Conference turris::womannotes-v3

    	Someone asked about how women help to raise non-violent males?

    	When my son was a little boy in pre-school, he learned (from other
    	boys, I would presume) that wrassling endlessly was one of the most
    	fun things he could do.  So he started wrassling with me at home.

    	Once Ryan started wrassling, he was tireless and persistent.  He 
    	wrassled to win!  The only way to stop Ryan (ultimately) was to 
    	overpower him, which was frustrating enough for him to yell mean 
    	things and throw wild temper tantrums.  (Eventually, he would cry.)  

    	Losing was rough.  It wasn't how he was taught by other boys to end
    	the game, evidently.

    	Soon, Ryan began trying to wrassle every adult friend of mine who
    	walked into our house (with the same end results each time.)  An
    	adult would have to overpower him (to keep anyone from getting hurt,) 
    	and Ryan would yell, have a tantrum, then cry.

    	Routine stuff for a 4 year old, true, but I started worrying about
    	the day that he would grow bigger than I am (overpowering ME instead,
    	at some point.) It turned out later that he reached my height by 10.

    	So I imposed a ban on wrassling in my home.  Whenever he would try
    	to wrassle me, I would quietly inform him that it wasn't allowed.
    	When others came over, I let them know (up front!) that wrassling
    	with Ryan in any way was not allowed.

    	Ryan was still encouraged to play in other ways - we spent a lot
    	of time outdoors (with and without other adults and children,) but
    	the wrassling stopped.  No matter how many times Ryan tried to engage
    	me in it, I refused.  We still talked, built endless Lego models
    	together, swam, went to the park and the zoo, played and did a 
    	myriad of other things together, but wrassling wasn't one of them.

    	It was amazing how the yelling, the wild temper tantrums, and the
    	crying were drastically reduced at about the same time.  If Ryan was
    	upset about something, he would discuss it with me, but he would
    	remain calm.  We started talking things out more (even at 4 and 5
    	years old.)  He also stopped fighting so much on the playground.

    	Today, the guy is a 6'3" giant [compared to me] teenager, and we still 
    	talk things out.  We get mad occasionally, but the worst he ever does
    	is to slam an occasional door.  (Meanwhile, he tells me that we get
    	along better than all his friends get along with their parents.)

    	Ryan could probably defend himself if physically attacked (through
    	sheer size, if nothing else.)  Even at 190 lbs, the kid looks like
    	a Wheaties advertisement.  I would imagine he could overpower most
    	opponents (without doing much damage to them.)

    	He tells me quite specifically, though, that he does NOT believe in
    	violence!  He fantasizes about it occasionally when he gets mad at
    	some other guy, but he doesn't follow through.  He paces, then reads
    	a Science Fiction book.  

    	In no way do I consider non-violence to be detrimental to the psyche
    	of a male child.  It hasn't been harmful to Ryan, as far as I can see.

    (Please bear with me; I'll eventually get to my point.)
    
    Many years ago, I got to thinking about the path to racial equality,
    and how long it would take, with `the best will in the world'.  My
    subconscious popped up with the answer, "three generations".  (In this
    culture, a generation is about twenty to twenty-five years.)  A few
    years later, I did the same thing about sexual equality.  This time
    my subconscious offered "five generations".
    
    At this point I think that `the best will in the world' may be
    present in the struggle against racism, but I don't think that it
    is present in the struggle against sexism.  Non-Caucasians may well
    think that it isn't present in the struggle against racism, either.
    I can't tell from my viewpoint.  (Gloom.)  (Brood.)
    
    (Recovering.)  Anyhow, I perceive male violence against women as
    what sociologists call "overdetermined behavior".  I gather (I'm
    no sociologist nor do I pl-- forget it.) that "overdetermined behavior"
    is layers upon layers of reasons, justifications, excuses, and
    rationalizations for following a particular course of action which
    is nevertheless morally unacceptable.  The example used was slavery.
    
    		An aside:  An objective (culture-independent)
    		method of determining moral unacceptability was
    		not given.  I like the idea of doing a mental
    		mirror swap between overlings and underlings,
    		and see if the overlings agree that this new
    		set-up is fair to them.
    
    Therefore, I see the process of reducing male violence [against
    women] as a lengthy process of chipping off and grinding away
    these `determinations' from our society.  At first, we may only
    be able to take off small bits, and then bigger ones as we get
    past the flinty outer layer -- or -- we may be able to remove
    great awkward chunks at the beginning and then smaller, more
    cunningly camoflaged bits later.
    
    In either case, it is firstly a multigenerational project, secondly
    an iterative process (which always tries the patience), and thirdly
    one which will have to move more and more carefully as time goes on,
    because we do not want to remove any/much of the good stuff as we
    get closer to the good core of people.
    
    Please don't let us be discouraged because we won't live to see
    the end of this process; let us instead be encouraged by every
    bit of progress we do see.  Now maybe I can see past this note
    to my first step....
    
    						Ann B.

	Could any woman who've had to deal with male violence, particularly
domestic, describe the male in terms of his expectations of women.

	The reason I ask is that I once read an article which made the case
that too often males carry around unrealistic expectations as to what female
partners can actually provide them...and when these expectations are frustrated
and unfullfilled the males have trouble dealing with it all. Sometimes violence
is the result.

	Growing up I came to have all sorts of expectations about what women
would do for me in my life. I admit readily that somehow I was never educated
as to what I should do for them; other than perhaps bringing home a pay check.

	I, like many males, was never educated about emotional giving so I had
to learn quickly when it came to female partners and children. Something was
really wrong with my upbringing, I really thought Donna Reed was out there
somewhere just waiting for a guy like me! (don't laugh) I thought she'd be
thrilled to wait on me, have my kids and see to all my needs. It sure was 
painful righting those expectations. Painful but beneficial.

	Any thoughts on the role of hamful expectations?

			-D-

	

    Which one would you like to hear about?
    
    Dad was the nicest, most considerate, most loving person until...
    'Course, IF he remembered what he did, he was always terribly sorry
    (really.)  He was an opened minded man who believed in women's
    equality.
    
    Greg (ex-hubby) SAID he wanted a wife that was a equal partner.
    What he wanted was another mom (dinner on the table at 5, have
    nothing to do at home but watch TV).  Basically he was a good man
    but he didn't have a realistic perspective on life.
    
    And then there was Steve, probably the single most intelligent person
    i've ever met.  Like Dad, he was the epitome of a "feminist man"
    until something went wrong... and like Dad, what went wrong didn't
    have to have anything to do with the object of his violence.  I
    was just "convenient" and beating up you wife/girlfriend is much
    more acceptable than confronting the actual source of your frustration.
    
    One real interesting thing about these guys is that none of them,
    were violent outside of the home.  None of them were into agressive
    sports.  None of them had a tendency to get into street fights.
    They were all physically quite different, from quite different
    backgrounds, good/peaceful family lives, and were quite well educated.
    
    Next question.
    
    -maureen
    
    

	resp 95.4

	Maureen...thanks, that couldn't have been too easy.

	I, like too many men, have had and still have very unrealistic
	expectations around 'women'.

	The times when I've been really irrational with the women in my life
	I could usually trace it to the frustration of these expectations.

	Strangely enough I wouldn't react or communicate when the frustration 
	would occur...I would control it on a rational level..seething on a
	emotional level until some trivial thing would cause me to lose it.
	This was non physical...but verbally very abusive and stupid.

	Men have to come clean and face these really stupid expectations or
	be willing to find themselves repeating destructive cycles with their
	loved ones.

	You notice I not being too specific here...I'm frankly embarassed about
	some of the notions I carry and find it difficult in relating them.

	I know the men out there know what I'm talking about though. I also feel
	they contibute to the male side of domestic violence. 

				-D-	

    Ken,
    
    You wrote, "Too often women savor the moment and it happens in this
    file when they can cheap shot a man."
    
    I would be interested in having you point out any such cases in
    this file, past or future.  I think I am not the only person who
    would be interested.
    
    							Ann B.

    Ken, the mods would be interested in having you point out those cases
    too.  VERY interested.  
    
    						=maggie

<          <<< Note 95.5 by SALEM::KUPTON "I Love Being a Turtle!!!" >>>
<
<    	Now...let me say this. I have witnessed females being extremely
<    agressive toward men. Literally baiting them. They seem to love
<    being in a situation where they are safe from retaliation either
<    verbally or physically. Then they smirk or make a gesture that can't
<    be responded to. 
<    
<    	Right or wrong, when a person is provoked, the provokee gets
<    his/her just reward.
    
My God, this scares me.  This reminds me so intensely of the men who rape.
"She deserved it."  "She asked for it."  "She had it coming."

If a person, male or female, verbally baits another person, the best response
is silence.  If you feel *some* response is called for, then the response 
should also be verbal (and not abusive).  Violence is *never* called for
under these circumstances.  In my opinion, no person should *ever* hit another
person except in self-defense.

         Carol

    re: .10 Was that really necessary? (talking about *another* person's
    comment in *another* conference and then laughing.  You weren't even
    addressing him, merely "giggling" behind his back).
    
    You may not agree with him but he was stating the way he sees (has seen)
    things.  It worries me too but instead of the tone of your reply (sorry
    if I misread) surely you could have pointed out to him that it is not
    always the case (try a little education).
    I too have seen women deliberately provoking men who they KNOW won't
    physically strike back.  It does happen.
    I realise it is the attitude you are concerned about, try changing it,
    don't laugh at it.  IT will only make it worse.
    
    I am not expressing this very well but it is the end of a long, hard
    week.
    
    		Holly

Sometimes, ya gotta laugh, or you'll cry Holly. I feel that way about this sort
of thing myself.
	Mez

    Mods, .10 is a swell example.

	Holly, you raise an excellent point!

	Too often in this notes conference the options of educating,
questioning respectfully, meaningfully sharing and digging a little
deeper for insights are passed over for mean spirited digs. These
are numerous, done by both men and women, and work to set a negative tone
overall. There seems to be a great number of us, men and women , with
axes to grind in this notes file.

	Earlier in the male violence string I felt moved to compliment a
woman who had offered insights in re-directing aggression in the raising
of young males. As a father I recognized the validity of what she had to
say....and tried to say so. Someone then took the opportunity to question
why it was that I needed common-sense written down. Of all the possible
responses...this mean spirited dig...was the best that this person could
offer at that time. I know it was beneath that person...that person is,
I'm sure, very bright and capable but choose to withhold their better nature
from the notesfile and instead contributed to the more strident and angry
current moving through it and undermining it (my opinion).

	This notes file is a great opportunity for women to educate men in
areas where men sorely need it (myself included). It will take great discipline
and intelligence to rise to this opportunity;particularly considering how hurt
some of the contributors have been in the past by men. I hope we're up to
the opportunity.

	Platoon the movie had a lot to say about male violence. In the
beginning of it a saying was rendered: 'Hell is the impossibility of reason'.
Reason should become the high probability in this notes file.

		-d-

    RE .14 -< The impossibility of reason? >-
    
    WADR, some folks here are trying to deal with their own
    non-reasonable viewpoints. Some people can reason themselves
    numb, and do so. (It's a great way to avoid overwhelming
    emotions.) Ultimately you have to feel what you feel, and
    express those feelings, however reasonable or unreasonable 
    those feelings may seem.
    And sometimes you can only express those feelings in humor.

    This conference is not devoted solely to reason, the reasonable,
    and reasoning. It can be a place of healing *if people can express
    their feelings without being nit-picked every time they do so.*

    
    re: .14
    
>	This notes file is a great opportunity for women to educate men in
>areas where men sorely need it (myself included). It will take great discipline
>and intelligence to rise to this opportunity;particularly considering how hurt
>some of the contributors have been in the past by men. I hope we're up to
>the opportunity.
    
    I would like to amend with the following (not meaning to upset, cause
    pain, or otherwise harm - just intending to clarify): 
    
    This notesfile is a great opportunity for men to be educated if they
    desire in the areas of how women think, feel, intuit, and are.  But this
    notesfile does not exist to educate men, it exists to discuss topics of
    interest to women.  Some women are trying very hard to answer questions
    from men sometimes - because they feel that by doing so the sum of
    humanity in the world may be improved by better human interaction.  
    Some of the women here may not really want to undertake education of
    men, some women may be tired of trying to do so and not being heard,
    some women here are honestly not really interested in men at all.  I
    don't think anyone "must" rise to the opportunity to educate men.  It's
    not really a requirement here because men aren't the focus of this
    notesfile.  Women are.
    
    -Jody
    

    I want to go back to the 'baiting' comments.  I believe that it
    is true that women will occasionally bait men.  I have been guilty
    of it myself, although it isn't something I'm particularly proud
    of and I believe that I have since learned better argument tactics.
    It can be *extremely* difficult for the 'baitee' not to respond
    physically, particularly when the 'baitee' has fewer verbal skills
    than the 'baiter'.
    
    Violence is properly *not condoned* in our society.  But anger and
    frustration are very real emotions which need acceptable outlets.
    Women *on average* are more verbal than men are *on average* - for
    whatever reasons.  Surprisingly, I believe that this gives women
    the advantage when engaged in 'vigorous disagreement' on some topic.
    We can yell and scream and generally 'jump up and down' and even
    if the man is also in this mode, we will probably 'win'.  So the
    question and issue for me becomes one of how to engage in 'vigorous
    disagreement' and still provide a reasonably level playing field
    to the debaters *without* having the less talented debater feel
    forced into violence in order to win.
    
    Alison

	To ride on the back of Jody's note.

	The only person who can educate one is the one looking for
	the education.  

	How to learn 101.

	 10	BEGIN

	100	Listen to speaker

	200	Ask pertinent question

	300	Listen to answer

	400	Ask yourself if you understand the answer

	410		if not ask yourself why you don't

	420		try to give yourself an answer

	430		reflect on this answer

	440		if you now understand GOTO 100

	500	Ask the speaker your answer

	600	Listen to the response

	700	GOTO 400

	800	END

	You will notice that most of the work is done by the one
	wishing to learn not the one with the knowledge already.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Knowledge is not something that can
			be given, it needs to be worked at.

    	Thanks for the clarity. You're right to point out that this notes
    file doesn't exist just to educate men...I didn't mean to imply that..
    just that it is one of its opportunities. Perhaps a better option in
    some instances to educate than demean.
    
    
    		-d-

Anyone else notice how quickly the topic changed from "male violence" to 
the subject of *women's* interactions ("baiting", education) with *men*?

    Plenty of times, I see men sulk, complain, insist that something rather
    ridiculous is very important, insist that they're right when they're
    obviously wrong, and generally (verbally) insist on making their
    partners at least as miserable as they are.  I also see some men, in
    cheerier moods, routinely insult their partners' intelligence, taste,
    and habits in their partners' presence.  And there's the conversational
    technique known as "just yanking yer chain" that men tend to use
    between themselves...
    
    Are any of these what people mean by "baiting", minus the immediate
    threat of a punch in the face by the "baited" partner?
    
    Ray

	re: 95.12 (Mez)       -< or lock yourself in a cage >-

	> Sometimes, ya gotta laugh, or you'll cry Holly. 
	> I feel that way about this sort of thing myself.

	Well, Mez_the_Insightful, I guess you just explained my 
	reaction of last week when my lawyer called me to say that
	the man whom I convicted of first degree rape and several
	counts of a&b (who was released on parole last November
	after serving about 3 years) had been picked up for questioning
	on "suspicion of assault."  (this is not in this state)

	My first reaction was to laugh.  I guess that's kind of a 
	sick thing to do on hearing that...

						    nancy b.

Lord, I wish we had a better way of dealing with this stuff.
I just don't understand humans like that (if not him, I'm sure there _are_
repeat offenders who I don't understand).
	Mez

    
    re 95.17   
    
    I thought you made an interesting point in your note (if I understood
    you correctly) that maybe because women tend to develop more verbal
    skills than men, they have an advantage in verbal debates, and so men
    might be moved to violence because they can't win otherwise.
    I'm probably way oversimplifying your point, but that's what I got
    from this line.
    
    >>It can be *extremely* difficult for the 'baitee' not to respond
    >>physically, particularly when the 'baitee' has fewer verbal skills
    >>than the 'baiter'.
    
    It occurs to me, though, that one of the things that I find really
    unfair in this world is that for women, the threat of male violence
    is always present.  I didn't realize how afraid I had been until I
    took a self-defense course.  I think that in any verbal exchange (or at 
    least in many of them) between a man and a woman, the man always has
    an edge because of his physical presence, because of that
    always-looming threat that he could do violence to the woman.  I think
    that threat (though it may often be subconscious) of violence is what's
    behind those physical power plays that men sometimes engage in, like
    "power touching" or standing too close or even raising their voices.  I
    know that I cringe when someone (especially a man) yells at me, because
    I think I may be hit.  
    
    So maybe we're making the same point but from different angles.  I
    think I heard you saying that maybe some men feel they have to resort
    to violence because they can't win a verbal argument, and I'm
    suggesting that even if a woman wins or is winning a verbal argument,
    she might "lose" anyway because she is threatened into backing down,
    perhaps not directly but more likely indirectly because of the
    omni-present danger that violent males (who are often indistinguishable from
    non-violent males) pose to women.
    
    Justine

    Justine -
    
    Yes, you understood my point.  Yes, I believe that we both are 
    getting to the same point from different sides.  I have also 
    stood in the shoes of backing down from an argument because of 
    fear of escalating violence.  (Most of the men I am attracted to 
    will be 5" or more taller than me, and at least 75 lbs heavier.  
    I won't win in any physical fight with them.)
    
    Thank you.
    
    Alison

    re: Baitee 'fighting' back
    
    I understand what the 'baitee' goes through.  I was one for many years
    as I grew up.  My verbal skills were probably average, but one of my
    siblings skills was at a masters level.  There was no way I could
    'best' this person in an argument,  or even hold my own.  There could
    be incontestable physical proof that I was 'right' and they were wrong,
    and yet I would 'lose' any argument.  And so I would hit this person.
    As hard as I could.  Trying to return the pain I was given. As many
    times as I could.
    
    However, I was a pre-teen.  And I learned, (painfully!) that physical
    violence is NOT an acceptable answer  when verbal baiting occurs.
    
    So while I can truely sympathize with what they must feel, (utter
    helplessness, NO WAY POSSIBLE to 'win' this argument), I can never
    condone someone responding to words with physical violence.
    
    Comments that 'she can expect to be hit if she keeps on baiting like
    that' are just a cop-out.  If I as a child could learn not to hit
    someone out of fustration,  then adults can (and SHOULD) learn it to.
    
    And comments by the 'respectable' elements in this society, those who
    proclaim that they personally are not violent, but that those who
    'incite' violence, should expect what they get, just encourage and
    foster an enviroment that encourages the very violence they say they
    abhor.
    
    ps.. this is not focused at any specific individual

    
    
    When did using force to respond to verbal attacks become acceptable?
    
    Back in the old west, (at least as far as our romaticized images go..)
    when there was a gun fight, the two men would face each other in the
    street, waiting for the other to 'draw first'.  In fact, if person A
    drew before person B, and B killed A, it was a 'fair fight'.  But if A
    killed B, it was "murder",  and A was a coward.
    
    Back in colonial times, duals were common.  'Gentlemen' NEVER used 
    their fists to settle an argument, fist fighting was 'common'. 
    Instead, they had their 'seconds' call on the opponents 'seconds' to
    arrange a meeting.  Very civilized.
    
    In midevil times, the knights had jousting tourments.
    
    In all of these traditions, there were acceptable rules and procedures. 
    The common thread was that a 'man' did not respond to insults, etc with
    immediate physical retailiation; instead there were formal and
    recognized 'approved' methods for protecting their 'honor'.
    
    So when did it become acceptable to respond to verbal insults with
    physical force?
    
    Or is it only acceptable when the force is directed at females?

What I keep hearing here (and from WOMEN!) is that *women* have the 
responsibility to keep silent so they won't be beaten, rather than saying
that *men* have the responsibility to control their violence. 

Some of the last few notes have not said this, but I am appalled at
the notes which have.

       Carol

    Carol, that's more or less what I've been hearing too; seems every 
    time we get on this general subject it gets refocused very quickly 
    to women's responsibilities towards men.

    In one sense, I guess that's good, because not by discussing how
    not to provoke violence we're focusing on something we as women
    can do, but it does get a little hollow after a while.  Controlling
    male violence is *not* a women's responsibility.  Controlling
    violent impulses is the responsibility of the person experiencing
    them.

    I wouldn't go so far as to say that I've heard anyone implying that 
    "*women* have the responsibility to keep silent so they won't be beaten", 
    though.

    Reminds me of the old "boys will be boys" argument...

	Sharon

    
    
    I agree that some people can be (seemingly) moved to violence by the
    words of another.  (I say seemingly, because we can't really know
    another's motivation.  Battered women I have talked to have listed a
    wide variety of things that could set their batterer off).  And
    a logical extension of that idea is this:  if you don't want to get hit,
    don't use language that could provoke violence.  OK, so that seems
    true.  But it makes me nervous, because it places some if not half or
    more of the responsibility for the violence on the victim  -- it looks 
    at the violent act as a shared thing.  I dare say that if a man punches 
    or kicks his wife because she swore at him or said mean things to him, 
    he is probably capable of finding another "reason" to assault her as well.
    
    I think that our (society's) tendency to blame the victim happens in
    small steps.  I think it can start with a simple statement like, if you
    don't want to get hit, don't  "goad someone into an attack, verbally"
    (95.30, WAHOO::LEVESQUE).  I think it's probably a pretty small step
    from there to look at a woman who has been beaten and wonder if
    maybe she was one of the ones who provoked the violence.  Maybe if
    she hadn't nagged him or criticized him so much.  No one deserves to be
    hit (I agree that violence is only appropriate in self defense or
    defense of another).  To my mind the word "provoke" has connotations of
    deserving in it.   She provoked him, what did she expect?  If you say
    terrible things to me, I have the right to walk out the door, but I
    don't have the right to hit you, and if I did, it wouldn't be your
    fault -- no matter what you said.
    
    Justine                                                  

    As one of those who is probably being interpreted as 'if she goaded
    him, violence is ok', I want to clear up the misconception.  I am
    most emphatically saying that it is NOT OK to use violence, ever,
    regardless of perceived cause/baiting/goading/whatever.  What I
    *am* asking is somewhat different.
    
    When one is on the receiving end of baiting/goading/whatever, and
    angry and frustrated and 'losing' -- what are ACCEPTABLE alternatives
    to violence?
    
    How can we encourage the ones who resort to violence *now* to resort
    to the ACCEPTABLE alternatives in the future?
    
    Alison

    re .33 Walk away.

      re:95.33  alison
    
    > When one is on the receiving end of baiting/goading/whatever, and     
    > angry and frustrated and 'losing' -- what are ACCEPTABLE alternatives 
    > to violence?                                                          
    
    
    	Hitting the wall.  Going for walks.  LOOOOONG walks.  Screaming
    	at the top of your lungs.  Breaking dinner plates.  Taking Karate,
    	or judo, or the like.  Chopping wood. Swimming.  Football. Breaking
    	everything you can get your hands on. (non-human, of course)
    
    	In short, any physical exercise that won't hurt another.  Or
    	anything  that removes you from the current situation.  Failling
    	this, any method that displays your anger or fustration, *SHORT 
    	OF PHYSICAL VIOLENCE*  (ie, shouting, breaking plates, etc.)
    
    	Destruction of property is wrong, but *MUCH* less wrong than 
    	destruction of a person.
    
    	My mother taught both myself & my brother this important fact:
    
    	"Regardless of who did what first, the one who resorted to physical
    	violence is *TOTALLY* to blame.  If you are in the right, don't	
    	blow it by hitting."
    
    	Tempers must run in my family.  I'm attempting to teach this to 
    	my 5 yr old niece now.  Already she understands "the only time you
    	ever hit someone is if they are hurting you & you can't run away
    	first."  Now, if only she can remember it when she & her sister
    	start arguing....

    Some men hell bent on battering a woman will do so regardless of what's
    been said to him. He will then turn around and, albeit unconsciously,
    find a reason to convince the victim that it was all her fault.
    
    Sometimes I think the word "woman" must derive from foreign tongue that
    translates to "one who feels guilt".
    
    Justine, Carol, 
    
    I agree with what you've said 100%. Thanks. Now I won't have to write
    it!
    
    Kate
    

    Especially given -.1, I'll try to get this response out 'fore its time
    and 'fore the Cramps show.  Please supply an incubator, if you got one.
    
    I'm making this loud:  IT'S NOT A CHOICE BETWEEN SNEAKY FEMALE VERBAL
    ABUSE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD MALE PHYSICAL ABUSE.  I've never heard from a
    victim of physical violence (me, nondomestic; others, female and male
    victims of domestic violence) who didn't get verbal violence first. 
    People who abuse their spouses seem to go to their fists, palms,
    knives, blunt instuments, only after being assured (to their own
    satisfaction) that their abusive words didn't teach the victims a sharp
    enough lesson. 
    
    Don't people in this string remember the recent shtick about men's
    combative conversational style?  (I'm not asking that it be reprised;
    just that it be remembered.)  Guys say things to gals all the time
    which would count as fighting words if they felt like fighting.  As an
    excessively verbal sort, I don't think that fighting words are so evil
    - but they sure aren't the territory of one sex. 
    
    Ray

    Mike,
    The very act of causing someone physical abuse IS psycological abuse.
    
    Kate

    
    Just to clarify....
    As others have stated NO violence is ever justified. 
    It is NEVER the victim's "fault".
    There is no excuse for physical retaliation when you can't "win"
    verbally.
    Baiting, by both men and women to men and women does happen.
    The ONLY time I have felt I may be subject to a physical attack is when
    I have been baiting someone.  I was trying to provoke.
    That doesn't apply to everyone.
    All of the above is from my own experience and is my own opinion.
    
    I agree this note has moved slightly away from the original topic.  But
    as this is a 'women's interest file' surely our interest lies in "What
    can we do about this?".  It is in our own best interest to educate
    others who we think may have a "dangerous" or lopsided opinion of
    us.  It doesn't mean we take responsibility.
    
    Yes, sometimes we have to laugh or else we'll cry.  What I saw was an
    excellent opportunity to try to modify (or widen) someone's views slip 
    away.  Had I been the noter in question (95.8) I would have felt
    ridiculed and perhaps had all my negative opinions re-inforced.  I only
    wished to point out what could have been said instead.  Perhaps, like
    the hot buttons note we need somewhere we can go to laugh without
    offending or ridiculing a particular noter. 
    
    				Holly
    
    PS. THis is in response to a number of replies back.  Living in
    Australia you tend to come in when everyone has finished talking or is
    moving on the something else!  

    Can we put "baiting" and "mental abuse" in another string?  I'd
    really like to see discussion on male violence continue.
    
    Those first few notes that talked about men's expectations of women and
    what they would do for men were beginning to explore a very relevant
    avenue.  I've seen the exact same thing in men in my life and even in
    movies, books, etc.  Men often become frustrated when what they believed 
    women were supposed to be, ("thrilled" to wait on them, have their kids,
    etc), turns out to be not what women really are.  And now we're getting
    into the very touchy area of the media, pornography, etc.  Parents do
    teach their children a few things but what does the media continue to
    tell men about women?  
    
    Female "baiting" and male violence is not the direct cause and effect
    situation women are told to believe and men are allowed, (sometimes
    encouraged), to believe.   Many men are baited who don't do violence.  
    And many men who do violence are not baited.  So the reasons are
    somewhat more complex than simple cause and effect and that's what
    makes it so frustrating to see this string take the time to explore
    this illusory avenue.
    
    Our culture "sets up" men to be disappointed in real women and, as a 
    consequence, sets up real women to feel the brunt of that disappointment.
    The beauty queen and the selfless doormat can stave this off for a
    little while because they meet more of men's expectations than other 
    women.  The selfless beauty queen of course, is tops.  We call her Miss
    America,(Miss Cornfield, Miss Penzoil, Miss New Jersey, ad nauseum), and 
    we honor her and hold her up as an example to all women.  Example of 
    what?  Of what men want.  Her selflessness is demonstrated in her tears
    at winning, ("Little old ME?") rather than allowing her to hold her
    sceptre high and scream, "YeeHA - I DID it!!!"  What women want is oddly 
    missing from our "honor rolls".
    
    "The nympho who owns a chain of pizza parlors" - "the deaf and dumb 
    blonde who owns a liquor store", and so on are the jokes that reveal the 
    expectations of the feminine ideal that men subconsciously hold. 
    
    I don't believe that the noter who thought Donna Reed was really out 
    there somewhere is unique at all.  I think most men in this culture, 
    (since I don't know many other cultures), have a warped sense of what 
    women are.  And that's a result not only of Playboy and the Donna Reed 
    Show et al, but also of the culture's firm control on female self ex-
    pression.  In a world mostly devoid of women being who they are and 
    doing what they want, (such as ours), the only images of women that 
    exist are the media ones.  In that respect, every woman is set up to BE 
    a disappointment in that she's only a real person, with all that entails,
    just like her guy is. (And women spend an inordinate amount of time and 
    money on makeup and fashion in order to mask the "inherently" disap-
    pointing qualities about themselves).  Our culture tends to see women as 
    something other than real persons.  Remember the old jokes about women 
    not sweating, they glow?  And how about the one where Farrah Fawcett, 
    (or pick any current super-human female), doesn't fart, she goes up to 
    heaven and rings a little bell.  These jokes are based in man's desire 
    to believe that women, the worthwhile ones anyway, are truly on pedes-
    tals, as opposed to men who burp and fart with pride, revelling in their 
    mere humanness.  And it is the presence of that pedestal which separates 
    the centerfold from the girlfriend, and Donna Reed from the wife.
    
    No one you spend any amount of time with can retain that super-human
    pedestal image for very long.  Sooner or later, even Julia Roberts is
    going to have a raging case of diarrhea or a supreme bad mood.  But our
    media tells men that these things don't happen to "worthy" women.  And 
    sooner or later, man's disappointment that he only has a human while 
    "other guys" have Donna Reed or Farrah or Paulina, (women whose reality 
    is easily eclipsed by a pedestal simply because the men don't know them),
    is going to surface.  
    
    The *responses* to this disappointment are what vary between men.  On 
    the innocuous end of the scale are "girlwatching" and collecting stacks 
    of skin mags which reassure men that "pedestal women" really do exist 
    somewhere, so there is hope.  On the other end of the scale is the
    violence directed at the woman who is the direct cause of his disappoint-
    ment.  Her baiting and/or his drinking are really irrelevant.

    regarding vilence and victims provocation...
    
    baited or not, domestic violence is inexcusable - unless you're something
    less than human.
    
    Also, "baiting" is in the mind of the beholder.  Many abusers (my
    dad included) have a way of thinking up a good excuse for beating
    on someone after the fact.  What's interesting is that most abusers
    have enough control over their victims to get them to believe
    	1) the "reason" actually did exist (even if it didn't)
    			and
    	2) the victim DESERVED to be beaten for this reason
    
    Abuse is not just a physical act (just like rape is not just a sexual
    act).  This is a game of control - of how much power you can have
    over another human being.  Exercise is not going to cure a person
    with abusive tendencies.
    
    -maureen
    

    >	If mental abuse can lead to male violence, then (IMO) it belongs
        in a discussion on male violence.
    
    I quite agree.  However, the note you entered on mental abuse did not 
    deal with one "leading to" the other.  It said:
    
    >	Abuse comes in at least 2 flavors, mental and physical.
    >	While one does not beget the other, it's important to remember
    >   just how hurting and painful mental abuse can be.

    Now rather than just "interacting" here, Mike, why don't you think
    about the subjects, decide on your point of view, communicate it and
    stand behind it?  That would be so much more productive.

    Mike,
    
    Since you wrote, "...mental abuse can lead to male violence..."
    without in any way indicating that *male* mental abuse segues into
    male violence, although you do not seem to disagree with that
    contention, it then *appears* that you are being inconsistant.
    
    							Ann B.

    	I think that any aspect of violence belongs in this string.
    Violence doesn't just happen. It must be triggered. If that trigger
    is a person being 'baited' then it is an integral partner to the
    violence. People who commit any crime have a "reason". People who
    commit violent acts have a "reason". There's a diffrence in the
    word "reason" that I'm using. There may be a complex physcological
    disfunction that causes a physical reaction and it manifests itself
    in the form of wife beating, granny bashing, animal cruelty.
    
    	re: Baiting and finding and proving.....
    
    	I won't pull any select examples of baiting from =wn= toward
    males. Different people would interpret it differently and surely
    the women (majority) would defend to the death that the wording
    was not baited. In other cases man have baited back and the verbal
    exchange becomes extracted notes of huge proportions on both sides.
    These have been alluded to in the farewell string. Because of differing
    opions of baiting etc. I think it would be inappropriate to try
    to offer an example.....
    
    Ken

    Ken,
    
    Violence may not "just happen", but when it is produced by a violent
    person, it is not necessarily "triggered" by anything that the
    Law's traditional Reasonable Man would accept as a bona fide, or
    as a proximate, cause.  To discuss events which only Unreasonable
    People would consider "cause" does no service to the topic.
    
    Am I correct in stating that you have made a bald assertion, and
    now refuse to proffer any evidence in its defense?  And that you
    do so on the grounds that your assertion, absent any proof, is
    nonetheless correct?
    
    							Ann B.

> I think that any aspect of violence belongs in this string.

Any aspect of male violence or any aspect of violence in general?  I would
agree with the former, not with the latter.

>    Violence doesn't just happen. It must be triggered. If that trigger
>    is a person being 'baited' then it is an integral partner to the
>    violence. 

This is just what my note proposes to examine, tho.  Is it the catalyst or
is it the underlying predisposition that allows violence to occur?  Don't 
both have to be there?  And if violence is wrong no matter how verbally 
provoked you are, (which I believe it is),  then isn't spending time 
discussing the catalyst pointless?  What difference does it make who
baits or how much?  Unless one believes that a man can sometimes be justi-
fied in becoming violent toward a woman in response to words, then baiting
is a non-issue.

The choice a man makes of how to respond to being baited, (or how to respond 
to his favorite team losing or to his not getting the job he wanted, etc), I 
think is the heart of the matter.  Why do some men choose violence and some 
not?  What are the common themes, (male, cultural, etc), that exist to allow
one man to react violently to a perceived baiting and another not?  Clearly
not ALL men think violence is wrong, not even most.  Why not?  Aside from
self defense, most women believe all violence is bad.  Men tend to break down 
violence into "good" and "bad", into "acceptable" and "non-acceptable".  Why? 
What are some of the influences that allow for "good" or "acceptable" violence?
Remember we haven't been a culture of heathens, protecting and winning by
brute force, for quite some time.  Violence now is pretty much vestigial
so why isn't it going the way of the appendix?

The modern kind of violence that is specifically male comes from other, more 
current reasoning and can't be explained away by calling them wackos since it 
is very prevalent and since it occurs from otherwise normal and reasonable 
men.  

Baiting, spending money on a dress, cooking the wrong food, getting home
late from work - all of these are triggers to the man who is *already*
predisposed to violence.  As other noters have stated, the man who will be 
violent will find an excuse.  Discussing these excuses does nothing to promote 
understanding of the men who use them to justify violence.  They only focus on 
what we already know - the things that set these men off.  Since these things
don't set ALL men off, what is it that predisposes some men in the first place?
I believe it is NOT baiting or cooking the wrong food or spending money on a
new dress.  One noter suggested frustration from unmet, unrealistic expec-
tations.  I think that's a great start so I expanded on that to outline how 
many, if not MOST men, really do have culturally created and culturally 
supported, unrealistic expectations about women which more often than not,
go unmet.

And lest anyone think I'm being one-sided, here  I'll stray just a 
bit in order to show I'm not simply promoting a "man-bad" theory. Women
too have been given unrealistic expectations about the oppposite sex. Many
women are learning or have learned the hard way tho, that marriage isn't 
forever, that love doesn't conquer all, that Prince Charming doesn't exist.  
The difference is, women are forced to face these ridiculous expectations and 
come to terms with reality.  The kids have to get fed somehow.  A woman has to 
pay  her rent if Prince Charming hasn't yet come along to do it.  Women
generally can't afford the luxury of fantasy.  

Men, on the other hand have their fantasies supported throughout their
lives in tandem with reality.  It never has to be replaced.  They still have 
Miss America, Miss Cornfield, Miss July and Pretty Woman long after women 
have learned there is no Prince Charming because the car breaks down, the kid 
is hungry, her paltry salary won't cover the rent, and her wonderful last date
never called her again after assuring her he would.

It is this seeming unfairness in men's lives - the difference between the 
women they get and the women they thought they'd get *who appear to be 
still out there* - that is the source of their frustration.  If we hadn't
been brought up on Donna Reed and June Cleaver, men wouldn't have the ex-
pectation that having a woman means having a delicious dinner on the table 
every night.  So if it doesn't happen, because some real women can't
cook, some hate to, some would rather write software, etc, there would be
no frustration because there would be no unmet expectations. (Actually,
Donna Reed was an actress and for all anyone knows, probably couldn't boil 
water and didn't want to!  Donna Stone was the mythical perfect wife she 
played.  So even Donna Reed doesn't exist!)
    
When frustration is created at unmet expectations, is the wife at fault or 
is Donna Reed/Stone, (and the media that promotes her) at fault?  Unfortunately,
at the time of frustration, only the wife and her awful or absent dinner is
present.  So what does he do?  Some men grumble, some storm out, some
lash out and a few wonderful creatures order out or put on an apron
themselves.  But nearly every one of them somehow believes the dinner
should have been there for him and should have been wonderful.  And
that expectation, created intentionally by the fantasies of the men who 
run the media, coupled with a culture that does not allow for full
female self-expression, is at the heart of a culture of men who have
strange at best, dangerous at worst, beliefs about what "real" or "worthy" 
or "ideal" women "should" be and which makes them wonder what is "wrong"
with the one they have and allows some men to believe they have the right
or even the *duty*, (as it is written in some religions and some archaic
laws), to "correct" their woman and bring her more in line with fantasy.
    
(Whew - long sentence.)
     
Male violence is the grownup version of a little boy's tantrum at not having 
the same toys he believes, (because his media MAKES him believe), Johnnie next 
door has.  After all, SOMEBODY's sleeping with sweet, non-sweating, Donna-on-
the-pedestal who always makes wonderful food, doesn't spend money and is NEVER 
late.                                
    

    re: .51  Ken
    Ken, I hear what you are saying.  
    
    However, I don't think you are really thinking about how what you are
    saying SOUNDS to other people, particularly people here who have been
    victimized by domestic violence.
    
    I have not, myself.
    
    But I would really hesitate, if I were you, before I started using
    words like "integral partner" and violent acts being committed because
    of a "reason".  All that makes it SOUND like you think that the person
    who commits the violence is a reasonable person who is baited beyond
    endurance into it by someone who knows full well what they are
    inciting.  You do mention the _possiblity_ of a "complex psychological
    disfunction that causes a physical reaction" that manifests itself in
    physical cruelty, but the fact that it's tacked on the very end of the
    paragraph and that it's apparently involuntary on the violent person's
    part makes it clear to me that your basic viewpoint is that people are
    only violent if they're goaded into it or have a bizarre psychological
    problem.  From the readings I've done on domestic violence, I'd
    disagree.
    
    It also makes it LOOK (and I really hesitate to say this -- is this
    what you mean?) that you feel that the person being hurt shares the
    responsibility with the hurter.  I know about codependency.  But it
    looks like you are going farther along in this -- are you saying that
    the person being hit is EQUALLY responsible as the hitter, in most
    cases, because they are "baiting"?  I'm not sure where you are drawing
    the boundaries.  The boundaries I'm seeing you draw are very much in
    the violent person's favor...am I reading you correctly??
    
    I don't think that violence just happens.  However, I don't think that
    the "trigger," if there is one, is usually the action of the person who
    is hurt; it's usually (in all the reading I've done about it) due to an
    INTERNAL TRIGGER in the violent person.  The person who is hurt has
    very little to do with what causes the violent person to explode.
    Reason has nothing to do with it.  Outright "baiting" by the person who
    is hurt is rarely the "cause" for the kinds of chronic violence I think
    most people think of when domestic violence is mentioned.
    
    The discussions in this string about internal triggers (women who do
    not live up to the societal/pedestal ideal) are probably closer to the
    real causes of domestic violence than talking about the external
    excuses that violent people use to justify their actions to themselves
    and their victims. 
    
    Pam

    
    re:.53
    brilliant, as always, my dear
    

    re: Pam...
    
    Thank you for the clarafication. I'm not the best at the written
    word and often I appear somewhat hostile in my responses when I'm
    trying emphatically to show a different point of view.
    
    I will withdraw from further banter in this string and file. Again
    the women in this file have attacked a point of view they don't
    like and to continue will shed no further light on the subject.
    
    Rather than gain allies, this file continually makes enemies. Rather
    than educate, it now says "topics of interest to women" (only).
    Well, you've come closer to having your women only file by eliminating
    this male. 
    
    Ken

    Ken, we're all sorry you saw a differing view, (specifically
    by noters you perceive to be more articulate than you, which I 
    disagree with, by the way), as a personal attack on you.  I 
    don't think any of us saw your views, however different, as anything 
    like that.  I doubt we're just more magnanimous than you are.  Pam 
    restated what she thought you said and in doing so, was quite 
    solicitous of and gentle with your feelings.  Perhaps others have
    simply spent more time examining this subject and are more confident 
    in the strength of their convictions.  At any rate, you were an in-
    teresting noter.  But see ya' later.

	"The widespread violence against women in all segments of society 
	can be linked to the ideas so deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian ethos 
	that female sexuality is evil."

           		-- Elinor W. Gadon, The Once & Future Goddess: 
 					    A Symbol for Out Time, 1989

    It is  my  understanding that the law recognizes "fighting words",
    that  is,  words  which  are such a provocation that a "reasonable
    man"  is  justified in physically attacking the one who said them.
    Many  people  here  are  arguing  that  no amount of baiting is an
    acceptable  excuse  for  violence,  and I tend to agree. Together,
    these statements imply a need for change in the law. (I think this
    is part of common law, but I'm not sure.)

    Perhaps this  is  something  that  pepole  should be telling their
    representatives.

--David

    Interesting, David!  I've heard the expression, "Dem's fightin'
    words!", too but I never figured it was "recognized" by law.
    How recognized is it?  Does anyone know of any case in which verbal 
    abuse was a successful defense?  Even physical abuse has failed as
    a defense when wives have used it to justify doing violence to their
    husbands, (although I know it's been successful on rare occasions, as 
    well).  But my question applies to man-to-man as well as woman-to-
    man verbal abuse.

    I'm afraid that I don't have the reference here (It's a book by my
    grandfather,   called  "Dangerous  Words",  which  also  discussed
    slander and libel.) If I remember correctly, the standard examples
    are defamatory comments, particularly about the person's mother or
    sister.  (Ever  notice  the  amount  of  slander of the form "Your
    mother wears army boots"?).

--David

    
    re -2.  I believe a threat to do harm would be treated differently
    from "fightin' words", which I think of as something insulting.
    
    Justine

    A threat of violence, coupled with the perceived capability to
    commit same, is grounds for defense.
    
    Insults by themselves aren't. However, the court may take into
    consideration that certain insults may cause the Reasonable
    Man to temporarily become unreasonable. (For instance, if I
    called you ______, you might forget that you are non-violent
    long enough to punch my nose. The court might well rule that
    I had one coming.) In other words, the courts may recognize 
    provocation. And *everybody* can be provoked. 
    
    This does *not* imply that anyone has the right to go looking
    for provocation. And in a court, the stronger person is held
    to a standard that says, in effect, "Thou shalt let it slide."
    This applies to armed citizens, karate experts, and larger
    stronger persons (read 'most males') when insulted by smaller,
    weaker persons (read 'most females').

    ~Inciting to riot does not make rioting excusable.~
    
    						-- Robert A. Heinlein

    
    re .9
    
    self defense?
    
    I know a guy who tried to defend himself by pushing his wife 
    away from him, and was arrested 3 days later for felony assault
    and spend 5 days in jail (he was arrested on xmas eve).
    
    I know another guy whose wife came at him with a knive, so he 
    struck her. He likewize went to jail despite being injured with 
    the knife.
    
    I tried to keep my ex from stealing my car keys by pushing her out
    of my car (I had just dropped off my kid). She calles the cops, I
    have to face charges and attorney fees, and no one even concedes that
    what she did was wrong. 
    
    So what we are really talking about is getting even..or better
    

	Help me make a violent man here....

	Take him as a child and culturally condition him for violence. Use
the games he will play and their accompanying toys; also movies and television
will be very instrumental in slowly molding his more aggressive impulses; don't
leave the school supported sports programs out (use the WIN emphasis there) 
these also will be very helpful in further molding his aggression.

	This will not be enough though. In order to get him to be violent toward
women we will have to go much further. Some of the aggression builders may even
give him healthy release...so we'll need something more.

	If we can give him a lot of expectations around women that can't 
possibly be fulfilled...yeah that with the aggressiveness might just do it.
There's got to be a great number of myths about womankind we can use here;
there easy to instill and perpetuate I'm told.

	Still even this may not be enough...what if he works it out somehow
rationally and emotionally?

	 Lets also make him believe its weakness to 'FEEL'; give him
no healthy emotional outlets...thats the ticket! Now with the built in tendency
towards violence, coupled with the unrealistic expectations and adding the
twist of unreleased internalized frustrations and angers we've almost completed
the model.

	Hmmm...How about we make the times so turbulent and rapid social changes
so predominant that he'll always feel inadequate; like he's standing on quick-
sand.

	Have we done enough?


One last thing, this is probably common experience for American Males,
why aren't we all raping and beating.....most of us aren't...what 
distinguishes the few...something is left out of my recipe. Help me out

	-D-

    One thing that you may also want to include is giving him a reason to
    hate women.  Like they can't fulfill his needs, or they're never there
    when you need them, or they're heartbreakers, or they're taking care of
    their own needs when they should be taking care of his.....like they're
    never as subservient as they should be or maybe they're sneaking around
    with other men behind his back when they say they're at the doctors...
    
    -Jody
    

>                     <<< Note 95.69 by AKOFIN::MACMILLAN >>>
>                          -< Making that violent man >-
>
>	Help me make a violent man here....
>
>	.
>	.
>	.
>	Have we done enough?
>
>
>One last thing, this is probably common experience for American Males,
>why aren't we all raping and beating.....most of us aren't...what 
>distinguishes the few...something is left out of my recipe. Help me out
>
>	-D-

	This would prove that this particular form of violence is not 
	inherent in males (or females) but needs to be learned and 
	reinforced for most individuals and even then the pull of the 
	non-violent reaction is stronger and is most predominate.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |

    RE .69 Give him a philosophy that says it is better to act 
    impulsively, on the spur of the moment, on his *every* whim
    and feeling, than to consider the consequences of his actions. 
    
    She makes him mad, he hits. Never mind that their relationship goes
    down the toilet, never mind that he reduces himself to an animal
    level, to brutality. Didn't that satisfy ? At least for the moment?
    

    Peggy, that's beautiful!  The pull of non-violence being stronger and
    all.  This justifies women's words AND men's!
    
    The goddess is all-seeing indeed.

	Those are great additions to the model....I begining to see more
of this brute. I'm a little nervous because he's looking a lot like me
in too many ways. Any of you guys out there squirming a little...I am.

	How about I glue this piece to him....

	When he's emotive he loses all hooks back to his rational being,
	maybe because he's had so little emotional education and very
	few cultural incentives to refining his emotive self. I mean he's
	not even educated enough this way to keep at least one cognitive
	foot in rational space...

	When someone is like this very little will set him off and only
	the expenditure of the 'mal event energy' brings him around again.
	Either that or the victims sucessful flight or defense.

	I'm willing to bet most women who've been assaulted by spouses
	or other loved ones, just couldn't believe how much that person
	lost it at the time or how insignificant the trigger was.

	Here CUJO, here boy!

	-D-

    We've had a lot of discussion on the violence of our time as an agent
    in the violence between the sexes. I'm thinking that "our time" for all
    it's media glorified violence is still not so bad as previous eras.

    War and raiding and the exploits of the males that wage them have
    always been the subject of heroic poems and songs and stories. It was
    in fact the televising of the Viet Nam war that brought home the less
    than heroic facts and reality of war. And a nation recoiled in horror.

    I think we view the violence we see as extrodinary because we are one
    of the first generations not to see it as a daily part of life. The
    average peasant, man or woman, lived a rather brutal life in most eras.
    Even the rich led lives of fear of disease, war, pestilence, a bad
    harvest, robbery, you name it.

    It's more noticable when it happens now because, at last, it is not the
    norm. liesl

    Re: .69
    
    How about the addition of a role model?  What if his father beat up his
    mother and taught him it was OK to do this to women?

	re .69

>>        Help me make a violent man here....
	.
	.
	.
>>        Have we done enough?

	Don't forget to teach him that individuals are not
	responsible for their actions, that instead "society"
	and/or the victim is to blame.

	Dan

    Starting with -D-'s note in .69, there's been some powerful insights
    into societal pressures toward violence ... wow.
    
    Pam

	I've read over the latest responses and I feel like I'm in the company
of some very bright and insightful people. That always feels good to me....
does that work for you?

	let's consider adding the 'sexual' component to our violent man
model. Would he have effective govenors around his sexual behavior? I
think not. Would somehow and somewhere along the line his sexuality moved
away from loving toward anger? Maybe, like myself, no adult took him aside
to teach him that a womans body was NOT some kind of dirty joke....thereby
leaving his sexual education to the whims of adolescent sniggering and
twisted inuendo's that occupy the majority of a male adolescents experience.

	I mean we should give him the old Vulcan (sorry Spock) fever at an 
early age and offer no guidance or hope of help with this his all-consuming
drive. Yeah...that really fleshes out the beast in him! That should give him
some rage and frustration that we could cross wire his sexuality with.

	Alright Igor...now all we need is some lightening!


	-D-	

	Is it within the context of this string to 'model' the victim?

	Would this produce any insights?

	What about the legal system that does so little for the victim
	and deals so ineffectually with the violent aggressor?

	Are these questions proper within this strings context, or are
	we done with this discussion?

	-D-

	
	.

  To the recipe for creating this violent individual, you might want
  to add (American) Society's repeatedly demonstrated rewards for the
  tactics of violence:

    o The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still
      considered appropriate actions, even though they primarily
      affected non-combatants;

    o The invasions of Granada and Panama are still considered
      appropriate responses, even though the latter seems to
      have mostly been in reaction to Noriega's cries of "Nyah
      nyah, can't catch me!";

    o The architect of the attack on Panama was also the person
      who responded "I guess we kicked a little ass" after his
      debate with Geraldine Ferraro.  As I recall, Society has
      amply rewarded him, and Society in this case included a
      great many female as well as male voters;

    o Military heroes are greatly honored by this society.
      Witness Oliver North.  And it is one of the points
      of military discipline to learn to do anything
      (including killing others) for no reason apparent to
      you, the grunt;

    o The death penalty is widely called for by the citizenry;

    o The poor are starved to death;

    o The list goes on endlessly.

                                   Atlant

    This note has been promoted as a vehicle for proposing alternatives
    and solutions.  So far, I've seen very few alternatives or solutions
    and an awful lot of male-bashing and america-bashing.
    
    What >positive< impact is this note intendet to have??
    
    fred();

    Positive impact?  Does every note have to have a positive impact? 
    There is discussion, sharing of ideas, exploration of concepts,
    definition of terms - there is a shared thought process.
    
    I mean, it'd be nice if we could do noting like court cases.
    Introduce the topic
    Resolve it
    Case dismissed
    
    but it's seldom that easy
    
    -Jody
    

    re .83
    You know, fred, I'm not sure there are any real alternatives or
    solutions.  Sometimes it seems all we (women) can do is bash back.
    
    
    
    On another topic...
    
    Did anyone here watch Shattered Dreams last night? Did that bring
    back memories!
    
    Susan, my SO, couldn't believe people actually behaved like that.
    I guess she figured abuse was just a word, and didn't associate
    the reality of the bruises or violence.
    
    Another friend (male) had a completely different reaction.  He figured
    that if she couldn't get up the guts to leave, then she deserved
    to be beaten.  Interesting reaction, isn't it?  Especially when
    my friend voices (albeit not happily) that he sees the potential
    for abusive actions in himself. And here I thought I had at least on 
    enlightened male friend.

    Neither person really understood the violence/remorse/good treatment
    cycle, or how a woman could actually come to believe she was no
    good and deserved the treatment.  Too be fair, they didn't understand
    the man's lack of control either.  
    
    -maureen_the_cynic

  Okay, in case you didn't C what I mean, here it is explicitly
  spelled out:

    1. Violence (on a national scale) obviously pays off for
       the folks who employ it.  This positively reinforces
       their behavior, causing the continuation of that behavior.

    2. So, if you like to help end violence, one way to help
       would be to quit rewarding the national-scale offenders.


  The message might even trickle down to the small-scale offenders.

                                   Atlant

  Here's another situation and a possible tactical response:

    Situation:

      American popular media earns great sums of money purveying
      violence.  Witness "Rambo, Part 10^9", "Friday the 13th,
      Part 2*10^9", the stories selected for the nightly news,
      or, in fact, television in general.


    Possible tactic:

      Quit attending movies that have violence as their main appeal.
      Quit watching those programs on TV.  (This includes the weekly
      CBS made-for-TV violence-against-women slasher movie.)  Tell
      people (including your friends but especially TV stations and
      the sponsors of the programs) all about what you've decided to do.

                                   Atlant    

    re:  .83  fred();
    
    >This note has been promoted as a vehicle for proposing alternatives
    >and solutions.  
    
    By whom?  I don't get that from the topic title.  It appears to be 
    exploring the reasons for male violence, (which you have to do before 
    you can explore "alternatives and solutions").  Are you saying you 
    already know the reasons for and understand the dynamics of male 
    violence such that now you want to move onto alternatives and solutions? 
    That's great, but you're way ahead of us.  Why don't you take the time 
    to bring is to your level and share with us what you think are the 
    reasons.  And once that's settled, we CAN move on to discussing 
    alternatives and solutions.
    
    >So far, I've seen very few alternatives or solutions
    >and an awful lot of male-bashing and america-bashing.
    
    So what?  The topic is here because WE see an awfull lot of woman-
    bashing.  Firsthand.  With the blood, the scars, the bruises and the 
    crushed spirits to prove it.  Are you looking for a contest to 
    see who's bashed the hardest - women who bleed or men who read? 
    
    I'd prefer we stop ALL bashing but if woman bashing continues unabated, 
    (and it does), than I say a little counter-bashing belongs on the agenda 
    too.  You DO think a level playing field is fair, don't you??  
    
    So what are we supposed to do?  Just take it and "make nice"?  Unless 
    of course it's believed that women are supposed to have "higher" 
    standards, (than those base men?), and deal with the concrete problems 
    of being raped, beaten and killed by their lovers in more philosophical
    or cerebral ways, or in any way at all that lets 'em blow off a little 
    steam without actually having any effect on the problem!  You don't 
    think that way, do you?
    
    >What >positive< impact is this note intendet to have??
    
    I can't speak for the note's intent since I didn't start it, but 
    it's quite clear that as the string has progressed, it has shown women 
    and men how prevalent woman-abuse is and how although people through the 
    ages have been taught that it's usually the man's right and/or the 
    woman's fault, it is neither! 
    
    And I don't know what you've always thought about the problem, but
    society is just beginning to realize that men beat up on women for the
    same reason a dog licks his balls - because they can.
    
    And on a personal level, this string just might set off a light in some
    victim's head and realize that she isn't being abused because she's a 
    lousy cook or a "bad girl" or whatever, (which I'm sure her abuser 
    accuses her of to justify his infantile self-control).  And that, my
    friend, is as positive as you can get.
                                
    I rest my case.
    

    I always find the term "male-bashing" slightly amusing, in an
    ironic sort of way. 
    
    Women get bashed. Really, truly, bashed. Bopped. Smacked. Punched.
    Knifed. Shot. Killed. By men.
    
    So we talk about this and suddenly, magically, *we* are bashers.
    
    Amazing.
    
    
    

    
    re:.89,.90
    great stuff!
    

    Maybe it's time to stop with the temper tantrum, stop waiting
    for someone to "rescue poor little me", and start trying to
    come up with some realistic solutions for he problem.
    
    All this continuous hate-orgy and one sided hypocrisy will 
    accomplish is to ailenate those that you need to be working
    with to fix the real problem. 
    
    fred();

    
    	RE: .93  Fred
    
    	Directing hysterical outbursts and tantrums (not to mention hate
    	orgies) towards the women in this topic isn't the answer, Fred.
    
    	If you can't keep yourself from being overrun by your own emotions
    	and illogical reactions to this subject, then perhaps you should
    	avoid reading these notes.
    

    And if you're interested in solutions, let's hear some!
    
    I'm all ears....
    
    -Jody
    

    in re .93
    
    a first step to solving a problem is defining it...and to define
    it we often need to share the problem with others, and to find
    that our problem is not uniquely alone..
    
    is it wrong for people to go through the sharing/defining stage
    before they start on the solution stage?
    
    bj

	We've taken a look at a 'model' of a violent male. We've described
him mostly by depicting cultural influences. There has been something said
about his psychology.

	Some of us in this string have made inferences from the model as to
long term (child rearing) and short term solutions. Hence, I suppose, the
value of a model, however incomplete.

	I'm very curious to see if the victim can be modeled. Some years back
Black Belt magazine profiled female victims of criminal assault. They preceded
in a very interesting way by relating a study done using violent offenders
in various tests to determine how they selected victims. A great deal of the
'victim selection' process was unconscious apparently depending upon variables
such as body language, environmental awareness and such.

	A number of instructors made great use of the models developed in the
design of their rape and assault defense courses. I'm sure a great number of
women may have recognized their own potential victimization in the results of
the study and took appropriate action.

	Could the same positive results be forthcoming from modeling victims
of the type of violence contained within this string? Who the hell does she 
tend to be? Are there some common mind sets/attitudes which make it difficult
for her to break off destructive relationships...are there cultural ones such
as her financial state or the number of children she might have to support on
her own if her relationship dissolved?

	Thoughts?

	-D-

	
	.

    	RE: .98  -D-
    
    	> I'm very curious to see if the victim can be modeled. 
    
    	At this point, I'd like to remind everyone (in case some have 
    	forgotten) that there are victims of domestic violence in this 
    	conference who have already identified themselves as such (as 
    	opposed to the fact that, to my knowledge, no one has come 
    	forward to be identified as a violent offender.)
    
    	>Could the same positive results be forthcoming from modeling victims
	>of the type of violence contained within this string? Who the hell 
    	>does she tend to be? Are there some common mind sets/attitudes which 
    	>make it difficult for her to break off destructive relationships...
    
    	Speculating about some of these things could be potentially destructive
    	to those who have spoken about having been violently abused.  I'd like
    	to ask everyone to please proceed with extreme caution before anyone
    	starts generalizing about the emotions and/or mindsets of the victims.
    
    	A better way to go about this would be to listen to what such victims
    	have to say for themselves (without burdening these individuals with
    	speculations that could end up doing more harm than good.)
    
    	Does this sound ok?

    	Certainly, to proceed cognizant of others feelings, would be fine
    by me. You're so right to point that out. this is a painful and
    difficult subject to discuss; it does no one any good to burden it
    with insensitivity.
    
    -D-

    re last few--interesting--we might accomplish something here yet.
    
    re .100 Susan.
    
   *	Speculating about some of these things could be potentially destructive
   * 	to those who have spoken about having been violently abused.  I'd like
   * 	to ask everyone to please proceed with extreme caution before anyone
   * 	starts generalizing about the emotions and/or mindsets of the victims.
    
        Not meant to be an attack, but I think we should dispense with
        *all* generalizations.
    
   *   	A better way to go about this would be to listen to what such victims
   * 	have to say for themselves (without burdening these individuals with
   * 	speculations that could end up doing more harm than good.)
    
    	Are you afraid to look at yourself and even the *possibility*
    	that you *may* have some things to change.  
    
        Being right doesn't mean much when you're dead.  I'm not 
        interested in *blame*.  I'm intersted in what *can* be done.  
        I'm not interested in some utopian *wouldn't it be nice if* 
        that will likely not happen in our lifetime.  I'm interested 
        in the *real world*--nasty as it is.
    
   *	Does this sound ok?
    
    	*Everything* must be on the table.  Leaving out a major section
        of the equasion will handicap the solution.  You may well be right 
        about *many* things you have said,  but history shows that being 
        right doesn't protect you from much. 
    
    	fred();

    
    re: .102

>    	*Everything* must be on the table.  Leaving out a major section
>        of the equasion will handicap the solution.  You may well be right 
>        about *many* things you have said,  but history shows that being 
>        right doesn't protect you from much. 
    
    
    I honestly don't think we can come up with a hard-and-fast solution,
    although we can conjecture and discuss possible solutions.  And
    womannotes, historically, has never sacrificed sensitivity in abuse
    (child abuse, physical abuse) issues for "the need to find a solution".
     
    -Jody
 

    	RE: .102  Fred
    
    	>>A better way to go about this would be to listen to what such victims
   	>>have to say for themselves (without burdening these individuals with
   	>>speculations that could end up doing more harm than good.)
    
    	> Are you afraid to look at yourself and even the *possibility*
    	> that you *may* have some things to change.  
   
    	If you are speaking to me, personally (and my name is Suzanne, by
    	the way) - the only violent relationship (a marriage) that I was
    	involved with *ended* almost 10 years ago, and I've had several
    	happier relationships since then (none of which came anywhere close
    	to being violent in any way.)  
    
    	> Being right doesn't mean much when you're dead.  I'm not 
        > interested in *blame*.  I'm intersted in what *can* be done.  
        
    	Ok, then let's discuss YOUR psyche (including speculations about
    	your mindsets and attitudes that caused you to have the problems
    	you had in your first marriage.)  
    
    	We'll all analyze what it was about your personality that might 
    	have led to these problems (and we'll let you know how you can 
    	possibly "change yourself" when we get it all figured out for you.)  
    	How's this sound to you?
    
    	> *Everything* must be on the table.  
    
    	You first.  Put your own guts on the table for analysis and disection
    	(then you can let us know how helpful it is to you.)
    
    	There's been too much "blaming the victim" of violence in this topic
    	already.  Attempting to psychoanalyze the victims would be adding
    	insult to injury.

    As Suzanne points out, there's a difference here that needs to be kept
    in mind.

    re .104
    
    Thank you Suzanne!  I really don't need to put up with the insult
    that the search of justification/reasons for male violence (i.e.
    what I did to cause "it").
    
    Come on folks... there's some of us out here with some real raw 
    feelings - lot's of pain and anger and guilt.  Guilt like you've
    never experienced until you've lived with an abusive person.
    And now we're supposed to buy into a bunch of strangers "modeling"
    our behaviour so they can find out what we did that caused us to
    be beaten? 
    
    How would you (everyone in this conference) to have your most painful
    secrets displayed for public viewing and then have some insensitive
    yokels decide they're going to disect your life.  For your own good,
    of course.  Or maybe just the good of society.
    
    I wrote my stories here in the hopes that maybe just one woman in
    an abusive situation would read it.  That maybe this woman just
    might see a way out of her situation - or maybe stop feeling some
    of the guilt that abusers heap on their victims.  How is looking
    for the why these women are beaten going to help anyone?  All you're
    going to end up doing is reinforcing the idea that a woman does
    "something" to promote violent behaviour.

	This here Yokel (I'm amused not angry) will gladly back off any
attempt to model victims. I thought I was pretty clear about that earlier.
I asked the question whether it might be of use...I can't apoligize for the
asking it seemed to be within the context of the string to at least pose the
possibility. 
	
	A great number of counseling efforts, self defense courses and books
directed at female victims of violence are based in part on like modeling.
My narrow focus in rape defense concerned issues around changing body language
or developing an environmental awareness to aid in ones defense. How this could
be construed as saying the victim is responsible for the violence itself is
beyond me and I think requires a particular mind set that I can't quite fathom.

	There are a lot of victims of all kinds out there. I and my sister
were victims of a stepfathers abuse for many years. If someone were , in
an honest attempt at understanding, trying to model the victims or the
victimizers in those type of scenarios I don't think I could make the type
of assumptions about their motives or lack of sensitivity that some seem so
readily able to do. considering the role that modeling has played in human
cognition...I know I wouldn't consider them yokels anyway (chuckle).

	Having had very painful and tragic experiences myself as a child does
not excuse me from extending common courtesy whenever I can. My ability to
do this says more about myself than the person or persons I'm extending it to.

	What is the limit of understanding one should give to an abusive,
verbal or otherwise, person who has had painful past experiences? I would guess
quite a bit , huh?

	Well I introduced the modeling ideas and I have no problem retracting
them to save feelings.


		-D-

    Ok!  So my "Milwaukee" heritage is showing.  BTW- a yokel is a
    well intentioned individual who can cause you all sorts of grief
    without menaing too.
    
    Please don't apologize for asking questions.  That's how we learn.
    
    You can help by just listening.  No one can tell a victim how to
    be healed.  Healing is critical to "solving" this problem. Critism
    of the need to talk, or premature "fixing" of a problem without
    understanding the causes and victims' feelings tends to create bad 
    feelings in those one is trying to help.
    
    -maureen
    

    re. Suzanne
    
    I utterly resent your implications about my first marriage.  For
    your information *I* was the victim.  The victim of mental
    abuse, physical abuse, of mind manipulation, and financial abuse.
    There isn't enough space on this system to go into it all.  I
    AM NOT NOR HAVE I EVER BEEN AN ABUSER.  I DO NOT SUPPORT OR
    CONDONE ABUSE.
    
    It took me two years of *hard* work to sort out what happened
    to my first marriage.  I was *determined* that *whatever* the
    problem was I was going to find out what it was and *fix* it.
    I made it because because I was *absolutely* ruthlessly honest
    about myself and the situation.  However, my son, I'm afraid
    is not going to make it.
    
    Yes, this is a very sensitive and very delicate problem.
    Considering where this is taking place (=wn=) I have already
    taken an *major* risk in what I've done so far.
    
    I was hoping that we could turn it into something other
    than just another round of male-bashing.  I have no qualms 
    about taking a good hard look at reality.  Maybe I've just
    had more practice at it.  However from your remarks and the 
    replys of others here, I realize the *whatever* I say will be 
    pre-judged.  I DO NOT INTEND TO BECOME CANNON FODDER FOR YET 
    ANOTHER HATE-ORGY.
    
    fred();

    re: .109
    
    This note is about male violence (violence males commit).  It was and
    will continue to be.
    
    Topic 97 is about domestic violence.  It is unfortunate that anyone is
    abused, mentally, physically, or financially.  Perhaps your situation
    would be better suited for discussion there, since it seems to be about
    a variety of types domestic violence, not just one particular type
    (i.e. male committed).
    
    -Jody
    
    
    

    	RE: .109  Fred
    
    	Well, I see you got my point (about how little fun it would
    	be to have your emotions publicly analyzed in a situation 
    	where you endured a lot of personal suffering.) My suggestion 
    	about putting your own life "on the table" was meant to demonstrate 
    	to you the nature of what you were asking of some of *us* in your 
    	earlier reply.
    
    	> I utterly resent your implications about my first marriage. 
    
    	Fred, I made no implications about your marriage (other than
    	to assume that you were the victim and that you would not like 
    	to have your role as such to be disected any more than the 
    	victims of abuse in this file would like to be.)
    
    	> Yes, this is a very sensitive and very delicate problem.
    	> Considering where this is taking place (=wn=) I have already
    	> taken an *major* risk in what I've done so far.
    
    	Bingo.  This is exactly why some of us don't want *our* guts 
    	put out on the table, either.  By George, I think you've got it.
    
    	> I was hoping that we could turn it into something other
    	> than just another round of male-bashing.  
    
    	Well, it would be nice if you could refrain from yet another
    	round of women-bashing/Womannotes-bashing, instead of writing
    	note after note with all your favorite insulting buzzwords
    	(usually without rhyme or reason, as if you're fullfilling some
    	kind of quota when it comes to tossing in gratuitous unfair
    	negative stereotypes.)
    
    	> I have no qualms about taking a good hard look at reality.  
    	> Maybe I've just had more practice at it.  
    
    	You weren't any too anxious to have your own personal reality 
    	disected, though, yet you still bash us for not wanting to
    	have the same thing done to ours.  (A bit hypocritical on your
    	part, don't you think?)
    
    	> However from your remarks and the replys of others here, I 
    	> realize the *whatever* I say will be pre-judged.  I DO NOT INTEND 
    	> TO BECOME CANNON FODDER FOR YET ANOTHER HATE-ORGY.
    
    	Fred, if you are not an abuser, then NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT YOU
    	HERE!  WHEN WILL YOU GET THIS THROUGH YOUR HEAD?
    
    	The only hate orgy I see is coming from you, and I really wish
    	you would stop it.  (Now!)

    re .111
    
    Then I must conclude that you really DON'T want a serious discussion
    of this subject, and as I've said all along the purpose of this not
    is *not* to really *do* anything about the problem.  
    
    fred();

    
    	RE: .112  Fred
    
    	>Then I must conclude that you really DON'T want a serious discussion
    	>of this subject, and as I've said all along the purpose of this not
    	>is *not* to really *do* anything about the problem.  
    
    	As usual, your conclusion has nothing whatever to do with anything 
    	that's actually been said here.  You throw these statements out 
    	without any justification whatsoever (for reasons known only to 
    	yourself.)
    
    	Just as you would rather not see your personal life analyzed (put
    	"on the table" so that others can tell you how you should change,)
    	neither do some others of us.  It's that simple.
    

    
    	RE: .113
    
    	Suzzane
    
    	It could be that Fred only sees notes from you to pounce on some
    	male. Outside of the floation tank note, the only ones you seem
    	to author is the ones comeing in jumping on some males back. Why
    	is this so? Isn't there anything you could offer in way of
    	fostering helpful noting rather than combative? I know I've dropped
    	out of a few because of this. I don't come here to fight, rather
    	to learn.
    
    	G_B

	I see Suzanne as an equal opportunity pouncer - you say something
	of course (whether you are male or female) - and she notes it.

	Even though I do not have to agree with what is said in this
	conference I do believe that the women who note here are more
	likely not to say something that will get pounced on - more
	because there is a good chance that they are not going to
	be as "I am the center of the universe" about what is being
	discussed.

	Is this due to socialization? I don't know. This is like asking
	is male violence due to socialization!  I don't know that either.
	I have my opinions and my personal experiences to draw on but
	that does not mean that I "know the answer" for everyone.

	Leading back to the topic:

	It is not up to women to change the way they are to keep from
	being victims - since it usually does not matter what a women
	does or does not do.  IMNSHO - It is up to the enlightened men
	in our society to work the hardest to get other men to change
	the way they treat women as a whole.  This is in your best 
	interest - that way we women will not be able to condemn youall
	for the actions of some.

	I, for one, would really like to hear more about male reaction
	to the constant news about another woman being killed by her
	spouse, lover, ex's and so on.  How do you feel to know that
	there are men that do these things?  Do you ever think that
	you could possibly act in a violent manner towards the woman
	in your life?  Do you do anything to keep from getting to that
	point?

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |	
			It is the one doing that is responsible
			for what is done.

    -peggy,
    
    Thanks for getting this topic back on track.  
    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 RE .116
>	I, for one, would really like to hear more about male reaction
>	to the constant news about another woman being killed by her
>	spouse, lover, ex's and so on.
	I'm disgusted at the domestic violence toward women that I hear
	about. As an aside, I do feel that this gets more media attention
	than violent women against men, or child abuse from mothers, but that
	is another topic.

>       Do you ever think that you could possibly act in a violent manner 
	towards the woman in your life? 
	Yes, allthough I've never done so. I used to tell my mother, SOs and
	my wife about my hot buttons. Unfortunatly, my mother and a few SOs
	had compulsive that was stronger than my request to refrain from
	certain behavior. In fact, some of them tried to change me. I get
	very frustrated asking someone not to do something 50 or 60 times.

> 	Do you do anything to keep from getting to that point?
	In my mother's case, I left home, even though I couldn't afford to.
	Other than that, I usually go for a loooooong ride until I cool
    	off. Sometimes I break things. I once smashed a guitar against a
    	wall after a heated argument with another musician.

>  	How do you feel to know that there are men that do these things?  
	It scares me.  It indicates to me that either they have not found
	a better way to deal with their frustration, or are mentally
    	unstable. I'll bet there are many readers who have been frustrated
    	to the point of screaming at the top of your lungs at someone that
    	you consider a dunderhead. But, we are usually able to remain
    	civil and go somewhere else and scream. I think that if you've
    	never learned self-control or consider violence an accepable
    	way of life, then thats a problem.
    
    	Guy
    
    
    
    

	"That it is not up to women to change the way they are to keep
from being victims", is a very interesting statement to me.

	Peggy would you consider it wrong then for self defense instructors
to tell women that possibly changing body language when walking in unfamiliar
areas, or making it a habit to look into the back seat of their cars before
getting in them or suggesting like behaviors? Doing this are they then somehow
blaming the victims? 

	If I were to suggest to a woman who's being abused to seek shelter
and counseling, am I then blaming her for her own victimization?

	Another point of interest in what you noted...

	Peggy, you mentioned that some women might blame all men for the actions
of a few ; How would you characterize this type of mind set?

	Hear a soft tone here....I can only give you my words, conveying my
tone and the spirit in which I question is difficult in this medium.

	I myself have seen this mind set in many contexts usually racial or
religious and more recently gender wise.

	I wonder if you put this mind set in a person dispensed towards
aggression (culturally or otherwise) would that increase the likelihood
of that persons violent behavior?


	-D-	

    -D-
    
    I cann't speak for Peggy but I think she was talking more of a domestic
    violence situation and you're talking of self-defense when assaulted
    by a stranger. 
    
    If you suggest to a woman who's being abused to seek shelter, you're
    not blaming her. But it's important to remember that *nothing* she
    did or didn't do caused that abuse.

I, for one, would be glad to hear of ways that victims are similar, as a way of
learning what I can do *not* to be one.  Things like body language - I would
be very interested in knowing that sort of body language a potential rapist
see's as being a "rape me" sign.

Also, victimizers and victims are not isolated definitions.  Without a victim
there is no victimizer, and without a victimizer there is no victim.  So it
seems to me that a model of one without a model of the other is inherently
incomplete.  Without models of both, you can't model the *interaction*, and
since it is the interaction that is the undersireable thing, it seems like a
good idea to model.

I don't think modelling a victim means *blaming* the victim.  The model of
the victim, after all, is dependent on the model of the victimizer.  If the
victimzer were of a different type, then the victim would be of a different
type.  A lot of our male-victimizer model was rooted in societal forces.
If society makes a man violent, then it helps decide against whom that man
will inflict his violence.  So society creates victims as well as victimizers.
Stopping the existence of victims is just as effective a way of ending
violence as stopping the existence of victimizers.

D!

    thank you .120
    
    .121 I tend to agree but in order to spare feelings I refrained from
    modeling victims. I think the request for 'care in this area is very
    valid.
    
    Perhaps the modeling could be done in general terms requiring no
    specifics...much like the violent male was done?
    
    But if that approach is deemed too painful or insensitive than by all
    means let's just skip it.
    
    Maybe the society can be modeled? A society that offers no real
    protection for victims of domestic violence....?
    
    
    -d-

    
    Flame on...
    
    Hey D!
    
    When did we complete the model of a male-victimizer?  I musta missed
    that.  What I did read was a bunch of individual cases that didn't
    have too much in common.
    
    I, for one, would not be glad to see all victims lumped into one
    generalized model.  I think it as insulting and as dangerous as
    generalizing the characteristics of an abuser.  We do NOT all
    look/behave alike, dammit!  And these are people'e lives you're
    going to disect, not some classroom socieology study.  
    
    The minute you start stereotyping, you loose awareness of those who
    don't fit the pattern.  And this, my friend, is why so many women
    don't even realize they are abused... THEY DON'T FIT THE PATTERN
    WE EXPECT.  So they put up with being beaten and think there's 
    something wrong with themselves rather than the realtionship. Most
    of the abused women I know are actually quite intelligent - if they
    understood that they were victims, too, don't you think they'd get
    out?
    
    ...flame off.
     
    You don't want to be a victim?  It's real simple.  Know in your
    heart that you are of value and keep your eyes open. 
    
   
    

<    I cann't speak for Peggy but I think she was talking more of a domestic
<    violence situation and you're talking of self-defense when assaulted
<    by a stranger. 
    
        I think this is a key point. Women shouldn't have to learn how to
    avoid violence by strangers but it's a fact of life. They should be
    told what mannerisms make them vulnerable to strangers. But they aren't
    who hurt us the most.

    The cases we are discussing are when the men *who say they LOVE you*
    are beating and abusing you. This is not a dark alley you can avoid.
    This is every day, every night, wondering what you might do wrong to set
    the explosion off. Thinking always that it's your fault, that you are
    wrong. And listening to the apologies and promises afterwards. Being
    told it won't happen again (until next time).

    Otherwise nice guys beat their wife and kids. It's always so shocking
    when we find out. I saw a few of the these when I worked in the ER. "Oh
    she fell that's all". And they are so considerate and caring in public.
    But she better not say anything to get the police involved. She's the
    lamb that is told to go back and sleep with the lion. liesl

    	Hi there Dragon Lady!
    
    	I think the last lines in your note were right on. If you truly
    	know you are of value and act on that knowledge you'd be very
    	difficult to victimize (my belief).
    
    	Your flame was very good too.
    
    	I'm a little warmer now and there was some light in that flame as
    well as heat.
    
    	Good stuff!
    
    
    -d-

    	The only domestic abuser I've known very well is my ex-husband,
    	and he was abusive in all serious relationships (regardless of
    	what the women were like.)
    
    	When his second wife got ready to leave him, she tracked me down
    	on the phone one day (and we had a chance to compare notes on all
    	this.)  She had also spoken to the woman my ex had met and lived
    	with after I left, but before he met and married his second wife.
    
    	All three of us (women) were completely different, the exception
    	being that my ex's two wives were both college graduates with good
    	jobs, (although I think this was a matter of his own consistency
    	in the kind of women he tended to like, rather than any kind of
    	model for abuse.)  The live-in SO had no college, and worked as a
    	house painter with a couple of friends.
    
    	In every other way, the three of us were as different as we could be.
    	Yet, my ex's family went to each one of us to tell us that we (as
    	individuals) were responsible for my ex's abuse.  Each one of us was
    	told, "Well, some women just really know how to make a man mad," even
    	though NONE of the three of us had ever been abused before, or since
    	(as it turned out later.)
    
    	My ex's family refused to believe that he was the one with the problem.
    	He would have clobbered Princess Diana, or a woman martial arts expert
    	(or WHOEVER he married!)  It was just the way he was!
    
    	The thing is - it can happen the first time (or first few times) to
    	anyone.  The trick is to get more women informed about the realities
    	of abusive men (so they know when to give up on habitual abusers.)
    	This was the information that I didn't have when I was married to
    	my ex.  It was early 1981 when I left him, and I'd never heard all
    	the information that we take for granted now about the patterns of
    	abusive behavior.  If I'd known about this stuff earlier, I'd never
    	have stayed as long as I did.
    
    	When I went to the hospital with a broken nose and other injuries,
    	I told them I ran into a door.  I didn't tell anyone what was
    	happening, so no one got a chance to direct me to the information
    	that would have informed me about the bigger picture (until I went
    	for counseling after I'd left him.)  Then, it all made sense.
    
    	So, the message here is not "what kind of women gets hit by men"
    	(because the majority of men don't hit women when they get mad
    	enough!)  
    
    	The men who *do* commit habitual abuse will hit the women in their
    	lives NO MATTER WHAT THE WOMEN DO!
    
    	So the key is to make sure most women can recognize when they are
    	with an habitual abuser (so they can take the steps necessary to
    	GET AWAY!!)  
    
    	Learning to spot the signs of an habitual abuser before marrying
    	one is a good thing, but trying to change ourselves so that we
    	don't fit "the model" of women who get hit would be a complete
    	waste of time.  I guarantee you that men like my ex will find a
    	reason to hit every woman he's ever close to (unless he gets 
    	some help for this problem.)  Hell, he won't even bother to find
    	a reason.  It's what he does.  Period.
    
    	Learning to be able to walk away from a person like this would
    	be a useful skill, but we can do this without trying to model
    	the women who stayed longer than we might have chosen to stay.
    	Women stay for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is
    	commitment to their marriage vows (or simply not knowing the
    	truth about abusive spouses.)
    
    	We can help the most by being aware of the dynamics of abuse,
    	as well as the options for those who find themselves in this
    	situation.  Charactizing the victims isn't necessary for this.

    RE: .125 (-d-)
    
    The incinuation that a woman with low self-esteem is more prone to
    physical abuse is not  blatantly true. The low self-esteem may be
    a direct RESULT of the physical abuse. In other words, it's a matter
    of cause and effect here. You can't say abused women had low self-
    esteem and that's what drove them to being beaten. That's not true.
    But if you get your head rammed into the wall a few times you begin
    to understand how powerless and worthless you really are.
    
    Kate

         re: .121 (D! Carroll)

          >  Things like body language - I would be very
          >  interested in knowing that sort of body language a
          >  potential rapist see's as being a "rape me" sign.

          D!, I definitely recall a note or two in V2 about specific body
          movements that can serve as a signal that a woman might be more
          vulnerable to attack.  (not sure which topic though)

          But as far as what body language translates into a "rape me"
          sign... I think Suzanne's last paragraph of .126 applies here:

          .126> We can help the most by being aware of the dynamics of
          .126> abuse,  as well as the options for those who find
          .126> themselves in this situation.  Charactizing the victims
          .126> isn't necessary for this.

          Above Suzanne is referring to abuse between people who know each
          other, people who are in a relationship.  I think her statements
          also apply to stranger-on-stranger violence.

          In my experience, I was studying alone in a classroom after the
          library closed (in a building where other students often studied
          in other classrooms and where a frat meeting was going on at the
          same time in a different part of the building).  My "body
          language" consisted of a woman dressed in shorts, a tee-shirt,
          and socks, kinda dirty and sweaty from playing basketball earlier
          who was finishing up a problem set solving circuits using Laplace
          transforms.

          In the barroom gang rape which led to the movie, "The Accused",
          the woman's body language was sensual dance in a mini-skirt and
          revealing blouse.

          As Suzanne said above, understanding the dynamics of the violent
          situation would be the most enlightening.  The most basic and
          obvious relationship that I see is that the rapist(s) interpret
          the woman being alone and/or without her male protector as fair
          game for Him.


          >  I, for one, would be glad to hear of ways that victims
          >  are similar, as a way of learning what I can do *not* to
          >  be one.

          So therefore, D!, [said sarcastically], just don't ever be alone
          without a male friend, and your "body language" won't be
          misinterpreted by men that would otherwise rape you.

          [Now I'm going to contradict myself:]
          D!, you expressed interest about how victims are similar; I
          replied that it's more important to look the "situation". And
          yet, a major victimization study I read about a year ago profiled
          the classic rape victim, and I was shocked at how almost
          perfectly I matched the profile (occupation - student, height to
          within 1/2 inch, weight to within 5 lbs, time of night (between
          9pm-midnight), location (inside a building), age to within 1
          year, etc..

          Moreover, He fit the profile of the stranger who would rape the
          above "statistical" woman - (this could be added to the "model"?)
          - He held a steady job, had some form of higher education, was
          same race, and had a steady sexual relationship with a partner.
          Not in the profile but more specifically, His parents were
          divorced, and He blamed His mother for a lot of His problems.
          Before He went to prison, He would have been considered
          conventionally attractive by many women (IMO) with masculine,
          all-American type of appearance.

          So what's the common denominator?... I think men who rape and
          abuse are basically angry at/ hate / dislike / want to have power
          feelings over women.

          > Without models of both, you can't model the *interaction*, and
          > since it is the interaction that is the undesirable thing, it
          > seems like a good idea to model.

          What you said her about interactions, D!, makes me wonder what
          reaction violent men are looking for.  And what if they don't get
          it?  Does their violence dissipate or worsen?

          > Stopping the existence of victims is just as effective a way of
          > ending violence as stopping the existence of victimizers.

          I don't think so, because the violent men in the world will
          always be able to find someone weaker then they.

          Of course, one way to stop the disproportionate number of victims
          being women would be for the average woman to be as strong as the
          average man.  D!,  wanna quit DEC and go to med school and become
          genetic engineers (I will if you will ;-) ?


          re: .123  (Ms. Axtell)

          > You don't want to be a victim?  It's real simple.

          No it's not.

          >  Know in your heart that you are of value and keep your eyes
          >  open.

          And even this doesn't work for everyone.

          Male-violence manifests itself in too many different ways.

                                                       nancy b.



    re .126 Suzanne, you've added an ingredient in our model of the
    abusive male - lack of discipline/moral training from his parents.
    
    ("My little angel would never do that.")

    re 95.127  

    >    But if you get your head rammed into the wall a few times you begin
    >    to understand how powerless and worthless you really are.
                           =========     =========
    >    Kate

    In a society that equates power and worth, our model abuser might
    feel powerless, hence worthless, hence inclined to exercise
    brute force as a way of establishing his worth. In the only area
    where he can - behind closed doors.

    

    I think violence may well be a power-and-control trip in many cases.  I
    think as I read "I'm Dancing as Fast as I Can" (I think that's the name
    of the book - this seemingly normal woman winds up in an abusive
    relationship with her life in really sad shape and has to find a way to
    escape *somehow*) it became clear to me that the husband was pretty
    sick and as he kept her confined to the house more and more she began
    to believe some of the things he said to control her, and the violence
    reinforced the verbal control.
    
    -Jody
    

    This is my last note in this string.  It is entirely too painful
    for me to continue this discussion, and to be frank, =wn= feels
    very threatening right now.
    
    But here goes -
    
    Last night I figured out what really bothers me about the modeling
    of victims.  There's two parts.
    
    1) The "model" of an abuser deals with anonymous people.  No one
    here has confessed to beating their wife/girlfriend.  However, some
    women have "confessed" to being abused.  And "confessed" is how
    it feels to admit that you were beaten in a domestic situation.
    Guilt because you didn't do anything to stop it.  Guilt because
    you believe you deserve it. And on, and on.
    
    2) The modeling process feeds right into that guilt.  Each time
    you folks find a behaviour or reason why a woman is beaten, it
    reinforces the "I must have deserved/done something to deserve it" 
    feelings a victim carries. Even if it's complete nonsense to you, a 
    victim will internalize these feelings.
    
    And it might be important to note that the victimization scenario
    doesn't heal or go away.  A victim is never free of falling into
    the trap of abuse and guilt.  Some of us learn to fight back, and
    some of us break out of one relationship just to fall into another.
    The latter, unfortuately, is the more common case.
    
    Powerless and worthless are good words to describe how I feel about
    this discussion.  There's apparently no way I can dissuade certain
    folks from continuing this modeling process.  I can only conclude
    that either you don't understand or you don't care.  In either case,
    I've had enough.
    
    -maureen
    
    
    
    

    re: .128
    
    the only place I could find pertinent material in V2 was
    
    525 - Side Effects of Rape - Discussion... 
    	(some in .7 and .9, some scattered thereafter I'm sure)
    
    -Jody

>	I, for one, would really like to hear more about male reaction
>	to the constant news about another woman being killed by her
>	spouse, lover, ex's and so on.  How do you feel to know that
>	there are men that do these things?

When I hear such news, I too become very sad and angry.  I ask myself (and
anyone who's around at the time) "How could someone do such things to another
human being?"  It's just so damn frustrating!  (Confession:  I must admit...
until I started reading this file, I never *really* paid attention to such 
reports.)


>Do you ever think that
>	you could possibly act in a violent manner towards the woman
>	in your life? 

Well, I never have and there sure have been times that my wife has made so
mad.....I don't think I would or could strike her.  What I usually do instead
is hold and hug her until my anger melts away.


>Do you do anything to keep from getting to that point?

See last line above.

-Hamp

    reply .132
    
    	Maureen it would be unfortunate to lose your voice from this
    string...I hope you change your mind.
    
    	Is it possible for you to reframe how you're experiencing all this?
    	Is there any other way to look at it overall?
    
    	I and my sister were victims of abuse from a step-father for five
    	years. Believe me I can understand the pain of all this and have
    stated clearly many times now that staying away from modeling victims
    	is just fine with me, even though doing such things has helped me
    and my sister break out of being trapped in anger cycles.
    
    
       I'd be sorry to lose your contibutions; you're often a clear
    strident insightful voice. To keep Maureen in let's agree to keep
    focus off of victims.
    
    
    -D-

    Thanks, Don.  
    
    I would also request that focus be kept off the victims.  Maureen's
    explanation of how victims continue to suffer because of misplaced
    guilt rings true, and poignantly so.
    
    						=maggie

    RE .132 Maureen, I do care, I *don't* understand your repeated
    attempts to stop a conversation which other women have asked
    be continued in hope that they may be able to recognize symptoms
    of, and thereby avoid, abusive relationships. Nobody here is trying
    to make victims feel guilty of anything. 'Forewarned is forearmed'
    is the attitude I see here.
    
    Dana

    
    Are men inheriently violent?
    
    Yes.  For the first 1.5 million years of your existence it came
    in kind of handy when dealing with things like tigers, vikings,
    Nazies and such.  Killing an animal is inheriently a very violent
    act, but necessary for survival even today.  Except now we do it
    in sanitary out-of-site places called "packing houses".  As much
    as we'd like to believe otherwise, the world is *still* a *very*
    dangerous  place.  There are still a lot if Edi Amin's,  Morimar
    Gadafi's, Irans, Iraqs, Cubas, etc., muggers, rapists, doped-out
    nuts, etc. out there, and pacifism isn't going to protect us much.
    Just ask the Jews about that.
    
    Am I capable of violence?
    
    Yes.  In protection of myself and others I *am* capable of being
    extremely violent.
    
    Violece in and of itself is not *bad*.  It's the intent and purpose 
    to which that violence is directed.  A few years ago I was at a 
    wedding reception.  The bride's son was about nine years old or so, 
    and the wedding had upset him.  The dream of mommy and daddy getting 
    back together going down the tubes and all that.  The bride's brother 
    was in charge of the boy and his brother. I went into the restroom and 
    found this scum smacking the kid around screaming at him, "dry it 
    up--you're not going to ruin this for your mother".  
    
    At first I almost backed off, rationalizing that this was none of my
    buisness.  Then I made the decision--no, this is where I draw the line.
    I turned and faced the attacker and simply stared at him.  He turned
    on me with "something bothering you".  After I'd made my decision I
    *knew* it was right and I became very calm about the whole matter.
    I replied as calmly and as certainly as I could "Yes--you!".  He
    pressed his attack on me with "this is none ouf your buisness".
    I replied trying to stay calm, but the rising anger in me probably 
    comming through, "yes--it is, and if I EVER see anything like that
    again I will rip your head off and put it where the sun will never
    shine on it again".  I ment it, I would have done just that, and I
    think he knew I ment it.  Ne backed off and left the room.  I took 
    the child back to his mother and told her what had happened and left.
    I don't know what happened to the child after that I have not seen
    any of them since.
    
    I think a better question is--Are men inheriently abusive?
    
    No.  I believe abusiveness is a disfunction of manhood.  Men are
    inheriently providers and protectors, the "bread winners".  The
    word Hero comes from a greek word that does not have a direct
    translation inot English.  It means something like a combination
    servent-slave-protector.  *Most* men support and protect their
    families.  The majority of men who have child support to pay, pay it.
    Many men have fought--and died in the protection of their families.
    Many men have worked themselves to death to provide for their families.
    
    So why the disfunction.  I make no excuses here, but I try to explain
    what--and how.  There are many things that contrubute to this. Most 
    abuse-by men anyway-can be directly traced to alcohol and drug abuse 
    (and another rathole, but there are people acutally proposing that we 
    *legalize* drugs).  "He's really a nice guy and great father and loving
    husband when he's not....drinking".  Yes, there are *some*  men 
    (and women) out there who are just plain &^s holes (another rat hole,
    but it's funny how *some* women are extremely attracted to this 
    character type),  but the majority of the cases of abuse starts during 
    periods of unemployment and the pressure to *provide* and *take care of* 
    is increased exponentially.  Some men snap under the pressure.  The 
    remores that comes after the attack is usually genuine as is his own 
    self-hatered, fear, and confusion, and in this since he too is the
    victim--of himself.
    
    fred();

>There's apparently no way I can dissuade certain
>    folks from continuing this modeling process.  I can only conclude
>    that either you don't understand or you don't care.  In either case,
>    I've had enough.
 
????

"Continuing the modelling process"?  We haven't begun.  I have been 
deliberately keeping *my* comments, and I believe Don has too, at the
meta-discussion level, specifically because of requests from you and 
Suzanne and (others?) not to actual discuss a victim model.  My comments
were only about the worth of a model, and certainly weren't a model
themselves. I do think a model is worthwhile, and I don't think doing
one would be placing the blame on the victim, but I am in no way insisting
that this string, or even this file, is the place for it.  I am certainly
willing to honor requests *not* to do a model for fear of hurting or
threatening members of the conference.

NancyB (re: if there were no more victims, there would be no more 
victimization) - I think you misunderstood me. I was just made a statement
of logical necessity - the act of victimization requires a victimizer
and a victim.  Lack of either one makes a lack of victimization. I
wasn't suggesting causality, just a mathematical necessity.  If you
are right, if potential victimizers would always find someone new to
victimize, then there would always be victims, by definition.

re: med school - sounds good to me, especially since I have been hacking
at the same bug here for about 4 days, and I am ready to look at a new
career.

D!

    I entirely agree with .141
    
    One small addition - I have found, through years of martial arts
    training, that the more capable of violence ('capable' in the 
    physical sense) I have become the less *inclined* I have become.
    I *know* I can, so I don't. This sounds paradoxical, but is 
    really a simple matter of improved self-confidence, and increased
    awareness of the responsibility such ability entails. (One failing
    in our society - we need absolute linkage between power and 
    responsibility. One without the other is disastrous.)
    
    Dana

    
    because i have a bad temper and have been known to have outbursts
    that have included violent destruction of objets d'art, i have for
    a long time tried to *not* be physically strong. strong enough to wield
    a softball bat, wave my arms at an orchestra and give good hugs, but
    no stronger. in addition, i try under all circumstances to avoid,
    invalidate, criticise, etc. *any* for of violence, even such
    'justifiable' violence as 'self-defence' and such trivial violence
    as contact sports. 
    

    As I read the comments from the men here I see a problem. It's OK to be
    angry. Everybody gets angry. It's OK to work it out. One of the
    problems women have is not being "allowed" anger. It's a natural human
    reaction. The problem comes when we use this anger on another human
    rather than working it out properly.

    I remember a friend of mine talking about his kids (5 of them!). he
    said "I can understand someone being so mad they want to smash their
    faces. I just can't understand someone who would actually do it."

    The model of the non-abuser is significant. We see from the men in this
    file that extreme anger at a woman or child is not the exclusive
    provience of the abuser. But these men DON'T hit people. They have
    lived in the same society, seen the same TV shows, learned the same
    culture... liesl

    p.s. Steve, have you ever thought of maybe trying tennis? ;*)
    

    In the December 1989 issue of _Psychology_Today_ there is an article,
    "Is Peace as Natural as Violence?":

        At least since Darwin, students of animal behavior have been
        fascinated by conflict and aggression.  From Tennyson's "nature,
        red in tooth and claw" to present-day pop-ethology's "killer ape,"
        observers of nature have seen aggression as the major organizing
        principle of animal--and human--life.  But now primatologist Frans
        de Waal of the Wisconsin Regional Primate Research Center takes
        simple but powerful exception to this received wisdom:  Social
        creatures, he observes, don't live lives of constant turmoil and
        hostility.  They fight, but nearly as often they make up.

        "Nonhuman primates, familiar with both [tolerance and
        conciliation], sustain their communities by a highly developed
        cooling system that prevents overheating, explosion or
        disintegration of the social machinery," de Waal explains.  "They
        act like human families, many of which manage to cohere for 20
        years or more in spite of being veritable battlegrounds."

        Just how various species balance mayhem and mollification is the
        subject of his new book, _Peacemaking_Among_Primates_ (Harvard
        University Press, $29.95), distilled from years of watching our
        close and distant cousins bicker, battle and, quite literally, kiss
        and make up.  He dismisses the currently fashionable
        sociobiological explanations as inadequate in accounting for
        individual actions.  "I try to look at behavior from the animal's
        standpoint," he explains, "the feelings, expectations and
        intelligence that determine whether an animal acts this way or
        that."  From this vantage point we are introduced to three
        different primates--Yeroen, a chimpanzee Machiavelli; Heavy, a
        compassionate rhesus adoptive mom; and Kalind, a teasing bonobo
        ape--not as furry automatons in the thrall of their genes but as
        distinct personalities and intellects reacting to concrete social
        circumstances.

        For de Waal, it's social structure that organizes violence.  "Male
        chimpanzees are more conciliatory than females," he notes, because
        males, who "help one another on a tit-for-tat basis," need as wide
        a circle of allies as possible.  Females, who cultivate a small
        number of intense friendships, do not.  The rhesus monkeys follow a
        strict hereditary hierarchy; they struggle over status and sue for
        peace with relative rank always in mind.  The easygoing
        stump-tailed monkeys value cohesion above all and patch up their
        spats with community-wide love-ins.

        Each species has characteristic peacemaking rituals to mediate
        animosities, mark changes in social status and save face.  Yeroen,
        for example, following a fight, "would suddenly discover something
        in the grass and hoot loudly....A number of chimpanzees, including
        his adversary, would rush to the spot.  Soon the others would lose
        interest and leave, while the two male rivals would stay,"
        ostensibly so fascinated by the find that they eventually groom one
        another.  De Waal could never locate the supposed treasures.

        With peacemaking so deeply ingrained in primate life, de Waal
        argues, "forgiveness is not, as some people seem to believe, a
        mysterious and sublime idea that we owe to a few millennia of
        Judaism and Christianity.  It did not originate in the minds of
        people and cannot therefore be appropriated by an ideology or a
        religion.  The fact that monkeys, apes and humans all engage in
        reconciliation behavior means that it is probably over 30 million
        years old"--as old as violence, in other words, and as integral to
        our makeup.  And since we can never banish aggression from our
        natures, he argues, our only hope of managing it lies in our
        equally ancient legacy of conciliatory behavior.

    -- Mike

From UPI via clarinet, with permission.
    
    	-- Charles


	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- Marla Hanson needs only to look at herself in
the mirror for a visible reminder of the brutality she suffered.
	The 29-year-old former New York fashion model's face was left
permanently scarred after two thugs, hired by her landlord in a dispute
over a security deposit, attacked her one early morning on a Manhattan
street. Using razor blades, the men inflicted wounds that required 150
stitches to close.
	But, Hanson points out, all physical wounds heal in time. It's the
emotional scarring that she will carry for the rest of her life.
	``I have flashbacks sometimes,'' Hanson said. ``You never know when
something's going to trigger a memory and cause you to be paralyzed.
Sometimes a sound or a noise or a smell or a sight triggers a memory and
I just become completely paralyzed. I can't function that day. I've
learned that's part of living through a trauma, and those days I just
have to get through. The next day might be better.
	``It's had devastating effects on me, long-term effects,'' Hanson
continued. ``I think it's changed the way I look at the world forever.
It's not a safe place any more.
	``I think I've gained a lot of perspective on it in the last four
years, but it's one of those things you never get over. It's always
there.''
	Hanson has tried to come to grips with the attack and the stigma
society attaches to victims of violent crime, particularly women.
Hanson, whose experience generated national attention, has recounted the
attack hundreds and hundreds of times, privately and publicly.
	The most recent time was last week to the Senate Judiciary
Committee as she sought to persuade Congress to back legislation aimed
at cracking down on the nation's escalating violence against women, both
in the home and on the street.
	FBI and Justice Department statistics reveal an alarming pattern of
violence against women in the United States:
	--During the past decade, rape rates have risen nearly four times as
fast as the total crime rate.
	--A woman is raped in this country every 6 minutes.
	--A woman is beaten every 18 seconds, and 4 million women are
battered by husbands or boyfriends every year.
	--Since 1974, the rate of assaults against women aged 20-24 has
increased 48.1 percent, while the rate against men in the same age group
dropped 11.8 percent during the same period.
	--Since 1974, the rate of murder of women 65 or older has increased
29.9 percent, while the rate for men of the same age group fell 5.6
percent.
	Hanson and Nancy Ziegenmeyer, an Iowa housewife whose 1988 rape
drew national attention after a series of articles about her in the Des
Moines Register, were the first two witnesses testifying in a hearing on
new legislation, introduced by Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., considered the
first comprehensive package of federal initiatives designed to combat
violence against women.
	``It's difficult to keep talking about my experience because that
keeps me in the same place,'' Hanson said in an interview. ``But to
think that I might, in some way, help another woman or save her from
going through the same thing makes it all worth it.''
	Biden's legislation attacks violence against women from several
sides.
	It declares that rape and other gender-motivated crimes are a
``bias'' or ``hate'' crime, thus making sexual assaults a civils rights
violation that enables victims to recover compensatory and punitive
damages. The measure mandates interstate enforcement of court-imposed
spouse protection orders.
	The legislation also doubles federal funding for shelters
supporting abused women and establishes a national commission on violent
crimes against women. In addition, Biden is seeking $300 million in
federal aid to state and local law enforcement agencies to develop and
implement programs designed to fight street crime against women.
	Women's groups have indicated support for the legislation.
	``Just as a democratic society cannot tolerate crimes motivated by
the victim's membership in a minority racial group and must pass special
laws to combat such oppression, so too we must put into place effective
laws to prevent and redress violent crimes motivated by the victim's
sex,'' said Helen Neuborne, executive director of the National
Organization for Women's legal defense and education fund.
	Biden said there is a need for ``urgent action'' to curb violence
against women.
	``There is a serious flaw in our national psyche,'' Biden said.
``We're talking about violence that is directed against women for the
sole reason that they are women.''
	Biden added, ``I have no illusion that this legislation is going to
stop violence against women. But I have a hope that it will begin to
make the nation face the facts about violence against women.''

    Nice note (.146), Charles. A little evidence goes a long way. 
    
    I was at Amnesty International's annual convention in Boston recently,
    and I attended three workshops on abuses of the human rights of women
    worldwide. The stuff I heard there was really shocking: 75 percent of
    refugee peoples studied (mostly in Ethiopia/Sudan and Sri Lanka)
    said that a woman in their family had been raped by troops supposedly
    there to protect them. 
    
    Jason Clay from Harvard talked about standing
    at the Sudan/Ethiopia border and wondering why all the Ethiopians
    coming across were men. He assumed it was something cultural. No,
    it was because the women had been forced into prostitution or
    slavery along the way. If women succeed in reaching resettlement
    camps, they then have to deal with the men who run the camp, which
    often means exchanging sexual favors for food.
    
    In spite of conditions like these, women are organizing in Sri Lanka
    and are making progress in drawing international attention to the problem,
    and providing health care and rape crisis counseling.
    In Sri Lanka, where the Singalese majority and the Tamal (Indian)
    minority are fighting, women are raped by both the Singalese
    and the Indian army, which has intervened on behalf of the
    Tamals.
    
    We who read this file can only help if we want to.
    Amnesty has a women's urgent action network,
    which I plan to get involved in. That will involve writing letters
    to government authorities and sending copies to the human rights
    groups within the country as well as to the appropriate ambassador 
    and congresspersons here. I could put the letters I write in this
    file, and people could extract them and sign their own names.
    Any objections, mods? 
    
    Eileen
    
    
     

    Nihil obstat.

    I have no objection to your posting the letter here for people to use. 
    But further action involved with Amnesty International is probably best
    put in THEIR notesfile, located at:
    
    GAMBLN::AMNESTY
    
    -Jody
    
    p.s.  I believe there are also many letters already written there for
    people to extract, print, sign, and send, fyi....
    

Rate of attempted rapes declines 46%, study says

Washington (AP)--The rate of attempted rapes of girls and women
in the United States decreased 46% from 1973 to 1987, according
to a study released Sunday by the Justice Department.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics study, the rate of
attempted rapes fell from 1.3 per 1,000 girls and women in 1973
to 0.7 per 1000 in 1987.

However, the rate of completed rapes -- 0.6 per 1,000 -- held steady
over the same time span.

Criminologist Alfred Blumstein theorized that the decline in attempted
rapes could be attributed to heightened male sensitivity to concerns
raised by women in the past 20 years.

But Blumstein, dean of the school of urban and public affairs at 
Pittsburgh's Carnegie-Mellon University, said he could only guess at
the reasons because many women are still reluctant to report the crime,
making statistics unreliable. 

Only 53 percent of rapes or attempted rapes are reported to the police, 
the study said.  But the survey estimated there were 137,509 rapes and
attempted rapes in 1987, down from 159,890 14 years earlier.

Women were more likely to call police if raped by a stranger than by
someone they knew.  Among women who were raped in or near their home,
48 percent said the attacker was someone they knew, the study found.

Rape accounted for 3 percent of all violent crimes measured by the
survey, according to the report, "Female Victims of Violent Crime."

The study found that 24.5 percent of the women who said they had been 
a victim of violent crimes--rape, robbery and assault--said they had
been attacked by someone they knew intimately.

By contrast, 3.9 percent of men subjected to such violence said they
had been attacked by a close friend or relative.

The information for the study was collected from surveys of 49,000
households conducted twice a year by the department's National Crime
Survey.  It is considered a more reliable indicator of crime than FBI 
statistics because the data include crimes that victims didn't report
to the police.

Teen-age girls and women between the ages of 16 and 24 were three times
more likely to be rape victims, the study said.

The survey found that women were six times as likely as men to be victims
of violent crime by a current or former spouse or lover.

"Men assault women far more than women assault men in relationships,"
Blumstein said.

reprinted from the San Jose Mercury News edition of 14 Jan 91, p4D.

    I hope this is the right place-
    
    Anybody see on the news about a week ago a report on how
    the Vermont CJ system is working on a "program" to keep
    rapists from raping again.  I dont remember many details,
    but in general they have this clip like thing that they
    put around the convicted rapist's penis and would show
    them materiels (porn, lit, whatever) of anything that 
    could produce a sexual reaction and that by focusing on
    whatever the person was reading or looking at when the
    response (as recorded thru the clip mechanism) was noted
    to be extreme, could then counsel the offender.  They
    also had support groups for the men to discuss what 
    happened in their lives that caused them to rape.
    
    My personal reaction to this experimental program was
    horsepucky, but then, all I kept thinking about that
    metal clip was a "peter meter" and found it hard to 
    consider this scientific or based in reality.  The
    program claims to have something like an 80% success
    rate, but could it be that some potential recidivists
    haven't been caught yet?
    
    Any thoughts, opinions, comments?
    
    Christine  

    Sounds like they watched "A Clockwork Orange" too many times.
    
    Lisa

    I heard a disturbing thing on NPR this morning. IT seems that several
    women whose (presumably) husbands are on-duty in this Gulf, and
    who had a yellow ribbon on their door, have been raped. The guy 
    probably figured there was no man in the house, so....
    
    --DE
    

    Lisa, "A Clockwork Orange" hits it on the nose.  Lock up rapists, or
    counsel them and lock them up, but don't try to brainwash them, or
    condition them like Pavlov's dog.  It'd be better to shoot them than to
    rob them of free will.
    
    That was Vermont???? and to think I just moved here...
    
    Sara
    

    re -1
    Sara, maybe I misunderstood, but
    >It'd be better to shoot them than to rob them of free will
    
    I would like to see them getting rid of their 'free will' to rape !!!

    I too would like to see no will to rape, among men.
    
    It's a fine line, maybe; I would not try to control the mind of a 
    mugger, or of a bank robber, or rapist, or murderer, etc.
    That's what this is, I believe - an attempt to condition the mind of
    the man away from the criminal behavior.  I want to stop the rapist,
    but not at the cost of such government interference with our privacy.
    
    I see it as very like forced abortion, or forced birth control.  What
    was proposed is to rob a man of the integrity of his body.  No woman
    reading this is likely to assent to such an invasion of her privacy,
    for example protective custody for pregnant women, or prosecution of a
    pregnant woman for drinking a glass of wine, or for drug use when she
    sought treatment.
    
    I am pro-choice, but fully, and not only for women.  If you cannot
    help but choose to be "good", then there is no real choice, and no
    real freedom for any of us.
    
    now my gut reaction is, kill the sucker.  My (somewhat) more rational
    reaction is, throw away the key.  You can punish him, and/or talk his
    ear off trying to educate him, convince him. But leave his will alone.
    
    I didn't explain all this too well.
        Sara

    Big difference between right to choose birth control and right to
    choose rape.
    
    A rapist has *given up* his right to privacy, his right to freedom and
    his right to the "integrity of his body [and mind]."  While I am not
    sure I support brainwashing as a "cure" for rape, but I certainly do
    not oppose it on the grounds that it violates the privacy of the
    rapist.
    
    You rape, you lose your citizen rights.
    
    (Yes, convicts retains rights, such as the right to be free from cruel
    and unusual punishment, but *not* the right to freedom, privacy or
    (hah!) integrity.)
    
    D!

    if a pregnant woman is arrested and convicted of a crime, say use of
    crack, should her baby be aborted and she be sterilized?  should she be
    conditioned to hate sex so she will never again choose to conceive a child
    addicted to drugs?  These "solutions" remove from her, forever, the
    power to choose between good and ill.  It would be wrong.  What if she
    has a child removed from her custody because of neglect or abuse?  Do we
    sterilize her?
    
    Please note that I will never, in any way, excuse a rapist from
    responsibility for the decision to rape, but I believe that the
    invasion of a mind is unethical, and I hope unconstitutional.  And as I
    said before, neither good nor evil has real definition without the
    power to choose between them.

    I happened to see the particular news piece on rapist on TV. It did not
    come across as brainwashing, rather a form of education. The point was
    not to discourage these rapist to have sexual desire, but to channel
    the desire properly, not to force it on women. How is this different
    from teaching your children the right thing? 
    Sorry, Sara, I failed to see your point. I don't think a rapist has a
    right to exercise his free will anymore.
    
    Caroline

    Marc Lepine was/is insane.  Guilty and insane.  What he did was evil,
    and I hold him responsible for it.
    
    I am disturbed when I read here that a rapist, or someone who commits
    a crime against a woman or women,  loses all rights over the self.
    Is rape so different from other crimes of violence and abuse that the
    rapist must be treated more harshly than, say, a  woman who
    abuses a child?  Remember, I said that I do not excuse a rapist from
    responsibility, whatever were the motivations or conditions that drove
    the crime.  The woman who helped the man torture the child to death, in
    NYC -- do you excuse her from responsibility because of her past?  I
    ache for her.  I wish she had found the strength, or whatever it takes,
    to stop before it came to that.  But I cannot excuse her from the
    responsibility for her acts.  If (generic) you excuse her, you must
    also excuse Marc Lepine.  I can excuse neither of them.  If I did, I
    feel that it would discount the strength of the many who do overcome an
    abusive past and go on to a better life.  It would make all of us into
    (legally, so to speak) children incompetant to direct our own lives,
    because who has not got some circumstance, some condition, some event
    in our past that drives us to anger and striking out?
    
    Punish, counsel, advise; do not coerce the mind.  It is a function of
    government and society to enforce rules and norms of behavior, not
    thought.  In the other way lies a special kind of tyranny.
    
    Maybe I should go read the mind-control topic.  The whole issue is
    incredibly complicated.
                                                         

re .157    
    
>    You rape, you lose your citizen rights.
    There is a difference between these, and *human* rights.
    
>    (Yes, convicts retains rights, such as the right to be free from cruel
>    and unusual punishment, but *not* the right to freedom, privacy or
>    (hah!) integrity.)
    Agreed, but this borders on "Cuckoo's Nest" (remove the part of the
    brain 'causing' the bad behavior). More inhumane than the death penalty
    IMO.
    
    John

Consider the animal behavior aspects... Rape is not limited to humans...
Sealions, Mallard ducks have well documented rape behavior.
  In the case of mallards, gang rape.

	Now dont take this the wrong way but, humans are animals and 
as some of their(our) behavior patterns have the same motives. 
I will not continue this discussion at present since some of its 
conclusions may offend. I'm entering this note to provoke serious thought.

			

    Rape is not limited to humans??
    
    In the animal kingdom, some males of some species force themselves on
    unwilling females. In the reported cases that I have read this is
    either necessary for ovulation (the female leopard or cheetah I can't
    remember which), or arises in
    circumstances when only one female is on heat surrounded by
    several males. Animals copulate due to a very strong survival instinct.
    It might appear to us humans that these female animals, be they ducks
    or leopards, are unwilling, and therefore are victims of "rape".
    However, I would say that the concept of rape cannot exist in the animal
    kingdom; rape is a human concept based on the fact that humans are
    reasoning, intelligent, sentient beings who have a right to individual
    freedom and choice. 
    
    Therefore the parallels you draw are very dangerous for several reasons:
    
    1) The male animal "rapists" mate solely for reasons of continuing the
    species. I think the last thing on a human rapist's mind is furthering
    the human race.
    
    2) Ducks and sealions do not suffer a life-time after being "raped".
    
    3) There are implications that human rapists are more animalistic than 
    those humans that do not rape. Are they perhaps less psycologically
    developed?
    developed?
    

RE:  .-2


I always find arguments of them form <animal species X> does it
therefore it's OK that this behavior exists in human beings
unconvincing.  Here's why.

1)  There are also animal species that form peaceful, close-knit,
co-operative societies.  Human beings could also do this in my opinion
if people were really interesting into looking into the question of
why this is not occuring today.

2)  Even if all other animal species exhibited what we considered
horrible, destructive, and violent behavior, why does that excuse
human beings for doing the same?  Don't we have the choice of how to
behave?  We don't have to be limited nor defined by our instincts.  I
wonder how many people have actually examined and observed their 
own "instincts".  Precious few I imagine.  It's a lot easier to assume
that these things are invariable (and trust what the so-called experts
have to say about such things) that to actually examine them for
oneself and see if it is so.  Meanwhile, violence and aggression
against other human beings and the larger environment rage on.

peace,
john

    >Marc Lepine was/is insane.  Guilty and insane.  What he did was evil,
    >and I hold him responsible for it.
    
    How can he be both responsible and insane?  And insane person is not
    responsible for hir actions.  The only way to hold Lepine responsible
    is to say that he was, indeed, acting with sound mind.  I think he was.
    
    ----------
    
    To the person who said that "death" is preferable to behavior
    modification and brain-washing...fair enough.  We give them a choice;
    we can kill you or alter your brain.  I suspect there would be many
    people who, when faced with the decision, would disagree that death is
    preferable to Behavior Mod.
    
    D!

    Well, I think we may be coming to effective agreement.  I hold an
    insane person responsible mainly because it's so hard to decide where
    that line would otherwise be, between responsible and not.  In some
    cases it's clear, but in others it's so foggy as to be impossible.  In
    cases of doubt, counsel (in lockup) till sure.  If sane, apply the
    lawful penalty.  If insane, continue lockup (this protects society),
    for the person and/or the insanity are responsible, and they can not be
    seperated.
    See, you think he was sane, but others may disagree; and there are
    other cases: the killers or attempted killers of Reagan, Lennon, JFK,
    MLK, etc.

 Chimpanzee's murder and conduct wars.....

I never gave "The animals do it" as a justification... and since animals
do have some emotions and measured amounts of free will it may be 
unreasonable to think that they think "rape is ok!". I was hoping for a deeper
type of thought than this

    what type of thought then?? I don't understand what you're after - give
    us a clue...

    re:.157
    
    I hate to disagree with you on this, D! (I usually agree with what
    you have to say), but I have to side with Sara about the "clockwork
    orange" idea.
    
    I don't believe that it's moral to muck about with someone's free
    will. Ever. Once you let this practice out of the box, it'll be
    damned difficult to get it back in.
    
    I firmly believe that the right to choose an abortion is a valid
    analogy. There *is* no difference. The point is that there are many
    people out there (even "in here") who believe that abortion is as
    heinous a crime as rape. Some even think it's *far more* heinous.
    You may not agree with that, I may not agree with that. But what
    if the State decides that abortion is something that people need
    to be "conditioned" to not do? And then what's next?
    
    To me, this is the same deal as censorship. In order to live with
    the freedom to read and write what we want, we have to acknowledge
    that material we find offensive will be written and read, and live
    with it. And in order to live with the freedom to choose how we act,
    we have to acknowledge that some people will act in a manner we find
    offensive, and live with that.
    
    No, that does not mean that I think rapists should go unpunished.
    That's absurd. The right to choose is an *inalienable* right. Someone
    who rapes, or murders, or steals, or commits other crimes gives
    up his right to physical freedom, but I don't believe that he gives
    up the right to the "integrity of his body [and mind]."
    
    --- jerry

    Jerry, just to clarify, I *don't* support the brainwashing/Clockwork
    Orange "solution" to crime.  I read in your note that you think that
    since I am arguing with Sara's logic that I support that.  
    
    I reserve judgement on whether it is "ethical" or not.  I guess I feel
    about that the way I feel about capital punishment - I don't *know*
    what ethics dictate, I haven't decided yet.  But speaking practically,
    I think it would be a bad thing to implement because of it's potential
    for abuse; and as you say, first it's rapists, then it's...who?  You? 
    Me?
    
    But I still don't feel that the abortion analogy works.  For starters,
    conditioning people not to have abortions (assuming they were made
    illegal) is conditioning people who have not yet committed a crime,
    whereas convicted rapists are people who *have* committed a crime.  A
    *potential* rapist or abortionist has not yet given up hir right to
    psychological integrity.
    
    D!
    
    [I also understand that the "teaching/couseling" solution menioned in a
    previous note is not that same as brainwashing.  What I am referring to
    *is* brainwashing, ala Clockwork Orange.] 

    Even if it were easy, painless, and 100% reliable I would oppose
    conditioning people not to rape. Even if it were conclusively shown to
    affect no other impulse. I would support the death penalty for rapists
    before that. What is insanity? Who judges the cure?
    
    	Troubled and unsure,
    	-- Charles

    I too, must oppose 'conditioning'. Only a freely accepted ethics
    is proper to a human being. It is a sad comment on us that so
    many are not taught ( _taught_, meaning led through the thought 
    process to the conclusion) that rape and theft and assault 
    are *wrong*.

    on the insanity issue-
    
    I believe in law, there are certain "requirements" to be met
    in order to declare the person insane.  I do not recall what
    they are, however, I would think that is has something to do
    with the person's ability to determine right from wrong.  In
    such a case, yes, the offender IMO is extremely sick and 
    possibly unbalanced when compared with the circle of people
    I have experience with, yet he/she is entirely responsible 
    for their actions and have made the actions knowing that there
    is a price to paid when caught.
    
    Christine

	If what DougO reported in .150 is true, and  _attempted_ 
	rapes have decreased 46% , but  the rate of rapes *completed*
	has stayed roughly the same...

	Why have rapists become so successful?

	At first this seemed like good news, but if the rate of 
	completed rapes is approx equal...    

							nancy b.

I will reply on the Animal Behavior, as I think it may make interesting 
philosophy but for moment work intervenes. It may offend but then often
animal behavior does offend animals.

			Derek

    A woman says she is raped, she shows visible signs of violence, she
    goes to the hospital for an examination, later she identifies her
    attacker from a photograph.

    Isn't that enough to give the police "probable cause" and arrest the
    person she identifies?

    re.178
    
    > Isn't that enough to give the police "probable cause" and arrest the
      person she identifies?
    
    For my money, yes.  But then one must keep in mind that the situation
    you describe in your first paragraph closely parallels my own
    experience [only I identified the man in person, no photos, face to
    face].
    
    The law said, and says, that I had not been raped.  An the rest falls
    by the wayside.
    
    The law is a ass!!
    
      Annie

The following is being entered for a member of this community who
wishes to remain anonymous

Bonnie J


************************

In light of the recent mass murder in Killeen, Texas, does anyone find the 
condemnation of feminists as "men haters" a bit ironic?

The murderer's writing clearly indicate that he hated women, according to
the police and detectives who searched his house and examined his personal
papers. 

It wasn't too long ago that 14 women were slaughtered in Montreal, also by
a man who hated women. 

Then I hear so many men describing the women who support equal rights, or
who speak out against harassment as men haters. 

Sometimes "deadly fear" can take on a whole new, literal, meaning...

    it's unfortunate that someone so unbalanced has to take their anger and
    hurt out on innocent people.
    
    it always amazes me that so-called adults cannot stand up and accept
    responsibility for their lives and the decisions that they make and end
    up blaming some other person(s) for their mistakes.
    
    i've made mistakes in my life, some wrong (misguided) choices, done
    things i wish i hadn't but i've always owned up to my decisions, right
    or wrong, and i'm the person i've made.
    
    i guess i just don't understand this about people.  so much hurt
    
    sue

Referencing 95.180 (Unknown Author):

   No, actually I do not find it ironic that feminists are condemned as
"man haters" in light of the various massacres you describe.

   I don't for two reasons: 

1: It is a myth that all feminists are called "man haters". In actuality,
   only certain radical feminists (in particular, the ones who constantly
   bash men and/or who express unhappiness that men even exist) are called 
   "man- haters".

2: The massacres performed by "woman- haters" only demonstrates something many
   men are aware of but many (overly rightious) women keep missing: that when
   men are driven to the edge by women, they resort to physical violence -- and
   in the process they justify the bitterness of women who feel the need to hate
   men. Of course, when women are at the point where they hate men, women resort
   to emotional, psychological, and economic violence which often creates 
   weak men who end up hating women so much that they are driven over the edge.

   In short, there are two sides to the problem of violence towards women,
just as there are two sides to the so- called "opposition" that so many
self- styled "feminists" encounter to their definition of equal rights.

   It might be helpful to be aware of both sides. When more people give up
the "us and them" mentality that comes up whenever these issues are discussed,
and when more people become aware of the two sides to these issues, then our
chances of eradicating both the inequalities and the violence against women
will increase dramatically.

                                                  -Robert Brown III

    re: .182
    Robert,
    I'm angered by this statement of yours:  "when men are driven to the
    edge by women they resort to physical violence"
    
    Adults are responsible for choosing their own behavior, no one makes
    them behave in a certain way.  There are always other options besides
    physical violence.  No one deserves to be beaten or killed.  
    
    I am really very angry with your statement.  It seems to in some
    way justify violence against women.  I repeat, adults are responsible
    for their own actions and no one deserves to be beaten or killed.
    
    Sue                                            
    
    

    
    The following entry is by a member of our community who wishes
    to be anonymous.
    
    Bonnie J
    =wn= comod
**************************************************************

I feel that I have to reply to the comments in the previous note.  

>1: It is a myth that all feminists are called "man haters". In actuality,
>   only certain radical feminists (in particular, the ones who constantly
>   bash men and/or who express unhappiness that men even exist) are called 
>   "man- haters".

It may certainly be a myth that all feminists are called man haters by all 
men.  It is not a myth that there are a number of men who see any 
encroachment upon their territory by women as an act of man-hating.  It is 
also not a myth that there are women who hate men (but I haven't seen any 
of their massacres...).

>2:The massacres performed by "woman- haters" only demonstrates something many
>  men are aware of but many (overly rightious) women keep missing: that when
>  men are driven to the edge by women, they resort to physical violence -- and
>  in the process they justify the bitterness of women who feel the need to hate
>  men. Of course, when women are at the point where they hate men, women resort
>  to emotional, psychological, and economic violence which often creates 
>  weak men who end up hating women so much that they are driven over the edge.

Call me overly righteous, but how were the two men in the examples that I 
cited driven to the edge by women?  They may have been disturbed by their 
perceptions of women or perhaps by the gains of the women's movement, but 
there was no evidence to suggest that any specific woman caused their 
actions.

And to say that when men are driven to the edge [by women], they resort to 
physical violence is to state an all-too-obvious fact for many women.  
After all, who is the most common recipient of this violence?  And I put
"by women" into brackets because there are a lot of women who will attest
that the physical violence came as a result of a man being driven to the
edge by a bad day at work, or heavy traffic on the way home, or a paper
cut. 

And finally, please tell me, what is "economic violence"????  Slapping
someone with a dollar bill?  Slamming the phone down after checking the
bank balance over the telephone?  Not giving back the change from the
grocery allowance? 

    IMO, you are the only one who can drive yourself to the edge.
    Or back again. 

>>"when men are driven to the edge by women, they resort to physical
>>violence" 
    
>>"when women are at the point where they hate men, women resort
>>to emotional, psychological, and economic violence which often creates 
>>weak men who end up hating women so much that they are driven over the edge."

>>"there are two sides to the problem of violence towards women,

   Robert,
    I don't see where you demonstated that there are two sides to
    the problem of violence against women.  Apparently, you believe
    that women alone are resonsible for the violence against them.
    
    Sue 
    
                         

    sorry about the typos.  I think Robert has driven me over the edge.
    
    Sue  
    

Sue, I'm playing devil's advocate here:

are you saying that no woman ever goads any man, ever?

Of COURSE you (and others) are right, that no amount of verbal abuse justifies,
or excuses, physical violence, or exonerates the violent person.

But do you think that a (hypothetical) woman who deliberately goads has
anything at all to do with precipitating violence?

if no, then I decline to argue it further.

if yes, then don't bother to follow with the "but" -- because we agree.  A
violent response is always wrong, and should not happen, and should be punished
under the law.  The person who was the target of violence is not to be blamed
for the violence, but may have had something to do with it.
		      ^^^
(note use of conditional tense -- and that no presumption of blame attaches to
the noticing of existing scenario)

Each person is responsible for her or his actions.

Sara

    Sara,
    
    I think that a woman who behaves meekly, who never stands
    up for herself, is probably more likely to be physically abused
    than a vocal woman who might "goad" someone.  That's what most of 
    the studies that I've seen have indicated, anyway.
    
    Further, I think that it somehow obscures the issue of violence
    against women to try and find excuses for the perpetrators.
    I can understand what motivates people to violence but that
    doesn't excuse it.
    
    Sue
    

    Sara,
    
    I know that you agree that violence against women is never
    excusable.  But, to me, bringing up a hypothetical situation
    of a verbally abusive woman in a note about violence against
    women seems to imply that "some women ask for it."  It's as
    if there was a discussion of the Armenian genocide by the
    Turks, and someone said "what about those Armenians who were
    really nasty to the Turks?"  It seems to imply an equality to
    the situations that isn't there.
    
    
     

>    But, to me, bringing up a hypothetical situation
>    of a verbally abusive woman in a note about violence against
>    women seems to imply that "some women ask for it."
>    [...] It seems to imply an equality to the situations that 
>    isn't there.

 I don't think Sara is in any way implying an equality between a
person who is physically violent and a person who antagonizes
said violent person knowing full well what the result will be.
Rather, I believe that Sara is showing a recognition that not
all violence is entirely unprovoked, and that sometimes
responsibility for a given episode is shared between the
two parties. I think Sara said plainly enough that the
physical violence is never justified or excusable; that alone
speaks to the inequality which we all agree exists. 

 I think the phenomenon that is occurring here is the same one that
frequently occurs in the rape note; we have moved beyond the 
area in which we all agree and moved onto the more difficult areas
of boundary conditions. Everybody agrees that when the jerk comes
home from a "bad day" and beats on the spouse because dinner is 
improperly prepared that we have an innocent victim and a guilty
jerk. It's when we get into areas like when a verbal argument
turns into a situation where one party throws something at the
other and then violence breaks out, with the first party getting
the worst of it- that's when we begin to consider the gray areas
which so frequently give us trouble.

 The Doctah

 
>>a person who antagonizes
>>said violent person knowing full well what the result will be

Again, this seems to imply that there are some women "who are
    asking for it."  
    
    Sue

    Sue,
    
    So, is it not possible that some women do indeed 'ask for it'
    or invite violence? This does't make it okay, of course to
    'give her what she is asking for'.
    
    Bonnie

re .191
    I find these two sentences contradictory:
    >>Rather, I believe that Sara is showing a recognition that not
    >>all violence is entirely unprovoked, and that sometimes
    >>responsibility for a given episode is shared between the
    >>two parties. 
    
    >>I think Sara said plainly enough that the physical violence is never 
    >>justified or excusable
    
    How can the "responsibility be shared" for a violent episode if
    "violence is never justified?"
    
    Sue, I agree with you.  I think that talking about "provocative"
    behavior in women in a string about violence against women speaks
    volumes about the extent to which we (as a culture) still hold women at
    least partly responsible for the acts of violence committed against
    them.
    
    Justine

    Bonnie, Mark, Sara,
    
    Yes, of course, there are unpleasant women.  There are crazy
    women.  There are certainly a few women who might provoke
    violent behavior.  But violence against women is epidemic.
    You can't read a paper or watch the news these days without
    seeing a story on a woman being killed by her man.  There is
    so much male violence against women in our society. I don't
    think the majority of these women provoked what happened
    to them, and I think it is somehow a disservice to them
    to focus on the small amount of women who do provoke.
    
                                              Sue

    I don't think that we were focusing on them.

    Bonnie,
    Take the example I gave a while ago - the Armenian genocide.
    Millions of men, women, and children were killed by the Turks.
    (Hitler thought he could get away with killing the Jews because
    he said no one paid any attention to what happened to the Armenians.)
    If there were a note about the Armenian genocide and someone said
    "well, what about an Armenian who provoked some Turk?" -
    wouldn't that seem to you to be focusing the attention and
    responsibilty away from the people responsible and on to the
    victims themselves?
    
    Sue 

    Sue
    
    Of course it would. But there is just enough difference between
    a genocide situation, and the situation where there are some
    things that some individuals can do to lessen the violence to make
    the analogy less than valid. This is not blaming the victim, but 
    simple common sense.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Maybe it would help if we were more specific.  What kinds of things
    could a woman do to be considered "partly responsible" for her
    husband/boyfriend/lover hitting her?  
                         
    Justine

    Well how about 'bating' him verbally. Name calling, nagging, picking
    fights etc. If she is constantly fighting with him, calling him names,
    etc, then she has some responsibility for the situation. That doesn't
    excuse him hitting her, but she did contribute to the fight. 

    Sue,
    
    The only point I'm trying to make here is that the reverse of your
    situation is equally true, that just as women are not *totally*
    responsible for everything that happens to them, they are also
    not completely lacking in responsibility. I see a pendulum swing
    that may well be over compensating for the previous 'blame the
    victim' situation.
    
    Bonnie

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================

  >>  But there is just enough difference between
  >>  a genocide situation, and the situation where there are some
  >>  things that some individuals can do to lessen the violence to make
  >>  the analogy less than valid. This is not blaming the victim, but 
  >>  simple common sense.
    
   Bonnie,
    
    I'm not sure I'm following you.  You think the difference between 
    the violence the Turks committed against the Armenians and the 
    violence men commit against women is that there are some things 
    women can do to lessen the violence?  I don't see that.  There are some
    women in positions where they can do nothing to lessen the violence.
    There must've been some Armenians in positions where they could
    lessen the violence.   I think the analogy is still valid.  I think
    the reason that it seems more ok to blame women for the violence
    against them than it does to blame the victims of genocide is that
    we've been brainwashed into thinking women are responsible for
    everything that happens to them.
    
    Sue
    

    Bonnie, 
    I think the pendulum would have to swing a good long way before
    it would be more in women's favor than men's, especially women
    who are victims of violence.
    Sue

    Sue
    
    I don't particularly 'own' anything in this argument, I was essentially
    'chiming in' to say that I felt what Sara had said had some merit.
    I'm not out particularly to debate or argue this particular point
    of view.
    
    Bonnie

    Bonnie,
    
    Yes, I recognize that.
    I think this discussion is floundering on the general vs. specific.
    I'm speaking generally, I think that you and Sara are speaking
    specifically.  I agree that in individual cases a woman might
    have done a lot of provoking, but I don't think that changes the
    general picture.
    
    Sue

    fine

    fine :-)

>    How can the "responsibility be shared" for a violent episode if
>    "violence is never justified?"
 
 I'm not sure it is possible to explain this, because I think you
will not accept the concept. Making the statement in a straightforward
manner doesn't seem to be working, I seriously doubt that any analogy
I can relate will be satisfactory; I'm at a logical impasse. 

 To my way of thinking, sharing responsibility for a violent episode
is related directly to the nature of the episode and the behavior of
each participant. What I get from you that there is absolutely nothing
a woman can do to a man (including initiating violence) that imbues
upon her any responsibility for the episode whatsoever. Given such
an absolutist position, I'm afraid that my words cannot possibly
evoke a sympathetic response.

 I do not happen to share that position. Having seen situations which
were in the gray area, (And experienced them!) I recognize that some
actions on the part of the victims of violence can contribute to
a violent episode, and as such the victims bear the responsibility
for that (such as it is.) What you seem to be hearing is that it's
ok for guys to beat wimmin if they get pissed off (even at something else.)
That is so far from what I actually believe, I cannot help but feel
we are experiencing a situation where one side adopts an absolutist
and paints anyone who does not subscribe as an enemy. It's the old
polarization thing. 

 The Doctah

    
    Mark, I think if someone actually threw a punch or made some other
    violent contact, then that would count as "starting a fight."  
    Then I might see some of this grey area you speak of - now if a woman 
    slaps her husband, and then he chops off her hand with an axe, I'd say that
    would be a mighty dark shade of grey - but not completely black.
    
    But I don't see how words can be considered a justifiable
    reason for one person hitting another.  
    
    I do think that we will need to agree to disagree on this one, Mark,
    but I did want to jump in when I saw you suggesting that I would see
    even a first strike on the part of a woman against a man as her
    not being responsible for the fight that followed.  
    
    I doubt that many battered women throw the first punch.  
    
    
    Justine

last contribution on the subject, and then I too will say, Fine!  :-)

once I provoked a sociopath to near-violence.  I knew the man.  I knew that he
is a dangerous person, addicted to drugs, dishonest, charming when he wants to
be, no one to be trusted, and quite thoroughly without conscience.  I knew all
this about him *before* I provoked him.

I didn't say anything to him that was untrue -- I just gave him back the same
verbal abuse he was giving me.  We were on a campus bus at UMass in 1975.  He
was leaving the bus, and tossed over his shoulder that I could kiss his *$$.
I replied that I would be afraid of what I might catch.  He lost it completely.
He turned and came back up the aisle at me, with violence all over him.  (Like
a real stupe, I sat there with the defiant face on.)

Lucky for me, about 2 steps away he remembered that he was in a public place,
that there were plenty of witnesses who would testify as to our relative sizes
and that he had instigated violence.  He cussed me all the way off the bus. 
I have no doubt that I'd have been raped and beaten, maybe killed, if he had
thought he could have gotten away with it.

Was I to BLAME for what I did?  NO.  If he had raped/beaten/killed me, would it
have been MY FAULT?  NO.

Was I STUPID?  YES.  Was I responsible for my own stupidity?  Yes.

Sara

>    Then I might see some of this grey area you speak of - now if a woman 
>    slaps her husband, and then he chops off her hand with an axe, I'd say that
>    would be a mighty dark shade of grey - but not completely black.

 To me this is a quantum leap forward; I really believed that you were
as absolute in your position as I stated in the previous note.

>    But I don't see how words can be considered a justifiable
>    reason for one person hitting another.  

 They aren't, and nobody (here at least) is saying that they are.
The issue isn't justification; it's responsibility for actions
that one has performed. 

 If I walk into a gay bar and walk over to the largest leather clad
man and tell him that he's queer and a disgusting human being
and I hope he dies of AIDS, is it justifiable that he beats the 
tar out of me? Do I have any responsibility for the beating I 
receive? How does this compare and contrast to me walking out
of the Wang Center after a play and getting jumped on the way to
the car?

 I gotta go with the flow here. It's time to say "fine."

 The Doctah

    The term is 'culpable negligence' comes to mind. Provocation
    does not equal justification, but it will be considered in a court
    of law as an extenuating circumstance. 

re: .206
>   I'm speaking generally, I think that you and Sara are speaking
>    specifically.  I agree that in individual cases a woman might
>    have done a lot of provoking, but I don't think that changes the
>    general picture.
 
    
    No amount of verbal provocation invites physical violence.
    
    NONE.
    THERE IS NO EXCUSE.
    EVER.
    
    NO MATTER HOW RILED OR ANGRY YOU ARE, 
    THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR PHYSICAL VIOLENCE.
    
    -Jody
    

    Actually, I believe the concept of "fighting words" exists -- if not in
    federal law then at least in the minds of judges and juries. As a
    sharp-tongued sissy, I have to watch this stuff myself.  (: >,)
    
    The problem is that, like the last time we went round this dismal
    carousel, it's being put in terms of man=physical_violence,
    woman=verbal_taunts.  I think the example given in 95.211 is by far the
    most common case: The people who resort to violence will actually have
    engaged in verbal taunts first, moving to the physical when they feel
    that the verbal wasn't enough -- for example, if their victim has the
    nerve to respond verbally in kind.  And they then consider the move to
    physical violence justified ("no one can talk to me like that").
    
    Ray

    I used to think that "aggravated assault" meant "the victim aggravated
    the attacker into it," making it a lesser charge than plain old
    "assault". Imagine my surprise to find out it wasn't true...

    -b

>                 -< Is it still OK to slap hysterical people? >-
    
    Why are you asking?  (: >,)
    
    This reminds me of a scene from "The Producers":
    
    	Gene Wilder:  I'M HAVING AN ANXIETY ATTACK!
    	Zero Mostel:  Calm down!
    	GW:           I CAN'T! I'M HYSTERICAL! I'M PANICKING! ANHH ANHH
                      ANNHH!
    	ZM: (throws water on him)
    	GW:           ... I'M WET! I'M PANICKING AND HYSTERICAL AND I"M WET!
    
    Ray

    Jody,
    
    I entirely agree with you, and I hope no one took my words to mean
    anything different.
    
    Bonnie

"... sharp-tongued sissy ..."

!!!ha ha ha ha !!!! I loved this phrase!  Thanks Ray  :-)

Jody -- FINE!! we are in total agreement!

kids -- fightin's outta style, fun's where the fair's at -- meetcha in the
flotation tank.  The new one -- I think it's been painted a new shade of shimmer
lately.

I don't agree with the idea that women don't take responsibility
for their role in male violence.  I think the opposite is true;
women are still held largely accountable for the violence against
them.  

I think many people would say they believe violence against
women is never excusable.  But, on a case by case basis, many people, 
women as well as men, will judge the woman in the situation much
more severely than they would a man.  

"She was too aggressive, she goaded him into it."
"She was too passive, she didn't defend herself."
"She has a good education and a good job, she should have known better."
"She was a sixth-grade drop-out and had been in trouble before, anyway."

I think people would like to believe that all the violence against
women is just a collection of random incidents, each one to be judged
separately.  They don't want to believe that there is a systematic
pattern of violence against women in this society.

Violence against women is only recently being discussed.  It gets
a lot of press time because it's sensational, but as far as I can
see not much has changed.  Yet there are people saying that we've
gone far enough.

Minorities recognize it when there is systematic violence done
against them.  I'm sure individual members of whatever minority
know that some other members of their group can be obnoxious,
could perhaps be provocative.  But, when the subject of violence
against their group is raised, they don't "maybe it's our fault."

I've read that attorneys defending someone on a racial violence
charge try to make sure that no one of the attacked group gets on the
jury.  It's common sense.  On the other hand, attorneys defending
men accused of rape don't mind having women on the jury.  They
know that women will judge other women as harshly as any man might.

An apparent majority of the population, female as well as male,
believes that women are to a large extent responsible for the violence 
against them.   Women are taking more than their share of
    responsibilty for the violence done to them.  

    Sue

       Sue

>                  But, on a case by case basis, many people, 
> women as well as men, will judge the woman in the situation much
> more severely than they would a man.  

> "She was too aggressive, she goaded him into it."
> "She was too passive, she didn't defend herself."
> "She has a good education and a good job, she should have known better."
> "She was a sixth-grade drop-out and had been in trouble before, anyway."

Exactly, Sue.

And then there's the self-judgement that women put on themselves:

"I shouldn't have told him about Junior's fight before he had his beer."
"I should have looked nicer for him."
"I should have had dinner ready sooner, and it should have been hotter,
and less spicey. I really need to learn to cook like his mother."
"I shouldn't have left the house when I knew he might try to call."
.
.
.
"I should have kept the kids quieter."
"I should.... I should.... I should...."

> An apparent majority of the population, female as well as male,
> believes that women are to a large extent responsible for the violence 
> against them.   Women are taking more than their share of
>    responsibilty for the violence done to them.  

Amen. Thank you for taking the time to share your point of view, Sue.

Kathy

    re .220, Sue, I agree with your views in this discussion.  It occurs to
    me that succeeding in making women believe that they have to be careful
    to make certain that their behavior and comments don't goad men into
    violence against them is a very good way of keeping women in their
    place and controlling them.
    
    In fact, if men can claim that a woman goaded them into violence, why
    can't the same woman turn around and say that the man's previous
    behavior goaded her into being verbally abusive?  Who goaded who first? 
    Who's to say where it starts?
    
    Lorna
    

    .189
    
    I agree that meek women are victims as violence just as much, if not
    more than, more assertive women.  I have seen personally, women who
    do and say *nothing* for fear of what their husbands may do; and what
    happens?  There's still violence.  Perhaps she dropped and broke
    a jelly glass.  
    
    A violent man does not need provocation nor goading; in fact, sometimes
    the actual meekness sends the man over the edge--as interpreted as 
    'well this is one way i'll get her attention....slam!'
    
    Maia
    

    	RE: .220  Sue
    
    	One of the most common ways I've seen women blamed for being
    	subjected to violence is:  "She ALLOWED it to happen."
    
    	Notice that victims of muggings aren't told, "Oh, you ALLOWED
    	the perp to mug you, right?"
    

    re .223, as far as meek women being victims of violence, I don't know
    what statistics (if any) show, but my own personal experience leads me
    to believe that there are some men who have more of a tendency towards
    violence if the woman speaks up for herself.  It seems to me that women
    can't win in this situation because to be meek may mean to avoid
    physical violence, but it may also mean living a miserable existence
    being totally dominated and bossed around by a man who has little
    concern for her own wishes.  But, to speak up and argue may "goad" the
    man to violence in order to shut her up, and continue to run her life. 
    It's not much of a choice, and the reason I feel this way is that the
    closest I've ever come to physical violence was on occasions where I
    spoke up and disagreed with a man on something that was important to
    me.  I had the feeling that if I had been meek and kept my mouth shut
    that I would have felt miserable and bossed around, but that the men in
    question wouldn't have been angry at me.
    
    Lorna
    

    A woman of low self-esteem will tolerate small abuses, which leads to 
    more abuse. An abuser, who probably gets his (pseudo-)self-esteem from 
    dominating such a woman, gets angry if she tries to raise her 
    self-esteem by refusing to accept any more abuse. The result - she
    gets beat back into submission. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

    Another point to consider is a woman of low self-esteem often times
    does not consider the way she is being treated as abuse (or abusive).
    She can be too close to the situation to understand that she is being
    abused, or she can have an unclear definition of what abuse is (often
    times the result of unwritten rules of her original family).  
    
    Depending on what needs are being met in a particular relationship,
    individuals will often accept behavior outside of their boundaries just
    to protect themself from losing the relationship.  Abusive relationships
    aren't full of only pain -- the good parts can be *so* important to the
    individual that they blind the individual from the pain of the bad parts.
    
    -Janice

In his note, Robert said that women are to blame for the
violence against them because they bring up male children
full of explosive rage, and then they push men to the edge.
It guess it is only natural to resent women if you see
men as being the product and puppets of women.  But I think
women are less powerful than Robert does.

Children aren't shaped by their mothers alone, they are also
shaped by their fathers, and by the society around them.
When you live in a sexist society like ours that says,
"it's not really nice to hit women but we'll understand
and accept it if she was really being a pain," then it is 
only to be expected that violence against women will be
epidemic.

And adults are responsible for their actions no matter
what kind of childhood they had.  I think the fact that
my husband has never hit me does not show that I'm a
wonderful human being who never makes anyone angry, rather 
it shows that he is the kind of human being who doesn't
resort to violence when he is angry.

I give men a lot more credit for their own power than
Robert does.

                                     Sue

    re: .226
    Yes! I think your description of the cycle of violence is
    right on target.

Referencing 95.183 (Unknown Author):

   First, let me make it clear: I am not calling you specifically overly
righteous. Since I do not know who you are, I have no record of the pattern of
your conversations here, and consequently I cannot say that "you" are overly
righteous. All I can say thus far (and all that I am saying) is that there are
two sides to the issues that you have raised and that your both your entries
95.180 and 95.183 appear to be paying undue attention to one side of the issue.

Now, to the points you make:

   In general, I must say that you (and others, as I see) have clearly missed
the point that I was trying to make. I shall first say some things about what
you've said, then I shall attempt to clarify the point I was trying to make.

   Your claim that there are men who see the enroachment of women into their
"territory" as acts of "man- hating" is indeed a myth. The men you are
describing see such enroachments as a threat. There is a subtle but very
important difference.

   The difference is that if the enroachment onto "male" territory is an act of
man hating, then such enroachments would be, by their nature, be deliberate
acts against men. In other words, according to your statement, the men you
describe would accuse a woman who (for example) wanted to be a construction
worker of trying to be a construction worker out of spitefulness or hatred
towards men. That is not only untrue, but it is also somewhat ridiculous.

   Using the example of the female construction worker, the problem that some
men would have with her is that (a) her very existence goes against everything
they've been taught, (b) the "male culture" they've built would have to be
changed in order to accomodate her, and (c) they would lose some of the "space"
that this society traditionally reserved for men.

   Though it is human nature to fear change (there are exceptions to this but
in general it is true), reason (a) is relatively easily overcome. The feeling
of being threatened usually comes from problems (b) and (c). Problem (b) would
require them to be more careful with what they say or do (please note: I am not
talking here about the attempt to avoid such things as sexual harrassment,
though that is one aspect. I am talking here about patterns of behavior which
are different between men- men and men- women), and would feel that a lot of
freedom to "be themselves" would be lost. Problem (c) involves the concept of
"shrinking territories"; that is their feeling (a feeling which, quite frankly,
I understand) that while this society is changing so that women can enter into
so- called "male" territory, there are no provisions being allowed for the
reverse to occurr. These two things will cause some men to feel threatened,
but, as I hoped I made clear, their feeling threatened is quite different from
the idea that they consider the enroaching woman as someone doing it out of
hatred for them.

   In other words, I reiterate: the idea that even some men consider women who
enroach on their territory as man- haters is a myth.

   You also mention not "seeing" any massacres from women who hate men. This
actually is because such massacres don't often make the news. They don't
because they are not as dramatic as the ones you've mentioned. They aren't as
dramatic because when women kill they don't use automatic machine guns. They
use poison, sabotage, or other men (hired killers, usually, though there have
been others).

   Further, you state the following:

      " ...And I put 'by women' into brackets because there are a lot of 
        women who will attest that the physical violence came as a result of
        a man being driven to the edge by a bad day at work, or heavy traffic
        on the way home, or a paper cut."

   This is irrelevant. I was not talking about the man who uses the bad
day at work or bad traffic as an excuse to hit his wife or girlfriend (anyone
who knows the psychology of wife- beating knows that such men would hit the
woman closest to him no matter how good his "day" was). I am talking about the
same kind of man that you are: the man who goes out and shoots women because he
hates them. There is a completely different psychology involved here.

   This community accepts that if a woman hates men, she usually has a real
reason for hating men. Women who hate men usually do so because men have done
something to them.  This could be anything from being trivialized by the male
members of their family (and community) to having men constantly
discrimminating against them to having to deal with men abusing and/or raping
them. In short, the "man- hater" is usually someone who at some point was made
very angry at men in general, and whose anger is unresolved enough to turn into
hatred. Her hatred always comes from somewhere in her experience, never in a
vacuum.

   Is it so hard to accept even the possibility that the reverse is true? That
if a man hates women then that hatred is rooted in his own personal experience?
And that maybe that experience (or in some cases, experiences) are a lot more
serious than some "perception" they may have or by "gains in the women's
movement"?

   Did you know that a lot of rapists were abused as children, in a few cases
sexually, by their mothers? Did you know that many serial killers, particularly
those who target women, are in their minds killing some woman (a former lover
or mother) who has damaged them emotionally and psychologically? Or that most
of those who don't fit into that category were blaming someone (usually a
mother) for neglecting them when they went through abuse?

   Further, indications are that the man who shot those women in Canada hated
women because someone he loved hurt him very badly. And you haven't seen any
indications that a woman did anything to the man in Texas because (a) the
incident happened too soon for the police (and our media) to get any real
details on his life, and (b) considering the fickleness of the American
public's attention- span, it is likely that when the police do learn the
motivations behind his act that information will not be widely publicized.

   Just as some women have good reasons for hating men, so some men have good
reasons for hating women. The difference between a strong man- hater and a
strong woman- hater is really in the way they express their hatred. When I say
"expression of hatred", I include the form of violence used against members of
the hated sex.

   All this leads to the point I was trying to make in my entry 95.182: that
people who hate members of the opposite sex do not do so for the mundane kinds
of reasons that you (and other members of this community) are so fond of
suggesting. You (and others in WOMANNOTES) accept the idea that a woman who
hates men has real, legitimate reasons for her hatred, yet you do not seem
willing to even entertain the possibility that the man who hates women may have
legitimate reasons for his hatred as well.

   The other point I was trying to make was that violence is not something
restricted to members of one sex. Granted, we are aware of a great deal of
physical violence that is directed at women by men, but there are other forms
of violence that women have used and continue to use against men.

   Here I answer your last question. I define economic violence as the act of
using economic means to destroy someone. A person who uses economic violence is
using money (or in this case, the lack of it) in the same way that a person who
uses physical violence uses a weapon. Both forms of violence can kill; physical
violence kills more quickly and its intent is clearer in court. But if, through
the use of various laws, a person's home, livelihood, and the means of feeding
hirself is lost, then that person can die and the perpetrator is never held to
be responsible.

   Economic violence has toppled entire nations. It has also destroyed a lot of
men in this one.

   Consequently, I attempt to make my third point: that the "us and them"
mentality that is inevitable when you justify women's anger while trivializing
men's anger will not help to eliminate (or reduce) physical violence directed
towards women. To dismiss the resentment that some men feel towards women as
being because of "enroachments" on "territory" or "gains in the women's
movement" is to take a simplistic view that does not even begin to address the
forces that cause male violence and (worse) cause our society to tolerate it.

   The few (small) gains that have been made in the reduction of this type of
behavior have been made through proper communication and through the
understanding the patterns which foster such abuse. The "us and them" mentality
leads to no such gains; it only generates unnecessary resentment and makes it
that much harder to make more people aware of the scope of the problem -- or
the ways in which we all can work to eliminate it.

                                                       -Robert Brown III

Referencing 95.184 and 95.186 (Sue),
            and many others since then:

   Please note, Sue (referencing 95.187), that there is no way I could have
driven you over the edge since according to SA1794::CHARBONND (95.185) only you
can do that. ;-)

   Just kidding.

   Seriously: it is clear that you all have missed the points I was trying to
make in my entry 95.182.

   There has been some discussion of the woman who "asks for it", who
antagonizes a man to the point that he responds with physical violence.
Actually, there are some situations where this occurrs.

   Unfortunately, that type of situation is irrelevant to what I have been
trying to say.

   I was taking issue with certain stereotypical untruths put forth by the
Unknown Author in 95.180. The issue of domestic violence, aggravated or
otherwise, is outside the boundaries of what I was discussing. It is my hope
that I have made this clear in my entry 95.230.

   And further: Sue's suggestion that I was blaming women for the violence
against them (in 95.186), and then her assertion that I was (in 95.228) is a
prime example of how counterproductive the "us and them" mentality that I
alluded to really is. Sue's statements tell me that she considers herself (and
victims of male violence) to be "us", and me to be "them" -- where those who
are "them" blame the victims for male violence.

   Saying that I am blaming women for violence against them is the height of
ignorance.

   If you knew anything about where I was coming from, Sue, you would not even
have thought about making such a distortion about me.

   Let me enlighten you a little: I am very familiar with male violence. I grew
up with it. I watched my mother beaten almost every day by my father. I myself
was abused. What "provoked" my father was the alcohol he consumed during the
day.  My mother also "provoked" him by trying to protect me, my brothers and my
sisters from his abuse.

   The abuse finally stopped the day he tried to kill my mother. Then the
cowardly scumbag ran off to another state for fear that my mother would
(finally) get him arrested.

   According to your logic, I blame my mother for my father beating on her.
According to your logic, I blame myself for the times he abused me. According
to your logic, I also blame my brothers and sisters for the times he beat them
-- especially my younger brother, who was abused the most because my father
couldn't deal with the fact that he is retarded.

   But then, your logic is inevitable. I am one of "them", after all.

   Sue, please look closely at my previous entry 95.230. Check out what I am
saying, instead of what your view of the world suggests what I may mean. I
never said that women were to "blame" for domestic violence, and I wasn't even
talking about domestic violence. I was talking about stereotypes about men's
perceptions about feminists, and about how violence can take many forms --
including forms that women have used instead of physical violence.

   And don't you EVER make such statements about my beliefs again. Neither you
nor any other member of this "community" have any real clue as to what my
attitudes really are.

   You don't have any idea because it is clear to me that you don't want to.

                                                          -Robert Brown III
 

    RE: .231 Robert
    
    > And don't you EVER make such statements about my beliefs again. 
    > Neither you nor any other member of this "community" have any real 
    > clue as to what my attitudes really are.
    
    Please refrain from EVER making similar statements about the beliefs
    of others here, as well:
    
    	.230> This community accepts that if a woman hates men, she usually 
        .230> has a real reason for hating men. 
    
    	.230> You (and others in WOMANNOTES) accept the idea that a woman 
    	.230> who hates men has real, legitimate reasons for her hatred, yet 
    	.230> you do not seem willing to even entertain the possibility that 
    	.230> the man who hates women may have legitimate reasons for his 
    	.230> hatred as well.
    
    You have as little clue as to what our REAL attitudes are as you suggest
    anyone else here has about yours.
    
    Fair is fair.  If you make this request of people here, then be sure
    you are willing to honor the same request yourself.

    re .230
>   All this leads to the point I was trying to make in my entry 95.182: that
>people who hate members of the opposite sex do not do so for the mundane kinds
>of reasons that you (and other members of this community) are so fond of
>suggesting. You (and others in WOMANNOTES) accept the idea that a woman who
>hates men has real, legitimate reasons for her hatred, yet you do not seem
>willing to even entertain the possibility that the man who hates women may have
>legitimate reasons for his hatred as well.
    
    Robert,
    
    I think there have been discussions in Womannotes of women who are
    _angry_at_ men.  I've seen and heard about very few examples of women
    who _hate_ men.  There's a big difference.
    
    Yes, I accept that some women have legitimate reasons to be angry at
    specific men, or even men as a group.  I also accept that some men have 
    reason to be angry at specific women, or woman as a group -- but I
    recognize and accept (as it seems you do not) that discussions of that
    topic are of very limited (if any) interest in Womannotes.  They are
    usually irrelevant to what _women_ have to say.
    
    Bob

    RE: .233  Bob Leigh

    > I think there have been discussions in Womannotes of women who are
    > _angry_at_ men.  I've seen and heard about very few examples of women
    > who _hate_ men.  There's a big difference.

    Agreed!  "Man-hating" is a negative stereotype about feminists - nothing
    more.

    Feminists have a long history of being subjected to this, though -
    in the 19th Century, women who worked for equal rights in voting and
    property ownership were also called "man-haters" - so I guess feminists 
    should be accustomed to it by now.

    I can't imagine how anyone could have gotten the impression that some/
    many/most of us here have "accepted" this negative stereotype in any
    way.  Nothing could be farther from the truth.