Conference quark::mennotes

    
    I've seen more than one report that domestic violence in the U.S.
    against men is at least as common as against women.  .0 Pretty
    much tells the story in the U.S. also.  It is the same story that
    I and others in this file have been trying to tell for years only
    to suffer immediate and all-out attack from the politically correct.

    One thing that the report didn't mention (directly anyway) is the 
    taboo of men striking women (contrary to feminist propaganda) even 
    in self defense.  That's how the women get away with such action, 
    because if a man strikes a woman even in self defense, _he_ is going 
    to be the one facing abuse charges.

    fred();

    
    hmm ...
    
    I believe women instigate as many events as men ... I've never touched
      a women but I was once slapped in the middle of an argument.
    
    I believe men cause much more physical damage than women do.
    
    I believe men are an immensely greater risk to womens lives than women
      are to mens lives
      

Surveys and anecdotes are slippery kinds of evidence, so I would not use them to
answer the question in the base note.  (Yes, I have the same reservation when
women use surveys and anecdotes to "prove" how common male violence is.)

But I think the base note is asking the wrong question.

What matters to me is whether men are being abused.  If one man is, that is one
too many.  If any significant number are, then we should work, privately and
publicly, to control the problem.

.1>    taboo of men striking women (contrary to feminist propaganda) even 

Right.  The idea of not striking women is a large part of both traditional and
modern American culture.  A man who has internalized it will have a lot of
trouble bringing himself to the point of striking a woman, even in self-defence.
If he does, regardless of the circumstances, he will feel bad about himself, in
addition to being in trouble with the law, as Fred pointed out.

A reader may wish to reply that some men seem to have no trouble striking women.
Maybe this shows that men are not really faceless interchangeable units.

    
    Women striking men is much more acceptable.  The comic strip Andy
    Capp regularly shows Andy getting knocked loop-t-loop by his wife.
    This is supposed to be _funny_.  I've seen several incidents on TV
    of women striking men.  The one that comes to mind was a recent
    promo form a show called "A Whole New Ball Game".   In the promo,
    the man was supposed to have said something to a woman who was
    setting next to him in a bar.  The woman turns and slaps him clear
    to the floor.  Then a laugh-track is dubbed into the scene.

    Right now I'm working on my 5'8" daughter who has recently gotten
    the idea that it is ok to go around whacking on people.

    fred();

    I had a neighborhood fem tenant from next door harras me. She was being
    tossed out of her unit because she had not paid her rent and had tooo
    many parties. So, being the live in landlord of the neighborhood. I
    became the brunt of her frustrations..... She followed me down the hill
    to the corner store yelling and name calling me. On the way back up to
    my abode. She stopped me with a round house kick. Missing my face by
    wiskers... I was told anything after a contact like that would be self
    defence. Including the use of deadly force. Execpt I do not have a gun.
    And glad I do not... for the time being....:)

    ...cont.
    
    I was told by a friend that I had smiled at her with one of those looks
    that could kill.:)

    This is horrible!   Weren't any of these people taught as children that
    hit someone is wrong?

    re .7
    
>    This is horrible!   Weren't any of these people taught as children that
>    hit someone is wrong?

    Probably, but there are a lot of examples where women hitting men
    is acceptable, even supposedly funny.  Then as .0 indicates, they
    learn, as they escalate the violence and men don't respond, that they 
    can do it and hide behind the men-don't-hit-women taboo.  

    fred();

    
    
    I agree: Society does think it's funny.
    
    My sisters' girlfriend, had a boyfriend who was a State Trooper:
    He was on a routine shift one night, had to pull over a car,
    ended up almost losing his testicles from two (mannish) women
    kicking the S**t out of him. They got away, he lived. This was over
    18 yrs ago. No one, can be trusted @ times: man or woman....
    
    

    Of course there is ol Susan Smith... And there are a number of women
    who do heinous things to their children. But this is also excused cause
    they are under pressure of our society... or under the influence of
    drugs. Funny. When they do a crime like this. There is always an excuse
    for them to easily get off. And always the blame of their cause is
    never their own. Although they are adults, responsible for their adult
    acts, and never held accountable.

    Just because if I don't make the following statement, Fred will
    consider it further evidence, I'll say it: domestic violence and
    battery is always wrong.  Period.  No matter who does it.  The 
    article in the basenote is horrific.
    
    And as has been said before many, many times, no matter how often Fred
    chooses to misremember it; when as many men fear for the lives and
    safety as women, or even a tenth as many - then I'll consider giving
    the effort to prevent it more of of my time and attention.
    
    DougO

George, can you give examples of women who've murdered their children and
have got off?

    I will go research that.

    Ref: .10
    
    	Our society is fast going to total exemption of personal 
    responsability in crimes committed:
    
    
    	The two guys who killed their parents to inherit their life
    		insurance claimed they were sexually abused by their
    		parents.
    
    	The Framingham 9's claimed "battered woman syndrom" although some of 
    		these ladies, actually killed their SO, while he was asleep, 
    		not in real-time self defense.
    
        Everyone is now a victim (OJ Simpson will have a hard time to claim
    		being a victim, though..)
    
    
    	Kids who comit crimes, and their lawyers claim the influence 
    		of such and such music/group....
    
    	Are you folks not sick of hearing all these victims stories 
    		(folks accused of crimes, always finding someone else
     		to blame for their actions)	  
    

    
    re .11
    
>    when as many men fear for the lives and
>    safety as women, or even a tenth as many - then I'll consider giving
>    the effort to prevent it more of of my time and attention.
    
    In spite of all the blathering about not doing it, you turned right
    around and did it.
    
    fred();

.11> when as many men fear for the lives and safety as women

Doug,

Why set such a high standard?  A hospital doesn't say "When as many people are
dying of cancer as of stroke, we'll think about treating cancer patients."  Why
should you wait for this point of absolute equality?

> or even a tenth as many 

Are you sure we haven't passed this threshold?  I'm not sure.

    Its a proof point thing, Wally.  It has been proven to my satisfaction
    that the problems caused to every woman in our society by the fear of
    violence from men are gargantuan, culturally inbred, and very damaging
    to our societal health in numerous dimensions; mental health, economic
    health, etc.  Such fears as every woman reasonably has about the
    potential for experiencing violence from men affects stress levels,
    personal freedom to go where they want, dress how they want, do as they
    please, economic freedom in the need to be secure (taking cabs instead
    of buses or walking, buying more home security, etc, etc) are in fact
    damaging to this culture; such fears restrict liberty, distort the
    economy, and cripple the nation.  I think that identifying and solving
    the problems that cause this violence will take a huge effort over many
    generations. I consider myself to be making that effort, in my writing,
    in my volunteering, in my political activities, and in my educational
    efforts.
    
    It has *not* been proven to my satisfaction that even one man in ten
    has such debilitating fears about violence from women, much less any
    experience therof.  Our society, overall, does not appear to me to be
    suffering anywhere near so much from this problem as from the other.
    Therefore, I don't plan to devote my personal time and activism to
    solving this problem.  I have no objection to others, who may have a
    different take on the situation, from following their consciences and
    taking such actions as they see fit.  All I'm saying is, I won't spend
    *my* time on it.  Fred considers that this is an attack, that his
    issues aren't good enough for me to promise my time and effort on.
    Sorry, Fred, but you haven't convinced me.
    
    DougO

.14>    	The two guys who killed their parents to inherit their life
>    		insurance claimed they were sexually abused by their
>    		parents.

As I understand it, the Menendez brothers are in jail and broke, after their
first trial ended in a hung jury.  I am still disgusted that the jury bought
what looks to me like a pathetic excuse, but I was not in the jury box.

>    	The Framingham 9's claimed "battered woman syndrom" although some of 
>    		these ladies, actually killed their SO, while he was asleep, 
>    		not in real-time self defense.

All these women got convicted.  Some got pardons recently, but I think some are
still in jail.  The claim of the "battered woman syndrome" is that a woman is
not responsible for killing her abuser, even if he is asleep at the time.  I
don't buy that in general, although I might in a particular case.
    
>        Everyone is now a victim (OJ Simpson will have a hard time to claim
>    		being a victim, though..)

The defence is claiming he is a victim of police incompetence and racism. 
Observers seem to think that they are not convincing the jury.
    
    
>    	Kids who comit crimes, and their lawyers claim the influence 
>    		of such and such music/group....
    
Lawyers have used this defence, but I don't think anybody has been acquitted.
Remember lawyers are paid to get their clients off, and the weaker their case,
the farther they will reach for a defence.

I've seen several books and articles lately attacking the "abuse excuse."  It
may be getting a lot harder for defence lawyers to sell these excuses to a jury.

        re .17

>    It has *not* been proven to my satisfaction that even one man in ten
>    has such debilitating fears about violence from women, much less any
>    experience therof.  Our society, overall, does not appear to me to be
>    suffering anywhere near so much from this problem as from the other.

    It's the old, "you have to prove your point to my satisfaction, else
    you lose" game again Doug0.   What if I were to take the position
    that _I_ just haven't been given enough proof that women are actually
    suffering as much as some groups claim, so to h**k with women?

>    Therefore, I don't plan to devote my personal time and activism to
>    solving this problem.  I have no objection to others, who may have a
>    different take on the situation, from following their consciences and
>    taking such actions as they see fit.  All I'm saying is, I won't spend
>    *my* time on it.  Fred considers that this is an attack, that his
>    issues aren't good enough for me to promise my time and effort on.

    Not an attack, Doug0. Just a further example of the hypocrisy that
    has been pointed out time and again already.

    fred();

    > It's the old, "you have to prove your point to my satisfaction, else
    > you lose" game again Doug0.   What if I were to take the position
    > that _I_ just haven't been given enough proof that women are actually
    > suffering as much as some groups claim, so to h**k with women?
    
    In the discussion between you and me, Fred, I don't see anybody as
    'losing'.  I see each of us unconvinced by the other.  That's fine by
    me.  I live my life, you live yours, and we each do what we think is
    right.  If you really think that you haven't seen enough proof
    regarding what violence and fear of violence do to women in our
    society, then fine: say it: "to heck with women".  Live your life that
    way.  I'll spend my time on what I think are problems, you spend your
    time on what you think are problems.
    
    This is not 'hypocracy', Fred; this is choice.
    
    DougO

        re .20

>    society, then fine: say it: "to heck with women".  Live your life that
>    way.  I'll spend my time on what I think are problems, you spend your
>    time on what you think are problems.
>    
>    This is not 'hypocracy', Fred; this is choice.

    Given that _every_ attempt to even discuss these problems gets
    attacked and rat-holed as this one has, I'm not buying it Doug0.  
    As they say, "Then push, pull, or get the *&^%$% out of the way".
    If you're not going to help, then at least quit trying to rat-hole 
    and impede those who _are_ trying to do something.

    fred();

 .20>  I'll spend my time on what I think are problems, you spend your
 .20>  time on what you think are problems.
    
       I see you two guys spending your time on the SAME problem - helping
       refugees from the "War of the Sexes"...  This War is a violent one as
       is any War.  

       Will we ever be smart enough to teach our children NOT to fight this
       War?

        re .22

>       I see you two guys spending your time on the SAME problem - helping
>       refugees from the "War of the Sexes"...  This War is a violent one as
>       is any War.  
>
>       Will we ever be smart enough to teach our children NOT to fight this
>       War?

    Maybe someday we will learn to get along.  As for now I think the
    men's side of the battle is only just beginning to realize that
    there _is_ a war.  

    To continue with the military analogy, we're kind of in the same place
    Russia was in when the Nazis invaded in World War II.  They were two
    days into the invasion and German troops were 200 miles inside Russia
    before Stalin would admit that there was an invasion and allow the
    Russian military to act.

    fred();

    > Given that _every_ attempt to even discuss these problems gets
    > attacked and rat-holed as this one has, I'm not buying it Doug0.  
    
    Maybe if your first response in the topic didn't start the attack I
    wouldn't have chosen to respond to the attack with clarification.
    Look at .1 and try to tell me you didn't bring this down on yourself.
    
    .1> ... only to suffer immediate and all-out attack from the
            politically correct.
    
    You started that kind of name callin', so quit bitchin' that I set the
    record straight.
    
    DougO

    re: .11
>    And as has been said before many, many times, no matter how often Fred
>    chooses to misremember it; when as many men fear for the lives and
>    safety as women, or even a tenth as many - then I'll consider giving
>    the effort to prevent it more of of my time and attention.
    
    	If we can assume that the base note is correct, then a
    significantly higher proportion of men than women *should* fear for
    their lives and safety.
    
    	If, as Doug asserts, they do not, does this prove that men are
    rather poor at risk assesment, or slightly insane (as a statistical 
    generalisation, of course). What can be done about this? Or, since we
    are talking about relative proportions of men and women that fear, is
    it the case that women are more generally paranoid?  Obviously either
    one group is not fearing enough, or the other group is fearing too
    much.

    Two women have now gotten  off from conviction from having sexually
    dismembered men. In both cases the person either admitted doing the
    crime or there was overwhelming evidence that they did it.
    
    '...having something to fear...'
    
    If a man had performed a female circumsicion on a woman while she
    slept...
    
    Steve

    There was this woman and her pals who led a comando raid upon her
    custodial mother and father in-law in the lakes reigon of NH. They
    bashed down the door, and with stun guns and real guns held this family
    hostage. Their coment about the raid afterwards was that they felt that
    the child was in danger from child abuse from the in-laws. She was a
    Non custodial mom who had lost custody. And got off charges of the
    raid.. The male in the raid party got a free place to stay in the
    GrayBar Motel.

    There is a woman who had left her children, in Rodchester NH, alone.
    The children all under the age of 6 would sit alone in the house as she
    went out on the town drinking em up....
    
    Another child was abused in the Laconia area, by her moms new live-in
    beau. He would put out ciggies in the 4 years olds face. Mom told all
    that it was wind burn...... Case still pending.

        Some societal attitudes that are a problem in this area.

    1) Women hitting men is acceptable, even funny.
    2) Men hitting women even in self-defense is taboo.
    3) A man who complains of abuse is considered less than a "man".
    4) In incidents of domestic violence the man is considered the
       aggressor no matter who initiated or escalated the violence.
    5) Sugar and spice and everything nice,  that's what little girls
       are made of. (Women are good).
    6) Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails, that's what little boys
       are made of. (Men are bad).
    7) Women are good, women are helpless, women need to be taken care of.
    8) Man are bad, men are violent brutes, men should be locked up,
       a man who cannot defend himself is a sissy, a man who does defend
       himself is abusive.
    9) If a woman leaves a relationship she will almost automatically 
       be given most of the property and custody of the children.
    10)If a man leaves a relationship he will almost automatically lose
       all property and be forced to abandon his children to the tender
       mercies of their mother.

    Have I missed any?

    fred();

    If a woman leaves family behind and goes off to find herself.... then
    returns. Most often she is given the family, the marrital home and the
    lions share of all the family wealth. The husband, gets the boot in the
    snow... cause he is a provider, he is incabable of nurturing children.

    Herd on the radio this morning (I didn't take notes) of a woman who
    set her house on fire and left her four children to burn to death 
    inside.  Four children dead.  The law isn't buying her story.  She's 
    in lockup facing charges.  
    
    fred();

   re: .31
   
>    Herd on the radio this morning (I didn't take notes) of a woman who
>    set her house on fire and left her four children to burn to death 
>    inside.  Four children dead.  The law isn't buying her story.  She's 
>    in lockup facing charges.  

   Either its the same one I saw on the news last night, or another, but
   the one I heard said that the death toll was actually 6 kids - 4 were
   her own, and 2 were neighborhood kids... she's facing a charge of
   arson as well as having killed 6 kids...
   
   - Tom

.25>    	If, as Doug asserts, they do not, does this prove that men are
>    rather poor at risk assesment, or slightly insane (as a statistical 
>    generalisation, of course). What can be done about this? Or, since we
>    are talking about relative proportions of men and women that fear, is
>    it the case that women are more generally paranoid?  Obviously either
>    one group is not fearing enough, or the other group is fearing too
>    much.

Why don't men acknowledge this fear more widely?

- because fear is a taboo feeling for men.  To admit fear is to admit that I am
less than a man, as my culture defines manhood.  So if I feel the fear I deny it
to myself and keep my mouth shut about it.

- because all feeling is taboo for men.  See above.

- because my culture has usually presented women as helpless victims or
supportive partners.  So fearing women is doubly taboo.

- because my culture has usually presented men as powerful and competent.  To
admit to accepting violence from a woman is also to admit that I am less than a
man.  If it happens to me, I keep my mouth shut.

- because the large majority of men, on the evidence of .0, have not experienced
violence from women, and because of the taboos above, they are not aware that
other men have experienced it.  So they reasonably conclude that it does not
happen and can dismiss or misinterpret the few reports that surface.

- because men have not spent a generation having their "consciousness raised"
about this problem.

- because men are constantly told they are the cause of violence, not the
victims.

> What can be done about this?

- admit the possibility that this is a significant problem
- sponsor the usual social science studies to find out if it is a significant
problem
- if we find out it is insignificant, then stop here
- provide support and help to the men who are victims
- spread the news around to the media, schools, legislatures and courts
- fight the stereotypes that say woman=victim and man=perp


A few nits about .25

- Professionals in risk assessment agree that most of us do a very poor job of
assessing our personal risks.  So it is not surprising if both women and men
misjudge their risk of becoming victims of violence.

- I think that words like "insane" and "paranoid" should generally be left to
professionals.

- Doug qualified his assertion later in the string to the statement that it has
not been proven to his satisfaction.

- A discussion of the realism of women's fear of violence does not seem to
belong in this conference.

.20>    way.  I'll spend my time on what I think are problems, you spend your
>    time on what you think are problems.

Doug,

If this is really your position, then that is fine with me, but the tone of your
first reply was different.

Why not at least let us discuss what we think are (or may be) problems?

.24>    Maybe if your first response in the topic didn't start the attack I
>    wouldn't have chosen to respond to the attack with clarification.

Two points on this:

- you may think your first reply was a clarification.  I think it and the first
paragraph of .17 are an illustration of what Fred was talking about.

- blaming Fred for your replies seems kind of silly to me.  You always have the
option of ignoring what anyone here writes.

DougO, have you read note 432.3 in QUARK::MENNOTES-V1?

>>>- A discussion of the realism of women's fear of violence does not seem to
>>>belong in this conference.



    Pray tell, why not???  This is a conference about issues pertaining
    to men just as =wn= is a conference about issues pertaining to 
    women.  Facing the reality of some women's fear of violence is a 
    necessary tool for men in order to understand the mechanism of the
    female psyche.

    justme....jacqui

    
    re .36

>    Pray tell, why not???  This is a conference about issues pertaining
>    to men just as =wn= is a conference about issues pertaining to 
>    women.  Facing the reality of some women's fear of violence is a 
>    necessary tool for men in order to understand the mechanism of the
>    female psyche.

    I'll agree that it is fair to discuss the reality of women's fear
    if you'll agree that it is fair to discuss men's fears and problems.
    The problem I see is an almost total lack of regard, by some, for
    men's fear. (What? Men's Fear? Why that bunch of sissies!).  Might
    not some of the problems that women suffer at least be lessened
    by a discussion and recognition of the problems that men suffer,
    Hmmmmm?  As someone said before, when the only problems you are 
    concerned about are your problems, and you demand that others help
    with your problem, then you ignore my problems (in some cases even
    disrupt my ability to address my problems), then I tend to lose
    a lot of sympathy for your problems.
    
    fred();

    I've noticed that generally all a woman has to do is make the
    *accusation* of violence from a man, it is then recorded as if it 
    were fact.  It is not necessarily investigated for truth, or even
    plausibility.
    
    I believe that if a man made the *accusation* of violence against a
    woman, then after most authorities got past laughing at him, it is
    quite *unlikely* that any credence at all would be given to the
    assertion.
    
    This opinion is based on a number of incidence of violence throughout
    my childhood, and adulthood.  It was recently re-affirmed when my
    son (21yrs old) petitioned for custody of his child, the mother of the
    child cam back with the claim that he is violent towards her!  This
    claim is so ludicrious, it would be funny if it weren't for the fact
    that within the judicial system, everybody just seems to assume that it
    is true!  She has never even been asked to offer a single piece of
    evidence, or even give testimony to a single incidence of violence!
    It seems to be that since she said it about him, then her being the
    poor innocent woman, it must be true!
    
    Personnally, I'm sick of this double standard.  It's pervasive in
    society, and many, many of the men who I love have been injured by it.
    
    As a woman, the feminist movement has helped focus on the issues that
    I as a woman have to face, but I would like to see real focus on men's
    issues so that my brothers, and sons could reap the benefits of more
    fair standards and code of conduct.  As a woman, though, I don't
    really know how to help them individually, all I can do is mostly offer
    support to them.  I really think the time is here for men to ban
    together and highlight these issues.

    .38 Thanks! Your note has given me some re-afirms that there are others
    who give a dam beside the men. And Yes, womens fears about men should
    be faced. As men must be able to discuss mens issues without fear of
    getting their face slammed into the keyboard. And sometimes that fear
    of getting the face slammed by others keeps men from opening up in this
    file. Such is life.....
    
    

.36>    women.  Facing the reality of some women's fear of violence is a 
>    necessary tool for men in order to understand the mechanism of the
>    female psyche.

I said "realism" not "reality".  The media are filled with women's fears, and I
don't see the need to make this conference a sounding board for them.  As far as
I can tell, nobody here has denied the reality of the fears of some women or the
violence of some men.

The base note of this topic is about violence to men.  Are you interested in
discussing that?  Is it OK if we discuss it?

By the way, I have been married for over twenty years, and I have long since
given up on understanding the mechanism of the female psyche.

    .33> Why don't men acknowledge this fear more widely?
    
    Your list of reasons was very good.  I see this as a large part of what
    hinders society from acknowledging the issue and, by the way, makes it
    much harder for us to discuss the issue.  When I choose to see this as
    a matter of simply lesser overall damage to our culture and therefore
    one I choose not to spend my personal time on, others tend to view that
    as though I think it isn't a problem at all and by implication react to
    me as if I'm dismissing their concerns.  This is an unfortunate
    mis-reading of my position that I think stems directly from this:
    
    > - because my culture has usually presented men as powerful and
    > competent.  To admit to accepting violence from a woman is also to
    > admit that I am less than a man.  If it happens to me, I keep my mouth
    > shut.
    
    The cultural messages that make men macho prevent us from having this
    discussion very easily; everything we say to each other as men gets
    filtered through our primitive defensive mind-shields and my simply
    different priorities become threatening and 'attacks'.
    
    .34>- you may think your first reply was a clarification.
    
    yes, I do.  Fred always blames those who disagree with him with
    pejorative putdowns and distortions of what we've really said.
    I decided to clarify my position on this issue rather than allow
    his distortion to stand unchallenged.  That I can see where he comes
    from when he misinterprets me does not, however, incline me to let his
    misperceptions stand.
    
    > - blaming Fred for your replies seems kind of silly to me.  You always
    > have the option of ignoring what anyone here writes.
    
    First 'blame' is not what I assigned.  I don't think my replies are
    anything about which I need feel ashamed, and therefore no blame is
    called for.  That I choose to respond to set forth my position so that
    others can see how it has been distorted by others is simply my choice.
    Note that the very first thing I said in .11 is agreement that all
    domestic violence is wrong.
    
    DougO

        re .38

    Just as it was white people (more precisely what would now be known as
    the "Radical Christian Right") who recognized how hideous  slavery was
    and moved to eliminate slavery,  just as one "Conservative" commentator
    has said, "Not one woman voted in favor of the 19th amendment" (giving
    women the vote),  and just as "women's rights" has enjoyed the active
    support of many males (believe it or not, myself included),  it will
    take the support of women to end what is happening to men and children
    (and yes it is "children's rights" as much as "men's rights" that are
    at stake here).  

    As someone pointed out in a mail message to me, it is changing.  Some
    of the most serious supporters of these issues have been mothers,
    sisters and second wives of those men and children.  Women who have 
    seen and recognized just how vicious these problems are.  To those
    women I give my sincere and eternal gratitude.

    fred();

    >have you read note 432.3 in QUARK::MENNOTES-V1?
    
    yes.  I have also read several criticisms of the Gauss/Steinmetz
    studies, which are 90% of the data cited in the article.  One concludes
    that there may be some validity in their findings, but this kind of
    article is only the first step for a serious investigator; to be
    convinced, I would have to wade through the bibliography's references
    for myself, or see abstracts of many more studies by numerous other
    researchers in the field.  Sadly, there don't seem to be numerous other
    researchers in the field; or, if there are, they aren't coming up with
    similar findings that we would hear about.  
    
    Certainly you can't expect that a single source is sufficient to inform
    oneself in this day and age?
    
    DougO

    
    
    re .41

>    yes, I do.  Fred always blames those who disagree with him with
>    pejorative putdowns and distortions of what we've really said.
>    I decided to clarify my position on this issue rather than allow
>    his distortion to stand unchallenged.  That I can see where he comes
>    from when he misinterprets me does not, however, incline me to let his
>    misperceptions stand.

    And yet, DougO, nearly everything that you've done since then has
    only provided even more evidence that what I claim is happening.
    It appears to me that you have an incredible knack for doing exactly 
    what you are, in the same breath, denying that you are doing.

    fred();

>>>By the way, I have been married for over twenty years, and I have long since
>>>given up on understanding the mechanism of the female psyche.


    Well Wally,

    I have been married for over thirty years to the same man, and I have
    NOT given up on understanding the mechanism of his male psyche!  

    I think dialoging about some women's fears and having male feedback
    that these fears are being HEARD and UNDERSTOOD (validated) is a 
    most important step in the process of the male/female communication 
    process.  

    Having more forums for men to find out that their inner fears are not 
    unique is also most important for male recovery.  It is a tough world
    to live in when one cannot find comfort in order to function freely
    in society with out the aid of emotional crutches.

    Did anyone watch the Boys of St. Vincent this week on A&E?  It was 
    based on true happenings in Canada.  It was considered Adult Themed!
    
    justme....jacqui

    

    

    > And yet, DougO, nearly everything that you've done since then has
    > only provided even more evidence that what I claim is happening.
    
    The very note you extracted that excerpt from contains my substantive
    responses to Wally, on topic.  Seems you ignore inconvenient evidence
    that proves your allegations false.
    
    DougO

    re .46
    
>    The very note you extracted that excerpt from contains my substantive
>    responses to Wally, on topic.  Seems you ignore inconvenient evidence
>    that proves your allegations false.
    
    HooooWeeee talk about the pot calling the kettle black, DougO.
    Let's just say that you haven't proven your point to my satisfaction
    yet 8^}.
    
    fred();

    Gee... The DougO in denial is starting to be a real bummer.... 

    For as long as Fred distorts my position, George, rest assured your
    bummer will continue.
    
    DougO

    Woman throws her two children off a bridge in Cal. She then jumps to
    take her life. The child under two drowns. Saw this on the morning
    tube. 

    
    re .49

>    For as long as Fred distorts my position, George, rest assured your
>    bummer will continue.

    I don't know of you are intentionally doing this or if you really
    believe what you are doing, but it this certainly appears to be the
    old Joseph Goebbles trick of attempting to divert attention away
    from what your are doing by accusing the opposition of doing it
    first.  From my point of view, as I've said before, at this point
    you are only providing examples of what we're talking about, and that
    there really _are_ people out there that think as you do.  So if you 
    are so inclined to continue, please do.  If you personally are not
    inclined to aid in this particular problem, so be it, but so far,
    it certainly appears, your actions have gone beyond not helping to 
    outright attempting to impede others who do want to do something about 
    the problem, which does nothing for the credibility of the problems
    that you _do_ seem to care about.

    fred();
    

    
    Been a long time since I checked in here,
    Before I leave, I just wanted to reply to a point brought up
    by DougO in .43 about the scarcity of researchers and studies.
    
    I read a while back that Steinmetz received death threats
    and was quite severely harassed for her work in the field
    of domestic violence. As such, she has gone into a bit of seclusion
    and has not done further research on the subject.
    Supposedly she is not alone. Seems that many do not want studies
    that contradict popular beliefs to be made public.
    I'm sorry but I don't have the article(s) to offer for reference.
    
    					Regards and adios til next time
    
    							Hank

    careful, Hank, if you notice that I'm actually on topic and try to have
    a conversation with me on topic, you'll disturb someone who insists I'm
    a nazi.  aw, what the heck, shatter his misconceptions.
    
    This is the first I'd heard that Steinmetz had withdrawn from the
    field.  If true, its a shame; certainly more research is needed.
    Why do you say that "Supposedly she is not alone"?  Do you think
    there's a conspiracy to suppress research?
    
    perhaps there are other reasons that steinmetz withdrew from the field.
    
    DougO

    Are the women who killed their children any worse than the man sho shot
    all three of his kids, and then set the van on fire to make sure they
    were dead?  Are women who hit their husbands any better or worse than
    the man in texas who killed his wife, chopped her  into pieces, spray
    painted her body parts and distributed them around town?
    
    Violence is bad.  Hitting is bad, raising children to believe that
    hitting is a way to enforce behavior is to me what starts this idea
    that might makes right, and continues the violence by people on people
    to "make them behave" even when those people are adults.  Unless we
    start at the beginning with weeding out violent behavior, I see no end
    to this.  
    
    I will recommend  to my daughters that they not marry anyone who was
    hit as a child.  The fear that they could decide to beat them to "make
    them behave" is great.  If I had sons I would recommend the same thing
    to them.  
    
    Frank and I aim to stop the violence with our children's generation. 
    We don't hit for this reason.
    
    meg

    
    re .54 Meg

    Actually I can agree with everything you said.  None of us have ever
    said that one was any better or worse than the other.  You seem to take
    offense that there have been several notes focusing on violence by women
    and not balancing those notes against violence by men.  If you are
    honest, then, I think you can understand why we are offended when other
    groups and other media spotlight the violence by men and gloss over 
    (if not outright ignore) the violence by women.  If we are going to 
    address violence, then lets address violence.  However, as we have been 
    discussing for the last 50+ notes, it seems that the discussion is 
    terribly one sided in nearly every place but here, and it seems that 
    some will not even begrudge us this file.

    fred();

    I heard it reported that during the Isaeli 6 day war back in the 60's,
    female soldiers were less moved to compassion and to sparing the enemy
    than were the male soldiers.  They were more prone to kill vengefully
    than the men.  Anyone hear this same thing or have more info on it?
    
    Also concerning violence as a method to "make people behave", I read an
    editorial in Newsweek about 2 years ago which stated that "Christian
    Nations" of the West have a hard time understanding the Israeli bent
    for quick retribution when they are attacked because the Christain West
    believes in a "forgive and forget" approach.  The Isaelis, on the other
    hand, believe that when someone has "left the path of righteousness"
    and commited some crime or hideous act, that person must be swiftly and
    strongly punished as a reminder that they have strayed from
    "acceptable/righteous" behavior and must quickly return to the path of
    goodness or receive more "corrective encouragement".  This approach
    finds its source in the Old Testament "eye for an eye" law.  It's kind of a 
    biblically-sanctioned "shock therapy" for wayward-ness, be it personal, 
    political, or international.
    
    Can anyone add any more light here?
    
    Paul
                                                        

    > This approach finds its source in the Old Testament "eye for an eye"
    > law.
    
    Actually, that precept comes from a far older source, the Code of
    Hamurabi.  If it is repeated in the Old Testament it was cribbed from
    the preceding source, as workable precepts in civil affairs often are.
    
    DougO

    >The Isaelis, on the other hand, believe that when someone has "left the
    >path of righteousness" and commited some crime or hideous act, that
    >person must be swiftly and strongly punished as a reminder that they
    >have strayed from "acceptable/righteous" behavior and must quickly
    >return to the path of goodness or receive more "corrective
    >encouragement".  This approach finds its source in the Old Testament
    >"eye for an eye" law.  It's kind of a  biblically-sanctioned "shock
    >therapy" for wayward-ness, be it personal,  political, or
    >international.                  
    
    If you think that "an eye for an eye" was set down to legitimize the
    concept that "the punishment should be as harsh as the crime," you're
    right -- but for the wrong reason.  "An eye for an eye" was a plea
    for leniency, not for harshness.  You see, before this, many crimes
    were either capital offenses (a head for an eye) or just plain harsh
    (a hand for a tooth).  
    
    So, while "an eye for an eye" might have been a plea to let the
    punishment fit the crime, it was a plea for mercy, not vengence.

    > Woman throws her two children off a bridge in Cal. She then jumps 
    > to take her life. The child under two drowns. Saw this on the morning
    > tube.
    
    Horrible.  Here's a followup from today's paper:
    
    "...Neighbors said they sometimes had noisy, violent fights and the
    woman seemed depressed. Los Angeles police said her husband had a
    history of spousal abuse.
    
    "...Michael Fleming, whose 37th birthday was Tuesday, was arrested
    several times over the past 13 months for allegedly beating his wife
    and was convicted at least twice, Los Angeles police said.
    
    "Donna Fleming suffered minor injuries in some of the six incidents,
    which date to January 1994, detective Dick Simmons said. The most
    recent incident was Jan. 12.
    
    "After three calls last June, Fleming was sentenced to 10 days in jail
    and put on three years' probation.
    
    "``There were arguments and allegations of choking with the hands,''
    Simmons said.
    
    "Donna Fleming was advised she could seek a restraining order or get
    outside help, but she never did, said Simmons.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Some people think that women so seldom commit violent crimes that the
    few cases where they do must have extraordinary causes.  Seems to me
    the Flemings' story supports that viewpoint.
    
    DougO

    
    re .59

    That still doesn't justify her actions.  She had many other forms
    of support and way's out than to murder her children.

>    --------------------------------------------------------------------
>    Some people think that women so seldom commit violent crimes that the
>    few cases where they do must have extraordinary causes.  Seems to me
>    the Flemings' story supports that viewpoint.

    And some people will go to any length to justify a woman's actions.  Seems
    your note supports that viewpoint.

    There are many men who "lose it" because of the court system and the
    hypocritical bigotry against men and commit murder/suicide against 
    spouse, children, self.  Should their actions the be justified?

    fred();

    Yet again, you distort my viewpoint.  I have stated that domestic
    violence is always wrong (.11).  I have called this particular woman's
    actions horrible (.59).  In no way have I argued that her actions were
    'justified', nor do I think they are.  You are wrong to claim it.
    
    What I *am* trying to do is to examine the circumstances that lead to
    this kind of behavior.  This is not to excuse or justify her crime. 
    This is to identify patterns that will hopefully lead us to stop it
    from happening to other people.
    
    > She had many other forms of support and way's out than to murder her
    > children.
    
    I agree.  Why didn't she use them?  We *must* examine her circumstances
    to try to find clues to her behavior.  That examination is NOT to
    "justify" her crime.  
    
    Your CONTINUAL misreading of my positions gets tiresome, Fred.  Why are
    you so afraid to examine the facts of the case?
    
    DougO

    
    re .61

>    What I *am* trying to do is to examine the circumstances that lead to
>    this kind of behavior.  This is not to excuse or justify her crime. 
>    This is to identify patterns that will hopefully lead us to stop it
>    from happening to other people.

    Sigh, if only, as .0 indicates, there were those as concerned about
    identifying the causes and look for solutions when some poor sap
    goes off the deep end because he's been living in his car and eating 
    dog-food because his paycheck has been confiscated to support his 
    wife's unemployed  boy friend drinking the guy's beer, sleeping in 
    his bed and having sex with his wife while he's not even allowed to 
    visit his kids.  Maybe that too would save a few lives?  Hmmm?

    fred();   

    Yes, Fred.  And as I have said before, more research is needed.  I say
    that in good faith- by which I mean, if your view is correct, and the
    problem is bigger than I think, then the research will demonstrate
    that, and support your case.  And that would be ok by me.
    
    DougO

    DougO:
    
    What should be the punishment for this woman?
    
    
    Steve

    
    re .63

>    Yes, Fred.  And as I have said before, more research is needed.  I say
>    that in good faith- by which I mean, if your view is correct, and the
>    problem is bigger than I think, then the research will demonstrate
>    that, and support your case.  And that would be ok by me.

    Just how much research is it going to take.  I've already seen
    at least two studies that you've essentially blown off as not
    proven to _your_ satisfaction. 

    Getting beyond the bigotry far enough to even get the research done 
    is a good size chunk of the problem as nearly all research, even, is
    directed in a near witch hunt at the female side of the problem.

    fred();

    >What should be the punishment for this woman?
    
    Send her home to bed without any desert. Send the rasputin man to jail
    in her place. He is responsible, she is not responsible.

.53>    Why do you say that "Supposedly she is not alone"?  Do you think
>    there's a conspiracy to suppress research?

The word 'conspiracy' is a red herring in this context.  If people share the
same values and outlook, no conspiracy is needed to make them behave the same. 
If few people at the country club want any Jewish members, no conspiracy is
needed to be sure that the membership committee never approves one.  The world
is, unfortuantely, full of examples.

Similarly, if most people in the social sciences accept the idea that women are
victims and men are perps, no conspiracy is needed to ensure that little
contrary research gets done.  Most research funding goes through peer review
panels.  All professional publications are peer reviewed.  Presentations at most
conferences and seminars are by invitation.  

I think that peer review does a good job, mostly, but we should be aware of the
possibility of abuse.  There are several claims of abuse, among them from women
claiming discrimination because they have deviated from the feminist dogma. 
From the outside, it is hard to tell whether these are serious charges or
academic politicas as usual.  I'm still undecided.


>    perhaps there are other reasons that steinmetz withdrew from the field.

Perhaps there are.  One response is to jump, sight unseen, to the conclusion
that makes us comfortable.  Another is investigate the situation, or at least
keep an open mind while it is investigated by others.

.59>    Some people think that women so seldom commit violent crimes that the
>    few cases where they do must have extraordinary causes.  Seems to me
>    the Flemings' story supports that viewpoint.

It is almost always possible to interpret evidence to support our prejudices.
The risk is that we maintain an incorrect viewpoint too long.  We may
misinterpret the evidence we have, search out the evidence that supports our
viewpoint, and neglect the evidence which would help us correct our ideas.

If women commit 20% of the homicides in this country (I heard that on the radio,
can't confirm) is "so seldom" an appropriate phrase?

I don't think we can look at all evidence with a completely open mind, but I
think it is better to ask what we can infer from evidence than to ask whether it
supports our viewpoint.

    > What should be the punishment for this woman?
      
    I think people who murder children, like this woman did, should be
    locked up for life (no possibility of parole) or put to death.  
    
    DougO

    >    Just how much research is it going to take.
    
    lots.
    
    DougO

    > The word 'conspiracy' is a red herring in this context.
    > ...
    > Similarly, if most people in the social sciences accept the idea that
    > women are victims and men are perps, no conspiracy is needed to ensure
    > that little contrary research gets done.  Most research funding goes
    > through peer review panels.  All professional publications are peer
    > reviewed.  Presentations at most conferences and seminars are by
    > invitation.  
    >
    > I think that peer review does a good job, mostly, but we should be
    > aware of the possibility of abuse.  There are several claims of abuse,
    > among them from women claiming discrimination because they have
    > deviated from the feminist dogma. 
    
    There is no such consensus in my readings.  Feminist scholars are
    routinely harassed by peers when presenting their findings.  I don't
    think there's any such conspiracy (or would you prefer the politer
    'groupthink'?) going on throughout the entire field.  Its a
    possibility, I can easily grant you that; but the dissension in the
    field is extravagant.
    
    If we're going to speculate on why there are so few studies showing
    that men suffer from female violence, you'll have to accept the obvious
    theory as well; studies don't find it because it doesn't happen to any
    significant numbers in the population, only in rare cases.  Its a
    possibility, I think you have to grant.  Occam's razor certainly does.
    
    > Another is investigate the situation, or at least keep an open mind
    > while it is investigated by others.
    
    As I said, I'd welcome further research in the field.
    
    DougO

    Wally, you must admit there is a significant research gap.  Studies of
    domestic violence against women were routinely discounted and ignored
    for decades, until an overwhelming avalanche of data and the existence
    of hundreds of shelters proved the existence of the problem.  I do not
    think it unreasonable to posit that the status quo perception which
    denies the likelihood of significant numbers of men being victimized
    must be suspect simply because it is status quo.  Sure, examine the
    evidence.  I await much more of it.  
    
    DougO

    If you like statistics, here's an interesting one.  Year to date in
    Massachusetts there have been thirteen murders classified as "domestic
    violence".  Out of the thirteen, thirteen were women killed by men;
    zero were men killed by women.  Admittedly we're not even two months
    into the year, but it seems a bit lopsided so far.
    
    					Steve

        re .73

    Ah, must have been self defense.  At least that's what they say here
    in Colorado when a man is killed in "domestic violence" :^|.

    Men may be able to defend themselves better in such cases better and 
    may do more damage when they are violent, but that does not justify or
    excuse the actions of the women.  

    I've repeatedly stated that I do not disagree that it happens to women.
    ONE MORE TIME.  My problem is that the women's side is the ONLY side
    that gets any attention.  Even outright denial that it even happens
    to men, or if it does, then men don't deserve any attention because
    women don't get even more of the attention that some think they 
    should.  As amply demonstrated here by DougO.

    fred();

    .73 Perhaps the saying by Mark Twain that there are polititions, liars,
    and statatitions. And the worst is the statatition(sp). Cause one can
    gather info and create all kinds of charts, graphs, and misleading
    info. Case in point how about the MIPs vs VUPs delema? O.K. So now
    there are 13 women dead, and no men. Gathered by the same cause of
    Doug0's...

    ...and perhaps much of any sort of women trashing men now fall into the
    catogorie that he was mentally abusing her, or PTS of anything from the
    fact that he farts in his sleep to perhaps in the words of Pam Smart...
    'Try not to get any blood on the carpet, or don't shoot Paul in front
    of the dog, cause you don't want to tramitize (it/him/her)dog.'
    
    

    > Even outright denial that it even happens to men, or if it does, then
    > men don't deserve any attention because women don't get even more of
    > the attention that some think they should.  As amply demonstrated here
    > by DougO.
    
    Just for the record, both you and I know, Fred, that this is not an
    accurate statement of my position or anything I've "demonstrated."
    
    DougO

    
    re .77

>    Just for the record, both you and I know, Fred, that this is not an
>    accurate statement of my position or anything I've "demonstrated."

    Again you appear to do the very thing you deny.

    from .72
    >Wally, you must admit there is a significant research gap.  Studies of
    >domestic violence against women were routinely discounted and ignored
    >for decades, until an overwhelming avalanche of data and the existence
    >of hundreds of shelters proved the existence of the problem.  I do not
    >think it unreasonable to posit that the status quo perception which
    >denies the likelihood of significant numbers of men being victimized
    >must be suspect simply because it is status quo.  Sure, examine the
    >evidence.  I await much more of it.

    from .70

    >>How much evidence will it take?
    >
    > lots.

    You bemoan the length of time that it took for women to draw attention
    to this problem, then seemingly hypocritically attack evidence that
    the problem is happening to men.  I'm beginning to think that there
    just plain _isn't_ enough evidence to prove this problem to _your_
    satisfaction.  The scary part is that it appears that you believe
    this attitude _justified_.  The even scarier part is that you are not
    alone.

    fred();

    > attack evidence
    
    Where did I do that?  I have asked for more.  I have stated that what
    exists is simply not enough in quantity (not enough studies, not enough
    researchers) to pretend its sufficient to get a feel for how big the
    problem is.
    
    > there just plain _isn't_ enough evidence
    
    yet.  not that's been called to my attention.  You're correct.  Glad
    its starting to sink in, I've said it about a dozen times.
    
    DougO

        re .79

>    yet.  not that's been called to my attention.  You're correct.  Glad
>    its starting to sink in, I've said it about a dozen times.

    And, as I've said before, nice of you to demonstrate so thoroughly
    that there really are people out there that think as you do, and
    how thoroughly you believe in the righteousness of your cause.  And,
    also, as I've said before, the scarier part is that you are not
    alone.

    fred();

    > nice of you to demonstrate so thoroughly that there really are 
    > people out there that think as you do,
    
    It would be one thing if I wasn't willing to consider the evidence.  
    Of course, that isn't the case.  I said I wanted much more evidence.  
    I want to have a valid basis for decisions about such matters.  This
    is scary?  This frightens you?  Too bad!
    
    DougO

>                                                          This approach
>    finds its source in the Old Testament "eye for an eye" law.  It's kind of a 
>    biblically-sanctioned "shock therapy" for wayward-ness, be it personal, 
>    political, or international.
    
Halacha (Jewish law) interprets "an eye for an eye" as meaning "the value
of an eye for an eye."  In other words, it requires financial compensation
for damages.

        re .81

>    It would be one thing if I wasn't willing to consider the evidence.  
>    Of course, that isn't the case.  I said I wanted much more evidence.  
>    I want to have a valid basis for decisions about such matters.  This
>    is scary?  This frightens you?  Too bad!

    The whole problem, DougO, is that I seriously doubt that there ever
    will be enough evidence for _your_ satisfaction.  I believe that
    you are just using this as a smoke screen to continue deluding 
    yourself that the problem doesn't exist so that you can continue
    to demand _all_ the effort (not only yours as you have stated before,
    but also everyone else's) be directed to _your_ problem.  And
    again, I don't think you are alone in this endeavor. 

    Once Again, I think you are providing us with a better example than you
    are an argument, and as such, as someone said before, you actually hurt
    your own cause by making it harder to be sympathetic to your cause.

    The problem _does_ exist, DougO.  If you want to continue in your
    state of denial, fine.  I just hope you never need to start caring 
    about it the hard way like so many other men have.

    fred();

.71>    There is no such consensus in my readings.  Feminist scholars are
>    routinely harassed by peers when presenting their findings.

Doug, I presume you are putting the second statement forward as evidence for the
first, and not just as another red herring  For me to accept it as evidence, I
would have to see enough recent examples to convince me it is routine, and to
show me that it is harassment.  Note that disagreement is not harassment, it is
part of the standard process of science.  I would also need enough examples to
see that it represented a significant viewpoint within the social science
community, not attacks by outsiders or by a small and vocal minority.

>    think there's any such conspiracy (or would you prefer the politer
>    'groupthink'?) going on throughout the entire field.  Its a

You seem very attached to your red herring.  I don't prefer groupthink.  I
prefer the words I have already used.

>    If we're going to speculate on why there are so few studies showing
>    that men suffer from female violence, you'll have to accept the obvious
>    theory as well; studies don't find it because it doesn't happen to any
>    significant numbers in the population, only in rare cases.  

That hypothesis (not an obvious theory) assumes that studies have been done
which would have found it if it existed, and that such studies have found
nothing.  Both of these assumptions are simple statements of fact, which could
be checked in a good research library.

> Its a possibility, I think you have to grant.  

Yes, I grant the possibility.  Two sentences back you said I have to accept the
theory, which I do not.

.72>    Wally, you must admit there is a significant research gap.  

I don't "admit" it; I state it.  I think the gap is a problem which should be
corrected by more research, and by an open-minded evaluation of the results.

>    domestic violence against women were routinely discounted and ignored
>    for decades, until an overwhelming avalanche of data and the existence
>    of hundreds of shelters proved the existence of the problem.

Doug, you seem to have difficulty talking about violence done to men.  You are
constantly changing the subject to violence done to women.  I don't deny the
violence done to women, but I would like to talk about the violence done to men.

>    I do not
>    think it unreasonable to posit that the status quo perception which
>    denies the likelihood of significant numbers of men being victimized
>    must be suspect simply because it is status quo.

I have read this statement over three times without being able to make heads or
tails of it.  It seems like you are trying to say, once again, that we should
assume the problem does not exist because strong evidence has not been produced.

I disagree.

    What *do* you want, Wally?  If I respond to your statements suggesting
    that there are like minded people all somehow ignoring the problem with
    a word analyzing deliberate intent to do so ('conspiracy' the first
    time, 'groupthink' the second) you accuse me of introducing red
    herrings.  Seems to me the only other alternative is to assume they're
    all incompetent, to be working in this field and yet ignoring a pattern
    so obvious to you and Fred, but somehow invisible to them.  What is it,
    Wally, do you prefer to think of them as deliberately avoiding the data,
    or do you prefer to think them too incompetent to investigate such 
    obvious patterns?
    
    Or the third possibility, which I suggested and around which you
    two-stepped: that there is no such obvious pattern of abuse to avoid
    noticing, and therefore no conspiracy or groupthink involved in not
    seeing one.
    
    So sorry that I can't seem to find words to discuss this with you.
    You dislike every possible formulation I offer, every token of yours I
    reparse to attempt to start a conversation meets only your reproof.
    I can't even tell what you're talking about anymore.  Do try again.
    Explain in your own words, without quoting mine, just what you think
    is an appropriate response to the data gap.  Explain what position you
    think the researchers should adopt towards the field.  Explain what
    position you yourself hold on the issues.  I purely can't tell.
    
    DougO

    
    re .85

>    Seems to me the only other alternative is to assume they're
>    all incompetent, to be working in this field and yet ignoring a pattern
>    so obvious to you and Fred, but somehow invisible to them.  What is it,
>    Wally, do you prefer to think of them as deliberately avoiding the data,
>    or do you prefer to think them too incompetent to investigate such 
>    obvious patterns?

    Given you as an excellent example I can say that this is indeed what
    is happening.  You yourself pointed out how long it took to get 
    acknowledgment that it was happening to women even.  And you yourself
    pointed out how few studies researchers dare to perform to even
    look for such evidence, and those who do dare are silenced by threats
    and intimidation.  As they say, "There are none so blind as those who 
    will not see".

    fred();

    .85 I donno if I should come to attention. Or sing the French National
    anthem as they did in Casablanca.:)

>              Are women more violent than men?              


in a study conducted by the univeristy of fribourg in switzerland, 

   50% of the men answered YES, 
    0% of the women answered yes 

to the question:
"if rape was not a crime, could you imagine raping someone - even if just 
in your phantasies?"


would you ever phantasize about rape?

as long as rape is such a real threat to women, as it still is, it is
clear to me who is the more violent gender.


andreas.

    > Given you as an excellent example I can say that this is indeed
    > what is happening. 
    
    Only one problem, Fred- I'm not a researcher in the field.  It isn't 
    my job to identify and study social trends in the field of domestic
    violence, I sling code for a living.  My readings in this field are
    those of an educated lay person only.  So your example doesn't prove a
    thing about why professionals don't find what you wish they would find.
    
    DougO

    Doug,
    
    Yha mean you dont read Time or NewsWeek? There have been some good
    articles on it there. They may not have the N.O.W. stamp of
    aprovial on them though.

        re .89

<    Only one problem, Fred- I'm not a researcher in the field.  It isn't 
<    my job to identify and study social trends in the field of domestic
<    violence, I sling code for a living.  My readings in this field are
<    those of an educated lay person only.  So your example doesn't prove a
<    thing about why professionals don't find what you wish they would find.

    So that makes your opinion no better than that of any other poor futz 
    out there.  However it is your _attitude_ that I think makes an
    excellent example.  Because I think your attitude is very indicative of
    the anti-male left.

    fred();

    Again, your answer is unresponsive, Fred, unless you think that the
    field of professional researchers into domestic violence is composed
    entirely of "the anti-male left".
    
    DougO
    
    ps- [The personal slur you make against me by describing my attitude 
    as "anti-male" is beneath contempt and deserves no other response;
    though if you piss me off sufficiently you may wish to remember what
    happened to Herb Nichols when he did so.]
    

    No, George, I don't read Time or Newsweek.  I have read them both in
    the past and found them completely inadequate to developing an informed
    opinion on most subjects of interest to me.  If they have recently
    included a section of abstracts referencing current research in
    domestic violence I'd be very surprised.
    
    DougO

Re: .88  (GUTZWILLER)

This one doesn't make much sense to me...the survey
numbers don't seem to mean much, and the questions about
rape fantasies don't seem relevent either.  Public
opinion polls mean nothing to this subject - in fact, the
possibility that women are at least AS violent (I doubt
they're significantly MORE violent) flies in the face of
public opinion - that's the whole point of the
discussion, is it not?

Fantasy and reality seldom intersect - and the ability or
even propensity to fantasize something has nothing to do
with the willingness to act it out.  I dream about flying
all the time (i.e. without an airplane)...but I've never
tried to...  Rape fantasies aren't unusual, even amoung
women, but that doesn't have any bearing on societal
violence whatsoever.  Perhaps I've misunderstood your
point.

Re: .92

Who is Herb Nichols?  What did he do?  What horrible
wrath did he incur by doing so?  My curiosity is killing
me.

tim

    > Who is Herb Nichols?  What did he do?  What horrible wrath did he
    > incur by doing so?  My curiosity is killing me.
    
    Herb Nichols made unsupportable statements in summary and incorrect
    judgement of me.  He suffered a public verbal spanking in full view 
    of the community and after sufficient punishment and humiliation
    grudgingly apologized for his errors.  Twice.  In less than a week.
    
    See mennotes-v1 689.*.
    
    DougO

    re .92
    
>    DougO
>    
>    ps- [The personal slur you make against me by describing my attitude 
>    as "anti-male" is beneath contempt and deserves no other response;
>    though if you piss me off sufficiently you may wish to remember what
>    happened to Herb Nichols when he did so.]
    
    Thank you again for providing us with such a wonderful example, DougO.
    The fact that the only way you can defend your position is by personal
    threats, IMHO, says much about your credibility and the credibility
    of you position.
    
    fred();
    

        re .92

>    Again, your answer is unresponsive, Fred, unless you think that the
>    field of professional researchers into domestic violence is composed
>    entirely of "the anti-male left".

    Your argument is not based on the fact that research has been done and
    has found no evidence.  Your argument is based on the fact that no
    research has been done at all, or at least not enough for _your_
    satisfaction.  Why is it that nearly _all_ research that is done is
    done to prove how violent men are to women?  There seems to be a lot of
    research going on.  Why is it nearly all research is directed to
    proving abuse against women while abuse against men, even any research
    on the subject, is ignored, if not outright attacked?  Why  is it every
    time some Susan Smith or Loraina Bobbit pulls some stunt  we hear a
    veritable chorus of "that poor thing, what made her do that",  while
    you never see _any_ mention that domestic violence might be  caused by
    anything other than "brutal men"?  Could there be an anit-male  bias? 
    Naaaaa, surely not.

    fred();

    Gee Doug0! He thought you were the cats jams! Herb told me off like
    that you were a wonderful person and all.:)
    
    Herb wanted this file to be open to men who could not open up in other
    notes because of the feminist ovature. Herb felt that the gays had
    there own corner, the women had theirs too. But men had nothing... But
    as you can see. We all have DougO. And he wants to spank us all. Esp if
    we miss behaive to his disliking. 
    
    Perhaps if I act up... I too will go to bed with out any rat pudding.:)

    Fred, you have misrepresented my position again.  This is really
    tiresome.
    
    George, I don't want to have to spank anybody.  Herb deserved it,
    though.
    
    DougO

    
>    This is really tiresome.
    
    No one is forcing you to participate, DougO.  If you choose to do
    so, however, I suggest you base your argument on evidence and logic
    rather than on threats of violence (verbal or otherwise).
    
    fred();

    Nobody forces you to participate either, Fred.  If you choose to do so,
    however, I suggest you base your arguments with me on what I've said,
    rather than what you make up.  
    
    DougO

.94> Fantasy and reality seldom intersect - and the ability or
.94> even propensity to fantasize something has nothing to do
.94> with the willingness to act it out.  I dream about flying
.94> all the time (i.e. without an airplane)...but I've never
.94> tried to...  

you may consciously phantasize at great length and in detail (and i 
mean phantasize, not dream in your sleep) about flying, about winning 
a million $$$'s, about being the boss in the white house.
would you also phantasize at length about being a murderer, a torturer, 
a rapist? would you thrive in your phantasies on spreading terror and 
fear by brute force? i doubt that.


.94>              Rape fantasies aren't unusual, even amoung
.94> women, but that doesn't have any bearing on societal
.94> violence whatsoever.  

the inquiry (.88) specifically asked "would you rape" not "would you be 
raped". women also have rape phantasies, mostly fear phantasies of being 
raped - according to the inquiry not a single woman phantasized about raping
someone herself whereas half of the men did.


this can only mean that every (other) man is potentially a rapist, as some 
women would have us think.
or is it, when so many men have sexual phantasies about raping someone this 
means that
- many men do not realise that sex is always between CONSENTING adults
- many men do not understand what rape is (that it is a brutal act based 
  on asserting one's authority by mere force and designed to hit the victim
  where it hurts most)

obviously, on understanding this issue of extreme violence there must be
an enormous gap between men and women.

common sense suggests that women are as much inclined to be verbally abusive
(and as .0 suggests, possibly even physically abusive up to a certain degree) 
as men are. 

personally, i don't buy the theory that every (other) man is potentially a 
rapist. i do believe though, that many of us men will resort to violence when 
pushed to it, and that male violence is ultimately of a different "quality" 
than female violence. particularly in the privacy of our own homes, when 
resorting to violence in a "the b*tch deserved it" attitude, this is when rape 
becomes a real threat for the woman involved.

on the general subject of violence and women, aslong as rape remains a real 
threat to women, the fact that women become increasingly more violent makes 
sense in the light of the fact that only a violent response offers protection 
against rape.



andreas.

    .99 >George, I don't want to have to spank anybody. Herb deserved it,
    
    Spare is the rod oh master of pain, teacher of feminism, terror of the
    mennotes.....
    
    Oh! Tonight boys and girls, there is another hardcopy horra of some
    man, Mr. California body builder, and his blonde bomb shell body
    builder. And she shoots him... And lord knows what kinda excuse will be
    heard on this of why she shot him... Maybe its another verbal abuse
    doo-dha....... 
    
    Welp. The phone rings. Its a dirty job... But someones gotta do it.:)
    

    Welp.... Hard Copys show was informative. They had Mr. California and
    his wife on. They both were punch and judy artist as well as body
    builders. She gets a restraining order against him under a domestic
    violence rap...... She then miss's him and invites him home.... Things
    go along well... for a while. He comes home late from the gym. They
    argue. She blows him away. She tells the cops that it was self
    defence... She shoots one over his head. Second shot hits him. He is
    down on his back. She shoots him again... Deadmen tell no lies... 
    AaAAh! The excuse??? Self defence? Nope! Not a chance! Royds??? Royd
    rage??? Who can tell... 

dontcha just fear foryer life if you ear such orrible horra staris ;-)

>Royds??? Royd rage??? Who can tell...

Wow.  All that over a case of hemmorhoids?  Ouch!

;-)

        Last night on ABC News there was an item that you probably won't
    see repeated any where again, but...

    I  usually try to ignore the OJ case, but it seems that after the 
    famed 911 call by Necole the cop that answered the call had a tape 
    recorder going.  ABC obtained a transcript of that tape.  A couple of 
    interesting quotes from that transcript:

    Necole: "I's just that I get so scared when he _looks_ like that.
      I mean, the _look_ he gets in his eyes.  It's so--animalistic"

    Necole: "I know he won't do it again.  He's already been convicted
      once, and he knows the next time will be the last".

    OJ:  "When she comes at me like that, all I can do is cover my
      groin and my face and try to weather the storm".

    
    Also Rosa Lopez testified that she had had an argument with Necole
    and was struck in the face by Necole.
    
    fred();

    Gee. I saw that too Fred. Wonder what the heck really went on behind
    closed doors?

    
    One thing I'll gar-run-beeping-t you.  You won't see .107 on the
    news 10 times a day like you did with that 911 call.  ABC will run
    it once (I'm surprised that they ran it at all) and call it "balanced"
    news reporting.

    fred();

    A legal friend of mine was in a place where there was a man looking for
    shelter and for free legal help offered to women. And was delied. He
    was a battered man. And was turned down from a place called the Dove.
    
    This info was relayed to me about a week ago. Just remembered this one
    on the way in.
    

.85>Seems to me the only other alternative is to assume they're
>    all incompetent

I suggested a different alternative way back in .67.  You can continue to ignore
it if you wish.

.85>    Explain in your own words, without quoting mine, just what you think
>    is an appropriate response to the data gap.  Explain what position you
>    think the researchers should adopt towards the field.  

Examine, as open-mindedly as possible, the very limited data which is available
on violence of women towards men.  Plan and carry out research to provide more
data, and analyze that.  Make both men and women aware of the results of the
research.  If the research suggests a significant social problem, then plan and
carry out a social response to the problem.

> Explain what position you yourself hold on the issues.  I purely can't tell.

My personal position, based on what little I know, is that we are seriously
ignorant of the scale and nature of this problem.  My guess is that it
significant enough that we should be aware of it, as individuals and in groups. 
My guess is also that it is not significant enough to call for a major social
program.  

In any case, I feel compassion for the men who are victims of this violence,
just as I feel compassion for the women and children who are victims of violence.

    > I suggested a different alternative way back in .67.  You can continue
    > to ignore it if you wish.
    
    You posit some invisible bias, such that these people who are
    researchers in the field all suffer from the same blindness and somehow
    cannot put together studies that would demonstrate something so obvious
    that even we untrained casual readers in the field can discuss it.  A
    bias that such researchers are trained precisely to examine and detect.
    
    It doesn't meet the minimum standards for believability for me, Wally.
    Sorry.
    
    DougO

    
    Doug0,

    You are playing "prove it to _my_ satisfaction else you lose" again.
    I already posted this question about "why are all of the studies
    aimed towards proving violence against women and so few aimed towards
    investigating violence towards men" back in .97.  Which you ignored.  
    You chose just to launch a personal attack against me instead.
    You've already pointed out yourself that you are only a layman in
    these matters.  So I don't see how you can legitimately just 
    reject, out of hand, any studies, or lack there of.  

    Yes I do think there is a bias in the "research" community over this
    problem.  Just as there seems to be a bias (as pointed out by
    feminist "equal rights" groups) that most medical research is directed
    primarily at men.

    fred();

    >You are playing 
    
    No, Fred, I'm explaining to Wally why his hypothesis about why the data
    gap exists isn't adequate in my view.  This is not a game I play.  This
    is a serious exercise in seeking to comprehend an alledgedly serious
    situation and the data that don't show it.
    
    >Yes I do think there is a bias in the "research" community
    
    Fine.  You think there's a bias.  I don't.
    
    DougO

    Tell us Doug0.. As a stonch feminist.. What roles do you play in your
    cause.. Besides a fincial contributor. I mean Meg does something. Do
    you? Besides make us live up to your higher standards of bias?
    

    
    re .114

    What I don't buy, Doug0, is that we're supposed to accept what you,
    an admitted layman, _think_.  Whereas we're supposed to produce
    study after study, which you reject out of hand anyway.  Talk about
    a credibility gap.

    fred();

    You're supposed to accept what I think?  In what sense?  I'm not trying
    to browbeat you into any particular position, I speak for myself only.
    Though I refuse to let you misrepresent me.  But you can think whatever
    you want to, Fred.
    
    George, are you trying to ask me how my feminist ideals are reflected
    in the way I live the rest of my life?  Everywhere.  In my home life,
    where I'm a partner in several senses of the word to Stacey; in raising
    our son, Erik, who is now almost seven.  Quite overtly in such things
    as abortion clinic defense (Operation Rescue came to our town twice
    during their summer "Cities of Refuge" campaigns, and I was one of
    thousands of locals who went out to do clinic defense.)  In the choices
    of what I read, and what I watch on tv, and what music I buy.  In the
    friends I keep.  My feminist politics are reflected in all areas of my
    life because my feminist beliefs are an integrated part of my identity.
    I really, truly think that women are prevented from reaching their
    potential due to institutional discrimination, tradition, politics, and
    outright prejudice and bigotry, to an extent that most men seem to have
    any idea even imagining, much less comprehending; and since I see that
    as the most obvious injustice on the face of the planet it is only
    natural that my consciousness of it is reflected in all areas of my
    life.  Why did you ask?
    
    DougO

    I ask to understand....

        reply .117

>    You're supposed to accept what I think?  In what sense?  I'm not trying
>    to browbeat you into any particular position, I speak for myself only.
>    Though I refuse to let you misrepresent me.  But you can think whatever
>    you want to, Fred.

    Then I can reject your opinion as just another opinion with nothing
    to back it up but your own (apparently considerable) personal bias.
    Which, as I've said before,  makes you nothing more than an example
    of the bias that we've been discussing.
    
    fred();

    > Then I can reject your opinion as just another opinion with nothing
    > to back it up but your own (apparently considerable) personal bias.
    
    'nothing to back it up'?  You forget that data gap we've been
    discussing.  All the evidence, in fact, is on my side.  But you think
    whatever you like.
    
    DougO

    
    re .120
    
    >All the evidence, in fact, is on my side.  

    I thought that this whole thing was about there being _no_ evidence.
    Least wise none that stood up to your, admittedly layman's, 
    scrutiny.  You've yet to provide any evidence other than your,
    admitttedly layman's, opinion.

    At the risk of repeating myself, you sure are a persistent cuss 'bout
    providing us with an excellent example.  Although I doubt that that
    is your intent.

    fred();

    > I thought that this whole thing was about there being _no_ evidence.
       
    None (well, an insufficiency) to support your contention that men
    suffer in great numbers from violence from women.
    
    Certainly there are a plethora of studies to support my positions with
    regard to how many women suffer from violence at the hands of men.
    
    DougO

    And men going off to war does not count in the suffering contest?
    
    

    eh?  Do women send men off to war?  No, other men do.
    
    DougO

    eh.... there was a country... in the middle east who had sent theirs
    off to war....... hint...... And they were some of the bloody-est
    battles know to modern warfare.

    re .122
    
>    Certainly there are a plethora of studies to support my positions with
>    regard to how many women suffer from violence at the hands of men.
    
    I thought that we were talking about women's violence agains men.
    
    Hey, how many tims have I said that I do not deny this is happening
    and is a bad thing?  However, I thought we'd already covered this 
    business of these studies only showing violence against women.
    There definately _is_ bias in those studies.  To start with only
    _women_ are studied/surveyed looking specifically for violence
    against women.
    
    fred();

 .117> because my feminist beliefs are an integrated part of my identity.

       DougO, how does a feminist male handle Birth Control?  

       Please take this as a serious question...

    Depends on if you're having sex or not...with most of the women of 
    my acquaintance, it never comes up.
    
    Ahem ;-).  Ah, that's kind of a personal question, you know?  The
    details are between me and my partner.  In general, I can say that we
    figured out a method that works for us, we split the expenses and
    inconveniences thereof as best we can.  We're planning to have a child
    together in a few years, so a more permanent solution is currently out
    of bounds.  But I think I'll get a vasectomy when that's appropriate.
    
    So far it works for us.
    
    DougO

    The answer to DougOs question about birth is that it is not you sperm
    and her egg to union into the common child. The child is chattel, it is
    her body, she can terminate life or bring to term life with out you. 

    Thanks for answering...  Didn't mean for the question to be so personal
    (seem to have this problem in this file) but I believe I got what I was
    looking for...  I have extrapolated from your reply as well as previous
    statements that although you support a woman's right to abort, you would
    never be the "cause" for a woman to seek an abortion, i.e., you belong to
    the pro-choice movement but are personally pro-life in your relationship
    with your lover?

    Please don't take this as "baiting".  I seek a level of profundity which
    I feel you can offer...

.112>    You posit some invisible bias, such that these people who are

Not invisible, just not generally acknowledged.

>    researchers in the field all suffer from the same blindness and somehow

Not all, just a large and influential fraction.

>    cannot put together studies that would demonstrate something so obvious

Not cannot, just do not in large numbers.

>    that even we untrained casual readers in the field can discuss it.

We can at least discuss a possibility.  It is often the case that outsiders to a
field can see more possibilities than those immersed in it.

>    It doesn't meet the minimum standards for believability for me, Wally.
>    Sorry.

Don't apologize.  I don't care whether it meets your standards or not.

I do find it interesting that a situation you find unbelievable has occurred
many times in the sciences.  This suggests to me that the standards you are now
applying are unreasonable.

I could offer several examples, but I'll content myself with one that you have
used already: the inability of the researh community to acknowledge domestic
violence by men against women until the evidence became overwhelming.

I also find it interesting that your title for this note is 

> as I said previously

suggesting that you had discussed this alternative.  In .71 you grant the
possibility only to wave a few red herrings at it.  Then you wrote .85 as though
the alternative did not exist.  Do you really imagine that ideas that do not
meet your standards cease to exist?

.120>    discussing.  All the evidence, in fact, is on my side.  But you 

.122> None (well, an insufficiency) to support your contention that men
>    suffer in great numbers from violence from women.

An interesting shift.  First all the evidence supports Doug, then there is not
enough evidence.  I'll agree that not enough evidence has been brought forward. 
This may be because the relevant evidence has not yet been gathered.  Or it may
be because the problem does not exist.  I don't know.
    
>    Certainly there are a plethora of studies to support my positions with
>    regard to how many women suffer from violence at the hands of men.

I agree that women suffer great violence from men.  I don't recall anybody here
disagreeing with that position.

As I understand it, the disagreement is about violence done to men by women.

    > An interesting shift.  First all the evidence supports Doug, then
    > there is not enough evidence. 
    
    Talk about red herrings!  The first statement was in reference to 
    all the evidence about domestic violence, including that large body
    studying violence done to women; the second statement was explicitly
    about violence done to men by women.  Two different situations, no
    shift necessary, merely an ability to follow along.
    
    DougO

    > suggesting that you had discussed this alternative.  In .71 you grant
    > the possibility only to wave a few red herrings at it.
    
    Nonsense.  I discussed the possibility. You disagree with my
    assessment, fine, but even you admit I had discussed the possibility.
    
    > Do you really imagine that ideas that do not meet your standards cease
    > to exist?
    
    Do try to follow.
    
    DougO

    > although you support a woman's right to abort, you would never be 
    > the "cause" for a woman to seek an abortion, i.e., you belong to the
    > pro-choice movement but are personally pro-life in your relationship
    > with your lover?
      
    Um...that isn't how I would describe it, no.  We are planning to have a
    child together, eventually.  If we happen to get pregnant sooner, we'll
    decide at that time whether to continue or not.  I suspect we would, but
    that decision isn't yet made.  But describing this as 'pro-life' when
    that word has such distasteful associations with religious fanatics is
    simply unacceptable to me, personally, so I wouldn't use that word.
    
    DougO

     WOW, guess I was wrong BIG TIME...

  >> I suspect we would, but that decision isn't yet made.

     It's kind of a fundamental Life decision, wouldn't you say?  I'm
     kind of surprised that a feminist Male would consider having to subject
     his mate to needing an abortion...

     Suppose every Male was indoctrinated early-on that they had the power
     to free Women from the "need for abortion"...  Do you think Women would
     go for such a concept or that this would be too patriarchal?  Wouldn't
     these Men be the real feminists?  This is NOT so far-fetched as it
     sounds - it seems to be happening over in Holland.
     
  >> simply unacceptable to me, personally, so I wouldn't use that word.

     What's a good word for you?

    > a feminist Male would consider having to subject his mate to needing
    > an abortion...
    
    Oh, like it would be *my* decision?  We would make that determination
    together.  I really think we would continue the pregnancy, but who
    knows?
    
    > Suppose every Male was indoctrinated early-on that they had the power
    > to free Women from the "need for abortion"...  Do you think Women would
    > go for such a concept or that this would be too patriarchal?  Wouldn't
    > these Men be the real feminists?  This is NOT so far-fetched as it
    > sounds - it seems to be happening over in Holland.
    
    I don't think I follow you.  What power do men have that frees women
    from the need for abortion?  When a woman is simply not ready, herself,
    to be a mother, to carry a pregnancy to term, for any of a million
    reasons, there's precious little 'power' a man has to change that 
    situation.  Is there?
    
    >     What's a good word for you?
    
    pro-choice.
    
    DougO
    
    

  > Oh, like it would be *my* decision?

    Doug, you're the one making the choice whether or not to impregnate Her.

  > We would make that determination together.

    You may think so but it will be Her subjected to the invasive surgical
    procedure known as abortion...  Sure, you may even be there to hold her
    hand as they scrape out Her insides, but, it is still the price _Women_
    pay when Men abdicate their choice in the matter.

  > What power do men have that frees women from the need for abortion?

    Poets may call it something else but for our discussion lets call it the
    Power of Restraint.  We, as Men, exercise it every day - it's probably
    the one thing that keeps us from readily killing/harming each other.
    To exercise the power is to Care...  If you Care you make choices,
    beforehand, about what your actions may do to other people.  As Men, we
    need to do a better job in this area.  Just as strong as the power to
    impregnate is the ability to Care that we NOT impregnate at inopportune
    times and thus cause the need for abortion...

  > pro-choice.
    
    To abdicate Your choice is to force the responsibility for a choice onto
    Women.  

    I'm still not following you.  Are you suggesting I use my power to
    refrain from sex to avoid the risk of impregnating her?  She'd throw me
    out of the house, sex is something she happens to enjoy and expect in
    our relationship, and that certainly isn't an issue for me.  So we
    practise birth control responsibly, and in over five years we haven't
    had any pregnancies.  Now you ask, what would we do if it happened?
    We'd figure it out then.  I certainly can't just unilaterally quit
    engaging in the sexual aspect of our relationship and expect it not to
    have an effect, and I wouldn't even want to.
    
    You have a really weird point of view, from where I sit.
    
    DougO

.133>    Talk about red herrings!  The first statement was in reference to 
>    all the evidence about domestic violence, including that large body
>    studying violence done to women; the second statement was explicitly
>    about violence done to men by women.  Two different situations, no
>    shift necessary, merely an ability to follow along.

Simple logic, DougO.  If all the evidence about domestic violence were on your
side, there would be no evidence supporting an alternative, like the evidence in
155.0.  In .122 you first typed "none", which would follow from your statement
in .120, and then wisely shifted your ground.

>    Nonsense.  I discussed the possibility. You disagree with my
>    assessment, fine, but even you admit I had discussed the possibility.

I did not "admit" anything, I stated that you had granted the possibility.  And
that you wrote .85 as if the alternative did not exist.
    
>    Do try to follow.
    
I seem to be following your replies better than you are.  Do you really imagine
that if you deprecate my intelligence I will curl up and go away?

All of this is more distraction, of course.  

Do you have anything relevant to say about

.132> As I understand it, the disagreement is about violence done to men by 
> women.

which is the subject I am interested in discussing.

    >I seem to be following your replies better than you are. 
    
    Except for the slight problem you have in distinguishing between the
    different subjects between the statements you picked out of .120 and
    .122.  Hey, I know what I was talking about, and the errors you impute
    are your own invention.
    
    > All of this is more distraction, of course.
    
    So perhaps you should drop it.
    
    >Do you have anything relevant to say about
    >
    >.132> As I understand it, the disagreement is about violence done to
    >    > men by women.
    
    There certainly isn't a single disagreement.  We've disagreed about the
    amount of evidence regarding that topic.  We've disagreed about the
    reasons for the lack of evidence, you positing [whatever you posited
    that you won't even recognize in whatever other words I offer so we
    can't discuss it, and I tried three times] and I, not finding your
    position discussable, left with the alternative of accepting it
    outright or rejecting it outright, so I  reject it.  Then, there's the
    disagreement about what is a responsible position to take with regard
    to the data gap; and since we can't even manage to discuss your theory
    about bias in the research community, we haven't got much room to go
    forward on this, either.
    
    Well, nice not discussing this with you, Wally, maybe some other topic
    will present itself such that we can not discuss with each other again.
    
    DougO

I believe that there is a growing number of women being violent toward men, 
but they are far more devious about it.  They tend to use a lot of mental cruelty 
towards their men, naging and nagging wanting more and more, until the poor men finally 
snaps or they can provide no more so get kickedout onto the street.  I believe that 
there is limited evidence of cruelty by women against men because or reasons mention 
earlier in this note.  Nobody believes that women can be vile, devious and wicked. As 
also mentioned in an earlier note, if a man claims to be the battered partner they are 
laughed at.
(Women are such sweet downtrodden little things). Women seem to be innocent until 
proved innocent.  It seems that men started to get the worst of things from the 
day that Eve first tempted Adam with the apple in the Garden of Eden.
They have skilfully manouvered society into the position of believing that they are the 
weaker sex. WRONG' they get away with it because they are downtrodden women, under 
stress, or suffer from pr-menstrual tension.   I think that men have a lot to put up 
with and believe that the law would treat them as "EQUALS"  in this modern EQUAL 
society where women are always crying out to be treated as EQUALS.

Jean

 

    >             <<< Note 155.142 by WOTVAX::PC0383::herleyj >>>
    >                         -< On the mans side >-
    >
    >
    >I believe that there is a growing number of women being violent toward
    >men,  but they are far more devious about it.  They tend to use a lot
    >of mental cruelty  towards their men, naging and nagging wanting more
    >and more, until the poor men finally  snaps or they can provide no more
    >so get kickedout onto the street.  I believe that  there is limited
    >evidence of cruelty by women against men because or reasons mention 
    >earlier in this note.  Nobody believes that women can be vile, devious
    >and wicked. As  also mentioned in an earlier note, if a man claims to
    >be the battered partner they are  laughed at.
    >
    >(Women are such sweet downtrodden little things). Women seem to be
    >innocent until  proved innocent.  It seems that men started to get the
    >worst of things from the  day that Eve first tempted Adam with the
    >apple in the Garden of Eden. They have skilfully manouvered society
    >into the position of believing that they are the  weaker sex. WRONG'
    >they get away with it because they are downtrodden women, under 
    >stress, or suffer from pr-menstrual tension.   I think that men have a
    >lot to put up  with and believe that the law would treat them as
    >"EQUALS"  in this modern EQUAL  society where women are always crying
    >out to be treated as EQUALS.
    >
    >Jean

	I'm glad someone finally agrees with me (and she happens to be a woman
	too !!! ... psssst - where have you been all my life ???)

	Anyways, in earlier replies I was trying to make the point that 
	MENTAL cruelty is not being recognized here and in woman-man 
	relationships. Yet, I believe, it does as much damage as a slap in
	the face or a kick in the shins.

	Chuck

    Yet, there are no shelters, no refuge from a woman who does either
    physical or mental abuse to a man. There are no studies because there
    is no money to make the studies to the contrar of DougO.

    I don't recall offering an opinion on whether there is sufficient money
    to fund the studies, George.
    
    DougO

RE: .147

DougO:
	Granted, violence by men against women is a serious issue that must
continue to be dealt with.  However, I take it from your responses, that
violence by women against men does not happen.  Or at least, if it does it is
not so frequent as to be a matter of concern.  Please explain to me if I am off
base in my read of your notes, why I am, and exactly how you stand on the issue
of violence against men by women.  After all that is the topic of this
discussion.

Mikey

    There is a case in the Exeter court system. Mr. Paul Langdon who killed
    his wife. Paul was constantly beaten, and many have seen the beatings
    in town. But, this is such a rare case. Right dougo.
    
    

    > Granted, violence by men against women is a serious issue that must
    > continue to be dealt with. 
    
    right.
    
    > However, I take it from your responses, that violence by women
    > against men does not happen. Or at least, if it does it is not so
    > frequent as to be a matter of concern.
    
    No, that isn't what I think.
    
    > Please explain to me if I am off base in my read of your notes, why 
    > I am, and exactly how you stand on the issue of violence against men 
    > by women. 
    
    Again?  You know that if I do that it'll just give Fred() an excuse to
    come moanin' at me again.  I'd thought my past explanations about where
    I see the bigger problems and what I choose to be concerned about were
    complete enough to answer your question.  Feel free to go re-read my
    previous answers; .17 addresses these fairly well, I think.
    
    DougO

    >But, this is such a rare case. Right dougo.
    
    right.
    
    DougO

    
    re .150
    
    Groan!
    fred();

    Modern Cultures (men and women) have finaly come to a consensus that
    it is wrong for men to use force to dominate and abuse their women.
    
    It took a long time, but it finaly happened, men who use force are
    now moraly and legally prosecuted and punished for such un-human
    behavior...
    
    The question is now how long it will take society (men and women)
    to come to terms that it is also wrong for women to use force of
    whatever kind (physical violence, mental abuse, "woman's viles")
    to dominate or abuse their men.
    
    Personaly I expect it to take at least another two generations
    (i.e. 50 years) minimum.
    
    				...
    
    Its not that women are more violent then men is that they can get
    away with it easier and with lesser consequences then a man could.
    Even in cases of major physical violence, ... as for the rest
    
    ... what is wrong with a woman using her tongue and her other
    assets to make her man's life miserable, isn't it only RIGHT!!!
    Afterall he doesn't make as much money as he should, doesn't do
    as many house chores as he should, doesn't like the same TV 
    programs as she does, and to top it all all he thinks about is
    sex and more sex nothing but sex, besides he IS insulting
    ALWAYS looking at other women, as if she wasn't enough.  (-; (-: 
    
    Gil
    

    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    * Woman with HIV charged with attempted murder in molestation case
    
    
    PALM BAY, Fla. -- An HIV-infected woman was charged with attempted murder 
    after she admitted during a police wiretap to having sex with an 11-year-
    old boy who played Little League baseball with her son.
    
    Stacey Renee Jacobs, 32, was arrested June 7 on a molestation charge of
    sexual battery on a child younger than 12, after the boy told his mother 
    of an alleged encounter with her.
    
    After tests revealed she was infected with the AIDS virus, she was charged 
    with attempted second-degree murder late last month. Jacobs is being held 
    without bail in a county jail in the central part of the state.
    
    It won't be known for months whether the youngster is infected with HIV.
    
    The boy plays baseball in a league in nearby Melbourne, and police fear
    he may not be the only victim, said police spokesman Gus Williams.
    
    "She may have befriended other young men. If parents have children in
    that league, they need to sit down with their children and find out the 
    level of their relationship with her," Williams said.
    
    The boy came forward in late May, after developing a rash doctors thought 
    might have been a venereal disease. It turned out to be a urinary tract 
    infection, but the boy told his mother Jacobs invited him to her home 
    May 23 and they had sex, according to a police affidavit.
    
    Investigators tapped Jacobs' telephone and had the boy call her again.
    During the call, she admitted to the sexual encounter and invited the boy 
    over again, police said.
    
    Evidence in the case indicates Jacobs knew she had the virus but the boy 
    did not, said prosecutor Meryl Allawas McCormick. Jacobs has prior 
    convictions for battery and making obscene or harassing phone calls.
    
                                                 

    Hope she goes to jail for a very long time.

       Hopes she never gets out!
    
     
    
    
    
    
    
    
       

    
    This is one area that I have no sympathy for women _or_ men who would
    do such a thing.  Throw away the key!
    
    fred();

    
    Agreed! 

    A cell next to the good teacher from Philips Academy.. Mr. Cobbs...
    

    Why wasn't she charged with statutory rape?  
    
    Sue Cow
    
    (a read only till now) 

    Sue!!! How the heck are you!!! Some entries in Flex I know. Good to see
    yha here!!:)
    
    Cruely Yours!