« Thursday Short Poem: Nemerov's "First Day of School" | Main | Hall and Oates and more on divorce »

August 18, 2005

Comments

Amba

Bmmg39, here's a link to an article by Gelles in which he decries the use of his work to support MRA claims: I don't really see how my assertion can be deemed tenuous in the face of what Gelles himself says.

http://thesafetyzone.org/everyone/gelles.html

The behaviour of the MRAs at this event was bizarre at best, offensive at worst. It's as if someone burst into a symposium on the Holocaust and started holding forth on the Armenian genocide. MRAs may have some worthy and legitimate claims, but until they master basic propriety and civility, they're just going to alienate people who may otherwise be sympathetic to parts of their agenda.

NYMOM

"That would have gone over real big at a forum on abuse..."

NYMOM said: People can have 'righteous anger' at someone who is hurting another person. Even Jesus Christ took a whip to the money changers in the temple and drove them out of it. Being against abuse doesn't mean not EVER getting angry and/or striking someone. Otherwise dangerous and violent criminals would go free since nobody was willing to stand up to them when they hurt others weaker then themselves.

I think some have changed the definition of abuse to benefit themselves
now.

It should mean striking someone who is weaker then yourself and thus unable to defend against you. I mean some of the most violent beings I know are two year olds, 2 poodles and a hamster. Using some definitions I see of abuse, they would be considered abusive. Which is clearly ridiculous.

That Rev. being confronted by a man as aggressive as he was and being forced to apologize for his attacks would NOT have come under the definition of abuse, nor should it have. He should have been corrected right there on stage and it's a shame he wasn't.

It's just more spin on abuse to confuse people.

"In my experience, MRAs are made, not born, as a rule. Getting ones heart ripped out in family court can have that effect on a man. bmmg39 could tell of many real-life stories of abused men who were criminalized for acting in self-defense. These things create MRAs. Those men who live in these realities do not have the privilege of walking away from them. Men who do not live in such hell-realms may choose to walk away and pretend such realms are mere hallucinations, or that they don't matter in the larger scheme of things."

NYMOM said: Yet clearly Hugo is NOT walking away as he does many many things to address these issues you mention. He has this website for instance, where people can discuss such instances. He attends meetings, conferences to address abuse, MRA issues and such. Works with boys to teach them how to act as better men.

He does many things that other men don't.

As our former President Clinton said regarding foreign policy emergencies: Just because we can't do EVERYTHING doesn't mean we can't do ANYTHING.

Hugo

For the record, I tend to use the word "homophobe" the way most GLBTQ activists use it. It doesn't just mean a personal, private fear of homosexuality; the "phobia" can extend to the social ramifications of a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality. If one is afraid, for example, that gay marriage will undo the social fabric, one is still literally a "homophobe". We misunderstand the meaning of "phobia" if we draw it too narrowly. Rev. Peterson's remarks made it clear he was "homophobic" in this broad sense, even if he doesn't personally fear individual homosexuals.

To be fair, Holland's documentary bothered me in ways I didn't discuss before; he does suggest (at the end) that what he calls women's "verbal oppression" is often a catalyst for men's violence. That rubbed me the wrong way, frankly; I've survived some ugly scenes in past relationships, but have always been crystal clear that words, no matter how vicious, are never even a mitigating factor in violence. Words and actions are utterly distinct to me.

As for the "bonhomie" (the literal meaning is redolent of male privilege as well), I'll be frank: I've spent years and years becoming the sort of person who will not let sharp ideological disagreement color my friendships. (Well, unless someone's wearing fur...) Perhaps that's laudable, or perhaps it's a sign that I don't grasp how serious the issues really are on a personal level.

I wish there were a website or other info for the film. This was a preliminary screening of a rough cut of the documentary, and it will be some time before it is widely available.

The Countess

Didn't the producer realize ahead of time that inviting those particular men to a discussion would result in them parading out faulty statistics and third-party anecdotes about abused men? As mythago wrote, David Gelles, one of the creators of the Conflict Tactic Scales, has chastised men's rights activists for misusing those figures to give them impression that women are as abusive as men. It doesn't surprise me that the discussion went off track the way it did. Plus, why would a discussion about abuse result in one of the panelists being abusive towards a female audience member? Why wasn't that behavior squelched as soon as it started? The irony was not lost on me.

Yes, I do believe Lundy Bancroft is from the East Coast. However, I'm sure there were other men available in California who could have spoken about men taking responsibility for their abusive behavior. It's too bad that topic - which was a focus of the film - did not get more airplay. Considering the other men on the panel, I'm not surprised that did not happen. I'm glad that Glenn Sacks had tried to stay on topic. At least he tried to do the right thing.

NYMOM

"To be fair, Holland's documentary bothered me in ways I didn't discuss before; he does suggest (at the end) that what he calls women's "verbal oppression" is often a catalyst for men's violence. That rubbed me the wrong way, frankly; I've survived some ugly scenes in past relationships, but have always been crystal clear that words, no matter how vicious, are never even a mitigating factor in violence. Words and actions are utterly distinct to me."


NYMOM said: Finally someone who acknowledges this: WORDS versus ACTIONS totally different.

I so frequently hear women getting castigated, even by Judges for SAYING something. Judges particularly should know better as they are lawyers by training and should understand that the use of words, instead of your fists, is the proper way to resolve conflict. Sometimes the only defense a woman has is her skill in using words. Even that woman in Atlanta who convinced a murderer to give himself up used ONLY her words.

Women should NOT be castigated for using words, but complimented. Perhaps men should be taught, when young, to use their words better and they would not have to resort to violence.

I think this is something men can learn from women. Yet instead of learning from us (God forbid) they attempt to denigrate women for this use of words. Using words in an argument instead of your hands is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing.

Jessy

Hugo: "For the record, I tend to use the word "homophobe" the way most GLBTQ activists use it. It doesn't just mean a personal, private fear of homosexuality; the "phobia" can extend to the social ramifications of a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality."

Once again, I believe you are confusing tolerance and acceptance. One can tolerate another person's lifestyle choices in a free society, but one does not have to accept the other individual's choices as being as equally valid as other choices. Failing to accept those choices as having equal merit does not make one homophobic, and it is a misuse of the word. Words mean things Hugo. Stretching them so that they can be used in any abstract sense as sticks to beat and stigmatize dissenting voices removes any meaning they may have had, and sharply side-steps the legitimate claim individual morality has to autonomy regarding the things an individual is prepared to accept as legitimate moral choices.


stanton

NYMOM: "Yet clearly Hugo is NOT walking away as he does many many things to address these issues you mention. He has this website for instance, where people can discuss such instances."

I didn't say he was walking away. I said he has the privilege of doing so, just as most women do, and many MRAs do not. That is female privilege in action, and some males also enjoy this privilege. I know that many MRAs don't like Hugo, and some express that dislike in rather obscene terms, even here on Hugo's own turf. I am not among them. I often (or perhaps usually) disagree with him, but I acknowledge him as an honorable man of integrity and good intentions who walks his talk. If he ever (God forbid) runs afoul of the US family court system, he will make a awesome ally!

stanton

NYMOM, I believe you just said that women who scream in a man's face, over and over again, the most vile abuse, are to be commended, because they didn't slap him. Did I get that right?

Sheelzebub

To be fair, Holland's documentary bothered me in ways I didn't discuss before; he does suggest (at the end) that what he calls women's "verbal oppression" is often a catalyst for men's violence.

Oh, Lord. I'm getting a better idea why Bancroft wasn't on that panel. He'd take no truck with that crap.

I mean, jeez, how many verbally abusive men would then be fair game for their partner's fist? Does he not realize that most physical abuse starts out emotionally and verbally--on the part of the abuser (not the so-called catalyst?) It escalates when the abuser feels he's losing control of his partner, and wants to regain it.

Hugo

Jessy, Meriam-Webster defines homophobia as:

"irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals".

In other words, you're homophobic if you advocate certain policies that deny homosexuals full inclusion in society, regardless of whether or not you have personal fear of gay or lesbian people.

You may think that's a distortion of the Latin, but take your argument to Merriam-Webster.

yami

I've spent years and years becoming the sort of person who will not let sharp ideological disagreement color my friendships.

Belittling an audience member isn't an ideological disagreement. Repeatedly dragging the discussion off topic over the objections of the event's host isn't an ideological disagreement. You often identify and quash such rude behaviors here, distinguishing them from the similar ideological positions held by more respectful commenters; I don't think it's fair to use your laudable tolerance as an excuse for ignoring poor behavior from ideological "opponents" in other fora.

I don't mean to get too much on your case here, Hugo - you weren't the host, I wasn't there, etc etc. From your description, I do think Rev. Peterson's behavior should've been clearly (but politely) labeled as rude and unacceptable, by someone. Framing it as a mere "ideological disagreement" does a disservice to those who manage to disagree strongly while remaining respectful of other participants, and of the designated topic.

Jessy

"You may think that's a distortion of the Latin, but take your argument to Merriam-Webster."

Actually what I said regarding the eytemology of the word was exactly correct and you have confirmed it. I belive the MW added the bit about "or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals", but I've no idea when. Other dictionaries do not include that latter part (i.e. Cambridge etc.). In any case, I have stated my objection as plainly as I can, and you have morphed the issue into one where an individual's belief that the legally sanctioned marriage of homosexuals will harm status quo society amounts to discrimination (the only way in which your selected definition can apply without you appearing to be name calling), when in fact it is simply an individual expressing his beliefs predicated on his moral system, a moral belief system which ironically is not 'tolerated' by the GLTBQ activists, as evinced by the prejorative uses of words like homophobe against those who would espouse such differing beliefs.


Hugo

Jessy, as any student of English knows, definitions of words evolve. MW is just a bit ahead of the curve.

I don't generally use the word "homophobe" except under real provocation. (Read the Rev. Peterson's articles and you'll see what I mean.) I've got lots of commenters here who don't support full inclusion for glbtq folk, and I don't use the word for them -- even though I think that I could use it accurately.

I think it's best to avoid inflammatory language as often as possible. I may be moderately pro-life, but I always call the other side "pro-choice", never anything else. I don't call the MRAs misogynists very often, either (though I am called a misandrist regularly); I do break down and use the term when I feel provoked, and the Rev. Peterson's bile generated its use in yesterday's post.

NYMOM

"NYMOM, I believe you just said that women who scream in a man's face, over and over again, the most vile abuse, are to be commended, because they didn't slap him. Did I get that right?"

NYMOM said: Of course you distorted what I said. I never mentioned screaming I said WORDS.

I guess as opposed to slapping someone, what I said could be interpretated as screaming vile words falling into a category labeled as the lesser of evils. SINCE the 'victim' still has the choice of walking away.

But I believe you are just playing word games; as I think you knew what I meant when I said using your words was better then using your fists.

Since using your interpretation I could see someone claiming they were assaulted FIRST before they broke their girlfriend's jaw or something because she started screaming at him. AND I'm sorry but that is just a distortion of fact.

Anyway, people who are are sincere about issues generally don't need to resort to playing word games. They can be open and honest in discussions.
Once again, it shows us nothing when we try to go to the far edge of the bell shaped curve to disprove what most of us experience who reside in the vast middle.

Words and actions are different and should be treated differently.


NYMOM

"I didn't say he was walking away. I said he has the privilege of doing so, just as most women do, and many MRAs do not."

AND by the way Stanton many of the most hard-core MRAs do have the privilege of walking away.

Many of them, like Angry Harry for instance, don't even have any kids. So who are they to inflame other men who do, with their nonsense? Many of them are not married. Again who are they to complain about marriage and/or divorce? When they have NEVER experienced either.

Many have won their divorce/custody cases yet STILL go around talking about bias in family court? Again, what are they talking about?

Sadly there are men (mostly men, let's face it; probably something to do with aggression and replacing the alpha males from leadership roles) who are malcontents in every society ready to join any movement from Save the Whales to Fathers' Rights in order to protest SOMETHING. I hate to say it but it appears that MRA groups have attracted many of these types. Perhaps it's good. I don't know, as giving them some focus could possibly keep them from becoming isolated and doing bigger damage. However, I can't take a movement seriously where the main leaders appear to have suffered nothing of what they complain about; but are busily telling younger men (who again, haven't even lived yet and suffered nothing) how our society discriminates against them so much.

Actually, look at most of your leaders if you want to talk about privilege.

Sorry.

Hugo

NYMOM, try to not drag other folks into this (even Angry Harry!) by name... thanks.

stanton

NYMOM, it is interesteing, to say the least, to see such an equal-opportunity exasperater in action. Feminists and MRAs alike find you inconsistent and slippery as hell. In that, you are unique in my experience.

"Of course you distorted what I said." "I believe you are just playing word games."

I am not interested in word games. The item under discussion was "verbal oppression". Rereading what you wrote, perhaps you meant to enlarge the consideration, but that wasn't clear to me on the first read. If it had been, I would not have been interested in that particular digression, and would have ignored it. If "verbal oppression" was meant, then my characterization stands. Arguing - even heated arguing - is not verbal oppression. Oppression is made of sterner stuff, such as the example I gave.

"I can't take a movement seriously where the main leaders appear to have suffered nothing of what they complain about."

Fine. And I refuse to take seriously those who focus on the messengers in order to justify ignoring the message. Since neither of us takes the other seriously, perhaps we have nothing to talk about.

NYMOM

Fine.

I didn't recall seeing anything saying verbal oppression, as I've never even heard of that term. How can you oppress someone verbally, if there is no threat of physical followup? It only works if people THINK you can hurt them. When I talk about women using words, it has nothing to do with verbal oppression.

BTW, I don't believe I 'exasperate' people as you call it because I'm inconsistent and slippery as hell' but just the opposite. It's because I'm NOT.

AND my point about MRA leaders was that I have often heard a number of them comparing themselves to Gandhi and/or Martin Luther King. Two men who were actually oppressed and lead movements to overcome that oppression. Thus, my central point remains. Your entire movement is suspect as it could just be reactionaries trying to hold onto their own privilege.

bmmg39

NYMOM said: "People can have 'righteous anger' at someone who is hurting another person. Even Jesus Christ took a whip to the money changers in the temple and drove them out of it. Being against abuse doesn't mean not EVER getting angry and/or striking someone. Otherwise dangerous and violent criminals would go free since nobody was willing to stand up to them when they hurt others weaker then themselves."

Ah, but this wasn't a violent criminal; it was a man who was rude to a woman in an audience. If the violent criminal attacks, I can defend myself against him or her; I can't throttle someone who is rude to me. I was in customer service for 13 years; I would have throttled perhaps thousands of people.

"I think some have changed the definition of abuse to benefit themselves now...It should mean striking someone who is weaker then yourself and thus unable to defend against you."

-- or someone who is stronger than yourself or someone who is the same size as yourself. To suggest that abuse is only when a larger person hurts a smaller one is to suggest that larger people have fewer rights than smaller ones. I'm not a big person, myself. I'm still not allowed to punch people who tick me off. There's a decent chance I'd have the stuffing kicked out of me if I DID. And I'd have no grounds to say, "Hey! You can't hit me back! I'm weaker than you!" And yet this is the argument sometimes made by women who insist that they shouldn't be arrested for hitting men.

"That Rev. being confronted by a man as aggressive as he was and being forced to apologize for his attacks would NOT have come under the definition of abuse, nor should it have. He should have been corrected right there on stage and it's a shame he wasn't."

Corrected? Fine. Told to apologize? Okay. But you said "throttled." Whole new ballgame.

bmmg39

"Bmmg39, here's a link to an article by Gelles in which he decries the use of his work to support MRA claims."

I've read it, and it is Gelles who is making tenuous claims. The piece you have provided from him is self-contradictory:

"To even off the debate playing field it seems one piece of statistical evidence (that women and men hit one another in roughly equal numbers) is hauled out from my 1985 research - and distorted - to “prove” the position on violence against men."

If that one piece is in his statistical evidence, no distortion is necessary. Gelles makes the contention that MRAs "leave out" the higher rates of injury for women. There are two major problems with this:

1. A lot of serious injuries men incur as a result of DV are put into another category: the man knows that he might not be taken seriously if he says he was hurt by a woman, so his wounds get written down as "fell down stairs" or "hurt repairing car."

2. I'll say this again. You don't need to put someone in the hospital to commit abuse. If a man "just" slaps his wife's face, he won't likely break any bones, draw blood, or leave a bruise on her. Does this mean it's not abuse? Certainly not, and it's no different if she is the one slapping him.

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

I could just as easily turn this around and say that a lot of women who are hit, injured and/or killed do not qualify as battered women, because they've used emotional abuse or psychological provocation against the men who eventually "fought back." That's the whole problem with this issue: men who hit are presumed guilty from square one, whereas women are assumed to be "just fighting back." I've seen that argument used to try to discredit the more than 150 studies suggesting that women and men abuse each other at approximately equal rates: http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

The Countess: "David Gelles, one of the creators of the Conflict Tactic Scales, has chastised men's rights activists for misusing those figures to give them impression that women are as abusive as men."

Women INITIATE (in other words, NOT self-defense) domestic abuse against men approximately as often as the reverse occurs. Studies that suggest otherwise often rely on arrest statistics. Let me tell you about arrest statistics.

On a message board where I (and others) counsel victims of abuse (of both genders), one man wrote that his wife has physically attacked him many times. Each time he has called the police; each time the police have refused to arrest her, perhaps following their "handbook" provided to them by the local DV shelter. In fact, one police officer actually said to him, trying to offer practical advice, "The next time she starts swinging, leave the house. Because if she breaks a nail hitting YOU, we're going to arrest YOU."

I'm going to repeat that: "The next time she starts swinging, leave the house. Because if she breaks a nail hitting YOU, we're going to arrest YOU."

Folks, that's right out of Samuel Beckett. If you saw that in a play, you'd say, "Oh, this is a farce!" To be arrested for being beaten up might be amusing (to some) in a morbid comedy, except this is happening to actual men in real life. Another man on that website said that the police said to him: "We're not arresting her, buddy. But if you lay a hand on HER, we're coming down hard on you." They said this in FRONT of his abusive wife. Do ya think things got better for him after that? Or do you think they got worse?

So, let's say the next time this happens, the wife DOES break a fingernail while hitting her husband, and they DO arrest him. HE gets arrested. HIS name gets reported for committing domestic abuse, while the guilty party gets a blanket wrapped around her as she is taken to the DV shelter.

So, if this happens in various places around our country (and world), and you look up arrest statistics, what exactly do you THINK you'll find?

NYMOM

"Corrected? Fine. Told to apologize? Okay. But you said "throttled." Whole new ballgame."

NYMOM said: Well the way it was framed initially it sounded like the Rev. verbally attacked an actual victim of abuse and drove her out of the forum which was about dv. So then yes, I would have supported him being 'forced' into an apology by whatever means. I assume he wouldn't have agreed, so yes, throttled would be appropriate to the situation as I originally understood it.

However later it was amended (by others) to say that she wasn't a victim of abuse but a 'plant' in the audience as a representative of a feminist group.

Then I would have just had security escort her out for being disruptive.

So it depends upon who she was really, how I would have reacted. But the initial story painted her as an actual victim of abuse herself, attending the seminar or whatever it was, and then being attacked by this Rev from the stage.

So this was why I came up with the original statement.

Since yes there is such a thing as righteous anger where you can justify throttling someone and I'm not talking about a customer aggravating you either. I'm talking about serious issues, like yelling fire in a movie theater, which justifies throttling someone who won't shut up. Or chasing a victim of some crime out of a forum she was entitled to be in.

IF that was the situation.

Like I said, there is a place for violence in righteous anger such as wars in response to aggression, for instance. I mean someone can be against domestic violence it doesn't necessarily turn you into a pacifist...

NYMOM

"Women INITIATE (in other words, NOT self-defense) domestic abuse against men approximately as often as the reverse occurs. Studies that suggest otherwise often rely on arrest statistics. Let me tell you about arrest statistics."

Well then maybe this is not really domestic abuse then? As every single argument a husband and wife have where one might yell at or even push the other is not nor should it be, classified as domestic abuse. You appear to have a very 'sterile' notion of the interactions that go on between two people when they are intimate with one another. It frees them or gives them permission to act in ways that they probably would NOT act with other people.

I mean if you are counseling people, perhaps you are overinterpreting what they are saying and seeing abuse where none exists.

I mean someone like you would have dropped dead if you had ever been at one of my family's events from weddings to a Christening. Like clockwork, a few hours and a couple of round of drinks into the night someone would remember some insulting remark Uncle John said to cousin Pat's wife ten years ago and never apologized for and the fight would be on...now that was verbal abuse...YET the next day they were fine. I mean in your world they would have been getting restraining orders against one another.

BTW, I heard that many of the statistics compiled for domestic abuse came from hospital emergency rooms not arrest records. So you should check that out too. This could be another one of your misinterpretations.

bmmg39

"I'm talking about serious issues, like yelling fire in a movie theater, which justifies throttling someone who won't shut up. Or chasing a victim of some crime out of a forum she was entitled to be in."

Physical force is only permissible in cases of true physical danger. Yelling "fire" may qualify, but not after everyone realizes the person is full of soup. Mere rudeness or even cruel words certainly don't justify violence. Now if he went up there and tried to "shut her up" with his fist, then, yeah, it would be on.

"I mean someone like you would have dropped dead if you had ever been at one of my family's events from weddings to a Christening. Like clockwork, a few hours and a couple of round of drinks into the night someone would remember some insulting remark Uncle John said to cousin Pat's wife ten years ago and never apologized for and the fight would be on...now that was verbal abuse...YET the next day they were fine. I mean in your world they would have been getting restraining orders against one another."

I'm not attacking you or your family here. As long as things remained verbal, I can see the law not intervening, sure. But if one person were to beat the snot out of somebody else because of a comment, then an assault would have been committed.

"BTW, I heard that many of the statistics compiled for domestic abuse came from hospital emergency rooms not arrest records. So you should check that out too. This could be another one of your misinterpretations."

"Guess I think I'm okay.
Walked into the door again.
If you ask that's what I'll say,
And it's not your business anyway."

That's a stanza from Suzanne Vega's "Luka," a song about child abuse, but it pertains to abused adults, too. Certainly, women face the same shame and reluctance to tell the police or emergency personnel that she's been beaten up, but if she DID she'd be far more likely to be believed than if a man does the same thing. Hence the BS stories about how the man lost a tooth/has second-degree burns/suffered a cracked rib.

anonymous this time

bmmg39, I too am bothered by Gelles qualifying battery as something that happens only to men who didn't "provoke" it. When wife-beaters claim "she provoked me" we don't consider that an excuse for hitting her, nor should we.

I'm plenty aware that women can be violent. I knew a girl who used to get hit by her girlfriend (I've noticed same-sex domestic abuse is not addressed here... that happens too.) When I was younger my mom used to lose her temper and smack me around (my dad never did, but he also never intervened). Then one day I stopped letting her hit me.... just grabbed her wrists and held. She looked me in the eye and asked if now I was going to hit her. And it really really saddened me that she didn't think I could/would defend myself from her without turning that violence back on her. I replied no, I just wasn't going to let her hit me anymore, and didn't budge till she calmed down.

So, I simply don't sympathize with people who abuse their abusers. I don't care how provoked you are, you don't hit someone unless there is really, truly no other way to defend yourself. If you're seriously outweighed or the other person has a weapon, that might be all you can do. But if they're screaming in your face? If you're at all able to stop them without hurting them? Then harming them is still wrong. Abuse is abuse even if provoked.

Your story about your battered friend and the police is indeed horrifying. And I'll buy your argument that male victims of domestic abuse under-report. However, women also underreport or lie about the causes of their injuries (I've done it). Police also ignore domestic abuse against women. (A friend of mine related a particularly depressing story about the police who watched and did nothing when his mother's boyfriend wrenched her wrist so she couldn't carry her suitcases out of the house. We could go back and forth on this and just establish that the cops are terrible about domestic abuse across the board.) So, your arguments about underreporting and lack of enforcement do indicate that the raw numbers of men being abused may be higher than we know, but they don't say anything nearly as conclusive about the ratio of male to female abuse victims.

That said, I'm glad you're doing something to help these guys. I don't envy them having to face ridicule on top of everything else. I just don't like framing the situation as if they're competing with female abuse victims... like in order to help one group you have to snub another.

Kristy

I actually got involved with a similar debate with a member of my family. Ads are currently showing attempting to educate men that violence against women is not ok in australia at the moment.

His argument was what about violence towards men (within domestic violence)?

While I have no problem with his comment, I do worry about the effects of taking the attention away from the women in the picture, stats and lies aside women remain the bigger victims within domestic violence.

I think another side of it is the fact that there are still beliefs that it is ok to 'slap your woman out of it'. This isn't a view point that many women share or at least one i'm yet to hear.

Also, there are still judges who favour men in domestic abuse cases regardless of case details and far too many women who continue to die as a result of domestic abuse.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Regular reads

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 01/2004