Activism Change

The Dateline Show, and Attitudes…

Question:

[snip] Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ?

Because men are considered disposable and expendable. You are suppose to be stoic, and just take any abuse handed out to you. You are suppose to put women and children first and consider yourself last. You can be drafted and used as cannon fodder, your entire life amounting to being nothing more than a backstop for a 45 cent bullet. You are considered a near slave, who’s only value is in your ability to work. No one really cares if you live well from the work you do. Taking care of yourself is considered a sign of your evil greed. You’re considered evil, mean, brutal and are otherwise demonized and made sub human. All men are rapist or potential rapist, we are told; men are presumed the abuser; men are presumed to hurt children, despite the statistics otherwise. Father= child abuser. You’re only worth living around if you are civilized enough to show the signs of deference to your betters, women. You must open the doors, stand when they enter, speak politely, let them go first, walk on the street side of the sidewalk, and do their bidding. Sit quite and say nothing when a less qualified woman is promoted above you. It’s not your place to protest. If your wife beats you, you deserve it. If you fight back, you WILL be arrested, and lose your home and your kids. Welcome to western culture.

Response:

[snip] Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ? Because men are considered disposable and expendable.

Did I miss something on this thread? Who here says it is "fine and dandy" when men are discriminated against? Despite the accusation, I haven’t seen it in anyone’s commentary. –Martha

Response:

This scares me Andre …

[snip] Yes, it is. Perpetrated by both men and women. But mostly by men. Wrong. Not true. This is a lie. If you want to keep on making such erroneous assertions, then please ( as I ask yet again ) post your proof. Where is your "proof" Andre? Would you like me to put the abused women and children on display for you to see? Give names and expose them? This is assinign!

Well, he offered this as proof: "The truth about violence in the home is that it’s pretty much a 50-50 thing. Respected social scientists Murray A. Straus and David Gelles have been publishing research for years that shows the standard Only-Men-Batter story–probably visible on a billboard near you — just doesn’t match reality. Women and men attack each other about equally in the home. Solid research now shows that women begin the physical fighting in their homes about half the time. Equally solid research shows that mothers are responsible for 65 per cent of physical abuse of children. … "The uncomfortable truth is spreading. The very liberal, if not PC magazine Mother Jones ran a news story last month admitting as much.  "A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence," relationships more often than men. The research disputes a long held belief about the nature of domestic violence — that if a woman hits, it’s only in response to her partner’s attacks."   From http://www.massnews.com/domviin.htm, of all places! With women making up 50% of all spousal abuse and 65% of all child abuse, the commonly believed statement that abuse is "mostly by men" is simply not supported by the data. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Yes, there are many people who cry wolf … go after them, but don’t shut down the shelters and help that the real abused victims need! I don’t recall anyone suggesting that shelters be shut down. You may be jumping to an unwarrented conclusion. If I were to write about how much money is spent on, say, military bases, no one would assume that the publication of that information, in of itself, meant that the writer wanted the bases closed. The same applies here. What are you suggesting then? That we begin to see this as a *human* problem, one that men and women have to work together to solve, and not one where one sex is to be villified as the " evil ones ". And this is what I have been trying to get across to you, but you choose to sit and argue. A people .. human problem … yes … that is where I have been all along … where have you been? The evil ones are the abusers. If majority is male then so be it.

Turns out that the majority is not male.  That doesn’t make ALL men evil.

Isn’t that good to know. [snip] Most abusers don’t kill. If they did, the death rate would be in the hundreds of thousands per year. Such events make news *because* they are rare, and extraordinary. Not so. You are talking to someone who was forced to look down the barrell of a loaded .22.

I’ll meet your .22 and raise you a .45, with hollow points.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …. They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men. and children should be protected from their abusers but a woman in a shelter is no more likely to be abused by an unrelated, unfamiliar man in that shelter than she is by her mailman or druggist or boss or someone riding the bus to work with her. What biased BS!  If you phrased this argument in terms of race, or religion or hair color instead of sex, you’d be a laughing stock.  Why is it OK to denigrate men but not exclude, say, Jews or redheads from a shelter?! Perhaps I should have clarified myself to those of you ready to pounce at the slightest phrase of words …. My comment about women being protected from "men" meant the men they are being protected from. Not ALL men … of course not ALL men. This is really getting sickening. Maybe I missed something (and I’m surely willing to allow that you wrote in haste) but you said:     They don’t let [men] into women’s shelters because they are there to protect     women and children from men.

I said "them" meaning men. If we were discussing abusive husband’s visiting their spouses at shelters so that I might have read:     They don’t let [their husband's] into women’s shelters because they are there to     protect women and children from them.

Them meaning MEN. Most of us (helpers at these shelters) do not know who the husbands are or what they look like. By saying "them" and meaning "men" and also "abusive husbands" is wording. I think you probably know my intention as well as the shelters. There is NO way of knowing who the abusive husbands are. Also … we don’t discriminate men … we allow abused men in under screaning. These ARE womens shelters, not mens shelters. There IS a reason to keep them hidden from men. Some abusive husbands will send their men friends into shelters to see if the wife is there. There are many reasons womens shelters need to be secluded. The same would go for mens shelters. You would be sheltering these men from women … not ALL women, but women no less. that would be a whole ‘nother kettle of fish but in the context of a discussion of there being nowhere for abused men to do, I don’t see a way to read what you wrote (not necessarily what you meant) to NOT be a sexist, comprehensive, exclusionary, and inflammatory statement.

I have discovered through my many years of living … that people will translate most of what they want to here and believe what they read to mean what they want it to read, or if they are on the defense they will give NO benefit of the doubt if there is a comment in question. Take time and relise that I am FOR people … not men or women exclusively. If my comment made you sick … perhaps it’s not my comment, but your perception. My intentions are fair to both men and women. — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text –                                             Chris — Rens-se-LEER is a county.  RENS-se-ler is a city.  R-P-I is a school!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This scares me Andre … Abuse is alive and kicking today. It’s not a myth. It’s happening. It’s real. Yes, it is. Perpetrated by both men and women. But mostly by men. Wrong. Not true. This is a lie. If you want to keep on making such erroneous assertions, then please ( as I ask yet again ) post your proof.

Where is your "proof" Andre? Would you like me to put the abused women and children on display for you to see? Give names and expose them? This is assinign! Yes, there are many people who cry wolf … go after them, but don’t shut down the shelters and help that the real abused victims need! I don’t recall anyone suggesting that shelters be shut down. You may be jumping to an unwarrented conclusion. If I were to write about how much money is spent on, say, military bases, no one would assume that the publication of that information, in of itself, meant that the writer wanted the bases closed. The same applies here. What are you suggesting then? That we begin to see this as a *human* problem, one that men and women have to work together to solve, and not one where one sex is to be villified as the " evil ones ".

And this is what I have been trying to get across to you, but you choose to sit and argue. A people .. human problem … yes … that is where I have been all along … where have you been? The evil ones are the abusers. If majority is male then so be it. That doesn’t make ALL men evil. That is the path to division and unending rancour. The social equivalent of the former Yugoslavia. Is that a model that you think is good for our societies ? Or, is truth, honesty, compassion, and the gumption to face the *reality* of the world better ?

Hu? honesty, and compassion doesn’t really fit into anything you have written so far. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I don’t agree with these "conclusions". I don’t like statistics .. they are biased and juggled in most cases. With that said … Now, *this* is a big problem….Why do you not like statistics ? What other form of general, and systematic information gathering do you use in order to better understand the wider world, the parts beyond our horizons ? Why would "this" be a problen with you? It’s not a problem for me. Stat’s are only as good as the people that gathered the info, and the data entry people. There are flaws in most all statistical recovery. I am well aware of the world around me … I stay on top of the news, and yes .. I will also consider stats. I will consider all in my personal evaluation of a problem. What makes " news " is what is extraordinary. If you really want to understand the world, the popular media are of little help.

Oh good grief! News along with all the other information in this world. Not just news … it can’t stand on it’s own. Why do you keep "not getting it"? As I said, if you refuse to accept the real facts that stats give us, then you are cutting off a major part of the real world. But, just because you don’t see it, because you refuse to, doesn’t mean that it’s not still there…

And I could say the same to you. Stats have their place … and that is to be evaluated with our own conclusions given the circumstances of how these stats were gathered. I could just as easily say that the stats that you might prefer are " biased ", too. So, where does that get any of us ? Hello?! All stats have flaws. Where does this get any of us? It enlightens us to the possibility and a wide scope of what may be happening. You must take other things into consideration before making your conclusions. Such as… ? As I said, " feelings " are of no help here, at all. Real data *is*.

You are having your fun aren’t you Andre? I’m not going to sit and repeat time and again … so your silly comments that I have already answered will be presumed answered. Go back and read them. I don’t think that it’s right to jettison information that leads one to unwanted conclusions. That is real close to self lying, and it’s a major bar to being self aware, and to understanding the actual universe in which we all live. This makes NO sense. Sure it does. If you *choose* to reject real information about the world, then you are, in effect, *lying* to yourself, and making your having an understanding of what *is*, as opposed to what you want to be, impossible. Just as some stay in rotten marriages, ’cause they don’t *want* to see the reality of it.

I am not the one rejecting information. I look at all info .. as apposed to soley looking at stats and making my conclusions. Just because most folks thought that, back a half millenium ago, the Sun orbited the Earth, it didn’t change one centimeter of the Earth’s actual orbit around the sun. The *facts* are the facts. Stats were not concieved from true facts. There’s a bold statement.

Far be it from YOU or I to be bold ;-} Again I ask, where do you arrive at this from ? As we used to say in math class, show your work. Until you do, your above comment rings as a desperate wish to not see what is, to me.

Proof .. you want Proof or it isn’t valid? Is that what you are saying? Your name wouldn’t be O.J. would it? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have known and worked with abused victims. Many, many men are very abusive. If you have read any of my posts and replys you will know that I am an advicate for mens rights, peoples rights, human rights. However …. there are more men that are abusive than women. Men can cause more damage physically then women. Yes, I believe men and women are different!! As do I… in *some* matters, and my list of the differences is shorter than most. On what *facts* do you base your conclusion that more men are abusive than women ? I can get you some real stats, heck, I can give you a full reading list, one that is footnoted to the max. I’m sure you can … but it’s very dangerouse to believe everything you read. I get my facts by living it mostly. I will believe what I see before what I read. Who said anything about believing " everything " ? I find such a comment insulting, as it says that I have no ability to weigh data, and to make cross comparisons from the wealth of data and experience that I possess.

You said yourself you make your assessments on stats. You even asked me what else is there? So Andre, what else do you consider? If you base your whole life just on what is in front of your nose, then I also expect to hear from you that Apollo never went to the Moon, for instance. After all, you didn’t " live it ", and you can’t believe everything that you read….

I could choose to play this game, but I have far better things to do with my time. Come on. You’re just trying to ignore facts that you don’t like. That takes us back to self lying, and that’s profoundly *not* a healthy trait to have. For anyone.

Your so called "facts" Andre are not always correct. If you don’t like that then oh well. I am basing any conclusion I have for anything in my life on many factors … not just statistics. Were you a sensus taker at one time or something? Am I offending you because you were involved in statistics at some point in your life? I can’t figure you out .. most of what you say doesn’t make sense, or you contradict yourself. Yes, men can cause more pyhsical damage. That’s not the point. That IS the point … with many it’s "do" or "die". Oh, more BS !

Now, now!! Most abusers don’t kill. If they did, the death rate would be in the hundreds of thousands per year. Such events make news *because* they are rare, and extraordinary.

Not so. You are talking to someone who was forced to look down the barrell of a loaded .22. Rage, jelousey, the legal system … are all major buttons that will push and already angry abuser. I believe many abusers would kill … not ALL! Rather, the point is who actually launches aggressions, and what ccame during the buildup. Are we talking about two different things here? We are talking about shelters right? Who gives a rats behind who started it and who didn’t at this point? You either find a place to hide or you end up in the hospital or dead. The reasons for seaking shelter from an irate person has nothing to do with it at this point. That can all be dealt with in a court of law … if they both survive that is! Can you imagine a cop saying " who cares who started it "

Yes, and they have. They have no interest in solving the inner problem, they want to stop the immediate problem. at any murder investigation ?

You won’t find "cops" solving murder mysteries. This is left to the Feds, lawyers, and Judges. You appear now to be saying that it doesn’t matter who started it. Why ?

By the time women get to shelters it DOESN’T matter. All that matters it to keep the abuser away, and the victims safe. Legalities will follow with lawyers, and Judges. Could it be that you think that women " start it " more often, but in your need to pin this on men, that’s inconvenient, so you say that it’s " not important " ?

Not at all. How you came to this conclusion I will never know. You don’t have a few "stats" sitting around your place about me do you? Or are you going with your instincts? A feeling perhaps?  ;-} – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Many men, while stronger physically, also have a deep sense of the unfairness of

… read more »

Response:

… As far as statistics go, they’re only as good as the surveys that spawned them.  If the questions are written poorly, or the sample isn’t large or random enough, or the stats are entered manually (as opposed to Optical Character Readers), then the results will be skewed.  Hell, if the OCR software is poor, you can also get misread data. …

A footrace between an American and a Soviet as reported by Pravda:  "There was a great race.  The Soviet came in second and the American came in next to last." I remember a book from decades ago titled, "How to lie with statistics."  I wish I had a copy.                                             Chris — Rens-se-LEER is a county.  RENS-se-ler is a city.  R-P-I is a school!

Response:

hiya, Spiderweb, Ok, I think that we agree that the issues that men and women face with respect to abuse are approximately equivalent. However, folks who have been working the "men’s" side of the equation have *learned* over time, to be very distrustful and cynical with respect to the DVI. That is why you see the outpouring of resentment and objection here, I think. Certainly there are kind, intelligent and helpful folks within the DVI, *but* that industry, *as a whole,* has not been responsive to the interests of men – and has *in fact* acted extremely detrimentally with respect to interests of men *and particularly fathers*. The effort by the DVI to "strengthen" the domestic violence laws has given us accusation without evidence, (and in many cases without substance,) guilty until *proven* innocent, and has given a very powerful tool that is used too often in the divorce process by unscrupulous individuals against fathers who love their children. Everybody knows that this happens. But when that issue is addressed – Hey, let’s prosecute false claims of abuse! The *most vocal* objection come from the DVI. As far as ridicule against men subject to domestic violence, I have newspaper cites of quotes from DV program executives expressing incredulity, or ridicule, at the idea that there is *any* problem with abused men. As I said, men who are aware of these issues and *have* been working on them are disgusted with the DVI. For informed men who *have tried* to make changes to the system, I can assure you that that distrust and disgust has been largely earned. I would *love* it if the men’s and women’s side of this equation would extend and accept the olive branch and work together on this problem. Until that happens, though, mistrust is going to norm. Best & Kindest  -  BD (I agree with Spiderweb about *hating* stats. Those are for the most part lousy. But, if we are going to have graphic images of broken bones, bruised babies, let consider who is doing the damage here: 80% of infanticide is committed by women. The ratio of men to women showing up in morgues as a result of domestic violence is about 1:3 to 1:4, I believe, according to the most recent Justice department data. So we see that men, as well, are being killed in the battle on the home front. And, the number of men being killed is not insignificant. I will accept any legitimate challenge of these statistics, of course, but those statistics tell me that to cast the domestic violence situation as a man vs. women thing, is absurd.)   – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – hiya Spiderweb! Hi BD Just a quick note … They are, by definition, prejudiced, by virtue of the manner in which the shelters work, by never allowing *any* men, even the throng who are in similar need of the services. They aren’t as widely needed. Yes, they are needed but not to the extent for women and children. And I’m sorry if you don’t like this, but it’s true. In any other place, such systemic discrimination against any other group, would be swiftly denounced, and taken to court. Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ? How do you see this as being discriminating? I call it surviving and protections from an immediate danger. Ummm, there *are* cases where the father and children *are* in danger from the mother – grave physical danger in some cases. Please, those situations *do* exist. I agree that there are "some" cases And, like women found themselves twenty, or even fewer years ago, many of those men find themselves in situations where they are afraid to leave, or afraid to leave by themselves and leave the kids in danger. Those situations *happen*. Yes BD … I know they happen … I acknowledged that in my reply. Calls by men to shelters are routinely turned down, or fluffed off, sometimes with ridicule. With ridicule? I have never experienced anything of the sort. Most men don’t know where the shelters are let alone call them. The very few that were allowed in the shelters that I helped in were not looked down on, or made to feel shamed. I’m sure what you say "has" happened, but I can’t agree that this is the norm. Also, many women who have been abused are ridiculed. They are no different then the men. Perhaps the ridicule is aimed in a different way, such as being "dumb" for staying with this person for so long … for allowing the abuser to cause so much damage over a length of time. I’m not saying it’s more difficult for men to find or seek shelter. I’m sure it is, I’ve never heard of or seen a shelter just for men. If there is a need, and I’m sure there is, we need to appoint such shelters. Can the men do other things to protect themselves and the children in those situations? Well, maybe so, but there options are pretty much the same as women might have had a couple of decades ago, some have *nowhere* to go. And that’s a shame. In light of that, the complete lack of resources for men seems all the more insidious. When you consider the recent shocking Justice Department data that shows that about *half* (as I recall) of domestic violence incidents are initiated by women, the conclusion that many of us draw is that there are possibly millions of men subject to abuse, who have virtually no resources available, who hide there problem in shame, and who are humiliated if their problem is ever known or made public. It’s no different for women. You would be surprised at how the public will treat abused women also. They are some how "branded" or they are told they are lying. This is something they will have to over come to be able to get the majority in agreement. As women did years ago. These men find themselves in the same situation that women of domestic violence may have found themselves in before the problems were publicized and given attention, hiding the abuse, living in shame, and blaming themselves. As women did. It’s a shameful feeling for most people who are abused. But if help and shelter is what they are asking for, the shame and humiliation will have to step aside so we can get the shelters going. And, we see the present domestic violence industry as working *against* these men, by denying the problem exists, educating "mandated reporters" to see the problem only as a woman’s problem, and permitting court systems that provide little protection for men, and instead, are often turned into instruments of battering, where the battering of those men continues *by* the courts. From what I hear domestic violence is more wide known for the past six or seven years and getting stronger "slowely". Why slowely? I’m not sure … maybe it is harder for men to over come the shame they are feeling. But along with women … the people who work in these shelters do not look at abused people as "less". I know this … I worked in those places. The oppisite is true in order to get these people back out in society. Help is available more to women right now than men because IMO it’s harder for men to acknowledge the abuse. Men are suppose to be strong and poweful. I can understand this. But in order to make change they have to speak up. The courts systems are another story. I think there are more people who believe the justice system is being unfair than not. The laws need to be changed. And, you know, when that story is told, folks just don’t want to think about it. Oh f****ing WELL! There are those of us who DO want to talk about it, and DO something about it. But look at us right now! We are basically on the same "side", and it feels as though the same sides are fighting about this. Men are being battered out in the world … fact: we need to do something about it. Never mind the pride and shame .. shelters are usually discreet and filled with people who understand and most have been there before.    Oh … and excuse my language, but it’s very difficult to try and "help" when your help is constantly being "questioned". I guess that it bothers them too much to. Who exactly are "them". Society? Society has been known to change their points of view once things are in action and it’s talked about. Not always majority, but so what? Let’s do this without majority. Let’s get the ball rolling. — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" Best & Kindest – thanks!  - BD — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

This scares me Andre … Abuse is alive and kicking today. It’s not a myth. It’s happening. It’s real. Yes, it is. Perpetrated by both men and women. But mostly by men.

Wrong. Not true. This is a lie. If you want to keep on making such erroneous assertions, then please ( as I ask yet again ) post your proof. Yes, there are many people who cry wolf … go after them, but don’t shut down the shelters and help that the real abused victims need! I don’t recall anyone suggesting that shelters be shut down. You may be jumping to an unwarrented conclusion. If I were to write about how much money is spent on, say, military bases, no one would assume that the publication of that information, in of itself, meant that the writer wanted the bases closed. The same applies here. What are you suggesting then?

That we begin to see this as a *human* problem, one that men and women have to work together to solve, and not one where one sex is to be villified as the " evil ones ". That is the path to division and unending rancour. The social equivalent of the former Yugoslavia. Is that a model that you think is good for our societies ? Or, is truth, honesty, compassion, and the gumption to face the *reality* of the world better ? I don’t agree with these "conclusions". I don’t like statistics .. they are biased and juggled in most cases. With that said … Now, *this* is a big problem….Why do you not like statistics ? What other form of general, and systematic information gathering do you use in order to better understand the wider world, the parts beyond our horizons ? Why would "this" be a problen with you? It’s not a problem for me. Stat’s are only as good as the people that gathered the info, and the data entry people. There are flaws in most all statistical recovery. I am well aware of the world around me … I stay on top of the news, and yes .. I will also consider stats. I will consider all in my personal evaluation of a problem.

What makes " news " is what is extraordinary. If you really want to understand the world, the popular media are of little help. As I said, if you refuse to accept the real facts that stats give us, then you are cutting off a major part of the real world. But, just because you don’t see it, because you refuse to, doesn’t mean that it’s not still there… I could just as easily say that the stats that you might prefer are " biased ", too. So, where does that get any of us ? Hello?! All stats have flaws. Where does this get any of us? It enlightens us to the possibility and a wide scope of what may be happening. You must take other things into consideration before making your conclusions.

Such as… ? As I said, " feelings " are of no help here, at all. Real data *is*. I don’t think that it’s right to jettison information that leads one to unwanted conclusions. That is real close to self lying, and it’s a major bar to being self aware, and to understanding the actual universe in which we all live. This makes NO sense.

Sure it does. If you *choose* to reject real information about the world, then you are, in effect, *lying* to yourself, and making your having an understanding of what *is*, as opposed to what you want to be, impossible. Just as some stay in rotten marriages, ’cause they don’t *want* to see the reality of it. Just because most folks thought that, back a half millenium ago, the Sun orbited the Earth, it didn’t change one centimeter of the Earth’s actual orbit around the sun. The *facts* are the facts. Stats were not concieved from true facts.

There’s a bold statement. Again I ask, where do you arrive at this from ? As we used to say in math class, show your work. Until you do, your above comment rings as a desperate wish to not see what is, to me. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have known and worked with abused victims. Many, many men are very abusive. If you have read any of my posts and replys you will know that I am an advicate for mens rights, peoples rights, human rights. However …. there are more men that are abusive than women. Men can cause more damage physically then women. Yes, I believe men and women are different!! As do I… in *some* matters, and my list of the differences is shorter than most. On what *facts* do you base your conclusion that more men are abusive than women ? I can get you some real stats, heck, I can give you a full reading list, one that is footnoted to the max. I’m sure you can … but it’s very dangerouse to believe everything you read. I get my facts by living it mostly. I will believe what I see before what I read.

Who said anything about believing " everything " ? I find such a comment insulting, as it says that I have no ability to weigh data, and to make cross comparisons from the wealth of data and experience that I possess. If you base your whole life just on what is in front of your nose, then I also expect to hear from you that Apollo never went to the Moon, for instance. After all, you didn’t " live it ", and you can’t believe everything that you read…. Come on. You’re just trying to ignore facts that you don’t like. That takes us back to self lying, and that’s profoundly *not* a healthy trait to have. For anyone. Yes, men can cause more pyhsical damage. That’s not the point. That IS the point … with many it’s "do" or "die".

Oh, more BS ! Most abusers don’t kill. If they did, the death rate would be in the hundreds of thousands per year. Such events make news *because* they are rare, and extraordinary. Rather, the point is who actually launches aggressions, and what ccame during the buildup. Are we talking about two different things here? We are talking about shelters right? Who gives a rats behind who started it and who didn’t at this point? You either find a place to hide or you end up in the hospital or dead. The reasons for seaking shelter from an irate person has nothing to do with it at this point. That can all be dealt with in a court of law … if they both survive that is!

Can you imagine a cop saying " who cares who started it " at any murder investigation ? You appear now to be saying that it doesn’t matter who started it. Why ? Could it be that you think that women " start it " more often, but in your need to pin this on men, that’s inconvenient, so you say that it’s " not important " ? Many men, while stronger physically, also have a deep sense of the unfairness of that superior strength, and back away from it’s use even in self defense. Yes they do … but men have that option of backing away "if they want". Women don’t.

Women with guns and knives do. And, not all women are smaller then their men. I’ve seen 240 pound women with 145 pound men. I know who’d win that fistfight… While working in a shelter I came across wives, teens, little children, and some men that had been abused. I saw the results with my own eyes. I’m guessing 30% were women, 65% were children, and less than 5% were men. The remainder % put in the children catagorie. We need to have a place for these children and women. We can’t turn our backs on them. The turn over in these shelters are astounding. The walks of life are varied, and have no preference. This is called begging those stats. Say that again?

You heard me. If you need elaboration, look it up. If most shelters absolutely *refuse* to take in any men, and the vast majority do just that, of course, you’re not going to see hardly any men. The shelters refuse to let them in, so how can you see them ? That makes for a circular argument. They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men. We excepted men in the two that I was most familiar with, but only after they were cleared by the police or their lawyers would refer them. And even then we had to make sure none of the women there were his wife.

So, you *know* that you are basing your conclusions on only half of the information. I know why men aren’t let in. Do you know why women’s shelters fight the creation of any shelters for men ? If there is a big demand for mens shelters in this country then I think we should start building them, don’t you? In my experience I haven’t seen the need … but I’m sure it’s out there.

You didn’t see, as you were in a place where, as you say, you *could not* have seen such a need. But, if I never left Canada, that would not " prove " that the USA doesn’t exist… " There are no abused men ". " How do we know ? " " There are none at the shelters. " But, we don’t let any men *in*. " " That’s ’cause there aren’t any… " And, so on…But, it proves nothing. Do you really believe their are just as many abused men in this country as women? Your honest opionion … leave your stats out of it.

If I leave the information out of it, then my, and *anyone’s* " opinion " becomes meaningless, as it’s empty of real information. You’re specifically asking me to answer from a deliberate state of chosen ignorance. This I *refuse* to do, ever. And, to quote Archie Bunker… " Just ’cause I was in Italy, during WW2, don’t mean that I saw Mussolini. " Now there is someone to quote from and idolize!

Now you’re *ass*uming that I " idolise " that character. You know of no such thing, and you’re making that association in order to reduce your opinion of what I have to say. Plus, you obviously missed the whole point of " All In The Family ", by saying what you did. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If a

… read more »

Response:

They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men. If a shelter is receiving money from the state or federal government and is excluding one gender, that’s sexual discrimination, unless a shelter is set up for the "excluded" gender. (my opinion)  Call the ACLU.

And that is why they are called "womens" shelters. They are set up FOR the women and children. — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Joe

Response:

They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men.

If a shelter is receiving money from the state or federal government and is excluding one gender, that’s sexual discrimination, unless a shelter is set up for the "excluded" gender. (my opinion)  Call the ACLU. — Joe

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …. They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men. children should be protected from their abusers but a woman in a shelter is no more likely to be abused by an unrelated, unfamiliar man in that shelter than she is by her mailman or druggist or boss or someone riding the bus to work with her. What biased BS!  If you phrased this argument in terms of race, or religion or hair color instead of sex, you’d be a laughing stock.  Why is it OK to denigrate men but not exclude, say, Jews or redheads from a shelter?!

Perhaps I should have clarified myself to those of you ready to pounce at the slightest phrase of words …. My comment about women being protected from "men" meant the men they are being protected from. Not ALL men … of course not ALL men. This is really getting sickening. — Spiderweb =} "Always remember you’re unique, just like everyone else"

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – …. They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men. children should be protected from their abusers but a woman in a shelter is no more likely to be abused by an unrelated, unfamiliar man in that shelter than she is by her mailman or druggist or boss or someone riding the bus to work with her. What biased BS!  If you phrased this argument in terms of race, or religion or hair color instead of sex, you’d be a laughing stock.  Why is it OK to denigrate men but not exclude, say, Jews or redheads from a shelter?! Perhaps I should have clarified myself to those of you ready to pounce at the slightest phrase of words …. My comment about women being protected from "men" meant the men they are being protected from. Not ALL men … of course not ALL men. This is really getting sickening.

Maybe I missed something (and I’m surely willing to allow that you wrote in haste) but you said:     They don’t let [men] into women’s shelters because they are there to protect     women and children from men. If we were discussing abusive husband’s visiting their spouses at shelters so that I might have read:     They don’t let [their husband's] into women’s shelters because they are there to     protect women and children from them. that would be a whole ‘nother kettle of fish but in the context of a discussion of there being nowhere for abused men to do, I don’t see a way to read what you wrote (not necessarily what you meant) to NOT be a sexist, comprehensive, exclusionary, and inflammatory statement.                                             Chris — Rens-se-LEER is a county.  RENS-se-ler is a city.  R-P-I is a school!

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree with Spiderweb.  I have been an abused woman.  My childred were abused. I volunteered in a shelter. From my personal experience, Spiderwed speaks the truth. This is why the people who work in the trenches, and cannot, or will not, see the larger picture, can’t be trusted to make policies, by themselves. They are, by definition, prejudiced, by virtue of the manner in which the shelters work, by never allowing *any* men, even the throng who are in similar need of the services. They aren’t as widely needed. Yes, they are needed but not to the extent for women and children. And I’m sorry if you don’t like this, but it’s true. Sorry, the evidence says that it’s quite *not* true. As I said, I can produce a reading and study list, backing this fact. I onviously can’t post it all here, both for reasons of bandwidth, and grossly insufficient time, on my part, to enter all the data.

What ever! I don’t believe the need for men’s shelters are "more" needed then women and childrens shelters. Take your "reading" and "study list" to your nearest shelter and do your own research. You will be surprised. Not only that … your looking at two groups of people verses one .. which make the "odds" very unlikely the need for men shelters are less. This does not make them less necessary! If you believe what you do, pray, what is your *evidence* for that ? This isn’t the first time that I’ve asked…

And this isn’t the first time that I’ve told you! Listen this time! I have worked for many years in shelters. I have worked side by side the police in certain matters. I read newspapers, and yes I also look at statistics. Your looking for "evidence"? Now you sound like a lawyer! The evidence is broken arms, missing ears, dead children, cigerette burned babies. And there is more. Like I’ve said a million times before … if there is a need for mens shelters (and I’m sure there is) lets get them going!!!! Do we need "proof" and "evidence" first!? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – In any other place, such systemic discrimination against any other group, would be swiftly denounced, and taken to court. Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ? How do you see this as being discriminating? I call it surviving and protections from an immediate danger. I already asked you to address the very real points in the article that I posted, such as the rates at which RO’s are given out, without any evidence of a need. In any other area of law, that would violate presumption of innocence, which is, I am informed, the basis of US legal procedure. So, why is it anyhting other than discrimination, to violate this well established, and tested procedure, in these cases, when the cops will tell you that most are not real, and many are lies ?

Rarely do we see the "not real" or the ones that have "lied" actually show up at the shelters. Once mens shelters are established there will be just as many "not real" and "lies" going on. It’s a shame but that is the way poeple get their revenge. Not all cops are trained or competent in domestic violence to make that judgement call. Their hands are pretty much tied as far as making accusations. It’s amazing how their real assumptions come about when they are talking to us versus the lawyers. Again .. you have to experience it for yourself. It’s not discriminating if women and children have a larger need for shelters then men … and they are getting the. It’s no different than giving minorities jobs just because they are minorities. We can’t build shelters or all facits of life just to make it "fair". If the need is there we need to get these shelters up and running. I posted that article, in part, to get some answers to the questions posed in it, from folks who feel as you do. But, you keep not addressing any specific points. Why ?

I have addressed specific points. I also wrote that I was going to go back and "re-read" the articals before commenting on them any further. I’m begining to wonder if I didn’t miss something with all the anger you are showing. If I did, I appologise. " Feelings " are not evidence. What one sees in one’s own life is not *necessarily* proof of such being the norm ( and, if it were, my ex would be a " proof " that " all " women are thieves, and adulterers. Since I know enough to know that what I see near me, is not *proof* of societal trends, I don’t make that association ) in *any* wider field. So, we come back to stats and proof.

Oh please … who ever said "feelings" were evidence! I am a pretty fair person … and I do not jump to conclusions. I am the biggest sceptic on this planet … so I make sure I check my facts before proceeding. Life experiences in one instance does not become the "norm". However life experiences in many instances can give you a pretty good idea what is going on out there. Along with stats (taken in perspective), etc. Have you ever sat in a court room and listened to stats and proof? Do you think all bad guys/gals go to jail or are reprimanded? No … and it’s because the stats and proof have been fudged to make their case. — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?"

Response:

hiya Spiderweb!

Hi BD – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Just a quick note … They are, by definition, prejudiced, by virtue of the manner in which the shelters work, by never allowing *any* men, even the throng who are in similar need of the services. They aren’t as widely needed. Yes, they are needed but not to the extent for women and children. And I’m sorry if you don’t like this, but it’s true. In any other place, such systemic discrimination against any other group, would be swiftly denounced, and taken to court. Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ? How do you see this as being discriminating? I call it surviving and protections from an immediate danger. Ummm, there *are* cases where the father and children *are* in danger from the mother – grave physical danger in some cases. Please, those situations *do* exist.

I agree that there are "some" cases And, like women found themselves twenty, or even fewer years ago, many of those men find themselves in situations where they are afraid to leave, or afraid to leave by themselves and leave the kids in danger. Those situations *happen*.

Yes BD … I know they happen … I acknowledged that in my reply. Calls by men to shelters are routinely turned down, or fluffed off, sometimes with ridicule.

With ridicule? I have never experienced anything of the sort. Most men don’t know where the shelters are let alone call them. The very few that were allowed in the shelters that I helped in were not looked down on, or made to feel shamed. I’m sure what you say "has" happened, but I can’t agree that this is the norm. Also, many women who have been abused are ridiculed. They are no different then the men. Perhaps the ridicule is aimed in a different way, such as being "dumb" for staying with this person for so long … for allowing the abuser to cause so much damage over a length of time. I’m not saying it’s more difficult for men to find or seek shelter. I’m sure it is, I’ve never heard of or seen a shelter just for men. If there is a need, and I’m sure there is, we need to appoint such shelters. Can the men do other things to protect themselves and the children in those situations? Well, maybe so, but there options are pretty much the same as women might have had a couple of decades ago, some have *nowhere* to go.

And that’s a shame. In light of that, the complete lack of resources for men seems all the more insidious. When you consider the recent shocking Justice Department data that shows that about *half* (as I recall) of domestic violence incidents are initiated by women, the conclusion that many of us draw is that there are possibly millions of men subject to abuse, who have virtually no resources available, who hide there problem in shame, and who are humiliated if their problem is ever known or made public.

It’s no different for women. You would be surprised at how the public will treat abused women also. They are some how "branded" or they are told they are lying. This is something they will have to over come to be able to get the majority in agreement. As women did years ago. These men find themselves in the same situation that women of domestic violence may have found themselves in before the problems were publicized and given attention, hiding the abuse, living in shame, and blaming themselves.

As women did. It’s a shameful feeling for most people who are abused. But if help and shelter is what they are asking for, the shame and humiliation will have to step aside so we can get the shelters going. And, we see the present domestic violence industry as working *against* these men, by denying the problem exists, educating "mandated reporters" to see the problem only as a woman’s problem, and permitting court systems that provide little protection for men, and instead, are often turned into instruments of battering, where the battering of those men continues *by* the courts.

From what I hear domestic violence is more wide known for the past six or seven years and getting stronger "slowely". Why slowely? I’m not sure … maybe it is harder for men to over come the shame they are feeling. But along with women … the people who work in these shelters do not look at abused people as "less". I know this … I worked in those places. The oppisite is true in order to get these people back out in society. Help is available more to women right now than men because IMO it’s harder for men to acknowledge the abuse. Men are suppose to be strong and poweful. I can understand this. But in order to make change they have to speak up. The courts systems are another story. I think there are more people who believe the justice system is being unfair than not. The laws need to be changed. And, you know, when that story is told, folks just don’t want to think about it.

Oh f****ing WELL! There are those of us who DO want to talk about it, and DO something about it. But look at us right now! We are basically on the same "side", and it feels as though the same sides are fighting about this. Men are being battered out in the world … fact: we need to do something about it. Never mind the pride and shame .. shelters are usually discreet and filled with people who understand and most have been there before.    Oh … and excuse my language, but it’s very difficult to try and "help" when your help is constantly being "questioned". I guess that it bothers them too much to.

Who exactly are "them". Society? Society has been known to change their points of view once things are in action and it’s talked about. Not always majority, but so what? Let’s do this without majority. Let’s get the ball rolling. — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Best & Kindest – thanks!  - BD — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found this article this morning. Note the numbers about child abuse, when the CP is living with, but not married to, a new partner. John Maguire has written three important articles on the DV industry in Massachusetts News. Here is the first: http://www.massnews.com/domviin.htm The Booming Domestic Violence Industry The Social-Work Movement that Fights Domestic Violence has Grown Large on State and Federal Tax Monies Massachusetts News By John Maguire August 2–All across Massachusetts, the social-work movement that fights domestic violence is booming. …

I’ve lived some of this (in NY) and reading it _still_ makes me sick.  Any woman who would play these games with her children to get to her ex is unfit!                                             Chris — Rens-se-LEER is a county.  RENS-se-ler is a city.  R-P-I is a school!

Response:

…. They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men.

should be protected from their abusers but a woman in a shelter is no more likely to be abused by an unrelated, unfamiliar man in that shelter than she is by her mailman or druggist or boss or someone riding the bus to work with her.   What biased BS!  If you phrased this argument in terms of race, or religion or hair color instead of sex, you’d be a laughing stock.  Why is it OK to denigrate men but not exclude, say, Jews or redheads from a shelter?!                                             Chris — Rens-se-LEER is a county.  RENS-se-ler is a city.  R-P-I is a school!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I agree with Spiderweb.  I have been an abused woman.  My childred were abused. I volunteered in a shelter. From my personal experience, Spiderwed speaks the truth. This is why the people who work in the trenches, and cannot, or will not, see the larger picture, can’t be trusted to make policies, by themselves. They are, by definition, prejudiced, by virtue of the manner in which the shelters work, by never allowing *any* men, even the throng who are in similar need of the services. They aren’t as widely needed. Yes, they are needed but not to the extent for women and children. And I’m sorry if you don’t like this, but it’s true.

Sorry, the evidence says that it’s quite *not* true. As I said, I can produce a reading and study list, backing this fact. I onviously can’t post it all here, both for reasons of bandwidth, and grossly insufficient time, on my part, to enter all the data. If you believe what you do, pray, what is your *evidence* for that ? This isn’t the first time that I’ve asked… In any other place, such systemic discrimination against any other group, would be swiftly denounced, and taken to court. Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ? How do you see this as being discriminating? I call it surviving and protections from an immediate danger.

I already asked you to address the very real points in the article that I posted, such as the rates at which RO’s are given out, without any evidence of a need. In any other area of law, that would violate presumption of innocence, which is, I am informed, the basis of US legal procedure. So, why is it anyhting other than discrimination, to violate this well established, and tested procedure, in these cases, when the cops will tell you that most are not real, and many are lies ? I posted that article, in part, to get some answers to the questions posed in it, from folks who feel as you do. But, you keep not addressing any specific points. Why ? " Feelings " are not evidence. What one sees in one’s own life is not *necessarily* proof of such being the norm ( and, if it were, my ex would be a " proof " that " all " women are thieves, and adulterers. Since I know enough to know that what I see near me, is not *proof* of societal trends, I don’t make that association ) in *any* wider field. So, we come back to stats and proof. — Spiderweb =}

Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

This scares me Andre … Abuse is alive and kicking today. It’s not a myth. It’s happening. It’s real. Yes, it is. Perpetrated by both men and women.

But mostly by men. Yes, there are many people who cry wolf … go after them, but don’t shut down the shelters and help that the real abused victims need! I don’t recall anyone suggesting that shelters be shut down. You may be jumping to an unwarrented conclusion. If I were to write about how much money is spent on, say, military bases, no one would assume that the publication of that information, in of itself, meant that the writer wanted the bases closed. The same applies here.

What are you suggesting then? I don’t agree with these "conclusions". I don’t like statistics .. they are biased and juggled in most cases. With that said … Now, *this* is a big problem….Why do you not like statistics ? What other form of general, and systematic information gathering do you use in order to better understand the wider world, the parts beyond our horizons ?

Why would "this" be a problen with you? It’s not a problem for me. Stat’s are only as good as the people that gathered the info, and the data entry people. There are flaws in most all statistical recovery. I am well aware of the world around me … I stay on top of the news, and yes .. I will also consider stats. I will consider all in my personal evaluation of a problem. I could just as easily say that the stats that you might prefer are " biased ", too. So, where does that get any of us ?

Hello?! All stats have flaws. Where does this get any of us? It enlightens us to the possibility and a wide scope of what may be happening. You must take other things into consideration before making your conclusions. I don’t think that it’s right to jettison information that leads one to unwanted conclusions. That is real close to self lying, and it’s a major bar to being self aware, and to understanding the actual universe in which we all live.

This makes NO sense. Just because most folks thought that, back a half millenium ago, the Sun orbited the Earth, it didn’t change one centimeter of the Earth’s actual orbit around the sun. The *facts* are the facts.

Stats were not concieved from true facts. I have known and worked with abused victims. Many, many men are very abusive. If you have read any of my posts and replys you will know that I am an advicate for mens rights, peoples rights, human rights. However …. there are more men that are abusive than women. Men can cause more damage physically then women. Yes, I believe men and women are different!! As do I… in *some* matters, and my list of the differences is shorter than most. On what *facts* do you base your conclusion that more men are abusive than women ? I can get you some real stats, heck, I can give you a full reading list, one that is footnoted to the max.

I’m sure you can … but it’s very dangerouse to believe everything you read. I get my facts by living it mostly. I will believe what I see before what I read. Yes, men can cause more pyhsical damage. That’s not the point.

That IS the point … with many it’s "do" or "die". Rather, the point is who actually launches aggressions, and what ccame during the buildup.

Are we talking about two different things here? We are talking about shelters right? Who gives a rats behind who started it and who didn’t at this point? You either find a place to hide or you end up in the hospital or dead. The reasons for seaking shelter from an irate person has nothing to do with it at this point. That can all be dealt with in a court of law … if they both survive that is! Many men, while stronger physically, also have a deep sense of the unfairness of that superior strength, and back away from it’s use even in self defense.

Yes they do … but men have that option of backing away "if they want". Women don’t. While working in a shelter I came across wives, teens, little children, and some men that had been abused. I saw the results with my own eyes. I’m guessing 30% were women, 65% were children, and less than 5% were men. The remainder % put in the children catagorie. We need to have a place for these children and women. We can’t turn our backs on them. The turn over in these shelters are astounding. The walks of life are varied, and have no preference. This si called begging those stats.

Say that again? If most shelters absolutely *refuse* to take in any men, and the vast majority do just that, of course, you’re not going to see hardly any men. The shelters refuse to let them in, so how can you see them ? That makes for a circular argument.

They don’t let them into womens shelters because they are there to protect women and children "from" men. We excepted men in the two that I was most familiar with, but only after they were cleared by the police or their lawyers would refer them. And even then we had to make sure none of the women there were his wife. If there is a big demand for mens shelters in this country then I think we should start building them, don’t you? In my experience I haven’t seen the need … but I’m sure it’s out there. " There are no abused men ". " How do we know ? " " There are none at the shelters. " But, we don’t let any men *in*. " " That’s ’cause there aren’t any… " And, so on…But, it proves nothing.

Do you really believe their are just as many abused men in this country as women? Your honest opionion … leave your stats out of it. And, to quote Archie Bunker… " Just ’cause I was in Italy, during WW2, don’t mean that I saw Mussolini. "

Now there is someone to quote from and  idolize! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – If a shelter for men is needed then lets get them going. Many are. Again, the scientific literature is rife with this data. There should be criminal recourses for the wolf cryers. There should also be criminal recourse for abusers. What is the solution? I don’t know … but it’s time (or way past time in my opinion) to sit down and figure it out. Not the beurocrats, or the so called living wonders that tend to do whats best for us … but "us" … we need to decide what’s best and what should be done. All of the bodies that operate shelters for women are absolute in their fight *against* any penalties against false accusations, as they *refuse* to admit that there are any, ever.

And that is just not true. You don’t know what your talking about. This puts them in an ideological tough spot, when it’s a lesbian relationship. No matter how you slice it, with a pair of lesbians, there is no man to blame, and either one woman is an abuser, or the other is a liar.

I think you’ve had just a little too much hot sauce on your taco tonight! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The political process, which is greased by money, is the ultimate responsible party. What can we do ? Precious little ( which is not the same as saying " nothing " ), but appearing at rallies where there are pols who passed such foul legislation as The Violence Against Women Act, and demanding to know what they think about violence against men. And, where are their conserns and monies to deal with that. We do need the male and human equivalents of NOW. Then, we’d have some equality of lobbying. Until then….. Spidey, it’s not right to say, after a full case, with evidence, testimony, and all sorts of real data, to just say " I don’t like the conclusion ". That says nothing, other than a blind unwillingness to face what is on the table.

And who said, "I don’t like the conclusion"? I don’t "agree" with stat conclusions .. they can not stand alone. And another thing Andre … mens rights have become a huge part of my life. By becoming active in this battle I refuse to hand over women and childrens rights as a trade off. I will go for the "human" rights of all people. Men have been handed a really shitty hand with the laws that are active. It sucks. But this "war" will not be resolved by bashing or taking away someone elses rights. It only takes you right down there to their level of deciept and contempt. Yes men are mad. Yes men (and many women) want things changed. Yes something has to be done. Do you really think it will be accomplished by damning the others? Let’s say we open all the doors to the shelters to both men and women (and children). What do you suppose will happen? The men chasing these women will enter! This shelter will now be a free for all. No … we have to have a place for women and children to get "away" from men. If there is a need for mens shelters, then we should build them also. What would your responses be, to the *specific* points, statements, and numbers in the article be ?

I’m going to go back and re-read the articles again and then respond. In the mean time … Andre … I am not your enemy. — Spiderweb =}

Response:

I agree with Spiderweb.  I have been an abused woman.  My childred were abused. I volunteered in a shelter. From my personal experience, Spiderwed speaks the truth. This is why the people who work in the trenches, and cannot, or will not, see the larger picture, can’t be trusted to make policies, by themselves. They are, by definition, prejudiced, by virtue of the manner in which the shelters work, by never allowing *any* men, even the throng who are in similar need of the services.

They aren’t as widely needed. Yes, they are needed but not to the extent for women and children. And I’m sorry if you don’t like this, but it’s true. In any other place, such systemic discrimination against any other group, would be swiftly denounced, and taken to court. Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ?

How do you see this as being discriminating? I call it surviving and protections from an immediate danger. — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

hiya Spiderweb! Just a quick note … – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – They are, by definition, prejudiced, by virtue of the manner in which the shelters work, by never allowing *any* men, even the throng who are in similar need of the services. They aren’t as widely needed. Yes, they are needed but not to the extent for women and children. And I’m sorry if you don’t like this, but it’s true. In any other place, such systemic discrimination against any other group, would be swiftly denounced, and taken to court. Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ? How do you see this as being discriminating? I call it surviving and protections from an immediate danger.

Ummm, there *are* cases where the father and children *are* in danger from the mother – grave physical danger in some cases. Please, those situations *do* exist. And, like women found themselves twenty, or even fewer years ago, many of those men find themselves in situations where they are afraid to leave, or afraid to leave by themselves and leave the kids in danger. Those situations *happen*. Calls by men to shelters are routinely turned down, or fluffed off, sometimes with ridicule. Can the men do other things to protect themselves and the children in those situations? Well, maybe so, but there options are pretty much the same as women might have had a couple of decades ago, some have *nowhere* to go. In light of that, the complete lack of resources for men seems all the more insidious. When you consider the recent shocking Justice Department data that shows that about *half* (as I recall) of domestic violence incidents are initiated by women, the conclusion that many of us draw is that there are possibly millions of men subject to abuse, who have virtually no resources available, who hide there problem in shame, and who are humiliated if their problem is ever known or made public. These men find themselves in the same situation that women of domestic violence may have found themselves in before the problems were publicized and given attention, hiding the abuse, living in shame, and blaming themselves. And, we see the present domestic violence industry as working *against* these men, by denying the problem exists, educating "mandated reporters" to see the problem only as a woman’s problem, and permitting court systems that provide little protection for men, and instead, are often turned into instruments of battering, where the battering of those men continues *by* the courts. And, you know, when that story is told, folks just don’t want to think about it. I guess that it bothers them too much to. Best & Kindest – thanks!  - BD – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

I agree with Spiderweb.  I have been an abused woman.  My childred were abused. I volunteered in a shelter. From my personal experience, Spiderwed speaks the truth.

This is why the people who work in the trenches, and cannot, or will not, see the larger picture, can’t be trusted to make policies, by themselves. They are, by definition, prejudiced, by virtue of the manner in which the shelters work, by never allowing *any* men, even the throng who are in similar need of the services. In any other place, such systemic discrimination against any other group, would be swiftly denounced, and taken to court. Why is it just fine and dandy, when men are the ones being discriminated against ? Andre — " The noblest achievement of the imagination is to make time run some other way, and terminate in beauty and forgivness "                                          David Gelernter, " 1939 "

Response:

This scares me Andre … Abuse is alive and kicking today. It’s not a myth. It’s happening. It’s real.

Yes, it is. Perpetrated by both men and women. Yes, there are many people who cry wolf … go after them, but don’t shut down the shelters and help that the real abused victims need!

I don’t recall anyone suggesting that shelters be shut down. You may be jumping to an unwarrented conclusion. If I were to write about how much money is spent on, say, military bases, no one would assume that the publication of that information, in of itself, meant that the writer wanted the bases closed. The same applies here. I don’t agree with these "conclusions". I don’t like statistics .. they are biased and juggled in most cases. With that said …

Now, *this* is a big problem….Why do you not like statistics ? What other form of general, and systematic information gathering do you use in order to better understand the wider world, the parts beyond our horizons ? I could just as easily say that the stats that you might prefer are " biased ", too. So, where does that get any of us ? I don’t think that it’s right to jettison information that leads one to unwanted conclusions. That is real close to self lying, and it’s a major bar to being self aware, and to understanding the actual universe in which we all live. Just because most folks thought that, back a half millenium ago, the Sun orbited the Earth, it didn’t change one centimeter of the Earth’s actual orbit around the sun. The *facts* are the facts. I have known and worked with abused victims. Many, many men are very abusive. If you have read any of my posts and replys you will know that I am an advicate for mens rights, peoples rights, human rights. However …. there are more men that are abusive than women. Men can cause more damage physically then women. Yes, I believe men and women are different!!

As do I… in *some* matters, and my list of the differences is shorter than most. On what *facts* do you base your conclusion that more men are abusive than women ? I can get you some real stats, heck, I can give you a full reading list, one that is footnoted to the max. Yes, men can cause more pyhsical damage. That’s not the point. Rather, the point is who actually launches aggressions, and what ccame during the buildup. Many men, while stronger physically, also have a deep sense of the unfairness of that superior strength, and back away from it’s use even in self defense. While working in a shelter I came across wives, teens, little children, and some men that had been abused. I saw the results with my own eyes. I’m guessing 30% were women, 65% were children, and less than 5% were men. The remainder % put in the children catagorie. We need to have a place for these children and women. We can’t turn our backs on them. The turn over in these shelters are astounding. The walks of life are varied, and have no preference.

This si called begging those stats. If most shelters absolutely *refuse* to take in any men, and the vast majority do just that, of course, you’re not going to see hardly any men. The shelters refuse to let them in, so how can you see them ? That makes for a circular argument. " There are no abused men ". " How do we know ? " " There are none at the shelters. " But, we don’t let any men *in*. " " That’s ’cause there aren’t any… " And, so on…But, it proves nothing. And, to quote Archie Bunker… " Just ’cause I was in Italy, during WW2, don’t mean that I saw Mussolini. " If a shelter for men is needed then lets get them going.

Many are. Again, the scientific literature is rife with this data. There should be criminal recourses for the wolf cryers. There should also be criminal recourse for abusers. What is the solution? I don’t know … but it’s time (or way past time in my opinion) to sit down and figure it out. Not the beurocrats, or the so called living wonders that tend to do whats best for us … but "us" … we need to decide what’s best and what should be done.

All of the bodies that operate shelters for women are absolute in their fight *against* any penalties against false accusations, as they *refuse* to admit that there are any, ever. This puts them in an ideological tough spot, when it’s a lesbian relationship. No matter how you slice it, with a pair of lesbians, there is no man to blame, and either one woman is an abuser, or the other is a liar. The political process, which is greased by money, is the ultimate responsible party. What can we do ? Precious little ( which is not the same as saying " nothing " ), but appearing at rallies where there are pols who passed such foul legislation as The Violence Against Women Act, and demanding to know what they think about violence against men. And, where are their conserns and monies to deal with that. We do need the male and human equivalents of NOW. Then, we’d have some equality of lobbying. Until then…..   Spidey, it’s not right to say, after a full case, with evidence, testimony, and all sorts of real data, to just say " I don’t like the conclusion ". That says nothing, other than a blind unwillingness to face what is on the table. What would your responses be, to the *specific* points, statements, and numbers in the article be ? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?" I found this article this morning. Note the numbers about child abuse, when the CP is living with, but not married to, a new partner. John Maguire has written three important articles on the DV industry in Massachusetts News. Here is the first: http://www.massnews.com/domviin.htm The Booming Domestic Violence Industry The Social-Work Movement that Fights Domestic Violence has Grown Large on State and Federal Tax Monies Massachusetts News By John Maguire August 2–All across Massachusetts, the social-work movement that fights domestic violence is booming. Only ten years ago, the women’s safety-advocates were a small group of idealists, operating on pennies. Today the movement has grown large on state and federal tax monies. Every month, it seems, it spawns new sub-programs, clinics, shelters, research institutes, counseling centers, visitation centers, poster campaigns. The state disbursed about $24 million for domestic violence services last year, but that certainly is not all the money spent. Today domestic violence is a big industry in Massachusetts. Mapping the full extent of the domestic-violence industry is not easy, because it’s a cottage-industry, spread out in hundreds of places. State and federal money goes to well over a hundred institutes, clinics, programs for counseling or outreach or coordination or training, computer databases, coalitions, shelters, PR agencies and other groups. Most would say that’s just fine: Domestic violence is ugly and ought to be dealt with. But others are beginning to wonder if the huge industrial cure is as bad as the disease. One of many critics is John Flaherty, co-chairman of the Fatherhood Coalition. "This industry is an octopus," he said recently. "It’s got its tentacles in more and more parts of everyday life. It’s a political movement. Many of its employees are, directly or indirectly, damaging children. This industry doesn’t answer to anybody. They’re in it mainly for the money — and the children be damned." The industry’s problems may be about to increase, because it is becoming clear through scientific research that the whole premise of the movement and the industry it spawned — that "domestic violence" means bad men hitting helpless, innocent women — is just plain wrong. The truth about violence in the home is that it’s pretty much a 50-50 thing. Respected social scientists Murray A. Straus and David Gelles have been publishing research for years that shows the standard Only-Men-Batter story–probably visible on a billboard near you — just doesn’t match reality. Women and men attack each other about equally in the home. Solid research now shows that women begin the physical fighting in their homes about half the time. Equally solid research shows that mothers are responsible for 65 per cent of physical abuse of children. Although the words "domestic" violence are commonly used, some commentators say that a better description would be "shack-up" violence, because violence is most common, especially where children are involved where the woman is living with a boy friend. In a piece in the Weekly Standard last December by John A. Barnes, he cited four studies which show "that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in a stable nuclear family." The uncomfortable truth is spreading. The very liberal, if not PC magazine Mother Jones ran a news story last month admitting as much. "A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence," relationships more often than men. The research disputes a long held belief about the nature of domestic violence — that if a woman hits, it’s only in response to her partner’s

… read more »

Response:

I agree with Spiderweb.  I have been an abused woman.  My childred were abused. I volunteered in a shelter. From my personal experience, Spiderwed speaks the truth.

Response:

This scares me Andre … Abuse is alive and kicking today. It’s not a myth. It’s happening. It’s real. Yes, there are many people who cry wolf … go after them, but don’t shut down the shelters and help that the real abused victims need! I don’t agree with these "conclusions". I don’t like statistics .. they are biased and juggled in most cases. With that said … I have known and worked with abused victims. Many, many men are very abusive. If you have read any of my posts and replys you will know that I am an advicate for mens rights, peoples rights, human rights. However …. there are more men that are abusive than women. Men can cause more damage physically then women. Yes, I believe men and women are different!! While working in a shelter I came across wives, teens, little children, and some men that had been abused. I saw the results with my own eyes. I’m guessing 30% were women, 65% were children, and less than 5% were men. The remainder % put in the children catagorie. We need to have a place for these children and women. We can’t turn our backs on them. The turn over in these shelters are astounding. The walks of life are varied, and have no preference. If a shelter for men is needed then lets get them going. There should be criminal recourses for the wolf cryers. There should also be criminal recourse for abusers. What is the solution? I don’t know … but it’s time (or way past time in my opinion) to sit down and figure it out. Not the beurocrats, or the so called living wonders that tend to do whats best for us … but "us" … we need to decide what’s best and what should be done. — Spiderweb =} "What if the Hokey – Pokey is really what it’s all about?"

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I found this article this morning. Note the numbers about child abuse, when the CP is living with, but not married to, a new partner. John Maguire has written three important articles on the DV industry in Massachusetts News. Here is the first: http://www.massnews.com/domviin.htm The Booming Domestic Violence Industry The Social-Work Movement that Fights Domestic Violence has Grown Large on State and Federal Tax Monies Massachusetts News By John Maguire August 2–All across Massachusetts, the social-work movement that fights domestic violence is booming. Only ten years ago, the women’s safety-advocates were a small group of idealists, operating on pennies. Today the movement has grown large on state and federal tax monies. Every month, it seems, it spawns new sub-programs, clinics, shelters, research institutes, counseling centers, visitation centers, poster campaigns. The state disbursed about $24 million for domestic violence services last year, but that certainly is not all the money spent. Today domestic violence is a big industry in Massachusetts. Mapping the full extent of the domestic-violence industry is not easy, because it’s a cottage-industry, spread out in hundreds of places. State and federal money goes to well over a hundred institutes, clinics, programs for counseling or outreach or coordination or training, computer databases, coalitions, shelters, PR agencies and other groups. Most would say that’s just fine: Domestic violence is ugly and ought to be dealt with. But others are beginning to wonder if the huge industrial cure is as bad as the disease. One of many critics is John Flaherty, co-chairman of the Fatherhood Coalition. "This industry is an octopus," he said recently. "It’s got its tentacles in more and more parts of everyday life. It’s a political movement. Many of its employees are, directly or indirectly, damaging children. This industry doesn’t answer to anybody. They’re in it mainly for the money — and the children be damned." The industry’s problems may be about to increase, because it is becoming clear through scientific research that the whole premise of the movement and the industry it spawned — that "domestic violence" means bad men hitting helpless, innocent women — is just plain wrong. The truth about violence in the home is that it’s pretty much a 50-50 thing. Respected social scientists Murray A. Straus and David Gelles have been publishing research for years that shows the standard Only-Men-Batter story–probably visible on a billboard near you — just doesn’t match reality. Women and men attack each other about equally in the home. Solid research now shows that women begin the physical fighting in their homes about half the time. Equally solid research shows that mothers are responsible for 65 per cent of physical abuse of children. Although the words "domestic" violence are commonly used, some commentators say that a better description would be "shack-up" violence, because violence is most common, especially where children are involved where the woman is living with a boy friend. In a piece in the Weekly Standard last December by John A. Barnes, he cited four studies which show "that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in a stable nuclear family." The uncomfortable truth is spreading. The very liberal, if not PC magazine Mother Jones ran a news story last month admitting as much. "A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence," relationships more often than men. The research disputes a long held belief about the nature of domestic violence — that if a woman hits, it’s only in response to her partner’s attacks." The writer admitted that 20-year-old myths in the movement were starting to fall. The study of 860 men and women, she said, "suggest that some women may be prone to violence — by nature of circumstance — just as some men may be." Looking at the Bottom Line $$$ In 1999, the state spent $24 million of its own and federal tax dollars "fighting has grown large on state and federal tax monies violence." The budgets have risen steadily every year. Slightly more than half of that money ($13.6 million) goes to pay for 37 battered women’s shelters and to pay their staff. There are no shelters or services for men who are victims of domestic violence — only women or homosexual men get these services. About a fifth of the money ($5.3 million) is spent in and around the courts, paying for prosecutors, legal representation for women, and training for court personnel. Of the remainder, at least $1 million goes to posters, ads, and other "outreach" campaigns telling people not to be violent. The high-school campaign gathers teen-agers to watch a play called "The Yellow Dress." Its point is that dating can end in murder, and men should not be trusted. It costs the state $500,000 each year. "Massachusetts and the Boston region have been very successful in winning federal money," said Clare Dalton, of the Northeastern University Domestic Violence Institute. "We’ve got some federal money here. The Police Department has also been very successful in getting federal money." Federal money for domestic violence programs flows into the state in several streams. One large source is the Victims of Crime Act money, which is disbursed by the Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance. Another source of big federal dollars is the federal Violence Against Women Act, which is administered by the Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS). Both MOVA and EOPS are located in state offices at 1 Ashburton Place, next to the State House. MOVA’s on the 11th floor, EOPS is on the 21st. Getting answers even to simple questions on how much money is being spent is not easy. Three weeks of repeated calls and visits to staffers in the Cellucci administration brought sluggish or no response. Jean Hurtle, the Executive Director of the Governor’s Commission on Domestic Violence, when asked repeatedly for a fact sheet on how much money was being spent in this field produced nothing. Jason Kauppi, an executive office press aide, failed to respond to roughly ten phone calls requesting information on the domestic violence budget. The figures above and in the accompanying box came from the staff of Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell. According to Cam Huff of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, budgets at the Department of Social Services have risen almost seven per cent per year, since 1993. Compared with the overall budget, he says, this is "significantly higher than average." Restraining Order –How Many is too many? If the domestic violence industry were an old-fashioned textile mill, the central power-shaft turning all its machinery would be the 209A restraining order. Judges issue them at the rate of 145 a day, according to the Boston Globe. Without the steady roll of restraining orders, all the machinery of the domestic violence industry would grind to a halt. To the activists, the 209A law is almost a magic sword that saves women’s lives. "There’s almost a religion of restraining orders among women’s advocates," commented Ray Saulnier, a fathers’ rights activist from Maine. But a growing number of men, their relatives, and lawyers find the 209A law

… read more »

Response:

I found this article this morning. Note the numbers about child abuse, when the CP is living with, but not married to, a new partner. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – John Maguire has written three important articles on the DV industry in Massachusetts News. Here is the first: http://www.massnews.com/domviin.htm The Booming Domestic Violence Industry The Social-Work Movement that Fights Domestic Violence has Grown Large on State and Federal Tax Monies Massachusetts News By John Maguire August 2–All across Massachusetts, the social-work movement that fights domestic violence is booming. Only ten years ago, the women’s safety-advocates were a small group of idealists, operating on pennies. Today the movement has grown large on state and federal tax monies. Every month, it seems, it spawns new sub-programs, clinics, shelters, research institutes, counseling centers, visitation centers, poster campaigns. The state disbursed about $24 million for domestic violence services last year, but that certainly is not all the money spent. Today domestic violence is a big industry in Massachusetts. Mapping the full extent of the domestic-violence industry is not easy, because it’s a cottage-industry, spread out in hundreds of places. State and federal money goes to well over a hundred institutes, clinics, programs for counseling or outreach or coordination or training, computer databases, coalitions, shelters, PR agencies and other groups. Most would say that’s just fine: Domestic violence is ugly and ought to be dealt with. But others are beginning to wonder if the huge industrial cure is as bad as the disease. One of many critics is John Flaherty, co-chairman of the Fatherhood Coalition. "This industry is an octopus," he said recently. "It’s got its tentacles in more and more parts of everyday life. It’s a political movement. Many of its employees are, directly or indirectly, damaging children. This industry doesn’t answer to anybody. They’re in it mainly for the money — and the children be damned." The industry’s problems may be about to increase, because it is becoming clear through scientific research that the whole premise of the movement and the industry it spawned — that "domestic violence" means bad men hitting helpless, innocent women — is just plain wrong. The truth about violence in the home is that it’s pretty much a 50-50 thing. Respected social scientists Murray A. Straus and David Gelles have been publishing research for years that shows the standard Only-Men-Batter story–probably visible on a billboard near you — just doesn’t match reality. Women and men attack each other about equally in the home. Solid research now shows that women begin the physical fighting in their homes about half the time. Equally solid research shows that mothers are responsible for 65 per cent of physical abuse of children. Although the words "domestic" violence are commonly used, some commentators say that a better description would be "shack-up" violence, because violence is most common, especially where children are involved where the woman is living with a boy friend. In a piece in the Weekly Standard last December by John A. Barnes, he cited four studies which show "that the incidence of abuse was an astounding 33 times higher in homes where the mother was cohabiting with an unrelated boyfriend than in a stable nuclear family." The uncomfortable truth is spreading. The very liberal, if not PC magazine Mother Jones ran a news story last month admitting as much. "A surprising fact has turned up in the grimly familiar world of domestic violence," relationships more often than men. The research disputes a long held belief about the nature of domestic violence — that if a woman hits, it’s only in response to her partner’s attacks." The writer admitted that 20-year-old myths in the movement were starting to fall. The study of 860 men and women, she said, "suggest that some women may be prone to violence — by nature of circumstance — just as some men may be." Looking at the Bottom Line $$$ In 1999, the state spent $24 million of its own and federal tax dollars "fighting has grown large on state and federal tax monies violence." The budgets have risen steadily every year. Slightly more than half of that money ($13.6 million) goes to pay for 37 battered women’s shelters and to pay their staff. There are no shelters or services for men who are victims of domestic violence — only women or homosexual men get these services. About a fifth of the money ($5.3 million) is spent in and around the courts, paying for prosecutors, legal representation for women, and training for court personnel. Of the remainder, at least $1 million goes to posters, ads, and other "outreach" campaigns telling people not to be violent. The high-school campaign gathers teen-agers to watch a play called "The Yellow Dress." Its point is that dating can end in murder, and men should not be trusted. It costs the state $500,000 each year. "Massachusetts and the Boston region have been very successful in winning federal money," said Clare Dalton, of the Northeastern University Domestic Violence Institute. "We’ve got some federal money here. The Police Department has also been very successful in getting federal money." Federal money for domestic violence programs flows into the state in several streams. One large source is the Victims of Crime Act money, which is disbursed by the Massachusetts Office of Victim Assistance. Another source of big federal dollars is the federal Violence Against Women Act, which is administered by the Executive Office of Public Safety (EOPS). Both MOVA and EOPS are located in state offices at 1 Ashburton Place, next to the State House. MOVA’s on the 11th floor, EOPS is on the 21st. Getting answers even to simple questions on how much money is being spent is not easy. Three weeks of repeated calls and visits to staffers in the Cellucci administration brought sluggish or no response. Jean Hurtle, the Executive Director of the Governor’s Commission on Domestic Violence, when asked repeatedly for a fact sheet on how much money was being spent in this field produced nothing. Jason Kauppi, an executive office press aide, failed to respond to roughly ten phone calls requesting information on the domestic violence budget. The figures above and in the accompanying box came from the staff of Sen. Steven Panagiotakos, D-Lowell. According to Cam Huff of the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, budgets at the Department of Social Services have risen almost seven per cent per year, since 1993. Compared with the overall budget, he says, this is "significantly higher than average." Restraining Order –How Many is too many? If the domestic violence industry were an old-fashioned textile mill, the central power-shaft turning all its machinery would be the 209A restraining order. Judges issue them at the rate of 145 a day, according to the Boston Globe. Without the steady roll of restraining orders, all the machinery of the domestic violence industry would grind to a halt. To the activists, the 209A law is almost a magic sword that saves women’s lives. "There’s almost a religion of restraining orders among women’s advocates," commented Ray Saulnier, a fathers’ rights activist from Maine. But a growing number of men, their relatives, and lawyers find the 209A law grossly unfair — almost a police-state tool that destroys families and saves very few. Recent efforts to reform the law have gained sympathetic hearings in the Legislature. On the books for 20 years, 209A became the tool of choice for the activists in the early 1990s. Almost every year since then, that scope of the law has been expanded, and the grounds for defense diminished. Activists have sought and gained almost draconian powers for women, on the argument of a "crisis" in domestic violence. As the law has expanded, its enforcers have multiplied. Today this state has hundreds if not thousands of 209A specialists who have been trained. Training in getting restraining orders, and in helping and urging women to get them occupies a significant amount of the curriculum at Northeastern University’s Domestic Violence Institute internship program. Federally paid advocates in many if not all district and probate courts in the state are also trained to assist women in getting restraining orders. To the movement/industry, the restraining order is a shining sacred sword of power that can never do harm, but magically protects women and children at all times. The restraining orders bring the police power of the state immediately to the woman’s protection, and the man she says she is afraid of is immediately thrown out of his house, if not arrested. Tool of Police State? But to others, a restraining order looks an awful lot like the tool of a police state. Attorney Sheara Friend, of the Wellesley firm Kahalas, Warshaw & Friend, estimates that about half of all restraining orders are merely legal maneuvers, where there is no real fear of injury on anyone’s part. If she’s right, about 20,000 of this state’s restraining orders each year have nothing to do with domestic violence — other than to claim it. If each of those phony orders harms seven people (a father, two kids, two grandparents and two other relatives) then 140,000 Massachusetts citizens suffer needless disruption and emotional pain each year. About ten years ago,

… read more »

Response:

Filed under: Lobbying

Related Posts

• CTCA ?
• Colorado Bans Deadly Alternative Therapy
• Sue the Sierra Club for Negligence over MTBE Advocacy?
• flying club (was on r.a.p.)
• The Mormons Openly Preaching HATE
• Cancun & Drafting
• Restraining Orders
• Fid's Photos
• Beef (It's good for you)
• Flying and Prozac