
If you don't want the child then the best thing you can do is get out of it's life - not stick around and teach it that a 'father' is a man that spends time with him like a big brother, maybe sneering at his mother, but won't help support him.
And I fail to see how any argument that men should have enforced access to their child and non-payment of Child Support to show that a man does not care more about the money than the child. If you take it to court so you don't have to pay!!!!
To be able to regularly see a child and weasel out of any obligation to help with the financial support is exactly the 'deadbeat dad' image that I object to.
If the man doesn't want to be the father but wants to be the father then he is the one who is giving the mixed signals.
This also brings up the concept of what is a father. To me a father is someone who has chosen to contribute equally to the upbringing of a child - not someone who has a biological link with the child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To be able to regularly see a child and weasel out of any obligation to help with the financial support is exactly the 'deadbeat dad' image that I object to.
I guess I've failed to make my point and I don't know another way to say it. All I ask is that you listen here and other places to men's stories about how that simple, innocuous phrase "obligation to help with the financial support" can actually work out in practice. You might see that it's possible, perhaps even common, that a moral, responsible man who cares about his children might rightly want to weasel out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the arguments for 50/50 joint physical custody - not the arguments for joint access with no financial support at all.
I have lost my children through separation(although I have them back now) and I am well acquainted with what it is like psychologically to financially support a child that someone else is indoctrinating.
I have been the victim of an extreme campaign of parental alienation and understand PAS and how effective it can be (I believe only short term as long as you can work through it with the children - but it is essential to not 'lose it' while your children are turned against you).
I also know what it is like to be reported to the police for Domestic Violence that I did not commit, in fact when it was perpertrated against me.
I know what it is like to have my children kidnapped and not to know of their whereabouts and then to not see them for months.
All these things happened to me.
So what am I missing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I understand the arguments for 50/50 joint physical custody - not the arguments for joint access with no financial support at all.
It's not a strong argument and it's not one I'd normally make. However, the California paternity law, before it was amended, opened that possibility. Usually if a judge looks at a case and finds no legal obligation on the part of the man all ties are cut. End of story.
With this law, he could further look at the actual, not legal, relationship and if it seems worthwhile, declare it good and provide for it to continue. I look at that and think, "Why the hell not? In a strange, messy situation the kid at least emerges with something approximating a father figure." If he's merely a Big Brother-type, well ...Big Brothers are a good idea! Who does it hurt?
(As an aside, there is nothing to prevent the man from showering the child with monetary support. Personally, I find it much easier to be generous when generosity is not compulsory.)
I don't understand the objection, which seems to me to boil down to "But then the man would get something for nothing." As if that would be a tragedy. And what happened to how the kid feels?
I'm out of keyboard time today, but I'm most definitely not ignoring the rest of what you said and revealed, Derry, and I'll get back when life lets me.
You argue with honesty, integrity and sanity. I'm glad you've decided to jump in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Larry:
I like this idea. It's something that I hadn't thought of, but at first glance it makes good sense.
A man shouldn't be forced to pay for children who aren't his, but if a man and a child have a good relationship, the government shouldn't shove in and bar them from continuing that relationship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What amazes me about these initiatives is that they think that teaching boys how to talk politely or telling them statistics on Domestic Violence [agaist women] is going to magically convince these evil, violent boys the age-old lesson which is "never hit a girl."
Any guy [since the initiative is aimed at guys] who hits his girlfriend isn't going to magically realize that it's wrong and stop from seeing an ad.
It ignores the prominent problem of girls feeling it is well and okay to hit a guy if he makes an inappropriate comment, but it's hideous and evil if he so much as hits back. The hypocracy causes pain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Ad Council:
Your ads and information relating to domestic violence are sexist and false. Men are a steadily increasing group among the victims of domestic violence, making up over 50% according to non-feminist-funded researchers, and a documented 35-40% according to the Department of Justice. Yet you use my tax dollars to claim that the only victims of domestic violence are women. This sexism is morally wrong. This sexist use of tax dollars is illegal. Furthermore, by ignoring one entire half of domestic violence victims and allowing their abusers to hide behind the claim of being the 'real' victim you actually increase the problem. This is not simply unhelpful to families. It is destructive to the women's movement as well. Word has gotten out. The truth always does. You could do a great deal to reduce the building backlash by acknowledging the enormous problem of male victims of domestic violence in your ads and literature. You could silence the conspiracy theorists if you would simply stop hiding the truth about women who abuse and men who can't get help in escaping their abusers.
Sincerely,
S Jones
Memphis, TN
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could I please have the source of these statistics?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could I please have the source of these statistics?
Sorry this is a little late, and you may not see it, but here is a link listing a wealth of studies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To the DV prevention organization:
I do not appreciate the way you portray boys in a very important and grim issue such as domestic violence. Your message in stopping one side of violence [against women] and refusing to expose and stop the other side, violence against men makes the problem even worse...teaching a boy to never hit a girl, is just like teaching him to never ever cry in front of his mother! If you want to stop domestic violence, include all forms, do not just demonize and degrade boys by just showing one side of the coin...after all, violence is violence and it is wrong no matter what. In the meantime, a growing number of women are becoming increasingly violent, and you are not doing anything about it! Lastly, who gave society the right to discriminate against victims and perpetrators of violence on the basis of gender?
Please take this in consideration and have a change of heart...teach boys [and girls] not to hit anyone for any reason!!!
Regards,
Emmanuel Matteer Jnr.
Emanslave@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Emmanuel:
It's great to "see" you here again. You've been gone for quite a while. Welcome back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To whom it may concern,
You have a very inflamatory paragraph (and probably agenda) on your web site (http://www.adcouncil.org/campaigns/Domestic_Viole nce_Prevention/). On this page you state:
"Adults have an important role to play in the fight against domestic abuse. The objective of the campaign is to engage men and have them speak to pre-teen/teen boys about how women should be treated. By influencing the attitudes and behaviors of young boys, adults can prevent violence towards women. Through TV, print, and radio ads, men are encouraged to learn about the role they can play in putting an end to domestic violence."
You state how "boys" should be taught how women should be treated. What about women that abuse men? Not just wives abusing their husbands, but women abusing their same-sex partners, women abusing their children, women (teachers) abusing their students, women abusing boyfriends, etc. To narrow your focus on domestic violence to just one party (men and boys) you are turning a blind eye away from the other half of this problem. If your focus was on the ABUSER and not a gender...it would be a better program all the way around. What do you think about that?
Anthony Robertson
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
George Perlov,
Your website on domestic violence was very insulting to all the males who are victims. I am amazed that sites like this continue to ignore and downplay the male victim. Here's some info showing that: 1) Men are victims about as often as women; 2) self defense does not explain female violence; 3) men are frequently harmed by the violence against them, and; 4) male victims are the most underserved.
1) MEN ARE VICTIMS ABOUT AS OFTEN AS WOMEN ARE.
In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice conducted the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVWS) and found that, “Approximately 1.5 million women and 834,700 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States.”
http://ncjrs.org/txtfiles/172837.txt.
This makes men nearly 40% of the victims. And this number is probably too low. According to leading expert Richard Gelles (U. of Pennsylvania),
“The National Crime Victims Survey and National Survey of Violence against Women both assess partner violence in the context of a crime survey. It is reasonable to suppose both men and women underreport female-to-male partner violence in a crime survey, as they do not conceptualize such behavior as a crime.”
Gelles, 1999, “The Missing Persons of Domestic Violence: Male Victims,” http://tsw.odyssey.on.ca/~balancebeam/DomesticViol ence/gelles.htm.
In 1975, Gelles conducted nationwide research for the NIMH and found,
“[T]he rate of abusive female-to-male violence was the same as the rate of abusive male-to-female violence.”
Id. Virtually all (non-crime) surveys confirm this. Gelles explained in 1999,
”[O]ur findings have been corroborated numerous times, by many different researchers, using many different methodological approaches. My colleague Murray Straus has found that every study among more than 30 describing some type of sample that is not self-selective [from shelters or from women responding to advertisements, etc.] has found a rate of assault by women on male partners that is about the same as the rate by men on female partners.” Id.
Today there are over 100 studies that corroborate Gelles’ findings. The Department of Psychology at Cal State Long Beach maintains an online bibliography summarizing 130 scholarly investigations, with an aggregate sample size exceeding 77,000, each confirming that, “[W]omen are as physically aggressive, or more physically aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”
http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.
2) SELF-DEFENSE DOES NOT EXPLAIN FEMALE VIOLENCE.
In response to criticism that his research failed to ask about self-defense, Gelles and his colleagues revised the survey in 1986 to ask who initiated the violence. The results were the same.
”[C]ontrary to the claim that women only hit in self-defense, we found that women were as likely to initiate the violence as were men. In order to correct for a possible bias in reporting, we re-examined our data looking only at the self-reports of women. The women reported similar rates of female-to-male violence compared to male-to-female, and women also reported they were as likely to initiate the violence as were men.” Gelles, supra.
According to Dr. David Fontes, Employee Assistance Program manager for the California Department of Social Services, surveys that say female violence is self-defense usually come from pre-selected samples of victims (e.g. from shelters), which don’t account for women who struck for reasons other than self-defense and didn’t need to visit a shelter. By contrast, when researchers randomly inquired about motives they not only found equal violence between men and women but also found that only 10-15 percent of the violence by either sex was self-defense and that both sexes initiated violence against their partners for very much the same reasons, most often “to get through to them.” www.safe4all.org/essays/vtbreak.pdf.
In 1997, Dr. Martin Fiebert and Dr. Denise Gonzalez of California State University, Long Beach interviewed 978 college women and found that 29% of the women admitted physical aggression toward their male partners. The top three reasons were:
“My partner wasn’t sensitive to my needs.”
“I wished to gain my partner’s attention.”
“My partner was not listening to me.”
Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590 (1997), http://www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm.
Dr. John Archer provides further evidence refuting the self-defense claim in the September 2000 issue of the Psychological Bulletin, a journal of the American Psychological Association. The existing data on domestic violence makes it clear that self-defense does not explain the equal frequency of violence between men and women found in the majority of the research.
3). A LARGE NUMBER OF MEN ARE PHYSICALLY HARMED.
Contrary to public misperceptions, women are very capable of inflicting severe harm on their male partners. Gelles’ studies found that women were more likely than men to use weapons, objects and surprise on their partners. And the Department of Justice’s figures show that, of the men in the NVAWS who were assaulted, 59.5% had something thrown at them, 43.2% were hit with an object, 21.6% were threatened with a knife, and 10.8% had a gun used against them. http://www.batteredmen.com/nvawrisk.htm.
In the Psychological Bulletin, supra, Dr. John Archer analyzed 80 published studies and found not only that women initiate domestic violence in relationships as often as men do but also that men make a “substantial minority” (38%) of victims who are physically harmed.
"[T]he majority of those injured were women, but the values of .62 and .65 indicated that a substantial minority of men was injured by a partner. It is therefore not the case [citation] that women’s violence toward men severe enough to cause physical injury is negligible or nonexistent."
Archer, Psychological Bulletin, 9/00, p. 665.
According to the American Medical Association,
[T]he most conservative indicator of battering--to the 52 million married couples in the United States - suggests that 104,000 men are injured by their wives each year . . . [T]he total number of male victims of spousal violence each year, while less than the number of female battering victims, is hardly a trivial number, especially from the point of view of the medical profession.
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/article/2036-2559. html
4). MEN ARE AMONG THE MOST UNDERSERVED.
According to Dr. Irene Frieze,
"Although there are now many services available for battered wives, there are few, if any, social services for battered husbands. Such services need to be developed."
Psychological Bulletin, p. 683.
Among more than 25 shelters for domestic violence victims in L.A. County, only one openly accepts males, the Valley Oasis shelter far away in the remote desert town of Lancaster. Valley Oasis director Carol Ensign and former director Patricia Overberg have seen men come from hundreds of miles due to the lack of services for men. Fox News and the L.A. Daily News quote Overberg saying, “What L.A. County is doing is discriminatory and illegal." www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,34159,00.html.
Yet L.A. County is ahead of most other counties. Very few if any counties throughout the U.S. have any shelter at all for males.
“The real horror is the continued status of battered men as the ‘missing persons’ of the domestic violence problem. Male victims do not count and are not counted . . . Thirty years ago battered women had no place to go and no place to turn for help and assistance. Today, there are places to go—more than 1,800 shelters, and many agencies to which to turn. For men, there still is no place to go and no one to whom to turn. Occasionally a shelter for battered men is created, but it rarely lasts—first because it lacks on-going funding, and second because the shelter probably does not meet the needs of male victims. Men, who retain their children in order to try to protect them from abusive mothers, often find themselves arrested for 'child kidnapping.”
Gelles, supra.
According to researchers like Dr. Suzanne Steinmetz (“The Battered Husband Syndrome,” Victimology, 1976), the lack of outreach to males is one factor that makes men less likely than women to seek help. Other factors include shame, fear of mistaken arrest or fear of losing custody of children.
When men don’t seek help, the violence often escalates, and children who witness it can be emotionally damaged. The message they receive is that abusing a partner is OK. Domestic violence is an intergenerational cycle. Unless we address all of it, the cycle will never end.
Mr. Perlov, are you willing to change the site to portray domestic violence in a way that is accurate?
Marc Angelucci
Stop Abuse For Everyone (www.safe4all.org)
Los Angeles
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
