Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, and Family Violence: A Dangerous Intersection


This article was updated at 1:44 pm EST to insert a missing paragraph.

When do reproductive rights end? Do they end at birth? Do they continue throughout a child’s life? Do reproductive rights extend to parental rights? These are questions we are just starting to ask. And finding the answer can be, in many cases, the difference between life and death.

Most agree that women have a right to control their own bodies. However, recent research shows that some men sabotage women’s use of birth control and some use coercion to get a woman pregnant. Abusive men use these tactics to control women. And in cases where a woman then has children in an abusive setting, what are the woman’s reproductive rights and how do these intersect with her parental rights? Surely, charges of “failure to protect” can be used against her if she or the child is harmed. But what happens when women flee such relationships or try to deny abusive parents access to their children? Does either the judicial system or society support her in her efforts to protect her children? Do we believe her? Provide her with protection? Deny abusers access to children?

We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents  are harming women and children trying to escape abuse.

Approximately 100,000 contested child custody cases occur each year in the U.S. Two-thirds of these involve domestic violence, committed overwhelmingly (90 percent) by fathers, according to Harvard’s Jay Silverman, in a forward to the book Domestic Violence, Abuse, and Child Custody. Research finds that men who assault their wives are also likely to abuse their children. While we are likely to believe that the protective parent would gain custody, this is not often the case. In contested custody cases, men who seek custody get it up to 84 percent of the time. The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence estimates that approximately 58,000 children a year go into unsupervised, joint or sole custody with an abusive parent. What’s a mother to do to protect herself and her child?

Failure to protect

In a recent case our judicial system was tested and failed. Katie Tagle sought a restraining order on Jan. 21, 2010 against her ex-boyfriend Stephen Garcia to stop him from having unsupervised visitation with their nine-month-old child. She told the judge Garcia threatened to kill the infant. The judge thought she was lying. The court transcript records Judge Robert Lemkau as saying, “One of you is lying…” And later, “Mr. Garcia claims it’s total fabrication on your part.” Garcia also referred to it as “little stunts and games” that “she used” to deny him access to his son. Even when she mentions the evidence of the threats, he says, “Well, ma’am, there’s a real dispute about whether that’s even true or not.” And finally, “My suspicion is that you’re lying…” (said twice). He denied her the order (as did two other judges). Garcia took their son that day and drove off into the mountains. Ten days later they were both found dead.

If this were only an isolated case, it might end there. But it’s not.

Within two weeks of the Garcia-Tagle case, on February 8, 20-year-old Nicholas Bacon shot his nine-month-old son and then himself. Bacon had joint custody.  

Shortly after these two cases, 34-year-old Jesus Roman Fuentes shot his four-year-old son during a court-ordered visitation. The boy died at the hospital. The father, who had also shot himself, died this past week.

And following on these three cases, Mark Resch shot his seven-year-old son during a scheduled visitation and then committed suicide. The apparent motive was revenge against his estranged wife. In this case, the wife sought two orders of protection and police removed a gun from the household. Evidently, the family court judge still believed this man was a safe parent.

Mark A. Guenther was charged in the murder of his 18-month-old daughter this month. According to a commenter named Brokenhearten, who posted a comment on the news article:

Her mother tried and tried to get something done so that she did not have to go see her father. She had DFS out to his house, they found nothing…She filed for an order of protection on a couple different occassions…they were dismissed…She refused to let her see her dad until her back was up to the wall…the court systems had tied her hands and she had no other choices but to let her sweet baby go to her dads house and hope that everything was ok…

Once again, parental rights trumped safety and the system meant to protect children ignored the dangers identified by the mother.

Family court and fathers’ rights = A deadly combination 

Historically, battered women have had problems retaining custody of their children. Mainly this was due to how they present; in a word, poorly. They cry, they’re frightened, they appear anxious and even hostile. Now add to this mix the Fathers’ Rights movement, a group referred to as anti-feminist, backlash and even, the “Abusers’ Lobby” and you have what amounts to a catastrophe, if not a deadly combination, for women and children. (In contrast, positive parenting or responsible fatherhood groups often work as allies with women.)

The Fathers’ rights movement (along with many Men’s rights activists), has introduced policies such as “friendly parent” policies, joint custody, punishment for false allegations and various syndromes to family courts across the country (as well as in many Western countries and in India). Most of these policies seem beneficial on the surface — but have hidden dangers lurking underneath.

In today’s courts with friendly parent policies, a battered woman will look anything but friendly. So who gets custody? The one who appears most likely to share parenting responsibilities. Often enough, the batterer.

Joint custody is another policy that sounds fair in principle, but experts warn it is not ideal for couples with high conflict. Family court is, however, known to be “the place” for couples with moderate-to-high conflict. Most couples (roughly 85 percent) resolve parenting plans themselves. Those that can’t, and often enough those with some prior history of abuse or control, go to family court. Fathers’ rights groups would like to see family courts enforce presumptive or mandated shared custody. Experts in domestic violence would not.

Domestic violence experts also cringe at the idea of punishing false allegations, something the fathers’ rights groups actively promote. Since accusations of abuse can be difficult to prove – with evidence and witnesses – this can serve to punish parents for alleging abuse. Punishment deters reporting. Parents can be fined, jailed or denied custody if the judge doesn’t believe their accusation. Domestic violence expert Barry Goldstein says, “Research has established that fathers in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. It is not that men are more dishonest, but 90 percent of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody to pressure their partner to return or punish her for leaving. Although fathers are more likely to make false charges, courts are more likely to believe them.”

Parental alienation (PA) or parental alienation syndrome (PAS), the idea that a parent poisons the mind of the child(ren), is another idea introduced within the last two decades by fathers rights groups. Developed by Dr. Richard Gardner, PAS is highly controversial. Proponents claim parents (mostly mothers) turn their children against the other parent. Opponents claim PAS can mask child abuse. Indeed, research by Jay Silverman found 54 percent of cases with documented abuse were in favor of abusers. PAS was used in nearly every case.

In many of the cases I’ve cited, had the women tried to deny the fathers access to the children, they could’ve been countered with “alienation” or the judge could’ve immediately transferred custody over to the more “friendly” parent.

In a case stemming from November, for example, Danielle Horvat fled with her three-and-a-half-year-old boy, Garrett Aguilar on a day that she had a dispute with the boy’s father, David Aguilar. She stopped at one domestic violence shelter. Despite the fact that police did not investigate her claims of abuse, the court immediately transferred custody over to the father, as they often do when parents flee.

The incredible lightness of domestic violence

Thanks to the aid of the Internet, (mostly) men that make claims of being falsely accused or alienated find support, encouragement and targets for their anger — which is aimed at their exes, or women in general and feminists in particular. Individuals and groups that promote studies referring to domestic violence as 50-50 or “mutual” also find supporters within this crowd. Many of these claims are based on studies that rely on self-reportage or pick up common couple violence. Their limitations include using self-report; not picking up severe violence or homicide; not putting violence into context (was it used for self-defense?); and not including violence during separation (the most dangerous time for a woman). What the promotion of these studies has done is introduce the element of doubt. If you combine this with women’s low credibility (due to societal bias and the biases of the legal system), you have danger.

Take the case of Timothy Frazier. In May 2009, Frazier convinced police his ex-girlfriend Candice Dempsey was a threat to their 21-month-old son. While Frazier made it very clear to police he did not have custody, police readily handed his son over to him. Two weeks later, both were found dead. 

Even when the woman is believed, it is not often the father will have his parental rights terminated. Last year, Octavious Dupree Gilmore punched his ex-girlfriend in the head and threatened to kill her, their two kids and himself.  The Gaston Gazette reported him as saying, “”…(I)f I can’t have you, nobody can,” Gilmore allegedly told her. “I’ll kill you, the kids, then myself.” He was charged but later released. According to the article, he was told to “have no contact with the accuser outside of their child custody agreement,” (emphasis mine). Despite an assault and death threats, the judge believed this man to be a safe parent.

In another case, charges of domestic violence were not given much weight, as they were not placed in context of the abuser’s history. Craig Alan Wall, Sr. was a suspect in his 5-week-old son’s death. He violated a protection order when he went to his son’s memorial. The prosecutor never mentioned that Wall was a suspect in his son’s case or that he had served a 14-year prison sentence for armed robbery. The judge released Wall on $1,000 bail. Two days later, he stabbed his ex-girlfriend (the child’s mother) to death. She was 29 and left behind a 6-year-old son.

Fathers rights do not trump women and children’s safety

In many of these cases, the women are doing what they are “supposed to do:” reporting domestic violence, filing orders of protection, using shelters, and so on. And yet, despite jumping all the hoops set up for them, in many of these cases, the system is failing them. The women in question are not finding justice for themselves or their children. As a result, we find women who feel forced to stay with an abuser or forced to share parenting rather than not be able to protect her children at all. These women are not “failing to protect,” but the judicial system is failing to protect them and their children from further harm, abuse and death. (For citations to research on women losing custody, see www.leadershipcouncil.org) [Note: organizations like Justice for Children do report men experiencing similar situations, but overwhelmingly we witness women facing this type of bias and injustice in family court.]

Many of the fathers rights guys think their reproductive rights extend to their parental rights. This should also be the case for women — and, indeed, many mothers’ rights groups have sprung up in defense of these rights. So the question remains: When do our reproductive rights end? How can we we prevent women from losing custody of the very children they bear? How can we help them protect themselves and their children from harm? How can we help women receive justice in a judicial system that may not believe their claims and may actually punish them for making abuse allegations?  Fathers do have rights, no doubt, but their rights do not trump women and children’s safety. That is the balance — the justice — that we must seek — and it’s a matter of life and death that we do so soon.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • randijames

    I’ve been trying to find a way to merge reproductive rights, maternal health care, and domestic violence/what’s occuring in the family court system so that women could know the entire spectrum of what they are up against.  We have so many women that join these men’s groups and they just don’t have a clue what they are getting into.  I am so tired.

    • devastatedmom

      Wow.  You just essentially mirrored my life for the last ten years.  I divorced my ex husband because he was abusive towards me and my children.  I had the full support of the local police department as well as child protective services.  I initlally won full custody but once I was in another state, he kidnapped my children and when I tried to get help from the courts in that state to get my children back, they gave him full custody and me supervised visitation.  In less than a month he had me arrested for not paying child support.  This continued until I moved to another state.  Within five years of me “being out of the picture” I get a phone call that he cant handle our son and to take him or he is sending him to state.  My son moved in with me and my new husband.  Shortly there after my other two children get removed from my ex’s custody because the children were drugged and molested in his care.  CPS was unable to substantiate anything because the kids just wont talk and the children were returned to him.  This has completely devasted me and destroyed my life.  Im terrified to do anything about this in court.  They have always treated me like a crazy woman (though you would probably go crazy too).  My ex has lied about me and nothing has been done to confirm any of his allegations.  I have submitted police and cps reports on him that has been completely ignored.  Recently I filed documents in court because he is still trying to get me to pay child support for my when my son lived with me (about 4 years worth) and the court actually had me call and ask his “permission” to appear telephonically even though I filed the appropriate paperwork.  This has been going on for 9 years.  I feel like Im being punished for divorcing a bad person and the courts are allowing him to do this.  This has completely ripped my life apart.  I wake up crying everyday, I have nightmares, anger issues, Im just completely devasted.  All I have ever wanted was to give my children and better life than I had as a child and now the only children I will ever have are being raised by a pedophile.  I dont know what to do anymore but desperately need help.  Any suggestions would be wonderful!

  • silverside

    I have seldom seen these issues connected in such an articulate and well-documented fashion. Kudos to Joan Dawson for a job well done!

  • ack

    Unfortunately, the family court process is commonly used by abusers to continue abusing their partners. I really appreciate your analysis of this being an extension of reproductive coercion and control. Abusers who impregnate their partners against their will don’t want a child, they want a pawn. And they will use that child in an attempt to regain power after a victim leaves.

     

    Several states have passed exemptions from the friendly parent provision in cases where one parent is acting in good faith to protect a child from witnessing DV or being a victim. The problem with carving out exemption for DV, however, is that the burden is then on the victim to prove it. Many victims don’t have documentation of the abuse, and as you demonstrated with the examples above, the judicial backlash has been strong. Of course, including the exemption is better than not, so I strongly support it.

     

    One of the most frightening aspects of the fathers’ rights movement is how successful they are at spin. Their response to cases where divorced or separated fathers kill their children and themselves is that the court system drives them to it.

  • mechashiva

    This was a fabulous article. Not long ago, I was a resident at a women’s shelter, and the stories the other women there told me about child custody battles and courts were just awful. It’s good to see a break-down of the policies that lead to these terrible court decisions so that we have a better understanding of how to fight back. Still, it’s very discouraging that we have these problems at all.

  • jenk

    Your article is so slanted and biased I am not sure even where to start. I guess I would like you to post some supporting documentation proving your points, rather than using anecdotal incidents.

    How many fathers total get sole custody of children? What percentage of child murders and abuse are perpetrated by the biological father (not stepfather?) What percentage of child murders are perpetrated by the biological mother? How many women do exactly what you accuse men-cheat or tamper with birth control to get pregnant? What are the motivations to lie about PAS vs outright abuse-who has the most support to do so, and the most to gain and how many are successful?  What percentage of domestic violence situations are mutually violent?  If mutual violence occurs, then should the kids go into foster care, since violent parents are likely to abuse kids? Are there cases where women kill their own kids to get back at their husbands?

     

    What you are talking about here is trumping the rights of all innocent men (any man who has not been convicted of a crime by definition in the US btw) to preemptively keep fathers from their kids based on accusations alone. It is irrelevant if these accusations are occasionally true-that is sad, but it has to stand. Our country was built on basic principles of law which say you cannot punish someone for something without proving them guilty. What you propose is not only against the law, it is directly unconstitutional. Every person is innocent until proven guilty. What you propose is something out of Soviet Russia, or Nazi Germany. Do you really want the government to have that sort of power? WHat happens when you are the person they decide to expel next?

    I hate to see stories where one parents kills the child out of retribution or spite. It is just as often women I hear about doing this, yet I would not support preemptively taking kids away from mothers on the unsubstantiated accusation of the father, either. There MUST be checks and balances.

    Women and children are not one entity, they are separate people. A solid and factual arguement could be made that men and children are more likely to be abused than women; lumping the two together is a cheap way to bolster stats.  Reproductive rights for the mother  ends the moment that child is no longer inside the body of the mother; then they become two separate people. 

     

     I really hope you are willing to provide documentation for your accusations. I am interested to see what you find to my questions above.

     

    Jen

  • trish-wilson

    Fantastic article, Joan! You covered all the bases including the misogynistic father’s rights movement, alienation, domestic violence, custody cases, and more.

     

    I’ve also noticed the trend of abusive men killing their children and their girlfriends, wives, and exes, especially when they are unemployed. Thank you for writing such an eye-opening and accurate article. I’m sure you’ll get lots of angry comments. That won’t matter. Your article told the truth and I hope it gets lots of circulation.

  • santo-christoforo

    “However, recent research shows that some men sabotage women’s use of birth control and some use coercion to get a woman pregnant. Abusive men use these tactics to control women.” What recent research?

    We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents  are harming women and children trying to escape abuse. No, I’m afraid you did not examine social biases, assuming they are social biases in the first place!

    When and where and how did Jay Silverman become such an expert?

    Who, besides him, makes the same assertions you make?

    Since when do several anecdotes amount to conclusive proof of anything, much less social biases?

    Thanks to the aid of the Internet, (mostly) men that make claims of being falsely accused or alienated find support, encouragement and targets for their anger — which is aimed at their exes, or women in general and feminists in particular. Individuals and groups that promote studies referring to domestic violence as 50-50 or “mutual” also find supporters within this crowd. Many of these claims are based on studies that rely on self-reportage or pick up common couple violence. Their limitations include using self-report; not picking up severe violence or homicide; not putting violence into context (was it used for self-defense?); and not including violence during separation (the most dangerous time for a woman). What the promotion of these studies has done is introduce the element of doubt. If you combine this with women’s low credibility (due to societal bias and the biases of the legal system), you have danger.” You must prove that these are flawed studies, not just slip the accusation into your article and proceed from there!

  • crowepps

    How many fathers total get sole custody of children?

     

    In a divorce, men are less likely to gain custody of their children than are women. Mothers gain custody of children in 90% of cases.  Some have suggested that this is because very few men want child custody. The evidence does indeed suggest that a smaller percentage of fathers than mothers want custody and that even fewer fathers actually request custody.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-105518205.html

     

    What percentage of child murders and abuse are perpetrated by the biological father (not stepfather?)  What percentage of child murders are perpetrated by the biological mother? 

     

    While the perpetrators of murder-suicides are usually men, in 5 per cent of cases it is the mother who is responsible.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/ukcrime.lornamartin

     

    How many women do exactly what you accuse men-cheat or tamper with birth control to get pregnant?

     

    No one is accusing “men” of doing this.  The accusation is that “abusers” do this.  It is NOT ‘normal male behavior’ to be abusive.

     

    What are the motivations to lie about PAS vs outright abuse-who has the most support to do so, and the most to gain and how many are successful?

     

    If the man has the psychological pattern of a power and control abuser, he has the most to gain.  He literally believes that his wife and children BELONG to him and that it is a threat to his SELF for them to escape his control.

     

    What percentage of domestic violence situations are mutually violent?

     

    Intimate partner violence made up 20% of all nonfatal violent crime experienced by women in 2001.

    Intimate partners committed 3% of the nonfatal violence against men.

    In 2000, 1,247 women and 440 men were killed by an intimate partner. In recent years, an intimate partner killed approximately 33% of female murder victims and 4% of male murder victims.

    Of females killed with a firearm, almost two-thirds were killed by their intimate partners.

     The number of females shot and killed by their husband or intimate partner was more than three times higher than the total number murdered by male strangers using all weapons combined in single victim/single offender incidents in 2002.

    http://new.abanet.org/domesticviolence/Pages/Statistics.aspx

     

    Theories based on “mutual” violence do not take into account the different ways that men and women use violence in intimate relationships. Further, any theory that describes violence as a response to “provocation” from the other partner is simply another form of victim blaming. Nor does this model account for instances in which a husband explodes over trivial issues or starts beating his wife while she is asleep.

    http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/svaw/domestic/link/theories.htm

    If mutual violence occurs, then should the kids go into foster care, since violent parents are likely to abuse kids?

     

    Once ‘mutual violence’ that actually is one person being abusive and the other person attempting to protect themselves has been excluded, yes.  Child safety should be the primary goal.

     

    Are there cases where women kill their own kids to get back at their husbands?

     

    Yes, however they are far more rare – see above, 5%

     

    Every person is innocent until proven guilty.

     

    Are you speaking of each individual instance?  Or of being proven to have a pattern of abusive behavior?  Should men who have been convicted in the past of domestic violence be forbidden to live in a domestic relationship with others?  Should parents who have been convicted in the past of child neglect and/or abuse be forbidden to have more children?

    The thing you are missing here is that the CHILD has a constitutional right to be safe, to NOT be abused or murdered.  Certainly you don’t seem to give any weight to asking the CHILD whether or not they want to be with the suspected abuser.  Allowing the child to avoid an unsafe situation is not designed as a ‘punishment’ but instead just basic common sense.

     

    I hate to see stories where one parents kills the child out of retribution or spite. It is just as often women I hear about doing this, yet I would not support preemptively taking kids away from mothers on the unsubstantiated accusation of the father, either.

     

    How about preemptively taking kids away from EITHER mothers or fathers when there is a report that they are making threats that they will harm them?  That would allow the child to be safe while an investigation determined whether the person actually meant that or might actually carry out such harm.  Certainly an interview by a psychologist might be helpful to the Court.  He said/she said isn’t the point – the point is that once the issue has been brought up by EITHER party, the Court should have a duty to safeguard the children.

  • dree

    I have to agree with Jen that this article doesn’t seem to have much basis in research to back up such huge claims.  Even a very brief glance at the stats on child murder reveals that it is mothers not fathers who more often murder their children, especially if the child is under the age of five.  The link goes to a government Health and Human Services statistics page which indicates that 28.5% of the time it is mothers who kill their children while fathers comprise 15.8%.

     

    http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure4_2.htm

     

    Please do provide some peer reviewed studies that might back up what you are claiming.  Otherwise this seems to be ideologically driven opinion that should be labelled as such.

  • mechashiva

    Try reading Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men by Lundy Bancroft (who developed an abuser-rehab program and has worked with abusive men for 20-30 years). He takes considerable time breaking down the ways abusers use the legal system and particularly child custody battles to exercise control over their victims. He also dismantles common misconceptions about abuse and how it is generally addressed by society (and the courts). The Gift of Fear by Gavin deBecker (reknowned security specialist) also has some good information on domestic violence, though the main focus is on predicting violence which is also quite applicable to the topic at hand.

     

    I highly recommend both books. Perhaps not as convenient as a link, but they are easy to read, provide in-depth analysis, cite research, and provide additional resources in their appendices. You could get them at the library if you don’t want to buy them… but they are common enough that you might be able to download them using BitTorrent.

  • crowepps

    Certainly 28.5% of the time it is mothers who kill their children, which is not surprising when you consider that 95% of the time it is the mother who is ALONE with the children and has the access and privacy in which to do so.  Considering how little time the average father spends alone with his small children, the fact that they are the murderers 15.8% of the time is astounding.

     

    AUSTRALIAN fathers spend just six minutes alone with their children from Monday through Friday, averaging slightly over a minute a day.

    Overall, they spend an average of just shy of one hour each working week caring for their kids, but 90 per cent of that care is done alongside the mother.

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/dads-give-kids-a-minute-a-weekday/story-e6frg6o6-1111117796759

    She is not discussing ‘who kills the children’, however, but instead a particular subset of those killings which happen during custody disputes involving abusers and in which the Courts REQUIRE the child to live with the person accused of abuse.  When will the child’s opinion be given some respect?

    Prosecutors issued an arrest warrant for Jean Philippe Lacombe on Monday, nearly two months after Texas police pulled the boy from his school bus and handed him to his father.

     

    The charges were laid after the story was picked up by local media.

     

    A heart-wrenching school bus surveillance video shows how the boy begged police not to make him go with his father.

     

    “Somebody please help me. He’s not my dad. I don’t want to live with him,” Jean Paul Lacombe cried as he backed away from the officers.

     

    “I want to stay with my mom. Please. Please.”

     

    A news crew later captured images of the boy lying down in a parking lot as officers tried to reason with him and then hugging his mother and younger brother goodbye.

     

    http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/985733/texas-police-tricked-into-helping-man-kidnap-his-son

     

  • irvingsalos

    Police: Mom Admits To Killing ‘Disreapectful’ Teen

    Tells police her daughter, 18, had “pushed my last button”

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35935801/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/?GT1=43001

  • dree

    Since when has “time spent” with a given group been a reason to kill them?  That is laughable!  If your silly concept is taken into account then we would think that school teachers would be much more likely to kill children since they spend so much time with them!  Bull.  Quit giving women excuses for their violence.  The fact is that both men and women are violent and kill kids.  The article was blaming men and omitting any reference to the violence of women.  One sided and ideologically driven.  

     

    Yccch.  We need humanists who care and love all people, not feminists who care and love only women and girls and vilify men like the article above.

  • julie-watkins

    I have a friend whose daughter lived in Washington State. The daughter’s first marriage (1 kid) didn’t work, divorce. Then the daughter met someone out of state and moved. The grandmother didn’t think much of the custody plan they came up with (would have meant the kid would change schools too often), but kept it to herself. Well, when it was time for the court to OK things the grandkid did get interviewed as well as the parents saying what they agreed … and the judge said “no” to that. There’s still apparently sniping & all, but Grandmother is happy with the judge.

  • ack

    I agree that the citations should have been included. While I’m pretty sure you’re aware of what I’m about to cite, since I think you’re from RADAR, others might be seriously interested.

     

    For an analysis of the conflict tactics scale, check out Michael Kimmel. I believe the article was orginally titled “Gender Symmetry something something” but was published under a different title. You can find it by googling that search term, though.

     

    You can also try Evan Stark’s work on the difference between common couple violence and coercive control.

     

    For information on reproductive coercion and control, visit http://www.endabuse.org. The Family Violence Prevention Fund has a lot of the emerging research on this issue.

  • julie-watkins

    Hi crowepps, I don’t know if you’ve seen this, but it summarizes something reported about Maine:

    http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/135770.html

    For the panel’s eighth report, members reviewed 17 domestic violence homicides from 2006 to 2008. Eight victims were women, eight were men, and one was a “self-defense” homicide committed by a domestic violence victim, which was not included in the report’s statistics. Of the 16 perpetrators, 15 were men, and just one was a woman. Ten of the cases reviewed involved intimate partner relationships, and seven of those were in the process of leaving the relationship before being killed.

    &

    law enforcement and other professionals who have repeated contact with a single victim may experience “compassion fatigue,” which can affect their judgment.

    There’s this in the comments:

    I have to point out that 1/2 of the domestic homicides during 2006-2008 were MEN, and that in all but one case they were committed BY men. So, certainly not to minimize men abusing women in relationships, or women doing so against their partner, I think it is important to note that it is largely a problem of men being violent to others they want to control, be that women or men. Why do some men feel the compulsion or right to control others? Why do some men feel the compulsion or right to use aggression to attempt to control others? I really beleive this is the crux of the issue; men who want to control people in their lives and doing so without regard to anyone else (their partner, parent, sibling, child, etc.)… Naomi Schalit, executive director of the Maine Coalition to End Domestic Violence has it right: it must begin early, with children, because they see this kind of behavior modeled for them at home, and in most cases not to the extreme of murder, but still learning that aggression is how you achieve your desires.

    Popular culture and advertising really turns me off, so much validation of male entitlement behavior, & rich people entitlement behavior.

  • cp

    This is such a biased article from an author who is woefully ill informed.  I will say it was an excellently crafted piece of fiction.

     

    Woman never lie about abuse, right?  They may bring an allegation of abuse at anytime and they should be believed.  They would never lie about such things or, my personal favorite, why would they lie about such a thing.  

     

    There is something out there called personality disorders, I would encourage you to research them.  You may know people with a personality disorder and not even realize it.  People with PD’s tend to only share their specialness with those they love the most.

     

    One particular nasty personality disorder is Borderline.  These individuals will lie and manipulate, can be extremely abusive and threatening, all the while telling others that they are the victims of the same bad behavior.  

     

    Now, one would think that these folk are easy to identify.  They’re not. They tend to be very smart people who only target their bad behavior on select people, usually a spouse.  To unravel the lies and discover the manipulations, distortions and other falsehoods can take years of court appearances and tens of thousands of dollars.  It takes savvy evaluators, GALs and Judges to get to the correct outcome.

     

    Are people with personality disorders more likely to be alienating parents? Yes.

     

    I would suggest that you do a bit more research on this issue. You might want to check out Adult Survivors of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the ties that bind.

     

     

     

     

  • gwallan

    I, too, detest that particular argument. It makes abuse a function of duration and therefore asserts it to be inevitable. In my mind an individual will or will not abuse.

     

  • jo

    For citations of research on this issue, go to: http://www.leadershipcouncil.org

     

    Jay Silverman? Harvard researcher, highly credible, expert in this field.

     

    PAS – Dr. Richard Gardner is considered by many to be pro-pedophilia (he defended child molesters and thought many acts “natural”) and misogynist (he primarily blamed hysterical women with false allegations and breaking the bond betw father & children-ignoring abuse, harmful effects of divorce, witnessing violence, etc) He did not publish in peer-reviewed articles. The AMA, APA and Nat’l Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges discredit PAS. Gardner committed suicide with a knife – stabbing himself in the chest.

     

    Media RADAR – ideologically-based, misogynist web site created by a guy that had an abusive mother. Full of lies, quotes taken out of context, they hate UN, Amnesty, etc. – read more about them here – http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?code=2561019&menu=c10400&no=383438&rel_no=1&opinion_no=2&page=&isSerial=&sort_name=&ip_sort=

     excerpt:

    The flyer Media RADAR distributed at the festival had at least two quotes taken out of context:

    1) “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.” — Angela Moore Parmley, PhD, Department of Justice

    I contacted Dr. Parmley and she told me this quote was indeed taken out of context and she sent me the whole document (Violence Against Women Research Post VAWA Where Have We Been, Where Are We Going? P. 1424). Following this quote, the document reads: “However, over time we may find that specific VAWA-funded initiatives reduced men’s propensity to perpetrate violence against women.” In her conclusion, she states: “Few pieces of legislation have sparked such controversy yet hold so much promise as the VAWA. If successful, the Act could lead to a major transformation in the way women are treated in this country.”

    2) “Involvement with the criminal legal system has not been a positive or helpful experience; …some women are actively harmed.” Ms. Foundation for Women (Under the heading, “Women’s Groups Criticize VAWA”)

    In fact, this document calls VAWA a “landmark” act and says, “The success is real, but is simply a drop in the bucket in addressing violence against women.”

    Perhaps Media RADAR should change its name to Respecting Fallacy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.

     

     

     

  • crowepps

    It isn’t the “time spent” that provides the REASON for killing, it is the “time spent” that gives the OPPORTUNITY for killing.

     

    First, I guess it’s necessary to point out that parents killing their children is a very rare event, and second, that the type of parents who do kill their children are NOT typical parents but instead deeply flawed ones.  Typical parents do not ever say anything as insane as ‘if you don’t do what I want then I’ll kill the kids’.

     

    In addition, violence happens in only a minority of relationships, perhaps one in five, so that the ‘average’ man isn’t violent at all, but instead violence at any level only happens among a subset of perhaps 20% of dysfunctional inadequates.

     

    The intent in recognizing and guarding against what happens in those RARE cases where children are threatened isn’t to ‘vilify men’ but to protect children from men who are known to be violent, and I absolutely agree that they also need to be protected from women who are known to be violent as well.

     

    This isn’t about ‘giving women excuses for their violence’.  Your counterargument seems to be that there’s no reason to protect children from violent men because women are also violent.  Why can’t the children be protected from violence no matter which sex is violent?

  • gwallan

    “The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence estimates that approximately 58,000 children a year go into unsupervised, joint or sole custody with an abusive parent.”

    But says nothing about the gender of the abusive parent.

    “What’s a mother to do to protect herself and her child?”

    In my country mothers are responsible for eighty percent of parental child abuse. What’s a mother to do? Probably continue the abuse because people like you give her permission.

    @Joan Dawson…

    I am involved in work for abused children. By turning attention away from the primary source of child abuse you marginalise it’s victims. They will continue to experience abuse and likely suffer lifelong consequences. By deliberately – and for reasons of politics – attempting to hide the truth about child abuse you contribute to the harm those victims experience. You may as well be a participant abuser.

    You truly disgust me.

  • crowepps

    It’s been my experience most abusers, even those who claim they ‘can’t help themselves’, succeed in keeping their abuse secret by waiting until they’re alone with their victim.  It’s the ALONE, not the duration.  I agree with you 100% that an individual will or will not abuse.

  • irvingsalos

    Domestic Violence

    Myth: “Men are rarely victims of domestic violence.”
    Fact: Half of domestic violence (”DV”) victims are men. Although men are less likely than women to call police, randomized sociological (behavior-based) research consistently shows: (1) women initiate DV as often as men do; (2) women use weapons and surprise more than men do; and (3) about 38% of physically injured DV victims are men.

    Even the latest fact sheet from the Centers for Disease Control (partly from crime-based data) states: “In the United States every year, about 1.5 million women and more than 800,000 men are raped or physically assaulted by an intimate partner” (i.e., 36% of the victims are men).

    Unfortunately, the DV industry has covered up female violence for decades for purely ideological reasons.
    (Kelly, Linda, “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse; How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State,” 30 Fl. St. U. Law R. 791, 2003,)


    Myth:
    “Most DV by women is in self-defense.”
    Fact: Women commit DV for the same reasons men do. In a large DV study that looked at motives, men and women gave similar reasons for assaulting their partners, usually to “get through to them,” and self-defense was among their least common motives.
    (Carrado, “Aggression in British Heterosexual Relationships; A Descriptive Analysis,” Aggressive Behavior, (1996) 22: 401-415.)

    A 32-nation study found factors correlating with DV, such as substance abuse, jealousy and controlling behaviors, is found equally in men and women who commit DV.

    In a survey of college women at California State University, Long Beach, 30% of them admitted assaulting a male partner, the most common reasons being (1) “he wasn’t listening to me,” (2) “he wasn’t being sensitive to my needs,” and (3) “I wished to gain his attention.”
    (Fiebert & Gonzalez, “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, http://www.batteredmen.com/fiebertg.htm.)

    The only DV shelter we know of that shelters male victims and their children is Valley Oasis in Lancaster, where men and their children desperately travel from hundreds of miles for shelter because nobody else will shelter them. Male victims are already reluctant to seek help due to shame, embarrassment, and lack of outreach, fear of false arrest, or fear of losing custody of their children. When male victims “take it” and don’t seek help, or are denied services, the violence often escalates until someone is injured, and children who witness it are emotionally damaged no matter how severe it is. DV is an inter generational cycle. To end it, we must first be honest about it.

  • crowepps

    Which is protecting children from violent parents?

  • gwallan

    A better question should be when do they begin…for men that is.

     

    Given that women can, and do, rape young boys and subsequently extort child support from their victims it’s quite apparent that there are no reproductive rights whatsoever for any male.

     

     

  • crowepps

    it must begin early, with children, because they see this kind of behavior modeled for them at home, and in most cases not to the extreme of murder, but still learning that aggression is how you achieve your desires.

    I don’t think it necessarily does begin with behavior modeled for them at home, but instead in the teens when the boy packs are trying to construct workable masculinities where the message is that to end the right to call yourself a ‘Real Man’ you must achieve your desires.

     

    The harmful underlying message isn’t ‘aggression works’ but I think instead rather ‘real men are the ones who achieve their desires and that end justifies any means’ together with its unwholesome companion ‘only girlie men act ‘civilized’,  share, cooperate and are considerate of other people’.

  • dree

    If it is time spent that gives them the opportunity then you still must answer why school teachers don’t kill more children since they have much more time spent with children than most others.  I think you just need to admit that you were barking up the wrong tree with that sort of silly idea.

     

    It **IS** about giving excuses.  When you continually omit one group of perpetrators and only focus on another you are excusing the omitted group.  The article in question omitted references to women’s violence and only focused on men’s violence and women’s and children’s victimhood. This is one sided and is adding to the already bloated reams of propaganda about male relationship violence and the silence about women’s relationship violence.  One sided ideologies are not doing anyone any good and need to be called out for their bigotry.  I am all for protecting children from pathological parents but I find it disgusting when ideologues paint such a lopsided and sexist, bigoted story that demonizes one sex and excuses the other through omission.

     

     

  • crowepps

    A classroom containing 25 to 35 children is not exactly what I would describe as ALONE.

  • gwallan

    For goodness sake. Joan Dawson’s entire premise is built on the strawman argument that men are almost solely responsible for partner abuse. She extrapolates from this to a false assertion that that men are the primary abusers of children.

     

    Her intent is to ensure that custody continues to default to mothers. If her concern was genuinely the wellbeing of children she would advocate removing them from their abusers rather than from their fathers.

     

     

  • ack

    There’s a lot of distraction from the topic at hand, but I’m sure you’ve come to expect that.

  • ack

    You can find more information about fatality review in your state and others at the National Domestic Violence Fatality Review Initiative’s website.

  • irvingsalos

    1. Women are just as likely as men to engage in partner aggression.
    2. Men experience over one-third of DV-related injuries.
    3. Men are far less likely to report DV incidents than women.
    4. The myths about domestic violence are numerous.
    5. Many of these myths are based on DV studies that use biased survey methods.
      • The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report, “In nonreciprocally violent relationships, women were the perpetrators in more than 70% of the cases. Reciprocity was associated with more frequent violence among women, but not men.” [Source: Whitaker, Haileyesus, Swahn and Saltzman, Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence, American Journal of Public Health, May 2007, Vol 97, No. 5, pp. 941-947, http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941]
      • Psychologist John Archer reviewed hundreds of studies and concluded, “Women were slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently.” [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680]
      • Law professor Linda Kelly noted, “leading sociologists have repeatedly found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.” [Source: Linda Kelly: Disabusing the definition of domestic abuse. Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 30, pages 791-855, 2003. Accessible at: http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf ]
      • An international survey of violence between dating partners in 16 countries concluded: “Perhaps the most important similarity is the high rate of assault perpetrated by both male and female students in all the countries.” [Source: Murray Straus: Prevalence of violence against dating partners by male and female university students worldwide. Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 7, 2001]
      • Cal State Psychology Professor Martin Fiebert has assembled a bibliography of 175 scholarly investigations: 139 empirical studies and 36 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm
      • An analysis of the data collected by the National Violence Against Women (NVAW) Survey found that more women than men engage in controlling behavior in their current marriages, but there was no statistically significant difference between men’s and women’s use of controlling behaviors in former marriages. Controlling husbands were not particularly likely to engage in frequent, injurious, or unprovoked violence. Husband and wives did not differ in their motivation to control. [Source: Sociology Professors Richard B. Felson (Penn State) and Maureen C. Outlaw (Providence College) “The Control Motive and Marital Violence,” Violence and Victims, 2007, Vol. 22, Issue 4 http://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/ebm/record/17691548/full_citation/The_control_motive_and_marital_violence_

      • Of all persons who suffer an injury from partner aggression, 38% are male. [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, pages 651-680]
      • Of all persons who require medical treatment as the result of partner aggression, 35% are male. [Source: John Archer: Sex differences in aggression between heterosexual partners: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 126, No. 5, Table 5]
      • Men who are victims of severe domestic violence suffer other problems, as well [Source: Richard J. Gelles: Intimate Violence in Families, 1997]:
        • 30% experienced depression
        • 14% required bed rest to recuperate from the injuries
        • 10% needed to take time off from work

      • According to the National Family Violence Survey, female victims of DV are nine times more likely to call the police than male DV victims. These are the percentages of victims who called the police in response to the assault:
        • Women: 8.5%
        • Men: 0.9%

      [Source: JE Stets and MA Straus: Gender differences in reporting marital violence and its medical and psychological consequences. In Straus and Gelles (editors): Physical violence in American families, 1990, Table 15.]

      These are some of the common myths about domestic violence:

      • According to the FBI, a woman is beaten every 15 seconds
      • 4,000 women each year are killed by their husbands, ex-husbands, or boyfriends
      • There are nearly three times as many animal shelters in the United states as there are shelters for women
      • Battering during pregnancy is the leading cause of birth defects and infant mortality
      • Women who kill their batterers receive longer prison sentences than men who kill their partners

      Richard Gelles, an internationally-recognized expert on domestic violence, refers to many of these claims as “factoids from nowhere.” [http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html]

      • Some studies survey women but not men. Predictably, these studies yield one-sided findings.
      • The DOJ National Crime Victimization Survey is flawed because persons do not consider most forms of domestic violence, such as slapping, shoving, or throwing an object at a partner, to be a crime.
      • The DOJ National Violence Against Women survey prefaces the questions by repeatedly using the phrase “personal safety.” Those words bias the responses because women are more concerned about personal safety than men.
      • Some studies of domestic violence assess both physical and verbal abuse. That inflates and distorts the picture of physical violence.

      [Source: MA Straus: The controversy over domestic violence by women: A methodological, theoretical, and sociology of science analysis. In XB Arriaga and S Oskamp: Violence in intimate relationships. Sage Publishers, 1999. http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/CTS21.pdf]

  • gwallan

    “I don’t think it necessarily does begin with behavior modeled for them at home, but instead in the teens when the boy packs are trying to construct workable masculinities where the message is that to end the right to call yourself a ‘Real Man’ you must achieve your desires.”

     

    If you take their fathers away and disallow any adult male contact with kids just WHAT is it that you expect?

     

    At every level you choose to examine any male contact with kids and young folk has been, at best, discouraged and, at worst, thoroughly demonised. This article is merely another example of the same aimed at fathers. Our kids get warned in great detail about the bad things men do – and that boys are apparently genetically predetermined to become – and are never allowed to see the good that men do. Boys can complete their entire schooling never seeing any male apart from the cleaner. Who needs role models?

     

     

  • dree

    Your response clarifies that men get custody in about 10% of the cases.  However the article claimed that in contested divorce men obtained custody 84% of the time.  Where is the evidence for this claim?  It seems false to me.

     

    In contested custody cases, men who seek custody get it up to 84 percent of the time.

     

    Let’s see some proof.

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, it seems to me that these guys are just here to tell us that the feminist movement in general is part of a conspiracy theory to oppress men, esspecially fathers. The article mentioned men’s rights groups, so they just came over to talk about themselves instead of the point of the article.

  • gwallan

    @MechaShiva

     

    Actually I’m a survivor of child sexual abuse and a board member of a rape crisis and counselling service in Victoria, Australia.

     

    Would you like to make any other assertions for which you have no basis?

     

  • mechashiva

    Hey, I’m going off of what someone actually said in here about a feminist conspiracy. I worry for your clients, that’s all I can say. “Men’s Rights” groups disturb me, and your job doesn’t legitimize you in my eyes if you are involved with one.

  • ack

    I’m curious to see where you’ve heard that women are just as likely as men to kill children out of retribution or spite directed at their partners.

     

    And as for denying all fathers’ their rights: no one is asking for that. Most people aren’t coercive controlling abusers. What we are asking, however, is that judges stop ignoring dangerous situations. I think that’s something we can all agree on.

  • ack

    I agree that boys and young male adults need more positive male role models. I think children and young adults in general need more positive role models. They need adults who are willing to have realistic conversations with them about gender constructs, media, friendship, dating, sex, and respect. That does not and never will include all parents, unfortunately. If families are unwilling to have those conversations, youth need other responsible, respectful adults to turn to who are equipped with information. If you’re interested, you can look into curricula like Coaching Boys Into Men, or Mentors In Violence Prevention.

     

    However, I wholeheartedly disagree with this:

     

    “Our kids get warned in great detail about the bad things men do – and that boys are apparently genetically predetermined to become – and are never allowed to see the good that men do.”

     

    No respectable prevention educator tells boys that they are doomed because they have a penis. Successful prevention efforts focus on the impact everyone has in their own lives and social groups. They recognize that most people want to protect their friends and family, they just don’t always know how to do it. Becoming a positive active bystander is vital. Equipping young people with game plans about what they will do when they witness something that makes them uncomfortable or makes someone unsafe is the key to ending many forms of interpersonal violence.

     

    Furthermore, students are continuously exposed to the contributions of men to our society and culture, in an overwhelmingly positive way. To say that boys hearing that it’s wrong to hit their partners somehow negates the countless hours of history, literature, and science that focus on men is disingenuous.

  • gwallan

    Then I’d better not tell you what some of the sexual assault counselors have to say about feminists in that case.

     

    Frankly whether you “legitimise” me is of little concern. The folk who work in that network invited me on board because of what I can do for them, their services and their clients. They consider me more than legitimate.

     

    Personally I worry more for those victims who are NOT our clients precisely because of the sort of prejudices presented in this article. You know, like male victims and victims of female perpetrators.

  • ack

    Gardener was convinced that part of healing for child sexual abuse victims was to convince them that what happened to them wasn’t abuse.

     

    RADAR also cites itself in a lot of materials. Not exactly the scientific rigor they claim feminists lack.

  • mechashiva

    Yes, yes, I’m already aware of how great you think you are. Despite that, keep in mind that you and your people apparently think that I am the be-all end-all of feminism. After all, according to you my opinion shapes “what some of the sexual assault counselors have to say about feminists.” Either I am damned influential, or you and your cronies expect every woman you talk with to be a spokesperson rather than an individual.

     

    That’s pretty dehumanizing…. what a fabulous trait in a rape counselor! Get down with yo’ baaad self. Fight that overwhelming oppression of men that is rampant in society. 

     

    Man, the ladies weren’t kidding when they said guys from Australia were… well, I’d better not say.

  • mechashiva

    Man, what a hack. These people are total losers. They’re disturbing, but at the same time I can’t help but laugh at them. Kind of like the Westboro Baptist Church, you know?

  • elyzabeth

    Never mind that when the male is the victim of domestic violence, the perpetrator is usually also a guy.  Most father’s rights groups also tend to regard gays as “not real men.” 

     

    Also, Irving, if you have a point, say it.  Don’t just post an intimidating wall of text and links and make us ferret it out ourselves. It isn’t an effective way to communicate since people naturally skim past the entire thing and miss your point entirely.

     

    However, I think I can sum up your points nicely and save you the work.  “Feminists are just women who are too ugly to get boyfriends, so they have conspired over the past forty years to twist mainstream culture into a terrible, emasculating nightmare.  Women now beat men and steal their children with no retribution from the justice system.  The legal system always goes in favor of the women who can just bat their eyelashes and smile and all the while no one suspects that MEN ARE THE REAL VICTIMS.  IN FACT MEN ARE THE REAL VICTIMS IN EVERY ASPECT OF OUR CULTURE AND ARE BEING CULTURALLY CASTRATED AT EVERY TURN.  Advertising is rampant with misandry.  Schools teach in ways that favor female learning styles.  Boys are being feminized with our culture’s emphasis on safety and empathy.  Females are invading institutes of higher learning and the workforce.  And women are becoming violent terrors that are physically abusing and raping men and boys and it is all to the invasion of the fat, ugly femnazis.  AND KNOW ONE NOTICES AND SO LOOK AT ALL THIS EVIDENCE AND WE HAVE TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE EVIL FEMNAZIS BEFORE THEY MAKE CAPONS OUT OF EVERY ONE OF US!!!”

     

    And sadly, I’ve visited some Father’s Rights sites, so you know I’m not even exaggerating.  You people really bring the crazy.   

     

     

  • prochoiceferret

    Also, Irving, if you have a point, say it. Don’t just post an intimidating wall of text and links and make us ferret it out ourselves. It isn’t an effective way to communicate since people naturally skim past the entire thing and miss your point entirely.

    I tried doing that—I should be good at this kind of thing, right?—and didn’t have much luck. He seems to be making a point about a requested page that could not be found, but the thrust of his argument was left mostly unaddressed by the references. On the other hand, the site that all his links go to did have some cool articles… I’ll have to post there one of these days!

  • gwallan

    “I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the little boys sat there crumpled, apologising for their existence, thinking this was going to be the pattern of their lives. [The teacher tried to] catch my eye, thinking I would approve of this rubbish…This kind of thing is happening in schools all over the place and no one says a thing.”–novelist and longtime feminist icon Doris Lessing

     

    My young nephew, much to his parents’ dismay, once observed that “all men are pigs”. When pressed about where this had come from it turned out to be something his teachers – all women – were spouting on an almost daily basis. No prejudice there of course.

     

    I’ve worked in my state’s education system for two decades and had responsibility for school funding for much of that time. I know where the money goes. I know what programs are in place and planned. The latest initiative is to do with “responsible relationships” which is designed to teach boys to respect girls and to teach girls that they must be respected by boys. Very balanced.

     

    Three years ago feminist Professor Freda Briggs was in our national media exhorting parents to treat all teenage boys as though they were paedophiles. At the same time one can visit the public library and look at as many pictures of naked little boys as one can stand including close-ups of their genitals. All published, in the authors own words, “to position young boys as legitimate objects of womens’ lust”.

     

    Meanwhile future welfare workers are being taught that male victims of abuse must be disbelieved.

     

    Lessing again…

    “The most stupid, ill-educated and nasty woman can rubbish the nicest, kindest and most intelligent man and no one protests.”

     

    Highly recommend “The War Against Boys” by Christina Hoff Summers.

     

  • gwallan

    LOL

     

    Project much?

     

    I’m not a counselor. I’m a former client and am now their “client and community” delegate. It’s an elected role for which they view my political connections and experience to be advantageous.

     

    “your people apparently think that I am the be-all end-all of feminism”

     

    My people? Who would they be?

     

    I’ve already told you your individual opinion matters not. If you object to criticism of feminism and wish to disown it’s actions then maybe you should find an alternative label for yourself.

     

    In the meantime I’ll get on with ensuring that ALL victims are addressed instead of only those with the appropriate genitalia. To that end acute feminist sensitivities are the last thing I could, or should, care about.

     

  • gwallan

    @Elyzabeth…

     

    “Never mind that when the male is the victim of domestic violence, the perpetrator is usually also a guy.”

     

    Male same sex relationships are a very small proportion of all intimate partner situations.

     

    For your assertion to be true virtually every gay male relationship would need to be abusive. And you have the unmitigated gall to then say “Most father’s rights groups also tend to regard gays as “not real men.”” Truth is that gays are not actually on the agenda of those fathers groups and are rarely addressed by them because gay men generally aren’t likely to be fathers. QED

     

    You seem to have a very poor opinion of gays however.

     

    It’s quite apparent that your view only has room for victims abused by males. Thus we casually write off the significant majority of victims of child abuse and elder abuse, a quarter of the victims of child sexual abuse and a goodly proportion of the victims of partner abuse. Cast into the abyss all of them. Let them eat cake.

     

    Oh, and I just love your ranting caricature of fathers groups. Bear in mind, however, that it’s your strawman, your thoughts, your assertions, your words. In fact it tells us far more about you than about them.

     

  • trish-wilson

    Irving Salos wrote: “Richard Gelles, an internationally-recognized expert on domestic violence, refers to many of these claims as “factoids from nowhere.” [http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/factoid/factoid.html]“

     

    I’m not going to debunk all of your faulty, out-of-context citations because I have neither the interest nor the time, but did you notice the “Factoids Right Of Center” in that very document you link to? Take note of Gelles addressing the equal abuse myth:

     

    Women are as Violence as are Men, and Women Initiate Violence as Often as do Men”

     

    This factoid cites research by Murray Straus, Suzanne Steinmetz, and Richard Gelles, as well as a host of other self-report surveys. Those using this factoid tend to conveniently leave out the fact that Straus and his colleague’s surveys as well as data collected from the National Crime Victimization Survey (Bureau of Justice Statistics) consistently find that no matter what the rate of violence or who initiates the violence, women are 7 to 10 times more likely to be injured in acts of intimate violence than are men.”

    The point is that one of your own sources discredits your claims (in particular that men and women are equally abusive), and everything you copy/paste here is out-of-context, misrepresented, and a flat out lie. Your posts are men’s rights propaganda copied and pasted from the abuser friendly group RADAR, not accurate representations of valid research. Now go back to your cave where you belong.

  • trish-wilson

    gwallen wrote:

     

    @Elyzabeth…

     

    “Never mind that when the male is the victim of domestic violence, the perpetrator is usually also a guy.”

     

    Male same sex relationships are a very small proportion of all intimate partner situations.

     

    For your assertion to be true virtually every gay male relationship would need to be abusive.

     

    It’s true that men who are abused are most likely to be abused by male intimate partners, not female intimate partners. See this:

     

    Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence

    Findings From The National Violence Against Women Survey

    June 2000

    National Institute Of Justice Report On Intimate Violence


      [excerpt]

      Men living with male intimate partners experience more intimate partner violence than do men who live with female intimate partners. Approximately 23 percent of the men who had lived with a man as a couple reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a male cohabitant, while 7.4 percent of the men who had married or lived with a woman as a couple reported such violence by a wife or female cohabitant. These findings, combined with those presented in the previous bullet, provide further evidence that intimate partner violence is perpetrated primarily by men, whether against male or female intimates. Thus, strategies for preventing intimate partner violence should focus on risks posed by men.

     

     

  • julie-watkins

    I’ve gotten really sensitive to yelling and agression, especially in advertising. There’s too much emphasis on sports — you can’t have a winner without a loser. I guess I react to that as being “agression”. There’s attempted gender role and class role training happening big time, as the economic situation has more people questioning the increasingly obvious income gap, and getting uppity.

    .

    As I’ve mentioned often, I avoid popular most popular culture. It’s depressiing when I notice, for instance, that a film I otherwise like has 10 to 1 men to women extras, 5 to 1 men to women speaking parts and rarely do the women characters act rather than react. Bah. Why should I spend my money to feel excluded?

    .

    I’ve read comments about “bare branches” and “security implications of surplus men” … and I wonder if I’m just living a sheltered life or if this is another version of divide conquer and victim-blaming. If it keeps getting hammered that young men (especially unmarried young men) are a PROBLEM, then maybe the number that keep getting swept into prisons won’t be questioned? USA imprisons a higher % of our population, by far, and it’s a big growth industry that depends on continued arrests and continued building of new prisons … so there’s companies that have a vested interest in long sentances and lots of people being arrested. We got police harrassment controversies happening locally.

  • irvingsalos

    Summary: I sought to back up Dr. Christoforos’ assertion that this article is fallacy-ridden. You all breezed right past it.

    Like Dr. C, I too have read a ton of feminist propaganda on the internet. Your self-congratulatory back-patting has never before been seriously or consistently challenged, and you know it.

    That’s why you all are virtually addicted to the same fallacious response tactics: a) only showing data favorable to your cause; b) ignoring data that refute it; c) shaming, ridiculing or insulting your opponent (especially his mental health or his masculinity); d) taking a piece of your opponent’s statement and treating it as the entire argument; e) quickly deleting any opposing observation you cannot counter; and f) accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling.

    I don’t care whether or not you read the bibliographical entries I posted. The point is that you do not hold a monoply on data relating to gender issues. Nor are your views completely unassailable!

     

     

     

  • jenk

    Obviously you only watch action flicks? Yes, when it comes down to people getting killed in mass numbers, it generally is men who are the victims.  If you watched movies geared towards women, which is well over half of all movies,  you would find that very few men are even in the movie, and those men are either the handsome love interest, stupid, or evil.

  • gwallan

    Hey Trish. How’s The Spawn these days?

     

    Are you seriously using a Violence Against Women Survey to make assertions about male same sex relationships? That’s cute. But not at all unexpected.

     

    In Australia our Bureau of Statistics puts male victims of partner abuse at about a third of all victims. Given your assertions there must be huge numbers of encloseted men in this country. Or alternatively there are numerous male victims of Martians or plankton or anything but a woman or even a man for that matter. Could they be unwittingly partnered with transvestites? Nah. Maybe they’re abused by their pets. Yeah, that must be it. It’s those bloody puppies. Male puppies of course.

     

    You have to watch those pesky male victims you know. One minute they’re there. The next minute they’re gone. When it suits they’re great fun to use as political footballs. I just love being kicked around.

     

    And you still can’t spell my name right.

  • nbynw

    It is absolutely possible for women to gain custody in 90% of cases and for men to gain custody in 84% of cases if it means that joint custody is being granted in 74% of cases (which sounds about right to me, but I haven’t done the research).

     

    The OP never said that men gained custody in only 10% of cases, only that women gained some form of custody (without differentiating between sole or joint custody) in 90% of cases.

     

    A more logical reading of this data would assume that in 74% of cases, custody is awarded jointly, in 10% of cases, the father receives sole custody, and in 16% of cases, the mother receives sole custody. 

  • nbynw

    More references would have been appreciated in the original post, but for those who are not familiar with the study released in January by the UCDavis on reproductive coercion by abusers, here is a link: http://www.mariestopes.org/Press/International/Study~_Men_%60sabotage%60_birth_control.aspx

  • dree

    That factoid page was written 15 years ago.  That’s ages old at this point.  Just have a look at the more recent writing of Straus to get a better idea of what those researchers presently think.  A good place to start would be an article by Straus titled “Processes Explaining the Concealment and Distortion of Evidence on Gender Symetry in Partner Violence.


    pubpages.unh.edu/~mas2/V74-gender-symmetry-with-gramham-Kevan-Method%208-.pdf

     

    The article explains precisely how the feminist researchers have concealed evidence of women being perpetrators and men being victims of domestic violence.  It is written by Murray Straus, PhD, a top DV researcher, and is a must read for anyone wanting to understand how they have been hoodwinked by today’s media and feminist propagandists.  He chronicles the bullying tactics that were used against him and other researchers for years.  I have yet to see a feminist be able to refute this article.  Very important read for a humanist.  Very upsetting for a feminist.

     

    If we continue to only hold men accountable for family violence we are concealing a large portion of the perpetrators and in the process denying them the help that they need and the help that their family and children deserve.

     


  • irvingsalos

    You beg the question beautifully! May I quote you? Here goes …

    However, I think I can sum up your points nicely and save you the work.”

    No, you you obviously can’t do either!

    You are a product of long-term and intensive indoctrination in feminist ideology, born and bred of Marxist principles that program you to feel incessantly victimized by a broad, theoretical entity, known as “The Patriarchy”. Because this patriarchy has ALL of the power and priviledge, it’s OK for you to falsely accuse men of rape and get away with it – despite the Constitution; in fact, it’s OK to stereotype males as violent predators, perverts, pinheads and anything else you feel like, despite the fact that it violates law pertaining to civil rights and crimes of hate!

     

  • julie-watkins

    Even when it doesn’t involve wars, the man/woman ratio is tilted male.

  • irvingsalos

    My, my, my …

    crowepps -

    How nice of YOU to provide the references after the author posts her piece! Shouldn’t the author have done that in the first place?

     

  • irvingsalos

    And you, MechaShiva, by your own admission … are “stoned“!

  • crowepps

    Most of the articles here are pretty concise.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen one with multiple references to statistics that support every point made.  I’ve always assumed that was what Google was for.

     

    In a book, on the other hand, where the issues are more thoroughly gone through, extensive footnotes and cites to references used are much more common.  It would certainly be interesting to read such a book, and several titles have been mentioned, but you seem to be expecting that on this particular issue a lot of justification has to be given before the issue can be brought up, and that is expecting too much from a blog entry.

  • crowepps

    I have learned a lot from the people on this board, even those who disagree with me on every issue, but if you’ve been here a couple of days and have already started posting diatribes about the Commie Menace, I’ve got to say I begin to doubt there will be much of anything new here.

     

    Some males ARE violent predators and perverts, just as some women are violent predators and perverts.  Nobody here has said that they want to violent those men’s civil rights or commit crimes against them.  Instead they have talked about how they want to ensure children are protected from that minority.  Your assertion that any mention at all of violence and men ‘violates their civil rights’ ignores the fact that the average man also wants children to be protected from violent men and male predators.

  • crowepps

    To say that boys hearing that it’s wrong to hit their partners somehow negates the countless hours of history, literature, and science that focus on men is disingenuous.

    Well, if you’re coming from a mindset that men’s contributions to history, literature and science are all irrelevant, because the REAL way to prove ‘manhood’ is to ‘keep the wimmin under control’, and that all the problems in the world are caused by ‘wimmin getting uppity’, then it isn’t disingenuous at all.  None of those things matter, because the only thing that REALLY matters is for everyone to acknowledge that ‘uppity wimmin deserve what they get because if they weren’t uppity it wouldn’t happen’. 

  • crowepps

    The majority of divorces where children are involved aren’t contested divorces, and the parties mutually reach an agreement as to child custody, usually with custody being shared in some manner.

    Although divorces may be emotionally contentious, close to 95 percent of divorces do not end up in a contested trial.  Usually, the parties negotiate and settle property division, spousal support, and child custody between themselves … Most divorces now are no-fault divorces.

    http://public.findlaw.com/abaflg/flg-3-4c-2.html

     

    The great majority of the time men don’t ever ask for sole custody.  In the small percentage of divorces which are contested, and in which the man ASKS for custody, men have a 84% success rate.  84% of 5% isn’t a huge number.  The difference might be explained because most fathers have no problem sharing the children with the mother and only in cases where the mother is negligent or abusive would he attempt to get custody himself.  If he has sufficient evidence that he’s right, he would and should win.

  • jo

    Murray Strauss is a top DV expert? What a bunch of crapola you guys come up with. I met MS at the Am Pscyhological Assoc’s summit on Interpersonal Violence. I think I was the only one to talk to him, otherwise he was shunned b/c of his ideological based views (although curiously Strauss & Gelles will still admit women suffer more severe violence). Struass also thought Guatemala had mutual violence. Guatemala??? Where women ask their husband’s permission to leave the house??? If he aint an ideologue nobody is.

    All these guys that are mentioned over & over by FR or MRAs – Strauss, Gelles, Faubert’s list, etc. – all use SELF REPORT DATA and this cherry picked data – – among thousands of studies that find women are 85% the victim — and credible orgs like CDC, WHO, etc. finding the same — are then used to hammer home their distorted and misogynist message.

     

    It’s ME, ME, ME. – Men are the real victims.

     

    Noone denies men are victims – we deny your cherry picked data that you use to make conclusions. We deny your sympathy for the accused and not the abused.

     

    We wonder why you dont’ talk about male violence – as males represent the greatest threat to males.

     

    We wonder why you act like the kettle calling the pot black- -you blame feminists for painting “all” males as violent than proceed to dredge up your self reports to paint women as violent or child abusers.

    We wonder why ppl that fight child abuse are not called adult-bashers. HOw ppl that fight elder abuse are not called caretaker haters.  Nooo, but have women fight against male violence- our number one cause of harm- and we are called the haters.

    We wonder too – how an article on child abuse – can turn into a woman-bashing, male-protecting, violence-denying, hate on women and feminists rant.

    And children and women continue to be killed.

    But we must protect the males, mustn’t we?

     

  • mechashiva

    Ah, I see. Being stoned (at that time, not just now) and all, I mixed up that you aren’t actually a counselor but a board member. I’m happy to hear you don’t have any direct contact with clients. *thumbs up*

     

    As for the rest, “your people” would be the sexual assault counselors that you said would have some choice things to say about feminism based on my comments. Which, by a simple logic path, leads to the conclusion that my comments influence what you think of feminists in general. Which means… I am influential to you, whether you’ll admit it openly or not.

     

    Anyhow, please do get on with the terribly, terribly important work you are doing to end the oppression of men everywhere by the evil feminists who just want to rape them and deny them counseling… and take your crazy conspiracy theories with you.

  • mechashiva

    Yeah, and I wish I was stoned now. I don’t have enough drugs for this shit. You people really do bring the crazy. At least when I’m high you people are funny.

  • squirrely-girl

     

    Irving – Not to start a “poop storm” here and I apologize if you’ve posted this elsewhere, but in which discipline did you acquire your PhD? I only ask because I find it interesting that you even list it as part of your screen name. In my personal and professional experiences, I have found that most individuals who have earned PhDs don’t feel an overwhelming need to announce it at every turn unless they feel inadequate in some fashion thus needing to “remind” people how smart they really are. Honestly, if your arguments are well developed and logical, the alphabet soup after your name isn’t really necessary. But that’s my personal opinion and far from an empirical argument, so take it for what it’s worth.

     

    You accuse another poster of resorting to “fallacious response tactics” but have done so yourself. Referring to a complete stranger online as “my little princess” is not only patronizing and possessive but generally just… creepy. Feel free to accuse me of committing the sin of “accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling” but I find your position in this instance rather hypocritical… and sophomoric. I also find it rather distasteful and unbecoming of an individual with such advanced educational achievements who espouses such lofty standards for polite discourse… just saying.

     

  • squirrely-girl

     

    Ms CP – I appreciate your enthusiasm for education on personality disorders, but I think you’re somewhat misinformed. Most anybody who has REALLY studied such disorders would acknowledge that pretty much everybody EXCEPT the individual with the disorder knows there’s something wrong with their personality. Borderline personality in particular is like “garlic on the breath.” And, given the hallmark impulsive and unstable characteristics in their behaviors, most individuals with BPD are NOT very good at hiding their disordered personality. Laypersons may not know the name for it but most people “recognize” it for what it is.

     

    It is also important to understand that not ALL vindictive people who lie, manipulate, abuse, or threaten have a personality disorder. It can often be quite exciting for people new to the area of psychiatric diagnoses to throw around a term like “personality disorder” and apply it to those they know and meet or abstractly to hypothetical cases on the internet. But ultimately these disorders really aren’t all that common and this task should be left to those who actually have EXTENSIVE training in differential diagnosis. Just saying.

     

  • mechashiva

    Indeed, one of the common myths about abuse is that abusers necessarily have some kind of disorder and that if this disorder is treated the abuse will go away. In reality, personality disorders do not cause abuse, and spreading the lie that they do creates more stigma against those with mental health issues. 

     

    If an abuser does have a mental/personality disorder, treating it does not stop the abuse. It’s the same with alcoholism or drug abuse… if an abusive alcoholic goes through an AA program, you end up with a sober abuser. Abuse is the result of an entitled world-view. Only reliquishing entitlement and developing empathy ends abusive behavior.

  • ack

    He also said that the information gleaned from the Conflict Tactics Scale has been taken out of context and used in ways he never intended. He recognizes the severity and prevalence of sexual violence against women, the incomparable level of injury, and the worth of DV programs for women. The quotation is in the Kimmel article.

     

    I think that the flawed data, however, has spurred important national discussions about differentiation in types of violence. Should the person who:

     

    1. gets drunk one night, gets into a fight with their partner, and hits them

     

    be treated the same as

     

    2. the person who gets drunk one night, picks a fight with their partner, and hits them after months of increasing isolation and verbal and emotional abuse

     

    I honestly don’t think so. (At least by people attempting intervention to change behavior.) One is part of a pattern. The other, if the couple tends to be pretty equal in power distribution, is an isolated incident. (Of course, we need reliable screening tools to discern this.) Both need to be addressed, but they should probably be addressed differently.

  • irvingsalos

    Your reading comprehension is very poor, cowepps! I write about feminism’s Marxist roots, and you declare I’m “posting diatribes about the Commie Menace“. That’s a form of “jingoism” on your part. Not very flattering to you, is it?

    I write about men being stereotyped as violent predators, etc., etc. (like stereotyping women as too emotional) and you morph that into “any mention at all of violence and men ‘violates their civil rights’ …”  What a blatant and gross distortion of my original points – and so self-righteous and sanctimonious to boot!

  • dree

    @ Jo  —  Looks like you prefer to attack the person rather that debate the issues.  You attack Straus rather than engage in discussion over his viewpoints expressed in the article.  How about some discussion about the linked Straus article?  Hard to discuss?  Get ya a little defensive?  :>)  

  • dree

    @ack –  How about discussing the Straus article?  Yes, I agree that national discussion would be a good thing on this topic and yes, the public has much to learn after being fed one side of the story for 30 years.  Now how bout that article?  

  • irvingsalos

    And yet another fallacy from women more interested in rank-outs than honest debate! One citation of a factoid does not constitute proof that everything else is immediately and automatically identical in content. For your information, I posted these offerings to see if any of you would take the time to pick through each one. I give you credit that you actually made an attempt.

    You did, however, unequivocally lend credence to my contention that your method of debate relies heavily on personal insult, ridicule and shame, as well as the clinically inflated belief that it is needed, and you are somehow justified in using it. Wrong on both counts, my little princess.

    By the way, it is incorrect to claim that I wrote something I did not. After reviewing every reply on this board, I see no written statement of mine referring specifically to Richard Gelles or factoids. That’s another fallacy on your part (ad circularum) and a devious manner of committing it!

    We in the Men’s Movement have rank-outs that we can use on you, that is, if you’d like to simply turn this into a rank-out fest.

  • dree

    Do you have any evidence to back up this idea?  If so, can you please present it?

  • ahunt

    Folks…having done the MRA dance a thousand times…I can assure you that the goal is not the well-being of children, but rather…legal enshrinement of paternal perogative at the expense of children.

     

    Case in point is the disconnect between the “male abortion” advocacy and the assertion that fathers are essential to their children. While it is understandable that men do not want to be coerced into biological fatherhood, the bizarre contention that women deliberately get pregnant to live high on the hog off of child support  reflects the delusional nature of the MRA mindset.

     

    And I do have to admire the chutzpah of men who insist that fathers are more important than mothers in the lives of their children while simultaneously arguing that men should have a choice whether or not to be a part of their children’s lives.

     

    MRAs want what benefits MRAs.

     

    As the mother of three sons, I am absolutely a supporter of JPC where appropriate.  The rest of the agenda is so much hooey.

  • dree

    I am still waiting for anyone to answer the question about non-custodial parents.  The article claims that non-custodial parents are up to 84% fathers.  I would like to see some evidence to back up that assertion.  

     

    Since the article flows from the assumption that most men seeking contested custody are abusers then if the 84% figure is incorrect the house of cards comes tumblin down.  Where’s the data?

  • dree

    I think that ahunt is the General Supreme of a very large Straw Army.  I have never seen so many straw men!  lol

  • ahunt

    Sigh…

     

    Yah…thats me…

     

    Have you ever lurked on MRA websites? Good Lord.

     

    The facts are these: 90%+ of custody arrangements are worked out before the divorcing couple ever sees a judge. When custody is contested, men have an even shot at winning

     

    The fact is that the vast majority of divorcing couples do put the well-being of their children first, and make arrangements accordingly. I imagine, as women become more economically self sufficient, JPC  will become the norm.

     

    Spare us the “custody” proof that men are abused and oppressed.

  • irvingsalos

    ahunt – Now this is one of the things of which we’ve grown very tired … the incessant use of implication, insinuation and innuendo as though they are acceptable means of discussion.

    Have you ever lurked on MRA websites? Good Lord.” (Which means exactly what? Just fill-in-the-blank?).

    Spare us the insinuation that you are an attorney or a judge, or for that matter, any court official routinely involved in these cases.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Great article, thank you. 

  • irvingsalos

    ahunt – Forty some odd years ago, women were not allowed positions of authority, because it was then common knowledge that they were too emotional and, as a result, too irrational and unstable.

    Thank you for giving us an excellent first-hand illustration of the validity of this contention!

    MRAs want you to take the time to think outside the box and see how badly you’ve been indoctrinated up to the present.

  • irvingsalos

    Squirrley girl -

    1) You’re attempting to pull off yet another fallacy “Argumentum ad Hominem”, and it won’t work.

    2) I referred to someone who gratuitously implied that I am a caveman by the term “my little princess”. If she wants to dish it out to me, she should be prepared to take it (that’s part of being equals).

    3) More than once, the males posting replies here have been branded “crazy” as an acceptable rebuttal. Spare me the self-righteous sanctimonious sarcasm about polite discourse or lofty standards.

     

     

  • ahunt

    Spare us the insinuation that you are an attorney or a judge, or for that matter, any court official routinely involved in these cases.

     

    Say what? Please come again.

  • ahunt

    MRAs want you to take the time to think outside the box and see how badly you’ve been indoctrinated up to the present.

     

    Yeah, I’ll get right on that. No, really.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Referring to a complete stranger online as “my little princess” is not only patronizing and possessive but generally just… creepy.

    Completly agree, that is creepy. Great post! Thanks!

  • rebellious-grrl

    I hear you.

     

    They kind of remind me of the Jerry Springer show. (opps, did I say that out loud?)

  • irvingsalos

    Rebellious grrl … first of all, learn to spell. Secondly, grow up. It’s nowhere near as creepy as imperiously ordering a complete stranger online to get back into a cave. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it. The pity is you honestly think you don’t deserve it!

  • mechashiva

    My understanding of abuse comes from personal experiences (mine as well as men and women I have know who have been abused in relationships), some books written by experts in the feild (I mentioned them on the first page of comments), and conversation with counselors, family, friends, and survivors.

     

    I’m not concerned if that’s not “good enough” for you (and I’m sure it isn’t, just like I am sure that no internet articles out there would convince you of anything).

    • captcourageous

      Au contraire, there is definitely evidence on the Internet!

       

      What’s with the quotations around the words good enough? Who are you quoting?

  • rebellious-grrl

    “Irving M. Salos, Ph.D.” Was I talking to you? NO.

     

    Can’t you do better than “grow up?” Are you really showing your maturity?

    • captcourageous

      “Can’t you do better than ‘grow up?'”

      “Are you really showing your maturity?”

       

      You might want to re-write these, to better convey your point.

  • squirrely-girl

    1. It is only a fallacy from your perspective. But I suppose that’s the beauty of self-righteousness (anybody can use that word and feel justified in doing so) and simply dismissing debate. 

     

    2. “If she wants to dish it out to me, she should be prepared to take it (that’s part of being equals).” While I would generally agree with this concept (teasing or criticism among peers) you’ve made considerable effort to discredit and discount her posts in a manner that would suggest you DON’T view her as an equal. I’ve personally formed the impression from some of your statements that you think of yourself rather highly and have, by your own use of the PhD designator, elevated yourself to a standing ABOVE others. So, by your own presentation of self, you are NOT equals with her. And while I have no idea as to what philosophical perspective you may have gained from your educational experiences, I generally expect more restrained and, dare I say, professional, contributions from people with advanced degrees. I know, color me crazy. The, “but she started it” argument doesn’t go very far when you purport such intellectual and academic standing. It is the type of self-serving retort I would expect from a bully… and it’s kind of pathetic.

     

    3. Maybe you noticed that I, personally, have not done these things and as a general practice I don’t take credit (or blame) for other people’s actions. I was referring to YOUR statements so perhaps you could limit your response to MINE. As to my sarcasm (glad you noticed) being “self-righteous” or  “sanctimonious”, please recognize that I wasn’t holding MYSELF to those lofty standards, but merely commenting on what I have perceived to be yours (you’re the one that started making lists). Again, if you don’t want to be held to higher standard or called out for juvenile debate, don’t set yourself apart with the PhD. It is a double-edged sword that in addition to the veneration and respect of the degree that SOME people will hold you to a higher standard of behavior and self-conduct. Just saying.

     


     


  • irvingsalos

    Rebellious grrl – Could you please clarify your post? What does any of this have to do with punctuation? Are you a professional proofreader by any chance? Are you a rebellious girl or a rebellious grill?

  • irvingsalos

    In all fairness, MechaSiva, your post indicates that you have more in common with MRAs than you think you do. They’ve spent time in prison for something they did not do and watched their false accusers get away with it, even though what the accusers did is illegal in the first place. They’ve worked to obtain a house, savings and other assets, only to watch their wives steal it all with a wave of a finger and a lie. No, they don’t deserve it, and no, there is no history of patriarchal oppression that justifies it!!! They are reacting to bitterness, the same as you and your friends. They do NOt hate women, and they do not want to them to be “barefoot, pregnant and following ten paces respectfully behind.” That Betty Crocker crap from circa 1955 is not their picture of “the ideal woman”.

  • squirrely-girl

    Don’t get me wrong, while I generally try to avoid telling people to go back to caves I DO see a difference between these statements. One is telling somebody to go someplace (away from them) the other is calling somebody a name (implying ownership).

     

    my = implying ownership or possession

    little = implying smaller or lesser as in NOT equal

    princess = pejorative term generally used to describe a woman or girl that has been pampered, sheltered, and spoiled her whole life to the extent that she has no real responsibility or understanding of the real world. See: “daddy’s little princess”

     

    Unless you were using “my little princess” with the same regard as do toy stores to describe, well, toys.

     

    Seeing as (a) she’s not actually “yours” and, (b) she’s of no lesser importance to this discussion than you are, and, (c) you don’t really know her well enough to imply anything about her social or developmental experiences, and, (d) she’s not “a toy”; your use of this term just comes across as, well… creepy. Again, it’s paternalistic. 

     

    If you want other people to take you seriously, don’t reduce yourself to name-calling. Rather, if you want to resort to name-calling, drop yourself back down to the “common folk” and don’t hide behind a degree while you do it. And if you want people to take your movement or issue seriously, particularly on a reproductive health blog site, don’t resort to misogynistic insults toward women who challenge you. That is seriously lacking in class and maturity and is not a very effective method of presenting one’s arguments. 

  • colleen

    Between the league of men who are angry because their wives were able to earn enough money to escape what must have been truly wretched marriages and the folks speaking for God and hallucinating Satan I have a headache.

    Must be spring break.

  • mechashiva

    I disagree with everything you have to say not because I am bitter, but because it fits very clearly into the worldview of the abuser, as I understand it to be. I find you and your MRA pals very triggering, and I trust my gut.

     

    My abuser claimed to love independent, strong women. That didn’t stop him from emotionally abusing me, raping me, damaging my property, or crushing my kitten’s pelvis in an uncontrolled explosion of anger (my kitten, as in my tiny adorable fluffy infant cat). So forgive me if I don’t give two shits what you say you want women to be or not be.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Nice way to avoid the topic at hand. I think you have proved squirrely girl’s point. You slam me for misspelling “Completly,” when correctly spelled, completely. Yes, I’m guilty of not using spell check. Wow. You sign your name as Irving M. Salos Ph.D. Usually there’s a comma after your name, before the Ph.D. But, it’s about as trivial as you slamming me for misspelling one word.

     

    And for my name, rebellious grrl, it’s my homage to the riot grrrl movement. (Spelling is, grrl or grrrl)

  • jenk

    Thank you for replying to my post so throroughly.

     

    How many fathers total get sole custody of children?

     

    In a divorce, men are less likely to gain custody of their children than are women. Mothers gain custody of children in 90% of cases.  Some have suggested that this is because very few men want child custody. The evidence does indeed suggest that a smaller percentage of fathers than mothers want custody and that even fewer fathers actually request custody.

    http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-105518205.html

     

    Reply: So in approximately 90% of cases mothers get custody. Probably 5-8% get joint custody, and 2-3% get sole custody. This includes cases where both parents agree to joint or sole custody, and cases where the mother is unfit.  I am failing to find evidence that divorced fathers are successfully using family court to get their way. Obviously if masses of men are trying to gain oppressive control over their ex-spouses, they are failing miserably. It goes contrary to your stat that 84% of contested cases are handed to the father. You also fail to prove that in those 60,000 cases a year where custody is contested and there is an allegation of abuse that all the allegations are true.   

     

    Fewer fathers ask for custody not simply because fewer WANT custody, but many times because lawyers usually council men NOT to ask. Asking makes the man appear controlling and thus the judge is less likely to grant decent visitation. I sat in a courtroom with a friend while the judge accused my friend of being controlling simply because he asked for joint custody with 50/50 shared time. The judge then granted every other weekend visitation with no supporting evidence that there was a need for such a stingy ruling. My friend was of course devastated, as all he wanted was to raise his daughter and move on with his life. Can you imagine only seeing your child 4 days a month?   

     

    What percentage of child murders and abuse are perpetrated by the biological father (not stepfather?)  What percentage of child murders are perpetrated by the biological mother? 

     

    While the perpetrators of murder-suicides are usually men, in 5 per cent of cases it is the mother who is responsible.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/nov/05/ukcrime.lornamartin

     

    Reply: That is not what I asked. I asked what % of abuse and murders were perpetrated by mothers vs fathers. I don’t care if the parent took themselves out as well. The actual figures are” The link goes to a government Health and Human Services statistics page which indicates that 28.5% of the time it is mothers who kill their children while fathers comprise 15.8%.”  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm05/figure4_2.htm

    Add in that mother and other comprise 10.4% more, while father and other only comprise 1.6, it is apparent that children are far more likely to be murdered by their mother than their father.

     

    As for abuse, “mothers are twice as likely to be involved in child maltreatment.”  http://center.americanvalues.org/?p=70 This goes across the board to all types of mistreatment other than sexual, and even in sexual the numbers are starting to climb as people realize that mothers do sexually abuse their kids.  

     

    How many women do exactly what you accuse men-cheat or tamper with birth control to get pregnant?

     

    No one is accusing “men” of doing this.  The accusation is that “abusers” do this.  It is NOT ‘normal male behavior’ to be abusive.

     

    Reply: Yet you only mentioned men doing this. If you truly were concerned with abusive behavior and its affect on children, you would have included abusive behavior by mothers too. Your omission makes your intent clear.

     

    What are the motivations to lie about PAS vs outright abuse-who has the most support to do so, and the most to gain and how many are successful?

     

    If the man has the psychological pattern of a power and control abuser, he has the most to gain.  He literally believes that his wife and children BELONG to him and that it is a threat to his SELF for them to escape his control.

     

    Reply: For a small minority of men this is probably true. However the average woman stands to gain sole custody and control of the children (and in 90% of cases will), access to a large percent of her ex’s income, and control of him for up to the next 18 years. While only a small minority of men would consider doing this for reasons of control, women are encouraged by and large to consider themselves first and to go for the jugular in divorce. The plethora of popular advice books geared towards helping women clean up in divorce, uncontested by modern society and feminists, and the 90% sole custody statistic, makes it clear which parent is encouraged and successful in this game. We must look at what society approves; it approves control by women, and shuns control by men in family dynamics.

     

    What percentage of domestic violence situations are mutually violent?

     

    Reply: You did not really answer my question. Erin Pizzey, the founder of the domestic violence industry, found that over half the women who came into her shelters were as or more violent than the men. Women are human too, and are just as capable and likely to be violent. There are over 200 independent studies which show that women are as likely as men to be violent and instigate violence. In fact, not only is there no social stigma attached to female violence, but it is considered comedy and men are usually not believed by police when they try to come forward and are often arrested themselves when they call for help. There are no services for men even if they did come forward and were believed anyways. While there are some women who do not report DV, there are far, far more men who do not report, for these reasons. Add in the 90% of custody goes to mothers, and there is huge motivation for men to not leave their abuser and not report the violence. The ‘primary aggressor’ policy effectively hides mutual aggression and female perpetrated violence from statistics.

     

    If mutual violence occurs, then should the kids go into foster care, since violent parents are likely to abuse kids?

     

    Once ‘mutual violence’ that actually is one person being abusive and the other person attempting to protect themselves has been excluded, yes.  Child safety should be the primary goal.

     

    Reply: Good. I agree, on BOTH sides-when there is violence it should not be assumed that the man is the primary abuser. Both sides need to be investigated by someone not biased with the male perp/female victim assumption. It is, after all, for the child’s safety that no assumptions are made.

     

    Are there cases where women kill their own kids to get back at their husbands?

     

    Yes, however they are far more rare – see above, 5%

     

    Reply: Actually, no. Again, you are assuming suicide is a factor here. I don’t care if the parent kills themselves too, I only am asking for fatalities where parents kill children. According to DOJ statistics, mothers are MORE likely to kill their children than fathers. I posted the link above.

     

    I will post the rest in a while.

  • jenk

    Every person is innocent until proven guilty.

     

    Are you speaking of each individual instance?  Or of being proven to have a pattern of abusive behavior?  Should men who have been convicted in the past of domestic violence be forbidden to live in a domestic relationship with others?  Should parents who have been convicted in the past of child neglect and/or abuse be forbidden to have more children?

    The thing you are missing here is that the CHILD has a constitutional right to be safe, to NOT be abused or murdered.  Certainly you don’t seem to give any weight to asking the CHILD whether or not they want to be with the suspected abuser.  Allowing the child to avoid an unsafe situation is not designed as a ‘punishment’ but instead just basic common sense.

     

    Every person has the right to be assumed innocent until proven guilty. Children can still have supervised visitation until a timely trial to protect them. Yet if you were concerned with the right’s of the child you would not have titled your post “Reproductive rights, Parental rights, and Family Violence”.  The term reproductive rights often results in a fatal outcome for the child, parental rights is about which parent gets custody, and family violence is ambiguous (and in the context of your post means DV against women). Your article had little to do with kids and everything to do with a woman’s right to take the kids permanently with just an accusation of DV.   

     

     

    I hate to see stories where one parents kills the child out of retribution or spite. It is just as often women I hear about doing this, yet I would not support preemptively taking kids away from mothers on the unsubstantiated accusation of the father, either.

     

    How about preemptively taking kids away from EITHER mothers or fathers when there is a report that they are making threats that they will harm them?  That would allow the child to be safe while an investigation determined whether the person actually meant that or might actually carry out such harm.  Certainly an interview by a psychologist might be helpful to the Court.  He said/she said isn’t the point – the point is that once the issue has been brought up by EITHER party, the Court should have a duty to safeguard the children.

     

     

    Now you are talking! As long as the psychologist has not been brainwashed with the Deluth model and primary aggressor BS, and supervised visitation is continued until a timely trial, then I agree completely.

     

     

    The reason I am pushing against your assumptions so hard is I firmly believe, and evidence backs what I believe, that widespread taking fathers out of homes has not only disadvantaged an entire generation of children but is having a detrimental effect on society which will damage future children as well. I completely agree that if one parent, be it mother or father, is proven to be abusive to their children they should have only supervised contact until a trial. I agree that protecting the kids must be the first priority. By concentrating only on fathers, you are not addressing the majority of abuse cases. Also, we need to consider moving these cases to criminal court where the rules of law actually apply. How is it that child abuse cases can be heard and punishable in a court which has no jury? And yes, I mean punishable. Taking away a person’s children is punishment. In fact, I would rather go to jail personally than lose my kids and never see them again.

     

    Assuming that DV is a male on female problem is hiding the real story, putting kids in danger, and keeping us from really studying how to make a difference in dealing with the problem. DV is a family problem.

  • jo

    Your article had little to do with kids and everything to do with a woman’s right to take the kids permanently with just an accusation of DV.   –> (whose artice, you’re not talking to the writer????)

     

    Actually, research finds DV is given little to no weight in family court. There are many attys that recommend NOT to allege abuse b/c often enough battered women get punished or have the tables turned on them.

    Men can make false allegations – research finds they have higher rates –and they are believed. Where is the research that finds women make false allegations, and simply based on their verbal accounts, they are believed? I’m pretty familiar with the DV research and have not come across this. In fact, it’s the opposite.

     

    Duluth model & primary agressor is BS – okay, now you are straight out of the ideological MRA camp and I understand the slanted views on DV research .

     

    Battered women have been losing custody for years. How about talking about the effects of removing a mother from the child’s life or do you only care about fathers?

     

    According to research, domestic violence and high conflict is why most ppl go through family court. Only 10-15% of couples need family court –  most adults are reasonable enough to make their own parenting plans. It’s the disfunctional and abusive ones that need family court. We need to be clear on this.

     

    Research finds batterers get custody b/c they often present better, appear more “friendly” in courts with friendly parent policies, can use alienation againt the accuser, have greater economic/legal resources, etc. – many reasons explain it.  These abusers further control and harm women and children. While women commit child abuse, research does not show that they harm or kill children to seek revenge on an ex — they do for men –yet family court, the place for high conflict and abuse — is in denial — and RARELY are parental rights terminated – even with prior charges/convictions, prison terms, rape history, etc.

     

     

  • outdoors

     a one-sided feminist indoctrinated writer who bases her article on the hatred of men/father’s with one sided studies.

     it is so ovbvious by some of the commenters here-that the feminist brainwashing has thoroughly misguided their opinions on the matters.

     

     of course women and their mangina supporters show their,”u go girl” mentality at the expence of men and father’s everywhere.

     Villifying father’s and promoting fear mongering is typical of the feminist movement

     

     and finally-where is the answer to dree’s  question?-or do you not have another one sided “study” that can answer?

     

     if people are getting angry and expressing outrage at this type of outlandish article- i can totally understand

     

     men are tired of getting browbeat at every corner of society and are starting to make their voices heard and writer’s like this continue to write fallacy’s like this article,to make women feel good and dehumanize fathers

     

     it is time for writer’s like this to start taking accountability for their consistant lies and dis-information along with being held accountable for their own violence and choices made.

  • irvingsalos

    sg: It’s only a fallacy from the perspective of everyone who knows what an Argumentum ad Hominem is. As I stated earlier …

    “That’s why you all are virtually addicted to the same fallacious response tactics: a) only showing data favorable to your cause; b) ignoring data that refute it; c) shaming, ridiculing or insulting your opponent (especially his mental health or his masculinity); d) taking a piece of your opponent’s statement and treating it as the entire argument; e) quickly deleting any opposing observation you cannot counter; and f) accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling.”

    A woman poster here told me to go back in my cave. That was the usual smug, smarmy insinuated insult I’ve come to expect when trying to discuss issues with misandrists. I will not try to explain this to you again. You can keep on cherry-picking minutia until the cows come home.

  • irvingsalos

    sg: It’s only a fallacy from the perspective of everyone who knows what an Argumentum ad Hominem is. As I stated earlier …

    “That’s why you all are virtually addicted to the same fallacious response tactics: a) only showing data favorable to your cause; b) ignoring data that refute it; c) shaming, ridiculing or insulting your opponent (especially his mental health or his masculinity); d) taking a piece of your opponent’s statement and treating it as the entire argument; e) quickly deleting any opposing observation you cannot counter; and f) accusing your opponent falsely of trying to pull the same sophomoric sophistry that you are pulling.”

    A woman poster here told me to go back in my cave. That was the usual smug, smarmy insinuated insult I’ve come to expect when trying to discuss issues with misandrists. I will not try to explain this to you again. You can keep on cherry-picking minutia until the cows come home.

  • irvingsalos

    rg: You too can keep on arguing for the sake of arguing, until the cows come home. Hasta la vista, baby!

  • irvingsalos

    I’ve been advised that I am simply being baited into a prissy and redundant rank-out session. Please refer to my earlier posts for future reference. Hasta la vista, baby!

  • trish-wilson

    Hey, Jo, interesting anecdote about Straus. As you probably know, the studies that find equal violence between men and women rely exclusively on the Conflict Tactic Scales, and there are serious problems with the CTS. So, that means that any study done by Straus no matter how recent and that long-winded list of studies compiled by Fiebert are seriously flawed because they rely on the CTS to reach their conclusions.

     

    Here’s a portion of a paper criticizing the faults with the CTS from Walter deKeseredy and Martin Schwartz. 


    [http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=388]

     

     

    Measuring the Extent of Woman Abuse in Intimate Heterosexual Relationships: A Critique of the Conflict Tactics Scales

     

    by Walter Dekeseredy and Martin Schwartz

    February 1998

     

     

    Large-scale survey data have played an important role in sensitizing the media, government officials, and members of the general public to the shocking extent of woman abuse in intimate, heterosexual relationships. Today, many North Americans view male-to-female violence in marriage, dating, and cohabitation as a major social problem (Kline, Campbell, Soler & Ghez, 1997). In fact, there have been calls for the end to statistical surveys. Some have argued that the battle for recognition has been won, while others question whether quantitative techniques can ever adequately capture the complex experience of being battered.

     

    Much of the support for continued quantitative research comes from those who contend that accurate statistics are essential to motivate government agencies to devote more resources to the development of prevention and control strategies. Of course, statistics are never sufficient to accomplish this end. However, as feminist scholars Bart, Miller, Moran, and Stanko (1989) point out: “The principal questions that organize policy efforts are ultimately quantitative – how many are there, who are they, where are they, how bad are the consequences, how much will it cost?” (p. 433). Those who fund programs tend to respond better to empirical data. Dealing with these data, however, has led politicians, journalists and scholars to a series of questions on who is at fault in battering, and how much battering actually takes place in society.

     

    Although the academic and feminist literature is filled with debates on whether these instruments are flawed, the best-known and most often used quantitative technique designed to obtain estimates of the extent of physical woman abuse has been the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS), and more recently the CTS2. Certainly qualitative methodologists and feminist researchers have employed a wide variety of other techniques and measures, but no other measure has approached the widespread use of the CTS. The main objectives of this brief document are to: (1) critique these two measures; and (2) provide suggestions for enhancing the quality of survey data on woman abuse in intimate heterosexual relationships, the focus of the CTS measurement.

     

    The CTS and CTS2

     

    The CTS was developed originally in the 1970s by University of New Hampshire sociologist Murray Straus to study violence within families. By now the original or a modified CTS appears at the core of research reported in over 100 scientific journal articles and at least 10 North American books. Although the CTS may in various studies be given only to men or only to women, the most widely cited work involves administering the survey to both men and women in intact heterosexual family units (married or cohabitants). The instrument solicits information from both men and women about the “conflict tactics” used by both men and women. The CTS consists of eighteen items that measure three different ways of handling interpersonal conflict in intimate relationships: reasoning, verbal aggression (referred to by some researchers as psychological abuse), and physical violence. These items are ranked on a continuum from least to most severe, with the first ten describing tactics that are not physically violent and the last eight describing violent acts. The last five items, from “kicked, etc.” to “used a knife or a gun,” make up the “severe violence index.”

    The type of “conflict tactic” used to measure violence that occurred in the past year (incidence) is generally introduced to the respondent with the following preamble. Note the ideological and factual assumptions embedded in this introduction, such as the notion that battery is the result of an “argument.”

     

    No matter how well a couple gets along, there are times when they disagree

    , get annoyed with the other person, or just have spats or fights because they’re in a bad mood or tired or for some other reason. They also use many different ways of trying to settle their differences. I’m going to read some things that you and your (spouse/partner) might do when you have an argument. I would like you to tell me how many times … in the past 12 months [Read item] (Straus, 1990, p. 33).

     

    Research has suggested that the CTS seems to be a reliable method of eliciting highly sensitive data on the least known sides of intimate heterosexual relationships. For example, in both Canada and the U.S., city-wide, provincial/state, and national representative sample surveys that have used the CTS show that annually at least 11 percent of North American women in marital or cohabiting relationships are physically abused by their male partners. Many social scientists consider CTS data “probably the best available when it comes to estimating the incidence and prevalence of woman abuse in the population at large” (Smith, 1987, p. 177). Yet, quite a large number of researchers have criticized the CTS for the following reasons:

     

    *The CTS rank orders behaviors in a linear fashion, from least serious to most serious. In doing so, it incorrectly assumes that psychological abuse and the first three violence items (e.g., slaps) are automatically less injurious than the items in the severe violence index. Many strongly object to creating what Liz Kelly (1987) calls a “hierarchy of abuse based on seriousness” because emotional abuse is often experienced as more harmful than physical violence (Chang, 1996; Kirkwood, 1993), and a slap can often draw blood or break teeth.

     

    *The CTS works from an ideological base that presumes that violence is family-based, rather seeing the issue as one of male violence directed toward women.

     

    *The CTS only asks about several specific types of abuse, but does not ask about many others. Many researchers fear that respondents will not report abuse that is not asked about, such as scratches, burns, and sexual assault.

     

    *The methodology of the CTS is simply to count the raw number of violent acts committed. What it cannot tell us is why people use violence. Thus, CTS data almost always report men and women as equally violent, and thereby miss the fact they use violence for different reasons. Women use violence for a variety of reasons, but a common one is to defend themselves. Men typically use violence to control their female partners (DeKeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz, & Alvi, 1997; Ellis & Stuckless, 1996).

     

    *The CTS only situates violence and verbal aggression/psychological abuse in the context of settling conflicts or disputes (note again the preamble above). In doing this, it ignores a large number of control-instigated assaults that do not have their root in conflicts or disputes. Even worse, it may miss attacks that “come out of the blue” with no external reason or dispute to mediate. These attacks, whether physical or verbal violence, may be as or more highly injurious as those that stem from conflicts or disputes. The CTS, although it may accurately count numbers of blows struck, overlooks the broader social psychological and social forces (e.g., patriarchy) that motivate men to abuse their female partners.

           

    THE CTS2

     

    Although many of these critiques have been widely voiced for more than a decade, few researchers who use the CTS seem aware of them. However, Straus, Hamby, Boney-McCoy, and Sugarman (1995) recently developed the CTS2 to address some of these criticisms. To meet the concern that the CTS may not elicit responses on a variety of injurious behaviors, it includes more physical and psychological abuse items (e.g., “I called my partner fat or ugly”). To deal with the strong attack that the CTS does not measure sexual violence, the CTS2 measures seven types of sexual assault. Finally, to allow researchers to tell the difference between events that cause physical injury and those that do not (e.g., slaps that break teeth, and those that might not cause physical injury), the CTS2 includes several injury or physical outcome measures, such as “I needed to see a doctor because of a fight with my partner.” All of these are positive revisions that speak directly to some of the earlier criticisms.

     

    Still, the CTS2 does not resolve all of the problems with the CTS. The most important place where the CTS2 does not improve on the CTS is that it continues to only situate abuse in the context of settling disputes or conflicts (the preamble remains the same). As suggested above, this limitation in effect tells the respondent to exclude reporting on abuse that is control-instigated or which does not arise from a known cause. It also does not allow the researcher to separate out aggressive abuse, whether physical or psychological, from those assaults used in self-defense.

     

    [end excerpt]

  • jenk

    I was refering to the author of this blog.

     

    Please show me research which proves DV is taken lightly in court.

     

    Please show me research which shows men make more false allegations in court than women.

     

    Please tell me how the Deluth model accurately represents actual domestic violence. It is based on the misleading idea that all DV is about power and control and is male on female. The use of violence is normally due to a lack of control, and is far more complicated than an evil controling man and an innocent vulnerable woman; the high incidence of lesbian DV is proof that being a man has little to do with this. The cases of violence I have personally witnessed were all mutually violent to some extent, with the woman purposefully goading the violence through verbal abuse in some cases, to outright starting the physical violence in others. Some were the other way around.  It is a heady feeling to make someone lose control, and an even headier feeling to use that loss of control as a future weapon.  I am sure there are a few true innocent victims, both male and female, but probably not so many as you would think. People are not as simple as Lifetime TV tries to portray them.

     

    Please show me research which explains the motivations of mothers to abuse their children.

     

    Please show me the research which says that abuse of children out of spite is any more damaging than abuse for other reasons. (Ie, it is irrelevant WHY people abuse, to the child it is still abuse)

     

    Since 90% of custody goes to mothers, please show me data which supports that fathers regularly get custody dispite proof of child abuse.

     

    You have a lot of “research” which you are not listing. Usually a lack of cites means opinion, not fact.

     

    If a father truly is abusing his kids, (not wife, but kids) then certainly supervised visitation should be required. Same goes for the mothers. Assuming that in a likely mutually violent relationship that partner aggression directly is linked to child abuse is an assumption is not necessarily true. Most DV I have seen has been due to lack of conflict resolution skills and joint badgering, usually with a healthy dose of alcohol.

     

    By your metric, since women in violent relationships tend to seek out another violent relationship, we should be taking kids from mothers AND fathers. I personally do not think the government should have that kind of power to take children in preemptive strikes, but hey, what is a little freedom?

     

    This blog was targeting fathers only. That is sexist and biased. If the author was truly concerned with child safety, she would be using gender nuetral terms to discuss these issues knowing that both mothers and fathers abuse. If you are willing to have mothers face the same witch hunt you are calling for fathers, then I would take your intents far more seriously.

  • trish-wilson

    Wow, Irving, 187 words where you said… nothing.

     

    “My little princess”??!? Seriously, dude, you need to go back to your cave.

     

    As you know, all research that supports your precious equal abuse myth rely exclusively on the Conflict Tactic Scales which is very faulty. What Gelles had to say about equal abuse is very important since he’s one of the three researchers who, along with Murray Straus, created the Conflict Tactic Scales. Have you seen this paper by Gelles debunking the equal abuse myth? [Highlighting my emphasis.]

     

     

    DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
    NOT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD

    By Richard J. Gelles

    The highly publicized O.J. Simpson case has spawned a flurry of stories in local, national, and international media, all focused on pieces of the domestic violence puzzle. In fact, coverage of the case has become the battleground on which one of the most controversial questions in the study of intimate violence is being debated: Is domestic abuse a “war against women” or are men battered just as much as women?

     

    In the media-frenzy replication of that debate, “war against women” stories are countered with violence against men articles, opinion pieces, letters and broadcast reports. Groups on both sides of the issue are jockeying for media attention and support of their position.

     

    Many feminists content that it is clear women are overwhelmingly the victims of intimate violence and that there are few if any battered men. On the other hand, self-described battered husbands, men’s rights group members and some scholars maintain that there are significant numbers of battered men, that battered men are indeed a social problem worthy of attention and that there are as many male victims of violence as female. The last claim is a significant distortion of well-grounded research data.

     

    To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research – and distorted – to “prove” the position on violence against men. However, the critical rate of injury and homicide statistics provided in that same research are often eliminated altogether, or reduced to a parenthetical statement saying that “men typically do more damage.” The statement that men and women hit one another in roughly equal numbers is true, however, it cannot be made in a vacuum without the qualifiers that a) women are seriously injured at seven times the rate of men and b) that women are killed by partners at more than two times the rate of men. 


    That women are perpetrators of intimate violence there can be no doubt. There is consistent and reliable empirical evidence that women use violence toward their male partners. The question of whether there are “battered” men and the prevalence of the problem of the battering of men is more complex.

     

    We know that there are two to four million women battered in the United States each year. At least half these women fight back and defend themselves, and about 700 times last year, women killed their husbands or partners.

     

    In the majority of cases, the women act in response to physical or psychological provocation or threats. Most use violence as a defensive reaction to violence. Some women initiate violence because they know, or believe, that they are about to be attacked. A smaller number of women, having been beaten and brutalized for months or years, seek vengeance against a brutal partner. Despite Lorena Bobbit’s much publicized act least year, the majority of violence women do not inflict significant injury on their partners: women are typically smaller than their husbands and less skilled in using weapons.

     

    Thus, when we look at injuries resulting from violence involving male and female partners, it is categorically false to imply that there are the same number of “battered” men as there are battered women. Research shows that nearly 90 percent of battering victims are women and only about ten percent are men. Movie portrayals of the vengeful, violent women notwithstanding (for example, in “Fatal Attraction” or “Basic Instinct”), there are very few women who stalk male partners or kill them and then their children in a cataclysmic act of familicide. The most brutal, terrorizing and continuing pattern of harmful intimate violence is carried out primarily by men.


    Indeed, men are hit by their wives, they are injured, and some are killed. But, are all men hit by women “battered?” No. Men who beat their wives, who use emotional abuse and blackmail to control their wives, and are then hit or even harmed, cannot be considered battered men. A battered man is one who is physically injured by a wife or partner and has not physically struck or psychologically provoked her.

     

    My estimate is that there are about 100,000 battered men in the United States each year – a much smaller number than the two to four million battered women – but hardly trivial.

     

    Despite the fact that indeed, there are battered men too, it is misogynistic to paint the entire issue of domestic violence with a broad brush and make it appears as though men are victimized by their partners as much as women. It is not a simple case of simple numbers. The media, policy makers, and the public cannot simply ignore – or reduce to a parenthetical status the outcomes of violence, which leave more than 1,400 women dead each year and millions physically and/or psychologically scarred for life.

  • jenk

    What I have an issue with is the disparity between your first comment

    “Some males ARE violent predators and perverts, just as some women are violent predators and perverts.”

    and your last

    “Your assertion that any mention at all of violence and men ‘violates their civil rights’ ignores the fact that the average man also wants children to be protected from violent men and male predators.

    What about protecting the children from those female predators and perverts? Why narrow down the protection to only half the threat? Shouldn’t the author, if she truly wants to protect kids, be including the group which abuses the most often-women?

    As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with using the justice system to prosecute child abusers. I do have a problem with bypassing the system and preemptively taking kids from fathers, while ignoring female violence. Either include them both or don’t address either. To do anything else is sexist.

    And you are correct-the vast majority of men not only don’t want their kids or wives abused, but will go to extreme lengths to protect them, even if it means putting themselves at risk. You would never know that from this blog.

  • jenk

    No, not really. BPDs are very good at blending in and getting along, they just are not good at doing so over long periods of time consistantly. However they are also good at moving along, so that before anyone actually starts to notice they have changed circles. They are also good at getting everyone around them to assume others are crazy, not the actual BP. You might want to do some research into BPD, especially on forums where people can talk about their experiences with BPD people.

  • jenk

    Sorry, double post

     

  • trish-wilson

    Hi, there, Gwallan. The Spawn is doing well. He’s in college now majoring in computer science. Once a geek, always a geek. :)

     

    That report was published by the U. S. Department of Justice. The same results are replicated in other research that looks at gay male domestic violence. Maybe this study will better suit you because it’s not a Violence Against Women Survey. Here’s an excerpt from Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men, published by the American Journal of Public Health in 2002.

     

    December 2002, Vol 92, No. 12 | American Journal of Public Health 1964-1969

    © 2002 American Public Health Association

     

    Gregory L. Greenwood, PhD, MPH, Michael V. Relf, PhD, RN, Bu Huang, PhD,Lance M. Pollack, PhD, Jesse A. Canchola, MS and Joseph A. Catania, PhD

     

     

    “In a nationally representative sample1 of heterosexual men (defined in the study as men who reported cohabitation with women), 7.7% reported lifetime physical or sexual partner violence, compared with 23% (95% CI = 21.5%, 25.4%) of our urban MSM who reported such battering during the previous 5 years. Because lifetime rates are generally higher than rates for a 5-year recall period, it is likely that a substantially greater number of MSM than of heterosexual men have experienced lifetime victimization. Similarly, Zierler and colleagues found that among a nationally representative sample of HIV-infected individuals, 7.5% of heterosexual men had experienced some type of battering (since HIV diagnosis), compared with 39% of our sample (within the past 5 years).”

     

    Keep in mind the fact that men are more likely to be victims of abuse by male intimate partners than by female ones does not negate the seriousness of female-upon-male domestic violence. It only shows that most men who are victims of domestic violence are victims at the hands of male intimate partners, not female. So, abuse of men by women is not rampant, nor is there “equal” abuse between men and women. No puppies, no plankton, and no Martians, either. :)


  • trish-wilson

    Look at all the men’s rights types who came out of the woodwork because they feel so threatened by your article. Good job! I bet you’re getting lots of hits for the article, too. I reproduced it elsewhere so that word gets out on it.

     

    Once again, thank you for such a wonderful and accurate article. It’s about time the facts about how horrid the fathers’ and men’s rights movement is came out.

  • dree

    I want to thank whoever it was (NbyNW?) who offered the link about a study that shows that males coerce young women into pregnancy.  It actually is a very helpful tool to see how some ideological “studies” are actually geared to affirm a pre-conceived belief.  Here’s the original link:

    http://www.mariestopes.org/Press/International/Study~_Men_%60sabotage%60

     

    The link starts off by saying:  

     

    Study: Men ‘sabotage’ birth control

    Teenage girls and young women have been forced into becoming pregnant by abusive male partners who damage condoms or stop them taking birth control, according to research.

    A study at the University of California-Davis (UC-D) found that about 20% of young women had suffered “reproductive coercion”, when a man used physical or sexual violence to make women have children.

     

    Notice that the headline reads “Men Sabotage Birth Control.”  Not some men, just men in general.  Notice also that the “study” talks about the impact of this on women.  Not some women, but women in general.  The average reader would likely read this and think, “Wow, this is a problem for us.  20% of women have suffered through this.”  Read a quote from the researcher about the “study” and the generalizations about what they think can be learned from this.

     

    “Study leader Elizabeth Miller, from UC-D Children’s Hospital, said it revealed “an under-recognised phenomenon where male partners actively attempt to promote pregnancy against the will of their female partners.” 

     

    One might assume that she is talking about all men and all women.  But is she?  When I first read this I smelled a rat. Those numbers are just too PC.  I started looking for the original reseach to see how they came to these numbers and had a tough time.  Each article I found about this “study” had the same template as the one above.  It generally stated that this phenomenom was widespread and tacitly implied that these numbers were relevant to a general popoulation.  At least they never made any reference to the numbers NOT applying to a general population.  If you read the linked article above you will get a sense of how they are framing men as abusers, how this happens more than most people think, etc etc.


    Then I finally found an article which talked in a little more detail about the design for this study.  I was thinking that either it was a non-representative sample or the questions being asked were designed to get the numbers they sought.  I still don’t know about the questions but the issue of the sample has been addressed.  Check this out:

    http://theaggie.org/article/2010/02/11/ucd-study-shows-abusive-partners-sabotage-birth-control

     

    “The five clinics surveyed were in impoverished neighborhoods with Latinas and African Americans comprising two-thirds of the respondents.”


    Okay, that says it all.  This was not a sample that reflects the general population, this was a sample that reflects impoverished blacks and hispanics.  Sorry, but this is vital for anyone to know when they read these numbers and to leave out such an important bit of data seems to me to be intentionally misleading.  We all know that DV occurs much more frequently at lower socio-economic levels.  We know that the probability of a girl dating a convicted felon skyrockets in impoverished neighborhoods.  We also know that the probability of DV goes way up if you date a convicted felon.  Duh.  These numbers might tell us about these neighborhoods but are in no way able to generalize  to men and women in general.  The study would be fine if the sample was made known.  ie “Among impoverished black and hispanic females there is a 20% chance that they will be coerced….etc” 


    I simply can’t believe that scientists would allow the media to print articles that are so misleading.  I can believe it only when I assume that they have done this purposefully.  

     

    Some of you may be wondering what this has to do with the topic at hand.  Here is the connection: The media and some ideological researchers have been filling the airwaves with mis-information about partner violence.  Like this linked article, they don’t tell outright lies, they simply omit important information that would shift the entire meaning.  This research like so many others only studies women.  The last 10 years of research on teen violence has been very clear: both boys and girls are perps and victims.  To now only study one sex as victims should immediately throw up a red flag.  Add on top of that only telling half the story and you get the propagation of a one sided ideological agenda.  Most people have bought this hook, line, and sinker.  The original article that has been the topic of this thread has made the same mistake of only focusing on men as perps.  By omitting female abusers you endanger children.  Let’s tell the whole story.

     

    And so it goes.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    If you drag me into a fight don’t expect me to be silent. “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

    You called me prissy. That’s seriously funny!

  • gwallan

    Ah, I see. Being stoned (at that time, not just now) and all, I mixed up that you aren’t actually a counselor but a board member. I’m happy to hear you don’t have any direct contact with clients. *thumbs up*

     

    Read it again then. At times I have more, and broader, contact with victims than the counsellors. You might also notice that I reported the attitudes of others in that environment but not my own. I continue to be surprised at those attitudes. However if you prefer to shoot the messenger that’s entirely up to you.

     

     

    I’m beginning to understand that the sense of superiority and consequent complacency of many feminists is blinding them to the growing distaste for the movement. That’s a pity because, like any political movement, it has it’s positives and negatives. Your presentation is only reinforcing the negative. An intelligent response would be to ask oneself why is it happening, learn about it and seek to act preventatively. Instead you respond by covering your ears and spouting “la la la pig la la la…”

     

     

  • julie-watkins

    There are people funding the anti-feminism talking points, these would be the people who like women being subservient because they benefit. Same way insurance companies spending so much to stop or weaken health insurance reform; big business spends to weaken unions; wall street doesn’t want regulation. But, dang it, women keep acting uppity and the poor keep organizing for a fair share.

  • dree

    Please, please tell me who is funding anything having to do with men’s issues.  It has to be the poorest of all groups.  No one wants to help.  Not men, not women, not corporations, not government, not non-profits, nobody.  I sure wish what you are saying is true but I know it is not.

  • julie-watkins

    Can’t say. I’m more familiar with funding for anti-abortion and anti-gay groups. A lot of their talking points are also about how feminism has been ruinous; so I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever gwallan was talking with might have gotten some ideas about how feminists made their situations worse from groups like the Catholic hierarchy, Focus on the Family, or whoever.

    The “entitlement behavior” I’ve seen closely has been the Champaign City Police Department, with the help of the Champaign County DA (she’s married to a cop), in full CYA mode after a 15yo unarmed kid got killed in daylight on the other side of town. The family didn’t get notified until after the cover-up & blame-the-victim CYAing was well started. They all joined ranks and keep saying how it’s the KID’S FAULT HE GOT HIMSELF KILLED and questions about why the office had his gun out of the holster and how could it accidently fire if he had control of his weapon get ignored. Oh, the chief of police was there (though it wasn’t his gun that killed the kid). And the local newspaper said both 1) wait for the report and 2) the police were right — both, in the same editorial. I’ve had a chance to compare honest anger with CYA/entitlement anger … and that informs how I react to various rants against injustice as to which I believe.

  • irvingsalos

    Cowepps: She’s claiming to tie Reproductibe Rights, Parental Rights and Domestic Violence together into one cohesive indictment of fathers and men. Here it is in her own words ….

    We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents  are harming women and children trying to escape abuse.”

     

    Stop making lame excuses for her initial attempt to pass this off with only one reference.

  • irvingsalos

    MechSiva: What was done to you and your kitten was unconscionable! I sincerely hope that man suffers seriously for what he did to both of you.

    By the way, I did not write anything about what I want women to be or not be. I merely pointed out you have more in common with MRAs than you believe you do.

  • irvingsalos

    Thanks for taking the time to add your comments outdoors! Good show!

  • irvingsalos

    Thanks for showing us what a bigot you are Trish. By the way, you just proved it’s you that’s feeling some sort of a threat here.

     

    “It’s about time the facts about how horrid the fathers’ and men’s rights movement is came out” … the horrid facts? … you haven’t had an original thought in your life, have you? That’s what started this whole thing; your opinions are not facts, until and unless you can back them up with valid proof.

  • irvingsalos

    My … what a novel response! Did you think that up all by yourself? How precious!

  • irvingsalos

    You, you, you! It’s all about you isn’t it? ALLLL about you! Nobody else! Just you! Only you!

  • irvingsalos

    Sure thing … let’s see if I understand this. Only people like you can dish out insults, put-downs or rank outs. This is because, if people like me give as good as we get, you consider it to be creepy, paternalistic, misogynistic, lacking in class, etc., etc.

     

    And, of course, your labels, buzzwords and slogans automatically trump those of anyone else … because you’re self-righteous and sanctimonious about it.

  • irvingsalos

    Excellent post, Doctor E! Kudos!

  • rebellious-grrl

    If creepy is as good as you get, then it’s time for a self chat. And if you have a Ph.D. don’t you think you “could rank out” most of us? Yes, in my opinion, you are acting like a bully. You troll this blog and rail against women you don’t know. Does it makes you feel better about yourself? I am defending myself from the crap you’ve hurled at me. And you have the nerve to insult me for defending myself! Get real.

    • captcourageous

      That accusation is both baseless and ridiculous!

  • gwallan

     

    @Julie Watkins…

    There are people funding the anti-feminism talking points, these would be the people who like women being subservient because they benefit. Same way insurance companies spending so much to stop or weaken health insurance reform; big business spends to weaken unions; wall street doesn’t want regulation. But, dang it, women keep acting uppity and the poor keep organizing for a fair share.

    I too would like to know who is funding “anti-feminism talking points”.

     

    Feminism is a lobby group just like all the others you mention. Why should it be immune from criticism? I know of numerous other political movements which have censored criticism. None of them are held in high regard.

    …so I wouldn’t be surprised if whoever gwallan was talking with might have gotten some ideas about how feminists made their situations worse from groups like the Catholic hierarchy, Focus on the Family, or whoever.

    You would be wrong. It seems to stem from problems within the state’s network itself and was prior to my active engagement. Note I expressed my own surprise. I wasn’t expecting it in that environment.

  • randijames

    The Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children and Families

  • randijames

    You asked the question, so go ahead and write a post on it. Inform us!

  • randijames

    Here we go with the information flooding. People always come into these threads and do this with the intent on hijacking the topic. Links are nice, research is great…how about we start giving some sample sizes, populations, and other pertinent info we’d need to be able to look at these studies. 

  • randijames

    Elyzabeth, you’re reminding me a little of this

     

    http://www.redstatefeminist.com/2010/03/male-inequality.html

     

    Such a sad state of affairs for men.

  • randijames

    You probably would “never know that from this blog” because it wasn’t about how courageous and awesome men are. We know that from being in at least 12 years of history class. This blog, rather this post, was about what is happening to women and children in the legal system. You and others constanly attempt to derail the thread by talking about what men are NOT. This makes no sense.

  • emma

    May I ask the name of the organisation on whose board you sit, gwallan? I’m curious, as a friend of mine works for a DV organisation in Vic and has a somewhat different perspective from yours.

  • randijames

    Erin Prizzey also worked overwhelming with prostitutes. Should the results be extrapolated to the population of women at large? Gotta love that Erin Prizzey “founder of the domestic violence movement” argument..

  • randijames

    The reason I am pushing against your assumptions so hard is I firmly believe, and evidence backs what I believe, that widespread taking fathers out of homes has not only disadvantaged an entire generation of children but is having a detrimental effect on society which will damage future children as well.”

     

    Okay, so yout talk about someone else’s assumptions, then you say “evidence” backs up your beliefs, then you end with talking about fatherlessness drivel (which has no valid research).

  • randijames

    “Please show me research which proves DV is taken lightly in court.”

     

    Look it up. This is certainly factual–not surprisingly for women AND men.

     

    “Please show me research which shows men make more false allegations in court than women.”

     

    Look it up. Also goes along with the CTS scale and why common couple violence is reported as such.

     

    “Since 90% of custody goes to mothers, please show me data which supports that fathers regularly get custody dispite proof of child abuse.”

     

    Answer has been provided in this thread.

     

    You have a lot of “research” which you are not listing. Usually a lack of cites means opinion, not fact.

     

    Assuming again.

     

    If a father truly is abusing his kids, (not wife, but kids) then certainly supervised visitation should be required.

     

    So, an abuser should be privileged to continue contact.  Interesting. What about what the kids want?

     

    This blog was targeting fathers only. That is sexist and biased. If the author was truly concerned with child safety, she would be using gender nuetral terms to discuss these issues knowing that both mothers and fathers abuse. If you are willing to have mothers face the same witch hunt you are calling for fathers, then I would take your intents far more seriously.

     

    Problem is, the data don’t match the gender-neutrality that you wish for. The next problem is, this really isn’t about you.

  • randijames

    Google some of their names and you will see where they come from and what they really think. 

  • randijames

    wonderful! finally! now take that expertise, and apply it to all the links that have been posted here–not just the ones you don’t like

  • emma

    I apologise if the answer has already been posted, but Irving, I am also interested in hearing in which discipline you received your doctorate.

  • angelfury

    Thank you Joan for finally putting together an article that truly- Truly is right on.

     

    As a Victim of Domestic Violence and still- just trying to survive -the Crisis in Family Courts; I commend you for your accuracy.

     

    Thank you!

     

    Claudine Dombrowski

    http://www.AngelFury.org

     

  • irvingsalos

    Thank you Dr. Christoforo for highlighting this glaring defect. Thanks to you, a “missing” paragraph has been subsequently added to Joan Dawson’s original article. It still, however, does not address the broad stroke fallacy she makes about MRA’s targetting their “exes, or women in general and feminists in particular” for some form of amorphous, unjustified anger that the Internet is wrongfully facilitating. This subtle shading of vocabulary choices and clausal component selections uses insinuation and innuendo to convey the ulterior message, and it’s high time these persistent purveyors of ‘agitprop’ are called on it.

  • irvingsalos

    MechSiva: Perhaps it’s not a good idea to post comments when you are under the influence of psychotropic plants, especially those with mildly hallucinogenic properties.

  • irvingsalos

    Emma: With all due respect, I see no other poster here, including the author herself, giving out their curriculum vitae. I included the doctoral designation after my name as a reaction to the author’s blanket defamation of the MRM, as being somehow illegitimate.

  • irvingsalos

    Rebellious one – Listen up cookie, your level of egocentric self-absorption has now taken a psychopathological turn. Take a hint!

  • irvingsalos

    Randi, how ’bout you take the stick out of your bitt, re-read this entire comments section and stop ducking the request for documentation of the absurd and arrogant assertions made by the author; concerning the Internet, the MRM, the collusion between them and the researchers she deems to be incompetent and the resultant victimization of women (as usual)!

  • irvingsalos

    A “missing” paragraph has been subsequently added to Joan Dawson’s original article. It still, however, does not address the broad stroke fallacy she makes about MRA’s targetting their “exes, or women in general and feminists in particular” for some form of amorphous, unjustified anger that the Internet is wrongfully facilitating. This subtle shading of vocabulary choices and clausal component selections uses insinuation and innuendo to convey an ulterior message. As such, it constitutes a what is called ‘agitprop’.

  • randijames

    Stick out of my bit? You’re such a riot! That’s a great one!!

     

    How can I stop ducking requests, I just got here. And besides, if you’re a card carrying PhD, surely you can locate some of this information yourself. It isn’t everyone else’s responsibility to school you. Sure, it would be nice, and formal… But since you have so much time on your hands, it would help out a bit if you could locate it.  I gotta go retrieve this stick!

  • colleen

    I included the doctoral designation after my name as a reaction to the author’s blanket defamation of the MRM, as being somehow illegitimate.

    You believe that claiming a Ph.D. grants you and thus the MRM some sort of legitimacy?

    If so and with all due respect, you might want to rethink that ploy.

    ——————————————
    The only difference between the American anti-abortion movement and the Taliban is about 8,000 miles.

      Dr Warren Hern, MD
    • captcourageous

      “You believe that claiming a Ph.D. grants you and thus the MRM some sort of legitimacy?”

      This is a quantum leap in logic and yet another glaring FALLACY! It’s also an example of projection on your part …

      a. the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.

      b. Psychoanalysis. such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.
  • irvingsalos

    ProChoiceFerret: See if you can ferret out the documentation supporting the statements written by Joan Dawson that are highlighted below:

     

    “The Fathers’ rights movement (along with many Men’s rights activists), has introduced policies such as “friendly parent” policies, joint custody, punishment for false allegations and various syndromes to family courts across the country (as well as in many Western countries and in India). Most of these policies seem beneficial on the surface — but have hidden dangers lurking underneath.

    In today’s courts with friendly parent policies, a battered woman will look anything but friendly. So who gets custody? The one who appears most likely to share parenting responsibilities. Often enough, the batterer.

    Joint custody is another policy that sounds fair in principle, but experts warn it is not ideal for couples with high conflict. Family court is, however, known to be “the place” for couples with moderate-to-high conflict. Most couples (roughly 85 percent) resolve parenting plans themselves. Those that can’t, and often enough those with some prior history of abuse or control, go to family court. Fathers’ rights groups would like to see family courts enforce presumptive or mandated shared custody. Experts in domestic violence would not.

    Domestic violence experts also cringe at the idea of punishing false allegations, something the fathers’ rights groups actively promote. Since accusations of abuse can be difficult to prove – with evidence and witnesses – this can serve to punish parents for alleging abuse. Punishment deters reporting. Parents can be fined, jailed or denied custody if the judge doesn’t believe their accusation. Domestic violence expert Barry Goldstein says, “Research has established that fathers in contested custody cases are 16 times more likely than mothers to make false allegations. It is not that men are more dishonest, but 90 percent of contested custody cases involve abusive fathers seeking custody to pressure their partner to return or punish her for leaving. Although fathers are more likely to make false charges, courts are more likely to believe them.”

     

    From women making false accusations and getting off scot-free, despite the US Constitution and laws against false arrest, perjury, false imprisonment and defamation of character, to claiming the men are more likely to file false claims. You people sound truly delusional!

     

     

  • irvingsalos

    WELLLL EXCUUUUSE ME for my typo. It should have read for you to take the stick out of your butt.

     

    “And besides, if you’re a card carrying PhD, surely you can locate some of this information yourself. It isn’t everyone else’s responsibility to school you.”

     

    Except for one thing, dahling, I neither composed nor published an article making outrageous claims about other people’s movements, “50/50″ research, social policies, illogical/idiotic rebuttals and the “dangerous intersection” of these factors (you know, in which women get victimized … as usual). 

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Irving, calling complete strangers “my little princess” and “cookie” is creepy. Self defense, and standing up for oneself if not self-absorption. You can comment, I can comment, anyone on this blog can comment. We are all entitled to speak our mind. Now we have come to a complete loop back to squirrely girl’s post. And if you can’t take the criticism of her post, than I don’t know. It seams like you are pissed off at her original post and that I’m a feminist. Hmm. But, like I said before, you are entitled to believe whatever you want to.

  • irvingsalos

    Colleen: I believe what my experience with feminists like you has taught me, namely that you are not able to formulate logical, coherent rebuttals to any counterpoint made against your precious ideological doctrine and the agitprop it spawns. So, instead, you divert the issue, ignore the point, take a piece of an argument and treat it as the entire argument in toto, accuse you opponent of pulling you same stuff you’re in fact trying to pull and, when all else fails, try to deflate your opponent via insinuation and innuendo.

  • jo

    There have been more than one study describing birth control coercion, so your attempt to (feebly) discredit one study is really disturbing as is your insistence – in the face of credible research and credible organizations – to paint domestic violence as mutual.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Colleen, I second that, well said. I know what you mean.

  • dree

    Have a look at the APA study about male victims of domestic violence:

     

    http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/content/42/15/31.2.full

     

    For a list of abstracts on the symetry in interpersonal violence look here:

     

    http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

     

    You also might want to go back and check out the link I offered from Straus where he explains how the feminist researchers used so many techniques to omit men from the results of studies leaving most of us assuming that male victims of domestic violence were non-existent.   It is a fascinating read if you are a humanist.  Not so fascinating if you are a feminist.  ;>)

  • gwallan

    Read what I wrote. Speaks for itself doesn’t it. Women can rape little boys and then extract money from their victim with government assistance.

  • gwallan

    Is there a reason you can’t look for yourself. Tell me, can you feed yourself or does somebody else need to spoon it into your mouth.

     

    “People always come into these threads and do this with the intent on hijacking the topic. “

     

    Hijacking? If the thread’s premise is dubious correction is appropriate in order to right the original hijacking of the truth.

  • gwallan

    Why should anybody assume you know anything about an individual whose name you cant spell?

  • irvingsalos

    Jo: Nice try! You can’t just claim there have been other studies … cite them! Unless you’re are a died-in-the-wool, card carrying feminist, the existence of these studies are not articles of faith, and their credibility is not a matter of dogma.  

  • irvingsalos

    randijames –  ‘Show me research’ is not answered by ‘look it up’. It is answered like this:

     

    “Campbell, S.B. 2002. Behavior Problems in Preschool Children: Clinical and Developmental Issues. Second Edition. New York: Guilford Press.

    DeKlyen, M., Speltz, M.L. & Greenberg, M.T. 1998. Fathering and early onset conduct problems: Positive and negative parenting, father-son attachment, and marital conflict. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 1, 3-22.

    Lamb, M.E. 1987. The father?s role: Cross-cultural perspectives. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

    Lamb, M.E. 1998. Nonparental child care: Context, quality, correlates, and consequences. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & I. Sigel & A.K. Renninger (Vol. Eds) Handbook of Child Psychology: Volume 4. Child psychology in practice. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley.

    Lytton, H. 1980. Parent-Child interaction: The socialization process observed in twins and singleton families. New York: Plenum Press.

    Mash E.J. & Johnston, C. 1983. Sibling interactions of hyperactive and normal children and their relationship to reports of maternal stress and self-esteem. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. 12, 91-99.

    Parke, R.D. 1996. Fatherhood. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Parke, R.D. & Sawin, D.B. 1976. The father?s role in infancy: A Reevaluation. The Family Coordinator. 25, 365-371.”

     

    To summarize my experience with the majority of women posters here, only with this kind of information can you a) look it up, b) “ferret” it out, c) determine precisely how “credible” it is and d) make an informed decision.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Abuse stats and sex of perp in single parent families as follows:

     

    Overall maltreatment:

    26.1 out of 1000 children by mother

    36.6 out of 1000 chidlren by father (father is much higher)

     

    Just abuse?:

    6.4 per 1,000 children by mother

    10.5 per 1,000 children by father

     

    Neglect?:

    16.7 per 1,000 children by mother
    21.9 per 1,000 children by father

     

    Emotional abuse?:

    3.4 per 1,000 children by mothers
    8.8 per 1,000 children by fathers

     

    I could go on but alas you will ask where this info was found?  NIS-3.  Sadly the NIS-4 does not delve into what abuser is living in a single parent home.  And sadly still most MRA’s will say that mothers make up all single parent homes (or anywhere from 80-100% of all single parent homes) so we are unable to discover who did what and what child was hurt now will we?

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Shall I provide links to your sexist and woman hate drivel posted on antimisadnry.com or standyourground.com or any of a number of woman hate websites?  nah?  Didn;t think so :-)  Or they can simply go to my website at Glenn’s Cult and see just a few for themselves.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Yep they post on antimisandry.com or standyourground.com and they come flying.  They cannot post on Sacks’ website any longer due to his removal of their comments so they had to go somewhere else to call to duty other “like minded” smart men to fight us poor deluded womenfolk.

    LOLOLOL.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Wow such abusive comments.  Do all of you respond like this when angered or when a women (how dare she) stands up to you with an opinion other than that which has been force fed us for many decades (centuries)?  I wonder sometimes because when angered, MRA’s frequently resort to such bullying behavior.

     

    Reminds me of my ex who is a founded abuser.

    • captcourageous

      Please try and begin to face the fact that none of you have been able to resist the urge to post snotty content towards this guy, from the very beginning. You do not engage males on this board constructively, you try to drive them away as invaders of some kind.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Ahh and here we go with the innuendos about “missing” paragraphs and insinuations that this was done inentionally.  Now this poster will say he did not “intend” to convey that message, but why put “missing” in quotes unless you are trying to “insinuate” something about said “missing” paragraph? 

     

    See how that works.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Ah even gwallan has seemed to land here also.  You sure have been pretty quiet on AM and SYG recently gwallan.  Pity Sacks took comments down, I was having some fun highlighting you on my blog.  I have some male relatives and friends who were shocked by some of your statements.  Don’t believe me readers?  Check out my blog for yourself or search his name – gwallan.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Biscuit Queen are you also aware of the multitudes of studies that have been done about incorrect diagnosis of BPD when it was actually PTSD?  Are you also aware that Severe PTSD is being discussed among professionals?  And what types of cases are they including and are generally at the TOP of the list for this Severe PTSD?

     

    Ritualistic child abuse (such as sex abuse as infant or religios cults)

    Severe and prolonged child abuse

    Severe or prolonged domestic violence

    Multiple Rapes

     

    Most of these are cirmes and most affect women and children (notice I said MOST).

     

    I will provide links for the BPD/PTSD misdiagnosis studies later, since some are sooooo insistent that what we say is not true.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Wow another instance of we can’t beat them with our knowledge – let’s just degrade them so they look stupid. 

     

    Well we don’t go away so easy….

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Even more denigration.  Hmmm who woulda thunk it?

     

    And yes I am guilty of misspelling, I don’t rightly care.  After all according to MRA/FR activists women are only here to do what men want.  Just go look at antimisandry.com standyourground.com or mabtw.com (men are better than women).  these are just a few of the thousands out there.

  • nomorebrokenwings

    I am reading some names I recall seeing when I have researched abusers rights, protective parents rights, and children’s rights.  I have been quiet in the blogging world until now due to the silencing by courts and abusive people who would just as soon not have me spill my story.  Well, it is not just my story but it is also the story of the children as well.

     

    I just started this new blog and it can be found at http://nomorebrokenwings.blogspot.com

     

    You see having emailed some of those who are here tonight (and obviously have been here for several days) I know the only way to bring change is to speak.  Up until now I have been to afraid to do so.  Not anymore.  I cannot get change for my child or for me by staying silent.  What was that documentary?  Breaking the silence?  Well I am breaking my self imposed silence until I am told to be quiet by the courts.  So those out here reading this interested please follow my blog.  I will not point out why feminists hate men, I will not point out that MRA’s hate child support or want to silence women.  I will simlpy tell my story and the story of my children. 

     

    I will talk about my child who was killed.  Killed by whom?  Definitely not me and she was healthy when she left me.  I will talk about the state sanctioned sexual abuse of another child.  I will talk about state sanctioned sexual abuse of a child spanning several decades.  So pay attention MRA’s.  As I state on my blog, I am an MRA’s worst nightmare.  Yes I am angry, I am angry and I will talk about why I am angry.  I once did not make the right choices “quick enough”.  Yet I did make the right choice fast enough this time and children are still being hurt. 

     

    And no I do not hate men.  I despise abusers.  So sit back, read, watch and wait.  You might very well be suprised.  Names will eventually come out and some people are going to be very unhappy campers.  It is all documented by the way.  Paper trail, names, badge numbers, dates, times, etc,.  It is all there.

  • outdoors

     of course petunia piglet would call any mra a woman hater or mra site a woman hating site-this is nothing new and can be expected.

     any site that can bury your feminist one-sided ideologies into the ground obviously must hate women…or they just just wouldn’t do it

    just because u say it’s so-doesn’t make it so

     the tired old worn out number 1 shaming tactic that falls on deaf ears more and more by the day

     sorry but not everyone on this planet will kiss your feet because you are female

     typical feminist

     being a politically spoiled self-enshrined glutton makes u no less hatefull than anyone i have seen or heard on any mra site as a matter of fact even more so,from what little i have seen of yours.

     

     btw-have u registered for the armed forces yet?-or is that just the “patriarchial” obligation?

     u just keep your 13 followers busy with the man hating,while men continue to die for your right to do so.

     

     

     

     

     

  • outdoors

    Wow such abusive comments.  Do all of you respond like this when angered or when a man(how dare he)stands up to you with an opinion other than that which has been force fed us for many decades(centuries?) I wonder sometimes because when angered, Feminists frequently resort to such bullying behavior.

     

    Reminds me of my ex who is a founded abuser

  • dree

    Stories such as yours are heartbreaking and need to be heard.  Good for you for getting your story out into the public domain.  Our services for abused persons need to be shaped by the stories of those who are victimized.  At this point though we have a problem.  Only certain stories are heard. Others are ignored or even censored.  All too often the stories of men who are victims are simply not heard and our services reflect this.  Here is a story to illustrate this point:

     

    In 2005 the VAWA was being re-authorized.  Several Washington lawyers got a group together of male victims of domestic violence, clinicians who specialized in helping men, authors, researchers and others who were knowlegeable.  This group of lawyers met with Biden and other high ranking legislators from the house and senate who were involved in the re-auth of VAWA.  They presented their list of experts and requested they be given some time at the public hearings.  They were assured by Biden and others that they would be included, that anyone who was a victim of domestic violence should be allowed to testify.  They were on a first name basis with these lawmakers and many of us felt some joy and relief that these men, after years of being excluded from services, would finally get to tell their story.  Then came the day of the public hearings.  Imagine our shock when not one of this group was allowed to testify.  NOT ONE.  The public hearings were a dog and pony show of the status quo “women are victims and men are perps” faction.  We were stunned.  I seriously felt as though I was no longer in the US but was now in someplace like North Korea where only certain opinions and ideas are allowed expression. We had been silenced.

     

    This experience showed me in a very powerful manner just how strong the forces are who try to silence the pain and stories of male victims of domestic violence.   I am still shocked.  So yes, stories are important and can help us shape our services but if you only hear selected “PC” stories and exclude others we all lose.

  • mrcranky

    I’ve been a family law attorney for 20 years.  I have no sympathy for the “Men’s Rights” movement, which is primarily (in my view) a political movement of men who want to evade child support.  I agree that the Men’s Rights movement is based largely on false or unsupportable claims.

     

    But, I have a serious problem with the way this article reads.  I don’t see any evidence of an “erosion of protections” for abused women.  I have a huge problem with a statement like this:

     

    “58,000 children a year go into unsupervised, joint or sole custody with an abusive parent.”

     

    The statement isn’t clear about whether the father is alleged to have abused the children, or, if there was abuse in the relationship, the extent of the abuse, or whether there has been treatment or are other protections.  There is a galaxy between “supervised visitation” and “sole custody.”  And there are dozens of mechanisms, short of supervised visitation, which can address domestic violence issues.

     

    As to “joint visitation,” many couples decide this is the “fair” thing to do, in cases in which there is no abuse.  It isn’t some tool to enact the agenda of the Men’s Rights movement.  Similarly, parental alienation (to be distinguished from parental alienation syndrome), is alleged, in my experience, by mothers and fathers, and has even been alleged against the noncustodial parent.  I noticed that over at leadershipcouncil.org, they refer to the fact that parenting evaluators consider current alienation more important than past abuse.  I suppose that is because parenting evaluators are a bunch of patriarchial conservatives with no training with no interest in protecting children.  There is quite a bit of distaste on that site for evaluators, which is troubling to me, as most have Master’s Degrees in relevant fields and I certainly never hired one for a domestic violence case who wasn’t well educated specifically on the effects of domestic violence on children.  Anyone who works with custody issues learns pretty quickly that alienation is real, and that it harms children.

     

    In short, in my personal experience, I have seen the Courts become more, not less, likely to take measures to protect domestic violence victims.  You haven’t presented any evidence to the contrary, certainly.  And you don’t propose any solutions.  Is there a model act you want adopted?  Seminars for judges?

     

    I can’t make sense of the 84% figure either.  Most men don’t ask to be the custodial parent.  It may be true that, in cases that go to trial, men are frequently successful in seeking sole custody.  But that percentage is so low that it is zero evidence of bias in the courts.

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks for the great post and blog link. Great blog! I’ve forwarded your blog to my friends and linked you on my site. 

  • forjkj

    Thank you for the article-it rings true. This situation is slavery in the United States-with the complete knowledge and support of the federal government.  It is time for any real Americans left in Washington and across the country to demand Federal Intervention.  Women and children need equal rights and these rights need protected at all costs.  No more should each state be allowed to enslave and murder Women and children.   I would rather offend man than sin against God.  I will protect my children to the death ans since I am an American citizen it has all likelyhood of occurring.

  • jo

    For those seeking research (and, apparently only able to find the studies that suit their own ideology), do a Google Scholar Search on domestic violence and custody, or see the Leadership Council for research citations.

    Here are a few -

    Preidt, R. (2005, August 11). Custody Rulings Often Ignore History of Domestic Violence. Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center (news release).

    Even though most U.S. states require courts to consider any history of domestic violence when deliberating child custody cases, this type of abuse is often unknown to courts making these important custody decisions, a new study finds.

    The study was conducted by researchers at the Harborview Injury Prevention & Research Center in Seattle. They believe evidence of domestic violence is important in making custody decisions because children who have been exposed to their mothers’ abuse by an intimate partner are also more likely to be victims of abuse themselves. These children are also more likely to suffer psychological problems, the researchers added.

    Reporting in the August 2005 issue of the journal Violence Against Women, the Seattle team analyzed documentation on more than 800 local couples with young children who filed for divorce in 1998 and 1999. These included 324 cases with a history of domestic violence and 532 cases without such a history.

    Mothers in general were more likely than fathers to be awarded custody of children, but mothers who were victims of domestic abuse were no more likely than other mothers to receive custody, the study found. In addition, fathers with a history of committing domestic violence were no more likely than other fathers to be required by the court to have a third party supervise child visitations, the researchers report.

    Just 17% of fathers with a known history of domestic violence were denied child visitation. In 47.6% of divorce cases in which husbands displayed a history of partner abuse, no mention of this abuse was found in the divorce case files. The researchers estimate that at least 11.4% of Seattle divorce cases involving couples with dependent children involve a substantiated history of male-perpetrated domestic violence.

     

    Stahly, G. B., Krajewski, L., Loya, B. Uppal, K., German, G., Farris, W., Hilson, N., & Valentine, J. (2004). Protective Mothers in Child Custody Disputes: A Study of Judicial Abuse. In Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and Their Allies Take on the Family Law System (a collection of essays), electronic download available at http://store.canow.org/products.php?prod_id=3

    To better understand the problems that protective parents face in the legal system, researchers at California State University, San Bernardino, are performing an on-going national survey. To date, over 100 self-identified protective parents have completed the 101-item questionnaire. The study found that prior to divorce, 94% of the protective mothers surveyed were the primary caretaker and 87% had custody at the time of separation. However, as a result of reporting child abuse, only 27% were left with custody after court proceedings. 97% of the mothers reported that court personnel ignored or minimized reports of abuse and that they were punished for trying to protect their children. 45% of the mothers say they were labeled as having Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). Most protective parents lost custody in emergency ex parte proceedings (where they were not notified or present) and where no court reporter was present. 65% reported that they were threatened with sanctions if the “talked publicly” about the case.

    The average cost of the court proceedings was over $80,000 and over a quarter of the protective parents reported being forced to file bankruptcy as a result of filing for custody of their children. 87% of the protective parents believe that their children are still being abused; however, 63% have stopped reporting the abuse for fear that contact with their children will be terminated. Eleven percent of the children were reported to have attempted suicide

     

    Silverman, J. G., Mesh, C. M., Cuthbert, C. V., Slote, K., & Bancroft, L. (2004). Child custody determinations in cases involving intimate partner violence: A human rights analysis. Am J Public Health, 94 (6), 951-957.
    http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/94/6/951

    Intimate partner violence and child abuse are recognized both as public health concerns and as violations of human rights, but related government actions and inactions are rarely documented as human rights violations in the United States. Men who abuse female partners are also highly likely to abuse the children of these women. However, family courts are reported to often ignore risks posed by abusive men in awarding child custody and visitation. Battered women involved in child custody litigation in Massachusetts (n = 39) were interviewed. A recurring pattern of potential human rights violations by the state was documented, corresponding to rights guaranteed in multiple internationally accepted human rights covenants and treaties. The human rights framework is a powerful tool for demonstrating the need for legal, social, and political reform regarding public health concerns

     

    Just a sample from the “Abusers Lobby” -below. Many others have written about them (Dr. Michael Flood, Molly Dragiewicz, Evan Stark, etc.) too -

    David Chick, another Fathers 4 Justice activist, has also faced legal challenges for sending an abusive text message to a woman, blocking her car, and making obscene gestures at her. See “F4J ‘Text Abusive’,” The Mirror, June 30, 2005, at http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2005/06/30/f4j-txt-abusive-115875-15681569/

    Jason Hatch, yet another major Fathers 4 Justice activist, also admits to “harassing” his second wife. See James Geary and Bobby Ghosh, “In the Name of the Fathers,” Time, Sept. 19, 2004, at http://www.time.com/time/europe/html/040927/story.html

  • mrcranky

    “Mothers in general were more likely than fathers to be awarded custody of children, but mothers who were victims of domestic abuse were no more likely than other mothers to receive custody, the study found. In addition, fathers with a history of committing domestic violence were no more likely than other fathers to be required by the court to have a third party supervise child visitations, the researchers report”

     

    Don’t we need some a lot more information to make any sense of this?  Start with the rate of awarding custody to the mothers in other cases.  If, for example, the rate of awarding mothers custody is 90% in cases with no domestic violence, the question is why, the 10% is the same in both samples.  One simple explanation: the court, rightly or wrongly, found that the allegation of domestic violence was false in at least ten percent of the cases, and women who falsely report domestic violence may have other problems.   In order for these women to NOT win custody, there must be some countervailing consideration – substance abuse, neglect, etc.  Is it unlikely to assume that false domestic violence reporting would coincide with being an alcoholic or other serious personal problems that affect parenting?  I don’t think so.  This isn’t to say that false reporting among women is high generally, but only false reporting among drug addicts, alcoholics, etc.

     

    Again, my personal experience with dealing with hundreds of cases is that domestic violence is seriously underreported, but also that false reports do exist.  The place that false reports are made is in court.  Since we are dealing on the margins anyway (eg, parsing the 10%), this study doesn’t show that the courts in Seattle are ignoring domestic violence in custody decisions.  As to supervision, I can say, practicing in Seattle, that programs like DV Dads and anger management are used much more often than professional supervision.  Professional supervision, long term, is unmanageable.  So, the question of how many dv perpetrators have supervised visitation doesn’t answer the question of whether dv is being ignored.  The way to determine that is to look to whether NO remedy for domestic violence was ordered at all, not whether the court uses the fairly extreme remedy of supervised visitation for domestic violence.

  • irvingsalos

    MzPetuniaPig: It still does not give a reader a chance to verify where, when and how these “stats” were determined.

     

    Once again you display seriously fallacious reasoning, namely argumentum ad circularum. ” … Most MRA’s will say” is a guess at best; a total fabrication at worst. Of course, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in terms of intelligence and sobriety, when I write this. “So we are unable to discover who did what and what child was hurt now will we?” is precisely the type of feminist tactic we’ve been exposing here … that’s just the way YOU want it and keep it. The best you seem to be able to do is idiotically cling to this tactic … how pathetic on your part.

     

    Now, let’s see you make up another false premise that you facetiously prove to your own hubristic satisfaction by using insinuation, innuendo and utter fabrication!

  • angelfury
  • irvingsalos

    We now know who you are … thanks for exposing yourself. Mr. Sacks has been notified about your pretentious drivel.

  • ahunt

    Appreciate your input, McCranky.

     

    I would just like to ask…in your experience…have you found that the vast majority of divorcing couples do put the well-being of their children first…as in working to minimize as best they can the negative effects of the split?

     

    Anecdote is not evidence…but such has certainly been the case among my peers.


    Most men don’t ask to be the custodial parent.

     

    I seem to recall research indicating that fathers are more likely to seek custody when there is another woman in the picture…grandma, girlfriend, new wife. I’ll see if I can find it.

  • irvingsalos

    Errr … a notice was posted at the beginning of Joan Dawson’s article last night. It announced the insertion of the missing paragraphs as a courtesy to readers, one designed to prevent confusion. That notice is no longer needed. I did not insinuate anything, particularly as part of a subsequent intention. You’ve simply made yourself look foolish … once again.

     

    By the way, if you decide to continue using that feminist forensic maneuver of copying words I introduce into the discussion, in a lame attempt to beg the question, please use them with denotative specificity. Insinuate means to imply, suggest, or hint at something. I wrote a declarative sentence with no room for doubt as to what I meant.

  • angelfury

    Mr. Cranky,

    Indeed the problem is that women and children of Domestic Violence even when there exists convictions-http://www.kansas.net/~freepress/7-12-01-8.html

    The Courts routinely grant sole custody to the abusers.

     

    As a survivor of Domestic Violence we tell victims of violence to NOT report as it is 100% guaranteed that under the PA or PAS or other psycho DX of the day that the mother WILL loose custody for not promoting or in my case (was told to lie about the abuse that happened…) meaning I was told to say it did not happen as to not alienate the father from our daughter.

    http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/pages/308

     

    As a result of the what-ifs- Criminally convicted abuser dad has full custody-(with 8 criminal Convictions of violence) and still maintains a child’s coffin…

    I have barely been able to see my child at all this past ten years as the ‘abusers lobby’ deem it more important that no one (the child) know the truth of the extent of the violnce perpetrated against her mother.

     

    That would put dad in ‘bad’ light of the child… how can I lie to my daughter and say ”dad never brutaly tortured myself?”

    I am on 100% Social Security Disability as a RESULT of the ‘violence’. I used to be a Nurse.

     

    This is what the courts and Fathers Rights have done. Fathers Rights no matter what…no matter what. Especially in Violence.

    Not children’s rights to know their mother a victim of violence but fathers rights to continue to victimize… and they do. (sixteen years in my case)

     

    And of course the incredible amount of ‘blood money’ that lawyers MHP’s and other friends of the court get in feeble but lucrative so called attempts in ‘fixing bad dad’ –to preserve his rights..http://whoresofthecourt.com/

    all others; their rights– well they have none.

     

    That is why Ms. Dawson’s article is right on. Because it is the great legal profit of continuing to abuse and the rape of Justice.

    It must stop, to many have and are being killed. It IS a dangerous intersection. When it comes to Domestic Violence period.

    My abuse continues http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/pas/DVP.html

    Even though the State has placed me on the ACP, SaH, program for my safety…

    http://www.kssos.org/safeathome/main.html

    Still, after evedince, convictions and State protection..

    it’s Fathers Rights card that trumps my daughters and mine- we have no rights. 

    http://www.podbean.com/podcast-detail?pid=53955#now_playing

    Tell me again, that Domestic Violence and fathers Rights are not a danger.

     

     

     

  • angelfury

    Claudine Dombrowski- An Abused Mom Testifies at Kansas Joint Committee Hearings

    correct working link:

    http://kansaswatchdog.podbean.com/2009/12/04/claudine-dombrowski-an-abused-mom-victimized-again-by-the-kansas-courts/

    the article it is linked to:

    http://kansas.watchdog.org/2010/compelling-stories-about-problems-with-placement-and-removal-of-children/

    and video from the Joint cmtee Hearings:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWqBFHIaa0w

     

    This is just recently-

     

    I am sure I will be attacked-for posting this as this is what ‘abusers’ do.

    But maybe, it will help one to survive..

    http://www.ktka.com/news/2009/oct/20/domestic_violence_rise_shawnee_county/

     

  • irvingsalos

    Thank you counselor. That was a good post … one summarizing what we are asserting, in the face of attempts to divert the issue, trump us with fallacies and rank us out in waves.

     

    On the forums these women are trashing as woman-hating, members post articles from the media about women pulling some real humdingers when it comes to lying and violent behaviors. I reiterate, these are from the media (Associated Press for example), and they appear on a daily basis. Said media is presumed to be biased … in support of women’s contentions! On the antimisandry.com site in particular, these articles are international in scope. For example, these behaviors are also shown in the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

     

    We’re very tired of standing by while feminists play pretend that they are all moral, pure as the driven snow, congenitally altruistic and followers of Mahatma Gandhi. You can cite us something from “The Journal of (Whatever)” or a government agency report, prepared months and even years ago, but the influx of media reportage is daily and often up-to-the-minute, and it’s showing a big difference between the antiseptic realm of academia and the dirty deeds taking place in the real world each day.

     

  • mrcranky

    as to how many parents put the children first is probably not representative.  I don’t get hired for the amicable divorces.  I think that the majority of litigants believe they are acting in the children’s best interests, but some people don’t have that ability.  I think that the vast majority of uncontested divorces probably don’t use the kids as pawns.

     

    Men are more likely to get custody over the long haul if they are part of a couple in my experience.   

     

     

  • irvingsalos

    Double WOW. How thin-skinned you are fair maid! Such megalomania be evident in the distortion of our respective posts. And tying them into decades, nay centuries (what? No millennia?). Forsooth! Prithee, fair maiden, hast thine indoctrination left thee so bereft of common sense that thou art condemned to repeat prissy slogans forever? Thine own propaganda doth poison thee mightily! Yeah verily … I laugh (ROFLMAO!).

  • crowepps

    You’re missing the point:

    Cowepps: She’s claiming to tie Reproductibe Rights, Parental Rights and Domestic Violence together into one cohesive indictment of fathers and men. Here it is in her own words ….

    “We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships.

    It cannot be “one cohesive indictment of fathers and men” unless you are taking it for granted that all fathers and men are abusive.

     

    She is talking about a small subset of relationships which are abusive, and the rights of women and children in THOSE relationships, not ALL fathers and men.

  • irvingsalos

    Up to now, none of the posters here have used that LOL abbreviation.

     

    “Yep they post on antimisandry.com or standyourground.com …”

     

    As did you, once.

     

    [Apparently you've relapsed!]

  • ahunt

    Off to check out what percentage of divorces are uncontested…

     

    Thanks.

     

    Edit…from what I can gather, upwards of 90% of divorce is uncontested. Hmmmm.

  • crowepps

    Well, no, actually it doesn’t speak for itself, because it doesn’t make sense.  If you are talking about the ability of women to “extract money” for child support, I’d note that “little boys” aren’t capable of getting someone pregnant.

  • irvingsalos
  • crowepps

    Since the article flows from the assumption that most men seeking contested custody are abusers

    I didn’t see any evidence of that underlying assumption in the article.  Instead I saw a clear statement that if the relationship itself is abusive, disputing custody is a TACTIC which abusers can use to attempt to perpetuate control of their victims.

  • crowepps

    Also, we need to consider moving these cases to criminal court where the rules of law actually apply. How is it that child abuse cases can be heard and punishable in a court which has no jury? And yes, I mean punishable. Taking away a person’s children is punishment.

    I’m not sure what you mean here – the rules of law apply in civil court as well. Are you contrasting the criminal evidence standard of “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” against the civil evidence standard of “reasonably proven” or “more likely than not true”? Considering that we are talking about the safety of children, “more likely than not” certainly seems sufficient to me.

  • crowepps

    <blockquote>…that widespread taking fathers out of homes has not only disadvantaged an entire generation of children but is having a detrimental effect on society which will damage future children as well.</blockquote>

     

    Actually, most of the research about “taking fathers out of home” has been done in those cases where father is missing because he’s in PRISON.  That tends to fuzzy up the results, since it’s pretty difficult to sort out whether the disadvantage to the children results from the father being missing or the father being a criminal in the first place.

  • ahunt

    I don’t get hired for the amicable divorces

     

    Bummer. I was kind of hoping that someone in the field could debunk the vindictive wife/victimized husband rhetoric grounded in mother physical custody arrangements.

    Also, these days…is not joint custody the norm, with maternal physical custody a matter of agreement between divorcing souses?

     

     


     

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Ummm if you had read rather than skimmed through my reply you would have seen these stats on child victims was taken from the NIS-3 which is the last publication to publish true injuries based on the sex and composition of the household.  Now you have wasted precious time.

     

    And you are a PhD?  Hmmm…uhhhh okay….

    • captcourageous

      The original point being that there are actually some readers who will log on here that do not know what the NIS-3 is and will need to get a little more information on it to check it out. That’s assuming they will want to start from scratch to verify your assertions, rather than go straight to the specific chapter, title or pages you should have provided in the first place.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    No comment just thanks to R Grrl :-)

    • captcourageous

      Please … don’t start the mutual admiration society just yet. I’ve been to your blog, and it is so poorly composed it should embarrass you deeply.

  • crowepps

    I seem to recall research indicating that fathers are more likely to seek custody when there is another woman in the picture…grandma, girlfriend, new wife. I’ll see if I can find it.

     

    Men are more likely to get custody over the long haul if they are part of a couple in my experience.

    It’s been my experience that men are more likely to ASK for custody if they are part of a couple.  There’s nothing that upsets a custody arrangement that was working just fine for a long time like one of the couple getting remarried/having a new live-in.  Whether it’s her new guy not wanting “your ex” around or his new gal not wanting to have to deal with “that woman”, the applecart tends to get upset.

     

    I’m not sure if there are any statistical studies out there on the type of custody structures that couples create themselves in dissolutions.  In my experience, they tend to be pretty fluid, with most people preferring joint legal custody and some version of sharing physical custody, and all of them changing over time as changes happen in the underlying needs according to the children’s age, the children’s interests, the parents’ living situations, the parents’ relationships, etc.  Most of the time, people who were  reasonable and mature in coming to the original agreement continue to be mature and reasonable in dealing with the necessary changes.

     

    Research into contested custody is so much easier for the social scientist to do – there’s all that paperwork easy accessible at the courthouse, laying out everybody’s disfunctionalism with detailed data ready to be statistically interpreted – but that doesn’t really tell much about how things work in the majority of cases, most importantly, how the children themselves perceive the advantages and disadvantages to themselves of the various types of agreements.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    That is interesting.  I welcome it – what could he do to me?  Slander/libel is only slander and libel if it is not true.  I am also allowed to take any published article and create a parody of it.  So tell him to give it his best shot.  Maybe I will contact one of my friends who has her own blog and have her step up her blogging.  Then he will have another Genia, Holly on his hands only this one won’t go away.  And he won’t be able to degrade her into silence.  This one will stimmy all of you.  And give credence to those who have come before her.

     

    Everything on my blog is available readily on the internet.  I take comments and written words and make a commentary (editorial) based on my opinion only.  Sorry dude.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Dude I would never post on Am or syg or mabtw.  These are for hatred – hatred of women.  And I do not hate women, nor do I hate “good men”.  I depsise abusers.  I despise people who degrade and belittle another simply based on their own superior feelings. 

     

    So you are funny now go play and leave the grownups alone.

    • captcourageous

      It is very clear from your writing that neither of you are above the age of fifteen years old . at the most.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    typical of the MRA/FR supporter.  Take what a woman says (or even a man who supports best interest of children) and twist it.  Duluth Model anyone?  Oh yeah I forgot you ignore what has been in place for many years because YOUR studies say it is garbage.  Well we say your stuff is garbage.  Now we can pretned we are in first grade and say did not, did too, did not, did too until the cows come home or we can do as my associates and I do and act like reasonable adults and try to help abuse victims.  But nah that would not be in the fathers best interests now would it?

  • mzpetuniapigg

    I could direct the readers of these multiple comments to http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com for the hundreds and thousands of stories of bad dads collected since June/July 2009.  I guess I just did.  Sit back folks and bring the tissues.  This will upset you, disturb you, anger you, and when you have had enough – when will you do soemthing?  How about the 76 Killer dads who killed the children in just a little under a year due to some form of court issue (custody or support)?  Women generally do not kill the children due to court issues.  It happens but not with the frequency of father killers.

     

    This is sad and scary that Mr. Irving with his wonderful PhD (the sdame who will not reveal his CV) could very well be placed in a position to protect abused chidlren.  Folks is this something we need for our future?

  • crowepps

    We’re very tired of standing by while feminists play pretend that they are all moral, pure as the driven snow, congenitally altruistic and followers of Mahatma Gandhi.

    Yet you don’t seem to realize that it is equally ridiculous to assert that all FATHERS are moral, pure as the driven snow, etc., and that contact with them is absolutely necessary for children to grow up healthy.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Hi randijames, thanks for posting this link. I laughed my ass off. Great blog too.

  • ahunt

    In my experience, they tend to be pretty fluid, with most people preferring joint legal custody and some version of sharing physical custody, and all of them changing over time as changes happen in the underlying needs according to the children’s age, the children’s interests, the parents’ living situations, the parents’ relationships, etc.  Most of the time, people who were  reasonable and mature in coming to the original agreement continue to be mature and reasonable in dealing with the necessary changes.

     

    Precisely! Yet the old canard…women get physical custody 90% of the time so therefore men are oppressed continues to get trotted regularly. 

     

    editing: Of course crowepps…our experience could be biased because we tend to associate with mature and reasonable people.

  • mrcranky

    It’s hard to debunk or establish much of anything with certainty in such a private and complex matter.

     

    In divorce, whining is the only equal opportunity benefit.

     

    Joint custody is far from the norm is my state.

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Thanks, MzPetuniaPigg. I checked out these sites; antimisandry.com,  standyourground.com,  and  mabtw.com. Seriously offensive, especially http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/. I’ll read your blog for more info. Keep up the great work.

  • ahunt

    Do you, by chance, practice south of the Mason-Dixon line?


    In divorce, whining is the only equal opportunity benefit

     

    Snerk. Hey, I already acknowledged my bias, counselor. Anecdote is not evidence and yes, we do tend to associate with reasonable people.

  • crowepps

    Here State statutes PRESUME joint legal and physical custody, and there are a lot of decisions by the Supreme Court that state there has to be some showing that both types of joint custody are NOT in the child’s best interest before the lower courts should approve anything else.

     

    If a man works out of town for weeks at a time, and joint physical custody is not practical, he will still be entitled to joint legal custody which entitles him to input on things like school, medical decisions, etc.

     

    Domestic violence accusations require conviction and/or substantive proof, not just ‘accusations’.

    AS 25.24.150. Judgments For Custody.

     

    g) There is a rebuttable presumption that a parent who has a history of perpetrating domestic violence against the other parent, a child, or a domestic living partner may not be awarded sole legal custody, sole physical custody, joint legal custody, or joint physical custody of a child.

     

    (h) A parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section if the court finds that, during one incident of domestic violence, the parent caused serious physical injury or the court finds that the parent has engaged in more than one incident of domestic violence. The presumption may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence that the perpetrating parent has successfully completed an intervention program for batterers, where reasonably available, that the parent does not engage in substance abuse, and that the best interests of the child require that parent’s participation as a custodial parent because the other parent is absent, suffers from a diagnosed mental illness that affects parenting abilities, or engages in substance abuse that affects parenting abilities, or because of other circumstances that affect the best interests of the child.

     

    (i) If the court finds that both parents have a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section, the court shall either

     

    (1) award sole legal and physical custody to the parent who is less likely to continue to perpetrate the violence and require that the custodial parent complete a treatment program; or

     

    (2) if necessary to protect the welfare of the child, award sole legal or physical custody, or both, to a suitable third person if the person would not allow access to a violent parent except as ordered by the court.

     

    (j) If the court finds that a parent has a history of perpetrating domestic violence under (g) of this section, the court shall allow only supervised visitation by that parent with the child, conditioned on that parent’s participating in and successfully completing an intervention program for batterers, and a parenting education program, where reasonably available, except that the court may allow unsupervised visitation if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that the violent parent has completed a substance abuse treatment program if the court considers it appropriate, is not abusing alcohol or psychoactive drugs, does not pose a danger of mental or physical harm to the child, and unsupervised visitation is in the child’s best interests.

     

    (k) The fact that an abused parent suffers from the effects of the abuse does not constitute a basis for denying custody to the abused parent unless the court finds that the effects of the domestic violence are so severe that they render the parent unable to safely parent the child.

  • crowepps

    I despise people who degrade and belittle another simply based on their own superior feelings.

    As I understand the psychological model, abusers are not acting out of a feeling of superiority but instead out of a feeling of INferiority, a belief that their emotions and lives are in the control of the person they are abusing.

     

    In their own minds they conceptualize the interaction as their behavior being in reaction to her power rather than themselves as powerful and acting to control her. The comments in this thread about how men are ‘abused’ by the police, court system, feminists and women in general would certainly support that view, since those protests cannot come from a position of superiority but rather from lack of power.

     

    http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=6M5CWnHjLDsC&oi=fnd&pg=PP13&dq=domestic+violence+abuse+inferiority&ots=7SqhCDVdAx&sig=XoJ2wBDlBhy9-IXBP96x4sOtdw0#v=onepage&q=&f=false

  • ahunt

    Well, I’m in Michigan…and I dunno if there is a legal presumption of joint physical custody…but such has been the case in 100% of the dissolutions in our peer group. I do believe there is the presumption of joint legal custody.

     

    Originally from the south…and again anecdotally…sole maternal custody was the norm, way back when.

     

    Editing…crowepps. am I right to assume that parents are still free to work out their own arrangements in Alaska?

  • mechashiva

    I actually went to undergrad at UC Davis. They conducted this research at the free clinics the university sets up for specific minority communities in Sacramento. These clinics are often used to conduct research on said communities in the Sacramento area, because they allow insight into what kinds of programs might be beneficial to the local populations (or how well current outreach programs are working). Since blacks and latinos make up 40% of Sacramento’s population, this research is rather important to the area.

     

    I doubt that the researchers intended their study to be applied beyond the types of communities they sampled. The reason I give them the benefit of the doubt is this quote from the Aggie article…

     

    “The results are expected to be applicable to reproductive health clinics in demographically poor areas.”

     

    So, it doesn’t seem to me that this research was intended for broader use.

     

    Journalists muck up science in their articles all the damn time. All you have to do is pull out Reader’s Digest or your local paper, look for any science article, and then compare it to the actual study it claims to summarize. Data gets taken out of context. The details of sample size and composition are not to be found. It’s a pretty big problem, but it is far from conspiracy. It’s simply what happens when non-scientists try to apply research too broadly for the sake of writing a story more people will read. It happens in every branch of research, and it’s something the scientific community has been irritated by seemingly since the invention of the printing press.

     

    While there is definitely still room fore improvement, I’m amused The Aggie (our student newspaper) did a better job with their article than Marie Stopes. Must be because we’re such a science-focused school and we don’t like making our researchers look bad.

     

    Also, titles to articles leave out “filler” words in order to keep them short and eye-catching. Most people understand this and know that the article does not mean “all men” sabotage birth control. I do wish that journalists would be more transparent with the research they write about, though.

     

    As for the issue of whether or not abusive men sabotage birth control…The study proves it happens in SacTown, and the broader literary discussion of the phenomenon strongly suggests that it is not isolated to minority communities in Sacramento. In fact, broader knowledge of the phenomenon is what inspired this study to be done in the first place. “We know this happens, let’s see how big of a problem it is here in our community.”

     

    And now, I will stop feeding the trolls.

  • crowepps

    Originally from the south…and again anecdotally…sole maternal custody was the norm, way back when.

    Way back when isn’t far enough – historically, children were the property of and stayed in the custody of their fathers.  This only began to change after the various Married Women’s Property Acts in the mid-1850’s and later made it possible for women to control their own money so that they were able to support their children.

    Editing…crowepps. am I right to assume that parents are still free to work out their own arrangements in Alaska?

    Parents are free to work out their own INFORMAL arrangements but the arrangement in a decree of divorce or decree of dissolution must be approved by the Court.  Just as a for instance, couples can NOT forego child support, which is computed on a statutory formula created by the Legislature, first because there is a presumption that the person willing to waive child support is probably being pressured to do so, and secondly because the support is owed to the CHILD and a parent cannot waive the child’s right to it and neither party can agree to remove themselves from the child’s life without the Judge giving them the opportunity to think that over and investigating to be sure they aren’t being pressured or threatened in some way.

  • ahunt

    I like it…the law presumes that parents are mature and reasonable people who love their children and WANT to act in their best interests.

     

    Any way to know when the policy was enacted?

     

    editing…the southern reference was for my generation…(51) and again based on anecdote.

  • crowepps

    I see both sides, usually mature and reasonable among my friends and the other side most of the time at work – I’m a court reporter.   I think immature and unreasonable are like obscenity — you may not be able to define it but you sure know it when you see it, and it seems to show up pretty often in contested custody cases.

     

    Someone who is mature and reasonable doesn’t cut off his deaf son’s TTY because he’s spending money on his new girlfriend, or wait until Dad shows and greets the children and then tells him she is canceling visitation because he won’t chip in for her car insurance, or insist on his ‘right’ to visitation on Mom’s birthday and then dump the kids at his friends’ house for two days while he’s at the bar watching football with friends, or — I could go on and on. 

     

    There’s a whole bunch of stuff in this thread about the ‘right’ of the father and how ‘women and feminists’ are being mean to him but very little about the children themselves, and to me that seems to be kind of the hallmark of most self-involved, dysfunctional, immature parents.  It’s all about ME.

  • mrcranky
  • ahunt

    and the other side most of the time at work

     

    Yah, I figged your work experience would bring expanded perspective to the discussion. But luckily, the kind of folks you deal with are not the representatives of people.

     

    I get that my own experience is self-selecting…I just have a hard time believing that me and mine are all that different from you and yours, or any and anyones’.

     

    I believe parents love their children and do not use them as pawns.

     

    Just call me Pollyanna.

     

     

     

     


  • ahunt

    Washington? Military brat here, and I’m surprised…lived in both Washington and Oregon…and found the environment…progressive.

  • crowepps

    I think in the bad old days, custody was determined as much by who was at ‘fault’ in the divorce as it was on the best interests of the child. With the introduction of ‘no-fault’ divorce, custody stepped out of the realm of using time with the children as reward or punishment and into a determination based on ‘best interests of the child’. As with many progressive ideas, the first joint custody law was passed in California in the 1980s. It has spread widely since then because it is just such a sensible idea.

  • crowepps

    I just have a hard time believing that me and mine are all that different from you and yours, or any and anyones’.

    Consider how difficult, looking around at you and yours, it is be believe that a man would deliberately slam a siding glass door on his wife’s arm and break it. These people are outliers — they are at the extreme fringes in ability to maintain relationships. The people they date or are married to have a hard time believing they exist as well.

  • irvingsalos

    Cowepps: You seem to think you have a license to impute arguments to your adversary that weren’t even suggested, much less advanced. All you’ve done, poopsie, is show you have an attention deficit disorder. Focus, dear heart, focus … keep trying, I believe you can do it.

  • irvingsalos

    “There’s a whole bunch of stuff in this thread about the ‘right’ of the father and how ‘women and feminists’ are being mean to him but very little about the children themselves, and to me that seems to be kind of the hallmark of most self-involved, dysfunctional, immature parents.  It’s all about ME.”

     

    This is simply fabricated nonsense!

  • ahunt

    poopsie

     

     

    You are offensive, Salos.

  • irvingsalos

    Why don’t you let the person to whom it was addressed determine that. Since when do you speak for her?

  • irvingsalos

    Oh, my heavens, why am I not surprised? The old, “you-show-me-one-of-ours-and-I’ll-show-you-76-of-yours” fallacy. Listen, my little former antimisandry.com mole, MINE was a breaking news article, hot off the presses; YOURS is a whoop-d-doo hack, quack blog, with old outdated information that had to edited to be included. Unlike you, I don’t have to spin my article. It speaks volumes by itself. YOU on the other hand are spinning yours like a whirling dervish! And the self-righteous sanctimony just reeks! 

     

    My doctorate really torques you, doesn’t it? And, YES, it is wonderful! Eat your heart out! As I’ve stated before, you show me yours, and I’ll show you mine. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Mr. Sacks has been notified about your pretentious drivel.

     

    All this coming from “Mr. Ph.D.?” You’ve insulted almost every woman on this blog. I’m glad that MzpetuniaPigg, croweepps, Trish Wilson, randijames, michashiva, and others have put forth intelligent information, logical arguments, and rebuttals. As a feminist commenting on this blog, I think collectively I’ve/we’ve learned from them. While you constantly insult us/them/me, maybe you should read what they are saying. You seam to keep going around in circles going nowhere. I’m not trying to insult or belittle you but we are all adults here.

  • rebellious-grrl

    opps, double posting.

  • irvingsalos
  • dree

    Very helpful to know this.  I have now read the entire study and must tell you that they never mention the socio-economic level of the sample.  This is very critical information based on your feedback and to not include it in the study is very, very, suspect.  As you said the Aggie article is the only one out of about 10 others that I read that mentioned that the sample was from “impoverished” neighborhoods.  What is even more shocking is that when these researchers talked to the media they obviously didn’t tip them off that the sample was drawn from poor neighborhoods.  The Aggie writer knew the area and knew the clinics used for study as you did, NewsWeek, Science News, LA Times,  E Science News and a number of other national publications treated this study as if it was generalizable to the public at large.  I see that as bordering on scientific fraud.  The only thing that  saves these researchers is that they included a one line disclaimor near the end of the study that said the results shouldn’t be applied to the general population but they seemed to forget to mention that when they talked to national media.  They also did not say specifically why it should not generalize.

     

    This is the same thing we have been seeing from feminist driven propagando for many years.  It is an affront to science. I think these researchers need to be called on the carpet.

  • mrcranky

    about joint custody.

     

    It is impossible to manage in high conflict cases, difficult in low conflict cases, and there is a signifcant body of research that indicates it is not ideal for children, at least until they reach their teenage years.  Some cites:

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/those-jointcustody-studies.html

     

    From a developmental standpoint, it’s hard to see the advantage, certainly (hard for me, anyway).  There are attachment issues with young children, stability issues with older children (from inconsistent rules and lack of safety provided by a consistent base).  

     

  • wendy-banks

    We all have the right to take offense at women-hateing d**ks like you poopsie. As a victim of a battering male dear– I resent that. Sure,  I am not the sweetest woman in the world, but I am by far not the nastyest either.  However, I refuse to be used as a punching bag by some ass-wipe creep whom got his jollies from ‘gaslighting’ me and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to my head.  

  • ack

    It’s taken decades for the domestic violence movement to advance to this state. In the beginning, women and their children escaped from their houses in the middle of the night in an empty car left running down the street, and hid in a basement until they could be moved again. Local activists faced shotguns and sheriffs as they helped women escape. Victims and their children stayed in homes where the empowerment method was implemented because no one had resources for anything other than a hopefully safe place to sleep.

     

    The past three decades have raised awareness and moved DV from a “family matter” to a public health issue. Women successfully fought for legitimacy, for attention, and for funding to fight domestic violence, which previously resulted in far more fatalities than it does today.

     

    I understand that some men honestly believe that men are equally victimized. I understand that they believe that men’s victimization has the same context, intent, and effect as women’s victimization. I disagree, but I know some people believe this. (I’m not saying all of the MRAs believe this; some are simply angry that some of their power is being challenged.)

     

    What I do NOT understand is why those honest believers seek to defund domestic violence shelters that serve women. We know that women and their children are routinely denied shelter because of a lack of resources. (www.nnedv.org/census) Instead of saying that men deserve half of the current funding stream, why aren’t they fighting for their own? If their argument is that DV is a much bigger problem than we realize, and that all forms of DV are serious, then their request should be additional streams, not diversion of the current ones. Their request should be independently funded, male-specific programs, not integration into programs created for women. If their data is accurate and irrefutable, then programs for men will be created and utilized. If they have to happen organically, initially unfunded and community based, like programs for women did, then that’s how it has to happen. 

     

    I do not understand why they fight the fact of violence against women. If they stopped fighting the fact of female victimization, they’d have a much stronger platform and wouldn’t come across as simply misogynistic. Because right now, they do. If they acknowledged the severity and prevalence of violence against women, and how sexual violence, injury, and murder occur at different intensities for female victims, we could start a conversation. But they choose to attack victims and the people who attempt to increase safety.

  • bj-survivor

    you post links to very suspect sources. Since you have a PhD, I certainly need not explain to you just why those sources might be considered suspect. Or do I? Since you refuse to proffer your CV, it could very well be the case that you received your PhD from the same diploma mill from which David Reardon of the Elliott Institute obtained his.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    It is really sad that you must degrade in the fashion you do in order to pump yourself up, make yourself appear larger than life.  Truly sad indeed.  And then you include articles from Angry harry, a man who is borderline at best?  His rants about Harriet Harman (sp?) are scary.  Tell me is Angry harry one of those who threatened to kidnap Tony Blair’s son?

  • mzpetuniapigg

    His denigration of the posters on here is suspect as well.  He offers up terms of endearment in a situation where they are looked at as condescending and belittling.  He does this in order to appear larger than life – omnipotent.  Or maybe that is impotent?  Seems I ran across another blog which addresses those issues in a custody venue as well.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Actually I care very little for or against your doctorate.  Oh and for the record, the dastardly dads blog is not m,y personal blog, I simply follow it in order to keep up with the true news, not the cherry picked stats provided by am or syg.  So please share Irving dahlin, what is your user name on syg/am?  Or should I put my investigative tools to work and expose you as well?  Won’t be hard because sadly men like you who frequent those boards are not very intelligent.

    • captcourageous

      “So please share Irving dahlin, what is your user name on syg/am?  Or should I put my investigative tools to work and expose you as well?”

       

      Sounds like a blackmail threat doesn’t it?

       

      Don’t worry, if her investigative tools are anything like her blog, they will embarrass her badly.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    The problem though in dv cases (at least a majority of them) is the victim does not present well due to just leaving a highly traumatic setting.  The batterer can and does often present as charming and likeable while the victim is fearful and cries and angry (and very rightfully so).

     

    trained experts are great if the victim can get them as well, but what do you do when the victim does not have access to the same experts hired by the abuser?  When the abuser has experts and victim does not?

  • irvingsalos

    ?????!!!! We all have the right to take offense at women-hateing d**ks like you poopsie. As a victim of a battering male dear– I resent that. Sure,  I am not the sweetest woman in the world, but I am by far not the nastyest either.  However, I refuse to be used as a punching bag by some ass-wipe creep whom got his jollies from ‘gaslighting’ me and holding a 12 gauge shotgun to my head.”

     

    !) Disagreeing with you or anybody else on this board doesn’t qualify me for the title of woman-hating. I am trading words with individuals, none of whom are the bastion and respository of womankind!

     

    2) You have displaced your hostility from a previous trauma onto this comments section, so spare me the self-righteous sanctimony. I don’t own a shotgun, and I can only guess at what ‘gaslighting’ means.

     

    3) You’ve automatically lapsed into a memory of the trauma through which you were put. That suggests you suffer from PTSD. Small wonder, in view of what you wrote happened to you.

     

  • irvingsalos

    Pigoletto: I wish I had a dollar bill for every time a feminist has used that grandiose line as a rebuttal. Better yet, I wish I had a nickel for every time a feminist tries to win an argument by deflating her opponent, especially with an egocentric, self-absorbed, quack diagnosis.

     

    Borderline at best? And the specific clinical diagnostic criteria he meets are … ??? And the clinical evidence you have to support his meeting said criteria … ???

     

    What’s sad MPP is your continued use of smug. smarmy, gossip-column snipes as a tool for discussion.

     

  • irvingsalos

    Well. now that we have established the fact that you can visually inspect your colon, for the presence of cancerous polyps … consider your bluff called.

  • irvingsalos

    ack:  Believe it or not, people who will manipulate and abuse the so-called system come in both female and male forms.

     

    MRA’s read articles on a daily basis about women who corrupt the domestic violence reforms. By corrupt, I mean, they will lie about being attacked because it affords them a trump card in their dispute with the male. It is an abuse of power to falsely claim victimization as a means of spite, revenge, etc. Some MRA’s have experienced this first-hand from women … but not all of them, carte blanche. It is illegal behavior on the part of the women who pull this crap, not something their male targets “richly deserve”.

     

    If I were to lie to the authorities that you committed a capital offense, you’d expect to be presumed innocent and for me to have to back up what I said, beyond a reasonable doubt. You would not be the least bit concerned about whether or not I might be thought a liar. If you had to spend a small fortune to clear your name, or spend time in jail while your family raises your bail, you wouldn’t be cavalier about letting me get away scot-free with accusing you.

  • irvingsalos

    BJ:  But it isn’t the case! Calling Tara J. Parmantier, Ph.D. a suspect source is an example of the faulty reasoning seen all over this comments section. Trying to justify equating me with David Reardon is simply another example of the insinuation, innuendo and implication rampant among the posters here. I posted the sources I did because my experience with some of these posters clearly indicates I must keep my citations at the same level of reading comprehension as a newspaper or magazine.

  • irvingsalos

    Which proves precisely what?

  • cat

    Here’s the CDC’s feature fact sheet numbers on abuse victim rates, 22.1 % of women and 7.4 % of men.  The CDC also lists these as risk factors which show an increased likelihood of perpetrating abuse “

  • Belief in strict gender roles (e.g., male dominance and aggression in relationships)
  • Desire for power and control in relationships
  • Perpetrating psychological aggression” 
  •  

    And this:

     

    “Dominance and control of the relationship by one partner over the other”

     

    And this:

     

    “Weak community sanctions against IPV (e.g., unwillingness of neighbors to intervene in situations where they witness violence)”

     

    And, under societal contributing factors:

     

    “Traditional gender norms (e.g., women should stay at home, not enter workforce, and be submissive; men support the family and make the decisions) “

     

    http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/intimatepartnerviolence/riskprotectivefactors.html

     

      Desire to control plays a clear role in many abuse cases and belief in the inferiority/natural submissive role of women is a part of this, as reported by the CDC.  Btw, the CDC has extremely thourough resource documentation, so you can track back to the research methods if you like. 

     

     

    (Who wants to bet that now Irving is going to claim the CDC is a feminist conspiracy and refer to me as a little cookie princesss?)

  • lbsimon

    Uhhh! The original point I see, from the original article, is the author’s failure to give any proof of her claims, other than one fellow from Harvard, one link and a few anecdotes. Your fact sheet comes several days after the article was published and updated. This guy is right, you people use indirect accusations to lampoon anyone that doesn’t agree with you totally. I would only add you also like to slip in the last word no matter what the cost.

     

    I think you would like to be called a little cookie princess and you gave Irv a little hint.

     

     

     

  • lbsimon

    Whoa there! From what I’ve read, this guy is holding his own against a mob of mean and pissed off women that think it’s OK to surf stoned, spit vulgarities, rely on personal attacks as replies and make-up wild slander whenever they choose to.

     

    I haven’t read one post where he referred to any of you by one of your body parts or your sexuality or any other kind of a low blow.

     

    He’s not larger than life or trying to make himself such. You are a bunch of misandrist vipers! Dig it!

  • dree

    By your figures males comprise about 25% of the victims.  In my mind that is more than enough to be concerned about providing services especially when you consider that nearly 100% of dv services are specifically for women. 

     

    Are you willing to throw the 25% under the bus and keep doing things the way they have been and ignoring male victims?  Or are you willing to take a humanistic perspective and show concern for all victims of abuse?  This is the heart of the problem that most of us had with the original article: it one-sideedly blamed men.  Blacks in the US are about 13% of the population.  Should we just ignore their needs simply because they are only 13%?  Of course not.  Only bigots would suggest as much.  You do the math.

  • monomomo

    I came to this site through an outside link and have spent an instructive 45 minutes reading the comments here. And I’m frankly astonished at how well the MRA posters here manage to discredit themselves without much outside help. I mean, really? Who in their right mind stoops to the level of calling their opponents in debate successively “my little princess” “dear” “darling” “cookie” while attempting to uphold a veneer of credibility? Taking opposing posters to task for minor spelling glitches while wildly applauding supporters whose typing resembles that of monkeys at typewriters? Way to undermine yourself and expose you for the hypocrite you are. Simply the mode of discussion predisposes me to feel no sympathy whatsoever for their case. Food for thought?

  • mzpetuniapigg

    This behavior is typical for an MRA.  You see women are not as important as a amn you see.  Children either unless they do something to make the man look better.  Now these men can come on here and say I hate men, say I am ugly as they often do on my blog, and spout threats against me as they have done and still continue to do on my blog, but that will not sway me.  They are condescending yet when a woman throws that back at them she is a misandrist?  Go figure….

     

    I have had men on here say I am slandering men and women, I do nothing of the sort.  I simply take what they put on the internet and put it out there.  Anyone care for the link to SYG to see what is being written? 

     

    As far as the Captain Courageous thing – he spews venom towards women on SYG on a nearly daily basis.  I could go copy the posts and post links but why bother?  Everyone knows what these guys are about.

  • rebellious-grrl

    According to my perspective, No, Irving is NOT holding his own. Have you read his posts? It seams clear that he is trying to appear larger than life. It’s pathetic. And you calling us all a bunch of misandrist vipers, is pathetic too.

  • rebellious-grrl

    “I think you would like to be called a little cookie princess and you gave Irv a little hint.

    What does that mean?

  • mzpetuniapigg

    Captain Courageous typically spews hatred towards women, gays, and many others.  Here is one of his hate filled posts from SYG:

     

    These are the hetero female guards. There are also the “Too-butch-to-boogey” bull-dagger guards … the ones who come to work looking like a male guard that lost a bet.
    Hate speech towards lesbians anyone?
    Or how about this where another commenter on here posted on SYG that NOW members should be forcibly drugged (read on):
    is there not enough zoloft to give the members of NOW?-so maybe they could come back to reality,or at least have a chance at living a somewhat normal life?

    LOL! Good one outdoors! (this is Captain Coourageous – drugging comment made by outdoors).

    There are more just go to SYG and look.  They make a good presence when they leave the comforts of their little man caves where no women (or only a few select women are allowed).  But in their little he-man worlds they hate anyone who is not them (male).  Kind of reminds me of a period of time about 70 years ago in which a man did not like a group of people because that group did not look, act or think like he did.  Do I need to go into what happened to that group of people?  MRA’s are no better than Hitler.
  • mzpetuniapigg

    Who is stoned?  One poster made a joke referring to the stupidity and belittling comments by Irving about wishing she was stoned or some such thing.  Who is relying on personal attacks?  Certainly not I as I only post what is readily available on the Internet for anyone to see.  Who is spitting vulgarities?  That looks to me to be Irving – little princess, cookie, darling, take the stick out of your butt.  Who is resorting to slander?  Again not I as everything I post is on the Internet posted by you and your associates.  I was accused of slander with the biscuit queen/JenK comments but as anyone can see I have the evidence on my website http://glennscult.blogspot.com under the posts entitled Role Play or Real Play.

     

    My advice?  Don’t type something on the Internet you don’t want found.  And yes this goes for biscuit Queen aka JenK and all of you.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    And here again another poster from SYG is resorting to denigration in order to make his point by calling us misandrist vipers.  One must wondwer if these men and women have children, what those poor children’s lives must be like having to deal with this level of anger.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10633872&pnum=0

     

    Christchurch musician Jimmy Mason, convicted of assaulting his 4-year-old son, says being labelled a child-beater is hard to deal with and has at least once led to him punching someone who provoked him.

     

    Ummmm he hit someone who said something about his beating of his child?  Again the level of anger here folks.  Do we want men like this man and many others who hurt women and children (lets not forget the recent case of Wyatt and his motehr Katie Tagle) caring for our future generations?  How can this be better for children?  Mason says he only thunked his child on the head but the child was only 4!!!!!  Do you thunk a 4 yr old child – as an adult?

  • ack

    I wasn’t talking about the legal system. I lost interest in that conversation because it’s one I’ve had before and we’re clearly not making headway in this thread.

    I realize the article wasn’t addressing these concerns, but since you’re here, I figured I’d ask this. I’m wondering why MRAs deny the fact of female victimization, and why they seek to defund long-established shelters that provide services to women. No one in the shelter system is stopping you from seeking new funding sources; they just don’t want their funds diverted because they’re still forced to turn women and children away with the budgets they have. But MND rejoiced when CA briefly defunded their entire system, leaving thousands of women and children at risk for homelessness or worse.

    If the argument is “Men are victims, too,” then the follow up shouldn’t be “so women should receive less help.”

  • dree

     

    It’s sad to see this thread spin into arguments over who is the bigger jerk.  There have been a number of posts that have offered a great deal of information from both sides and yet the discussion here fails to address the issue at hand and instead focuses on personal attacks.  Lose/Lose

  • crowepps

    Apparently the “little hint”, whatever it was since it certainly doesn’t appear anywhere that the rest of us can see, makes YOU responsible for Irv’s statement.

     

    Another indicator that these guys really, truly believe that the person they are abusing elicits and is therefore responsible for any abusive behavior on their part, and that they are helpless to resist reacting abusively because women make them be abusive.

     

    A truly terrible sense of powerlessness is inherent in this world view that their behavior is entirely reflexive, that their actions and words are not something which they are capable of controlling but instead entirely other-directed and that they are at the mercy of “the women” who apparently are capable of controlling their own behavior and yet choose to act in ways to which the men are helplessly compelled to respond with abusiveness.

     

    Just think how much that must hurt:  Irv came here to set us all straight and instead of granting him the respect he feels he deserves as a victim of the feminist conspiracy, we actually dared to disagree with him and point out what we felt were fallacies in his statements and so we have driven him to acting like a jerk, and now are rubbing salt in the wounds by criticizing him for name calling and nastiness, when all of that is actually  our own fault for not agreeing with him at once.

     

    Once you can wrap your mind around the fact that they actually believe that, you will have a much better picture of the strange, cognitively dissonent mental functioning underlying domestic violence.

  • jacqueline

    Perhaps this will refresh your memory MzPetuniaPigg.

    They’re kind of surreal, but I’m also stoned. ;)

    Yeah, it seems to me that these guys are just here to tell us that the feminist movement in general is part of a conspiracy theory to oppress men, esspecially fathers. The article mentioned men’s rights groups, so they just came over to talk about themselves instead of the point of the article.

    Submitted by MechaShiva on March 18, 2010 – 11:52pm.”
    This website is named Reality Check for a reason, one you are obviously ignoring completely.
  • jacqueline

    One must wonder whether or not you have children, or whether you are a mere child who is totally unsupervised and out of control. It sure looks that way.

  • crowepps

    Since male victims most likely have jobs, and likely have access to their own paychecks/bank account to pay for housing if they leave, they wouldn’t necessarily need shelters.

     

    Since male victims most likely have vehicles, and can walk out of the house and get in them and leave, they don’t necessarily need transportation.

     

    If they have jobs and access to money and transportation they most likely can hire a lawyer or get themselves down to the local mental health center and get counseling on how to get out of abusive relationships.

     

    So exactly what services would a domestic violence organization focused on serving male victims need to provide?

  • jacqueline

    You are writing like a rabid dog crowepps. This guy was certainly being facetious, but that’s all. Try to put yourself in this Irving ‘s place for one moment.

    You’re pointing out errors from an academic point of view, and you’re immediately called “creepy”, an “asshole”, you’re feeble, you’re probably faking your degree, etc. Then you get accused of thinking you are “larger than life” and you are denigrating everybody?

     

    Come on folks, we have to take responsibilty for what we write, not act as if it never happened.

     

    I’m ashamed of some of the baby antics I’m reading from my sisters here!

  • paul-bradford

    I don’t know if there’s room on this comments section to go ‘on-topic’ but I’d like to respond to Joan Dawson’s idea of the link between reproductive rights and parental rights.

     

    From the article:

     

    Many of the fathers rights guys think their reproductive rights extend to their parental rights. This should also be the case for women — and, indeed, many mothers’ rights groups have sprung up in defense of these rights. So the question remains: When do our reproductive rights end?

     

    The line of thinking itself highlights why I see the need to promote a ‘Pro-Life’ vision of reproduction, and why I contend that there are elements in the ‘Pro-Choice’ vision that are destructive even when abortion is not a consideration.

     

    A fetus (or an embryo, or a blastocyst, or a zygote) is not an expression of a woman’s reproductive rights, nor is it the expression of a man’s reproductive rights.  S/he is a person whose interests ought to be regarded even when they conflict with the interests of her/his parents.  When we expand our definition of ‘choice’ to include the choice whether or not to regard an individual as a person we dehumanize that person and this dehumanization can affect her/his treatment whether or not s/he has already been born.

     

    Do I have a right to decide whether or not I’m going to be a parent?  Surely this ‘right’ pales in comparison to my child’s right to live!  There’s no need for me to elucidate how this understanding affects ones attitude toward abortion, but let’s set the abortion issue aside.  How does my concept of reproductive/parental rights influence how I treat my child after s/he is born?  If my child’s right to live is predicated upon her/his mother’s choice to exercise her reproductive rights — or upon MY choice to exercise my reproductive rights — how will that child be treated in the event that her/his parents determine that it suits them to ‘have’ a child?

     

    To view human beings in terms of how well they advance or frustrate the desires of their parents is to treat them like things.  Treating a person as a thing is the soul of abuse.  It’s the soul of violence.  To treat a child (or anyone) as a person is to be able to set aside considerations about how that child promotes my rights.  My rights aren’t important.  My partner’s rights aren’t important.  What is important are the rights of the child.  To treat a child as a person is to understand that her/his life is much, much more important than my rights.

     

    As I read this article and the recent comments I was unmoved by the ‘conflict’ between men and women.  My concern was to correct a misunderstanding about the balance between reproductive/parental rights and the right any of us has to be treated like a person.

     

  • jacqueline

    These males have up to now failed to clarify one thing. The woman equivalent of a bully or batterer is a reality. There are less of them than men, definitely. But they also commit their version of amateur terrorism on their husbands and boyfriends. Us gals can punch out guys, especially if they are smaller than us or trained not to hit a woman. I’ve read nothing they’ve written here that says they want to deny women services or take away services that currently exist. Nor do I see anything that shows they refuse see our side of the issue at all. Like it says in the title – “Reality Check”.

  • ack

    The DV system that serves women is overloaded and underfunded. Furthermore, there’s a strong likelihood that men would need different types of services than those established for women. They do not have the resources to do it. Shelters are struggling to keep their doors open and their utilities on, and the MRAs want to displace female victims to make space for men. To me, that’s an inappropriate answer at best.

    No one in the movement is stopping you from creating programs for men; no one in the movement is stopping you from finding independent funding streams. Can’t get government grants? Neither could women, for a very long time. Local businesses don’t want to fund your shelter? They didn’t want to fund shelters for women, either. We made do with what we had, and when we showed that people used the services, when well-crafted research supported our claims, when terrorized women came forward to tell their stories, and sadly when thousands over the decades wound up dead, we finally got funded. We’re overworked, we’re underpaid, and we cannot create the infrastructure for you.

    I am really, really sick of hearing that DV shelters are somehow doing a disservice by only serving women when they are STILL TURNING WOMEN AND CHILDREN AWAY. You act like there’s all this extra time, bed space and money just sitting there, not being used, while advocates ignore male victims who are waiting at the door.

  • jacqueline

    God! You act literally crazed! Your post makes women look as though they cannot use logic at all! I read the material you’re referring to. This man did not try to drug members of NOW, nor did he advocate it. For all you know, the Zoloft was for the males who have to listen to the rationale for attacking the Tebadow ad on Super Bowl Sunday.

     

    I happen to know a lot of dykes. They have no problem whatsoever with words like butch or bulldagger. They use it themselves regularly! How did you get your panties in a twist over this? When and how did you become the spokeperson for them? They’d tell you themselves that the article you are distorting is absolutely spot on. Captain Whatever was correct, not all female guards are running around having sex with male inmates and doing “special favors” for them, especially the dykes!

     

    You are getting awfully embarrassing to the rest of us Mz Petunia Pigg. I think you are a male troll on this board.

  • jacqueline

    These men are not about stripping us of our rights and blasting us back to the 1950’s. As soon as they write an observation any of you find to be upsetting, you can’t help but throw a few digs at them, some subtle and some really out there. You act like you just don’t want to discuss anything with them, you just want to chase them off. If they try and throw half a dig back at you, you act as though they slapped your grandmother in the face. Time for a Reality Check here folks!

  • crowepps

    Try to put yourself in this Irving’s place for one moment.

    It was certainly not my impression that Irving was “pointing out errors from an academic point of view” but rather demanding to know why the article didn’t include its own rebuttal and an acknowledgement that most domestic violence is either perpetrated or elicited by women, and that the courts didn’t need to take steps to protect children from violent men because the accusations of violence were all lies by women trying to manipulate the system. This skipped lightly over the dead children, proof positive those particular fathers were dangerously violent, because he has a list of other news stories proving that some mothers were also dangerously violent.

    “creepy”, an “asshole”, you’re feeble, you’re probably faking your degree, etc. Then you get accused of thinking you are “larger than life” and you are denigrating everybody?

    I don’t think actually that it was me who made any of these statements. I will agree with you that the exchanges of insults don’t advance the discussion one inch.

  • jacqueline

    Your writing makes you sound as though your I.Q. leaves something to be desired. Again I write my strong belief that you are a male trolling this board for fun and games. Stop this at once!

  • jacqueline

    Crowepps, forgive me if I gave the impression that you engaged in insults. I assure you that was not my intent.

     

    From what I can tell, Irvy is what we call “an Ivory Tower” intellectual. If he would use simpler language, he would not appear to be such a pompous windbag. He is not, however, bullying people here or attempting to pump his ego up at our expense.

     

    Irving, if your reading this, please tone the ten dollar words down a notch, OK? It’s really not fair to the rest of us.

  • jacqueline

    Your last point is excellent. The rush to rectify past abuses against us has left the public stereotyping men in a way that leaves them where we were forty-five years ago. They are being marginalized and ignored to some extent and taunted as well, and almost nobody believes it is even possible for them to be needy. Some women act like “tough you-know-what” for them, the unspoken remark being somehow they deserve it.

     

    We’ve got to be bigger than that, especially to be superior. Equality means just that. We have to be honest and diligent about correcting injustices and not just those aimed at us. Otherwise we look like we’re just reversing the old roles.

  • jacqueline

    You’re a male pretending to be a woman and you are just here to rabble rouse. Go away!

     

    [What woman in her right mind would call herself a Pig? Jeez!]

  • dree

    Speaking for myself…I have no interest in defunding women who are victims of domestic violence.  I do have an interest in seeing fairness to both men and women who are victims and at this point it is the men who have been “defunded” since 1994 and before.  I can understand their upset just as I can understand the upset of those in California.  

     

    Again, speaking for myself, I don’t see the problems we face as being the fault of feminists or women.  The problems we face are directly related to decades of male legislators who are more than willing to come to the aid of “damsels in distress” and legislating bill after bill that helps women and ignores men.  Feminists are simply asking for what they want.  It is the legislators who are throwing men under the bus and it is the legislators who need to be held responsible and urged to move to a more humanitarian stance.

  • ahunt

    Are you willing to throw the 25% under the bus

     

    No.  What services do battered men need?

  • nomorebrokenwings

    Jacqueline did you also notice at the very end of the title MechShiva posted was a wink face – very common in internet speak?  It looks like this:

     

    ;)

     

    When she/he posted that it meant she/he was JOKING (ie: not stoned) as she posted in her title. 

     

    I have been watching all the back and forth and Irving disturbs even me.  So does the captain Courageous person.  I think I will go to SYG as Petunia suggested and see what is up over there.

     

    You have also completely ignored my post.  On my newly created blog I will expose the state in the USA where I live which has promoted legal kidnapping of one of my children, the murders of three other children (one by a state foster care worker) and has condoned the sexual exploitation of a toddler aged girl (yet another child of mine) not once but twice.

     

    Or do you just choose to ignore me because I am not conforming to what the MRA’s want to present?  My story is very real, in fact it is similar to many other female victims of abuse out there.  I have been told by a state caseworker that if I ever choose to go public with my story and the story of my children, I will blow the doors off of CPS here.  They think other states have had issues?  My story could change all of that and people won’t be able to say anything negative at all.  That is the reason for my blog.

     

    And as an aside here…  Why is it when posters who confess to being female get angry about some of the self confessed MRA/male posters and what they are writing, these females are bad.  Yet you completely gloss over what these men are saying?

  • nomorebrokenwings

    I as a mother would never abort a child I am carrying.  I believe that with every fiber in my body, FOR MYSELF.

     

    I do not, nor should I, ever have the right to tell another woman that she cannot take this route should she choose to do so.  Men want to have choices in whether they have a child or not?  Then they need to make better choices regarding with whom they have sexual relations.  They need to use the protection available to them to prevent pregnancy if they do not wish to have a child with a woman.  They need to know a woman better because of he wants a child, he tells a woman this, she gets pregnant and then aborts that child, then he obviously did not know that woman as well as he thought he did.

     

    The person whose body and body chemistry will be changed through pregnancy is the woman’s, not the man’s.  Allowing a man to control whether a woman can have an abortion is controlling a woman and her body.  That body is not his body, it is HERS!

     

    Throwing abortion, pro-choice/anti-abortion beliefs into this mix is just asking for trouble.

  • julie-watkins

    is that teenage sons of battered women looking for shelter aren’t allowed in many/most shelters. I don’t know if that’s true, or it’s that some older teens (mostly boys) that act badly are refused shelter.

  • mechashiva

    Actually, I was stoned at the time, and I have no idea why people are so bent out of shape about it. Maybe they’ve all seen Tell Your Children too many times.

     

    This entire comment area is a fucking troll trainwreck, and that’s why I don’t take it seriously. I tried making one serious comment about science journalism earlier (and how inaccurate articles are a problem in every branch of science writing), and I STILL got the ridiculous bullshit about feminist anti-male conspiracies. So why even bother talking with these people? They are deluded, even the “good ones.”

  • dree

    This is an important question.  The short answer would be that they need similar services to women.  Often battered men have children and are in need of shelter and safety for themselves and their kids not unlike the female victims.  But maybe more importantly they need for services to not be blaming men for the problem.  At this point the duluth model focuses on female victims and male perps.  It offers very little attention to male victims and instead routinely blames violence as basically being “masculine.”  This is not a friendlly place for males who are battered.  Just as the police and other agencies also tend to blame men for their being battered.  Many stories about police ridiculing men who are open about their vicimization.  So the first element is to change some attitudes that would allow men who are victims of domestic violence to be treated in a loving manner rather than the present default which blames them. 

     

    There are several DV shelters which are co-ed and functioning very well.  These could be used as a model for other shelters to make a transition to helping all victims rather than just women. This sort of shift would insure that services for women are not stopped and rather the shelters are opened to all who are in need.  The Valley Oasis shelter in California is a great example of how a co-ed shelter can function very well.

     

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    crowepps noted upthread that men in general tend to have greater resources than do women, and this naturally raises the question: similar how?

     

    IOWs, are male victims generally as unlikely as females to have the financial resources to  get out?

     

     

  • dree

    I don’t think you will find much evidence for this claim.  Many dv victims are very low income and men or women simply don’t have the resources needed.  Looks to me like a stereotype is being used as a reason.  Not a great way to do it. 

  • crowepps

    I don’t think men are likely to have greater resources, but I do think they are more likely to have greater CONTROL of the resources that do exist.  IF the man is working and getting a paycheck, he and his paycheck can just go live somewhere else.  I can see where a man who wants to stay in his home to protect his children from a mother who is abusive towards both him and them has a real problem planning an exit with the children, and might not be listened to respectfully by the police.

     

    The common pattern is that women who are abused are prevented from working, prevented from having access to money, prevented from having friends and contact with their families, and held hostage by threats to the children.  It would be interesting to see if there is any research out there that shows a simliar pattern involving male victims or if victimization of males has a different pattern and therefore needs a different response.

  • rebellious-grrl

    “Come on folks, we have to take responsibilty for what we write, not act as if it never happened.”

    Irv is not talking from an academic point of view. I don’t think his  behavior appropriate for someone who has a Ph.D. attached to their name.

    Let’s revisit one of those conversations;

    It started with me commenting,
    Right on squirrely girl! Referring to a complete stranger online as “my little princess” is not only patronizing and possessive but generally just… creepy. Completely agree, that is creepy. Great post! Thanks! Submitted by rebellious grrl on March 19, 2010 – 10:56pm.

    Irv’s response,
    Rebellious grrl … first of all, learn to spell. Secondly, grow up. It’s nowhere near as creepy as imperiously ordering a complete stranger online to get back into a cave. You can dish it out, but you can’t take it. The pity is you honestly think you don’t deserve it! Submitted by Irving M. Salos Ph.D. on March 19, 2010 – 11:15pm.

    My response,

    “Irving M. Salos, Ph.D.” Was I talking to you? NO. Can’t you do better than “grow up?” Are you really showing your maturity? Submitted by rebellious grrl on March 20, 2010 – 12:02am.

    Then it digressed to
    You, you, you! It’s all about you isn’t it? ALLLL about you! Nobody else! Just you! Only you! Submitted by Irving M. Salos Ph.D. on March 20, 2010 – 11:41pm.

  • curtisp

     

    The term “Abusers Rights” lobby is spot on.  What women’s groups should do to counter the false accusations of women making false accusations is lobby to double the penalty for those who falsely accuse abuse victims of making them.

  • rebellious-grrl

    (Edited for brevity) You said,

    “God! You act literally crazed! Your post makes women look as though they cannot use logic at all!……. I happen to know a lot of dykes. They have no problem whatsoever with words like butch or bulldagger. They use it themselves regularly! How did you get your panties in a twist over this?  …..You are getting awfully embarrassing to the rest of us Mz Petunia Pigg. I think you are a male troll on this board.”

    Your post seams a little suspect. Isn’t one of the anti-feminist aguments that woman can’t use logic? I know a lot of “dykes” too, but unless your a lesbian or really good friends with that person your not going to call them a dyke. I’m not calling you a liar, but it seams like your post doesn’t add up.

  • curtisp

    The whole premise that parent’s rights don’t matter if it’s not in the best interest of children is simplistic, trite and diminishes our collective humanity.  There is nothing noble about such a position.  A balance needs to happen and we can start by recognizing that a fetus, embryo, blastocyst, or zygote is not a person.  Human life at any stage should not be romanticized for the cause of appearing holier than thou and above the fray.  And if mothers are to be subject to abuse and have their rights shoved aside for “the well being of children” then humans really are damned and deserve to be.

     

    You should ask yourself why you chose this article as a vehicle for your post. Is it really about the rights of children?  Or is it about you and your issues with women?

     

  • ack

    I happen to know a lot of dykes. They have no problem whatsoever with words like butch or bulldagger. They use it themselves regularly!>>

    As a general note: an oppressed group reclaiming language used to abuse them does not give everyone else the right to throw it around, and ABSOLUTELY does not give them the right to use it as an insult. Language deemed appropriate or acceptable within an oppressed community does not necessarily mean it’s appropriate for a member of the dominant group to use it.

    (I didn’t read the article, so I don’t know if that’s what was going on. I just had to say that in case someone would misinterpret your comment to support such behavior! Because that’s surely not what you were saying.)

  • rebellious-grrl

    That MzPetuniaPigg is a “male pretending to be a woman.” I like the name MzPetuniaPigg. Are you saying I’m out of my mind for that?

    Can you say, “agent provocateur?”

  • curtisp

    “By the way, if you decide to continue using that feminist forensic maneuver…”  What nonesense.   

    • captcourageous

      On the contrary, there is nothing nonsensical about that whole paragraph, curtisp.

  • curtisp

    do appear to have issues.  You are posting on this post, which is very public, and your approach is to be heard by everyone here.  It’s called passive aggressive.  On does not need a Ph.D. to get this.

  • crowepps

    Homeless shelters deny some families

    Friday, January 08, 2010

     

    WILMINGTON – January 8, 2010 (WPVI) — It can be very difficult for homeless women to find shelter with their children in the winter.. or anytime for that matter.

     

    But it’s nearly impossible for some moms in Delaware because of a policy that aims to keep teenage boys out.

     

    Thirty-year-old Aneesha Jones does not know where she and her 15 year old son will sleep tonight. They are homeless. And Wilmington area shelters tell her they don’t accept boys who are older than 13.

     

    WILMINGTON, Del. – January 8, 2010
    “Because they had a discrepancy a while back with male children in shelters who fondled or molested other children in shelters,” Aneesha Jones told Action News.

     

    Many local shelters acknowledge they do not accept the older male children. Some tell Action News the policy protects younger children from the teens and protects the adolescent boys from adult women and men. Some women’s shelters contend they don’t have separate bathrooms for older boys staying with their mothers.

     

    http://abclocal.go.com/wpvi/story?section=news/local&id=7206551

  • ahunt

    Thanks for clarifying, crowepps.

  • crowepps

    Found the Valley Oasis website and really like their program.  I would note though that a program housed in “11 cottages” is going to provide a lot more flexibility as far as who can be housed there than a shelter contained entirely in one building, especially if it’s a ‘communal living’ structure.

     

    http://www.avdvc.org/History.htm

     

    At this point the duluth model focuses on female victims and male perps.

    In relationships with female victim/male abuser is the psychological model the same as it is when the relationship is male victim/female abuser?  If a treatment program is set up to interface with and assist female victims or male abusers why should they spend time on the issue of female abusers? 

     

    Does the Duluth model accurately describe present behavior, predict future behavior and offer effective treatment in female victim/male abuser relationships?  Have there been studies of its effectiveness that show it prevents violence in the long term?  If it does, then it should be useful for similar situations.

     

    Does anybody have a link to any studies comparing the effectiveness of different types of violence prevention programs depending on whether the pattern is female victim/male abuser or male victim/female abuser?

    routinely blames violence as basically being “masculine.”

    Certainly there are institutions and ideologies that promote the idea that men should be violent or can be excused for being violent in certain situations, whether war, sports or relationships.  This doesn’t mean ‘all men are violent’ but instead that addressing the problem of violence will require change in those institutions and ideologies.

  • paul-bradford

    You should ask yourself why you chose this article as a vehicle for your post. Is it really about the rights of children? Or is it about you and your issues with women?

     

    curtis,

     

    You know, I hang around this ‘site a lot and you can get into a conversation with me just about any time.  I don’t remember speaking to you before and I wonder, from the tone of your comment, if you have any interest in speaking to me now.

     

    You accuse me of having ‘issues’ with women.  With that as your opening gambit I wonder how you expect this discussion to unfold.  It’s irritating to get a comment like that but, for me, the overriding feeling is one of frustration.  By writing me off in that manner I am denied the chance to do what I intend to do — which is to urge people to treat people like people.

     

    You say, “we can start by recognizing that a fetus, embryo, blastocyst, or zygote is not a person“.  But that’s the entirety of our disagreement!  We certainly can’t start there when my entire motivation is to prevent us from getting there.  The point of my post is to move beyond saying that the unborn should be treated as people by their mothers, or their fathers, or their grandparents.  My point is that the unborn need to be treated as people by everyone.  I say, the very young are sisters and brothers in the human family.  The behavior of any one of us can affect them for good or for ill.

     

    Consider this: the abortion rate today in the US is 33% less than it was in 1980.  What has changed in a single generation?  What has changed is that we have made great strides toward making an unwanted pregnancy less difficult for women, particularly unmarried women.  Mothers today aren’t more magnanimous than mothers of yesterday.  Mothers today are treated much better by the society than mothers were then.  Women’s decisions have become more Pro-Life in response to improving conditions within the society.  Women today haven’t become more prone to bullying and coercion than their mothers were.  Women today have more support for dealing with a ‘surprise’ than their mothers had.  Don’t be so convinced that I have issues with women.   I can assure you that my attitudes about parental responsibility are gender neutral.

     

    We can lower the abortion rate further if we foster a greater respect for the lives of the unborn within the entire society and if we reduce the pressures on women to abort.  It can be done — but “starting” by reducing the status of the very young to “non-person” isn’t going to help anything.


     

  • crowepps

    Forgive me for disgressing into family history, but I’ve got to say that all this focus on ‘women are violent too’ seems to me to miss the fact that abuse isn’t just about violence. One of my grandmothers drove a two different husbands to suicide through a pattern of unrelenting emotional abuse, and had a pretty negative impact on both of her children as well. She never laid a finger on anybody, but she still did a great deal of damage.

    Abuse is defined as the systematic pattern of behaviors in a relationship that are used to gain and/or maintain power and control over another.
    http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/dap/img5.html

  • jo

    Research finds that men who leave abusive partners – leave violence behind. Not so for women. Separation is the most dangerous time. How many cases have you read of women killing men or children b/c the man left her? Usually, she’s abusive IN the relationship. Scholars believe men use violence to control women. Women use violence to control a situation.

     

    Shelters do have restrictions – some don’t allow ANY children, some don’t allow teen boys, some have time restrictions. They are underfunded, overworked. If they dont have a bed for a man, they give him a hotel voucher — women get them too when they are out of beds – no one complains. NNEDV surveys shelter. ON a given day, shelters deny almost 9,000 women & children beds.

     

    IF men need shelters, they can create them. Notice how the one poster answered the question about the need for shelters by referring to the Duluth model -he wants to defend men’s privileges, not give them shelter.

     

    The MRAs and FRs have been destructive, not constructive. They sue shelters, sue state statutes, create policies in family court that serves more to punish women than anything. Some of their sites are unethical (media radar) or misogynist (dvmen.org or angryharry.com).

     

    They also want to limit restraining orders and were quite happy Maryland’s HB 700 did not pass. If they believe men need help, why fight against restraining orders?

     

    They will act like they want to help men – they will “prove it”, they will ram their info down your throats, they will troll the message boards, accuse you of personal attackts, get the last, etc. — it’s the same on all of these articles. But research their sites. Research the scholars who’ve written about them – Dr. Michael Flood, Molly Dragiewicz, Evan Stark, etc. Also, see Stop Family Violence and Leadership Council. You will see them uncover the agenda — punishing and controlling women. Many of the guys in FAthers 4 Justice, for example, (not unlike other FR guys in other countries) have had charges and convictions against them (see Liz Library for their words and charges/convictions). Many ARE abusers. Their writing often has characterisistics of an abuser. Bottom line— learn their agenda and their propaganda will make more sense – from the standpoint that it doesnt help men at all. And that is a shame.

    • wendy-banks

      Well put Jo!

  • paul-bradford

    Men want to have choices in whether they have a child or not? Then they need to make better choices regarding with whom they have sexual relations. They need to use the protection available to them to prevent pregnancy if they do not wish to have a child with a woman. They need to know a woman better because of he wants a child, he tells a woman this, she gets pregnant and then aborts that child, then he obviously did not know that woman as well as he thought he did.

     

    NoMoreBrokenWings,

     

    Sounds like a Paul Bradford stump speech!  I often make the point that a man has it in his hands to protect his unborn child by selecting a partner who understands the need to work out a care plan before engaging in a sexual relationship.

     

    Allowing a man to control whether a woman can have an abortion is controlling a woman and her body. That body is not his body, it is HERS!

     

    We certainly agree that a man has no right to control a woman’s pregnancy or health care decisions.  To do so would violate her bodily autonomy.  Women ought not be controlled by men.  Women should be governed by their own respect for the principle of bodily autonomy.  Such women, of course, understand that a fetus’ body is not her body — it is HIS (or hers).

     

    Throwing abortion, pro-choice/anti-abortion beliefs into this mix is just asking for trouble.

     

    Huh???

  • crowepps

    the abortion rate today in the US is 33% less than it was in 1980.  What has changed in a single generation?  What has changed is that we have made great strides toward making an unwanted pregnancy less difficult for women, particularly unmarried women.

    I don’t think the 33% drop is entirely attributable to single parenthood being more socially acceptable.  If it were, the birth rate would be climbing.

     

    The Total Fertility Rate for women in 1980 was 3.61.  The Total Fertility Rate for women in 2010 is 2.56.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate

     

    I think a great deal of that drop is instead attributable to more effective birth control, easier access to birth control and better use of birth control.  It’s my opinion that further improvements in the design, access to and ease of use of birth control would bring it down much faster than trying to “reduce pressures on women to abort” through alleviating social stigma.

  • curtisp

    about violence against women and how they are often unfairly treated by the courts.  Your response was simplistic and trite.  You switched the subject to children’s rights above all others and dismissed the suffering of others.  (Embryo’s, by the way, don’t suffer.  And yes, good intelligent people can agree that they are not people).  Your response to the article was comparable to someone saying raping women is bad and someone responding with what about the starving children in Africa.  Seriously, if you are concerned about the “very young” go liberate some frozen embryos.  Don’t brush off the concerns of women who have the shit kicked out of them and then lose access to their children.  It’s not what you do say, which is a lot; it is when you say it that makes you suspicious.  And by the way you are no friend to women when you play the women as victims of abortion card.  Sorry hon; were not stupid. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    I noticed a comment from Irving referring to dree as Doctor E. “Excellent post, Doctor E!” I also noticed a post by “dr e” at “standyourground” commenting on a post by “Captain Courageous.” Just curious.

  • curtisp

    “Simply the mode of discussion predisposes me to feel no sympathy whatsoever for their case. Food for thought?”

     

    A cause is about the cause not posters responding to an article on a website.  Seriously.  Food for thought.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    They are one and the same.  Another member of SYG – “ohn  Dias” is complaining that RHReality is keeping him from joining to contribute.  They will probably not comment on SYG or AM any longer due to being called out.

     

    I wish people could see the double standards applied here.  When I allegedly stepped over the line (if I did so) I was called on it.  Yet there are MULTIPLE posts from Captain Courageous and Irving in which they belittled and demeaned female posters on here, a few in which they were downright abusive, yet they do not get called on that behavior.  I was contacted by a female victim of abuse whose ex constantly has her in court.  She stated to me that she does not understand why women (mothers) are held to a different standard that men (fathers).

     

    I have no answer and I can supply the situations she was asking about.

  • crowepps

    His/her point was, I believe, that the immature and abusive style of the comments made here by proponents of the “men’s rights” cause repels people, does not lend credibility to their protests that ‘men aren’t abusive’, and that means they are hurting their cause rather than persuading people that they are ‘victims’ whose complaints should be redressed.

     

    Most people, fairly or unfairly, judge whether “the cause” is just and the facts presented by them are credible largely on the interpersonal styles of those who appoint themselves as its spokespersons.

  • paul-bradford

    The article is about violence against women and how they are often unfairly treated by the courts.

     

    curtis,

     

    The article is entitled, “Reproductive Rights, Parental Rights, and Family Violence: A Dangerous Intersection”


    I picked up on this quote from the article:

     

    Many of the fathers rights guys think their reproductive rights extend to their parental rights. This should also be the case for women — and, indeed, many mothers’ rights groups have sprung up in defense of these rights. So the question remains: When do our reproductive rights end?


    I wrote about my conviction that the ideal of ‘reproductive rights’, like the ideal of ‘parental rights’, moves the focus away from where it ought to be — which is on the child — and puts it on to the parent.  This is certainly ‘on topic’ for an article about the intersection of parental and reproductive rights.  What’s more, I pointed out that the root of ‘family violence’ was in treating people like things instead of people.  For my trouble you say, “Your response to the article was comparable to someone saying raping women is bad and someone responding with what about the starving children in Africa.  Seriously, if you are concerned about the “very young” go liberate some frozen embryos.

     

    I’m not stupid and I’m not disingenuous.  I do, in fact, care about the very young.  The fact that “frozen embryos” even exist is a source of distress to me.

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    If it were, the birth rate would be climbing.


    The Total Fertility Rate doesn’t give you the information we need to understand how the birth rate is effected.  The number we want is the number of births per 1000 women of childbearing age.  In 1980 the rate was 68.4, in 2006 it was 68.5.  The rate has been virtually unchanged, and completely stable since 1973.

     

    But that’s the overall rate.  When you compare the rates for married and unmarried women you get a much different story.  From 1980-2006 the rate for married women dropped from 100.6 to 87.5 (down 13%)  in the same period the rate for unmarried women rose from 28.3 to 47.4 (up 67%).

     

    Married women in 2006 certainly employed birth control more than their counterparts in 1980.  This may be a result of improvements in birth control technology, but I think it’s more likely that married women were choosing smaller families in 2006 than they did in 1980.  What about birth control and unmarried women?  For that you want to add the birth rate and the abortion rate and come up with a total pregnancy rate.  From 1980 to 2005 the rate went from 80.7 to 78.3 (down 3%).  Does a drop of 3% in the pregnancy rate demonstrate an improvement in birth control?  I think it does — a very slight improvement.

     

    Is single parenthood easier for women to endure now than it was a generation ago?  In 1980 there were 665,800 births to unmarried women, and 1,234,000 abortions.  That means that 65.0% of unmarried pregnancies ended in abortion.  In 2005 there were 1,527,000 births to unmarried women, and 997,000 abortions.  That means that 39.5% of unmarried pregnancies ended in abortion.

     

    Convinced yet?

  • curtisp

    “We’re very tired of standing by while feminists play pretend that they are all moral, pure as the driven snow, congenitally altruistic and followers of Mahatma Gandhi.”

    Perhaps not exaggerating so much might alleviate all that anger.  Seriously this article is not man bashing.  It had some holes, and thanks to the attourney who pointed that out, but it is not man bashing feminists hating on men pretending to be pure.  Come on – be sensible.

     

  • colleen

    Women should be governed by their own respect for the principle of bodily autonomy. Such women, of course, understand that a fetus’ body is not her body — it is HIS (or hers).

    So as long as women are fertile (ages, say, 12-50) your ‘Principle of Bodily Autonomy’ is not something we are allowed to aspire to? Do I have this right?

  • crowepps

    No, not convinced, because your interpretation of the data would mean that single women who had unwanted pregnancies, responding to a lessening of social stigma, did not have abortions at the same rate but instead completed pregnancies.

     

    This fails to recognize that the marriage rate is at its lowest ever, that some couples are substituting cohabitation for marriage (and those births would appear in the ‘single mother’ category even in long-term relationships), and that being single in and of itself is not an indicator that the pregnancy is unwanted.

     

    I do not believe that single women are completing unwanted  pregnancies because they no longer face a stigma but instead that whether or not they are married is becoming increasingly irrelevant to them in whether they want the pregnancy.

  • colleen

    You switched the subject to children’s rights above all others and dismissed the suffering of others.

    Note how threatening this article was to both the men of the religious right (like Paul) and the MRM. I believe these are folks who are deeply threatened by any attempt to counteract the constant attempts by the ‘pro-life’ movement to control women and demonize those who do not respond well to their idiot notions.
    If you aren’t careful Paul will now proceed to make this thread all about Paul and his suffering and how misunderstood he is by EVERYONE.

  • curtisp


    “I wrote about my conviction that the ideal of ‘reproductive rights’, like the ideal of ‘parental rights’, moves the focus away from where it ought to be — which is on the child — and puts it on to the parent.  This is certainly ‘on topic’ for an article about the intersection of parental and reproductive rights.  What’s more, I pointed out that the root of ‘family violence’ was in treating people like things instead of people.”

    Not regarding an embryo as a person is not the cause of family violence or violence against women.  Indeed regarding an embryo as a person with rights above those of a pregnant woman dimishes her to a thing.  You not only glossed over the suffering of women in domestic violence situations you have dimished them to things.

  • crowepps

    I wish people could see the double standards applied here.

    Well, personally I don’t respond to the attempts to belittle and demean because the whole point of them doing that is to get a reaction. Why respond to such childishness? Why feed the trolls?

     

    I will say, though, that while a little background on new posters may be helpful, repeating a bunch of comments they made somewhere else is not particularly, at least to me. What would be the point when they very quickly revealed their style and motivation all by themselves in the vocabulary and tenor of their posts?

     

    The whole point of this forum is to discuss the ISSUES, not the character and reputation of the other posters.

  • rebellious-grrl

    MzPetuniaPigg, Thanks for the confirmation. I read your article about Captain Courageous. I felt sick to my stomach after I reading the crap he posted. I’m not sure if it’s still in the post thread on rhrealitycheck, but I remember reading it this afternoon. I linked to see his post “Feminist needs some facts thrown at her” about commenting on rhrealitycheck as Santo Christoforo MD.

    I think everyone here needs to read your blog and the link to the posts at http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=19110.msg203340#msg203340. It’s like reading the mirror side of reality. It’s truly scary.

    Posts by Santo Christoforo MD or Captain Courageous
    (This is threatening behavior!)
    What’s your beef about me,
    What’s your beef about me, you lying sack of fecal matter?
    Submitted by Capt. Courageous on March 23, 2010 – 2:29pm.

    MzPiggyWiggy:Stop using my
    MzPiggyWiggy: I know no one by the name of Irving. You have very obviously gone off the deep end. Stop using my name on this board! Submitted by Capt. Courageous on March 23, 2010 – 3:03pm.

  • ahunt

    Again, and possibly as a product of conservative rural experience…the divorces came later in life….which no doubt skews the anecdotal evidence, I have good attitudes towards JC.

     

    Look forward to research of the impact of JC on children. Kill me now, but absent high/ lower key but incessant conflict, I do think that parents ought to hang in until kids are older.

     

    You’ve no doubt seen it all, McCranky, but you did acknowledge that your clientele falls into the contested category, 5-10%  of the population. Might this not influence your opinion as much as the basic success of JC among my peers influences mine?

     

    Editing…Geez…I just noticed that you are MrCranky…please know I was not being obnoxious. Saw McCranky in my mind, and thought it was cute.

  • ahunt

    Blew by this, crowepps…I’m not naive…just wanted it brought out that we are in fact talking about the outliers, and not the general condition of things.

  • ahunt

    You might be correct, crowepps. I believe it was reported in Newsweek a couple of years ago that the fastest growing segment of single mothers were financially secure women in their 30’s, consciously choosing to become mothers…without a man in their lives.

  • ahunt

    Why feed the trolls

     

    Heh!

     

    Because sometimes, the schoolmarm in me will not be denied.

  • curtisp

    reminds me of folks from the socialist workers party who show up at demonstrations and try to hijack them by instisting that if everyone became socialist social problems would end.  It is not only a trite approach but demeaning to the issue at hand.

  • rebellious-grrl

    dree you are a fraud!!!!!!! Seams you are the administrator and member at standyourground.com. Now we can see you for who you really are.

  • crowepps

    The theory of joint custody was and perhaps still is that children have a right of access to both parents and that although it’s easier on the parents not to have to deal with the other parent whom they disliked enough to divorce, that as mature adults they should just suck it up and get over it.

     

    I agree with you that in high conflict cases it’s impossible, and that there are disadvantages for children, but there are also disadvantages for children in having sole physical custody vested in one parent and shoving the other parent to the margins with visitation.

     

    It has not been my experience that sole custody provides “a consistent base” or additional safety, but instead that consistent, aware parents provide a consistent, safe base, and two consistent, aware parents who are willing to make the effort to cooperate with each other are the best guarantee of a good outcome for their children.

     

    I acknowledge that I have a skewed focus, since I am much more likely to be doing depositions of high conflict parents who file repeated child custody petitions for years and years.  In those cases, no matter whether the Court ordered sole custody/supervised visitation with custody in either mom or dad, sole custody/unrestricted visitation in either mom or dad, or joint custody/50-50 physical split, the intent of the court is perverted because one is or both are so invested in power games that the children’s needs are ignored.

     

    Probably the nadir was a case in which one of the parents insisted that at custody exchanges the toddler be undressed from his ‘my house’ clothes down to the diaper and be redressed in ‘your house’ clothes.  Clothes, toys, pacifiers, blankies, bottles, everything had to be duplicated in toto and no item could ever travel from one house to the other or total hysteria ensued.

     

    Sometimes you just are really tempted to lock the parents in a cage to fight it out and take the kid home yourself.

  • crowepps

    I don’t think we have a poster here named cowepps

  • rebellious-grrl

     

    I found some interested reading at standyourground, It looks like instructions for you from dr e.

    Re: Feminist needs some facts thrown at her
    « Reply #25 on: March 20, 2010, 05:47:06 AM » UNSOLICITED AND OPINIONATED SUGGESTION: Note to Irving if you are here:  I would urge you to not fall for their bait.  They are trying to get you into an argument over who called who what and who is the bigger name caller etc.  This is a ploy to avoid the issue and make you into the bad guy.  If you are the bad guy and the argument escalates they will get the thread closed and can blame you for the problem.  I would urge you to apologize for the name calling and move on irregardless of what they say.  After that don’t get sucked into their web of petty crap.  Stick to the issues. Leave a clear record of them not answering the most basic of questions.

    This was posted at http://standyourground.com/forums/index.php?topic=19110.msg203417#msg203417

    Could that be in reference to this post from you Irv?

    I’ve been advised that I am simply being baited into a prissy and redundant rank-out session. Please refer to my earlier posts for future reference. Hasta la vista, baby!

    • captcourageous

      There is nobody by the name of Irving, Salos, etc. on the SYG forums. The owner took a chance that there might be. How did you miss that? 

  • rebellious-grrl

    It seams like you buddies at standyourground have also commented on your name calling.

    From dr e at standyourground, “UNSOLICITED AND OPINIONATED SUGGESTION: Note to Irving if you are here:  I would urge you to not fall for their bait……. I would urge you to apologize for the name calling and move on irregardless of what they say.” 

  • mzpetuniapigg

    My apologies to you crowepps, you have either ignored me or when you have commented to me, you have been respectful.  I handle respectful much better than I handle denigration :-)  And for that I thank you.

  • irvingsalos

    Both MzPetuniaPigg and rebellious grill are from antimisandry.com. That’s why they are targetting Captain Courageous so vehemently. They have a score to settle, and they are trying to pick up where they left off. That’s why they keep harping on him after he has signed off and after the rest of the board here has moved on topic-wise. MzPetuniaPigg you are no longer incognito!

  • cold-north-wind

    Thank you Joan Dawson for a clear ,concise and balanced article. As an aside- or a footnote ! – any article that attracts some of the – scatalogical comments that I have seen here; is absolutely an excellent text- or the ugly comments would not come !  Good thing it is recognized that abusing is a career choice for some !

  • irvingsalos

    TERA, stop trying to slander me behind my back. This is a sneaky and treacherous attack that you are trying to pull purely for revenge. It’s also a little rambling in content.

     

     

     

     

  • cold-north-wind

    If you are distressed- imagine the poor wee embryos ! Oh- I guess if one is frozen- one cannot feel -My apologies for being flippant- .I certainly agree with you that the root of family violence- well- just violence against any living sentient beings- is- viewing living sentient beings as – things-objects to be used and abused.

  • irvingsalos

    This article was not threatening to either group. I will continue to protest the use of insinuation and innuendo from women posters here. Take the use of the word “idiot” here. This is bigotry, plain and simple. Next the self-fulfilling prophecy about what Paul is going to do next. This is also indicative of bigotry. The sarcasm and the lampooning of this man is unfounded, unecessary, unjustified and misandrist.

  • cold-north-wind

    Petunia Pig’s post was re-posting what Captain Courageous said-. It was not what she/he/it said – –  what ????? huh ????? !!!!!!!

  • cold-north-wind

    Good one ! Yes, of course. Real men are disgusted at the unacceptable behaviours of these- abusers- .

  • irvingsalos

    “Captain Whatever was correct, not all female guards are running around having sex with male inmates and doing “special favors” for them, especially the dykes!”

     

    It would appear that you missed something. I sincerely hope I’m not denigrating anyone or appearing to be larger than life by pointing this out to you.

     

  • irvingsalos

    ” … the immature and abusive style of the comments made here by proponents of the “men’s rights” cause repels people, … “

     

    From what I gather, you consider the comments of every male on this board to be immature and abusive. That would include DR. E. who has gone out of his way to be polite and conciliatory, as an example. Calling you on every time you make an unfounded overgeneralization or oversimplification is neither immature nor abusive. You have not been abused by our postings, you have a one-track mind on the subject of abuse. I sincerely hope you don’t find that denigrating or an attempt on part part to act larger than life.

  • irvingsalos

    “As far as the Captain Courageous thing – he spews venom towards women on SYG on a nearly daily basis.”

     

    The only way you could know that with certainty is to read the SYG forums on a daily basis. What have you been doing, stalking him? You must have been stalking him for some time to claim you can produce all his writings on a moment’s notice.

     

    You have consistently lied to the other women on this board. Most noticeably by posting something insinuating that only men are allowed to become members of the MRM sites. That MRM sites are the equivalent of good-ol’-boys social clubs, designed strictly for female-bashing.

     

    You know that this is not true. Women are not only allowed to join both StandYourGround AND Antimisandry, they are encouraged to do so! There are even well-established women members of Chris Key’s mens-rights.net.

  • irvingsalos

    Sorry, but I must disagree.

     

    “We are actually witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. In this article, I examine the ways in which policies that reflect social biases painting women as “vindictive” liars, combine with the efforts of both alleged abusers to fight to regain control of their wives and children and fathers’ rights proponents  are harming women and children trying to escape abuse.”

     

    We are not witnessing an erosion of protections of women and children in abusive relationships. Women in these situations are not subject to social policies that paint them with a broad stroke as being vindictive liars. These two assertions are not helping abusive males to regain control of wives and children for further torment, and father’s rights proponents are not advocating or facilitating the continued or renewed harming of women and children in any way.

     

     

  • mzpetuniapigg

    I have posted my blog site here as has rebelious grrl.  I will post again in case anyone wants to see it.  It is http://glennscult.blogspot.com

     

    My contact info is on my about me or profile page.  This page has my email address.  I assure you I am not incognito :-)

     

    In fact Petunia was created when New Friend was banned and then Glenn’s Cult was subsequently banned from commenting on Glann Sacks website

     

    glennsacks.com

     

    In fact it was alleged by gwallan on here that the reason for my banning was not providing an email address.  When I resumed posting under Glenn’s Cult, every one of my comments was removed and I was banned yet again, but I had provided a current and true email address.

     

    Last time I answer this accusation.  Also there are others on here who do know me and do know that I am not incognito or tera and they also know I will NEVER post on syg or am.

     

    Buh bye…..

  • mzpetuniapigg

    I agree CNW and how are things with you?  Blog is looking great!

  • dree

    crowepps said:  “In relationships with female victim/male abuser is the psychological model the same as it is when the relationship is male victim/female abuser?” 

     

    This is really the question that is being debated by those who are knowledgeable.  It boils down to teasing out differences between male sociopaths and female sociopaths. At this point the jury is still out but there is some evidence that the male sociopaths will take a different pattern. Two problems are associated with this.  One is that  the percent of dv that is committed by true sociopaths is a fraction of the total.  The worst case scenario, that of a dangerous, contoling hateful male batterer who preys on the weakness of his spouse is a reality….but it is in no way representative of the average batterer as the dv industry has led people to believe.  Second is that up to this point the only batterer to get attention or help is the male batterer.

     

    Crowepps said: “If a treatment program is set up to interface with and assist female victims or male abusers why should they spend time on the issue of female abusers? “

     

    Of course the problem here is that THEY ALL are set up to help female victims and male batterers leaving male victims and female batterers without help. Just imagine the hellstorm if it was reversed and all the services were for men and none for women.

     

    If you are interested in reading more about Valley Oasis and  its history of helping all victims of DV you can google “Patricia Overberg” who was the exectutive director for many years and  is active now in trying to bring some balance to an industry that ignores the needs of women perps and male victims.  Pat tells some hair raising stories about the default sexism of the dv world.  Once she started admitting men to her shelter she was shamed and ostracized by the shelter directors of the shelters in her area.  The stories she tells are pretty harsh and sobering and show how much we need to shift this system to be more humanitarian. 

     

     

    • wendy-banks

      Sounds like a great place to go if you need help and/or couseling for both women and men! A place of help and hope.

  • dree

    Yes, quite agree.  Good one ! I would add that yes, of course. Real women are disgusted at the unacceptable behaviours of these- female abusers.

  • shauna

    Out of curiosity, I visited a few of the websites mentioned here and randomly browsed.

    The “exposes” that “Petunia” does on her site are not so of much men expressing “hatred” of women in general as they are of men not treating or speaking of women with any special respect, chivalry or paternalism.  Since our youth has almost completely eschewed the idea of chivalry and it will be gone in another generation, and since this site and others like it do not lack for their own variety of “denigration,” (many examples of which we have been treated to right here, regrettably) I see no impact being made here.

    “DastardlyDads,” except for a few noted exceptions, it is almost entirely a catalog of the doings of society’s lowest common denominator.  Convicted felons, illegals, drug users and the like.  Few of the fathers appear to be employed, few of the parents are married.  Craig Alan Wall, cited in the present article, is a good example.  Although the blog owner seems to mean well, whenever she asks rhetorically, “why was such a man ever allowed to even be around a child?” or some variation thereof, an even more important question goes unspoken:  “Why did any woman ever select such a man as a father for her children?”

    There is only so much that the state can do with regard to families without disposing of our most fundamental rights and freedoms.  It’s true that what we are seeing is not an erosion of protections for women and children but a complete failure of the most at-risk segment of our society to understand how to properly choose mates and build families.  Choosing abusive, low-quality partners with whom to reproduce is usually not a matter of bad luck that the state can step in and set right, but rather a learned, deeply dysfunctional behavior pattern.  The parental rights of every dad listed at “DastardlyDads” could have been summarily terminated at the first request of the mother without actually increasing the safety of children to any significant degree.  That is because a woman who elects to have children with this kind of man will generally replace him with another man of mostly similar caliber who will have even less investment in her children than the biological father did and statistically will post an exponentially greater risk to them.  Nothing can be done for them.

    The state will do what it can where danger is proven, as well it should, but the primary responsibility for children’s well-being rests upon parents and their choices, and until they learn to make wiser ones (which I don’t see happening, sorry to say) the risk to children will not go anywhere.         

  • saltyc

    an even more important question goes unspoken: “Why did any woman ever select such a man as a father for her children?”

    Nope, not important. Abusive people try to hide the fact that they are abusive, and falling for it actually says less about the person fooled than you think. Actually, abusers often prey on good character traits like trust, sympathy and generosity.

  • shauna

    If that were entirely true then there would not be women who tend to repeatedly select abusive, poor-quality mates but there undeniably are.  A prudent amount of time spent getting to know a person and observing their character before procreating together (assuming one knows what the good character looks like) might also go a long way toward avoiding disastrous choices.  Sadly, that’s also rare in these situations.

    In any case, I would presume that Craig Alan Wall’s ex-girlfriend knew about the 14-year sentence he served for armed robbery?  If it was supposed to make such a big difference to the courts, why did it make no difference to her?

  • saltyc

    You are assuming that in the cases of women who have multiple abusive partners that it reflects a quality in her rather than her circumstances, and that this is a prevalant pattern. But in any case, what really matters is the abuser and holding him accountable for his behavior, not examining the person who fell for him or blaming her for his chosen actions.

     

    In your case, I don’t know why it didn’t make a difference to her, maybe it should have, but let’s move to what to do about it now.

  • irvingsalos

    This was an excellent post, shauna. Spot on, as the British like to say. Many thanks!

  • irvingsalos

    Know thyself … in the biblical sense, my friend.

  • irvingsalos

    The same public that can read “woman hating d**ks” and “asshole”? Oh, that public? And that passive-aggression? Oh … gee! Tell me, how does one get aggressive-aggressive when posting type-written missives?

     

    One does not need anything more than a copy of Saul Alynsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to get what’s going on here!

  • irvingsalos

    Ooooo! The passive-aggression just drips from every monosyllable, doesn’t it?

     

    [Sigh!]

  • irvingsalos

    Sound advice I will be happy to take if I can get the other posters here to lay off the Ph.D. and the acerbic remarks it seems to engender from them.

  • irvingsalos

    Trying to appear larger than life? Could you elaborate on that? What was I thinking … of course you can’t. It makes absolutely no sense. BTW, I sincerely do not mean to denigrate you in any way.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Point well taken. I’m very new to posting and have only posted on this blog. I really appreciate what you write. You’re right they want a reaction and want us to get mad. I just find it difficult to get bashed and not stand up for myself. Thanks

  • rebellious-grrl

    grrl not grill. 

  • crowepps

    A prudent amount of time spent getting to know a person and observing their character before procreating together (assuming one knows what the good character looks like) might also go a long way toward avoiding disastrous choices. Sadly, that’s also rare in these situations.

    It’s my understanding that abusers declare they fell in love at first sight, pressure their new relationship to commit immediately, want to move in together at once, put on pressure to get married quickly, all of which cuts down on the amount of time getting to know and observing.

    I believe they also are reputed to assume a facade of good character until they have things set up the way they want them, which is why so often the victim states in puzzlement that they ‘can’t understand how anyone can change that much. He was so different when we were dating’.

    http://www.hiddenhurt.co.uk/Abuser/signs.htm

  • rebellious-grrl
  • crowepps

    A behavioral therapist went into detail once about his treatment of a particular client, and how his therapy helped the client see that when someone called them a name, they could choose whether or not to be offended.

     

    If I remember correctly, a paraphrase of the way he put it is:

    What if a person with whom you are speaking declared you were wrong in your opinions because you are a taxicab?

    Would you get all huffy and defensive and demand an apology?

    Would you get distracted into an argument over whether the statement was true?

    No, instead you would just think their statement was bizarre and irrelevant to the discussion.

    Why, then, would you distracted by someone who calls you stupid or ugly or selfish or any other insult?

    Unless that label is coming from someone who knows you and for whom you have respect, statements like that are just as bizarre.

    When posters evade the actual subject under discussion here and prefer lenghty exchanges of ad hominim instead, I just translate it into taxicab and it’s amazing how the need to defend oneself evaporates.

  • shauna

    If so, then a woman has no choice but to go along with this agenda???

     

    I find this presumption of female weakness and lack of sense highly insulting.

     

    In any case, it’s difficult to put on a facade of good character when one is a convicted felon or a substance abuser, for example, which are quite common characteristics among “Dastardly Dads” and ones which the mothers of their children seem quite willing to overlook, both in prospective fathers of their children and the men they subsequently bring into their homes.  Why is that? 

  • rebellious-grrl

    I’ll try the taxicab thing next time. Great idea. I guess I’m kind of newbie at this. Thanks again for your insight.

  • il128

    Does that mean that women should never get custody? I can easily post 100 references to women who have murdered thier children in the last oh, lets say five years. 

     

    Violence is the problem NOT GENDER!

  • shauna

    I’m sorry but it often does reflect a quality in her, perhaps instilled by early circumstances, of course, and it is quite prevalent.  If the safety of children is really the concern, then it does bear a certain amount of examining.

     

    None of which suggests that an abusive person not be held accountable.  Of course they should.  But we’re here wailing about a “system” that doesn’t make everything right 100% of the time and can not, because all it has to work with is what it’s given by PARENTS.  It’s parents who desperately need to get a clue.

     

    So how do we “move on?”  Do we instantly nullify the parental rights of any and every father on the say-so of the mother that we should, without any further requirements?  Will you be fine with being cut off from your children when someone claims that it’s in their best interests that you should be?  Will your children be fine with it? 

  • lbsimon

    Is it legal to use the comments section of this article for a muck-raking blog that attacks other participants here, as well as other websites?

     

    http://glennscult.blogspot.com/2010/03/reproductive-rights-parental-rights-and.html

     

    This is abominable. I clicked on the “Report Abuse” button at the top of the blog and reported it as a “Spam” site. I hope the owners of RH Reality Check will do the same.

  • crowepps

    Irv’s argument, as I understand it, is that asking the courts to deal with the problem of violent spousal abusers having access to children should be not just gender neutral but that there should be in addition a presumption that the most likely scenario is that the man is being falsely accused by a vindictive, lying, feminist because the stereotype of violent men is entirely false and incidences of abusive spousal violence are as likely to be female on male as the reverse.

     

    I agree absolutely that violence is the problem. That isn’t his issue, though. His issue is that it’s not fair to ‘punish’ men accused of violent behavior by limiting their access to children without a full-court trial proving their guilt, which is in my opinion unrealistic and fails to protect children.

     

    I don’t think that a woman who is accused of violent behavior should be given unlimited access to children until convicted by a full-court trial either.

     

    I think it is reasonable of courts to act first to ensure the safety of the children and courts can reasonably limit access by either or both parties until an objective safety evaluation has been made. I do not think doing this is a ‘violation of civil rights’ because I don’t think parents’ civil rights include possession/ownership of their children.

  • curtisp

    “One does not need anything more than a copy of Saul Alynsky’s “Rules for Radicals” to get what’s going on here!”

    One only needs to read the posts to get what’s going on here.  And passive agressive is venting ones issues on a blog and not being direct about it. 

  • crowepps

    In any case, it’s difficult to put on a facade of good character when one is a convicted felon or a substance abuser, for example, which are quite common characteristics among “Dastardly Dads” and ones which the mothers of their children seem quite willing to overlook, both in prospective fathers of their children and the men they subsequently bring into their homes. Why is that?

    In my experience, the felon always insists he was ‘unjustly accused’ and that his conviction was a miscarriage of justice and that the woman’s ‘belief in him’ will salvage his life, and the substance abuser insists that only she can ‘save him’ by proving her ‘love’ which will inspire him to resist the lure of the substance.

     

    If she’s been trained from childhood in enabling, this dance is one she’s already learned and is familiar with (or he in cases of men who repeatedly choose female abusers).

     

    Why is that?  The abusive personality may attempt to connect with a dozen or two dozen women and be rejected by most until he finds one whose reaction to his power and control games signals him that she is likely to tolerate abuse.  I don’t think this is an indicator of ‘weakness and lack of sense’ of women in general but rather an indication that there is a subset of women whose psychology makes them vulnerable to the subset of men whose psychology includes abuse.

     

    I would note that Dastardly Dads focuses on abusers from, if you’ll excuse the non-PC expression, the ‘lower classes’ and there is lots of evidence that abusers come proportionately from all classes of society. Probably the ones that I see the most come from the middle and upper classes, since my work is for private attorneys and that presupposes their client has the money to pay them (and me).

     

    I also don’t think it’s necessarily true that most women who have had an abusive relationship in the past get into another abusive relationship but instead that this may be just perpetuating the stereotype about how she’s ‘sick’ or she would leave.  It would be interesting to see if anyone has studied that issue and produced some statistics.

  • crowepps

    It makes absolutely no sense. BTW, I sincerely do not mean to denigrate you in any way.

  • crowepps

    As I recollect, the acerbic remarks started at the point where you declared that it wasn’t anybody’s business in which field your Ph.D was granted.

     

    Paul’s posts here include his self-identifier of “Catholics for Choice” and he has taken a lot of heat from a number of people who have insisted the phrase is an oxymoron, argued theology with him, accused him of being a heretic, etc., and so Paul has a lot of discussions with people about his self-identifier.  I presume that since Paul does not remove it, he either doesn’t mind these discussions or that despite them he leaves the identifier there for a reason that seems good to him, and presumably you include the Ph.D in your screen name for a reason that seems good to you.

     

    If your purpose in including this in your self-identifier is to assert yourself as an ‘expert’, however, I’m afraid more than just including the letters would be necessary to convince.  That’s why someone asked you to provide further information.  For instance, you may have a doctorate in marine biology, or wine tasting, or scuba diving, or even one granted by an internet diploma mill, neither of which would lend you ‘expert’ status on the issue of domestic violence.

    • captcourageous

      “For instance, you may have a doctorate in marine biology, or wine tasting, or scuba diving, or even one granted by an internet diploma mill, neither of which would lend you ‘expert’ status on the issue of domestic violence.”

      They ask for your email address here, which can also be your screen name or “self-identifier”. Why didn’t that occur to you?

      Interesting that it could be an internet diploma mill. How and where does one get a doctorate in wine-tasting?

      From what I read (exhausting as it now is to do), Salos could have a doctorate in nuclear medicine – and it wouldn’t matter!!!  He saw a lot of compliments being given to Dawson’s article as being excellent and saw that it had too many fallacies and not enough references.

       

  • irvingsalos

    I agree – but gender seems to be Irv’s focus

    Irv’s argument, as I understand it, is that asking the courts to deal with the problem of violent spousal abusers having access to children should be not just gender neutral but that there should be in addition a presumption that the most likely scenario is that the man is being falsely accused by a vindictive, lying, feminist because the stereotype of violent men is entirely false and incidences of abusive spousal violence are as likely to be female on male as the reverse.

     

    How did the paragraph I copied from Joan Dawson’s article become MY argument? This is a very serious distortion of my position! Whether I get accused of abusing another poor woman on this board or not, I will not stand by while I am being misrepresented this badly. My position has been very simple from the beginning.

     

    If you claim that domestic violence somehow overlaps with parental and reproductive rights, you are creating a complex, multi-faceted topic for discussion, one that cannot fall back on the same old, shop-worn feminist aphorisms about males. You need much more than merely one source of information, combined with several anecdotal cases, to even domonstrate your position – much less convincingly prove it. You can’t leave it up to others to decide what it is you’re trying to illustrate and emphasize, or to provide references with which to support your ideas. This was not a very scientific or scholarly article – it had potential, but it failed in meeting most of it’s stated objectives. That’s all!

     

    “I agree absolutely that violence is the problem. That isn’t his issue, though. His issue is that it’s not fair to ‘punish’ men accused of violent behavior by limiting their access to children without a full-court trial proving their guilt, which is in my opinion unrealistic and fails to protect children.”

     

    Issue seems to be a feminist buzzword. My issue? Bull-fiddles! The opinion quoted above suggests we must drop case-by-case analysis, because it endangers the health, safety and well-being of children. It also suggests that the constitutional guarantee of presumed innocence must be overlooked or discarded.

     

    I have seen domestic violence first-hand, many times, and in no way seek the compromise of justice in ANY instance of it! I sincerely hope none of you feel denigrated or abused by these statements.

  • curtisp

    there is no norm for abuse.  Many women who are subject to abuse often don’t go into any other abusive relationships.  They did not think they could be victims so once they are out they watch out.  The men who abuse them are manipulating and don’t always target “easy” victims.  Some like the challenge of going after well balanced women.  Also abusers being related to children often has nothing to do with how badly children will be abused.  Many see their own as fair game and no ones elses business.  Never mind that beating a child’s mother then lying publicly about her as a neurotic liar is child abuse.   

    But that was not the point of the original article.  Basically using long standing biases against women as liars to take abused women’s children away from them is a violation of women’s reproductive rights.  Malnipulative abusers do this.  There is no easy solution.  But what needs to happen is accusing an abuse victim of making false accusations should be severely punished.  People are calling for false accusers to be punished.  Agreed.  But the punishment should be more severe for the person who abuses someone then falsely accuses the victim of making false accusations.  Double the crime.  If their attourney knows the abuse happened and uses “all those women making false accusations” as leverage to win.  Disbar him or her.

    • shauna

      Allow me also to add that while it is against the rules of professional responsibility for an attorney to knowingly perpetuate a fraud, it is quite in order for an attorney to cast doubt upon the testimony of an opposing party or witness by pointing out personal motives they might have for such testimony or something they might have to gain.  It’s part of the adversarial process.

  • crowepps

    I will not stand by while I am being misrepresented this badly.

    Nobody assumed you would stand by but instead would chime in and correct any misrepresentation.  The whole point of paraphrasing your argument is to find out if it is understood correctly.  At this point I still don’t understand your position.  Are you saying that her conclusion is correct but her article is insufficient because she didn’t cite enough evidence?  Or are you saying that her conclusion is NOT correct because you have evidence that contradicts it?

     

    This may be a surprise to you, but this is not a ‘scientific’ or ‘scholarly’ site but instead one where people who aren’t necessarily professionals or academics discuss public policy questions.  If people’s posts are going to be leapt on and criticized harshly for not being ‘scientific’ or ‘scholarly’ then the number of posts is going to drop precipitously.

    His issue is that it’s not fair to ‘punish’ men accused of violent behavior by limiting their access to children without a full-court trial proving their guilt, which is in my opinion unrealistic and fails to protect children.”

     

    Issue seems to be a feminist buzzword. My issue? Bull-fiddles! The opinion quoted above suggests we must drop case-by-case analysis, because it endangers the health, safety and well-being of children. It also suggests that the constitutional guarantee of presumed innocence must be overlooked or discarded.

    Issue: “an important question that is in dispute and must be settled”.  Since you understood the word, apparently it is also used by non-feminists.

     

    “Presumed innocence” is constitutionally guaranteed in CRIMINAL trials.  There is no constitutional guarantee of “presumed innocence” in civil trials and domestic relations are civil trials.

     

    I do not agree with you that after a report that a threat of violence has been brought to the Court, that the health, safety and well-being of children should even potentially be left at risk because the person accused of threatening to kill them must be “presumed innocent” and it doesn’t matter a bit to me whether the person making the threat is a mother saying “I’ll kill myself and the kids” or a father saying “I’ll kill myself and the kids”.

     

    A parent of either sex making such a statement has disqualified her or himself out of their own mouth from the presumption they are capable of providing the child with safety and during the absolutely necessary case by case investigation of whether the accusation is true, my position is that the focus should be on guaranteeing the children’s safety.

  • curtisp

    is your buzzword.  Issues are what we are dealing with.  Lots of them.  The word will be used often.  It comes with the territory.

  • squirrely-girl

    So for fun, I’ve started reading all of the articles that people are posting in their comments, not just the editorials or journalist write ups, but the actual articles. 

     

    To start I love the differences in titles – 

     

    Men Shouldn’t Be Overlooked as Victims of Partner Violence

    versus 

     

    Differences in Frequency of Violence and Reported Injury Between Relationships With Reciprocal and Nonreciprocal Intimate Partner Violence

     

    The actual article you referenced is available at http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941. The authors of this study state, “Reciprocity of IPV (interpersonal violence) does not necessarily mean that the frequency or the severity of the violence is equal or similar between partners.” Further, their own study findings showed that, “Regarding injury, men were more likely to inflict injury than were women.”

     

    I’m in no way negating that men, too, are victims of domestic violence nor am I purporting that women don’t commit acts of domestic violence. I just thought it was worth sharing aspects of this article that the journalist failed to address and either you missed or just didn’t feel like sharing.

     

    And, just a heads up, APA is the generally accepted acronym for the American Psychological Association not the American Psychiatric Association. 

     

    Reading… it’s fundamental. :)

  • squirrely-girl

    “And the specific clinical diagnostic criteria he meets are … ??? And the clinical evidence you have to support his meeting said criteria … ???”

     

    Just a few comments earlier you “diagnosed” a poster with PTSD based SOLELY off of a SINGLE post on an online comments section.

     

    I wish I had a nickel for every time a fool tries to win an argument by deflating their opponent, especially with an egocentric, self-absorbed, quack diagnosis.

     

  • crowepps

    That’s also a good point. Perhaps if the presumption could be eliminated that all abusers are the same and all victims are the same it would be possible to get somewhere in solving the various problems that perpetuate the different kinds of abusive cycles.

  • il128

    On a national level women kill more children than men do.  Break it down state by state and it’s about 50/50 as to which parent gets granted custody based on their genders child murder rates.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/27233240/Criminal-Profiling-International-Theory-Research-and-Practice

     

    Or are you implying that when judges rule in favor of fathers it is based solely on discrimination against women and not the facts of the case or other factors? 

  • squirrely-girl

    Personally, I appreciate the ten dollar words. I find it refreshing when an individual can elevate discourse and utilize their rather extensive vernacular. It’s only unfair to ignorant individuals who don’t wish to expand their vocabulary by looking up a word. Words are beautiful. But pretty words do not mask the substance of one’s argument nor do they forgive rudeness.

     

    You see, Irving isn’t elevating discourse and words alone do not cause an individual to be perceived as “a pompous windbag.” Plenty of other people have busted out the dictionary and thesaurus in this discussion without coming across as bullies. And if “Irvy” is what YOU call “an Ivory Tower” intellectual I would politely encourage you to visit a local university as soon as possible.


     


  • crowepps

    This cite is not specific to relationships involving spousal abuse. As I understand the article, it is addressing specifically custody decisions in relationships involving spousal abuse. Can you supply a link to any statistics about the murder of children at the breakup of relationships where claims of spousal abuse are made?

     

    The only thing I was able to track down was an article that actually confirms the statements in the article – women who report domestic violence in the home to mediators get custody less often than those who keep their mouths shut.

    Only 35% of the mothers who alleged domestic abuse got primary custody, compared to 42% in the non-DV group. Fathers who were accused of DV were given primary custody in 10% of cases; non-DV fathers got primary custody 9% of the time.

     

    http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26859233/NIJ-Journal-251-(Child-Custody-Mediation-and-Domestic-Violence)

    As I understand their statistics, domestic violence has a minimal effect on the determination of child custody and visitation which makes me wonder what all the screaming is about from the “father’s rights” activists – accusations against fathers of domestic violence make it MORE likely they will receive custody.

     

    My understanding of the original article was that judges discount the testimony of women who suffer/claim to suffer spousal abuse based not necessarily on ‘discrimination against women’ but on ‘discrimination against women claiming spousal abuse’ which may indicate that judges aren’t ruling based on the facts of the case but instead have a (perhaps unconscious) tendency to discount the testimony of women who claim spousal abuse.

     

    The article I cited contains some interesting indications that mediators also may have an unconscious bias – see the part where it explains that mediators reports and custody plans are not congruent, and that they overestimate the amount of time the child is with the mother.

  • squirrely-girl

    I’ve found that “cottage” models have a ton of advantages for numerous areas in mental health and counseling. I’ve seen this model used successfully in both child and adolescent mental health settings as well as drug and alcohol treatment. I’d really like to see this model getting used in other settings and more research on it’s effectiveness.

  • jo
  • squirrely-girl

    Dree, 

     

    Great point – thank you for your contributions and civil manner of debate. It IS a positive reflection of both your personality and position. 

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    I’m really not sure where you’re getting your information, but I might suggest that “forums where people can talk about their experiences with BPD people” is in NO WAY scientific and doesn’t exactly count as “research into BPD”. 

     

    This is one of the fundamental flaws of internet access for the general public with regard to mental illness. People read something online and think they know EVERYTHING about a disorder when in all actuality they know what some random, self-selected people (who also have internet access and want to vent) think about their PERSONAL experiences with OTHER people who may or may not actually have a disorder.

     

    I think I’ll go back to my academic pursuits…

  • ahunt

    Indeed, the dynamics of abuse can be strikingly selective and targeted, and need not involve actual violence, but rather the incipient threat of violence.

     

    My Mom explained one example to me many years ago, in describing the family pathology that led her to flee bayou Louisiana at the age of 16, in 1939:

     

    Roughly paraphrasing:

     

    “I never saw Grandpa lift a finger a finger to Grandma or any of us…we just knew that he would…the air of suppressed violence kept his children and his grandchildren in a constant state of apprehension, and his cruel, nitpicking control was absolute.”

     

    But how could this be affirmed in a court of law? My Great Grandfather, after all, “never lifted a finger.”

     

     

     

     

  • crowepps

    The “cruel, nit-picking control” and the constant criticism which underlies it don’t even have to be backed up with violence. Once you have convinced the victim they are worthless, it’s easy to keep them under the thumb.

    Certainly I see a lot more parents who are frustrated from trying to deal with the negative effects on their child of disparagement and emotional abuse than those worried about actual physical abuse.

  • lbsimon

    “You have issues!” is a common put down. Issues is a word that is overused. It’s qualifies as a vagary. 

  • ahunt

    There are cultural elements as well, crowepps. Bayou Louisiana in 1939 was a milieu where family violence was tolerated, even expected, and considered normal and acceptable nehavior.

     

    I imagine, given the diversity of our great nation, that what constitutes abuse in one neighborhood is a standard of right conduct in another.

  • lbsimon

    “Are you saying that her conclusion is correct but her article is insufficient because she didn’t cite enough evidence?  Or are you saying that her conclusion is NOT correct because you have evidence that contradicts it?”

     

    Excuse me, but you restricted his answer to two options that you chose. A third option is he is saying her conclusion was left open to question by too big a lack of evidence. It was not defended very well at all. The first comments posted here are high praise for a job well done.

     

    Also, the author has the credential MPH after her name. She has completed graduate school. She is held to scholarly or scientific standards when she publishes any in-depth work. Do not confuse her with those who visit this site in general.

     

    No offense, but you seem to be more interested in oneupsmanship and getting in the last word than in any mutual exchange of ideas.

  • lbsimon

    MzPetuniaPigg

     

    From what I’ve read, you totally excuse your own very objectional writings. These include threats of exposure that strongly resemble blackmail attempts. They also include accusations that are out of left-field. Your behavior here has been socially inappropriate in the extreme, and your writing (especially your blog) gives the impression you are not an adult.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Domestic violence is about power and control. Abusive men sabotage their partner’s birth control as a form of power and control. This is an intersection of reproductive rights and violence. I would add the physical abuse of a pet. A big red flag of an abuser, is someone who batters their or their partner’s pet(s). I witnessed this when I was with a man who physically abused his dog. He physically abused me too. So I’m glad I never had children with him, otherwise I fear I would be one of the examples in this story. For many women no statistics are required for this knowledge. Unfortunately, too many women know this first hand.

     

    The other thing that struck me in this article was, “Failure to protect.” I think as a society and globally we are failing to protect women and children from abuse. I/We need to do more.  

  • wendy-banks

    It’s your words and attitude that makes me class you as woman-hateing.

    Gaslighting is a reference from the move ‘Gaslight’ go look up the plot and the term please– It’s not hard to find. I do not have PTSD thank you, and I’m rather fond of men– It’s assholes I can live without.

    I personally don’t know how you keep your licence– You attitude would cause more problems than it would help– and is very unprofessional.

    Here, I went and got the defination of ‘gaslighting’ for you because you are to damn ‘good’ to look it up for yourself.

    Gaslighting is a form of intimidation or psychological abuse in which false information is presented to the victim, making them doubt their own memory and perception.

    • captcourageous

      “It’s your words and attitude that makes me class you as woman-hateing.”

       

      No, it’s your PTSD, which showed it self in the original post you wrote. You obviously flashed back to the shotgun incident, while calling him a dick.

       

      Salos is not at any kind of fault for not knowing about gaslighting; neither is he at fault for not looking it up himself.

       

      This board is not about commentary on the contents of Joan Dawson’s essay, per se. It’s about having flashbacks to the time you were attacked by a male. Joan could have tried to tie real estate and maritime law together with “domestic violence”, and it would have made no difference to most of you. would it? 

       

  • curtisp

    because it is often true.  If people don’t want to be called on it then they need to be a bit more honest and not get so upset and nasty when an important issue is discussed. 

  • lbsimon

    Your post makes no sense whatsoever. Pity.

  • lbsimon

    I think the point you missed was “I urge you not to fall for their bait …”

     

  • curtisp

    where I grew up in the 1960’s also had it’s share of violence.  It was in suburban Seattle and all the kids in the neighborhood knew which houses to run from when dad came home.  There was also a woman who used to pick up her baby and slam it down into the crib when she cried.  She never touched the other kids but I always wonder if that baby ever made it because the family did not live there long.  Violence for some people was just considered normal and us kids were not supposed to talk about it.  But we knew it was not right.  Most dads did not do that kind of thing and the kids who got beat up were not exceptionally bad kids.

  • lbsimon

    MzPetunia Pigg

    You last post is uh, how shall I put it, bizarre. “He does this to appear larger than life – omnipotent.” ??????? ~(:l)

  • lbsimon

    Squirrel girl

    From what I read, that poster started by calling Irving a woman hating dick and wound up confusing him with the guy who held a shotgun to her head, while he gaslighted her. That had to be a traumatic experience of the kind you can’t get over.

    • wendy-banks

      Confused? Not me! I have a 127 IQ– I can tell the difference between two men, thanks. And I know a jerk when I see one.

      I only took the pot shot at Irvy after reading MANY of his nasty, woman-bashing posts. Unjust, crude, rude, and vile people and situations angry me, and I will intervene.

      And yes, thank you, I’ve gotten over my ex quite nicely– I very seldom think of him at all exsept when brought to think of him by articles like this one. The best revenge is getting completely over someone and going on with your life.

      Go back to your little ‘man group’ and whine about how mean we women are to you. Grow up dude, and get a life!

  • curtisp

    The issue of issues came up when a poster was being nasty, exposing some issues.  It happens in a heated discussion involving hot button issues. 

  • lbsimon

    MzPetuniaPigg

     

    Would you please stop promoting your blog? I went there, and it is nothing you want to brag about. Thank you.

  • lbsimon

    MzPetuniaPigg

     

    You are stuck on using the word denigration. Would you please look up the definition of that word, before you repeat it?

  • wendy-banks

    Petunia Pig was Porky Pigs’ daughter or girl friend on ‘Looney Toons’ If I remember correctly. Alot of people like pigs — I like birds myself, I have chicken ‘things’ and other bird art all over the house.

    And frankly, Jacqueline I wonder if you have ‘danglely bits’ twix your legs that you need to claim.

    And if you don’t like Mz. Pig you leave.

    And don’t say I have a low IQ– I don’t– It’s 127. Average is 100 and most people are less.

     

  • lbsimon

    Squirrely

     

    From what I have read, Irvy doesn’t suffer fools gladly. Nor does he take any guff. You and most of the others here have exhausted your bag of tricks for driving males away and thus avoiding any meaningful dialogue. You arrogantly excuse your own sneers and jeers and run around with your noses bent out of shape, at what are nothing more than his responses to you.

     

    This guy’s got you all tripping over your own vocabulary, to the point that some of your posts read like gibberish.

  • wendy-banks

    Well said, dear, well said!

  • lbsimon

    Your post is delightful. It reads a little bit like Dr. Seuss.

  • curtisp

    thank you.

  • lbsimon

    I have no problem with the concept of males out there that need to be put away. Just so long as all men are not tarred and feathered with the same brush. I spent last Father’s Day at a party attended by ten men. If you read most of the feminist literature, these guys would be portrayed as members of the criminal class. I know them all personally for more than a decade, and none of them are even potential bully boys or batterers. They would sacrifice their lives for their wives and kids! They are not in the minority.

  • wendy-banks

    I had my daughter at 39 after tring to find ‘mister right’ for twenty years. *Chuckles* And at this point in my life I’d settle for ‘mister not a jerk’.

    She was a planned pregnacy– Althought I nearly ‘bought the farm’ in the first trimester. Hyperemesis gravida is soo much fun– not! *never again*   If I was forced to go through a pregnancy like that again I’d blow my brain’s out. So, I got myself spayed– no more babies for this girl…

    No one could force me to go to term if I didn’t want the child– PERIOD! I’d find a way, and being a Pharm Tech I know a few… But a safe abortion IS the best way.

     

  • lbsimon

    Troublemaker:

     

    They are next-door neighbors. I will take a polygraph and testify to that in court. Stop trying to promote that worthless blog. Good Lord!

  • wendy-banks

    Oh, man up and cut the snide sexest crap and whineing– It doesn’t play well here. If you do not treat woman like equals here– You will get treated coldly, and called on every bit of bull you spout. If you spew right-winger crap here, you will get called on that as well.

    Don’t like it? Go to your MRA and cry at them about how badly you are being treated.

  • rebellious-grrl

    It’s too bad that you reported abuse for another blogger. I thought you might believe in the freedom of speech, the first amendment. I highly doubt the people at Google are going to delete her blog despite your efforts to silence her. I plan to forward her blog to everyone I know and send it to every feminist listserv I belong to.

     

    • lbsimon

      It will only raise your status as some kind of a kook to an incredibly high level – higher than it is already.

       

       

  • curtisp

    most posters here would agree with you.  As for feminist literature most of what I have read would not portray men as a criminal class.  I think the main problem with it is it can be so damned heavy that it is a bit hard to focus on what one is reading.

    • lbsimon

      I’d have to agree with you on that point curtisp.

  • rebellious-grrl

    It seams like you are regurgitating some sort of script to me. Kind of like Sarah Palin during the vice-presidental debates. I would love to hear William Shatner read this.

    tarred and feathered …… Father’s Day at a party attended by ten men……feminist literature……portrayed as members of the criminal class. I know them all personally….

    • lbsimon

      Rebellious gorilla:

       

      What an autistic way to try and keep an argument going?

       

      Try not using psychoactive substances before you go online. Your reading comprehesion should improve considerably.

       

      Script? Sara Palin? William Shatner? You must be tripping! Seriously!

       

  • wendy-banks

    I agree totally.

  • rebellious-grrl
  • shauna

    So is a woman’s testimony all that should be required for a ruling in her favor in these cases, in your opinion?  Given that the opposing party could just as easily offer such testimony? 

     

    An allegation by itself doesn’t constitute a “fact of the case.”  There is a difference between discounting someone’s testimony in the face of corroborating evidence and discounting it because it appears to be simply thrown out there with little or nothing to back it up. 

  • shauna

    Also abusers being related to children often has nothing to do with how badly children will be abused.

     

    I’m afraid nothing could be farther from the truth.  Wilson and Daly first studied this issue in the 80s and data collected since then confirms their conclusions.   US data shows young children to be at a 100 times greater risk from a stepfather/mother’s boyfriend than from a biological father, and Canadian data show a 70 times greater risk.  This phenomenon, well known among psychologists and sociologists, is called the “Cinderella effect” and is a mounting cause for concern as the rates of unmarried parenthood and cohabitation increase, particularly among the lower classes.  Clearly too many women who separate from their children’s father don’t do all that great a job in choosing a replacement.

     

    If their attourney knows the abuse happened and uses “all those women making false accusations” as leverage to win.  Disbar him or her.

     

    How would an attorney know that abuse happened unless his/her client admitted it?  And how would you then prove that knowledge?

     

    What would you do with an attorney who has no reason to think abuse happened but encouraged a woman to, say, seek a restraining order to remove a man from the house and thereby secure a custody advantage in court?

     

     

  • paul-bradford

    I wonder, colleen, if you would agree with me that men who batter their partners and abuse their children are treating them like things — things which ought to exist for the happiness of the man rather than treating them like people who have needs and interests of their own — interests that ought to be respected.  The violence occurs when the woman or children ‘step out of line’ and do something that does not directly add to the man’s happiness.  Actually, sometimes the woman or children are seen to be ‘punching bags’ who exist to absorb the man’s expressions of frustration and impotence.

     

    You, as someone who works directly with victims of domestic abuse, are in an excellent position to correct my misconceptions.

     

    By the way, I liked the article.  My response to it was to say that important issues had been raised which deserved greater exploration.

     

     

  • squirrely-girl

    LBSimon, 

     

    I’m not going to pretend that some people who post in comment sections don’t have mental health issues. I’m absolutely certain that some do. The point I’m trying to make is that NOBODY, including the people with ACTUAL DEGREES, appropriate state licensure, and experience in diagnosing should be presuming to “diagnose” or describe other people with psychological or psychiatric terms based on some posts. 

     

    As to your statement that the poster in question, “wound up confusing him with the guy…”, again, who are you to really make this statement? Short of some hidden telepathy or mind reading ability, the only person who REALLY knows what she’s thinking is that individual. That was YOUR interpretation of her post, which may or may not be true. Again, a single post is WHOLLY insufficient support for diagnosis… and to believe otherwise is woefully ignorant.

     

    It’s become very frustrating to watch people “diagnose” and speak for others when they have absolutely no business doing so. And not a single “diagnosis” has been made with the intention of enlightening or truly helping the other person, but rather to LABEL a person and thus discredit their argument or summarily dismiss their comments as “crazy”, “confused”, or “traumatized.” This is purely self-serving and again… woefully ignorant.

     

    On a side note, yes, that probably was a deeply traumatizing experience. But people can, and often do, get past traumatic events. Not every traumatizing event scars you for a lifetime or makes you unable to function permanently. Our brains and emotional wellbeing are highly resilient and therapy is a wonderful tool.

    • captcourageous

      Squirrely girl

       

      Please go back to the beginning of this comment section, read it carefully and then tell me who began the practices of both speaking for others and labelling poster from a mental health perspective.

       

      Personally, this guy is not someone I’d invite to a party or who I’d want to have a beer with, and I agree with most of you that, to some extent, he’s gone over the top a few times here.

       

      But, I saw someone who simply tried to say, if you leave this essay the way it is, it was not a good one, much less an excellent one. For this he’s told he’s an imposter, one of a bunch of losers, laughable, an asshole, etc.; never mind what you all implied that he was (stupid, a caveman, etc.). I don’t think I could have taken the snotty stuff he took, for as long as he took it.

  • colleen

    My response to it was to say that important issues had been raised which deserved greater exploration.

    Your response was inappropriate and, characteristically, treated women like things.

  • squirrely-girl

    Well I guess that’s something that “Irvy” and I have in common, I too don’t “suffer fools gladly.” :) If you take a few minutes to READ my posts, you may notice that I’ve provided positive feedback and responses to other male posters. I absolutely LOVE when reproductive rights dialogue includes mens’ voices as well. They DO have a stake in the outcomes. Any time you systematically remove 50% of the population from debate, your final arguments and conclusions suffer greatly. All I’m expecting is polite debate without fake “diagnoses”, personal attacks, and purposeful sexist comments meant to incite. And yes, I would like to see this from EVERY poster, not just one or two.

     

    And finally, I won’t apologize for my vocabulary. I choose my words carefully with sincere respect for both their literal meanings as well as social connotations. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if you don’t understand the words I’m using or something doesn’t make sense, learn to use the dictionary and thesaurus or simply ask for clarification. I’m more than happy to provide it.

  • crowepps

    We have gone over this a number of times and you still seem to be missing the point – although your goal seems to be ‘a ruling in his favor’ my goal is NOT ‘a ruling in her favor’ – my goal is to PROTECT the children while the ALLEGATION is investigated.

     

    An allegation is indeed the REPORTING of a fact just as “I saw the blue car run into the red car” is not a fact but instead the REPORTING of a fact.

     

    I don’t know whether or not you had to time to go the link and read the entire report but I would highly recommend reading the section where it talks about police reports and arrests and how if the woman brings them in as evidence she is penalized for ‘disparaging’ the father and is she DOESN’T bring them up then she is penalized on the assumption that her silence means she is ‘failing to protect the children’.

    • shauna

      “my goal is to PROTECT the children while the ALLEGATION is investigated.”

       

      Isn’t this what police were trying to do in the Timothy Frazier case?

       

      I’ve read the links to the cases cited in this article and agree that the Garcia case was a gross miscarriage of justice, but in most of the others I’m not sure what more you’d have the authorities do.  In the Bacon case there was no evidence and no prior history whatsoever.  The allegation came after it was already too late.  The Guenther case apparently involved no evidence aside from the allegations themselves, since requests for protective orders were dismissed and “she had DFS out to the house but they found nothing.”   The link to the Aguilar case states not that the police did not investigate the woman’s abuse claims but that there have been no abuse claims at all, nor is there any history to go on.  The link to the Resch case would not load, for some reason.

       

      What is your plan?  To remove every child to foster care upon a report of abuse while it’s investigated (which poses its own risks), or to place the child in the custody of the other parent pending investigation (such as in the Frazier case)?

       

      I might be able to get on board with this except for the fact that anyone could set this highly disruptive process in motion for any reason, and it can all too easily morph into a tool to secure a custody advantage a race to the DFS if you will, by setting up a status quo that a familiy court will not want to overturn even if the allegation is found to be false or unfounded.

       

      I know it’s too simplistic a conclusion, but it is simply beyond the power of the legal system to completely clean up the messes that people make of their families.  We might do better to try harder to educate our young people on how to avoid toxic partners and relationships and reproduce more prudently.   

  • crowepps

    It was very nice of you to jump in here and tell me what you think he was thinking, but since I’ve already been accused of misrepresenting his position when I paraphrased it, I think I’ll wait and see what HIS response is.  I imagine that a third, fourth and for all I know tenth alternative option are possible, which is why I ASKED him what his position was.

     

    She is held to scholarly or scientific standards when she publishes any in-depth work.

    Would you describe this short article as “in-depth work”?  I am astonished.

     

    I am not offended.  I’m not sure what you mean by “oneupmanship” and “getting in the last word”, and I am aware that my REPEATED efforts to get the posts back on the topic of discussion and enjoy a “mutal exchange of ideas” instead of exchanges of insults and derogatory labels have not yet borne fruit, but I will persist!  This is an important issue for children.

  • crowepps

    I did not say “Irv has issues” and if “that is not Irv’s issue” came across that way it was not intended.  To clarify, I meant that is not the aspect of this subject on which Irv seems to be focused.

     

    Lots of words are intended as a put down, overused and have become vagaries, in particular “feminist”.

    • lbsimon

      Crowepps

       

      Ok. Point taken. Good!

  • crowepps

    I wasn’t speaking of those particular cases, but rather in the general – a situation in which someone reports the specific threat of “I’ll kill the kids if” –

     

    As I understand the men’s right group’s position, they believe that such a report shouldn’t be taken seriously because it’s LIKELY that it was made by a “vindictive feminist looking for revenge”, and that only after a trial and conviction for domestic abuse should there be any weight given to such accusations.

    anyone could set this highly disruptive process in motion for any reason,

    Oh, golly, lots of other highly disruptive law enforcement processes already are set in motion by accusations of drug use or sexual abuse or ‘suspicious activity’ of one kind or another that have basis only in the complainants’ spite. That’s the whole point of having law enforcement and a judicial system, to at least attempt to sort out the truth, but surely the judicial system needs to be alert for and seek to prevent being prejudiced against an entire category of complainants because of stereotypes like “women who complain they are victims of violence are probably just man-hating spiteful bitches because if it was really bad they would just leave”.

     

    The point I was trying to make, and I’ll note that I was exchanging posts with a men’s right organization representative, is that in my opinion the issue should not be whether ‘he wins’ or ‘she wins’ but whether the children are safe.

    it can all too easily morph into a tool to secure a custody advantage a race to the DFS if you will

    From my own experience, this already is happening, with one party alleging violence and the other party alleging that the first party is practicing ‘alienation’. It never seems to occur to violent parents that children who see and hear one parent beating the other just might be ‘alienated’ by the ACTIONS which they SEE and not prejudiced because the victim is complaining to them.

    it is simply beyond the power of the legal system to completely clean up the messes that people make of their families.

    I’ll absolutely agree with you there, because I get very, VERY tired of dealing with serial offenders who serve a few months for one battering and then seem to have no problem finding a new relationship where they can repeat the same pattern.

     

    It’s my experience that cases where people are violent towards their significant other are treated as less serious and receive a milder penalty than cases where someone is violent towards a neighbor or coworker. Focusing on the propensity toward violence the person demonstrates without ranking the important of the event according to who the victim was might be helpful.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Rebellious gorilla, like the Gorilla Girls. Sweet. Guess you missed William Shatner reading from Sarah Palin’s book and her tweets on Conan O’Brian. It was brilliant.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Was Irv M.I.A.? Sounds like “dr e” was trying pretty hard to get his attention. 

     

    - Whatever I really don’t care. Why again am I talking to a troll? WTF. Guess I’m still ridding the troll train wreck.

  • lbsimon

    Troll? WTF? “dr e”?

     

    Do many feminists have this big a blindspot about their own behavior, or is it just you?

     

    [Hint: That's a rhetorical question.]

  • lbsimon

    You are acting like a fanatic at this point. So sad.

  • crowepps

    I think, as she does quite often, she was trying to inject a leavening of humor.  Like most humor, if you don’t get it on your own, the detailed explanation isn’t amusing.

     

    I got it in my own.  I laughed.

     

    It might be helpful if you would discard your apparent assumption that the women here who believe domestic violence/spousal abuse is a problem are are all “feminist”.  You don’t have to “hate men” to see domestic violence as a problem when you work in a field where you see it a lot.  Most men also see domestic violence/spousal abuse as a problem.

  • wendy-banks

    In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

    Seriously–try to keep up dude.

  • captcourageous

    Troll –

    One who purposely and deliberately (that purpose usually being self-amusement) starts an argument in a manner which she attacks others on a forum without in any way listening to the arguments proposed by her peers. She will spark of such an argument via the use of ad hominem attacks (i.e. ‘you’re nothing but a bully’ is a popular phrase) with no substance or relevence to back them up as well as straw man arguments, which she uses to simply avoid addressing the essence of the issue.

    That describes you and your friends to a tee, dudette! Why don’t you stop trying to debate by using projection?

    Projection -

    a.

    the tendency to ascribe to another person feelings, thoughts, or attitudes present in oneself, or to regard external reality as embodying such feelings, thoughts, etc., in some way.
    b.

    Psychoanalysis. such an ascription relieving the ego of a sense of guilt or other intolerable feeling.
    Also, try not to be a copycat and steal this word as something you introduced to the board.

     

     

  • captcourageous

    LBSimon is right! All you’re interested in is your own brand of snotty oneupmanship and getting the last word in.

  • captcourageous

    “I only took the pot shot at Irvy after reading MANY of his nasty, woman-bashing posts. Unjust, crude, rude, and vile people and situations angry me, and I will intervene.”

     

    That’s just the point here dudette! First you read his nasty posts while excusing the snot-ball posts he was responding to! Secondly, you always had the option to write nothing at all. You all could have left his post floating alone until it was buried altogether by the ones that came after it.Thirdly. you too took a trip down memory lane, had a flashback to some guy you cannot stand, and you associated him with it.

     

    “Go back to your little ‘man group’ and whine about how mean we women are to you. Grow up dude, and get a life!”

     

    Stop excusing your own rude, crude behavior, if you want to convince anybody that you have a superior I.Q.! That includes using lame cliches as talking points.

     

  • captcourageous

    I’ve learned from this board that there are many things that block effective interactions between women and MRA’s, and most of them come under the category of crossed-communications, screwed up by stereotypy and emotionality. Someone posted upstream there that we have more in common than we think we do. I agree with that and with you crowepps!

  • captcourageous

    Please, go to SYG. You can even register and login as a member. I am quite certain you will be welcomed and treated well there. The same goes for AM and mens-rights.net.

     

    It would help to eliminate a lot of unfounded assumptions and stereotypes on both sides.

     

  • crowepps

    But, I saw someone who simply tried to say, if you leave this essay the way it is, it was not a good one, much less an excellent one.

    The post which called out the author for not providing backup and asked questions and for references was actually from JenK.  She is the one who ended with:

    I really hope you are willing to provide documentation for your accusations. I am interested to see what you find to my questions above.

    Jen

    Submitted by JenK on March 18, 2010 – 5:08pm.

    The first post from “Irving M. Salos Ph.D.” on March 18, 2010 at 10:24pm  was a cut and paste of a post elsewhere attributed to John Dias.

     

    The second was another cut and paste submitted March 18, 2010 at 11:06pm containing numerous bullet points.

     

    The first that I can identify that contained his own words answered a response to what was described as his “wall of text”:

    You beg the question

    You beg the question beautifully! May I quote you? Here goes …

    However, I think I can sum up your points nicely and save you the work.”

    No, you you obviously can’t do either!

    You are a product of long-term and intensive indoctrination in feminist ideology, born and bred of Marxist principles that program you to feel incessantly victimized by a broad, theoretical entity, known as “The Patriarchy”. Because this patriarchy has ALL of the power and priviledge, it’s OK for you to falsely accuse men of rape and get away with it – despite the Constitution; in fact, it’s OK to stereotype males as violent predators, perverts, pinheads and anything else you feel like, despite the fact that it violates law pertaining to civil rights and crimes of hate!

     

    Submitted by Irving M. Salos Ph.D. on March 19, 2010 – 1:58pm.
    Unless JenK and Irving M. Salos Ph.D. are actually the same person, or I have missed a post dated before this in which he actually did comment on the article’s format, this does not seem congruent with your perception of him as someone who “simply tried to say, if you leave this essay the way it is, it was not a good one, much less an excellent one.”
    Personally, at the point where someone uses a hackneyed McCarthyism like “long-term and intensive indoctrination in feminist ideology, born and bred of Marxist principles” my perception of both the possibility their views will be valuable to the discussion and their intelligence tends to plummet.
  • crowepps

    I can’t tell the proper names from the acronyms to locate them and don’t have time to go through this lengthy thread trying to find them. Others may have the same problem.

     

    As to whether any of us would be treated well there, I have reservations, which arise from your use of the word ‘snotty’ to describe comments here. My understanding of that word usage is that it implies a rude or impudent statement made by a child towards an adult or an inferior to a superior.

     

    Not knowing each other personally or knowing each others ages, education, reputations or intelligence, the use of that word implies to me that we inferior women weren’t sufficiently ‘respectful’ of the superior male authority figures who decided to drop by. Respect in any discussion of topics has to be earned by insightful views and persuasiveness of words and is not automatically deserved based on secretion of testosterone.

  • squirrely-girl

    Captcourageous, 

     

    I’m not sure if you misinterpreted my reference to degrees as pointing out Irving. I honestly wasn’t meaning to do so (at any rate he’s not the only one with an advanced degree on here). Rather, I was attempting to make the point that even a licensed clinical psychologist wouldn’t presume to “diagnose” based off online postings… and these are the people that diagnose for a living. 

    I was making more of a general statement that a LOT of people on both “sides” have started throwing out labels and speaking for other people and in general this is a bad practice that we all should avoid. I also think BOTH sides have digressed from the original debate, in response to perceived and actual rudeness, and perhaps we can get back on track…

    I apologize if I was unclear. :)

  • squirrely-girl

    I can appreciate your contribution here (yay for projection!) but I’m interested in your inclusion of “you’re nothing but a bully” as an example of argumentum ad hominem. Personal attacks, name calling, or criticisms of character aren’t inherently ad hominem unless the individual is also trying to discredit or dismiss the message due to the personal factors of the other person. In other words – “Mr. X is an ignorant poop head and so he’s automatically WRONG!” Unfortunately, people can be total jerks but still be correct in their assertions. But you CAN criticize or chastise an individual for poor character or behavior without also summarily dismissing their arguments. 

     

    For example, I’ve commented on poor conduct several times here but not once dismissed the original message or underlying belief. I actually have yet to comment on it at all. Quite frankly, I’m just not really interested in the MRA/MRM/FR (not totally sure what acronym is the appropriate choice here) – NOT because of the messengers but because I’m honestly uninformed as to it’s intent and I just have other things to concern myself with/no time or interest to research it further. However, what I AM interested in is maintaining polite discourse and debate. I don’t really like people that I perceive to be rude and I have very little tolerance for bullies (on ANY side of a debate).

     

    And, while a personal attack combined with dismissal of the message IS an example of ad hominem fallacy, I’m learned over the years that if you REALLY want somebody to listen to your message, being polite and respectful goes a LONG way toward that goal. While it may be a logical fallacy, plenty of people “tune out” jerks. 

     


  • crowepps

    Quite frankly, I’m just not really interested in the MRA/MRM/FR … because I’m honestly uninformed as to it’s intent

    As with issues around reproductive rights it’s necessary to guard against the assumption that MRA/MRM/FR groups all have the same intent, or that members of a particular group all have the same understanding.

     

    This comes up over and over and over in contested issues and even in normal societal interchanges – the idea that there is a block of people ‘here’ who all have identical views (prolife/prochoice/feminist/men’s rights/etc) and that their beliefs are being ignored/trampled by this block of people ‘there’ who all have one identical opposing view.

     

    The possibility of a THIRD block existing, or fourth or seventh or twentieth, with different slants on things, is rarely explored because as soon as the two sides have been identified the participants aim a laser glare at their ‘opponent’ which blinds them to the complexities of the situation.

     

    Perhaps that’s why my reaction to the ‘propaganda based in marxist ideology’ comment was so dismissive. I mean, aside from its ignorance of the fact that marxism is an ECONOMIC theory and therefore can lend little insight to sexism/feminism/misandry.  That may have been unfair.

     

    I enjoy this site because the regular posters pretty consistently do seem to stick to the issues and at least attempt to have an open and frank exchange of views without being distracted into ad hominem and nastiness, but I’m aware that I too have biases and blind spots.

  • wendy-banks

    Yep, that has Dennis (my ex bf) written all over it– Ye gods, what a loser. I like nice, sane men now… Ones that think strong, brainy women are are sexy.

    ‘I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in a pan, and never let you forget you’er a man, I’m a woman, W-O-M-A-N’  Yah, I love that song…

    *chuckles over Irving thing*

     

    And yes, Irv pookie, I did answer you a couple pages ago, did you feel ignored?…

  • wendy-banks

    I do not have PTSD. I do not have flash backs. I was not attacked– I had an abusive boyfriend. I have worked through my issues with licenced PhD, thanks every so much! No one is qualifed to diagnose a mental health issue based on a few words.

    You folks (esp. Salos) really come across and hateful and dickish. I fully admit to being a bitch when angered As I said before unjust things anger me.

    And frankly, if someone doesn’t know the meaning of a term they should look it up before comenting. It tends to make them look foolish.

  • mzpetuniapigg

    http://www.thelizlibrary.org and see for yourself what the father’s rights groups are all about.  Their self-imposed heros like Warren Farrell who propose that incest is actually good.  This and so much more await you.

  • invalid-0

    You gave yourself the definition of snotty and then used it to accuse this poster of thinking he is superior to women and that he is an authority figure. This is poor reasoning. It makes you look as though you are inferior. He has been pointing out poor reasoning on the part of posters here all along. It makes you mad and you get petty and spiteful back at him. This is self-destructive on your part.

    Here are the links he mentioned.

    http://standyourground.com  (click on forums)

    http://antimisandry.com

    Don’t be a coward. Go and join them. Give them your opinions.

     

     

    http://antimisandry.com 

     

  • crowepps

    It makes you look as though you are inferior. He has been pointing out poor reasoning on the part of posters here all along. It makes you mad and you get petty and spiteful back at him. This is self-destructive on your part.

    So I look inferior, use poor reasoning, am angry, petty, spiteful and self-destructive.  Oh, and if I don’t show up then that means I’m a coward.

     

    After such a gracious invitation, I’m sure I and lots of others here will just zoom right on over to see how we’re treated.  Not.

     

  • invalid-0

    Unfortunately, these men are right. You make long-winded excuses for your own behavior. You rationalize very much. The Ph.D. fellow is right about one thing also. You take a piece of the paragraph, single it out and argue as though it is the entire argument. This is lifting things out of their context. You are very good at this and use it quite often.

     

    There is something called a timeline, from the first to the last. Using a timeline on this board, you quickly see that women defenders of Joan Dawson were the first to use nasty and insulting behavior. This Irving Salos never once referred to any of you by a body part or by a sexual dysfunction, the way you did to him, nor did he ever make claims about what you would say or do next, yet you keep up the pretense that he has been bullying you. He has fought you back, when you have used tactics of dirty fighting. You are addicted to playing up your victimhood a an excuse to hit below the belt and fight dirty. He is not being disrespectful, you are being self-destructive.

     

     

     

  • ahunt

    Snerk. You are a fat, ugly feminist who hates men, because no man  would want a fat ugly feminist who has been indoctrinated with feminist lies since birth and you cannot think for yourself and are too chicken-shit to show up in a forum where you will be dismissed out of hand because you are a fat ugly feminist.

     

    Been there, done that, w/ spelling errors…much to the entertainment of the BH and three sons.

  • invalid-0

    Your post was very constructive and helpful crowepps. Thank you.

  • invalid-0

    Oh, but it’s accepted without question that HE secretes testosterone, therefore he sees himself as an authority figure, who demands a certain level of respect, because secreting this hormone makes him superior to you (and you inferior to him) and you can’t see that, therefore you need a good dose of bullying, which you refuse to submit to, and so you are not going to check out the forums … this would make a good script for a soap opera.

    None of you really win arguments. do you? You just try to wear down and wear out your opponent until he throws in the towel and goes away.

    • crowepps

      None of you really win arguments. do you? You just try to wear down and wear out your opponent until he throws in the towel and goes away.

      I don’t find the fact that the MRM particiipants have gotten frustrated with the fact that we aren’t sympathetic to their conspiracy theories and can’t handle the fact that most here aren’t impressed by their abusiveness proof of anything.  We didn’t invite them here with the purpose of abusing them, their participation was entirely voluntary, nobody taunted them when they decided they didn’t want to continue, and I haven’t seen any evidence of high fives because they were ‘driven off’.

       

      This has an unmistakable echo of the perennial complaint, “those women just go on and on and on about their ‘feelings’ until a guy is sick and tired of it.”

       

      Perhaps if it didn’t take a dozen posts and lots of BOLDING to get every single point past the noise of the pity party going on in the poor-persecuted-me pit where Irv staked out his position soon after he arrived, the discussion would have been shorter and you all wouldn’t have gotten so tired.

  • ahunt

    None of you really win arguments. do you? You just try to wear down and wear out your opponent until he throws in the towel and goes away

     

    Actually, such has been my experience on MRA boards…so please know I sympathize.

     

     

     

     

     


     


  • invalid-0

    That site is nothing but poisoned propaganda. You’re accomplice is right. You are an agent provocateur.

  • invalid-0

    It makes you look as though you are inferior.” = I’ve been called inferior! Humph!

     

    He has been pointing out poor reasoning on the part of posters here all along. It makes you mad and you get petty and spiteful back at him. This is self-destructive on your part.” = I can interpret this as a personal attack on behalf of myself and others and anticipate that it is a sample of how I’ll be treated on two MRA forums.

     

    “Oh, and if I don’t show up then that means I’m a coward.” = Ouch, that hit home!

     

     

     

     

  • invalid-0

    Here, Listen to me, I’ll tell you what to expect. Let me give you the totally unbiased skinny on how you’ll be treated. (I have to laugh at this maniacally-written post of yours ahunt.) Hey, everybody, don’t bother checking these sites out for yourselves, because she already has.

    Go there, sign-up, give them your input.

    I see why you people are so difficult to deal with. You can never be wrong. You can never concede any point to an opponent. You can never compromise or reach concessus on anything. It’s your way or the highway, isn’t it? That’s fanaticism, with all that it implies. 

     

     

     

    • crowepps

      First, the posters here are not “you people” but a number of different individuals, with different opinions and posting styles.

       

      Second, if someone makes an argument that proves that I am wrong, I agree with them and state that I was wrong.  So far that hasn’t happened on this subject.

       

      I wasn’t aware that I had any ‘opponents’ in this discussion.  I tend to think of the others here are ‘participants’.  I readily concede points that are proven by actual argument.  I do not think “I feel persecuted” or “feminists want all women to hate all men” are valid arguments.

  • ahunt

    Laughter was the point, S.

     

    As it happens, I’ve spent a fair amount of time on MRA sites…some years back. The occasional productive conversation was enlightening, but for the most part, I found the posters to be utterly self-absorbed, mind-numbingly sexist, unable to take one shred of responsibility for the failure of their relationships, contemptuous of the traditional work of women, more interested in the dynamics of power than in cooperation and reconciliation, overly reliant on methodologically unsound research culled from agenda-oriented sources, nitpickers in the extreme, completely humorless, hostile to any input that rationally questions opinions, research, resources, interpretation and conclusions, kneejerk insulting/ combative and so on.

     

    Oh look…all the things feminists have been accused of…

     

    Consider this a rational layman’s forum, where refugees from the wild-eyed fringe come to chat.

     

    I have a husband and three sons. I have operated in their best interests for the last 30 years. I’ll take my cues from them.

     

    And permit me to point out that in between the nanny nanny boo boo/ dominance displays…some constructive discussion occurred here. Ain’t nuthin’ stoppin’ you from participation…right here, right now.

  • wendy-banks

    Hey MzPetuniaPigg I found a rolling on the floor funny song that you could put on your site it’s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my7sxZ0KfHU 

    Enjoy!

    • invalid-0

      Yes, that would go very with her blog. It’s extremely juvenile, like the rest of that blog’s content 

       

      Once again, you excuse your own behavior.

    • rebellious-grrl

      Thanks for the link. Great song — downloaded it to my ipod.

  • rebellious-grrl

    re:Sophomoric sophistry on your part.

    Poor reasoning on my part, for continuing this schismogenic cycle of lunacy.  As a good “Nancy Drew,” I usually cite sources to support my thesis, but in this case it doesn’t matter! Do you know why it doesn’t matter? Why don’t you ponder that for a while. …………I think most people who read this blog understand what’s going on. Yes, I’ve lost my patience. I have a life, and better things to do than argue with you (or your friends.) It’s pointless. Go ahead, post this online as another “hand to hand combat battle” with the feminists. Go ahead. We all know what the truth is.

    It’s not our job to inform, educate, or provide entertainment for you and your buddies. I’ve been patient until this point. NO, I wouldn’t be caught dead posting on your website. Contrary to what you believe, I’m not a man-hater. I showed your suggested websites to my husband, and my friends (most of which are men.) They agreed with me. They all said something to the effect of “that’s f’d up.”

    I really don’t give a damn if you copy and post this entire post to your blog. Go back to your blog and say I’m a psychopathic feminist b. I don’t care if you say I’m crazy, stupid, self-centered, or whatever dumb-ass comment you have about me. I don’t care if you call me an angry bitch. To you I am rebellious grrl, Ph.D.!

    Oh,…….. have a nice day :)

    • invalid-0

      I showed this comments section to my family and friends and took notes on their reactions. Here is a summary for you.

      a) You people always excuse your snide behavior.

       

      b) You always project your own egocentric biases on others with whom you argue.

       

      c)  You presume yourselves to be intellectually debating, when you really engage in coarse oneupsmanship and trying desperately to get in the last word (one of your posts states that’s what you intend to do here, SO DO NOT PIN THIS ON ME!!).

       

      d) You pull this rubbish, because you do not know how do debate fairly and honestly. All you know how to do is complain, lay blame and take the moral highground (while fighting dirty).

       

      e) If anyone gets the better of you in a debate, all you can do is play pretend – that it didn’t happen (ignore it), that it was really your idea (imitate it)or that they have offended you in some way (accuse them).

       

      f) You also change the subject as a means of evading  direct answers to straightforward questions.

       

  • invalid-0

    Time for what the poster Jacqueline called a Reality Check. Salos stood up to your attacks. He took you all on, completely outnumbered. He proved his summary post about you to a tee. He gave as good as he got. That’s why you are so obsessed with him.

  • ahunt

    He took you all on, completely outnumbered. He proved his summary post about you to a tee. He gave as good as he got. That’s why you are so obsessed with him.

     

     

    Well, if such is the case, what’s your problem? Consider us vanquished.

  • ahunt

    Well then, elevate the discussion. What point, related to the essay, do you wish to make?

  • crowepps

    Yeah, yeah, even though I wasn’t aware that war had been declared in the first place, you can consider me “vanquished” as well.  How could I withhold that satisfaction when ALL your friends agree with YOU!

     

    Although, in that stubborn insistance on ‘having the last word’ that you so deplore, I would point out that rather than being obsessed, we’ve already moved on to something else entirely.

  • invalid-0

    After ten full days of your quibbling, you have decided that I must elevate this exchange. Certainly. Right after I finish listening to the YouTube Dickhead Song that Wendy just posted.

  • ahunt

    This is an open forum S. People are free to post whatever.

  • ahunt

    Essentially S…I’m just not clear on what it is that you want.

  • jenk

    Wow, did things unravel here.

     

    Well, back on topic, the issues I had with the article (blog post) are these:

    The facts are thus:

    1. Both men and women commit DV, in constestable amounts.

    2. Both men and women commit violence against children, in proven amounts, with women committing more.

    3. Both men and women engage in PAS, unknown amounts.

    4. Both men and women need to be able to protect their children and report abuse when it occurs, and need the ability to leave abusive marriages safely.

    5. Both men and women deserve the right to a fair and speedy trial, and have the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

    6. All children deserve to be safe from harm.

     

    I think we all can agree on these.

     

    So my issue is that this article was slanted only to male abusers and female victims, with zero consideration for male victims and female abusers. It also did not address women (and men) who for their own codependant needs seek out abusive relationships. It also failed to bring up false allegations and the very real drive and benefits to doing so. And it completely ignored that women abuse and kill children at higher rates than men.

     

    I did not necessarily disagree that when a man is abusive to his wife that he may not be the best father. But this simplistic POV ignores the very real possibility that the violence is mutual. It also ignores the very real possibility that the woman may be the violent one, or that an abused wife is not necessarily a great parent either.

     

    It is not that I completely disagreed with the content, I just felt that by leaving out so much of the total picture it presented a very slanted view which demonized fathers and held up mothers as the sainted victims. That is not the way the world works. I felt it was a dishonest presentation of an issue.

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    While I don’t agree with you, I do believe in freedom of speech and you are free to state your opinion. It’s a really nice day outside and I’m going to go out and enjoy the day. I hope you have a nice day too.

  • ahunt

    Jen…the author is not obliged to, as crowepps noted, to include a rebuttal to the major point she is attempting to make…which is the double standard abused women face in efforts to protect their children.

  • jenk

    One, you are correct, she is not required to make a rebuttal. That does not mean we have to accept biased information or sit aside and not debate it.  

     

    Two, I am not sure if there IS a bias against abused women. One of the main issues I had with her blog post is that it fails to mention false allegations, which would severely skew the numbers. False allegations are real and they are a problem, and until they are addressed then all accusations will be suspect.

     

    Three, even if there IS a bias against abused women in court I disagree with her heavy handed approach to dealing with it, which steps all over the constitutional rights of presumed innocence and a fair trial.

     

     

  • wendy-banks

    That post was for her, not you. And I think it would apply to any of the many people in our lives that piss us off, male and female both. I had a female ex-boss it would work well for too.

    The problem with you, is that you (and the other folks, men and women both) from the anti-misandry sites, seem to laber under the false impression that many of the posters hate men– Nothing could be farther from the truth, most of us are married, have boyfriends/girlfriends or are in general, quite fond of men (I am)– It’s the jerks we could live without. If you can’t get off the feminists hate men and women are inferor topic, maybe you are the ones that have unresolved issues that need to be dealt with. I know I’ve spent a great deal of time dealing with my issues, and I’m mentally healther for the effort. Still hot-headed– But I think that’s my Irish blood talking *L*.

    Anyhow, I’m tired of this unproductive and anoying thread– later.

  • invalid-0

    “That post was for her, not you.”

    As one poster earlier wrote, this is a public board for all to see and comment upon. When did it become your private form of communication?

     

    “And I think it would apply to any of the many people in our lives that piss us off, male and female both. I had a female ex-boss it would work well for too.”

     

    Perhaps, but you gave it publicly to poster with a very big chip on her shoulder, who uses this board for material she can post on her misandrist, “agent provocateur” spam blog. Have you forgotten that? How convenient!

     

    “The problem with you, is that you (and the other folks, men and women both) from the anti-misandry sites, seem to laber under the false impression that many of the posters hate men– Nothing could be farther from the truth, most of us are married, have boyfriends/girlfriends or are in general, quite fond of men (I am)– It’s the jerks we could live without.”

     

    The problem with you and others here is that you use these pointless memes so much, you can’t conduct a reasonable debate without them. ‘We like men, it’s the jerks we could live without’ is not a reasoned reply. but simply a silly little slogan.

     

    “If you can’t get off the feminists hate men and women are inferor topic, maybe you are the ones that have unresolved issues that need to be dealt with.”

     

    That “feminists hate men and women are inferior” business is an example of two memes to which YOU subscribe, nothing more. Attacking other posters’ mental health is a topic one poster cited earlier as something that should be stopped on this board. It is an example of poor form and sleazy tactics, nothing more.

  • invalid-0

    Rebellious grrl – Aren’t you the one who described herself as being an eco-feminist anarchist?

     

    Tell me, how do YOU enjoy the day? Cruising neighborhoods, peeking in people’s window’s, looking for males who sabotage contraceptive methods?

     

     

  • shauna

    Having a husband/boyfriend does not prevent one from being a misandrist, any more than having a wife/girlfriend prevents one from being a misogynist.  Would an assertion by an MRA that “we like women, it’s the jerks we could live without” convince you that he’s not a misogynist?  I didn’t think so.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Rebellious grrl – Aren’t you the one who described herself as being an eco-feminist anarchist?

    Not sure what your point is here. Would you like to tell everyone what you mean by this?

    Tell me, how do YOU enjoy the day? Cruising neighborhoods, peeking in people’s window’s, looking for males who sabotage contraceptive methods?

    If you must know what us “ecofeminist anarchists” do in our spare time. I was gardening. Happy now?

  • rebellious-grrl

    Perhaps, but you gave it publicly to poster with a very big chip on her shoulder, who uses this board for material she can post on her misandrist, “agent provocateur” spam blog. Have you forgotten that? How convenient!

     

    S,

    Just curious. Could you define, agent provocateur? Or, what do you think it means?

     

     

  • crowepps

    Perhaps “somebody who behaves in a way she knows will trigger my abusiveness and make me look like a fool”?

     

    Since he’s totally helpless to control his abusiveness reflex when presented with an instance of ‘uppitiness’.

  • invalid-0

     That’s good point!

  • invalid-0

    Your spitefulness here shows you at least have a strong tendency toward misandry.

     

     

  • invalid-0

    “Since he’s totally helpless to control his abusiveness reflex when presented with an instance of ‘uppitiness’.”

     

    No, it is YOU who cannot control her reflex to avoid direct and honest debate by interjecting her definitions of certain words into the mix and then attributing them to him. He’s never once even suggested that any of you are uppity. You project that onto him, because you are a feminist, just as you project your own abusiveness.  You are an embarrassment to yourself and the rest of us.

     

    And you are in denial about being a feminist.

     

     

  • crowepps

    I certainly deny being the stereotypical ‘feminist’ who was railed against in some of the preceding posts, a woman who believes men are all the same, men are all violent, men are all ‘oppressors’ and that women are always right.

     

    I do believe in equality, however, so by the actual dictionary definition I am a feminist and I don’t deny that at all.

    Feminist: one who believes in the political, economic and social equality of the sexes.

  • ahunt

    Um…this is getting really creepy.

  • crowepps

    It passed creepy when the original poster was outraged that we didn’t instantly agree with him and brought in his tag team of buddies in to ‘defend’ him from the evil feminazis.  Now they drop in occasionally at an outwise dead thread with generic insults and accuse us of insisting on the ‘last word’.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Opps double posting. This was supposed to go under Sivanandasaraswati’s post.

  • wendy-banks

    Glad you liked it rebellious grrl :)

  • jenk

    Anarchism is a complete lack of order, ruling or authority, and ecofeminism would be what, that the environment has equal rights? Isn’t that sort of the opposite of imposing human order into wilderness, otherwise known as gardening?

     

    Not that I disagree with gardening, or even farming for that matter, as I do both, and do like to eat. But just saying all these ism’s are sort of contradictory.

     

    But hope you had fun gardening. Today is in the 70’s, and that is precisely what I plan on doing the rest of the day!

  • rebellious-grrl

    I used to believe that. After close study I’ve realized that anarchism is the belief that people can voluntarily cooperate to meet everyone’s needs, without bosses or political authority, and without sacrificing individual liberty. It’s the belief that people are able to work together in a peaceful and rational manner, as equals. I think the media gives anarchists a bad rap as out of control kids. In my experience I’ve witness young and old come together to serve food to the poor, start and sustain community gardens, form collective healthcare clinics, all without money from the government and done with their own power, collectively. There are many different types of anarchists as there many different types of feminists. 

     

    (If you have time, check out “What is anarchism?” at http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/cnp66m) 

     

    Yes, there can be contradictions within isms and there is always room for debate. I’d like to consider myself more than an ism or a collection of isms. As for ecofeminism, there is no central definition of ecofeminism, it is generally regarded as a feminist approach to environmental ethics. Ecofeminists see the oppression of women and the domination of nature as interconnected; as a movement, ecofeminist theorists use a framework that confronts issues of gender, race, class, and nature. Although ecofeminism has been called misandrist, in proposing a patriarchy as the root cause of many world problems, its view of the oppression of minorities and the Third World recognizes not just women, but also includes most men as oppressed.

     

    I don’t see gardening as imposing my or human order onto nature. I work with the land and practice organic gardening. I see myself as a partner with nature. I love being in nature and do not consider myself a ruler over nature. I enjoy being outside as much as possible to garden, hike, or birdwatch. I am sincerely glad you are enjoying this beautiful day in the garden.  It sounds like we may have something to agree on after all, gardening

     

     

     

     

     

  • jenk

    Interesting. I will have to look at your links. I disagree with the concept of patriarchy as it seems to me an oversimplification of a very complex and dynamic system; the idea of patriarchy overestimates male power and underestimates female power.  I think the idea of people all getting along without a framework is idealistic and contrary to human nature, but I am willing to read up on it as I have not heard that definition of anarchy before. I would hazard a guess that if it were possible we would have seen it by now. When I was a hippy, liberal, card carrying member of NOW and PETA I strongly believed in what you are saying. 20 years later and a conservative Christian, I still wish I could believe it, but sadly don’t.

    But yes, I am sure we do have things in common-just because I am an MRA does not make me a beer swilling, Nascar watching, pot bellied neanderthal in a wife beater!  I actually run an organic garden and humane livestock farm at a college campus. I totally agree that working with nature rather than against it makes gardening easier. Looking at getting ducks this year to stem the angry hoards of slugs and snails; plus, I like ducks.

    I did get to garden then spent the rest of the day with my horses and new baby goats….and repeated that again today. Hurray for vacation days! I have no idea how horses manage to get mud over every square inch of their bodies!?

     

    I think maybe if we all had to start these conversations by finding things we had in common the debates would go much smoother and be much more productive.

     

     

  • crowepps

    Thought this was interesting, and that this thread was probably the best place to put it –

    Domestic Abuse Ad For Men Backfires

     

    What does it feel like to be a man beaten by your partner? Apparently, it feels like having your penis removed

     

    By Sady Doyle April 1, 2010

     

    Here is a list of ways being battered by a partner could make you feel: Betrayed, unsafe, compromised, unable to trust your partner or yourself. And here, according to one U.K. ad, is how it could make you feel if you are a man: As if you don’t have a penis.

     

    The ad for the National Centre of Domestic Violence, recently posted with no comment at Andrew Sullivan’s blog, and with much comment at my Feministe colleague Cara Kulwicki’s blog The Curvature, is meant to combat the fact that men often fear reporting their own abuse. It starts off well. “We understand how it feels to be a male victim of domestic abuse,” the copy reads. “As a man, telling somebody that your partner is abusing you is difficult. You might feel ashamed, embarrassed, or worried you’ll be viewed as less of a man.” All good points. However, they are in relatively small proportion to the photo of a man with airbrushed-out, perfectly smooth genitals, which takes up over two-thirds of the ad space. The overall look is not so much “victim of ongoing abuse” as “somewhat hairier Ken doll.” And, being a photo of a naked person with a somewhat disturbing crotch, it is far more likely to be remembered than any of the words printed above it.

     

    Of course, intimate violence affects both genders. And it’s true that ideas about masculinity — that men have to be strong, in control, unafraid, invulnerable — can keep men from acknowledging the seriousness of their situation, or from reporting it. However, it’s unlikely that a man who feels his masculinity will be compromised if he reports abuse is going to be persuaded otherwise by an ad that basically says, “so, being hit by your partner made your dick fall off.”

     

    And then, there’s the other implication: That having a penis is a sign of power, that not having one is a sign of powerlessness, that penises are nature’s way of signifying a totally-not-abused person. An ad that means to tell us that men can be abused, and that this is serious and deserving of attention, is equating penises with invulnerability and the lack of them with victimization. It ends up reinforcing the same gender dynamics it protests. People who have dicks aren’t abuse victims; people who are abuse victims don’t have dicks. Being a man without a penis is terrible, largely because it makes you like all those other natural-born victims out there with a reputation for dicklessness. You know: women.

     

    http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/01/domestic_abuse/index.html

  • jenk

    So I just read the anarchism explaination. I am curious how things will work in that worldview. Would there be enough people willing to go through 8 years of grueling schoolwork to be a doctor if they will only make the same and live the same as the guy who delivers the mail? Who will take the risks for dangerous work, or risky ventures? Is this still a capitalistic freemarket society, without regulation? I bend towards libertarian, which is a severe limitation of government, but how would public works such as roads and military function and be funded? How would you stop someone from deciding to take power if there is no framework in place to prevent it? How would land ownership work, or would that be eliminated? If it is eliminated, what would ensure people did not take more than their fair allotment?

     

    I found the definition left me with a lot of questions. It was certainly thought provoking however.

  • crowepps

    (1) is at least 18 years of age;

    (2) is not under investigation in this or another jurisdiction for an act that would constitute a violation of this chapter;

    (3) has not had a license related to the practice of counseling, psychology, marital and family therapy, or social work in this or another jurisdiction suspended, revoked, or surrendered in lieu of discipline unless the license has been fully reinstated in that jurisdiction;

    (4) has passed a written examination as required by the board; the board may provide that passing a nationally recognized examination for professional counselors is sufficient to meet the examination requirement of this paragraph;

    (5) has successfully completed either

    (A) an earned doctoral degree in counseling or a related professional

     

    accredited institution of higher education approved by the board; or

    (B) an earned master’s degree in counseling or a related professional field, from a regionally or nationally accredited institution of higher education approved by the board, and at least 60 graduate semester hours in counseling during or after earning the master’s degree; and

    (6) has, after earning the degree required under either (5)(A) or (B) of this subsection, had at least 3,000 hours of supervised experience in the practice of professional counseling performed over a period of at least two years under the supervision of a supervisor approved under AS 08.29.210, with at least 1,000 hours of direct counseling with individuals, couples, families, or groups and at least 100 hours of face-to-face supervision by a supervisor approved under AS 08.29.210 unless, under regulations of the board, the board allows the supervision to be by  telephonic or electronic means because of the remote location of the counselor.

     

     

    http://www.dced.state.ak.us/occ/pub/CounselorStatutes.pdf

     

     

    These are the requirements to be a “Licensed Professional Counselor” in the State of Alaska.  To be an unlicensed, non-professional counselor, there are no requirements at all – just hang out a shingle that says or “Earth Spirits Counselor’ or ‘Life Coach Counselor’ or ‘Christian Family Counselor”.  Maybe this is a word that needs to be removed from the general lexicon  — certainly people don’t get to set up practices as unlicensed, non-professional ‘physicians’ or ‘attorneys’ or ‘surgeons’.

  • rebellious-grrl

    JenK, I’m glad we are breaking down stereotypes,

     

     “I think maybe if we all had to start these conversations by finding things we had in common the debates would go much smoother and be much more productive.” I agree with you here.

     

    To break stereotypes down further, I’m not a member of PETA. They kind of annoy me. I used to be a vegetarian, occasionally I eat meat and fish, especially if its organic, raised and killed humanly. I like beer, and go to car shows with my hubby. 

     

    The ducks sound like a good solution to the slugs. I’ve tried beer traps but they are persistent. I’m so jealous of the horses. I haven’t ridden horses since I hung out with ranchers a couple of years ago.

     

    Good to talk to you and happy gardening!

  • rebellious-grrl

    JenK, I appreciate you taking the time to check out the link I posted.

    These are all great questions, and unfortunately I don’t have an answer for you. I’ve gone round and round in discussions about how to address these same questions.

  • lbsimon

    For once on this board, will you own what you write?

     

    “And then, there’s the other implication: That having a penis is a sign of power, that not having one is a sign of powerlessness, that penises are nature’s way of signifying a totally-not-abused person. An ad that means to tell us that men can be abused, and that this is serious and deserving of attention, is equating penises with invulnerability and the lack of them with victimization. It ends up reinforcing the same gender dynamics it protests. People who have dicks aren’t abuse victims; people who are abuse victims don’t have dicks. Being a man without a penis is terrible, largely because it makes you like all those other natural-born victims out there with a reputation for dicklessness. You know: women.

     

    a) Your implication is very Freudian at the core.

    b) It is also a very egocentric interpretation.

    c) It far exceeds the scope of the article’s content.

     

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    We’ve already exceeded the scope of this article long ago. If you didn’t realize, some of us have been talking like adults until you came back.
    So I digress, to respond to your spiteful rude insults. Do you have vagina/womb envy? It seams like some men have this problem because they want to deny reproductive services to women. For you to judge crowepps, or any of us, is very egocentric on your part and so ridiculously funny.

  • wendy-banks

    O.K. That ad is — Just. Plain. Creepy. Funny last time I check, having a penis did not have anything to do with power– It had to do with having an XY instead of an XX sex gene.

    Powerful, and powerless can happen to either sex at any point in their lives.

    And abuse is abuse– It doesn’t matter what sex the abuser is. It causes pain all the same.

  • wendy-banks

    “Tell me, how do YOU enjoy the day? Cruising neighborhoods, peeking in people’s window’s, looking for males who sabotage contraceptive methods?”

     

    WTF? Seriously, what have you been smoking dude?

  • ahunt

    Hey Harriet…is there some point you wanna make…re: Joan’s essay?

  • crowepps

    Unfortunately, however, I cannot, because I didn’t write it.  If you will follow the link, you will see that this was written by the person at that link, who is NOT ME.

  • crowepps

    I’m not absolutely sure that physical abuse should be considered ‘worse’ than emotional abuse either. I mean, it’s certainly easier to PROSECUTE – ‘there’s a photo of a bruise, here’s another photo of a bruise, here’s the medical report’, but harsh and unrelenting outright nastiness with the purpose of attacking the person psychologically is just as as damaging and can also lead to death, through suicide.

  • crowepps

    The secret to beer traps for slugs is that you do NOT put them in the garden or yard!  Put the beer traps out at the edge of the road or out in the woods but far, far away from your veggies and flowers.  Beer traps attract slugs from BLOCKS around and you do not want what you’re trying to protect to be their destination.

  • captcourageous

    I don’t see any posts here by anyone named Harriet. Do you?

  • captcourageous

    Boy! Do you have your genders mixed up!

  • captcourageous

    You’ve got nothing to crow about. You posted no quotation marks around the content of the article, AND you backed it up with a dead link.

     

    http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/04/01/domestic_abuse/inde

     

    What a sham!

  • captcourageous

    Once again, nothing original in your bloviating reply. As to vagina envy or womb envy being indicated by the allegation that “some men ( … ) want to deny reproductive services to women.” That’s “very egocentric on your part and so ridiculously funny.” 

     

    [P.S., I sincerely hope you do not charicature this response a being a spiteful rude insult. It will make you appear to be highly thin-skinned, if you do.]

  • crowepps
  • wendy-banks

    What, so throw a kegger for the slugs then? ;)

  • wendy-banks

    Sorry, didn’t know. My bad…. Dudette then.

  • crowepps

    I didn’t realize Sivanandasarawati was a girl’s name either.

  • crowepps

    Sure – hopefully like a real life kegger it’ll have have harsh consequences for them afterwards!

     

    Crushed egg shells was my grandma’s remedy.  All winter she tossed her egg shells into a coffee can, then in Spring crushed them and scattered the pieces on the ground around her roses.  Rips up the slugs tender tummies and actually looks pretty as well!

  • rebellious-grrl

    Oh yeah, I’m “pompous” You forgot to throw “misandry” in there. I’m so thin-skinned your insults are “just crushing me.”

  • jo

    Father kills 5-year-old -

    http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2010/04/08/blotter/doc4bbd594c73b43358151159.txt

     

    Teen sues after being placed with father and sexually abusive grandfather -

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/teen-sues-county-put-custody-sex-offender-grandfather/story?id=10323185&page=1

     

    Killer’s family gets custody (b/c they did such a great job raising him) -

    http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gQnCfC9l9zwgvT2Eax6MNG0RFFrwD9EVSCGG0

     

    Audit family courts – because it’s all about the money -

    http://www.sacbee.com/2010/04/09/2666100/state-groups-push-sacramento-marin.html#ixzz0kcIjD8UB

     

     

  • pete

    The following is part of an exchange with my girlfriend on this article:
    What is probably as instructive as the article is the 538 comments available at the time the link for it was provided on the CFE website.  I don’t have time to wade through them all, even though most are one-liners.  Many cited statistical studies that are all over the map regarding conclusions, credibility of the research, claims of the commentator, etc.  
    One aspect of this that bothers me is the logic that because there are abusers who are men, men should not have custody rights.  This is the conclusion, and the selection of statistics or citation of individual heartbreak stories is done to satisfy that conclusion.  The conclusion was not the product of an  empirical study that followed the protocols of science.  This was driven by emotions based in gender resentment, in turn based in the personal experiences of the author.  Statistics are used as a cover.  Those unschooled in the tactics of polemical manipulation are oftentimes fooled by this.
    Another aspect that bothers me is the attempt to extend reproductive rights to custodial rights.  There are good arguments to be made that when both parents of a fetus are committed to its creation and development that both parents have a legitimate interest in decisions regarding that.  Because the issue becomes one of legality, and because there is a history and pattern of denial of the reproductive choice rights of women, we are put in the  position of drawing a line that cannot be crossed.  That line is that women must have the final say in their reproductive choices, and requirements for notification, counseling, etc. must be regarded as attempts to compromise those rights and rejected.  In a more perfect world those choices would be made in consultation with the father, but imperfection is inherent in law and we cannot waffle on this principle.  Another aspect of this is that when a fetus is in a woman, attempts to regulate her reproductive choices cannot avoid attempting to decide what she does with her own body, another unacceptable invasion of women’s rights and human rights.  
    But as soon as enlightened men realize all this and commit to it, along comes an idiot like this author who takes the aforementioned as a starting point to deny parental rights for men.  This extension of the logic of reproductive rights ignores two important points: The fetus, now a child, is outside the mother’s body, and therefore parental rights for fathers does not constitute an invasion of a woman’s physical person; and a child has two parents who both have an inherent interest in and love for that child that is both psychological and genetic.  We all know that our culture has distortions that discourage men from assuming parental responsibilities.  But whose rights are we discussing here?  Those men who express disinterest and leave, or those who love their children and want to parent them?  The notion that we are discussing abusers is a smokescreen, put up to stir emotions for another purpose.  That purpose is to deny parental rights to fathers, accomplished by statutory change that eliminates presumptions of joint custody.  Those who advocate for this might claim the mantle of defenders of children, but they are ignoring the sense of the community that drove the legislature to pass joint custody laws.  That is a reality acknowledged by all who are sensitive to human bonds and the emotions of children, and it is reflected in the legal presumption of joint custody being in the best interests of children.  That is a bottom line in family law, as it should be, but ignored by the trend represented by this author despite her pretensions to the contrary.  
    Both parents need to be as involved as possible in the lives of their children, and those who deny that return us to the same socially oppressive roles based on gender, using sexist logic from the opposite direction.  It is sad that a significant part of the women’s movement has lost its bearings and responded to these efforts from some of its emotionally distorted adherents.  They influence the women’s movement away from its original goals based in principle and human rights, and steer it toward interest group advocacy that is driven by narrow minded and short sighted bigotry.  We should give them no quarter.       

    On May 27, 2010, at 9:22 AM, [my girlfriend] wrote:

    Yes, I read it.  The article does a good job of intertwining the worst of abuse cases with an anti-male agenda.  That it starts out with the premise that men are tricking women into getting pregnant is absurd.  I suppose it happens but in my life experience it’s always the other way around – women get pregnant to trap men.  I remember a friend of [former boyfriend] who was planning to leave his wife – she got wind of his intentions, got pregnant and let him know that if he ever tried to leave she would accuse him of abuse.  Just to prove her point, they went out one night and left his mother with the children. When they got home, his wife called the police and charged his mother with sexual abuse.  After his mom was arrested, the wife dropped the charges, but the message was loud and clear.  Needless to say, they are still together in a marriage from hell.
     
    You can’t debate that there are ample examples of former husbands, boyfriends, etc who kill or beat the kids to spite the ex – it’s all over the news.  Statistically, it’s more likely that the man will be the abuser and you are working against that reality.  That said, the article makes two huge statements that should be challenged: 1) that in contested custody cases, 90 percent involve abusive fathers and 2) in two thirds of contested custody cases there is domestic violence, and 90 percent is committed by the fathers.  There is also a statement that in contested cases, fathers are likely to lie 16 times more than mothers.  The first two statements on abuse are in conflict with each other, and I would like to see how they collected reliable and significant data on men and women lying in court. 
     
     

    Bottom line is that the article is promoting faulty arguments based on questionable statistics and isolated horror stories.  You could write the same article using examples of women who throw their kids in rivers and drown them in lakes (that seems to happen often as well).