Conference quark::mennotes-v1

	In 1977, S. K. Steinmetz conducted a study of conflict tactics
	used by families from a broad range of socioeconomic status
	catagories and age groups. Her results follow..

	93% of the families use verbal aggression.
	60% of the families used physical aggression at least once.
	39% of the husbands, 37% of the wives had thrown things.
	20% of BOTH the husbands and wives had struck their spouses
	    with their hands.
	10% of BOTH the husbands and wives had hit their spouses with
	    a hard object. 

	It should be noted that men were underrepresented in the Steinmetz
	study because a greater number of men chose not to participate
	in the oral interview (as opposed to completing the questionnaire)
	portion of the study. The reason offered was that men were less
	likely to discuss thier victimization. 

	


	Further data can be found in S.K. Steinmetz, The Cycle of Violence:
	Assertive, Agressive and Abusive Family Interaction. 

    Geeee... and who was it that said "it all depends on the statistic and
    their whole intent"?
    
    I love it.  Of course you know Hank, this means war.....:-)
    
    I have constantly stated that violence against men is and ALWAYS was a
    problem, only to be told that I was a woman hater....
    
    
    Ah well, 
    
    scuze me while I go and beat the ole lady.....

    	RE: .0  Hank
    
    	Ok.  So what are you suggesting be done about it?
    
    	Shelters for battered men?
    
    	Legislation passed providing increased legal protection from
    	abusive women?
    
    	A "Battered man" defense in a court of law?
    
    	Marches, such as a march for "Real Women" to oppose violence
    	against men?
    
    	What?

    re. 6
    Although I detect an undertone of sarcasm in this reply, the
    suggestions don't look too bad.
    I mean, why should women be more equal then man?
    
    Charles

    
    	RE: .7 Charles
    
    	No sarcasm.  I'm honestly asking what the basenote author is
    	suggesting be done about it.
    
    	If you are saying that the things I listed (about "battered
    	men's shelters," etc.) sound fine, then how do you suggest we
    	go about making these things possible for men?
    

    By accepting that some men *are* battered and also by accepting
    the fact that there's also a lot of non physical violence towards
    men.
    
    Charles

    
    	So, if you believe... then the shelters and the legislation
    	will just happen?
    
    	Do you think battered men want shelters and protection from
    	violent, abusive women?
    

    Please note that there's a difference between believing and accepting.
    I don't know about shelters, but some legal protetion would be quite
    nice I'd say.
    
    Charles

    
    	Is it legal to issue a "restraining order" to persons of either
    	sex?
    
    	What other legal protections do women have now that men don't?
    

    Currently it's easier for a woman to obtain (and have it enforced)
    a court order forbidding her ex SO to even go *near* the street where
    she lives.
    If she wants to leave the house because she has problems with her
    SO, there's no waiting list.
    Now, if a man wants to leave the house.....
    
    Charles

>       <<< Note 430.13 by HLFS00::RHM_MALLO "the wizard still dances" >>>

>     Now, if a man wants to leave the house.....
 

	What are the laws in Holland regarding this Charles?


	kits
	   
   

    Simple, he has to sort it out himself!
    And ends up paying for his accomodation as well as for the family
    house.
    
    Charles

    re. 16
    Yes.
    
    Charles

	Considering that female domestic violence is not even 
    	considered a social problem, I'd say that talk of 
    	solutions is premature at best. 

	Speaking personally, I was astounded by the data I found.
	It contradicts everything I've heard and read lately about
	male/female relationships. 

	I'm interested more in hearing how other's, men especially, 
	feel about this data. For me, it's helped me shed a little
	guilt I'd been feeling for just being a man.  

	I think the data also helps to poke holes in commonly held
	stereotypes assigned to both men and women. Namely
	the belief about human behaviour that asserts
	that men are more aggressive than women and that women are
	weaker and more vulnerable; natural victims. It may 
	be very empowering for both sexes to shed these stereotypes.
	
	                                		more later
    
    								Hank

    	RE: Hank
    
    	> Speaking personally, I was astounded by the data I found.
	> It contradicts everything I've heard and read lately about
	> male/female relationships. 
    
    	If there is a contradiction between this data and other studies
    	that have been done about violence and aggression between men
    	and women, why are you so convinced that your newly discovered
    	data is the "truth" (over everything else?)
    
    	> For me, it's helped me shed a little guilt I'd been feeling for 
    	> just being a man.  
    
    	It could also help foster a little more guilt some women feel for
    	just being women.
    
    	Did they also do rape studies?  Do women rape men as often as men
    	rape women?  (Just wondering...)
    
    	How about studies about murder?  Do women commit as many murders
    	as men do (serial or otherwise)?
    
    	Violence and aggression is more than just something that happens at
    	home, remember.

    Rest assured, rape and murder have been subject of numerous studies.
    
    But wasn't this topic dedicated to *domestic* violence?
    
    Charles

>       <<< Note 430.21 by HLFS00::RHM_MALLO "the wizard still dances" >>>

     
>    But wasn't this topic dedicated to *domestic* violence?
 

	Is there a lot of this in Holland Charles?
   

	kits

    
    	Well, when someone starts talking in generalizations about whether
    	women are as violent and aggressive as men, it becomes appropriate
    	to consider the rest of the available evidence needed to draw a
    	conclusion.
    
    	If it can be proven that women rape and murder men as frequently as
    	men rape and murder women, then such generalizations can be considered
    	appropriate.  
    
    	Otherwise, the data about domestic violence should be regarded within
    	the narrow context cited in the studies (without attempting to make
    	generalizations about the overall levels of violence and aggression
    	between men and women as groups.)
    

    Nope.
    Most homes for "battered women" are closed, and most violated males
    suffer in silence.
    
    Charles

>       <<< Note 430.24 by HLFS00::RHM_MALLO "the wizard still dances" >>>

>    Nope.
>    Most homes for "battered women" are closed, and most violated males
>    suffer in silence.
 

	ARe you saying then....that the men have stopped battering
	the women..........and the poor men are being battered
	with no legal recourse?   
    

	kits

    Yup.
    Men batter their women less.
    And when I say violated males, it's usually psychological violation
    which for one thing is pretty difficult to prove in court, if at
    all accepted as something that can happen to a man.
    
    Charles

>    Men batter their women less.
 
	That's nice !

>   And when I say violated males, it's usually psychological violation
>    which for one thing is pretty difficult to prove in court, if at
 

	I can understand that.......not like the imprint of a
	wooden shoe being thrown at your head..eh?

>   all accepted as something that can happen to a man.
 
	I believe that both sexes are capable of both physical
	and psychological abuse........
   

	kits

    As a matter of fact, most people believe that both sexes are capable
    of abuse, but unfortunately most people do not believe men can suffer
    under it like women.
    
    Charles

    Read the Andy Capp comic strip lately??  Flo knocking Andy loop-t-loop
    is supposed to be  F U N N Y!!!!
    fred();

    
    Re: .29 Fred,
    
    
    	Interesting point. One book I've read talks about
    	this point. 
    
    	"the old cartoons of the wife chasing the husband with a rolling
    	pin or throwing pots and pans are closer to reality than 
    	most ...realize."
    
    	I'll admit that I too laugh at those cartoons, or at least
    	I used to. Now, they just don't seem so funny anymore.
    
    								Hank

    I think that .18 and .28 kinda hit the nail on the head, so to speak,
    regarding men being hit by women in the domestic scene.  What man
    would dare claim his wife beats him up?  The stigma of the American
    Male is still mighty strong, even with all these sensitive man shows
    we see.  :)  (smiley for the shows, not the issue).
    
    As for who does more violence outside the home, I *think* men do.
    However, that doesn't mean that it's okay they get beat up inside
    the home, and I'm surprised at the statistics shown.  If it had
    only been one study, I'd have been far more skeptical than I feel
    now. 
    
    Okie, so if men do most violence outside the home, and if we are
    believe the stats Hank put up, women are violent most often inside
    the home (or equally violent), what does this mean?  Well, it might
    mean that wives and girlfriends might hit a man inside the home
    because they know they can get away with it.  
    
    What do I mean by that?  Well, first a few words of explanation,
    then an example.  Men are usually told not to hit women.  No matter
    what.  Assuming that the hubby being hit is your basic, nice guy
    (ie, he believes in not hitting women), it might just be that his
    wife knows she can hurl a shoe at him and not get clobbered for
    it.  The idea of "It's not nice to hit women" is reinforced in our
    media -- think of the movies you've seen where women slap men in
    an indignant huff, and all they receive in turn is an even stare.
    The cases where the man does hit back is surprising and unexpected.
    (think of War of the Roses, for an example:  Kathleen Turner's
    character literally punches Michael Douglass's character in the
    mouth.  We as an audience are surprised.  She wasn't supposed to
    do that.  Michael Douglass's character is surprised, too, but he
    simply exits the room, advising "Next time I hit back."  Why didn't
    he hit her the first time?  Surprise aside, he wasn't supposed to
    do that.  Nice men don't hit women.  We as an audience are somewhat
    surprised that he would hit back next time, but given the
    circumstances, the mild shock value would be appropriate.)
    
    A real life example:
    
    My ex-step-sister was dating a basic nice guy.  She relayed to met
    the story that she and her boyfriend got in a big, hairy, nasty
    fight.  She slapped him.  "For one moment, I thought he was going
    to hit me back."  She seemed relieve that he didn't of course, but
    surprised mostly that he would even consider it.  Why?  Girls can
    hit guys, but guys generally don't hit girls.  Not if they are nice
    anyway.
           
    
    Also, we might want to again consider that if her boyfriend did
    hit her back, the perception is that "Oh, you big bad man! Pick
    on someone your own size/sex!"  or "Wow, defending yourself against
    a WOMAN???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!"  He would probably not want to admit
    that his girlfriend regularly hit him, but being a nice guy, he
    didn't hit back.  Being beat up by women is not good.  Hitting them
    is also not good.  Therefore, what man is going to tell someone
    he's being hit regularly?  The laughter would drown him out.  :)
                        
    
    

    
>    	"the old cartoons of the wife chasing the husband with a rolling
>    	pin or throwing pots and pans are closer to reality than 
>    	most ...realize."
 

	Oh oh.........I remember throwing a couple of ripe 
	tomatoes at my ex_husband years ago. I was angry at
	the time, because he got angry because I put some
	little bowls of beer in the garden to kill the slugs.
	He didn't like the idea that I used *good* beer in 
	such a wasteful way.

	It really was funny though to see the tomatoes all
	smushed on him  :-)
   


	kits

    My mother used to brag about the fact that the judge laughed at my
    father for saying that a 120# woman had knocked him (at 200#) out.
    She also bragged about using a rolling pin.
    
    ed

	 
	 
         One of my #1 rules in a relationship is "No violence."  I
	 refuse to direct violence at another person.....and I've been
	 known to walk out of a few relationships because violence was
	 directed at me.

	 If I see it once, I'm outta there and you can guarentee I'll
	 never go back.
	 

	 There are certain things I can bend on, but violence is not
	 one of them.


	 kath

    
    
    
     Could there then be a link between the domesticly abused man
     then venting his frustration outside of the home towards women?
    
    Just a thought.
    
    Greg

    
    	RE: .35  Mike Z.
    
    	> On the whole, women are indeed as mean, violent, vindictive,
    	> spiteful, manipulative, and vengeful as men.
    
    	Without the rest of the evidence (eg, comparisons of violent
    	behavior of men and women in situations other than the home,)
    	you can't possibly make this statement with any credence.
    
    	As an opinion, you're entitled to it, but I am also entitled
    	to mine.
    
    	When it comes to violent crimes in general (not necessarily
    	involving members of the opposite sex) - do women commit as
    	many of these crimes as men do?
    
    	Perpetrating a violent crime is an indicator of both violence
    	and aggression.  Let's see some figures on how men and women
    	stack up in this area.

    re .37
    	>>>Let's see some figures on how men and women
    	stack up in this area.
    
    	re read .1, .2, and .3
        fred();

    
    	RE: .38  Salois
    
    	If people are going to make generalizations about how violent
    	women are (as a group) in this topic, it is appropriate to
    	discuss the rest of the evidence indicating whether this is
    	true or not.
    
    	If people stop making generalizations of this sort, then the
    	other situations won't need to come up.
    

    
    	RE: .39  Fred
    
    	Please point out the statistics on armed robbery, murder, arson,
    	rape, and other "violent crimes in general" (as I mentioned.)
    
    	thanks.
    

     
     
     I was in The Marriage Made In Hell for almost four years.  (This was
one of those "let's do the right thing" situations involving an unplanned
pregnancy and a threat to abort our child, against my will, unless a ring
and a ceremony were provided to ensure that I'd be around to provide the
necessary financial support whatever else happened - but that's been 
covered in another topic.)

     During the marriage, I endured both verbal and physical abuse.  The
verbal abuse I returned, but I never raised a hand, not even in self-
defense, against the physical abuse, because of the absolute, carved-in-
stone rule that Boys Shouldn't Hit Girls.  Period.  Not even when a wife
strikes her husband, in front of their child.  I was afraid to
retaliate, because of her temper (who knows how far she could take 
the situation if I escalated it) and because I knew that if I did, she
would use it as an excuse to leave (on the ground that I was an abusive
husband) and take our child.  I honestly believe that if I had struck
back, it could have solved a few problems.  Maybe I would have regained
some of my self-respect in the relationship (it's a very humiliating
experience being in a situation where you have to endure physical abuse
from another person and feel that you can't fight back).  Maybe she
would have gained some respect for me if I showed her that she couldn't
abuse me at will.  But I wasn't willing to take the risk, because we
all know that Men-Are-Exploiters/Victimizers/Oppressors-Of-Women and
There-Is-An-Epidemic-Of-Violence-Against-Women-In-Our-Society and
All-Men-Are-Rapists-And-Wife-Beaters, and yada yada yada, and Boys-Should-
Never-Never-Never-Hit-Girls.

      So about a year ago, I guess she just got bored with whacking someone
around who wouldn't fight back, and left.  I've read a lot of notes here
about the pain of going through a divorce and custody battles, and I'm in
the middle of that right now, and I can only say that for me, that's the
EASY part after going through the marriage that I went through.

      So you tell me - did I do the right thing?

    RE: .42  It has been reported on several news specials in recent months
    (sorry, but I don't have any transcripts to quote verbatim) but the
    percentage of women in prison now is at an all-time high. Included were
    convictions for murder, armed robbery, arson, and other "violent crimes
    in general".
    
    Paul C.

    	RE: .43  Medeiros
    
    	You have my sympathies (quite honestly) for what you went through.
    	It was inexcusable for your wife to hit you.  Inexcusable!
    
    	> I honestly believe that if I had struck back, it could have solved 
    	> a few problems.  Maybe I would have regained some of my self-respect 
    	> in the relationship ...
    
    	There are a lot of people in our culture who believe that hitting
    	a wife does "some good" (in one way or another,) just as you
    	suggested.  It's not true.  It's better that you resisted doing this.
    
    	> Maybe she would have gained some respect for me if I showed her 
    	> that she couldn't abuse me at will. 
    
    	Did it make you respect her more when she hit you?  (I doubt it.)
    	Hitting someone is seldom a way to gain respect.  Fear and loathing
    	perhaps, but seldom respect.
    
    	> So about a year ago, I guess she just got bored with whacking 
    	> someone around who wouldn't fight back, and left.  
    
    	A lot of people in our society believe that women really *want*
    	to be hit.  The vast majority of us don't want it.  (Also, remember 
    	what you said earlier - she might have left if you'd hit her anyway.)
    
    	Hitting is not the answer.
    
    	> So you tell me - did I do the right thing?
    
    	The only real answer to ongoing domestic violence is to leave the
    	relationship.  Otherwise, it can go on and on.  
    
    	What your wife did was inexcusable.  But you did the right thing,
    	in my opinion.

    
    	RE: .44 Paul C.
    
    	> ...the percentage of women in prison now is at an all-time high. 
    	> Included were convictions for murder, armed robbery, arson, and 
    	> other "violent crimes in general".
    
    	How do the numbers of women in prison compare to the numbers of
    	men in prison for the same crimes, though?
    

This reply is being entered anonymously by one of the MENNOTES 
participants.

======================================================================

       Two more ramification of the traditional view that women are
       "abused and helpless" and men "can take it":

       (1)  When I called the police after my wife physically abused
       me (divorce proceedings in progress), it was explained to me
       that if I got a restraining order against her, she would be
       awarded temporary custody of the children and the house and I
       WOULD BE FORCED TO LEAVE for my own protection.  I didn't get
       one.

       (2)  I was discussing this situation with a close friend, and his
       SO told me that she had been in an abusive relationship.  She was
       really in love with this guy and constantly afraid that he would
       leave her.  When ever he started talking about asking her to move
       out she would do whatever it took to start a brawl.  On one such
       occasion she destroyed a very expensive stereo before he finally
       hit her.  After each of these assaults, he would apologize
       profusely and promise never to leave.  He was afraid of what
       would happen to him in court.

            My friend told me later that his SO was in therapy for low
       self esteem and other problems for over a year before she left
       that relationship.  I asked him what he would do if she started
       to get like that with him and he avoided answering me.

       IMO there is no cure until the culture believes there is a
       problem.

    
    Re .45, .48 -  Thanks for the sympathy and support.  It's been rough.
    
    Re .48:
    
            Getting her pregnant wasn't "right" or "wrong" - it was
    just stupid and careless (although we both thought that appropriate
    precautions had been taken).
    
            Abortion is against my religious, moral, and ethical beliefs
    and standards (sanctity of human life at all costs and all that).
    Marriage was the way we both thought we would get what we wanted
    (a home and family in which to raise our child).  Unfortunately, this
    common goal isn't enough to keep a bad marriage together.
                                            
            Leaving her was not an option for me.  (More pre-historic
    thinking on my part, I guess - Men-who-abandon-their-families-are-scum
    is almost as solid a principle as boys-never-hit-girls and life-is-
    sacred-and-begins-at-the-moment-of-conception for me).
    
            In looking back, the only decision I regret is that I tried
    to keep the marriage together as long as I did.  

    
    	RE: .49  Salois
    
    	No problem.  If no one's going to generalize about women being
    	as violent as men *in general*, those other areas of violence
    	don't need to come up here.
    

    
    	Suzanne, you keep requesting data on violence that this topic
    	was not intended to address. The topic is domestic violence.
    	The data entered deals with that subset of violence and that
    	subset alone. 
    
    	I read the =wn= note on misdirection, the very note you applauded.
    	I'd appreciate it if the same courtesy could be extended to
    	this discussion. 
    
    								Hank

    
    	Hank, I stopped requesting it some time ago (since people stopped
    	generalizing here about women being as violent as men are.)
    
    	No problem.
    

    This topic is now open again for discussion of the subject
    introduced in the base note - domestic violence against men.  Please
    try to keep to the subject.
    
    Thanks for your patience and understanding.
    
    				Steve

    
    
    I personally have witness domestic violence in many different forms.
    
    I once watched my boyfriend get beat up by his ex while the whole
    entire time she was holding thier 6 month old daughter in her arms.
    Did he fight back?  No he didnt.  Did she continue?  Sure did.
    Many times she would physically abuse him.  9 times out of 10
    she had her child in her arms.   I guess she thought having her
    child in her arms was going to protect her .  What a nut.  Real
    wonderful thing to expose a baby to.  This child is now 3.5 and
    cringes when someone raises their voice not to mention what she
    does when some one gets physical (even just a hug).
    
    There were many reasons why he did not fight back.  The main one
    being he was afraid for his child's safety.  Two being that he
    was also taught that boys do not hit girls.  Three being that if
    he did hit back he would have no chance in hell at ever legally
    seeing his daughter again.  
    
    We have an agreement in our relationship on violence.  If he ever
    lays a hand on me in anger I will march down to the police station
    and report it.  Point blank.  No questions asked.  I grew up with
    an abusive drunk father who used to hit my mom.  I figure I was
    forced to put up with it then, but I am not going to tolerate it as
    an adult.  Of course, the same is true for him. If I ever lay a hand
    on him in anger he can take the same avenue.  Though I doubt seriously
    that he would do so.  
    
    Domestic violence has many facets.  I think men are afraid to admit to
    it because it is a threat to thier manhood.  If they do have the 
    courage to seek help for it they are usually laughed at by the
    authorities.  But this also happens to woman.  I can remember my
    mom going to the police and having the cop tell her to "Stop
    overreacting and just go home".  PLEASE!  I think the justice system
    has to take a more serious look at domestic violence in order to
    help stop it.  
    
    I think it is time to stop blaming one sex for the abuse.  It is time
    to accept the fact that yes both men and women are abused by both 
    men and women.  The next step is to figure out ways to stop this
    violence.
    
    Michele

    	RE: .55 
    
    	Why didn't your boyfriend step out of the way of the blows?  Is
    	the mother of his child bigger, stronger and faster than he is -
    	enough to force him to sustain abuse even when at least one of 
    	her arms was busy holding a child?
    
    	Why didn't he just protect himself from the blows?
    
    	Let's not forget that men are bigger (on the average) than women
    	are.  When a 110 pound woman hits a 180 pound man, he has the
    	option of defending himself WITHOUT hitting back.
    
    	When it's the other way around, the woman has NO such option.
    
    	If your boyfriend stood there and let her pound on him without
    	protecting himself at all or even just moving out of the way, 
    	I would have to ask why.  
    
    	If someone half or two-thirds my size started beating on me, you
    	can BET that I would use my extra height and strength to protect
    	myself - it's MORE than possible to do this without inflicting
    	bodily harm on another.  
    
    	As for "boys are taught not to hit little girls," that's true.
    	That's what BOYS are taught.
    
    	Men are taught to "BE A MAN!"  Men are told, "If a woman orders
    	you around, you are P*SSY-WHIPPED, HEN-PECKED - NOT A MAN!"
    	
    	The man who admitted earlier in this string to being abused by
    	his wife suggested (himself!) that the situation would have been
    	HELPED if he'd hit her!  He even suggested that she finally left
    	because she was tired of living with someone who would NOT hit
    	her back (as if she would have PREFERRED it!)  *This* is what
    	men are taught!
    
    	Perhaps some men remember the boyhood lesson "don't hit girls,"
    	but there are plenty of men who hear the manhood lesson "BE A
    	MAN, even if it means slapping women around sometimes to prove
    	it!"  (NOT all men do this, of course, but the lessons about it
    	are there, nonetheless.)
    
    	I'm not trying to minimize the fact that some women do abuse men.
    	However, let's not forget that most men are in a better position
    	to defend themselves from it.  If they choose not to, that's a
    	different problem.
    
    	Domestic violence is wrong, no matter who does it.  If men need
    	to be specifically taught "It's ok to protect yourself without
    	hurting someone else," let's get the message out!
    
    	Let's not forget, though, that women are not often in a position
    	to have this option.  That's why extra safeguards are needed.

    
    He did try to get out of her way, but he was also trying to talk
    to this woman.  He was scared for his daughter's safety and was
    trying to get her to at least put the child down or give her
    to him.  He did not just stand there and let her hit him.
    But we learned later from the lawyer that even if he raised
    his arms to protect himself the legal eagles would have
    construed that at him trying to hurt her presumably cause
    he was bigger than she and did not need to protect his head
    area with his arms.  
    
    She was not bigger than he, but she knew damn well that she
    held all the cards legally if he were to react.  That reaction
    could be construed in her favor and she was very well aware of that
    fact.  Presumably this was one of her reasons for always including
    the child in the fights.  Afterall, it is much easier for a woman
    to claim that she was being beaten if she had her child in her arms,
    than to even think of beleiving the fact that she would use the
    child in such a manner.
    
    Mi  
    
    

re-.1
So for instance the man brings his arm up quickly and blocks the blow
by intercepting the blow with his forearm against hers leaving a bruse
on her arm. Bingo he takes the fall should she scream abuse because there
is physical evidence.
Or maybe she is hitting him and he grabs her wrists holding tightly enough
that with her continued struggles cause a bruse to be left on her wrists
again the man takes the fall if she says abuse again because physical evidence.
Both of these scenes have occured to me Suzanne and we discussed it once, do
you remember?

-j

    	RE: .57
    
    	Why did she do this in front of a WITNESS, though?  You were
    	there, and you could have testified on his behalf.
    
    	Furthur, how could she have claimed that he assaulted her when
    	she was not injured in any way?  It isn't that easy to prove
    	either rape *OR* assault - there has to be physical evidence
    	of some sort.  In the absence of injuries (in addition to your
    	testimony that he did *NOT* assault her,) what cards did she
    	hold against him that would allow her to beat him up?
    
    	Sounds to me like he was sold a bill of goods.  He did *NOT*
    	have to allow himself to be hit like that (if he had the size
    	and strength to avoid it.)
    
    	After the first time, he should have made other arrangements to
    	pick up his child (that would not put him in the position of
    	having to endure a physical encounter with her.)  He wasn't
    	living with her, nor was he financially dependent on her, so he
    	could have arranged something that would discourage this kind
    	of contact.

    	RE: .58  Jerry
    
    	In that situation, the physical evidence would indicate that a
    	defense had been made, I would think.
    
    	I don't recall hearing about your experiences with this - were
    	you charged and jailed for assault?  (Or did you refrain from
    	doing this as a way to avoid being charged, etc.?)
    
    	My ex has a long history of abusing women - he was jailed for it
    	(repeatedly) during his second marriage (some years after I'd
    	left him and we got divorced.)  His second wife's injuries were
    	pathetic - they were mostly facial (black eyes, swollen lips,
    	bruises and abrasions that covered one side of her face almost
    	completely.)  
    
    	Even so, he was ALWAYS let out of jail.  He was arrested at least
    	5 times for seriously beating up his wife (where the physical
    	evidence was BLATENTLY obvious, such as a bashed up face or blows
    	inflicted to the body,) yet he never received anything more than
    	probation for any of it.
    
    	She got a restraining order to keep him away, and he broke into
    	her apartment to take things from her - he got arrested and was
    	given probation for that, too.
    
    	He was safe as long as he didn't kill her.  She had to live with
    	that possibility, though, last time I heard.  

    
    Suzanne,
    
    
    He was living with this woman at the time.  She would attack him
    whenever she felt like it.  He had no recourse against her attacks.
    Remeber, he was looking out for the best interests of the child.
    If he had hit back, tried to defend himself, or even move out
    it would have been one more thing she could have used against
    him regarding custody of the child.  They were never married,
    so legally she had 100% physical and legal custody of the child.
    He was trying to get some type of custody arrangement, and it
    wasn't until he tried to do this that she started all of this
    bull.  She learned that he did have the ability to have some
    custody of the child and that really pissed her off.  All of
    a sudden her control over him was being diminished.  Even more
    alarming to her was that her 100% complete control over her
    child was being taken away from her.
    
    She was angry with him for this.  She was and still is not
    able to accept the fact that she was equally responsible for the
    position she found herself in.  Yet she used the law to her
    advantage whenever she could.  They no longer live together,
    yet the abuse still continues.  It is no longer physical, but
    she is still preventing him from seeing their child and still
    using the laws to attain her goals.
    
    Re the physical evidence thing.  I insisted that he go to the
    hospital one time because when he came to me and told me what
    had happened, his back was still bleeding quite heavily from
    the gouges she had made.  So we went to the hospital and
    when they asked what had happened he told them.  The nurses
    reply," well what did you do to get her so angry".  Like it
    was justified that she had cut him so badly.  Again, attitudes
    must be changed.  People need to stop accepting violence of 
    any nature.  It is wrong and it hurts more than just the 
    abuser and abusee.
    
    Michele

    	RE: .61  Mike Z.
    
    	You left out the rest of the paragraph.
    
    	Men are taught to "BE A MAN!" and not to let women push them
    	around (verbally or physically!)
    
    	Men are taught in our culture that they will be more respected
    	if they preserve their manhood in this way (and that means they
    	will be respected more by men *and* women.)
    
    	Thus, the man (in the earlier note) made the assumption that his
    	wife would have respected him more if he *had* hit her back.
    
    	Not all men believe this stuff, but it's sure as hell what men
    	in our society are taught.

>   <<< Note 430.56 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

     
 >   	As for "boys are taught not to hit little girls," that's true.
 >   	That's what BOYS are taught.
    
 >   	Men are taught to "BE A MAN!"  Men are told, "If a woman orders
 >   	you around, you are P*SSY-WHIPPED, HEN-PECKED - NOT A MAN!"
    	
      
	Lies!  All lies ! 

	Where are the statistics to back up these statements?

	How do you know what every single boy or man was taught?

	

	

No Suzanne I wasen't jailed or charged however when the divorce
 proceedings started it was used unsuccessfuly against me as alledged
proof I was the bad guy. Fortunatly I had a different form of proof from
our MD who knew the real story who testified in my behalf.

I never hit her once but I did defend myself and nearly became the victim
for doing so I know better now.

-j

    	RE: .62
    
    	> He was living with this woman at the time.  
    
    	At what time?  When you witnessed it?  (What were you doing 
    	visiting your boyfriend while he was living with another woman?
    	Sounds like a very awkward situation to me.)
    
    	> She would attack him whenever she felt like it.  He had no recourse 
    	> against her attacks.
    
    	He had his size and strength, which is more than most women have
    	when they are being attacked by men.  I'm not faulting him for
    	not defending himself (perhaps he truly felt he shouldn't try.)
    	
    	He still had the option, though.  Most women don't.
    
    	> Remeber, he was looking out for the best interests of the child.
    	> If he had hit back, tried to defend himself, or even move out
    	> it would have been one more thing she could have used against
    	> him regarding custody of the child.  
    
    	What would it have hurt if he'd defended himself?  Sounds like
    	she was so mad that it didn't HELP anything for him to sustain
    	the blows without defense.  It doesn't sound like it made her
    	any happier to see him injured.  
    
    	> The nurses reply," well what did you do to get her so angry".  
    	> Like it was justified that she had cut him so badly.
    
    	Nurses aren't cops.  Screw what they said - he should have gone
    	to the police (especially if she used a weapon against him.)
    	That's against the law, whether a man does it or a woman does it.
    
    	> Again, attitudes must be changed.  People need to stop accepting 
    	> violence of any nature.  It is wrong and it hurts more than just 
    	> the abuser and abusee.
    
    	I agree with you about this!!  Violence is definitely wrong (no
    	matter who does it) - offenders (male or female) should be
    	prosecuted!  

    	RE: .64  Mitchell
    
    	Where were you when people were claiming that boys are taught
    	not to hit girls??
    
    	Why didn't you call them liars (and ask for their statistics,
    	too)???
    
    	If it's a lie for me to describe cultural conditioning, then it
    	was a bunch of lies when so many OTHERS in this topic described
    	this phenomenon, too.

>   <<< Note 430.67 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

     
 >   	Where were you when people were claiming that boys are taught
 >   	not to hit girls??
  
	Maybe *some* ....but your statement included all boys.

  
>    	Why didn't you call them liars (and ask for their statistics,
>    	too)???
 

	Because they didn't say *all* !
   

>    	If it's a lie for me to describe cultural conditioning, then it
>    	was a bunch of lies when so many OTHERS in this topic described
>    	this phenomenon, too.


	I don't believe it is *cultural* conditioning. Perhaps it's
	something you were subjected to, and the men/boys were subjected
	to around you. And others too.  But not all.


	kits	

    	RE: .68  kits
    
    	> Maybe *some* ....but your statement included all boys.
    
    	My statement was a QUOTE of what others have been saying
    	- "boys are taught not to hit [little] girls"!
    
    	My words (to describe boys) were the same as theirs - if their 
    	statement wasn't about "ALL" boys, then neither was mine.
    
    	> Because they didn't say *all* !
   
    	Neither did I!
    

    
    re 66
    
    "At what time?  When you witnessed it?"
    
    Yes to both.  He was living with her in a 3 bedroom apartment
    (one for him, one for her, one for baby) to co-parent their
    child.  One condition of him moving in was that he was not
    going to stop our relationship.  She was well aware of this
    and agreed to it.  They both agreed that they were not in love
    with each other and that the relationship they were going to
    have was one of co-parents.  
    
    "what were you doing visiting your boyfriend while he was living
    with another woman?"  
    
    Your quick to assume the facts of the situation.  Who are you
    to judge?
    
    Suzanne  what you fail to see (or may just do not want to see)
    is the fact that no matter what he did she still had the "power"
    to take the child away from him.  Not sure if you are a parent
    or not, but this is a totally unacceptable thing for a parent
    to have happen.  He was not willing to let her take the child
    out of his life.  He still is not willing to lie down, roll
    over and die just so he can be out of her life.  So the violence
    was one way of her exerting her control over him.  
    
    I think this is one of the reasons for violence:. control.
    Beleive me if the child was not involved there is no doubt
    in my mind that he would have stopped the violence as soon
    as it had started.  Mind you if the child was not involved
    none of this would have happened because he would not have
    been a part of her life.  
    
    Michele
    

    	RE: .70  Ray
    
    	Women in abusive relationships are told "You should get yourself
    	out of the situation" (as a way of defending themselves.)
    
    	If "You should use your size and strength to defend yourself"
    	is blaming the victim, then the above statement (to women) is
    	the same thing.
    
    	I disagree that it is casting blame when methods of defense
    	are pointed out.
    
    	> The two men I've known who lived in the situation did so for 
    	> many of the same reasons as women do:  fear of worse violence,
    	> fear of life outside the abusive relationship, lack of self-esteem.
    
    	Dealing with these feelings is part of the "defense" involved in
    	trying to stop being abused.  Is it "blaming the victim" to see
    	lack of self-esteem as a problem??
    
    	If not, then neither is it "blaming the victim" to see "lack
    	of self-defense" as a problem.
    
    	>It's difficult enough already to get men to ask for help in such
    	>situations.  Is it really necessary to trot out variations on "A real
    	>man is too tough to be in such an embarrassing fix" and "Ah, c'mon, it
    	>couldn't have hurt that much"?
    
    	Now I realize that you can't be referring to me here (since my
    	opinion is that abusive men *and* women should be prosecuted.)
    
    	Reality is that the methods of defense for abused women and men
    	are often (NOT ALWAYS, but OFTEN) different, since the sizes and
    	strength of women and men often tends to be different (NOT ALWAYS,
    	but OFTEN.)
    
    	Yes, men should prosecute - if the law isn't currently accepting
    	such cases for prosecution, then let's change the law!  NO PERSON
    	(male or female) should get away with abusing someone else!

    	RE: .72
    
    	>> What were you doing visiting your boyfriend while he was living
    	>> with another woman?  Sounds like an awkward situation to me.
     
   	> Your quick to assume the facts of the situation.  Who are you
    	> to judge?
    
    	It was a question, that's all.  ("Sounds like an awkward situation"
    	was not a judgment, but an opinion of mine about such situations.)
    
    	As it happens, you *were* visiting your boyfriend while he was
    	living with another woman (per your note,) and it *still* sounds
    	like an awkward situation to me (which is still my opinion about
    	such situations.)
    
    	> I think this is one of the reasons for violence:. control.
    
    	I agree!  Often, it ends up being a case of physical control
    	over the person (almost entirely.)  In the case of your
    	boyfriend, the control was a combination of "head games" and
    	custody laws.
    
    	Please understand that I think the woman in this situation
    	behaved dispicably (and should have been prosecuted every time
    	she struck him - EVERY SINGLE TIME!)
    
    	It's unfortunate that he felt he wasn't in the position of
    	defending himself at the time (because of his child.)  Sounds
    	like an ongoing nightmare for him.  It really does.

    Well, well, well.... 
    
    ahem, sinse I have gone and gotten deleted for telling you sue, what I
    think about your entries and your sexist attitudes....
    suffice it to say this them......
    
    
    THE MASTER!

    	RE: .75  Ray
    
    	> The answer for ANYONE, regardless of sex, in an abusive relationship
    	> is to "get yourself out of the situation".  As far as I can see, 
    	> there is no other viable solution.  
    
    	Ultimately, this is true.  In the midst of an attack, however, it's
    	sometimes possible to avoid being injured (depending on what methods
    	of defense are available to the person at the time.)
    
    	> When the victims try to defend themselves physically, they might 
    	> escalate the violence (instead of letting it run its unnatural 
    	> course)...
    
    	Well, if the attacker is bigger and stronger, then it's sometimes
    	best to do nothing (unless one senses that the threat of death is
    	present.)  In that case, I know I'd fight for my life even if the
    	attacker was 10 feet tall.  It's a matter of personal judgment.
    
    	> ...or give themselves more to blame themselves for (the "We 
    	> deserve each other" bit), or even end up being prosecuted
    	> themselves.  These problems are common to women AND men.
    
    	Self-defense against someone smaller than yourself doesn't necessarily
    	involve injury, though.  (If it's someone bigger, of course, then
    	it might *take* a serious or lethal injury to protect oneself.  In
    	this case, the threat against one's life needs to be fairly evident,
    	or you're right - the danger of being prosecuted would be high, for
    	persons of either sex.)
    
    	>The difference is that it's more acceptable to tell a woman that she's
    	>incapable of defending herself physically - 
    
    	Ray, it isn't just a matter of *telling* some women that they are
    	unable to defend themselves...  Some women *are* unable to defend
    	against the physical assault of men who are taller/stronger/bigger
    	than they are (unless they have a weapon handy.)
    
    	My ex was 6 feet tall, 175 lbs, and he knew how to box.  His second
    	wife didn't have a prayer against him, and it wasn't because someone
    	*told* her she didn't.  He was a bruiser, literally and figuratively,
    	and she ended up seriously injured no matter what she did about his
    	violence.  Even leaving him wasn't enough to stop it.

    	
    	RE: .75  Ray
    
    	My note quoted a slightly different version of your note (the one
    	before you deleted and edited, then resubmit it.)
    
    	Just a word to explain the difference (to avoid confusion...)
    

    	RE: .78  Herb

    	You may or may not know this, but I'm the former victim of a
    	violent marriage.  I never prosecuted (or even called the police,)
    	but I had my nose broken and a number of other injuries that
    	required treatment at a hospital before I left my ex.

    	He got worse with his second marriage, though.  A lot worse!

    	The first thing most people ask me when I talk about this is:
    	"Why did you put up with it and stay with the marriage as long as 
    	you did????" (which is pretty similar to the questions I asked.)

    	Do I regard this as adversarial and confrontational?  No, I don't.
    
    	In fact, I have good friends reading this topic who might well
    	remember asking me this very question when talking to me about 
    	this subject offline.  I've never been insulted or outraged by 
    	this question (ever!)
    
    	It's natural for people to want to know if the injuries could have
    	been avoided in some way (or if targets of abuse *in general* have
    	any better recourse, other than "taking it.")
    
    	My queries were meant in the same spirit.  

    
    	Thanks, Herb.
    
    	Although the subject is understandably an emotional one for me,
    	I don't find it easy to talk about my experience with it (except
    	in the most dispassionate way I can express it, as if it happened
    	to someone else.)
    
    	Not easy to connect with it directly, if you know what I mean.
    

One concept which many people seem to be missing here is that the notion
that men might often be victims of abuse IN NO WAY reflects upon the
problems of women who are the victims of abuse.  Some of the replies here
seem to assume that acknowledging that men might be victimized by women
somehow trivializes the more well-established claims that women are
victimized by men.  This is just not so!

What is the problem with accepting or even rationally discussing the idea
that domestic violence against men by women is more prevalent than we might
have previously thought?   I just don't understand some of the reactions here.

Please, people.  This is a serious subject.  Let's not get carried away with
the "war of the sexes" yet again and trash this discussion too!

				Steve

    
    	My wife and I were at a small party this past weekend.
    	I brought up the subject of this topic and some of
    	the results I'd found. The reactions astounded me.
    	Almost all of the women refused to even consider the
    	data offered, simply saying they didn't believe it.
    	When I mentioned that the data represented studies by both
    	men and women, done in different time periods they still
    	brushed it aside. 
    
    	It seems most strange to me that as we move ahead in society,
    	casting aside stereotypes that may hold back or misrepresent
    	women, african americans, gay men and women, etc. we seem
    	only too content to let go unchallenged, negative stereotypes that
    	apply to men.
    
    								Hank

    
    	What negative stereotype do you think is challenged by the
    	data presented in the studies you cited?
    
    	

	Boy, this whole topic is a tough one for me.  Even writing this is
	tough.

	I wouldn't dare to generalize about "all men" or "all women" but
	I know what I went through.

	I have been threatened with a kitchen knife.  More than once I heard,
	"If I had a gun I'd blow you away." (One good reason for not having
	a gun in the house.  If a gun had been available, I'm sure I'd be 
	dead now.)

	I was physically assaulted such that if it had been done by a stranger
	while I was walking down the street I could have had him/her arrested,
	but since it happened within the walls of our home, I was more likely
	to be considered at fault.  After all, I was 6" taller and 45 pounds
	heavier.

	She, too, was violent while hiding behind the children (boy, I 
	couldn't believe that one in .43).

	I had to repair/replace three different doors inside the house that 
	she smashed in after I locked them behind me trying to escape from 
	her and avoid any further violence.  And after the fact, according 
	to her, the damage was somehow "my fault".

	My personal morals and ethics were such that my vow of "till death
	do us part" was inviolate.  I freely and consciously made the 
	decision to marry this woman and I was not going to run away 
	from my "responsibilities".  Pretty sick attitude, huh?  Under the
	circumstances, yes, it was.

	It was only after the effects of her psychological abuse of our (then)
	5 year old son were observed by his teacher that I made the decision
	to leave the marriage -- and take him with me.  And she is still
	using the courts to her advantage to inflict further psychological
	and economic violence against me.

	I have been told that in spite of all her obvious mental problems
	that I had better walk a very fine line or I risk losing custody
	of my son.

	I agree that the solution requires education and awareness that
	a problem exists and an acknowledgement that there is inequity 
	in the present way this is looked at.

	Certainly, many years ago the problem of domestic violence was
	generally ignored.  But now the vocal and outspoken women's groups 
	have successfully brought attention to the existence of a PART of 
	the problem (men's violence against women) and have succeeded in 
	biasing "the system" against men.  And some women are very 
	proficient at manipulating "the system" to their advantage, even 
	if they're the "bad guys".

	But I've never heard any statement attributed to a women's group
	that says something like, "Sure there are violent women and just
	as it is our responsibility to protect women from violent men it
	is also our responsibility to help eliminate female violence
	directed at men".

	I think that most men take a "chivalrous" attitude (cultural 
	conditioning?).  Men are *supposed* to "protect" and "provide 
	for" their wives and children.  "Real men" don't walk out on 
	their families.  "Real men" don't want to admit that they're 
	getting knocked around, either physically or emotionally, by 
	their wives.  So, knowing that "the system" won't protect them, 
	men stay in these relationships and suffer in silence.

	Sure, it's a copout to blame "the system", but it IS reality and
	reality is a strong motivator.  And as an individual, you can't 
	fight "the system".

   Little Flame On:
   ----------------

	And, Ms. Conlon, please enter the real world and try to understand 
	that today the entire "system" (ie, nurses as in the one previous 
	example, police, judges, etc.) is conditioned to take the woman's 
	side, no matter who is at fault.  In these circumstances, men don't 
	stand a chance.  In other words, I, as a man, could be thrown in 
	jail if I had done to her the same things that she did to me and got 
	away with.  Yes, like you, I'm bitter too.

   Flame Off
   ---------
						Tom

>                      <<< Note 430.86 by HANNAH::MODICA >>>

>    	Almost all of the women refused to even consider the
>    	data offered, simply saying they didn't believe it.


	 If I might add a little to the conversation.

	 It might be because people QUITE often have the misconception
	 that men are, on the average, much larger than the women they
	 marry.  People, when they think about this typical couple,
	 can't see how the woman could abuse the man when he's such a
	 "big bruiser" and so much stronger than the woman.

	 Yes,... I said misconception.  I remember reading some stats
	 a few years ago that said the AVERAGE man is 5'9" and 165.

	 The average man is NOT a "big bruiser."  Hell, I'm almost as
	 tall and almost weigh the same as the average guy.

         Many women, I think, can't even fathom the fact that they
         could "hurt" a man.   Personally I believe the stats--my
         observations are that female violence is JUST AS PREVELANT as
         male domestic abuse.  I know too many women that abuse their
         husbands physically and mentally and then whimper when he
         even raises his voice are her (yelling abuse while he does
         it).

         And my opinion is that anyone that thinks that female
         domestic abuse isn't NEARLY as "bad" or as "common" as male
         domestic abuse is only fooling themselves.


	 kathy

	 

    So far this discussion of females involved in domestic violence has
    centered around spousal violence.  I'm sure if we added to the
    discussion the huge amount of parent/child violence in our society,
    very few people indeed would be astounded by statistics that show women
    performing an equal share of the violence.
    
    Psychologist I'm not, but I firmly believe that mother/child violence
    is a key contributor to the violence displayed by that child when s/he
    becomes an adult.  It's a difficult cycle to break.
    
    And I further believe that a mother capable of committing violence
    against her child is just as capable of committing violence against her
    spouse.  The violence, for self-preservation reasons, just might take a 
    different form.
    
    Karen

>	And, Ms. Conlon, please enter the real world and try to understand 
>	that today the entire "system" (ie, nurses as in the one previous 
>	example, police, judges, etc.) is conditioned to take the woman's 
>	side, no matter who is at fault. 

 If I may but into your flame a little. Suzanne Conlon may be alot of things, 
but "not in the real world" is not one of them. Having been a survivor of
significant physical and mental abuse, she has managed to put her life on
the right track and has really kicked some butt to do so. I surmise that
your objections to her position can be adequately explained away by the fact
that her own encounters were bound to very strongly affect her outlook on
domestic violence and the fact that her noting style can be viewed as being,
well, not exactly passive. :-)

 When Suzanne says that she isn't trying to minimize what anybody went through,
I believe her.

 I don't believe she took full advantage of the system when she was having her
own problems with domestic violence, so it is likely that she does not realize
how biased the system can be. I am not surprised at her skepticism in this
regard, after all, I am skeptical about some of the claims of people who say
that the system is biased in my favor in some instances (since I have never used
it and don't fully understand the tools at my disposal). It is only someone
who has gotten the short end of the stick that can fully comprehend the inherent
bias of any given system.

 Let's not be too harsh here; especially from one survivor to another.

 Peace.

 The Doctah

ps- Sorry for talking about you like you weren't here Suzanne.

    
    	RE: .92  Doctah
    
    	Thanks very much for your comments!
    

    	The courts are not biased in favor of women when it comes to
    	prosecuting for domestic violence (contrary to popular opinion
    	in this topic.)
    
    	I've seen "the system" up close on this issue, and I found it
    	to be seriously inadequate when it comes to protecting women
    	who have been subject to serious assault from their spouses.
    
    	Some years after my divorce, I dated a police detective in the
    	city where I used to live with my ex.  He was privvy to all the
    	information regarding the arrests of my ex for assaulting his
    	second wife.  He saw all the pictures they took of her after
    	the assaults (I didn't see them, but he said they were pretty
    	dramatic) - he also met her in that state himself.
    
    	The cops hated my ex for what they saw of him, yet they had to
    	watch while the courts let the man go (time after time.)  My
    	ex was an All-American boy from a nice family (who could afford
    	a good lawyer.)
    
    	When his second wife left and got a restraining order to protect
    	herself, my ex broke into her apartment.  The break-in and the
    	screams were loud enough to wake the neighborhood and get the
    	police there, but he made bail and broke into her apartment all
    	over again.  There was no way the law could protect her, nor was
    	it ever able to punish him.  
    
    	The police detective and I are still friends, but I told him some
    	time ago that I didn't want to hear any more about this situation.
    	The system failed miserably, and I didn't want to hear any more
    	about it (unless they finally put him in jail.)  They haven't yet.
    
    	One last thing (a quote from a newspaper article about another
    	woman who was failed by the system that people think loves women
    	so much):
    
    			Inmate Held in Ex-wife's Death.
    		
    		"As Indiana man who had been jailed for beating his former
    		wife was accused of killer her March 4 [1989] while he was
    		on an eight-hour furlough from prison.
    
    		"Police said that the man, Alan Matheney, left the St. Joseph
    		County Jail on March 4 after obtaining a pass from prison
    		officials.  They said he then drove to the Mishawaka, Ind.
    		home of his ex-wife, Lisa Bianco, where he allegedly beat
    		her to death outside the house with the butt of a shotgun
    		as neighbors watched.
    
    		"Women's rights advocates said the case raised troubling
    		questions about the ability of the justice system to
    		protect women from abusive men.  They noted that Bianco had
    		asked prison officials to notify her if Matheney was ever
    		released.  It was unclear why they had failed to inform
    		her of the eight-hour leave."

    re last 2.
    
    On the other hand, there are a lot of us who are getting fed up
    with the hate orgy being conducted by N.O.W. and ohter "feminest"
    hate groups.  I too am a victim of the system.  A VICTIM OF FALSE
    ACCUSATION.
    
    When my ex left, she went to a women's shelter and accused me of
    abuse.  THEY DIDN'T EVEN CHECK HER STORY.   Even after she admitted
    (I have the court transcripts from both the "shelter" and herself)
    that she had assaulted me with a knife while she held our one year 
    old daughter in front of her for protection, this "shelter" helped 
    her take the children and leave the state and hide for over six months.
    
    I too was a "victim" of "real mend don't desert their families".
    When she went to the shelter, I went to try and work things out
    (I didn't want to loose my children).  She told me that the only
    way that she'd try to work things out was if "we" went into therapy.
    Then she made excuses for going to the first couple of sessions.  I
    went alone to see what there was I could do to help things get 
    started.  Then I got hit with "see he's in terapy.  That proves
    what I've been saying about him".  My children and myself have
    all suffered greatly because of this trechery.
    
    Suzanne has no corner on struggle.  Eight years ago, I was down to
    my last 35 cents.  After four years of court battles ( yes I can
    tell a few horror stories about the legal system too) I finally
    had to take out bankruptcy.  I went back to school and got a 
    job with DEC, and worked my way from a trainee to a Support Spec III.
    I'm remaried to a wonderful woman (there has never been a ounce of
    violence between us in seven years) and two of my children now live
    with me.
    
    There are very few penalties for false accusation.  I have no love
    for anyone who is really abusive.  I think they should get the full
    penalty of the law, but when you "protect" one group and ignore
    another, it does not make you a hero--it makes you a hypocrite.
    
    fred();

    
    
    The courts are biased in the abuser's favor.
    
    Mi

    	RE: .95  Fred
    
    	The hate orgies directed *at* women's rights groups is pretty
    	sickening to me, Fred.  
    
    	I never claimed to have a corner on struggling.  At no time
    	did I go to the police about what happened in my marriage.
    	When I went to the hospital for my injuries, I told them I'd
    	fallen or hit a door (which they accepted without question.)
    
    	When I left the marriage, I moved thousands of miles away
    	(with a P.O. Box as a forwarding address.)  I was lucky to
    	have family far away that could help out.
    
    	The one time that I went to a help session for abused women,
    	I left and never went back.  It was too depressing.  No one
    	there had gotten any real help from the system, and most of
    	them had no idea what to do next.  I decided I was better off
    	working things out by myself.  (I'd gone there looking for
    	some ideas on sorting out my feelings - I was already out of
    	the marriage by then.)
    
    	The prospects of women in this situation did not look good.
    	I've never regretted not attempting to prosecute at all.  It
    	isn't the bed of roses that many people seem to assume that
    	it is.

    Allow me to jump in here (for the first time) and thank the base note
    author for making a very important point about domestic violence in
    America ... Domestic violence -- spouse battering spouse and child
    abuse -- is a very serious and widespread problem in this nation, much
    more so than we realize.  
    
    This violence/abuse is perpetrated, just as much by women as by men.  
    Yet one would think, via the messages constantly pounded into our heads
    by newspapers, television, radio, talk shows, courts, clinics, and
    other segments of our culture, that women, as a group, are virtuous
    victims and men, as a group, are pseudo-sociopaths who dish out the
    vast majority of domestic violence.  IMO, this is a fallacy and an
    illusion and a lie and a cop-out that is perpetuated by our society.
    
    We live in a very sick society, IMO, where a lot of children grow up
    abused in a lot very sick family environments.  There is enough domestic
    violence and child abuse to go around for everybody -- both men AND 
    women.  It seems our society points its finger at men as a way to AVOID 
    OWNING UP to the sheer magnitude of these problems.  This is similar to 
    the way our society avoids dealing with child molestation -- that is, as 
    a society we point fingers at strangers (almost always men) while we do
    not own up to the fact that the vast majority of sexual child abusers 
    are mothers -- yes, mothers! -- fathers, aunts, uncles, and other 
    family members.  
    
    Unless we, as a society, stop putting ourselves in a state of denial,
    these domestic problems will continue indefinitely.
    
    Thanks again for pointing out how foolish this "men are bad / women are
    good" syndrome has become.   Both sexes have their work to do.
    
    By the way, Oprah's show today is about "battered women" ... but 
    never mind.
    
    Paul
    

          Since it is commonly believed that men are most responsible
        for domestic violence, due in large part to politicalization
        of the issue by radical groups, women (who so choose) have a
        window to victimize men.
    
          False accusations abound with increasing number of wives
        falsely accusing their husbands of sexual child abuse in
        divorce cases.(1)
    
          U. Mass. Amherst feminist professor Jean B. Elshtain finds
        that wives are motivated to make false accusations to improve
        their negotiating posture in property settlements, to improve
        their chances of being awarded sole custody of children, or
        simply to be vindictive toward divorcing husbands.(2)
    
          BTW, Elshtain has seen right thru NOW's political aim's and 
        does not support their version of Feminism.
    
          As any knowledgeable adult will tell you, the equalitarian
        divorce was a disaster for women to cite but one example.
    
        
        
          1. G. Dullea, "Child Sex Abuse Charge in More Divorces," NY
             Times (1/19/87),p. A14; and "Molestation Charged in Divorces,"
             NY Times (10/22/86),p. A24.
    
          2. Jean B. Elshtain, "Invasion of the Child Savers: How We
             Succumb to Hype and Hysteria," The Progressive, 49 (1985)p.24
    
    
    
                                                      Russ P.

	Ms. Conlon, I want you to know that I cringe when I read your
	description of your first hand experience with domestic violence.
	Violence of any kind is abhorrent.

	However, the problem I have with what you've said in a number of
	your replies is that you seem to claim (my interpretation) that 
	women have some kind of exclusive lock on being victims of 
	domestic violence.  I believe that this nonsense (ie, "exclusive
	lock" not "victims") is perpetuated by women's groups (eg, NOW) 
	and the media looking to capitalize on the sensationalism.

	My point is that this is ABSOLUTELY untrue!  Until this myth of 
	women being the only victims is discredited, men aren't going to
	be overly sympathetic on this issue.  Women's groups, which claim
	to be striving for *equality*, should be leading the way to let
	people know that *both* men and women can be victims of domestic 
	violence.  Anything else is simply hypocritical.

						Tom Fava

    re .103
    
    Bravo!!
    
    fred();

    	RE: .103  Tom
    
    	You flamed at me earlier, and I didn't insist on leaving a response
    	here for you.  So now you're back at me again.  One former victim 
    	yelling at another.  It's pretty pointless (regardless of what those 
    	in the cheering section think, as they try to egg you on.)
    
    	You are mistaken about my message.  Nowhere have I claimed that
    	women have any sort of exclusive lock on being victims of violence.
    	I've stated repeatedly how wrong I feel it is for people of either
    	sex to abuse others (and that such abusers should be prosecuted.)
    	How many times do I need to say this for you to hear it?
    
    	However, I also reject the idea that the overall dangers to people
    	of both sexes are precisely identical.  It is my opinion that men
    	are (as a group) larger than women, and that more crimes involving
    	physical violence are committed by men (as a group) than women.
    
    	DISCLAIMER SECTION:  This does NOT mean, of course, that all men
    	are bigger than all women, NOR does it mean that all men have more
    	physical strength than all women.  This also does NOT mean that
    	all men commit violent crimes, NOR does it mean that women never
    	commit violent crimes of any kind, NOR does it mean that men in
    	general tend to be violent by nature NOR that women in general are
    	passive by nature.  
    
    	How is "domestic violence" being defined here?  Is it an angry word
    	or deeply-felt insult, a plate thrown across the room, a bookshelf
    	overturned, a decorated Christmas tree thrown out into the yard when
    	a light burns out, a cooked turkey dumped into the sink when a spouse
    	doesn't show up for dinner?  Is it a knife picked up and aimed at
    	someone, or a threat made about what would happen if there were a
    	gun in the house?  
    
    	I would agree that all these things qualify as domestic violence.
    	Most of them are unprovable as crimes - although thousands of such
    	domestic violence disturbances get a call to the police (and appear
    	in studies about this problem.)
    
    	In my life, I've seen a more severe kind of violence.  I've seen
    	the punches-thrown/bones-broken/end-up-in-the-hospital variety,
    	and I don't think the numbers of these cases divide up identically
    	between the sexes.  The studies cited at the beginning of this
    	topic do *not* have numbers for this specific degree of violence.
    
    	We've all heard of cases where either a wife or a husband has been 
    	murdered outright.  What about the cases where an ABUSING spouse
    	has committed murder after the marriage broke up (or after spending
    	time in prison for the abuse)?  
    
    	There are cases after cases after cases of abusive husbands who have 
    	gone after estranged spouses to kill them (after the marriage has 
    	come apart and/or after the man has been identified or charged as 
    	a spousal abuser.)  I cited one such case earlier.  There was also
    	a movie (made for television) about another real-life case involving
    	nearly identical circumstances a few years ago.  Candace Bergen was
    	the wife in that movie.  These are two of MANY such cases!
    
    	A few months ago, there was an article in a Denver newspaper about
    	a young mother (with small children) who left a series of letters
    	to her kids when she was murdered by her ex-husband.  In some other
    	letters she left, she made it clear that she knew beyond a shadow
    	of a doubt that she would die at his hands sometime soon.  She'd
    	done everything possible to get the system to protect her, but
    	there simply wasn't any way they could do it.  So she wrote some
    	letters to say goodbye to her children, and waited for her death
    	(which did come, in precisely the way she knew it would.)
    
    	How many cases have come up where the woman repeatedly beat and
    	seriously injured her husband, then later broke into his residence
    	(after they split up) to beat him hard enough to kill him?  I can't
    	even think of ONE such case.
    
    	But nevermind.  It's ok to paint the system as loving women and
    	screwing men over in violence cases (allowing scores of INNOCENT
    	men to be the victims of biased courts and vindictive wives.)
    
    	It's also ok to paint women as LAUGHING our asses off (knowing
    	that all we have to do is to BLINK and the courts will send someone
    	over to ruin our husbands' lives beyond recognition, making women
    	richer and happier than we ever dreamed, somehow.)
    
    	That's how *I* see some of the arguments here.  Men as the victims
    	of women (eg, men == innocent providers who stay with their wives
    	until it's totally unbearable; women == devious parasites who use
    	the courts to screw men out of money/children/freedom at every
    	available opportunity.)
    
    	At some point, you should ask yourself why the majority of other
    	kinds of violent crimes are committed overwhelmingly by men.  Yes,
    	I know we aren't allowed to talk about these kinds of things in
    	this topic.  It's easier to believe that women are every bit as
    	violent as men if we confine our thoughts to one set of studies
    	that examines men and women in a carefully defined area of violent
    	behavior.
    
    	After reading the replies in this topic, it's no wonder that women's
    	rights groups confine their work to helping protect women in abusive
    	situations.  The forces in our society that call women "liars" and
    	"manipulators" are strong enough to make their jobs tough enough
    	(without expecting them to spend their energy trying to help abused
    	men, too.)

    	In the case of the abuser I've spoken of, it's interesting to note
    	who "believed" what was happening, and who didn't:
    
    	The police believed it.  They caught my ex in the act of beating
    	up his second wife (more than once.)  They were there when the
    	paramedics were called, they took pictures of her face and body
    	after the assaults.  They interviewed neighbors who eyewitnessed
    	some of the beatings (when the sounds of screaming drew their
    	attention to open windows and curtains.)  They knew it was true.
    
    	The courts didn't believe it.  They saw him as a handsome native
    	son of Colorado (accused by an hysterical, vindictive woman) some
    	of the time.  Other times, they saw him as someone who was just
    	too innocent-looking and soft-spoken to be capable of violence.
    	At worst, they thought he just needed love and support from his
    	family (to help overcome these impulses.)  He didn't need prison.
    
    	My ex's family believed it.  They'd known he had a serious problem
    	since he was a teenager.  At the age of 14, he shot his 2 year old
    	sister with a beebee gun (the same beebee gun he shot me with point
    	blank some years later.)  They had no illusions about his ability
    	to be violent.  They protected him by blaming the women in his
    	life, though.  They blamed me, they blamed the live-in girlfriend
    	who came after me, and they blamed his second wife.  (I don't know
    	how they ever reconciled what he'd done to his baby sister.)
    
    	His friends didn't believe it.  When my ex broke my nose, a male
    	friend of ours (who was living with us at the time) was in the
    	house when it happened.  He saw the blood gushing from my face.
    	He saw me rushed off to the hospital.  He knew I had to have an
    	operation to help repair the damage.  [I've had a second operation
    	since then.]  He still didn't believe it.  My ex's friends just
    	think all three women lied (for reasons they don't understand.)

>   <<< Note 430.105 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

>    	In my life, I've seen a more severe kind of violence.  I've seen
>    	the punches-thrown/bones-broken/end-up-in-the-hospital variety,
>    	and I don't think the numbers of these cases divide up identically
>    	between the sexes.  The studies cited at the beginning of this
>    	topic do *not* have numbers for this specific degree of violence.


	 Violence is violence...it doesn't matter how *severe* it is.

	 And what does it matter whether or not the stats divide up
	 evenly or not.  Does it make it "not as bad" for one sex as
	 for the other?
	 
>    	How many cases have come up where the woman repeatedly beat and
>    	seriously injured her husband, then later broke into his residence
>    	(after they split up) to beat him hard enough to kill him?  I can't
>    	even think of ONE such case.

	 I remember two such cases in Tucson while I was in college.
	 

>    	That's how *I* see some of the arguments here.  Men as the victims
>    	of women (eg, men == innocent providers who stay with their wives
>    	until it's totally unbearable; women == devious parasites who use
>    	the courts to screw men out of money/children/freedom at every
>    	available opportunity.)

	 Suzanne.  What is SOOOO wrong with talking about men as the
	 victims of women more than talking about women as victims of
	 men?  I mean, for goodness sakes, this is MENNOTES!!  Is
	 there "equal say" given in womennotes about such topics?  No,
	 there isn't.  This is MENNOTES, most of the people replying
	 in this topic are MEN.  The MEN's viewpoint is what this file
	 is after, isn't it?

	 The women's side is NOT being played down at all, that's
	 you're imagination!!!  If you want the "women's view", go to
	 WOMENNOTES where you'll find it.

	 Not a single person in here has said that violence against
	 men is WORSE than violence against women......what it seems
	 like YOU are trying to say is that violence against women is
	 WORSE than violence against men.

	 NEITHER ARE WORSE...violence is violence, and guess what...it
	 sux no matter WHAT SEX isn't against.
	 

>    	After reading the replies in this topic, it's no wonder that women's
>    	rights groups confine their work to helping protect women in abusive
>    	situations.  The forces in our society that call women "liars" and
>    	"manipulators" are strong enough to make their jobs tough enough
>    	(without expecting them to spend their energy trying to help abused
>    	men, too.)

	 Your points would probably be better accepted, Suzanne, if
	 you didn't resort to petty insults.  You have a lot of good
	 things to say, but when you pepper them, all we see are the
	 insults/hatred.  Why don't you work WITH the people in this
	 topic, huh?

	 Violence is violence, and it SUX!  And who it's worse for
	 doesn't matter worth a damn, what matters is that it HAPPENS
	 to BOTH GENDERS.

	 kathy

>       <<< Note 430.107 by HEYYOU::ZARLENGA "thinkin' nasty thoughts" >>>

>	Oprah Winfrey's show today was on domestic violence.
>	Guess what ... not one single abused man was there.
>	Thanks, Oprah, for propagating the stereotype of "abusive
>    husband, beaten wife".


	 So, Mike...what are you going to do about it?  Got a letter
	 to Oprah in the works?

	 You know, you can't make a difference by just moaning about
	 it.....you've got to get out there and be active.


	 kathy

    	RE: .108  Kath
    
    	> Violence is violence...it doesn't matter how *severe* it is.
    
    	It matters a great deal.  Some degrees of violence are illegal.
    	Some are not.  Some are easily provable, leaving permanent
    	physical damage, while others are more difficult to prove and
    	leave invisible (psychic) scars.  They're all WRONG, of course.
    
    	Nowhere have I said that ANY kind of violence is "right" or "ok"
    	(for either sex.)  I simply don't buy the argument that women are
    	every bit as violent as men when it comes to SEVERELY violent
    	behavior, no matter how badly some people want to believe it.
    
    	It might well be true that women and men exhibit the same amounts
    	of the less severe kinds of violence.  That doesn't seem to be the
    	way people are qualifying their arguments, though.
    
    	> And what does it matter whether or not the stats divide up
	> evenly or not.  
    
    	It matters because people keep claiming that women are EVERY BIT
    	AS VIOLENT (read: equally violent!) as men.  If the stats don't
    	bear it out, then why say it?  Just because it sounds good?
    
    	> Does it make it "not as bad" for one sex as for the other?
	 
    	Of course it doesn't.  As I've stated (too many times to count
    	now,) I'm against violence by either sex.  However, I'm also
    	"against" some kinds of violence more than others (because of
    	the potential for death.)
    
    	> What is SOOOO wrong with talking about men as the victims of 
    	> women more than talking about women as victims of men?  
    
    	What is SOOOO wrong with pointing out how I see the views being
    	displayed in this topic (when others feel free to characterize
    	*my* stated views here)??  
    
    	> Not a single person in here has said that violence against
	> men is WORSE than violence against women......what it seems
	> like YOU are trying to say is that violence against women is
	> WORSE than violence against men.
    
    	Well, I guess it depends on how one defines violence.  If *ALL*
    	acts of violence (from the smallest level of aggression to an
    	act of murder) are the same in the eyes of some here, then we've
    	been talking about different things. I don't classify all violence 
    	as being in the same general class.  All of it's WRONG, certainly, 
    	but some kinds of violence are worse than others, in my opinion.
    
    	> NEITHER ARE WORSE...violence is violence, and guess what...it
	> sux no matter WHAT SEX isn't against.
	 
    	So, tossing a small book that hits someone in the arm (barely
    	causing the tiniest bruise) is the SAME EXACT THING as plunging
    	a knife into someone's heart, causing instant death.  Sorry, but
    	I don't buy it.  [That's an example, by the way, and not meant
    	as "typical behavior" for people of either sex.]
    
    	>> ...The forces in our society that call women "liars" and
	>> "manipulators" are strong enough to make their jobs tough enough
	>> (without expecting them to spend their energy trying to help abused
	>> men, too.)

	> Your points would probably be better accepted, Suzanne, if
	> you didn't resort to petty insults.  
    
    	The next time I see "the forces in our society," I'll apologize.

        re: .105 by Suzanne Conlon
    
        "I've seen the punches-thrown/ bones-broken/ end up in the 
         hospital variety ... The studies cited .. do *not* have numbers
         for this specific degree of violence."
    
         
           In a demographically representative national sample, Straus
         made a Conflict Tactics Scale of violent acts. 
    
           Included were:
    
           1. Throwing things at a spouse.
           2. Pushing, shoving, or grabbing.
           3. Slapping.
           4. Kicking, biting, or hitting with a fist.
           5. Hitting, or trying to hit with something.
           6. Beating up.
           7. Threatening with a knife or gun.
           8. Using a knife or gun.
    
           Items 1-8 in this ascending continuum were designated a
         "Violence Index," items 4-8 constituted a "Severe Violence Index."
    
           In a given year men committed a median of 2.5 assaults/yr in
         domestic violence against women, and women were found to commit
         3.0 assaults/yr. ( items 1-8 ).
    
           In assessing central tendencies, the mean showed men averaged
         8.8 assaults/yr and women 10.1 assaults/yr.
    
           Means better reflect the total amount of domestic violence
         that occurs, and medians show more accurately the normative
         rates of violence.
    
           Men committed a median of 2.4 acts of severe violence (items
         4-8) per year and women a median of 3.0 acts of severe violence
         against men.
    
           Men had a mean severe violence rate of 8.0 acts per year, but
         women committed 8.9 acts of severe violence.
    
           When all severely violent acts were examined, the data indicated
         that women as a group were more violent with more men than women
         victimized.
    
           Straus projected the U.S. population had 1.8 million female
         victims of severe violence, and 2.1 million male victims.
    
           R.L. McNeely and G.R. Simpson believe that the "higher mean
         and median rates for severe violence suggests that female
         aggression is not merely a response to male aggression."
    
    
           Sources:
    
           M. Straus, "Wife-Beating: How Common and Why?"  Victimology,
           2 (1977-78),pp.443-458; M. Straus and G. Hotaling eds., The
           Social Causes of Husband-Wife Violence (Minneapolis, Minn.:
           Univ. of Minn. Press, 1980).
    
           M. Straus, R. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz, Behind Closed Doors:
           Violence in the American Family (New York: Doubleday/Anchor,
           1980).
    
                                                     Russ P.

    	RE: .108  Kath
    
    	By the way...
    
    	> Not a single person in here has said that violence against
	> men is WORSE than violence against women....
    
    	Although it may have been implied earlier, it's been stated as
    	a certainty now (in .111):
    
    	> When all severely violent acts were examined, the data indicated
        > that women as a group were more violent with more men than women
        > victimized.
    
    	Obviously, I have some serious doubts about the data supplied
    	(as well as the conclusions drawn from it.)
    
    	I went to the library last night to find more conclusive data on
    	this, but every single study of domestic violence was "checked out"
    	(per the library computer.)
    
    	Looks like I'm going to have to find some additional resources for
    	input to this discussion.
    
    	I'll present my findings as soon as feasible.

    -1
    
    Findings don't always present truth either.  No matter if you say
    something, or I, or if someone else wrote it in a publication.  Studies
    don't always present truth either.  Many people do "one sided" studies
    to drawn attention to their crusade.  It's been done many times.
    
    But if you find what appeals to "you" to support your crusade, then by
    all means, go ahead and continue to beat your chest.
    
    -dwight

    	RE: .113  Dwight
    
    	> Studies don't always present truth either.  Many people do
    	> "one sided" studies to drawn attention to their crusade.  It's
    	> been done many times.
    
    	The same goes for the studies we've seen in this topic so far!!
    	That's precisely why I'm so skeptical about some of the findings 
    	I've seen here.  
    
    	> But if you find what appeals to "you" to support your crusade, 
    	> then by all means, go ahead and continue to beat your chest.
    
    	Others have already found studies that appealed to "them," so I must
    	presume that they are included in your invitation to continue chest-
    	beating (unless you think their studies should be considered more
    	significant than any studies I might find.)
    
    	If so, I'd have to ask why.

RE: Suzanne
    
    
    >	The same goes for the studies we've seen in this topic so far!!
    >	That's precisely why I'm so skeptical about some of the findings 
    >	I've seen here.  
    
    Why is that?  hmm?  Is it becuase the DO NTO fit YOUR agenda?  Is it
    because they are "proving" that men indeed are NOT AS VIOLENT AS YOU
    SEEM TO BELIEVE?  IS it because it disproves your stats?
    
    
    
    >	Others have already found studies that appealed to "them," so I must
    >	presume that they are included in your invitation to continue chest-
    >	beating (unless you think their studies should be considered more
    >	significant than any studies I might find.)
    
    We all await your "unbiased" input.
    
    Also, I have noticed that the input that others have entered, however
    YOU yourself feel about them, were entered as information.  This
    information, although it does indeed contridict your stance and all of
    the finding that are the norm (see Oprah and other bashers
    extraordinairs) , why is it so hard for you to fathom?
    
    You seem to continue to hold onto the wives tale that men are naturally
    more violent, evil vile and whatever you can come up with.
    
    Why is that?  Is ther biitterness there?  is there, hmmmm, lets see,
    sinse there is no alternative wordage to describe misogyny of the
    female persuasion, Ill have to just state it. Why do you hate men?
    
    

    I am not one to believe statistics just because they are in print.   I
    like to consider the source.  the source of the stats in .111 is, I
    believe, Murray Straus who, I think, was at the time at UNH and was
    there in 69-71 when I did programming for the Sociology department.  He
    was a nationally respected authority on "The Family."
    
    While I find that I have additional questions about the meaning of the
    results reported, I do find the source and the stats quite credible.
    
    ed

    	RE: .115  AMARTIN
    
    	If any statistics are going to be questioned (as containing
    	possible biases,) then it's only fair that ALL statistics be
    	subject to the same scrutiny.
    
    	There isn't a reason on God's green earth why I should accept
    	anyone else's studies as "THE ULTIMATE TRUTH" if others refuse
    	to give credence to studies offering contrary results.  It's a
    	two-way street (or at least, it ought to be, if it isn't.)
    
    	> Is it because they are "proving"... 
    
    	As others have pointed out, studies don't necessarily "PROVE" a 
    	damn thing, so there's no reason to suggest that studies YOU
    	happen to like are "PROOF" (while studies I might find are NOT.)
    
    	Obviously, I intend to present material gathered with as much
    	objectivity as possible.
    
    	> Why do you hate men?
    
    	I don't.  Why do you hate women?

    While I do see clear concensus that domestic violence of all types 
    is undesirable, I'm having a little difficulty understanding what 
    some people believe here.  Perhaps a few simple questions will help 
    sort out my confusion.
    
    For anyone who cares to answer:
    
     1)	Do you believe that the frequency of female to male domestic
    	violence is:	a) greater than
    			b) less than
    			c) the same as 
    	the frequency of male to female domestic violence?
    
     2)	Do you believe that the physical damage done by female to male
    	domestic violence is, on the whole:
    
    			a) greater than
    			b) less than
    			c) the same as 
    	that done by male to female domestic violence?

     3)	If there are studies or surveys done that support your belief, 
    	could you site them so that others might examine them to see if
    	they appear to be free of bias?
    
    Since the debate at the moment seems to split along sex lines,
    I'll leave it at that except to point out that, in considering
    all domestic violence, we might also look at parent to child
    violence and child to parent (or grand parent) violence.
    
    Steve

RE: 117 Suzanne
        
    >	If any statistics are going to be questioned (as containing
    >	possible biases,) then it's only fair that ALL statistics be
    >	subject to the same scrutiny.
    
    Fair enough.
    
    
    >	There isn't a reason on God's green earth why I should accept
    >	anyone else's studies as "THE ULTIMATE TRUTH" if others refuse
    >	to give credence to studies offering contrary results.  It's a
    >	two-way street (or at least, it ought to be, if it isn't.)
    
    Although I see what you are saying, I cannot help but think of the ole
    its my ball and you have to play by my rules theme.
    
    	> Is it because they are "proving"... 
    
    >	As others have pointed out, studies don't necessarily "PROVE" a 
    >	damn thing, so there's no reason to suggest that studies YOU
    >	happen to like are "PROOF" (while studies I might find are NOT.)
    
    I never said they did.  Thats what the "" were for.
    I never stated that I "liked" nor that they are "proof" at all.
    Please stop putting words in my mouth.
    
    >	Obviously, I intend to present material gathered with as much
    >	objectivity as possible.
    
    No offense, but I find that highly unlikely if not hard to believe.
    
    You know, for someone with so much hatred towards men, you do tent to
    make a few of us chuckle now and then.
    
    
    >	> Why do you hate men?
    
     >	I don't.  Why do you hate women?
    
    I dont.  Hate is such a powerful word Suzanne.  I tend to use words
    like dislike, dispise, and induces vomit.
    
    
    Scuze my whilst I go to the head.
    

    	RE: .119  AMARTIN
    
    	>> Obviously, I intend to present material gathered with as much
    	>> objectivity as possible.
    
    	> No offense, but I find that highly unlikely if not hard to believe.
    
    	My sources will stand on their own merit, no matter what you think.
    
    	> You know, for someone with so much hatred towards men, you do tent 
    	> to make a few of us chuckle now and then.
    
    	The faulty reasoning that has driven you to make false assumptions 
    	about me is predictable, if not terribly amusing, Al.
    
    	>> I don't.  Why do you hate women?
    
    	> I dont.  Hate is such a powerful word Suzanne.  I tend to use words
    	> like dislike, dispise, and induces vomit.
    
   	If you're going to decide how *I* feel, then it's only fair to allow
    	me to decide how *YOU* feel. (And I've made my decision, as you know.)
    	
    	Please send any furthur comments or questions to me through mail.

Excuse me, folks.  Sorry to rain on everyone's parade, but in my opinion,
it is utterly pointless to argue about "who does it more", and would like
to discourage further arguments along that line.

As I see it, it's the notion that violence against men by women exists at all
that seems to be so upsetting to some.  Why do we deny it as a society?  Why
are men supposed to silently put up with violence from women?  Why are we
told that our (supposed) size and weight advantage makes it less important?
(This really hits home to me - as a child, I was bigger than just about
all the kids, but I was constantly beat up, mainly by the short ones who
wanted to "prove" something.)

To Suzanne:  Nobody is denying that, in our society, women are more at risk
from violence by men than men are at risk from violence by women.  But that
should not mean that the existence of violence by women against men should
be denied or ignored.  Please allow people to discuss this real problem in
a positive fashion.  You lose nothing by this.  And lastly, please be
considerate of men's feelings on this issue, which may often be strong
and forcefully expressed.  You would ask the same of them.

					Steve

    Steve-
    
    I don't see that we've split along sex lines.  A few women
    who read this conference were also surprised and believing of the
    data represented.  (just a little bit of disclaimer for a woman
    who doesn't want to be broadly lumped into "I support all women
    all the time and to hell with the guys" category :)  Anyway, I thought
    it worth pointing out before that provides more fuel to the fire
    and everyone gets to be the champion of "Their Kind".  :)
    
    I'm sorry that I don't recall the correct username, but did the
    books you referenced point out things like Steve mentioned
    (parent/child abuse, etc)?  Are the numbers as surprising as they
    were for domestic violence, meaning do the stats show that women
    beat their children most often, or is it men?  Which parent is more
    often *directly* responsible for abuse (the one doing the actual
    abuse, not contributing through ignorance, etc).  How about children
    who beat their parents?  Relative abuse?  Second-cousin Abuse? 
    ;)   (sorry, a little levity escapes now and then)
    
    Also, let's remember that while the courts appear biased on this-behalf
    or that behalf, it often depends on what "kind" of case it is. 
    In some cases, it would appear that men are generally biased againt,
    on other cases, women.  These are not hard and fast rules.  I don't
    think anyone (at least I hope not!) is trying to downplay the
    information presented by the basenote - there's a problem there,
    quite obviously.  As not all men beat their wives, not all women
    beat up men, so let's try and not divide into lump-sum camps. There
    are a lot of decent, normal, non-traumatized people out there -
    I can see the mass stereotyping appearing already in this topic
    ("All you women are out to get men!"   "No we're not - you're all
    just trying to run our lives!" blah blah blah ad naseum).  As proven,
    both sides can be and are victims, and both sides can be and are
    real jerks, for lack of a more socially acceptable word.
    
    Just trying to project a few moderate thoughts in a potential
    hotbed....  :)
    
    ---kim

 Must we ALWAYS polarize? (rhetorical question)

I've temporarily write-locked this topic at Hank Modica's request.  I think
it is time for ignoring distractions and discussing a serious issue.

				Steve

    re .121
    Steve,
    
    Actually I am rather enjoying Suzanne's comments.
    
    They provide a prime example of what everyone else is trying to
    discuss here.
    
    fred();

I've been sitting this discussion out; I don't have a lot of 
experience with this issue.

From someone sitting on the sidelines, here are some patterns that 
I've seen in the replies to this note:

	o  Domestic violence happens to both men and women.

	o  It is unclear (to me) who is beaten most often, though
	   traditional thinking and media attention implies that
	   women are most often the victims.

	o  The system is not very good at protecting the victim
	   from the violent spouse.  There are so many cases of
	   the violent spouse coming back to do harm to the 
	   partner, sometimes viciously killing the partner.

	o  There is an assumption by the system that men cannot
	   be abused, since they are "bigger" and "manlier" than
	   the woman.  In addition, a man leaving an abusive 
	   situation leads the system to believe that the man
	   is "abandoning his family" instead of "protecting
	   himself."

	o  In issues that involve kids, the system, by default,
	   leans towards giving custody of the kids to the woman
	   unless the woman is proven to be a monster and the man
	   proven to be a saint.


Regardless of who is beaten more, isn't the system failing everyone?  
Isn't the system operating on stereotypes and assumptions rather than 
on the reality of domestic violence in this country?

Something else: I am seeing a huge disconnect between what I hear NOW 
and feminists saying, and what a lot of other men in this file hear 
them saying.  I have never heard NOW say that domestic violence 
against men didn't exist or wasn't important.  I have heard them say 
that violence against women is a big problem and needs attention.

I don't think that it is wise to ask NOW to do men's work for us.  
If we men want to be heard on the issue of violence against men, then 
why don't we do the same thing that NOW did: raise consiousness among 
men about gender roles, form a political network, and collect data on 
instances of abuse against men (while we are at it, we may want to 
collect instances of abuse against men by other men).  It's not fair 
to as NOW to do that work for us.

							--Gerry

    	
    	RE: .125  Fred
    
    	> Actually I am rather enjoying Suzanne's comments.
    
    	Thank you.  
    
    	> They provide a prime example of what everyone else is trying to
    	> discuss here.
    
    	An example of domestic violence?  
    
    	Do you regard female co-workers as having the cultural status of 
    	"wife" when men are present in a discussion at work?
    
    	Is it "violence" when a woman disagrees with you?
    
    	Certainly hope you can explain what you meant by your comment!

>   <<< Note 430.110 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

>    	Nowhere have I said that ANY kind of violence is "right" or "ok"
>    	(for either sex.)  I simply don't buy the argument that women are
>    	every bit as violent as men when it comes to SEVERELY violent
>    	behavior, no matter how badly some people want to believe it.

	 NOW I see your problem, Suzanne.

	 You see *I* believe that domestic violence can be both
	 physical AND pychological.  While women may not be as
	 PHYSICALLY abusive as men are, they can be MUCH MUCH more
	 pychologically abusive.

	 So, in my mind, it evens out.

	 Yes, your arguments hold water as long as we are talking
	 the extents of physical violence..but when we add
	 pychological violence, it becomes full of holes, in my
	 opinion.

	 Men are known for their physically manipulative side, women
	 are known for their pychologically manipulative side.

	 Both kind of violence are EQUALLY as devastating.


	 kathy
	 

    re: .122 (Kim)
    
    Apologies for what was apparently clumsy wording.  What I meant
    to be indicating was that the discussion seems to have centered
    for the time being on violence between men and women.  All I was 
    trying to do with that is highlight trying that there are other kinds
    of domestic violence (parent-child, etc.) that might be looked
    at as well.
    
    Steve (#2)
    
    P.S. btw, I'm surmising here, Kim, that I was the "Steve" to whom 
         you were replying ;-)

>   <<< Note 430.112 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

    
>    	> Not a single person in here has said that violence against
>	> men is WORSE than violence against women....
>    
>    	Although it may have been implied earlier, it's been stated as
>    	a certainty now (in .111):

	 No, Suzanne.  .111 states that violence by women is more
	 PREVALENT.  not that it's WORSE.  'Worse' implies that it's
	 'not as bad' when the other occurs.

	 .111 says it occurs more OFTEN, but I didn't read where it
	 implied that it was "worse."

>    	Obviously, I have some serious doubts about the data supplied
>    	(as well as the conclusions drawn from it.)

	 Of course you do, it doesn't agree with you position.
	 
	 
	 
         kathy

    	RE: .130  Kath
    
    	> NOW I see your problem, Suzanne.

	> You see *I* believe that domestic violence can be both
	> physical AND pychological.  
    
    	Wrong, Kath.  It isn't my problem if people aren't paying attention
    	to what's being said.
    
    	I've stated *specifically* (a number of times) that domestic
    	violence can be defined in a number of ways, including (and I
    	quote myself,) "an angry word and a deeply-felt insult."  I've
    	also stated *specifically* that I think this sort of violence
    	(and all other forms of violent behavior) are WRONG!
    
    	> While women may not be as PHYSICALLY abusive as men are, they can 
    	> be MUCH MUCH more pychologically abusive.
    
    	An individual woman *CAN* be more abusive, but I disagree that
    	women are "MUCH MUCH more psychologically abusive" as a group.
    	Men who are beating the living daylights out of a woman don't 
    	recite poetry while they're doing it, I assure you.
    
    	> So, in my mind, it evens out.
    
    	In my mind, it doesn't even out a thing.  Saying that women are
    	"MUCH MUCH more psychologically abusive" doesn't even out the
    	number of deaths that women suffer at the hands of their abusive
    	husbands.  Death is pretty final, Kath.  Counseling doesn't help.
    
    	> Yes, your arguments hold water as long as we are talking
	> the extents of physical violence..but when we add
	> pychological violence, it becomes full of holes, in my
	> opinion.
    
    	Well, considering that I've never claimed that my arguments held
    	for the full spectrum of emotional and physical violence, then
    	you must be saying that my arguments hold.  Thank you!
    
    	> Both kind of violence are EQUALLY as devastating.
    
    	Death is more devastating than words can ever be, Kath.

    	RE: .132  Kath
    
    	> No, Suzanne.  .111 states that violence by women is more
	> PREVALENT.  not that it's WORSE.  'Worse' implies that it's
	> 'not as bad' when the other occurs.
    
    	Not to me, it doesn't.  We've been discussing the quantitative
    	difference between violent acts by men versus violent acts by
    	women, so I understandably interpreted "worse" to mean that
    	the PROBLEM was quantitatively worse.
    
    	If you say you meant "worse" a different way, I'll accept it.
    
    	>> Obviously, I have some serious doubts about the data supplied
	>> (as well as the conclusions drawn from it.)

	> Of course you do, it doesn't agree with you position.
    
    	If you are permitted to decide what I think or feel, then it's only
    	fair that I be allowed to decide the same for you.
    
    	Where shall I start?  (Any preferences?)

    WORDS can lead to death (suicide)!!!!

    justme....jacqui

	Psychological abuse can be for many victims a living
	hell, which is a kind of death in itself. It confines
	many to mental institutions.




	

    	Words (emotional violence) *can* lead to suicide and they *can*
    	lead to being institutionalized, but when the form of abuse is
    	specifically *DEATH*, the outcome is far more certain!
    
    	Aside from that, as a survivor of extreme physical abuse, does
    	anyone imagine that the abuser wasn't being emotionally abusive
    	concurrently with the physical abuse?
    
    	He wasn't silent, and wasn't exactly saying, "Gee, honey, don't
    	feel bad about yourself just because I'm pounding the side of
    	your face hard enough to break your nose and make your ears
    	ring for two days..."
    
    	When it was all over, he even had the nerve to blame me for the
    	injury - he said I should have "ducked" when I saw his fist
    	coming at me.  (Guess I should have taken boxing lessons before
    	the marriage - my fault completely.)  
    
    	Good grief!

	I'd like to offer some thoughts on the topic and some of
	what has happened to me as a result of having started it.
	This is probably the longest thing I've ever written
	and I apologize for the length. 

	Regarding the data I supplied, I never claimed that the data
	represented any final truth. No, in the base note I mentioned
	that I found data that "contradicted" commonly held views
	regarding male domestic violence. I carefully worded it
	that way to avoid conflict, to avoid casting blame.  
	Kim asked about data on child abuse. I purposely avoided
	entering that data because what I found was damning 
	to women and I am not here to put women down, nor to point
	a finger at them. And I most certainly am not trying to absolve
	men of their fair share of their responsibility in respect
	to domestic violence. Perhaps the following paragraph will
	explain better.

	Domestic violence is a horrible thing, for everyone. 
	Personally, I had been led to believe that it was primarily 
	perpetrated by men. As a man, this caused me shame.
	God knows men cause enough problems in society. Present 
	opinion holds that men rape more and commit more violence outside
	of the home. And my experiences in life tend to substantiate
	these claims. But, with respect to domestic violence, all
	that I had heard and read seemed to be contrary to my experiences
	in life; hence my research in some local libraries and bookstores.
	And what I found offered me some solace as a man. Maybe, just
	maybe we aren't the ogres we're made out to be. Perhaps
	domestic violence isn't a one way street. Maybe, in
	a family environment, with respect to the violence, men and 
	women are relatively equal, and that offers me hope. Toward	
	that end I thought that other men in MENNOTES might also find some
	hope, might also have some guilt assuaged, might feel free
	to share their own victimization in a topic that would provide
	a place to do so, in a supporting environment in the 
	appropriate conference.  

	You know, I also read womannotes. I've been reading it for
	years; a great conference. When I first started noting there,
	derogatory statements referencing men bothered me. I tried
	to argue, refute their points. When noters there would talk
	about how women felt I'd ask what about men. Thanks to the
	patience of many noters, I learned that my questions and arguments,
	though sincere, were quite inappropriate. It was after all WOMANnotes.
	It was a forum for women to share their feelings, thoughts,
	and experiences. It's a conference for women to connect (if
	I remember Maggie correctly). And whether or not I like what I read 
	there, I've learned that the greatest respect I can show for the people
	who note there is to reply courteously when appropriate,
	not try to sidetrack topics with myriad replies challenging
	everyone, (especially in topics of a sensitive nature) and above all,
	to give serious consideration to those views being expressed.
	I sorely wish that same courtesy would be afforded to the
	MENNOTES community. 

	At this point I'd like to add a disclaimer. Many women,
	if not a majority do note here in MENNOTES with respect.
	They offer support and I am really glad they take the time to
	share their views. However, exceptions do exist and it is
	those noters who I am addressing the above to. 

	Now I'd like to address something far
	more personal. I've received what I consider to be
	unfriendly mail since I started this topic. I've tried to
	ignore it but I shall admit, it makes me very uncomfortable
	to put it mildly. I simply don't know why people would
	feel compelled to send me such messages. My integrity has been 
	questioned, my intentions challenged and worse. Is that what a topic
	such as this has to come down to? Are people out there trying
	to intimidate me into silence? I sincerely hope not as it
	will not work. 

	I'm not here to argue, nor to debate. I'm here to explore
	being a man, share views with the fine people who note
	here and make friends. I'd like to thank those people
	who have shown the courage to share their experiences
	and especially those who have respected what I've
	been trying to accomplish with this most sensitive subject.


							Hank


 

    
    	RE: .141  Mike Z.
    
    	>> My sources will stand on their own merit...
    
    	> Suzanne, what are your sources?
    
    	The tense is future - my note was in reference to a remark about
    	my intention to do additional research (as mentioned earlier.)
    
    	Now, it seems rather pointless, since the point of contention
    	was over the quantitative difference between violence committed
    	by men versus violence committed by women (and that no longer
    	seems to be crucial to the debate.)
    

>   <<< Note 430.133 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

    
>    	In my mind, it doesn't even out a thing.  Saying that women are
>    	"MUCH MUCH more psychologically abusive" doesn't even out the
>    	number of deaths that women suffer at the hands of their abusive
>    	husbands.  Death is pretty final, Kath.  Counseling doesn't help.


	 Yes, death is pretty final...  And pychologically abused
	 people commit suicide every day.  In direct death, but still
	 death.

	 Physical abusive scars most often fade as time passes.
	 pychological scars are not so easily banished.
	 
    
>    	Death is more devastating than words can ever be, Kath.

	 If you believe this, Suzanne that you've got a LOT of
	 learning to do.  Many pychologically abused people would
	 WELCOME death instead of the hellish nightmares they have to
	 live with for the rest of the their lives.

	 Maybe for you that's true, but go to a pychiatric hospital
	 and talk to some of the people there, go to some support
	 group meetings, go TALK to the pychologically abused.  You'll
	 find death is a welcome thing for many.


	 kath

    re .129 Ms. Conlon
    
    *	> They provide a prime example of what everyone else is trying to
    *	> discuss here.
    *
    *	An example of domestic violence?  
    
    Actually what I am talking about is the problem that domestic violence
    IS being presented by "feminist" groups and the media as a one way
    problem.  Whenever men try to even hold a REASONABLE DISCUSSION about
    the problem of violence towards men or false accusation, they face
    the same trial by hysteria, nonsequitor logic, twisted facts, and
    hypocritical application of the rules and statistics that I, for one,
    find your entries on this subject LOADED with.
    
    fred();

	Please believe me, Ms. Conlon, I am not trying to trash you in
	this discussion.  After re-reading many of your replies here, I 
	think I have a feel for the pain and terror you must have
	experienced.  And I'm very sorry that any of that happened to you.

	The problem that I have with your replies is that you CLAIM
	a lack of bias on this issue and then continue to cite examples
	and statistics that show that women have it so much worse or are 
	the ONLY victims of domestic violence.  A few replies back you
	said you were going to the library to find more data to back your
	position.

	I'm not denying that women are victims of violence.  I'm only
	trying to point out that the pain and terror that you experienced
	can be every bit as real and intense for men too.

	As an engineer, I certainly appreciate the value of statistics
	but I'm not concerned with statistics here -- I'm concerned 
	about PEOPLE, both men and women, and the effects of violence
	on them.  Individual PEOPLE, not statistics, get hurt by violence. 

	Way back in .56, you mentioned:

	'the manhood lesson "BE A MAN, even if it means slapping women
	around sometimes to prove it!" '

	Let me tell you that NOBODY ever taught me that lesson.  And I
	never passed that lesson on to my 17 year old son nor will I
	teach that to my 7 year old son.  What I have said to my 17 year
	old (who is physically larger than I am) is that if ANY girl he 
	dates EVER strikes him in anger he should drop her like a hot 
	rock, walk away, and don't look back.  And I will teach my 7 
	year old the same thing as he grows up.  If my own father had 
	pounded that advice into me 25 years ago, I wouldn't be in the
	position I'm in today.  I have also tried to teach both boys NEVER 
	to hit girls and that violence is never an acceptable solution, 
	even with other boys.

	I think it was in .106 you asked about a definition of domestic
	violence.  For me, that means any action or threat of action that
	would result in physical injury to another person, usually somebody
	that you are related to or living with.  I wouldn't count a verbal 
	insult or trashing the Christmas tree in that category.

	Steve Lionel:  Thanks for trying to keep this on track by repeatedly 
	encouraging discussion of the issue, not personalities.

	Kathy G:  It's encouraging to hear from a woman who can see both
	sides of this and can accept that men can be victims too.

	RE .106, Gerry:  On your suggestion of men organizing (NOM or
	National Organization of Men), I know you meant it seriously but
	it simply couldn't happen.  In today's culture, white males are
	"recognized" as the cause of all evils in our society (sarcasm 
	intended).  Any attempt to form such an organization would be 
	declared sexist, racist, and any other derogatory adjective used 
	by our politically protected "minorities" and, therefore, would 
	be doomed before it started.

	Enough for now.

						Tom

>                     <<< Note 430.140 by HANNAH::MODICA >>>


>	Kim asked about data on child abuse. I purposely avoided
>	entering that data because what I found was damning 
>	to women and I am not here to put women down, nor to point
>	a finger at them. 


	 Hank, stats are stats.  Just because you post them does not
	 have any implication as to what your stance on the subject
	 is.  You offer them up simply for consumption and discussion.

>	Now I'd like to address something far
>	more personal. I've received what I consider to be
>	unfriendly mail since I started this topic. I've tried to
>	ignore it but I shall admit, it makes me very uncomfortable
>	to put it mildly. I simply don't know why people would
>	feel compelled to send me such messages. My integrity has been 
>	questioned, my intentions challenged and worse. Is that what a topic
>	such as this has to come down to? Are people out there trying
>	to intimidate me into silence? I sincerely hope not as it
>	will not work. 

	 Hank, this is the exact reason I no longer participate in
	 WOMENNOTES.  The problem is that many people are not able to
	 separate statements of facts/stats/etc from personal belief.
	 Also, some people feel that to make themselves feel
	 better/more comfortable with the findings, they must justify
	 it though bringing the presenter of those findings to his/her
	 knees.

	 You're but a presenter in my eyes.  You posting of the stats
	 gives me absolutely NO reflection onto your stance on the
	 subject, nor your thoughts and feelings.

	 Don't let them silence you......you're here to explore...it
	 is they that have a problem, they are uncomfortable with
	 themselves and they project that discomfort out on you so
	 they don't have to feel it........it's their way of
	 justifying their anger, and you are the most likely target.

	 Hang in there!  Don't be intimidated, and don't get "fed up"
	 like I did in Womennotes.

	 kathy
	 


 

>   Note 430.148 by SSDEVO::FAVA

>	As an engineer, I certainly appreciate the value of statistics
>	but I'm not concerned with statistics here -- I'm concerned 
>	about PEOPLE, both men and women, and the effects of violence
>	on them.  Individual PEOPLE, not statistics, get hurt by violence. 

	 Yes, Tom.  I think PEOPLE needs to be the real emphasis here.
	 I have never agreed with nor will I ever agree with spliting
	 things up along gender lines.  It serves absolutely NO
	 purpose other than to start a mini-war like has been started
	 in this topic.  I have NEVER felt that the gender line should
	 EVER be a valid stance in an argument.....because I feel we
	 should all work TOGETHER to solving our problems instead of
	 standing around pointing fingers and saying "HE/SHE DID IT!"
	 

         Individual people are who get hurt by domestic violence
         whether it be a man, a woman, or a child.  All the stats do
         is show that it's a concern on both sides of the fence.  Now
         that the stats SHOW that it's a concern, regardless of the
         numbers, let's DROP the stats and look at it from a
         humanistic view, hum????
	 

>	Kathy G:  It's encouraging to hear from a woman who
>         can see both sides of this and can accept that men can be
>         victims too.

	 Well, all I can say is, I'm glad I told you about REPLY/LAST.
	 :-)
	 


	 kath

    	RE: .145  Kath
    
    	> Yes, death is pretty final...  And pychologically abused
	> people commit suicide every day.  In direct death, but still
	> death.
    
    	Psychologically abused people have a chance to survive, at least.
    	There's no more chance once death has occurred.
    
    	> Physical abusive scars most often fade as time passes.
	> pychological scars are not so easily banished.
	 
    	Surely you aren't suggesting that physical abuse doesn't leave
    	emotional scars *along with* the physical ones?  (Targets of
    	physical abuse get BOTH - sort of a package deal - that's part
    	of the hell of it.)  
    
    	>> Death is more devastating than words can ever be, Kath.

	> If you believe this, Suzanne that you've got a LOT of
	> learning to do.  
    
    	It's more devastating in its finality, Kath.  I do realize that
    	there are fates *worse* than death, but as I've mentioned a
    	number of times, it's the finality of death that concerns me.
    
    	> ...go TALK to the pychologically abused.  You'll find death is 
    	> a welcome thing for many.
    
    	That doesn't lessen my concern for those who lose their lives in
    	a burst of violence (at a time when they definitely would rather
    	have lived.)

    	RE: .146  Fred
    
    	> Actually what I am talking about is the problem that domestic 
    	> violence IS being presented by "feminist" groups and the media 
    	> as a one way problem.  
    
    	In my notes, I've acknowledged repeatedly that violence is *not*
    	a one-way problem.  You don't see it (perhaps it's because you
    	don't *want* to see it.)  
    
    	> Whenever men try to even hold a REASONABLE DISCUSSION about
    	> the problem of violence towards men or false accusation...
    
    	Do you consider it "reasonable" to discredit women's rights groups
    	unfairly in a dicussion?  I don't.  This very thing was being done.
    
    	> ...they face the same trial by hysteria, nonsequitor logic, twisted 
    	> facts, and hypocritical application of the rules and statistics that 
    	> I, for one, find your entries on this subject LOADED with.
    
    	My logic holds up when it comes to discussing domestic violence
    	that involves serious physical abuse alone.  Kath agrees with me 
    	on this (although she disagrees on how I prioritize my concern for
    	victims of physical and purely psychological abuse.)
    
    	Kath is well versed in Logic, and I have a Bachelor's degree in
    	the subject, so I trust she and I are in a position to know.  ;^)
    
    	As for the facts I've brought up, one was quoted from a newspaper.
    	The descriptions of acts of violence committed by my ex can all
    	be verified (through hospital and police reports, along with some
    	eyewitness accounts.)  Believe me, I could prove every single word
    	of it if I were in a court of law right now.  We're not, though.
    
    	As for statistics, I haven't offered any yet (and I haven't tried
    	to change or "apply" the statistics that *have* been offered.)
    	I've expressed some doubt about some of the possible conclusions,
    	but I've also mentioned some ways that I think the statistics 
    	*could* be accurate, as stated.  Where's the hypocrisy in that?
    
    	If you don't agree with me about anything I've said in this topic,
    	you're free to debate specific points with me.  It's hardly fair
    	to characterize me with sweeping terms (some of which can't possibly
    	apply to me, personally.)  I'm just an individual in this topic -
    	I'm not a representative of any organized group.

    	RE: .148  Tom Fava
    
    	> The problem that I have with your replies is that you CLAIM
	> a lack of bias on this issue and then continue to cite examples
	> and statistics that show that women have it so much worse or are 
	> the ONLY victims of domestic violence.  
    
    	Tom, I've never offered statistics in this topic.  Aside from one
    	newspaper article, the examples have all been taken from things
    	I've experienced and/or learned in my personal life about the man
    	I married.  Personal accounts do tend to be confined to a certain
    	point of view, that's true.  (So was yours, as a matter of fact.)
    
    	If I keep saying over and over that I know men are also victims
    	of violence, you can believe it.  (So, please do.)
    
    	> A few replies back you said you were going to the library to find 
    	> more data to back your position.
    
    	Is this a problem?
    
    	> For me, that means any action or threat of action that
	> would result in physical injury to another person, usually somebody
	> that you are related to or living with.  I wouldn't count a verbal 
	> insult or trashing the Christmas tree in that category.
    
    	Kath and I have agreed that verbal insults (eg, words and psycholo-
    	gical abuse) *do* qualify as domestic violence.  We give them a
    	bit different priority, but I do agree with Kath wholeheartedly
    	that they qualify as violence.
    
    	> [To Ger]  Any attempt to form such an organization would be 
    	> declared sexist, racist, and any other derogatory adjective used 
	> by our politically protected "minorities" and, therefore, would 
	> be doomed before it started.
    
    	Well, I know you meant this to be biting sarcasm, but it's also
    	pretty inflammatory (about minorities.)  I wonder if you realize
    	this.

    reply Conlon All
    
    So what does the fact that apples are red have to do with whether
    or not banannas are yellow???
    
    fred();

    
    	When someone says that apples and bananas have the same 
    	texture, color and nutritional qualities, it makes them
    	sound identical (when they aren't.)
    
    	They both still exist - apples being red, and bananas
    	being yellow doesn't make either of them less real.
    

	..but not all apples are red, some apples are green, and
	others are yellow.


	:-)    

    
    
    	<frustration on>
    
    	Well, I think the misdirection of this topic is just
    	about complete. I seriously doubt any men will find
    	this a valuable place to share any of their experiences.
    
    	And I'll admit I find it astounding that someone can
    	applaud =wn= note 1019.21 that specifically addresses
    	the phenomenon of misdirection and then come into
    	MENNOTES and enter roughly 50 notes out of 150,
    	effectively trashing it.
    
    	<frustration off>
    
    	Perhaps at a later date I'll start a topic here
    	in MENNOTES specific to domestic violence and how it
    	pertains to men. 
    
    	I guess all that's left is for someone to complain
    	and request that this note be set hidden. *sigh*
    
    	Oh yeah, one final thing. To those so inclined, no
    	more hate mail on this. There exist policies and procedures
    	that address harrassment. Further mail will be considered such.
    
    								Hank 
                                                       

	 
	 
         And, Gosh!  Silly me!

	 Aren't apples and bananas both fruits?

	 And, wow......uhm.....don't they both bruise rather easily?


	 kath

    	
    	RE: .158  Hank
    
    	The topic didn't become misdirected.  Your basenote brought
    	up the issues of how violent behavior compares between the
    	sexes, as well as challenges to the accuracy and integrity
    	of groups that have brought issues involving violence against
    	women into the forefront.
    
    	Your whole note was about dispelling information created and/or 
    	perpetuated by rights groups (and how you found evidence that 
    	could be considered contradictory to what our society has come
    	to regard as "true" about domestic violence.)
    
    	Your basenote put forth a political idea, and it was responded
    	to as such by me (with an opposing mostly-political position.)
    
    	If you'd wanted a note where men could share their personal
    	experiences as the victims of violence, your basenote didn't
    	reflect this intent, unfortunately.

	Just a couple more comments:

*    	RE: .148  Tom Fava
*    
*    	> The problem that I have with your replies is that you CLAIM
*	> a lack of bias on this issue and then continue to cite examples
*	> and statistics that show that women have it so much worse or are 
*	> the ONLY victims of domestic violence.  
*    
*    	Tom, I've never offered statistics in this topic.  Aside from one
*    	newspaper article, the examples have all been taken from things
*    	I've experienced and/or learned in my personal life about the man
*    	I married.  Personal accounts do tend to be confined to a certain
*    	point of view, that's true.  (So was yours, as a matter of fact.)
*    
*    	If I keep saying over and over that I know men are also victims
*    	of violence, you can believe it.  (So, please do.)

	Okay, I combined the statistics provided by others with your
	specific examples and attributed both to you.  My only point here 
	(again) is that you claim a lack of bias but then you severely 
	dilute the strength of that claim by repeatedly describing how 
	bad your situation (and by implication, all women's) is/was and 
	you also seem to imply that men don't have it as bad as women.  
	That's what I disagree with.
    
*    	> A few replies back you said you were going to the library to find 
*    	> more data to back your position.
*    
*    	Is this a problem?

	Not at all.  But for me, in this discussion, statistics are 
	irrelevant.  I thought we were discussing people.  ANY victim,
	male or female, is one too many.  I didn't think we were trying
	to prove one group is more affected by domestic violence than 
	any other group.
    
*    	> For me, that means any action or threat of action that
*	> would result in physical injury to another person, usually somebody
*	> that you are related to or living with.  I wouldn't count a verbal 
*	> insult or trashing the Christmas tree in that category.
*   
*    	Kath and I have agreed that verbal insults (eg, words and psycholo-
*    	gical abuse) *do* qualify as domestic violence.  We give them a
*    	bit different priority, but I do agree with Kath wholeheartedly
*    	that they qualify as violence.

	Okay, we just disagree in the scope of the definition.
    
*    	> [To Ger]  Any attempt to form such an organization would be 
*    	> declared sexist, racist, and any other derogatory adjective used 
*	> by our politically protected "minorities" and, therefore, would 
*	> be doomed before it started.
*    
*    	Well, I know you meant this to be biting sarcasm, but it's also
*    	pretty inflammatory (about minorities.)  I wonder if you realize
*    	this.

	This sentence wasn't intended as "biting sarcasm" (I clearly labelled
	the preceding sentence as sarcasm) or to be "inflammatory".
	If I offended anyone with that statement, I apologize.  I will 
	admit it was SOAPBOXy in nature and I could have added a lot more 
	opinion on just that subject but it wasn't relevant to this topic.
	I was only responding to the suggestion made by Gerry in .106.
	To me, this statement is nothing more than a statement of political
	reality in this country today.  Your opinion may vary.

						Tom

    
    Thanks Herb. I felt the same and tried to let the baiting go.
    Still, I think I'm getting a better understanding of why men
    may indeed have trouble communicating, be it comments on
    sensitive subjects or more importantly, their victimization.
    
    I was hoping to relate an experience of mine but I see now
    that in this case, silence is best. After all, isn't that what
    men are taught?
    
    							Hank

    
    One final clarification. Though I did feel baited,
    I didn't consider .4 to be so. I think I understand what
    Mike meant.
    
    						

    	RE: .161 Tom Fava
    
    	> But for me, in this discussion, statistics are irrelevant.  I 
    	> thought we were discussing people.  
    
    	The basenote is about the introduction of statistics that could
    	be considered contradictory to the prevailing societal view of
    	domestic violence.  If we regard basenotes as being the most
    	accurate description of notes topics, then statistics has been
    	a focus of this discussion since Square One.
    
    	> I didn't think we were trying to prove one group is more affected 
    	> by domestic violence than any other group.
    
    	Quantitative comparisons were also introduced in the basenote,
    	and such comparisons formed the basis for the statistics provided
    	by the basenote author in the first three replies to this topic.  
    
    	Once such comparisons were brought up in the basenote, they were
    	fair game for the discussion.
    
    	>To me, this statement is nothing more than a statement of political
	>reality in this country today.  Your opinion may vary.
    
    	My political opinion *does* vary from yours.  It shouldn't be
    	surprising that such opposing political views would surface in
    	a distinctly political topic involving these issues.

	 
	 
         Domestic Violence.

	 The closest I ever came to it in my family was the time my
	 father was so angry he tore the tv plug out of the wall and
	 picked it up and threw it to the ground....I just happened to
	 be standing near and caught the shards.

         And the time they thought I'd taken the last puzzle piece (I
         hadn't), I was 6 maybe....I remember cowering under the table
         as my father came after me with the belt.

         I got spanked quite often with the belt, but I was never a
         really bad kid...10, 12 lashes maybe....and when we moved to
         the ranch, mom must have taken the "willow switch" idea to
         heart, because she always had one around.....  I went over to
         my friend's house around the corner once when I was 7.....mom
         couldn't find me and when she did, she whipped me good.....I
         never did that again.

	 In fact, I never did much of anything again after that.  I
	 was the picture perfect child.  Always seemingly doing as I
	 was told.  I never did anything wrong for fear of the belt.

	 Never left any bruises....on the outside, that is.

	 The pychological torment was awful, though.  "You'll never
	 grow up to be anything!", "Why did I ever have you.", "I've
	 FAILED as mother!", "If you don't get in here this instant,
	 I'll whip you bloody!!".....

         But never having stood up to my parents, I still can't today.
         Pychologically you could say they intimidate me, maybe?  They
         have some sort of hold over me that is unreal.  Especially my
         mother.  


	 kath
	 

>   <<< Note 430.171 by CSC32::CONLON "Let the dreamers wake the nation..." >>>

    
>    	The basenote is about the introduction of statistics that could
>    	be considered contradictory to the prevailing societal view of
>    	domestic violence.  If we regard basenotes as being the most
>    	accurate description of notes topics, then statistics has been
>    	a focus of this discussion since Square One.

	 No, Suzanne.  The basenote, in my interpretation, is about
	 challenging the myth that domestic violence is male
	 dominated.  It's about discussing the female's role in
	 domestic violence and how it IS a pressing issue that must be
	 addressed.

	 The statistics posted in .1-.3 are a supporting basis for the
	 discussion about domestic violence against men, but are NOT
	 the reason the basenote was posted.
	 

	 Of course, that is just MY interpretation of the intent of
	 the basenote.


	 kathy
	 

    	RE: .173  kath
    
    	> No, Suzanne.  The basenote, in my interpretation, is about
	> challenging the myth that domestic violence is male
	> dominated. 
    
    	This so-called "myth" was challenged with statistics provided
    	in three subsequent replies.  This challenge is the subject
    	raised in the basenote.  (The statistics are relevent to it.)
    
    	> The statistics posted in .1-.3 are a supporting basis for the
	> discussion about domestic violence against men, but are NOT
	> the reason the basenote was posted.
    
    	Perceptions about a political viewpoint are described in great
	detail in the first part of the basenote.  He counters these
    	perceptions of political views with:
    
    	.0> ...I often wondered if we weren't only hearing one side of the 
    	.0> argument. Toward that end I've done a bit of research. What I 
    	.0> found was data that contradicted the commonly held view that 
	.0> men are the primary cause of domestic violence. 
    
    	The research is presented as a response to the political views
    	mentioned earlier.
    
    	Any way you slice it, the basenote has a decidedly political slant
    	(from start to finish.)
    
    	It's no wonder a political discussion developed from it.

    Just as a general note, and not aimed at anyone (honest!!).
    The following represents my unbiased opinion!
    
    Statistical surveys are only really useful when certain other
    information is provided along with 'em, such as "sample size was
    2000 male office workers, questioned between 2/1/90 and 3/1/90. The
    median income was $35000, and they all lived in New England cities".
    
    To demonstrate a trend, or a condition, or whatever you want, there
    really should be multiple surveys separated by time or space or money
    or some other criteria (ie, not just asking the same people if there is
    a problem).
    
    One counter-example doesn't disprove a hypothesis.  Neither does common
    sense!
    
    A single paper on a subject can "prove" anything, and thus really
    doesn't prove anything (just ask Pons and Fleishmann).  If there are
    multiple papers, or confirmation of findings/hypotheses/conjectures
    from several workers in a given field, THEN you can start talking about
    proof.  
    
    			We now return you to your regularly scheduled notes
    						Nigel

I wonder what forum I might use should I ever have a need to discuss a topic
relevant to myself and men in general and wanted to discuss it from a mans
prespective? Now say that same subject were to possibly be on a negative feeling
about women or even domestic violence as felt by men....
This note contains many examples of why I would not use MENNOTES as there is
a strong tendancy IMHO for such notes to be drug down sixteen unrelated ratholes
to the point that I feel actually discussing the matter at hand would be
impossible at best. I support womens rights as much as I know how to but
I am not here (MENNOTES) to discuss them nor do I feel that they are 
approprate in a forum dedicated to matters concerning men. I very much enjoy
the inputs of the Female readers of this file but I do feel that some spend
a great deal of time and energy into diverting issues away from the intended
subject matter for reasons beyond my understanding. 

Sigh, If only there were a place....

-j 

    
    
    
    
    Domestic violence is horrible. Some commonly asked questions from a
    woman's point f view:
    
    
    Q) WHY DID YOU STAY?
    
    A1) Because your head plays games with you. You rationalize by saying
       "I'm here and I've been beaten so I must have deserved it or I
        wouldn't be here".
    A2) Because no one else would want me. I'm too wounded and worthless.
    A3) Because the children need their father
    A4) Money
    
    
    Q) ISN'T PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE JUST AS BAD?
    
    A) Physical abuse IS psychological abuse! There can be verbal abuse 
       that some people blow off but you never blow off the pain of a 
       beating. You never feel right about the lie you have to tell about
       the latest black eye. You never get over the humiliation of being
       "put down".  
    
    Q) ISN'T HUSBAND ABUSE JUST AS BAD?
    
    A) Ethically, yes. But can you imagine the intimidation of being the
       smaller, less economically stabile partner? The intimidation factor
       is overwhelming. 
    
    Q) WHAT SHUOLD I SAY TO A WOMAN (PERSON) WHO'S IN THIS SITUATION?
    
    A) Urge her (him) to leave the relationship. Encourage councelling.
       Tell her (him) that she's worthy of your friendship and she's worthy
       of respect.        
    
Kate (A Survivor)
       

    Well, I done gone and done it again.  I got deleted.
    I gues there truely ISNT a place where MEN "are allowed" to speak their
    piece.  I am truely bummed that noone has taken the time to honestly
    see where the males (and yes SOME females) are coming from.
    
    Tis funny...ya know?
    
    When "that other file" kept spouting off about the "safe place" etal...
    I snickered (sorry, but honesty does sometimes rear its ugly head) and
    thought to myself, "safe place?" "what the hell is that?"
    
    Now I understand all too well what they were speaking of.  If only I
    could turn back the hands.....
    
    Adios mon cha chas...

    
    	Al, your notes weren't deleted because you are a man.
    
    	One of my notes was deleted TWICE for describing something you'd
    	said in YOUR note.  (My second entry was a failed attempt to tone
    	it down a bit.  It was still unacceptable for this medium.)
    
    	Your version of it was far worse, believe me.
    
    	Some things just aren't permitted in Digital notesfiles (no matter
    	who the author is.)
    

    
    	re: 171 
    
    	I have stated repeatedly what this topic is about.
    	As usual, your interpretation is wrong. Kath, Tom and
    	others seem to have no problems understanding.
    	All I'm left with is that wonderful rhetorical question
    	I've seen in womannotes...
    	"Are you missing the point on purpose?"
    	Still, no answer required. It's been great fun reading
    	your 60 or so responses. Sure would have been nice
    	to hear more from others though...
    
    					outa here....
    
    							Hank
    
    	ps. again, to those so inclined, no more hate mail.

    
    	When people make political statements, it's difficult not to
    	view them in a political context.
    
    	The basenote of this topic didn't ask anyone for their personal
    	experiences.  It challenged a political view, in a way that could
    	be considered inflammatory to some.
    
    	The hidden intent may have been to discuss the personal aspects
    	of this issue, rather than the political, but the wording of the
    	basenote certainly doesn't reflect this.
    

    
    	When one has a political agenda that doesn't stand up well under
    	scrutiny or debate, it is often the case that it becomes necessary
    	to try to put forth the ideas in ways that disallow or discredit
    	examination by those holding opposing views.
    

    Re: .182
    
    OK, now we know that in your opinion the basenote was political but
    what about replies 430.19, 430.140, 430.158, and 430.180?  In each of
    these Hank has indicated what he really wanted from this discussion.
    .19 specifically says that he wants to talk about how men feel about
    this aspect of domestic violence.  .140 mentions that this topic is to
    explore being a man and .158 says we are talking about how domestic
    violence pertains to men.  Is it so hard to let go of what the basenote
    said now that we all know what the author of the base note meant?  Even
    if he didn't mean that from the start, isn't it clear that he means
    that now?  Or maybe Hank is not allowed to change his focus...
    
    							John

    
    	RE: .185  John
    
    	> Is it so hard to let go of what the basenote said now that we 
    	> all know what the author of the base note meant?  
    
    	Political positions similar to the ones expressed in the basenote
    	kept popping up, though (as a result of the introduction of those
    	ideas at the beginning of the topic.)
    
    	> Even if he didn't mean that from the start, isn't it clear that 
    	> he means that now?  Or maybe Hank is not allowed to change his 
    	> focus...
    
    	Sure, Hank is allowed to change directions midstream if he wants.
    	It's easier said than done, though.
    	
    	In any case, it isn't very fair for people to insist that someone 
    	else *mis-directed* the topic by sticking with the ideas that were 
    	presented originally.
    
    	Perhaps Hank should have realized that he'd made a mistake in his
    	original presentation (opting to open a new note for the expression
    	of personal experiences, if that's what he really wanted instead of
    	a political discussion.)
    

Ok, folks, calm has settled in and I think we can get back to work.  This
topic is open for general discussion of domestic violence against men,
its visibility (or lack thereof) in our society, what resources are available
to men who have been victims of domestic violence, etc.   Please avoid
sweeping generalizations, as these only lead to frustration.

I do ask that noters understand that this topic stirs some very strong
feelings in many men - and women - and that everyone apply an extra heap
of sensitivity to others' feelings.  If you have something to say, say it once.
Please avoid personal attacks and simple repetition of prior claims.

Note 432 is also open for discussions of personal experiences in this
regard.

To the best of my ability, I will prevent further disruption to this
conference.  Because I cannot continuously monitor this conference on a
24-hour basis, I ask that if you read something that offends you, that you
simply ignore it - pretend it isn't even there.  You can send me a mail message
about it if you want to.  I will endeavour to remove any offensive material
as I find it.

My goal is to make this conference a space where men's feelings and emotions
can be openly discussed without being needlessly challenged.  However, no
notes conference can truly be a "safe" space for anyone.  Life is fraught
with risks, and we have to live with them.  I will do the best I can to
reduce those risks here for everyone.

Thanks for your forebearance in these trying times.

					Steve

    In this week's funnies, Beetle Baily's Sgt. Luggs beat the *&^%
    out of Sgt. Snorkle for refering to her as 'the Goodyear Blimp'.
    Agreed, Sgt. Snorkle is no angle either, but this is just one
    more example that violence against men is supposed to be 'funny',
    and the rejection or insult of a female is justification for
    violence, and the male is supposed to be 'big' enought to 'take it'.
    
    fred();

Re: .189

In my opinion, "Beetle Bailey" is full of senseless violence, chauvinism
and in general has no values that I can identify with.  But certainly the
image of the physically-abused man is not uncommon - consider "Andy Capp"
as another example.  And we're supposed to laugh at this?

			Steve

    I think we may finally be getting to the bottom of this.  
    
    * I do not excuse the violence by men against any other group for
      any reason other than the *defence* of self or others from an
      egual or greater threat of violence.
    
    * Violence against men by *men or women* is no laughing matter.
    
    fred();

          Thank you Hank for entering this important topic. I was
        researching a 19th century poet when I saw your entry, and
        decided to check it out. Well, lo and behold!
    
          Research on the subject of domestic violence is relatively
        new. It is an issue that seems to have surfaced with the greater
        willingness of people today to discuss matters previous generat-
        ions kept "hush hush."
    
          Indeed:
    
          "[I]n the Index for all editions of the 'Journal of Marriage
        and the Family,' from its inception in 1939 through 1969, not a
        single article can be found which contains the word "violence"
        in the title. During that same period, discussions and studies
        of "conflict" in the family were quite common. But apparently
        violence, as such, was either assumed to be too touchy an issue
        for research or else thought to be so idiosyncratic as to be un-
        important as a feature in "normal families." (1)
    
          Steinmetz and Straus offer other reasons:
    
          "To describe the family in this way is jarring for most of us,
        since our view and hopes for the family define it as an arena for 
        love and gentleness rather than as a place for violence. As a
        result, it is extremely difficult to see what is actually going
        on in the family.  We tend to overlook the violence which occurs 
        there. Or, if it cannot be ignored, we tend to repress the memory
        of it." (2)
    
          The notion ( idea, value, concept - whatever we care to call it )
        of family privacy undoubtedly accounts for the "selective inatten-
        tion" given to the issue of domestic violence.  Above the NYC
        Family Court doors one sees the words "The Sanctity of the Home
        and Integrity of the Family."
    
          Fears of an intruding state into family matters concerns many
        people. This law professor documented the many ways that the state
        took over the socialization and control of children that parents
        previously had, expressing his view that:
    
          "The family offers an open and intimate environment for working
        out conflicts between love and duty, and reason and passion, 
        thereby serving as a microcosm for the development of socially
        satisfying and productive human relationships. Due to its
        fundamentality as a social unit, the family must be protected
        from government intervention in all but the most compelling 
        circumstances ... family integrity means simply a wholeness or
        completeness of the family in an unbroken condition; living to-
        gether as a family." (3)
    
          The conflict of state and family rights has a long history,
        with impassioned debates on both sides. In our generation, the
        advent of scientific research involving family matters is helping
        us to better understand just exactly what it is that goes on
        "behind closed doors."
    
          Family researchers Murray Straus, R.J. Gelles, and S. Steinmetz
        wrestled for a long time to find an aceptable definition for
        "violence."  They settled on:
    
          Normal violence: [is] an "act carried out with the intention,
        or perceived intention, of causing physical pain or injury to
        another person." The "physical pain" can range from slight pain,
        as in a slap, to murder.  The basis for the "intent to hurt"
        may range from a concern with a child's safety ... to hostility
        so intense that the death of the other is desired." (4)
    
          Abusive violence: [is] an "act which has the high potential for
        injuring the person being hit ...[this] includes "acts where people
        punched, kicked, or bit a family member, hit the person with a
        hard object, "beat up" another person, or shot or tried to shoot,
        stabbed, or tried to stab, another family member." (5)
    
          The 3 family experts admited nits were certainly possible, but
        these definitions formed the basis of their first national study
        of 2143 interviewed adults which used the now famous *Conflict
        Tactics Scales* (1971).
    
    
        Sources:
    
        1. O'Brien, John E., "Violence in divorce prone families" Journal
           of Marriage and the Family (11-71, pp 692-98)
    
        2. Steinmetz, Straus, 'Violence in the Family,' NY: Harper & Row
           1974
    
        3. Martz, Hugo E. "Indiana's approach to child abuse and neglect:
           A frustration of family integrity." Valparaiso Univ. Law Review
           14 (1): 69 - 121.
    
        4. Straus, Gelles, Steinmetz, 'Behind Closed Doors,' Anchor/
           Doubleday, 1980. p. 20
    
        5. Straus, et al. p. 21-22.
    
       

          The first national survey by Straus, et al., involved 2143
        adult interviews; the 2nd one completed in the mid '80's some
        3500+ respondents.  Opinions about the research undertaken were
        positive, a feminist sociologist found that their methods met
        "the requirements of scientific research."
    
                                 Defining Abuse
    
          To Gelles and Straus, abuse is a "political concept," lacking
        a "scientific or clinical term."  That it's essentially "any act
        that is considered deviant or harmful by a group large enough or
        with sufficient politicaal power to enforce the definition ... what
        is defined as abuse depends on a process of political negotiation."
        (1).
    
          They cite the ferocious abortion debate and Congressional flip-
        flops on child abuse definitions to underscore the problem.
    
          Although they find a "precise study of a political concept such
        as abuse .. impossible," their focusing on "specific, definable
        acts of omission and commission that are harmful to individuals in
        families," enabled them to move thru problems of definition.
    
          Researchers Giovannoni and Becerra found that abusse is defined
        in different ways among different professionals, and that race,
        social class, and occupation bring on different definitions. (2).
    
                                On Emotional Abuse
    
          Gelles and Straus believe emotional abuse is "the most hidden,
        most insidious, least researched, and perhaps in the long run most
        damaging form of intimate victimization ... of loved ones."
    
          Forms include tearing down, belittling, harping, scorning, 
        criticizing, and ignoring. They find many parents call their
        children "dumb, stupid, fat little cows..." in endless fashion.
    
          The hammerings on self esteem leave scars.  They think that
        the behavior is "too close and too common to allow for objective
        research," with the paucity of research ( on it ) reflecting
        that reality. (3).
    
                                  Child Abuse
    
          Defined (currently) is:
    
          "The physical or mental injury, sexual abuse, negligent
        treatment, or maltreatment of a child under the age of 18 by
        a person who is responsible for the child's welfare under cir-
        cumstances which indicate that the child's health or welfare is
        harmed or threatened thereby," (4).
    
          David Gil expands this definition considerably:
    
          "Abuse is any acts of commission or omission by a parent or an
        individual, an institution, or by society as a whole which deprive
        a child of equal rights and liberty, and/or interfere with or
        constrains the child's ability to achieve his or her optimal
        developmental potential." (5)
    
                                   Sibling Violence
    
          Among the cases of abuse that are hidden is sibling violence.
        Gelles and Straus document that sibling violence may be the most
        common and overlooked kind of family violence. So common, it's
        not even realized.
    
          A '70's Steinmetz study found that when she asked, "How do your
        children get along?" many said: "Terrible, they fight all the
        time!." Or "Oh it (the fighting) is constant, but I understand
        that this is normal."
    
          Over 80% of parents interviewed (by Straus, et al) who had 2 or
        more kids at home aged 3 - 17, reported at least 1 incident of
        sibling violence in the previous year.
    
          This represents 36+ million sibling incidents in the U.S./yr.
    
          Some dangerous behaviors occured as 3 in 100 used weapons vs
        a brother or sister.  Thus, 100,000 U.S. children face brothers
        or sisters each year with a gun or a knife pointed at them.
    
                                    Parents
    
          Sometimes children victimize parents. Gelles and Straus found
        that almost 10% of parents were hit by one of their kids.  Dis-
        counting the frequent cases of biting and kicking by youngsters,
        3% of parents experienced a violent assault by children over 11.
        This means some 900,000 adult victims of serious violence each
        year.
    
    
        references:
    
        1. Gelles, Straus, 'Intimate Violence,' Simon and Schuster, 1988
    
        2. Gelles, Straus, pp 67-8
    
        3. Giovannoni,J.,Becerra, R. 'Defining Child Abuse' (NY: Free Press
           1979)
    
        4. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (Public Law
           93-237)
    
        5. Gil, David, "Unravelling Child Abuse," American Journal of
           Orthopsychaitry 45 (4-75): 346-56.
       

          
                                    Elderly Abuse
    
          In 1979, The Legal Research and Services for the Elderly of
        Boston said that just 1 in 4 elderly people report their victim-
        ization.  Physical and mental impairment are factors, fear of re-
        taliation - or being blamed are others.
    
          Pillemer and Finkelhor studied 2000+ elderly people (Boston area)
        finding 3/100 are victimized verbally or physically a year.
    
          Thus about a million older Americans are abused. Two thirds
        were abused by spouses (!), about 25% by their children.
    
          These numbers are probably low since the institutionalized
        were not studied. (1)
    
                                 Sexual Victimization
    
          Kempe's defines it as "the involvement of dependent and develop-
        mentally immature children and adolescents in sexual activities
        that they do not fully comprehend, to which they are unable to give
        informed consent, or that violate social taboos of family roles."
        (2)
    
          Needless to say this also means a child can be sexually victim-
        ized without intercourse being involved.
    
          Diana Russell, a sociologist, surveyed 930 S.F. women. 28% 
        reported victimization (defined as "unwanted sexual touching")
        at ages 13 or under.  Relatives accounted for 12% of the 
        occurances.(3)
    
          Finkelhor found 19% of female and 9% of male college students 
        had experienced sexual victimization. (4)
    
          Gelles and Straus state that no national survey yet "meets the
        normal standards of scientific evidence ... and can be used to
        determine a figure for frequency of sexual victimization of
        children. (1988)
    
          Finkelhor's synthesis of studies suggests that 1/10 girls and 
        2/100 boys are sexually abused before age 18. 
    
          Should that be the case, the U.S. sexual child abuse rate is
        some 210,000 new cases/yr.
    
                                   Marital Rape
    
          Marital rape, a subject of controversy, has some laws and
        studies.
    
          Twenty Eight states and D.C have rape laws that cover husband-
        wife.  21 states can prosecute when marital partners live apart,
        Alabama retains the marital exclusion for marrieds, wherever they
        live. (5)
    
          Of 323 Boston (area) women interviewed by Finkelhor and Yllo,
        10% said their husbands/SO's forced them to have sex with them.
        Violence accompanied such rape in roughly half of the cases. (6)
    
          In Diana Russell's SF survey, 14% of 644 married women had exper-
        ienced marital rape 1 or more times. (7) 
    
          Other researchers generally report 3 to 10% occurances.
        
          Gelles and Straus find that since women sometimes find them-
        selves in sexually uncomfortable/coercive circumstances, marital
        sexual victimization figures may be higher.
    
                                       Neglect
    
          Gelles and Straus find neglect to be an "act of omission rather
        than a physical act of commission."  Includes failure to feed,
        clothe, or supervise children well; can involve parents being
        "psychologically unavailable," which leaves their children
        "psychological isolates in a complex and harsh world."
    
          Neglect occurs when an ill child is denied medical treatment or
        recieves improper medication (an act of commission). Overstressed
        parents have even "calmed down" their children by tranquilizing
        them.
    
          Determining neglect is very difficult because the poor often 
        cannot take care of their children lacking sufficient financial/
        material resources.  Malnutrition can affect child *and* adult
        alike. Here, Society may take on some blame.
    
          Gelles and Straus believe child neglect may be "twice as freq-
        uent as are acts of physical abuse."  They estimate about 1 in 11
        children or some 4 - 5 million U.S. children are affected annually.
        (Gelles, Straus, 1988)
    
    
        refs:
    
        1. Cornell, Gelles, "Elder Abuse: The Status of Current Knowledge,
           "Family Relations 31 (7-82): 457-65
    
           Pillemer,K.A., Finkelhor,D., "The Prevalence of Elder Abuse:
           A Random Sample Survey" (paper - Gerontological Society of
           America, Chicago. (11-86).
    
        2. Russell, Diana, 'Sexual Exploitation: Rape, Child Sexual Abuse,
           and Workplace Harrassment,(Beverly Hills, CA., Sage, 1984)
    
        3. Finkelhor, David, 'Sexually Victimized Children,' (NY: Free
           Press, 1979).
    
        4. Ibid.
    
        5. National Clearinghouse on Marital Rape, 2325 Oak St, Berkeley,
           CA)
    
        6. Finkelhor, Yllo, 'Licence to Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives'
           (NY: Holt and Rinehart, Winston 1985.)
    
        7. Russell, D. 'Rape in Marriage' (NY: MacMillan, 1982).
    

    Wow, this topic has been a real eye opener.  I have known of situations
    in which both men are being abused by a female partner and women
    by a male partner.  I can easily see how a man, even if he were
    physically stronger, could be emotionally, financially, or for some
    other reason (the kids, belief in the permanence of marriage, etc.)
    would be unable to leave the relationship.  The legal system does
    not do anywhere near enough to prevent this problem, as well as
    violence against children.
    	Linda  

    Its practically impossible for the legal system to prevent "primary
    violence" against anybody because one usually can't predict a first
    case of violence before it happens.  In the cases where a person has
    been threatened and one goes to the Police the reaction is "we can't
    do anything until he/she actually commits the act". The people who know
    they are about to be beaten because of suble or open threats fall
    through a legal loophole because it hasn't happened yet. Time after
    time one reads about someone who knows someone who is about to get out
    of prison and knows the person will get them.  The potential victim
    goes to the Police to no avail. Sure enough, the person is frequently
    found dead sometime later.  I think a key is that if a person has
    actually threatened someone, they HAVE committed a crime and can be
    charged with THAT.  I am tired of having the Police ignore or minimize
    potentially dangerous situations when they have been warned by a 
    victim.  The victims of violent felons who contine to threaten the
    person while in prison should have the right to be informed prior to
    the felons release.  Jeff
    
    

    
    Domestic violence continues to be defined as a women's issue,
    both in the papers and on various documentaries.
    
    And then there's a couple I know.
    Recently, the wife showed up with both her arms bruised, claimed
    her husband had grabbed and shoved her around. Only later, 
    much later, did she slip up and admit that it all started when
    she broke her toe kicking him in the groin. It should also be
    noted that the husband refused to discuss the incident, even when
    he knew that it was being misrepresented one-sidedly.

    
    Heaven!  Imagine that, a husband who won't "discuss the incident."
    
    Of course, it never crossed *your* mind that she *might* have
    broken her toe resisting a rape.  After all, she *deserved* those
    bruises.
    
    								-mr. bill

Re  Hank and -mr. bill,

I don't know the couple Hank mentioned, but I do know that it's imperative 
to have both sides of the story...

Once upon a time when a certain Wife was not-so-happily-married, her husband 
went to work with a black eye, claiming to be Mr. Innocent who's Big Bad Wife 
beat him up.  People bought it.  

What he didn't relate was the whole truth:  That the Wife was 4 months 
pregnant, that he'd demanded to move the entire living room around 
(including a queen-sized sleep sofa and a solid mahogany bookcase), and 
practically threw the aforementioned Wife off the balcony when she suggested 
getting a neighbor to help...

I'm not saying that men *always* incite domestic violence, or that women 
*never* do, just that one should not jump at a standard assumption to reach 
a possibly erroneous conclusion.

Cheers,
deb  :-}

    
    Ah yes, more bile from bill.
    
    You are ill equiped to speculate on what crossed my mind
    and should be ashamed of yourself for the remainder of your note.
    We've known the couple for years. You don't.
    Your note reflects your ignorance.
    
    							disgusted.
    
    								Hank

    	The most important thing to remember is that all abuse is not
    physical. The worst abuse is mental. Eventually mental abuse breaks
    a person down to where they become a shell.
    
    	For a long time, the nagging fishwife was "accepted" as normal
    behavior for a woman "going through the change". Many men never
    said a word as the home became a place that they tried to avoid
    at any cost. He was ridiculed by his associates and everyone dreaded
    the same happening to them. Much of this came to a head when a man
    then turned violent (physically) onto his wife. It has nothing to
    do with deserving anything, rather a man being pushed to his breaking
    point. Then he's labelled for life as a "wife beater". 
    
    	I know men who suffer with wives that constantly badger the
    hell out of them. They demean their husbands in front of other couples,
    they make embarassing remarks, and generally make life miserable.
    One man thinks his wife "caught" this about 15 years ago. Just the
    time the last child left the coop. If this man were of a different
    nature, it would surprise me to read that he did get violent, but
    he's too gentle a soul.
    
    	I think that men get an unfair share of the bad press for domestic
    violence. Be it against their wives or their children. Spend an
    hour or two in a supermarket on Friday night or Saturday morning
    and note how many men show violence toward kids at the store as
    compared to women. Note also the type, verbal or physical. I think
    you'll find that just as women have a tendency toward violence as
    men. It's just that their style is "accepted".
    
    Ken

    I think some men seek out domineering women - in fact I think people
    often seek out mates that are similar in many ways to their parent of
    the opposite sex.  I have seen it happen - quiet, retiring, shy men
    seek out outgoing, domineering, agressive women - and sometimes the 
    woman was that way all along, and the men knew what they were getting
    in to, are they surprised the woman doesn't change?
    
    I admit this certainly does not happen all the time, some women
    gradually become more negative than what they once were, but sometimes
    the man MUST have seen it in her when they got together.
    
    Is it like with abusive men, that the woman things "oh, he'll change -
    I'll understand him and love him and he'll change...." - do these men
    think that way about the women they love - that they can change them?
    
    -Jody
    

re.201
One of the most insight filled notes I have read in a long time thanks for
putting it in. 

-j

    RE: .201
    
    Yes, I do agree that spouses can abuse each other verbally and that
    such abuse is terrible to endure.  Verbal abuse is not justified.
    Verbal abuse can indeed break a person.
    
    What I can NEVER accept is that physical violence is an reasonable
    response to verbal abuse.  If verbal abuse is wrong then physical abuse
    is much much more wrong.  Nothing justifies physical abuse.
    
    The law makes distinctions between assault and battery and is harsher on
    physical violence than on verbal violence or threats.  So too should
    families.
    
    If the verbal abuse gets bad, leave the room, leave the discussion,
    leave the marriage.  Put your fist through a wall.  Run a mile. Get
    marriage counseling.  But don't hit.
    
    Parents abusing their kids is also wrong.
    
    We are all under stress.  I can't think of anyone who isn't stressed
    out.  But physically abusing anyone out of anger, stress, retribution,
    whatever, is no cure, is not conscionable, is pure and simply not
    right.

Re: Note 595.25 
by: CYCLST::DEBRIAE "Moonrise on the sea..."  

>                -< We men control most of our own probelms... >-

	Sorry, I disagree right away with the title of your note.
	At least in the area of domestic violence, both men and women
	share the "control" as you put it for the problems  that 
	take place.

>	Yes, there are instances where men do not have it so good either.  Yes,
>	women  are  all  not  saints either.  Yes, many women do have their own
>	share  of  some  frequent qualities that could use a little fixing too,
>	BUT...

	Thanks so much for the condescending attitude that trivializes
	domestic violence against men. The "BUT" is especially telling,
	as is that phrase about women having "their own
	share of some frequent qualities that could use a little fixing.."

>	My reaction  to  much  of  what I've read here from a few men is "It is
>	obvious  that  you  have never witnessed a shelter for battered women."
>	And  seen  how  *many*  women  are battered - by their HUSBANDS, not by
>	random  seedy  elements  off the streets - and how *severely* they were
>	beaten,  and  for how *long* they were abused before finally getting up
>	the  courage  to seek help.  They have not just seen the huge magnitude
>	of  the problem. 

	Nice fishing. Next time try reality. What's really "obvious"
	is that you don't know what you're talking about and have to
	resort to damming speculation with respect to the experiences
	or others. I've known battered women and tried to support them.
	Some of my charitable contributions go to shelters for
	battered women. And I'm well aware of the "magnitude of
	the problem". What you seem unable to grasp is that domestic
	violence has more than a single gender victim.

>	I have  NEVER  seen  the  equivalent  of a shelter for "battered men of
>	wives",  no  where  even  close.   And another part of me feels that we
>	would  never  see  this,  even  IF  there  were as many men beat up and
>	physically  abused  by  their  wives, we MEN wouldn't let it happen for
>	OURSELVES.   "Take  it  like  a  man!", "Beat up by a GIRL, huh son??",
>	"What  are  you, a WIMP?", etc, etc.  

	Well, perhaps it's attitudes like yours that prevent this
	from even being considered a serious problem. Face it, though
	women are working towards true equality and are shedding the
	old stereotypes, men continue to be plaqued by the old sterotypes,
	as exemplified by the title (and body) of your note.

>	[But conversely being nagged by a
>	wife  is  an  acceptable problem for a man, in my experience. 

	Wonderful! Verbal abuse and the resultant mental anguish
	is an acceptable problem for a man. 
	Try again. 

>	A common                                                           
>	theme  in many 'male space' I've been in even since growing up as a boy
>	around  older  married  men  was "So she's been nagging you, huh?? Well
>	just give her a few smacks, that'll keep her in line". :-(]

	I'm sorry to hear that. I, and every single male I know,
	was taught that hitting a woman is forbidden, period!
	
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	
	Disclaimers:

	I am quite well aware of the magnitude of the problem
	of domestic violence and I would never attempt to trivialize
	such a serious problem as violence against women.  I am doing what 
	I can, when I can, to help the victims. Thing is, when I
	started reading up on it and reaching out to others to talk
	about it I found that domestic violence was a double edged
	sword with not only women as victims as I had been previously
	led to believe. Men, too are victims. And I'd like
	to think that men can talk about that fact in MENNOTES
	without having their experiences trivialized and dismissed
	as nothing more than aberations. In closing, I'd like to
	reference again an excerpt from note 3 in this
	string. 


	From: Straus and Gelles, "Societal Change and Change in Family
	Violence from 1975 to 1985 as Revealed by Two National 
	Surveys."

		Violence by wives has not been an object of
		public concern. There has been no publicity,
		and no funds have been invested in ameliorating
		this problem because it has not been defined
		as a problem. In fact, our 1975 study was
		criticized for presenting statistics on violence
		by wives. Our 1985 finding of little change in the rate
		of assaults by women on their male partners is
		consistent with the absence of ameliorative programs. 

                                                            Hank

RE: 430.205 by HANNAH::MODICA 

>	Next time try reality. What's really "obvious"
>	is that you don't know what you're talking about and have to
>	resort to damming speculation with respect to the experiences
>	or others. I've known battered women and tried to support them.

	And I'm _sure_ you must have been very comforting to them as well...

	I've been  involved  with a woman who had experienced domestic violence
	from  her  previous  SO,  some  of  my  closest  female friends work in
	battered  women's  shelters  as licensed social workers and counselors,
	who were my friends since being in college groups doing this work, so I
	laugh  at  the idea of an older conservative male who pushes the warped
	view  that  it's  "male  victim" problem telling me that I'm dealing in
	pure speculation.  Hah! Get real on this issue... 

	I see  it  so  many  times - men always down-playing the problems women
	face  in  rape  and  domestic  violence with "Not _that_ many women get
	raped"  or  "Well,  some  MEN can get it too" etc, but I've NEVER heard
	anyone  intimately involved with the work EVER say that men do not face
	the  same  problems.   EVER! Invalidating male victims is not a problem
	amoung  social workers.  Even though the number of female victims _far_
	outnumber male ones.  Other men, yeah, they laugh at the idea of a male
	victim  to  a  female.  Try to convince men to drop this macho behavior
	though  [that's  what  I  mean  by  men control most of the negativity,
	_every_  social worker I know is equally sensitive to male victims, and
	actually  even  more  so since they know that men often live in a macho
	shell and aren't "used to" being a victim (women are?)].

	I'm tired  of  men  down-playing the seriousness of the problem and the
	huge  numbers  of  women  affected  by responding "but a few men get it
	too".   So what!, they figure that evens out 'the score' so it is not a
	problem  anymore?  Seems  to  me  as if when someone says rape/domestic
	violence is a problem, it makes men feel guilty and blamed (even though
	no  one  blamed _them_), and instead of saying "Yeah, that's a terrible
	problem"  (not  even  "Yeah,  that's  terrible,  what can I do?"), they
	justify  it with "Yeah, but, some men face that problem too." IE, we're
	even.   [Why  is  the  immediate  default that men and women are always
	_against_ each other in everything? :-(]

	Your response  to  my  note  is  so twisted it shouldn't even have been
	replied too...

	-Erik

>	And I'm _sure_ you must have been very comforting to them as well...

 You are behaving in the manner of the back of a horse, Erik. You have ALOT
of nerve condemning anyone else who's trying to help. You wouldn't believe
how absolutely ridiculous you sound. Obviously.

    Thank you, Herr Doctah.  I've deleted my 50 line response ... you're
    much too kind .. however .. thank you for saying that as it saved
    having my note deleted (which it surely would have been).
    
    Bubba

    
    	And out the conservative crowd comes...
    
    	That one line is hardly condemning Mark. Try noticing that his many
    	line original note, what started this, was entirely to say I'm not 
    	dealing with reality on this issue, just because he tried to help 
    	someone and knew better, that it is really a male victim problem...
    	Where he got of on telling me I need a reality check when I'm 
    	surrounded by people doing the work is were the 'back of horse' 
    	comment comes.
    
    	But of course not in your eyes, as it seems you're on the "not
    	_that_ many women get abused" and "but men do too" side, the
    	ultra-conservative male side, as usual for you. Yawn, no surprises
    	there...
    
    	-Erik
    

.209> 	But of course not in your eyes, as it seems you're on the "not
.209> 	_that_ many women get abused" and "but men do too" side...

Define "abuse".  Are we talking mental and physical abuse?  Mental only?
Physical only?

.209> ...the ultra-conservative male side, as usual for you.

What's an "ultra" conservative male?  I'm having so much trouble these
days attaching these labels to different people ... and as we all know,
if you don't have a label ... well .. you just ain't nothin'.

.209>  Yawn, no surprises there...

Indeed.  *Precisely* as I would have expected.

Bubba

    <yawn>

>    	But of course not in your eyes, as it seems you're on the "not
>    	_that_ many women get abused" and "but men do too" side, the
>    	ultra-conservative male side, as usual for you. Yawn, no surprises
>    	there...

 You haven't the foggiest idea of what you're talking about. (Of course, I'm
absolutely shocked at this.) I suppose than anyone with even the slightest level
of testosterone is an "ultra-conservative male" in your eyes; and I'd bet
more than a few women would pass that particular litmus test as well... Is it
even a possibility that you aren't the omniscient oracle on these matters that
you consider yourself to be? Isn't there even a slight possibility that others
have different though equally valid experiences than yours? Is there no chance
that your ideology even slightly skews your outlook on gender matters? No,
I suppose not...

 The Doctah

re: MAST::DEBRIAE 

	Been gone for a week and have been too busy to note much,
	if at all. Trying to catch up, I read your replies.
	Erik, you've displayed an impressive ability to either 
	misunderstand or deliberately distort my stance on this subject.
	No doubt we see things differently. What I do find very
	very revealing about you are are remarks such as the following
	from 430.206...
	
>	....so I
>	laugh  at  the idea of an older conservative male who pushes the warped
>	view  that....

	Really Erik. Is it necessary to use age, political leanings,
	and sex to attempt to discredit me in the discussion 
	taking place in this topic? Such a blatant display of biases!!
	Still, no problem. It's always good to get these things
	out in the open. What is even more curious, however, is
	another little ditty you wrote 3 days earlier in 599.37.

>	I accept and value diversity  as  an  individualistic  trait  in  
>	a  person,..

	Indeed you do. Good luck trying to reconcile these remarks.
    
    								Hank

    
    	Hank,
    
    	I apologize for coming down on you harshly. It happened that a man 
    	saying that abuse was an equal male problem pushed my hot buttons. 
    	Instead of attacking the idea I attacked the deliverer.
    
    	I'm not perfect and have an abundance of macho 'male' traits 
    	as well... 
    
    	No, it wasn't necessary to attack you...  I apologize.
    
    	-Erik                                                

    Re .214
    
    >>	I apologize for coming down on you harshly. It happened that a man 
    >>	saying that abuse was an equal male problem pushed my hot buttons. 
    >>	Instead of attacking the idea I attacked the deliverer.
    
    Here are some references that you might consider:
    
    
           AUTHOR: Hunter, Mic.
            TITLE: Abused boys: the neglected victims of sexual abuse 
 PUBLICATION INFO: Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books, c1990.
    PHYSICAL DESC: 339 p.
            NOTES: Includes index.
    SUBJECTS (LC): Adult child sexual abuse victims--Case studies.
                   Sexually abused children--Case studies.
                   Boys--Abuse of--Case studies.
                   Child molesting--Case studies.
 
    Mic Hunter attacks the the myths of "it doesn't happen to boys"
    (between 1 in 7 and 1 in 4 are abused), "it doesn't do any harm"
    (recent studies associate male sexual abuse with higher rates of most
    mental illnesses, not to mention dozens of other repercussions
    including suicide), "boys will be boys" and the Mother Of All Myths
    "the abuser is rarely if ever a female" and "if it's the mother, she's
    usually psychotic".  I think even Finkelhor's study of boys found up to
    40% had female abusers, and that's an old study.
 
    He also talks of society's reluctance to do anything about it.  He
    refers to boy clients of his being sexually abused by women that he
    reported to Child Welfare and the social workers refused to even
    investigate.  He had to lie and report the cases as an adult male
    having sex with a 12-year-old female to get an investigation (and then
    tell them it was a mixup - actually an adult female with a 12-year-old
    boy).  
    
    
    
Other references:
     
           AUTHOR: Bolton, Frank G.
            TITLE: Males at risk: the other side of child sexual abuse /
                   Frank G. Bolton, Jr., Larry A. Morris, Ann E. MacEachron.
 PUBLICATION INFO: Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage Publications, c1989.
    PHYSICAL DESC: 222 p.: ill.; 21 cm.
            NOTES: Bibliography: p.198-220.
    SUBJECTS (LC): Sexually abused children--Mental health.
                   Boys--Abuse of.
                   Child psychotherapy
 OTHER ACCESS PTS: Morris, Larry A.
                   MacEachron, Ann E.
                   Title:
   LC CARD NUMBER: 89010226
             ISBN: 0803932367
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------
 
           AUTHOR: Grubman-Black, Stephen D.
            TITLE: Broken boys/mending men: recovery from childhood sexual
                   abuse / by Stephen D. Grubman-Black.
 PUBLICATION INFO: Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Tab Books, 1990.
    PHYSICAL DESC: 168 p.; 21 cm.
            NOTES: Bibliography: p. 165-168.
    SUBJECTS (LC): Boys--United States--Abuse of--Psychological aspects.
                   Adult child sexual abuse victims--United
                   States--Psychology.
 OTHER ACCESS PTS: Title:
   LC CARD NUMBER: 90033024
             ISBN: 0830635629: $12.60
    
---------------------------------------------------------------------

           AUTHOR: Thomas, T., 1955-
            TITLE: Men surviving incest: a male survivor shares on the
                   process of recovery / by T. Thomas.
 PUBLICATION INFO: Walnut Creek, Calif.: Launch Press, c1989.
    PHYSICAL DESC: xvii, 61 p.; 22 cm.
            NOTES: Includes bibliographical references (p. 59-61).
    SUBJECTS (LC): Adult child sexual abuse victims--United
                   States--Psychology.
                   Incest victims--United States--Psychology.
                   Boys--United States--Abuse of--Psychological aspects.
                   Men--United States--Psychology.
 OTHER ACCESS PTS: Title:
   LC CARD NUMBER: 89013881
             ISBN: 0961320583: $7.95