|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:05 PM October 5th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
The fact that there wasn't a single senator to vote against this bill (the third reincarnation of VAWA) blows me away...although, I guess I shouldn't be shocked.
I am so frustrated right now. I knew this would pass, but unanimously...AGAIN...isn't anyone listening to us?
I just got off the phone with a very close friend with whom I discuss politics all the time. Fortuntely, we see eye-to-eye regarding politics. I ranted for an hour and told him that I was finally done with Republicans (not suggesting that everyone here is Republican...not downplaying any Democrats...or any other party)...I can't take it anymore...I have never been more frustrated with Republicans than I am after reading about VAWA III. In recent years, I have been more of a Liberterian leaning Republican, but now I have decided to make the change for good.
Jeff / This is not Equality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:06 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
Jeff-
Welcome to my world.
The Democrats are virulently anti-male and the Republicans are purely chivalrous. Both are dangerous.
It was when I learned this that I became an independent. I will not support anti-male, feminist supporting Democrats or chivalrous Republicans that still live in the 1950's and think that women, with out exception, are all pure and good and can do no wrong and whom need chivalrous males to slay their "dragons" for them.
I'm not saying that all independents are innocent of either of the things I spoke of above but it seems that more and more, lately the truth lies in the middle.
Like you I am not surprised at the results of this legislation. In fact I would be surprised if we HAD been listened to.
But this reminds me of some of the bar fights I got into in my collage days. Most of the time I got my @$$ whipped, but I just got up, went home, tended my wounds and hoped that things would go better for me if another bar fight loomed in my future. We may have lost this "bar fight" but there will likely be others. We have to prepare ourselves for them and hope for the best.
And it won't be easy there are a LOT of feminists and wussie-poopie males who hold a lot of political power and sway.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 08:27 PM October 5th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
there goes the 14th amendment - again!
Reminder - 14th amendment to the constitution covers equal protection under the law. The VAWA clearly violates that amendment. Who needs a constitution anyway?
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 11:36 PM October 5th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
at first blush you may be correct - but on the other hand, I bet the framers never considered that the fedearl government would be creating so many laws that directly impact the people.
I am not a constitutional law expert either - but I think the concept of equal protection became universal at one time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by starzabuv on 08:41 PM October 5th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Now does a national men's walkaway sound a little more feasable? I had only suggested it for one day. I'm in the midst of R Zubaty's book, "What Men Know that Women Don't". He suggests a WHOLE WEEK! I think his idea is better.
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 11:43 PM October 5th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
sort of like that move about "a day without Mexicans"
Sounds like a good idea - the following would completely shut down:
Military
Police
Fire Departments
Road and building construction / repair
Coast guard
Business and government leadership
Transportation (trains/ships/trucking/taxis/aviation...)
Majority of doctor level medical services
Most of the meaningful college classes
Re-stocking of grocery stores
Engineering design
what else
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by starzabuv on 12:46 AM October 6th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Ideally, setting a firm date, like 2 years from now, would give us time to save enough personal money to survive our own protest, as well as push the idea out there to other guys, especially in those kinds of industries. I can't think of a quieter form of civil disobedience, but one that would also make the most noise.:-) The idea of watching those fem-bots and manholes scrambling to cover those abandoned posts makes me chuckle.
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I really wish there was a way we could make this happen.
Problem is, there's too many pussywhipped chivalrous men out there who wouldn't go along with it.
"Oh, we can't make the little ladies suffer hardships! That's not manly!"
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:38 AM October 6th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
Problem is, there's too many pussywhipped chivalrous men out there who wouldn't go along with it.
And so we find once again that for the majority of men the almighty pussy rules the cock.
They think with their cock and not their brains. When that happens the Marxist-Feminsts can get any law passed....as usual....
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by starzabuv on 10:33 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, they probably won't really wake up until they are being rounded up and placed in special 'camps'.
Disclaimer: Everything I post is of course my own opinion. If it seems harsh, Feminazis just piss me off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by jenk on 01:01 PM October 17th, 2005 EST (#58)
|
|
|
|
|
SO why can't we still try it? It would not take every man, I would bet a 10%-20% walk away would make a huge dent. It would shut down a great deal of services. Perhaps target those proffessions which are not life threatening, but that are necessary, like garbage pickup, maintainance, construction, logging, mining. The hard ones would be those in life or death proffessions such as medical, police and fire safety. These folks would not like to see people hurt to make a point.
Maybe it wouldn't work, but you will never know until you try. The support systems and communication systems are now available through all the boards, blogs, and e-mail groups. At the very least it would be a push to get the word out and educate people.
What is the worst that could happen? Nothing?
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 08:47 PM October 5th, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
... or get quite significantly changed there. So the next step is to see what the conference committee has and go from there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:15 PM October 5th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
mcc99 -- "So the next step is to see what the conference committee has and go from there."
That's the worst joke I've heard since the one about "two penguins walk into a bar..."
You are in denial, and quite possibly in need of counselling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by SacredNaCl
(tbessR3m0Ve2SendNEIN[SPAM]@R3m0ve.2.sendAt.mail.ru)
on 02:29 AM October 6th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Now my question is: Is the DNA database provision in both bills and did the version that passed include it? (There were about 5 different versions of the bill before the senate..and I don't know which language actually passed yet, anyone know for certain?)
If they still have to hash this out in the two different versions of the bill, there still is a chance to kill the worst provisions of it. But we need to find out *quickly* what we are actually fighting. I know its a bandaid on a bullet wound, but we need to kill as much of it as we can that way.
Freedom Is Merely Privilege Extended Unless Enjoyed By One & All.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:43 AM October 6th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
If they still have to hash this out in the two different versions of the bill, there still is a chance to kill the worst provisions of it.
Lots of denial. There will be massive male round-ups of males at the first hysteria causes by some blond bitch claiming rape. It is part of the plan that both parties have for males. They want nothing less than a massive all male DNA database. The consent is unanimous.
The only thing that will happen at this point is that a predefined set of rules will be followed. The language on the oldest bill, the one that was passed last, will take priority where there is contradiction. Where there is no contradiction there will be a merging of the language.
It is that simple. It will not be rewritten or somehow overturned.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:56 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
According to testimony transcripts on the thomas.gov website the "DNA Fingerprint" amendment was indeed included in the version of S. 1197 passed.
One congressman from Nevada objected on the record to this being included in VAWA '05, and Chair Sen. Joe Biden stated that it was urgent to pass VAWA and there was no time to consider amendments to the bill.
Anyone know who are the elected reps who serve on the conference committee that will be ironing out the differences between the Senate and House VAWA bills?
The odds that they all voted for VAWA = 100%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:23 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#49)
|
|
|
|
|
The "DNA Fingerprint" amendment attached to VAWA 2005 is noted in the Congressional Record at -
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r109:26:./te mp/~r109tV6LkD:e662656:
-------
Pertinent text from this link:
TITLE X--DNA FINGERPRINTING
SEC. 1001. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the ``DNA Fingerprint Act of 2005''.
SEC. 1004. AUTHORIZATION TO CONDUCT DNA SAMPLE COLLECTION FROM PERSONS ARRESTED OR DETAINED UNDER FEDERAL AUTHORITY.
(a) In General.--Section 3 of the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000 (42 U.S.C. 14135a) is amended--
(1) in subsection (a)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``The Director'' and inserting the following:
``(A) The Attorney General may, as prescribed by the Attorney General in regulation, collect DNA samples from individuals who are arrested or detained under the authority of the United States. The Attorney General may delegate this function within the Department of Justice as provided in section 510 of title 28, United States Code, and may also authorize and direct any other agency of the United States that arrests or detains individuals or supervises individuals facing charges to carry out any function and exercise any power of the Attorney General under this section.
----
It seems that if this passes, any law enforcement officer "may" (as in will) collect DNA samples from any detained or arrested person.
"Detained" means a person is in temporary police custody, prior to being arrested, without any warrant or probably cause, right?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:12 AM October 6th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
At least this VAWA opus in conference. I think the first VAWA passed with little if any discussion or compromise.
And we must be cognizant of the fact that you can pass legislation all day long but the engine that makes the thing work is the funding provided. In correspondence my Senator about VAWA he said that funding will be limited to around $300 million down from the billion dollars that was porked away in the original VAWA.
With all the money spent on hurricane relief and the war in Iraq there maybe even less money for funding the various programs in this VAWA. Other programs are having their funding cannibalized to help pay for the war and hurricane relief so VAWA will be a prime target for funding cuts since we have made it known that it is not as popular as degenerate self-hating male a**holes like Biden thinks it is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:54 AM October 6th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
...Other programs are having their funding cannibalized to help pay for the war and hurricane relief so VAWA will be a prime target for funding cuts since we have made it known that it is not as popular as degenerate self-hating male a**holes like Biden thinks it is....
Very good point. Under funding VAWA is and was our only hope all along. It is a virtual certainty that the DNA database will go forward. That is because it is popular with both parties, and databases are quite cheep. All that will be necessary to get this going is for some blond bimbo male hating Marxist-Feminist bitch to create a hysteria about a rapist loose in her neighborhood.....when that happens the policy of roundups will begin.
The funding for the family centers is another matter. For that to happen will require billions. We have a better chance there. If they cannot get the funding then they cannot build the injustice centers. In addition, some blond bitch will not be able to create the hysteria quite so easily.
But the central database. It is a certainty. It will happen. Every police agency and prison guard organization already has one. You can bet that they will organize and push for getting the money to connect all of the databases. The Homeland security, CIA, FBI, and every other XYZ agency will use enormous power to get that funding. It will happen.
We already see this happening because of hurricane Katrina. We’ve already seen the hysteria about registered sex offenders being misplaced. Now they will push to register every males DNA in the name of protecting the women and children.
The groundwork has already been laid by the politicians and media. This plan has been in the works for a couple of decades.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Would you want to be the politician who voted against this? It looks bad for P.R. Yeah, I know they're supposed to be there to serve our interests, and, yeah, most of the people who are under the age of 40 voting for these people are men anyway, but it's all about looking pro-women, pro-equality, pro-diversity and a bunch of other P.C. hogwash. The reality is, if politicians did the right thing instead of acting like they were doing the right thing, a lot of people would be far more angry with them than they already are. The bad news is, we all have to suffer as a result of their posing.
Dairenn Lombard
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:55 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#46)
|
|
|
|
|
"Yeah, I know they're supposed to be there to serve our interests, and, yeah, most of the people who are under the age of 40 voting for these people are men anyway, but it's all about looking pro-women, pro-equality, pro-diversity and a bunch of other P.C. hogwash."
Dairenn:
We are group of men's activists in the Los Angeles area "actively" working to change things, National Coalition of Free Men Los Angeles . We invite, and welcome, all to join the MRA effort on the front lines.
Here's an article showing NCFMLA actively working at several events to educate the public to the "non gender feminist" side of the issues, NCFMLA actively working
Our phone# is: 818-907-9383 (San Fernando Valley), but we are active throughout So. Cal.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
American Indians are the victims of violence and homicide more that ANY ethnic group in the WORLD.
So why is there no Violence Against Indians Act?
Oh, because MOST of the victims are male, is probably why.
If most of the victims were female then we'd likely have a 'Violence Against Indian Women Act'.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:32 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not questioning your honesty, nor do I dount your claim, Thundercloud, but I'm curious as to what the statistics are like among Native Americans, just so I have them for comparison.
It would make a useful point to have some stats in hand whenever some woman starts with "we need more funding for women only because..." Thanks in advance, if you can point me in the right general direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:02 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
I get most of my info from the American Indian Movement. (A.I.M.)
Go to their website and have a look around you may find the stats there, or you can likely Email them and ask for them, they'd probably be more than happy to send them to you.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:10 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
With regard to the suggestion of a mass walkaway: oh come on. You look like a bunch of reactionary nutters for even suggesting such an idea, and I've been more royally screwed than most. The people you're railing against just sit back and laugh at this kind of thing. They know it's empty hot air. It'd be better for both sides if they'd stop attacking eachother and defending their own positions. Moreover, the other side has a very good point that the men's activists can't even hold together themselves. Too many egos bashing against eachother, too much testosterone and chest-bashing. This is where one gender uses its strength against another. Women are supposed to be the better networkers, right? Well, they're proving it. They don't have to divide us to conquer us, we divide ourselves, and beat ourselves bloody against things that don't matter.
VAWA has been cut by 70% according to one poster. If that's true, unanimous or not, then it's a success of sorts within the context discussed here. But that's $700,000 no longer available to combat violence against either gender. VAWA, in principle, isn't even really a bad thing. Would anyone here really condone violence against women!? The last thing you want to do is attack a good cause!
So you don't like VAWA's discriminatory context. Well, why not fight back in kind? Table a "Violence Against Men Act". I don't know much about such things, but even if doomed, it's more likely to make a point (and the papers) than trying for a mass walkaway.
How many of you run blogs? It can be done pretty much anonymously, but I can count the ones I can find on the fingers of one hand. If you're just gathering in places like this to gripe rather than spreading the word, then you're not acheiving anything except providing entertainment for those that find you funny.
I find nothing on the internet by way of personal support for whom you perceive as the victims. Personally, I'd love to find a place where I can find confidential moral support for dealing with the grief I have to face (no, I don't have any local options). Is there anyone out there with the ability to make such a thing?
How about reaching out to grown-up children who've suffered through the consequences? If the arguments are real, then so are they. There must be young adults out there whose fathers were destroyed by a biased & bigotted system, if that is what it is, so where are they?
Stop thinking in terms of attacking the other side, who can now afford to laugh you off, and think about defending your side. Find the victims. Build the case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by frank h on 02:30 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
My own perception is that this has nothing to do with what's right, or building the case, or finding the victims, or even the Fourteenth Amendment. Not that we can't stand to identify more, but in it's simplest form the problem isn't the reality of the situation. Martin Fiebert and others have documented that for us quite sufficiently. No, the problem is the perception among the elected is that they will lose the women's vote (and therefore their jobs) if they dare vote against initiatives like VAWA. About the only way to counter that is to establish sufficient political clout to demonstrate that, if they lend such irrational support to the feministas, they lose the male vote (and hence, their jobs).
But what about the male vote? It doesn't exist. Not that men don't vote, but more that men vote on other issues. How do we get more men to vote based on these issues?
I'll say it one more time: we need to organize politically.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:37 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
There is a classic model for this. What did the suffragettes do? They didn't have any vote at all!!
But I maintain, too, that networking is vital and lacking...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:22 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Convincing more men to take our side. We definitely have our work cut out for us, sense boys are being brainwashed to believe that males are evil incarnate and that the female can do NO wrong (even when she does). Among other things we have to stop that. THEN we still have to shake-awake the wussie-poopies. And I don't think we can count on a lot of women to aid us, the way scores of men aided women earlier in the feminist movement. MANY women aren't going to want to give up their ill-gotten privileges and superior rights over men. Too many LIKE things the way they are and want even MORE!
Defiantly an up-hill fight. Things may have to get worse for males before they get better, the way things are going now.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:09 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#26)
|
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen, we lack the media support necessary to generate the kind of networking the feminists have managed, and we lack the "moral ground" (in popular opinion, not reality) to mount an effective offence against feminism. It is NOT a winnable war. However, there is another way. These feminists are actually latter-day Marxists: the entire underpinning of current feminist theory is Marxism.
It's time we took the initiative and re-framed this as a fight against Marxism (don't call it "communism" - everyone just shuts down when they hear that out of some sort of McCarthyesque guilt hangover). Call the Marxists out on their politics and stop calling the enemy "women" or even "feminists" (who claim to want only equality, which is a load of fertilizer).
Marxism is class-based, not gender-based. Attacking Marxists to protect our governments and our rights is a very, very different proposition compared to attacking "women" or "feminists". Propaganda is the key to the success of Marxism AND the current "women's movement". We need to control the propaganda, and we start by changing the semantics and keywords.
Stop playing into the feminists hands by trying to claim status as a victim "class" - this just puts the battle on their home field!
If you stop framing this as a "gender" war, you instantly neutralize the chivalry and anti-male bias that have made the feminists so successful with both political parties. Start NOW by calling them Marxists - they believe that women, various selected minorities and so on (it's a long list, but it amounts to everyone but straight, healthy white men) are oppressed as a class by another, more powerful class: straight, healthy white men.
That's not equality-seeking feminism, or activism or even democratic socialism. IT'S MARXISM.
So how do we get people in Canada, the US, Europe and other countries to wake the hell up and realize that their governments are being taken over by MARXISTS? That their tax dollars are funding dictatorial policies wrapped in Marxist theory? Now THAT would get people's attention, and neutralize all the chivalry (existential guilt) and anti-male bias (class hatred) already inherent in the system, the media, social services and so forth, making the battles and the war winnable.
It's time people in so-called democracies woke up and realized that Marxists are running their governments, leading them around by their cocks and their existential guilt burnt into them by a feminized education system, fatherless homes and the mass media, with massive tax funding and the moral "high ground" to back them up.
Stop them by calling them out: the average women's studies textbook reads like something Marx would have been proud to autograph. So spread the word. We're not fighting women - as someone pointed out above, nobody in their right mind would oppose something that saved any person pain and suffering as an individual, provided it didn't injure anyone else. You can't oppose women or deny them anything they whine for and expect to win, and since Marxism is already entrenched, we can't claim the status of an aggreived "class", because we ARE the oppressor class according to our societies! So start opposing Marxism wherever you see it instead. Voila - no more "you're just a bunch of cry-babies beating up on poor, defenseless women" crap. Instead, we become the defenders of democracy, no enemy of women or any other person: just freedom fighters opposing a poisonous political movement.
As an added benefit, this also allows us to utilize our masculinity (without hearing about it from the other side) as an advantage and to our benefit. Women network. We fight. Controlling the propaganda and framing the issues is our key to success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 08:45 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
I must take exception to some of your assumptions when you say this:
"VAWA, in principle, isn't even really a bad thing. Would anyone here really condone violence against women!? The last thing you want to do is attack a good cause!"
You're falling for the feminist tactic of labeling something in such a way that to be against it is to be seen as anti-female, or in this case, against stopping violence vs women. What's in a name? Quite a bit, apparently. The trick is, it's bad law disguised under a name that makes it seem like a purely benevolent thing, disguising all the wrongs that get perpetrated against men and against families in general under it.
It's not a good cause; it is simply designed to sound that way. After all, as you said, who is going to declare themselves as condoning violence against women, which is what the assumption seems to be if one is against VAWA. It's a trick of words. Think critically, and look past the words to the effects. Suddenly things don't seem so rosy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:48 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#45)
|
|
|
|
|
No, I'm not falling for any tactic, I'm expressing the common attitude towards it, of those who have not thought critically, who have not looked past the words. The problem is that you automatically make yourself suspect for people like that by attacking VAWA, and they are in the majority.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:38 AM October 7th, 2005 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
This thread sounds very much like "rub their noses in it" to me. The "voice" of the writer sounds very feminine. I could be wrong, it doesn't really matter, but irrespective of that, the entire tone of the original post is challenging to men as activists, with a certain "ha, ha, ha" attached to it.
So I take the challenge, and spit it back.
I am one of the children, who was a victim of an aggressive and abusive mother that you demand evidence of. I witnessed domestic violence and as a result I abhore it. Its injustice, its misery to kids, and its long term effects that linger under the surface, for life.
Let me tell you that my mother was an evil piece of work. She forced my father from his own home and made life a misery for me with her constant and sarcastic, derisive remarks about him and her incessant denigration of men. For me this was extremely painful.
So what have I done about it?
Three years ago I started one of those 'blogs' that you talk about but can't find - you can't have looked very hard because there's literally thousands of them across the world with new ones springing up daily.
You clearly don't know much about the men's movement or its growth or its power. I've seen incredible change in just the last three years. In fact feminism, the enemy of men and decent people worldwide, is vaporising before my very eyes. Men are winning. I know because I've studied it daily for three years fulltime!
My site Kitten News began with nothing and now records over 20,000 unique visitors monthly with absolutely no promotion at all other than simply suggesting the site to Google at start up - it has grown through word of mouth and support of men's activism.
And let me tell you this - I'll keep attacking the other side until they're defeated. Until there's justice in this world and not a crazy sex war. Until the other side pays the price for starting this insane hatred in the first place. If I was on the other side, I'd be getting very afraid of sites like this one and the men's voices it champions. Very afraid. Justice is coming. When the good get going, evil had better step aside.
John Gardiner
Editor
Kitten News
Sydney
Australia
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 03:24 AM October 7th, 2005 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:00 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#47)
|
|
|
|
|
John, I am far from feminine. I will continue to look for blogs. I have already bookmarked yours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:31 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
You can read the National Organization for Women's urgent press release for Congress to create the conference committee that will create the final VAWA 2005 bill here --
http://www.now.org/issues/violence/vawa/petition.h tml
---------
Tell Congress to Finalize VAWA!
VAWA Has Passed Senate But Fate in Hands of Conference Committee
Sign the Petition Now!
On Tuesday afternoon, October 4, the Senate passed its version of VAWA 2005, S. 1197, by a unanimous consent agreement, meaning that all of the Senators had no objections (or had withdrawn their objections) to the bill.
A less comprehensive version of VAWA 2005 passed the House of Representatives on September 28 as H.R. 3402, the Department of Justice's yearly authorizing and funding bill.
While the House version included reauthorization of crucial VAWA programs, it does not achieve all that is needed. At the last minute just before the vote, the Republican leadership dropped important provisions dealing with immigrants and women of color.
The Senate bill still includes many of these House-dropped provisions, but faced its own trimming as a key program was dropped that would have extended coverage for unemployment insurance to domestic violence survivors who lose their jobs as they hide or flee from violence.
Whenever there are differences between similar bills that are passed in the House and Senate a "conference committee" with representatives from both houses, must meet to work out the differences between the two bills and come up with one final bill before the President can sign it.
These meetings must be convened as speedily as possible because the ten-year-old Violence Against Women Act expired on September 30th and we must ensure that programs and services will not be denied, delayed or deferred.
Sign a petition to Congressional leaders demanding that they begin work on finalizing the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act immediately.
(See petition at the URL above.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 07:48 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#27)
|
|
|
|
|
"Would anyone here really condone violence against women!? The last thing you want to do is attack a good cause!"
If there was a bill that sought to protect only white people from AIDS, would that be a "good cause," or an example of blatant discrimination?
"So you don't like VAWA's discriminatory context. Well, why not fight back in kind? Table a "Violence Against Men Act". I don't know much about such things, but even if doomed, it's more likely to make a point (and the papers) than trying for a mass walkaway.""
There SHOULD be a VAMA. And I'd say that Senators are more likely to vote FOR men than vote AGAINST women (though we know that's not what VAWA is about, anyway). I still think there would be those reluctant to support it, simply because (to them) helping men just isn't as catchy as helping women. But it would be our Exhibit A in demonstrating Congress's discrimination.
bg
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Hunchback on 09:05 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
"Sign the Petition Now!"
WHERE'S OUR PETITION?
And if we had one, what person that isn't online would be able to sign it?
I'm saying—for I'm sure not the last time—that until the men's rights movement starts producing marching, protesting, physical bodies, all the discontent in the cyberworld will not gain us any justice. All the e- and snail mails to legislators would be ignored, even if they numbered in the hundreds of thousands rather than the hundreds as they presently do. We must recruit visible people.
The ability of the feminists to field people in demonstrations—half a million strong last year—intimidates politicians, judges, etc. Coupled with a war chest of tens (hundreds?) of millions and a mailed grip on the media, they are in a position to threaten senators, blackmail judges, unman presidents, and clog up Supreme Court dockets. Hell, I'd bet every single congressman has **at least** one feminist on his staff.
Until we produce the bodies, every effort we make will be an exercise in futility. Why was F4J successful? E-mails? Campaign contributions? Billboard signs? NO!!! People on the streets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boy Genteel on 09:37 AM October 7th, 2005 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. There should be a peaceful protest in front of the Capitol building. Look intelligent. Have clever but easily understandable banners and get as many men, women, children who agree with our cause to show up.
bg
Men are from EARTH. Women are from EARTH. Deal with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 08:08 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
I was wondering if at least the language of VAWA had changed to allow funding for male victims of DV. Or is it pretty much the same as before?
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 08:25 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry this is off the topic of this thread, but some of you may be interested in Target's response to my email from last week:
Target selling misandric Carlton Cards collectible magnets:
/article.pl?sid=05/09/2 8/2329240&mode=threaded
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:37 AM October 7th, 2005 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
Just what is the difference in a major retailer like Target selling these misandric and stupid cards and selling black faced cement lawn jockeys?
I am positive they would never buy a supply of black faced lawn jockeys to sell in their garden shop! But selling vulgar and demeaning greeting cards that marginalizes 50% of the population is in good taste and humorous...............NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:07 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
tell me about it.
Places like Target may not sell lawn jockeys but they still sell 'wooden Indians' and\or "authentic (read stereotypical) Indian statuettes". And as these misandric cards and magnets demonstrate Target has no compunction to offend both racial and gender groups, as long as they feel they can get away with it.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 09:19 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Senator Allen,
Thank you for your honest reply.
I am however, deeply disappointed that you support the VAWA. That law is clearly misguided and an obvious act of pandering to militant feminists. It is a sad day when we have a major piece of legislation giving benefits to a segment of our population based on sex, while also targeting the other sex with governmental force and unearned retribution.
ALL STATISTICS SHOW that men are by far more likely to be a victim of violence. Males experience extraordinarily higher rates of murder, occupational fatalities, fatalities in military service, suicide, etc. The DOJ reports year after year that men receive longer prison sentences than women for the same crime.
Furthermore, several studies show that women initiate domestic violence as frequently as men. These studies also show that men are much less likely to report being the target of domestic violence because of social expectations. Approximately 30% (or more) of reported domestic violence cases are of men being assaulted.
You say that you are committed to making Virginia a better place to raise a family. Our governements actions are driving men/husbands/fathers from our families. How do you define a famiy?
It is troubling to see so much legislation come out of Washington that favors or targets segments of our population based on things like sex, race, age...
I guess my last hope is for the Supreme Court to rule these laws to be unconstitutional.
It is a surreal situation when you consider the facts, verses governmental action. Judging by the actions of our country and government, it is clear that we think men are disposable, and expendable.
Best wishes,
xxx
>From: senator_allen@allen.senate.gov
>To: xxx@hotmail.com
>Subject: A response from Senator George Allen
>Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2005 14:41:44 -0400
>
>
>Dear John:
>
> Thank you for contacting me regarding domestic violence and assault.
>I appreciate your input and value the opportunity to respond to your
>concerns.
>
> The issue of domestic violence is deeply troubling and I am concerned
>about the growing number of cases in the United States. Approximately
>800,000 individuals each year are victims of a violent crime by a current
>or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. Out of the approximate 800,000
>domestic violence cases, 85 percent are women.
>
> Please know that I am committed to stopping domestic violence. To
>that end, I supported legislation that provides $520 million for Violence
>Against Women Act programs. Of this $520 million, $391 million will go to
>programs administered by the Department of Justice and $127 million for
>programs administered by the Department of Health and Human Services.
>These programs give needed help to victims of domestic violence by
>providing counseling services, training personnel to deal with domestic
>violence issues, and holding perpetrators accountable.
>
> While apprehending the criminal is half the battle, we must make sure
>that there are services in place to help the victim in their time of need.
>I also support amending the United States Constitution to protect the
>rights of crime victims. Furthermore, we must work on ways to erase the
>stigma that prevents victims of domestic violence from going to the police
>and reporting the crime.
>
> As your Senator, I have sponsored the DNA Sexual Assault Justice Act,
>which will improve investigation and prosecution of sexual assault cases
>with DNA evidence, and assess the extent of the backlog in DNA analysis of
>rape kit samples. I assure you, that I will keep your thoughtful comments
>in mind should any legislation regarding domestic violence come to the
>Senate floor for a vote.
>
> As Governor, I significantly expanded and improved the use of DNA in
>Virginia as a tool for law-enforcement. I enhanced funding by $7.6 million
>for Virginia’s DNA Databank, turning it into a national model that helps to
>identify, capture and convict criminals not only in Virginia but in other
>States as well. I also abolished the revolving door justice system that
>allowed violent criminals out on the streets before they completed their
>entire sentence. By instituting truth-in-sentencing, when a jury or a
>judge convicts an individual for assault and sentences them to 12 years in
>prison, they remain in prison for 12 years. Furthermore, under my
>leadership, I helped amend the Virginia Constitution to include a Victims
>Rights Amendment, which guarantees common-sense protections to every
>law-abiding, innocent citizen to make sure our criminal justice system is
>fair to the real victims when a crime occurs.
>
> Thank you again for taking the time to contact me. If you would like
>to receive an e-mail newsletter about my initiatives to improve America,
>please sign up on my website (http://allen.senate.gov). It is an honor to
>serve you in the United States Senate, and I look forward to working with
>you to make Virginia and America a better place to live, learn, work and
>raise a family.
>
> With warm regards, I remain
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>
>Senator George Allen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 10:46 PM October 6th, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, well! This is some good news for men. The violent domestic assaults against men has dropped from an underreported 35% to a low of 15%! Almost a 60% decrease! Wow!
Approximately 800,000 individuals each year are victims of a violent crime by a current
or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend. Out of the approximate 800,000
domestic violence cases, 85 percent are women.
Hyperbole sarcasm is now off! :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:21 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
When you compare a change over time, you have to make sure the two sources are the same, because the methodologies differ for differnent studies. You can't, for instance, compare the 36% of the Violence Against Women Survey of 1998 to the 25% figure of the latest Crime Victimization Survey and then say the percentage of male victims has gone down. They use different methodologies. While the number of victims of domestic violence, both male and female, has gone down, the percentage of male victims compared to female victims has gone up, when you look at the same source. And even *that* is only because more people are willing to see the female-on-male violence as a crime, *not* because the 50/50 dynamic has changing. In fact, the 50/50 dyanamic has not changed at all. It has remained the same since the very first study in 1972, and probably long before that.
There are three national surveys that look at DV (I'm talking about surveys, which randomly survey the population, not crime reports, which look only at reported violence). The more the survey is crime-based (i.e., the more the survey asks question of the participants in terms of whether they were victims of "crime"), the lower the number of male victims, simply because people are less likely to see it as a "crime" when it's female-on-male. The three surveys are:
National Crime Victimization Survey. This is the most crime-based, and currently says 25% of the victims are men, up from 10% about ten years ago. Some argue this means the percentage of male victims is going up. But when you look at purely behavior-based data (below), it turns out this is not true. What this figure really means is that more people are willing to see female-on-male violence as a crime. It's still way too low, but it is on the increase. This paralells the increase in the number of men who are reporting the violence to the police. Again, it doesn't mean more men are being victimized, but that more men are being willing to see it as a crime and call police.
National Violence Against Women Survey. This falls in between crime surveys and purely behavior-based surveys. It is not a "crime survey" but it was co-sponsored by a crime agency (Dept. of Justice), and it shared alot of the demand characteristics of a crime survey, and it also had a biased title, which undoubtedly biased the results. Predictably, the figures came out between those of crime surveys and purely behavior-based surveys. It found 36% of the victims are men (i.e. 835,000 men and 1.5 million women annuall).
National Family Violence Survey. This was a purely behavior-based, sociological survey that had nothing to do with crime or any crime agencies. It was sponsored by the National Institute of Mental Health (not a crime agency). It was performed by Straus, Gelles and Steinmetz from 1975 to 1992, and produced three results (1975, 1985, and 1992). All of them found men make 50% of the victims, and that women were as likely as men to have initiated th eviolence. This remained true even when they looked only at female responses
And even the most recent surveys, that are purely behavior-based, confirm the 50/50 result, as Martin Fiebert's bibliography shows.
So when you look at the most unbiased data, the percentage of men versus women who initiate the violence appears to be the same as it was back in 1972 (50/50), even if the number of victims is dropping overall, and even if the number of people willing to see female-on-male violence as "crime" is increasing.
Also, studies that asked about motives and self-defense show that self-defense does *not* explain away the female violence. Don't ever let feminists BS you about the self-defense argument. I provide the data below on that.
So, bottom line, what we do see changing is the number of overall victims, which appears to be going down, and the number of people who are willing to see female-on-male violence as a "crime," which is going up. But that does not mean the 50/50 dynamic is changing. The most unbiased research shows that it is not.
Marc A.
DATA ON THE "SELF-DEFENSE" MYTH
"It has often been claimed that the reason CTS studies have found as many women as men to be physically aggressive is because women are defending themselves against attack. A number of studies have addressed this issue and found that when asked, more women than men report initiating the attack. (Bland & Orn. 1986; DeMaris, 1992; Gryl & Bird. 1989. cited in Straus. 1997) or that the proportions are equivalent in the two sexes (Straus, 1997). Two large-scale studies found that a substantial proportion of both women and men report using physical aggression when the partner did not (Brush, 1990; Straus & Gelles, 1988). This evidence DOES not support the view that the CTS is only measuring women’s self-defense."
- John Archer, Ph.D., "Sex Differences in Aggression Between Heterosexual Partners: A Meta-Analytic Review, Psychological Bulletin," Sept. 2000. v. 126, n. 5, p. 651, 664.
___________
"[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 reexamined 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."
- Richard Gelles, Ph.D, "The Hidden Side of Domestic Violence; Male Victims," 1999, The Women's Quarterly, Re-published at www.ncfmla.org/gelles.html
_______________
In a survey of 1,000 college women at California State University (Long Beach), 30 percent of the women admitted having assaulted a male partner, and their most common reasons they gave were: (1) “my partner wasn’t listening to me,” (2) “my partner wasn’t being sensitive to my needs,” and (3) “I wished to gain my partner's attention.”
- Straus/Hoff, “Why Women Assault; College Women Who Initiate Assaults on their Male Partners and the Reasons Offered for Such Behavior,” 1997, Psychological Reports, 80, 583-590, www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm.
This official government site of the County Sheriff of San Bernardina cites the Cal State Long Beach study in response to the self defense myth.
www.co.san-bernardino.ca.us/sheriff/dvra/dom_viol_ facts_main.htm
____________________
A major study of domestic violence that asked about motives found men and women assault their partners not only at the same rates but also for the same reasons, most often “to get through to them,” while self-defense was one of the least common motives for both sexes.
- Carrado, “Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships: A Descriptive Analysis, Aggressive Behavior,” 1996, 22: 401-415.)
___________________
Sarantakos, S., "Deconstructing self-defense in wife-to-husband violence," Journal of Men's Studies, A major study of domestic violence that asked about motives found men and women assault their partners not only at the same rates but also for the same reasons, most often “to get through to them,” while self-defense was one of the least common motives for both sexes.
___________________
Sommer, R. (1994). Male and female partner abuse: Testing a diathesis-stress model. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada. (The study was in two waves: the first was from 1989-1990 and included a random sample of 452 married or cohabiting women and 447 married or cohabiting men from Winnipeg, Canada; the second was from 1991-1992 and included 368 women and 369 men all of whom participated in the first wave. Subjects completed the CTS & other assessment instruments. 39.1% of women reported being physically aggressive (16.2% reporting having perpetrated severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their male partner. While 26.3% of men reported being physically aggressive (with 7.6% reporting perpetrating severe violence) at some point in their relationship with their female partner. Among the perpetrators of partner abuse, 34.8% of men and 40.1% of women reported observing their mothers hitting their fathers. Results indicate that 21% of "males' and 13% of females' partners required medical attention as a result of a partner abuse incident." Results also indicate that "10% of women and 15% of men perpetrated partner abuse in self defense.")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I trust you are going to question Senator Allen about his 'wilful' ignorance on DV, and, perhaps furnish him with the latest Dutton research to demonstrate that you at least, know something about the subject.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 10:14 AM October 7th, 2005 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
Politicians do not analyze the communication they get from constituents beyond noting fore or against a topic. Most of my verbiage was to make me feel better.
You mentioned “latest research”. I have a bunch of research on my computer – I am not sure if I have what you mentioned. Do you have a link?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi Johnny,
Find below the intro and Link . . with no appology for its length: (sadly the link does not seem to change colour as it should and my computor skills are not up to addressing same).
The Gender paradigm in domestic violence
http://fatherland.info/docs/2005-09-10-Gender-Para digm-in-Domestic-Violence-Part-1-Dutton-D-Nicholls -T-Aggression-and-Violent-Behaviour-2005-Vol10-No6 .pdf
The gender paradigm in domestic violence research and theory: Part 1-The
conflict of theory and data
Aggression and Violent Behavior, Volume 10, Issue 6, September-October
2005, Pages 680-714
Donald G. Dutton , Tonia L. Nicholls and University of
British Columbia
Abstract
Feminist theory of intimate violence is critically reviewed in the light of data from numerous incidence studies reporting levels of violence by female perpetrators higher than those reported for males, particularly in younger age samples. A critical analysis of the methodology of these studies is made with particular reference to the Conflict Tactics Scale developed and utilised by Straus and his colleagues. Results show that the gender disparity in injuries from domestic violence is less than originally portrayed by feminist theory. Studies are also reviewed indicating high levels of unilateral intimate violence by females to both males and females. Males appear to report their own victimization less than females do and to not view female violence against them as a crime. Hence, they differentially under-report being victimized by partners on crime victim surveys. It is concluded that feminist theory is contradicted by these findings and that the call for "qualitative" studies by feminists is really a means of avoiding this conclusion. A case is made for a paradigm having developed amongst family violence activists and researchers that precludes the notion of female violence, trivializes injuries to males and maintains a monolithic view of a complex social problem. [Emphases added.]
Keywords: Domestic abuse; Gender; Intimate violence; Paradigm; Feminism
---
Article Outline
Introduction
1. The radical feminist paradigm
2. The CTS debate: Context
3. The self defense debate: Female intimate violence is defensive
4. Government incidence surveys
5. Male underreporting
6. Data on gender differences
7. Effects more severe for women
8. Back to the context of violence
9. Greater fear by female victims
10. The Archer study
11. Escalation
12. Patriarchal terrorism
13. Feminist belief perseverance
14. Paradigm perpetuation
15. Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
---
Introduction
After a period of lengthy neglect, family violence achieved heightened attention as a serious social problem in the early 1970s (Dutton, 1995 and Pleck, 1987). Through a combination of activist effort and research findings showing family violence to be more prevalent than previously believed, governments began to take a more aggressive arrest policy toward the problem. Subsequently, shelter houses for female victims as well as mandatory treatment for male perpetrators became commonplace in North America. Research followed, based in many cases on samples drawn from those shelters (woman-victims) or court-mandated treatment groups (male-perpetrators). As a result of this sample selection and of the prevailing ideology of feminism, the notion evolved that spouse assault was exclusively male perpetrated or that female intimate violence, to the extent that it existed at all, was defensive or inconsequential. Subsequent research showing equivalent rates of serious female violence has been greeted with scepticism, especially by the activist-research community (e.g. Dobash et al., 1992 and Jaffe et al., 2003). Data surveys (e.g. Stets & Straus, 1992a, Stets & Straus, 1992b, Straus & Gelles, 1992 and Straus et al., 1980) similarly met with criticism, especially by feminist researchers who were committed to the view that intimate violence was the by-product of patriarchy and hence, an exclusively male activity (Bograd, 1988). This initial dogma has persevered despite data to the contrary, to be presented below.
This type of error in social judgment is demonstrated in research studies by social psychologists such as Janis, 1982 and Kahneman et al., 1982, and by Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979) which show "confirmatory bias" (also called "biased assimilation") and "belief perseverance" occurring when research subjects have a strongly held belief and are exposed to research findings inconsistent with the belief. The subjects reconcile the contradiction and maintain the prior belief by discounting the research methodology. They do not apply the same rigorous standards to research findings, which confirm their beliefs. Kahneman et al. described the tendency of humans to make premature causal judgments, often based on
unconscious biases in human inference. Personal experience is an especially erroneous basis for making social judgment as we tend to give too much weight to single, salient experiences and to subsequently discount contrary data to the "confirmatory bias" we have established. Lord et al. illustrated how contradictory data sets are systemically discounted. Janis further demonstrated how social groups evolve a social reality called "groupthink" where group ideology is protected by and serves to self-sustain through rationalizations for discounting contradictory data. A conjunction of the social psychological phenomena of groupthink and belief perseverance appears to account for the "paradigm" (or "worldview") and ensuing urban myth surrounding domestic violence often found in academic journals specifically focused on domestic violence.
Lord et al. (1979) and Janis (1982) focused on "lay judgments", not on academic studies. In fact, the notions of scientific objectivity and falsifiable hypotheses act, at least in principle, against the formation of "groupthink." However, social scientists frequently become aligned with contemporary notions of social justice and attempt to fit their enterprise to the objectives of achieving social change. In so doing, they increase the risk of straying from objective reporting of data. In domestic violence research, the sense that a greater good for women's rights and the protection of women should prevail over scientific accuracy has provided this function of directing the search, data reported, interpretations, and applications of the data. In concert with value-laden theories, the focus of attention has been on male violence and simultaneously has deflected study and acceptance of female violence. In effect, a "paradigm" (cf. Kuhn, 1965) has developed in the domestic violence literature in which perpetrators are viewed as exclusively or disproportionately male. Any and all data inconsistent with this view are dismissed, ignored, or attempts are made to explain them away. The function of the gender paradigm originally was to generate social change in a direction that righted an imbalance against women (see Dobash & Dobash, 1978, Dobash & Dobash, 1979, Dobash et al., 1992, Patai, 1998, Walker, 1989 and Yllo & Bograd, 1988). The result, however, has been to misdirect social and legal policy, to misinform custody assessors, police, and judges, to disregard data sets contradictory to the prevailing theory, and to mislead attempts at therapeutic change for perpetrators (see also Corvo & Johnson, 2003, Dutton, 1994 and George, 2003).
1. The radical feminist paradigm
In an earlier paper, Dutton (1994) described feminist theory as being a "paradigm", roughly translated as a set of guiding assumptions or worldview, commonly shared within a group and serving to ward off recognition of data that are dissonant with the paradigm's central tenets. This theory views all social relations through the prism of gender relations and holds, in its neo-Marxist view, that men (the bourgeoisie)hold power advantages over women (the proletariat) in patriarchal societies and that all domestic violence is either male physical abuse to maintain that power advantage or female defensive violence, used for self protection.
The feminist paradigm supports the notion that domestic violence is primarily a culturally supported male enterprise and that female violence is always defensive and reactive. When women are instigators, in this view,it is a "pre-emptive strike", aimed at instigating an inevitable male attack (see Bograd, 1988 and Dobash et al., 1992; inter alia). In contrast, male violence is not similarly contextualized and is always attributed to a broader social agenda. As a result of this perspective, feminists tend to generalize about violent men, about men in general, and to ignore female pathology. As Dobash and Dobash (1979) put it, "Men who assault their wives are actually living up to cultural prescriptions that are cherished in Western society - aggressiveness, male dominance and female subordination - and they are using physical force as a means to enforce that dominance" (p.24). Bograd (1988) defined feminist researchers as asking the fundamental question "Why do men beat their wives… Feminists seek to understand why men in general use physical force against their partners and what functions
this serves in a given historical context" (p.13). In fact, the data demonstrate that while feminists are accurate in portraying abuse in intimate relationships as rampant, the reality is that most often both parties engage in aggression (Kessler et al., 2001, Nicholls & Dutton, 2001, Stets & Straus, 1992a and Stets & Straus, 1992b). Feminism favors strong arrest policies and "intervention" rather than treatment (since treatment implies that society is less to blame) (Pence & Paymar,1993). It is not clear how men are held individually responsible by feminism when patriarchy is to blame, nor how feminists account for differences in male populations in attitudes and acceptance of violence.
Disconfirming research data appear to have had little impact on supporters of this perspective over the past two decades. For instance, speaking to intimate partner homicide, Serran and Firestone (2004) recently asserted we live in "a society where almost every major institute accepts or ignores the problems of gender inequality.…" and "The law and the patriarchal hierarchy have legitimized wife beating and control, resulting in unequal power relationships between men and women" (p. 12). In fact, considerable evidence suggests that there are strong social prohibitions inhibiting men from aggressing against women (e.g., chivalry; Arias & Johnson, 1989 and Archer, 2000a), legal sanctions against men who transgress (the U.S. Violence Against Women Act of 1994: (VAWA); Brown, 2004) and fewer social prohibitions inhibiting women from aggressing against men (for reviews see Brown, 2004 and George, 1999). These legal and social policies, well intended though they might be, are based on erroneous information both about the causes and incidence of most intimate violence. They have evolved based on the needs of the small but significant proportion of women who experience chronic "wife battering"; they do little to serve the much larger majority of men, women, and children coping with the more frequently encountered "common couple abuse" (Johnson, 1995 and Stets & Straus, 1992b).
Among the data sets cited by Dutton in 1994 as contradictory to the feminist view were the following: (1) unidirectional "severe" female intimate violence was more common than male unidirectional intimate violence (Stets & Straus, 1992b); (2) lesbian abuse rates were higher than heterosexual malefemale abuse rates (Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague, & Reyes, 1991); (3) only a small percentage of males were violent over the life course of a marriage (Straus et al., 1980);(4) as many females as males were violent (Straus et al., 1980); (5) very few males approved of the spouse abuse (Stark & McEvoy, 1970)1; (6) only 9.6% of males were dominant in their marriage (Coleman & Straus, 1986); and, (7) male violence was not linearly related to cultural indicators of patriarchy across US states (Yllo & Straus, 1990). Each of these data sets, available by 1993, has routinely been ignored by the feminist paradigm.
The initial effect of the feminist paradigm in practice was to focus so exclusively on male intimate violence that female violence was ignored. Corvo and Johnson (2003) outlined the bedrock view of feminist thought "that battering (by males) is NEVER… provoked, hereditary, out of control, accidental, an isolated incident. It is not caused by disease, diminished intellect, alcoholism/addiction, mental illness or any external person or event. It is a means for men to systematically dominate, disempower, control and devalue women… it is greater than an individual act, it supports the larger goal of oppression of women" (from Alternatives to Domestic Agression - Catholic Social Services (ADACSS), specifically the ADA Philosophy & Intervention Strategies for Batterer Intervention:
Dutton (1994) asserted that intimacy and psychopathology rather than gender generated relationship violence. In societies where violence against women is not generally accepted, such as North America, violent men are not living up to a "cultural norm." That norm may exist in patriarchal societies such as Korea (Kim & Cho, 1992), or Islamic countries (Frenkiel, 1999, Haj-Yahia, 1998 and Moin, 1998; as cited in Archer, 2002) but data do not support its existence in North America. Archer (in press) cites a negative correlation between social-structural factors empowering women and frequency of wife assault across 51 countries (called the Gender Development Index). However, in the U.S., Canada, Britain, and New Zealand (nations supplying the bulk of data on spouse assault) gender empowerment for women is the highest of all 51 countries and structural factors have the least impact on wife assault.
It is because of intimacy that lesbian and heterosexual rates of abuse are similarly high; the impact of attachment and related anxieties produce anger and abuse. Dutton, 1998 and Dutton, 2002 further elaborated the psychological phenomena that would increase an individual's propensity to experience such anxiety and react with abuse. The "intimacy problem" explanation constitutes an alternative to gender explanations and posits that abusiveness in intimate relationships occurs for both genders and that certain psychological features increase risk for individuals independent of gender. Dutton (1994) cited data from a study on lesbian relationships by Lie et al. (1991) that showed, for women who had been in past relationships with both men and women, abuse rates were higher for all forms of abuse in relationships with women: physical, sexual, emotional. Hence, Dutton argued, intimate violence is not specific to men and cannot be explained on the basis of gender or gender roles.
An alternative would be to view intimate violence as having psychological causes common to both genders. Psychological explanations for intimate violence have come from numerous sources. One good review by Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smuztler, and Sandin (1997) cited psychopathology, attachment, anger, arousal, alcohol abuse, skills deficits, head injuries, biochemical correlates, attitudes, feelings of powerlessness, lack of resources, stress, and family of origin sources for male intimate violence. Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, and Laughlin (2002) found anxious attachment and angry temperament predicted dating violence in both sexes. Feminist "intervention" discounts all of these as "excuses" despite empirical support for the relationship of each to marital aggression and the utility of these risk factors for prevention and intervention.
2. The CTS debate: Context
Belief perseverance requires some form of disparagement of any disconfirmatory methodology. When female violence was found to exist by the Straus Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) surveys (Straus & Gelles, 1992 and Straus et al., 1980) attacks on the instrument of measurement were inevitable. [Emphasis added.] In their comprehensive review of the literature over the last two decades, Dobash et al. (1992) critiqued the CTS as representing "currently fashionable claims" (p. 83, the claims were not referenced) and having problems with interpretation since almost any category on the CTS could contain acts that varied in severity. They picked an example involving a woman playfully kicking at her spouse and pointed out that behavior would be classified as a severe act on the CTS. They did not appear to consider that this could also be true of interpretations of male violence. The CTS, like any broad based instrument, reduces data out of necessity. On the revised version, the CTS2, Straus included injuries to partially offset this critique.
Dobash et al. (1992) criticized all studies using the CTS as
misrepresenting intimate violence. One point of criticism is that males and females within-couples do not agree on the amount of violence used. Their implication is that males are under-reporting their use of violence. George (2003) discusses the over-and under-reporting controversy, citing a study by Morse (1995) that showed both sexes tend to over-report minor acts they commit, under-report serious acts they commit, and over-report serious acts they suffer. In surveys using representative community samples the same results are obtained regarding relative frequency of male and female
violence, regardless of whether the respondents are male or female (Kwong et al., 1999, Stets & Straus, 1992a and Stets & Straus, 1992b), hence, lack of agreement is a non-issue2.
The ultimate criterion that Dobash et al. (1992) used for the survey data is that the "meagre case descriptions do not resemble those of battered wives and battering husbands" (p. 80). In other words, the community sample does not resemble the extreme clinical samples upon which they have based their paradigm. From this perspective, the authors dismiss the representative samples and accuse the CTS of "inaccuracies and misrepresentations" based on their own non-representative subjective perception and samples. Kahneman et al. (1982) call this solecism the "representativeness heuristic," that people hold incorrect personal notions (stereotypes), based on salient personal experiences that underestimate selective bias, baseline incidence of characteristics, etc., and lead to erroneous social judgments. Dobash et al. continue to stereotype men despite data on heterogeneity of male attitudes to women, violence use, and marital power (Coleman & Straus, 1986).
Dobash et al. (1992) complained that no "conceptual framework for understanding why women and men should think and act alike" exists. But in fact such a framework does exis (Dutton, 1994, Dutton, 1995, Dutton, 1998, Dutton, 2002, Eckhardt et al., 1997, Ehrensaft et al., 2004, Follingstad et al., 2002, Fortunata & Kohn, 2003, Hamberger & Hastings, 1991, Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994 and Zanarini et al., 2003, inter alia). This psychological literature clearly demonstrates how intimacy produces emotional states such as anxiety and anger that are abusogenic, especially in persons with Axis II personality disorders. Furthermore, the behavior occurs regardless of gender (see Ehrensaft et al., 2004 and Follingstad et al., 2002). Males and females with identity disorder of a borderline variety think and feel differently than normal persons in intimate relationships. The framework is psychological and involves issues such as attachment, trauma reactions, and intimacy issues. Substantial literatures exist on each of these topics (e.g. Cassidy & Shaver, 1999, Dutton, 2002 and Van der Kolk et al., 1996) and their empirical relationship to intimate abusiveness has been established (Dutton, 2002, Ehrensaft et al., 2004 and Follingstad et al., 2002).
There have been several large-scale studies including an impressive array of epidemiological data (e.g., Kessler et al., 2001), consistently concluding that female violence rates are as high as, or higher, than male violence rates in intimate relationships. Even when the CTS/CTS2 is not used to measure abuse, men are found to often report victimization and women often report perpetrating abuse (e.g., government surveys reviewed below).
3. The self defense debate: Female intimate violence is defensive
Walker (1984) and Saunders (1988) acknowledged presence of female violence but argued that it was defensive or, in some cases, a pre-emptive strike. Both the Walker and Saunders samples, upon which they based this argument, came from women's shelters or participants who self-selected as battered women and so, by definition, contained women who were physically abused but who may not be representative of community samples of women. Saunders did not comment on this generalization problem but simply commented that as a "feminist researcher" he had an obligation to examine motives in addition to hit counts. He argued that social science must be a "tool for social change". Saunders concluded that female violence is always self defense, even when the woman uses severe violence and the man uses only mild violence. This, he asserted, is because of the woman's smaller size and weight. He focused this analysis on the Straus et al. (1980) data. These data never asked who used violence first so the question of self defense cannot be answered by that data set. Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stets and Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time (see below).
Stets & Straus, 1992a and Stets & Straus, 1992b combined the 1985 US National Family Violence Resurvey (N = 5005) with a sample of 526 dating couples to generate a large and representative sample of malefemale relationships, in which they reported the incidence of intimate violence by gender. Their data table on relationship form and gender is reproduced below (see Table 1). Using a subset of 825 respondents who reported experiencing at least one or more assaults, Stets and Straus found that in half (49%) of the incidents the couples reported reciprocal violence, in a quarter (23%) of the cases the couples reported that the husband alone was violent, and 1/4 (28%) reported the wife alone was violent. Men (n = 297) reported striking the first blow in 43.7% of cases and that their partner struck the first blow in 44.1% of the cases. The women (n = 428) reported striking the first blow in 52.7% of the cases and that their partner struck first in 42.6% of the cases. Stets and Straus concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are "at least as likely" to instigate violence. The results also indicated that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992, Table 9.1). This latter result is difficult to explain from the feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument that female violence is solely defensive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by johnnyp on 08:16 AM October 8th, 2005 EST (#54)
|
|
|
|
|
thanks man - I will study it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:27 PM October 8th, 2005 EST (#56)
|
|
|
|
|
Just a couple excerpts from the Dutton article, and the entire piece is worth reading closely:
----
Feminist core beliefs about domestic violence include the following:
That most men are violent, that women’s violence is in self-defense, that male violence escalates, and that women are by far, the most injured.
The data reviewed above reveal something very different; that both genders use violence, women use it against non-violent men, more violence deescalates than escalates, and both groups are injured, with women somewhat more likely to
experience negative outcomes.
The belief perseverance processes used against new data sets to maintain the feminist paradigm include the following:
first, to deny female violence while
generalizing male violence patterns from the bpatriarchal terrorist group to all batterers
and in some cases, all men (disconfirmed by the Straus surveys).
Then, to attack the Straus surveys for ignoring the bcontext of violence: suggesting that females were using violence defensively (disconfirmed by Stets and Straus and other studies cited above,) or that females
were substantially more injured (disconfirmed by Archer).
When all of these conceptual shields failed, the final step was to attack quantitative research in general (e.g. Bowman, 1992; Yllo, 1988).
The inevitable conclusion is that feminist theory on intimate violence is flawed. It cannot accept the reality of female violence. While male violence is viewed as never justified, female violence is viewed as always justified. The data do not support this double standard.
The one size fits all policy driven by a simplistic notion that intimate violence is a
recapitulation of class war does not most effectively deal with this serious problem or
represent the variety of spousal violence patterns revealed by research.
At some point, one has to ask whether feminists are more interested in diminishing violence within a population or promoting a political ideology. If they are interested in diminishing violence, it should be diminished for all members of a population and by the most effective and utilitarian means possible. This would mean an intervention/treatment approach based on other successful approaches from criminology and psychology.
http://www.fatherland.info/docs/2005-09-10-Gender- Paradigm-in-Domestic-Violence-Part-1-Dutton-D-Nich olls-T-Aggression-and-Violent-Behaviour-2005-Vol10 -No6.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Abstract amounts to about 40 pages of pure dynamite and should be widely circulated.
I am personally exploring having it printed as an A5 Booklet, and the best price I have thus far is about £700 for 5,000 copies.
If I can manage the above, I intend to shower them on every Member of Parliament, Newspaper and Police Training establishment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 05:11 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#48)
|
|
|
|
|
unanimous passage, eh?
i am SHOCKED! i am AWED! LOL
you mean the matriarchy has chosen not to de-fang and de-fund itself?!
well gee, that is truly stunning!
:O)
where is RADAR to explain its abysmal failure, and its delusional tactics? i thought they were the org pet here? are they off at the Capitol Mall, having lunch with Senator Spectral and his wife?
they are laughing at you -- and at all of us -- in Washington, and in feminist enclaves and orgs all over the country...
how many more decades is the american men's (non)movement going to pursue impossible, naive tactics, and follow inexperienced and egotistical leaders?
do any of you -- aside from the Usual Suspects, of course -- still think we are so flush with resources that we can afford to waste them trying to politely convince the matriarchy to perform a self-hysterectomy?
you *actually* thought that the u.s. congress was going to amend its legislation to include american boys and men as "victims" on par with females?
a maze ing
mebbe we ought to run Warren again for Gov? that was a GREAT idea!
and, oh yah, we DEFINITELY oughta draft a Violence Against Men Act ... that'd be REAL effective!
barf
the movement's problems remain the same, year after depressing year -- the fems need do nothing to defeat us, we defeat ourselves
as i've said many many times, the movement already HAS EVERYTHING IT NEEDS to succeed,
if only it would get out of its own way
we silence our own messengers, we kill our own warriors, we stubbornly insist upon My Way (while having almost no idea of what we're doing), then wonder why we get trampled year after year, decade after decade
man am i tired of talking to the wall, and dealing with cliques whose behavior would shame a pack of jr high girls during gossip hour
wow
Thoroughly Disgusted doesn't even begin to express it for me...
i'm outta here
good luck with federal code "revisions," lawsuits, constitutional challenges, letters to senators, and posts to online boards -- at least until you register disagreement on an issue with the local admin nazi, at which point you'll get booted
if y'all ever get SERIOUS about climbing out of the collective pit we're in, trading your dead ideo-political blankees and egos for success, and kicking the matriarchy's ass back to the paleolithic, please feel free to gimme a call -- i'm sure the gyneocracy will still be humming along, happily expanding
you've got some good people in this movement, and boy have you got some bad ones, too
start using the former, and get rid of the latter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:57 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#52)
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous,
BUCK UP!
There have been some significant successes on the local level.
My state of Georgia (a misandric judicial cesspool if there ever was one!) passed a strong and serious Paternity Fraud law within the last two years and has revamped its archaic anti male child support laws too! Other states like Ohio have joined the fight against paternity fraud by passing real legislation against it.
Even in the judiciary women who have killed their husbands/boyfriends and have tried to play the ole abuse excuse card have found themselves convicted and sent to prison whereas just a couple of years ago they would have walked. A recent example is in of all places Michigan where a petite feisty middle-aged school teacher killed her husband with a hatchet and played the abuse excuse gambit to get off. She is now in prison for life convicted of the highest charge of 1st degree murder and probably would have gotten the death penalty if Michigan had the death penalty. See Seaman vs. State of Michigan 2004.
Even in informal discussions with other people about the plight of men in today's society I will get more often than not a genuine sympathetic acknowledgment that men do have a rotten deal in today's culture whereas just a few years ago I would have gotten jeers and snickers.
We are winning. It is just one small victory at a time. But these small victories add up quickly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 06:40 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#50)
|
|
|
|
|
now is the time to write your representatives that are elected that voted that you will not support them next election, and then dont.
until men vote like this and whomever is voting has some effect, then this type of capitualation will have an effect because they can use anyone that doesnt vote as a focus of attack through media stimulation.
if you donate to them, then dont. if you vote for them, then dont. when you see someone running at the local fairs and things and they are greasing the palms, ask them where they stand, and then shake or refuse their hand.
these people are REPRESENTATIVES, and we are not being represented, and the articles of how government is run and its function are being violated. if we care we can stop it by letting those that we contribute to that we have better things to do with our time, money, and endorsement.
keep it short.
Due to the one sided nature of the law you have voted in, i no longer feel that you represent all the people of your constituency equally. I am withdrawing my support for you until such a time that you start representing more than half your constituency.
or something thereof
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by canaryguy
(nospam.canaryguy@nospam.stealthfool.com)
on 07:04 PM October 7th, 2005 EST (#51)
|
|
|
|
|
now is the time to write your representatives that are elected that voted that you will not support them next election, and then dont.
I've already been going one step further by refusing to vote for Democrats for a while. I figure we should pick and destroy the weak party (Democrats) and if the Republicans don't come around then turn on them.
For next year I intend to budget a certain amount of money towards elections. I'm going to try to meet as many opposition candidates as I can and quiz them on Men's Issues. Those that pass the test will get money. I also intend to inform the man-hating losers (e.g. Ed Pastor D-AZ) that their opposition is getting money because of what they've done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:14 PM October 8th, 2005 EST (#55)
|
|
|
|
|
A reminder of the definition of the death of a 1000 cuts - n. - the martial concept that a gradual bleeding to death of an opponent (attrition) is easier to accomplish than a single deadly thrust. The concept is extended to politics and the erosion of personal liberties necessary to establish tyranny.
All media is feminist, and the daily "women are victims" message built into all things gender related in the media only enourages the passage of hate laws like VAWA.
The IDEA is to have a 1000 men suffer from hate laws which criminalize men to perhaps protect one woman from some asshole abuser.
Lets focus on the funding!!!!! starve the snake!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Roy writes "According to the