|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:06 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
When someone reminds her that "men get battered, too," Schaefer said her immediate response is to agree.
"It's an underserved population," she said. "Pretty much everyone is underserved when it comes to domestic violence."
Everyone is underserved? Seems like women have their own publically funded shelters, the VAWAct, sympathetic counselors for women only, state programs protecting women, biased judges and law enforcement policies in favor of women and the woman's word is proof enough she has been abused.
What do abused men have? Prison, homelessness, poverty, alchoholism, suicide! That is an underserved population!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:54 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.
But who's really suprised that a WOMAN said that?
I'm not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 11:39 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Women are more likely to use force as a way to focus attention on unmet needs and frustrations, while men are more likely to use it as a fear and control tactic.
I thought this line was interesting...
I wonder how gaining someone elses focus and attention by upclocking them in the head so that they meet your needs and frustrations is not a control tactic?
you have to admit that its clear to see them stretching the cellophane to cover things it was not made to cover, to preserve the ideas they cherish within.
and it is to be appreciated that throughout the article there are sprinklings of sanity.. thats better than before.. and we have to commend this researcher for reporting honestly when it would have been just as easy to reform the study slightly to avoid the situation (like telling people that physical behavior is not allowed).
i will say that this is an article on her findings and so they will try to sit on a razor blade between the truth and what people will swallow (note burnt dead cow doesnt sell as well as juicy thick tender steak). the real maneur will fly when the actual study gets printed!!! because there will not be an editor to ameliorate her findings, and you can tell that she is not shy about reporting what she finds irregardless of her beliefs (which we have no idea of from the article, as her knowledge of public belief may not be hers). this is the kind of women we need more of in science. wherever the cards fall is where they fall and thats ok.
i will be interesting to read her study after and see if she tones it down or reacts in fear. i will say probably not given that she already knows the publish date before this article, and as such its a bit late to change her tack after finding out that women not only can be violent, but that violence will be directed at anyone, even a woman, that dares disagree with them! (i doubther subjects hit each other because of agreement). this is true on a one on one, as it is true that the femnazis will also violently attack this researcher to suppress this kind of work.
Sign me the Artful Dodger
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 08:21 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like an interesting study, with results which don't surprise me (but should be a shock to those who actually believe what political correctness and feminism tells them).
However, the bulk of the article after the relatively short part covering the study seems to just bury it in a lot of femspeak from a couple of people working in DV organizations, Schaefer and Guiterrez, who go to great lengths to seemingly discount or devalue the findings by stressing that they think even if a female is the aggressor, guys are still the ones at fault if they dare hit back, guys are less endangered in these violent confrontations, have more freedom to leave, etc.
They're just so intent on retaining the role of victim for women that they don't seem to acknowledge the horrors that men go through sometimes (or the fact that women are more likely to use weapons). They just pay lip service to the fact that some guys do get attacked/battered/etc., while stressing all the while that women have it way worse. They use words such as "epidemic" to describe DV vs women, of course, claiming it's the number one cause of injury for women within a certain age category (which seems blatantly untrue, how could that be?). Feminists just get heard over all else anytime there are any findings which give the lie to or threaten their propaganda or agenda, and opposing viewpoints are barely heard, if at all. I guess that hasn't changed, that's for sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:41 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
"Seems like an interesting study, with results which don't surprise me (but should be a shock to those who actually believe what political correctness and feminism tells them)"
I think there are a lot of people out there who are saying, "Duh, this is so obvious."
Here's another news flash I think a lot of people are already aware of, "There's a multi-billion dollar, gender feminist ideology, (agenda) corruptly fighting to continue the destruction of innocent men's lives based on the suppression of truth and the spreading of gender feminist lies." After all that's what VAWA is about as much as anything. Yes, children and other innocents are destroyed in the process of carrying out gender feminist driven programs, and that under scores (more than anything) the despicable nature of the evil, gender feminist hate movement that is currently plaguing America through despicable programs like the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).
Here's this from Linda Kelly's excellent law review article, "Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse; How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State
"A basic tenet of feminist theory is its view of intimate violence as a manifestation of our culture’s “patriarchal” structure, with its attendant differential status, power, and control, which are reflected in individuals’ attitudes and behaviours. Dobash et al. (1992, 1998) propose that gender asymmetry in partner violence reflects a context of gender inequality both within the household and in the larger society. Their research program conceptualizes men as perpetrators and women as victims, but it fails to provide comparative findings on woman-to-man verbal and physical abuse to validate these gendered patterns. While their historical research on patriarchy is informative, their contemporary data are derived primarily from narratives of battered women living in shelters and transition houses, not from representative samples of both genders."
and
Notwithstanding these conceptual and methodological problems, feminist scholars have developed several strategies and implemented them successfully in the academic, political, legal and public domains. One important strategy is to construct intimate violence as a gender issue rather than as a human problem (Lupri, 2004). As stated above, men have been constructed as the primary oppressors and perpetrators of intimate violence and women have been regarded primarily as victims. A second successful strategy has been, and still is, to use advocacy efforts to convince the state to acknowledge the oppression of women, both within and outside the household. Their third successful strategy has been, and still is, to ensure that domestic violence against women is acknowledged as a public issue and a serious social problem. A corollary of the latter strategy entails focusing sharply on physical violence as well as on outcomes. However, radical feminists have ignored the complexity of the dynamic that is an integral part of intimate interaction and have been reluctant to recognize that men and women are intimately engaged in, and part of, the dialectic interplay of abuse."
Sincerely, Ray
...and it all begins in taxpayer funded, Women's Studies programs on college campuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by gilligan on 03:48 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Some quotes from the article:
"The most crucial distinction between male and female aggressors, say Schaefer and other advocates for battered women, is this: Women are more likely to use force as a way to focus attention on unmet needs and frustrations, while men are more likely to use it as a fear and control tactic."
Does this mean that a woman who can't afford a BMW, a vacation home in the Hamptons, a 4000-sq. foot house, etc, is justified in assaulting her husband?
"Because of the disparity in physical size and strength, women often end up battered by men regardless of whether they resist or comply, Schaefer said. As for the potential of greater injury should they strike first, "no one needs to tell a battered woman that if she mixes it up with a batterer, she's going to get the worst of it."
So, we men are still the problem, aren't we...?
"What I see with younger women is, they don't want to be seen as a victim, and so they put on this tough persona," Gutierrez said. "But when it comes down to who's really in control, that's a harder thing to assess. It may look like a woman is being bossy or emotionally abusive, but that does not necessarily mean she's the primary aggressor."
Yep - it's us.
"Schaefer, at Womenspace, identifies another difference: Women who batter men rarely pursue contact after separation, while men are much more likely to stalk or harass a past partner.
...
Womenspace does not offer support groups for male victims, but otherwise provides the same services, including emergency shelter, to battered men and women. Male victims are directed to hotels or other safe havens, distinct from the confidential emergency shelter made available to women."
What a surprise. I'm sure a guy who's been kicked out of his house, lost his job and is recovering from injuries inflicted by his spouse is going to have no problem checking in at the local Hyatt Regency. Maybe he can leave a testicle at the desk as payment...
Hell hath no fury like the woman whose husband brings home the wrong brand of cheese...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Raymond Cuttill on 08:33 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
The moment there's an objective look at violence we see that women do it too. Of course, we also then find out that both sexes can do it at the same time (so that gets stressed). Of course, not an “Oh dear! we got it wrong” from the feminists, who really knew it all along, but instead we get
say Schaefer and other advocates for battered women, is this: Women are more likely to use force as a way to focus attention on unmet needs and frustrations, while men are more likely to use it as a fear and control tactic.
How does she know that? I guess it must be women’s way of knowing again. She knows that men don't have unmet needs and frustrations and women don't use fear and control tactics. Don’t hold your breath for the shelters to be open to men.
I notice that younger women are more aggressive. This is assumed to be a confidence issue. I wonder if it could be that in a manhating society the younger women think they’re entitled to take their revenge for perceived woes. Perhaps there’s now a generation of women who hate men out and out and think that’s normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 09:26 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
"I notice that younger women are more aggressive. This is assumed to be a confidence issue. I wonder if it could be that in a manhating society the younger women think they’re entitled to take their revenge for perceived woes. Perhaps there’s now a generation of women who hate men out and out and think that’s normal. "
Well said, and I agree. This is something I've thought as well, and still do. The Schaefers of the world aren't willing to admit the possibility, but it's there nonetheless. I see a lot of casual disdain, cruelty, and violence coming from younger women in our society, both when they are relating to each other and when they are relating to guys around them. Confidence? They're extremely confident usually, overconfident in many cases, full of "grrl power", and unaware or contemptuous of anything like consequences for their actions.
Like Jack Kammer mentioned in his book (www.rulymob.com), if a man is aggressive or violent, he's seen as a monster, whereas if a female is, the response is: "You slugged him? You go girl!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:55 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
"I notice that younger women are more aggressive."
Maybe that's because younger women have more energy, or they haven't thoroughly studied older women to see how they hide their violence when studies are conducted.
Newsflash! Older women initiate violence and batter men brutally. Somebody tell the man-hating bigots in the domestic violence industry to stop lying for a change.
When you consider that the domestic violence industry successfully covers up at least 35% of domestic violence against men, that is committed by women, it's clear somebody should do a study on the batterers in charge of the multi-billion dollar, VAWA funded domestic violence industry.
Politicians obviously don't care about all the innocent victims that are created by the hate movement known as the domestic violence industry. There too busy bleeding the taxpayers to get more billions to cater to the avarice of the gender feminist agenda. VAWA is just one example.
Sincerely, Ray
...and it all begins in taxpayer funded women's studies programs on college campuses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:17 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"But with women, we have an epidemic on our hands."
That makes a good sound bite, but what about the gender feminists who are living off the billions of government dollars that have been alloated to VAWA, to the domestic violence industry, to frame and arrest innocent men so as to get more VAWA billions to frame and arrest more innocent men for the most trivial of domestic violence incidents or often no violence at all, just the alleged fear of a woman who really wants to scam her husband or partner in divorce or child custody proceedings.
Meanwhile men who are battered can't even get services if they try. Certainly, there is plenty of disservice available for men.
What the "epidemic" really consists of is an epidemic of gender feminist "hogs" wallowing at the taxpayer funded government trough (VAWA), making a living off of destroying the lives of innocent men, while furthering their man-hating gender feminist ideology.
"Epidemic" of battered women - in a pigs eye.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl on 03:34 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
When a man tells her he is a victim of domestic violence, Gutierrez said she asks two questions: How does he benefit from staying in the relationship, and what's preventing him from leaving? The point, she said, is that most men have fewer barriers - such as insufficient finances or primary child care duties - blocking them.
This makes a couple assumptions. One is that, in order to leave we should have to give up our children. It also means for many, leaving their children unprotected from a woman they know to be violent. It also assumes that the abuse is not continued through the legal system, access to children, and more and more indefinitely afterwards.
Though it shouldn't be this way, in a sense she is right. For most men staying doesn't do anything but delay the inevitible and is probably more dangerous both in terms of immediate physical consequences as it is in increased risks of being arrested. But the harassment afterwards in both access, through the legal system, and in that your abuser is almost guaranteed to have custody of your children so you can't leave the conflict without leaving your children ...She doesn't address this at all.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well said SacredNaCl. Her two questions show how bizarre the anti-male bias can become. She actually said that in response to a reporters question and was quoted! Just imagine if some man had said that about a female victim. He would be apologizing for years and be labelled a hateful sexist who was insensitive to the needs of women. Guess what? This door swings both ways.
She's a female chauvinist pig! Oink!
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:12 PM February 15th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot believe how much I agree with you. I am a woman, and I believe that women have abused the justice system, we all know about it, and no one will stand up and do something about it. I would love it if you could give me some others sights with similar information for my anti-feminism report. aukiekk12@yahoo.com Thank you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Greystoke on 05:53 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
" It's not as if Gutierrez's agency, called NOVA for short, hasn't tried to address the problem of female aggression: The agency sponsored a female "primary aggressor" program in 2000 and again last year, but struggled both times to find enough willing participants to justify the effort."
and
" Female aggressors differ from male aggressors in several ways. For one, women are more likely to see their aggression as a problem that needs fixing, Gutierrez said."
Women are more likely to see their aggression as a problem, yet they couldn't find enough women for their program aimed at violent women. How many years of Women's Studies do you have to take to become this immune to contradictions?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Dave K on 10:56 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen many agressive women, not one of them has ever seen it as a problem.
Just last month we had friends over for the weekend, on couple we've been friends with for years... the other are a young engaged couple. The engaged young woman is as dyed in the wool a feminist as there can be.
Now this killed me... her soon to be husband was talking about something and she piped in over him, but he didn't stop talking just got louder (what I tend to do when someone tries to interrupt me).
How did she react to his unwillingness to stop because she had something to say... she whacked him of course!
It's the first agression I've seen between partners in many years, but nobody thought twice about it.
The other interesting thing is that the above shelter/public teet suckers would say that she was reacting to an "unmet need"... she NEEDED him to allow her to talk over him but he wouldn't comply. Of course if the situation had been reversed those same mouthpieces would be saying he was trying to silence her and control her.
Reading that article made me want to puke the doublespeak, double standards and outright lies and misrepresentations were so blatant. They took a pretty obvious conclusion (man and women are both agressive, and for the same reasons) and did their darndest to twist it into the same old men are bad song and dance.
It's getting old, and they can try to sugarcoat these results as much as they want... the truth is getting out there.
Dave K - A Radical Moderate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Doctor Damage
(scottg [fivefoursixseven] at yahoo dot com dot au)
on 04:51 AM February 5th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
Treatment programs for men are fed by the courts, men who may or may not have been the aggressors are coerced or tricked into admitting guilt and accepting "treatment" for their "problem". Hardly surprising that treatment programs for women lack clients, no one is trying to force women to accept responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the article starts off in the right direction but after the initial factual segment it quickly turns into fem-spin.
It's the same thing over and over again. Women have rights and men have responsibilities. If you try to reverse this you will always find excuses for the women
DEPRESSION
LOW SELF ESTEEM
THEY DIDNT REALLY MEAN IT
ETC ETC
Damn! It gets tiresome after a while though the sheeplike public sucks it up without noticing the misandry.
Let's stop the VAWA from recert this year. Okay? Let's force a VAPA (violence against people act) that shows compassion for all. Dump the hateful crap and flush it.
Do we have True Equality?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:00 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Tom.
Yes, well said.
Just MORE excuses for womens' bad behaviour.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Doctor Damage
(scottg [fivefoursixseven] at yahoo dot com dot au)
on 04:53 AM February 5th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm curious, Thundercloud, does your tagline have a particular meaning or is it more a kind of yaulp?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:22 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I appreciate all the support here. I came to the men's movement when my ex used false allegations of DV to get me arrested, got my name in the paper, justified her position to our peers, and used the "justice" system as a tool to punish me (sat in jail for days waiting for bail, hate advocates, unrealistic probation and "training") when she wanted out of the relationship, and oddly she was was the abusive one...
It was easy for her to do. One phone call and everything from that point on I was guilty and silenced.
Oh yeah, MA laws hate men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:00 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
"I came to the men's movement when my ex used false allegations of DV to get me arrested, got my name in the paper, justified her position to our peers, and used the "justice" system as a tool to punish me (sat in jail for days waiting for bail, hate advocates, unrealistic probation and "training") when she wanted out of the relationship, and oddly she was was the abusive one..."
This has happened to a lot of men. Many men are victims of the gender feminist, domestic violence industry, hate movement. That group trains and uses our cops and judges as goons to enforce their hate war against men. True to communist re-education pricipals many innocent men are sent to batterers retraining, where they are forced to admit to crimes they never committed.
Many men are the victims of hate crimes perpetrated through the use of domestic violence laws, and the numbers are growing. One guy, that wrote to me, ask me, "How do I get my self-respect back?" That's a good question. I joined NCFMLA and I protest every chance I get in public places. Gender feminists do everything they can to silence free speech, that criticizes the hate war they are running. California State Senator Sheila Kuehl's hate crimes law mentioning women as a "specially protected class," but not men.
A lot of things have now been said publicly by men about the evil, corrupt domestic violence industry. Good men everywhere are refuting the man-hating lies of the domestic violence industry. Here are some of the things that have been seen publically in Los Angeles on any given day.
click Protest the Domestic Violence Scamming of Men
Just yesterday, a local L. A., TV station videotaped domestic violence bumper stickers on the back of a Men's Activist's car. False Accusation of Abuse is Domestic Violence was one of the bumper stickers. Men are not Disposable and Vote Men's Rights were the other two. Who knows what will eventually wind up on the news next week.
Hang in there. You are not alone, and much more importantly you are not helpless. You are a valuable part of the men's movement for having had the courage to stand up and write what you did.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:31 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
A lot of things have now been said publicly by men about the evil, corrupt domestic violence industry. Good men everywhere are refuting the man-hating lies of the domestic violence industry.
And a few good women, too, have spoken up about the lies and the anti-male hate. Thanks to all of you, especially Ray for his tireless efforts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:11 AM February 4th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
"And a few good women, too..."
Yes, maybe even more than a few good women. Certainly, the Mothers, Sisters, Daughters, GrandMoms, etc. of good men who have been harmed by the domestic violence industry know about the evil agenda of the domestic violence industry. Definitely an oversight on my part.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:27 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
You know what?
I just thought of this.
Feminists call it "violence against women" when a man is shot to death and his blood spatters onto a near by woman....,
I know that really has nothing to do with what we're discussing, but it just popped into my mind.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 12:15 AM February 4th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, MA laws hate men.
This must be a typo. Did you mean to type, "oh yeah, Iraqi laws hate men?"
Isn't the judicial horror show you described above what we are bleeding and dying for to stop in Iraq?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by bharati on 10:23 AM February 5th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
if you look at the article it is clear 5 times more men are desisting from hitting back then women & 4 times more women are initiating the violence
It is way high then the equal initiatation of violence suggested by gelles & suggestive of the vast underreportive of the low leveldomestic violence suffered by men "like a man"
Men are aware of their superior strength and hence do not use it unnecessarily and this has come out clearly in these statistics.
Women are unaware that their physical violence can hurt or do not care take your pick
Another reason why Men desisit from violence is that they know the penalty
And the reason that women initiate violence is that they also know there is no penalty.
Lots of people fudge business travel settlements , lots of people overshoot the speedlimit by upto 10 miles because they know nobody will take it seriously and similarly why the five times initiation of violence by women is because they know that that their husband and boy friend will bear it & nobody will seriously try to penalise them as they should be
You start taking Domestic violence by women seriously then the initiation of violence by women would drop and overall domestice violence would drop
But punishment has to be less then an eye for eye
by civilised society norms.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Link here: