The Truth about Domestic Violence
"Canada is the scariest country on the planet." So says Erin Pizzey, at a domestic violence conference in Sacramento, Calif. Pizzy is an Englishwoman who founded the world's first shelter for battered wives in 1971 (thanks Mike). However, she quickly learned in her work that domestic violence is reciprocal and that women were just as culpable as men. She states, "Canada is ..."scary to men who suffer because of it, certainly, but apparently not to most other Canadians, who remain curiously indifferent to the demonstrable misandry permeating the institutions that define and shape our culture."
Apparently, this head-in-the-sand approach to domestic violence is prevalent in the US as well as Canada. What happens when someone tries to break the code of silence?
And Pizzy is not alone:
I tried on a smaller scale to get the Tennessee Department of Health to review their misconceptions of domestic violence but never got a response from them --although I did hear back from one of my state senators whom I sent a copy of my letters to. It seems that when it comes to domestic violence, the status quo remains, women are the victims, men the perpetrators.
It seems, the article in the National Post that I linked to above put it correctly:
Pathetic and sad.
Apparently, this head-in-the-sand approach to domestic violence is prevalent in the US as well as Canada. What happens when someone tries to break the code of silence?
Holding women responsible for their violence was so at odds with the received wisdom of the movement's activists that, for her whistle-blowing pains, Pizzey's dog was killed and her entire family received death threats. Undaunted, she pursued her equal-responsibility crusade in the United States for many years in a fusillade of articles and books.
And Pizzy is not alone:
Another outlier, University of British Columbia psychology professor Don Dutton, is acknowledged by his peers as a world expert on IPV. He has proven, over and over again -- most recently in his definitive 2006 book, Rethinking Domestic Violence-- that the tendency to violence in intimate relationships is bilateral and rooted in individual dysfunction: Men and women with personality disorders and/or family histories of violence are equally likely to be violent themselves, or seek violent partners.
But Dutton's scientific credentials and extensive 25-year archive of peer-reviewed research cut no ice with Canadian policymakers, none of whom has ever solicited his advice.
I tried on a smaller scale to get the Tennessee Department of Health to review their misconceptions of domestic violence but never got a response from them --although I did hear back from one of my state senators whom I sent a copy of my letters to. It seems that when it comes to domestic violence, the status quo remains, women are the victims, men the perpetrators.
It seems, the article in the National Post that I linked to above put it correctly:
...pseudo-science absolving women of violent impulses, delivered on demand to interest groups by the same tiny, incestuous coterie of ideologically sympathetic professionals, is routinely applied in training police, family law judges, social workers and women's shelter personnel.
Pathetic and sad.
Labels: domestic violence, misandry
posted by Helen at 7:21 AM
51 Comments:
I am not trying to take this post off-topic, but there is definitely something wrong when it comes to domestic violence and the great white north. I spent a few years reading message boards on women's sites and noticed a definite trend odd trend from Canada. When an American woman is a victim of domestic violence she is very likely to recognize the problem, leave the relationship and move on with her life. A Canadian woman will stay in the relationship for years, often labeling herself as a victim, expecting by some miracle that her SO will change and become the perfect man. When a Canadian woman is told to leave the relationship she will provide many reason why she can't, won't and will hold on for dear life.
I made the mistake once of bringing up what I noticed. My post was flagged and sent to the moderators. I was nearly kicked off the boards, I drew over 50 angry responses. My position still stands, something is very wrong up there.
Cham,
A lot of (US) American women (and men for that matter) also seem to have that trait of staying with an abusive spouse.
Here's why I think (US) American woman are subject to the same way of thinking in part:
There was once a woman on the series of tubes called the internets named "The Misanthropic Bitch".
She wrote an article that was called something like "The way to a woman's heart is through her ribs". In it, she noted that a lot of women who talk about domestic violence say things like: "He has been beating me for 15 years". 15 years.
This led to the theory that women leave men not because of abuse or beatings, but because of boredom. If you have an unsettled relationship in which you both drink and then beat the crap out of each other (and I think that's more likely how domestic violence is - not how the radical feminists describe it), that may actually be non-boring to the participants. They want drama and they get it. That's why they stay with each other. I've definitely seen couples in public who seem to really enjoy belittling and insulting one another.
There may be a grain of truth to that, or maybe not.
Jg:
It's not just women that hang around abusive relationships for the drama, men do it too. Yesterday a dear male friend called me to complain about his abusive girlfriend who beats him. We've had the same conversation no less than 20 times. I listened politely to his 10 minute diatribe about her latest violent infraction and then he said, "Well, what do you think about that?"
I dropped my voice down and tried to be as nonconfrontational as possible and replied, "I guess the question I have to ask here is why do you stay with this woman?"
His response, "You just don't understand."
Conversation over.
I remember clearly when I first became aware of this bias in favor of women and against men. I was sitting in a state social service office in Kentucky to discuss some child abuse I had reported. While waiting I casually picked up a brochure on domestic violence.
The brochure stated virtually all domestic violence was committed by men. In my discussion with the social worker later, I mentioned this and that I didn't believe it. She said it was true. I asked her how she knew. She said she had been told it at a continueing education seminar. She couldn't identify any research that backed this up. I found it quite disturbing that she lacked the intellectual curiosity and initiative to check this claim out.
Ironic that Erin Pizzey's claims of women are violent too are met by violence.
DADvocate,
"Ironic that Erin Pizzey's claims of women are violent too are met by violence."
Yes, it would be interesting to know if the threats and dog killing were instigated by "nonviolent women" who didn't like what Prizzy had to say.
Nice post. The truth is slowly seeping out...!
Actually, the response to Erin Pizzey was terrorism, not just simple violence.
What I think is most outrageous is the fact that the legal system will often ignore the violence that a woman started if a man finishes it. Nothing short of the woman being armed, and the man not being armed, is usually enough to force the police in particular to treat a woman like she's a violent criminal in such situations.
What is amusing about situations where women get violent, is watching the realization flash into their eyes that the man they are about to attack has no moral qualms about beating them up in retaliation, as though the woman were a man. In fact, I think it would be an excellent and instructive lesson for such violent women to get as badly beaten down by the man, as a man would have in the same situation. It might teach them to appreciate "he (and she) who lives by the sword, shall die by the sword."
Such is the price of equality.
Granted, I refuse to call most women a lady under any circumstance because of their behavior, and am quick to correct people who call a woman who is behaving badly a lady (like "hey lady...") that they are tearing down the meaning of "lady" by calling that woman by a title of esteem that she doesn't deserve. A lady will never give you cause to have to think about taking a swing at her.
This is the philosophy I've come to:
Personally, my view is that if I am attacked by a woman, I will take the minimum amount of action necessary to defend myself. If it's minor, I'll just take it. Leaving the scene is the best bet. THEN, I have to arrange my life so that I will no longer come into contact with her.
As far as OTHER people go, I would no longer intervene if a woman attacks a man and he goes after her. I have flipped my thinking around, and I think that's what modern women need ---- equality. Maybe a little wake-up call. If you slap or throw things, you may get it right back, honey. I'm just not going to be the one to personally go to jail for it.
The term "co-dependent" keeps rolling across my mind, as far as two staying together when something (many things) is/are obviously wrong.
It may be considered pop psychology, I don't know. There are a few books out about it.
This is nothing new. Men's rights activists have been talking about this problem for years. What I find interesting is the difference in how people who tell the truth are treated. Men who tell the truth are simply ridiculed and ignored. Women who tell the truth are actually threatened with violence and told that they need to stay silent because they're talking about double-standards.
That aside, I certainly don't think that national policies will change any time in my lifetime (which could be for another 40 years if all goes well). The DV industry is a big-money industry with many players (Bar associations, judge associations, realtor groups, DV groups, feminist groups, child advocacy groups, legislative groups, and so on). For reforms to be possible we would need to change the attitudes of a great many people and that takes time.
"Men who tell the truth are simply ridiculed and ignored."
-----
Because feminists realize that men can't get any traction on this issue. No one listens to them anyway about this.
Women are a major problem for feminists, though. They can't use the "you know nothing about what it's like to be a woman" tactic or the appeal to chivalry or any of the other tactics that are so effective against men.
The victim/perpetrator dichotomy is often false when speaking of adults. As an adult, it is difficult to victimize me because I have resources with which to protect myself. In violent adult relationships, there is often a sick give and take in which both individuals share some amount of responsibility.
This is evident when you try to have a logical conversation with the "victim" about leaving. They find (sometimes outlandish) reasons to stay. It is not as simple as control, it involves unconscious selections and sick preferences.
I was working with some kids whose mom had sewn her children's injuries without anesthesia rather than take them to a doctor where the injuries might lead to questions that would implicate her current boyfriend. In court I shared my worry that the woman would find an even more dangerous man to harm her and her children.
She made me look like a genius when her next boyfriend sexually assaulted her youngest child the first time he saw the child, in front of the child's older sibling.
It was predictable because she was oriented toward abusive partners and was seeking ever more dangerous ones. Out of all the men in the world, she would find these perpetrators like a bloodhound finds a trail.
The matter is not just about bad men, it is about disturbed people who couple with dangerous partners. Jail one, and these folks will find another.
Trey
As a side note to men, if you are out in the dating market and a woman tells you that her last boyfriend or husband abused her, be cautious. If her last two boyfriends or husbands abused her, don't go out with her anymore. You could wind up later on going to jail for domestic violence.
I realize that someone can just have bad luck in life, and I am not completely certain about why it's true, but some women (and men) just kind of bring about those things in their life. Partner after partner. Don't be part of the drama.
Here's something else to consider:
I think things are changing a bit, but this old advice still holds true -- if you have a wife or girlfriend who physically abuses YOU, you better do something about it. It's not a question of whether you can take it or not (you *real man* you), it involves the fact that YOU may be going to jail down the road for domestic violence.
No, I'm not kidding. Sometimes neighbors call the police, sometimes the abusing woman calls the police (with the royal entitlement that the facts don't matter). Sometimes the police simply haul the man away. Sometimes women feign injuries. Sometimes the act of self-defense is construed as abuse (almost only with regard to men). Lots of stuff happens when the police show up.
Do something about it if this is happening to you. You don't want to be sitting in a jail cell, stunned that she clocked you with Aunt Emma's vase (again) and YOU went to jail.
I grew up with one of those mothers - mean, stupid and violent. In today's climate her kids would probably have been taken away from her - but this was the 1950s-1960s, when a woman had to practically murder her kids outright before anyone noticed that something was wrong.
My father did stick around BTW. He wasn't much use in protecting us from her (about the best he could do would be to say, ``Look, don't get her started, OK?") but at least thanks to him we were able to go to college and get away.
I think it would be an excellent and instructive lesson for such violent women to get as badly beaten down by the man, as a man would have in the same situation.
I would have loved to have seen that happen, just once.
OK. Men get screwed by the whole IPV system. How are we going to change it?
Around here it doesn't matter whether you are male or female, if there is a fight and somebody is hurt the police take everyone downtown and then they let the court commissioner sort it out. It doesn't matter who is the guilty party and who isn't. My suggestion to everyone is to stay away from people that cause violence.
Putting that aside last week I decided to really get into the nuts and bolts as to why my male friend stays with his female abuser. I learned the following:
1) High Drama. His life is very dull and with his girlfriend he never knows what is going to happen next.
2) Attention. The girlfriend calls him several times a day. He likes it when his cell phone rings and asks what he is doing. Of course, you may disregard the fact that my friend had a large social circle when this relationship started and now has no friends at all. Girlfriend's jealousy and violence has frightened most of us away.
3) Supervision. My friend feels he cannot leave girlfriend because she is in desperate need of his oversight. When it comes to girlfriend most of his sentences start with "She needs to....". He's excited that he is going to help make her a better person and improve her personality. Just a few more months and he can set her free, she'll be new and improved.
4) He can say whatever he wants to her. During their many violent arguments and physical fights the two have developed a communication style where they can say and scream any emotion that bubbles to the surface. My friend finds this a wonderful thing, something he has never experienced.
That is his take on it, I'm not a professional psychiatrist but I think he is a bit of a nut case moreso than victim. ;)
It's more than pathetic and sad. It's responsible for men being murdered (all over the news in serveral cases just this past month) and completely dispossessed simply for being accused (Ontario) with everything they own being transferred to the woman they are supposed to have hurt or shouted at, minus the government's cut, of course.
and its another reason why men are having less and less to do with women. its not worth the bother anymore.
Shot in the back with a shotgun,for so called abuse. and many more. When men cant fight back, that they are held accountable for doing nothing. to get arrested for being the victim, to be laughed at for being the victim.
In the UK there are about 3000 shelters for women.. but only 3 for abused men. when in the majority of studies men are abused in slightly less amounts than women do. Yet another LAW that makes out men are the cause of it.
Like I said: what the hell are we going to do about it?
Jeff,
Erin Pizzy took it upon herself to do something about it--she advocated on behalf of men and DV and got the word out. In addition, professors like Don Dutton and other professionals who write books and try to influence others make some difference. There are also organizations that work for equality in DV issues, The National Family Violence Legislative Resource Center (Motto: "Advocating for nondiscriminatory and evidence-based policies") is one such place. Even the American Psychological Association admits that women are part of the problem when it comes to domestic violence:
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct06/pc.html
It may not be as much as one could hope for, but a small change in the culture can move from a ripple to a tidal wave. I believe that small cultural changes today can lead to changes in laws tomorrow. We keep trying to educate and advocate for a change in laws, in views, and in the way that domestic violence is handled in this country. What other alternative is there?
Looks to me like cham's friend and his girlfriend are a prime example of co-dependent.
You approached the Tennessee state government with your knowledge on DV? Really, Dr Helen, you are something else.
I learned years ago that the rate of domestic violence among gay and lesbian couples is the same as for straight couples. That right there tells us that women are as prone as men to DV. What shocks me is that they're able to get away with it when their partners are men.
Men, on average, are bigger and stronger than women. Additionally, the majority of straight men prefer to pair off with women who are shorter than they are, and the majority of straight women prefer to pair off with men who are taller. Because of this, I used to think that men who got beaten up by their wives or girlfriends were restraining themselves due to an overblown sense of chivalry -- not recognizing that they had the right to fight back. A journal article Dr. Helen linked to a while back, regarding men who called into a shelter for abused men, disabused me of that notion. Many of those men tried to fight back and lost.
Again, it doesn't surprise me so much that as many women as men are prone to DV. A lot of people suck; women are people. It just shocks me that they're physically able to act on those violent impulses.
in part its men cant fight back for being punished. its fear.
then you see adverts and tv shows that show its ok to abuse men, and vulnerable children see this as ok, that men deserve it. this is taught to them by the press, by society.
Men getting attacked is funny.. look at all the hilarity at bobbit, and other stories like that. That is just a symptom. Lets make men less than us this justifies anything they do to them (because of x amount of years ago this man did this, so all men must be like this).
That if someone who complains about a valid topic, and tries to explain the world view of males. they get shouted down on, because that makes them equal, and a lot of women cant have that. they need a person to look down upon.
Wait a minute, mercurior, I'm not so quick to assume men don't fight back due to fear. In the case of my abused male friend he doesn't fight back because he finds the abuse exciting and he feels he is helping his girlfriend. Fighting back would intimate that he feels fear and anger, which he either doesn't or doesn't want to admit that he is a little bit afraid of his abusive girlfriend. My friend doesn't really see the abuse as a problem enough to leave, but more a character flaw in girlfriend.
I'm not so sure that abused women in the US prior to 1970 saw their abuse as an issue, it was part of their relationship with their man. But the the media, in a good way this time, has exploded with the message 'abuse=bad' for women that they pretty much have had no choice but to get it. If a woman chooses to stay in an abusive relationship their has been enough publicity so they know that they either get out or society will think there is something wrong with them if they continue to be in a relationship with a physical abuser. Has that message been heard for men? No. Has the message been heard internationally for both sexes? No.
In this world we abuse, we cheat, we kill, we steal and it is all okay. But the worst thing that anyone could ever do to us is assume we are not a good person. That video is over 9 minutes long but there is a big payoff at the end and will give you chills. We are not necessarily programmed to worry about right and wrong, but we are terrified about how others see us.
cham in the case of your friend possibly not fear. but as i always say there are always exceptions to everything i say. i said "in part". there is also the personal reasons as well.
a lot of men, are afraid of repercussions. I dont mention the exceptions, because i dont want to say apart from this man, or this person i know. There are always exceptions to everything i say.
Well said merc, I know that part of my cultural history is that you don't hit girls. I can still recall being 12 and feeling trapped beacue this 13 year old girl was hitting me and I felt like I could only threaten her but not hit her. She was aware of that, and kept hitting me.
The prohibition can go very deep and be very strong.
Trey
More politically incorrect evidence to support Dr. Helen: The domestic violence rate for lesbian couples is just as high as for heterosexual couples. (And also for gay male couples.)
I have known feminist women who would proudly announce that they had assaulted men who expressed opinions that they disapproved of. They suffered no social stigma in liberal circles for such fascistic behavior. None whatsoever.
As soon as women are killing their boyfriends and husbands in the numbers that men kill women, we can talk about female abuse.
sheesh
trey, once i was bullied, abused, had doors slammed in my face, followed around work at a college and this girl called me sweaty arse and worse.. for 3 years she did this..
then one day i had enough. takes a lot of anger me and 3 years of every work day a comment. i turned round on her as she followed me as she made snide remarks. and i lifted her 6 inches off the floor, by the coat jacket. and growled LEAVE ME ALONE.
needless to say she did. but i felt guilty for standing up for myself. i was afraid of being caught after, but no one said anything. so i was justified as she made my life hell. but i felt guilt for doing it.
So karen, its ok to abuse anyone, until the rates are the same as women, its ok to kill men until its equal to how many kill women.
Does it matter than men are dying, or are they irrelevant because they are male. right is right and wrong is wrong.
Karen wrote: "As soon as women are killing their boyfriends and husbands in the numbers that men kill women, we can talk about female abuse."
Now that makes sense! Applying that logic, as soon as men are killing their children in the numbers that women kill their children we can talk about male child abuse.
Hmmm, now that is just not right is it? Even though women kill most of the children who die from abuse and neglect. So the math is correct.
I guess it is your entire concept which is inane Karen!
Trey
Do you guys (I mean everyone) ever watch old movies? You know, those old black and white ones from MGM and the big studios from back in the day. When you do, do you notice the amount of violence between men and women in personal relationships? Somebody is always slapping somebody else. If a SO is behaving really badly her husband might spank her. Does this make you wince? I do. 60 years ago this behavior was heralded as positive, somebody said something hurtful so he/she needed a good slap in order to get the point across. I don't know what to say to drive the point home but there is nothing positive about physical abuse. I don't care if it is a good slap, a beat down or waterboarding. Physical abuse should never be used to get even, make a point, extract information or express anger. Neither gender should indulge. People need to grow up and get a grip.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Like I said: what the hell are we going to do about it?
Well, the very first thing that I would suggest is joining one of the national men's rights groups (such as NCFM or F4J). I realize that everyone may not agree with all of the positions taken by these groups, but that should not discourage you from joining. Join the group and talk with group members and leaders to determine whether the positions that they hold are the "correct" positions. If they aren't, work with them to change group policy. The problem with the men's rights movement is that there isn't much organization. The various groups act almost independently, sometimes to the detriment of each other.
NOW and AAUW didn't become as influential as they are overnight. If we're going to effectively fight these groups, we need to do it in an organized fashion.
I believe that small cultural changes today can lead to changes in laws tomorrow. We keep trying to educate and advocate for a change in laws, in views, and in the way that domestic violence is handled in this country. What other alternative is there? (Helen)
I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired, if you know what I mean.
What are the lobbying organizations for men? I can't find even one that knows how to raise money and scare the shit out of elected officials --- both the main tools of lobbying.
Where are the male lawyers to step up to the plate and sue these son's of bitches? To get new legal precedents? To strike down the feminist IPV theories? to obliterate the unconstitutional VAWA?
We need experienced men and women who can lawyer, do public relations, lobby, and we need regular guys who will participate in protests and donate labor and time.
Where are these people? Where are these organizations?
I'm ready to help. I'm ready to follow. What do I have to do, get a law degree myself? Where are the leaders?
"Where are these people? Where are these organizations?"
---
I'll tell you what reality is: Chivalry and deference to women is something deeply ingrained in men. Any men who look at society and simply SEE, who SEE that things aren't just exactly like NOW is explaining them, is going to be shut down by his fellow man. Chivalrous, angel-wing-earning, sex-pursuing, with-other-men-competing MEN are the problem, not feminists.
Believe me, if sex all of a sudden was completely eliminated from every aspect of life and society, the scales would fall from men's eyes. Even the sensitive, cardigan-wearing male gender studies professors. Even Joseph Biden.
A big chunk of men are going to "give the little lady what she wants", whether it's fair or not. Because they will be praised by women, praised by mom, praised by society, and they may even get a side piece of butt from their nobleness.
If it were really a "gender war", if men were REALLY fighting, and if sex were not an issue, women would quickly go the way of the Neanderthal.
F***ing hell.
We've lost before we even begin. What's the goddam point?
its hard, very hard, to be a mens rights activist.
where are the professionals, well they are making money off the anti male crap. divorce lawyers, public relations, the abuse industry, the pro woman groups have shown them its more profitable to work with them, that work for whats right.
and jeff, thats exactly what a lot of men feel. why bother anymore, might as well go off into the woods and kill ourselves, (which thousands do each year). But i keep plugging away, maybe i can change one person, maybe..
i fight, i fight back, its all any of us can do. dont lose hope jeff. one day there will be a revolution, we are getting to our breaking point now. we dont want to rule the world, we dont want to put women as slaves, we just want to be treated just the same.
Crap. I guess I have to write a manifesto or something.
Dr. Helen has written letters for us, she uses her blog to make our case, she challenges the status quo in her own profession. That's pretty damn courageous in my book. Don't you feel like a wussie sitting on your ass letting her do all the heavy lifting? I sure do.
Guys, we write to each other here almost everyday. In that weird Internet way, we know one another, sorta.
Let's tap our network. Does anyone here know a lobbyist? Even a damn intern, who can get us some face time with an expert?
We gotta have the ability to get something rolling. And not this half-ass shit I keep seeing. We need a professional, or at least semi-professional, fund-raising machine, a political front both policy and lobbying, a public relations front, and a protest front to make news when WE want it. It 'aint easy to build an organization like that, even on a small scale. But that's what we need to do.
Come on. Surely, someone here can lead an effort like this, or they know someone who can lead it. We don't need more choir members; we need evangelists. Talk, yes. But let's get something done too. Is this crazy talk, or are you as fed up as I am?
Jeff,
I think many men are fed up, however, there are a number of issues at play. One is that men have always been told they are the oppressors, never the victims of any wrongdoing, hence, to fight back seems wrong.
Second, men do not react in the same way women do, that is, women organized, infiltrated political arenas and the culture and changed the culture and hence, the laws. Think of the changes in family law, workplace issues etc. that women have gotten enacted--and men helped. Men tend more towards being individualists --that is, they do their own thing and don't look to others to solve their problems; their actions are individual rather than collective. The problem is, individuals alone cannot do as much as groups can. That is just a fact, one that men might want to think about. To give an example, libertarians rarely get in power, have you ever tried to organize them? It's hard. They are mostly self-employed, rugged individualists who rarely show up to organize. However, their ideas are becoming more commonplace in our culture. The ideas of Milton Friedmen are no longer seen as radical but are fairly well accepted in the US to some degree. So, maybe the culture will change bit by bit with enough education and discussion on male issues. I doubt it though.
Finally, I am not sure the problem has reached such a pinnacle that men see a severe problem on a societal level worth doing anything about--just yet. I see the tide changing in that men and boys are being politically marginalized but that is my perception, one that I have noticed growing over years and because I dealt for a long time with individual men who did have problems related to the changing culture and the difficulty of being a man in todays feminized society. And remember, only a small to medium percentage of men are affected by what is going on --truly affected--for example, when the courts take away their kids, put them to work for an ex-wife and garnish their wages for child support or threaten them with jail time. Or they are charged with domestic violence or sexual harrassment at work--and find that they have little or no due process rights.
So what I am trying to say is, once the tide turns and more and more men are affected by the unfairness of a system that penalizes them for their maleness,maybe men will see an immediate need for change, until them, I am not sure how to change the status quo except to keep tying to put some of these issues out there for discussion. If anyone has better ideas, let us know.
i do my part, i try to help when i can, i post comments on boards like this, on other boards that are very anti male, and i have had a few good comments, some nasty.
i have signed petitions, i write to my mp's i post on newspapers. i support fathers for justice, but since i am not and never will be a father, but i support most of their ideals.
the best thing we as male activists can do is to talk, to our politicians, to people who follow the party line but have doubts. perhaps we can change it a person at a time.
until men start to work together we have to do our own thing. but thats what the feminists have created 25 men with 25 different opinions, which may mesh on occasion. They say well if your for this, then you must be for that. and that is a sexist practice.
Dr Helen is one of the greatest activists, she runs this blog so we can talk, she is a professional and very very clever. this will motivate each of us. you are not motivated to do something arent you jeff.
so write letters to your local politicians, find people in your area. I live in the UK. which has different problems, but i do it there. one day we will have an effect, look at the news more and more articles that are pro male.
find journalists talk to them. i have spoken to a few in my time, maybe i inspired a story. theres a lot of ways for men to make a difference.
But i can guarentee that there will be a time when men strike back with force if we arent heard.
Jeff,
If you want to get involved go to the web site of NCFM at www.ncfm.org. Look to see whether they have a chapter near you. Their links page is very good. There are many organizations who would probably welcome volunteers or donations.
Compared to the 1980's, I see much greater understanding of the reality of men's (lack of) rights now. The advocates for chivalry and PC feminism have been very successful so far in trampling men's rights and in shutting down opposition, but I think this is changing. Seems to me that most people do not recognize how badly they have been manipulated until they experience something bad themselves. I think awareness is increasing based on the number of articles I see in the wider press and the number of people who make spontaneous comments to me. One group I find particularly interesting is men about 35 and up who strongly supported womens rights over many years but now feel incredibly betrayed. They seem stunned by what has happened to men since they had thought the whole program was about equal rights, equal respect, and equal responsibility. These are NOT traditionalists who think women belong in the kitchen or any such foolishness, but men who really viewed women as peers.
On the other hand, I don't expect much real change will occur until there is still more pain and rage, which I think is still building rapidly. Based on what my teenagers say about gender stuff, I am very curious to see what happens when their generation starts to gain political power and influence. It also seems to me that the disappearance of the baby boomers (the Worst Generation in my opinion) and the remnant of the older knee-jerk fuddy duddy chivalrous types will be very good for us.
I put in a lot of effort for men's rights during the 80's and 90's which wore me out and stressed me out. For now I am mostly content to wait and see what happens as the pot seems to be boiling very nicely. My personal situation is good: my divorce is 6 years in the past, I got shared custody by being extremely well prepared with a good strategy, I only have daughters, and I am a successful scientist with tenure. I am smart about avoiding dangerous situations and I rarely date. All in all my exposure is low. I don't feel the pressure to throw myself into the fight as I used to, though I still help people a lot on a one-to-one basis, write the occasional letter, and keep up with reading in the area.
Good luck,
Willj
Miket: How often have you actually watched "the realization flash into [a woman's] eyes" that she's about to get beaten up? With all due respect, if it's more than once, you're doing something really wrong.
Hitting women who hit men is a poor strategy. I tried it once. I lived with a woman who had Borderline Personality Disorder (wish I'd known about BPD before that--We'd have broken up a lot earlier and I'd have been a lot less confused and abused).
I warned her and the next time she punched me she got back a lot more than she gave. She backed off for a couple of months after that, and I thought it had worked, though I privately decided this was a single-use strategy.
I thought about this for a while, and realized that this was an absurd situation to let myself get into. The next time she started erupting, I left the house immediately and called her. Told her if she ever touched me again in anger, we were done, right there, immediately, no possibility of reprieve, no further relationship ever again. The key was that she could tell I really meant it. Don't bluff and say something like this if you don't mean it.
Since then, I have a general zero tolerance policy on female physical aggression. It's amazing how many women feel they have the right to casually hit men, throw stuff at them, and inflict other minor aggressiions in ordinary social interaction. If a woman pulls one of those stunts on me, she gets an immediate loud public demand for an apology and she gets informed that a second offense will mean permanent enmity. Word has gotten around--it's been a few years now since I've needed to make a scene. That's one benefit of the female grapevine.
Does this seem extreme? How extreme would it seem if a woman were to get incensed and dress down a man in public for groping her?
This is a stance where women, in general, actually will respect men who stand up for themselves. I've had heated arguments, but I haven't sensed any general disdain in my social circle for taking this stand.
No, the woman you're making a public spectacle of seldom (never in my experience) acknowledges she was wrong, but other women do take note. I don't know to what extent this attitude changes hearts, but it's been pretty effective in changing social behavior in my vicinity.
Zero tolerance applies to my marriage too. It's unimaginable that either of us would hit each other, precisely because it is such a clear "line of death." People who can't refrain from hitting each other shouldn't be married to each other. I used to think that couples who hit should either divorce or go to counseling, but I no longer believe in the counseling. Having the counseling option greatly lowers the cost of hitting your spouse, and thus makes it more likely you will.
Dear Dr. Helen,
I was vaporized by these Succubi in 1991.
I've been blogging since Feb, 08, but, I found it easier to use Delphi, because it's easier to put graphics in my posts.
Here is one of my about 60 posts.
God bless,
Dishmael of God.
http://blogs.delphiforums.com/n/blogs/blog.aspx?nav=main&webtag=Dishmael_Of_God&entry=6
Dear Dr. Helen,
From your picture, you appear to be quite a bit younger than I.
Political Correctness is a Socialist disease. It is Cluster B and more...I don't know if Scott Peck had his life threatened when he wrote, "People of The Lie."
Everything in the universe is equal and opposite. Yin/Yang Good/Evil Pos/Neg.
PC denies this balance. This little fungus says there is no such thing as evil, and is a frothing at the mouth Atheist.
Following, is an exchange between an evil homosexual from Australia, who is one of the most foul creatures I've ever encountered.
From Scott Peck, on Human Evil
The Farmer of memes (Meme_Farm) 12:30 am
To: dishmael
Apparently, to be a conservative you need to rattle off the same crap over and over again regardless of how many times it's refuted.
Oh well, it beats having originality or intelligence.
===========================================================================
In the ten or so months I've been posting in this forum, I do not remember Meme posting more than three lines to me. When I've challenged him in any way, he goes into a Tourette's seizure, and cannot think another person, could possibly find this stuff offensive. It's astonishing.
This piece below, is indicative of Meme on a good day.
The Farmer of memes (Meme_Farm)
If you ask the old "when did you stop beating your wife?" line are you REALLY accusing the person of spousal abuse? If not, when did you stop fucking barnyard animals?
This is my answer to the top post.
Synchronicity, Meme...It's a word coined by Carl Jung. I was just reading People of The Lie, by Scott Peck and thought of you. You are the only one in my high interest discussions, who had a post for me.
From page 162, of the above mentioned book; As I defined in The Road Less Traveled, "Mental health is an ongoing process of dedication to REALITY (my emphasis added) at all costs."
The utter failure to submit oneself to reality, is called autism. The word comes from the Greek root auto, meaning "self." The person who is autistic is oblivious to certain essential dimensions of reality. Such people literally live "in a world of their own" in which the self reigns supreme.
This book was written in 1982. Much more has been written on the subject of Malignant Narcissism, since then.
You are completely incapable of self examination.
From page 129, People of The Lie...the time is right, I believe, for psychiatry to recognize a distinct new personality disorder, to encompass those I have named evil. In addition to the abrogation of responsibility that characterizes all personality disorders, this one would be distinguished by:
(a) consistent destructive scapegoating behavior, which may be often quite subtle.
(b) excessive, albeit usually covert intolerance to criticism and other forms of narcissistic injury.
(c) pronounced concern with public image and self-image of respectability, contributing to a stability of life-style but also to PRETENTIOUSNESS and denial of hateful feelings or vengeful motives.
(d) intellectual deviousness, with a mild schizophreniclike disturbance of thinking at times of stress.
In other words, Meme...You're not a well man. LOL!
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
Post a Comment
<< Home