Men's Violence

[Rockwell]

Sheila, I was just kinda sitting back and reading for awhile, trying to take it all in. Glad to see you posting here, it's good to get as many people talking about this as possible, with both male and female perspectives. It's kinda funny/crazy how we all seem to have a common goal...that being mentally and physically empowering women to defend themselves against a violent attacker (be it man, woman, dog, Ogre, etc.), yet more heated arguments spring up here than just about any other forum I visit. But maybe that's not a bad thing...whether people change each other's minds or just end up agreeing to disagree, at least ideas are being exchanged. If we sift through the mess, we can find one or two good ideas that we can take back to our schools, families, communities, caves, etc. and help us move towards our common goal.

Best,

Jeff

[Shiela]

lightning

First of all--The issue here is NOT that ALL men are violent and ALL women are angels. As I've said before of course some women have tendences to act violent. But for you to list instances of a few famous cases where a woman was responsible for commiting an act of violence just proves how weak your arguement is. Do you know why you can recall these cases w/ such ease? Because they ARE RARE OCCURENCES! And for every study you can find that shows that women are more violent than men--I can show 100 to the contrary. (Or at least ERICA can-- she's good at that stuff) The outcome usually is effected by the one conducting it--Studies are funny that way.

Here are the FACTS: Countries like Iran, Pakistan, Saudi, United Arab Emirates, Iraq, and others have cultures where it is common place to beat their wives at will. In Pakistan a man has complete control of his wife or wives and can legally kill her if he feels necessary. If he has the slightest suspition of infidelity- no evidence necessary he can LEGALLY kill her. Not only that but their police are corrupt--once a grandmother widower was arrested for no apparent reason and was kept in a room where she was raped through out the night by 40 officers. Later it was learned that it was revenge for her not leasing a room to one of the officers. The gorey details I won't mention-but it's enough to make you cry. Women are NOT ALLOWED education and they have to be covered from head to toe or get arrested or beaten. And because they are not allowed out they are extremely frail from lack of exercise and no sunlight. When sick they can't see doctors because ONLY their husbands can see their bodies and women who try to work as nurses are considered promiscuous because or late shifts at hospitals so they are harrassed and raped and end up quiting. This is the mentally in Muslim countries which are MALE dominated. (let me also say that I have nothing against muslims I'm just stating what I've learned) These examples are NOTHING if anyone is interested read "Price Of Honor" by Jan Goodwin for more info. She writes on 10 different countries which she visited and interviewed thousands on this subject.

NOW if you want to put up your couple of famous cases against these countries with millions and millions of inhabitants then so be it.

You ask me: "WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR THE WORLD WHEN IT COMES TO "VIOLENCE?" Well....nothing at the moment, BUT what are YOU doing? The fact that you are soooo close-minded and completely unwilling to acknowlege that there is some truth in what I'm saying makes you PART OF THE PROBLEM. I think that the cool part of forums is that you get to hear what others think on subjects that interest you or that you already feel strongly about. And hopefully you can come into it with an open-mind and take in what people say and learn from it--Because no one knows it all! We may think we do but we, as humans, are constantly growing and evolving and learning through our experiences and so our perspective grows as well..... Or at least it should. BUT you seem to have an attitude that's like "I'M NOT BUDGING." No one here is under attack--So don't treat it as such.

Peace,

S

[Shiela]

Rockwell

Hi Rockwell--thanks for responding. I agree with you--and that's my whole point. I'm not trying to fight w/ anyone only add to their perspective. Hopefully I have!!!

By the way, are you in college? The reason I ask is that after reading some of your posts I've been impressed by your ability to debate so effectively yet unbiasedly. Is law school in your future???

Peace,

S

[Lightning&Earth]

my point exactly

Sheila;
You ask me: "WHAT ARE YOU DOING FOR THE WORLD WHEN IT COMES TO "VIOLENCE?" Well....nothing at the moment."

you are doing Nothing, except beating a dead horse.

what have I DONE? worked with nonprofit organization against sexual assault. taught womens self defense courses, worked with chidren abused and ADD. counseled and i myself have been counseled for i was the recipient for YEARS of violence from a WOMAN.(my mother).

Sheila i have to say: you have about as much sense as a piece of cardboard, wake up.
oh and about your siting of those other countries,?,, i could give a shit about those other countries. its unfortunate that they have those abuses there.

Many Respects,,,Lightning and Earth

[Shiela]

Ohhhh...I'm sorry I didn't know this was a contest of who was doing more. I thought we were just sharing our opinions and knowlege.

And you have some nerve ending your HATEFUL comments with "Many Respects" Because YOU HAVE NONE! I'm sorry for whatever you've experienced in your life, but taking out on me is fruitless.

Don't bother to respond --have no intention of reading what someone as full of hate,like you has to say.


S

[Lightning&Earth]

im not the one full of hate ,,but i can tell you what you are full of.

you asked me what i have done and i have told you. you want to sight facts and superficial knowledge when you apparently have no experience in the issues at hand,,, you are just agreeing with Erica and being her toady and not even really reading the insights that i am putting forth to you.

like i said,,,a piece of cardboard,,, and the reason i put many respects at the end of my posts is because i have just THAT i have respect for you as a person and a human being,,even though i think that you are a twit.

MANY RESPECTS,,,Lightning and Earth

[Shiela]

Calling me a twit, which is absurd and saying you have RESPECT for me as a person is totally CONTRADICTING you imbecile. And what you know is absolutely NOTHING as anyone reading your thoughtless and angry comments can attest to. I have re-read over my postings and can't imagine what could provoke such ANGER from you. Certainly wasn't my intention.

It is YOU who has no SENSE. That's obvious by your need to resort to personal attacks. Good bye

Peace,

S

[Braden]

Shiela

"First of all--The issue here is NOT that ALL men are violent and ALL women are angels."

This is exactly the issue. As a matter of law, men are treated as if they are all violent. See the cited cases, which were brought up as examples of what absurd lengths this principle is brought to.

"But for you to list instances of a few famous cases where a woman was responsible for commiting an act of violence just proves how weak your arguement is."

Few citations backing up one side of an argument cannot be considered weak compared to the no citations backing up the otherside. It is, however, quite telling that you present your argument as if "it's just plain obvious" that what you're saying are the solid facts.

Moreover, the cases that were cited were not brought up as examples of women being violent. If that's all your interested in, I can gives you more citations than you'll be able to read in your lifetime. These cases were brought up contra the absurd notion that our society is a patriarchy; with specific reference to gender-specific cases of violence. The cases were most certainly not 'a few cases of women being violent' but rather, were examples of such insidious gender-crime and oppression, they should have left you shocked. That they didn't would leave an impression, if I thought you'd actually read them. So I'll summarize. Case 1: Man is charged, spends a week in jail and pays over $5000 for allegedly beating his wife during a situation when both parties were being escorted by the police who testafied that nothing happened; a week later, the same man locks himself in his car and cellphone the police for help when the same woman attacks him on the street, and when the police arrives he is charged for assault again, this time with even the 'victim' saying he did nothing. Case 2: Woman calls 911 and says her husband is beating her. Police arrive. Man is parapalegic and covered in obvious sores from long-term physical abuse. Woman apologizes for calling, saying he had never touched her, and was indeed incapabale of harming her. Man arressted and imprisoned. Case 3: Woman calls police to ask what she should do when her husband has locked himself in the bathroom to avoid being attacked by her police arrive and arrest and imprison him despite her pleaing that all he did was hide and all she did was ask what to do; man is restrained from seeing his family for four months (woman continues to plea); man loses job; woman is told to leave man or they would take their child; total cost, not including job, over $10,000 for man. No, these are most certainly not cases to be dismissed. And I directly challenge you to provide any citations for situations even approaching these, with the gender reversed. BTW, these are what I came up with in 2 minutes of searching during break this morning at work.

BTW, all of the above cases went into the justice department's statistics as men attacking women. In fact, if a call is made, at all, by a woman, in any domestic situation, the police log it, as a matter of policy and law (as dramatically illustrated with the above, whose police case file #s I have if you want) it is counted in the statistics as a man attacking a woman. How reliable are these statistics now?

"NOW if you want to put up your couple of famous cases against these countries with millions and millions of inhabitants then so be it."

Comparing the situation in countries where the law oppresses women to the situation in this country where the law oppresses men isn't just invalid for your argument; it's insulting to the women and men involved.

"The fact that you are soooo close-minded and completely unwilling to acknowlege that there is some truth in what I'm saying makes you PART OF THE PROBLEM...No one here is under attack--So don't treat it as such"

Calling someone part of the problem of spousal abuse is kind of antithetical to telling them they're not under attack, don't you think?

[Shiela]

Braden

Braden--As much as I appreciate a fresh opinion, I disagree with you. To say that "ALL men are violent and ALL women are angels" is rdiculous. Are you violent?? Probably not. And I know many who aren't even close. I'm not going act like an expert on the law BUT it seems to me that if what you say is true then maybe the law is based on the generalization that men ARE more violent than women--which just reiterates what I've said. CASES are much like studies in that you can always find some to support any argument. I have a very close friend who used to be in an abusive relationship and once she called the police cuz her boyfriend was getting violent w/ her and instead of taking him they took her. He was soooo munipulating that he convinced them that she came after him and since they live together he was allowed to stay and they arrested her. She lost faith in the police and was afraid to ever call again. I had an abusive boyfriend--I wasn't w/ him long so it never got bad, but he did break into my apt. 2x and when he was arrested for hitting me he only got a slap on the wrest despite having had a previous case against him with another girl. So don't tell me the law is against men.

The facts that I've provided before are just that FACTS. I don't speak of things I don't know. You say: "Comparing the situation in countries where the law oppresses women to the situation in this country where the law oppresses men....." The fact that Pakistan and the others I mentioned HAS laws oppressive to women is the whole reason I bought it up. These laws were created by MEN to oppress them. And MEN are sooo not oppressed in US--MEN RUN the US. And laws aren't the issue BEHAVIOR is.

And you say: "Calling someone part of the problem of spousal abuse is kind of antithetical to telling them they're not under attack, don't you think?" Where do you get this? I never said he was part of the problem of spousal abuse. I'm afraid you have the same problem he has to read into what's being stated instead of just taking it for what it is. What I meant by being part of the problem is that his unwillingness to listen to anything contrary to what he believes is a problem.

Peace,

S

[Braden]

"To say that 'ALL men are violent and ALL women are angels' is rdiculous."

It sure is. Since I never said this was the case, I assume you're just being amicable by repeating my point.

"I'm not going act like an expert on the law BUT it seems to me ... maybe the law is based on the generalization that men ARE more violent than women--which just reiterates what I've said."

So a generalization that more of group A commit crime X than group B to you is reasonable justification to demand that anyone from group A who is accused of crime X, regardless of the circumstances, is immediately thrown in jail? Scary.

"CASES are much like studies in that you can always find some to support any argument."

I will ask again, then, for you to provide a case even remotely like any of the three provided, but with gender roles reversed. You keep saying this is so easy to do, but you keep not doing it.

"I have a very close friend who used to be in an abusive relationship and once she called the police cuz her boyfriend was getting violent w/ her and instead of taking him they took her."

Interesting anecdote. It's not clear what you think it's adding to the discussion though. Surely you don't expect it to be given weight as a 'fact' or 'case'?

"I had an abusive boyfriend--I wasn't w/ him long so it never got bad, but he did break into my apt. 2x and when he was arrested for hitting me he only got a slap on the wrest despite having had a previous case against him with another girl."

Ditto.

"So don't tell me the law is against men."

I'm not telling you. I'm showing you the law. And, lo and behold, it is indeed against men. I'm sure you've had a tough life. That doesn't change reality.

"he facts that I've provided before are just that FACTS."

Really, really believing something doesn't make it a fact. There hasn't been a single reference in any of your posts external to your own opinions.

"The fact that Pakistan and the others I mentioned HAS laws oppressive to women is the whole reason I bought it up."

You didn't mention Pakistan once in your original post. You didn't mention the oppressive laws they had. You did make alot of sexist remarks though.

"These laws were created by MEN to oppress them."

These laws weren't created by "men". They were created by some men. I'm not holding you accountable for Carla Homolka, since presumably you had nothing to do with what she did. I'll thank you if you extend me and the rest of my gender the same courtesy.

"And MEN are sooo not oppressed in US"

I have offered citations from journalists and lawyers, in case studies elaborating the points to show how, quite explicitly they are. Your defense is to simply state that they're not.

"Where do you get this? I never said he was part of the problem of spousal abuse. I'm afraid you have the same problem he has to read into what's being stated instead of just taking it for what it is. What I meant by being part of the problem is that his unwillingness to listen to anything contrary to what he believes is a problem."

The topic that part of your reply was a response to was "What are you doing for the world when it comes to violence?" To which you replied "You are part of the problem." It's quite clear what you intended, and indeed, still there for everyone to go back and read for themselves, so it's unclear why you'd claim otherwise now.

[Shiela]

Ok--As much as I'd love to continue this I have others things to do so this is my last post for tonight.

You write: "So a generalization that more of group A commit crime X than group B to you is reasonable justification to demand that anyone from group A who is accused of crime X, regardless of the circumstances, is immediately thrown in jail? Scary. "

When and where did I make any kind of statement that says all men should be treated as all in the same. I have emphatically done just the opposite. I don't know how many times I've said that not all men are violent but I'm sure it's quite a few. What is scary is your ability to twist my words which is becoming exhausting to untwist.

I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that in the cases you presented the officers involved were the ones w/ bias not the law itself. Police officers don't always represent the law. Rodney King and many others can attest to that. Why don't you try looking up cases where an abused woman was never really taken seriously and in the end proved fatal.....How many times did Nicole Simpson call the police and nothing happened to OJ. Or other cases?? I'm asking for real because while the cases you've mentioned seem completely unfair I'm sure they're many that worked the other way--in not taking measures extreme enough to protect someone.

And I certainly did make reference to a book --"Price Of Honor".

You say: "You didn't mention Pakistan once in your original post. You didn't mention the oppressive laws they had. You did make alot of sexist remarks though." I certainly did mention Pakistan in the original post, although I don't know what that has to do w/ anything. And what remarks are you referring too that are sexist. You'd have to know me to understand how wrong you are.

You say: "These laws weren't created by "men". They were created by some men. I'm not holding you accountable for Carla Homolka, since presumably you had nothing to do with what she did. I'll thank you if you extend me and the rest of my gender the same courtesy."

When I say that men created the laws in Pak. of course I didn't mean every man in the universe. This is an example of men as a whole (meaning a majority in a country) exhibiting violence towards females. Just an example--I'm not going to repeat myself 1000 times to say that NOT ALL MEN are the same. I'm not blaming you for the crimes against humanity in other countries. It's just an example--show me a country run by women who are violent and oppressive towards men.

And when I say I didn't mean something you thought then take it for the TRUTH cuz I don't lie. Please afford me the courtesy of not twisting my words.


Shiela

[Braden]

"When and where did I make any kind of statement that says all men should be treated as all in the same."

I'll spell it out, although I shouldn't have to, as the attribution in each case is direct. I spoke of a law, that man accused of spousal abuse should be put in jail regardless of the circumstances. You replied, "maybe the law is based on the generalization that men ARE more violent than women". Fill in the blanks: the basis for the law that any man accused of spousal abuse should be put in jail regardless of the circumstances is the generalization that men are more violent than women. Resort, and replace specific terms with As, Bs, and Xs to make it a general statement, and you get: So a generalization that more of group A commit crime X than group B to you is basis to demand that anyone from group A who is accused of crime X, regardless of the circumstances, is immediately thrown in jail? Replace 'basis' with 'reasonable justification' (a reasonable replacement) and you get, word-for-word, what I accussed you of; and now, what you are denying. But it is very straightforward. Furthermore, you said, "[this] just reiterates what I've said" which clearly indicates either you must agree with this, or you must disagree with what you've been saying. A third option, of course, is that your reasoning and belief system have no logical basis whatsoever.

"What is scary is your ability to twist my words which is becoming exhausting to untwist."

You will note, or at least the reader will, that I consistently use direct quotes, and speak conserving syntax whenever possible. On the other hand, you rewrite and rethink each point you bring up, whether originally spoken by you or me; or indeed, even if it's a quote that's been through your reinterpretation multiple times. If one of us is becoming confused over the original meaning of the text, accidentally or otherwise, it's fairly certain who it is.

"I'm no lawyer but it seems to me that in the cases you presented the officers involved were the ones w/ bias not the law itself."

Incorrect. Do a search for the Zero Tolerance policy on as crude a medium as a web, or as sophisticated as a journal search, and you will find an absurd amount of information on this law. I had presumed you were familiar with it, as it's one of the great triumphs of the movement in general, and in some cases specific institutes, which you champion here. You are looking into the specifics of what they're doing before informing others about them, of course.

"Why don't you try looking up cases where an abused woman was never really taken seriously..."

I have, thank you. The real question is, why don't you? This would be a wonderful citation to backup your argument, and something you've promised the reader since this discussion began, but we've yet to see it. Of course, there's plenty of such cases to cite. I'll leave it up to the reader to determine why you haven't cited one yet.

"while the cases you've mentioned seem completely unfair I'm sure they're many that worked the other way"

I've got you down from 'what I'm saying is the simple, unquestionable truth' to 'I'm sure that.' The same meaning, literally; but the latter tends to have much less 'sure' meaning in colloquial usage. Is this a small victory? Can we get you down to 'I'm pretty sure' in a couple more posts?

"And I certainly did make reference to a book --'Price Of Honor'."

I apologize, I should have clarified. I did not mean reference in the general sense of referring to something. Rather, reference in the academic sense of citing an external source as validation of a point or logic in your argument. This, you have not done.

"I certainly did mention Pakistan in the original post."

You have a peculiar habit of asserting patently false things which anyone can prove for themselves to be false with about five seconds of effort. But to spare the reader, and presumably you (though the details of that, I'm choosing not to work out) the five seconds of work to verify you did not in fact mention Pakistan in your original post, here is it's full text. It seems like a peculiar step to have to take, but I'm faced with having to think up the ideal solution to someone making the peculiar claim you made. I encourage people not to read it again; using your browser's search functionality for 'pakistan' should suffice. "About Men's Violence: In the past thirty years women have successfully organized, nationally and internationally, to move men's violence against women to the forefront of policy and health concerns. This movement is a part of a broader effort to encompass women's diverse experience and common advancement within a human rights framework. Men's violence against women includes physical violence—both sexual and non-sexual - verbal, emotional and economic abuse. It is perpetrated through war, enslavement and genocide; in the workplace, the social structure and at large; and in intimate relationships. The focus of Men Stopping Violence is on ending the conditions that enable and perpetuate men’s violence against women with whom they are in intimate relationships. Men hold sexist beliefs, and these beliefs fuel their choices to assault women with whom they are partnered. Cultural norms and social and institutional practices often promote and act out of those sexist beliefs, allowing men to "get away" with their assaults. Therefore, the work of Men Stopping Violence is social change. Men's violence against women, serving to keep a specific group (men) dominant over another (women), is one manifestation of a system of hierarchical oppression that also includes racism, classism and heterosexism. As a result, men have different tools available to use against different women -- lesbians and heterosexual women, poor and middle class women, white women and women of color. While the tools may differ, the purpose—power and control—is the same. Thus, justice for women cannot be achieved through ending sexism solely, but will require ending racism, classism, heterosexism and all other forms of oppression."

"although I don't know what that has to do w/ anything"

What it has to do with, is the exact thing I quoted above where I said it. I'm not doing that for finger exercise. Specifically, you assert that Pakistan's laws were the whole topic of your post, to which I responded that you didn't even mention them. I'm pretty sure the significance here is obvious.

"And what remarks are you referring too that are sexist."

For example, "Men hold sexist beliefs..[that encourage]..assaulting women."

"You'd have to know me to understand how wrong you are."

If I knew you, the semantic structure of your language would change? Perhaps if I thought you were a 'nice person', it would make your logic more robust?

"This is an example of men as a whole (meaning a majority in a country) exhibiting violence towards females."

Small progress again. I've got you inserting paranthetical clarifications. Now, if you can move that parathetical remark into the body of the sentance, as it indeed changes it's meaning, then we'd be getting somewhere.

"I'm not blaming you for the crimes against humanity in other countries."

I'm glad to hear this. However, if that statement indeed was not meant to imply anything about men as a sex, then why did you bring it up? Devoid of that meaning, it's utterly useless to this conversation. Of course, reading over your post again, it's quite clear that you intended it to be a statement about men as a gender. Note how you capitalize the MEN who made the laws in Pakistan with the MEN who you are convinced face no oppression, but only oppress you, in your native country. A very curious syntactical constuction which occurs nowhere else in your posts. If you retract that idea, then we both must agree this particular statement was utterly meaningless.

"And when I say I didn't mean something you thought then take it for the TRUTH cuz I don't lie. Please afford me the courtesy of not twisting my words."

Please try reading more carefully.

[Shiela]

Your logic is completely confusing. For you to go over every word of mine with a fine tooth comb and assume you know what is in my head is ridulous. And to assume that a statement like "maybe the law is based on the generalization that men ARE more violent than women" automatically equates that I think all men should be considered guilty is even more RIDULOUS. You are the one who said "As a matter of law, men are treated as if they are all violent." I was answering you w/ the assumption that you are right. Not that I agree w/ it. But IF you are right and "As a matter of law, men are treated as if they are all violent", WHY is this so???

You & I are COMPLETELY misunderstanding each other and it is frustrating. Maybe it's me--I write kinda fast but I feel like I'm pretty straight forward. I don't re-think anything. My stance is the same it's has always been that men are MORE violent than women. AGAIN--NOT ALL MEN just men in gen. If you read the thread from the start you will see most of the other men who have posted acknowlege this and move on to say their thoughts on what could be done and why they feel it is this way. If you want to continue fighting me on this then let's just agree to disagree. Because I'm not really sure what it is your trying to prove--I mean I've already said that women are definitly capable of violence. So what exactly are you trying to prove???

And sweetheart, just to prove how confused you are try reading the original post AGAIN. That was submitted by ERICA not me. Maybe you should take your own advise and try to read more carefully. Well...at least now I understand the miscommunication we've had.

BTW I haven't had my writing critiqued so much since college.


Peace,


S

[Braden]

"you to go over every word of mine with a fine tooth comb and assume you know what is in my head is ridulous"

Am I being too precise or too imprecise? The two are antithetical. The only thing I assume is that you write what you mean.

"And to assume that a statement like 'maybe the law is based on the generalization that men ARE more violent than women' automatically equates that I think all men should be considered guilty is even more RIDULOUS."

You're attacking me here for something I never said; I never mentioned anything about men being considered guilty. So I suppose here we're in agreement.

"I was answering you w/ the assumption that you are right. Not that I agree w/ it."

You said you agreed with it, as I discussed above. I assume now you're retracting that, in which case we're in agreement.

"But IF you are right and 'As a matter of law, men are treated as if they are all violent', WHY is this so?"

Because of the active social and political movement of powerful groups in our society to oppress men.

"You & I are COMPLETELY misunderstanding each other and it is frustrating. Maybe it's me--I write kinda fast but I feel like I'm pretty straight forward. I don't re-think anything"

A reasonable comment, and something I'm sympathetic to. I'll try to put in more effort in understanding you and being reasonable, and hope you will offer me the same.

"My stance is the same it's has always been that men are MORE violent than women."

So far as this goes, in and of itself, it is not one of my major complaints, of the remarks that has been made here. When you say they are more violent, do you mean biologically, inherently, only due to society... I think maybe a useful avenue of discussion would be to carve out what specifically you mean here.

"If you read the thread from the start you will see most of the other men who have posted acknowlege this and move on to say their thoughts on what could be done and why they feel it is this way. If you want to continue fighting me on this then let's just agree to disagree. Because I'm not really sure what it is your trying to prove--I mean I've already said that women are definitly capable of violence. So what exactly are you trying to prove???"

I'm a little disappointed and confused here, but I'm making the effort like I said I would. What am I trying to prove? Except for my one post, I have only replied to things you directed at me. When you direct something towards me, I assume you want it to get my attention, and get a response if appropriate. I don't think this is an unreasonable assumption.

"And sweetheart, just to prove how confused you are try reading the original post AGAIN."

You're quite right. I typed THE original post, and in one of my edits, replaced it with YOUR. It was an honest mistake, but nonetheless I apologize for the confusion it caused. Looking back, however, I don't see how this invalidates any of the related arguments.

[Rockwell]

Haha, not in college anymore, that was a couple years ago. I wouldn't say I'm unbiased...but I do try to keep an open mind. Plus, I always try to talk to people on here as I would if we were face to face. I think many people get "brave" behind their keyboards and are much less...diplomatic in expressing their views than they would be if they were talking to that person one-on-one, you know?

Jeff