Domestic Violence Debate Guide
The Domestic Violence Debate Guide
Cut and paste, spread the truth, expose the lies
1. Lead with facts and logic
2. Follow up with emotional appeal to equal rights and social justice for male victims and their children.
3. Stay focused; do not allow the debate to be sidetracked.
4. Expect and ignore the hateful slander, be professional.
Post media stories here to alert other activists.
Experts, experts, experts and lots of research
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE –WOMEN ARE HALF THE PROBLEM
There is a significant enough body of evidence to make three things patently clear:
1. Domestic violence is not a product of gender, attributing it to gender is not only misleading, it actually hinders efforts to address the problem.
2. Society is wildly misinformed about the nature, origins and realities of domestic violence.
3. Most of our legal and politically handling of domestic violence is based on the myths and not the realities, leaving us to put all resources into only half of the problem.”
NCFM LEADING THE WAY IN CALIFORNIA
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights in a decision in October, 2008.
The taxpayer lawsuit — Woods. v. Shewry — was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence. The Court of Appeal held that “The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.”
Read more http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2844
In October 2009, Men and Women Against Discrimination won a lawsuit against Family Services Board of West Virginia. The court decided that FSB’s approach had, “a substantial chilling effect of suppressing their members expression of speech, thoughts and ideas relative to domestic violence by depriving them even of the opportunity to obtain certified services.”
FSB had set up a system of approving service providers that eliminated anyone who didn’t agree with their principles. Providers were required to take 30 hours of training, part of which was to learn, “the understanding that domestic violence is deeply rooted in historical attitudes toward women.” The problem is that statement has no bearing on reliable studies.
BUILD YOUR OWN SHELTERS
Telling men to “build your own shelters” is like telling women “build your own unions” because men built most unions. The discrimination we challenge is in taxpayer-funded programs, and men pay at least half of those taxes. There is already an entire industry built by Canadian men and women to serve victims of domestic violence (women only). Men do not need to create their own infrastructure, it already exists. Discriminating against men needs to change.
The choice is clear:
Either we continue to disseminate misleading and false information that conforms to a self-serving ideological agenda. Or we move forward in our shared goal to help families become violence free. As long as we as a society continue to ignore women’s violence against men, the cycle of family violence will continue to be taught to children.
HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL AND AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION ARE RECOGNIZING THE FREQUENCY OF FEMALE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
The article below printed in the 9/07 issue of the Harvard Mental Health Letter (V. 24, N. 3) and is on the Harvard Medical School’s website. It is by the researcher from the Centers for Disease Control, Dr. Whitaker, whose recent reseach found 24% OF HETEROSEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS HAD VIOLENCE, HALF OF IT RECIPROCAL,AND THAT WOMEN COMMITTED OVER 70% OF THE NON-RECIPROCAL VIOLENCE AND INITIATED THE RECIPROCAL VIOLENCE MORE OFTEN THAN MEN, and women suffered more injury but men suffered significant injury as well.
The abstract of the study is at http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/5/941
The Psychiatry Online article on the study is at
REFERENCES EXAMINING ASSAULTS BY WOMEN ON THEIR SPOUSES OR MALE PARTNERS: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY
SUMMARY: This bibliography examines 246 scholarly investigations: 187 empirical studies and 59 reviews and/or analyses, WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT WOMEN ARE AS PHYSICALLY AGGRESSIVE, OR MORE AGGRESSIVE, THAN MEN in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 237,750.
NATIONAL FAMILY VIOLENCE LEGISLATIVE RESOURCE CENTER POLICY STATEMENT ON FAMILY VIOLENCE
“Reports from the WHO (Archer, 2006) also make it clear than in many countries around the world, particularly where women have little political or socioeconomic power, women represent the much larger share of IPV victims. However, the most reliable population of surveys indicate that in Western industrialized democracies such as the United States and Canada, where they enjoy higher status, women engage in physical aggression at rates comparable to men (Archer, 2000; Fiebert, 2004; Straus & Gelles, 1990) and are as likely or more likely to be the initiators (DeMaris, 1992; Morse, 1995; Dutton et al., 1999; Straus, 1993; Williams & Frieze, 2005).”
“Shernock’s (2005) analysis of over 2000 IPV incidents in Vermont revealed that men were categorized as perpetrators 3.2 times more often than women on the initial police report, but subsequently arrested 9 times as often. At issue is the extent to which this pattern of gender bias reflects flawed “dominant aggressor” guidelines and assumptions about IPV based on discredited sociopolitical theories of patriarchy”
“Victimized males do not have access to services because of the assumption that they are only minimally impacted by IPV, if at all. This assumption, however, runs contrary to an overwhelming body of research evidence. A significant minority of IPV-related physical injuries, between 25% and 43%, are incurred by men (Archer, 2000; Laroch, in preparation; Mirrlees-Black, 1999; Straus, 2004; Tjaden & Thoennes, 2000), and men are the victims in nearly a quarter of intimate homicides (Rennison, 2003)”
GOVERNMENT OF CANADA
Statistics Canada reports that “ALMOST EQUAL PROPORTIONS OF MEN AND WOMEN (7% and 8% respectively) had been the victims of intimate partner physical and psychological abuse (18% and 19% respectively). These findings were consistent with several earlier studies which reported equal rates of abuse by women and men in intimate relationships”
Straus, 2007 GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE: THE EVIDENCE, THE DENIAL, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRIMARY PREVENTION AND TREATMENT
Symmetry in Perpetration Rates
By 1980 there were already at least ten high quality studies which found that women physically assault their partners at about the same rate as men attack female partners. By 1995, there were about a hundred such studies. As of this writing, the evidence is even more overwhelming. There are about 200 studies documenting equal rates of PV perpetration (Fiebert, 2004). The meta-analysis by Archer (Archer, 2000) found a pattern of equal or higher rates by women in studies conducted in several national and cultural settings.
Gender symmetry in rates of physical violence may not extend to other forms of abuse or aggression against a partner. Although there are numerous studies showing substantial rates of sexual coercion by women, men are much more likely to use physical force to coerce a partner into sex, and stranger rapes are almost exclusively a male crime. Criminal data also suggest that women are more likely to be stalked by their partners and that men are much more likely than women to be perpetrators of parent-child homicide-suicide. HOWEVER, THESE BEHAVIORS OCCUR VERY INFREQUENTLY RELATIVE TO NON-LETHAL PHYSICAL VIOLENCE IN RELATIONSHIPS
Straus 2007, CONFLICT TACTICS SCALES
The CTS is both the most widely used measure of family violence and also the most widely criticized. Extensive critical examination is appropriate for any widely used instrument because, if the instrument is wrong, then a great deal of research will also be wrong. In the case of the CTS, however, the most frequent criticisms reflect ideological differences rather than empirical evidence. Specifically, many feminist scholars reject the CTS because studies using this instrument find that about the same percentage of women as men assault their partners. This contradicts the feminist theory that partner violence is almost exclusively committed by men as a means to dominate women, and is therefore taken as prima facie evidence that the CTS is not valid. Ironically, the fact that the CTS has provided some of the best evidence confirming the link between male dominance and partner violence and other key aspects of feminist theory of partner violence (Coleman and Straus 1990; Straus 1994) has not shaken the belief that the CTS is invalid.
Another irony is that despite these denuncifications, many feminist researchers use the CTS. However, having used the CTS, they reaffirm their feminist credentials by routinely inserting a paragraph repeating some of the erroneous criticisms. These criticisms are then cited in other articles as though they were empirical evidence showing the invalidity of the CTS, whereas there is only endless repetition of the same invalidated opinions.
Dutton, Nicholls, 2005 THE GENDER PARADIGM IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH AND THEORY
In fact, the data demonstrate that while feminists are accurate in portraying abuse in intimate relationships as rampant, the reality is that most often both parties engage in aggression (Stets & Straus, 1992a, 1992b; Kessler et al., 2001, Nicholls & Dutton, 2001).
In fact, considerable evidence suggests that there are strong social prohibitions inhibiting men from aggressing against women (e.g., chivalry; Arias & Johnson, 1989, Archer 2000a), legal sanctions against men who transgress (the U.S. Violence Against Women Act of 1994: (VAWA); Brown, 2004) and fewer social prohibitions inhibiting women from aggressing against men (for reviews see Brown, 2004; George, 1999)
These legal and social policies, well intended though they might be, are based on erroneous information both about the causes and incidence of most intimate violence. They have evolved based on the needs of the small but significant proportion of women who experience chronic “wife battering”; they do little to serve the much larger majority of men, women, and children coping with the more frequently encountered “common couple abuse” (Johnson, 1995; Stets & Straus, 1992b).
Dutton, Nicholls, 2005 THE GENDER PARADIGM IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH AND THEORY
Among the data sets cited by Dutton in 1994 as contradictory to the feminist view were the following:
(1) unidirectional “severe” female intimate violence was more common than male unidirectional intimate violence (Stets & Straus, 1992b);
(2) lesbian abuse rates were higher than heterosexual male-female abuse rates (Lie et al., 1991);
(3) only a small percentage of males were violent over the life course of a marriage (Straus et al., 1980);
(4) as many females as males were violent (Straus et al., 1980);
(5) very few males approved of the spouse abuse (Stark & McEvoy, 1970);1
(6) only 9.6% of males were dominant in their marriage (Coleman & Straus, 1986); and,
(7) male violence was not linearly related to cultural indicators of patriarchy across US states (Yllo & Straus, 1990). Each of these data sets, available by 1993, has routinely been ignored by the feminist paradigm.
Brown (2004) found huge discrepancies in arrest and prosecution of spousal assault as a function of gender. Women were four times more likely to report partner violence to police (81% vs. 19%).(Stets & Straus (1992a) found women were 10 times more likely to call police in response to partner assault. Brown also found women were more likely to have the police arrest when reporting (75% vs. 60%) than were men reporting an assault by a woman. The higher arrest of men occurs despite injuries to male victims. When men are injured, female perpetrators are arrested only 60.2% of the time, compared to 91.1% of cases involving in the reverse situation (Brown, 2004, p. 34). A combination of men’s’ unwillingness to report and the police being unwilling to arrest female perpetrators means only 2% of female perpetrators are arrested (Brown, 2004; Statistics Canada, 2003, p.4). When no one was injured, men were 16 times more likely to be charged than women (Brown, 2004, p. 35);
Dutton, Nicholls, 2005 THE GENDER PARADIGM IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH AND THEORY
The Self Defence Debate
Despite claims by victim advocates to the contrary, (Hamberger & Potente, 1994; Henning et al., 2003), self-defense is not the predominant motive for assaults by either gender. Reports of self-defense by women range from as low as 5% in clinic samples (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995), up to 40% among women residing in shelters (Saunders, 1986). General population surveys and studies of dating populations (Follingstad et al., 1991; Sommer, 1994) fix the rates of self-defense at only between 10% and 20%, for men and women. The extent to which men or women engage in genuine self-defense is unclear, due to the difficulty in distinguishing it from retaliation. In a large representative English sample (Carrado et al., 1996), 21% of the women and 27% of the men who had been violent reported that their motive was “getting back at him/her for some physical action she/he had used against me.” What percentage of these figures represent self-defense was not determined by the researchers.
DeKesseredy et al. (DeKeseredy, Saunders, Schwartz, & Shahid, 1997) does report data but their data shows that only 6.9% of the women acted in self-defense. Rather than self-defense, the most
usual motivations for violence by women, like the motivations of men, are coercion, anger, and punishing misbehavior by their partner (Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Fiebert & Gonzalez, 1997).
Like the DeKesseredy et al. study, five of the six found that only a small percentage of female violence was in self-defense (Carrado, George, Loxam, Jones, & Templar, 1996;
Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Felson & Messner, 1998; Follingstad, Wright, Lloyd, & Sebastian, 1991; Pearson, 1997;Sarantakos, 1998; Sommer, 1996). For the one study that found high rates of self-defense, the percentage in selfdefense was slightly greater for men (56%) than for women (42%) (Harned, 2001).
For example, Pearson (1997) reports that 90% of the women she studied assaulted their partner because they were furious or jealous, or frustrated and not because they tried to defend themselves. These motives are parallel to the motivations of male perpetrators. Research on homicides by women shows similar results. For example, Jurik and Gregware (1989) studied 24 female perpetrated homicides and found that 60% had a pervious criminal record, 60% had initiated use of physical force, and only 21% of the homicides were in response to “prior abuse” or “threat of abuse/death”.
Bland and Orn (1986) in a survey conducted in Canada did ask who used violence first. Of the women who reported using violence against their husbands, 73.4% said they used violence first. Stets and Straus (1992a) reported that females said they struck first 52.7% of the time.
Stets and Straus concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicate that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992)
The latter result is difficult to explain from a feminist assertion that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse. In all, these data do not support the argument that female violence is solely defensive
Brown (2004) found huge discrepancies in arrest and prosecution of spousal assault as a function of gender. Women were four times more likely to report partner violence to police (81% vs. 19%). Stets and Straus (1992a) found women were 10 times more likely to call police in response to partner assault. Brown also found women were more likely to call police in response to partner assault. Brown also found women were more likely to have the police arrest when reporting (75% vs. 60%) than were men reporting an assault by a woman. The higher arrest of men occurs despite injuries to male victims. When men are injured, female perpetrators are arrested only 60.2% of the time, compared to 91.1% of cases involving the reverse situation (Brown, 2004). A combination of men’s unwillingness to report and the police being unwilling to arrest female perpetrators means that only 2% of female perpetrators are arrested (Brown, 2004; Statistics Canada, 2003). When no one was injured, men were 16 times more likely to be charged than women (Brown, 2004); this was not because male injuries were always less serious. Buzawa et al. (1992), in a study of the police arrest policy in Detroit, found that “male victims reported three times the rate of serious injury as their female counterparts, 38% compared to 14%” Hence, government surveys of intimate violence estimates based on crime report data (police arrest, etc.) underestimate male victimization. For this reason, the Straus studies using the CTS, which introduce questions of conflict rather than crime victimization, obtain a fuller estimate of actual violence (Straus & Gelles, 1992, Straus, 1999)
Dutton, Corvo 2006, TRANSFORMING A FLAWED POLICY: A call to revive psychology and science in domestic violence research and practice
Although some critics have disparaged the instrument of measurement, the Conflict Tactics scale or CTS (Straus, 1992), in fact this scale is 16 times more sensitive than government “crime victim” surveys (Straus, 1999) such as the National Violence Against Women Survey (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998). These surveys, in turn, tend to filter out male reports of victimization because of the “set” of the survey (criminal victimization of women). When this set is altered, more equivalent rates of violence are reported, as in the Canadian General Social Survey of 25,876 respondents, equally split by gender. In this survey (Laroche, 2005) the “crime victim” filter was dropped and the focus was on “perceptions of crime”. In addition, men were asked about instrumental controlling behaviors used against them, (Laroche, 2005) something that had not previously been asked because of the assumptions of the patriarchal paradigm.
Equivalent rates of severe abuse were found, 8% of women, and 7% of men reporting victimization. Use of repeat, severe instrumental violence by a partner was reported by 2.6% of men and 4.2% of women. Equivalent injuries, use of medical services and fear of the abuser were also discovered in cases where the abuser used repeat instrumental abuse. Why is this small but destructive sub-group not receiving a concentrated intervention strategy?
Stets and Straus (1992a,b) concluded that not only do women engage in a comparable amount of violence, they are “at least as likely” to instigate violence. The results also indicated that women were more likely to hit back (24.4%) than men (15%) in response to violent provocation by a partner (Straus & Gelles, 1992). This latter result is difficult to explain from the patriarchal view that women are more afraid of male violence than the reverse.
Simply put, the evidence for theoretical patriarchy as a “cause” of wife assault is scant and contradicted by numerous studies: male dominant couples constitute only 9.6% of all couples (Coleman & Straus, 1985); women are at least as violent as men (Archer, 2000); women are more likely to use severe violence against nonviolent men than the converse (Stets & Straus, 1992a,b); powerlessness rather than power seems related to male violence; there are data contradicting the idea that men in North America find violence against their wives acceptable (Dutton, 1994; Simon et al., 2001) and that abusiveness is higher in lesbian relationships than in heterosexual relationships (Lie, Schilit, Bush, Montague, & Reyes, 1991) suggesting that intimacy and psychological factors regulating intimacy are more important than sexism (Dutton, 1994).
Felson & Outlaw, 2007 – THE CONTROL MOTIVE FOR MARITAL VIOLENCE
“The findings indicate no support for the position that husbands engage in more marital violence than wives because they are more controlling.”
“In general, our results are consistent with those of Stets and Hammond (2002) in showing that wives are more controlling than husbands in their current marriages. We also found that wives are more likely to be jealous and possessive.“
“Although there are some interactions with gender, the evidence is clear that control behavior and jealousy are strong predictors of aggression for both men and women.”
“Both husbands and wives who are controlling are more likely to produce injury and engage in repeated violence. Similar effects are observed for jealousy, although not all are statistically significant. The seriousness of violence is apparently associated with motive, although the relationship does not depend on gender.”
A study by Hines, Brown, and Dunning (2003) examined calls from men to the national (U.S.) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINE FOR MEN (established in 2000: www.noexcuse4abuse.org).
Callers reported forms of violence that are not measured in surveys such as having their partner try to drive over them with a car. 29% reported being stalked by their female partners. Callers’ reports indicated that their female abusers had a history of trauma, alcohol/drug problems, mental illness, and homicidal and suicidal ideations. The authors concluded that the “system in place to prevent IPV (interpersonal violence) re-victimizes these men and hence, no help is available for half the population”
Types of female violence by callers to a domestic abuse hotline for men. (n=158)
Spit on 9.5%
Alcohol and drug abuse are usually symptoms of deeper psychological issues. Drug and alcohol counseling needs to include mental health counseling. Alcohol and drug abuse is associated with both perpetrators and victims of abuse. It is quite often a secondary problem to deeper psychological issues at the root of abusive relationships
POLICE OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE (POPIPV): An Analysis of Observational Data
By Richard Davis
The POPIPV documents that almost two of every three (62%) of law enforcement IPV interventions are for “verbal arguments.” And one of every five (20.4%) are for incidents where it is difficult to determine who is the offender and who is the victim. Hence, the vast majority (82.4%) of IPV interventions can be problematic for responding officers.
Most criminal justice data documents that in serious incidents females do suffer from more injurious and fatal violence than males. However, as the POPIPV documents most IPV incidents are minor or there is no empirical evidence to demonstrate who initiated the assaultive behavior. Contemporary unprecedented IPV training curriculums establish a bias found nowhere else in the criminal justice system. IPV trainers simply refer to females as victims and males as offenders
It is difficult to understand how or why the officers did not make a single arrest of a female offender when a recent study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documents that women are the perpetrators in more than 70% of nonreciprocal IPV incidents.
RELATIVE CONTRIBUTIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO ASSAULT AND INJURY OF POLICE OFFICERS
Domestic disturbances constituted 7.8 percent of the total, and general disturbances 13.4 percent. A total of 1,038 assault incidents on police officers occurred during the reporting period; 499 resulted in injury to the officer. Both domestic and general disturbances were overrepresented in assaults and injuries to officers. Domestic disturbance was the fourth most likely police activity to lead to an assault and fifth most likely type of call to lead to an injury. Victim officers were primarily male, white, under age 30, of nonsupervisory rank, with less than three years on the force, and more likely to be working with another officer than alone. Nearly all assault incidents involved a single offender who was male, black, under age 30, and had attacked the officer victim physically. 3 tables, 1 note, and 33 references
Most men wouldn’t even think about hitting back at a woman. This gives no advantage to a larger and stronger man who refuses to engage in physical violence. However, if a woman abuses and terrorizes a man, the police and social services ignore the abuse and blame the man instead.
How about this big guy?
EDMONTON – Ken Charbonneau feels he’s been victimized twice — once by the woman sending him threatening letters and flammable packages, and again by the police officers who came to investigate.
WHEN HE’S VIOLENT TO HER, IT’S A FELONY, WHEN SHE STABS HIM, IT’S A MENTAL HEALTH ISSUE
By Glenn Sacks
…Now, isn’t that strange? When she had a fat lip, it was a felony and I was going to jail. But when they finally agreed and realized that she tried to stab me in the neck… it stopped being a crime at that point, it was a mental health issue. [And] it was my responsibility to call and get her an appointment.
The plight of David and his daughter Maegan is detailed in my co-authored column Domestic Violence Lawsuit Will Help Secure Services for All Abuse Victims (Los Angeles Daily Journal, San Francisco Daily Journal, 12/28/05). Maegan told her story in Abused Man’s Daughter Speaks Out–Maegan Talks About Her Childhood. Carol Crabson, Executive Director of the Valley Oasis domestic violence shelter–which has served male victims for 17 years.
The Third District Court of Appeal in Sacramento ruled that California’s exclusion of men from domestic violence services violates men’s constitutional equal protection rights in a decision in October. The taxpayer lawsuit — Woods. v. Shewry — was initially filed in 2005 by four male victims of domestic violence.
The Court of Appeal held that “The gender classifications in Health and Safety Code section 124250 and Penal Code section 13823.15, that provide state funding of domestic violence programs that offer services only to women and their children, but not to men, violate equal protection.”
RESEARCHER: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ABUSED MEN CALL DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOTLINES AND SHLETERS?
Of the abused men who called domestic violence hotlines, 64% were told that they “only helped women.” In 32% of the cases, the abused men were referred to batterers’ programs. Another 25% were given a phone number to call that turned out to be a batterers’ program. A little over a quarter of them were given a reference to a local program that helped.
Overall, only 8% of the men who called hotlines classified them as “very helpful,” whereas 69% found them to be “not at all helpful.” Sixteen percent said the people at the hot line “dismissed or made fun of them.
“They laughed at me and told me I must have done something to deserve it if it happened at all.”
“They asked how much I weighed and how much she weighed and then hung up on me…I was told by this agency that I was full of BS.”
Twelve percent of the hotlines accused the man of being the batterer or responsible for the abuse.
“They told me women don’t commit domestic violence — it must have been my fault.”
“They accused me of trying to hide my “abuse” of her by claiming to be a victim, and they said that I was nothing more than a wimp.”
Of the men who sought help by contacting local domestic violence programs, only 10% found them to be “very helpful,” whereas 65% found them to be “not at all helpful.”
“They just laughed and hung up the phone.”
“They didn’t really listen to what I said. They assumed that all abusers are men and said that I must accept that I was the abuser. They ridiculed me for not leaving my wife, ignoring the issues about what I would need to do to protect my six children and care for them.”
WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN?
GROWING UP WITH A PROBLEM THAT DOESN’T EXISTBy Mark B. Rosenthal
“You’re disgusting, just like your mother. Why don’t you go join her?” My mother spat the words at my father. Though spoken many decades ago, those words still ring in my ears. He had loved his mother very much, had agonized as her health had deteriorated, and now that she had passed away, he missed her. What could possibly hurt him more than just attacking her memory? Why, wishing him dead too.
My mother’s attacks went beyond emotional devastation. Though her weight of 100 lbs. was no match for my father’s 170 lbs., he never responded with violence. And secure in the knowledge that he never would, she kicked and punched him with impunity.
One incident in particular sticks in my mind. My father had chosen paint for the kitchen that was a shade too dark. My mother started out by insulting him, then yelling. As her rage grew she escalated to hitting him in the face with her fists. I watched him raise his hands, not to strike back, but merely to protect his eyes. But she wasn’t expecting it and her hand must have hit a bony part of his wrist. She immediately stopped, and then started whimpering, “You hurt me!”
My father was not my mother’s only target. I was a small child when she shook me by the shoulders while my head hit the wall. But spending our entire childhoods walking on eggshells to avoid her wrath was even more destructive to us children than physical attacks. All of us, including my father, were driven to suicidal depression. After several attempts, my sister did take her own life.
WHO IS MORE VIOLENT TO CHILDREN?
Journal of Child Custody 2006, Dutton, RE-AFFIRMING THE NECESSITY OF A GENDER NEUTRAL APPROACH TO CUSTODY EVALUATIONS
Apart from IPV directed to a partner, feminist theory also ignores violence by women directed at children, probably because such violence falls outside the political view of being a response to an oppressor male. However, violence and abuse toward children is of central importance to custody assessors. In that respect, custody assessors should be aware of the largest study of child abuse and neglect that, to my knowledge, has ever been conducted
This is a study of 135,573 child maltreatment investigations conducted by Health Canada and Published by the National Clearing House on Family Violence (Trocme 2001) The study designates the abuse type as physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, emotional maltreatment and multiple categories. The investigations are further divided into substantiated, suspected and unsubstantiated categories Substantiation rates do not, in general, vary by gender of perpetrator and run from 52 to 58%.
Biological mothers (compared to biological fathers) are the more likely substantiated perpetrator of physical abuse (47 vs 42%), neglect (86 vs 33%), emotional maltreatment (61 vs 55%) and multiple categories (66 vs 36%). The biological father is the most likely perpetrator of sexual abuse (15 vs 5%). For physical abuse the substantiation rate was 6% higher for fathers, bringing the total perpetration rates to equality
These data, based on a huge nationally representative sample, tell a very different picture than that presented by Jaffe et al, Bancroft et al, or Johnson, all of whom over rely on shelter samples to draw erroneous conclusions about risk to children.
IT IS NOT JUST WOMEN WHO ARE THE VICTIMS OF SPOUSAL VIOLENCE
By Robert Smol
Domestic violence is not a gender-specific reality. Women are capable of hitting, beating, abusing and killing their male partners.
Just how prevalent these attacks are depends on what statistical study you choose to highlight.
But based on what we know, there should be no argument that female violence against men is at least a problem worthy of much greater consideration than we have given it so far.
According to a large-scale Statistics Canada study in 2005, the likelihood of a man being the victim of violent abuse by his female partner is almost the same as it is for a woman.
The University of New Hampshire recently performed a 32-nation study of dating violence and found women are as violent and controlling as men in dating relationships.
The University of Florida recently found women more likely to “stalk, attack and abuse” their partners
STUDY: WOMEN RULE THE ROOST
Of 1,260 couples, married or living together, surveyed this summer, women wield more decision-making power at home. In 43 percent of couples, women made almost twice as many decisions as men, in the four areas Pew surveyed: planning weekend activities, household finances, major home purchases and TV watching.
In the area of household finances, the Pew study found that couples disagree on who has the greater say. About 45 percent of women surveyed say they manage the family’s money; 37 percent of men say they manage it.
STUDY: WOMEN WEAR THE PANTS IN MARRIAGE
Wives, On Average, Wield More Decision-Making Power, Research Finds
Researchers found that wives, on average, displayed more power than their husbands during problem-solving discussions, regardless of who brought up the topic of discussion.
The results showed that women appeared to have more power during thediscussions in the form of domineering and dominant behaviors than their husbands, regardless of who brought up the topic.
Extreme forms of domestic violence are not representative of the majority.
In Canada, in 2006, out of 605 murders, 78 were spousal homicides. The total for the women, 56, is six fewer than in 2005 and represents the fifth consecutive annual decline in numbers of women killed. But spousal homicides were up altogether in 2006, because more men were killed by women. Killings of male partners by women increased from 12 in 2005 to 21 in 2006.
Even men who do nothing legally, morally, or prudentially wrong stand to lose everything upon separation: custody of their children, possession of their homes, and a large chunk of their incomes. The law is set up to allow women to continue on with the children after separation as much as possible without breaking their stride. Thus the suicide rate remains constant for women after separation, but increases four- to six-fold for men. Men do–and should–very much fear the legal consequences of divorce for their psychological and financial well-being. Much moreso than women, in most cases.
WOMEN ARE ALWAYS VICTIMS, EVEN WHEN THEY’RE NOT
By Grant Brown
When women commit murder-suicides, there are extenuating reasons and circumstances that explain and make understandable why they did what they did. Not so with men.
On October 4, 2006, London Police Chief, Murray Faulkner, drew the praise of local feminists, the ire of national men’s rights activists, and the dismay of knowledgeable people everywhere, when he attended the launch of yet another task force aimed at “combating woman abuse.” In his remarks, Faulkner stated that domestic violence is a “gender problem… Men, and what it is to be a man in our society, (are) the problem.”
This comment, of course, has the quality of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In its defense, Faulkner noted that 90 per cent of those charged by police acting on his well-articulated prejudice are men. Ask him and he will also tell you that police are trained to approach each and every case with an open mind as to who the victim and the perpetrator are.
Faulkner’s comments were, as it turned out, ill-timed, for on June 7, 2007, London Police Service Inspector, Kelly Johnson, shot and killed retired LPS Superintendent David Lucio, with whom she had had a three-year intimate relationship. She then turned her police revolver on herself. The vehicle Lucio had been driving Johnson home in ran into her apartment building. (As is common when women commit intimate partner violence, she used a weapon and picked a time when the man was vulnerable and unable to defend himself.)
ONTARIO POLICE STATISTICS SHOW CLASSIC SIGNS OF ABUSE
By Barbara Kay
If Johnson were a man, the case would have been labelled a cold-blooded DV murder, and exploited as yet another example of the pandemic of male violence against women. But the incident was spun as a kind of bilateral tragedy with no villain, just two victims.
BARBARA KAY SPEECH TO THE MCGILL WOMEN’S ALUMNI ASSOCIATION
This is an ideology that sees the relations between the sexes as a never-ending antagonistic power struggle, with women as eternal victims and men as eternal oppressors. It is an ideology that explains away the moral failings of women as the fault of a patriarchal “system”, but holds men responsible for their actions. And most important, it is an ideology that shortchanges children by privileging the rights and importance to children of mothers over fathers.
How is it then that partner violence amongst lesbians is significantly higher than amongst heterosexual partnerships? How is it that children are far, far more likely to be physically abused by their mothers than their fathers? And when they are, how can we justify a woman’s rights to take her children to a shelter to escape a violent husband when there is no shelter in the country that will accept a father with children fleeing an abusive mother
FEMINIST’S APPEAL TO TRADITIONAL CHAUVENISM AND BIOLOGICAL MALE INSTINCT
Grant Brown used the analogy of the sinking of the Titanic to explain the innate social behavior of alpha-males in deferring to women interests. Feminism has a natural ally in traditionally chivalrous men who continue to support discriminatory social policies.
WOMEN AND CHILDREN FIRST
By Grant Brown
“Feminism has enjoyed remarkable success, in an historically short period of time, reshaping society to eliminate the disadvantages suffered by women under traditional gender norms. This success has been possible only because feminism preys on a powerful, natural inclination of deference to women that is bred into both men and women alike. If women feel passionately about wanting something, it just isn’t manly or prudent for men, individually or collectively, to deny it to them. In the ideological battle of the sexes, it is of the first importance to understand the origins and power of this innate inclination of deference to women. “
Dr. Murray Straus has been studying all forms of domestic violence and aggression for 40 years and has published many research papers.
Dr. Murray Straus also received a great deal of resistance from feminist activists.
PROCESSES EXPLAINING THE CONCEALMENT AND DISTORTION OF EVIDENCE OF GENDER SYMMETRY IN PARTNER VIOLENCE
In this paper, Murray A Strauss lists the different ways in which feminist activists deliberately distort and conceal evidence in order to create the false impression that men are more violent to their partners than women.
WHAT’S WRONG AND WHAT’S RIGHT WITH CONTEMPORARY FEMINISM?
By Christina Hoff Sommers.
A worthy read for anyone who cares about justice and equality.
“gender feminists tend to see conventional masculinity as a pathology and the source of much of what is wrong in the world”
ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR THE TRUTH
By Barbara Kay
In a just world, Englishwoman Erin Pizzey, who founded the world’s first shelter for battered wives in 1971, would be a sought-after speaker on the subject of domestic violence. In the real world, however, Pizzey’s name is a byword for politically incorrect apostasy
Pizzey’s crime? A humanist, she challenged the belief system dictated by radical feminists, who colonized her shelter and made her presence untenable. Their ideological mantra, still alive and kicking, insists that men are the default perpetrators in domestic violence (also known as “intimate partner violence,” or IPV) while women are invariably innocent victims who inflict violence only in self-defence. But Pizzey knew from her own experience (her wealthy, socially elite parents were mutually abusive, and her mother violent to Erin), and from what the women in her shelter told her, that most partner violence is reciprocal
Holding women responsible for their violence was so at odds with the received wisdom of the movement’s activists that, for her whistle-blowing pains, Pizzey’s dog was killed and her entire family received death threats. Undaunted, she pursued her equal-responsibility crusade in the United States for many years in a fusillade of articles and books
While dramatically extreme, Pizzey’s story is nevertheless emblematic of the hostility truth-tellers confront in the domestic violence industry…Instead, pseudo-science absolving women of violent impulses, delivered on demand to interest groups by the same tiny, incestuous coterie of ideologically sympathetic professionals, is routinely applied in training police, family law judges, social workers and women’s shelter personnel
FED ON MYTHS PREYING ON MEN
By Barbara Kay
The truth is that the more precisely identified phenomenon of “intimate partner violence” (IPV) in western culture is gender-neutral, an acting-out of psychological problems around intimacy that afflict men and women alike. IPV is initiated by both sexes in about equal proportions. Self-defence is rarely the motive for women’s violence against men. Literally hundreds of peer-reviewed, community-based studies, including StatsCan’s, confirm this. But they don’t reach the public. (Under pressure from feminist organizations, for example, a Quebec health agency recently sequestered a commissioned psychosocial study showing men and women are equally culpable of IPV.)
But most damaging is the suppressed fact that even bilateral IPV in general is a relative rarity in our culture. A woman is more likely to be struck by lightning than killed by her spouse. IPV simply isn’t the systemic epidemic that hysteria-mongering feminist organizations so shamelessly project.
SENATOR ANN COOLS SPEAKS TO TORONTO POLICE SERVICES ABOUT THE ABUSE OF FATHERS AS A RESULT OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE POLICIES
Senator Ann Cools speaks before members of Toronto Police Services on the subject of persecution and injustice committed against men as a result of zero tolerance domestic violence laws in Ontario. Senator Cools describes how women’s shelters are creating “bogus” statistics to mislead the public about the truth about domestic violence.
Toronto criminal defense lawyer, Mr. Walter Fox speaks before Toronto Police Services on the topic of how government funded women shelter advocates in Ontario have effectively bypassed the democratic process using inquests to make their own hidden agenda the law in Ontario.
Ontario’s zero tolerance policies and practices that have come about as a result of these inquests have effectively labeled men in Ontario as monsters not worthy of equal treatment under the law.
DATING VIOLENCE and SEXUAL COERCION
Dutton, Nicholls, 2006 THE GENDER PARADIGM IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESEARCH AND THEORY
The largest and most comprehensive of all dating violence studies was a recent cross cultural study of partner violence in a sample of 6,900 university students from 17 nations by Douglas and Straus (2003). They found adolescent girls were more likely to assault male partners than adolescent boys were to assault female partners by an average of 115%, regardless of whether overall assault or severe assault rates were considered. Severe assault was much more likely to be female- perpetrated in Scotland (552% of male rate), Singapore (457%), and New Zealand (296%). In this study, male perpetrated injury rates were 8.1% (serious injury 2.6%), female perpetrated injury rates were 6.1% (serious injury 1.2%).
“MALE AND FEMALE ADOLESCENTS EQUALLY VICTIMS OF PHYSICAL DATING VIOLENCE, Study Shows”
“More females reported engaging in physical aggression (40%) than reported being victims of aggression (30%). Fewer males reported engaging in physical aggression (24%) than reported being victims of physical aggression (31%). If physical aggression occurred, typically both partners were aggressive. For females, exclusive engagement in physical aggression (perpetration) was reported at higher rates than exclusively being the recipient of physical aggression (victimization) and vice versa for males. Dating aggression was less prevalent among male Asian students than other ethnic groups. Engaged males and females reported the highest rates of physical aggression. Injury was reported by over 25% of males and females who reported being the recipients of physical aggression.”
“GENDER DIFFERENCES IN DATING AGGRESSION AMONG MULTIETHNIC HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS” (5/08).
COLLEGE MEN NEARLY AS LIKELY AS WOMEN TO REPORT THEY ARE VICTIMS OF UNWANTED SEXUAL COERCION
The stereotypical picture of men as the perpetrators and women as the victims of acquaintance rape and other forms of unwanted sexual contact appears to be slightly out of focus.
Men were more likely than women to report that they had unwanted sex or were pressured into having sex. The survey defined unwanted sex as a situation in which an individual’s partner became so sexually aroused that the individual felt it was useless to stop even though he or she did not want to have intercourse. Fourteen percent of the men and 8 percent of the women said they had unwanted sex. Being pressured into having sex was described as having intercourse with someone even though you really didn’t want to because the other person pressured you with continual arguments. Eight percent of the men and 6 percent of the women said they had been pressured into having sex.
Physical force was used infrequently. Just 5 percent of the women and less than 1 percent of the men said some sort of physical force, such as having an arm twisted or being held down, was used on them when they didn’t want to have sex, whether or not intercourse actually occurred.
Alcohol and drugs played a significant role in sexual victimization. Seventeen percent of the women and 9 percent of the men said someone had attempted to have intercourse with them when they didn’t want to after giving them alcohol or drugs. And 6 percent of the women and 4 percent of the men said they had sex when they didn’t want to after being given alcohol and drugs.
MEN ARE MORE LIKELY THAN WOMEN TO BE VICTIMS IN DATING VIOLENCE, UNH Expert Says
DURHAM, N.H. — A 32-nation study of violence against dating partners by university partners found that about a third had been violent, and most incidents of partner violence involve violence by both the man and woman, according to Murray Straus, founder and co-director of the Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire. The second largest category was couples where the female partner was the only one to carry about physical attacks, not the male partner.
Other researchers have found the same thing. One study found that 24% of 171 men at an Eastern college had been coerced into sexual intercourse. Another found that 24% of a sample of 182 college men in California had unwanted sex with an insistent woman in the past five years. In a survey of two Canadian universities, 24% of 156 men had experienced some type of sexual coercion in heterosexual dating. Among a sample of 165 fraternity men at a Western college, 21% experienced unwanted sexual contact.
THE BIG LIST: FEMALE TEACHERS WITH STUDENTS
Most comprehensive account on Internet of women predators on campus
HOW ABUSIVE WOMEN BRAINWASH YOU
By Dr. Tara J. Palmatier
How do so many smart men fall for toxic, abusive women? Why do they remain in painfully self-destructive relationships when their higher intelligence knows better? Many men frequently cite, “but I love her.” Do they love these women or have they been brainwashed by abusive personalities?
LIVING WITH THE PASSIVE AGGRESSIVE
Set boundaries, confront obvious lies, unravel ambiguities. Let the PA know how far things can go and what is acceptable and unacceptable in how they treat you.
Be clear about what you want. Communicate that you will not be treated cavalierly or with disrespect. Be specific about what bothers you. Tone is important, so do not be vindictive or authoritarian. Do not use ultimatums you cannot enforce.
Confront the behavior not the character
ACCEPT NO EXCUSES: don’t buy into any of the reasons someone may offer for covertly aggressive behavior. If someone’s behavior is inappropriate the rationale they offer is irrelevant. Confront inappropriate behavior directly and label it for what it is.
JUDGE ACTIONS, NOT INTENTIONS: never try to “mind-read” or second-guess why somebody is doing something. There is no way for you to really know, and in the end it’s irrelevant.
AVOID MAKING THREATS: Making threats is always an attempt to manipulate others into changing their behavior while avoiding making assertive changes for oneself. Never threaten. Just take action. Don’t counter-aggress, just do what you need to protect yourself and secure your own needs.
WHEN CONFRONTING THIS BEHAVIOR, KEEP THE WEIGHT OF RESPONSIBILITY ON THE AGGRESSOR: When confronting someone about inappropriate behavior, keep the focus on whatever they did to injure, no matter what diversionary tactics they might use to keep you off base.
BE PREPARED FOR CONSEQUENCES: Always remain aware of the covert-aggressor’s determination to be the victor. It is important to be prepared for this, and to take appropriate action.
Remember that their goal is to manipulate and control you and the situation.
Do not give them any opportunity to “Pull the rug out from under you.” If they are on “best behavior” do NOT relax and assume this will continue.
IN ALL AREAS of your life let them know unequivocally that you will not play their games any longer.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CONTROL AND ABUSE (destructive behaviors)
Using coercion and threats
• making and/or carrying out threats to do something to hurt him• threatening to leave him, to commit suicide, to report him to welfare• threatening to call 911, say he was the abuser• threatening to file false domestic violence, restraining order or child sexual abuse charges• making him drop charges• making him do illegal things• denying or refusing to access to needed medical care or medications
• making him afraid by using looks, actions, gestures• smashing things• destroying his property• threatening to falsely accuse him of DV; daring him to phone 911• displaying weapons (such as knives)
Using economic abuse
• refusing to contribute income to basic expenses• making him ask for money• giving him an allowance• taking his money• not letting him know about or have access to family income• forcing him to take higher-paying, more hazardous, less satisfying job• preventing him from getting or keeping a job
Using gender privilege
• treating him like a servant• treating him as just a wallet• making all the big decisions• acting like the ‘mistress of the house’• being the one to define male and female roles
• controlling what he does, who he sees and talks to, what he reads, where he goes• limiting his outside involvement• using jealousy to justify actions
• making him feel guilty about the children• using the children to relay messages• alienating children from him• using visitation to harass him• threatening to take the children away
Minimising, denying and blaming
• making light of the abuse and not taking his concerns about it seriously• saying the abuse didn’t happen• shifting responsibility for abusive behaviour• saying he deserved it• saying he caused it• saying it was the only way he would pay attention
CHARACTERISTICS OF EQUALITY (constructive behavior)
Negotiation and fairness• seeking mutually satisfying resolutions to conflict• accepting change• being willing to compromise
• talking and acting so that he feels safe and comfortable expressing himself and doing things
• listening to him non-judgmentally• being emotionally affirming and understanding• sharing responsibility for mutually-satisfying intimacy• valuing opinions
• mutually agreeing on a fair distribution of work• making family decisions together
Trust and support
• supporting his goals in life• respecting his right to his own feelings, friends, activities and opinions
Responsible parenting• sharing parental responsibilities• being a positive non-violent role model for the children
Honesty and accountability
• accepting responsibility for self• acknowledging past use of violence• admitting being wrong• communicating openly and truthfully
A few resources for abused men seeking help, because the Government of Canada and Canadian Government agencies systematically discriminate against men!
Domestic Abuse Help Line for Men and Women
-when nobody else cares or wants to listen.
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
A good resource for men’s stories and understanding the characteristics and symptoms of abused men.